Category: zerohedge

Authored by Ray McGovern via ConsortiumNews.com,

Four years ago on June 15, 2016, a shadowy Internet persona calling itself “Guccifer 2.0” appeared out of nowhere to claim credit for hacking emails from the Democratic National Committee on behalf of WikiLeaks and implicate Russia by dropping “telltale” but synthetically produced Russian “breadcrumbs” in his metadata.

Thanks largely to the corporate media, the highly damaging story actually found in those DNC emails – namely, that the DNC had stacked the cards against Bernie Sanders in the party’s 2016 primary – was successfully obscured.

The media was the message; and the message was that Russia had used G-2.0 to hack into the DNC, interfering in the November 2016 election to help Donald Trump win.

Almost everybody still “knows” that – from the man or woman in the street to the forlorn super sleuth, Special Counsel Robert Swan Mueller III, who actually based indictments of Russian intelligence officers on Guccifer 2.0.

Blaming Russia was a magnificent distraction from the start and quickly became the vogue.

The soil had already been cultivated for “Russiagate” by Democratic PR gems like Donald Trump “kissing up” to former KGB officer Vladimir Putin and their “bromance” (bromides that former President Barack Obama is still using). Four years ago today, “Russian meddling” was off and running – on steroids – acquiring far more faux-reality than the evanescent Guccifer 2.0 persona is likely to get.

Here’s how it went down:

• June 12: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced he had “emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication.”
• June 14: DNC contractor CrowdStrike tells the media that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there is evidence it was injected by Russians.
• June 15: Guccifer 2.0 arises from nowhere; affirms the DNC/CrowdStrike allegations of the day before; claims responsibility for hacking the DNC; claims to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that forensic examination shows was deliberately tainted with “Russian fingerprints.” This to “corroborate” claims made by CrowdStrike executives the day before.

Adding to other signs of fakery, there is hard evidence that G-2.0 was operating mostly in U.S. time zones and with local settings peculiar to a device configured for use within the US, as Tim Leonard reports here and here.)

Leonard is a software developer who started to catalog and archive evidence related to Guccifer 2.0 in 2017 and has issued detailed reports on digital forensic discoveries made by various independent researchers – as well as his own – over the past three years. Leonard points out that WikiLeaks said it did not use any of the emails G2.0 sent it, though it later published similar emails, opening the possibility that whoever created G2.0 knew what WikiLeaks had and sent it duplicates with the Russian fingerprints.

As Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) told President Trump in a memorandum of July 24, 2017, titled “Was the ‘Russian Hack’ an Inside Job?”:

“We do not think that the June 12, 14, & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been ready to publish and to ‘show’ that it came from a Russian hack.”

We added this about Guccifer 2.0 at the time:

“The recent forensic studies fill in a critical gap. Why the FBI neglected to perform any independent forensics on the original ‘Guccifer 2.0’ material remains a mystery – as does the lack of any sign that the ‘hand-picked analysts’ from the FBI, CIA, and NSA, who wrote the misnomered ‘Intelligence Community’ Assessment dated January 6, 2017, gave any attention to forensics.”

Guccifer 2.0 Seen As a Fraud

In our July 24, 2017 memorandum we also told President Trump that independent cyber investigators and VIPs had determined “that the purported ‘hack’ of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else. Rather it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider. Information was leaked to implicate Russia. We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI.” [Emphasis added.].

Right. Ask the FBI. At this stage, President Trump might have better luck asking Attorney General William Barr, to whom the FBI is accountable – at least in theory. As for Barr, VIPs informed him in a June 5, 2020 memorandum that the head of CrowdStrike had admitted under oath on Dec. 5, 2017 that CrowdStrike has no concrete evidence that the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016 were hacked – by Russia or by anyone else. [Emphasis added.] This important revelation has so far escaped attention in the Russia-Russia-Russia “mainstream” media (surprise, surprise, surprise!).

Back to the Birth of G-2

It boggles the mind that so few Americans could see Russiagate for the farce it was. Most of the blame, I suppose, rests on a thoroughly complicit Establishment media. Recall: Assange’s announcement on June 12, 2016 that he had Hillary Clinton-related emails came just six weeks before the Democratic convention. I could almost hear the cry go up from the DNC: Houston, We Have a Problem!

Here’s how bad the problem for the Democrats was. The DNC emails eventually published by WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016, just three days before the Democratic convention, had been stolen on May 23 and 25. This would have given the DNC time to learn that the stolen material included documents showing how the DNC and Clinton campaign had manipulated the primaries and created a host of other indignities, such that Sanders’ chances of winning the nomination amounted to those of a snowball’s chance in the netherworld.

To say this was an embarrassment would be the understatement of 2016. Worse still, given the documentary nature of the emails and WikiLeaks’ enviable track record for accuracy, there would be no way to challenge their authenticity. Nevertheless, with the media in full support of the DNC and Clinton, however, it turned out to be a piece of cake to divert attention from the content of the emails to the “act of war” (per John McCain) that the Russian “cyber attack” was said to represent.

The outcome speaks as much to the lack of sophistication on the part of American TV watchers, as it does to the sophistication of the Democrats-media complicity and cover-up. How come so few could figure out what was going down?

It was not hard for some experienced observers to sniff a rat. Among the first to speak out was fellow Consortium News columnist Patrick Lawrence, who immediately saw through the Magnificent Diversion. I do not know if he fancies duck hunting, but he shot the Russiagate canard quite dead – well before the Democratic convention was over.

Magnificent Diversion

In late July 2016, Lawrence was sickened, as he watched what he immediately recognized as a well planned, highly significant deflection. The Clinton-friendly media was excoriating Russia for “hacking” DNC emails and was glossing over what the emails showed; namely, that the Clinton Dems had pretty much stolen the nomination from Sanders.

It was already clear even then that the Democrats, with invaluable help from intelligence leaks and other prepping to the media, had made good use of those six weeks between Assange’s announcement that he had emails “related to Hillary Clinton” and the opening of the convention.

The media was primed to castigate the Russians for “hacking,” while taking a prime role in the deflection. It was a liminal event of historic significance, as we now know. The “Magnificent Diversion” worked like a charm – and then it grew like Topsy.

Lawrence said he had “fire in the belly” on the morning of July 25 as the Democratic convention began and wrote what follows pretty much “in one long, furious exhale” within 12 hours of when the media started really pushing the “the Russians-did-it” narrative.

Below is a slightly shortened text of his article:

“Now wait a minute, all you upper-case “D” Democrats. A flood light suddenly shines on your party apparatus, revealing its grossly corrupt machinations to fix the primary process and sink the Sanders campaign, and within a day you are on about the evil Russians having hacked into your computers to sabotage our elections …

Is this a joke? Are you kidding? Is nothing beneath your dignity? Is this how lowly you rate the intelligence of American voters? …

Clowns. Subversives. Do you know who you remind me of? I will tell you: Nixon, in his famously red-baiting campaign – a disgusting episode – … during his first run for the Senate, in 1950. Your political tricks are as transparent and anti-democratic as his, it is perfectly fair to say.

I confess to a heated reaction to events since last Friday [July 22] among the Democrats, specifically in the Democratic National Committee. I should briefly explain …

The Sanders people have long charged that the DNC has had its fingers on the scale, as one of them put it the other day, in favor of Hillary Clinton’s nomination. The prints were everywhere – many those of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who has repeatedly been accused of anti-Sanders bias. Schultz, do not forget, co-chaired Clinton’s 2008 campaign against Barack Obama. That would be enough to disqualify her as the DNC’s chair in any society that takes ethics seriously, but it is not enough in our great country. Chairwoman she has been for the past five years.

Last Friday WikiLeaks published nearly 20,000 DNC email messages providing abundant proof that Sanders and his staff were right all along. The worst of these, involving senior DNC officers, proposed Nixon-esque smears having to do with everything from ineptitude within the Sanders campaign to Sanders as a Jew in name only and an atheist by conviction.

Wasserman fell from grace on Monday. Other than this, Democrats from President Obama to Clinton and numerous others atop the party’s power structure have had nothing to say, as in nothing, about this unforgivable breach. They have, rather, been full of praise for Wasserman Schultz. Brad Marshall, the D.N.C.’s chief financial officer, now tries to deny that his Jew-baiting remark referred to Sanders. Good luck, Brad: Bernie is the only Jew in the room.

The caker came on Sunday, when Robby Mook, Clinton’s campaign manager, appeared on ABC’s “This Week” and … CNN’s “State of the Union” to assert that the D.N.C.’s mail was hacked “by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump.” He knows this – knows it in a matter of 24 hours – because “experts” – experts he will never name – have told him so. …

What’s disturbing to us is that experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, and other experts are now saying that Russians are releasing these emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump.

Is that what disturbs you, Robby? Interesting. Unsubstantiated hocus-pocus, not the implications of these events for the integrity of Democratic nominations and the American political process? The latter is the more pressing topic, Robby. You are far too long on anonymous experts for my taste, Robby. And what kind of expert, now that I think of it, is able to report to you as to the intentions of Russian hackers – assuming for a sec that this concocted narrative has substance?

Making lemonade out of a lemon, the Clinton campaign now goes for a twofer. Watch as it advances the Russians-did-it thesis on the basis of nothing, then shoots the messenger, then associates Trump with its own mess – and, finally, gets to ignore the nature of its transgression (which any paying-attention person must consider grave).

Preposterous, readers. Join me, please, in having absolutely none of it. There is no “Russian actor” at the bottom of this swamp, to put my position bluntly. You will never, ever be offered persuasive evidence otherwise.

Reluctantly, I credit the Clinton campaign and the DNC with reading American paranoia well enough such that they may make this junk stick. In a clear sign the entire crowd-control machine is up and running, The New York Times had a long, unprofessional piece about Russian culprits in its Monday editions. It followed Mook’s lead faithfully: not one properly supported fact, not one identified “expert,” and more conditional verbs than you’ve had hot dinners – everything cast as “could,” “might,” “appears,” “would,” “seems,” “may.” Nothing, once again, as to the very serious implications of this affair for the American political process.

Now comes the law. The FBI just announced that it will investigate – no, not the DNC’s fraudulent practices (which surely breach statutes), but “those who pose a threat in cyberspace.” … it is the invocation of the Russians that sends me over the edge. My bones grow weary …

We must take the last few days’ events as a signal of what Clinton’s policy toward Russia will look like should she prevail in November. … Turning her party’s latest disgrace into an occasion for another round of Russophobia is mere preface, but in it you can read her commitment to the new crusade.

Trump, to make this work, must be blamed for his willingness to negotiate with Moscow. This is now among his sins. Got that? Anyone who says he will talk to the Russians has transgressed the American code. … Does this not make Hillary Clinton more than a touch Nixonian?

I am developing nitrogen bends from watching the American political spectacle. One can hardly tell up from down. Which way for a breath of air?”

A year later Lawrence interviewed several of us VIPs, including our two former NSA technical directors and on Aug. 9, 2017 published an article for The Nation titled, “A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack.”

Lawrence wrote, “Former NSA experts, now members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPs), say it wasn’t a hack at all, but a leak – an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system.”

And so it was. But, sadly, that cut across the grain of the acceptable Russia-gate narrative at The Nation at the time. Its staff, seriously struck by the HWHW (Hillary Would Have Won) virus, rose up in rebellion. A short time later, there was no more room at The Nation for his independent-minded writing.

Singapore’s geographical location makes it one of the most important maritime trade lines connecting the global economy. It’s home to one of the largest ports in the world, on par with ones seen in Hong Kong, London, Shanghai, and Dubai. Port activity data via Singapore’s government is suggesting world trade has yet to recover, which means a V-shaped recovery in the global economy is unlikely in the back half of the year.

New data from the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) shows the number of vessel callings (otherwise known as port of call — an intermediate stop for a ship on its scheduled journey for cargo operation or taking on supplies or fuel) at the Port of Singapore sank in May to 3,059, the lowest since 1993, or near a three-decade low. 

Containerized activity remained sluggish last month, despite the hopes for a recovery in world trade — Reuters notes shipping activity and bunker demand is expected to slump through June. 

Blank sailings surged in the first week of June, with total blanked capacity nearing 4 million twenty-foot equivalent unit (TEU), research firm Sea-Intelligence said last week.

A plunge in world trade has severely weighed on marine refueling, or bunkering, activity in Singapore. 

“COVID-19 finally caught up in terms of bunker trend,” a Singapore-based bunker fuel trader told Reuters. 

Singapore bunker fuel sales volumes fell in May to 3.925 million tonnes, down 2% YoY, and -5% from April, reported MPA. 

A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S, the world’s largest container line, warned not too long ago that world trade would continue to falter with declines extending well through 2Q20. 

Maersk dashed all hope that a V-shaped recovery would be seen in the back half of the year, instead suggesting a U-shaped recovery is more plausible. 

The World Trade Organization (WTO) published its Goods Trade Barometer in late May, which suggested a sharp contraction in world trade would extend through summer. 

Last week, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) warned the COVID-19 pandemic triggered one of the most severe global recessions in nearly a century and will leave the world scarred for years. 

OECD chief economist Laurence Boone wrote in the report: 

“Most people see a V-shaped recovery, but we think it’s going to stop halfway. By the end of 2021, the loss of income exceeds that of any previous recession over the last 100 years outside wartime, with dire and long-lasting consequences for people, firms, and governments.” 

If Singapore ship arrivals don’t improve and bunker fuel demand doesn’t accelerate – then how can there be a global rebound in world trade in the back half of the year? 

Now that the distinctive inter-Korean liaison office at Kaesong lies in ruins following Tuesday’s major escalation, North Korea is reportedly preparing to send troops into the border area where they will resume “all kinds of regular military exercises” just meters away from South Korea.

According to South Korean news agency Yonhap, North Korea’s military is reviewing plans to reenter the DMZ that was previously disarmed under an inter-Korean agreement.

“Our army is keeping a close watch on the current situation in which the north-south relations are turning worse and worse, and getting itself fully ready for providing a sure military guarantee to any external measures to be taken by the Party and government,” the General Staff of the Korean People’s Army said in a statement carried by KCNA, the Korean Central News Agency.

The North Korean military is preparing “an action plan for taking measures to make the army advance again into the zones that had been demilitarized under the north-south agreement, turn the front line into a fortress and further heighten the military vigilance against the south.”

“We will map out the military action plans for rapidly carrying out the said opinions to receive approval from the Party Central Military Commission.”

A photo of the aftermath of this morning’s attack has surfaced on Twitter, as the distinctive blue building clearly lies in ruins.

picture is out. the higher building suffered a lot of damage too. Anyway it is useless. pic.twitter.com/HNKW9bh0pS

— Taepodong (@stoa1984) June 16, 2020

Earlier, the South warned that it would meet any further North Korean aggression with “a strong response.”

Following an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council standing committee to discuss Tuesday’s attack, the Blue House delivered an unusually aggressive – according to Yonhap – warning.

“The government expresses strong regret over North Korea’s unilateral explosion of the inter-Korean liaison office building,” Kim You-geun, deputy director of Cheong Wa Dae’s national security office, told reporters after the meeting. “We sternly warn that we will strongly respond to it if North Korea takes any action that further worsens the situation.”

Though Kaesong is considered a special border region, it is, technically, in North Korea.

Personally, we don’t see how invading your own country is much of a gesture. But maybe doing some jumping jacks surrounded by an assortment of heavy artillery and tanks might.

Senior editor Ash Bennington joins managing editor Ed Harrison to unpack today’s positive retail numbers as well as whether the recession is now “over” (even if in name only). Bennington and Harrison explore what this actually means in the technical sense, but how it may lend itself to a double-dip recession in the same way the Great Depression was. They also discuss the increased spread of the virus, the public perception of COVID-19 wrecking more havoc on the economy, and Jay Powell’s testimony before the Senate Banking Committee today. In the intro, Peter Cooper discusses how the Fed’s announcement on its corporate bond-buying program as well as burgeoning retail sales numbers have supported the stock market rallies this week.

Submitted by Jan Nieuwenhuijs from Voima Insight.

On June 10, 2020, Fed Chair Jerome Powell stated he is considering “yield curve control.” Previously, in the 1940s, when the Federal Reserve controlled the yield curve, it created deeply negative real interest rates. If repeated today, this would cause the gold price to sky-rocket.

Due to the current economic crisis, the U.S. federal deficit is reaching “unprecedented” levels. Preliminary data suggests the federal deficit will be $4 trillion dollars this year, which is more than 15% of GDP. Although, as the crisis unravels, it’s likely these numbers will be even worse by year end. Throughout history, only in the First and Second World War deficits of this magnitude have occurred.

As GDP is declining and the federal deficit rising, the “public debt to GDP ratio” is escalating rapidly. According to usdebtclock.org, U.S. public debt to GDP is 130% at the time of writing. Just a few months ago this ratio printed 110%. In the chart below, you can see public debt to GDP rising at a pace comparable to when the Second World War broke out.

What many people don’t know is that at the start of World War II, the Federal Reserve implemented “yield curve control.” The central bank of Japan wasn’t a pioneer when it embarked managing the curve in 2016.

Starting in 1942, the Fed put a cap on yields of government bonds across the curve. From that moment on “the Fed effectively abdicated its responsibility for monetary policy despite its concern about inflation and focused instead on helping the Treasury finance the conflict” (Humpage, 2016).

The Fed and the Treasury negotiated to peg bills (3-month bonds) at 0.375%, and long-term bonds (25-years) at 2.5%. All other yields of government bonds were held constant as well. Initially, to establish the pegs, the Fed purchased large quantities of Treasuries (government bonds of all maturities), which made the monetary base double from 1942 until 1945.

From 1934 until 1940 the monetary base grew because the U.S. had devalued the dollar against gold in 1934, but sustained a peg in international markets at $35 an ounce. The Treasury bought thousands of tonnes of gold from around the world at the newly fixed price. The Fed printed the dollars to pay for the gold, and received gold certificates in return from the Treasury.

The growth in the monetary base, caused heightened inflation in consumer prices. With nominal interest rates held down, inflation peaked at 20% in March 1947. Real interest rates—calculated by subtracting inflation from nominal rates—dipped below -15%. The value of the principal of bonds significantly decreased.

You might wonder if U.S. citizens rushed to buy gold when real interest rates were negative in the 1940s. They didn’t, because private gold ownership was prohibited in America from 1933 until 1974 (and the dollar was still pegged to gold, albeit only in international markets).

After the war, deeply negative real interest rates and nominal GDP growth, caused public debt to GDP to decline, from 113% in 1945 to 64% in 1951 (see chart 1). Officially, the Fed continued to control the curve until 1951. Though, the aftermath lasted for another decade (Humpage, 2016).

Today, the U.S. government finds itself in a similar situation as in World War II. The federal deficit is problematic, and so is public debt to GDP. The Fed is already buying huge amounts of Treasuries and keeping rates down. The next step could be a commitment to fix the yield curve for an extended period. Curve management and inflation are one of the few options left for the U.S. to lower its debt burden. Another option is debt relief.

Deeply negative real interest rates nowadays, however, will cause the gold price to sky-rocket. U.S. real rates and the gold price have been (inversely) correlated for quite some years. It is thought that when real rates are falling, it becomes more attractive to own gold as it is a less risky asset than sovereign bonds (gold has no counterparty risk).

As can be seen in the above chart, when real rates decline, the gold price rises and vice versa. Currently, the real yield on a 10-year Treasury is -0.5%, and the gold price is $1,734 dollars. I don’t have a crystal ball and know what real rates will be in the future, but given the current economic environment in the U.S., real rates are likely to fall in the medium term, which is bullish for gold.

Further Reading:

• Humpage, Owen F. 2016. “The Fed’s Yield-Curve-Control Policy.” Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland Economic Commentary, Number 2016-15.
• Kenneth D. Garbade, “How the Fed Managed theTreasury Yield Curve in the 1940s,” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Liberty Street Economics, April 6, 2020,

Just hours after President Trump kicked off the federal police reform effort by signing an executive order implementing many of the common-ground reform proposals found in the separate plans developed by House Democrats  and Senate Republicans, Dems are already insisting that the Republican plan “doesn’t go far enough.”

So, rather than accepting a package of mutually agreeable reforms, Democrats are doubling down. The ink was barely dry on Trump’s EO when Democratic leader Chuck Schumer insisted that the Republican plan was too “narrow”, and not “inclusive” enough, according to CNN.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer warned on Tuesday that Senate Republicans “seem to be on a path towards taking a much, much narrower, less inclusive approach – that is wrong.”

A few minutes later, he confessed to reporters that he actually hadn’t read the Republican bill – apparently no Democrats have.

Schumer refused to say Tuesday if Democrats would seek to block the Scott plan from coming to the floor for a debate, saying “we haven’t even seen the bill yet, so it’s premature to comment,” while also declining say if he’s encouraging Democrats to avoid co-sponsoring the plan. Schumer, meanwhile, criticized President Donald Trump’s executive order on policing, calling it “weak tea.”

As we reported a few days back, there is broad consensus between the GOP and Democrats as more GOP lawmakers have expressed openness to make more substantial changes when it comes to rooting out officers with multiple complaints, while making it easier for the public to hold officers accountable.

Even Reuters acknowledged, citing the latest polling data, that many of the proposals found in the Democratic bill – including banning chokeholds (Trump’s EO effectively bribes PDs to bar the technique with federal money) and an explicit ban on racial profiling – are broadly popular among Democrats and Republicans. However, a few paragraphs later, the reporter notes that 39% of Americans supported proposals  to completely defund the police (still an astonishingly high number). To be sure, both Democratic nominee Joe Biden and Trump oppose complete defunding, which until very recently was an idea on the fringes of leftist politics. However, 76% of respondents said they supported moving some funding toward other social services for mental health and the homeless, as well as more training for officers. The GOP hasn’t released a full text of its bill, but moving funding was part of an abbreviated list of proposals from Senator Tim Scott, who is leading the effort to craft the bill.

Democrats released their bill last week. The 134-page tome goes further than Scott’s proposals on the issue in at least one important way: completely eliminating qualified immunity, something that Democrats have demanded, and many Republicans, including Scott and others quoted here would support completely eliminating the immunity and make police liable in incidents of police brutality.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday that the House Democrats’ bill would be a non-starter in the Senate, and he vowed to not even bring it up for a vote.

“The House version is going nowhere in the Senate,” McConnell told reporters. “It’s basically typical Democratic overreach to try to control everything in Washington. We have no interest in that,” he said.

Even McConnell has suggested that, once it’s released, the Republican plan might surprise some Democrats in the depth of its proposed reforms. Though lawmakers have told the press that they anticipate winning over the president, who is doubling down on his “law and order” image in a way that critics have warned is out of step with public opinion, could lead to obstacles.

The Republicans need 7 Democratic votes to block a filibuster and bring the plan to a vote (which would then presumably pass in a majority vote). With that, the GOP’s strategy comes into focus: McConnell is going to release a plan calling for substantial – but not radical – reform. Then moderates will face political pressure to put their dedication to reform above their political interests.

Authored by Pat Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

“Can we all just get along?”

That was the plea of Rodney King after a Simi Valley jury failed to convict any of the four cops who beat him into submission after a 100-mile-an-hour chase on an LA freeway.

King’s plea came after the 1992 LA riots, the worst since the New York City draft riots in 1863 when Lincoln had to send in federal troops.

In the aftermath of today’s protests and riots after the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, we hear similar calls. President Donald Trump must “reach out” and “unify the nation.”

But how?

Many of these calls for unity come from the same elites who are all-in on tearing us apart by pulling down statues of the famous men of American history whom they most detest.

A second war on the Confederacy is underway, to disgrace and dishonor all who fought for Southern independence in the war of 1861-65. A second Reconstruction is being readied.

The St. Andrew’s Cross, the battle flag of the Confederate army, though seen as a banner of heroism and honor to millions, is henceforth to be treated like the Nazi swastika. It has been already been banned at Nascar races, where it has been widely popular.

Liberals will fight for the right of Marxist radicals to burn the American flag to show their hatred of it but cannot tolerate working folks flying the battle flag of the Confederacy to show their love of it.

A second front in the campaign to cancel history is the renaming of U.S. army bases in Southern states that bear the names of Confederate generals, such as Forts Benning and Bragg. Trump has pledged to veto any defense appropriation bill that contains such a provision.

Third is the drive led by Nancy Pelosi and her allies to remove statues in the Capitol of any of those men of “violent bigotry” who were connected to the Confederacy.

First among them is General Robert E. Lee.

Gen. David Petraeus has put succinctly the crime of which Lee is guilty. Though “West Point honors Robert E. Lee with a gate, a road, an entire housing area, and a barracks,” writes Petraeus, “Lee… committed treason.”

The goal here is to impose the one-sided view of American history that is now ascendant, as official truth — that the cause of Southern secession was unlike the cause of American secession from Britain. It was an act of treason rooted in the ideology of white supremacy.

To have that sole acceptable view predominate, our elites believe they must remove from public display the statues of any associated with the cause of Southern independence and stigmatize them all as traitors.

They have, however, a problem: Where do the elites stop when the radicals demand more?

If support of slavery disqualifies one from the company of decent men, does it disqualify George Washington, who owned slaves his entire life? What Washington fought for, independence, was what Lee fought for.

Lee did not challenge Lincoln’s election. He did not seek to overthrow the government Lincoln headed. He resigned from the U.S. army to go home and defend the people among whom he had been raised from an invasion to force-march them back into a Union the state’s chosen rulers had voted to leave.

Not only does our national capital, Washington, bear the name of a lifelong slave owner, so does the capital of Missouri, Jefferson City. So does the capital of Mississippi, Jackson. So does the capital of Wisconsin, Madison. The capital of Ohio is Columbus. The capital of South Carolina is Columbia. Both are named for now-vilified Christopher Columbus whose statue still stands outside D.C.’s Union Station.

None of these men appears, from how they lived their lives, to have shared modernity’s belief in democracy, diversity or social equality. Yet, it was they who cobbled together the United States of America.

Washington led us to independence and ownership of all the land from the Atlantic to the Mississippi. Jefferson negotiated the Louisiana Purchase, doubling the size of the U.S. Andrew Jackson added Florida. James K. Polk added the Southwest and California. Slave owner Sam Houston won Texas’ War of independence and brought his Republic of Texas into the Union in 1845.

Two of the three greatest Senate statesmen of the 19th century, Henry Clay of Kentucky and John Calhoun of South Carolina, were slave owners. Both have statues in the Capitol. Do they go, too?

The newest bridge over the Potomac, like the premier dam in the TVA, is named for Woodrow Wilson, who resegregated the government.

These were among the decisive figures of American history. If all are dishonored, with their statues pulled down and their names taken off cities, counties, towns, rivers, canals, bridges, buildings, highways, roads, streets and dams, then what is left?

Detest all those white men if you will, but they were the ones who created the nation we inherited.

As you may have read on NBC, Google has decided to suspend ad hosting on the “far-right” Zero Hedge (which apparently can be anything from “batshit insane Austrian school blog” to Russian propaganda or framed in any other way that serves the agenda of those who disagree with our views – which apparently these days is a lot of people) along with The Federalist, a decision that would have a materially adverse impact for both websites. The reason presented to us for this decision is far more mundane than what has been disclosed by NBC: we are currently appealing it, and expect to remedy it.

That said, we were surprised by the framing of the suspension by the NBC article, which disturbingly appears to be another attempt at activist targeting of inconvenient media outlets, especially since the core argument presented by the NBC employee is different than what Google actually has said. In fact, half the NBC article just happens to be dead wrong.

The Federalist was never demonetized.

— Google Communications (@Google_Comms) June 16, 2020

It is also notable, the two articles that are referenced in the NBC article – which in turn is based on a complaint by some self-appointed arbiter of free speech, the UK-based liberal Center for Countering Digital Hate  – were not ours, but were contributor op-eds by third parties (here  and here) one of which is from 2016. Do we now live in a time when ad platforms will suspend, say, the New York Times for publishing highly controversial Op-Eds?

We were also surprised that the NBC journalist activist who wrote the inaccurate article, Adele-Momoko Fraser, deleted a tweet in which she admits to actively collaborating with “Stop Funding Fake News” and the Center for Countering Digital Hate.

The NBC reporter hardly seems objective! This was just deleted but I took a screenshot. pic.twitter.com/LcB4dprR5s

— Robby Soave (@robbysoave) June 16, 2020

NBC News Reporter Thanks Foreign Groups for ‘Collaboration‘ in Pushing Google to ‘Defund‘ The Federalist https://t.co/Elde8Xyp4p via @BreitbartNews

— Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) June 16, 2020

After deleting her original tweet, Fraser retweeted it without the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag. Why?

It is also notable that the reactions so far have been a near-unanimous condemnation of a journalist using her platform (the same one which killed Ronan Farrow’s Harvey Weinstein scoop) to silence competitors she and/or her employer disagrees with.

This isn’t journalism.

— Amber Athey (@amber_athey) June 16, 2020

I’d like to buy a vowel…. pic.twitter.com/TuW9xZDXOr

— Brutus Maximus (@BRVTVSMAXIMVS) June 16, 2020

This isn’t journalism. This is activism. But you know that. You’re the latter and not the former.

When you can’t win the battle of ideas it’s easier for totalitarians like you to try and censor wrong think.

You’re not helping.

— Major_Major_Major_Major (@Chris85837420) June 16, 2020

Even more disturbing, shortly after publishing its rushed hitpiece, NBC proceeded to do stealth edits based on actual feedback from Google, with the result a mess.

wtf is this update? No correction, the offending quotes aren’t even removed. Their story now has active contradictions pic.twitter.com/VqFa2TpdoB

— Grant Addison (@jgrantaddison) June 16, 2020

In any case, we hope to resolve this matter and continue doing what we do best: presenting you, our readers, with the truth no matter how inconvenient it may be.

Just as President Trump said would happen yesterday, the U.S. government has sued Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton to block the publication of his so-called tell-all book which claims the president was willing to endanger the nation in order to be re-elected.

As we previously detailed, Bolton served under Trump as the U.S. national security adviser from April 2018 to September 2019.

His book, “The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir,” which was initially set to be published earlier this year, is currently scheduled to be released next Tuesday.

According to a news release from the book’s publisher, the book claims that  “Trump’s Ukraine-like transgressions existed across the full range of his foreign policy — and Bolton documents exactly what those were.”

In the epilogue of the memoir, Bolton reportedly alleges Trump’s actions towards his new book were, at times, “constitutionally impermissible” and that the president has tried multiple times to delay it from moving to print.

Last week, per the New York Times, the White House attempted to slow its publication, arguing the book contained classified information and could present a security threat.

“I will consider every conversation with me as president highly classified. So that would mean if he wrote a book and if the book gets out, he’s broken the law and I would think he would have criminal problems,” Trump continued threateningly.

And now, as Axios reports, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit in federal court on Tuesday seeking to block publication of the book on June 23, claiming that Bolton has failed to complete a pre-publication review for classified information.

The United States is not seeking to censor any legitimate aspect of Defendant’s manuscript; it merely seeks an order requiring Defendant to complete the prepublication review process and to take all steps necessary to ensure that only a manuscript that has been officially authorized through that process—and is thus free of classified information—is disseminated publicly.

Given that Defendant has already taken steps to disclose or publish the manuscript to unauthorized persons without prior written authorization, the United States also seeks an order establishing a constructive trust on any profits obtained from the disclosure or dissemination of The Room Where it Happened, particularly if Defendant refuses to complete the prepublication review process and obtain the required prior written authorization before proceeding with publishing the book.

– Justice Department

Bolton’s lawyer claims that his client has already undergone four months of prepublication review, and that the White House has purposely stalled the process as a “transparent attempt to use national security as a pretext to censor Mr. Bolton.”

Authored by Jim Rickards via The Daily Reckoning,

How crazy have markets become lately?

One new investor has said, “Stocks only go up,” while unemployed people are using their stimulus check to trade stocks:

“It was basically free money,” said one of them… “It’s like a gambling game.”

If you want to talk about craziness, just look at Hertz…

Fools Rush In

Hertz filed for bankruptcy on May 22. Then a bizarre thing happened. Some of those newbie investors who had just received their coronavirus stimulus checks opened online retail accounts at brokers like Robinhood and started buying Hertz!

The stock was sure to end up with zero value, but they didn’t care. If you bought it for $1.00 per share and could dump it for $3.00 per share, you tripled your money even if the stock ends up at zero.

That’s crazy enough, but then things got crazier.

Hertz saw its stock price going up and decided to sell $1 billion of stock in a new issue.

Investment bank Jefferies Co. agreed to underwrite the deal. The SEC signed off on the offering document.

Of course, in bankruptcy you have to get approval from the bankruptcy court. Many assumed the judge would put an end to the nonsense, but he didn’t. The judge approved the deal.

Just to be clear, if Hertz raises $1 billion, that money will go straight to creditors. Stockholders will still get zero. That’s why the judge approved the deal, because his job is to help the creditors.

This will be an expensive lesson in bankruptcy law for those who buy the equity, unless they sell to another sucker just in time.

I wish them all well.

Stocks Can Go Down After All

But the frenzied market rally of the past few weeks hit a snag last week. The Dow lost 5.5% on the week, while the S&P gave up 4.7%, making it the worst week since March 20.

I guess stocks go down after all.

The market was down big yesterday morning, extending last week’s losses, before rebounding yesterday afternoon on Fed headlines.

But it’s clear that investors are getting nervous about the resurgence in U.S. coronavirus infections, which places the prospects of a V-shaped recovery further in doubt (it wasn’t going to happen anyway).

The Good News

Well, we’ve all lived through the first wave of coronavirus infections (technically the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the COVID-19 disease).

Along with that came an unprecedented economic lockdown that has triggered a global depression.

Even during the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918–19 that killed 100 million people, there was no full-scale lockdown, although many large gatherings, sporting events and concerts were cancelled.

We’re just now starting to come out of our self-quarantines and small businesses are gradually reopening. That’s the good news.

The Bad News

The bad news is we’re hearing a lot about a so-called “second wave” of infections that could bring back another lockdown.

One professor of medicine at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine has said, for example, “The second wave has begun.”

These concerns are causing market declines and volatility. But I don’t think many people really understand what a true second wave is.

There are new outbreaks of the disease, but these are still part of the first wave. We’re still experiencing the first wave, in other words.

Watch out for the Second Wave

The virus has a predictable pattern in a given locale. That generally means about an eight–10-week course with a peak after five weeks, then a gradual diminution.

But it does not hit every locale at the same time. What’s happening in Florida, Arizona, Texas and elsewhere today is just another version of what already hit New York. It’s just happening later in the timeline because of population density and different lockdown rules.

But again, it’s still the first wave. A true second wave happens after a period of relative calm. The virus mutates into a more lethal form and strikes again.

Those with antibodies from the first wave may do better, but others are highly susceptible to the second wave and the fatality rate can be much higher.

That’s what happened in the Spanish flu a century ago. The first wave was March–June 1918. It was fatal but tailed off quickly. The second wave hit in October 1918 and was much more fatal.

Bodies were piled up like firewood. They ran out of coffins. They ran out of grave diggers. They ran out of graveyards and dug mass graves, wrapped people in sheets and dusted them with disinfectant and threw them in. That’s how bad that was.

COVID-19 isn’t anywhere near as bad as the Spanish flu was. But if we get a second wave, it could be more lethal than the first. It is likely to strike in December 2020. Let’s pray it doesn’t happen, but it’s too soon to rule it out.

The Rise of the Pezzonovante

What we can count on is that power-hungry politicians and bureaucrats will continue to throw their weight around…

Pezzonovante is a colorful Sicilian term famously used in the script for The Godfather. It basically means “big shot” or “self-important.”

It’s used in a derogatory sense to describe politicians who think they’re better than everybody else. One of the unpleasant side effects of the coronavirus lockdown is the rise of a new pezzonovante class among U.S. politicians.

It is true that political figures, especially governors and mayors, do have emergency powers to deal with public health crises or natural disasters. However, all such powers must be conducted in a constitutional framework with consideration for economic, medical and other factors balanced out.

The problem is that every elected official has an inner dictator who can’t wait to start bossing people around with arbitrary executive orders and no due process of law. That’s what’s been happening since the lockdowns began.

State governors were issuing “lockdown” orders, arresting people without face masks and revoking business and liquor licenses from small-business owners trying to earn a living, all without legal authority.

When these neofascist tactics are challenged in court, the state often loses. But not every small-business person can afford the legal fees to bring suit.

The lockdown did slow the spread of the virus and did save some lives, that’s true. But, the gains may only be temporary.

Remember, “flattening the curve” does not mean reducing total infections and deaths. It just means stretching them out over a longer period so the hospital system is not overwhelmed.

Let’s look at one pezzonovante…

An Offer You Can’t Refuse

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo was responsible for 5,000 unnecessary deaths because he ordered COVID-19 patients to be forced into assisted living facilities where residents got ill and died as a result.

Now he’s threatening to reimpose a lockdown on New York beach resorts and Manhattan if people don’t follow his version of “social distancing” and face mask etiquette.

(Never mind that the science of face masks is not at all clear; many experts take the view that they don’t work and can do more harm than good except for medical personnel who face constant exposure.)

The point is that transparency and good communication with the public combined with voluntary compliance can get the job done. Orders and threats don’t help and prompt many people to do the opposite.

Leaders like Andrew Cuomo will just delay the economic recovery without doing anything to slow the spread of the virus. This is just one example of the new pezzonovante throwing their weight around without concern for the public good.

The “inner dictators” are on the loose and economic recovery will suffer as a result.

Unfortunately, they’re not going away.