- Algorithmic Trading is the Investment of the Future
Let’s face it – investing is difficult! Gone are the days of saving for retirement. The average savings account in the USA pays less than 1%. Fortunately for most investors the stock market has been going up and up, but it’s going to correct (it always does). But it hasn’t been a good ride for all investors. Many retirees now living off their retirements are heavy into fixed income investments like annuities that pay a fixed monthly amount based on interest rates, which are at historic lows. Interest rates are so low, when these investors bought annuities, they are getting up to 90% less than what they expected. Quantitative Easing is killing retirees’ portfolios.
So what is the solution? Along with the bad comes good – like with any technology. Modern hospital techniques prolong life and save lives, but also with new medical technology comes many dangers. This is also true in financial services. For example, it’s now possible to trade and invest in algorithmic trading products called sometimes ‘robots’ which do investing for you. Just like human managers, all robots are different. Some are extremely risky, some are extremely conservative. With the advent of algorithmic trading, investors should be prepared to do due diligence on this new asset class, and be familiar with some of what such an investment entails.
Generally, robots are offered to investors as managed accounts or a fund product, such as a hedge fund, commodity pool, or structured product. Much of the due diligence is done by the managers of the robot and explained in a document such as a prospectus, disclosure document, or other offering memorandum. Be sure to work only with licensed managers!
Of course, there’s another option – which is to buy a robot and load it onto your own account, this is called ‘self-managed’ but in this case be prepared to spend a lot of time learning how to do it. If you are so inclined, many managers encourage this and will even help support live account holders through this process. For example, you can take Fortress Capital’s Introduction to Foreign Exchange course, providing the basics of FX, algorithmic investing, mathematics, computers, and other relevant info.
There’s other benefits to algorithmic investing. The US election produced huge volatility which negatively impacted stock investments and many others. Take a look at a EUR/USD hourly chart, around the time of the US election (right).
Now take a look at the results from that night from Magic FX, one of Fortress Capital’s algorithmic managed accounts for QEP/ECP:
That is not to say that, algorithms are a panacea. But, they do provide a new type of risk profile, a new type of opportunity for investors, and are guaranteed to change the landscape of investing forever.
To learn more about Managed Forex Investing, checkout Splitting Pennies – Understanding Forex Book for only $6.11 on Amazon. If you’d like to get started, see Fortress Capital’s flagship program Global Alpha.
- 5 Times When The Mainstream Media "Created Fake News"… And People Died As A Result
As SHTFPLan.com's Mac Slavo notes…
While the powers that be are determining the fate of alternative media voices that are now branded under the dubious label “fake news” and blacked out from online search results, it is worth keeping in mind all the disinformation and downright lies that have been perpetrated by the corporate news media – typically hand in hand with a political agenda.
Whether it is lies that took us to war, or the perception that a deadly attack was carried out by a certain group, the impressions they create play a significant role in determining world events. Often times, that role is one of deception, ensnaring people into supporting deadly and costly actions – in spite of the true facts.
These misleaders are the fake news, and the fake news problem has helped to ruin this country.
5 Times Corporate Media Got Caught Publishing Fake News Causing the Death & Suffering of Millions
Authored by Claire Bernish and originally published at The Free Thought Project.
A now-notorious list of ostensibly “fake” news sites — created by a liberal professor, seemingly out of thin air — spread like wildfire online in the past two days and was eagerly reprinted by corporate media presstitutes hoping to vindicate their own failed reporting on the 2016 election.
But branding perfectly legitimate outlets with the same scarlet letter as those devoid of integrity deemed the professor’s list a spurious attempt to defame alternative and independent media — anyone dissenting from the left’s mainstream narrative — as a whole.
This is, in no uncertain terms, a hit list — or, at least, a laughable attempt — and it fits conveniently into the establishment’s burgeoning war on independent media disguised as a battle against fake news.
When corporate media outlets from the Independent and Business Insider, to the Los Angeles Times and NYMag scrambled over one another to reprint this irresponsibly contrived hit list, they proved yet again a lack of journalistic integrity — the same issue that originally caused regular subscribers to abandon them in the first place.
Indeed, in this otherwise unknown professor’s foray into the world of journalism, a glaring mistake was made — the only mainstream outlets making the list were those who had heralded Bernie Sanders as the best candidate for the White House.
Such an obvious attempt to control thought could only be conjured in a totalitarian regime.
In fact, failing to place the exact corporate media organizations on the list, who for nearly a year praised fealty only to Hillary Clinton — and for decades have foisted on the public countless mendacious whoppers — constitutes a comedic lack of honesty. So, to bring that irony front and center, it’s imperative to examine some mainstream lies — most of which had appalling consequences — including the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the United States and around the world.
1. George W. Bush’s Weapons of Mass Destruction
President George W. Bush decided to unleash the full force of the U.S. military upon the world in a new policy of war writ large disguised as a war on terrorism following the attacks of September 11, 2001. First arbitrarily designating Afghanistan as its primary victim due to the supposed identities of the attackers, Bush then chose Iraq to feel the wrath, and set out to invade the country following dubious claims Saddam Hussein harbored destructive chemical and biological weapons and was actively seeking far stronger munitions.
“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised,” the president asserted in a public address on March 17, 2003.“This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq’s neighbors and against Iraq’s people.”
Bush’s assertions were questioned by not only human rights experts, but by U.N. weapons inspectors and countless others — so shortly after the U.S. invaded the sovereign nation, the New York Times took up the slack to fill in the appropriatecasus belli.
Judith Miller notoriously reported on a source she described only as an Iraqi scientist who had seen several extensive caches of such weapons stored somewhere in the country. American weapons experts, she claimed, “said the scientist told them that President Saddam Hussein’s government had destroyed some stockpiles of deadly agents as early as the mid-1990’s, transferred others to Syria, and had recently focused its efforts instead on research and development projects that are virtually impervious to detection by international inspectors, and even American forces on the ground combing through Iraq’s giant weapons plants.”
In hindsight, Miller’s problematic report turned out to be horrendously flawed, and the Times spent months attempting tobacktrack, but the damage — fomenting widescale public support for a war no one wanted the military to undertake — had been done. Years later in 2014, the Times — after much internal strife — again took up Miller’s case, in a series reportingcatastrophic injuries U.S. military personnel suffered in handling chemical weapons in Iraq. But that report, and theparroting of it by multiple other mainstream mainstays, failed to fully disclose Hussein had been oblivious to the stockpiles presence — something the CIA had clearly stated in a report.
2. Gulf of Tonkin Incident
Often, the American mainstream media becomes a de facto government employee, taking the claims of U.S. officials and reporting them as proven fact — and nothing exemplifies this penchant better than reporting on the Gulf of Tonkin incident — perhaps one of most flagrant lies ever dreamed up as a justification for war.
On August 5, 1964, the New York Times reported “President Johnson has ordered retaliatory action against gunboats and ‘certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam’ after renewed attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin.”Additional outlets, such as the Washington Post, echoed this claim.
But it wasn’t true. At all. In fact, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, as it became known, turned out to be a fictitious creation courtesy of the government to escalate war in Vietnam — leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of U.S. troops and millions of Vietnamese, fomenting the largest anti-war movement in American history, and tarnishing the reputation of a nation once considered at least somewhat noble in the eyes of the world.
In 2010, more than 1,100 transcripts from the Vietnam era were released, proving Congress and officials raised serious doubts about the information fed to them by the Pentagon and White House. But while this internal grumbling took place, mainstream media dutifully reported official statements as if the veracity of the information couldn’t be disputed.
Tom Wells, author of the exhaustive exposé “The War Within: America’s Battle Over Vietnam,” explained the media egregiously erred in “almost exclusive reliance on U.S. government officials as sources of information” and“reluctance to question official pronouncements on ‘national security issues.’”
If due diligence had been performed, and reporters had raised appropriate doubts about the Gulf of Tonkin false flag, it’s arguable whether support for the contentious war would have lasted as long as it did.
3. Suppression of brutality perpetrated in Bahrain during the Arab Spring
CNN sent reporter Amber Lyon and a crew to U.S. ally Bahrain for a documentary about technology’s role in the 2011 people’s uprising known as the Arab Spring, ultimately titled “iRevolution: Online Warriors of the Arab Spring” — but what they encountered instead bore the hallmarks of a repressive and violent regime, and its attempt to filter and censor the truth. Lyon and the other CNN reporters went to great lengths to speak with sources participating in the massive uprising — one the Bahraini government wished to quash at all costs.
“By the time the CNN crew arrived,” the Guardian reported, “many of the sources who had agreed to speak to them were either in hiding or had disappeared. Regime opponents whom they interviewed suffered recriminations, as did ordinary citizens who worked with them as fixers. Leading human rights activist Nabeel Rajab was charged with crimes shortly after speaking to the CNN team. A doctor who gave the crew a tour of his village and arranged meetings with government opponents, Saeed Ayyad, had his house burned to the ground shortly after. Their local fixer was fired ten days after working with them.”
Even the CNN crew experienced the wrath of the regime, upon showing up to interview one source, the Guardiancontinued, “‘20 heavily-armed men’, whose faces were ‘covered with black ski masks’, ‘jumped from military vehicles’, and then ‘pointed machine guns at’ the journalists, forcing them to the ground. The regime’s security forces seized their cameras and deleted their photos and video footage, and then detained and interrogated them for the next six hours.”
After returning to the U.S., Lyon felt it her duty to expose the abuse being perpetrated by the government of an ally nation — but CNN International didn’t agree. CNN U.S. eventually aired the one-hour documentary. Once. CNN Internationalnever did — worse, the organization gave Lyon the cold shoulder, ignoring her repeated requests to return to Bahrain, which would have put CNN ahead of the game in reporting government brutality. Its failure to air the documentary and refusal to provide justification for doing so angered seasoned CNN and other mainstream established journalists across the board.
Lyon met with CNN International president Tony Maddox twice — he first promised to investigate why the documentary wasn’t aired, and then turned against her, warning the journalist not to discuss the matter publicly. Bahraini officials contacted CNN International repeatedly complaining about Lyon’s continued reporting on what she’d witnessed. Intimidation continued until she was eventually laid off, putatively for an unrelated matter.
Attempting to save face, CNN International rebuffed the Guardian’s account and interview with Lyon — but the effort was an impotent justification for the obvious failure of integrity.
But threats for Lyon to remain silent followed her off the job, and when she persisted in exposing the Bahraini regime, as well as the suppression by CNN, the outlet sent a stern warning to halt. Lyon, however, said she had never signed a non-disclosure agreement and would not be pressured into their lies — ultimately walking away reputation in hand — something that could not be said for CNN.
4. That time Fox News hired a CIA operative who wasn’t a CIA operative
Wayne Shelby Simmons made guest appearances on Fox News as a security expert with insider expertise from his work as a CIA operative — for over a decade. However, Simmons had never been employed by the agency — in fact, the imposter’s lies eventually caught up with him and he was arrested and sentenced to 33 months in prison.
“Instead of verifying whether Simmons had actually worked for the CIA, Fox News and the Agency allowed him to make fools out of Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Andrew Napolitano, Neil Cavuto, and everyone at Fox & Friendsfor over the last twelve years. After building a false reputation as a CIA agent on Fox News, Simmons obtained an interim security clearance when an unnamed government contractor hired him in 2008. Simmons also falsely claimed on national security forms that his prior arrests and criminal convictions were directly related to his supposed intelligence work for the CIA, and that he had previously held a top secret security clearance from 1973 to 2000,” The Free Thought Project’s Andrew Emett explained.
In other words, mainstream Fox News didn’t bother with journalism at all — proffering fake expertise as the real deal — because the outlet failed the most basic of tasks any hourly wage employer would perform.
Simmons’ commentaries weren’t harmless stabs in the dark, either — relentlessly parroting baseless Islamophobic rhetoric to drum up support for the government’s insidious war on terror likely poisoned the minds of thousands of viewers, furthering the already divisive atmosphere in the U.S.
5. Vapid anti-marijuana propaganda and the furtherance of the war on drugs
According to the Drug Policy Alliance, over $51 billion is spent fighting the war on drugs in the United States — each year. In 2015, a striking 38.6 percent of all arrests for drug possession were for cannabis — 643,121 people were arrested for marijuana-related offenses.
What those figures don’t show are the millions of lives ruined by criminal conviction for the government’s unjustifiable quest to eradicate, demonize, and vilify this beneficial plant. It would be an impossible task to tally the number of families whose homes have been destroyed by SWAT teams searching for marijuana — whether or not police bothered to verify anaddress. An untold number of others have been slain by police for the same reason.
But worst of all, the mainstream media propagates nonsensical, false propaganda about cannabis to convince the gullible and ignorant among us to equate it with heroin, cocaine, and other ‘illicit’ substances. And while a majority of the populace has seen through such lies, some outlets have obstinately continued the drug war — seemingly of their own volition.
One stunning example occurred in March last year, when Dr. David Samadi made a guest appearance on Fox News to fearmonger the horrors of marijuana and scare the bejeezus out of the viewing audience.
“It actually causes heart attacks. It increases your heart rate. And on and on,” Samadi claimed, fecklessly distorting statistics. “We’re seeing in Colorado that we had 13 kids that came to the emergency [room] and ended up in the ICU as a result of overdose from marijuana. Now we have crack babies coming in because pregnant women are smoking this whole marijuana business.”
Fortunately, the Internet has provided the public with alternatives to these corporate media lies — and as of two years ago, despite these and other claims about pot being a dangerous substance, Pew Research Center found fully 69 percent of the population felt alcohol was more harmful than cannabis.
* * *
While this list presents only a few of the bigger lies of the corporate press, there are innumerable examples of its proud history of actual fake news. Keep these in mind when the mainstream presstitutes rush to reprint a hit list targeting journalists and outlets whose narratives counter the establishment. Indeed, it would be the corporate media — with its vast captive audience — who most deserves to be listed as propagators of lies.
- San Fran Home Sales Crash To Lowest Level Since 2008 As Pricing Reset Gets Underway
We have frequently written over the past couple of quarters about the bubbly San Francisco housing market that looks set for another epic reversal as home prices have reached staggering new highs just as employment levels seem to be rolling over. With home prices now implying that only 10-20% of residents can afford the “median” priced home, it’s certainly not difficult to understand why demand may be waning.
According to HousingWire and a new report from PropertyRadar, home sales in the Bay Area are finally starting to rollover with Q3 YTD volumes down 10.3% YoY, reflecting the fewest number of homes sold over that same time period since 2008. Perhaps even more staggering is that distressed property sales fell 35.7% YoY so far in 2016, to the lowest level since 2001, as “low-priced” inventory dried up and buyers have found it financially impossible to move up to higher price tiers.
Conversely, non-distressed property sales fell 7.1% on a year-over-year basis. But it should be noted that as a percentage of total sales, distressed property sales accounted for only 7.9% of total sales, compared to 11.1% in 2015 and a high of 56.3% in 2009.
“The 35.7% decline in distressed property sales drove the overall decline in Bay Area sales to its lowest level since 2001,” said Madeline Schnapp, director of Economic Research for PropertyRadar.
“For several years now, the affordability of distressed properties contributed significantly to overall sales,” Schnapp added. “Distressed property inventory has declined to the point it’s now a drag on overall sales. Bay Area sales will likely remain relatively flat until new, attractively priced, inventory arrives on the scene.”
According to PropertyRadar’s data, the number of homes sold priced from $0 to $500,000 fell by nearly 27% from 2015 to 2016. Homes priced from $500,000 to $750,000 fell by just shy of 9%.
Homes priced from $750,000 to $1 million fell by just 3.6%, while homes priced above $1 million actually rose, albeit by only 0.4%.
“The outsized decline in distressed property sales combined with the rapid increase in prices and the lack of buyers that qualify for higher priced homes is reflected in the 26.7% decline in the sales of lower priced homes,” Schnapp said. “Income growth in the Bay Area has not kept up with rapidly rising home prices shutting out a significant percentage of would-be buyers.”
Of course, none of this should be terribly surprising in light of the fact that median San Francisco home prices have surged 86% over the past 4 years to a mere $1.4mm.
As Paragon Real Estate points out, the only question left to answer now isn’t whether San Fran real estate will crash, but rather just how deep the crash will be.
- European Union Orders British Press Not To Report when Terrorists Are Muslims
Submitted by Yves Manou via The Gatestone Institute,
- This is the moment where hate speech laws become a greater threat to democracy and freedom of speech than hate speech itself.
- In France, Muslim terrorists are never Muslim terrorists, but "lunatics," "maniacs" and "youths".
- To attack freedom of the press and freedom of speech is not anti-hate speech; it is submission.
- By following these recommendations, the British government would place Muslim organizations in a kind of monopoly position: they would become the only source of information about themselves. It is the perfect totalitarian information order.
- Created to guard against the kind of xenophobic and anti-Semitic propaganda that gave rise to the Holocaust, national hate speech laws have increasingly been invoked to criminalize speech that is merely deemed insulting to one's race, ethnicity, religion, or nationality.
- It is disturbing to wonder how long the EU will strongly engage its experts and influence to cut through existing legal obstacles, in a quest to criminalize any type of criticism of Islam, and to submit to the values of jihad.
According the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) — part of the Council of Europe — the British press is to blame for increasing hate speech and racist violence. On October 4, 2016, the ECRI released a report dedicated only to Britain. The report said:
some traditional media, particularly tabloids… are responsible for most of the offensive, discriminatory and provocative terminology. The Sun, for instance, published an article in April 2015 entitled "Rescue boats? I'd use gunships to stop migrants", in which the columnist likened migrants to "cockroaches"…
The Sun newspaper has also published inflammatory anti-Muslim headlines, such as its front page of 23 November 2015 which read "1 in 5 Brit Muslims' sympathy for jihadis", along with a picture of a masked terrorist wielding a knife…
The ECRI report establishes a direct causal link between some tough headlines in British tabloids and the security of the Muslims in the UK. In other words, the British press is allegedly inciting readers to commit "Islamophobic" acts against Muslims.
ECRI considers that, in light of the fact that Muslims are increasingly under the spotlight as a result of recent ISIS-related terrorist acts around the world, fueling prejudice against Muslims shows a reckless disregard, not only for the dignity of the great majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom, but also for their safety.
ECRI is basing its report on a recent study from Matthew Feldman, Professor at Teesside University. This study compiled anti-Muslim incidents before and after terrorist's attacks.
In the seven days prior to the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris, where 12 people were killed, there were 12 reported (anti Muslim) incidents, but in the seven days following, there were 45. This pattern was similar in relation to the terror attacks in Sydney, in December and Copenhagen, in February.
So, according to the ECRI and scholars of Teesside University, when Muslim jihadists murder people and the press reports that killers are Muslims, the press, and not Islamists, is encouraging "Islamophobic incidents" in Britain. According to ECRI Chair Christian Ahlund, "It is no coincidence that racist violence is on the rise in the UK at the same time as we see worrying examples of intolerance and hate speech in the newspapers, online and even among politicians."
For the ECRI, the biggest problem is:
"… where the media stress the Muslim background of perpetrators of terrorist acts, and devote significant coverage to it, the violent backlash against Muslims is likely to be greater than in cases where the perpetrators' motivation is downplayed or rejected in favour of alternative explanations."
The report does not explain what could be "alternative explanations." But we can find examples in French press: when a Muslim attacks a soldier and tries to take his gun, he is not an Islamist terrorist, but a "lunatic." Such attacks by "lunatics" are very common in France.
The French press downplays attacks by deciding not to name Muslim perpetrators: incriminating a "Mohamed" could, in the minds of French journalists, incite retaliations against Muslims. In another example, Muslim gangs cannot be connected to any form of violence, so they become "youths." In France, Muslim terrorists are never Muslim terrorists, but "lunatics", "maniacs" and "youths."
But that is France. In Britain, tabloids are not so polite, and they understand perfectly the intentions of the ECRI report: to ban the word "Muslim" when it is associated with "violence or terrorism."
The ECRI Report Marks a U-Turn in Free Speech
This is the moment where hate speech laws become a greater threat to democracy and freedom of speech than the hate speech itself. Prohibiting journalists from naming "Islamic terrorism," and encouraging them to hide the association of Muslims with terrorism, is an attempt to misrepresent the truth in the same way the former Soviet Union censored the truth. Taking advantage of some real racist articles in tabloids — not many, because not many are quoted in the report — to attack freedom of the press and freedom of speech is not anti-hate speech; it is submission.
The proof of submission lies in ECRI's recommendations to the British government:
- "establish an independent press regulator";
- "rigorous training for journalists to ensure better compliance with ethical standards";
- "review the provisions on incitement to hatred with a view to making them more effective and usable";
- "establish a real dialogue with Muslims in order to combat Islamophobia. They should consult them on all policies which could affect Muslims";
- amending the Editor's Code of Practice to ensure that members of groups can submit complaints as victims against biased or prejudicial reporting concerning their community"
By following these recommendations, the British government would place Muslim organizations in a kind of monopoly position: they would become the only source of information about themselves. It is the perfect totalitarian information order. If a breach of that kind would open in the future, no doubt all the lobbies would rush into the breach: political parties, Protestants, Catholics, Jews, multinationals, everyone.
The British government did not fall into the trap, and firmly rebuffed ECRI's demands. It told the European council body:
"The Government is committed to a free and open press and does not interfere with what the press does and does not publish, as long as the press abides by the law."
In Great Britain, and in all countries of European Union, anti-hate laws already exist. Created to guard against the kind of xenophobic and anti-Semitic propaganda that gave rise to the Holocaust, national hate speech laws have increasingly been invoked to criminalize speech that is merely deemed insulting to one's race, ethnicity, religion, or nationality.
These laws have also been invoked often by Islamists to sue against anti-Islamist speech (cartoons of Muhammad, blasphemy against Islam, etc.) as manifestations of "racism" — fortunately with little success. Most court cases that Islamists have initiated have failed because Islam is not a race.
Agnes Callamard, expert on human rights, writes in reference to the United Nations Charter:
"ARTICLE 19 recognises that reasonable restrictions on freedom of expression may be necessary or legitimate to prevent advocacy of hatred based on nationality, race, religion that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. The organisation does not extend such legitimate restrictions to offensive and blasphemous expressions."
It is disturbing to wonder how long the EU will strongly engage its experts and influence to cut through existing legal obstacles, in a quest to criminalize any type of criticism of Islam, and to submit to the values of jihad.
- Paid Protesters "Planning To Cause Chaos In DC" And Block Peaceful Inauguration For Trump
Submitted by Mac Slavo via SHTFPlan.com,
It may be that even with the post-election riots that have swept the country, we ain’t seen nothing yet.
This country is fissuring. Its people are sharply divided, but more than that, covert finance is pushing things towards unrest and martial law.
If Soros money and its ilk proves effective, inauguration day on January 20th will become one of the largest demonstrations on record, with a group calling itself #DISRUPTJ20 planning to block “peaceful transition” and disrupt Trump’s swearing in.
The groups promoting it are calling on people nationwide to join in, and for business in D.C. to take sides and take “direct action” and attempt to stop the parade, block streets and other delay the events as scheduled:
#DisruptJ20: Call for a bold mobilization against the inauguration of Donald Trump on January 20, 2017
On Friday, January 20, 2017, Donald Trump will be inaugurated as President of the United States. We call on all people of good conscience to join in disrupting the ceremonies. If Trump is to be inaugurated at all, let it happen behind closed doors, showing the true face of the security state Trump will preside over. It must be made clear to the whole world that the vast majority of people in the United States do not support his presidency or consent to his rule.
[…] If there is going to be positive change in this society, we have to make it ourselves, together, through direct action.From day one, the Trump presidency will be a disaster. #DisruptJ20 will be the start of the resistance. We must take to the streets and protest, blockade, disrupt, intervene, sit in, walk out, rise up, and make more noise and good trouble than the establishment can bear. The parade must be stopped. We must delegitimize Trump and all he represents. It’s time to defend ourselves, our loved ones, and the world that sustains us as if our lives depend on it—because they do.
[…]
If you can’t make it to Washington, DC on January 20, take to the streets wherever you are. We call on our comrades to organize demonstrations and other actions for the night of January 20. There is also a call for a general strike to take place. Organize a walkout at your school now. Workers: call out sick and take the day off. No work, no school, no shopping, no housework.
#DisruptJ20 Spread the word. Join the fight. #DisruptJ20
Facebook: http://tinyurl.com/disruptj20
Though it remains to be seen how many will actually show up on the day and join in, the group is concerning as it is calling for violence out of the gates.
#DisruptJ20: Call for a bold mobilization against the inauguration of Donald #Trump on January 20, 2017 pic.twitter.com/EGU65bOtNG
— stimulator (@stimulator) November 11, 2016
Violence Being Arranged for Trump Inauguration: Group Openly Recruiting for "No Peaceful Transition" #disruptJ20 https://t.co/ctPHDFrHiZ
— ?Michelle? (@mrntweet2) November 12, 2016
All of these people openly planning violence need to be arrested. Domestic terrorism. #disruptj20
— Christie Bluhm (@Christie_Bluhm) November 11, 2016
Using a propaganda video packed with outright lies, the radical left is already calling for violent uprisings and is recruiting for people to violently disrupt the Presidential Inauguration on January 20. The recruiting effort is so packed full of unbelievably false information, that only a totally uniformed moron would take it seriously.
How much longer will foundation fronts have to funnel seed money until – as planned – chaos has been sown?
How many staged riots and paid provocateurs will it take until a police state response brings this country to its knees, and places it under martial law?
- Paul Joseph Watson Blasts The MSM: "You're The F**king Experts Of Fake News"
Paul Joseph Watson is back with another epic rant….this time eviscerating the mainstream media for spreading an obviously biased list of “fake news” sources compiled by a left-wing assistant professor in an obvious attempt to undermine conservative news outlets.
We wrote about the list a couple days ago as Zero Hedge itself was actually a target of Melissa “Mish” Zimdars’ fake news wrath. To our complete “shock”, the list of fake news sources created by the self-described “feminist, activist” who is an avid supporter of numerous “neutral” political groups, like Occupy Wall Street, included several conservative news outlets like Breitbart and InfoWars but somehow missed leftist sites like The Huffington Post which was exposed by WikiLeaks to have been overtly colluding with the Hillary Clinton campaign.
As always, here are a couple of our favorite lines though the full clip is a must see.
Oh, and when they say “fake news,” that includes any reporting or opinion that contradicts their leftist narrative.
Who gave the mainstream media the right to be judge, jury and executioner of what constitutes “fake news”? All you do is put out fake news. You’re the aficionado of fake news. You put out the fake news that Hillary Clinton was 98% likely to win the presidency. You printed out and shipped copies of Newsweek celebrating “Madam President.” You put out fake, rigged polls that were proven spectacularly wrong. You create fake narratives like Trump being responsible for violence at his own rallies when it was DNC-funded agitators all along. You’re the fucking experts of fake news.
As WikiLeaks exposed, you’re a public relations front for the Democratic Party. You lost the argument. You trashed your own credibility. And now you’re trying to resurrect it by claiming that everyone that beat you is “fake news”. Give me a break.
As a reminded, here is the full list of news outlets deemed “fake” by the snowflake of infinite wisdom, Melissa Zimdars:
Conveniently for the mainstream media, she ignored the following list of people who WikiLeaks exposed as having actually colluded with Hillary Clinton’s campaign over the course of two years.
Here’s the actual list of fake news sites from @wikileaks. Melissa Zimdars, @mishmz, is a troll #MAGA #Trump pic.twitter.com/eLHSkXf5as
— r/The_Donald (@alomikron) November 17, 2016
- Iowa Lawmaker Introduces "Suck It Up, Buttercup" Bill To Stop Student-Coddling At Universities
Submitted by Joseph Jankowski via PlanetFreeWill.com,
An Iowa lawmaker plans to put forth a bill that will target state universities that use taxpayer dollars to coddle students with sit-ins and grief counseling – such as “cry zones” – in order help them cope with events like President-elect Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton.
Rep. Bobby Kaufmann plans to introduce the piece of legislation he’s calling the “Suck It Up, Buttercup Bill” when the legislature resumes in January.
While issuing fines to those universities who want to pamper their students with child-like comfort, the bill would also establish new criminal charges for protesters who shut down highways, a circumstance that has risen out of the many anti-Trump protests that kicked off after the election.
“I’ve seen four or five schools in other states that are establishing ‘cry zones’ where they’re staffed by state grief counselors and kids can come cry out their sensitivity to the election results,” said Iowa’s Bobby Kaufmann to the Des Moines Register. “I find this whole hysteria to be incredibly annoying. People have the right to be hysterical … on their own time.”
Following the Donald Trump victory in the Nov. 8 election, schools such as Cornell and Yale went as far as setting up a “cry-in” and a “primal scream” so students could let out their grief and frustration over the results.
Other elite universities offered students coloring books, puppies, play dough, Legos and bubbles to comfort students who felt distraught post-election.
“That’s a waste of taxpayer dollars and that also doesn’t prepare kids for life. In life there’s winners and losers and when your car breaks down, your kids get sick or you have to take a second job to pay your mortgage, you don’t get to go to a cry zone, you don’t get to pet a pony. You have to deal with it,” Bobby Kaufmann told Fox and Friends on Wednesday.
When addressing the anti-Trump protesters, who have organized and blocked highways in over a dozen cities nationwide, Kaufmann said, “You’ve got a right to protest, that’s constitutionally protected. But you do not have a right to throw a temper tantrum on I-80 and put my constituents’ lives in danger.”
“That’s incredibly dangerous. What if someone had been trying to go to the hospital or was in an emergency and you had these spoiled brats blocking interstate 80?” he said.
Iowa Rep. Phyllis Thede, (D) Bettendorf has called the legislation odd and says it’s a threat to free speech.
“I don’t want to go after somebody because they’re fearful, upset or angry,” Thede said. “That’s not what legislatures do.”
Thede believes they should be helping the protesters, not criminalizing their actions, but Kaufmann thinks the bill will gain support.
“People say, ‘Suck it up, Buttercup, that’s kind of over the top,’ but so are the protests that are happening,” Kaufmann said.
- From Consequences To Compromise
- Jack Dorsey Exposed: How Twitter's CEO Restricted Advertising For Trump’s Campaign
Submitted by Gary Coby, Director of Digital Advertising and Fundraising for Donald Trump, via Medium
On Sunday, I tweeted…
More specific, @twitter CEO @Jack Dorsey personally made call to restrict us; our advertising @blakehounshell @parscale https://t.co/NmvWwgc44X
— Gary Coby (@GaryCoby) November 13, 2016
We had an “upfront deal” with Twitter, which is a common setup where we commit to spending a certain amount on advertising and in exchange receive discounts, perks, and custom solutions.
Our upfront deal was signed in August.
Deal Highlights:
- $5MM Spend Commitment
- Discounts on Promoted Trends
- Bonus Media on Other Spending
- Value Adds, such as Custom Hashtag Emojis
We also had several promoted trends reserved/purchased:
- 7/21 RNC Day 4
- 9/26 1st Debate
- 10/9 2nd Debate
- 11/5 Sun Before Election Day
CUSTOM HASHTAG EMOJIS
Twitter—or well, Dorsey—restricted us on the most unique part of our deal, the custom hashtag emojis, of which we had two.
It’s an emoji tied to a specific hashtag. When anyone uses that hashtag, the emoji is automatically added at the end.
We planned to launch both of our emojis for the first debate. One was a contrasting emoji for the popular #CrookedHillary. They were going to be featured in our promoted trend for maximum exposure.
ROUND ONE — FIRST DEBATE
At the beginning of September, I outlined several possible emoji concepts for the TW creative team to make.
About 2 weeks before the 9/26 debate, the TW team provided several designs that were pre-approved by their legal and policy teams. One included was a hand receiving a moneybag:
Next, I met with TW in NY, at Trump Tower, to tweak the already approved emoji designs. Pushing the envelope, the hand/moneybag emoji evolved into a running stick figure with a moneybag:
The TW team thought this had a good chance of getting approved since all that changed was a hand to a stick figure.
Sure, it was more aggressive and eye-catching, but that was the goal. I was fine with the hand/moneybag emoji, which was already approved, so I figured we might as well see if we can go further.
Well, I was wrong.
Day after day, TW wouldn’t give us an official yay/nay and my contacts inside TW told me the new design was causing a lot of heartburn and “big meetings” with folks at the top.
Jack Dorsey was never named, just Adam Bain, TW COO.
I wasn’t too worried because our plans could continue with the hand/moneybag emoji, even if they denied the more aggressive evolution.
Then, finally, a couple days before the first presidential debate, TW reached out for a call with Dan Greene, VP of US Sales.
CALL RUNDOWN:
- Newly evolved running stick figure emoji was not approved.
- Approval on the previously OK’d (hand/moneybag) emoji was pulled back and was no longer allowed to be used.
- Twitter’s reason: We couldn’t accuse someone of committing a crime they did not commit or were not under investigation for. (Seriously, they said this.)
- They claimed to fear litigation from HRC.
- I told them we were trying to show she’s gotten wealthy from public office—they did not budge.
- I asked, why we were able to use (still approved) emojis that showed emails being destroyed or phones being destroyed (which could also represent committing a crime)—they could not explain.
- I asked, if the Clinton Foundation were being investigated for financial crimes, could we use it—they said no.
- Dan apologized and admitted TW’s wrongdoing in pulling back an emoji that was previously approved.
To me, this was clearly a BS reason that was made up to give them an out. I was also confidentially told from TW staff that the running stick figure emoji reached Adam Bain, COO, and he personally put a stop to it.
Given that TW had pulled back a previously approved emoji and disrupted our strategy for the debate just days before, we cancelled our promoted trend (costing them hundreds of thousands of dollars).
TRYING AGAIN in GOOD FAITH—SECOND DEBATE
The next plan was to launch with the second presidential debate. TW, admitting wrongdoing for how they handled the first, extended a $50K discount (“make good”) so we would agree to keep our next trend and give this another shot.
I took them at their word and proceeded. Foolish of me.
ROUND 2 RUNDOWN:
- Worked with TW team and our internal creative team to create a moneybag with wings emoji:
- Knowing I needed to appease TW’s legal team, I sent it with an explanation to help fend off the HRC lawyers they feared.
- Explanation: “The emoji represents govt waste and money flying away from taxpayers. Our internal polling has shown this to be a top issue for voters and it’d be inappropriate to restrict us from being able to discuss this important topic.”
- Wednesday 10/5, we receive approval from their policy and legal team!
- Thursday, 10/6, we have a call with their comms team to plan the rollout, including the list of media they’ll be leaking the story and emojis to.
- Slated to launch at 3am ET on Saturday 10/8, with press teasers to go out on Friday 10/7, driven by their comms team.
- Friday 10/7 PM, hours before launch, TW asks for a call, with Jack Dorsey, CEO, Adam Bain COO, and Dan Greene, VP US Sales.
- My internal TW contacts informed me that on Thursday night, 10/6, TW CEO, Jack Dorsey, personally killed the emoji and notified his senior staff.
- I asked if “There’s going to be another BS legal reason like last time” and they responded, “No, Jack just killed it, there isn’t one.” They were shocked that this was happening.
- On the call, Jack and Adam started with a lovefest by telling us how great our use of the platform has been. They then told us a last-minute legal review was triggered and they needed to pull the emoji because there wasn’t a paid-for-by disclaimer. (Again. Seriously, they said this.)
- However, both DNC and RNC conventions had custom emojis this cycle and they did not use disclaimers.
- It’s also been reported that a top FEC official has said “the agency does not regulate emojis and that such transparency isn’t required on tweets.”
- Jack and Adam apologized repeatedly and offered a new incentives package to keep our promoted trend that was just a day away.
We told them it was BS and what they were doing with a public platform was incredibly reckless and dangerous. We voiced that it was clearly a political move and telling us otherwise was just insulting.
Jack maintained their talking points and stayed on message. He also pushed back on it being one-sided, because they were “stopping this feature for ALL political campaigns.”
But, the only other campaign large enough to have this type of deal would have been the Clinton campaign and my contacts inside TW informed me that they did not have one in place.
So basically, “cancelling for all political campaigns” really meant cancelling ONLY for Donald J. Trump’s campaign.
In return, I cancelled our 10/9 and 11/5 promoted trends. Further, I pulled all persuasion and lead gen spending, costing Twitter millions of dollars.
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...