Jim Rickards: “There Will Be A War On Gold”

 

 

 


 

Following a recent keynote presentation at the Sprott Natural Resource Symposium, James G. Rickards, best-selling author and advisor to the U.S. Department of Defense and Intelligence Communities, was kind enough to share a few comments with the Sprott’s Thoughts publication.

 

It was a fascinating conversation, as Jim noted the world’s monetary structures resemble, “Two tectonic plates; there’s the natural tectonic plate—deflation—and then…the policy plate of inflation—which is money printing, currency wars, QE, operation twist, negative interest rates, and zero interest rates…”


“These [tectonic] forces are not only coming together,” he explained, “[But] they’re getting more powerful and they’re going to snap…When? No one knows… [But] the effect will be dramatic.”


That tectonic “snap”, Jim described, will have devastating impact on peoples’ confidence in fiat currencies. “Confidence will be lost very quickly,” he said. And like a coiled spring, “You will have your inflation—all at once.”


Even more chilling was a recent conversation Jim had with banking & government officials, while at the Pentagon.

 

“I was down in Washington, DC,” he explained, “[And visited] the Pentagon. We were doing a closed door war game [with] maybe 20 people around the table…government officials, CIA, military, think tank people and bankers, etc.


“I was talking about SDRs… [And] a very senior official in the US Treasury…sitting one person away from me (there was somebody in between us), he said, “Don’t you…”

To read Jim Rickard’s full interview comments, click here.

 

Please email with any questions about this article or precious metals HERE

 

 


 

Posted with permission and written by Tekoa Da Silva, Sprott’s Thoughts (CLICK FOR ORIGINAL)

via http://ift.tt/2bvysQ7 Sprott Money

Calif. Court Offers Possibility to Stop Worst Public Pension Abuses

under waterGov. Jerry Brown and the California legislature approved some very modest public employee pension reforms back in 2012. As I wrote about it way back then, the reforms didn’t stop the state’s massive pension bomb (the unfunded liabilities that come from the state and municipalities pushing pension debts further into the future while still promising employees more and more) from ticking, but it did stop some of the worst abuses of the system and tried to scale back future promises to keep the bomb from growing larger.

One of the practices the pension reforms aimed to stop was “pension spiking,” where government employees found ways to take advantage of bonuses and inflate their final salaries unnaturally while approaching retirement to increase the size of their post-retirement pensions. This has help contribute to the thousands of government employees in California receiving six-figure annual pensions.

But the employee unions resisted and have done everything they could to block these reforms from happening. At the heart of the fight is what’s referred to simply as the “California rule,” a reference to court decisions and interpretations of the state constitution that have made it nearly impossible to reduce anything considered an employee benefit once it has been implemented.

All of that may have changed, if a new ruling handed down this month by a state appellate court for the First District up in San Francisco. In response to a lawsuit by a union representing employees working for Marin County, judges ruled unanimously that pensions are not as set in stone as the unions would like the government to interpret. Yes, the court ruled, the public employees did have a right to pensions, but that right “is only to a reasonable pension—not an immutable entitlement to the most optimal formula of calculating the pension.” This means that lawmakers can put rules into place that stop pension spiking.

There’s a lot of cheering about the decision by those who understand the massive nature of the state’s pension crisis. Mind you, this ruling has to survive a state Supreme Court challenge as well.

And while I don’t want to piss all over the corn flakes of pension reformers here (given that I’m one of them, and the Reason Foundation itself is a major pusher of changes), there’s still the matter of whether there’s political willpower in the state and municipalities across California to actually defuse these pension bombs.

We already have examples where a municipality had been granted the opportunity to pull back on its pension commitments and declined. During Stockton’s bankruptcy, the city was given the chance to renegotiate its pension debts just like all other debts and kept things as they were. San Bernardino, currently still trying to negotiate its way out of bankruptcy isn’t cutting pensions either (but it did eliminate its entire fire department and contracted out to the county).

Because public employee unions are so powerful and influential in California politics, lawmakers face some potential risks in acting against their interests. And it’s not necessarily a partisan problem, though certainly California’s Democratic pro-union leadership contributes. For every Democrat supporting the Service Employees International Union, there’s a Republican supporting the California Corrections Peace Officers Union (well, maybe it’s not a one-to-one comparison given the state’s lopsided political affiliation).

But here’s something to think about if this court ruling holds up: If it is possible to make “reasonable” changes to pension programs, but lawmakers are afraid of the political consequences of doing so, then there’s the ballot initiative system. Pension reformers had introduced an initiative that they intended to get on the fall ballot. They withdrew it earlier this year expecting a very expensive fight in what’s looking to be a pretty hot election year.

They plan to reintroduce reforms for the 2018 election. If this court ruling holds up, then that could encourage the costly fight against the unions. We know from research that pension reforms that reduce taxpayer liabilities are very popular with voters. But as long as the state acts as though pensions are sacred cows, even pushing through initiatives might not fix the problems. Letting the cows grasp that the slaughterhouse actually exists might make them a little bit more cooperative.

Read the ruling here.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2c0dNTJ
via IFTTT

German Vice Chancellor Warns UK “Must Pay For Brexit” Or Europe Would Go “Down The Drain”

Germany’s outspoken economy minister, and Angela Merkel’s vice-chancellor, Sigma Gabriel continued to make waves over the weekend when he attacked her handling of the migrant crisis, forcing the German chancellor to defend her refugee policy and firing the gun on the campaign for a general election next year. Gabriel, leader of the left-leaning Social Democrats and Ms Merkel’s junior coalition partner, called for a cap on the number of migrants entering Germany, saying the government had “underestimated the challenge” of integrating the 1million refugees who arrived in 2015.

As the FT comments, his remarks show how battle lines are being drawn between Germany’s main parties ahead of next year’s election. As reported last night, his remarks coincide with a poll showing that one in two Germans did not want Ms Merkel, who has been chancellor since 2005, to remain in the post after next year’s elections. She has refused to confirm whether she will stand again.

In a television interview on Sunday, Ms Merkel said “much had been achieved” in overcoming the refugee crisis, but there remained “lots still to do”. She expressed no regrets about her decision last year to throw open Germany’s borders to asylum-seekers, a move that has damaged her CDU party’s prospects in next year’s elections and led to the rise of Alternative for Germany, an insurgent party whose call for strict controls on immigration is resonating with millions of voters.

Mr Gabriel has called for a migrant cap based on Germany’s capacity to successfully integrate newcomers, a move Ms Merkel has always ruled out. His intervention is significant because it is usually the CDU’s Bavarian sister party, the CSU, that criticises her open-door refugee policy rather than the SPD, which has been much more supportive. Mr Gabriel said the country needed 25,000 more teachers, for example, for the 300,000 additional schoolchildren who had come into the country. “You can’t repeat that every year,” he added.

 

In her interview, Ms Merkel listed the measures her government had taken to improve the process of integrating foreigners, including hiring thousands more officials to work in the country’s refugee agency, speeding up the deportation of migrants denied asylum and introducing tough new rules to encourage refugees to learn German and attend integration courses or face sanctions.

However, recent polls show that many in Germany are unconvinced about the country’s ability to absorb so many foreigners, many of them Muslims from Iraq and Syria.  Such misgivings increased after two terror attacks in Bavaria in July committed by refugees with links to the militant group Isis.

Sensing a political opportunity, Gabriel said it was not enough to keep repeating “we can do this” — the Merkel catchphrase that has become a leitmotif on the issue. “They have to create the preconditions for us to achieve this,” he added.

That was not all. Having slammed Merkel’s foreign policy, the ascendant vice-chancellor then focused on foreign policy and said that Britain must not be allowed to “keep the nice things” that come with EU membership without taking responsibility for the fallout from Brexit.

As Theresa May called a cabinet meeting to discuss the UK government’s Brexit strategy on Wednesday, Gabriel warned if the issue was badly handled and other member countries followed Britain’s lead, Europe would go “down the drain, the Guardian reported, noting that the “UK must pay for Brexit.”

“Brexit is bad but it won’t hurt us as much economically as some fear – it’s more of a psychological problem and it’s a huge problem politically,” he told a news conference.

Gabriel lamented that in the aftermath of Brexit, “the world now regarded Europe as an unstable continent” adding that “if we organise Brexit in the wrong way, then we’ll be in deep trouble, so now we need to make sure that we don’t allow Britain to keep the nice things, so to speak, related to Europe while taking no responsibility,” Gabriel said.

Since Britain’s 23 June referendum vote to leave the European Union, all eyes have been on Germany to indicate a way out of danger for the 27 members who will remain, and so far Germany has been stuck in a holding pattern, unable to provide much needed guidance to its European peers. In an interview with German broadcaster ARD on Sunday, Merkel said: “We all agree in the European Union that Britain’s exit, the result of the referendum, has a big impact.”

“Rather than rushing into activities, we should perhaps first take time to think about what we, as the 27 countries, must do better,” she said, adding that this was the direction that talks with partner countries were going in.

Last Wednesday, during the latest toothless European summit, Merkel said remaining member states must listen to each other carefully and avoid rushing into policy decisions. “If you do it wrong from the beginning and you don’t listen – and act just for the sake of acting – then you can make many mistakes,” the conservative German leader said.

Meanwhile, the sharp rhetoric is expected to escalate as Europe is unable to negotiate Brexit and formalize its decision until the UK invokes Article 50, something which will likely not take place until next year. A British government spokesman said in mid-August that prime minister Theresa May will not begin formal divorce talks with the EU before the end of the year.

Disappointed EU leaders, facing mounting nationalist pressures of their own, are refusing to countenance a “Europe a la carte” the Guardian concludes, by letting Britain select the parts of its future relationship that it may like, such as access to the bloc’s single market of 500 million consumers, while dispensing with EU principles such as the free movement of people.

Lamentably for Europe, just as central banks have recently become far more open and direct about how powerless they truly are to remedy the global economic contraction, so the post-Brexit fallout, whose adverse impact on the British economy has yet to be determined, is exposed just how frail the European experiment has become, and should one more anti-European party win in domestic elections, the entire mirage of a successful united Europe may finally be revealed for the empty facade it has been since day one.

via http://ift.tt/2bvwPSo Tyler Durden

How Process Battles Monkey-Wrench Policy: New at Reason

Arguments over process can actually be arguments over policy.

A. Barton Hinkle writes:

Two recent controversies—one national, one in Virginia—prove it. But they also prove two other things: that process still matters, and that ignoring process can impede policy.

This past Monday a federal judge temporarily halted the Obama administration’s directive on accommodating transgender students in public education, at the behest of 13 states that had sued to block it.

The states argue that the administration improperly promulgated new regulations outside of the normal rule-making process, and U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor said they had a good chance of prevailing on that point.

But the states made the challenge in the first place because they clearly don’t like the substance of the directive.

Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange says he objects to “social experimenters in Washington” writing state policies about bathroom use. What he really means is that he objects to letting members of one biological sex use the bathrooms and locker rooms designated for use by the other biological sex, regardless of their self-identification.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2bUI4Vx
via IFTTT

Huma Adebin Announces Separation From Anthony Weiner Over Latest Sexting Scandal

Earlier today we wondered how long, in the aftermath of the latest Anthony Weiner “dick-pic” scandal, the marriage between Hillary Clinton’s top lieutenant and her allegedly cheating husband would last. The answer: a few hours. Moments ago, Huma Abedin issued a statement announcing that she has decided to separate from her husband, Anthony Weiner, the former congressman who has been repeatedly caught sexting with other women.

“After long and painful consideration and work on my marriage, I have made the decision to separate from my husband,” Abedin, a top Hillary Clinton aide, said in a statement.

“Anthony and I remain devoted to doing what is best for our son, who is the light of our life. During this difficult time, I ask for respect for our privacy.”

The announcement comes after the New York Post reported on Weiner’s latest sexually explicit messages with another woman. Weiner resigned from Congress in 2011 after “mistakenly” tweeting an explicit image of himself intended as a direct message.

Weiner, whose career ended after a sexting scandal, was reportedly exchanging messages with a woman on July 31, 2015 when he changed the subject of the explicit conversation, saying, “Someone just climbed into my bed,” according to the New York Post.

He attached a picture of his crotch, with his son curled up nearby in a blanket. “You do realize you can see you[r] Weiner in that pic??” the woman responded, according to the Post.

Earlier this month, Weiner gave his phone number to and offered to share his location with a college student during a private online chat, according to the Post.

via http://ift.tt/2bMjK9m Tyler Durden

“Election Fraud Underway” – NBC Affiliate Posts “Election Results” For Florida Race That Hasn’t Happened Yet

Republican candidate for Florida House District 86, Laurel Bennett, was a bit shocked over the weekend when she discovered that a local West Palm Beach NBC affiliate, WPTV, reported that she had lost a race even though votes hadn't been cast yet.  Why do we need voters when it's far easier to just skip straight to the results? 

The note from WPTV showed Laurel getting 12,189 votes or 45%.  Laurel posted the following comment to her facebook page in response to the erroneous report:

“Election fraud is already taking place here in Palm Beach County!  WPTV is posting election results, today, when the race is Tuesday! Please spread the word and contact everyone you know to vote Bennett on Tuesday! I have a snapshot of it! End corruption in Palm Beach! It begins with you, the voter!”

 

Laurel Bennett

Laurel Bennett

 

Accordig to Bizpac Review, the station claims they were just "testing their election page" in an effort to "bring you fast and accurate election results on election day."

“In order to make sure we bring you fast and accurate election results on election day, we are testing our election page ahead of time with test data.  On election day, this message will be removed and the actual election results will be displayed on this page.”

Sure, because it's impossible to "test" an election page without filling in "test" results.  We're sure this "test" wouldn't have a chilling effect on voters who looked online to discover their candidate had already lost. 

via http://ift.tt/2c3SfVs Tyler Durden

US Slams Turkish Bombing Of American Coalition Partners As “Unacceptable And A Source Of Deep Concern”

Things are turning increasingly sour for the US, which is barely able to keep track of which feuding factions it supports in the escalating Syrian war.

Recall that over the weekend we reported how “Joe Biden Was Humiliated In Turkish “Appeasement” As Erdogan Bombs US Allies In Syria.” Concerned by Turkey’s recent overtures toward Russia, which even hinted at military cooperation between Moscow and Ankara, Biden arrived in Turkey last Wednesday, just as Turkey sent tanks into northern Syria, with nothing but appeasement for the Turkish president whose unprecedented crackdown on human rights has left over 100,000 Turks arrested, terminated, or otherwise “purged” without anything more than an occasional verbal rebuke by the western “democratic” powers. 

Meeting with Erdogan and Turkey’s prime minister in Ankara, Biden delivered a message of alliance and conciliation: “Let me say it for one last time: The American people stand with you … Barack Obama was one of the first people you called. But I do apologize. I wish I could have been here earlier,” Biden said.

That is all Erdogan needed to hear as he then proceeded to launch a bombing campaign not against Islamic State holdouts in proximity to the Turkish border – the stated reason for the Turkish incursion – but against his legacy foes, the Kurdish militia, the YPG, which problematically for the US, is part of the broader U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) coalition.

So, less than a week after Biden’s attempt to appease Erdogan, earlier today the United States, now finding itself in the paradoxical position of directly supporting two warring factions, criticized clashes between Turkish forces and some opposition groups in northern Syria as “unacceptable,” calling on all armed actors in the fighting to stand down and focus on battling ISIS.

Cited by NBC, Brett McGurk, the special presidential envoy for the coalition to counter ISIS, said on his official Twitter account that according to the DOD “we want to make clear that we find these clashes — in areas where [ISIS] is not located — unacceptable and a source of deep concern.”

 “We call on all armed actors to stand down… the U.S. is actively engaged to facilitate such deconfliction and unity of focus on [ISIS], which remains a lethal and common threat,” he added.

At the start of Turkey’s now almost week-long cross-border offensive, Turkish tanks, artillery and warplanes provided Syrian rebel allies the firepower to capture swiftly the Syrian frontier town of Jarablus from ISIS militants. Since then, Turkish forces have mainly pushed into areas controlled
by forces aligned to the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a coalition
that encompasses the Kurdish YPG militia and which has been backed by
Washington to fight the jihadists.

NATO member Turkey justifies its attack on the US coalition member by claiming that YPG is an extension
of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has waged a
three-decade insurgency in Turkey’s largely Kurdish southeast. As we previously reported, a group monitoring the tangled, five-year-old conflict in Syria said 41 people were killed by Turkish air strikes as Turkish forces pushed south on Sunday. Turkey denied there were any civilian deaths, saying 25 Kurdish militants were killed.

Turkish officials say their goal in Syria is to drive out ISIS but also to ensure Kurdish militia fighters do not expand the territory they already control along Turkey’s border.

As a result of today’s verbal condemnation by the US, we expect Erdogan – who continues to hold all the Trump cards over Europe’s future with some 2 million Syrian refugees housed within its borders, and which can be released into Europe on a moment’s notice – to unleash another verbal assault on the US and its western allies, coupled with another Russian pivot threat, to show the Obama administration who is and remains in charge of the latest escalation in the 5 year old Syrian conflict.

Meanwhile, the US will find itself increasingly pressed by its “coalition partners” who will demand justification why some allies remain more equal than other allies, and just how the administration decides why and who gets preferential treatment.

via http://ift.tt/2c915UK Tyler Durden

Dallas Fed Dead-Cat-Bounce Dies – Economy Contracts For 20th Month In A Row

Having jumped miraculously from -18 to -1.3 in July, August’s Dallas Fed plunged back to -6.2 – contracting for the 20th month in a row. The worse than expected headline data came despite a rise in new orders as the number of employees, average workweek, and capex all plunged into contraction. Hope also tumbled from 18.4 to 7.0 with inventories and new orders expected to slow.

Despite the surge in oil prices, the Dallas economy continues to contract…

 

Charts: Bloomberg

via http://ift.tt/2c3GvSU Tyler Durden

Obamacare Is Stuck in a Feedback Loop of Bad Policy and Bad Politics

Obamacare has both a policy problem and a political problem, and the two problems are now caught in a predictable feedback loop which ensures that the law not only continues to break down, but that it will be difficult or impossible to fix.

The health law’s policy problem is plain for all to see: Premiums for individual insurance sold through the law’s exchanges are rising rapidly, enrollment is far lower than initially expected, and insurers are dropping out of the system. These effects are directly linked. States have begun to approve insurer requests for premium hikes, and in places such as Kentucky, Georgia, Virginia, and Mississippi, insurers are receiving permission for double-digit increases. As The Wall Street Journal reported last week, regulators fear that if they do not approve these rates, insurers will simply drop out of the exchange business entirely. In Tennessee, two of the three insurers in the exchanges were allowed to refile their rate requests, according to the state’s insurance commissioner, out of concern that otherwise they would exit the market entirely. These hikes are not arbitrary or over the top. The state’s actuaries have said they are justified; they reflect the cost of covering claims to beneficiaries.

Several major insurers, of course, have already substantially scaled back their participation in the exchanges, leading to a situation in which a third of counties in the U.S. will have just one insurance provider operating through the exchange, a significant increase from last year. The Obama administration released a rather defensive-seeming analysis last week finding that premiums wouldn’t rise much for most people buying through the exchanges because the subsidies will rise with the price of coverage, but that simply means that taxpayers will pick up the rising cost of coverage. And that provides only temporary relief. The provision that protects health law beneficiaries from hikes expires starting in 2019. In addition, the administration seems to be backing away from the promise that President Obama made repeatedly when advertising the law that “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” having removed language to that effect from the federally run health exchange portal.

In any case, experts—even some who generally favor the law and its goals—are starting to question the stability of the exchanges. The current problems facing the exchanges “threaten the future stability of these markets and will require serious policy solutions to address,” Caroline Pearson, a senior vice president at health consulting firm Avalere, told Stat News. Uwe Reinhardt, a prominent health economist at Princeton University, warned this week that the exchanges could implode. “We all know about the death spiral that actuaries worry about,” he said in a recent interview with Vox, “and I think what you’re seeing now is a mild version of that. These things accelerate, as premiums keep rising.”

That is the essence of Obamacare’s policy problem (or, one could argue, problems): It is not working as promised or intended, and, even if it does not totally melt down, it is not, on its current trajectory, likely to improve.

Obamacare’s political problem, meanwhile, is related to its policy problem: There is nothing close to consensus on how to fix the law’s problems, or whether to even try.

Thus far, the political dynamic around the law has been almost entirely binary, with Republicans pushing for repeal and Democrats defending its coverage gains. Some tweaks have been made at the margins, mostly small changes that further destabilize the law’s policy scheme in order to bolster it politically (the Obama administration’s decision to grandfather in many plans in order to keep its promise that those who like their plans can keep their plans, for example). Health policy wonks on the right and left have batted about various reform schemes, of course, offering various plans to fix, expand, and totally upend the law—sometimes only to put many of its primary elements right back in place.

But at the national political level, there has been little meaningful discussion of how to modify the law; instead, the debate has focused on the question of whether or not the law should even exist. More than six years after Obamacare became law, there is still no consensus on this question. In part that’s because, even though the law has survived legal challenges and technical meltdowns, covering millions in the process, it has also suffered a persistent string of failures and frustrations, leaving many to continue questioning whether or not it was ever really a good idea, long after its passage. More adults continue to hold an unfavorable view of the law than a favorable one.

Because this existential question has not yet been resolved, the political dynamic has remained unchanged. And what that means is that fixes or reforms of any kind lack the requisite political support to pass. In recent months, Democrats have settled on support for a “public option”—a government run health insurance plan that would compete alongside private insurers in the exchanges. President Obama endorsed the idea in an article for the Journal of the American Medical Association, while Clinton came out in favor of it too, though neither has devoted significant energy to selling the idea publicly. After years of promises, meanwhile, Republicans finally released a pseudo-plan to replace the law, a Frankenstein-sketch of reanimated ideas, many of which are already included in Obamacare in some other form. Needless to say, the current Republican standard-bearer, Donald Trump, has not exactly devoted energy to making the case for this plan.

In my view, the policy cases for both reforms are weak at best: Obamacare already included a substitute for the public option in the form of a series of government-backed nonprofit co-ops, the majority of which have already failed. The Republican plan is just reheated GOP health policy leftovers, designed in a way that might be even worse than Obamacare in some respects.

But in some sense, the policy cases, for or against, are beside the point. Because in any political environment that requires bipartisan support—the likely case, unless one party manages to secure both chambers of Congress and the presidency in the upcoming election—it is almost impossible to imagine any consensus.

Democrats and supporters of the law will, of course, say that this is entirely the fault of intransigent Republicans for refusing to rally behind a law that is providing coverage to millions. But that’s a difficult case to make given the consistent weakness of public support for the law, and even more difficult as it looks to be unraveling before our eyes. It is essentially an argument that Republicans must now rally around a law that they opposed on the grounds that it would fail, and that is now failing, by empowering the same people who promised that the law would not fail to fix it.

Even if you accept the argument that the law could be fixed if only Republicans would come around, what it amounts to is an admission of a design flaw built into the law’s joint policy-political scheme: Democrats passed a major law with multiple potential points of failure that could only be addressed with bipartisan support—but they passed it over the strenuous unified objections of the other party.

Republicans are not blameless either. As a party and political institution, the GOP wasted years both before and after the law essentially declining to make a positive case for any kind of health policy at all, leaving open the door for Democrats to pass the reform that they did. The GOP’s total opposition to the law, combined with a lack of clearly articulated alternatives, has rendered the party less trustworthy on the issue.

And so the fate of the law, and of national health care policy more broadly, is stuck at an impasse: If the law’s exchanges continue on their current wobbly trajectory, they will continue to break down, perhaps collapsing completely or perhaps not, but in any case functioning less and less well over time. But barring an unlikely electoral majority, the political dynamic surrounding the law is likely to block any fix or wholesale do-over. In the meantime, the ongoing policy failures will continue to harden the political dynamic, making the nation’s health policy problems even harder to address. Obamacare is bad policy magnified by bad politics, and for the foreseeable future, its problems are likely to grow worse on both fronts.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2c3OhMu
via IFTTT

Black Panther Party Leader Blasts Billary: “Democrats Are Pimping Us Politically, Promising Everything, Giving Nothing”

Submitted by Mac Slavo via SHTFPlan.com,

It seems that Donald Trump’s recent speech urging black Americans to vote for him because of failing Clinton and Obama policies has not fallen on deaf ears.

African Americans, who have for decades voted en masse for democrat party candidates to the tune of 90% support or more, have finally realized that just because a politician says he or she is going to do something doesn’t mean it will actually happen.

We’re sure you remember Obama’s promises of free health care, free education, more jobs and better communities. That not even the first black American President was able to improve the lives of minorities may have finally woken some people up.

The following interview with New Black Panther Quanell X requires no further commentary – he breaks it down quite succinctly:

Let me say this to the brothers and sisters who listened and watched that speech… We may not like the vessel [Donald Trump] that said what he said, but I ask us to truly examine what he said.

 

Because it is a fact that for 54 years we have been voting for the Democratic Party like no other race in America. And they have not given us the same loyalty and love that we have given them. We, as black people, have to reexamine the relationship. We’re being pimped like prostitutes and they’re the big pimps pimping us politically… promising us everything and we get nothing in return. We gotta step back now as black people and we gotta look at all the parties and vote our best interests.

 

 

I want to say and encourage the brothers and sisters… Barack Obama, our president, served two terms… the first black president ever… but did our condition get better?  Did financially, politically, academically with education in our community… did things get better? Are our young people working more?

The condition got worse.

Watch the full interview:

via http://ift.tt/2bunxsG Tyler Durden