Thank Snowden? U.S. to Reveal Numbers of Americans Affected by Surveillance

James ClapperIntelligence officials are preparing a report at the request of members of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee to provide an estimate of how many Americans have had their personal data snapped up by federal surveillance.

Can anybody imagine this happening before Edward Snowden revealed the evidence that our own national intelligence apparatus was collecting huge amounts of our own communications data while trying to track down suspected terrorists? And yet he’s probably not going to be coming home soon, despite his role in helping correct bad privacy-destroying government policies.

How much will be released isn’t quite clear based on Reuters’ reporting. It’s nevertheless a promising development not just for government transparency but for Congress playing its role in serving as oversight over exactly how much authority these agencies should have. And the timing matters, as some of the National Security Agency’s surveillance authorities (under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) are up for review next year and Congress will have to act. Dustin Volz at Reuters notes:

Intelligence officials have said that data about Americans is “incidentally” collected under Section 702, due to a range of technical and practical reasons. Critics have assailed such collection as back-door surveillance of Americans without a warrant.

[Director of National Intelligence James] Clapper, who is stepping down next month, suggested in April that providing an estimate of Americans surveilled under Section 702, a figure some have said could tally in the millions, might be possible, while defending the law as “a prolific producer of critical intelligence.”

Clapper, we may recall, became well-known (seriously, would anybody be able to identify him prior to Snowden’s leaks?) for getting caught lying to the Senate about the extent that personal data from Americans’ communications was getting swept up in terrorism surveillance.

Several of the House members who signed on to this request directed to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence are also members of the relatively new Fourth Amendment Caucus, including caucus co-founders Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-California). Keep an eye on them next year as they push for reforms to Section 702 to better protect Americans from secret government surveillance.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2ht3dJ1
via IFTTT

Architect of Title IX Overreach Appointed to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Obama Says Russia Did It, Clinton Blames Comey: P.M. Links

  • ObamaCatherine Lhamon, assistant secretary of the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights and chief architect of the worrying expansion of Title IX-based sexual misconduct tribunals on college campuses, has been appointed to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. True story, though: Reason associate editor Robby Soave (me!) was appointed to the D.C. Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
  • In his final press conference, President Obama expressed confidence that the Russian government was involved in the alleged hacking of the DNC. He also thought the perception of Democrats as “latte sipping, politically correct” hurt them in the election.
  • Earlier today, Hillary Clinton blamed her loss on the hack and James Comey.
  • Columbia University Professor Mark Lilla defended his thesis that liberal reliance on identity politics made them lose.
  • Female Stanford University alumni push back on administration’s scolding of band members for making sexually suggestive comments.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2hEca09
via IFTTT

Stocks Suffer Worst Week Since Election As Banks, Bullion, & Bonds Sink

The market's message to Dow 20,000 (or China's message to 'Murica)?

 

Thanks to China stealing an underwater drone and quad witch shenanigans, US equities closed red post-Fed…

 

And while Gold spiked today on China, it remains the biggest laggard post-Fed (though even bank stocks are now red)…

 

And today's China headlines realy spooked the market on edge anyway from OPEX

 

On the week only The Dow managed to hold onto gains…

  • Trannies Dropped 2.5% – worst week in 6 months
  • Financials dropped 1.6% – worst week in 3 months
  • NYSE Composite worst week since election

On the week, stocks were mixed but Trannies worst…

 

Dow 20,000 was lost – 2 lower highs in a row post Fed spike…

 

Quad Wicth saw more VIX chaos with a total collapse into the close (note the corrrelation between stocks and VIX was extremely high once again – as opposed to norm)

 

Financial stocks were the week's worst performers (and healthcare best)…

 

Treasury yields ended the week higher across the curve BUT the long-end dramatically outperformed…

 

And the yield curve has tumbled in recent days…

 

The USD Index rose notably on the week to close at 14 year highs… (led by Yen and Aussie Dollar weakness)

 

The Dollar dump after China sparked some chaos in commodities and lifted crude oil into the green, silver was worst on the week…

 

Gold spiked today on China headlines but ended the week ugly – 6th weekly drop in a row (worst week since election week)

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

IRS Agents Rented Million-Dollar Townhomes, Spent Hundreds of Nights in Luxury Hotels Last Year

Taxpayers paid for IRS employees to rent million-dollar townhomes and luxury apartments, and covered hundreds of nights at the Ritz Carlton and other five star hotels during 2015.

A Senate Finance Committee report on long-term IRS travel released Thursday found that the 27 agents who traveled for more than half the year cost taxpayers, on average, $1.4 million per person. More than half of the travel expenses logged by those employees were for visits to Washington, D.C., and many times the IRS paid for luxury lodgings that the committee called “excessive and inappropriate.”

That description is probably an understatement.

Terry Milholland, the former chief technology officer for the IRS, spent 168 days during fiscal year 2015 at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, D.C., costing taxpayers nearly $39,000. The hotel, located off H Street just blocks from the White House, boasts “spacious rooms that are cosmopolitan and sleek,” featuring “infinite luxuries.”

According to the Senate report, Milholland would routinely commute to Washington on Monday mornings and stay at the Grant Hyatt through Thursday, when he would turn to his home in Texas. Even though the Grand Hyatt is located within walking distance of the IRS Building and a Metro station, Milholland would take a taxi from the hotel to work every morning, running the meter for more than $1,500 during the year.

Another employee—who was not identified by name or position—shacked up at the Ritz Carlton in Pentagon City, Virginia, and left taxpayers with a $43,000 tab. The same employee spent another $29,000 in the same year at other D.C. area hotels—because you can’t spend every night at the Ritz Carlton, or else it will start seem less magical.

Not to be outdone by their colleagues, two of the employees highlighted in the report skipped the luxury hotels and opted instead to stay in luxury apartments. One of them rented a $1.07 million four-bedroom townhouse in Arlington, Virginia, for a year at a rate of more than $4,900 per month. The other split his or her time between Washington, D.C., and Chicago, renting luxury apartments in both cities, with the leases apparently overlapping. The employee’s Washington, D.C., apartment cost taxpayers more than $3,100 per month for nine month, while the Chicago apartment cost more than $4,600 per month during an 11-month lease.

One employee—Employee 16 in the committee’s report—submitted an incredible 381 days’ worth of travel reimbursements during 2015, a year that, like most, contained only 365 days. The employee “may have filed multiple vouchers covering the same period of time, which would result in the number of days in travel status exceeding 365,” the report notes.

“The IRS has routinely failed to take allowable steps to reduce its travel expenditures,” said U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, in a statement. “The lack of effort by IRS employees to exercise prudence and economy when utilizing taxpayer funds is concerning, and more importantly, a direct apparent violation of [federal travel regulations]”

The IRS did not return requests for comment.

More than half of all travel by IRS employees brought them to Washington, D.C., with Atlanta (and Glynco, Georgia, an Atlanta suburb) accounting for the second (and third) most travel. Chicago and New York City were other popular destinations.

Federal employees traveling to Washington, D.C., for a month can spend as much as $7,000 on lodging alone, the committee found. At that point, one must wonder why the IRS is not buying those frequent visitors their own homes or apartments in the D.C. area, rather than filling up hotels.

There are “virtually no circumstances” where an employee would need to spend $7,000 per month on rent, the committee notes.

The Treasury’s Office of the Inspector General found similar problems with IRS employees abusing travel expense in a 2013 audit, the Senate Finance Committee report notes, but no changes were made to improve the situation.

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

President Obama: Perception of Democrats as ‘Latte Sipping, Politically Correct’ Hurt Them

ObamaIn his final press conference as commander-in-chief, President Obama talked about how his administration handled Russia’s alleged hacking of DNC emails and whether it cost Hillary Clinton the election.

He declined to speculate on the latter. He did, however, note that the perception of Democrats as out of touch—as “politically correct”—damaged the party’s chances.

On the hack, Obama noted that the available intelligence indicates “the Russians were responsible.” He was not prepared to state unequivocally that the Russian government was involved, however.

“My hope is that the president-elect is going to be similarly concerned with making sure we don’t have foreign influence in our election process,” he said.

The president said that it was up to the pundits to determine whether the hack had an impact on the election. The president defended the actions taken by his administration. He thought making a bigger issue of the hack during the campaign would have cast doubt on the outcome of the election—a bad thing for our democracy.

While Obama spent most of the press conference talking about Russia and Syria, he did take a minute to reflect on the fact that negative perceptions of out-of-touch Democrats worked against them in the election.

“People feel as if they’re not being heard,” he said. “Democrats are characterized as coastal liberal latte-sipping politically-correct out-of-touch folks.”

The president said that Democrats “have to be in those communities” where voters felt like the party was too coastal, too elitist, too politically correct. “When we are in those communities, it makes a difference,” he said. “It’s how I became president.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders understands that political-correctness-run-amok pushed people into the Trump camp. President Obama appears to understand that, too. When will the rest of the party admit it?

You can watch the rest of the press conference live here.

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

“Dash-For-Trash” At Its Most Extreme Since DotCom Peak…

The Trump rally's animal spirits might be jumping the shark. The massive outperformance of the 'riskiest' high-volatility stocks over 'stodgy' low-volatility in the last few weeks…

In fact, as BofAML's Michael Hartnett notes, there has been an exodus from low-volatility funds…

 

As everyone and their pet rabbit embraces the "Trump Trade"…

 

But…The usually high correlation between the two 'classes' of stocks has collapsed to zero…

This is the biggest plunge since the peak of the panic-buying extreme risky names during the DotCom boom – right before it all fell apart.

via http://ift.tt/2gTtpx9 Tyler Durden

Obama Told Putin To “Cut It Out” On Hacking

In a roughly 20 minute answer to the pre-vetted and scripted question by an AP reporter, in which Obama was asked what his response to “Russian hacking” would be, Obama said there may be a response however – taking a page of the Trump playbook – he would not reveal what it will be, “just like Putin will not admit he hacked the election.” The outgoing president hinted at “offensive capabilities” the U.S. possesses, but spoke broadly about his approach to preventing “some sort of cyber arms race.” His goal, the president said, was to put “some guard rails around the behavior of nations and states and our adversaries so they understand that whatever they do to us we can potentially do to them.”

Asked if Clinton lost because of the hacking, Obama demurred. “I’m going to let all the political pundits in this town have a long discussion about what happened in the election,” he said. But he took a shot at the media, which he has faulted for focusing too much on trivia and pseudo-scandals. “I don’t think she was treated fairly during the election. I think the coverage of her and the issues was troubling.” That said, he suggested Hillary’s loss was due to the press obsession “with Podesta’s risotto recipe”, in its daily coverage of the Wikileaks revelations (when in fact, the ratio of coverage of Trump “sex scandals” to Wikileaks emails was about 95% to 5%), lambasting the media for their coverage of the campaign (ignoring that 99% of all newspapers endorsed Hillary).

Obama also explained why he “hadn’t been more vocal” in calling out Russian hacking before the Nov. 8 election. “In this hyper-partisan atmosphere,” he said, noting the charged political environment surrounding the election, “I wanted to make everybody understood we were playing this thing straight.”

Asked if he was letting Russian President Vladimir Putin “get away with” hacking the U.S. election, and whether the issue had overshadowed the presidential transition, Obama pledged continued cooperation with Trump. “There hasn’t been a lot of squabbling. What we’ve said is the facts,” he said, pointing to the intelligence community’s finding that Russia had hacked the Democratic National Committee. “That shouldn’t be a partisan argument,” he said and finally said that he had taken every possible measure, by telling Putin “to cut it out” on hacking.

via http://ift.tt/2hXrfc2 Tyler Durden

Recovering America’s History Of Progressive Populism

Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

The elites' toadies, lackeys, shills, sycophants, water-carriers and apologists are desperately hyping the context-free, historically ignorant narrative that "populism leads to autocracy" to protect the existing autocracy of the elites.

There is only one narrative in the mainstream media about populism: it destroys democracy and leads straight to fascism. This is an ignorant and false narrative. Here's a typical example of the mainstream anguish that the elites' preferred narratives are falling apart because they've left the bottom 95% behind: How Democracies Fall Apart: Why Populism Is a Pathway to Autocracy

Granted, this is an international context for populism, but this is no excuse for overlooking America's history of progressive populism. Are the "experts" beating the drum that populism inevitably leads to autocracy so poorly educated about American history that they don't know that populism can be powerfully progressive, or are they being willfully blind to serve their elitist masters?

It's time we recover America's history of progressive populism. It's awfully easy for elites and their toadies (witting or unwitting) to dismiss the citizenry who reject elitst narratives as "deplorables," just as it is easy for them to dismiss populist resistance to their control as being "undemocratic."

This is of course the exact opposite of the truth: populism is the result when the institutions of "democracy"–i.e. the machinery of elite control–have failed to respond to the concerns and opinions of non-elites.

Having been rendered impotent and voiceless in the elite-dominated machinery, the bottom 95% have no alternative but to join a populist movement–a movement that in America often takes the form of a third party or an insurgency in an established political party (for example, Sanders and Trump).

Populism arises as a response to crushing inequality in both wealth and political power. The "free silver" movement arose in the late 1800s as a response of the non-elites to the enormous power and wealth of the Gilded Age financiers and industrialists.

The populist idea was to expand the money supply via minting more silver coins, with the goal being to make it easier for small enterprises and family farmers to borrow the new capital that would enter the economy.

Precisely how does this sort of populism lead to autocracy and fascism? The entire claim is laughably absurd. How can so-called "experts" spew this "populism leads to autocracy" nonsense?

Populism is a response to an elitist dominance in wealth and power that have failed the bottom 95%. Populism is a demand for solutions that work for the bottom 95% rather than just for the top 5%, and progressive populism of the sort that enabled Bernie Sanders to raise immense sums from small donors is alive and well–and would be "democratic" if it hadn't been squelched by the elites of the Democratic Party.

The "economic nationalism" of Trump's brand of populism is potentially progressive for the 95% who have not benefitted from neoliberal, financialized globalism. Bringing jobs and capital home is not fascism; rather, it is a movement of economic justice for the bottom 95% who did not benefit from globalism, offshoring and the free flow of financier capital, i.e. the neoliberal version of globalism that has been pushed for the past 24 years through the Clinton, Bush amd Obama presidencies.

To many people, borrowing money to rebuild America's infrastructure is a more progressive use of the national treasure than squandering trillions of dollars on overseas wars of choice and bailing out banks. Does the progressive populism of "come home, America" lead straight to autocracy? The idea that populism leads to autocracy has it completely backward (on purpose): what we have now is an autocracy of financial and political elites hell-bent on maintaining their death-grip on the nation's throat.

This defense of failed, exploitive elites–as if the elites' control has been "democratic" and has reduced inequality–is truly pathetic. Don't fall for the "populism leads to autocracy" propaganda of the elites who are threatened by progressive populism.

Populism is a response to an elitist dominance in wealth and power that have failed the bottom 95%. Progressive policies arise out of the bottom 95%'s resistance to the failed narratives of the elites and their toadies. The elites' toadies, lackeys, shills, sycophants, water-carriers and apologists are desperately hyping the context-free, historically ignorant narrative that "populism leads to autocracy" to protect the existing autocracy of the elites.

via http://ift.tt/2hXrJ1R Tyler Durden

If Trump Wants to Root Out Pentagon Corruption, He Could Start With Nuclear Weapons

Via The Daily Bell  

 

Trump Floats Ban on Defense Firms Hiring Military Procurement Officials … US President-elect Donald Trump on Friday said he was considering imposing a lifetime ban on US military procurement officials going to work for defense contractors, a move that could dramatically reshape the defense industry. -Reuters

President-elect Donald Trump has said Boeing & Co. prices are ridiculous and now he wants to ban government military officials from working with private contractors. But if Trump really wants to root out Pentagon corruption he should start with the nation’s nuclear weapons program which is over-hyped and patently false in at least some particulars.

Begin with the development of “atomic bombs” supervised by J. Robert Oppenheimer affiliated with the New York-based Fellowship of the New Life, here, a progressive society that advanced non-religious morality under the slogan “deed not creed.” Offshoots of this sort of progressive philosophy gave rise to the Fabian Society in England.

It is certainly possible that Oppenheimer could have considered his participation in a string of nuclear lies as a moral imperative. In any case, here are facts pertaining casting doubt on the ongoing nuclear narrative:

  • The historical development of nuclear weapons was obviously high restricted. In fact, it was reported on by a single New York Times journalist, here, who later, it was revealed, was also on the Pentagon payroll.
  • There are considerable questions about the radiation involved with nuclear weapons generally. Nuclear physicist Galen Winsor, here, was a skeptic who claimed nuclear power plants were “essentially just steam plants and nothing but the most expensive and effective way to boil water.” He used to eat “radioactive waste” on camera and said he did so often to prove the exaggerations surrounding uranium radioactivity. He died of Parkinson’s – reportedly at 82. Additionally, it should be pointed out that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are fully populated now, and have been since the initial bombings, though according to prevailing literature they shouldn’t be.
  • Crawford Sams who ran the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission in Japan had this to say about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Transcript here.): “When the bomb went off, about 2 thousand people out of 250 thousand got killed [in Hiroshima] by blast, by thermal radiation, or by intense x-ray, gamma radiation … You see, it wasn’t “Bing” like the publicity here [said]: a bomb went off and a city disappeared. No such thing happened. That was the propaganda for deterrent … When I came back to this country, I was appalled, from a military standpoint, to find that our major planners in the War Department were using their own propaganda, 100 thousand deaths, Bing! … You don’t hear much about the effects of Nagasaki because actually it was pretty ineffective. That was a narrow corridor from the hospital … down to the port, and the effects were very limited as far as the fire spread and all that stuff. So you don’t hear much.
  • There was only a single reporter, here, who reported definitively on radioactivity at Hiroshima by breaching the month long security ban affecting both cities after the blasts. He later reported on US “war crimes” from Korea and was shown to falsifying his reporting.
  • The available videos of atomic blasts are enhanced (if not entirely falsified) as even the New York Times writes, here.
  • At least one video on Youtube shows the Pentagon mimicking an atomic explosion with dynamite in a mid 1960s Hawaii detonation called Sailor Hat, here.

As have others who have examined the issue, we have realized that Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been firebombed before any “atomic bomb” was dropped on them, here and here.

Our conclusions were advanced by information that when atomic bombs were supposedly dropped on Japan, a squadron of 66 bombers was directed to Imabari. in the early morning of August 6 (666), though Imabari. had been bombed already, twice. This bombing squadron might well have fire-bombed Hiroshima instead. here.

As a result of our articles, we received two communications from a man who claimed to have been part of these unacknowledged fire-bombing sorties. An excerpt here from he first:

ALPHAMEG a month ago:

 

Well now!! i was a pilot of a B 29, on the raids of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. i am 96 years old. Yes we firebombed these cities as well as Tokyo. But there were A bombs dropped on the two cities in question…

We responded here and he responded in that article’s feedback section, see below. Apparently the firebombing of Hiroshima was launched from Tinian Island, also said to be the takeoff point for A-bomb attacks.

ALPHAMEG3 weeks ago:

War is a nightmare. Killing is never forgotten. Forgetfulness? Not likely. Gen. LeMay was a warrior.

 

His game was to hit the enemy with everything he had, and go home. We flew from Tinian Island, near Saipan. We were the 21st Bomber Group. Most of our targets were with incendiaries. We flew day and night raids, dependent on the weather at destination. If primary targets were obscured, we had secondary targets. Always went home empty.

 

LeMay wanted to drop a big one right on the Imperial Palace but was over ruled by Truman, just as McArthur was in his desire to proceed into Manchuria, and knock on the door of Stalin, and ask him if he would like to view the Japanese cities. And offer Joe a deal he couldn’t refuse. A brilliant scheme that could have nipped the following 40 year Cold War. These are the kind of warriors we need today. Heads will roll.

There are plenty more anomalies that significantly call into question both the history and effect of “nuclear weapons.” You can see a fuller list here and here and  here.

The Pentagon wants to spend one trillion updating its “nuclear deterrent.” Before the US “congress” approves the entire sum, Trump should approve an investigation of the Pentagon to find out the actual efficacy of nuclear weapons and how much they really cost to build and deploy.

Boeing is apparently attempt to charge the White House some $3 billion, here, for upgraded planes. After Trump complained, Boeing is apparently reconsidering. Chances are if an investigation was launched into the reality of nuclear weapons in the US, nuclear weapons contractors would suddenly reduce their expenses and subsequent charges.

Additionally, the Pentagon should surely be prevailed on to “test” a nuclear weapon publicly and without restrictions. Perhaps nuclear weapons perform exactly as advertised. But not once in the history of nuclear weapons has such a weapon been actually used in warfare though every other kind of hellacious weapon has been applied to the globe’s numerous wars. This makes little sense.

In other words, the same country that drops napalm on children and kills some 500,000 children in Iraq (see Madeline Albright here) has such moral qualms about nuclear weapons that they are not used – ever.

The wars that took place in the 20th century were accompanied by pervasive and massive falsehoods. World War One was seemingly not an accident, as is related in history books. It only happened after Europe’s most prominent and influential anti-war leaders were targeted for assassination. Rasuputin here was stabbed but did not die. Archduke Ferdinand was shot, here, and his death was a justification to precipitate the war.

World War Two, was supposedly started by Hitler, but his funding, as is now reported in numerous places on the Internet, came from Western and Swiss banks including possibly central banks, here. After both wars, significant advances in global infrastructure were imposed.

Public narratives issued by government should be regarded with caution. Government by necessity must aggrandize both its power and the threats it faces. Its conduct, worldwide, is often in variance with reality.

The Pentagon has officially mislaid some $8 trillion in funds, here, stands accused most recently of hiding an additional $150 billion in “waste,” here. Yet for some reason we are supposed to take the Pentagon at its word when it provides “budgets” for weapons and resources it must have.

Thanks to the Internet, most people harbor more skepticism when it comes to official pronouncement. And the mainstream media is held in lower regard than ever. Given the prevalence of the unbelievable “fake news” meme it is a wonder that so many people still believe in the entire government narrative regarding nuclear weapons.

These weapons are almost never directly examined by the public and their tests,  when conducted, are hidden away from public eyes. Even their workings are shrouded in mystery. And it remains a capital offense to discuss these weapons intimately – or their impact.

Conclusion: Trump is right to criticize the military-industrial complex and to demand changes. He should pay special attention to nuclear weapons and sort through Pentagon claims over the years to determine which are true and which are exaggerated to inflate budgets and military industrial profits.

Editor’s Note: The Daily Bell is a libertarian publication and its articles have often stated that people ought to look out for their own interests first as best they can because politics are unpredictable and usually don’t change much – or just make things worse. Additionally, as a libertarian publication, DB has published articles in the past explaining that RT and Putin himself are part of the larger questionable dialectic being presented by East and West. In no way can DB be considered a proponent of Russian propaganda. 

Editor’s Note: The Daily Bell is giving away a silver coin and a silver “white paper” to subscribers. If you enjoy DB’s articles and want to stay up-to-date for free, please subscribe here

More from The Daily Bell: 

Will Rand Paul Fight Fake News With a Filibuster?

Congress Set to Fund ‘McCarthyesque’ Investigation of Alternative Media 

 PropOrNot All-Star Organizers: Koch, Soros, CIA, MI6, Ukraine, All Together Now

 

 

 

via http://ift.tt/2hD5cec TDB