If You Can’t Touch It, You Don’t Own It
Posted with permission and written by Jeff Thomas (CLICK HERE FOR ORIGINAL)

 

 

The pending Brexit has, not surprisingly, caused a shakeup in the investment world, particularly in the UK. Of particular note is that, recently, asset management firms in Britain began refusing their clients the right to cash out of their mutual funds. Of the 35 billion invested in such funds, just under £20 billion has been affected.

For those readers who live in the UK, or are invested in UK mutual funds, this is reason to tremble at the knees.

So, why have these investors been refused the right to exit the funds? Well, it’s pretty simple. The trouble is that quite a few of them made the request at about the same time. Of course the management firms don’t keep enough money on hand to pay them all off, so, rather than spend all their money paying off as many clients as possible, then going out of business due to a lack of liquidity, they simply announce a freeze on redemptions.

Those who are outraged may read the fine print of their contracts and find that the fund managers have every right to halt redemptions, should “extraordinary circumstances” occur. Who defines “extraordinary circumstances?” The fund managers.

Across the pond in the US, investors are reassured by the existence of the Securities and Exchange Commission, which has the power to refuse this power to investment firms…or not, should they feel that a possible run on redemptions might be destructive to the economy.

Countries differ as to the level of freedom they will allow mutual fund and hedge fund management firms to have on their own, but all of them are likely to err on the side of the protection of the firms rather than the rights of the investor, as the firms will undoubtedly make a good case that a run on funds is unhealthy to the economy.

The Brexit news has created a downward spike in investor confidence in the UK – one that it will recover from, but, nevertheless, one that has caused investors to have their investment locked up. They can’t get out, no matter how badly they may need the money for other purposes. This fact bears pondering.

Presently, the UK, EU, US, et al, have created a level of debt that exceeds anything the world has ever seen. Historically, extreme debt always ends in an economic collapse. The odiferous effluvium hasn’t yet hit the fan, but we’re not far off from that eventuality. Therefore, wherever you live and invest, a spike such as the one presently occurring in the UK could result in you being refused redemption. Should there then be a concurrent drop in the market that serves to gut the fund’s investments, you can expect to sit by and watch as the fund heads south, but be unable to exit the fund.

As stated above, excessive debt results in an economic collapse, which results in a market crash. It’s a time-tested scenario and the last really big one began in 1929, but the present level of debt is far higher than in 1929, so we can anticipate a far bigger crash this time around.

But the wise investor will, of course diversify, assuring him that, if one investment fails, another will save him. Let’s look at some of the most prominent ones and consider how they might fare, at a time when the economy is teetering in the edge.

Stocks and Bonds

Presently, the stock market is in an unprecedented bubble. The market has been artificially propped up by banks and governments and grows shakier by the day. Bonds are in a worse state – the greatest bubble they have ever been in. This bubble is just awaiting a pin. We can’t know when it will arrive, but we can be confident that it’s coming. Rosy today, crisis tomorrow.

Cash on Deposit

Cyprus taught us in 2013 that a country can allow its banks to simply confiscate (steal) depositors’ funds, should they decide that there is an “emergency situation” – i.e., the bank is in trouble. Unfortunately, the US (in 2010), Canada (in 2013) and the EU (in 2014) have all passed laws allowing banks to decide if they’re “in trouble”. If they so decide, they have a free rein in confiscating your deposit.

Safe Deposit Boxes

Banks in North America and Europe have begun advising their clients that they cannot store money or jewelry in safe deposit boxes. Some governments have passed legislation requiring those who rent safe deposit boxes to register the location of the box, its number and its contents with the government.

Each year, the storage of valuables in a safe deposit box is becoming more dubious.

Pensions

Pension plans tend to be heavily invested in stocks and bonds, making them increasingly at risk in a downturn. To make matters worse, some governments have begun to attack pensions. Others, such as the US, have announced plans to force pensions to
invest in US Government Treasuries – which, in a major economic downturn could go to zero.

These are amongst the most preferred stores of wealth and are all very much at risk. In addition, there are two choices that, if invested correctly, promise greater safety.

Real Estate

The Mutual funds in the UK that are presently in trouble are heavily invested in real estate. But real estate that you invest in directly does not face the same risk. However, any real estate that’s located in a
country that’s presently preparing for an economic crisis, such as those mentioned above, will be at risk. Real estate in offshore jurisdictions that are not inclined to be at risk is a far better bet. (An additional advantage is that real estate in offshore locations is not even reportable for tax purposes in most countries, because it cannot be expatriated to another country.

Precious Metals

Precious metals are a highly liquid form of investment. They can be bought and sold quickly and can be shipped anywhere in the world, or traded for metals in another location. Of course, storage facilities in at-risk countries may find themselves at the mercy of their governments. However, private storage facilities exist in Hong Kong, Singapore, the Cayman Islands, Switzerland and other locations that do not come under the control of the EU or US. Precious metals ownership provides greater protection against rapacious governments, but storage must be outside such countries.

The lesson to take away here is that, if you can’t touch it, you don’t own it. Banks and fund management firms can freeze your wealth, so that you can’t access it. Governments and banks can confiscate your wealth. If you don’t have the power
to put your hands on your wealth on demand, you don’t own it.

This evening, take account of all your deposits and investments and determine what percentage of them you do truly own. If you decide that that percentage is too low for you to accept, you may wish to implement some changes…before others do it for you.

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

If You Can’t Touch It, You Don’t Own It
Posted with permission and written by Jeff Thomas (CLICK HERE FOR ORIGINAL)

via http://ift.tt/29Ynsg5 Sprott Money

Submitted by Deirdre Fulton via CommonDreams.org,

Sounding another alarm for progressives wary of the Democratic establishment's support for Wall Street, the man said to be leading the pack of potential Hillary Clinton running mates – Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine – has just this week sent a clear message to big banks: He's in their corner.

Kaine, who is reportedly Bill Clinton's favorite for the vice presidential slot, signed onto two letters on Monday pushing for financial deregulation – letters that show the Clinton camp "how Kaine could be an asset with banking interests on the fundraising trail," according to David Dayen at The Intercept on Wednesday.

"Let's be really clear: It should be disqualifying for any potential Democratic vice presidential candidate to be part of a lobbyist-driven effort to help banks dodge consumer protection standards and regulations designed to prevent banks from destroying our economy."

 

—Charles Chamberlain, Democracy for America

The news should "disqualify" Kaine from the ticket, one prominent progressive group declared Thursday.

The first missive, signed by 16 Democrats and every Republican senator, calls on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to exempt community banks and credit unions from certain regulations.

As Dayen explains:

While this seems benign, tailoring rules that exempt large classes of financial institutions leaves consumers vulnerable to deceptive practices. A rule of this type could allow community banks and credit unions to sell high-risk mortgages or personal loans without the disclosure and ability to pay rules in place across the industry.

The second letter (pdf) deals with even bigger regional institutions, as it is aimed at helping "major firms including Capital One, PNC Bank and U.S. Bank, all of which control hundreds of billions of dollars in assets," according to the Huffington Post.

Signed by Kaine and three other Democratic senators—Mark Warner (Va.), Gary Peters (Mich.), and Bob Casey (Pa.)—the letter to Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, Comptroller of the Currency Thomas Curry, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation chair Martin Gruenberg "argues that it is unfair for these large banks to be required to calculate and report their liquidity?a critical measure of risk?on a daily basis," HuffPo's Zach Carter continues.

"This distinction is applied unevenly across regional institutions despite similar risk profiles, simply by virtue of an asset threshold," the letter reads.

Or, as Carter puts it, translating the senators' bottom line: "just because they're big, doesn't mean they should be regulated more closely."

Kaine for VP provides "a perfect example of why the party needs to create policies and pick candidates who reflect the will of the voters, not the will of elites and special interests that the superdelegate system has come to embody."

 

—Diane Russell, Maine State Representative

But in fact, Dayen points out, "[i]n an interconnected financial system, a large regional bank that gets into trouble has as much chance of creating ripple effects as a mega-bank. It's unclear why they should be exempted from regulations deemed appropriate for all facets of the financial sector."

On top of these salvos on behalf of the banking industry, the Huffington Post notes that Kaine did not sign onto a third letter sent Wednesday from 28 senators urging the CFPB to crack down on abusive payday lenders and in turn, protect consumers. 

That all this took place while Kaine is presumably being vetted for VP "could show potential financial industry donors that he is willing to serve as an ally on their regulatory issues," Dayen wrote, especially because Clinton has been pushed to the left by Bernie Sanders on Wall Street.

Given existing concerns around Kaine's support for the Trans Pacific Partnership and other so-called "free trade" deals, plus his mixed record on reproductive rights and now new proof of his bending to bankers, it's no wonder RootsAction co-founder and Bernie Sanders delegate Norman Solomon told Common Dreams on Wednesday that choosing the Virginia senator or someone like him "would be a very pronounced middle finger to the 13 million people who voted for Bernie."

Indeed, in a press statement on Thursday, critics of the Democratic Party's superdelegate system said Kaine's position at the top of the VP list provides "a perfect example of why the party needs to create policies and pick candidates who reflect the will of the voters, not the will of elites and special interests that the superdelegate system has come to embody."

"Superdelegates are the embodiment of a system that is rigged in favor of the powerful at the expense of the powerless," said Maine state representative Diane Russell, who originated an amendment to abolish superdelegates that will be taken up by the DNC Rules Committee on Saturday, "and there isn't a more powerful industry in America than the big banks."

And Democracy for America executive director Charles Chamberlain said in a statement Thursday:

"Let's be really clear: It should be disqualifying for any potential Democratic vice presidential candidate to be part of a lobbyist-driven effort to help banks dodge consumer protection standards and regulations designed to prevent banks from destroying our economy."

 

"Our presidential ticket cannot beat the billionaire bigot by simply being not-Donald Trump," he added. "To win in November, our ticket needs to have an unquestionably strong record in the fight against income inequality, one of the defining issues of the 2016 election."

via http://ift.tt/29YbcMx Tyler Durden

Proclaiming his support for new British PM Theresa May, former UKIP head Nigel Farage explained "she has said ‘Brexit means Brexit’ and I believe her," before announcing plans for his European Referendum Tour during a much at the Republican national convention yesterday. Farage told Politico that he would start a tour of European cities in September to help spread the appetite for referendums on EU membership beyond the UK.

“One of the joys of not continuing as party leader is having more time, so I will be traveling around Europe helping other independence movements, but I won’t be telling them how to vote,” Farage said.

 

“We should be celebrating a diverse Europe of independent nation states, and if I can do anything to help that, then I will,” he added. “I’m going to go to Athens in September and have a big symposium about alternatives to the euro.”

 

Introduced to the crowd by Daily Caller editor-in-chief Tucker Carlson as “probably the most articulate person practising politics on any continent,” Farage thanked the internet rather than his rhetoric for the Brexit success.

 

“The growth of the internet has radically transformed politics. UKIP could never have really gotten off the ground if it wasn’t for the internet and YouTube.”

Farage threw his support behind new Prime Minister Theresa May’s overhaul of the U.K. government, but his support came with a sting in the tail.

“She has said ‘Brexit means Brexit’ and I believe her,” Farage said, adding that Boris Johnson’s appointment has “got to be a good thing.”

Talk of the next country to follow the U.K. toward the EU exit has focused on Denmark and the Netherlands, but, as Politico noted, Farage said he thinks Ireland could provide competition in a race to the EU’s exit door.

“I think there’s a well of Euroskeptic thinking in Ireland that is quite deep,” he said, citing the two referendums in which Ireland has rejected European treaty change. “I wouldn’t be in the least bit surprised” if Ireland had its own referendum on leaving the EU, he said.

The outspoken British politician also had some advice for Donald Trump…

While Farage refused to provide a direct endorsement of Donald Trump, he said the Republican candidate is on the right track by focusing on voters who feel left behind by globalization and high migration levels. Trump’s primary campaign data strategist Matt Braynard told POLITICO that “100 percent focus was put on disenfranchised voters.”

 

According to Farage, in the U.K. “a lot of them had felt so unrepresented they stopped voting. And in the Brexit referendum lots of those little people thought to themselves this is one time our vote can count. It’s a victory for the little people.”

 

Farage said he believes that Trump’s wealth is irrelevant to his ability to connect with working class voters. “They’ve had enough of being patronized, of being ignored. They want someone to listen to them. It’s irrelevant that he’s rich … They want to feel someone gets it. If you can engage those people and inspire those people, it’s the little people that can change the world.”

Finally, Farage suggested his resignation was more of a sabbatical than a retirement. “If this was not to happen [Brexit], I would find it irresistible to put my shoulder to the wheel again,” he told the cheering audience.

via http://ift.tt/29XMpEp Tyler Durden

Submitted by Ghassan Kadi via The Saker,

Is the genie finally out of the bottle?

A myriad of seemingly unrelated events and loose ends are converging in a manner that points in the direction of a huge win for Russian diplomacy in the Middle East, and we only need to connect the dots to see this scenario unfolding.

What dots, one might ask?

Henry Kissinger made it law for America to protect Israel. In his shuttle diplomacy trips in the lead up to the Camp David agreement, Kissinger has basically removed the USSR from the position of a superpower and a key partner on the negotiating table between Arabs and the Israelis and reduced its role to zilch. The ensuing dismantling of the USSR and the emergence of the so-called “New World Order” meant that Israel was to maintain its military superiority.

However, with the rise of Axis of Resistance in general and Hezbollah in particular, Israel’s technical military edge proved unable to provide Israel with any real security. As a matter of fact, it seems to have done just the opposite. Israel has never ever been under the kind of existential threat that it faces now, with an estimated hundred thousand Hezbollah missiles, if not more, poised to hit Israeli targets as far as Eilat.

And because America had been such a biased supporter of Israel for so long, it has lost its stature as a non-partisan arbitrator and mediator. In reality therefore, whilst America tried as hard as possible to enable Israel to impose its own peace, under its own terms, in practice, it has not been able to provide Israel with any peace under anyone’s terms.

Off to Syria.

Syria has been deadlocked in a war for more than five years. The Russian intervention that commenced in late September 2015 took the conflict, for the first time, into a direction in which the Syrian Government and its allies gained the clear upper hand.

Then, and in the height of the military operation, and seemingly just a tad before achieving and declaring victory, Russia suddenly declared a major pullout and eventually a ceasefire. Many questions were raised, and even the staunch and extremely savvy ally of Russia, Hezbollah chief Nasrallah himself has questioned publicly in a recent speech the rationale behind the Russian stand and asked: ”Who has benefited from the ceasefire?” Nasrallah was obviously referring to the fact that Al-Nusra Front and other groups have taken advantage of the ceasefire to bolster their positions and even to gain some territory in some regions.

In as much as the Russian intervention in its speed, accuracy and effectiveness has stunned the world, especially NATO, so did the pullback and ceasefire. Why did President Putin suddenly decide to scale down the military offensive, was a question that many analysts asked and tried to make speculations about.

Short-sighted analysts, especially those who love to hate Russia, found in this a golden opportunity to lash at Russia and accuse President Putin of backing off and letting Syria down. But would Putin truly back down after he had put his global political reputation on the line? Was he really expecting the Americans to come clean and work with him on identifying who is who on the ground? Would he back off after Russian lives were lost both in Syria and in the tragic jetliner crash in Sinai, and which was done in retaliation to Russia’s military action in Syria? Would Putin risk being seen in a negative way by his own people after he had risen to the level of a rescuer and hero? Last but not least, would Putin leave Turkey, and Erdogan specifically, “unpunished” after Turkey deliberately downed a Russian plane and killed its pilot?

The collective and individual answer to all of the above questions is a categorical NO. So why did Putin do it then? There seemed to be no clear answer; at least not for a while.

And of course, we cannot mention Turkey without allowing the train of events to stop at the Turkish station for a very thorough analysis.

In my analysis of the failure of “War On Syria”, which effectively began to take shape over the last two years or so, and especially after the emergence of Daesh, I had been reiterating that different elements of the “Anti-Syrian Cocktail” who were bundled together, united only by their hatred for Syria and her President, have realized that they were unable to have their collective dream materialized. They thus resorted to pursuing their own individual dreams and/or to implement some contingency plans. In that context, among other things, Daesh declared mutiny on its former allies and captured oil fields in order to be able to self-finance.

When Erdogan looked at Daesh, he could see a double-edged sword. And irrespective of politics, Erdogan’s fundamentalist ideology is not very different from that of Daesh, and according to this doctrine, putting everything else aside, Daesh members are regarded as brethren. Furthermore, the fact that Daesh and the Kurds were in conflict was something that Erdogan could not ignore. Erdogan’s fear of the Kurdish factor is very high, and the fact that America was helping some Kurdish factions has angered Erdogan to an extreme. America cannot be a friend of Turkey and the Kurds at the same time, Erdogan has said on many occasions, both directly and indirectly.

At the same time, America was growing very frustrated with Erdogan, and in turn, played its own cat and mouse game within the Daesh-Kurdish-Turkish triangle; favouring any side at a time that was convenient and suitable for its agenda.

But for Erdogan, the issue was becoming very critical. Turkey is now under attack with a string of explosions going off here and there; some purportedly perpetrated by Kurds and others by Daesh. Not only has Erdogan’s gamble in Syria failed, but he has brought the conflict home; at least partially, and the economic boom and the “zero problems” policy that crowned his early years of power were all getting eroded by the quagmire that Erdogan found himself in.

To make it worse for Erdogan, after he downed Russia’s Su-24 in November 2015, he was expecting NATO’s support, but NATO’s response was clear and brief. He was told that he needed to sort out his own problems with Russia.

He tried to use the refugees as a trump card, but this could not go far enough. Apart from the few billion dollars he was given by the EU, which is in relative terms a petty bribe, Erdogan was unable to even clinch Turkey’s longtime aspiration of becoming an EU member.

Erdogan found himself cornered, abandoned, under attack, facing severe Russian sanctions and an economic slump. He needed an exit strategy; an exit from trouble and into a totally new era.

In the meantime, Israeli PM Netanyahu made an unprecedented number of trips to Moscow. Why? Many asked.

The dust has not even began to settle yet, but there are markers that indicate that we are about to see a huge shift in Middle Eastern politics, conflicts and alliances.

We are now hearing formal Turkish statements accusing the USA of plotting the recent failed coup attempt. Turkey has even imposed a lockdown on Incirlik airbase, a NATO airbase, in which America stock piles nuclear weapons, and has even cut off power supplies to the base. This is tantamount to declaring mutiny on NATO. When Erdogan said that the coup was a “gift from God” to cleanse the army, he might as well have also said that it was a gift from God for him to show his resentment to the USA.

We also hear of counter-rumours that Erdogan has staged the failed coup in order to cleanse the military from elements that are not loyal to him. Whilst this scenario cannot either be confirmed or discounted, Erdogan is not mincing either his words or his actions with his NATO boss the USA.

It is important to note here that in the last few weeks, Erdogan and Netanyahu made up, and furthermore, the Turkish-Russian relationship was normalized. Erdogan has been seen to be making a turn, and perhaps a U-turn in regard to his policies in Syria, but for what ends?

For anyone to make a decisive win in Syria, the city of Aleppo holds the key. Whoever takes full control of Aleppo will win the war. The Syrian-Russian coalition has the upper hand to win the battle of Aleppo, but at what civilian cost? The other way to win it is to bring Erdogan down to his knees; and this seems to be what has happened. If Erdogan seals Turkey’s borders, the terrorists will be doomed.

If we were to connect the above main dots, ignoring many other minor dots which do not need to be discussed individually, we can only see a Middle Eastern Russian-brokered masterplan coming to fruition.

What puts Russia in the position to be able to muster such a plan is the fact that Russia is highly respected and is on fairly good terms with all major players. After mending relationships with Turkey, Russia is now on very good terms not only with Turkey, but also with Syria, Israel and Iran. The foolhardy foreign American policies in the Middle East have turned America into a force that cannot be trusted even by its own allies.

Putin is adamant on fighting terrorism. Whether he is able to do this or not is another story, but strategically speaking, he knows well that the military fight against terrorism cannot be won, let alone properly conducted, if other players in the region are in a state of conflict.

According to this analysis, we are on the verge of seeing a Russian plan unfolding, a plan that will not only form a foundation for ending the “War On Syria”, but also one that will seek an Arab/Israeli settlement.

The plan will have to be based on a win-win situation for all parties involved. The Saudis (and Qataris) will be the only losers. They will probably be left out in the cold and hung to dry. No one really wants to or needs to appease them any longer. Their clout is shrinking, and so are their resources. If anything, the war on terror, if it takes form under a Russian umbrella, may need to confront Al-Saud’s sponsorship to the spread of religious radicalism.

The avalanche of events has started, and as the USA is being shown the exit door by its closest allies, Russia is coming in as the only power that has the ability of resolving long standing niggling issues and cleaning up America’s mess.

via http://ift.tt/2a3Oz88 Tyler Durden

Submitted by Mac Slavo via SHTFPlan.com,

How far will they go to destroy this country? Liberals and globalists are already plotting several moves ahead.

If Donald Trump beats Hillary, they are already contemplating a Plan B.

In a  op-ed, L.A. Times. writer James Kirchick dangles the ambiguous but ominous threat, “If Trump wins, a coup isn’t impossible here in the U.S.”

It basically hints that a military overthrow of a Trump Presidency might be coming in the future, and would then be justified by horrific dictatorial acts that hordes of screaming leftists have been warning about all this time:

From the L.A. Times:

Americans viewing the recent failed coup attempt in Turkey as some exotic foreign news story — the latest, violent yet hardly unusual political development to occur in a region constantly beset by turmoil — should pause to consider that the prospect of similar instability would not be unfathomable in this country if Donald Trump were to win the presidency.

Naturally, in this scenario, Trump would be quick to commit war crimes (as Kirchick and many others see it).

What if his presidency is so dangerously unconstitutional and misguided that a military intervention will be necessary to take the country back?

In their quest to stop Trump at all costs, many of his opponents are already prepared to take things that far. That is telling, and very chilling indeed.

Throughout the campaign, Trump has repeatedly bragged about ordering soldiers to commit war crimes, and has dismissed the possibility that he would face any resistance. “They won’t refuse,” he told Fox News’ Bret Baierearlier this year. “They’re not gonna refuse me. Believe me.”  When Baier insisted that such orders are “illegal,” Trump replied, “I’m a leader. I’ve always been a leader. I’ve never had any problem leading people. If I say do it, they’re going to do it.”

 

Try to imagine, then, a situation in which Trump commanded our military to do something stupid, illegal or irrational.

 

[…]

 

If this scenario sounds implausible, consider that Trump has normalized so many once-outrageous things — from open racism to blatant lying. Needless to say, such dystopian situations are unimaginable under a President Hillary Clinton, who, whatever her faults, would never contemplate ordering a bombing run or — heaven forbid — a nuclear strike on a country just because its leader slighted her small hands at a summit. Rubio might detest her, but he cannot honestly say that Clinton, a former secretary of State, should not be trusted with the nation’s nuclear codes.

 

Trump is not only patently unfit to be president, but a danger to America and the world. Voters must stop him before the military has to.   

The veiled threat can’t be dismissed just because it is misguided or vague.

Should Donald Trump take it as a threat? Is his life in danger?

What happens if voters don’t make the choice these people think is the right one?

Glenn Beck was suspended from air for a week for allow a guest to make similar comments that hinted at ‘taking Trump out.’

Discussing a potential Donald Trump presidency, Thor lamented that impeachment would likely be off the table.

 

“If Congress won’t remove him from office, what patriot will step up and do that if, if, he oversteps his mandate as president, his constitutional-granted authority, I should say, as president,” Thor said. “If he oversteps that, how do we get him out of office? And I don’t think there is a legal means available. I think it will be a terrible, terrible position the American people will be in to get Trump out of office because you won’t be able to do it through Congress.”

There is a very real and very potent anger fomenting across our country. Though there are good reasons for it, most of it is misdirected, and 2016 has proven to be open season for attacks of all kind against Trump and his supporters.

Violence has trailed his campaign as passionate leftists stop at nothing to defy his controversial policies on immigration and the rest of it.

The rule of law is slipping away, and certain sectors of the establishment love the chaos is will bring.

via http://ift.tt/29XGEdM Tyler Durden

Presented with no comment…

 

Source: MichaelPRamirez.com

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

What in our humble opinion has been the most original speech delivered so far at the RNC, was that of Peter Thiel, an openly gay libertarian, Facebook board member, former PayPal CEO and co-founder, and Nick Denton nemesis, who moments ago covered everything from Wall Street bubble blowing…

“Wall Street bankers inflate bubbles in everything from government bonds to Hillary Clinton’s speaking fees”

… to soaring costs in an age of alleged deflation as far as the eye can see…

“Americans get paid less today than 10 years ago. But healthcare and college tuition cost more every year”

… to floppy disks and figher planes…

“Our nuclear bases still use floppy disks. Our newest fighter jets can’t even fly in the rain.”

… to US foreign policy…

“Instead of going to Mars, we have invaded the Middle East. We don’t need to see Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails: her incompetence is in plain sight. “

… to transgender bathrooms…

“Now we are told that the great debate is about who gets to use which bathroom.  This is a distraction from our real problems. Who cares?  Of course, every American has a unique identity.”

… to America’s fake culture…

“I don’t pretend to agree with every plank in our party’s platform. But fake culture wars only distract us from our economic decline.”

And much, much more. His full speech transcript is below.

* * *

Good evening. I’m Peter Thiel.

I build companies and I support people who are building new things, from social networks to rocket ships.

I’m not a politician.

But neither is Donald Trump.

He is a builder, and it’s time to rebuild America.

Where I work in Silicon Valley, it’s hard to see where America has gone wrong.

My industry has made a lot of progress in computers and in software, and, of course, it’s made a lot of money.

But Silicon Valley is a small place.

Drive out to Sacramento, or even across the bridge to Oakland, and you won’t see the same prosperity. That’s just how small it is.

Across the country, wages are flat.

Americans get paid less today than 10 years ago. But healthcare and college tuition cost more every year. Meanwhile Wall Street bankers inflate bubbles in everything from government bonds to Hillary Clinton’s speaking fees.

Our economy is broken. If you’re watching me right now, you understand this better than any politician in Washington. And you know this isn’t the dream we looked forward to. Back when my parents came to America looking for that dream, they found it—right here in Cleveland.

They brought me here as a one-year-old, and this is where I became an American.

Opportunity was everywhere.

My Dad studied engineering at Case Western Reserve University, just down the road from where we are now. Because in 1968, the world’s high tech capital wasn’t just one city: all of America was high tech.

It’s hard to remember this, but our government was once high tech, too. When I moved to Cleveland, defense research was laying the foundations for the Internet. The Apollo program was just about to put a man on the moon—and it was Neil Armstrong, from right here in Ohio.

The future felt limitless.

But today our government is broken. Our nuclear bases still use floppy disks. Our newest fighter jets can’t even fly in the rain. And it would be kind to say the government’s software works poorly, because much of the time it doesn’t even work at all.

That is a staggering decline for the country that completed the Manhattan Project. We don’t accept such incompetence in Silicon Valley, and we must not accept it from our government.

Instead of going to Mars, we have invaded the Middle East. We don’t need to see Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails: her incompetence is in plain sight. She pushed for a war in Libya, and today it’s a training ground for ISIS. On this most important issue, Donald Trump is right. It’s time to end the era of stupid wars and rebuild our country.

When I was a kid, the great debate was about how to defeat the Soviet Union. And we won. Now we are told that the great debate is about who gets to use which bathroom.

This is a distraction from our real problems. Who cares?

Of course, every American has a unique identity.

I am proud to be gay.

I am proud to be a Republican.

But most of all I am proud to be an American.

I don’t pretend to agree with every plank in our party’s platform. But fake culture wars only distract us from our economic decline.

And nobody in this race is being honest about it except Donald Trump.

While it is fitting to talk about who we are, today it’s even more important to remember where we came from. For me that is Cleveland, and the bright future it promised.

When Donald Trump asks us to Make America Great Again, he’s not suggesting a return to the past. He’s running to lead us back to that bright future.

Tonight I urge all of my fellow Americans to stand up and vote for Donald Trump.

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

Authored by Eric Zuesse via Strategic-Culture.org,

On Friday July15^th, as the national news media were either on vacation or preparing for the opening of the Trump National Convention on Monday the 18^th, the long-awaited release of the ‘missing’ 28 pages from the US Senate’s 9/11 report occurred («DECEMBER 2002: JOINT INQUIRY INTO INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES BEFORE AND AFTER THE TERRORIST ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001»). The official title of this document is «PART FOUR – FINDING, DISCUSSION AND NARRATIVE REGARDING CERTAIN SENSITIVE NATIONAL SECURITY MATTERS», and it constitutes pages 6-34 of a pdf. (Some writers mistakenly call it «29 pages».)

It «was kept secret from the public on the orders of former President George W. Bush», and remained secret under Bush’s successor Barack Obama, until that Friday night late in Obama’s Second Administration, right before a week of Republican National Convention news would be dominating the news (along with any racial incidents, which would be sure to distract the public even more from any indication of Bush’s guilt). The pdf was of a picture-file so as to be non-searchable by journalists and thus slow to interpret, and thus would impede press-coverage of it. The file was also of a very degraded picture of the pages, so as to make the reading of it even more uninviting and difficult. Well, that was a skillful news-release-and-coverup operation! The Federal Government had plenty of time to do this right, but they evidently had plenty of incentive to do it wrong. They’re not incompetent; the reasonable explanation is something worse than that. (After all, this information has been hidden from the public for all of the 13+ years since that report was published without the 28 pages at the end of 2002.)

What these 28 long-suppressed pages revealed was well summarized by one succinct reader who wrote:

"The Inquiry discloses that there is a very direct chain of evidence about financing and logistics… [that] goes from the Saudi Royal family (Amb. Bandar's wife and Bandar's checking account) and Saudi consulate employees (al Thumiari) to the agent handlers (Basnan and al Bayoumi) to some of the 9/11 hijackers (Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi)."

In other words, Prince Bandar bin-Sultan al-Saud, known in Washington as «Bandar Bush» (for his closeness to the Bush family), and who served at that time as Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to the United States, paid tens of thousands of dollars to Saudi Arabia’s «handlers» who were directing two of the hijackers, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. Also, one of Bandar’s subordinates at the Embassy, named al-Thumiari, was likewise paying the person who was paying and managing those two jihadists.

The report said:

"FBI files suggest that al-Bayoumi provided substantial assistance to hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi after they arrived in San Diego in February 2000… According to an October 14, 2002 FBI document, al-Bayoumi has ‘extensive ties to the Saudi Government’… According to the FBI, al-Bayoumi was in frequent contact with the Emir at the Ministry of Defense, responsible for air traffic control… Al-Bayoumi was receiving money from the Saudi Ministry of Defense… Al-Bayoumi was known to have access to large amounts of money from Saudi Arabia, despite the fact that he did not appear to hold a job… Al-Bayoumi’s pay increased during the time that al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were in the United States."

Also, an FBI agent testified on 9 October 2002 regarding al-Bayoumi, and said Bayoumi: 

"acted like a Saudi intelligence officer, in my opinion. And if he was involved with the hijackers, which it looks like he was, if he signed leases, if he provided some sort of financing… then I would say that there’s a clear possibility that there might be a connection between Saudi intelligence and UBL [Usama bin Laden]."

Moreover: «The FBI has now confirmed that only Osama Bassnan’s wife received money directly from Prince Bandar’s wife, but that al-Bayoumi’s wife attempted to deposit three of the checks from Prince Bandar’s wife, which were payable to Bassnan’s wife, into her own accounts… Bassnan was a very close associate of Omar al-Bayoumi’s and was in telephone contact with al-Bayoumi several times a day».

Furthermore: «Bassnan’s wife received a monthly stipend from Princess Haifa».

And: «On at least one occasion, Bassnan received a check directly from Prince Bandar’s account. According to the FBI, on May 14, 1998, Bassnan cashed a check from Bandar in the amount of $15,000. Bassnan’s wife also received at least one check directly from Bandar… for $10,000… FBI Executive Assistant Director D’Amuro commented on this financing: «I believe that we do have money going from Bandar’s wife, $2,000 a month up to about $64,000».

Also:

"On March 28, 2002, US and coalition forces retrieved the telephone book of Abu Zubayda, whom the US Government has identified as a senior al-Qa’ida operational coordinator. According to an FBI document, ‘a review of toll records has linked [to] ASPCOL Corporation in Aspen, Colorado… ASPCOL is the umbrella corporation that manages the affairs of the Colorado residence of Prince Bandar, the Saudi Ambassador… The US Government also located another Virginia number at an Usama bin Laden safehouse in Pakistan… [where a person was] interviewed by the FBI in June 2002. He could not explain why his number ended up at a safehouse in Pakistan, but stated that he regularly provides services to a couple who are personal assistants to Prince Bandar."

This has to be seen in the context of George W Bush’s very close and longstanding personal friendship with Prince Bandar, and also in the context of Bandar’s career.

Bandar has long been involved, both officially and unofficially, in the intelligence operations of the Saud family (which own Saudi Arabia). During October 2005 through January 2015, he served as secretary general of Saudi Arabia’s National Security Council, and he also was director general of the Saudi Intelligence Agency from 2012 to 2014. Furthermore, the just-released report asserts:

«The FBI also received reports from individuals in the Muslim community alleging that Bassnan might be a Saudi intelligence agent. According to a CIA memo, Basnan reportedly received funding and possibly a fake passport from Saudi Government officials. He and his wife have received financial support from the Saudi Ambassador to the United States and his wife… A CIA report also indicates that Bassnan traveled to Houston in 2002 and… that during that trip a member of the Saudi royal family provided Bassnan with a significant amount of cash… FBI information indicates that Bassnan is an extremist and a supporter of Usama bin Laden».

Regarding Shaykh al-Thumairy, he was «an accredited diplomat at the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles and one of the ‘imams’ at the King Fahd Mosque… built in 1998 from funding provided by Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Abdulaziz. The mosque… is widely recognized for its anti-Western views».

The 28 pages also include lots more, but those facts give at least some solid indications of the links that Prince Bandar had to 9/11.

And other FBI offices than in San Diego were basically not even covered in the 28 pages; this was a rush-job by a Senate Committee, and with enormous resistance from the White House, which did everything they could to block the investigators.

Furthermore: none of this information is as solid as the sworn court-testimony of the captured former bagman for al-Qaeda, their bookkeeper who personally collected each one of the million-dollar cash donations to the organization and named many donors, including Prince Bandar, as having been among the people from whom he picked up those suitcases full of cash. He said of their donations: «It was crucial. I mean, without the money of the – of the Saudi you will have nothing». The authors of the Senate investigation report, never got any wind of this, because that man was in a US prison and held incommunicado until that court-case in October 2014. But it was virtually the entire Saud family – not merely Bandar – who funded 9/11.

So, we know that Bandar «Bush» was practically like a brother to George W Bush, but what other indications do we have of GWB’s guilt in the planning of the 9/11 attacks?

First of all, if he wasn’t involved in the attack’s planning, then he was grossly incompetent and uncaring, to the point of criminal negligence for the numerous attempts that the CIA had made to warn GWB that such an attack was being planned and would occur soon – that he simply ignored those warnings. Criminal negligence, however, isn’t the same as being a traitor. That’s far more serious, and it would entail Bush’s conscious desire for such an attack to occur. Such evidence does exist. Here it is:

Researcher Chris Whipple headlined at Politico, on 12 November 2015, «‘The Attacks Will Be Spectacular’», and he reported:

«Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US» The CIA’s famous Presidential Daily Brief, presented to George W. Bush on August 6, 2001, has always been Exhibit A in the case that his administration shrugged off warnings of an Al Qaeda attack. But months earlier, starting in the spring of 2001, the CIA repeatedly and urgently began to warn the White House that an attack was coming.

By May of 2001, says Cofer Black, then chief of the CIA’s counterterrorism center, ‘it was very evident that we were going to be struck, we were gonna be struck hard and lots of Americans were going to die.’ ‘There were real plots being manifested,’ Cofer’s former boss, George Tenet, told me in his first interview in eight years…

The crisis came to a head on July 10. The critical meeting that took place that day was first reported by Bob Woodward in 2006. Tenet also wrote about it in general terms in his 2007 memoir At the Center of the Storm.

But neither he nor Black has spoken about it publicly in such detail until now — or been so emphatic about how specific and pressing their warnings really were. Over the past eight months, in more than a hundred hours of interviews, my partners Jules and Gedeon Naudet and I talked with Tenet and the 11 other living former CIA directors for The Spymasters, a documentary set to air this month on Showtime.

The drama of failed warnings began when Tenet and Black pitched a plan, in the spring of 2001, called «the Blue Sky paper» to Bush’s new national security team. It called for a covert CIA and military campaign to end the Al Qaeda threat — ‘getting into the Afghan sanctuary, launching a paramilitary operation, creating a bridge with Uzbekistan.’ ‘And the word back,’ says Tenet, ‘was «we’re not quite ready to consider this. We don’t want the clock to start ticking». (Translation: they did not want a paper trail to show that they’d been warned.)»

Five days later, I wrote an article interpreting that, titled «Politico Reports Bush Knew 2001 Terror-Attack Was Imminent and Wanted It». Readers here are referred to that, for the continuation of the case here.

For additional information on the bonding between the Saudi aristocracy and the US aristocracy, see this and this. It’s important to understand in order to be able to understand why Obama helped to set up the 21 August 2013 Syrian sarin attack to be blamed on Bashar al-Assad, who is allied with Russia. The US is allied with the Saud family, against Russia; and Syria is allied with Russia and refuses to allow pipelines for gas from Qatar and oil from Saudi Arabia through Syria to replace gas and oil that Russia has been selling to the EU. (Like RFK Jr. properly headlined on 25 February 2016, «Syria: Another Pipeline War». That’s why the Sauds want Assad dead.)

via http://ift.tt/2a4qdu7 Tyler Durden

A WSJ reporter who covers the Middle East had a very “troubling” close-encounter with the US police superstate.

Maria Abi-Habib was detained by federal agents at Los Angeles International Airport, who demanded to confiscate her two cell phones, and was shocked to learn that border agents have the authority to do that. The reporter has both U.S. and Lebanese citizenship and was traveling on an American passport. She was flying into Los Angeles from Beirut last Thursday when she taken out of line at immigration.

“They grilled me for an hour,” she wrote. “I answered jovially, because I’ve had enough high-level security experiences to know that being annoyed or hostile will work against you.” Abi-Habib said that the agents then asked for her cellphones in order to “collect information.”

“That is where I drew the line,” Abi-Habib wrote. “I told her I had First Amendment rights as a journalist she couldn’t violate and I was protected under.”

According to Abi-Habib, the agent then presented a DHS document which explained that the government has the right to confiscate phones within 100 miles from U.S. borders: the document “basically says the US government has the right to seize my phones and my rights as a US citizen (or citizen of the world) go out the window.” 

She posted a photo of this tearsheet on the Facebook post.  The same document is also available on the website of the US Customs and Border Patrol and can be found at the following link. The key section is the following:

You’re receiving this sheet because your electronic device(s) has been detained for further examination, which may include copying. You will receive a written receipt (Form 6051-D) that details what item(s) are being detained, who at CBP will be your point of contact, and the contact information (including telephone number) you provide to facilitate the return of your property within a reasonable time upon completion of the examination.

 

The CBP officer who approved the detention will speak with you and explain the process, and provide his or her name and contact telephone number if you have any concerns. Some airport locations have dedicated Passenger Service Managers who are available in addition to the onsite supervisor to address any concerns.

More importantly, one can not refuse to hand over any demanded electronic device to the customs agent, as “collection of this information is mandatory at the time that CBP or ICE seeks to copy information from the electronic device. Failure to provide information to assist CBP or ICE in the copying of information from the electronic device may result in its detention and/or seizure.”

 

Here, Abi-Habib did something the DHS did not expect: “I called their bluff” she says, as she refused to hand over her two cell phones.   

“You’ll have to call The Wall Street Journal’s lawyers, as those phones are the property of WSJ,” she said.

This led to the agent accusing her of “hindering the investigation.” The agent left to speak with her supervisor, returning 30 minutes later to tell Abi-Habib that she was free to go. “I have no idea why they wanted my phones,” she wrote. “It could have been a way for them to download my contacts. Or maybe they expect me of terrorism or sympathizing with terrorists.”

“Why I was eventually spared, we do not know and we are writing a letter contesting DHS’ treatment of me,” Abi-Habib wrote. “I assume they avoided seizing my phones forcefully because they knew we would make a stink about it and have a big name behind us — WSJ.”

According to CNN, DHS later acknowledged the incident occurred, confirming the story, and explaining Abi-Habib’s shock at the realization of being singled-out by the police state.

Except…

None of this is actually new. 

The policy was set in 2013 when DHS reviewed its own powers and concluded that its agents were clear to search at will.  “Imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits,” it wrote.

In fact we wrote about precisely this over three years ago, in February 2013, in “Goodbye Fourth Amendment: Homeland Security Affirms “Suspicionless” Confiscation Of Devices Along Border.” As a reminder, this is what we said:

Slowly but surely the administration is making sure that both the US constitution, and its various amendments, become a thing of the past. In the name of national security, of course. And while until now it was the First and Second amendments that were the target of the administration’s ongoing efforts to eavesdrop on anyone, all the time, in order to decide who may be a domestic terrorist and thus fit for ‘droning’, coupled with an aggressive push to disarm and curtail the propagation of weapons in what some perceive is nothing more than an attempt to take away a population’s one recourse to defend itself against a tyrannical government, the time may be coming to say goodbye to the Fourth amendment – the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures – next. But only in close proximity to the border at first. As it turns out the Department of Homeland Security’s civil rights watchdog has concluded that travelers along the nation’s borders may have their electronics seized and the contents of those devices examined for any reason whatsoever — all in the name of national security.

Who was at fault for this?  As it turns out, first Bush and then Obama.

The President George W. Bush administration first announced the suspicionless, electronics search rules in 2008. The President Barack Obama administration followed up with virtually the same rules a year later. Between 2008 and 2010, 6,500 persons had their electronic devices searched along the U.S. border, according to DHS data.

 

What does this decision mean in principle: According to legal precedent, the Fourth Amendment — the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures — does not apply along the border. By the way, the government contends the Fourth-Amendment-Free Zone stretches 100 miles inland from the nation’s actual border.

Finally, why 100 miles?

Because as the attached map shows, the “borders” in question include maritime zones as well, and with the bulk of the US population concentrated along the coasts, the “constitution free” zone of the US includes virtually everyone living on the two seaboards: some 66% of the US population.

 

We even laid out a case study of what happened to a perfectly innocent man:

A lawsuit the ACLU brought on the issue concerns a New York man whose laptop was seized along the Canadian border in 2010 and returned 11 days later after his attorney complained. At an Amtrak inspection point, Pascal Abidor showed his U.S. passport to a federal agent. He was ordered to move to the cafe car, where they removed his laptop from his luggage and “ordered Mr. Abidor to enter his password,” according to the lawsuit.

 

Agents asked him about pictures they found on his laptop, which included Hamas and Hezbollah rallies. He explained that he was earning a doctoral degree at a Canadian university on the topic of the modern history of Shiites in Lebanon. He was handcuffed and then jailed for three hours while the authorities looked through his computer while numerous agents questioned him, according to the suit, which is pending in New York federal court.

As we concluded then: “First they came for your iPad, and nobody said anything…”

Over three year later, they came for a very stunned Maria Abi-Habib’s cell phones and she said something, because it is one thing to read about it one some website, it is something totally different to go through it in person.

* * *

Amusingly, the confusion stretched to the very top.

The Wall Street Journal’s editor in chief, Gerard Baker, told CNN that the paper is “disturbed by the serious incident involving Abi-Habib.”

“We have been working to learn more about these events, but the notion that Customs and Border Protection agents would stop and question one of our journalists in connection with her reporting and seek to search her cell phones is unacceptable,” Baker said in a statement to CNNMoney. 

Actually, Gerard, it’s the law and has been for years. Even this little “fringe tinfoil blog” reported on it while you were focusing on far greater matters. Maybe now that you are familiar with just what the US police state is capable of doing, you will write an article decrying it?

We doubt it.

* * *

But the absolute in irony came, when CNN quoted Gregory T. Nojeim, a lawyer at the Center for Democracy & Technology, who “is concerned” about these extraordinary powers.  “They should have to have reasonable suspicion when they do this,” he said.

They should yes, but they don’t. And if you “lawyers” were actually doing your job and protecting civil liberties, this would not have happened. Of course, we realize that is asking far too much.

* * *

Her full Facebook post is reposted below in its entirety. Highlights ours.

Dear friends,

I wanted to share a troubling experience I had with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in the hopes it may help you protect your private information. I was born a US citizen and was traveling on my American passport.

I landed at LA airport last Thursday to attend a wedding. I was standing in line for immigration when a DHS officer said “oh, there you are.” I was puzzled. “I was trying to recognize you from your picture. I’m here to help you get through the line.”

I asked a few questions, and she said that DHS had decided to pick me up when my name came in on the flight manifest (this is not uncommon, for countries to share passenger names). She didn’t say whether the flight manifest was sent from Beirut, where I started my trip, or Frankfurt, where I hopped onto my connecting flight to LAX. The DHS agent went on to say she was there to help me navigate immigration because I am a journalist with The Wall Street Journal and have traveled to many dangerous places that are on the US’ radar for terrorism. She independently knew who I worked for and my Twitter account, countries I’d reported from (like Iraq) and even recent articles I’d written — I told her nothing about myself.

This didn’t seem out of the ordinary at first — I’ve had US Immigration officials tell me my name is on a special list that allows me to circumvent the questioning most would receive if they had a similar travel profile or internet print (talking to members of known terrorist groups). I travel to the US about twice a year and have always remarked on how smooth my experiences at Customs/Immigration are.

But after pushing me to the front of a very long line at immigration, she then escorted me to the luggage belt, where I collected my suitcase, and then she took me to a special section of LAX airport. Another customs agent joined her at that point and they grilled me for an hour – asking me about the years I lived in the US, when I moved to Beirut and why, who lives at my in-laws’ house in LA and numbers for the groom and bride whose wedding I was attending. I answered jovially, because I’ve had enough high-level security experiences to know that being annoyed or hostile will work against you.

But then she asked me for my two cellphones. I asked her what she wanted from them.

“We want to collect information” she said, refusing to specify what kind.

And that is where I drew the line — I told her I had First Amendment rights as a journalist she couldn’t violate and I was protected under. I explained I had to protect my sources of information.

“Did you just admit you collect information for foreign governments?” she asked, her tone turning hostile.

“No, that’s exactly not what I just said,” I replied, explaining again why I would not hand over my phones.

She handed me a DHS document, a photo of which I’ve attached. It basically says the US government has the right to seize my phones and my rights as a US citizen (or citizen of the world) go out the window. This law applies at any point of entry into the US, whether naval, air or land and extends for 100 miles into the US from the border or formal points of entry. So, all of NY city for instance. If they forgot to ask you at JFK airport for your phones, but you’re having a drink in Manhattan the next day, you technically fall under this authority. And because they are acting under the pretense to protect the US from terrorism, you have to give it up.

So I called their bluff.

“You’ll have to call The Wall Street Journal’s lawyers, as those phones are the property of WSJ,” I told her, calmly.

She accused me of hindering the investigation – a dangerous accusation as at that point, they can use force. I put my hands up and said I’d done nothing but be cooperative, but when it comes to my phones, she would have to call WSJ’s lawyers.

She said she had to speak to her supervisor about my lack of cooperation and would return. I was left with the second DHS officer who’d been there since we left the baggage claim area.

The female officer returned 30 minutes later and said I was free to go. I have no idea why they wanted my phones — it could have been a way for them to download my contacts. Or maybe they expect me of terrorism or sympathizing with terrorists — although my profile wouldn’t fit, considering I am named Maria Teresa, and for a variety of other reasons including my small child.

I’ve since done some research and spoken to an encryption expert. This is the information I’ve gleaned which I hope may help those reading:

1) My rights as a journalist or US citizen do not apply at the border, as explained above, since legislation was quietly passed in 2013 giving DHS very broad powers (I researched this since the incident). This legislation also circumvents the Fourth Amendment that protects Americans’ privacy and prevents searches and seizures without a proper warrant.

2) Always use encryption, but even this cannot keep you 100% safe. If you are contacting someone about a sensitive matter, use an application like Signal. But if DHS seizes your phone, they can see you’ve been speaking to that person, although if you erase your chats, they won’t see what you spoke about.

3) Never download anything or even open a link from a friend or source that looks suspicious. This may be malware, meaning that they have downloaded software on your phone that will be able to circumvent the powers of encryption. Don’t leave your phone unattended for the same reasons – they can just open it up and download malware.

4) Travel “naked” as one encryption expert told me. If any government wants your information, they will get it no matter what. Remember the San Bernardino shooter? Apple refused to comply, so the US got the information by paying an Israeli company $1 million to unlock the shooter’s phone. So if you have something extra sensitive on your device – phone or laptop – do not travel with it and instead use your sim card in a clean phone. And for sensitive numbers, write them on a piece of paper you can somehow secure and then restore the factory settings on your phone – which seems to be the only way of wiping it clean 100%.

Sorry for the long post. I hope this helps.

via http://ift.tt/2agL4sX Tyler Durden

Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

Earlier this week, I published a lengthy thought piece titled, America is Being Divided and Conquered Into Oblivion. I ended it with the following paragraphs:

All that said, I don’t want to end this post on a negative note. I think the real thing that’s missing from the equation is too many good, talented people are doing nothing. I’m not trying to be judgmental here. I personally had the ability and resources to quit my job and do what I do. I didn’t have a family at the time and didn’t have to provide for anyone else. That’s not the point. You don’t have to do what I did to make a difference and influence people. You don’t have to quit your job and fight the status quo with every breath you take. Life doesn’t need to be seen as an all or nothing endeavor in everything you do. Nevertheless, I think it’s important to consider the following (as an aside, I try to ask myself these questions all the time).

 

Think about your everyday life. What are you doing to push forward the decentralization of power and unite people? How are you being potentially divisive in life, and how can you bring people together as opposed to tearing others down? If you were brought up privileged and financially well off, you arguably have a greater responsibility to society. What are you doing to give back? Is it sufficient? Is what you do for a living accretive or extractive to society? What are you doing to make the world a better place than you found it? If nothing, why not?

 

While there are plenty of fortunate people out there doing jobs merely to chase cash and stroke their ego, the vast majority of people genuinely have major financial commitments and therefore have no choice but to stay in spiritless, soul-sucking jobs. I get that. For people in the former group, I ask you to consider the fact that you have one life to live and this battle is an existential one.

 

If you can dedicate your talents and creativity to something positive, consider doing so. If you are in the latter group, I understand that providing for your family is of the utmost importance, but that doesn’t mean you can’t make meaningful contributions in smaller ways, even if it’s as simple as trying to be less divisive and more self-reflective. As Gandhi noted:

 

“If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. … We need not wait to see what others do.”

 

But even this is not enough. We need to heed the words of Huxley in 1958:

 

“If you wish to avoid dictatorship by referendum, break up modern society’s merely functional collectives into self-governing, voluntarily co-operating groups, capable of functioning outside the bureaucratic systems of Big Business and Big Government.”

 

We can’t rely on politicians and we can’t rely on hope. We need to rely on the power of our own actions coming together to ultimately make the world a better place. The window of opportunity is now and the world needs you. All of you.

I was thrilled that the above post touched a lot of people, but I didn’t really provide any specific suggestions for personal growth. Fortunately, I just read an excellent article by the Daily Zen’s Charlie Ambler, which does just that.

Here it is, republished in full: How to Actually Make America Great Again.

There’s a lot of platitudinal talk about making things “great” again, which is a good way to engage any regular idiot without providing any sort of prescription for what should actually happen. I find this particular election cycle to be revolting and don’t feel personally connected to it in any way. As I read Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book Team of Rivals, about Lincoln and other American political figures during the Civil War era, I can’t help but think that these events of 2016 are just further signals of the decline of both American society and the West at large.

 

Sorry, folks, but we got our freedom and we squandered it fewer than a handful of centuries. We stopped reading books. We gave up on the nuclear family. We skewed the meaning of words and let other people and institutions do for us what we could have done ourselves. We lost any semblance of identity other than that reliant on the hedonistic narcissistic whims of the individual. Identity politics have emerged alongside a complete loss of cultural identity— what a supreme irony! It really feels great to get this off my chest.

 

In this sense, there are obvious ways to “make America great again” that don’t involve trusting a wealthy NYC landlord. After a few years of dealing with those guys I can assure you they’re bad news. How do we make America Great Again? A few ideas for individuals, since the whole purpose of this place to begin with was that individuals had the opportunity to live virtuous lives without needing to rely too heavily on their institutions to provide for them or stifle them. Let’s review a few individual tactics that can help bring some sanity back to the Western cultural-political landscape:

 

Return to the family.

 

There’s no great human society that didn’t place a high value on the nuclear family. The modern West has experienced a fracturing of the family due to various technologies and cultural excitements that made it seem unimportant. Many people went their own way; love became about promiscuity, drama and money, rather than sacrifice, honor, humility, modesty or child-rearing. Success became about money and the career ladder rather than passing wisdom and virtue onto one’s kin.

In New York City, the apotheosis of the peculiar type of modernity we see in 2016, I see mothers who dress their babies like tiny hip college students and then go off to work, leaving the babies with a random babysitter who spends the day walking them in circles around the park. If you want to rescue the modern world, return to the family. Focus less on culture and careerism and more on teaching children how to live a meaningful life. If the example we set is that work is more important than family, the next generation of children probably won’t even bother with raising families. These priorities should be reversed.

 

Read more.

 

Many of the men who founded America and sent it forward in the beginning were voracious readers. Before you could spend your leisure time by just going on your phone and playing Angry Birds or getting laid on Tinder, smart people would spend hours each day reading for leisure. They would digest the timeless works of the past not for any real practical purpose but to cultivate a fuller understanding of the world, history, and human life. If they wanted correspondence with someone, they would sit down and draft a thoughtful letter by hand.

Information was scarce and ambitious people sought it out. Today, the great books are open to literally everyone. What do young people do? They complain that the authors weren’t multicultural enough. I really have no choice but to shake my head at the sheer arrogance and spiritual void that exists in my generation. I’m often embarrassed by it. Liberal arts college students should start actually reading books again; they’ve clearly taken a break.\

 

This is not to say, “Aw man, the good ol’ days, right!?” Most people in Lincoln’s era and before, war notwithstanding, only lived until their mid-40’s on average. But we should understand from the past just how insane our current notions of leisure are. We have lost so much discipline, so much capacity for patience and knowledge that people not that long ago were willing to cultivate. Read more. Read every day. Honestly, read as much as you possibly can. It will transform your life in a way that you won’t recognize until you see.

 

Don’t be scared

 

When America started, most people didn’t even think about retirement. Retirement wasn’t an option. This was because it was unlikely for anyone to live to middle-age, let alone past it, thanks to poor medical science and general uncleanliness. It’s not unusual today for someone to live to 80, 90, or 100, the irony being that they’re usually stuck in some sort of boring post-industrial retirement home or a hospital bed. And up until retirement they likely spent their entire life working to save money for retirement. The logic in these scenarios really just reflects a population that does not reflect!

 

That would you do today if you knew you were going to die at 40? Would you worry so much about petty things? We can learn from the past how to keep the present in perspective. Modern society’s current degradation is the best argument against “situational progress” that one can muster. People emotionally shift and become just as uncomfortable in a state of supreme comfort as they are in a state of supreme discomfort, the same way many people who get rich aren’t any happier for it. We adapt. It’s in our nature. If we can spiritually train ourselves to be less uncomfortable, less fearful, and more grateful of life, we will stop being so collectively petty and greedy.

 

I don’t write very many political articles, but when you get to the root of politics you realize that it’s everywhere. Everything you do is a reflection of your beliefs. The way to make America great again isn’t to kick out all the brown people or give everyone free money or fight strange conflicts abroad, but instead to have a complete spiritual overhaul! Politics is a reflection of our collective spirit; clearly today that spirit is nearly-bankrupt. Our priorities are insanely out of order.

 

If we want to reclaim a sense of greatness and virtue, it takes individuals to reconfigure themselves and cultivate greatness on a spiritual level. It takes people who have an appetite not for mindless destruction and distraction but for knowledge, reality, humility and gratitude. Meditate, folks. Read more. Love your family. Stifle your ego. This might be our only hope.

 

If you liked this piece, please consider supporting Daily Zen.

Thank you for writing this, Charlie.

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