News Items

Clinton PANIC – Madeleine Albright Says “There’s a Special Place in Hell for Women Who Don’t Help Each Other”

by

Screen Shot 2016-02-06 at 5.59.15 PM

In its endorsement of Hillary, the New York Times editorial board did such a sloppy job I can’t help but think it may have done permanent damage to its brand. Upon reading it, my initial conclusion was that the editorial board was either suffering from Stockholm syndrome or merely concerned about losing advertising revenues should they endorse Sanders. Then I thought some more and I realized my initial conclusions were wrong. Something else is going on here, something far more subtle, subconscious and illuminating. The New York Times is defending the establishment candidate simply because the New York Times is the establishment.

One of the biggest trends of the post financial crisis period has been a plunge in the American public’s perception of the country’s powerful institutions. The establishment often admits this reality with a mixture of bewilderment and erroneous conclusions, ultimately settling on the idea people are upset because “Washington can’t get anything done.” However, nothing could be further from the truth. When it comes to corruption and serving big monied interests, both Congress and the President are very, very good at getting things done. Yes it’s true Congress doesn’t get anything done on behalf of the people, but this is no accident. The government doesn’t work for the people.

With its dishonest and shifty endorsement of Hillary Clinton, I believe the New York Times has finally come out of the closet as an unabashed gatekeeper of the status quo. I suppose this makes sense since the paper has become the ultimate status quo journalistic publication. The sad truth is the publication has been living on borrowed time and a borrowed reputation for a long time. Long on prestige, it remains very short on substance when it comes to fighting difficult battles in the public interest. Content with its position of power and influence within the current paradigm, the paper doesn’t want to rock the boat. What the New York Times is actually telling its readers with the Hillary Clinton endorsement is that it likes things just the way they are, and will fight hard to keep them that way. It is as much a part of the American establishment as any government institution.

– From the article: A Detailed Look at The New York Times’ Embarrassing, Deceitful and Illogical Endorsement of Hillary Clinton

This might be it. The moment that finally drives home the point regarding how incredibly low the Clintons, and the establishment that supports them, are willing to go to win the Presidency.

We’ve all seen Hillary’s shadiness on display time and time again throughout the campaign, but one thing that hasn’t been said enough is that with the Clintons, you don’t just get the Clintons. You end up electing a cadre of some of the most villainous and corrupt corporate criminals, manipulators and unethical political mercenaries America has to offer.

With Hillary in the White House, the American people are also signing up for an all-star roster of associated cronies who have spent much of the last few decades raping and pillaging both Americans at home, and innocents abroad.

As a prime example of how low some of these characters are willing to go, this is what former Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, had to say today on the campaign trail in New Hampshire.

According to NBC News:

Read more

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

Will a Turkey Related Event Spark a Much Wider Regional War?

by

I haven’t commented on the Middle East in a while, but a lot has been going on. In particular, Turkey continues to concern me the most, as president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan appears increasingly unstable, paranoid and tyrannical. The latest example came last month, when his government went ahead and arrested academics merely for signing a petition. Here’s what we learned from the post, U.S. Ally Turkey Arrests Academics for the Crime of Signing a Peace Petition:

Hundreds of Turkish academics are waiting to find out whether they will be prosecuted or sacked for spreading “terrorist propaganda”, after they signed a petition calling for violence to end in Turkey’s southeast, where government forces have been fighting Kurdish separatists.

Turkey’s government has previously clamped down on scientists and students who question its policies, imprisoned scientists charged with terrorism offenses, and restricted the freedom of funding agencies and scientific academies. But the number of arrests and investigations makes the current episode one of the larger Turkish attacks on freedom of expression in recent years, prompting outrage among human-rights advocates.

While this is bad enough, Turkey’s reputation on the global stage had already been severely damaged by the emergence of evidence of government support for ISIS. Throw in the downing of a Russian jet, and you start to see an increasingly chaotic country with the potential to kick off some serious geopolitical fireworks.

With all that in mind, an article I recently read in Al Monitor materially added to my fears. Here are some excerpts from the piece, Will Turkey Risk Military Confrontation with Russia?

Read more

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

New Poll Shows Sanders Tied with Clinton Nationwide – Hillary’s 30 Point Lead Evaporates in 6 Weeks

by

Screen Shot 2016-02-05 at 8.14.53 AM

The more people see Hillary and Bernie head-to-head, the more people like Bernie. People are starting to get it. They understand the system has morphed into a rigged fraud, and they understand that Sanders really, desperately wants to change it. As much as I disagree with a lot of Sanders’ solutions (his economic statism for example), he clearly despises the status quo, and for many of the right reasons. Sanders is a revolutionary-type candidate, while Clinton is running to be just another placeholder for Wall Street and oligarchical interests.

So as the American public starts to understand its choices, people are coming around. The Hill reports the following as relates to the shocking results of Quinnipiac’s latest poll:

Read more

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

Welcome to the Recovery – 1 Out of 7 Americans (45.5 Million) Remain on Food Stamps

by

Screen Shot 2015-11-09 at 3.22.19 PM

The following article from the New York Times is shameful in many ways. While the paper is forced to cover the undeniable fact that real wages for the lowest income Americans have plunged during the so-called “economic recovery” over the past six years, it fails to actually pin blame on the undemocratic, oligarch institution most responsible for this humanitarian crisis: The Federal Reserve.

Of course, I and many others have been saying this for years, but now more than half a decade into what is supposed to be a recovery, people are finally being forced to admit what this really is —  large scale theft.

In fact, Ben Bernanke and his crew of upward wealth distributing academics have pulled off the greatest wealth heist in American history. In its wake we have been left with a hollowed out, asset striped Banana Republic. Thanks for playin’ Main Street. Or more accurately, thanks for being played.

– From the post: The Oligarch Recovery – Study Shows Real Wages Have Plunged for Low Income Workers During the “Recovery”

More than six years into Dear Leader’s glorious economic recovery, 45.5 million Americans, or one in seven, remain on food stamps.

I’d say that’s a problem, but I don’t want to be accused of “peddling economic fiction.”

From Bloomberg:

Read more

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

Former Head of the NAACP to Endorse Bernie Sanders

by

In its endorsement of Hillary, the New York Times editorial board did such a sloppy job I can’t help but think it may have done permanent damage to its brand. Upon reading it, my initial conclusion was that the editorial board was either suffering from Stockholm syndrome or merely concerned about losing advertising revenues should they endorse Sanders. Then I thought some more and I realized my initial conclusions were wrong. Something else is going on here, something far more subtle, subconscious and illuminating. The New York Times is defending the establishment candidate simply because the New York Times is the establishment.

One of the biggest trends of the post financial crisis period has been a plunge in the American public’s perception of the country’s powerful institutions. The establishment often admits this reality with a mixture of bewilderment and erroneous conclusions, ultimately settling on the idea people are upset because “Washington can’t get anything done.” However, nothing could be further from the truth. When it comes to corruption and serving big monied interests, both Congress and the President are very, very good at getting things done. Yes it’s true Congress doesn’t get anything done on behalf of the people, but this is no accident. The government doesn’t work for the people.

With its dishonest and shifty endorsement of Hillary Clinton, I believe the New York Times has finally come out of the closet as an unabashed gatekeeper of the status quo. I suppose this makes sense since the paper has become the ultimate status quo journalistic publication. The sad truth is the publication has been living on borrowed time and a borrowed reputation for a long time. Long on prestige, it remains very short on substance when it comes to fighting difficult battles in the public interest. Content with its position of power and influence within the current paradigm, the paper doesn’t want to rock the boat. What the New York Times is actually telling its readers with the Hillary Clinton endorsement is that it likes things just the way they are, and will fight hard to keep them that way. It is as much a part of the American establishment as any government institution.

– From the article: A Detailed Look at The New York Times’ Embarrassing, Deceitful and Illogical Endorsement of Hillary Clinton

Why the black community supports Hillary Clinton is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps someone can rectify my ignorance in the comment section, but it appears irrational to support a person so single-mindedly focused on her own wealth and power, as opposed to someone genuinely interested in helping poor and struggling communities.

Perhaps it’s merely a name recognition thing, or the fact that her husband was so popular with the black community. I don’t know, but what I do know is Hillary Clinton is running for President because she wants the Presidency. In contrast, Bernie Sanders is running because he sees America in deep trouble. There’s a huge difference.

That said, the tide may be starting to turn. Time will tell, but an expected endorsement from Ben Jealous, former head of the NAACP, is a good sign.

CNN reports:

Ben Jealous, the former head of the NAACP, will endorse Bernie Sanders, a source familiar with the campaign told CNN.

Read more

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

GOLD – It’s Time to Pay Attention

by

Screen Shot 2016-02-03 at 10.08.48 AM

The last time I shared my thoughts on gold, a subject I had previously wrote about constantly, was all the way back in July of last year. That post was titled, 4 Mainstream Media Articles Mocking Gold That Should Make You Think. Here’s an excerpt:

There are many reasons why I stopped commenting on markets, but the main reason is that I started to recognize I wasn’t getting it right. In fact, in some cases I was getting it spectacularly wrong. Whenever this happens, I try to isolate the problem and fix it. In this case there was no fix, because much of why I was no longer getting it right was rooted in the fact that my heart, soul and passion had moved onto other things. My interests had expanded, and I started a blog to express myself on myriad other matters I deemed important. Providing relevant market information needs intense focus, and my focus had shifted elsewhere. I recognized that I wasn’t intellectually interested enough in centrally planned markets to provide insightful analysis, and so I stopped.

Years ago, Martin Armstrong was saying that nothing goes up in a straight line and that gold would experience a severe correction before beginning its real bull market. We are seeing his prediction unfold before our very eyes. What he also said is that as gold approached the $1,000 per/oz mark or even below, everyone would proclaim that “gold is dead” and start making comically bearish statements. In a nutshell, negative sentiment would plunge to levels not seen in years, if not more than a decade. We are starting to see this now.

I didn’t write this article to “call the bottom in gold” or anything like that. I merely want to flag these four articles due to the hyperbolic nature of some of the statements made (they are exhibiting pretty much exactly the same behavior as the gold bugs they mock do). I do think that something is happening on the sentiment front that warrants we are closer to the bottom than the mid-stages of a bear market.

Fast forward six months, and gold has been more or less flat. Nevertheless, a lot has changed in the interim and it’s time for an update. Specifically, the multi-year fundamental outlook has turned far more bullish, while sentiment remains depressed. Yesterday, following multiple back-to-back  messages about gold on Twitter, someone asked me for my bullish thesis, I wrote:

Read more

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

Another Real Estate Market Bites the Dust – Hong Kong Prices Plunge, Transactions Hit 25-Year Low

by

Screen Shot 2016-02-02 at 11.39.41 AM

A stunning reversal across various global real estate hubs which have served as focal points for both international investors and criminal oligarchs, has made itself clear over the past several months. I’ve highlighted plunging sales and prices in high-end London, a multi-month slowdown in Manhattan’s luxury market, as well as a burst bubble in mansion prices in various articles over the last several months. We now have another region to add to the list: Hong Kong.

Bloomberg reports:

In a city that saw demand propel property prices to a record last year, the estimate that transactions reached a 25 year-low in Hong Kong shows how quickly sentiment has turned.

Home prices have slumped almost 10 percent since September and monthly sales in January fell to the lowest since at least 1991, according to Centaline Property Agency Ltd. Amid a spike in flexible mortgage rates this month and anemic demand for new developments, the low transactions volume for January is the latest evidence that prices have further to fall.

Talk about a reversal.

Developers are showing caution too, which could further weaken the outlook for the property market. According to Bloomberg Intelligence, two out of three government attempts to sell residential land sites through tenders since November failed after bids failed to match the minimum price.

Read more

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

Bought & Paid For – 1/3 of All SuperPAC Donations Have Come from Wall Street

by

Screen Shot 2016-02-02 at 10.43.50 AM

So far, super PACs have received more than one-third of their donations from financial-services executives, according to data from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

In the 2012 election, donations from the financial-services sector made up roughly 20% of the $845 million raised by super PACs, or political-action committees, and other independent campaign groups. In the 2004 election, Wall Street and other financial groups were responsible for just $2.4 million of the money collected by political-action committees.

The early fundraising data provides the most recent evidence that Wall Street is the single biggest driver behind the surge in spending by super PACs and other outside groups on U.S. elections.

– From the Wall Street Journal article: Wall Street’s Donor Role Expands as Money Flows Into 2016 Election 

If Wall Street knows anything, it’s how to hedge its bets. This is precisely why powerful financiers make sure they bankroll as many politicians as possible.

Indeed, when it comes to the 2016 Presidential race, the only two candidates who are not being funded by Wall Street are Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. This explains much of the horror exhibited by the establishment when it comes to the success of these two individuals.

While the influence of Wall Street money in politics is nothing new, what is notable about the current race is the monetary investment by these financiers is substantially higher than as recently as 2012. It appears many financial oligarchs see a pressing need to boost their spending this time around in order to protect themselves against the justified angst of the American public.

A very interesting article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal highlighted some the spending in detail. Here are some of the numbers as relates to those candidates still in the running:

Read more

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

A Detailed Look at The New York Times’ Embarrassing, Deceitful and Illogical Endorsement of Hillary Clinton

by

The New York Times’ endorsement of Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary consists of an unreadable, illogical piece of fiction. In this post, I will critique the paper’s position in detail, but first I want to take a step back and explain to people what I think is going on in the bigger picture.

In its endorsement of Hillary, the New York Times editorial board did such a sloppy job I can’t help but think it may have done permanent damage to its brand. Upon reading it, my initial conclusion was that the editorial board was either suffering from Stockholm syndrome or merely concerned about losing advertising revenues should they endorse Sanders. Then I thought some more and I realized my initial conclusions were wrong. Something else is going on here, something far more subtle, subconscious and illuminating. The New York Times is defending the establishment candidate simply because the New York Times is the establishment.

One of the biggest trends of the post financial crisis period has been a plunge in the American public’s perception of the country’s powerful institutions. The establishment often admits this reality with a mixture of bewilderment and erroneous conclusions, ultimately settling on the idea people are upset because “Washington can’t get anything done.” However, nothing could be further from the truth. When it comes to corruption and serving big monied interests, both Congress and the President are very, very good at getting things done. Yes it’s true Congress doesn’t get anything done on behalf of the people, but this is no accident. The government doesn’t work for the people.

With its dishonest and shifty endorsement of Hillary Clinton, I believe the New York Times has finally come out of the closet as an unabashed gatekeeper of the status quo. I suppose this makes sense since the paper has become the ultimate status quo journalistic publication. The sad truth is the publication has been living on borrowed time and a borrowed reputation for a long time. Long on prestige, it remains very short on substance when it comes to fighting difficult battles in the public interest. Content with its position of power and influence within the current paradigm, the paper doesn’t want to rock the boat. What the New York Times is actually telling its readers with the Hillary Clinton endorsement is that it likes things just the way they are, and will fight hard to keep them that way. It is as much a part of the American establishment as any government institution.

Read more

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.