By Andrew P. Napolita
no at Lewrockwell.com
Earlier this week, leaders of the Democratic National Committee and former officials of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign made the startling allegation that the Russian government hacked into Clinton’s colleagues’ email accounts to tilt the presidential election toward Donald Trump. They even pointed to statements made by CIA officials backing their allegations.
President-elect Trump has characterized these claims as “ridiculous” and just an “excuse” to justify the Clinton defeat, saying they’re also intended to undermine the legitimacy of his election. He pointed to FBI conclusions that the CIA is wrong. Who’s right?
Here is the back story.
The American intelligence community rarely speaks with one voice. The members of its 17 publicly known intelligence agencies — God only knows the number of secret agencies — have the same biases, prejudices, jealousies, intellectual shortcomings and ideological underpinnings as the public at large.
The raw data these agencies examine is the same. Today America’s spies rarely do their own spying; rather, they rely on the work done by the National Security Agency. We know that from the Edward Snowden revelations. We also know from Snowden that the NSA can monitor and identify all digital communications within the United States, coming into the United States and leaving the United States. Hence, it would be foolhardy and wasteful to duplicate that work. There is quite simply no fiber-optic cable anywhere in the country transmitting digital data to which the NSA does not have full-time and unfettered access.
I have often argued that this is profoundly unconstitutional because the Fourth Amendment requires a judicially issued search warrant specifically describing the place to be searched or the thing to be seized before the government may lawfully invade privacy, and these warrants must be based on probable cause of criminal behavior on the part of the person whose privacy the government seeks to invade.
Instead of these probable cause-based, judicially issued search warrants, the government obtains what the Fourth Amendment was written to prohibit — general warrants. General warrants are not based on evidence of probable cause of criminal behavior; rather, they are based on government “need.” This is an unconstitutional and absurd standard because the government will always claim that what it wants, it needs.
General warrants do not specifically describe the place to be searched or the thing to be seized; rather, they authorize the bearer to search where he wishes and seize whatever he finds. This is the mindset of the NSA — search everyone, all the time, everywhere — whose data forms the basis for analysis by the other agencies in the intelligence community.
In the case at hand, the CIA and the FBI looked at the same NSA-generated raw data and came to opposite conclusions. Needless to say, I have not seen this data, but I have spoken to those who have, and they are of the view that though there is evidence of leaking, there is no evidence whatsoever of hacking.
Leaking is the theft of private data and its revelation to those not entitled or intended to see it. Hacking is remotely accessing an operational system and altering its contents — for example, removing money from a bank account or contact information from an address book or vote totals from a candidate’s tally. When Trump characterized the CIA claim that the Russians hacked the DNC and Clinton campaign emails intending to affect the outcome of the election as ridiculous, this is what he meant: There is no evidence of anyone’s altering the contents of operational systems, but there is evidence — plenty of it — of leaking.
If hackers wanted to affect the outcome of the election, they would have needed to alter the operational systems of those who register voters and count votes, not those who seek votes.
During the final five weeks of the presidential campaign, WikiLeaks released tens of thousands of DNC and Clinton campaign emails to the public. WikiLeaks denies that its source was the Russian government, yet for the purposes of the DNC and Clinton campaign claims, that is irrelevant because whoever accessed these emails did not alter the operational systems of any of the targets; the accessor just exposed what was found.
We do not know what data the president-elect examined. Yet in six weeks, he will be the chief intelligence officer of the U.S., and he’ll be able to assimilate data as he wishes and reveal what he wants. He should be given the benefit of the doubt because constitutionally, the intelligence community works for him — not for Congress or the American people.
Who did the leaking to WikiLeaks? Who had an incentive to defeat Clinton? Whose agents’ safety and lives did she jeopardize when she was extremely careless — as the FBI stated — with many state secrets, including the identity and whereabouts of U.S. intelligence agents and resources?
The answer is obvious: It was the same intelligence community that cannot agree on the meaning of the raw data it has analyzed.
Someone leaked the Democrats’ and the Clinton campaign’s private work, and the government has a duty to find the person or entity that did so, even if it was one of the government’s own. Though the truthful revelation of private facts may have altered some voters’ attitudes, there is no evidence that it altered ballot totals. The law guarantees fair elections, not perfect ones.
Did the Russians hack Hillary Clinton? No. No one did. But some American intelligence agents helped WikiLeaks to expose much dirty laundry.
By Alasdair Macleodreprinted from Lew Rockwell.com
The latest consequence of economic mismanagement in Europe was the failed attempt at constitutional reform in Italy this week.
The Italian people have had enough of their government’s economic failure and is refusing to give it more power.
The EU and the euro project have been an economic disaster for all participants, including Germany, which will eventually be forced to write off the hard-earned savings she has lent to other Eurozone members. We know, with absolute certainty, that the euro will self-destruct and the Eurozone will disintegrate.
We know this for one reason above all. The political class and the ECB are guided by economic beliefs – I cannot dignify them by calling them reasoned theory – which will guarantee this outcome. Furthermore, they insist on using statistics that are incorrect for the stated function, the best example being GDP, which I have criticized endlessly and won’t repeat here. Furthermore, the numbers are misrepresented by government statisticians, CPI and unemployment figures being prime examples.
This article takes a column written by William Hague for the Daily Telegraph published earlier this week to illustrate the depths of misunderstanding even a relatively enlightened politician suffers, with this mix of nonsense and statistical propagandai. This article also refers to a speech delivered this week in Liverpool by Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, showing how out of touch with reality he is as well. Many of his and Lord Hague’s misconceptions are shared by almost everyone, so, for the most part, go unnoticed.
Lord Hague basically blames the euro for all Europe’s ills: “…… it has made some countries, like Italy and Greece, poorer while others get richer”
, he opines, and it is certainly a common sentiment. But it is never the currency that’s to blame, but those that attempt to use it to achieve policy outcomes, and inevitably fail in their quest.
Before the euro came into existence, different currencies offered different interest rates, reflecting the market’s appraisal of lending risk. So, the Greek government, borrowing in drachmas, would typically have to pay over 12% interest, while Germany might pay 3% for the same maturity in marks. The fact that there were differing rates in different currencies imposed market discipline on borrowers.
After the introduction of the euro, interest rates for sovereign borrowers converged towards the lowest rate, which was Germany’s. The reason for this was banks could gear up their lending in the bond and money markets to make easy money from the spread between German rates and the others, risk-free on the assumption that the whole caboodle was guaranteed by the EU and the ECB. It was perfectly reasonable to expect this outcome, but whether the panjandrums in Brussels were smart enough to know this would happen is not clear. If they were, they displayed ignorance of the eventual consequences, and if not, they were simply ignorant full stop.
These same operatives bent the rules they themselves had originally set to allow countries to join the euro. Under the Maastricht Treaty, budget deficits were to have been less than 3% and government debt to GDP less than 60% for a state to qualify for membership. Neither Germany nor France qualified at the outset. And when it came to Greece, the Greek government simply lied, with the full knowledge and encouragement of the other members. No, Lord Hague, it was the policy makers that were at fault, not the currency itself.
But he continues: “Membership of the euro has put the Italians on a permanent path to being poorer”
. Not so. It was the Italians who used the cheap euro-denominated money to borrow profligately. They and they alone are responsible for the mismanagement of their economy and their debt problems, which incidentally now exceed the Maastricht 60% limit by a further 75%.
So, who is policing that?
Lord Hague also trots out the canard about how the euro benefits Germany: “Germans keep exporting easily and running up a surplus, while the Italians struggle and go deeper into debt”. This statement in quotes is undoubtedly true on face value, but it is wrong to blame the poor euro. Instead, the blame lies with fiscal imbalances, relative rates of bank credit expansion, and the additional horror of TARGET2. This last artifice is intended to even out the monetary imbalances that would otherwise occur from trade imbalances. But its designers seem to have been completely unaware that the only way trade imbalances can be controlled is through the money shortages and accumulations that result from trade deficits and surpluses respectively. Instead, TARGET2 makes good the money deficiency that results from excess imports and reduces the money surplus that accumulates in the hands of the exporters. It recycles the money spent by Italians so that it can be spent again, or even hoarded outside Italy, ad infinitum. TARGET2 is living proof of the ridiculousness behind the euro project.
Lord Hague provides an exception to his argument and conclusion, by citing Germany’s greater productivity and suggesting that the only way out was for Mr. Renzi to enact bold reforms to raise Italian productivity to the same level as Germany’s. He doesn’t say what these reforms might be. I can tell him: the new government should downsize from 52% of GDP to less than 40%, the lower the better. The redeployment of capital from government destruction to private sector progression will work wonders. Tax policies should favor savers. At the same time, ordinary Italians should be allowed to get on with their lives and made to understand the state is not there to support them with handouts.
Finally, Lord Hague’s conclusion, while correct legally, is incorrect from a strictly economic point of view. He states that leaving the euro is a far more difficult problem than leaving the EU, there being no Article 50 to trigger. He implies that if Italy simply returns to the lira, there can be little doubt that it will rapidly collapse taking its banks with it, because Italy’s creditors will still expect to be repaid in euros while the cost of borrowing in lira is bound to increase rapidly, undermining government finances.
However, contrary to everything Keynesians have been taught and in turn teaches gullible students, the economic objective of monetary independence should be sound money, not continual depreciation. Italy has enough gold to arrange a gold exchange standard for herself, or alternatively, she could run a currency board with the euro, to ensure the lira retains value for foreign creditors. Either course requires something novel from Italian politicians: they must bite the bullet on government finances and permit capital to be redeployed from moribund businesses to new dynamic entrepreneurial activities. It can be done, and Italy would rapidly emerge as a new industrial force.
But will it be done? Sadly, there’s not a snowball in hell’s chance, and here we must agree with Lord Hague. In common with their opposite numbers everywhere else, Italian politicians have surrounded themselves with economic yes-men, trained at the expense of the state to justify state interventions in the economy. It has become a feedback loop that ultimately concludes with economic instability, crisis, and eventual collapse.Carney’s groupthink
Lord Hague, while respected as a senior British politician is at least not involved in Italy’s monetary or fiscal policies. Far more dangerous potentially is someone with his hand on the monetary tiller, Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England. This week he made a speech in Liverpool, which put the blame for the failure of his monetary policies on everyone but the Bankii. He said politicians need to foster a globalization that works for all. Really? How are they going to do that? He blames economists for been at fault for not recognizing “the realities of uneven gains from trade and technology”. But surely, we all know that establishment economists, including the Bank’s own, have an unrivaled track record of getting things wrong. To expect them to suddenly exhibit forecasting prescience is Carney’s personal triumph of hope over reality. Carney berates companies for not paying tax. This is the classic “someone else’s fault” line and ignores the easily proven fact that money deployed by the private sector in pursuit of profit is productive while giving it to government is wasteful. More tax paid may be desired by the state, but it is anti-productive.
The Governor then claims the Bank’s monetary policy has been “highly effective” and that “the data do not support the idea that the period of low rates has benefited the wealthy at the expense of the least wealthy.” He has obviously been unable to make the connection between the falling purchasing power of fixed salaries for the low paid and for pensioners relying on interest income, while stock markets roar to all-time highs on the back of suppressed interest rates and injections of money through quantitative easing. Yes, Mr. Carney, my middle-class friends have done very well out of their investments and property, thanks to monetary inflation, but they still pay their gardeners and maids roughly the same depreciated wages.
This is relevant not only to the mismanagement of the UK’s economy, but also that of Europe. Carney attracted considerable criticism, rightly, for falsely threatening economic hell and damnation in the event of a vote for Brexit. This presupposes that everything in Europe is considerably better than for Britain on its own, and confirms that his opposite numbers in Europe, who were pushing the same line, have as much grasp of the economic situation as he has. Carney got this as wrong as he possibly could, but there’s no mea maxima culpa.
If Mr. Carney and Lord Hague want to criticize current economic events, they should start by properly understanding the negative effects of the fiscal and monetary intervention. They should realize that propping up defunct enterprises by lowering the cost of borrowing and supporting them with government contracts is Luddite and destructive. And above all, they should realise that ordinary people going about their business are infinitely adaptable, have an ability to withstand government and central bank silliness to a remarkable degree, and would deliver their taxes much more effectively if they were simply allowed to just get on with their business without having to suffer from government and central bank micro-management.
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Reprinted from Lew Rockwell.com
When word leaked that Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson, a holder of the Order of Friendship award in Putin’s Russia, was Donald Trump’s choice for secretary of state, John McCain had this thoughtful response:
“Vladimir Putin is a thug, a bully, and a murderer and anybody else who describes him as anything else is lying.”
Yet, Putin is something else, the leader of the largest nation on earth, a great power with enough nuclear weapons to wipe the United States off the face of the earth. And we have to deal with him.
McCain was echoed by the senior Democrat on foreign relations, Bob Menendez, who said naming Tillerson secretary of state would be “alarming and absurd … guaranteeing Russia has a willing accomplice in the (Trump) Cabinet guiding our nation’s foreign policy.”
Sen Marco Rubio chimed in: “Being a ‘friend of Vladimir’ is not an attribute I am hoping for from a Secretary of State.”
If just three GOP senators vote no on Tillerson, and Democrats vote as a bloc against him, his nomination would go down. President Trump would sustain a major and humiliating defeat.The Greatest Comeback:...
Patrick J. BuchananBest Price: $4.86Buy New $8.63
Who is Tillerson? A corporate titan, he has traveled the world, represented Exxon in 60 countries, is on a first-name basis with countless leaders, and is endorsed by Condi Rice and Robert Gates.
Dr. Samuel Johnson’s observation — “A man is seldom more innocently occupied than when he is engaged in making money” — may be a bit of a stretch when it comes to OPEC and the global oil market.
Yet there is truth to it. Most businessmen are interested in doing deals, making money, and, if the terms are not met, walking away, not starting a war.
And here is the heart of the objection to Tillerson. He wants to end sanctions and partner with Putin’s Russia, as does Trump. But among many in the mainstream media, think tanks, websites, and on the Hill, this is craven appeasement. For such as these, the Cold War is never over.
The attacks on Tillerson coincide with new attacks on Russia, based on CIA sources, alleging that not only did Moscow hack into the Democratic Party and Clinton campaign, and leak what it found to hurt Hillary Clinton, but Russia was trying to help elect Trump, and succeeded.
Why would Moscow do this?
Monday’s editorial in The New York Times explains: “In Mr. Trump, the Russians had reason to see a malleable political novice, one who had surrounded himself with Kremlin lackeys.”A Republic, Not an Emp...
Patrick J. BuchananBuy New $20.95
Backed by Democratic leader Sen. Chuck Schumer, McCain has announced an investigation. The goal, said the Times, is to determine “whether anyone within Trump’s inner circle coordinated with the Kremlin and whether Moscow spread the fake news to hurt Mrs. Clinton.”
What is going on here? More than meets the eye.
The people who most indignantly condemned Trump’s questioning of Obama’s birth certificate as a scurrilous scheme to delegitimize his presidency, now seek to delegitimize Trump’s presidency.
The Times editorial spoke of a “darkening cloud” already over the Trump presidency and warned that a failure to investigate and discover the full truth of Russia’s hacking could only “feed suspicion among millions of Americans that … (t)he election was indeed rigged.”
Behind the effort to smear Tillerson and delegitimize Trump lies a larger motive. Trump has antagonists in both parties who alarmed at his triumph because it imperils the foreign policy agenda that is their raison d’etre, their reason for being.
These people do not want to lift sanctions on Moscow. They do not want an end to the confrontation with Russia. As is seen by their bringing in tiny Montenegro, they want to enlarge NATO to encompass Sweden, Finland, Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova.
They have in mind the permanent U.S. encirclement of Russia.
They want to provide offensive weapons to Kiev to reignite the civil war in the Donbass and enable Ukraine to move on Crimea. This would mean a war with Russia that Ukraine would lose and we and our NATO allies would be called upon to intervene in and fight.Suicide of a Superpowe...
Patrick J. BuchananBest Price: $0.01Buy New $4.49
Their goal is to bring down Putin and bring about “regime change” in Moscow.
In the campaign, Trump said he wanted to get along with Russia, to support all the forces inside Syria and Iraq fighting to wipe out ISIS and al-Qaida and to stay out of any new Middle East wars — like the disaster in Iraq — that have cost us “six trillion dollars.”
This is what America voted for when it voted for Trump — to put America First and “make America great again.” But War Party agitators are already beating the drums for a confrontation with Iran.
Early in his presidency, if not before, Trump is going to have to impose his foreign policy upon his own party and, indeed, upon his own government. Or his presidency will be broken, as was Lyndon Johnson’s.
A good place to begin is by accepting the McCain-Marco challenge and nominating Rex Tillerson for secretary of state. Let’s get it on.
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Reprinted from Lew Rockwell.com
“I have in my possession a secret map, made in Germany by Hitler’s government — by the planners of the New World Order,” FDR told the nation in his Navy Day radio address of Oct. 27, 1941.
“It is a map of South America as Hitler proposes to reorganize it. The geographical experts of Berlin, however, have ruthlessly obliterated all the existing boundary lines … bringing the whole continent under their domination,” said Roosevelt. “This map makes clear the Nazi design not only against South America but against the United States as well.”
Our leader had another terrifying secret document, “made in Germany by Hitler’s government. …
“It is a plan to abolish all existing religions — Protestant, Catholic, Mohammedan, Hindu, Buddhist and Jewish alike. … In the place of the churches of our civilization, there is to be set up an international Nazi Church…
“In the place of the Bible, the words of ‘Mein Kampf’ will be imposed and enforced as Holy Writ. And in place of the cross of Christ will be put two symbols — the swastika and the naked sword. … A god of blood and iron will take the place of the God of love and mercy.”
The source of these astounding secret Nazi plans?
They were forgeries by British agents in New York operating under William Stephenson, Churchill’s “Man Called Intrepid,” whose assignment was to do whatever necessary to bring the U.S. into Britain’s war.
FDR began his address by describing two German submarine attacks on U.S. destroyers Greer and Kearny, the later of which had been torpedoed with a loss of 11 American lives.
Said FDR: “We have wished to avoid shooting. But the shooting has started. And history has recorded who fired the first shot.”
The truth: Greer and Kearny had been tracking German subs for British planes dropping depth charges.
It was FDR who desperately wanted war with Germany, while, for all his crimes, Hitler desperately wanted to avoid war with the United States.
Said Cong. Clare Boothe Luce, FDR “lied us into war because he did not have the political courage to lead us into it.”
By late 1941, most Americans still wanted to stay out of the war. They believed “lying British propaganda” about Belgian babies being tossed around on German bayonets had sucked us into World War I, from which the British Empire had benefited mightily.
What brings these episodes to mind is the wave of indignation sweeping this capital over “fake news” allegedly created by Vladimir Putin’s old KGB comrades, and regurgitated by U.S. individuals, websites and magazines that are anti-interventionist and anti-war.A Republic, Not an Emp...
Patrick J. BuchananBuy New $20.95
Ohio Sen. Rob Portman says the “propaganda and disinformation threat” against America is real, and we must “counter and combat it.” Congress is working up a $160 million State Department program.
Now, Americans should be on guard against “fake news” and foreign meddling in U.S. elections.
Yet it is often our own allies, like the Brits, and our own leaders who mislead and lie us into unnecessary wars. And is not meddling in the internal affairs, including the elections, of regimes we do not like, pretty much the job description of the CIA and the National Endowment for Democracy?
History suggests it is our own War Party that bears watching.
Consider Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Who misled, deceived, and lied about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, the “fake news” that sucked us into one of our country’s greatest strategic blunders?
Who lied for years about an Iranian nuclear weapons program, which almost dragged us into a war, before all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies debunked that propaganda in 2007 and 2011?
Yet, there are those, here and abroad, who insist that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program. Their goal: war with Iran.
Were we told the whole truth about the August 1964 incident involving North Vietnamese gunboats and U.S. destroyers Maddox and C. Turner Joy, which stampeded Congress into voting a near-unanimous resolution that led us into an eight-year war in Southeast Asia?
One can go back deeper into American history.
Cong. Abe Lincoln disbelieved in President Polk’s claim that the Mexican army had crossed the Rio Grande and “shed American blood upon American soil.” In his “spot” resolution, Lincoln demanded to know the exact spot where the atrocity had occurred that resulted in a U.S. army marching to Mexico City and relieving Mexico of half of her country.
Was Assistant Navy Secretary Theodore Roosevelt telling us the truth when he said of our blasted battleship in Havana harbor, “The Maine was sunk by an act of dirty treachery on the part of the Spaniards”?
No one ever proved that the Spanish caused the explosion.
Yet America got out of his war what T.R. wanted — Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines, an empire of our own.
“In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.”
So said Winston Churchill, the grandmaster of fake news.
By: Joan Hough
Higher Education has long led the Marxist Parade.
Would you like to know the truth about how and why students in all levels of American education have been dumbed down? Are you aware that once America led the world in education, but now is noted internationally for the ignorance of its people? Read Cry Havoc: The Great American Bring-down and How it Happened
by Ralph de Toledano.
Americans should check out the history of Germany’s Frankfurt Institute and its dauntless collection of Critical Theorists. Those Critical theorists, realizing the failure of Marxist efforts to captivate U.S. working folks (the proletariats), directed their seductive, Marxist efforts toward the intellectuals. They pursued folks in academia and, most especially, the offspring of wealthy Americans. Their Critical theory (a new method designed to bring to fruition Marxist beliefs and goals) accompanied them from Russia to Germany and then to America.
Under the guidance of America’s John Dewey, the tenets of Critical Theory spread throughout the U.S. Institutions of Higher Learning. Beginning at Columbia in NY, it then infiltrated every area of American culture. The clever Marxists made sure that only a few at the highest levels in academia understood what was transpiring—the rest of Americans—the “sheeple,” had no inkling of the truth.
The 1930s in our America were the years of the second birth of Marxism in America. The first American birth was in 1849 with the arrival of the 1848er Illuminati-blessed escapees from European jails or death sentences. They were sentenced because of their participation in the Socialist/Commie failed European Revolution. Upon arrival in the U.S. they set to work engineering the continuation of their failed European Socialist Revolution. They succeeded this second time in a war they wrongly termed the “Civil” War.
Following WWII came the Marxist infiltration of Hollywood. It was discovered in 1952-54 by Congress. (Senator McCarthy had no part in the exposure of this Communist effort.) Alger Hiss' exposure as a Communist in the U.S. government began in 1848, but the trial which found him guilty, somehow took two years before beginning. After his prison sentence was complete, Hiss earned vast sums for a national tour of universities as a speaker claiming his innocence—an innocence contradicted by publication of the contents of Russian archives
In 1950 Poor Senator McCarthy was crucified by Congress and the Press for attempting to rid our Department of State of Commie control. President Roosevelt, contaminated by his love of Commie Lenin and admiration of Commie Alger Hiss, managed to fool Americans in 1941 sufficiently to involve the U.S. in World War II, and to drag our nation as a charter member in 1945 into the United Nations. Roosevelt, with the encouragement of his alter ego, Harry Hopkins and friend Hiss, managed to give Russia all Lenin desired. It remains politically incorrect to mention this truth.
The Peanut King, Jimmy Carter, was so dumbed down that he contended that some of his best friends were Communists and they meant no harm to anyone. Carter fired Secretary of Defense James Forrestal after Forrestal spoke against Communism and the partitioning of Israel. (Carter had been threatened with loss of campaign donations from certain wealthy Americans.) Forced by the government into treatment for “supposed” mental illness, Foster died under highly mysterious circumstances declared “suicide” by the authorities. His own brother, on his way to pick up the “released” James. The brother was convinced the murder had occurred because James Foster was about to publish his truths in a publication purchased for that purpose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Forrestal
Americans have been so successfully “dumbed down” that most University students don’t know what the American Revolutionary War was about, by whom it was fought and in what century it was fought. They don’t know who won the “Civil” War. They certainly are ignorant of the real reason it was fought, but think it was fought to free the slaves (as if killing Southerners was the only way slaves could be freed). They think Communism and Socialism wonderful. Numbers of High school and University students voted for Hillary and supported Sanders.
The critical theorists realized that Marxism’s concentration on the proletariat (the working class) could never be successful in the U.S. because working folks had it too good— plenty of food on the table- plenty of comfort in their houses and apartments— plenty of radio/tv/movie/football/boxing, etc. entertainment— so the target had to be shifted to the bourgeoisie—and, especially, to the intellectuals. But even the not-so-bright offspring of some U.S. senators and other wealthy Americans were courted— the qualification of the young ones was based on wealth and potential positions of influence.
The effectiveness of education as brainwashing cannot be denied. Who among us voted for Hillary or Sanders? --only those dumbed down, brainwashed, or greed filled with unfettered desires for power or bucks.
by Al Benson Jr.
After yesterday's post showing that InfoWars.com had demonstrated that most of the money to finance Jillary's vote recount was coming from one source and not an outraged American public, I thought this little update might be appropriate.
According to an article in the Washington Times for 11/27/16, Wisconsin elections officials can see no proof of a hack. They said they: "...can't find evidence that any of its voting machines were hacked." And the article I took this from, http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com asked the question "Do you have a plan B or are you going to let it go finally?"
I'll answer that one myself. If they don't yet have a plan B in the backroom you can bet the farm they are working on it as I write this. These are cultural Marxists we are talking about here and they never quit. They may fail with plans A, B, C, D, and E but not to worry. They will be back with plan F as soon as they tear it off the drawing board and they will keep trying until they find some round peg they can jam into a square hole hard enough that they will get at least some of what they want. I am reminded of how many times the cultural Marxists came back to Congress with their petitions for a holiday for their good buddy Martin Luther King Jr. Most people forget, but they came back every year for fourteen years until they finally got what they wanted and we've been stuck with that "holiday" and the opportunities for the leftist propaganda that goes with it ever since. I loathe what the cultural Marxists stand for. It is anti-Christian to the core, but you have to give them credit--they possess a tenacity that most Christians can only daydream about!
The Washington Times asked commission spokesman Reid Magney in Wisconsin if any evidence or indication of hacking had put in an appearance. He replied in an email "No evidence of hacking."
This was confirmed by yet another article from the same source listed above. I will quote: "CNN's New Day interviewed Jill Stein about her recount effort on Friday. 'Do you think this election was stolen' CNN's host John Berman asked Stein point-blank. Um, we don't know...And I think the forensic computer experts have raised serious questions. What we do know is that this was a hack-riddled election...Wait! It gets better. Remember that Hillary was found to alter polls? Well, Stein blamed her suspicions in part on the fake polls! Those are Hillary's, Jill, not Trump's... And when Berman asked if she has evidence that a hack took place. No,. We do not have a smoking gun."
So after all this fuss and all the millions of dollars raised, most of it seemingly from one central source, we have to ask ourselves what the deuce is going on here? We're going to do all these vote recounts with no evidence of any wrongdoing--or it is now the plan to manufacture "evidence" as we go along? Will they find someone, somewhere down the line in this process that will be willing to "help" them out with revised vote totals or what?
And why did Ms. Stein end up doing something here that could not possibly benefit her or her party? Did someone make her an offer she couldn't (or didn't dare) to refuse? And was her doing this initially nothing more than a ploy to allow Hillary to get back into the game to "help her out?"
The great Christian statesman, Patrick Henry, when invited to take part in the Constitutional Convention back in 1787, refused to be a part of it. Mr. Henry said "I smell a rat." Mr. Henry was a wise man. I wonder how many "rats" he'd be able to smell in this current game were we fortunate enough to still have him around.
Update: An article that appeared on http://www.thegatewaypundit.com at 8:19 this evening stated: "As reported earlier the election steal was put into motion when a group of 'experts' reviewed the election results and reported that there appeared to be election fraud. However, a member of the group of 'experts' happens to be voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz. Bonifaz also happens to be connected with George Soros when he launched the National Voting Rights Institute in 1994. Bonifaz was the Institute's President. This is certainly shocking but no surprise. Hillary and Soros are in this for the steal."
So Bonifaz helped Soros back in 1994 and now he represents Jill Stein. My what an amazing coincidence!
Gateway Pundit also pointed out that Stein cannot file a direct request for a recount in Pennsylvania. She has to go through the courts to do this and she has to present evidence that shows voter fraud. Seeing that Trump won Pennsylvania by around 70,000 votes, Ms. Stein would have to be able to prove that fraud was "probable." Of course knowing Soros and the Clintons, that thorny little problem may already be in the process of being "worked on."
By Ekaterina Blinova Sputnik News
Donald Trump was the only presidential candidate who highlighted that the Clinton-backed earthquake recovery project in Haiti was an absolute disgrace, Dr. Dady Chery, a Haitian-born journalist, told Sputnik, adding that she believes that Haitian-Americans are not the only ones who voted for Trump to see the Clintons brought to justice.
Donald Trump won’t appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton, as he promised back in October, the US President-elect’s aide signaled Tuesday.“I think when the President-elect, who’s also the head of your party, tells you before he’s even inaugurated that he doesn’t wish to pursue these charges, it sends a very strong message, tone and content,” Kellyanne Conway, former Trump’s campaign manager, told MSNBC as quoted by The Daily Caller News Foundation.
The question then arises, whether controversial episodes such as, for example, the Clintons’ role in the recovery project in Haiti back in 2010, will be simply swept under the rug.
After Wikileaks released Hillary Clinton’s personal emails it became clear that the US response to Haiti earthquake back in 2010 was hardly a “success story.”“People were still in mourning, about three weeks after the devastating earthquake of January 12, 2010, when the US Ambassador to Haiti, Kenneth Merten, wrote a situation paper for the State Department, and he cheerfully titled a section of it ‘The Gold Rush is on!’ Thanks to a Wikileaks cable from February 1, 2010, we know that the State Department was privately cheering Haiti’s misfortune while Secretary Hillary Clinton was publicly acting like she was heartbroken about Haiti,” Dr. Dady Chery, a Haitian-born journalist and News Junkie Post Co-Editor in Chief told Sputnik.
“The gold rush meant an avalanche of Haitian contracts to private businesses. It also meant many grants and contracts from USAID to politically connected contractors from the Washington DC area. Most of them were ‘Friends of Bill,’ or ‘FOBs,’ who had made donations to the Clinton Foundation, as we also learned from an ABC News investigation and Freedom of Information Act documents,” Chery continued.
The journalist recalled that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) gave out about $1.5 billion of grants and contracts for the Caribbean country in 2010 but only 35 percent of the sum was spent by 2012.
What is more embarrassing is that there were no financial reviews and virtually no accounting of the expenditures, the journalist stressed.“Immediately after the earthquake, the Clintons also collected about $30 million for Haiti through the Clinton Foundation. From the foundation’s taxes, we know that only about 10 percent of funds were spent on charity, so only about $3 million were spent on Haiti, and it is unclear how. There were also about $54 million from the Bush-Clinton Fund, but most of that money was spent on mortgages, microfinance, and on refurbishing and building luxury hotels,” Chery told Sputnik.
However, that is half the story.HRC and Haitian ‘Coup D’Etat’
The Interim Haiti Recovery Commission (IHRC), chaired by Bill Clinton, literally took over the reins of the Caribbean country in April 2010, after Haiti’s President, Rene Preval, was pressured into declaring a state of emergency.“In what was essentially a coup, President Preval was stripped of his power and allowed only a symbolic veto,” Chery underscored.
“Right after the IHRC was formed, Haiti’s legislators organized massive nationwide protests that went on for months. Throughout Haiti, people called the state of emergency, a ‘coup d’etat d’urgence,'” she pointed out.
The only way the Clintons could sustain power over Haiti was to push Preval to organize presidential elections, Chery noted.
Citing an interview of Ricardo Seitenfus, then Special Representative of the OAS (Organization of the American States), the journalist highlighted that the elections were rigged and Clinton-backed Michel Martelly won the presidency.“With Martelly in place, the Clintons did whatever they wanted. By July 2011, three months before the IHRC’s 18-month mandate was over, they had collected $3.2 billion and spent only $84 million doing only five out of 75 projects they had planned,” the Haitian journalist stressed.
“In a meeting on August 11, 2011, the Chair of the Senate Public Works Committee accused the IHRC of taking credit for projects that had been funded before it even existed. The IHRC was not renewed by Haiti’s parliament, but the Clintons kept right on raising money. By 2012, the IHRC had collected $5.9 billion out of a total of $9.5 billion of pledged donations,” she underscored.
Chery emphasized that Donald Trump was the only presidential candidate to mention Haiti as being a disgrace for Hillary Clinton.“New emails revealed today by ABC News show that during the deadly earthquake in Haiti, which killed over 150,000 people, the Clintons couldn’t stop cashing in,” Trump’s campaign website said.
“In their biggest project, the Clintons used $400 million in aid and US taxpayer funds to build what amounted to a sweatshop,” the website read, referring to yet another controversial project kicked off by the Clintons in Haiti — the Caracol Industrial Park.
How can the US under Trump help Haiti to recover from the disaster caused by the Clinton’s policies against the Caribbean country?Chery called attention to the fact that “Haiti needs justice and fairness from the US much more than it needs foreign aid.”
“Many aspects of Clinton’s dictatorship continue today. First, there is the fact that more than 96 percent of Haiti’s reconstruction funds have disappeared. If the Clintons are tried under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and found guilty, some of this money could be recovered, at the least by confiscating their properties,” the Haitian journalist suggested.
“Another Clinton policy that continues to damage Haiti is the sale of subsidized rice to the country, mostly from Arkansas,” she added, “This is bad for Haitian agriculture, which cannot compete against subsidized goods.”But what it more important, Chery pointed out, “a Trump government could adopt and enforce a policy of noninterference in Haiti’s political affairs.”
Alas, the story of the Clintons’ involvement in Haiti is far from being over, the journalist remarked, assuming that Bill and Hillary Clinton may still use their UN connections to “keep their hooks” in the small Caribbean country.
“After all, they have a financial interest in Haiti’s gold mines through Hillary’s brother, Tony Rodham,” she noted.“I don’t think Haitian-Americans are the only ones who voted for Trump mainly because they wanted to see the Clintons brought to justice. There are many Americans who object to their government being peddled like a stolen watch on a street corner,” Chery concluded.The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.Reprinted from Sputnik News.
Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton called for innovative solutions for what ails America. For the former it was a new fence on our southern border that will supposedly be funded by Mexico; for the latter it was free (i.e., taxpayer subsidized) college tuition. Fresh ideas, they told us, could “make America great again” and render us “stronger together.”
Neither campaign stopped to consider that it was an innovation that led to our current woes, one that most Americans view as their country’s greatest contribution to political science: the U.S. Constitution.
Undoubtedly, blaming America’s “paramount law,” as Chief Justice John Marshall called the Constitution, seems like scandalous heresy. Americans are taught that their fledgling nation was going down the tubes until ratification of the Constitution in 1788 ensured that the United States of America would survive the failures of the Articles of Confederation. The standard narrative portrays the Federalists, the proponents of the new Constitution, as visionaries and paints the Anti-Federalists, who opposed ratification, as men of little faith with no concept of future American greatness.
What the conventional tale leaves out are Confederation’s significant accomplishments.
The primary goals of the Confederation were to defeat Great Britain and to preserve self-government in the thirteen states. The former was accomplished on October 19, 1781, when Lord Cornwallis surrendered his forces to George Washington at Yorktown, Virginia. The latter was enshrined in Article II of our first charter of union: “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”
The Patriots who fought for Independence pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor so that the states could govern their own affairs rather than suffer the rule of a distant central government. As historian Gordon Wood has observed, the question of where sovereignty resided “was at the heart of the Anglo-American argument that led to the Revolution.”
The much-maligned Articles of Confederation enabled the states to defeat a superpower and ensure the right of the people to make their own laws in state and local assemblies. With these victories the Articles must be considered a great American success story.
It is true that the Articles of Confederation were not perfect. Their most glaring defect was the lack of any provision of an independent revenue source for Congress. This problem came close to being remedied by a proposal to grant Congress the power to collect a tax on imported goods. The Articles’ unanimity requirement, however, permitted one recalcitrant state (Rhode Island in one effort and New York in another) to torpedo this idea.
Unfortunately, although the Philadelphia Convention was tasked with revising the Articles of Confederation, it abandoned the confederative model and many of the Articles’ pro-liberty provisions, including term limits for delegates to Congress; supermajority voting requirements to appropriate money, borrow money, and declare war; and formal recognition of the states as sovereign entities best suited to govern their internal affairs.
Many scholars would argue that the Constitution provides sundry essential protections but that the courts and national legislators undermined them with their erroneous interpretations. This argument is both appealing and plausible until one reads the Anti-Federalist writings dissecting the Constitution.
The Anti-Federalists accurately predicted that Congress would interpret the General Welfare Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause in ways that allow it to legislate on subjects beyond its constitutional purview. They foresaw the Supreme Court becoming an unaccountable body that acts as a super-legislature rather than a neutral umpire calling balls and strikes. These prophets also recognized that the states would be rendered impotent and dependent on the national government for revenue and direction.
One might complain that it was foolish for the Anti-Federalists to throw rocks and predict failure rather than to offer concrete solutions. What is forgotten is that Anti-Federalists in various state ratifying conventions offered more than 200 substantive amendments for the national legislature to consider during its first meeting. To secure ratification, Federalists promised to review them and recommend changes to the constitutional structure. Congress did send a bill of rights to the states—at the insistence of the Anti-Federalists—but it ignored proposals to limit national power.
This misunderstood chapter in our national history teaches us that political innovation does not always make America great or stronger together. All too often it spoils a legacy that should be preserved. Rather than tuning in to the fallout from the presidential race, Americans would be better served by dusting off the Articles of Confederation and the Anti-Federalists’ writings. In them we can recover the fundamental principles of liberty and self-government.
By Doug CaseyDoug Casey's International Man
Reprinted from Lew Rockwell.com
The Trump victoryl. is very good news for the US—relative to a win for Hillary, which would have been an unmitigated disaster. So I’m happy he won.
Will Trump winning mean a real change in direction for the US? Unlikely. Don’t mistake Trump for a libertarian. He has all kinds of stupid notions—torture as official policy, killing families of accused terrorists, and putting on import duties. He has no grasp of economics. He’s an authoritarian. His cabinet choices, so far, are all neocons and Deep State hangers-on. He’s likely to treat the US as if it were his 100% owned corporation.
On the bright side, he has real business experience—although of the kind that sees government as a partner. I doubt he’ll try, or be able if he does, to pull up any agencies by the roots. He’ll mainly be able to set the tone, as did Reagan. But, hey, something is better than nothing.
A brief word on the US political parties. I’ve said for years that the Demopublicans and the Republicrats are just two wings of the same party. One says it’s for social freedom (which is a lie), but is actively antagonistic to economic freedom. The other says it’s for economic freedom (which is a lie), but is actively antagonistic to social freedom. Both are controlled by members of the Deep State.
I still think that’s an accurate description of reality. But, in truth, it’s a little unfair to the Republicans. The creatures who control the Republican Party are one thing—and they were massively repudiated by the victory of Trump. Good riddance. But the people who gravitate towards the GOP are something else. To them, the GOP mostly represents a cultural club they belong to.
Rank and file Republicans don’t have any cohesive philosophy binding them together. They’re just sympathetic to “traditional” values. They like the picture postcard version of America. The 1950’s style Father Knows Best
family. The world of American Graffiti
. A house in the suburbs, or a small, neat farm. Thanksgiving dinners with relatives. The exchange of Christmas cards. Going to church on Sunday. The husband having a job that allows him to support the wife and kids. Chevrolets and Fords. A relatively small, non-predatory government. A friendly neighborhood cop. A basically decent and stable society, which doesn’t tolerate crime, or overly outlandish behavior, where social norms are understood and observed.
You get the picture. It’s a cultural thing, not an ideological or political construct. Unfortunately, it’s no longer a reality. It’s more and more just an ideal, about as dated as a Norman Rockwell painting on the defunct Saturday Evening Post.Current Prices on popular forms of Gold Bullion
The Democrats are quite different in outlook. They see themselves as hip and sophisticated, and see traditional values as “square”. They’re for globalism, not American nationalism. Forget the clean-cut Mouseketeers; the fat and loathsome Lena Dunham is the new role model. Political correctness rules. White men are automatically despised. Black is beautiful. Women are better than men. The very idea of America is in disrepute and held in contempt. Multiculturalism overrules home-grown values. Etc. Etc.
You’ll notice that there was very little discussion about policy in this election. It was almost all ad hominem
attacks, mostly pushing emotional hot buttons, not intellectual points. It’s all about a culture clash. It’s a non-violent civil war. These two groups no longer have very much in common. And they don’t just disagree, they hate each other.
Is a real civil war possible? Unlikely. The electorate is too degraded to actually get off their couches to fight, apart from the fact few know how to use a gun anymore. Besides, 25% of the US is on antidepressants or other psychoactive drugs; they’re too passive to want radical change. Almost half the country is on some form of the dole; they fear to have their doggy dishes taken away. More than half the country is obese; fat people tend to avoid street fights. The median age in the US is 38; old people don’t usually get in fights. Anyway, everybody lives on their electronic devices, not the real world.
You’ll notice that voting for Trump and Hillary broke along cultural lines. The Republicans won the rural areas (which are dropping in population); the Democrats won the cities (which are growing). The Reps are white (and becoming no more than a plurality); the Dems have most of the so-called “people of color”, who used to be called “colored people” (and are becoming a majority). The Reps did better with males; the Dems better with females, who tend to see the world in softer and gentler shades. The Reps are favored by native-born Americans; the Dems are favored by immigrants, who often have very different values. The Reps represent the diminishing middle-class; the Dems represent the growing underclass. The Reps did better with older people, who are on their way out; the Dems did better with younger people, indoctrinated by academia and the media, who are on their way up.
None of this looks good for the future of traditional American culture. In fact, Hillary won the popular vote. That means, demographics being what they are, the Republicans are in more trouble next time. With current immigration and birth patterns, the constituency of the Democrats should gain about 2% every four-year election cycle in the future. Even more important, as we leave the eye of the storm that started in 2007, and go into the trailing edge of the economic hurricane, the Trump administration will be blamed. There will, therefore, be a radical reaction away from what it’s believed to represent in 2020.
It used to be the Reps and the Dems differentiated mostly on ideological grounds. Now it’s much more on cultural grounds. Allow me to identify the elephant in the room, and spell out the real nature of the Democratic Party.
The Democratic party is a cesspool filled with leftist social engineers, academics, busy-body pundits, the “elite”, cultural Marxists, race baiters, racial “minorities” who see race as their main identity, radical feminists and LBGT types, entitled underachievers, statists, the soft-headed, the envy-driven, the stupid, professional losers, haters of free markets, and people who simply hate the idea of America. I can’t imagine anyone of good will, or even common decency, being a member of today’s Democratic Party. It needs to be flushed. But it will only get stronger in the near future, for many reasons.
But it’s an honest party—they generally say what they believe, even if it’s repulsive to anyone who values things like liberty. Interestingly, there are no Dinos—unless they’re Stalinists or Maoists who think the others aren’t going far enough. The party has absolutely no redeeming values.
A real battle for the soul of the country is shaping up. But I fear it won’t be heroic, so much as sordid. The knaves versus the fools. The Dems are the evil party, but the Reps are just the stupid party.
Why? Trump and the Trumpers have no ideology except a vision of a vanished world. They’re understandably angry, but don’t know what to do about it. They have no real program, except to say the Dems have gone too far. No coherent philosophy, just a nebulous belief that the Democrats are wrong. They’re justifiably fed up with the Establishment that gave them non-entities like Dole, McCain, and Romney.
Why did Trump win? Two reasons.
First, “Cultural Americans” know that their culture is dying, and their standard of living is declining. They sensed—correctly—that this would be their “last hurrah”, their last real kick at the cat. Trump is likely the last white male president. Unless a rabid statist like Tim Kaine is elected in 2020, with promises of a new and more radical New Deal. Or ongoing wars tilt the odds towards a general, most of whom are still white males.
Second, don’t forget that Trump wasn’t the only protest candidate in the primaries. There was Bernie. His supporters know that Hillary and the Dem insiders stole it from him, and they’re still very unhappy. Many abstained from voting for Hillary because of the theft. A few probably voted for Trump out of spite. Or because they wanted to burn the house down. Nobody says this.
Perversely, they’ll get their wish. The Greater Depression will deepen under Trump, even if he makes the right moves. Which will play into the election of someone from the Democrat cesspool in 2020. So maybe the Trump victory isn’t such a good thing after all.
But let’s look at the bright side. All things considered, we’re in for some wonderful free (kind of) entertainment.
By Tho BishopMises.or
g via Lew Rockwell.com
One of the potential silver linings from the surprising victory for Donald Trump is the hope that a Republican White House will resurrect the left’s distrust of the Federal government. During the Obama administration, progressive activists have been noticeably less vocal on issues such as war, executive overreach, and civil liberty violations than they were when George W. Bush was in office. Encouragingly, we are already seeing signs of this with the idea of California secession buzzing on social media as demonstrators marched in Sacramento yesterday in support of the idea.
The group leading the charge, Yes California Independence Campaign, assembled long before Trump’s surprising victory. Its aim is to put a referendum on the 2019 ballot that, if passed, would make California an independent country.
CalExit has even managed to find financial support from some in Silicon Valley:
The movement has racked up some impressive backers already. Shervin Pishevar, an early investor in Uber and well-known angel investor, claimed on Twitter that he would bankroll a campaign to make California its own nation if Trump won.
In an interview with CNBC on Wednesday, he confirmed his mission.
“It’s the most patriotic thing I can do,” he told CNBC. “The country is at serious crossroads. … Calling it New California.”
He expressed a desire that California, the sixth largest economy in the world, in terms of GDP, might become a catalyst for a “national dialogue” as the country reaches a “tipping point.”
While this blossoming interest in California secession is likely more a short-term partisan reaction to the election results than a reflection of a true growing movement — any campaign aimed toward political decentralization should be celebrated. Secession has long been portrayed exclusively as a reactionary, fringe right-wing solution, and too-often absurdly linked with racism
. Secession should be seen as non-ideological, and perceived as a practical solution for an increasingly diverse society.
In fact, as Jeff Deist noted last year
during a Mises Circle event dedicated to the subject
, secession would make it easier for the progressive left to achieve the sort of society they desire:
Now one might think progressives would champion the Tenth Amendment and states’ rights, because it would liberate them from the Neanderthal right wingers who stand in the way of their progressive utopia. Imagine California or Massachusetts having every progressive policy firmly in place, without any preemptive federal legislation or federal courts to get in their way, and without having to share federal tax revenues with the hated red states.
Imagine an experiment where residents of the San Francisco bay area were free to live under a political and social regime of their liking, while residents of Salt Lake City were free to do the same.
Surely both communities would be much happier with this commonsense arrangement than the current one, whereby both have to defer to Washington!
Considering the fundamental economic fallacies he spent most of his campaign advocating, it’s unlikely the Trump administration will end up advocating for the sort of policies
America actually needs to become great again. But if the election of President Trump leads to more and more people questioning the value of democratic consensus
, and causes more Americans to reassess the incredible powers that have been granted to the presidency, libertarians may be able to find a silver lining
to this cycles election results.Note:
The views expressed on Mises.org
are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.