Liberty Links 10/2/16

screen-shot-2016-10-02-at-9-39-01-am

Opinion/Must Reads

Gary Johnson: Take a Deep Breath, Voters. There Is a Third Way. (Op-ed by Gary Johnson, New York Times)

Geopolitics/Foreign Affairs

U.S. to Send More Troops to Iraq Ahead of Mosul Battle (We’re never getting out of Iraq, Reuters)

Pakistan ‘Completely Rejects’ Indian Claim of Cross-Border Strikes (Reuters)

Erdogan Signals Preference for Longer Turkey Emergency Rule (Of course he does, Bloomberg)

EU Launches Program to Issue Cash Cards to Migrants in Turkey (Reuters)

The Woman Who Could Break Spain’s Political Deadlock (Reuters)

Congress Votes to Override Obama Veto on 9/11 Victims Bill (New York Times)

Election 2016 

Chelsea Clinton: Didn’t Know Mom Had Pneumonia (Interesting to say the least, The Hill)

Bill Maher: Colin Kaepernick ‘An Idiot’ (Because he criticized Hillary, The Hill)

See More Links »

from Liberty Blitzkrieg http://ift.tt/2dz2voc
via IFTTT

New Report Exposes The Orwellian Tools Law Enforcement Use To Spy On Activists On Social Media

Submitted by Jake Anderson via TheAntiMedia.org,

Last week, the California ACLU released an alarming report about California law enforcement agencies’ covert use of social media surveillance software. The report compiles records requested of 63 police departments, sheriffs, and district attorneys across the state. The ACLU found over 40% are using the software without any transparency or public disclosure. They also reported law enforcement officers may be using the social media surveillance software in a way that specifically targets activists of color.

The three primary pieces of software cited in the ACLU report are MediaSonar, X1 Social Discovery, and Geofeedia. These tools are marketed to law enforcement agencies as ways to keep track of protesters, particularly protesters and activists of color.

In one email from a Geofeedia representative to the San Diego Sheriff, the software is praised for its ability to aggregate “social media posts from the scene of Ferguson, Missouri.”

Promotional emails sent after the non-indictment of Officer Darren Wilson and the killing of Freddie Gray in Baltimore urged law enforcement to take advantage of the tool to “curate” social media posts related to #BlackLivesMatter. Another email urges Los Angeles District Attorney to “join the Baltimore County Police Department” and “stay one step ahead of the rioters.”

Another document obtained from Geofeedia refers to unions and activists as “overt threats.”

The ACLU argues their research makes clear that law enforcement agencies view protesters exercising their constitutional rights as “enemies.”

“The racist implications of social media surveillance technology are not surprising,” writes Nicole Ozer, Technology & Civil Liberties Policy Director for the ACLU of Northern California.

“We know that when law enforcement gets to conceal the use of surveillance technology, they also get to conceal its misuse. Discriminatory policing that targets communities of color is unacceptable — and secretive, sophisticated surveillance technologies supersize the impact of racial profiling and abuse.”

In a statement to the Anti-Media, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s (EFF) Criminal Defense Staff Attorney, Stephanie Lacambra, said:

“Social media monitoring is incredibly troubling for the preservation of individual privacy. I often run into the widespread misperception that ‘because I’m not doing anything wrong’ or ‘I have nothing to hide,’ digital privacy doesn’t concern me. This perspective is troubling because it fails to grasp the power of information in the digital age and its potential for abuse – by law enforcement and others. For example, there are a number of instances where law enforcement has abused its power by prosecuting completely innocent people. Please see our recent post on the consequences of the Calgang database: http://ift.tt/2bow3V4

 

“The aggregating of discrete data points into one metadata profile that is stored and mined for personal information has the potential to eviscerate the last vestiges of individual privacy. This is why it is so concerning that our laws and courts have not yet recognized the inherent danger in allowing law enforcement such overwhelming access to our social media profiles. The problem with aggregating data of this sort is that the aggregate metadata profile is bound to reveal much more than any one discrete data point would in isolation. For example, checking in on yelp at a particular restaurant on a particular day may not seem all that significant, but if the police can see that you frequently check in to that restaurant on multiple days and cross-reference that against messages or posts that tag other friends within your social network, they can begin to make a case for your association with that person and that person’s social network. This is often how prosecutors will try to prove up gang affiliation.”

The ACLU has come out strongly against law enforcement’s digital database of anti-police and anti-government posts. They believe it is a breach of privacy. Moreover, when social media surveillance software is engaged in racial profiling, the transgression increases significantly.

They note, optimistically, that a coalition of national organizations is spearheading a multi-city legislative initiative, Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS). Their goal is to use the legal system to implement stronger local legislation ensuring transparency with the use of this software, as well as limits on how it can be used.

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

About That Deutsche “Settlement” Rumor: Cryan Hasn’t Even Started Negotiations With The DOJ

Friday’s market session was about one thing: will Deutsche Bank stock close the week ahead of a three day holiday at a record low. It did not because, as we reported, the AFP announced that based on “sources” (most likely from Twitter), the DOJ was willing to reduce the $14 billion settlement that sent DB stock on a rollercoaster ride over the past two weeks, to just under $6 billion. The news unleashed a massive short squeeze relief rally, which sent DB stock soaring on Friday, pushing the entire market up 1%.

And while repeated attempts by the likes of Reuters to get additional information from either the DOJ, the German government or Deutsche Bank itself, have proven fruitless, overnight Frankfurter Allegemeine Zeitung reported that Deutsche Bank executives are heading to the United States in the coming days to negotiate the $14 billion settlement over a fine the infamous $14 billion for misselling RMBS.

The FAZ did not cite any sources for its report. Deutsche Bank did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Chief Executive John Cryan’s travel plans.

In other words, not only was the $5.6 billion “agreed upon” number, as “reported” by Twitter and then AFP, bogus, but the actual negotiations have not yet even begun.

It also means that the catalyst for Friday’s ramp was, as we suspected, nothing but the latest attempt at media manipulation meant to push DB stock higher and prevent a concerned German population from pulling its cash out of the bank, of which DB has well over €300 billion in retail deposits.

With Germany closed on Monday and only the far more illiquid US DB stock trading on Monday, we look forward to the market’s reaction to the realization that what it soared on what was nothing more than a media stunt, especially in the aftermath of Saturday’s announcement that Italy is the latest sovereign to take Deutsche Bank to task for its allegedly illegal manipulation and misrepresentation of Monte Paschi’s books.

via http://ift.tt/2dn3rhv Tyler Durden

Deutsche Bank ’s Problems Could Snowball… As Soon As Next Week!

Deutsche Bank Image

Last week, the situation of Deutsche Bank kept the entire financial world busy as a $14B fine was hanging like a sword of Damocles over the company’s virtual head. We have to admit we had a good chuckle when the mainstream media were falling over themselves to report on Deutsche Bank’s problems, because most open-minded people in this sector already knew the company was one of the weakest links in the entire financial system, with the possibility to infect dozens of other players.

deutsche-bank-3

Source: armstrongeconomics.com

A weak link indeed, but most definitely not an unimportant link considering Deutsche Bank isn’t just ‘too big to fail’ but ‘waaaaay too big to be allowed fail’, and the existing problems very likely are just the tip of the iceberg. The markets were suddenly spooked by a potentially massive fine related to the sale of toxic mortgage bonds, but the concerns seemed to alleviate after the CEO of the bank published an open letter emphasizing the bank still has plenty of liquidity and reserves of in excess of 215B EUR.

It does look like the term ‘reserves’ has been used in quite a loose way, considering the majority of these so-called reserves are actually debt, and the market shouldn’t confuse ‘reserves’ with ‘liquidity reserves’. Even if you have 200B+ in liquidity, there will be a point in time when a company has to repay its creditors or refinance the existing debt, so relying on borrowed liquidity is usually just kicking the can further down the road. Indeed, after checking the H1 financial results of Deutsche Bank, the equity portion of the balance sheet is just a fraction of the 215B EUR in claimed reserves. The total shareholders equity was just 62B EUR as of at the end of June, with an equity/total assets ratio of just 3.3% compared to 12.2% at Bank of America and 12.75% at Citigroup. Even Banco Santander’s equity/total assets ratio is twice as high as Deutsche’s!

deutsche-bank-2

Source: Deutsche Bank

Die Zeit reported earlier this week the government and financial authorities were already preparing a rescue plan in case the bank could not meet its commitments by raising cash on the open market, because even selling the Abbey Life insurance group to Phoenix Life holdings for approximately $1.2B last week won’t move the needle in case of a huge liquidity crunch.

Indeed, the market wasn’t buying CEO Cryan’s optimistic speech, and on the open market the 6% CoCo bonds fell to less than 70 cents on the dollar, indicating a lot of debtholders wanted to get out of these CoCo’s as fast as possible, and the price of these bonds recovered slightly after the rumor about a $5.4B settlement was in the making.

deutsche-bank-1

Source: Telegraph.co.uk

We are uncertain about why the market thinks a $5.4B settlement would be good news. Sure, it’s less than the $14B the DoJ was originally seeking from Deutsche Bank, but even if the $5.4B number would be correct (Morgan Stanley thinks the total settlement will be closer to $6B, which we consider to be more likely considering Citigroup was slapped with a $12B fine, but settled for $7B), it would wipe out the entire provision on the balance sheet! Indeed, at the end of the second quarter of this year, the total amount of provisions on Deutsche Bank’s balance sheet was just 5.5B EUR ($6.1B), so a $6B settlement would wipe this out completely.

If you really believe a $5.4-6B settlement would solve all problems, think again. Selling toxic mortgages isn’t Deutsche Bank’s problem, but the exposure to the derivatives market is. And this problem could start snowballing, anytime now.

>>> Click here to read our FREE Guide to Gold

Secular Investor offers a fresh look at investing. We analyze long lasting cycles, coupled with a collection of strategic investments and concrete tips for different types of assets. The methods and strategies are transformed into the Gold & Silver Report and the Commodity Report.

Follow us on Facebook @SecularInvestor [NEW] and Twitter @SecularInvest

via http://ift.tt/2di4DpW Secular Investor

Trump “Deep Throat” Emerges: Someone Leaks Donald’s ’95 Tax Filing To The NYT

For months democrats had complained that it was only damaging information associated with Hillary and the Democratic party that had been leaked during the election season, a string of hacks which was promptly assigned to Russia and Putin. That changed overnight.

In its leading Sunday story, the New York Times reports that “Trump Tax Records Obtained by The Times Reveal He Could Have Avoided Paying Taxes for Nearly Two Decades.” Specifically, it reports that according to a previously undisclosed 1995 tax filing, Trump reported a $916 million loss on his income tax returns that year which could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income tax for up to 18 years. As it explains, “the 1995 tax records, never before disclosed, reveal the extraordinary tax benefits that Mr. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, derived from the financial wreckage he left behind in the early 1990s through mismanagement of three Atlantic City casinos, his ill-fated foray into the airline business and his ill-timed purchase of the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan.”

To be sure, since Trump has never released his tax returns, it’s still unclear if he paid federal income tax in subsequent years.  At Monday’s presidential debate when Hillary Clinton accused him of not paying federal income taxes, he replied, “That makes me smart.”

As the NYT further details, in the early 1990s, Trump’s real estate projects and other businesses were quickly losing money, New Jersey casino regulator records and other documents have shown, which has been known for years as was the fact that Trump faced near-ruin in the mid-90s.  The Times said that Trump reported earning $7.4 million in interest income for the year but just over $6,000 in wages, salaries and tips.

“He has a vast benefit from his destruction” in the early 1990s, said one of the experts, Joel Rosenfeld, an assistant professor at New York University’s Schack Institute of Real Estate. Mr. Rosenfeld offered this description of what he would advise a client who came to him with a tax return like Mr. Trump’s: “Do you realize you can create $916 million in income without paying a nickel in taxes?”

Of course, the NYT discovery in itself is hardly as exciting as it makes it out to be: all the paper has found is that Trump established a substantial Net Operating Loss, or NOL, which courtesy of the US tax code, could be carried forward for years.

Reports by New Jersey’s casino regulators strongly suggested that Mr. Trump had claimed large net operating losses on his taxes in the early 1990s. Their reports, for example, revealed that Mr. Trump had carried forward net operating losses in both 1991 and 1993. What’s more, the reports said the losses he claimed were large enough to virtually cancel out any taxes he might owe on the millions of dollars of debt that was being forgiven by his creditors. (The I.R.S. considers forgiven debt to be taxable income.)

Indeed, as the NYT itself admits there was nothing illegal about using such a manoeuvre: the world’s rich take advantage of NOL tax planning all the time, and in fact acquiring corporations for their NOL benefit has long been a strategy in corporate America designed to minimize Federal and State tax outflows.

The tax experts consulted by The Times said nothing in the 1995 documents suggested any wrongdoing by Mr. Trump, even if the extraordinary size of the loss he declared would have probably attracted extra scrutiny from I.R.S. examiners. “The I.R.S., when they see a negative $916 million, that has to pop out,” Mr. Rosenfeld said.

Considering that according to Trump he has been the subject of numerous tax audits by the IRS that appears to be indeed the case.

However, the biggest news in the NYT report is not so much the glimpse into Trump’s income statement over 20 years ago, but the fact that unexpectedly a Deep Throad appears to have emerged within Trump’s organization, someone found directly inside the Trump Tower. This is how the NYT explains where it got the questionably obtained filings:

The documents consisted of three pages from what appeared to be Mr. Trump’s 1995 tax returns. The pages were mailed last month to Susanne Craig, a reporter at The Times who has written about Mr. Trump’s finances. The documents were the first page of a New York State resident income tax return, the first page of a New Jersey nonresident tax return and the first page of a Connecticut nonresident tax return. Each page bore the names and Social Security numbers of Mr. Trump and Marla Maples, his wife at the time. Only the New Jersey form had what appeared to be their signatures.

 

The three documents arrived by mail at The Times with a postmark indicating they had been sent from New York City. The return address claimed the envelope had been sent from Trump Tower.

Missing, however, was Trump’s comprehensive Federal tax return: “because the documents sent to The Times did not include any pages from Mr. Trump’s 1995 federal tax return, it is impossible to determine how much he may have donated to charity that year. The state documents do show, though, that Mr. Trump declined the opportunity to contribute to the New Jersey Vietnam Veterans’ Memorial Fund, the New Jersey Wildlife Conservation Fund or the Children’s Trust Fund. He also declined to contribute $1 toward public financing of New Jersey’s elections for governor.”

Understandably, the Trump campaign was troubled by the leak: as the NYT notes, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, Marc E. Kasowitz, emailed a letter to The Times arguing that publication of the records is illegal because Mr. Trump has not authorized the disclosure of any of his tax returns. Mr. Kasowitz threatened “prompt initiation of appropriate legal action.” Incidentally, Kasowitz is also somewhat well known in the investing community for threatening to sue outspoken critics of problematic stock narratives, having threatened with lawsuits investors and journalists divulging negative information involving such Canadian firms as Fairfax, Valeant and Brookfield.

It remains to be seen if legal action against the NYT will indeed be taken. The Trump campaign promptly responded to what it alleges was “illegally obtained” information as follows:

“The only news here is that the more than 20-year-old alleged tax document was illegally obtained, a further demonstration that the New York Times, like establishment media in general, is an extension of the Clinton Campaign, the Democratic Party and their global special interests. What is happening now with the FBI and DOJ on Hillary Clinton’s emails and illegal server, including her many lies and her lies to Congress are worse than what took place in the administration of Richard Nixon – and far more illegal.

“Mr. Trump is a highly-skilled businessman who has a fiduciary responsibility to his business, his family and his employees to pay no more tax than legally required. That being said, Mr. Trump has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in property taxes, sales and excise taxes, real estate taxes, city taxes, state taxes, employee taxes and federal taxes, along with very substantial charitable contributions. Mr. Trump knows the tax code far better than anyone who has ever run for President and he is the only one that knows how to fix it.

“The incredible skills Mr. Trump has shown in building his business are the skills we need to rebuild this country. Hillary Clinton is a corrupt public official who violated federal law, Donald Trump is an extraordinarily successful private businessman who followed the law and created tens of thousands of jobs for Americans.”

As expected, CNN was displeased with this characterization:

However, while the story of Trump’s use of NOLs may be overblown, the big news of the day is that a deeply-embedded, and well-connected mole appears to have emerged within Trump’s organization, someone close enough to have access to Trump’s tax filings, albeit at least for now, going back more than 20 years in time.

As such suddenly the odds that the “October Surprise” will be a leak not so much of additional Hillary hacked data, but of adverse infromation impacting the Trump campaign has surged. That said, we doubt if the media will blame the Kremlin for this particular leak, as it has done all along whenever Hillary’s own dirty laundry was released into the open.

The three leaked state tax filing pages are shown below:

via http://ift.tt/2dBiKX7 Tyler Durden

Paul Craig Roberts Urges “Bring Back The Cold War”

Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

Pundits have declared a “New Cold War.” If only! The Cold War was a time when leaders focused on reducing tensions between nuclear powers. What we have today is much more dangerous: Washington’s reckless and irresponsible aggression toward the other major nuclear powers, Russia and China.

During my lifetime American presidents worked to defuse tensions with Russia. President John F. Kennedy worked with Khrushchev to defuse the Cuban Missile Crisis. President Richard Nixon negotiated SALT I and the anti-ballistic missile treaty, and Nixon opened to Communist China. President Carter negotiated SALT II. Reagan worked with Soviet leader Gorbachev and ended the Cold War. The Berlin Wall came down. Gorbachev was promised that in exchange for the Soviet Union’s agreement to the reunification of Germany, NATO would not move one inch to the East.

Peace was at hand. And then the neoconservatives, rehabilitated by the Israeli influence in the American press, went to work to destroy the peace that Reagan and Gorbachev had achieved. It was a short-lasting peace. Peace is costly to the profits of the military/security complex. Washington’s gigantic military and security interests are far more powerful than the peace lobby.

Since the advent of the criminal Clinton regime, every American president has worked overtime to raise tensions with Russia and China.

China is confronted with the crazed and criminal Obama regime’s declaration of the “pivot to Asia” and the prospect of the US Navy controlling the sea lanes that provision China.

Russia is even more dangerously threatened with US nuclear missile bases on her border and with US and NATO military bases stretching from the Baltics to the Black Sea.

Russia is also threatened with endless provocations and with demonization that is clearly intended to prepare Western peoples for war against “the Russian threat.” Extreme and hostile words stream from the mouth of the Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, who has called the president of Russia “the new Hitler” and threatened Russia with military force. Insouciant Americans are capable of electing this warmonger who would bring Armageddon upon the earth.

Yesterday, Israel’s voice in the US, the New York Times, added to Hillary’s demonization of the most responsible leader in the world with this editorial: “Vladimir Putin’s Outlaw State.” This irresponsible and propagandistic editorial, no doubt written by the neoconservatives, blames all the troubles in Ukraine and Syria on Putin. The NYT presstitutes know that they have no case, so they drag in the US-orchestrated false report on MH-17 recently released by Washington’s Netherlands vassal.

This report is so absurd as to cast doubt on whether intelligence exists anywhere in the Western world. Russia and the now independent Russian provinces that have separated from Ukraine have no interest whatsoever in shooting down a Malaysian airliner. But despite this fact, Russia, according to the orchestrated report, sent a surface-to-air missile, useful only at high altitude, an altitude far higher than the Ukrainian planes fly that are attacking Russians in the separated republics, to the “rebels” so that the “rebels” could shoot down a Malaysian airliner. Then the missile system was sent back to Russia.

How insouciant does a person have to be to believe this propaganda from the New York Times?

Does the New York Times write this nonsense because it is bankrupt and lives on CIA subsidies?

It is obvious that the Malaysian airliner was destroyed for the purpose of blaming Russia so that Washington could force Europe to cooperate in applying illegal sanctions on Russia in an attempt to destabilize Russia, a country that placed itself in the way of Washington’s determination to destabilize Syria and Iran.

In a recent speech, the mindless cipher, who in his role as US Secretary of Defense serves as a front man for the armaments industry, declared the one trillion dollars (1,000 billion dollars or 1,000,000 million dollars, that is, one million dollars one million times) that Washington is going to spend of Americans’ money for nuclear force renewal is so we can “get up in the morning to go to school, to go to work, to live our lives, to dream our dreams and to give our children a better future.”

But Russia’s response to this buildup in Washington’s strategic nuclear weapons is, according to Defense Secretary Aston B. Carter, “saber rattling” that “raises serious questions about Russia’s leaders commitment to strategic stability.”

Do you get the picture? Or are you an insouciant American? Washington’s buildup is only so that we can get up in the morning and go to school and work, but Russia’s buildup in response to Washington’s buildup upsets “strategic stability.”

What the Pentagon chief means is that Russia is supposed to sit there and let Washington gain the upper hand so Washington can maintain “strategic stability” by dictating to Russia. By not letting Washington prevail, Russia is upsetting “strategic stability.”

US Secretary of State John Kerry, who has been broken and tamed by the neoconservatives, recently displayed the same point of view with his “ultimatum” to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. In effect, Kerry told Lavrov that Russia must stop helping Syria resist the jihadist forces and allow the US-supported ISIS to regain the initiative and reduce Syria to the chaos in which Washington left Libya and Iraq. Otherwise, Kerry said that the agreement to cooperate is off.

There can be no cooperation between the US and Russia over Syria, because the two government’s goals are entirely different. Russia wants to defeat ISIS, and the US wants to use ISIS to overthrow Assad. This should be clear to the Russians. Yet they still enter into “agreements” that Washington has no intention of keeping. Washington breaks the agreements and blames Russia, thus creating more opportunities to paint Russia as untrustworthy. Without Russia’s cooperation in setting themselves up for blame, Russia’s portrait would not be so black.

On September 28, 2016, the New York Times gave us a good example of how Washington’s propaganda system works.

The headline set the stage: “Russia’s Brutal Bombing of Aleppo May Be Calculated, and It May Be Working.” According to the NYT report, Russia was not bombing ISIS. Russia was “destroying hospitals and schools, choking off basic supplies, and killing aid workers and hundreds of civilians.”

 

The NYT asks: “What could possibly motivate such brutality?”

 

The NYT answers: Russia is “massacring Aleppo’s civilians as part of a calculated strategy . . . designed to pressure [moderates] to ally themselves with extremists,” thereby discrediting the forces that Washington has sent to overthrow Syria and to reduce the country to chaos.

When America’s Newspaper of Record is nothing but a propaganda ministry, what is America?

Pundits keep explaining that Washington’s 15 year old wars in the Middle East are about controlling the routing of energy pipelines. Little doubt this is a factor as it brings on board powerful American energy and financial interests. But this is not the motive for the wars. Washington, or the neoconservatives who control the US government, intend to destabilize the Russian Federation, the former Soviet Central Asian countries, and China’s Muslim province by adding Syria and then Iran to the chaos that Washington has created in Iraq and Libya. If Washington succeeds in destroying Syria as it succeeded in destroying Libya and Iraq, Iran becomes the last buffer for Russia. If Washington then knocks off Iran, Russia is set up for destabilization by jihadists operating in Muslim regions of the Russian Federation.

This is clear as day. Putin understands this. But Russia, which existed under Washington’s domination during the Yeltsin years, has been left threatened by Washington’s Fifth Columns in Russia. There are a large number of foreign-financed NGOs in Russia that Putin finally realized were Washington’s agents. These Washington operatives have been made to register as foreign-financed, but they are still functioning.

Russia is also betrayed by a section of its elite who are allied economically, politically, and emotionally with Washington. I have termed these Russians “America Worshipers.” Their over-riding cause is to have Russia integrated with the West, which means to be a vassal of Washington.

Washington’s money even seems to have found its way into Russian “think tanks” and academic institutions. According to this report, two think tanks, one Russian one American, possibly funded by Washington’s money, have concluded that “US,Russia ‘Have far more common interests than differences’ in Asia-Pacific.”

This “academic report” is a direct assault on the Russian/Chinese alliance. It makes one wonder whether the report was funded by the CIA. The Russian media fall for the “common interest” propaganda, because they desire to be included in the West. Like Russian academics, the Russian media know English, not Chinese. Russia’s history since Peter the Great is with the West. So that is where they want to be. However, these America Worshipping Russians cannot understand that to be part of the West means being Washington’s vassal, or if they do understand the price, they are content with a vassal’s status like Germany, Great Britain, France, and the rest of the European puppet states.

To be a vassal is not an unusual choice in history. For example, many peoples chose to be Rome’s vassals, so those elements in Russia who desire to be Washington’s vassal have precedents for their decision.

To reduce Russia’s status to Washington’s vassal, we have Russian-US cooperation between the Moscow-based Institute of World Economy and International Relations and the US-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. These two co-conspirators against Russian sovereignty are working to destroy Russia’s strategic alliance with China and to create a US-Russian Pacific Alliance in its place. One of the benefits, the joint report declares, is “maintaining freedom of navigation and maritime security.”

“Freedom of navigation” is Washington’s term for controlling the sea lanes that supply China. So now we have a Russian institute supporting Washington’s plans to cut off resource flow into China. This idiocy on the part of the Moscow-based Institute of World Economy and International Relations is unlikely to reassure China about its alliance with Russia. If the alliance is broken, Washington can more easily deal with the two constraints on its unilateralism.

Additionally, the joint report says that Moscow could cooperate with Washington in confidence-building measures to resolve territorial disputes in the Asia-Pacific region. What this means is that Russia should help Washington pressure China to give up its territorial claims.

One cannot but wonder if the Moscow-based Institute of World Economy and International Relations is a CIA front. If it is not, the CIA is getting a free ride.

The foreign policy of the United States rests entirely on propagandistic lies. The presstitute media, a Ministry of Propaganda, establishes an orchestrated reality by treating lies as fact. News organizations around the world, accustomed as they are to following Washington’s lead, echo the lies as if they are facts.

Thus Washington’s lies–such as Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, Iranian nukes, Assad’s use of chemical weapons, Russian invasions–become the reality.

Russia’s very capable spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, understands that Washington uses the Western media to control explanations by shaping public opinion. She terms it a “reality show.” However, Zakharova thinks the problem is that Washington misuses “international relations and international platforms for addressing internal issues.” By this she means that Obama’s foreign policy failures have made him hysterical and impudent as he strives to leave a legacy, and that American/Russian relations are poisoned by the US presidential campaign that is painting Trump as a “Putin stooge” for not seeing the point of conflict with Russia.

The US presstitutes are disreputable. This morning NPR presented us with a report on Chinese censorship of the media as if this was something that never happens in the US. Yet NPR not only censors the news, but uses disinformation as a weapon in behalf of Washington and Israel’s agendas. Anyone who depends on NPR is presented a very controlled picture of the world. And do not forget German newspaper editor Udo Ulfkotte, who admits he planted stories for the CIA in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitnung and says that there is no significant European journalist who doesn’t do the same thing

The situation is far more serious than Zakharova realizes. Russians seem unable to get their minds around the fact that the neoconservatives are serious about imposing Washington’s hegemony on the rest of the world. The neoconservative doctrine declares that it is the principal goal of US foreign policy to prevent the rise of any country that would have sufficient power to serve as a check on American unilateralism. This neoconservative doctrine puts Russia and China in Washington’s crosshairs. If the Russian and Chinese governments do not yet understand this, they are not long for this world.

The neoconservative doctrine fits perfectly with the material interests of the US military/security complex. The US armaments and spy industries have had 70 years to entrench themselves with a huge claim on the US budget. This politically powerful interest group has no intention of letting go of its hold on US resources.

As long ago as 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his last public address to the American people warned that the Cold War confronted Americans with a new internal danger as large as the external Soviet threat:

“Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

 

“Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

 

“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

 

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

 

“We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

President Eisenhower’s warning that our liberties were equally at stake from the military/security complex as from the Soviet Threat did not last 24 hours. The military/security complex buried Eisenhower’s warning with extraordinary hype of the Soviet Threat.

In truth, there was no Soviet threat. Stalin had buffered Russia from the West with his control of Eastern Europe, just as Washington controlled Western Europe. Stalin had eliminated Trotsky and his supporters who stood for world revolution. Stalin declared “socialism in one country.”

Stalin terminated international communism. But the American military/security complex had much money to gain from the Amerian taxpayers in order to “protect America from International Communism.” So the fact that there was no effort on the part of the Soviet Union to subvert the world was ignored. Instead, every national liberation movement was declared by the US military/industrial complex to be a “falling domino” of the Communist takeover of the world.

Ho Chi Minh begged Washington for help against the French colonialists in Vietnam. Washington told him to go to hell. It was Washington that sent Ho Cho Minh to seek communist support.

The long Vietnam war went on for years. It enriched the military/security complex and officers’ pensions. But it was otherwise entirely pointless. There were no dominoes to fall. Vietnam won the war but is open to American influence and commerce.

Because of the military/security complex more than 50,000 Americans died in the war and many thousands more suffered physical and psychological wounds. Millions of Vietnamese suffered death, maiming, birth defects and illnesses associated with Washington’s use of Agent Orange.

The entire war was totally pointless. It achieved nothing but destruction of innocents.

This is Washington’s preferred way. The corrupt capitalism that rules in America has no interest in life, only in profit. Profit is all that counts. If entire countries are destroyed and left in ruins, all the better for American armaments industries.

Yes, please, a new Cold War. We need one desperately, a conflict responsibly managed in place of the reckless, insane drive for world hegemony emanating from the crazed, evil criminals in Washington who are driving the world to Armageddon.

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

90 Days Later: Still No Signs Of Brexit ‘Doom & Gloom’

For the first half of the year, we were warned early and often by authorities that the Brexit vote could be a calamity for the ages.

For example, the IMF claimed that a “Leave” result would threaten to “cause severe damage”, while Standard and Poor’s said that it would “paralyze” investment in the UK.

But, as Visual Capitalist's Jeff Desjardins notes, it turns out that the real Brexit casualty isn’t the UK economy – instead it is the reputation of the many professional economists who wrongly predicted doom and gloom as the likely aftermath.

THE STORY SO FAR

Today’s chart looks at the three months before and after the Brexit vote, which took place on June 23, 2016.

 

Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

 

The two charts tracked are the GBP/EUR and the FTSE 100. The former is the price of the British pound in terms of euros, and the latter is a major stock index that includes the largest companies listed in London, such as Barclays, Glencore, HSBC, Royal Dutch Shell, or Sainsbury’s.

As expected, both markets have seen some action in the aftermath of the vote to leave. The pound has depreciated in terms of euros, but it is still higher now than it was from 2009-2011 in the post-crisis period. Against the ultra-strong USD, the pound is at decade-lows – but many other currencies are in similar territory as well.

The FTSE 100 is another story. It’s relatively close to all-time highs – and even despite the fears of a potential collapse of Deutsche Bank, it’s climbed over 12% since the initial Brexit slump.

In both cases, the action was partly underscored by the Bank of England, which announced a new stimulus program (QE) after its August meeting, while cutting rates from 0.5% to 0.25%.

OTHER INDICATORS

While there’s been movement in the currency and equity markets, other economic indicators have been status quo or better for the UK so far.

Retail sales beat in July and August, and unemployment remains at 11-year lows. Purchasing manager indices dropped temporarily, but jumped back up.

The economists that predicted that the sky was falling? They’ve been forced to revise growth expectations back up, at least on a short-term basis. It’s been dubbed the “Brexit Bounce” by The Spectator, a conservative magazine based in London.

While there is likely still going to be some long-term fallout from the Brexit decision, many “experts” blew it on this one.

via http://ift.tt/2dAz0TJ Tyler Durden

Voting For Survival: The Election Story Of 2016

Submitted by TJ Brown via The Foundation for Economic Education,

Is it just me, or does this year appear to be the most pessimistic election season ever? Typically during presidential elections, you notice people’s optimism as they extol their preferred political candidate. This year, however, not so much.

Which Poison Is the Least Potent?

Of course there are plenty within each political party who support their party's nominee. But the mainstream vibe I’ve been getting is mixed. Most people aren’t cheering campaign slogans of Hope & Change. Most people aren’t enthusiastic about the future they’re being promised by their elected representatives.

There is a sense of betrayal held by supporters of the Bernie Revolution, which promised to oppose corporate corruption in politics, only to endorse the person who is possibly the most cronyistic political candidate Washington has to offer.

The rebranding of social media hashtags such as #ImWithHer to #IGuessImWithHer exemplifies dispirited submission, rather than positive momentum. Ask a Hillary voter why they’re supporting Hillary, and chances are it’s not because of her policies or her personality. It’s because they are disgusted by and terrified of the opposing candidate, Donald Trump.

It is the same with Trump’s base. Many are supporting him solely because they feel threatened by a Hillary Clinton presidency. They fear her quasi-socialist economic plans, her hawkish history on foreign policy, and her disregard of the second amendment.

And even third party candidates feel the same. I’ve often said that much of Gary Johnson’s momentum is not due to his charisma or ideas, but more because many people have equal disdain for both Trump and Hillary, who in many ways are ideologically interchangeable.

The voice of the American people is so disenfranchised that people are no longer voting based on the desires they want their government to satisfy. Rather, they’re voting based on the least negative inevitable effect the new administration will have on their life.

There is an upside to this. Even a cause for hope.

How Did We Get to This Point?

As with any monster, as government grows, it becomes more threatening and uncontrollable. The democratic process, once used to proactively control the state’s power, has now transformed into a tool of defensive opposition to the threat that same state now poses to our liberty and happiness.

Some people will claim that this reckless condition of government overreach is due to greedy interests, bad leaders, and bad laws. But the truth is, this beast we find ourselves fighting is of our own creation. It is government created by the people, of the people, but not for the people.

The pessimism of voters today needs to become optimism about what can be done once the force of rule relinquishes its control.

Public policy has become exploitation by self-interested citizens looking to control their fellow man via regulatory rule over individuals, markets, academia, and property. This, coupled with the intrinsic power of the state to place itself above the moral standards we hold ourselves to, is why this system exists. It’s not a broken system. It’s an abused system that has been dominated by authoritarian mendicants.

The ruling class in government has dominated for so long that it has become exclusively pursuant of interests that contribute to its own benefit rather than the benefit of citizens.

Whether this system will be salvageable remains to be seen, but one thing is abundantly clear: people are fearful of the future actions of their government. And so long as we continue to let it be dominated by power-hungry voters, no matter how altruistic or well-intentioned, the result we are currently woeful of will continue to manifest itself to an even more severe degree than Hillary vs Trump.

That might at first appear a scary direction in which to travel. And yet there is hope. What is really dawning here is a new embrace of reality. Government has not worked to achieve what it promised to do. The pessimism of voters today needs to become optimism about what can be done once the force of rule relinquishes its control. We need a new confidence in what society can accomplish on its own.

If the first step is a total loss of faith in political leaders, so be it, so long as it is accompanied by a renewed faith in the power of individuals and society to achieve greatness without being led by would-be central planners.

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

Minnesota Commissioner Slams Obamacare As “Unfair & Unsustainable” As Rates Soar

Soaring Obamacare premiums and declining insurer participation rates in exchanges across the country have been a frequent topic of conversation for us (see “Obamacare On “Verge Of Collapse” As Premiums Set To Soar Again In 2017” and “Stunning Maps Depict Collapse Of Obamacare “Coverage” In 2017“).  So it should come as no surprise to our readers that Minnesota has just announced that 2017 Obamacare rates have been set and are expected to soar nearly 60% on average. 

Minnesota Commerce Commissioner Mike Rothman posted a letter to the state’s website saying that the state succeeded in preserving the exchanges for one more year by agreeing to massive rate hikes but warned they are on the “verge of collapse.”  The letter goes on to describe Minnesota’s healthcare rate environment as “unsustainable and unfair” and notes that “middle-class Minnesotans” are being “crushed by the heavy burden of these costs.”

”Last year at this time when rates were announced, I said there was a serious need for reform in Minnesota’s individual market,” said Rothman. “This year the need for reform is now without any doubt even more serious and urgent.”

 

He highlighted Governor Mark Dayton’s recent decision to reconvene his Task Force on Health Care Financing to make recommendations to ensure that Minnesota consumers have access to affordable, high-quality health insurance options in the individual market.

 

“While federal tax credits will help make monthly premiums more affordable for many Minnesotans, these rising insurance rates are both unsustainable and unfair,” said Rothman. “Middle-class Minnesotans in particular are being crushed by the heavy burden of these costs. There is a clear and urgent need for reform to protect Minnesota consumers who purchase their own health insurance.”

 

Rothman said the reconvened Task Force on Health Care Financing should consider any and all feasible reforms. Above all, he said, it should offer recommendations that can be implemented in the next year to improve market stability and rates for 2018.

 

“We received over 50 public comments from Minnesotans as part of our rate review,” said Rothman. “I personally read each one. They told heartbreaking stories about how hard-working families are struggling with very tough, painful choices because of these skyrocketing costs. They say that health insurance is unaffordable, and they’re right. This calls for immediate reforms as everyone’s top priority.”

Rate increases ranges from 50% – 67% across Minnesota.

Obmacare

But rates aren’t the only issue.  Most of the insurers participating in Minnesota’s individual market also plan to limit enrollment, to avoid taking on too many customers from other insurers that have pulled out of the exchanges all together. 

However, Minnesota’s individual market also faces unique challenges because of a disproportionate concentration of individuals with serious medical conditions whose high claims costs must be absorbed by a relatively small risk pool, pushing up rates for everyone in the individual market.

 

Citing ongoing financial losses, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota announced in late June that it is leaving the individual market, except for its Blue Plus HMO affiliate. The company’s decision affects approximately 103,000 Minnesotans, or about 40 percent of the state’s total individual market.

 

Rothman said that, following Blue Cross’s announcement, Minnesota’s individual market for 2017 was on the verge of collapse as all of the other insurers indicated that they were also prepared to exit this market.

 

“The Commerce Department pursued every option within its power to avert a collapse this year,” said Rothman. “We succeeded in saving the market for 2017, with only Blue Cross leaving. But the rates insurers are charging will increase significantly to address their expected costs and the loss of federal reinsurance support. In addition, each insurer except for Blue Plus will limit its total 2017 enrollment to manage its financial or provider network capacity to absorb the many current Blue Cross consumers who will be shopping for new plans.”

 

Obamacare

 

Meanwhile, per Bloomberg, Jonathan Gold, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, peddled the same ole fiction that “headline rate changes do not reflect what these consumers actually pay because tax credits reduce the cost of coverage below the sticker price”…which is true for everyone except the overwhelming majority of people that don’t receive subsidies.

Guess we have to add Minnesota’s Insurance Commissioner to Obama’s every growing list of “fiction peddlers.”

 

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