Archive

Corrupt US Financial System

  

7UU

It has been revealed by a whistleblower who happens to be extremely high ranking at the NSA that the previously reported Russian hacked DNC emails were actually leaked internally by somebody working for the Democratic Party!

Bill Binney, an agent at the NSA states that the DNC emails were transferred much too quickly and that it would have taken hackers much longer.

According To Zerohedge

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT: Was the “Russian Hack” an Inside Job?

Assange-Russian-Hackers-01-600x280

Executive Summary

Forensic studies of “Russian hacking” into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computers, and then doctored to incriminate Russia.

After examining metadata from the “Guccifer 2.0” July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device, and that “telltale signs” implicating Russia were then inserted.

Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack. Of equal importance, the forensics show that the copying and doctoring were performed on the East coast of the U.S. Thus far, mainstream media have ignored the findings of these independent studies [see here and here].

Russia-Did-It

Independent analyst Skip Folden, a retired IBM Program Manager for Information Technology US, who examined the recent forensic findings, is a co-author of this Memorandum. He has drafted a more detailed technical report titled “Cyber-Forensic Investigation of ‘Russian Hack’ and Missing Intelligence Community Disclaimers,” and sent it to the offices of the Special Counsel and the Attorney General. VIPS member William Binney, a former Technical Director at the National Security Agency, and other senior NSA “alumni” in VIPS attest to the professionalism of the independent forensic findings.

The recent forensic studies fill in a critical gap. Why the FBI neglected to perform any independent forensics on the original “Guccifer 2.0” material remains a mystery – as does the lack of any sign that the “hand-picked analysts” from the FBI, CIA, and NSA, who wrote the “Intelligence Community Assessment” dated January 6, 2017, gave any attention to forensics.

NOTE: There has been so much conflation of charges about hacking that we wish to make very clear the primary focus of this Memorandum. We focus specifically on the July 5, 2016 alleged Guccifer 2.0 “hack” of the DNC server. In earlier VIPS memoranda we addressed the lack of any evidence connecting the Guccifer 2.0 alleged hacks and WikiLeaks, and we asked President Obama specifically to disclose any evidence that WikiLeaks received DNC data from the Russians [see here and here].

Addressing this point at his last press conference (January 18), he described “the conclusions of the intelligence community” as “not conclusive,” even though the Intelligence Community Assessment of January 6 expressed “high confidence” that Russian intelligence “relayed material it acquired from the DNC … to WikiLeaks.”

J67JH

Obama’s admission came as no surprise to us. It has long been clear to us that the reason the U.S. government lacks conclusive evidence of a transfer of a “Russian hack” to WikiLeaks is because there was no such transfer. Based mostly on the cumulatively unique technical experience of our ex-NSA colleagues, we have been saying for almost a year that the DNC data reached WikiLeaks via a copy/leak by a DNC insider (but almost certainly not the same person who copied DNC data on July 5, 2016).

From the information available, we conclude that the same inside-DNC, copy/leak process was used at two different times, by two different entities, for two distinctly different purposes:

-(1) an inside leak to WikiLeaks before Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2017, that he had DNC documents and planned to publish them (which he did on July 22) – the presumed objective being to expose strong DNC bias toward the Clinton candidacy; and

-(2) a separate leak on July 5, 2016, to pre-emptively taint anything WikiLeaks might later publish by “showing” it came from a “Russian hack.”

o86,i,m

* * *

Mr. President:

This is our first VIPS Memorandum for you, but we have a history of letting U.S. Presidents know when we think our former intelligence colleagues have gotten something important wrong, and why. For example, our first such memorandum, a same-day commentary for President George W. Bush on Colin Powell’s U.N. speech on March 5, 2003, warned that the “unintended consequences were likely to be catastrophic,” should the U.S. attack Iraq and “justfy” the war on intelligence that we retired intelligence officers could readily see as fraudulent and driven by a war agenda.

The January 6 “Intelligence Community Assessment” by “hand-picked” analysts from the FBI, CIA, and NSA seems to fit into the same agenda-driven category. It is largely based on an “assessment,” not supported by any apparent evidence, that a shadowy entity with the moniker “Guccifer 2.0” hacked the DNC on behalf of Russian intelligence and gave DNC emails to WikiLeaks.

The recent forensic findings mentioned above have put a huge dent in that assessment and cast serious doubt on the underpinnings of the extraordinarily successful campaign to blame the Russian government for hacking. The pundits and politicians who have led the charge against Russian “meddling” in the U.S. election can be expected to try to cast doubt on the forensic findings, if they ever do bubble up into the mainstream media. But the principles of physics don’t lie; and the technical limitations of today’s Internet are widely understood. We are prepared to answer any substantive challenges on their merits.

You may wish to ask CIA Director Mike Pompeo what he knows about this. Our own lengthy intelligence community experience suggests that it is possible that neither former CIA Director John Brennan, nor the cyber-warriors who worked for him, have been completely candid with their new director regarding how this all went down.

Copied, Not Hacked

As indicated above, the independent forensic work just completed focused on data copied (not hacked) by a shadowy persona named “Guccifer 2.0.” The forensics reflect what seems to have been a desperate effort to “blame the Russians” for publishing highly embarrassing DNC emails three days before the Democratic convention last July. Since the content of the DNC emails reeked of pro-Clinton bias, her campaign saw an overriding need to divert attention from content to provenance – as in, who “hacked” those DNC emails? The campaign was enthusiastically supported by a compliant “mainstream” media; they are still on a roll.

f

“The Russians” were the ideal culprit. And, after WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, “We have emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication,” her campaign had more than a month before the convention to insert its own “forensic facts” and prime the media pump to put the blame on “Russian meddling.” Mrs. Clinton’s PR chief Jennifer Palmieri has explained how she used golf carts to make the rounds at the convention. She wrote that her “mission was to get the press to focus on something even we found difficult to process: the prospect that Russia had not only hacked and stolen emails from the DNC, but that it had done so to help Donald Trump and hurt Hillary Clinton.”

Independent cyber-investigators have now completed the kind of forensic work that the intelligence assessment did not do. Oddly, the “hand-picked” intelligence analysts contented themselves with “assessing” this and “assessing” that. In contrast, the investigators dug deep and came up with verifiable evidence from metadata found in the record of the alleged Russian hack.

They found that the purported “hack” of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else. Rather it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider. The data was leaked after being doctored with a cut-and-paste job to implicate Russia. We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI.

BammieSilentCoup1

The Time Sequence

June 12, 2016: Assange announces WikiLeaks is about to publish “emails related to Hillary Clinton.”

June 15, 2016: DNC contractor Crowdstrike, (with a dubious professional record and multiple conflicts of interest) announces that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there is evidence it was injected by Russians.

June 15, 2016: On the same day, “Guccifer 2.0” affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the “hack;” claims to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the forensics show was synthetically tainted with “Russian fingerprints.”

We do not think that the June 12 & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to “show” that it came from a Russian hack.

imagesfrf

The Key Event

July 5, 2016: In the early evening, Eastern Daylight Time, someone working in the EDT time zone with a computer directly connected to the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 MegaBytes of data in 87 seconds onto an external storage device. That speed is many times faster than what is physically possible with a hack.

It thus appears that the purported “hack” of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 (the self-proclaimed WikiLeaks source) was not a hack by Russia or anyone else, but was rather a copy of DNC data onto an external storage device. Moreover, the forensics performed on the metadata reveal there was a subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian template, with the clear aim of attributing the data to a “Russian hack.” This was all performed in the East Coast time zone.

“Obfuscation & De-obfuscation”

Mr. President, the disclosure described below may be related. Even if it is not, it is something we think you should be made aware of in this general connection. On March 7, 2017, WikiLeaks began to publish a trove of original CIA documents that WikiLeaks labeled “Vault 7.” WikiLeaks said it got the trove from a current or former CIA contractor and described it as comparable in scale and significance to the information Edward Snowden gave to reporters in 2013.

No one has challenged the authenticity of the original documents of Vault 7, which disclosed a vast array of cyber warfare tools developed, probably with help from NSA, by CIA’s Engineering Development Group. That Group was part of the sprawling CIA Directorate of Digital Innovation – a growth industry established by John Brennan in 2015.

Scarcely imaginable digital tools – that can take control of your car and make it race over 100 mph, for example, or can enable remote spying through a TV – were described and duly reported in the New York Times and other media throughout March. But the Vault 7, part 3 release on March 31 that exposed the “Marble Framework” program apparently was judged too delicate to qualify as “news fit to print” and was kept out of the Times.

g5gr

The Washington Post’s Ellen Nakashima, it seems, “did not get the memo” in time. Her March 31 article bore the catching (and accurate) headline: “WikiLeaks’ latest release of CIA cyber-tools could blow the cover on agency hacking operations.”

The WikiLeaks release indicated that Marble was designed for flexible and easy-to-use “obfuscation,” and that Marble source code includes a “deobfuscator” to reverse CIA text obfuscation.

More important, the CIA reportedly used Marble during 2016. In her Washington Post report, Nakashima left that out, but did include another significant point made by WikiLeaks; namely, that the obfuscation tool could be used to conduct a “forensic attribution double game” or false-flag operation because it included test samples in Chinese, Russian, Korean, Arabic and Farsi.

The CIA’s reaction was neuralgic. Director Mike Pompeo lashed out two weeks later, calling Assange and his associates “demons,” and insisting, “It’s time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is, a non-state hostile intelligence service, often abetted by state actors like Russia.”

Mr. President, we do not know if CIA’s Marble Framework, or tools like it, played some kind of role in the campaign to blame Russia for hacking the DNC. Nor do we know how candid the denizens of CIA’s Digital Innovation Directorate have been with you and with Director Pompeo. These are areas that might profit from early White House review. 

 

SCROLL DOWN TO “PUTIN ….” AFTER YOU TAKE THIS LINK

ARTICLE CONTINUES HERE AT AMERICAN TRUTH SEEKERS 

ats-logo-284x300

Advertisements

maxresdefault

During his most recent podcast Rush Limbaugh explained that he believes that The Deep State are secretly recruiting retired military Generals for a coup against the Trump administration.

According to AWD News

h7y5

Radio host Rush Limbaugh issued a speculative warning to his listeners that he believes the deep state and D.C. swamp dwellers could potentially be recruiting ex-military leaders to spearhead a revolution to depose President Trump, if all else fails.

During a segment covering ex-CIA head John Brennan’s statements at the Aspen Security Forum in which Brennan called upon members of the Executive Branch to effectively execute a coup if Trump fires compromised special investigator, Robert Mueller, Limbaugh offered the opinion that the D.C. establishment has abandoned virtually all rationality and respect for the democratic process due to an overwhelming hatred of the outsider President and could be prepared to take extreme measures to ensure he is removed from office.

index

Listen Here:

Article continues here:

To say that Barack Obama is an ideologue isn’t going to make national news at this point, that much is a given. Anyone with a pulse and an IQ over 6 has known that since before Obama took office in 2008, and even most liberals not registering any brain activity would have admitted as much once Obama secured his re-election in the 2012 election. It’s also not major news to say that Obama and his administration have been the most corrupt administration in recent memory, or that they subscribe to the philosophy of, “The ends justify the means,” the Constitution be damned…

0003h_-st-ny-hillary-clinton-table-woman-in-the-white-house-even-if-it-means

With all that said, if recent weeks have shown us anything at all, they have shown us that Hillary Clinton is infinitely more corrupt than Obama, even more of a sociopath, not to mention a stone-cold killer when you consider that FIVE of her political enemies died from very strange and mysterious deaths in the last SIX weeks alone, making the number of dead former Clinton associates totaling 67 people. Coincidences? Hardly! Well, it gets worse…

146ocf

Realtruenews.org reports:

Following the conventions, a pattern has emerged from the polling: Donald Trump has taken a commanding lead in all demographics. From the well to poorly educated and even out-performing Romney among women and Hispanics. According polling aggregates the only demographic Hillary is winning is African American single women and White College Males with advanced degrees in Social Sciences.

If that’s the case, then how is Hillary Clinton leading in all the polls considering THIS was the scene at the Democrat National Convention (below) WHILE Hillary was speaking (if you listen you can hear her)?

 

 

ISIS is a Hillary Clinton State Department creation.

Did you know that beyond the fundamantalism of their Wahhabi creed they are a mercenary army? That they are being paid salaries and being armed by our regional allies?

The failed state of Libya – now a breeding ground for ISIS and a jump off point for the influx of war-refugees into the EU – is not a Hillary Clinton/Obama feature?!

xvjq8

Hillary Clinton Is a Threat to All of Humanity

by James Corbett
grtv.ca
July 24, 2016

Hillary Rodham Clinton is a Wall Street-backed warmonger whose potential election as President of the United States this November poses an existential threat not just to Americans but to all of humanity.

As First Lady and then as Senator, she actively supported the US’ illegal wars of aggression abroad:

BILL CLINTON: “Today, our Armed Forces joined our NATO allies in airstrikes against Serbian forces ,esponsible for the brutality in Kosovo.”

HILLARY CLINTON: “You know I voted for the Iraqi resolution.”

CLINTON: “The President understands this. He’s fully aware that it’s going to take a lot of patience and pain-staking planning and we’re gonna support him!”

CLINTON: “…including thousands of chemical weapons. Large volumes of chemical and biological stocks. A number of missiles and warheads. A major lab equipped to produce Anthrax.”

user812517_pic121694_1429026332

She not only admitted the US role in creating Al Qaeda:

CLINTON: “When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, we had this brilliant idea there we were going to come to Pakistan and create a force of Mujahideen, equip them with Stinger missiles and everything else, to go after the Soviets inside Afghanistan.”

But then, despite this admission, as Secretary of State her support of the war on Libya and the jihadis in Syria directly led to the rise of ISIS and the migrant crisis in Europe:

CLINTON: “The transition to democracy in Syria has begun and it’s time for Assad to get out of the way.”

“President Assad is not indispensable and we have absolutely nothing invested in him remaining in power.”

“I think based on definitions of war-criminal and crimes against humanity, there would be an argument to be made that he (Assad) would fit into that category.”

CLINTON: “Libya was a different kind of calculation and we didn’t lose a single person.”

CLINTON: “We came. We saw. He died! (laughter)”

Clinton_Corruption_6_479x750

She was the one who announced the US’ so-called “Asia-Pacific Pivot” that has seen more US forces being placed in the Asia-Pacific as a direct military threat to China:

CLINTON: “…and we look to the Asia-Pacific region, as we have for many decades, as an area where the United States in uniquely positioned to play a major role.”

CLINTON: “The United States is not seeding the Pacific to anyone.”

And she has stated in no uncertain terms that Russia and Iran will be militarily targeted in a Clinton presidency, and that the “nuclear option” is, as always, “on the table”:

CLINTON: “And we will make sure the Iranians and the world understand, that the United States will act decisively if necessary including taking military action.”

“There will have to be consequences for any violation by Iran and that the nuclear option should not at all be taken of the table. That has been my position consistently.”

CLINTON: “And Russia has to support the international community’s efforts sincerely or be held to account.”

CLINTON: “That Russia and China will pay a price. Because they are holding up progress, blockading it. That is no longer tolerable.”

c62b6dd5689d9566f50b01585dfb81c0

And unlike her many, many political statements of convenience that are merely a reflection of what is most politically acceptable at the moment:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Do you think New York State should recognize gay marriage?”

HILLARY CLINTON: “No.”

CHRIS MATTHEWS: “No … OK.”

CLINTON: “I support marriage for lesbian and gay couples.”

CLINTON: “I represented Wall Street as a Senator from New York and I went to Wall Street and in December of 2007 before the big crash that we had. And I basically said ‘cut it out, quit foreclosing on homes. Quit engaging in these kinds of speculative behaviors.’”

“Now who’s exactly the blame for the housing crisis? Now I think there’s plenty of blame to go around. Home-buyers who paid extra fees to avoid documenting their income, should of known that they were getting in over their heads.”

“I take a back-seat to no one when you look at my record on standing up and fighting for progressive values.”

“I get accused of being kind of moderate and center. I plead guilty.”

HILLARY CLINTON: “We went through a thorough process to identify all of my work-related emails.”

JAMES COMEY: “Lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her emails.”

CLINTON: “So that the emails were immediately captured and preserved.”

COMEY: “There was no archiving at all of her emails.”

fd0831a00c3e8e4af06176187ce4b04d

…we can be assured that these threats of potential nuclear world war by Clinton are not idle threats. A future Clinton president would be assured of a like mind in the new Prime Minister in the UK, who has stated in no uncertain terms that she is willing to launch a nuclear strike that would kill hundreds of thousands:

GEORGE KEREVAN: “Let me congratulate the Prime Minster on her new rule, but can we cut to the chase? Is she personally prepared to authorize a nuclear-strike that could kill 100,000 innocent men, women and children?”

THERESA MAY: “Yes. And I have to say to the honourable gentleman, the whole point of a deterrent is that our enemies need to know that we would be prepared to use it.”

Hillary Clinton is a neocon, a war hawk, a liar, an unindicted criminal and a Wall Street puppet. Why is it, then, that those on the so-called “progressive” left who would be warning against her if she had an “R” next to her name are instead lecturing other leftists that it is now their duty to fall in line and help her get elected?

NOAM CHOMSKY: “If Clinton is nominated and it comes to a choice between Clinton and Trump, in a swing state, a state where it’s going to matter which way you vote, I would vote against Trump, and by elementary arithmetic, that means you hold your nose and you vote Democrat. I don’t think there’s any other rational choice. Abstaining from voting or, say, voting for, say, a candidate you prefer, a minority candidate, just amounts to a vote for Donald Trump, which I think is a devastating prospect, for reasons I’ve already mentioned.”

JUAN GONZALES: “We in SDS refused to vote. We wouldn’t support McCarthy. We wouldn’t support Humphrey. Our slogan was “Vote with your feet, vote in the street.” I’m—I’m here to tell you that the slogan was right, the tactic was wrong. And I think that the country, in retrospect, there would not have been a substantive change, there would have been a positive change, if Nixon had not been elected. But you learn from your mistakes. Hopefully, other generations learn from the mistakes of those who came before them.”

ELIZABETH WARREN: We’re all here today because we’re with her. And we’re going to work our hearts out to make Hillary Clinton the next president of the United States.

BERNIE SANDERS: “She will be the Democratic nominee for president, and I intend to do everything I can to make certain she will be the next president of the United States.”

ca34404e-a9ed-42bf-ba5e-359f86adf2ff-large16x9_landscape1467468715hillarycorrupt

The message here is as clear as it is predictable and disappointing. Once again those with the influence to shape these events and ignite a genuine protest movement against Hillary’s coronation at the Democratic National Convention are falling back into their roles as partisan ideologues, advocating for “their” candidate over the “other side,” taking the two-party system as a fait accomplis and complicity with that system as the only way forward.

But as Michel Chossudovsky of GlobalResearch.ca points out, this election is fundamentally different. This time, the fate of the world hangs in the balance.

MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY: “In so many words Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy stance is ‘to blow up the planet.’ She has made statements to the effect that a first-strike nuclear attack against Russia or Iran is on the table. So that if she is in the White House she could in fact unleash the unspoken, which is World War 3. I think this is something we have to address both in terms of analysis and also political choice. That anyone who wants to blow up the planet is not ‘progressive.’

“Secondly, she has a criminal record. Not only in regards to the email scandal but also in relation to The Clinton Foundation, which is involved in fraud, money laundering, political cronyism, etc. It is amply documented.

“So that, in effect, the choice for the American people is to elect a war-criminal.”

0003h_-st-ny-hillary-clinton-table-woman-in-the-white-house-even-if-it-means

Too many people become attached to the personality of these political personas or fixated on the “D” or the “R” after their name. This clouds their judgement and stops them from seeing their policies and agenda for what they really are.

As Diana Johnstone, author of Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton points out, Hillary is best understood not as a person, but as the instrument for the think tanks, Wall Street financiers and other connected insiders who want to embroil the United States in more illegal wars and plunder the country and its people even further.

DIANA JOHNSTONE: “I mean Hillary to me is not even an interesting person. She is simply a shallow, ambitious woman. Who has decided to make herself the instrument of the Washington think-tank persuasion and is using that too pose as a great expert on world affairs to be elected as President. She simply is the embodiment of all that is terrible in American foreign-policy that has developed over the past decades.”

It is no hyperbole to say that the election of Hillary Rodham Clinton as president this November would be one of the greatest tragedies in the history of the United States, and perhaps the world. It is incumbent on people of all stripes–American and non-American, Republican and Democrat, progressive and libertarian, anarchists, and those who have never thought about politics a day in their life–to protest her nomination at the Democratic National Convention, work against her campaign for President, and avert the nuclear nightmare that is now coming into view.

The story continues here at its source (click here)72a26a5e1aa53908371a6684bed5888c

donald trump make america great

Let me make sure you understand one very very important fact about elections in this country…OK maybe two. #1 In Presidential elections the establishment (aka the 1%, aka the globalists, aka the Illuminati etc. will stop at nothing until they are certain they own both horses in a two horse race  #2 Our Presidential elections are corrupt and fraud is rampant…and it’s not just dead democrats and illegal aliens voting who shouldn’t. With Trump still way out in front and still not controlled by the zio mafia who has taken over our government …expect to see a shit storm of lies, and negative Trump stories everywhere you turn, in every paper you read and on ever news station you watch…They want him out so Hillary can win and sink this country deeper into a hole than we can imagine, or ever get out off. Here is the unvarnished truth about Trump’s elect ability in November …don’t let the media dictate who you get to choose from this year. EP-150629545

IT’S ONLY TRUMP!!

Who can win it!

Ann Coulter

The only question for Republicans is: Which candidate can win states that Mitt Romney lost?

Start with the fact that, before any vote is cast on Election Day, the Democrats have already won between 90 and 98 percent of the black vote and 60 to 75 percent of the Hispanic and Asian vote. Unless Republicans run the table on the white vote, they lose.

donald-trumps-campaign-says-this-poll-shows-hes-a-front-runner-in-2016
If there’s still hope, it lies with Trump and only Trump. Donald Trump will do better with black and Hispanic voters than any other Republican. But it’s with white voters that he really opens up the electoral map.

A Republican Party that wasn’t intent on committing suicide would know that. But Stuart Stevens, the guy who lost a winnable presidential election in 2012, says it’s impossible for Republicans to get one more white vote — and the media are trying to convince the GOP that he’s right.

donald_trump_2016_poster-r9456cb99b50a42dfb24eb9e9797f3152_kvl_8byvr_324

Stevens says Romney tapped out every last white voter and still lost, so he says Republicans are looking for “the Lost Tribes of the Amazon” hoping to win more white votes: “In 1980, Ronald Reagan won 56 percent of white voters and won a landslide victory of 44 states. In 2012, Mitt Romney won 59 percent of whites and lost with 24 states.”

Apparently, no one’s told Stevens about the 50-state Electoral College. The national white vote is irrelevant. Presidential elections are won by winning states. (Only someone who got his ass kicked running an eminently electable candidate might not know this.)

Trump_2016_USA_FLAG_sticker

Excluding third parties and breaking it down to a two-man race, Mitt Romney won 88 percent of the white vote in Mississippi, but only 40 percent of the white vote in Massachusetts. What sense does it make to talk about his national percentage of the white vote with disparities like that?

Romney lost the white vote to Obama in five crucial swing states: Maine (42 percent of the white vote), Minnesota (47 percent), New Hampshire (48 percent), Iowa (48 percent) and Wisconsin (49 percent). He only narrowly beat Obama’s white vote in other important swing states — Illinois (51 percent), Colorado (52 percent), Michigan (53 percent), Ohio (54 percent) and Pennsylvania (54 percent).


Increasing the white vote in these states gives Trump any number of paths to victory.  Continue Reading this article at its source (Click)

AK-Vaccine-47_Color

A Shot Never Worth Taking: The Flu Vaccine ~ by Kelly Brogan, MD

Deep into my 6th year of researching and investigating the damning science that condemns vaccine efficacy and safety – yes, all of them – I am beginning to turn my attention more to the societal memes and the individual belief systems that protect and perpetuate tragically flawed and unacceptably dangerous collective behaviors. The information is OUT THERE, brilliant scientists, physicians, and researchers without financial ties and agendas have weighed in and presented their concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy, however, the average citizen resists and clings to a hyper-simplified, seemingly “safe” stance. “Well, I’m not against vaccines, I mean, they’ve done a lot. I’m sure there are some risks, but they’re extremely rare.” I understand, now, that, my collection of PubMed articles substantiating concerns about inefficacy, neurological, autoimmune, and fatal risks of these poorly conceived and anachronistically relevant immune modulators is not meaningful to someone who is not interested.

images797ZZAKR

The questions raised by this information are not provocative to someone who needs, above all, to believe that the government, the CDC, and doctors mean well, are doing their due diligence, and that they are holding themselves to a basic standard of ethical delivery of healthcare. They are not meaningful to someone who needs to outsource their power. Instead of debating the science, what it may take to change to bring awareness to this egregious misuse of medical authority is, one of two, non-scientific, anecdotal exposures:

1.They see it doesn’t work, and may even cause illness

Have-you-vaccinated-your-infant-government-medicine-what-could-go-wrong-by-Liam-Scheff-2010-med

I have several pediatricians as patients. Unprovoked, all of these women have confessed to me that they have observed increased virulence in their vaccinated populations. It is this clinical experience that has given them pause about the heavy-handed mandate coming down from the CDC. “Oh!” I say, “Have you read the studies that suggest increased risk of infection in the vaccinated population? There’s THAT ONE where they actually used a saline placebo in 115 children and found that those vaccinated had a 4.4 times increased rate of non-flu infection? Or how about that CANADIAN ONE where they looked at 4 observational studies and found that 2008-2009 H1N1 vaccination was associated with a1.4 to 2.5 increased risk of actually contracting said virus?” Only after they have a personal template within which to fit the science affirming their observations, do they have room to hear it. But what of all of the children they have brought this ineffective and dangerous intervention to?

imagesCK2G1QZX

2.They know someone harmed

It is basic human psychology that what is out over there is irrelevant at best, and threatening at worst. What is near and familiar is what is true. Few of us seek to bridge gaps between what we are surrounded by and what may be out there to learn. The difficulty of appreciating the scale of harm brought to the population by vaccination practice is related to the insidious nature of immune and neurologic insult. The CDC can report, as they do, that brain inflammation and death are known side effects of every vaccine, but most do not appreciate what brain inflammation looks like. That this can look like ADHD, autism, learning delay, and that autoimmune disorders can take years to manifest. Tracing the thread back to the vaccine exposure can only be done with studies that assess vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations. These have not been done.

imagesVGTP4YPO

Tragically, we all know, now, of someone who has died from the flu vaccine, just this past week. CHANDLER WEBB, a healthy 19 year old, was given a “routine” and “recommended” flu vaccine at his physical, one day before he became violently ill, and one month before he died. He died from vaccine-induced encephalitis, a known risk of this intervention. In addition to feeling remorse for the pain that this family is experiencing, I feel rage for what I believe to be manslaughter. This is a medical intervention, delivered without any regard for its objectively determined lack of efficacy, and its potential to maim and kill healthy adults. The propaganda surrounding this CDC and government-endorsed practice is so thick that doctors treating this young man were blind to even the most obvious of causative insults. If doctors cannot appreciate a documented adverse event that occurs within 24 hours, you cannot expect the system to acknowledge more complex disturbances to the immune system and neuorologic development that will land you and your loved ones on medications and in therapies for life. And, remember, that this family cannot sue the physician who pushed the needle or the pharmaceutical company who created the lethal product.

I think about the Cliff’s Notes version, a distillation of why the flu vaccine is evidence that our government and regulatory bodies have forgotten us, and are following an objective that may leave you lying dead on the side of the road. I know that few of you will read the papers that I have read, attend lectures, seminars, and dialogue with concerned experts. If nothing else, digest these important points, and then wait until this issue gets close enough to you to change your mind on it…hopefully before it’s too late.

It’s not indicated: I’m sure you don’t know a single person who has died of the flu, and if you think you do, I can almost guarantee you that the diagnosis was not confirmed in a way that ruled out the 150-200 infectious pathogens that cause flu-like syndromes, none of which would be “covered” by the vaccine. Despite the astronomical figures the CDC flashes before us of “flu deaths”, there were 18 (yes, 1-8) confirmed in 2001, for example. Access to these figures is suspiciously concealed, but in the end, forget the stats, and use some common sense to see the fear mongering and sales marketing for what it is.

33-vaccine-in-6-years

It doesn’t work: The Cochrane Database – an objective, gold-standard assessment of available evidence has plainly stated, in TWO STUDIES, that there is no data to support efficacy in children under two, and in adults. Even the former Chief Vaccine Officer at the FDA states: “there is no evidence that any influenza vaccine thus far developed is effective in preventing or mitigating any attack of influenza.” Liking the idea of being protected from the flu does not equate to being protected from the flu. That’s essentially what your vaccine-promoting doctor (or pharmacist) is engaging in – promoting an idea.

Should there ever be a medical intervention appropriate for everyone? It’s being pushed on demographics where it is known to be ineffective, or is unstudied and likely unsafe including children, adults, elderly, and pregnant women as reviewed on THIS WEB SITE and GREENMEDINFO. I write about how this offends my sensibilities as a perinatal physician HERE.

We just don’t know what we are doing: The grave possibility of undetectable viral proteins in the chick embryos used to culture vaccines is just an example of how the immune roulette of vaccine development and rampant implementation has resulted in death and lasting injury. C. jejeuni contamination, for example, IS THEORIZED TO PLAY A ROLE in documented risk of Guillain-Barre paralysis after flu vaccine. Producing antibody response to virus and associated toxic preservatives is not immunity. We know that now.

imagesD0QHJAZC

As those of us who shake our heads in pain and frustration watching the sheep get herded off the cliff, we refrain: these agents cannot be considered “safe and effective” and also “unavoidably unsafe” as the government agencies would have us accept. They are avoidably unsafe, in fact, when you don’t use them as part of your healthcare. ~Kelly Brogan, MD –

kbrogan

See more at: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2013/11/27/a-shot-never-worth-taking-the-flu-vaccine-by-kelly-brogan-md/#sthash.1pf252nV.dpuf

– See more at: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2013/11/27/a-shot-never-worth-taking-the-flu-vaccine-by-kelly-brogan-md/#sthash.1pf252nV.dpuf

For those of you who read Zerohedge you will be familiar with Tyler Durden’s ability t constantly supply insightful commentary on whats happening in our financial markets today and why …I have never read a treatment of this topic spelled out so that even the unsophisticated can understand it and in doing so he is calling out the shadow government who is quickly putting this country on a collision course with its own destruction and enslavement. This great article written by Mark Jeftovic  will wake a few more people up to what’s really happening, by whom, and why!  E

Tarp Christmas Card

Cronyism In The 21st Century

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/21/2014 22:48 -040

Authored by Mark E. Jeftovic, CEO easyDNS Technologies; originally posted at DollarVigilante.com,

Ghandi was once asked, “What do you think about Western Civilization?” to which he famously replied “I think it’s a good idea.” He may as well have been talking about free market capitalism.

Capital in the 21st Century has hit the world like a new teen idol sensation. Everybody is drinking the Kool-Aid and its being held up as the most important book ever written on the subject of how runaway capitalism leads to wealth inequality. Paul Krugman of course, loves it. As does every head of state and political hack in the (formerly) free world. A text-book sized brick that can be condensed down to a couple bullet points:

bagley1020

  • that unchecked capitalism leads to increasing wealth inequality, and
  • this can be fixed through government management, most notably more taxes and higher minimum wages.

What’s not to love?

There are many other refutations of Capital circulating, most of which address the numerous factual errors and flawed research methodologies in the book, and countering the income equality assertions with observations around how the standard of living generally increases across the board during periods of free(er) market capitalism (such as England during the industrial revolution under the classical gold standard or wider Europe during the High Middle Ages).

The age we live in today is not an example of this. I submit that the modern run of standard of living increases, say from end of WWII to present is not an example of “free markets given room to run”, but rather a crack-up boom fuelled by credit expansion (cheap money) and cheap energy. This era is now drawing to a close, as the cost of energy inexorably rises and the global debt super-cycle finally hits a wall. After decades of government targeted inflation, after the better part of a decade of ZIRP, after increased regulations in every aspect of our lives, after civil liberties being for the most part abolished (after all, the government is allowed to assassinate any one of us and we are all under continuous pervasive surveillance) what is difficult to fathom is that political economists can still make hay in the world by blaming its problems on capitalism gone wild and runaway free markets. Put simply, true capitalism requires free markets, free markets require a free society and we do not live in a free society.

dfgf

So let’s do something different here and accept a core premise of Capital, and say that wealth inequality is increasing, and that it’s a bad thing. Where the point is completely missed is in what causes it (ostensibly “free market capitalism”) and what to do about it (increase government control, induce more inflation and raise taxes).

The point of this essay is to assert that it is not unchecked capital or runaway free markets that cause increasing wealth inequality, but rather that the underlying monetary system itself is hard-coded by an inner temple of ruling elites in a way which creates that inequality.

We’ll see that wealth doesn’t “run away” in a logarithmic fashion (perhaps hinted at by Pareto and captured in various “1% memes”) but rather can be best visualized as a vortex, like a tornado, or more accurately, a black hole, a centre swirling around a political/monetary/cronyist nexus that sucks wealth into it from the periphery (the rest of society). Society itself is hard-wired to facilitate this in such an entrenched and subtle fashion that we have arrived in a zeitgeist in which the key facets of this system (the nature of money itself) is out-of-scope. It’s not even part of the debate because almost everybody in society is oblivious to it’s machinations. (This is the reason why in my writings I do not refer to underclass or overclass but rather, the “outer-class” and the inner elites.)

erget

Because the nature of money itself has been so, for lack of a better word, “esotericized”, I need to include Stephen Zarlenga’s seminal work “The Lost Science of Money” in our expose. While Zarlenga blesses us with an exhaustive study of money and banking practices throughout history, and does a superb job deconstructing the perniciousness of central banking and debt based money systems, he erroneously arrives at conclusions favouring direct government creation of fiat money (he even came out in favour of that whole “Trillion Dollar Coin” idea because to him it signaled a tacit admission that the government doesn’t really need the Federal Reserve). However even his arrival at this seemingly (to us) off-base solution tells us something vital about the system within which we are all immersed.

This is what it tells us: if smart, scholarly people happen to believe that government fiat money is both feasible and beneficial to society, and they put serious thought into devising such a system, what they will not come up with is one run by private central banks issuing debt-based money. They just won’t. Any critical analysis would grasp that such architecture would become a parasitic cancer on the entire society. When you realize this, it’s hard not to posit a far-reaching conspiracy to institutionalize inequality. While I am a big believer in the maxim “never ascribe to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity” it to me falls short in this case. When we look at the structure of the entire monetary system and realize that it’s the worst way possible to design such a system if you have the best interests of the wider society in mind then you can’t help but ask in whose interests was it designed and implemented?

As such, the system within which we find ourselves seems to be one that isn’t designed to be in the best-interest of most of us reading this (and would remain true even if you were inexplicably reading this on Huffington Post, Slate or Business Insider).

images

If we want to understand where wealth inequality comes from, “The Lost Science of Money” is a good place to start  for two reasons: 1) his book is an exhaustive history of money, even if one disputes some of his takeaways from it) and 2) like many libertarians and an-caps, he understands the pernicious, malignant effect of private central banking. His ideal solutions may not fly (government controlled fiat, because governments will always inflate and debase) but his exposure of the fraud is convincing. Zarlenga’s main thesis can be put briefly that the primary arena of human struggle throughout history has been mainly over the monetary control over societies. If Zarlenga had to put it in one sentence, which he did, it would be this one:

“It is by misdefining the nature of money, special interests have often been able to assume control of society’s monetary system, and in turn, the society itself”. (emphasis added, and you’ll see why soon). He broke his book (almost as big as Capital) down into sections, examining that:

  • The Main Obstacle is The Mystification of Money
  • Monetary History Has Been Ignored
  • Monetary History Has Been Censored
  • Monetary Data is Often Misinterpreted

All of which is correct and explains why a book like Capital is on the New York Times Best Seller List. The premise that wealth inequality is caused by unchecked capital formation (a.k.a runaway free markets or capitalism gone wild) derives from the biggest misinterpretation of them all. It’s not only monetary data that is misinterpreted, it’s the entire framework around monetary policy itself which leads to these increasing imbalances. In other words, it is the structure of our monetary system itself which institutionalizes accelerating wealth inequality. Thus, taxation, intentional inflation, credit expansion, money supply injections and central planning all exacerbate income inequality, they do not alleviate it. Pikkety is a political economist (as is Krugman) and Zarlenga calls political economists the “Priesthood of the Bankers.” Among the Priesthood I’ll again list off Zarlenga’s bullet points but this time I’ll inject my own interpolation of their meaning in today’s climate:

jackson

Ideas rule:

Here we mean academic political economists with no real world financial, market or business experience devise elegant theories which look good on a blackboard, will earn them Nobel Prizes and become ensconced into the prevailing orthodoxy of conventional economic thought. Governments can then utilize these theories (or self-serving adaptations of them) to justify monetary polices that enable them to live beyond their means or otherwise further their own interests and those of their cronies.

 

These policies are utterly backwards in that they posit what economic forces should do according to some model, instead of trying to understand what they actually do based on observed results. When you do unleash Nobel laureates with their theoretical constructs on the real world, you don’t get “green shoots”, you get LTCM.

Economists as propagandists.

Two words: Paul Krugman.

Economics degenerates from the scholastics

Even the untouchable pillar of Keynesianism is a bastardized caricature of what Keynes actually said, which was that governments could smooth out the business cycle by deficit spending during bust years by running surpluses during the boom years. In it’s most basic form this just means saving for a rainy day. But governments don’t do that, because (as people like Krugman opine) “the government doesn’t have to pay it’s bills”. Thus, it’s all deficit spending, all the time. The last US president to actually run a surplus and pay down debt was Eisenhower (the so-called Clinton era surpluses were a sleight-of-hand fiction). The last president to pay off the debt was Andrew Jackson.

Fostering a disdain for the lessons of history

You can look at almost any financial panic, especially over the last hundred years, and you’ll see the same thing play out repeatedly.

 

For example, if you go back and look at the S&L crisis and the policy response to it, one is stricken with the similarities between then and now, how nothing was actually resolved in the policy response to S&L, in fact just the contrary, how bad behavior and incompetence were rewarded instead of allowed to be punished via free enterprise rules of engagement.

13-04-01_01_b

 

The pattern is as follows:

  •     poor policy, credit expansion, government management of the economy (i.e. housing bubble) and insulation from consequences by special interests (bankers, etc) leads to a panic.
  •     government bails out bad actors at public expense
  •     massive wealth transfer from public to elites occurs
  •     free markets and runaway capitalism blamed
  •     additional regulations imposed restricts range of operations of non-elite players while enabling elite cronies to externalize losses
  •     additional controls over economy enacted (ZIRP, new regulations, etc)
  •     increased government debt (stimulus, etc)
  •     next wave crack-up boom inducedIn Special Privilege,  a chapter entitled “The Recurring Nightmare” enumerates the serial financial panics of the 19th and early 20th centuries (to wit: The Panic of 1819, The Panic of 1837, The Panic of 1857, The Panic of 1873, The Panic of 1893, and the Panic of 1907, whose policy response led in a straight line to The Federal Reserve Act of 1913). LoCascio poses the question “Isn’t There A Lesson Here?” He went on to observe,LoCascio published Special Privilege in 2001 (he died in 2006), but large swaths of his work could easily be cut and pasted into the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis and no doubt, will be highly germane during the forthcoming, next crisis. The only difference being that after the next, inevitable (possibly imminent) wave of financial panic, it may be impossible to kick the can down the road yet another time. We may have finally, collectively come to the end of the line on “the great fiat monetization of everything” and be barreling toward the brick wall of unsustainability at the end of the runway.The big question around wealth inequality is this: why does wealth inequality increase as the distance from the nexus of political power increases? Why does wealth concentrate toward the centre? When asked this plainly, the answer becomes just as obvious: because the system is rigged that way.Whether you don’t believe in a classical gold standard (Zarlenga) or you do (LoCascio), whether you think bitcoin is viable or lunacy, where all these schools of thought intersect is at the point that finds private, fractional central banking a blight on civilization that leads to cronyism oligarchy between banksters, career politicians and corporate/kleptrocrat elites and this is the point that is most vociferously relegated out-of-scope in any kind of dialog around today’s central, pressing issues of the time.“The ultimate crisis will occur when the situation is so thoroughly perverted that the defenders of the status quo can no longer resurrect confidence in the system.”People are still very willing to believe in Unicorn Economics, the emergence of crypto-currencies such as bitcoin point to a widening rejection of that, but it will likely not achieve critical mass until the wheels come off the current system altogether.As I completed writing this essay, the ECB announced negative interest rates, in other words NIRP. This is sold to the public as a mechanism to spur bank lending to – again – stimulate the economy. What nobody asks is how the financial system can be so distorted, so perverted that policymakers can simultaneously implement negative interest rates while holding on to claims of legitimacy around their ability to “regulate” or “manage” the economy, or that the wider society is actually benefiting from these policies. If you think – and I know some otherwise highly intelligent people who do – that this is just some highly abstract financial smoke and mirrors that doesn’t really mean much in the real world, remember where you read this first: when NIRP fails to stimulate lending, the next Big Idea in Unicorn Economics will be to target money velocity and put expiry dates on cash. It’s the next logical step once you’ve entered the Twilight Zone as we have, and that’s also what you get when a global monetary system based on perpetually expanding debt approaches the end of the runway. (Or as as Fiat Paper Money author Ralph T Foster put it,  “Reading history is a harmless pastime, reliving it is another matter.”)
  • government sachs 2

 

  • Postscript:
  • What Pikkety has succeeded in is proving that we are not there yet. The propensity of the masses to rally behind this shows that confidence in the system is still long and strong. But what we are seeing are fissures in the logic – not only in books like Capital in the 21st Century but in entirely new and nonsensical economic schools of thought seemingly conjured out of thin air for the sole purpose of justifying and explaining away the otherwise unavoidable distortions and non-sequiturs of our economy (such as Modern Monetary Theory and Modern Monetary Realism – more on those in another post ).
  • As LoCascio predicts,
  • Because that is wealth inequality in action. When looked at from this angle you are able to see the underlying flawed assumptions that are otherwise considered “out of scope.”
  • This is what is so maddening about the irony of a book like Capital, chock full of fallacious data and erroneous conclusions makes Pikkety hotter than Justin Bieber, while brilliant historians such as LoCascio die in obscurity. The fact is that financial panic, followed by institutional wealth transfer (and confiscation) is systemically ingrained into what is called “conventional economic thought”
  • “During the 50 years of the National Banking System, currency had increased from roughly  $1 billion to $3 billion –or, by a factor of 3. Bank loans on the other hand, grew from roughly $0.5 billion to $13 billion–or by a factor of 25. This provides a rough numerical measure of the tendency (which continues to this day) that money creation has been tied to debt creation by banks.”
  • Little if any attention, however, was focused on the role the prior euphoria played in causing the resulting panic. Rather, attention was focused on the panics themselves and the virtually unanimous conclusion by those in position to bring about reform, was the great elasticity of currency would ameliorate, if not eliminate, the panics.”
  • “The 19th century and early 20th century  panics were so uniformly accompanied by the liberal extension of credit for speculative purposes that any serious reviewer of these events could not possibly fail to hypothesize a likely causative relationship.
  • The cycle repeats each time ensuing bubble and subsequent meltdown increasing by an order of magnitude. Which brings us to Vincent LoCascio, probably the most under appreciated commentators on our monetary system of this era. If ever there was a pair of “must” read books about what really causes wealth inequality in our society it is his Special Privilege: How the Monetary Elite Benefit… At Your Expense, and The Monetary Elite vs Gold’s Honest Discipline.
The Car Guyz

Auto Industry Experts Playing for the Other Team ...You!

FOX News

Stomping out Liberal Lunacy Whereever it's Found ...Which lately has been like playing Whack -A- Mole

The Rush Limbaugh Show

Stomping out Liberal Lunacy Whereever it's Found ...Which lately has been like playing Whack -A- Mole

Breitbart News

Stomping out Liberal Lunacy Whereever it's Found ...Which lately has been like playing Whack -A- Mole

Drudge Retort

Stomping out Liberal Lunacy Whereever it's Found ...Which lately has been like playing Whack -A- Mole

Fathers' Rights Blog

by Jeffery M. Leving

therightwingextremist

Stomping out Liberal Lunacy Whereever it's Found ...Which lately has been like playing Whack -A- Mole

The WordPress.com Blog

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.

%d bloggers like this: