iftttwall

Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

Well, everyone thought it was a sure thing — Hillary Clinton had the White House in the bag; the entire political system from the DNC to the RNC and the mainstream media had already called the election over and done. Online gambling sites listed Clinton as a sure bet and Irish site Paddy Power even paid out one million dollars on the assumption of a Clinton win.  And then, one Weiner ruined everything — Anthony Weiner.

The revelation of an October surprise re-opening of the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s misuse of classified data on private and vulnerable email servers does not come as a shock to me, but it certainly does to many people around the world.  Hundreds of mainstream outlets are scrambling to spin the news as misconduct by the FBI rather than a victory for the halls of justice.  Numerous alternative media analysts are rushing to cover their butts and admit that there is now a “chance” of a Trump win.  Confusion reigns supreme as the weirdest election in U.S. history continues to bewilder observers.

The first issue that needs to be addressed is the lack of an open mind displayed by some when it comes to the real purpose behind this election.  The second issue here, of course, is one of timing.

Through the majority of this election cycle the public consensus has been that Clinton will win. Some argued that Trump would not be able to compete with the leftist media empire standing against him, while others have argued that the entire system including the Republican establishment would ensure that Trump would fail.  The alternative media has in the past simply pointed out that elections have always been rigged, either by the elites playing both sides of the competition, or through outright voter fraud.  They have assumed that the elites want Clinton, and therefore, the election has already been decided.

I tend to agree with the latter point of view, though I disagree with the conclusion.  U.S. elections are indeed controlled, and have been for decades, primarily through the false left/right paradigm.  However, as I have been pointing out since I correctly predicted the success of the Brexit referendum, I don’t think that Clinton is the choice of the elites.

I outline my reasons for this conclusion in-depth in articles like '2016 Will End With Economic Instability And A Trump Presidency', published in August.  For the past several months it seems as though I have been the only person holding the view that Trump will be president.  Only in the past few days have I received emails from readers stating that they used to think I was probably crazy, but now they aren’t so sure…

To be clear, my position is that Trump is slated to take the White House and that this is by design.  This has been my position since before Trump won the Republican Primaries, it was my position when the election cycle began, it has never changed, nor have my views on the reasons for this outcome ever changed.  Of course, the election is not over yet, and if Clinton ends up soiling the already thoroughly soiled Oval Office with her presence, then everyone can color me confused as well.  That said, here are some issues that I think many people are overlooking when coming to conclusions on the election and the events surrounding it.

Clinton Is The Worst Candidate The Elites Could Have Chosen

I have been studying the activities and behaviors of establishment elites for over a decade and I have to say… they are not stupid.  They certainly have hubris, and I would not call them “wise,” but they are definitely devious.  They know how to rig a game.  They know how to play both sides.  They know how to cheat to get what they want when it comes to politics and how to manufacture consent from portions of the public.  They’ve been doing it a long time.  They have mastered it.

So, in my view it is rather insane for the elites to field a candidate such as Hillary Clinton IF the entirety of their globalist empire hangs in the balance (I don't think it does).  Though she is fond of BleachBit, the woman is unbleachable.  With a decades-long rap sheet from her work at Rose Law Firm (in which document destruction and “misplacement” was apparently routine) to her interference with investigations into Bill Clinton’s sexual indiscretions, to the strange odyssey surrounding her lies on the Benghazi attack, as well as her rampant mishandling of classified documents as head of the State Department, not to mention the Clinton Foundation’s pay to play scandals, it is impossible to endear her to the masses.  Her dismal crowd turnouts are rather indicative of this.

On top of all this, Clinton’s anti-Russia rhetoric is coming off as absolutely crazy, and I think this is by design.  Many in the alternative media, while assuming that Clinton is paving the way for WWIII, forget that the average person may not be up to speed on the same information we are, but most of them aren’t ignorant.  Clinton’s ravings on Russian hacking and potential war are even putting liberals off rather than inspiring their confidence.

One would think that if the elites have their veritable pick of any politician to represent their interests in the White House and convince the American public to go along for the ride, Clinton would be the worst choice. Even if the intention were to rig the election in favor of Clinton, she would be a lame-duck president the second she took office, and, her mere presence would galvanize conservatives to the point of mass rebellion.

This is not generally how the elites play the game.  Instead, they prefer co-option to direct confrontation.

Which President Is Better For The Elites During An Economic Breakdown?

If you consider the premise that Clinton is NOT the chosen one, and that the entire election is theater, the situation changes rather drastically.

Those that follow the underlying economic data that the mainstream tends to ignore know that large swaths of the global financial system are not long for this world. With Europe’s banking system plunging towards a Lehman-style event, the OPEC production freeze deal ready to fall apart yet again, and the Federal Reserve threatening to raise rates into recessionary conditions in December, our already floundering fiscal structure is approaching another crisis.

My question has always been who would the elites rather have in office when this crisis occurs?  I’ve said it a hundred times before and I’ll say it again here: with Clinton in office, globalists and international financiers get the blame for any economic downturn.  With Trump in office, conservative movements will be blamed.  In fact, I suggest anyone who doubts this scenario watch stock market reactions every time Trump rises in the polls or Clinton faces renewed scandal.  The narrative is already being prepared — a Trump win equals a market loss.

For those that think it outlandish that the public could be tricked into blaming Trump and conservatives for an economic crisis, I suggest they consider that possession is nine-tenths of the law in the minds of many.  People can also be irrational when facing financial ruin.  I would remind readers that history is written by the victors.  The globalists plan to be victorious in the dismantling of America and our founding principles.  Whether or not they succeed is really up to average conservatives and liberty proponents, not Trump.

The FBI’s Move Prepares The Way For Trump

Clinton and the DNC argue that FBI Director James Comey’s announcement of a re-opened investigation is politically motivated.  And they are right, sort of.  The real motivation, I believe, is that Clinton was never meant to win the election in the first place, and that the elites want Trump placed in power during the final hours of the U.S. economy.  Everything else is just a Kabuki dance.

The democrats are crying foul and accusing Comey of “working with Putin,” or working with the alt-right.  The nefarious Harry Reid has even accused the FBI of hiding Trump’s supposed ties to the Russian government and violating the Hatch Act.

I think much of this outrage is real, as I believe much of the mainstream media attacks on Trump are coming from people who really think they are waging a propaganda war to get Hillary Clinton elected.  This, however, does not mean that the elites plan to install Clinton.

Some might see my position as bizarre.  I understand.  But equally bizarre to me are some of the rationalizations people attempt to argue when dealing with the Comey revelation.

For example, the argument that the entire re-opening of the investigation is a complex ploy designed by the establishment to distract away from the Wikileaks data dumps.  This makes little sense.  If anything, the re-opening investigation is only bringing MORE attention to the Wikileaks data, not less.  If the elites were hoping to create a distraction, they failed miserably.

The FBI’s announcement ONLY harms the Clinton campaign.  Period.  Even if it fizzles out, even if they announce that nothing was found, the investigation hitting the news streams so close to election day refocuses all public attention back on Clinton’s corruption and will continue to do so for the next week at least.  The idea that the elites hope to use it to help Clinton is nonsensical.

I have also seen the argument that Comey is acting to cover his own posterior, perhaps because of a fear that Trump may steal away a victory.  I find this equally absurd. Months back the consensus among alternative analysts was that Comey (placed in the FBI by Obama) was a traitor and the FBI was a puppet agency of the establishment.  Now, suddenly, Comey is worried about a possible Trump win and so takes an action which might self-fulfill the prophecy?

Comey does what he is told.  The FBI is an owned and operated elitist franchise.  They do not go rogue.  If the rogue FBI narrative were true and Comey actually feels the need to cover his bases with Trump, then it is only because he knows something the rest of us do not.  With Clinton in office, his goose would be cooked after this little incident.  Comey only gains an advantage if Trump is slated to win.

Trump May Or May Not Be Aware Of The Plan

The bottom line, according to the evidence I have seen in terms of elitists influence over U.S. elections, is that if Trump wins it will only be because they wanted him to win. The FBI firestorm this past week  appears to support my view and we still have another week left for further Clinton ugliness to be revealed.  I also expect that if Trump wins, the reaction from conservatives and liberty activists will be that the event was a “miracle,” a shocking upset against the establishment.  Much like the reaction to the Brexit referendum.  I continue to hold that conservatives and sovereignty champions in Europe and America are being set up to take the fall for a coming global destabilization.

I have not taken this position just to be contrary.  If I think about it honestly, my position is truly a losing position.  If I am mistaken and Clinton wins on the 8th then I’ll probably never hear the end of it, but that’s a risk that has to be taken, because what I see here is a move on the chess board that others are not considering.  If I’m wrong, then I’m wrong.

That said, if I am right, then I still lose, because Trump supporters and half the liberty movement will be so enraptured that they will probably ignore the greater issue — that Trump is the candidate the elites wanted all along.

If I am right, I cannot say either way if Trump is aware that he will be a potential scapegoat for the elites.  With Trump on the way to the White House I can guarantee a Fed rate hike in December.  Imagine what a staged war between Trump and the Federal Reserve will do to the U.S. dollar? What a way to destroy the currency's world reserve status and make way for the IMF's Special Drawing Rights!  I also suspect that widespread rioting is on the schedule as well from various social justice mobs; a perfect excuse for expansive martial law measures, don’t you think?

The point is, as horrifying as a Clinton presidency might be to conservatives (or to everyone), don’t get too comfortable under Trump.  The party is just getting started and our vigilance must be even greater with a conservative White House, because, like it or not, everything Trump does is going to reflect on us.  We can no more allow unconstitutional activities under Trump than we could under Clinton.  If you think the election has been chaotic and confusing so far, just wait until after it is over.

via http://ift.tt/2e3LFCF Tyler Durden

One month ago, Bridgewater’s Ray Dalio warned the New York Fed that even a modest, 1% rise in rates, and thus inflation, would lead to trillions in losses and “trigger the worst price decline in bonds since the 1981 bond market crash.” Now, it is the turn of Elliott Management’s Paul Singer. In a letter to investors seen by CNBC’s Kate Kelly, Elliott Management execs warned of essentially the same thing: that a rapid inflation is the $30 billion hedge fund’s biggest concern in the current environment, and that such a spike would not only collapse bond prices, but potentially lead to a stock market crash.

“This may seem like a strange thing to worry about under the current circumstances, but the tide toward inflation could turn rather abruptly,” wrote the money managers in their Q3 letter dated Oct. 28. “If inflation starts accelerating to an annual rate of high single digits or greater, it will be quite difficult for the mix of strategies that Elliott favors to ‘keep up.'”

However, sudden price hikes were only one of the Elliott team’s worries, according to the recent letter. Another is Singer’s biggest recurring fear: that the artificial market created by central bankers over the past 7 years will undergo rapid “renormalization.” Lingering over Elliott’s portfolio management is a persistent fear that central bankers — by collectively cutting interest rates 673 times since the financial crisis — have so upended the natural price levels of stocks, bonds and many other assets, “that the economy and markets are operating in denial of reality.”

Paraphrasing from the latest Greenlight letter, sent on the same day, in which David Einhorn said that “we have central bankers who are determined to see flashing lights that aren’t there…. we are more than seven years into an economic recovery, yet central bankers behave as if we’re still in crisis”, Elliott writes that “every sniffle is being treated by central banks as acute respiratory distress syndrome worthy of ‘code-blues’ and teams of frantic pumpers and fixers…  what this policy landscape has engendered is a widespread belief, or at least a strong suspicion, that stock and bond prices won’t ever be allowed to go down in any meaningful way.”

Such a mentality, according to Singer, “has encouraged massively risky behavior.”

Aside from his traditional pessimistic warning that the central-bank created “market” will implode sooner or later, Elliott predicts that during the coming months or years, oil prices will trend higher than their current $45 level, but not by much. “The oil market has largely achieved balance,” the managers wrote, “albeit with high stock levels, and we expect medium-term price appreciation to be limited by the return of U.S. production growth in the $50-60 range.”

Singer also touched on one of his long-running favorite investments, gold, and noted that its flat performance during the third quarter, and the move down in response to the increasing belief that the Fed will soon rate interest rates, seemed puzzling: “Given the market gyrations that have accompanied each of the Fed’s previous attempts at hiking policy rates over the last few years, now would seem to be an inopportune time to abandon the only actual safe haven that investors may reach for as an alternative to the really bad deal offered by fixed income instruments given current pricing.“

Translated: Elliott is buying gold here.

Singer then looked at Europe, and specifically Italy which he said is in a state of “tremendous flux” that will only continue should Prime Minister Matteo Renzi fail to win a Dec. 4 referendum intended to simplify the country’s governance.

“The resulting unrest may be more impactful than Brexit,” the letter stated. Meanwhile, in Germany, the straits faced by Deutsche Bank, the troubled financial giant now in talks to settle fraud charges with the U.S. Justice Department, may be overplayed in the market, given that the German government, in Elliott’s view, will do whatever is ultimately needed to stabilize the biggest German lender.

“Regardless of what Chancellor (Angela) Merkel currently says, Germany will stand behind Deutsche Bank in extremis.”

He is right,

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

Submitted by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

There's been little talk of gun control this presidential election cycle, although state-level proposals continue to make it onto state ballots. 

Gun control positions have come down along the usual partisan lines. It was clear from Clinton's comments in the final presidential debate, for example, that she desires greater restrictions on access to firearms for private citizens. She expressed no such caution about weaponry carried by government employees, of course. 

While the candidates have declined to make gun control a central issue in the campaign, mainstream media outlets, academics, and pundits continue to press for greater government restrictions and prohibitions on firearms access for private citizens. Meanwhile, of course, government agencies continue to purchase more powerful and more deadly weaponry. 

To keep pressing the issue of gun control, it is necessary for advocates to push a narrative in which crime is especially bad, and in which the United States is somehow unique in the world in terms of crime. The actual historical data often contradicts their claims, however, so in order to push their narrative with greater gusto, advocates for gun control employ several different sleight-of-hand rhetorical tricks. 

Number One: Imply that Crime Is Increasing 

First among these are repeated hints that crime, especially homicide, is becoming worse. This has been especially effective in pushing the idea that homicide is now more common every time a mass shooting takes place. 

In reality, of course, homicide rates in in the United States in 2014 were at a 51-year low. They increased from 2014 to 2015, but remained near a 50-year low, and near 1950s levels, which are recognized as an especially un-homicidal period in US history. 

Moreover, homicide rates were cut in half from the 1990s to today, in spite of the fact that guns were being purchased in larger and larger numbers over the period. 

Obviously, this doesn't translate well into a pro-gun-control talking point. So, in order to make the case for "increasing" crime, gun-control advocates will take a very short-term time horizon (often of one-year) to create the impression that there is an established trend of increasing crime. For example, homicide did indeed increase from 2014 to 2015, but the longer-term trend is something else entirely. In this report, for example, the authors breathlessly report raw numbers of people killed while conveniently ignoring both historical context and the fact that the United States contains 320,000,000 people. When these statistics are viewed in light of a 20-year trend or as a proportion of the full population, the facts take on a very different meaning. 

The key here is to ignore any time horizon beyond the immediate past, since any look at trends since the 1970s would, of course, show that homicides in the United States are in steep decline. 

See also: 

• Pew: Homicide Rates Cut in Half Over Past 20 Years (While New Gun Ownership Soared)
• 2015 FBI Report: Homicides Still Near 1950s Levels
• FBI: US Homicide Rate at 51-Year Low
• DEA Releases New Drug Overdose Death Figures: Guns Safer than Prescription Drugs

Number Two: "Worst in the Developed World"

The claim is often made that homicide rates in the United States are the worst "in the developed" world. In this case, it becomes extremely important to carefully define the "developed" world so as to exclude other countries that have homicide rates similar to that of the United States. 

As noted here, the whole notion of the "developed" world creates an arbitrary line between numerous high-middle income countries and a small number of the wealthiest countries. For example, the developed-country narrative necessarily excludes several eastern European (i.e., Latvia and Russia, to name two) countries that have homicide rates comparable to — or higher than — the United States. The narrative also excludes numerous Latin American countries that are propserous in a global context, are at peace, and have functioning legal systems. Examples include Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Costa Rica, and Mexico. None of these countries are in a state of civil war, and all are considered stable democracies. So, why are crime rates in all these countries steadfastly ignored? Because they don't help the pro-gun control narrative. 

Indeed, the whole narrative is based on a bigoted idea of middle-income countries — which implies that any country outside the European-American bubble should just be assumed to be a mess and can't even be compared to the "civilized" parts of the world. 

Also of note is the fact that in most cases, countries with higher homicide rates than the United States have more restrictive gun laws. This is the case throughout much of Eastern Europe and also in Latin America. This becomes starkly apparent when we look at the difference between the US and Mexico. On the US side of the US-Mexico border, where gun ownership is far more common, homicide rates are but a tiny fraction of what they are on the Mexico side of the border, where gun laws are far more restrictive. 

And finally, there is the problem of the fact that not all countries count homicides in quite the same way. In the US, killings committed in self defense are included as homicides, as are unsolved homicides. Things are done differently in the UK, for example, as noted in this April 2000 report from Parliament:

Figures for crimes labelled as homicide in various countries are simply not comparable. Since 1967, homicide figures for England and Wales have been adjusted to exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise. This reduces the apparent number of homicides by between 13 per cent and 15 per cent. 

See also:

• The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries
• How The NY Times Manipulates Data
• Borderland Homicides Show Mexico's Gun Control Has Failed

Number Three: Erasing the Distinction Between Suicide and Homicide 

A third trick is erasing the line between homicide and suicide. Yes, I understand that, in a broad sense, suicide is a type of homicide. But, in popular usage — and in official crime statistics — homicide usually means murder, and almost never means suicide. Moreover, everyone knows there's a difference between homicidal violence — in which one person is murdered by another person — and a depressed person taking his own life. 

However, by ignoring this distinction, gun-control advocates have created the category of "gun violence" which sounds like what normal people call crime. But, in reality, it's crime mixed with suicide. Thus, those who use this tactic can push up "gun violence" numbers by including suicides, thus vastly increasing the total number of deaths that result from gun usage. 

Moreover, those who use this trick often will claim there is a clear relationship between gun ownership rates. They note that in many states, such as Montana and Colorado, for example, suicide rates are relatively high and gun laws are relatively lax. Of course, one can draw even stronger correlations between suicide and altitude or suicide and population density. 

Moreover, the whole "more guns means more suicide" line comes completely divorced from reality when applied internationally. Many countries with extremely restrictive gun laws (such as France and Japan) have suicide rates either equal to, or much higher than, that of the United States. 

See also: 

• Guns Don't Cause Suicide 
• "Gun Violence" as a Rhetorical Trick in the Gun-Control Debate

Number Four: "Gun Homicide" vs. Homicide 

Here's another trick that involves subtly manipulating language to hide crucial information. When making comparisons among US states and various countries, gun control advocates often replace the term "homicide" with "gun homicide." This is done because the United States has a larger share of homicides committed by firearms than other countries. However, it can be shown that some countries with more gun ownership have lower homicide rates than countries with higher gun ownership rates. 

For example, in Switzerland — where gun ownership is common — 48 percent of homicides are committed with firearms. In neighboring Germany and Austria, the use of firearms in homicides is much lower (24 percent and 10 percent, respectively.) However, the homicide rate is slightly lower in Switzerland (0.6 per 100,000) than in Germany and Austria (0.9 and 0.8 per 100,000, respectively).

Apparently, more firearms homicides (proportionally speaking) to do not translate to higher homicides overall. 

Moreover, general homicide statistics are more available for more of the world, have a much better and longer history of data, and better describe the true role of lethal violence in a society. As Eugene Volokh points out here in some detail, it matters little to a homicide victim whether he was killed with a gun or a knife; gun control laws can simply cause murderers to switch to other means without actually lowing homicide rates; firearms can also be used to prevent homicides. 

See also: 

• How The NY Times Manipulates Data

Number Five: Over-reliance on Nationwide Statistics 

A fifth final trick is to make inappropriate comparisons to the United States as a single homogeneous jurisdiction. The United States is much larger than any European country, and contains far greater variations in terms of geography, climate, culture, and ethnicity than any European country outside Russia. However, this does not stop many pundits from comparing the United States — with 320 million people — to, say, Belgium, which has only 11 million people and just a handful of metropolitan areas. 

Nevertheless, gun control advocates like to list the homicide rate for the United States — in the dishonest manner described above — and say "why are US homicide rates higher?" Ignored, of course, is the fact that homicide rates can differ immensely from state to state. Indeed, as of 2015, the homicide rate (at the state level) ranged from 1.1 per 100,000 in New Hampshire to 10.3 per 100,000 in Louisiana. Obviously, given the fact that gun laws can vary substantially form state to state, it is impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions about homicides and their causes from a nationwide homicide rate. This is also relevant to making international comparisons. When we look at state level data, for example, we find that states with demographics and climates similar to that of Canada also have homicide rates similar to Canada — in spite of large differences in gun laws. 

Moreover, when we begin to look even closer at city-level data, we find that homicide rates vary wildly even within states, both in terms of overall rates and in terms of growth trends. The growth in homicides that occurred form 2014 to 2015, for example, was driven by just a handful of cities. 

See also: 

• With Few Gun Laws, New Hampshire Is Safer Than Canada
• 2015 FBI Report: Homicides Still Near 1950s Levels

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

 

Via The Daily Bell

Libertarian Candidate Endorses Hillary

‘I fear for the country’ if Trump wins, Bill Weld tells Rachel Maddow …  Libertarian vice presidential candidate William Weld said the country will be in “chaos” if Donald Trump wins the presidency and praised Hillary Clinton during an interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Tuesday. – USA Today

Bill Weld is hardly a libertarian. His informal endorsement of Hillary Clinton shows this clearly.

Of course it is hard to say what a “libertarian” is, but it certainly isn’t someone who has supported gun control and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Weld has … and reportedly is.

He comes from one of the oldest families in America, is a Harvard graduate like many in his family and former governor of Massachusetts.

Some of his career was spent with the federal justice system where he sent numerous “white collar criminals” to jail.

Why is he the vice presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party?

That’s hard to say.  More:

The former Massachusetts governor conceded that a realistic goal for the Libertarian Party in this election would be to win 5% of the popular vote and while he didn’t call for Libertarian voters in swing states to vote for Clinton, he made it clear that he strongly opposes Donald Trump. 

“I see a big difference between the R candidate and the D candidate and I’ve been at some pains to say that I fear for the country if Mr. Trump should be elected,” Weld said. “It’s a candidacy without any parallel that I can recall. It’s content-free and very much given to stirring up envy and resentment and even hatred.

Weld also said he believes Trump is “psychologically” unstable, a bully and incapable of “competently managing the  office of the presidency.” 

The article points out that Weld’s criticism of Trump is in contrast to the “kind words” he had for Hillary. It also informs us that Libertarian presidential candidate. Gary Johnson, has criticized both mainstream candidates.

Weld is not so even-handed. The article quotes him as saying that he knows Hillary well, has worked with her professionally and believes her to be a “person of high moral character.”

He also said she is “reliable” and “an honest person.” He even predicted “chaos” if Trump were elected and said that the continued investigation into Hillary’s emails was just a distraction from more important issues.

Just from the public record alone, Weld’s comments on  Hillary don’t seem accurate. It seems fairly obvious that Hillary and Bill Clinton have presided over a “pay-to-play” program that funnels donations to the Clinton Foundation in return for political favors they are able to grant or initiate.

Meanwhile, the Council on Foreign Relations is evidently America’s most prominent globalist think tank. Weld’s membership certainly implies that he supports a borderless world managed by a technocratic elite using monopoly central banking in the service of global corporatism.

Libertarianism certainly implies decentralized power and a lack of a guiding elite, which would seem to be the opposite of what the Council on Foreign Relations obviously endorses.

Weld’s presence on the Libertarian ticket is surely more evidence of the meaninglessness of political parties in an era of increase internationalism and high-level homogeneity.

Interestingly, while political parties have been neutered from the top down, Trump’s candidacy suggests that there is much different approach among voters who actually  have to support modern political parties.

Political leadership in modern Western societies usually doesn’t change much, and Weld’s presence on the Libertarian ticket is testimony to that. However, the current contentiousness in both Britain and America indicate that a change is occurring, though it certainly won’t come from Weld or Hillary.

Conclusion: It is not necessarily specified political change, as it is taking place on a personal level. But over time that will make it even more powerful.

Via The Daily Bell

More …

 

Financial Times Fumbles Trump’s Central Banking Criticism

via http://ift.tt/2fFV6Zw TDB

Remember in the last debate when Hillary was finally asked about "pay-to-play" allegations surrounding the Clinton Foundation?  Of course, anytime she's asked about those allegations, she quickly pivots to what great work the Foundation has done for HIV/AIDS victims around the world.  Here's what she said:

"I'm thrilled to talk about the Clinton Foundation…the Clinton Foundation made it possible for 11mm people around the world with HIV/AIDS to afford treatment."

 

There's just one small problem with her statement about all the great work the "Clinton Foundation" does for HIV/AIDS victims around the world, namely it happens to be completely untrue.

As it turns out, all of the charity work related to HIV/AIDS victims that Hillary referenced above is actually carried out by the independent "Clinton Health Access Initiative" (CHAI).  Moreover, efforts on the part of the Clintons to falsely attribute the HIV/AIDS work to the Clinton Foundation ruffled some feathers among the management team at CHAI who wrote a memo to Bill Clinton expressing concerns about the "serious conflicts of interest" between the Clinton Foundation and CHAI.

Within the memo, the management of CHAI expresses great concern about "cases where we meet Clinton Foundation donors who believe that they have given money to support CHAI's work because they have donated to the Clinton Foundation, when in reality CHAI does not receive the funds"…in other words, donors contribute money to the Clinton Foundation thinking it will be used to fund HIV/AIDS efforts when, in reality, none of it is actually used for that purpose…which is odd because that is exactly what Hillary said above at the 3rd Presidential debate.

Further, the line between CHAI and the Clinton Foundation is often blurred by the Foundation, creating ambiguity about our independence as an organization that is separately funded. CHAI is often portrayed by the Clinton Foundation as an initiative of the Foundation. The Clinton Foundation uses CHAI accomplishments in its publicity and fundraising events even though CHAI does not receive funds from these efforts. One example includes the Clinton Foundation Annual Trip, which is coordinated by Clinton Foundation personnel and includes stops to visit CHAI sites and CHAI programmatic work, which is publicized and promoted for Clinton Foundation fundraising purposes. We are very concerned about cases where we meet Clinton Foundation donors who believe that they have given money to support CHAI's work because they have donated to the Clinton Foundation, when in reality CHAI does not receive the funds.

The memo from CHAI management goes on to express that as "a separate legal entity from the Clinton Foundation" they have concerns about "serious conflicts of interest" surrounding "Clinton Foundation appointed members who currently serve on the CHAI Board."  Among other things, CHAI management was apparently concerned their board members' "allegiance to the Clinton Foundation takes precedence over their fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of CHAI."

CHAI has grown significantly and been successful over the past five years since we became an independent legal entity, thanks in large part to the sustainable relationships CHAI has built with our government partners and donors. We firmly believe that to continue this success CHAI needs a Board of Directors entirely independent of the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation ("Clinton Foundation"). We believe this to be in the best interest of CHAI because of the underlying conflict of interest for the Clinton Foundation appointed members who currently serve on the CHAP Board, the significant risks to CHAI associated with a possible run for the US Presidency by Secretary Clinton, and the fundamental difference in culture and approach between the two organizations.

 

We are a separate legal entity from the Clinton Foundation but there continues to be ambiguity about the relationship. There are not only fundamental differences in culture and approach between the Clinton Foundation and CHAI, but more importantly, there are serious conflicts of interest in the way that the relationship is currently structured. In particular, there is a recognizable conflict of interest with the Clinton Foundation appointed members who currently serve on the CHAI Board.

 

Since becoming a separate legal entity from the Clinton Foundation in 2010, CHAI has proven to be successful operating autonomously. Despite this, we see increasing evidence that the Clinton Foundation plans to exert more control over CHAI. We fear that there is an agenda to ultimately fold CHAI into the Clinton Foundation. Recent communications that talk about the Clinton Foundation as the controlling entity of CHAI would imply a possible consolidation.

 

We are very concerned with the current conflict of interest among Clinton Foundation appointees to the CHAI board, where we see evidence that their allegiance to the Clinton Foundation takes precedence over their fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of CHAI.

So you're saying the Clintons established a phony "independent" board of directors filled with their political cronies who were only concerned with enriching their friends and not their fiduciary obligations to the underlying charity?  Well, we just don't see how that could possibly be true.

 

Below is the full memo:

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

By EconMatters

The last couple of weeks have not helped OPEC convince the Oil Market that they are going to be able to come together and make an organized production cut and tighten the oil market going forward.

Act like a Cartel for goodness sake, or just disband altogether because you are only hurting all of your group`s individual interests by internal conflict and constant bickering. I put together a roadmap for OPEC members to follow for this upcoming meeting.

All groups have internal conflict, but these conflicts are best handled behind closed doors, public airing of differences only serves to weaken the organization`s overall impact and influence on the market.

Even the Mafia realized the value of cooperation in benefitting everyone`s business interests
as a whole versus the time and energy bickering and fighting each other over lower level disputes.

Iraq should think in terms of overall net oil revenues and not oil volumes because the goal is to make the most money for the country, and a tighter oil market with a much higher average oil price for the year brings in far more oil revenue than having slightly lower oil production numbers.

Each OPEC member actually benefits to a larger degree by reducing production slightly, individually sacrificing if you will, but the rewards of a slight sacrifice can make the difference between a $20 a barrel average selling price for the year, given that oil is a commodity and has quite a range in what it can be effectively priced at within a broad commodity band.

Just think in terms of permanently knocking the shorts out of the market who have routinely pushed oil to the lower end of the average selling band for the year. In short, OPEC needs to change the psychology of the oil market. The higher prices go, the lower a country or organization needs to produce. Never cheapen your brand!

© EconMatters All Rights Reserved | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Email Digest | Kindle   

via http://ift.tt/2fwZnil EconMatters

Submitted by Shaun Bradley via TheAntiMedia.org,

Mandatory vaccinations are about to open up a new frontier for government control. Through the war on drugs, bureaucrats arbitrarily dictate what people can and can’t put into their bodies, but that violation pales in comparison to forcibly medicating millions against their will. Voluntary and informed consent are essential in securing individual rights, and without it, self-ownership will never be respected.

The liberal stronghold of California is trailblazing the encroaching new practice and recently passed laws mandating that children and adults must have certain immunizations before being able to attend schools or work in certain professions. The longstanding religious and philosophical exemptions that protect freedom of choice have been systematically crushed by the state.

California’s Senate Bill 277 went into effect on July 1st, 2016, and marked the most rigid requirements ever instituted for vaccinations. The law forces students to endure a total of 40 doses to complete the 10 federally recommended vaccines while allowing more to be added at any time. Any family that doesn’t go along will have their child barred from attending licensed day care facilities, in-home daycares, public or private schools, and even after school programs.

Over the years, California has developed a reputation for pushing vaccines on their youth. Assembly Bill 499 was passed in 2011 and lowered the age of consent for STD prevention vaccines to just 12 years old. Included in the assortment of shots being administered was the infamous Gardasil, which just a few years later was at the center of a lawsuit that yielded the victims a $6 million settlement from the U.S. government, which paid out funds from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

The Vaccinate All Children Act of 2015 is an attempt to implement this new standard nationwide, and although it has stalled in the House, it will likely be reintroduced the next time the country is gripped by the fear of a pandemic.

The debate surrounding vaccinations is commonly framed as a moral struggle between the benefits to the collective and the selfish preferences of the individual. But since the outbreak scares of Zika, measles, and ebola, the rhetoric has taken a turn toward authoritarianism.

It’s commonly stated by the CDC and most mainstream doctors that the unvaccinated are putting the health of everyone else at risk, but the truth isn’t so black and white. The herd immunity theory has been consistently used to validate the expansion of vaccine programs, but it still doesn’t justify the removal of choice from the individual.

The classic exchange of freedom for perceived safety is a no brainer for the millions of Americans who are willing to use government to strap their neighbors down and forcibly inject them for the greater good. Anyone who expresses concern about possible side effects is immediately branded as conspiratorial or anti-science. Yet controversial claims that certain vaccine variants cause neurological disorders like autism have led some people to swear off inoculations altogether. This all-or-nothing dynamic has completely polarized the issue and prevents any reasonable discussion from taking place. Either you accept all of the CDC’s recommended 69 doses of 16 vaccines between birth and age 18, or you want to bring back measles, polio, and probably the black plague.

On the other extreme side of the debate, if you fail to acknowledge all vaccines as dangerous, you’re an ignorant sheep. Through the internet, disinformation has become widespread and created a movement of people that have written off all the benefits accomplished through immunizations. These individuals are unable or unwilling to separate the science from the shady institutions that develop and distribute new vaccines. Even if thimerosal and mercury based preservatives cause adverse reactions in some patients, it doesn’t detract from the advantages vaccine technology provides. In this debate, like most others in the US, both sides are swept up in emotion and ignorance.

Regardless, the public’s trust in vaccinations has been eroded by the reputations of those companies producing them. Pharmaceutical giants like Merck and Pfizer make billions from the distribution of these shots, and the potential profits after a mandate are enough to corrupt the morals of almost anyone. In one example, former CDC director Dr. Julie Gerberding left her post at the government agency in 2009 to work in Merck’s vaccine division. An investigative report published by the British Medical Journal last year found the CDC downplays its ties to the pharmaceutical industry.

Further, by buying the support of politicians like Hillary Clinton — who received more donations from pharmaceutical companies and their employees than any other candidate this year — these huge companies are able to expand their influence in directing government policy.

Maintaining control over what we put into our own bodies is a fundamental right, but for now, standing up to these government decrees only means ostracism from the education system and criticism from peers. In the future, however, the punishments for disobedience will likely only grow stricter.

An Orange County doctor named Bob Sears is already in the crosshairs of California’s medical board after excusing a two-year-old from future vaccinations. The mother expressed concern that her daughter had an adverse reaction to a previous shot, describing the child as becoming limp “like a ragdoll” for 24 hours after the last dose. Dr. Sears’ alternative treatment recommendations break from the rules dictated by S.B. 277, and now his reputation, as well as his career, are in jeopardy. This new authority to strip doctors of their medical licenses for simply going against the state-imposed standards opens the door for the persecution of medical professionals who resist any government regulation.

A vaccination is an invasive medical procedure that can have different effects on each and every individual. The Nuremberg Code’s first principle is voluntary consent, but it seems the lessons of history have been completely forgotten by today’s leaders. The transition of these shots from “recommended” to “required” is well underway, and those who think the ends justify the means are willing to forcibly make sure everyone else complies.

The new benchmark set by California symbolizes a precedent that could be mimicked across the nation. Without having the discretion to choose which medications are injected into your body — or your child’s — how can anyone convince themselves they are free? This overreach and collusion can often be dismissed as a trivial issue, but the fact that voluntary consent is under attack speaks volumes to the extent that state power has metastasized.

via http://ift.tt/2fjhh3e Tyler Durden

We’ve repeatedly shown that it’s much more likely that American insiders – not Russian hackers – leaked the Clinton emails.

Today, the NSA executive who created the agency’s mass surveillance program for digital information, who served as the senior technical director within the agency, who managed six thousand NSA employees, the 36-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a “legend” within the agency and the NSA’s best-ever analyst and code-breaker, who mapped out the Soviet command-and-control structure before anyone else knew how, and so predicted Soviet invasions before they happened (“in the 1970s, he decrypted the Soviet Union’s command system, which provided the US and its allies with real-time surveillance of all Soviet troop movements and Russian atomic weapons”) – told Washington’s Blog:

My vote all along has been on an insider passing all these emails to Wikileaks.

If it were the Russians, NSA would have a trace route to them and not equivocate on who did it.  It’s like using “Trace Route” to map the path of all the packets on the network.  In the program Treasuremap NSA has hundreds of trace route programs embedded in switches in Europe and hundreds more around the world.  So, this set-up should have detected where the packets went and when they went there.

Binney has previously explained to us that a Russian hack would have looked very different, and that he thought the hack may have been conducted by an NSA employee who was upset at Clinton’s careless handling of America’s most sensitive intelligence.

The former intelligence analyst, British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, and chancellor of the University of Dundee (Craig Murray) – who is close friends with Wikileaks’ Julian Assange – said he knows with 100% certainty that the Russians aren’t behind the leaks.

In February, Murray said:

“The source of these emails and leaks has nothing to do with Russia at all. I discovered what the source was when I attended [a] whistleblower award in Washington. The source of these emails comes from within official circles in Washington DC. You should look to Washington not to Moscow.”

Prominent investment advisor and economic forecaster Martin Armstrong writes today:

All our indications from behind the curtain are suggesting that there are many within the “intelligence” sector and “law enforcement” sector who are deeply troubled with the Clintons. They are trying to release documents and info to stop the Clinton Inc. Machine. That’s all we can say on this topic right now. Suffice it to say, there is a real internal battle going on in Washington.

And the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under numerous administrations – both Democratic and Republican – (Steve Pieczenik ) said recently that a group of officers from various U.S. intelligence and military agencies have staged a “counter-coup” to save America from corruption, and are the source of the leaked emails:

Interesting times, indeed …

via http://ift.tt/2epfegr George Washington

We’ve repeatedly shown that it’s much more likely that American insiders – not Russian hackers – leaked the Clinton emails.

Today, the NSA executive who created the agency’s mass surveillance program for digital information, who served as the senior technical director within the agency, who managed six thousand NSA employees, the 36-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a “legend” within the agency and the NSA’s best-ever analyst and code-breaker, who mapped out the Soviet command-and-control structure before anyone else knew how, and so predicted Soviet invasions before they happened (“in the 1970s, he decrypted the Soviet Union’s command system, which provided the US and its allies with real-time surveillance of all Soviet troop movements and Russian atomic weapons”) – told Washington’s Blog:

My vote all along has been on an insider passing all these emails to Wikileaks.

If it were the Russians, NSA would have a trace route to them and not equivocate on who did it.  It’s like using “Trace Route” to map the path of all the packets on the network.  In the program Treasuremap NSA has hundreds of trace route programs embedded in switches in Europe and hundreds more around the world.  So, this set-up should have detected where the packets went and when they went there.

Binney has previously explained to us that a Russian hack would have looked very different, and that he thought the hack may have been conducted by an NSA employee who was upset at Clinton’s careless handling of America’s most sensitive intelligence.

The former intelligence analyst, British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, and chancellor of the University of Dundee (Craig Murray) – who is close friends with Wikileaks’ Julian Assange – said he knows with 100% certainty that the Russians aren’t behind the leaks.

In February, Murray said:

“The source of these emails and leaks has nothing to do with Russia at all. I discovered what the source was when I attended [a] whistleblower award in Washington. The source of these emails comes from within official circles in Washington DC. You should look to Washington not to Moscow.”

Prominent investment advisor and economic forecaster Martin Armstrong writes today:

All our indications from behind the curtain are suggesting that there are many within the “intelligence” sector and “law enforcement” sector who are deeply troubled with the Clintons. They are trying to release documents and info to stop the Clinton Inc. Machine. That’s all we can say on this topic right now. Suffice it to say, there is a real internal battle going on in Washington.

And the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under numerous administrations – both Democratic and Republican – (Steve Pieczenik ) said recently that a group of officers from various U.S. intelligence and military agencies have staged a “counter-coup” to save America from corruption, and are the source of the leaked emails:

Interesting times, indeed …

via http://ift.tt/2epfegr George Washington

The FBI is having a really difficult time keeping up with all of the Democrat scandals this election cycle.  Just yesterday we noted another raid of a democrat “advocacy group” in Delaware County, PA that was allegedly submitting falsified voter registration forms and, of course, we’re all intimately familiar with Hillary’s assorted investigations.

Now, according to The Hill, the FBI has also been forced to open another election-related investigation tied to the Florida Senate Race between Marco Rubio (R) and Patrick Murphy (D).  The investigation is related to whether a long-time Murphy friend, Ibrahim Al-Rashid, utilized an illegal “straw donor” fundraising scheme to funnel money from his wealthy Saudi family to the Murphy campaign.  The scheme effectively attempts to skirt federal election laws governing campaign contributions by making donations in the name of other citizens. 

The FBI is investigating an alleged illegal donation scheme involving a wealthy Saudi family that supports Democratic Florida Senate candidate Patrick Murphy.

 

The allegation — originally submitted by a Republican super PAC run by a former top aide to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — is that Murphy’s high school friend and major political donor, Ibrahim Al-Rashid, coordinated a “straw donor” scheme to boost Murphy.

 

A straw donor scheme occurs when a wealthy donor skirts legal limits on political donations by funneling money into campaigns using other people’s names.

 

For any charges to be backed in the Al-Rashid investigation, the FBI must prove that the person or people running the scheme reimbursed donors without their permission. It would also be illegal to agree to be the named donors using somebody else’s money.

 

The GOP super PAC, the Senate Leadership Fund, claimed in its June complaint to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) that 11 donors in Texas, Pennsylvania and Florida “participated in an unlawful scheme to funnel Ibrahim Al-Rashid’s contributions, or were used by Al-Rashid to funnel contributions without their knowledge.” A total of $24,050 was involved.

 

Al-Rashid is the son of a powerful and politically connected Saudi billionaire. He’s been a major financial benefactor of Murphy’s, giving almost $400,000 to his campaigns and to outside groups supporting the Florida congressman.

While the Murphy campaign denies any wrongdoing, some of the facts surrounding the case are rather suspicious.  For example, one $300 donation was made in the name of a woman whose federal donation forms claimed she was the owner of a Texas-based company named Limestone Property Management.  Unfortunately, a quick search of public records reveal that the woman is not associated with the Texas business.  Moreover, a 2012 police report from the Miami-Dade Police Department reveals that the donor was actually Al-Rashid’s cleaning lady.

Of course, the fight for control of the Senate between democrats and republicans make this and all races around the country very important.  The most recent Real Clear Politics polling average shows Rubio with a 5.6% advantage though Murphy had pulled to within 2 points just a couple of weeks ago.

 

Of course, the Murphy campaign denied any wrongdoing linking the complaint to a “Republican super PAC willing to say anything to elect Marco Rubio.”

The Murphy campaign noted that a conservative
super PAC earlier this year filed a complaint on the issue that the FBI
is looking into.

 

“This complaint was written by a
Republican super PAC willing to say anything to elect Marco Rubio,” said
Murphy campaign spokesman Joshua Karp. “Neither Patrick nor any current
or past employees have ever been contacted regarding this matter, and
we are confident an examination of the facts will result in its dismiss

Though it certainly doesn’t help Murphy’s cause that he recently was forced to return donations tied to Boston’s Thornton Law Firm after the Boston Globe revealed another illegal donation scheme earlier this week.

In an unrelated development on Monday, Murphy and other Democratic Senate candidates returned thousands of dollars they received from another alleged illegal donation scheme.

 

After reading an investigative report about Boston’s Thornton Law Firm, published Saturday by the Boston Globe Spotlight team and the Center for Responsive Politics, Murphy decided to return the $21,800 he received from a Thornton fundraiser in January.

 

“The Globe’s investigation has revealed troubling details about these donations,” Karp told The Hill on Monday. “We’ll be donating it to the U.S. Treasury, because that is the right thing to do.”

Silly question, but aren’t Republicans supposed to be the party with unlimited money flowing in from evil corporations, wall street and shady wealthy donors?

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