Australien zahlt nichts mehr in die Clinton Stiftung, Norwegen reduziert Zahlung drastisch

Australien hat seine Millionen-Zahlungen an die Clinton Stiftung eingestellt. Ähnlich wie Norwegen, das seine Spendentätigkeit für die Clintons drastisch zurückgefahren hat. Da bleibt die Frage, ob denn wirklich des guten Zwecks wegen gespendet wurde, denn die Anliegen und Probleme (z.B. HIV), die die Stiftung lindern will, bleiben bestehen.

Der Verdacht von pay-to-play liegt so sehr nah, besonders wenn die Clintons nicht mehr an den Schalthebeln der Macht sitzen oder Ausssicht auf einen solchen Sitz haben.

 

http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/australia-ceases-multimilliondollar-donations-to-controversial-clinton-family-charities/news-story/219577919ed8dfbd79cf808321234eba

Australia ceases multimillion-dollar donations to controversial Clinton family charities

Trump backs off pledge to ‚lock her up‘

AUSTRALIA has finally ceased pouring millions of dollars into accounts linked to Hillary Clinton’s charities.

Which begs the question: Why were we donating to them in the first place?

The federal government confirmed to news.com.au it has not renewed any of its partnerships with the scandal-plagued Clinton Foundation, effectively ending 10 years of taxpayer-funded contributions worth more than $88 million.

The Clinton Foundation has a rocky past. It was described as “a slush fund”, is still at the centre of an FBI investigation and was revealed to have spent more than $50 million on travel.

Despite that, the official website for the charity shows contributions from both AUSAID and the Commonwealth of Australia, each worth between $10 million and $25 million.

News.com.au approached the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for comment about how much was donated and why the Clinton Foundation was chosen as a recipient.

A DFAT spokeswoman said all funding is used “solely for agreed development projects” and Clinton charities have “a proven track record” in helping developing countries.

Australia jumping ship is part of a post-US election trend away from the former Secretary of State and presidential candidate’s fundraising ventures.

A screengrab from the Clinton Foundation donation page.

A screengrab from the Clinton Foundation donation page.Source:Supplied

Norway, one of the Clinton Foundation’s most prolific donors, is reducing its contribution from $20 million annually to almost a quarter of that, Observer reported.

One reason for the drop-off could be increased scrutiny on international donors. The International Business Times reported in 2015 on curious links between donors and State Department approval.

IBT wrote that the State Department approved massive commercial arms sales for countries which had donated to the Clinton charity.

More than $165 billion worth of arms sales were approved by the State Department to 20 nations whose governments gave money to the Clinton Foundation, data shows.

The counties buying weapons from the US were the same countries previously condemned for human rights abuses. They included Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

But what does Australia gain from topping up the Clinton coffers? The Australian reported in February that Australia was “the single biggest foreign government source of funds for the Clinton Foundation” but questions remain unanswered about the agreement between the two parties.

“It’s not clear why Canberra had to go through an American foundation to deliver aid to Asian countries (including Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Vietnam). There is now every chance the payments will become embroiled in presidential politics.”

The Daily Telegraph wrote in October that “Lo and behold, (Julia Gillard) became chairman (of the Clinton-affiliated Global Partnership for Education) in 2014”, one year after being defeated in a leadership ballot by Kevin Rudd.

Hillary Clinton’s Foundation has been at the centre of a number of controversies. Picture: Mandel Ngan/AFP

Hillary Clinton’s Foundation has been at the centre of a number of controversies. Picture: Mandel Ngan/AFPSource:AFP

Australia cutting ties with the Clinton charities is surprising given Foreign Minister Julie Bishop’s years of support.

In a press release dated September 22, 2014, Ms Bishop committed to five years of support for the Clinton Health Access Initiative, the sister organisation of the Clinton Foundation.

“Since 2006, Australia has contributed $88 million to CHAI,” the statement read.

The Clinton Foundation has been linked to a number of scandals. One involved Russian uranium, another involved aid to earthquake-hit Haiti and a third involved Swiss banking giant UBS AG.

President-elect Donald Trump promised to follow through with an investigation into the foundation if he became leader of the free world. But this week he backed away from that stance.

“I don’t want to hurt the Clintons, I really don’t,’’ he told The New York Times.

“She went through a lot and suffered greatly in many different ways, and I am not looking to hurt them at all. The campaign was vicious.”

The Clintons maintain they’ve done nothing wrong. In a statement, spokesman Brian Fallon said no one “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as Secretary of State to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.”

Follow: @ro_smith

Advertisements

Schon fast Schildbürgerreif

Denver County Sheriff Department muss Busse von 10000 Dollar bezahlen, weil sie bei der Einstellung als Kriterium „Staatsbürgerschaft der USA“ nannten und somit illegale Einwanderer von der Einstellung ausgeschlossen waren.

Submitted by Mac Slavo via SHTFPlan.com,

The lawlessness of the Obama Administration knows no bounds.

Not only has President Obama made every move he can through executive order to create and foster amnesty for illegal immigrants, but his Justice Department is now attempting to force people to hire undocumented workers.

Ironically, the agency on the other end of intimidation is the Denver County Sheriff’s Office.

Incredibly backwards…

via the Daily Caller:

Denver County’s sheriff office has been slapped with a fine by the Department of Justice (DOJ) because it refused to hire non-citizens as deputies.

 

From the beginning of 2015 through last March, the Denver Sheriff Department went on a major hiring binge, adding more than 200 new deputies. But those jobs ended up only going to citizens, because the department made citizenship a stated requirement on the job application. The department admitted as much in a new settlement with the U.S. government, which requires it to pay a $10,000 fine.

 

The department will also have to comb through all of its job applications from the past two years, identifying immigrants who were excluded from the hiring process and giving them due consideration.

How can someone be hired to enforce the law, if they are living in violation and ignorance of it?

How can counties, state agencies, small businesses or individuals be forced to hire in violation of the law, in order to comply with non-discrimination?

Obviously the system has a logical loop failure, either that, or someone wants this country to eat itself.

Drüber gestolpert

Kurt (Curt) Gebhard Adolf Philipp Freiherr von Hammerstein-Equord (* 26. September 1878 in Hinrichshagen, Mecklenburg-Strelitz; † 24. April 1943 in Berlin) war ein deutscher Heeresoffizier (seit 1934 Generaloberst), Ehrenritter des Johanniterordens und gehörte zum militärischen Widerstand gegen Adolf Hitler.

 

„Ich unterscheide vier Arten. Es gibt kluge, fleißige, dumme und faule Offiziere. Meist treffen zwei Eigenschaften zusammen. Die einen sind klug und fleißig, die müssen in den Generalstab. Die nächsten sind dumm und faul; sie machen in jeder Armee 90 % aus und sind für Routineaufgaben geeignet. Wer klug ist und gleichzeitig faul, qualifiziert sich für die höchsten Führungsaufgaben, denn er bringt die geistige Klarheit und die Nervenstärke für schwere Entscheidungen mit. Hüten muss man sich vor dem, der gleichzeitig dumm und fleißig ist; dem darf man keine Verantwortung übertragen, denn er wird immer nur Unheil anrichten.“

Den von ihm empfohlenen Führungsstil schilderte er so:[12]

„Machen Sie sich frei von Kleinarbeit. Dazu halten Sie sich einige wenige kluge Leute. Lassen Sie sich aber viel Zeit, sich Gedanken zu machen und sich vor sich selbst ganz klar zu werden. Sorgen Sie dafür, dass Ihre Gedanken ausgeführt werden. Nur so können Sie richtig führen.“

Schweiz und UBS zahlen Clinton Stiftung hohe Beträge während Steuerstreit

Die Clinton Stiftung dürfte nach Ausweis von Wikileaks eine Geldwasch und Pay to Play Organisation sein, mit der sich die Clintons bereichert haben. So wurde beispielsweise die Hochzeit der Tochter Chelsea von Geld aus der Stiftung bezahlt und Doug Band, ein Mitarbeiter der Stiftung, der reiche Geldgeber für die Stiftung und für Bill Clinton besorgte, reklamierte, dass Bill Clinton über 500 Interessenskonflikte habe und keine Unterlassungserklärung unterzeichnen musste, während das für Band der Fall war.

Waffengeschäfte mit Saudiarabien und anderen Ländern wurden plötzlich bewilligt (vom Aussenministerium wo Hillary Chefin war), nachdem Geldbeträge in Miliionenhöhe an die Stiftung flossen, wo sie vorher in den Zehn- bzw niederen Hunderttausend waren. Das gleiche gilt auch für die UBS, die vor dem Steuerstreit mit den USA nur Peanuts an die Stiftung überwiesen hatten, möglicherweise als „Gutwetterinvestition“, und später richtig bezahlten, als sie etwas von Clinton wollten.

Vgl. dazu die beiden Artikel:

Der Bund überwies den Clintons eine halbe Million

Von Lorenz Honegger


Samstag, 12. November 2016 23:30

Exzellente Beziehungen: Die ehemaligen Aussenministerinnen Calmy-Rey (l.) und Clinton (r.). Foto: Keystone


Mitten im Steuerstreit spendete die Deza an die Clinton Foundation – die Wohltätigkeitsstiftung der Familie der damaligen US-Aussenministerin Hillary Clinton.

Das Jahr 2011 begann schlecht für den Schweizer Finanzplatz. Im Februar liess die US-Justiz vier Angestellte der Grossbank Credit Suisse verhaften und leitete wenig später Strafuntersuchungen gegen zehn weitere Banken ein. Schritt für Schritt erhöhten die Amerikaner den Druck auf den Bundesrat, die Banken zur Herausgabe von Kundendaten zu zwingen.

Nun zeigen Recherchen, dass die Schweiz in dieser äusserst angespannten Phase des Steuerstreits eine Spende in der Höhe von knapp einer halben Million Franken an die Clinton Foundation überwies. Das Eidgenössische Departement für auswärtige Angelegenheiten (EDA) bestätigt die heikle Zahlung auf Anfrage: «Die Direktion für Entwicklung und Zusammenarbeit (Deza) hat im Zeitraum von September 2011 bis August 2013 ein Projekt der Clinton Health Access Initiative mit CHF 484 000 unterstützt.» Der Zweck war gut: Es ging um ein Programm zur Reduktion der Mütter- und Kindersterblichkeit in Liberia.

Direkter Draht zu Clinton
Pikant ist jedoch: Bei der Clinton Foundation handelt es sich um die Wohltätigkeitsstiftung der Familie der damaligen US-Aussenministerin Hillary Clinton, sie wiederum war eine wichtige Ansprechpartnerin der Eidgenossenschaft im Steuerstreit. Es war ein offenes Geheimnis, dass sie sich beim US-Justizdepartement und der Steuerbehörde IRS dafür einsetzte, nicht mit noch gröberem Geschütz gegen die Schweiz vorzugehen.

Die frühere Bundesrätin Micheline Calmy-Rey betonte im Sommer 2011 bei einem Auftritt im Kanton Solothurn, sie habe einen direkten Draht zu Clinton: «Glauben Sie mir, das hilft, wenn zum Beispiel Schweizer Banken in den USA unter Druck kommen.»

Kenner der Deza halten es durchaus für plausibel, dass Calmy-Rey und der Bundesrat mit der grosszügigen Spende politische Ziele verfolgten. Sprich: Die Amerikaner milde stimmen wollten. Die Genfer Sozialdemokratin selber war für die «Schweiz am Sonntag» nicht erreichbar.

Das FBI ermittelt
Im Licht des soeben zu Ende gegangenen US-Wahlkampfes erhält die wohltätige Spende aber einen schalen Beigeschmack. Die unterlegene Präsidentschaftskandidatin Clinton geriet wegen der Verflechtung mit ihrer Familienstiftung stark unter Druck. Mehrere Büros der amerikanischen Bundespolizei FBI ermitteln seit mehr als einem Jahr gegen die Clinton Foundation. Sie vermuten unter anderem, dass sich ausländische Spender während Clintons Amtszeit über die Foundation Einfluss beim US-Aussenministerium erkauften. Unter den Gönnern befinden sich westliche Staaten wie Australien und Norwegen, aber auch Länder wie Saudi-Arabien und Katar.

Nach der Wahl von Donald Trump ist es nicht ausgeschlossen, dass das US-Justizdepartement den FBI-Ermittlern zusätzliche Untersuchungskompetenzen einräumt, um die Tätigkeiten der Stiftung bis ins Detail zu durchleuchten. Ob auch die Schweiz in den Sog der Ermittlungen geraten könnte, ist schwer abschätzbar.

Experten kritisieren die Spende der Deza als potenziell fragwürdig und politisch ungeschickt. Am deutlichsten äussert sich der ehemalige Schweizer Diplomat und HSG-Dozent Paul Widmer: «Als neutrales Land ist es aus langfristiger Sicht nicht klug, eine Spende an die Stiftung eines ehemaligen Präsidenten zu machen. Jeder Präsident ist auch Vertreter seiner Partei.» Das könne sich bei einem Regierungswechsel – wie jetzt von Barack Obama zu Donald Trump – nachteilig auswirken. Es gebe genügend andere Möglichkeiten, um Entwicklungshilfe zu leisten. Widmer: «Stellen Sie sich das Umgekehrte vor: Die Deza würde für eine Stiftung von Ex-Präsident George W. Bush spenden. Das gäbe einen Riesenaufschrei.»

Auch Manfred Elsig, Professor für internationale Beziehungen an der Universität Bern, sagt, es wäre «sicherlich fragwürdig», wenn die Deza die Clinton Foundation nicht in erster Linie aufgrund ihrer Expertise in der Entwicklungshilfe finanziell unterstützt habe.

Hilfsorganisationen weisen seit langem auf die mangelnde Abgrenzung zwischen diplomatischen und entwicklungspolitischen Zielen hin. Mark Herkenrath, Geschäftsleiter von Alliance Sud, der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Schweizer Hilfswerke, sagt: «Wir beanstanden es regelmässig, wenn die Entwicklungszusammenarbeit genutzt wird, um politische Interessen voranzutreiben.» Jan Stiefel, Ex-Deza-Angestellter und Verfechter von mehr Transparenz in der Entwicklungshilfe, kritisiert, bei der Deza herrsche eine «undurchsichtige Durchmischung von Entwicklungszusammenarbeit und politisch motivierten Aktionen». Sollte dies bei den Clintons der Fall gewesen sein, wäre dies «nicht in Ordnung».

Bern distanziert sich
Die Deza ist mit ihrer Spende nicht allein: Auch die Grossbank UBS machte 2015 Schlagzeilen, nachdem das «Wall Street Journal» über einen Zustupf in der Höhe von 600 000 US-Dollar an die Clinton-Stiftung berichtete.

Das EDA scheint sich der Brisanz der Spende bewusst. Eine Pressesprecherin betont: Die Deza habe keine weiteren operationellen oder finanziellen Verbindungen zur Clinton Foundation. «Die Schweiz hat keine versteckte Agenda und instrumentalisiert die Entwicklungszusammenarbeit nicht für politische Zwecke.»

Die «Schweiz am Sonntag» hatte vergangene Woche die umstrittene 484’000-Franken-Spende an die Clinton Foundation öffentlich gemacht. Fast eine halbe Million Franken war zwischen 2011 und 2013 in die USA gewandert. Und das mitten im Steuerstreit.

Wie nun weitere Recherchen der «Schweiz am Sonntag» zeigen, habe die frühere Aussenministerin Micheline Calmy-Rey von der Spende gewusst. Dies bestätigt auch das Aussendepartement (EDA) gegenüber der Zeitung. Die ursprüngliche Idee, das Projekt der Clinton Health Access Inititative in Liberia zu unterstützen, sei nicht vom EDA sondern vom Kooperationsbüro der Schweizer Direktion für Entwicklung und Zussammenarbeit (Deza) aus gekommen. Sie habe aber sämtliche Prüfungs- und Bewilligungsverfahren durchlaufen, sagt das EDA.

Wie ein Blick auf die Website der Clinton Foundation zeigt, wird die Deza auch noch bei einem halben Dutzend «Commitments to Action» als Partner-Organisation aufgeführt. (stj)

Publiziert am 20.11.2016 | Aktualisiert um 02:06 Uhr

 Aus dem Observer

WikiLeaks: Clinton Foundation Plagued by Corruption and Conflict

 Es ist genau die Clinton Health Access Initiative, die Korrruptionvorwürfe zeigt und an die hat die Schweiz überwiesen! D.h. hier ist etwas faul und es sollte genauer hingeschaut werden.

 

WikiLeaks: Clinton Foundation Plagued by Corruption and Conflict

The Foundation serves as a means to network with wealthy interests and boost the Clinton brand

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton greets supporters during a campaign rally at Sanford Civic Center on November 1, 2016 in Sanford, Florida. The presidential general general election is November 8.

On November 1, WikiLeaks released an email from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta that provided perspective into the corrupt inner conflicts of the controversial nonprofit the Clinton Foundation.

“I cannot stress enough that if this is not handled appropriately it will blow up,” wrote Tina Flournoy, Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, in an April 8, 2015, email to Podesta. The subject of the email was “CHAI” referring to the Clinton Health Access Initiative.

The day before, on April 7, Flournoy noted in an email to Podesta and other Clinton staff, “do you guys know where we are—as of today—on CHAI? That needs to be discussed—but he’s about to lose it if we don’t wrap the call.”

A 2015 New York Times article explained the tensions between CHAI CEO Ira Magaziner, and the rest of the Clinton Foundation, based on a performance review of Magaziner and by CHAI’s board, an influential member of which is Chelsea Clinton. “Ira’s ‘paranoia’ was mentioned by several board members to encompass Ira’s general mistrust of the board and its intentions,” the performance review noted.

Earlier in 2015, a memo was sent via email, and released by WikiLeaks, in which Magaziner claimed the overhead of the Clinton Foundation would be 39 percent of their funding if CHAI statistics were not included. Magaziner expressed several other grievances, which the Clinton Foundation staff pushed back on in the memo. The memo claims CHAI’s financial mismanagement almost led to the end of the organization in 2008.

The HIV/AIDS work CHAI conducts around the world is frequently cited in response to any criticisms of the Clinton Foundation and the conflicts of interest it poses. In exchange for offering CHAI discounted pharmaceuticals to distribute abroad, pharmaceutical companies form an alliance with the most politically powerful couple in the world. They protect their domestic high prices, and the Clintons reap the publicity benefits of the philanthropic work.

“We have always told the drug companies that we would not pressure them and create a slippery slope where prices they negotiate with us for poor countries would inevitably lead to similar prices in rich countries,” complained Magaziner in a 2011 email released by WikiLeaks about comments made by Bill Clinton in regards to lowering domestic AIDS drug prices. “We were taken by surprise by President Clinton’s comments on world AIDS day and wish that someone had consulted with us before he made these comments,” wrote Magaziner. “As you will see when you read this memo, we think that publicly pressuring the U.S. and European AIDS drug companies to lower prices and bringing pressure to allow generic AIDS drugs into the United States will have limited if any success and could seriously jeopardize our negotiations to continually lower prices in poor countries.”

Magaziner added that if the Clinton Foundation supported lowering AIDS drug prices in the U.S., it would undermine their work abroad. “We can go to war with the U.S. drug companies if President Clinton would like to do so, but we would not suggest it,” said Magaziner. “I do not think it is a good idea for President Clinton to be taking one position and CHAI another.”

Clinton staff grappled in 2015 emails about being contradicted by CHAI in citing their statistics as accomplishments of the Clinton Foundation. “I am worried—particularly given the meeting I’m sitting in—that we’re using CHAI stats and haven’t told them,” wrote Tina Flournoy in a February 2015 email in which Clinton staff were working on a quote for a Washington Post article on the Clinton Foundation.

Clinton Foundation CCO Craig Minassian wrote in the same email chain, “those CHAI Stats are on nearly every public listing of CF accomplishment. I’m want to make people think twice about calls for dropping grants to CF or return the money and the HIV/AIDS work hits home in a way that other stats don’t. Plus it’s international work. I’m concerned about saying we used money to fund healthy schools (because we didn’t use the funding for that).”

Other revelations about the Clinton Foundation have been brought to light by WikiLeaks releases. On October 26, The Washington Post reported on a memo that outlined the intersections of the Clinton Foundation, and how it helped boost Bill Clinton’s personal income. Since Bill left the White House, he and Hillary have made millions of dollars partnering and networking with wealthy and corporate influencers.

“The memo, made public Wednesday by the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks, lays out the aggressive strategy behind lining up the consulting contracts and paid speaking engagements for Bill Clinton that added tens of millions of dollars to the family’s fortune, including during the years that HillaryClinton led the State Department,” reported The Washington Post. “It describes how Band helped run what he called “Bill Clinton Inc.,” obtaining “in-kind services for the President and his family—for personal travel, hospitality, vacation and the like.”

In other emails, Clinton staff express frustration in dealing with Bill and Chelsea Clinton while trying to minimize the overt conflicts of interest the Clinton Foundation poses. “She created this mess and she knows it,” Clinton aide Huma Abedin wrote in one email regarding $12 million the Moroccan government gave to the charity in exchange for access to Hillary Clinton.

Throughout the emails from Podesta regarding the Clinton Foundation, many of the criticisms against the charity have been confirmed. Rather than focusing on philanthropy, the Clinton Foundation serves as a means for the family to network and partner with wealthy interests around the world to boost the Clinton brand under the pretenses of charity.

Falsche Nachrichten

Falsche Nachrichten und Missinformation sind der neuste Schrei der etablierten Parteien und Medien, um gegen missliebige Informationen vorzugehen. Natürlich hat sich mit dem Internet die Zahl der Informationen, die nicht der Wahrheit oder nur teilweise der Wahrheit entsprechen, multipliziert. Das heisst aber nicht, dass es sie vorher nicht gab und dass sie nicht bewusst von den „ehrlichen“ Medien eingesetzt wurden, um politische oder andere Ziele zu verfolgen, entweder für sich selber oder für Gruppen, die auf die Medien Einfluss haben z.B. Regierungen.

Es scheint fast, als sei im Moment der Begriff „Fake News“ der neue Begriff für „Conspiracy Theory“, der benutzt wurde, um auch berechtigte Fragen und Einwände lächerlich zu machen und Kritiker zum Schweigen zu bringen.

Für die USA wird das im folgenden Artikel am Beispiel von 5 Fällen zusammengefasst:

 

5 Times Corporate Media Got Caught Publishing Fake News Causing the Death & Suffering of Millions

Authored by Claire Bernish and originally published at The Free Thought Project.

A now-notorious list of ostensibly “fake” news sites — created by a liberal professor, seemingly out of thin air — spread like wildfire online in the past two days and was eagerly reprinted by corporate media presstitutes hoping to vindicate their own failed reporting on the 2016 election.

But branding perfectly legitimate outlets with the same scarlet letter as those devoid of integrity deemed the professor’s list a spurious attempt to defame alternative and independent media — anyone dissenting from the left’s mainstream narrative — as a whole.

This is, in no uncertain terms, a hit list — or, at least, a laughable attempt — and it fits conveniently into the establishment’s burgeoning war on independent media disguised as a battle against fake news.

When corporate media outlets from the Independent and Business Insider, to the Los Angeles Times and NYMag scrambled over one another to reprint this irresponsibly contrived hit list, they proved yet again a lack of journalistic integrity — the same issue that originally caused regular subscribers to abandon them in the first place.

Indeed, in this otherwise unknown professor’s foray into the world of journalism, a glaring mistake was made — the only mainstream outlets making the list were those who had heralded Bernie Sanders as the best candidate for the White House.

Such an obvious attempt to control thought could only be conjured in a totalitarian regime.

In fact, failing to place the exact corporate media organizations on the list, who for nearly a year praised fealty only to Hillary Clinton — and for decades have foisted on the public countless mendacious whoppers — constitutes a comedic lack of honesty. So, to bring that irony front and center, it’s imperative to examine some mainstream lies — most of which had appalling consequences — including the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the United States and around the world.

1. George W. Bush’s Weapons of Mass Destruction

President George W. Bush decided to unleash the full force of the U.S. military upon the world in a new policy of war writ large disguised as a war on terrorism following the attacks of September 11, 2001. First arbitrarily designating Afghanistan as its primary victim due to the supposed identities of the attackers, Bush then chose Iraq to feel the wrath, and set out to invade the country following dubious claims Saddam Hussein harbored destructive chemical and biological weapons and was actively seeking far stronger munitions.

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised,” the president asserted in a public address on March 17, 2003.“This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq’s neighbors and against Iraq’s people.”

Bush’s assertions were questioned by not only human rights experts, but by U.N. weapons inspectors and countless others — so shortly after the U.S. invaded the sovereign nation, the New York Times took up the slack to fill in the appropriatecasus belli.

Judith Miller notoriously reported on a source she described only as an Iraqi scientist who had seen several extensive caches of such weapons stored somewhere in the country. American weapons experts, she claimed, “said the scientist told them that President Saddam Hussein’s government had destroyed some stockpiles of deadly agents as early as the mid-1990’s, transferred others to Syria, and had recently focused its efforts instead on research and development projects that are virtually impervious to detection by international inspectors, and even American forces on the ground combing through Iraq’s giant weapons plants.”

In hindsight, Miller’s problematic report turned out to be horrendously flawed, and the Times spent months attempting tobacktrack, but the damage — fomenting widescale public support for a war no one wanted the military to undertake — had been done. Years later in 2014, the Times — after much internal strife — again took up Miller’s case, in a series reportingcatastrophic injuries U.S. military personnel suffered in handling chemical weapons in Iraq. But that report, and theparroting of it by multiple other mainstream mainstays, failed to fully disclose Hussein had been oblivious to the stockpiles presence — something the CIA had clearly stated in a report.

2. Gulf of Tonkin Incident

Often, the American mainstream media becomes a de facto government employee, taking the claims of U.S. officials and reporting them as proven fact — and nothing exemplifies this penchant better than reporting on the Gulf of Tonkin incident — perhaps one of most flagrant lies ever dreamed up as a justification for war.

On August 5, 1964, the New York Times reported “President Johnson has ordered retaliatory action against gunboats and ‘certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam’ after renewed attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin.”Additional outlets, such as the Washington Post, echoed this claim.

But it wasn’t true. At all. In fact, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, as it became known, turned out to be a fictitious creation courtesy of the government to escalate war in Vietnam — leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of U.S. troops and millions of Vietnamese, fomenting the largest anti-war movement in American history, and tarnishing the reputation of a nation once considered at least somewhat noble in the eyes of the world.

In 2010, more than 1,100 transcripts from the Vietnam era were released, proving Congress and officials raised serious doubts about the information fed to them by the Pentagon and White House. But while this internal grumbling took place, mainstream media dutifully reported official statements as if the veracity of the information couldn’t be disputed.

Tom Wells, author of the exhaustive exposé “The War Within: America’s Battle Over Vietnam,” explained the media egregiously erred in “almost exclusive reliance on U.S. government officials as sources of information” and“reluctance to question official pronouncements on ‘national security issues.’”

If due diligence had been performed, and reporters had raised appropriate doubts about the Gulf of Tonkin false flag, it’s arguable whether support for the contentious war would have lasted as long as it did.

3. Suppression of brutality perpetrated in Bahrain during the Arab Spring

CNN sent reporter Amber Lyon and a crew to U.S. ally Bahrain for a documentary about technology’s role in the 2011 people’s uprising known as the Arab Spring, ultimately titled “iRevolution: Online Warriors of the Arab Spring” — but what they encountered instead bore the hallmarks of a repressive and violent regime, and its attempt to filter and censor the truth. Lyon and the other CNN reporters went to great lengths to speak with sources participating in the massive uprising — one the Bahraini government wished to quash at all costs.

“By the time the CNN crew arrived,” the Guardian reported, “many of the sources who had agreed to speak to them were either in hiding or had disappeared. Regime opponents whom they interviewed suffered recriminations, as did ordinary citizens who worked with them as fixers. Leading human rights activist Nabeel Rajab was charged with crimes shortly after speaking to the CNN team. A doctor who gave the crew a tour of his village and arranged meetings with government opponents, Saeed Ayyad, had his house burned to the ground shortly after. Their local fixer was fired ten days after working with them.”

Even the CNN crew experienced the wrath of the regime, upon showing up to interview one source, the Guardiancontinued, “‘20 heavily-armed men’, whose faces were ‘covered with black ski masks’, ‘jumped from military vehicles’, and then ‘pointed machine guns at’ the journalists, forcing them to the ground. The regime’s security forces seized their cameras and deleted their photos and video footage, and then detained and interrogated them for the next six hours.”

After returning to the U.S., Lyon felt it her duty to expose the abuse being perpetrated by the government of an ally nation — but CNN International didn’t agree. CNN U.S. eventually aired the one-hour documentary. Once. CNN Internationalnever did — worse, the organization gave Lyon the cold shoulder, ignoring her repeated requests to return to Bahrain, which would have put CNN ahead of the game in reporting government brutality. Its failure to air the documentary and refusal to provide justification for doing so angered seasoned CNN and other mainstream established journalists across the board.

Lyon met with CNN International president Tony Maddox twice — he first promised to investigate why the documentary wasn’t aired, and then turned against her, warning the journalist not to discuss the matter publicly. Bahraini officials contacted CNN International repeatedly complaining about Lyon’s continued reporting on what she’d witnessed. Intimidation continued until she was eventually laid off, putatively for an unrelated matter.

Attempting to save face, CNN International rebuffed the Guardian’s account and interview with Lyon — but the effort was an impotent justification for the obvious failure of integrity.

But threats for Lyon to remain silent followed her off the job, and when she persisted in exposing the Bahraini regime, as well as the suppression by CNN, the outlet sent a stern warning to halt. Lyon, however, said she had never signed a non-disclosure agreement and would not be pressured into their lies — ultimately walking away reputation in hand — something that could not be said for CNN.

4. That time Fox News hired a CIA operative who wasn’t a CIA operative

Wayne Shelby Simmons made guest appearances on Fox News as a security expert with insider expertise from his work as a CIA operative — for over a decade. However, Simmons had never been employed by the agency — in fact, the imposter’s lies eventually caught up with him and he was arrested and sentenced to 33 months in prison.

“Instead of verifying whether Simmons had actually worked for the CIA, Fox News and the Agency allowed him to make fools out of Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Andrew Napolitano, Neil Cavuto, and everyone at Fox & Friendsfor over the last twelve years. After building a false reputation as a CIA agent on Fox News, Simmons obtained an interim security clearance when an unnamed government contractor hired him in 2008. Simmons also falsely claimed on national security forms that his prior arrests and criminal convictions were directly related to his supposed intelligence work for the CIA, and that he had previously held a top secret security clearance from 1973 to 2000,” The Free Thought Project’s Andrew Emett explained.

In other words, mainstream Fox News didn’t bother with journalism at all — proffering fake expertise as the real deal — because the outlet failed the most basic of tasks any hourly wage employer would perform.

Simmons’ commentaries weren’t harmless stabs in the dark, either — relentlessly parroting baseless Islamophobic rhetoric to drum up support for the government’s insidious war on terror likely poisoned the minds of thousands of viewers, furthering the already divisive atmosphere in the U.S.

5. Vapid anti-marijuana propaganda and the furtherance of the war on drugs

According to the Drug Policy Alliance, over $51 billion is spent fighting the war on drugs in the United States — each year. In 2015, a striking 38.6 percent of all arrests for drug possession were for cannabis — 643,121 people were arrested for marijuana-related offenses.

What those figures don’t show are the millions of lives ruined by criminal conviction for the government’s unjustifiable quest to eradicate, demonize, and vilify this beneficial plant. It would be an impossible task to tally the number of families whose homes have been destroyed by SWAT teams searching for marijuana — whether or not police bothered to verify anaddress. An untold number of others have been slain by police for the same reason.

But worst of all, the mainstream media propagates nonsensical, false propaganda about cannabis to convince the gullible and ignorant among us to equate it with heroin, cocaine, and other ‘illicit’ substances. And while a majority of the populace has seen through such lies, some outlets have obstinately continued the drug war — seemingly of their own volition.

One stunning example occurred in March last year, when Dr. David Samadi made a guest appearance on Fox News to fearmonger the horrors of marijuana and scare the bejeezus out of the viewing audience.

“It actually causes heart attacks. It increases your heart rate. And on and on,” Samadi claimed, fecklessly distorting statistics. “We’re seeing in Colorado that we had 13 kids that came to the emergency [room] and ended up in the ICU as a result of overdose from marijuana. Now we have crack babies coming in because pregnant women are smoking this whole marijuana business.”

Fortunately, the Internet has provided the public with alternatives to these corporate media lies — and as of two years ago, despite these and other claims about pot being a dangerous substance, Pew Research Center found fully 69 percent of the population felt alcohol was more harmful than cannabis.

* * *

While this list presents only a few of the bigger lies of the corporate press, there are innumerable examples of its proud history of actual fake news. Keep these in mind when the mainstream presstitutes rush to reprint a hit list targeting journalists and outlets whose narratives counter the establishment. Indeed, it would be the corporate media — with its vast captive audience — who most deserves to be listed as propagators of lies.

Hellfire Rakete = USA für Angriff auf Hilfskonvoi in Syrien verantwortlich?

Puppet Masters

Bomb

SOTT Exclusive: Did the U.S. target Syrian aid convoy with Hellfire missile?

© ABC News/YouTube
Hellfire signature?

Footage of the nighttime attack on the Syrian aid convoy in Aleppo has surfaced. But there’s something curious about how the footage has been appearing on Western news reports. A commenter on the Moon of Alabama blog, PavewayIV, made the following observations about what appears in the video, and what it suggests. First, however, here’s an unedited version of the blast, courtesy of ABC:

In the screen cap above, you can see what looks to be a cloud of sparks following an initial explosion. According to PavewayIV, this is a signature of the Metal-Augmented Charge (MAC) Hellfire AGM-114N, the Predator drone’s typical payload. The fiery cloud is produced by the residue of the fine-mesh fluorinated aluminum particles (the „metal augmentation“). Aside from the ABC footage, most other networks have shown edited versions that make this signature difficult to detect. For example, here’s AP’s version:

Shakey-cam added for jihadi-vision effect? Why would they do this?

Thermobaric Hellfire air-blasts don’t leave craters, and they typically start fires. No craters are visible in footage of the burned convoy.

The Russians have thermobaric bombs, too, according to PavewayIV, but they use different particles and their blast patterns are different: either no „sparkles“ or long-duration „sparkles“, not the fast-duration flash as seen in the video of the Aleppo blast.

As we reported yesterday, the Russians detected a Predator drone which took off from Incirlik airbase in Syria, flew to the precise location of the convoy, arrived before the strike, stayed for a while, then left after the damage was done. Surely just a coincidence…

Löhne, Einkommen und Produktivität in den USA: Wer wird ausgenutzt, wer profitiert vom US Wirtschaftssystem

Interessanter Artikel vor allem in Bezug auf die Grafiken zur Entwicklung von Produktivität, Einkommen z.T. noch weiter aufgeschlüsselt. Sie zeigen, dass ende der 70er Jahre eine Plafonierung der Löhne für die Unter- und Mittelschicht beginnt. Dasselbe gilt nicht für eine oberste Stufe der gut ausgebildeteten Experten, deren Löhne immer zugenommen haben und das z.T. rasant.

 

 

Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

If you want to stop being played as a chump, turn off the CNN/MSM and disengage from the self-referential social media distraction.

Let’s start by asking: if Trump had lost and his supporters had angrily taken to the streets, destroying private property and threatening police officers while proclaiming „not my president,“ would the mainstream media have characterized the rioters differently than it has the pro-Clinton rioters?

Any fair-minded observer knows the answer is yes: the CNN/MSM would have lambasted the „rioting deplorables“ as „what’s wrong with America.“

Substitution is a useful tool to expose bias. How come the CNN/mainstream corporate media isn’t declaring the pro-Clinton rioters „deplorables“?

This tells us something else is going on here. I want to explain what’s really going on, but first we need to run a simple experiment:

Turn off CNN, PBS, CBS et al., your Twitter and Facebook feeds, etc. for seven days, and live solely in the media-free real world for a week. If you’re truly interested in understanding what’s really going on in America, then come back in a week and read the rest of the essay.

Have you pulled out the CNN/MSM/social media fearmongering/propaganda dripline for a few days? This is a necessary step, as we shall soon see.

Everyone who is consuming CNN/MSM/ self-referential social media every waking hour is being played as chumps. Start by asking yourself: cui bono–to whose benefit? Who is benefiting from the ceaseless fearmongering of the CNN/social-media-parroting mainstream corporate media?

(Longtime readers know I start any analysis by asking cui bono.)

Two Power Elites have benefited enormously from the ceaseless media fearmongering: the owners of the corporate media spewing the fearmongering, and the Neoliberal camp of the Ruling Elite.

The hysterical tone of the fearmongering serves the agenda of the Neoliberals, who are desperate to maintain their grip on power.

As I have endeavored to explain over the past few years, America’s Deep State no longer enjoys a monolithic unity of world-view and narrative. The Deep State has fragmented into two conflicted camps: the Neonconservatives, who espouse the globalist, interventionist foreign policy manifestation of Neoliberalism, and a smaller, more forward-looking camp that understands Neoliberalism is actively undermining our national security and our core national interests.

This split in the Deep State extends into the entire Ruling Elite. Thus we have the currently dominant globalist Neoliberal camp personified by the Clintons, the Corporatocracy that has funded them, the clubby Washington Elites (Demopublicans) and the Neocon camp of the Deep State.

The opposing camp of Elite „outsiders“ is viewed as the enemy which threatens the wealth and power of the self-serving Neoliberal Elites. Longtime readers have seen many accounts here over the years that explain the key dynamic of Elite fragmentation: as self-serving personal aggrandizement poisons the values of public service, the Elite splinters into a parasitic, predatory self-serving majority and an Elite minority that sees the inevitable dissolution of the empire should the self-serving few continue their predation of the many.

Here are a few of the many essays I’ve posted on this key dynamic. Please read a few of these for context if you missed them the first time around:

Following in Ancient Rome’s Footsteps: Moral Decay, Rising Wealth Inequality (September 30, 2015)

The Real Trouble Begins When Rising Inequality Splinters the Elites (October 22, 2015)

How The Seeds Of Revolution Take Root: the Middle Class Loses Upward Mobility (February 26, 2016)

When the Aristocracy Leaves the Commoners in the Dust, The Empire Is Doomed (October 8, 2015)

When Did Our Elites Become Self-Serving Parasites? (October 4, 2016)

The Lesson of Empires: Once Privilege Limits Social Mobility, Collapse Is Inevitable (April 18, 2016)

How Empires Fall (April 17, 2013)

Collapse, Part 2: The Nine Dynamics of Decay (June 23, 2015)

Voting With Your Feet (August 14, 2015)

Elite fragmentation is the core dynamic in play in America. The Neoliberal class, personified by the Clintons and the rest of the incestuous Washington Elite (Demopublicans), has used the self-serving corporate media to whip up a frenzy of hysteria that is ultimately aimed at the Elite camp that opposes their self-aggrandizement at the expense of the nation.

This war within America’s Power Elite is for all the marbles. This explains the absurd urgency of the CNN/MSM fearmongering propaganda.

Let’s deconstruct one of the many hysterical claims of the CNN/MSM: Trump’s victory is a coup d’etat. This absurd claim is akin to „the Martians are coming!“ Right out of the gate, it is a clueless mis-use of the term coup d’etat. If you actually want to understand the term, as opposed to using it to whip up hysteria that profits the Corporate owners of CNN/MSM, then start by reading the 1968 classic Coup d’État: A Practical Handbook by Edward Luttwak, and then move on to The Quiet Coup by Simon Johnson (2010).

The financial coup d’etat occurred in the presidency of Democrat Bill Clinton, when the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed, freeing the predatory financial elites to plunder the nation.

Presidents G.W. Bush and Obama institutionalized the coup by bailing out the banks post-2008.

So who does all the fearmongering benefit? The CNN/MSM, which profited immensely, and the Neoliberal Elite, which distracted the populace from the fatal consequences of its dominance.

The mainstream media in America is a corporate-owned media, or in the case of PBS, corporate-funded via sponsorships. Advertising rates are set by the size of the audience and the number of hours they consume the broadcast/feed.

The MSM’s fearmongering propaganda greatly expanded the number of eyeballs glued to their product and increased the duration of consumers‘ time spent online. This increase in audience/duration has been immensely profitable to the corporate media, which has relied on fearmongering to drive audience since 9/11.

Consider this email from correspondent M.K. on his family’s media consumption:

„I was struck awake this morning at 4 am with the realization that the left tried to win by selling fear. I don’t mean this in a hyperbolic way… I mean they purposefully, willfully planned to sell fear as a tool to get the vote out. At first I didn’t see the connection, but my subconscious did…

I’m a Agorist/Voluntarist and don’t vote, because I don’t wish to consent to my own enslavement… you know the drill. On the day of voting my father (76) texted me to urge me to vote, because „my children’s future was at stake“. This seemed odd to me, because it had never happened before and he followed up with some more fearful statement.

The day after the election, my daughter, who tends to also be level headed, texted me the following: „Uh oh… what does this mean for our country?“. I tried to calm them both, but they were exceedingly fearful.

I watched in amazement at the „cry ins“, demonstrations other outward pouring of sadness, hate and fear. Thus, I awoke and realized that both my father and daughter watch CNN. I really do believe that they were programmed…. This was planned and executed exceedingly well.

As you realize, „fear is the enemy“ or „fear is the opposite of love“. Pick your quote, but it’s a powerful tool and it has been used to club my loved ones.“

We can summarize the fanning of mass hysteria thusly: hyper-connectedness to a self-referential corporate/elite-controlled media produces a fear-based mass hysteria.

This fear-based mass hysteria is the perfect mechanism to distract a populace from the reality of a self-serving Elite that profits from their serfdom. Please glance at these four charts, which tell a simple but profound truth:

Productivity has risen for 36 years, but the gains from that massive increase in wealth has been captured by the few at the top of the wealth/power pyramid. If you want to understand who benefited from the CNN/MSM fearmongering propaganda distraction, study these four charts.

The income of the bottom 95% has stagnated while productivity/wealth soared.

The gains flowed to the top .1% in wealth and the top 5% in income:

The self-serving Neoliberal Elite’s CNN/mainstream media did a magnificent job of profiting from fearmongering while distracting the serfs from their immiseration. If you want to stop being played as a chump, turn off the CNN/MSM and disengage from the self-referential social media distraction.

Was planen Clintons als nächstes

Interessante aspekte zum Auftritt der Clintons am Tag nach der Wahl. Im Grunde ist ihr ganzes Business Modell im Moment am Boden zerstört und wenn sie nicht wieterhin aktiv in der Politik sind, haben sie keine Möglichkeit, als Redner und Beeinflusser Geld zu verdienen.

Der Autor meint, dass Clitnon sich gerade einen neuen Brand geben und eventuell planen, als neue Partei die jetzt desilussionierten und unzufriedenen Wähler aufzunehmen und eine dritte Kraft zu formen.

Wird spannend sein, die Zukunft der Clintons zu verfolgen. Wird Trump ihre Stiftung in Ruhe lassen oder doch noch untersuchen? Wikileaks hat gezeigt, dass diese Stiftung als Gedlwaschvehikel und „pay to play“ fungiert.

 

Authored by Mark St.Cyr,

No matter what side of the political aisle you stand, one thing is certain: The resulting outcome; on so many levels, as well as metrics; is one for the ages. The political fallout and its ever-increasing shaking of political norms and assumptions have now been cast into the trash bins of political history and forecasting, with some of those “dumpsters” being set ablaze.

Where things go from here is anyone’s guess. All one can do is watch, anticipate, and act accordingly. That’s what being in business is all about.

So it’s through this prism (for it’s what I do) as I watched Mrs. Clinton’s concession speech I couldn’t help but marvel at what I believed to be watching. For if I’m correct, what transpired at that presser was more inline with a business turnaround, or business crisis PR announcement event (think Tylenol® or even Wells Fargo™ for base-case relevance) rather than just your typical political concession speech.

Yes, the proper words for the “political” aspect were present. Yet, there was also something far more “present” that was absolutely striking too my eye. Albeit, it’s all conjecture on my part.

However, with that said, it’s my prior acumen in the field known as “turn-around specialist” that made things jump out, striking me as being so obvious, I couldn’t help but wonder incessantly was there truly any “there, there” of what I was calculating?

Again, through my business prism, it had all the characteristics of what many a company might do (or even what I myself might advise) when it finds itself knee-deep in either a business ending circumstance (think a profitable drug maker that just learns a cure has been found for its only product) or, one that suddenly finds its product/brand facing extinction via a new technology (think landline phones vs cell phones.) That’s what struck me as I watched. And it hasn’t left me since.

The reason why I’m sharing this is in direct response to the reaction when I first made these observations, in real-time to a colleague as we were both watching the presser (i.e., I said “This looks more like a business PR rollout than a concession speech.”) Where he then stated, “Wait…What?” As I explained his face first went slack-jawed, then responded “Holy cr-p! I didn’t notice it that way, but now? I can’t see it being anything but.”

Whether or not I’m correct, I haven’t a clue. Yet, it would seem as to what I’ve heard, or read over the past few days via the main-stream venues of record – nobody (and I do mean nobody) has even questioned the glaring oddities I observed, let alone tried to put any reasoning together and ask, “Hmmmm, I wonder why…?”

So let’s dig in as they say and you can decide for yourself. However, if I am correct? What everyone thinks, and is taking at first blush as a purely “political” event? Where the defeated party or candidate rides slowly off into the sunset? May suddenly come to realize over the ensuing months and years was more akin to a new “political business rollout” presser. With far-reaching implications. Implications I’ll contend, that could affect everyone. Whether one agrees with them, or not.

First – the symbolic: Did you notice the color purple? I bet you did, and how could you not? And it’s for that reason I couldn’t help but start to think: Why? For it’s not like they were there to party like it was 1999, were they?

I’ve heard and read a few observations to the effect of: “Both her and Bill chose to wear purple to show unity and blah, blah, blah.” Well, that may be so, but I don’t think so. At least, not in the vein suggested.

I believe that overwhelming presence of purple was to subliminally push, or to stress, the new color of standard/banner for either a new political party, or, at the least, a new political movement to rally under. And it borders on branding genius if I’m correct in that assumption as I’ll try to explain. (Remember: I’m coming at this from the business side, not the political.)

Why purple? Well, there are two distinct reasons. First – purple is commonly acquainted with the mixing of red and blue i.e.,the blending of the traditional color standards of boys and girls, men and women, Democrats and Republicans and so on. So as to its prominence during that presser? It carries an immediate “hook” if you will, as to be used by others in solidarity for what may seem as all the “right” reasons.

It also has another feature ever the more subtle, yet present nonetheless: It’s associated with royalty of yesteryear, not because it “represented the people,” but because purple was the most expensive color to produce, only afforded by royalty.

The adornment of purple still sends to this day a subliminal message of “royalty” or “upper-classed elite.” And both Mrs., as well as Mr. Clinton’s display of it was not subtle. It was made (as seen by my eye) to be unavoidable. Why do I say this? Easy:

In all of the political situations where Mrs. Clinton was to be on a stage where millions upon millions of viewers were going to tune in expressly to watch, or be photographed by countless organizations (think any of the three televised debates) her attire was impeccable. Sure, some joke about the “pantsuit” thing, however, what you can’t joke about is the people responsible (and I would imagine Mrs. Clinton herself) charged with the task as to present her in the best light possible spared no expense as to make sure her outfits were as classy, reserved, and presidential as one could appear. I would extend that to the former president as well.

That is – until her concession speech. Again: Why?

That color purple, along with its tailoring, was not only overpowering (just look to Bill’s tie for clues) Mrs. Clinton’s outfit looked anything but the designer suit we’ve come accustomed to her wearing. Her attire looked more like something that was made for a one time Prince event she may have attended that was rummaged from the back of her closet or donation bin.

Just to clarify: I’m not trying to poke jabs at Mrs. Clinton’s outfit here for sport. What I am trying to do is rationalize why such a choice was made that was clearly uncharacteristic – unless – there was a very intentional meaning meant (for effect) behind it. Which I believe there was. And here’s why:

I believe the real reason why everyone had to wait till the next day for Mrs. Clinton’s concession speech was not because she was too tired, or as some have speculated “health reasons.” No. I’m of the opinion this was always Mrs. Clinton’s plan-B. But as the election drew on, both her and her surrogates (along with the entire main-stream media) thought it was a done deal and broomed it thinking there was no reason to have it at the ready.

Yet, when it proved it was Plan-B, or B-gone entirely? (and I believe the Clinton’s always to have a Plan-B for they have proven to be second to none in political brinksmanship) There was a mad-scramble on to both find an outfit (for optics) and ready the speech as best they could. Reasoning; the moment for implementation of that plan was that concession speech, and not a moment later, if any form of salvage was possible. Hence: “Go home, and we’ll see you all tomorrow!”

Suddenly what has come to be known as “Clinton Inc.” was finding itself going out-of-business. Whether you agree or not is up to you. However, with the revelations of Wikileaks and more, we now have some idea of why both Mr. and Mrs. Clinton were able to acquire such vast wealth, so quickly: It was through their foundations and all the attributes associated with it via their political connections.

Forget about any calls regarding impropriety or whether there are legal issues or not for the moment. And the reason why I say it is this: Even if everything was found to be legal (and that’s for others to decide, not me) the premise of there being a “Clinton Inc.” still stands, which is why I want/need to clarify that. Or said differently: Why people, companies, or countries would donate, or pay the Clinton’s $millions in speaking fees and/or donations going forward ended with Mrs. Clinton’s election loss. e.g., Ending the main funding reason (or product feature if you will) of “Clinton Inc.”

Effectively both her, as well as Bill are now on the outside of the political spectrum looking in. This is, for lack of a better term, the antithesis of their former main “product feature.” And with that comes a very, very, very (did I say very?) reduced speaking fee schedule, along with a sudden drought of once readily provided pleasantries. (i.e., free use of private jets, etc.)

This is a position the Clinton’s have never been in since entering the political fray, which has been nearly their entire lives.

Trust me, there are only a few things worse than a speaker who has lost their “star power” to command fees. One: is a Hollywood actor who has been type cast. Or two: a once powerful politician that lost what was viewed as a “slam-dunk” election. Nobody, and I do mean no-body once afforded the “goodies” at those levels ever becomes comfortable with the realization of “they’re gone,” along with the loss of social status where the old joke, “When the phone doesn’t ring – I know it’s them.” becomes your daily routine. The Clinton’s were looking at being the recipients of all of them.

A total makeover, or total reboot, is usually the only thing that may help. And I believe what we watched on Wednesday was just that: a total reboot, re-branding, and relaunching of the new (and improved?) “Clinton Inc.” But there’s an inherent problem with this new business model and plan if I’m correct. And it is this:

It will be all about division – not “unity.” For that’s where the money is in politics currently. Whether one likes to hear it – or not.

Currently there is a backlash against not only the president-elect, but more importantly – there is an outright civil war taking place within the Democrat Party apparatus. Both from within, as well as those which identify (and/or vote) with it.

And what would be the easiest group of disaffected people to start building, and more importantly fund-raising for?

Why the new (again, all speculative on my part) inclusive “Unity Party” of course, under the new color standard and banner of purple, shredding the iconic “blue” and leaving the “old guard” in its wake. And it just so happens (funny, no?) there’s a matriarch-in-waiting who just so happens to run/own a well founded political organization which can collect their “funds” and fight for their cause of “unity” because, after all, she won the popular vote and was “denied.” So, “She feels your pain!”

Are you beginning to see how this is setting up?

During her speech Mrs. Clinton stated not once – but twice – two very important declarations which were either intentionally not called out by the media in general, or worse, nobody even understands them.

And what were these declarations you ask? Hint: “In a representative democracy such as ours….”

Do you see the problem? For it explains in total why you have people screaming, setting fires, causing mayhem, and more believing they have some form of right to be violently angry because (they believe) something was stolen or denied them.

The problem? (for those that truly don’t understand) We are a representative republic. Not – “a representative democracy.”

This (in my opinion) was a deliberate statement trying to push forth a new political agenda (and the new “main product”) as to demagogue the electoral college. Again – that wouldn’t be about gathering unity – that would be all about further division.

And in so doing – if – it was for the sole purpose as to enrich, or ingratiate oneself for either monetary gain, or the keeping of one’s political/social status afloat? That’s a very dangerous game. Very, very dangerous indeed. Both for the purveyors, as well as the consumers of such drivel. Let alone the country as a whole.

(Remember: An electoral college prevents all the things (such as a King/Queen or Political Elite) from retaining or gaining all the power over its citizenry. Without it, using today as the example, if one could win all the votes of just 3 states like California, New York, and Texas. Their population, e.g., their “popular vote,” would dictate whatever they decided for the entire other 47 states and their populace. That’s why we have one (electoral college that is) and other “democracies” don’t. It protects the very things these “we won the popular vote!” worry about, yet don’t understand. But that’s for others far brighter, and more articulate than me to argue.)

So let’s put a little more context around this notion: Do you think a former First Lady, U.S. Senator, Secretary of State, and now former presidential nominee doesn’t know the difference between “representative democracy” and “representative republic?”

Do you think it was a slip-of-the tongue, twice? In one of her most important speeches to the public in her career? Where she’s reading from a teleprompter? Are you in need of buying a bridge located in Brooklyn?

Are you beginning to see why all that purple now makes sense seen via this prism?

Mrs. Clinton along with Bill, Chelsea, and the entire current working apparatus currently involved in the Clinton Foundation can now pivot and mesh right into a “brand new bag.” i.e., The Clinton Foundation For Political Unity. Or something to that effect, attacking the electoral college as “The enemy of democracy!”

Its logo? A purple banner with “Do it for her – Do it for us!” Or, ________(insert you platitude of choice here)

However, what is currently a far more important attribute? To “Clinton Inc.” that is?

An immediate set up, and destination, to handle all those disgruntled “fund raised” dollars that would most assuredly begin to roll in with near immediacy once fully implemented. Along with a place to now reserve bookings (for very high speaking fees I would assume) for what will obviously be its “royal couple.” Oh, yes: and a reason as to “hold onto” any remaining donations left over in the coffers since the election. You know, to put to good use for the sake of “the new movement!”

Gotta pay the bills some how, no?

“Clinton Inc.” (e.g., The foundation and everything else included and/or associated) isn’t just a business; it’s a big business, worth $10’s if not $100’s of millions of dollars annually. And in a business, any business (and politics is a business regardless of one’s feelings) no board, trustee, or other executive would ever just say, “OK, we’re done here, return any and all unused money, and last one out hits the lights!”

No, you either pivot, or announce damage control measures to bide time to figure out what to do next depending on the circumstance. Just closing up shop doesn’t happen. If you want an example of this in real-time for clues? Hint: Theranos™.

Remember: I see the world via a business perspective. And to say there is no such thing as a “Clinton Inc.” is naive at best, or willingly blind at worse. The Clinton’s, regardless of anything else, have made and taken their world and/or brand of political business to levels never dreamed of, let alone actually delivered on in recent history.

Most (if not all) only looked upon Mrs. Clinton’s concession speech from the political standpoint. I did not. And I believe this is why many missed the true reasoning, as well as messaging behind it. I viewed it as something entirely different and that difference is – from a complete business standpoint. It’s just what I do. Whether I’m right or wrong is for the history books to judge.

Again: If you look at all this via a business prism, rather than just a political? What would you expect out of the Foundation or the Clinton’s for that matter? If political pay-to-play (whether found to be legal or not) is now dead, with that direct line of funding (e.g., their “main product feature”) now worthless. How do you keep power and the money coming in?

Hint: Start a new movement with its own unique logo, branding, power structure, messaging, and funding all within your control, and startup takes little more than a flip-of-the-switch because seed funding is more or less already – in the bank. It’s absolutely brilliant from a business perspective.

Shed the colors of the “Blue” of the “Dems” and the “Red” of the “Repubs” into the new purple of “Stronger Together!” Hit up disgruntled Bernie Sanders followers with “We’re just as miffed as you! Donate now to the new cause!” “Why wait for another stolen democratic election! Fight now!! Send your donations to: ___________”

See what I mean? It writes itself. Again, from a business standpoint – it’s stunningly brazen as it is brilliant.

The political, as well as business instinct, along with the timing for execution (we are talking 24hrs here!) is freaking epic, as well as dazzling if I’m correct. Regardless if I agree with it, or not. That’s why it caught my attention the way it did, and still does. From a business standpoint (eschewing all other factors or feelings) it’s a stunning example of prowess on so many levels. Again, from my perspective which is entirely business – it’s jaw-droppingly brilliant.

At this moment the current Democrat Party brand is so soiled or tainted from within, it is far easier (in my opinion) to start a new movement in this climate, rather than try to resurrect, or reestablish the older one. The Republicans have a similar issue, but theirs will need to be done from a different vantage point. i.e., from the inside looking out, rather than the opposite which has different challenges for effectiveness than the other.

Which is precisely the reason all this can also be – so dangerous.

Take this pent-up demand (and dollars) that feels betrayed by not only the Democrat Party elite, but also the disaffected Bernie voters, and funnel all that pent-up anger (and don’t forget the $’s) into coffers via a new movement headed by, guess who? Then, channel it incorrectly, or into the wrong venues? And you have a recipe for outright disaster on a scale exponentially worse than anything that has transpired as of late. It’s gasoline, playing with matches, at a bomb storage facility in my opinion.

Already we see people like Michael Moore calling for an uprising. Do you think he’ll also be looking to “raise money” or be looking for “high paid speaking gigs” as one of the “patron saints” to get people “fired up!” in ending the Democrat party and the electoral college under the banner of something with the color purple ablaze on it? Hint: Bet on it.

So why do I propose all these reasonings and express them you may be asking? After all, I’m a business guy, not a political person. Well, it’s for this simple reason:

Being in business requires one to always be on the lookout as to be in the best place possible. And that “looking” for clues of opportunity is a 24/7/365 discipline for anyone that takes business seriously. While on the flip side of that, so too is being acutely aware of possible pitfalls or calamities at the same time.

It’s near impossible to turn it off once you’ve become highly attuned, focused, and painfully honed in that discipline. As I implied earlier: once garnered – it’s a 24/7/365 discipline that permeates your entire worldview in regards to everything. i.e., family, friends, business, politics, religion, etc., etc.

I understand in such a polarized political environment people may read far more into any observation, rather than what the original intent of the observation might portend. I’m not being, nor want any – and let me repeat that as to make it abundantly clear – any confusion as to the appearance or inference that I am making a political statement; calling for; or against; or anything else when it comes to politics.

Remember: I viewed that concession speech via my filters, and business acumen. My observations are of a business viewpoint and how businesses should acclimate within current environments, with an ever watchful eye towards the horizon for further clues of any coming changes. How you view them is entirely your own prerogative.

However there is also another reason, and it also pertains explicitly to businesses everywhere. And it is this:

In 2011 before there was any civil unrest in the U.S. there was Greece, with its political fallout, and its rioting. During that time I wrote an article imploring businesses to take seriously and set up emergency plans to what, or how they would react if such a thing happened here. Once during a speech I was delivering, there were obvious smirks of “stuff like that doesn’t happen here.” Then Occupy Wall St. emerged, and the resulting bedlam that followed.

Many businesses were caught completely flat-footed either needing to close down completely until it passed. Or worse, were closed down because of vandalism, looting, and more.

Over the subsequent years I’ve reposted that article when I felt appropriate as a reminder. I’ve since received far more “Thanks, we’ve never truly analyzed that aspect, in that way, and have taken that advice to heart.” far more than I’ve ever seen a smirk since. For these events haven’t decreased, have they?

And why did I state earlier for caution with this new “Clinton Inc.” and/or what it may portend?

Hint: Welcome to what may be the first of many new “purple” protests.

Have you viewed the landscape where your business is located and planned accordingly (if necessarily so) the possibility of it happening near you? If not – not only are you not paying attention, but worse, you may be not only leaving your business assets in jeopardy, but also your employees, with no understanding of what, or what not to do should circumstances prevail.

And from my perspective, that’s just unacceptable in business today. Period.

Hier ist die ganze Verschwörung bei den US Wahlen

Super dargestellt in diesem Artikel:

Es ging nie um Inhalte, sondern darum, dass Hillary und die Spitze der Demokratischen Partei einen unwählbaren (weil zu weit „rechts“ stehenden) Kandidaten auf der republikanischen Seite aufbauen wollten, um dann als das kleinere Übel bzw. die vernünftige Alternative gewählt zu werden.

Wikileaks sei Dank!

Submitted by Martin Armstrong via ArmstrongEconomics.com,

madam-president

Meanwhile, Hillary lost not merely because she misread the “real” people, she decided to run a very divisive and nasty negative campaign, which has fueled the violence ever since. According to WikiLeaks emails from campaign John Podesta, Clinton colluded with the DNC and the media to raise what they thought would be the extreme right among Republicans to then make her the middle of the road to hide her agenda.

hillary-pied-piper

Clinton called this her “pied piper” strategy, that intentionally cultivated extreme right-wing presidential candidates and that would turn the Republicans away from their more moderate candidates. This enlisted mainstream media who then focused to Trump and raise him above all others assuming that would help Hillary for who would vote for Trump. This was a deliberate strategy all designed to propel Hillary to the White House.

The Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee along with mainstream media all called for using far-right candidates “as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right.” Clinton’s camp insisted that Trump should be “elevated” to “leaders of the pack” and media outlets should be told to “take them seriously.”

If we look back on April 23, 2015, just two weeks after Hillary Clinton officially declared her presidential campaign, her staff sent out a message on straregy to manipulate the Republicans into selecting the worse candidate. They included this attachment a “memo for the DNC discussion.”

pied piper dnc email

The memo was addressed to the Democratic National Committee and stated bluntly, “the strategy and goals a potential Hillary Clinton presidential campaign would have regarding the 2016 Republican presidential field.” Here we find that the real conspiracy was Clinton manipulating the Republicans. “Clearly most of what is contained in this memo is work the DNC is already doing. This exercise is intended to put those ideas to paper.”

“Our hope is that the goal of a potential HRC campaign and the DNC would be one-in-the-same: to make whomever the Republicans nominate unpalatable to a majority of the electorate.”

The Clinton strategy was all about manipulating the Republicans to nominate the worst candidate Clinton called for forcing “all Republican candidates to lock themselves into extreme conservative positions that will hurt them in a general election.”

It was not Putin trying to rig the elections, it was Hillary. Clinton saw the Republican field as crowded and she viewed as “positive” for her. “Many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right.” Clinton then took the strategic position saying “we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more ‘Pied Piper’ candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party.”

Her manipulative strategy was to have the press build up Donald Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz and Ben Carson. “We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously.”

This conspiracy has emerged from the Podesta emails. It was Clinton conspiring with mainstream media to elevate Trump and then tear him down. We have to now look at all the media who endorsed Hillary as simply corrupt. Simultaneously, Hillary said that Bernie had to be ground down to the pulp. Further leaked emails showed how the Democratic National Committee sabotaged Sanders’ presidential campaign. It was Hillary manipulating the entire media for her personal gain. She obviously did not want a fair election because she was too corrupt.

What is very clear putting all the emails together, the rise of Donald Trump was orchestrated by Hillary herself conspiring with mainstream media, and they they sought to burn him to the ground. Their strategy backfired and now this is why she has not come out to to speak against the violence she has manipulated and inspired.

podesta-hillary-refuses-to-concede

This is by far the WORST campaign in history and it was all orchestrated by Hillary to be intentionally divisive for the nation all to win the presidency at all costs. She has torched the constitution and the country. No wonder Hillary could not go to the stage to thank her supporters. She never counted on them and saw the people as fools. The entire strategy was to take the White House with a manipulation of the entire election process. Just unbelievable. Any Democrat who is not angry at this is clearly just a biased fool. Wake up and smell the roses. You just got what you deserve.

 

Einige Wirtschaftsdaten zur USA und dem Reichtum der 1% Reichsten

Die Grafiken stammen alle, wenn nicht anders vermerkt, vom Fed. Sowohl Einkommen als auch Anzahl Arbeitsstellen sind wieder auf dem Niveau der 80er Jahre! Ausser den Reichsten 1% der Gesellschaft geht es insgesamt schlechter als 10 Jahre zuvor. Die Wirtschaftspolitik der USA hat für die Mittel- und Unterschicht vollkommen versagt.

Submitted by Paul Lebowitz via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Following the BREXIT vote in late June and passionate support for the Bernie Sanders campaign, the Presidential election of Donald Trump provided yet another sign that the American people, as well as many around the world, are increasingly demanding a new economic path. This piece is not written to opine on the election or the merits of Donald Trump. The intent is to highlight, through the use of a few charts, that the nation’s economic policy for the last 30 years has failed greatly and hollowed out the middle class. The consequences have been accumulating for years but have been camouflaged by ever increasing, but unsuccessful attempts to reignite economic growth.

The graphs below provide evidence that despite the narratives of the Federal Reserve, media pundits and most policy wonks, the economy is failing most Americans. While there are many ways to show the deterioration of the U.S. economy and the consequences endured by its citizens, we selected charts we deem to be the most telling.

We hope that no matter who you voted for, you study these graphs to better understand the impetus behind Trump’s victory. More importantly, we hope this helps everyone better grasp why economic policy must change before the consequences become dire.

As a supplement to these charts, we highly recommend reading or re-reading our important article “The Death of the Virtuous Cycle”. In that piece we identify and diagnose what we consider the most significant issue facing the United States and other developed market economies.

Income and Debt

 real-median-income-1

Real Median Household Income is at the same level today as it was in 1998.

wage-pc-2

The ten-year average growth of wages has been declining for over 35 years.

pce-composition-3

Personal consumption (PCE), accounting for approximately 70% of GDP growth, has grown heavily reliant upon debt and transfer payments as wages are not sufficient to meet consumers demands. Transfer payments are payments from the government to its citizens. (Note: The numbers above do not add to 100% as there are other sources of consumption and wages are not entirely consumed.)

gdp-per-c-4

Secular economic growth (GDP) per capita has been in decline for the better part of the last 40 years. This helps explains the weakness in consumers’ wages and the increased dependency on credit and transfer payments.

Labor

labor-part-5

Almost 95 million eligible workers are currently out of work. As a result the labor force participation rate has decreased over the last 16 years to levels last seen in the 1970’s.

Productivity

productivity-6

The productivity (TFP) growth rate (black line) has been declining since the 1970’s and will likely turn negative in the next year or two. A lack of productivity growth results in weaker economic growth, a heavy price inordinately borne by employees.

Trade Deals

 mfg-employ-7

acct-deficit-8

Trade deals, such as NAFTA (1994), make it easier for U.S. corporations to outsource jobs to foreign nations offering cheaper labor. As a result, the U.S. has lost millions of manufacturing jobs and significantly worsened the annual current account deficit.

Wealth and Income Inequality

wealht-ineq-1

wealth-ineq

wealth-ineq-3

Years of poorly designed economic and monetary policy have resulted in the redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the so called “1%”.

We summarize with an apt tweet from Binyamin Applebaum of the New York Times:

tweet

The data for all graphs was courtesy of the Federal Reserve unless otherwise noted.