How the Washington D.C. Money Machine Stopped a Documentary on Hillary Clinton

Wow, I thought, this guy [Bill Clinton] is a really good actor. And I also saw one reason why Hillary Clinton might not be thrilled about my movie. I discovered others. In Arkansas, she joined the boards of Walmart and Tyson Foods. One of the largest donors to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation is the government of Saudi Arabia. The Clintons’ personal net worth now probably exceeds $200 million, and while earned legally, both the money’s sources and the Clintons’ public statements indicate a strong aversion to rocking boats or making powerful enemies.

– Charles Furguson in today’s Huffington Post

In case you weren’t aware, Charles Furguson, the director and producer of the financial crisis documentary Inside Job, which won the 2010 Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature, was set to make a film on Hillary Clinton. That project, unfortunately, will not be happening.

While the bipartisan sociopaths running amok in that cesspool we know as Washington D.C. aren’t good at much, what they are really good at is protecting their turf of privilege and power from anyone who might pose a threat. The town is essentially one gigantic bipartisan mafia that spends all its time and energy parasitically sucking the wealth from the U.S. citizenry using insider deals, bribes, blackmail and threats. They create nothing, yet take everything (recall that 70% of the Wealthiest Counties in America are in the Washington D.C. Area).  It is the D.C. way, and they are very protective of their racket.

While Mr. Furguson tried his best to move forward with his Hillary documentary despite numerous obstacles, it ultimately became impossible to proceed. He wrote about it today in the Huffington Post in an article titled:  Why I Am Cancelling My Documentary on Hillary Clinton. Below are some excerpts:

In late 2012, CNN Films approached me about directing a documentary. We discussed a number of potential subjects, and eventually settled on Hillary Rodham Clinton. The film would be ambitious, controversial, and highly visible. But I felt that it was important, that I was qualified to do it, and that I could be fair. CNN gave me complete control (“final cut”) over the theatrical version, and a generous budget.

And then the fun began. The day after the contract was signed, I received a message from Nick Merrill, Hillary Clinton’s press secretary. He already knew about the film, and clearly had a source within CNN. He interrogated me; at first I answered, but eventually I stopped. When I requested an off-the-record, private conversation with Mrs. Clinton, Merrill replied that she was busy writing her book, and not speaking to the media.

Next came Phillipe Reines, Hillary Clinton’s media fixer, who contacted various people at CNN, interrogated them, and expressed concern about alleged conflicts of interest generated because my film was a for-profit endeavor (as nearly all documentaries and news organizations are). When I contacted him, he declined to speak with me. He then repeated his allegations to Politico, which published them.

CNN and I decided to publicly confirm the film project to clear the air. Immediately afterwards, the chairman of the Republican National Committee announced that the Republicans would boycott CNN with regard to the Republican presidential primary debates in 2016. Shortly afterwards, the entire RNC voted to endorse this position. This did not surprise me. What did surprise me was that, quietly and privately, prominent Democrats made it known both to CNN and to me that they weren’t delighted with the film, either.

In June, I attended a dinner for Bill Clinton, which was educational. Clinton spoke passionately about his foundation, about African wildlife, inequality, childhood obesity, and much else with enormous factual command, emotion, and rhetorical power. But he and I also spoke privately. I asked him about the financial crisis. He paused and then became even more soulful, thoughtful, passionate, and articulate. And then he proceeded to tell me the most amazing lies I’ve heard in quite a while.

For example, Mr. Clinton sorrowfully lamented his inability to stop the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which banned all regulation of private (OTC) derivatives trading, and thereby greatly worsened the crisis. Mr. Clinton said that he and Larry Summers had argued with Alan Greenspan, but couldn’t budge him, and then Congress passed the law by a veto-proof supermajority, tying his hands. Well, actually, the reason that the law passed by that overwhelming margin was because of the Clinton Administration’s strong advocacy, including Congressional testimony by Larry Summers and harsh public and private attacks on advocates of regulation by Summers and Robert Rubin.

Read more

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

Indian Temples Fight Back Against Government Gold Grabbing Plot

The following article from Reuters is a follow up to a topic I have explored on various occasions in the past. Namely, how an inept Indian government is attempting to use the age old tactic of scapegoating in order to deflect attention away from its widespread policy failures. In the case of India, the target is gold. It’s a logical target for any crony Indian bureaucrat or Central Banker to go after. Wealth confiscation is a tried and true method historically used by corrupt elites to stay in power, and there is plenty of gold floating around the subcontinent. Easy pickings…or so they thought.

It appears some of the temples are now drawing a line in the sand, and are in fact refusing to provide details about their holdings. Other temples are a bit more compliant. From Reuters:

The central bank, which has already taken steps that have slowed to a trickle the incoming supplies that have exacerbated India’s current account deficit, has sent letters to some of the country’s richest temples asking for details of their gold.

It says the inquiries are simply data collection, but Hindu groups are up in arms.

“The gold stored in temples was contributed by devotees over thousands of years and we will not allow anyone to usurp it,” said V Mohanan, secretary of the Hindu nationalist Vishwa Hindu Parishad organisation in Kerala state, in a statement.

Guruvayur temple, in Kerala, one of the most sacred in India and boasting a 33.5-metre (110-ft) gold-plated flagstaff, has already told the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) it won’t divulge any details.

“The gold we have is mostly offered by the devotees. They would not like the details to be shared with anybody,” said V M Gopala Menon, commissioner of the temple’s administrative board.

The head of the Hindu nationalist main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in Kerala state, V Muralidharan, said the RBI wanted to “take possession” of the gold and maybe sell it for dollars.

Sounds like a brilliant plan. Take wealth that was accumulated over thousands of years and sell it for an electronic unit of exchange that Ben Bernanke can create in infinite quantities with a single keyboard stroke.  Can people possibly be this stupid?

Read more

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

Blackstone’s Head of Private Equity: “We Are in the Middle of an Epic Credit Bubble”

We are in the middle of an epic credit bubble, in my opinion, the likes of which I haven’t seen in my career in private equity.

– Joseph Baratta, Global Head of Private Equity at the Blackstone Group

According to CNBC, the above statement was made this past Thursday at the Dow Jones Private Equity Analyst Conference in New York City. While I certainly can’t disagree with his sentiments, I do find it a bit bizarre coming from someone so high up at Blackstone. More than any other firm, Blackstone has been aggresively buying up real estate all over the U.S. in all cash bids, playing a huge role in inflating another housing bubble. A bubble in which the average citizenry is being outbid by Blackstone and other private equity firms, and then in turn is forced to rent housing from Wall Street. Not only that, remember I highlighted back in July that Blackstone “is preparing to expand its bet on the housing recovery by lending to other landlords.” 

Read more

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

The FBI Has Been Using Drones Domestically Since 2006

So about that whole drone debate in the USA…

It seems the feds decided to simply skip over such a quaint notion and deploy them without telling anyone. Back in December of last year, I highlighted a press release from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) about current drone flights in the U.S. They disclosed that:

Today EFF posted several thousand pages of new drone license records and a new map that tracks the location of drone flights across the United States.

Screen Shot 2013-09-28 at 2.49.41 PM

These records, received as a result of EFF’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), come from state and local law enforcement agencies, universities and—for the first time—three branches of the U.S. military: the Air Force, Marine Corps, and DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

That story was big news to me at the time, and it was particularly disturbing in light of the fact that Congress has cleared the way for the Federal Aviation Administration to allow 30,000 drones in the nation’s skies by 2020. Well it appears that the whole drone debate was over before it even began, with the FBI having used drones domestically for at least seven years. From the LA Times:

WASHINGTON – Operating with almost no public notice, the FBI has spent more than $3 million to operate a fleet of small drone aircraft in domestic investigations, according to a report released Thursday by a federal watchdog agency.

The unmanned surveillance planes have helped FBI agents storm barricaded buildings, track criminal suspects and examine crime scenes since 2006, longer than previously known, according to the 35-page inspector general’s audit of drones used by the Justice Department.

Read more

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

What the Ted Cruz Filibuster Really Means – It’s the End of the GOP as We Know It

There is a tide in the affairs of men, which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune.  Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries.  On such a full sea are we now afloat.  And we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures.

– Brutus in William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar

A misguided, decrepit, corrupt, warmongering, and surveillance-happy Republican Party was already stumbling around the room; hammered drunk on its decades old power trip, led by mindless cronies with zero direction when Ted Cruz came by and gave it a charitable push to the ground. It fell swiftly with a pathetic thud. The establishment Republican Party died this week. Good riddance. 

Personally, I haven’t put in enough time to look into Ted Cruz to say how I feel about him, but I can certainly support his efforts to destroy the current GOP leadership. More importantly, I can see when political winds are a changin’ and they are blowing with a typhoon’s tempo in 2013.

It all really started in back in March, when freshman Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky started the recent GOP filibuster trend by standing up against Barack Obama’s (and indeed bipartisan Congress’) drone policy. I spent a lot more time writing and commenting about the Rand Paul filibuster as opposed to Ted Cruz’ because it is far more significant for a Republican to stand against aggressive, unconstitutional military action than for a Republican to stand against ObamaCare. The latter they are expected to do, the former not so much. At the time, I wrote a post that got a huge amount of traction titled: #StandwithRand: The Filibuster that United Libertarian and Progressive Activists. Back then I wrote:

What Rand Paul did yesterday was finally bring the public debate to where it needs to be.  In doing so, he united activists that are quite opposed on many issues (less than they think, but that’s for another day).  This is extremely significant and we need this momentum to continue.  Those of us that care about the core principles that made this country great need to stick together, find common ground and not allow the establishment to control the debate any longer.

It’s quite fitting that as Rand Paul stood for 13 hours in an impassioned attempt to call attention to the systematic dismantling of The Bill of Rights occurring in America, President Obama was having dinner with many establishment Republicans.  These included the two Senators that have done more to destroy the GOP than any one else; John McCain and Lindsey Graham.  Two guys who would drone their own grandmothers if it made them feel tough for a minute.

Fortunately, the momentum of libertarian and progressive activists to defend the Bill of Rights has continued, largely thanks to the revelations of Edward Snowden, as decent folks from both sides of the aisle have stood up to protect the 4th Amendment. ObamaCare is not one of those issues, nor should we expect it to be. While I think many Democrats understand the bill was basically written by insurance companies and is another crony capitalist handout, many in the party feel they need to support their puppet President Obama on something and they’ve decided ObamaCare is it. Everyone gets that. What is really significant about Ted Cruz’ filibuster is that it has finally exposed the Republican establishment for what it is. A rotting carcass of nothingness. No matter what happens with the cloture vote later today, it doesn’t really matter. It’s already over. The knives are in. The GOP leadership is dead.

The best article I have read on the subject of what the Cruz filibuster really means was written by Michael Walsh in the National Review. He wrote:

In the aftermath of Senator Ted Cruz’s epic performance on the Senate floor, a few observations:

Read more

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

This is What Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Thinks About Your Privacy Rights…

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia spoke yesterday at the Northern Virginia Technology Council’s (NVTC) Titans breakfast gathering in McLean, Virginia. He discussed the fact that prior to a Supreme Court decision in 1967, there were no constitutional prohibitions on wiretaps because conversations were not explicitly granted privacy protection under the Fourth Amendment. He goes on to imply that he thinks it was better before such privacy rights existed. According to the AP:

Scalia said that before the court’s 1967 opinion on wiretapping, the high court held the view that there were no constitutional prohibitions on wiretaps because conversations were not explicitly granted privacy protection under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against Americans against unreasonable search and seizure of “their persons, houses, papers, and effects.”

Read more

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

Louis Vuitton Adjusts Business Model to Focus on the Oligarch Market

You know you have entered Neo-Fedualism when high-end luxury retailers are struggling because there are no longer enough regular wealthy buyers anymore. As regular readers of this blog understand, this is due to the fact that central bankers and governments around the world have been redistributing and consolidating all global wealth to the top 0.01% … Read more

Peter Schiff Was Right Part Deux: The “Taper” Edition

For those of you who remember the months following the 2008 financial crisis, one of the most viral videos out there (it has over 2 million views) was the “Peter Schiff Was Right” compilation. It consists of various clips of Mr. Schiff being prescient about the financial condition of the U.S., as talking heads on … Read more

How Dianne Feinstein’s Husband Sells Post Office Real Estate to His Friends on the Cheap

The county records allow for comparing the assessed value of the postal properties before they were sold to the final sales prices negotiated by CBRE on behalf of the Postal Service: And the comparisons reveal that CBRE has sold the bulk of this public real estate at prices under their assessed values — and apparently at far below fair market values.

CBRE is also charged with appraising the fair market value of these properties and listing a reasonable sales price. It is important to point out that real estate appraisals are not customarily performed by the agent marketing the property. To avoid conflicts of interest, property appraisals are normally performed by professionals not involved in negotiating the sale.

– Peter Byrne from his book Going Postal

We’ve all heard about how the Russian oligarchs amassed their tremendous fortunes in the wake of the collapse of the former Soviet Union by purchasing valuable assets for pennies on the dollar using shady insider deals. The oligarchs in the USA have learned their lessons in crony capitalism well, and unsurprisingly, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree in this case. Dianne Feinstein is one of the most shameless, authoritarian, undemocratic Senators we have, so it is no surprise that the Princess of Darkness’ husband would be involved in schemes to rip-off public assets to benefit friends and his commercial real estate firm C.B. Richard Ellis.

The following excerpts are from an article published in the East Bay Express and consists of passages from the introductory chapter of a new e-book, Going Postal, by investigative journalist Peter Byrne. There is some epic fraud going on here:

On July 27, two hundred people sang and chanted on the steps of the historic main post office in downtown Berkeley to protest its upcoming closure and sale. City Councilman Jesse Arreguin took the microphone to angrily decry the closure. In fact, the Berkeley City Council had voted unanimously to oppose the sale. Why the day of rage?

But inconvenience alone did not account for the existential angst being expressed by the mostly over-fifty members of the throng as they questioned the motives of the United States Postal Service for selling post offices all over the country to developers. “Which of our public assets will be privatized next?” speakers asked. “Streets? Schools? The Lincoln Bedroom?”

The post office is being killed for political reasons, they assert, pointing out that the corporation with the exclusive contract to negotiate sales for the Postal Service’s $85 billion real estate portfolio is C.B. Richard Ellis (CBRE). And that the company is chaired by Richard C. Blum, who is the husband of US Senator Dianne Feinstein and a member of the University of California Board of Regents. CBRE’s connection to a politically powerful family with a history of accessing public pension funds to make private investments has caused more than a few activists to suspect wrongdoing — even though no evidence of any conflicts of interest tied to the CBRE contract have been revealed.

Until now.

My yearlong investigation has uncovered evidence of multiple conflicts of interest and problems with post office sales supervised by Blum’s company, including:

• CBRE appears to have repeatedly violated its contractual duty to sell postal properties at or above fair market values.

• CBRE has sold valuable postal properties to developers at prices that appear to have been steeply discounted from fair market values, resulting in the loss of tens of millions of dollars in public revenue.

Read more

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

California Student Banned from Handing Out Constitutions on Campus

While this story is a few days old, I didn’t have a chance to watch the video until last night. It is pretty disturbing. First of all, this student merely wanted to hand out copies of the Constitution to fellow students on Constitution Day, on public grounds at a public university in which he is … Read more