another site
Heather Lindsay and Lexene Charles say the racial slur scrawled on their garage door in Stamford, Connecticut, isn’t the first time their home has been vandalized. They say police haven’t taken that vandalism seriously, so they have vowed not to remove the graffiti until cops properly investigate the matter. City officials have responded by slapping them with a blight citation, which carries a $100 a day fine until the couple removes the slur.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2m6ThqN
via IFTTT
Via Joshua Krause of ReadyNutrition.com,
Imagine if you will, what would happen if you pulled an American family from the 19th century, and plopped them in the middle of downtown Los Angeles during rush hour. They’re not given a warning, they’re not given any kind of primer on what they’re about to experience, and the occurrence is completely inexplicable. How long do you suppose they would last before they cried uncle? Would they even survive? The odds probably aren’t so good.
Of course, the reverse is probably also true. If you and your family were wrenched from the comforts of the present and hurled back into a previous era, you might not fare so well either. Your survival odds would probably be a little better since you have hindsight and an understanding of germ theory. However, it would still be a pretty alien world for you. It would be littered with pitfalls that most modern people can’t even imagine.
And that’s why it’s so important for everyone to prepare for the possibility that one day our grid could go down in a big way, whether it be from a terrorist attack, cyber attack, nuclear war, or solar flare. If our society suffered a widespread power failure that lasted for weeks or months, it would be no different for us than if we were suddenly sent back to the 1800’s. It would be a strange and dangerous world, and for the average person, it would catch them off guard in the following ways:
1. All commerce will cease. The ATMs won’t work, the banks won’t open, and the cash registers won’t…well, register. For a while cash will be king, but if the crisis goes on for more than a few weeks, then people will view it as worthless. We’d be back to a barter economy in short order.
2. Communications will shut down. If you think you can rely on your cell phone to work in a disaster, think again. In a crisis, when everyone instinctively reaches for their phone, that limit is quickly surpassed and the radios on the tower get sluggish, thus causing the fast-busy signal. Mobile analysts estimates that a cell site can handle 150 to 200 calls per second per sector. When a large group are making calls at the same time, the network can’t handle the amount of calls. More importantly, communications with police, firefighters, and ambulance services will cease. Many of the workers in these positions will try to soldier on, and keep doing the best job that they can for as long as they can. However, without ordinary citizens calling them to report crimes and emergencies, they’ll be helplessly watching their communities burn down around them. It won’t be long before they give up, ditch their posts, and return to their families.
3. Without electricity, all forms of fuel that our society relies on will stop flowing. All of our vehicles will be dead in the water, and more importantly, the trucks will stop delivering food. The grocery stores will be stripped bare in hours, and will not be replenished for a long time. Even if you live in an area that is rich in agricultural resources, there may be no food to be had, since those farms rely on fertilizers and farming equipment that must be delivered by trucks.
4. And of course many of those farms will lack water, as will your plumbing. For a couple of days after the power goes out, you’ll still have running water since water towers rely on gravity to feed the water to your home. However, electricity is required to clean that water and pump it into the tower. Once it’s out, that means that you won’t be able to flush your toilet. So not only dehydration be a major threat, but without the ability to remove human waste or wash your hands, every community will face daunting sanitation problems.
5. When the grocery stores are stripped bare, the pharmacies won’t be far behind. Millions of people who rely on life saving medications could die in the weeks and months that follow. But perhaps more shocking is what would happen to the people who aren’t using drugs that are immediately life saving. 13% of Americans are using opioid drugs, which are highly addictive and cause horrendous withdrawal symptoms. Another 13% of Americans are on antidepressants, and likewise, the withdrawal symptoms are pretty problematic. In other words, within a few weeks after the grid collapses, about 25% of your neighbors are going to be in an awful mental state that is not conducive for survival.
6. And finally, one of the most shocking things that people will have to deal with, is the lack of GPS. The GPS satellites will probably keep running, but eventually the devices that read those signals will give up the ghost. These days people are pretty reliant on GPS for directions, and there aren’t as many paper maps lying around. The average person is going to be utterly lost if the grid goes down.
In summary, law and order will break down at every level, and death will be around every corner. It’s one thing to grow up and live in an era that lacks electricity, but to be sent back to such a time on a moments notice would be one of the most challenging things that a person accustomed to modern amenities would ever face.
via http://ift.tt/2lSknBm Tyler Durden
With Janet Yellen seemingly set on its course of hiking rates – no matter what given the hawkish screamings of the last 36 hours – we thought a reminder of what The Fed really is and what The Fed really does was worthwhile…
As SchoolHouseShock.com writes, money – whether its a tangible piece of paper or a number on a screen – is intrinsically worthless, yet it fuels the modern world.
In America the ultimate control of money rests with the bankers of the Federal Reserve System. Because of this it is detrimental that we as citizens understand how this shadowy – private – organization works and how it’s ultimate goal is to forever enslave us in a descending pit of debt that we will never crawl out of.
via http://ift.tt/2mcfMep Tyler Durden
Via Federico Pieraccini of The Strategic Culture Foundation,
The best-case scenario has come about, which is to say the end of a world facing the specter of a mushroom cloud. With Hillary Clinton's defeat, we avoided a nuclear denouement stemming from a direct clash with Russia in Syria and an escalation of the conflict in Ukraine. Unfortunately the good news ends here.
The chaos that originated in the United States following the election of Donald Trump does not augur well. The economic crisis has persisted for ten years, with no solutions in sight. Ignored and underestimated by the elite, it has become the engine of dissatisfaction with politicians, generating a wave of protest votes in the United States and Europe. The positive outcome, a break with the past, has degenerated into a period of apparent chaos and disorder, caused mainly by internal clashes between the leaders of the ruling classes.
No one can doubt that Trump was not the preferred candidate of the intelligence agencies (CIA and NSA especially), the media, and the Washington political consensus. This really needs no proof. But to say, on the other hand, that Trump is the man of some generals, many bankers and corporations, is to engage in an oversimplification that fuels further confusion surrounding the new administration.
The sabotage attempts against the new administration are quite apparent, directed mainly by the fringes of both the Democratic and Republican parties that are politically opposed to Trump, with help from the intelligence agencies and the media. This triumvirate of the intelligence agencies, the media, and the political establishment has already inflicted serious damage: the sabotage in Yemen; Flynn's early exit from the role of the National Security Advisor; the antagonistic relationship between the press and the administration; and an endless series of controversies over the role of NATO and trade treaties (such as TPP). This triad, directed by leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties, seems to be working at full speed to reach an unthinkable outcome after only one month, namely the impeachment of Trump and the appointment of President Pence to provide continuity for the policies of Bush and Obama in line with the American project for global hegemony.
Donald Trump, while not a fool, is attempting to repair the sabotage with errors and decisions that often worsen the situation. The decision to fire Flynn seems wrong and excessive, distancing him from his desire for detente in international relations, one of the Trump’s most important promises.
To try and accurately hypothesize about the internal decisions and mechanisms made in the Trump administration would require excessive confidence in the authenticity of the information available. Certainly Bannon and Flynn appeared to be the core of Washington's anti-establishment element and the major advocates of a rapprochement with Moscow. Following this line of speculation, Pence, McMaster (appointed to succeed Flynn), Mattis and Priebus seem to represent the neoconservative faction, the heart of the bipartisan establishment of Washington. The fact that they were appointed directly by Trump leaves us with two conclusions: an excessive confidence in Trump's own ability to tame the beast, or an imposition from above which presupposes a lack of Trump’s control over his administration and over big decisions.
Figures like Rex Tillerson and Mike Pompeo arouse further confusion. While apparently confirming the policy of America First, and not necessarily giving a nod to the neoconservatives, they are certainly more digestible than anti-establishment figures like Bannon and Flynn.
The essential problem, especially for those who write analysis, is to find a rational and logical thread running through presidential decisions to be able to understand and anticipate the future direction of the new administration. To date, over just one month, we have witnessed some events that indicate a draining of the swamp, and others that indicated a full continuation of the Obama and Bush era.
Any hypothesis needs objective data and assessments confirmed by events. In my previous articles I have emphasized the clear distinction that must be made between words, actions (or lack thereof) with respect to the new administration. In Syria and Ukraine, the factions traditionally supported by the neocons (who are openly opposed to Trump) are experiencing a hard time. Poroshenko is becoming increasingly nervous and provocative (Putin, rightfully trusting no-one in Washington, has started the process of the Russian Federation recognizing the passports of the Donbass), attempting to involve Russia in the Ukrainian conflict. In Syria the situation improves every day thanks to the liberation of Aleppo and squabbling between Assad's opponents, which has resulted in a series of clashes between different takfiri factions concentrated in Idlib.
In both of these scenarios, European and American politicians, the intelligence agencies (guided by the CIA), and the media have joined in efforts to attack the new administration for not being friendly enough towards Kiev and also possibly opposing the arming and training moderate rebels in Syria. Pence’s recent words in Monaco have served to reassure European allies on the future role of NATO and the United States in the world. Yet some changes already seem to be taking place in Syria, where it appears that the CIA has had to give in and end the terrorists' funding program. One of the deep state’s emissaries and links with Islamic terrorism, John McCain, made a trip to Syria and Turkey to mediate and renew ties with the most extremist Wahhabis present in Syria. McCain’s objective is to sabotage Trump’s attempts to end support for moderate rebels in Syria (AKA Al Qaeda). McCain’s efforts also aim for arapprochement with Erdogan, to push him back towards the deep state’s cause and again sabotage the diplomatic efforts between Turkey and Iran and with Russia in Syria. The same effort was made in Ukraine by McCain and Graham a couple of months ago, inciting the army and political elites in Ukraine to ramp up their operation in Donbass. These are two clear indications of the intention to create problems for the new administration.
The bottom line is, there is chaos surrounding the new administration.
Trump lives on a dangerous misunderstanding: Is the President in control of events, or is he at the mercy of decisions made at higher levels and against his express will? Observing Syria and Ukraine, it would appear that the intended rapprochement with Moscow is still on course. The toning down of harsh words against Iran, coinciding with the ouster of Flynn, further offers promise. Detente and the resumption of dialogue with Beijing seem to suggest that an escalation in the South China Sea and East China Sea will be avoided. The same is the case regarding the abolition of the TTP.
Yet the overall impression that we seem to get from the first thirty days is of an administration in chaos. Flynn's ouster is a blow to the rapprochement with Moscow. Having replaced Flynn with McMaster, a disciple of Petraeus who is a strong supporter of the 4 + 1 approach (Russia, Iran, China, North Korea + ISIS) as the main focus of foreign policy, seems to minimize the hope of an administration free from warmongering. The 4 + 1 approach is at the heart of the attempt at global hegemony so dear to the promoters of American exceptionalism. The possible entry of Bolton with an undefined role, the appointment of Pence as vice president, and the roles played by Priebus and Mattis suggest a return of the neoconservatives to the driving seat. But is it really so?
The impressions we can glean come from the previous experiences of Trump appointees, media publications, drafts from the CIA, and possible leaks from those betraying the administration. The perception that we can obtain as outsiders cannot be precise, possibly being the result of constant manipulation from the news media. What credibility left have newspapers, politicians and anonymous intelligence sources that over the past two decades have cynically moulded the public’s perception of major wars and conflicts around the globe?
The question is how to be free from such conditioning in order to develop an accurate idea about Trump. Is Trump at war with the deep state? Is Trump a parallel product of the deep state? Is he an acceptable alternative for some of the deep-state factions?
Whatever the answer, we are facing an unprecedented clash between different mixes of establishment power. Certainly there are factions aligned with the thinking of the neoconservatives; factions linked to the new Secretary of State, the powerful former CEO of Exxon Mobil; factions with nationalist intentions pushing for an isolationist policy that seeks to abide by the principle of America First. If there is any certainty, it is precisely that we do not have any logical thread to divine Donald Trump's intentions. There are too many uncertainties with respect to the intentions expressed by Trump, with the influence of the warmongers in his administration, and with the ability of his loyal collaborators (Bannon above all) to stem internal erosion.
Basically there is a major lack of information. This results in excessive consideration and importance being placed on the words expressed by Trump, which are often at odds with each other and often in conflict with other ideas within the administration. At the same time we should especially observe actions (or non-actions) of the new administration, and following this logic we can line up some important events. Trump has already had two telephone conversations with Putin, one of which was particularly positive, according to White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer. There have been exchanges between Beijing and Washington, including a letter especially popular with the Chinese leadership; and Iran seems to have momentarily disappeared from the radar following Flynn's ouster. On the other hand, the additional sanctions on Iran are there to remind how the Republican administration will guarantee a negative stance towards Tehran. In this sense it is not surprising that the red carpet was laid out for Netanyahu on his visit to Washington.
Surely the absence of Trump at the Monaco conference is another important signal. The current president intends to continue to give priority to domestic over international politics.
For now we have to settle for a few crumbs of insight. In Syria the situation is improving thanks to the inaction of Washington; and In Ukraine Poroshenko has not found in the new administration the type of support he had been expecting to receive from Hillary Clinton had she won the election (a disappointment shared by the Banderists in Kiev and the Takfiri Wahhabis in Syria). The good news seems to end here, with a series of potentially explosive situations already in place. Western troops remain on Russia’s border (the withdrawal of such a deployment would have demonstrated to Moscow Trump’s genuine intention to dialogue, a concession, though that would have infuriated many members of the EU). The Saudis continue to receive important support for their campaign in Yemen. Constant threats against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea continue unabated. And Trump’s executive orders on the home front have inspired a strong domestic reaction.
These are disappointing policies adopted in the first thirty days by an administration that seemed so inclined to break with the past. As the days go by, and more people get appointed to the administration and others driven out, the picture that appears to be emerging is that of a grueling battle with the deep state, leading to significant concessions by Trump. McMaster, Mattis, Priebus and Bolton seem to reflect this. Or maybe not. Bolton will find himself in a much lesser role than had been potentially considered (Secretary of State), and McMaster could spell the way to rebuild the military and strengthen deterrence without having to resort to brutal force, which would remain a final choice for the POTUS.
The risk for Trump lies in being overwhelmed by the war machine that has directed US policy for more than 70 years. He will then have given up without even having had the opportunity to try and change the course of events, if this had been his real intention in the first place. The problem with this new administration is trying to understand what is imposed and what is the result of strategic thinking. It should not be excluded that the Trump strategy to hold together the base with respect to election promises by creating a smoke screen in which he is portrayed as a fighter against the deep state who must occasionally yield in order to maintain peaceful coexistence. It is important not to discard this hypothesis for a deeper reason: Trump has to demonstrate to his voters that he is altogether outside of the establishment, and the best way to demonstrate this is to be the target of the MSM, thus attracting the sympathy of all who have long lost faith in the authenticity of the disseminators of news and information. It is a fine tactic, but not exceedingly so. Will he continue to act like a victim during the presidency, continuing to put up an effective shield against criticism about unfulfilled election promises, particularly in foreign policy? Will his voters continue to buy it? We will see.
If the administration's actions in the future head in a direction similar to that of Obama or Bush, Trump cannot act like a victim, since it was he who picked the closest people in his administration.
This again reminds us of the lack of information available to form an objective view, compounded by the fluctuations of the new administration.
There is a positive and important aspect to this situation. Tehran, Beijing and Moscow have increasing incentives to strengthen their alliance and not to question friendships; to forge ahead with projects that advance Eurasian integration. The election of Trump was accompanied by the grand strategic objective of splitting the alliance between China and Russia. But fortunately, Trump has offered little hope of a dialogue with Moscow in this respect. The most important thing is that an escalation of confrontation that may have led to a nuclear exchange has been averted.
Paradoxically, we could be facing an extremely advantageous situation for the Eurasian continent, allowing for further integration, with Washington’s continued adversarial stance (especially Iran and China in terms of trade sanctions and war) ensuring that valuable time will not be lost in excessive talks with the new American president. If Trump will maintain two key promises, namely to avoid a conflict and think about domestic interests (internal and economic security), then this will mean that the multipolar world in which we live will certainly have a better chance of stability and economic prosperity, which is the main desire of many countries, primarily China, Russia and Iran.
Trump’s contradictions, when observing the intentions expressed during the election campaign and comparing them with appointments made to key posts, have alarmed and continue to cause concern, leaving Iran, China and Russia with little hope for future cooperation with Washington. The possibility of a joint dialogue without excessive demands seems to be fading, advancing the hope of an acceleration of Eurasian integration, giving little regard for the indecipherable intentions of the new administration.
A world order with responsibility shared between the US, Russia and China seems out of the question. Yet on the horizon there seems to be no signs of an imminent conflict for the purposes of imposing the old unipolar world order on the multipolar world. The possibility that Trump will fall back on a neocon posture is difficult but not impossible to imagine (after all, this is the United States, a nation that has for seventy years tried to impose its own way of life on the rest of world), but why exclude the possibility that even Trump could be converted to the religion of exceptionalism? After all, how much confidence can we place in politics? You already know the answer to that one.
via http://ift.tt/2lVdnlO Tyler Durden
Give it up for President Trump: He delivered a serious speech in a serious tone on serious topics.
The entire speech laid out without apology his vision of a country built around what Steve Bannon calls “economic nationalism”; it’s all about building trade barriers, physical walls, and cultural moats between the United States and the rest of the world. How many men will die that Trump is made great? That remains to be seen, but his “historic” increase in defense spending and his oft-repeated commitment to destroying ISIS suggests that he won’t be a non-interventionist when it comes to foreign policy.
The most memorable moment in his speech to me came when, after demonizing immigrants (especially illegal ones), he announced his plan for what he called VOICE:
I have ordered the Department of Homeland Security to create an office to serve American Victims. The office is called Voice — Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement. We are providing a voice to those who have been ignored by our media and silenced by special interests.
There are so many mendacious falsehoods embedded in this it is hard to know where to start. Trump lives in an apocalyptic America, where the streets run red with the blood of the innocent. You’d hardly know from listening to him that crime rates—for violent crime and property crime—remain historically low (even after recent upticks). In addition to the non-crime wave is the fact that immigrants are less likely than native-born Americans to commit crimes. As a recent study (written up at Reason by Ronald Bailey) puts it:
…immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes or be behind bars than the native-born, and high rates of immigration are associated with lower rates of violent crime and property crime.
Those aren’t alternative facts—that’s just reality. Contrary to the fever dreams of nativists such as Trump, very few migrants, whether here legally or not, move to America to embark on a life of crime. Because their status is tentative, it makes all the sense in the world that they will stick to the straight and narrow.
Are people who have been victimized by immigrants “silenced by the special interests” or ignored by the media? It’s difficult even to grasp what Trump might be talking about, but the nightly news rarely misses an opportunity to showcase crimes, especially murders or lethal accidents, committed by immigrants (especially illegal ones). Yet such coverage masks not just the reality that immigrants are less prone to crime than natives but also that so-called Sanctuary Cities, in which police only inquire about a person’s legal status when given a warrant by immmigration agents, are safer than comparably sized cities. San Francisco, for instance, is safer than Columbus and Indianapolis. This too makes sense: Most crime is a local matter and the main reason that police in a given city push for “sanctuary” rules is because otherwise immigrants won’t come forward to report crime or give information.
People who move to America for work or to find freedom aren’t in any way a problem. They pay taxes, do jobs Americans won’t do, and are barred from virtually all forms of means-tested transfer payments (this is especially true of illegal immigrants); the only tax-financed stuff they get is K-12 education for their kids (who are often citizens) and emergency medical care. Those are costs and should be dealt with. But low-skilled immigrants don’t displace native workers to a significant degree or lower their wages, either. More important, they exemplify the spirit of a country that likes to call itself a Shining City on a Hill, a beacon of hope, opportunity, and promise for all the world to see. This is the reason why 80 percent of Americans, including a majority of Trump supporters, want to give even illegals a path to citizenship.
Scapegoating immigrants via new federal agencies, crackdowns at checkpoints, and halving the number allowed in is not simply at odds with how most of us feel, it’s rooted in a wilful denial of basic facts about crime, unemployment, and other issues. That’s no way to usher in a “new chapter of American greatness.”
Related:”The GOP Is Wrong about Sanctuary Cities”
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2labNPL
via IFTTT
For years, Barack Obama has been (rightly) mocked for these grandiose promises shortly after he secured the Democratic nomination in 2008:
I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment—this was the time—when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.
But here’s Donald Trump in his address to the joint session of Congress today:
Then, in 2016, the earth shifted beneath our feet. The rebellion started as a quiet protest, spoken by families of all colors and creeds—families who just wanted a fair shot for their children, and a fair hearing for their concerns. But then the quiet voices became a loud chorus—as thousands of citizens now spoke out together, from cities small and large, all across our country. Finally, the chorus became an earthquake—and the people turned out by the tens of millions, and they were all united by one very simple but crucial demand, that America must put its own citizens first. Because only then can we truly make America great again.
Dying industries will come roaring back to life. Heroic veterans will get the care they so desperately need. Our military will be given the resources its brave warriors so richly deserve. Crumbling infrastructure will be replaced with new roads, bridges, tunnels, airports and railways gleaming across our very, very beautiful land. Our terrible drug epidemic will slow down and ultimately stop. And our neglected inner cities will see a rebirth of hope, safety and opportunity.
This weirdly grandiose rhetoric is a reflection of a weirdly grandiose bipartisan conception of the powers of the president.
So here’s your handy reminder: Presidents do not make the earth move. They do not turn back tides. They do not heal the sick, or eliminate vice, or remake the nation. They are humans with human failings, and one of those failings is the inability to resist taking a big slup of their own Kool-Aid in moments of triumph.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2m64fwI
via IFTTT
President Trump touched on the late January counter-terrorism raid in Yemen, during which a U.S. Navy SEAL was killed, in his first joint congressional address, bringing Carol Owens, the SEAL’s wife to the gallery as a guest, and insisting again that the raid, questioned for its usefulness, was effective. Trump quoted his defense secretary, James Mattis, saying that the former general told him that “Ryan was a part of a highly successful raid that generated large amounts of vital intelligence that will lead to many more victories in the future against our enemies.” Ryan Owen’s “legacy is etched into eternity,” Trump told the Congress. “To those allies who wonder what kind of friend America will be, look no further than the heroes who wear our uniform.”
The slain SEAL’s father, who has been publicly critical of Trump and the mission, questioning why Trump ordered it so early in his administration and for what purpose, was not at the address. He previously declined to join Trump when the president greeted the return of his son’s body. Anonymous senior officials, meanwhile, told NBC News they weren’t aware of any “actionable intelligence” generated by the raid, which has yielded more coverage of Yemen, which has been embroiled for the last year and a half in a civil war in which U.S. ally Saudi Arabia is involved, and which has been the site of U.S. counter-terrorism operations for at least the last six years.
As recently as late 2014, on the eve of the Yemen civil war, President Obama and U.S. counterterrorism officials were pointing to U.S. actions in Yemen as a model for a new type of counterterrorism—one with a lighter footprint and limited engagement. Since the collapse of the U.S.-backed authoritarian government in Aden, mentions of Yemen have dropped off. Neither major presidential candidate in 2016 was asked a single question about Yemen during the course of the campaign.
Trump’s presidency is changing that dynamic, with the media appearing to offer the Yemen raid more coverage than other raids over recent years that sometimes also ended with U.S. deaths. (There were also a number of reported civilian deaths, including of women and children, at the Yemen raid, this too is not unique—the U.S. military says it is investigating). The raid also appears to have yielded more leaks from within the military about it. Trump faced criticism earlier today for appearing to evade responsibility for the raid, repeatedly referring to generals and how “they lost Ryan,” as the New York Post reported.
Trump also laid out more broadly his vision for foreign policy, saying it calls for “a direct, robust and meaningful engagement with the world” and involved “American leadership based on vital security interests that we share with our allies across the globe.
“We strongly support NATO,” Trump told the Congress, saying allies had an obligation to “meet their financial obligations” and insisting that the money was already “pouring in.” In fact, European leaders have made comments skeptical of Trump’s demands, which include for NATO allies to increase their spending to 2 percent of GDP, a funding target set by NATO itself. Some European countries have begun to increase their military spending over the last year, part of the impetus for which inevitably came from the increased focus on allies paying their fair share Trump brought to bear during the campaign. But while Mattis’ delivery of the U.S. message about NATO allies meeting their obligations has been backed by the head of NATO, it has not yet specifically yielded promises to increase spending, let alone any actual increase in spending, despite the ultimatum Mattis gave about the U.S. moderating its commitment. The Trump administration should not cover for European allies by overstating their newfound commitments to their own defense, and be prepared to moderate its commitments, something it should consider doing whether or not NATO Europe increases its own.
“We expect our partners, whether in NATO, in the Middle East, or the Pacific,” Trump continued, “to take a direct and meaningful role in both strategic and military operations, and pay their fair share of the cost.”
“We will respect historic institutions,” he added, “but we will also respect the sovereign rights of nations,” a sharp break from the bipartisan foreign policy consensus that has developed since the end of the Cold War and that has led the United States into many a quagmire. It remains to be seen whether the Trump administration will meet such new rhetoric with new policies—there’s not much evidence of it so far, and Trump’s interest in increasing military spending, which makes such an interventionist foreign policy possible and even creates incentives for U.S. policy makers to pursue it. Such a posture on spending is probably the exact opposite of the one needed to actually impose the kinds of restraint on U.S. foreign policy makers that Trump’s rhetoric suggests.
“Free nations are the best vehicle for expressing the will of the people,” Trump continued, taking the long-standing U.S. rhetorical commitment to freedom around the world in a different, refreshing direction: “America respects the right of all nations to chart their own path. My job is not to represent the world. My job is to represent the United States of America. But we know that America is better off, when there is less conflict—not more.”
“We must learn from the mistakes of the past,” Trump told Congress to applause, “we have seen the war and destruction that have raged across our world.”
It’s unclear what Trump believes those mistakes to be—he has consistently brought up his opposition to the war in Iraq on the campaign trail and even after taking office as president, but has rarely made a clear-eyed connection between that and a broader non-interventionist policy. Trump followed up on his comments by insisting that “the only long-term solution for these humanitarian disasters is to create the conditions where displaced persons can safely return home and begin the long process of rebuilding.” It’s far from certain that the creation of safe zones would not further destabilize the countries in which the U.S. tries to impose them. While Trump has made positive comments about Putin and optimistic comments about Russia-U.S. relations, he should not conflate his intent with the reality on the ground, which may not be amenable to U.S. involvement in imposing safe zones despite the change in rhetoric.
“America is willing to find new friends, and to forge new partnerships, where shared interests align,” Trump said, “we want harmony and stability, not war and conflict.” During the campaign, Trump indicated he would be open to a congressional resolution authorizing the war against ISIS. A bipartisan group of members of Congress is urging Speaker Ryan to arrange with Trump for such a resolution, as well as one for Yemen, or, absent cooperation with the White House, to bring up other war resolutions proposed by members of Congress. Congress will have to reassert its congressional role in war making if there’s to be a chance that Trump’s foreign policy rhetoric, which is markedly different from his immediate predecessors, will translate to a markedly different, and less destructive, foreign police.
“We want peace, wherever peace can be found,” Trump told the Congress. “America is friends today with former enemies. Some of our closest allies, decades ago, fought on the opposite side of these World Wars. This history should give us all faith in the possibilities for a better world. Hopefully, the 250th year for America will see a world that is more peaceful, more just and more free.” Such results will require a sustained commitment by the Trump administration, active involvement by the Congress, and a renewed interest in U.S. foreign policy by American voters and activists. With the right effort, it’s possible, but it won’t be as easy as just adopting new rhetoric.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2lUEZrh
via IFTTT
Submitted by Koos Jansen of BullionStar
US Mint Releases New Fort Knox “Audit Documentation”: First Critical Observations
In response to a FOIA request the US Mint has finally released reports drafted from 1993 through 2008 related to the physical audits of the US official gold reserves. However, the documents released are incomplete and reveal the audit procedures have not been executed proficiently. Moreover, because the Mint could not honor its promises in full the costs ($3,144.96 US dollars) of the FOIA request have been refunded.
Thanks to my readers that donated to the crowdfunding campaign I’ve been able to force the US Mint through a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request to hand over documents related to the physical audits of the US official gold reserves stored at the Mint; also referred to as Deep Storage gold. Although the PDF-package digitally sent to me is redacted, incomplete, includes pages copied twice and materials I didn’t ask for, it’s the closest thing that I’ve ever seen to physical audit documentation of gold at Fort Knox and the other Mint depositories drafted in between 1993 and 2008.
What is worrying is that the reports now in my possession reveal the audit procedures have not competently been executed. Combine that with the fact the documents are incomplete and redacted, and the result is suspicion of fraud. In this blog post we’ll have a first critical look at the reports and the problems to be found within.
This post is a sequel to A First Glance At US Official Gold Reserves Audits, Second Thoughts On US Official Gold Reserves Audits, US Government Lost 7 Fort Knox Gold Audit Reports, The Power Of The Gold Community: Crowdfunding For FOIA Request Fort Knox Audit Documents Completes Within 24 Hours, Dear US Mint, We Gave You The FOIA Funds, Now Give Us The Fort Knox Audit Documents! Also related are Where Did The Gold In Fort Knox Come From? and Former US Mint Director Clueless On Gold In Fort Knox.
For starters, allow me to expand on what I think happened at the Mint’s headquarter on the 8th floor at 801 9th Street NW Washington DC, before these documents were sent to me.
It should be clear that the US Treasury (owner of the gold), US Mint (main custodian), Federal Reserve Bank Of New York (second custodian), and the Office Inspector General of the US Treasury (head auditor), are reluctant to disclose information about the audits of the gold at the four largest depositories that store over 8,000 fine metric tonnes. Consider that the most seasoned gold analysts aren’t even aware this gold is audited.
About a year ago we read in the introduction of an interview with world-renowned gold commentators Jim Rickards, “unlike many today, Jim Rickards believes the gold is indeed in Fort Knox but has not been audited to avoid drawing attention to it and to downplay its role”. More recently, on 11 February 2017 the Financial Times wrote, “much of the world’s excavated gold is thought to be in Fort Knox, but nobody can be sure, since the US government will not allow the auditors in”. No, auditing Fort Knox is not a topic only the mainstream media are confused about. Gold advocates are in the dark as well.
Exhibit 0. Source. Overview of the four main depositories that store the US official gold reserves: Denver, Fort Knox, West point and the Federal Reserve Bank Of New York. Where the working stock is exactly located is not known (likely Washington DC, Philadelphia and West Point; perhaps also Denver and San Francisco). The Deep Storage gold is the metal in 42 sealed compartments spread over Denver, Fort Knox and West Point.
What nobody knows is that according the US government 100 per cent of the Deep Storage gold has been audited in between 1974 and 2008 (page 4). This period can be divided in two chapters: the first runs from 1974 until 1986 when the Committee for Continuing Audit of the U.S. Government-owned Gold verified the majority of the Deep Storage metal. The second chapter covers 1993 until 2008 when the residual was examined under the supervision of the Office Inspector General of the US Treasury. In my previous posts on this subject we focused on the first chapter, what is written below skims the surface of the second. As promised, eventually I will publish a full in-depth analysis of all chapters (there are additional chapters in the fifties, from 1986-1993, in 2009, 2010 and 2011).
Over the years my inquiries at the US government though regular channels have produced little intelligence about the physical audits of the Deep Storage gold. Some departments cooperated at first, but eventually they stopped replying emails or just hang up the phone while I was talking. The second layer of defense was raised when I started submitting FOIAs. Instead of honoring my requests they tried to delay and dodge most appeals. Clearly, the US government prefers not to answer my questions than to flaunt with the audit results.
However, in 2016 I embraced the motivation to push through and find out how many gold bars were counted, weighed and assayed in between 1993 and 2008, when allegedly the last series of physical audits was conducted. Not surprisingly, zero US government departments could provide me the information I was looking for, but through certain FOIAs I obtained leads to submit new FOIAs, and so on 12 Augustus 2016 I demanded, inter alia, the “memoranda submitted by the US Mint Director’s representative regarding audits of the Mint Schedule of Custodial Gold and Silver Reserves to the Chief Financial Officer drafted from 1993 through 2008”. The Mint replied this request would costs me $3,144.96 dollars because it would take 40 hours to search the respective documents, 8 hours for review, and additional costs would be incurred to duplicate 1,200 pages. I thought this was hogwash – 1,200 pages seemed out of proportion for such memoranda, how hard can it be to find a few pages and how did they know it were going to be 1,200 pages if they had to search 40 hours for it – but decided to start a crowdfunding campaign to collect the money.
Within 24 hours the campaign was completed and late August 2016 I sent the Mint a check, in the hopes to receive the documents a.s.a.p.. After the Mint pretended the check was missing for a few weeks, they communicated on 28 September 2016 the funds had arrived and they were working to get the requested documents out to me (exhibit 1).
Months past but nothing happened. I sent several emails and called the Mint three times, but time and time again I was maintained with false excuses. Then, finally, on 23 December 2016 the Mint delivered the documents I paid for. Sort of. Instead of 1,200 pages I received 223 redacted pages that contained 68 pages of reports I didn’t ask for and 21 pages that were copied twice. Effectively, I got 134 pages related to my FOIA request.
When I confronted the Mint I paid $3,144.96 dollars for a meager 134 pages they agreed the costs had been estimated to high and a refund was reasonable. Actually, they told me they never cashed the check. So, quickly I told my bank to cancel the check and ordered my crowdfunding platform to refund all my donors.
As of now all donors to my crowdfunding campaign should have received their money back (if not, please write me an email, see below for my address). From the bottom of my heart I would like to thank everyone for the loan that made this operation possible1!
For me a slight doubt remained if the Mint had tried to fend me off by asking a disproportionate amount of money for a few pages that I assume are alphabetically archived, or that they handled my case in all honesty. A skeptical mind would think the former. To find out I read the internal emails of the Mint employees that handled my FOIA. Those are not directly publicly available, but I was told a trick by more experienced FOIA scholars that reached out to me after I published my previous blog posts on this subject, to ask the Mint for internal emails through, what else, a Freedom Of Information Act request (exhibit 2).
Exhibit 2. FOIA asking to obtain email correspondence written or received by Mint employees that was related to my case.
And it worked! On 10 January 2017 I received all (I hope) emails from the Mint I was looking for. Including one wherein Audit Liaison at the United States Mint Tom Noziglia makes an estimate for the costs of my FOIA request of 12 August 2016. Read below (exhibit 3).
At first sight it seems Noziglia and his office stick to prudent protocols. But possibly this email is a veil, meant to deceive me if I would ever read it. Actually, yes, I think it’s a cloak and I’ll share my theory.
Let’s study Noziglia’s LinkedIn page:
We can read from Noziglia, “as Audit Liaison at the US Mint, I [Noziglia] am responsible for the coordination of all external audit initiatives … I have extensive experience in precious metal inventory, … I … coordinate the execution of the annual OIG [Office Inspector General] Joint Seal Inspection of the Custodial Gold at the US Mint”. This page tells us Noziglia is one of the auditors of the US official gold reserves. So, the email above (exhibit 3) was written by the auditor who was involved in the procedures of which I requested the documentation. Noziglia must have known my inquiry could be simply honored by sending just a few pages of documentation, as he was a co-author of the documents in question.
Firstly, with the benefit of hindsight we know Noziglia was lying in his email because by now I have the documents that count only 134 pages, and he was the coordinator of the annual inspections of custodial gold at the Mint. He must have known there were no “1,200 pages in 80 boxes” and so his $2640.00 dollar estimate is a hoax. I think Noziglia wrote the email expecting I would NOT pay the ludicrous amount of dollars, but possibly DID submit a new FOIA to view the Mint’s internal emails. Chances are slim someone could pay $3,144.96 dollars right? But I’m not the first who submits an additional FOIA to obtain internal emails. Hundreds of people went before me, this is a well-known trick for FOIA pundits, and many public servants in the US must be aware of this hazard. Hence I reckon public servants consciously write emails to colleagues, as if these will be publicly released some day. I’ve come to understand submitting and answering FOIAs is nothing but a cat and mouse game.
Second, the Mint never cashed the check. If they really thought they would have to search 40 hours, why not cash the check immediately and get busy? I guess they knew very well there was no searching required.
Third, in case Noziglia had never seen a “memoranda submitted by the US Mint Director’s representative regarding audits of the Mint Schedule of Custodial Gold and Silver Reserves to the Chief Financial Officer”, which is not likely but let’s give him the benefit of the doubt, he could have viewed the most recent version at his office that wasn’t sent to the National Archives (NARA) yet. By doing so he would have learned very effectively these annual memoranda count only a few pages.
Fourth, Noziglia states in his email (exhibit 3) he’s not sure if he will find the documents at all. But this is impossible because he’s a dedicated Mint auditor so he must know what documents the Mint sends to NARA every year. In addition, there was no need for Noziglia to “order off site” boxes, because he simply could have commanded NARA staff to deliver specific documents – this is common practice.
Fifth, in the CC of Noziglia’s email is Kenyatta Fletcher, who is the Chief of the Accounting Division of the Mint. If, which is a big if, Noziglia didn’t know what I was looking for, Fletcher would’ve known these documents wouldn’t count 1,200 pages. But still I was charged a laughable $3,144.96 dollars.
Sixth, Noziglia’s estimate is $2.640.00 dollars, but I have no emails that clarify why $504.96 dollars were added for a total of $3,144.96 dollars I was charged. This indicates, Mint staff communicated in person or through phone calls to finalize my request, and so could have done likewise to handle it in general. Concluding, Noziglia’s email doesn’t paint the full picture of the internel communication.
Seventh, please read what Noziglia’s colleague Grimsby replied to him after 4 minutes.
“Great email”? Why would Grimsby praise Noziglia for his email? If Grimsby would have written,“I agree”, I can understand. But, “great email”? Perhaps Grimsby meant to write, “great calculation that makes no sense, but is likely deceive an ignorant FOIA requester if he would ever read it!”? It sure looks like it.
My guess is that Noziglia, Grimsby and Saunders-Mitchell met in the hallway in the afternoon of 15 August 2016 and agreed for Noziglia to write a phony email that arrives at an amount of dollars aimed to scare me off. In the email below you can read Noziglia suggested to Grimsby to discuss in person in the afternoon of 15 August 2016 the estimate for the costs.
So far we’re confirmed, again, that the US gold is held in secrecy. No surprises there. Moving on to the content of the documents.
When one walks into a US Mint repository the main barrier will be the door to the vault room. In the case of Fort Knox this a 20-tonne door of which no one person is entrusted with the combination. Once inside the vault room the gold is stored in segregated compartments that are sealed since at least the fifties.
The official narrative is that by 2008 the load of all 42 compartments had been physically audited. Every compartment had been opened, the gold inside counted, weighed and assayed, after which the gold was stacked in an adjacent compartment in the vault room (in several documents it’s described this is the way the gold is physically audited). Subsequently the target compartment door was closed and placed under Official Joint Seal, if during the verification no discrepancies had been found with the Mint’s bullion ledger. In most years until 2008 one or two compartments were opened for a physical bar examination, while the other compartments were merely inspected for any tampering of the Official Joint Seal (OJS). The purpose of joint seals is to avoid the necessity of verifying all assets in each annual audit.
Thus the audits of the Deep Storage gold consist of two conventions gold verifications, which are the physical audits of gold bars inside the compartments. And OJS inspections, which are checks of the seals placed on the compartment doors. The superintendent in the audit procedures is the Office Inspector General of the US Treasury, in short, the OIG.
When reading the audit documents delivered to me (the Memoranda hereafter) the distinction between gold verifications and OJS inspections is clear. Let me show you an example of Fort Knox. The first screen shots below are from a gold verification at Fort Knox in March 1998.
Exhibit 7.1. Gold verification at Fort Knox March 1998, page 1.
Exhibit 7.2. Gold verification at Fort Knox March 1998, page 2.
Exhibit 7.3. Gold verification at Fort Knox March 1998, page 3.
Exhibit 8.1. OJS inspection at Fort Knox June 1998, page 1.
Exhibit 8.2. OJS inspection at Fort Knox June 1998, page 2.
Exhibit 8.3. OJS inspection at Fort Knox June 1998, page 3.
Exhibit 8.4. OJS inspection at Fort Knox June 1998, page 4.
Click here and here to download all Memoranda sent to me by the US Mint.
After I had organized the documents and imported all data in spreadsheets I noted the 134 pages exclude 27 OJS inspection reports and at least 3 gold verification reports. I’ve asked the Mint to deliver the missing Memoranda, although I’m not expecting them to ever comply.
The fact 30 Memoranda are missing is of course highly problematic. Bear in mind, I offered the Mint $3,144.96 dollars to produce these documents.
In case you’re wondering how I know what gold verifications reports I’m missing, this is because references are made to these physical audits in succeeding gold verification reports. Fort OJS inspection reports, those should be done every year.
Below is an example of an Official Joint Seal. I obtained nearly all OJS copies from a separated FOIA request at the OIG.
Exhibit 10. OJS Fort Knox compartment 29.
Submitted a whole bunch of FOIA request at US government departments regarding Fort Knox today. #gold
— BullionStar (@KoosJansen) July 30, 2016
There are a couple of disturbing lines written in the Fort Knox OJS inspection report of 1996. Although for an OJS inspection seals should only be examined for tampering, on 12 August 1996 at the Fort Knox OJS inspection two representatives of the General Accounting Office (GAO) showed up in the vault room and decided to select “a single joint sealed compartment for opening and inspection”.
Unfortunately the report doesn’t say what was in the vault compartment; how many bars and fine troy ounces (FTO) it contained. Based purely on this document it would impossible to decipher what the GAO exactly did. However, by combining the info in the 1996 OJS inspection report with documentation obtained through a FOIA requests at the OIG, we do know what happened.
Have another look at exhibit 10. We can read Fort Knox compartment 29 was sealed in 1998. But the content, 19,800 gold bars weighing 6,470,624.049 FTOs before assays samples were taken, was sourced from compartment 31 that was sealed on 12 August 1996. Was compartment 31 the one opened by the GAO in 1996? Yes, without a doubt.
By examining all OJS copies – such as demonstrated in exhibit 10 – it shows there was no other vault segment freshly sealed on 12 August 1996 other than compartment 31. Moreover, the 1996 OJS inspection report mentions only one joint sealed compartment was breached. Therefore we know the GAO representatives opened Fort Knox compartment 31 comprising 19,800 gold bars weighing 6,470,624.049 FTOs on 12 August 1996.
Furthermore, in the 1995 OJS inspection report we read there was one compartment – the number is redacted – that contained 19,800 gold bars weighing 6,470,624.049 FTOs. And in 1995, 1996 and 1997 there were no gold verifications at Fort Knox as far as I know, other than the GAO incident. Have a look below at a screenshot from the 1995 Fort Knox OJS inspection report.
Exhibit 11. Fort Knox OJS report 1995.
What happened is that on 12 August 1996 compartment 31 was opened by the GAO to “check a few bars”, but then two years later in 1998 the same gold was verified by the OIG; all the gold inside taken out of compartment 31, counted, weighed and assayed, to be stored across the hall in compartment 29. This is suspicious. I quote, “the purpose of joint seals is to avoid the necessity of verifying all assets in each annual audit”.
I do not possess the official rules for US Mint OJS inspection and gold verification for the year 1996 (“MD 8H-1”), but based on the rules that prevailed in 1975, what the GAO did on 12 August 1996 was not done. Read with me.
Exhibit 12. Source.
My interpretation of the quote above is that if a compartment was opened all assets within should have been verified by the auditors, not just a few bars. If these rules still applied in 1996, what happened in Fort Knox compartment 31 was fraud. Unfortunately, but perhaps no coincidence, the GAO is exempt from FOIAs. On their website we read, “the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act”. (In July 7, 2004, the US GAO’s legal name was changed from the General Accounting Office to the Government Accountability Office.) I’ve submitted a FOIA at the Mint to obtain MD 8H-3 but it bounced. Currently I’m trying the OIG to provide these rules.
How come the GAO could open a compartment? The OIG stated under oath in 2011, “since 1993, when we assumed responsibility for the audit, my office has continued to directly observe the inventory and test the gold” (page 4). If the OIG is responsible how come the GAO could break a seal?
Let’s contemplate this: if the “random checks” the GAO performed in 1996 in compartment 31 formed an adequate gold verification, why did the OIG re-audit the exact same gold in 1998? And what was the intention of the GAO in 1996? The GAO couldn’t fully audit compartment 31, because they were present at Fort Knox only for one day (12 August), and no single person or flock of auditors can verify 19,800 large gold bars in one day. The fact these 19,800 gold bars were re-audited in 1998 underlines what the GAO did in 1996 was inappropriate at best.
One theory is that the gold in compartment 31 was prepared in 1996 to be physically audited down the road. Remember what the Fort Knox gold verification report of 1998 stated (exhibit 7.2)? In 1998 the OIG, “selected predetermined individual bars to be drilled for assay”. Possibly, the OIG selected the exact bars in 1998 that were put in in 1996. If this is true the names and autographs of the perpetrators of this crime are on the seal of compartment 29 (exhibit 10).
My succeeding post on this subject will expose that many other Deep Storage compartments at the Mint have been opened for dubious reasons as well. Which could be the reason the Mint didn’t provide us ALL the OJS inspection reports from Denver and West Point from 1993 through 2003 (exhibit 9).
We need to discuss the sample size of the gold verifications. In 1998 at Fort Knox 19,800 gold bars were inspected but only 105 of them were weighed and assayed (exhibit 7.2). That’s not much in my humble opinion. In any case, I expected a higher sample size.
In the 1953 audit at Fort Knox (download report here) in total 88,000 bars weighing 48,506,985 FTOs were counted for verification. About 10 % of those were weighed.
During the Continuing Audits from 1974 through 1986 it seems 2 % of the gold counted was weighed. A huge decline from 1953.
Exhibit 13. Audit report Fort Knox 1981.
Although gold bars tested to be out of tolerance during a Fort Knox audit in 1977 at a sample size of 2 %, by 1998 the sample size had been further debased to 0.53 %. I’m not a professional auditor (if you are one please contact me), but common sense suggests that when irregularities are found the sample size should be increased, not decreased.
To make matters worse, in 1999 at West Point the sample size was 0.52 %, and again, a melt appeared to be out of tolerance.
Exhibit 14. Gold verification report West Point 1999.
Was the sample size increased after 1999? Not really. At Fort Knox in July 2000 the samples size was 0.65 % (93 bars weighed of 14,262 bars counted). But wait until I show you what numbnuts were entrusted handling the scale for the audits of the world’s greatest gold hoard.
Let’s study the 2004 physical audit at West Point. Please read:
Exhibit 15.1. Gold verification report West Point 2004.
Exhibit 15.2. Gold verification report West Point 2004.
When all parties tried to reconcile the weight of samples on 22 and 23 July 2004, they found out, “the scale was reading at ounces rather than fine troy ounces”, because, “a setting on the scale had not been properly changed”. Allegedly this is what caused alternative readings in the books of the Director of the Mint’s Representative and the OIG’s Representative. And presumably because nobody could figure out how to use the scale correctly they decided to postpone re-weighing the samples until 24 August 2004. This failure of how to use a scale is a colossal disaster for the credibility of the Deep Storage audit procedures.
In 2004 a mere 71 bars were weighed and assayed, but it appeared that none of the auditors present knew how to rightly use the scale. The Memoranda mentions they found out the scale wasn’t properly functioning when weighing the assay samples, but what about the weighing of the actual bars? What about the weighing of every Deep Storage gold bar under the supervision of the OIG from 1993 until 2008? We have no guarantee this has ever been executed competently.
To repeat, the official explanation for this blunder reads, “the scale was reading at ounces rather than fine troy ounces”, because, “a setting on the scale had not been properly changed”.
First, in my mind there can be no imaginable circumstances in which setting of the scale should have been changed. The scale should read troy ounces to as many decimals all day long. That’s it. Why change the settings?
Second, they say, “the scale was reading at ounces rather than fine troy ounces”, but scales don’t read fine troy ounces so this statement is fake. A scale reads troy ounces, or digital ones can be set to reading grams; it cannot smell what is the purity of the gold and thus display fine troy ounces. That’s what the assay test is for.
In 2008 at West Point a similar disaster happened. Read with me:
Exhibit 16.1. Gold verification report West Point 2008.
Exhibit 16.2. Gold verification report West Point 2008.
The auditors couldn’t clearly read the decimal point. After assay samples were drilled to be taken out, the auditors weighed the same amount of gold granules to replace the samples, in order for the Deep Storage FTOs to remain flat in 2008. But the assay lab, White Sands Missile Range, which is a division of the US Army, found out from the paper work that the weight of the assay samples didn’t match the weight of the granules. And so West Point compartment 10-H had to be re-opened on 22 September 2008 to put an exact 10.346 ounces of gold in, instead of 1.0346 ounces.
What a catastrophe! Be aware that before weighing the granules the auditors weighed 86 gold bars and the assay samples. How do we know they properly weighed the assay samples and the totals of the 86 bars? The short answer is, we don’t.
Thereby, anybody with a sense for gold can see the difference between 10 ounces and 1 ounce of yellow metal.
From the examples above it should be clear that the Deep Storage gold has not been audited by professionals, but the precious metals have been verified by imbeciles. Clearly the scale was repeatedly handled by amateurs, which throws a wrench at the integrity of the entire US official gold reserves auditing project. I’m not at all surprised the US Mint has tried everything to keep the records of the auditors out from the pubic domain. Fortunately most of it will be out in the open eventually. The citizenry of the world deserves to know everything there is about the Deep Storage gold.
Let’s finish with one more comment from the West Point 2006 audit report.
Exhibit 17.1. Gold verification report West Point 2006.
The auditors couldn’t figure how to use the drill to take assay samples (how about pointing the tip to a bar and press the button). They also were oblivious how to calculate fine troy ounces. We must wonder if these people would be capable of tying their own shoelaces. In any case, the fact the US government chose to assign very inexperienced people widely opens the possibility that the audits are a complete hoax.
via http://ift.tt/2mrcNz2 Tyler Durden
Subject to change…
Map created by reddit user ShilohShay
The map above shows which countries Americans consider their allies and friends and those they consider unfriendly or even their enemy.
The data is based off a YouGov poll conducted between January 28 – February 1, 2017, which asked 7,150 adults living in the United States the question:
“Do you consider the countries listed below to be a friend or an enemy of the United States?”
Reddit user ShilohShay explains that:
For the purpose of extrapolating more interesting data from the poll, I only added a country to “Don’t Know” in this map if 50% or more of Americans picked that option. Otherwise I went with the plurality opinion.
While many of the enemies are the ones you’d expect, only 11% of Americans consider China their enemy and just 9% consider Cuba their enemy.
via http://ift.tt/2mbmdhA Tyler Durden
Via Mike Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
Tulsi Gabbard has continued to impress ever since she came on the national scene last year with her courageous and very public support for Bernie Sanders in the rigged Democratic primary.
Most recently, she continued to demonstrate her knowledge of geopolitics and willingness to stand up to America’s unelected government, aka the Deep State, in a recent interview with CNN’s Jake Taper.
Note, the clip is about a month old, but important to watch if you haven’t.
If the Democrats have any hope of becoming a decent opposition party which not only resists the worst of Trump, but also rejects the perverted neoliberal/Deep State ideology currently embraced by establishment Dems, Tulsi Gabbard will have to play a key role.
As I highlighted in last February’s post, It’s Not Just the GOP – The Democratic Party is Also Imploding:
A rising star within the Democratic ranks, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, cut herself off from the party’s establishment by resigning from her post as vice-chairman of the Democratic National Committee and endorsing Bernie Sanders for president.
Her position with the DNC required her to stay neutral in the primaries, but she said that “the stakes are too high.” She announced her decision on Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” and made a video where she explained her reasoning.
Gabbard, an Iraq war veteran, said she knows the cost of war firsthand. “I know how important it is that our commander-in-chief has the sound judgment required to know when to use America’s military power—and when not to use that power.”
The importance of this move cannot be understated. In no uncertain terms, this gesture publicly exposes the weakness of the “Clinton brand.” She clearly isn’t afraid of Hillary or of any repercussions from the Democratic Party elite, a fact that is underscored by the fact she came out with her endorsement after he got pummeled in South Carolina.
But let’s take a step back and think about this in the even bigger picture. You don’t get to Congress by being a political imbecile. On the surface, this move looks like career suicide, particularly since Hillary is probably about to clinch the nomination. Recall, Rep. Gabbard didn’t merely endorse Sanders after a bruising loss in South Carolina, she stepped down from her official position with the DNC to do so. This isn’t merely a statement, it’s the equivalent of dropping a neutron bomb on the Democratic establishment. So why did she do it?
While I think she genuinely agrees with Sanders on key issues, the reason she came out so aggressively is because she sees the writing on the wall. She’s playing the long game, and in the long game, Hillary Clinton represents a discredited and failed status quo, while Bernie Sanders represents a push toward the paradigm level change that will define the future.
When it comes to the Democrats, we need to see a lot less Pelosi and Schumer, and a lot more Gabbard.
via http://ift.tt/2lUqseT Tyler Durden