Nov 272019
 
 November 27, 2019  Posted by at 9:56 am Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , ,


Margaret Bourke-White Beach Accident, Coney Island, Brooklyn, NY 1951

 

The House Will Not Vote On Impeachment. It Will Censure Trump (MoA)
The One Terrific Impeachment Defense The White House Is Not Making (DW)
Obama Privately Said He Would Speak Up To Stop Sanders (Hill)
MSNBC Doesn’t Try To Hide ‘Contempt’ Towards Gabbard (Hill)
China Risks Losing Its Financial Window On The World (G.)
More Than Half Of China’s Banks Fail Central Bank Stress Test (ZH)
Boeing’s Problems Mount As FAA Vows To Ramp Up 737 MAX Oversight (BI)
Is Macron Right? Is NATO, 70, Brain Dead? (Buchanan)
Questions Cloud Story Behind Browder, Magnitsky (Spiegel)
Narrative Managers Faceplant In Hilarious OPCW Scandal Spin Job (CJ)
A Tale of Prince Andrew and Julian Assange (George Galloway)

 

 

Sounds logical. Will logic decide this though? It doesn’t seem to have had much influence so far.

The House Will Not Vote On Impeachment. It Will Censure Trump (MoA)

If more Democratic swing-state representatives defect from the impeachment camp, which seems likely, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will have a big problem. How can she proceed?
• If the House votes down impeachment Donald Trump wins.
• If the House holds no vote on the issue Donald Trump wins.
• If the House votes for censure Donald Trump will have won on points and the issue will be over.
• If the House votes for impeachment the case goes to the Senate for trial.

The Republican led Senate has two choices:
• It can decide to not open an impeachment trial by simply voting against impeachment. Trump wins.
• It can open a impeachment trial, use it to extensively hurt the Democrats and, in the end, vote against impeachment. Trump wins big time.

Should the House vote for impeachment the Senate is likely to go the second path. During impeachment the whole Senate sits as the High Court. The House of Representatives sends ‘managers’ who act as prosecutors. The chief justice of the U.S. presides. A vote for impeachment at the end of the trial requires a two-third majority. The Republican majority in the Senate could use such a trial to bring disarray into the Democrats’ primary. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar and Michael Bennet are all senators and Democratic primary candidates. They would probably have to stop campaigning to attend the trials. Another leading Democratic candidate would be a top witness.

The Republican senators would immediately call up a number of people for questioning. These would include Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, his business partner Devon Archer, John Kerry who was Secretary of State when Biden intervened for Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky and of course the CIA spy and (not-)whistleblower Erik Ciaramella. It would also be of interest to hear how deep the former CIA director John Brennan was involved in the issue. The Senators could use the impeachment trial to dig into all the crimes the Democrats under Obama committed in Ukraine. They would concentrate not on the Maidan coup but on the aftermath when the deals were made. There surely is a lot of dirt out there and it is not only Joe Biden’s.

Read more …

Free speech.

The One Terrific Impeachment Defense The White House Is Not Making (DW)

As Texans will certainly remember, then-Governor Rick Perry was indicted in 2014 by a grand jury for abusing his official capacity when he threatened to withhold $7.5 million in funding for the Travis County district attorney’s Public Integrity Unit unless the district attorney, who had previously been convicted of drunk driving and subsequently incarcerated, resigned. Sounds a lot like a quid pro quo, no? At the time, the special prosecutor’s operative legal theory required that the First Amendment not protect a governmental actor’s right to threaten taking a lawful action in order to attain a preferred political outcome. If the special prosecutor were wrong, then Governor Perry’s attempted quid pro quo would hardly be illegal at all — it would actually be constitutionally protected speech.

At the time, powerful and ideologically diverse group of attorneys argued that the special prosecutor sought to criminalize constitutionally protected speech. The group included right-leaning legal luminaries such as law school professors Eugene Volokh and former Judge Michael McConnell, as well as former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey. The group also includes historically liberal-leaning First Amendment scholars, such as Floyd Abrams and Alan Dershowitz. The counsel of record on this notable amicus brief was then-private attorney James C. Ho — for whom, in the interest of full disclosure, I served as a law clerk upon his successful nomination as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The amicus brief argued that “[a] political official has the right to threaten to perform an official act in order to persuade another government official to engage in some other official act.” It continued: “That is not a crime — it is core political speech.” Governor Perry’s quid pro quo with respect to withholding funds from the Travis County district attorney’s Public Integrity Unit, the brief contended, “is protected free expression, and the [g]overnor cannot be prosecuted for it.” The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which is the Lone Star State’s highest court for criminal cases, agreed. “[P]ublic servants have a First Amendment right to engage in expression, even threats, regarding their official duties,” the Court held. “Many threats that … public servants make as part of the normal functioning of government” would be criminalized under the special prosecutor’s legal theory, the Court continued.

The Court’s rationale is not even remotely partisan or political; it is pure logic and common sense. Quid pro quos routinely happen in politics as a day-to-day reality of politics. Before issuing his DAPA executive amnesty, President Barack Obama consistently threatened to use his “pen and phone” if Congress did not take the legislative action he desired. Unruly congressmen often have their committee assignments threatened by committee chairmen if they fail to vote in accordance with congressional leadership’s desires. Heck, does anyone think that neither House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) nor Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) engages in dozens of quid pro quos on a weekly basis as a rudimentary requirement of executing their chamber-wide leadership jobs?

The Trump impeachment defense should adopt this line of argumentation. How on earth can the president of the United States be impeached for engaging in constitutionally protected speech? How on earth can the president’s deployment of constitutionally protected speech, in the context of foreign policy, amount to an “abuse or violation of some public trust” that merits impeachment less than one year away from a presidential election?

Read more …

Oh boy: “..we have a field of very accomplished, very serious and passionate and smart people..”

Obama Privately Said He Would Speak Up To Stop Sanders (Hill)

President Obama privately said he would speak up to stop Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) from becoming the Democratic presidential nominee, Politico reported Tuesday. The former president reportedly said if Sanders held a strong lead in the Democratic primary, he would speak out to prevent him from becoming the nominee. A close adviser to Obama told Politico he could not confirm whether Obama would stand up against Sanders. “He hasn’t said that directly to me,” the adviser said. “The only reason I’m hesitating at all is because, yeah, if Bernie were running away with it, I think maybe we would all have to say something. But I don’t think that’s likely. It’s not happening.”


An Obama spokesperson, when asked about his previous comments on Sanders, referred to the president’s past comments that he would back whomever became the Democratic nominee. “Look, we have a field of very accomplished, very serious and passionate and smart people who have a history of public service, and whoever emerges from the primary process I will work my tail off to make sure that they are the next president,” Obama said earlier this month, according to his spokesperson.

Read more …

This must be the weirdest poll graph I’ve ever seen.

MSNBC Doesn’t Try To Hide ‘Contempt’ Towards Gabbard (Hill)

Progressive journalist Michael Tracey claimed Tuesday that MSNBC is has dropped all pretenses for their “contempt” towards Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii). The political news contributor said the left-leaning network has treated her fellow 2020 Democratic candidates, including businessman Andrew Yang and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) unfairly, but he argued that with Gabbard it, “crosses a certain threshold.” “Fundamentally they’re beholden to whatever the market incentives are and right now it’s within their market interests to depict Tulsi as an infiltrator, as a Trojan horse in the Democratic Party and not deal on the substance with what she’s saying which is why over and over again they tar her as a Russian plant essentially,” Tracey told Hill.TV.


“There’s nobody who can really offer any kind of countervailing view because it’s just not economically advantageous for them at this point,” he added. Tracey pointed to a fiery exchange between Gabbard and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) during last week’s 2020 primary debate as a prime example. During the debate, Harris accused Gabbard of being a conservative media darling and consistently going on Fox News to bash President Obama during his tenure. “I think that it’s unfortunate that we have someone on this stage who is attempting to be the Democratic nominee for president of the United States, who, during the Obama administration, spent four years full-time on Fox News criticizing President Obama,” Harris said. Gabbard dismissed the criticism, calling it “ridiculous.”

Read more …

I think Hong Kong is a lot more than a “financial window”. It feels like China would be blind without it.

China Risks Losing Its Financial Window On The World (G.)

[..] although the leisure sector may have landed in the rough, the decision by the US Congress to pass the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act could represent a more significant long-term threat to the territory’s economic fortunes. The bill has infuriated Beijing as an “intervention” in its affairs but despite the delicate stage of US-China trade talks, Donald Trump is expected to sign the legislation because of its near-unanimous backing in Congress. The bill means the US would make an annual check that Hong Kong has sufficient autonomy from Beijing to qualify for the special US trading consideration that bolsters its status as a world financial centre. It also gives officials the power to levy sanctions against officials responsible for human rights violations in Hong Kong.

A second bill, which the Senate also approved unanimously on Tuesday, would ban the export of certain crowd-control munitions to Hong Kong authorities. George Magnus, the former chief economist of the investment bank UBS and now an associate of the London School of Economics’s IDEAS thinktank, said the legislation was potentially damaging for China. “Hong Kong is China’s financial window on the world, and vice versa. The territory lends China capital, clout and kudos. All of this is now at risk.” The consultancy Capital Economics said the bills highlighted a growing feeling that Hong Kong’s autonomy was “deteriorating” and could persuade some firms to look for new accommodation in east Asia. “The bill itself would not directly reduce the territory’s international status unless other countries follow suit,” Capital said this week.


“But it could lead the large number of foreign firms operating in the city to increasingly focus their energy on other Asian financial centres with less uncertain outlooks.” [..] with most experts agreed that Beijing will not back down and allow Carrie Lam’s government to give concessions to the pro-democracy groups, it is hard to see how the situation can be resolved quickly and pull the economy back from a disastrous, prolonged recession. Dan Harris, a lawyer at the Seattle firm of Harris Bricken who has done business in the region for decades, says the ongoing protests mean Hong Kong as an international financial centre is “no more”. “It’s finished as an international business centre because it was based on trust, safety and the rule of law and that’s all gone. Companies are looking to leave. No one is thinking of moving in,” he said.

Read more …

There are bank runs, small ones for now.

More Than Half Of China’s Banks Fail Central Bank Stress Test (ZH)

[..] with less income from lending and without the full suite of funding options available to much larger peers, the interest rates that China’s legion of small banks may have to offer to attract deposits could further undermine their stability. The irony is that to preserve their critical deposit base, small banks have to hike deposit rates even higher to stand out, in the process sapping their own lifeblood and ensuring their self-destruction, or as we dubbed it earlier, China’s own version of Europe’s “doom loop.” Dai Zhifeng, a banking analyst with Zhongtai Securities, told Reuters the funding difficulties risked distorting small banks’ behavior, making failure even more likely: “Lacking core competitiveness, some of them have turned to high-risk, short-sighted operations,” he said, adding that a liquidity crunch was possible at some institutions.


But for a nation with a $40 trillion financial system, double the size of US banks, and well over 4,000 small, medium and massive, state-owned banks, here please recall that the 4 largest banks in the world are now Chinese:• ICBC: $4TN • China Construction: $3.4TN • Agri Bank of China: $3.3TN • Bank of China: $3.1TN … the question how many banks will fail in the near future, is especially relevant not only for China but for the entire world. Luckily, we got an answer from none other than China’s central bank, which on Monday said that China’s banking sector is “showing signs of strain”, with more than 13% of 4,379 lenders now considered “high risk” by the central bank. In other words, take the 5 banks listed above which either suffered a bank run and/or were bailed out or nationalized, and add to them over 500 which are about to suffer the same fate.

Read more …

Full control of the process is the only thing the FAA could do. They are co-responsible for the entire crisis.

Boeing’s Problems Mount As FAA Vows To Ramp Up 737 MAX Oversight (BI)

The FAA said on Tuesday that it planned to exercise full control over all aspects of certification of Boeing’s 737 Max, even once the plane returns to commercial service. Relatively routine activities, such as certifying individual airplanes as they roll off the production line — as opposed to certifying the overall type of plane — will be performed by FAA officials, an agency spokesperson told Business Insider. Normally, routine day-to-day activities like certifying individual planes of an already certified type — the issuing of Airworthiness Certificates — which are among the final phases of the manufacturing process, are delegated to the planemaker.

Additionally, the likelihood of the plane being cleared to fly in 2019 was cast into further doubt, as was the possibility of Boeing resuming deliveries of completed planes to airline customers before the plane was fully cleared to reenter commercial service, according to The Air Current, an aviation industry publication. Boeing had stated earlier this month that it expected to resume deliveries in December, and for the plane to be fully cleared to fly again in January. However, it was not clear whether airline customers would accept delivery of the plane while it was not allowed to carry passengers.


“The FAA notified Boeing today that the agency will retain authority over the issuance of Airworthiness Certificates for all newly manufactured 737 MAX aircraft,” the FAA said in a statement. “This action is in line with Administrator Steve Dickson’s commitment that the agency fully controls the approval process for the aircraft’s safe return to service.” [..] “The FAA has not completed its review of the 737 MAX aircraft design changes and associated pilot training. The agency will not approve the aircraft for return to service until it has completed numerous rounds of rigorous testing. The FAA will take all the time it needs,” the agency added.

Read more …

NATO is a monster that has taken on a life of its own because of arms manufacturers.

Is Macron Right? Is NATO, 70, Brain Dead? (Buchanan)

During the Cold War, NATO enjoyed the widespread support of Americans and Europeans, and understandably so. The USSR had 20 divisions in Germany, surrounded West Berlin, and occupied the east bank of the Elbe, within striking distance of the Rhine. But that Cold War is long over. Berlin is the united free capital of Germany. The Warsaw Pact has been dissolved. Its member states have all joined NATO. The Soviet Union split apart into 15 nations. Communist Yugoslavia splintered into seven nations. As a fighting faith, communism is dead in Europe. Why then are we Americans still over there?

Since the Cold War, we have doubled the size of NATO. We have brought in the Baltic republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania but not Finland or Sweden. We have committed ourselves to fight for Slovenia, Croatia, Albania and Montenegro but not Serbia, Bosnia or North Macedonia. Romania and Bulgaria are NATO allies but not Moldova or Belarus. George W. Bush kept us out of the 2008 Russia-Georgia clash over South Ossetia and Abkhazia. And Barack Obama refused to send lethal aid to help Ukraine retrieve Crimea, Luhansk or Donetsk, though Sen. John McCain wanted the United States to jump into both fights. In the House Intel Committee’s impeachment hearings, foreign service officers spoke of “Russian aggression” against our Ukrainian “ally” and our “national security” being in peril in this fight.


But when did Ukraine become an ally of the United States whose territorial wars we must sustain with military aid if not military intervention? When did Kyiv’s control of Crimea and the Donbass become critical to the national security of the United States, when Russia has controlled Ukraine almost without interruption from Catherine the Great in the 18th century to Mikhail Gorbachev in the late 20th century? Among the reasons Trump is president is that he raised provocative questions about NATO and Russia left unaddressed for three decades, as U.S. policy has been on cruise control since the Cold War. And these unanswered questions are deadly serious ones.

Read more …

Yes, it takes a group of Germans to probe how Americans fell for Browder. And for their own Deep State, which used the story because RussiaRussia.

Questions Cloud Story Behind Browder, Magnitsky (Spiegel)

There are two versions of what happened to Magnitsky. The more well-known version has all the makings of a conspiracy thriller. It’s been repeated in thousands of articles, TV interviews and in parliamentary hearings. In this version of the story, the man from the Moscow cemetery fought nobly against a corrupt system and was murdered for it. The other version is more complicated. In it, nobody is a hero. The first version has had geopolitical implications. In 2012, the United States passed the Magnitsky Act, which imposed sanctions against Russian officials who were believed to have played a role in his death. The measure was signed into law by then-President Barack Obama after receiving a broad bipartisan majority.

Back then, if there was one thing that politicians on both sides of the aisle could agree on, it was their opposition to a nefarious Russian state. In 2017, Congress passed the Global Magnitsky Act, which enabled the U.S. to impose sanctions against Russia for human rights violations worldwide. The facilitator behind these pieces of legislation is Bill Browder, Magnitsky’s former boss in Moscow. “When he was put to the ultimate test, he became the ultimate hero,” Browder says of Magnitsky. Browder was born in the U.S.. For years, his company, Hermitage Capital Management, was one of the largest foreign investors in Russia. At the time, Browder was an advocate for Russian President Vladimir Putin in the West. That is, until he was prohibited from entering Russia in 2005.

[..] Browder tells a gripping story of how Magnitsky, the whistleblower, is believed to have died. This narrative is his ticket into the political sphere. It’s why he’s received by members of parliament, diplomats and human rights activists alike, often with open arms. They support his push for more legislation because they see it as setting an important precedent: Corrupt regimes all over the world that are violating their citizens’ rights must be held accountable and made to suffer consequences in the form of entry bans and frozen accounts as laid out by the Global Magnitsky Act. The law makes it more difficult, if only slightly, for autocrats to sneer at and ignore human rights.

But there’s another version of the Magnitsky saga, one that is more contradictory than Browder’s telling and more difficult to summarize. The legal documents that underpin it fill dozens of binders, not only in Moscow, but also in London and New York. After sifting through thousands of pages, one might begin to wonder: Did the perfidious conspiracy to murder Magnitsky ever really take place? Or is Browder a charlatan whose story the West was too eager to believe?

Read more …

Now dig into Bellingcat’s role in MH17.

Narrative Managers Faceplant In Hilarious OPCW Scandal Spin Job (CJ)

Before we begin I should highlight that Bellingcat is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy, which according to its own cofounder was set up to do overtly what the CIA had previously been doing covertly, namely orchestrating narrative management geared toward the elimination of governments which refuse to comply with US interests. NED is funded directly by the US government, which means that Bellingcat is funded by the US government via an organization set up to promote imperialist regime change agendas. Bellingcat is also funded by Open Society Foundations, another imperialist narrative management operation.

[..] Bellingcat’s latest phenomenal report on how you’re supposed to think about important geopolitical disputes, titled “Emails And Reading Comprehension: OPCW Douma Coverage Misses Crucial Facts”, addresses the leaked OPCW email which was recently published by WikiLeaks and various other outlets revealing that the OPCW omitted crucial information from its Douma report which indicated that a chemical weapons attack was unlikely to have occurred. I encourage you to go and check out Bellingcat’s new masterpiece for yourself. Don’t worry about giving them clicks; that’s not where they get their money.

The first thing you’ll notice about Bellingcat’s article is that at no point does it even attempt to address the actual inflammatory comments within it, such as the OPCW whistleblower’s assertion that the samples tested where a chlorine gas attack is alleged to have occurred in April 2018 contained levels of chlorinated organic compounds which were so low that it would be unreasonable to claim with any confidence that a chlorine gas attack had occurred at all. The whistleblower writes in the leaked email to the OPCW cabinet chief that the levels “were, in most cases, present only in parts per billion range, as low as 1–2 ppb, which is essentially trace quantities.”

As we discussed previously, early skeptics of the establishment Douma narrative highlighted the bizarre fact that when the OPCW published its Interim Report in July of last year its report contained no information about the levels at which the chlorinated organic chemicals occurred. Chlorinated organic chemicals occur at trace levels in any industrialized area, so they are only indicative of a chlorine gas attack when samples test at high levels. The email said they didn’t. The OPCW omitted this in both its Interim and Final Reports. The whistleblower told journalist Jonathan Steele that the levels found “were comparable to and even lower than those given in the World Health Organisation’s guidelines on recommended permitted levels of trichlorophenol and other COCs in drinking water.”

Read more …

You go George.

A Tale of Prince Andrew and Julian Assange (George Galloway)

The grand old Duke of York sleeps tonight on a feather pillow in a royal palace. Julian Assange, the publisher of the century sleeps in the hell of Belmarsh Prison, Britain’s own Guantanamo Bay. The Duke of York lied about the length duration and nature of his relationship with the presumed deceased child-sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Julian Assange told the truth about the high crimes and misdemeanours of the rich and powerful during times of war and peace. The FBI need to speak to the Queen’s favorite son, but no power on earth will be deployed to make him testify about what he might have seen, or even have participated in, at the townhouse in Manhattan, a Sodom and Gomorrah of our times.

The same US Justice system has caused the cruel incarceration of Assange and his Kafkaesque entrapment in an extradition saga which may last for years – if he doesn’t die before it is over as no less than 60 doctors have recently warned he may well do. The US-UK extradition arrangements may be the most unequal treaty ever concluded by Her Majesty’s ministers. In this case the former Blair government Home Secretary David Blunkett, a blind man who could, nonetheless, see exactly what he was doing. In essence extradition from Britain to the US became virtually on request without the slightest need to show just cause. But not vice versa. It would be easier to pull a camel through the eye of a needle than for Britain to extradite a US citizen to face justice in the UK.

I was a member of the British Parliament at the time this treaty was signed. Not that this mattered a jot or tittle. The Treaty was signed during the Summer Recess when no Parliament was sitting and through the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. Only when it was already in operation was I even able to oppose the extradition of its first victims – alleged City of London financial fraudsters, as well as a fitted-up “terrorist” London man Babar Ahmad. Under the old extradition rules neither case could have satisfied the previous requirement to produce prima facia evidence sufficient to persuade a British judge. Under the new Treaty it was easy peasy lemon squeezy. And off they went.

Prince Andrew will face no such ordeal albeit now banished from Royal Circles and effectively reduced to the ranks, his epaulettes ripped off his glittering array of obscure medals turned to scrap metal on his tunic. Although accused of sexual abuse of a teenager and with an admitted close relationship to the alleged procurer of underage female victims, Ghislaine Maxwell, in whose London home it is alleged one of the sexual encounters took place – the US will never require the Prince to give evidence and the UK will never offer him up. Assange, who was falsely accused of rape, has spent virtually the last decade locked up in one form or other of incarceration. And faces up to 175 years of prison time, if successfully extradited.

It is a tale of two cities – Buckingham Palace and Belmarsh Maximum Security Prison. A tale of two individuals – one now a proven liar and one a well attested truth-teller. A tale of two fates. The Prince who became a moral pauper, the other an impecunious journalist who became a moral giant. It is a tale of our times.

Read more …

 

 

 

Please support the Automatic Earth on Paypal and Patreon so we can continue to publish.

Top of the page, left and right sidebars. Thank you.

 

 

 

Home Forums Debt Rattle November 27 2019

This topic contains 13 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by  Maxwell Quest 2 weeks, 4 days ago.

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #51748

    Margaret Bourke-White Beach Accident, Coney Island, Brooklyn, NY 1951   • The House Will Not Vote On Impeachment. It Will Censure Trump (MoA) • T
    [See the full post at: Debt Rattle November 27 2019]

    #51749

    V. Arnold
    Participant

    Margaret Bourke-White Beach Accident, Coney Island, Brooklyn, NY 1951
    That’s quite a shot; I wonder how she got it…

    I just can’t give a shit about the rest; I’ve already kissed off the U.S. government as corrupt, incompetent, and irrelevant…
    The world moves on…
    Minus the U.S., the future is potentially very interesting…

    #51751

    boscohorowitz
    Participant

    “I just can’t give a shit about the rest; I’ve already kissed off the U.S. government as corrupt, incompetent, and irrelevant…
    The world moves on…
    Minus the U.S., the future is potentially very interesting…”

    #51752

    boscohorowitz
    Participant

    “I think Hong Kong is a lot more than a “financial window”. It feels like China would be blind without it.
    ***
    “China Risks Losing Its Financial Window On The World (G.)”

    China fooled itself thinking it could use markets, which work, and graft Western-style central banking (i.e. fiat fiscal fantasy) on one side and central command economy capitalism (i.e. fascism) on the other. But then, China has been a copycat nation for several centuries after exhausting itself on history’s longest and most exhilarating run among the race of civilizations.

    I suspect that, just about the time China is set to become the new global dominatrix, it will collapse into internal squabbling yet again, leaving Russia and whomever to take over management of things like the Silk Road to some extent while China beats itself purple and red.

    ***

    USA? Don’t be surprised if we get HiroNagasaki’d. A preemptive strike that our radars totally fail to detect. Combined with equally deft surgical removal of critical USA grid sectors. America can’t even get its airliners and space rocket engines to work, while Russia is doing that old Cold War space/arms-race things as well today as it did back in the Bad Old Days of Khrushchev and Brezhnev of the forested eyebrows.

    I don’t think anyone wants much to do with us other than gently deflate our economy so as not to deflate their exposure to our economy too fast, while making sure that whatever military madness we unleash (how can we not? we’re homo saps) remains domestic or at least continental. Altho I suspect Canada and Russia will be making nicey-nicey real soon, since they share a common bonanza: the thawing tundra and Arctic Ocean.

    USA? We’ll be left to suffer the worst we have to offer, to ourselves, by ourselves. If we’re lucky. Otherwise we’ll suffer that and the worst others have to offer us also.

    One thing is obvious: we ain’t gonna win. We ain’t gonna win much of nothing. Hell, we can’t even convict a notorious crook (Trump) and serial rapist (Trump) from the White House cuz everyone who would impeach him is also a crook and serial rapist.

    #51753

    boscohorowitz
    Participant

    You know Donald’s gotta hate that teleprompter effects in the lyrics display. 😉

    #51754

    Dr. D
    Participant

    Plan: I’m starting a new business with no taxes, no labor costs, and a multi-million dollar AA credit line. If it goes badly, I have no risk and don’t lose anything. Think I can compete vs. Joe Publix?

    Already hearing Bloomberg’s ads. He says he’s going to raise taxes on himself and all his friends and he’s a sharp businessman because he sells news coverage favors to fellow insiders and has run a protected monopoly for 40 years. Sounds legit. Do I exaggerate? Although he already has a policy Bloomberg Co. cannot investigate and expose fellow news organizations – on par with industry collusion and anti-trust violation – his first act as a candidate was to outlaw all investigations into himself. …But I’m sure he’s super-clean and did that ahead of time as his first official act for no reason whatsoever.

    Here’s an idea: should Pelosi even call for a mock impeachment vote at this point, every single House Republican should vote FOR it. …Then they can have a real, legal trial in the Senate and get some of this on record, under oath, and finally settled. Since they started and wanted this, it would be hilarious. What would they say? No, DON’T impeach him? We don’t WANT a trial to remove him?

    …Sooooooo, no vote will be allowed then? (A: no. Another fail. It may also end their obstruction into legitimate investigations of all of them.)

    “The One Terrific Impeachment Defense The White House Is Not Making (DW)”

    He’s not making this argument because it would undermine his case when he brings Biden and Co. up on Quid pro Quo bribery charges concerning the worldwide video of him firing the special prosecutor. Committing a felony is not protected speech by the way. You can’t attempt to bribe, incite to riot, or say, issue orders for a murder and claim innocent free speech. This is very, very old law.

    “Is Macron Right? Is NATO, 70, Brain Dead? (Buchanan)”

    Beyond that I would never agree with Macron, NATO is not brain dead at all. It’s doing exactly what it’s designed to do: cut apart and conquer Russia, and following by pieces, the world. And put it under whose control? And when that clear, everyday, desire is accomplished, would we not have a world unified under NATO, the West, and a few billionaires with access to the control levers? Is that not a one-world government, with a one-world taxing and surveillance structure, as written of in their papers? And since they are doing these attacks with vicious efficiency, both economically and militarily, do we not have a government that is in the middle of a world war trying to take over the planet, say, in Hong Kong, and that government, that system, that army, is us? NATO is in 28 nations and their live-fire military invasions span half the planet. We’ve helped kill 30,000 civilians in just the last few years. What other conclusion could you come to? It’s doing what it’s supposed to, what they’ve written about for 100 years, if only you’d read their biographies and hundreds of PAC filings. And from how the billionaire lever-pullers treat their own people in Paris or Flint, you know what their plans are once they succeed: total destruction and complete peasantry and penury for their own people.

    But hey, let’s fund them while the kids of Flint drink out of a pond.

    “Questions Cloud Story Behind Browder, Magnitsky (Spiegel)”

    That was decades ago, what brings this up? Somebody up to something?

    “Narrative Managers Faceplant in Hilarious OPCW Scandal Spin Job (CJ)”

    Don’t worry: Phillip Cross will have edited Wikipedia 500x a day over the holiday break to make sure the official OPCW reality is ‘just right.’ Bellingcat, living in his basement in Scotland, is an “on the ground expert” in the whole thing, and his tweets set national policy by which we missile-strike empty airbases 100x. Cue the circus music.

    “A Tale of Prince Andrew and Julian Assange (George Galloway)”

    I guess we should have seen this coming, when Britain’s greatest known pedophile (and that’s saying something!) Jimmy Seville, was a great guest of the palace and best friends with the royals. To bring it up to today, he was to be the Godfather of William and Harry and be nice and close to them, every day. After his 50-year reign of terror on British children was exposed, well, THEN … the Royal family did nothing. Didn’t even apologize or distance themselves from it. And why would they? Andrew was right there, just like Sir Edward Heath, and well-rumored Prince Phillip before him. It’s a tradition, a national institution, even. Droight de Signeur, only over the whole nation, any time, place, gender, or age, much worse than just wedding nights. …But not to pick on the Royals, since the person at the center of only-this-latest-scandal-and-outing was by citizenship an American with endless American customers that include most of our mayors, governors, and Presidents. People’s reaction? Yawn. “What else is new?” Well, since my daughter is already selling herself on “SugarDaddies.com” to pay for college, what’s the harm? What’s really right or wrong?” As the (non)Pope would say, “Who am I to say?” There’s no right or wrong, and no heaven or hell, it’s just a thing humans make up, so Party On, Andy!

    But don’t worry, Andrew of Jeffie will take a fancy to you in the men’s bathroom at the Carleton-Ritz, and then You’re Next. You didn’t mind when it was someone else, why cry now?

    As with Assange. You didn’t care when it was him in prison, so who do you think will cry when it’s you they pick up and hold indefinitely on faketotal lack of current charges?

    Ah but we space-age people are so much more morally advanced and progressive than our medieval ancestors. We do rape, slavery, murder, with 21st century efficiency. Ah for the old days when they had to actually send down one of only a few knights on horseback that would take 6 weeks before he’d bully, imprison you, and rape your daughter for no good reason. Now like Dominoes, they can do it in 30 minutes or less. True progress.

    #51755

    Dr. D
    Participant

    Oh noes! The Russians are trying to make us happy:

    That Uplifting Tweet You Just Shared? A Russian Troll Sent It

    That Uplifting Tweet You Just Shared? A Russian Troll Sent It

    How dare they make us happy and uplifting? That’s plumb un-American!

    Russia

    #51756

    zerosum
    Participant

    The theme for today, is the same as what V. Arnold has been telling us.
    Life can be better than living in the USA

    “I just can’t give a shit about the rest; I’ve already kissed off the U.S. government as corrupt, incompetent, and irrelevant…
    The world moves on…
    Minus the U.S., the future is potentially very interesting…”

    #51758

    Maxwell Quest
    Participant

    “Obama Privately Said He Would Speak Up To Stop Sanders (Hill)”

    “It’s time to hold the big banks accountable to the people they serve.”
    “We will have the most transparent administration in history.”
    “We will bring the troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq.”
    “The Affordable Care Act will lower health care costs.”

    Does anyone really listen to that turkey anymore?

    “Narrative Managers Faceplant In Hilarious OPCW Scandal Spin Job (CJ)”

    Lt. Frank Drummond (The Naked Gun)

    #51760

    John Day
    Participant

    I have considerable overlap today, but I’ve gotta’ run with “Barkie Hates Bernie”. Thanks Ilargi et.al.
    http://www.johndayblog.com/2019/11/blessings.html
    Today, almost every Democratic presidential campaign starts with what one close adviser to Barack Obama calls “The Pilgrimage”: the journey to the West End to meet the former president.
    It’s like kissing The Pope’s Ring. Barkie never had Tulsi over for a luau. Where’s the Aloha?
    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/11/26/barack-obama-2020-democrats-candidates-biden-073025

    Barkie Hates Bernie:
    Word is out that Obama would have come out to publicly detest Sanders, if he got too high in early primary polling.
    https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/11/obama-privately-considered-leading-stop-bernie-campaign-to-combat-sanders-2020-surge-report.html

    Progressive journalist: MSNBC doesn’t try to hide ‘contempt’ towards Gabbard
    ​ ​Progressive journalist Michael Tracey claimed Tuesday that MSNBC is has dropped all pretenses for their “contempt” towards Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii).
    ​ ​The political news contributor said the left-leaning network has treated her fellow 2020 Democratic candidates, including businessman Andrew Yang and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) unfairly, but he argued that with Gabbard it, “crosses a certain threshold.”
    ​ ​“Fundamentally they’re beholden to whatever the market incentives are and right now it’s within their market interests to depict Tulsi as an infiltrator, as a Trojan horse in the Democratic Party and not deal on the substance with what she’s saying which is why over and over again they tar her as a Russian plant essentially​.​”
    https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/472056-progressive-journalist-msnbc-doesnt-try-to-hide-contempt-towards-gabbard

    Our Girl, Helen of DesTroy​ via Russia Today, a journalistic niche she found:​
    ​ ​Professional journalists are losing touch with the moral code that once galvanized the profession, a new study shows. But what truth-slinger wouldn’t be having an existential crisis in an industry where facts no longer matter? ​…​
    ​ ​Punishing good work while reporting bad has drained journalism not just of morality but credibility. While some might be tempted to blame the industry’s fall from ethical grace on President Donald Trump’s voluble scorn for the press as the “enemy of the people,” the disintegration of the profession’s moral center has been underway for years. The constant “disruption” of the journalism industry over just the last 13 years saw online media kill off newspapers, the 24-hour news cycle take over TV, and ad sales vanish, sucked up by the Google-Facebook industrial complex.
    ​ ​To survive this shifting landscape, as the morality study explains, journalists have had to adapt, leaving their identities in flux. A well-developed sense of professional ethics can be a liability in a newsroom where writers are pressured to deliver clicks by any means necessary. In upside-down-world “news” where speed, novelty and ideological fealty are more important than truth, morality all but disqualifies one to be a journalist.https://www.rt.com/op-ed/474033-journalists-moral-compass-fake-news/

    #51761

    Maxwell, a tweet is not the same thing as an image. But fixed.

    #51762

    Dr. D
    Participant

    Except that’s not the reason: reporters like Tim Pool and others can raise millions without too much trouble. Clearly there’s a market for actual news, and Fox, for instance, makes money by leaning Right; Right-leaning YouTube is exploding in popularity: there’s mega-money there too. So all these journalists, these supposed grifters-for-hire refuse to click what WOULD make them money while HuffPo closes and their industry literally dies? No, they are political agitators and religous zealots, as has been said for almost 200 years now, Socialism, but also it’s brothers Humanism, Atheism, Secular-Materialism, are essentially a replacement religion, for humans must have a god. God as the State. But no one wants you hear your personal religious evangelizing in a news article. Give us the facts.

    As for this mythical “Journalism”, I turn you to the Pulitzer Prize, where Mr. Pulitzer said of lying to trick the U.S. into an unjust war of empire and aggression “Give me the photos and I’ll give you the war.” “Remember the Maine!” (Plymouth Rock, and the Golden Rule!) He delivered.

    In a college journalism lecture from the 80’s, a professor ALREADY lamented that he’d been driven out by the “What’s right is to print the news that gets the POLITICAL results I want” crowd, and such lying was already enshrined as good journalism in the textbooks years before 1990 and CNN. That and that the AP wire in the late 80s had no standards, anybody with a buck could tap in, PR firms, The Pentagon, and post any news article they wanted as literal, published “fact.” That wasn’t the bad part. The bad part was the stories were below 6th-grade level and you couldn’t tell, without calling the source and asking all over again (which they did back then), “What the heck happened? In paragraph 4, who did what to whom? Do you mean he died or his car died? By ‘Him’ do you mean person A or person B?” and so on. Mostly they didn’t call, or you assumed incorrectly with the best intentions. Oh, and there was already a lack or failing of whiskey-swilling hard-boiled copy editors that would smack you silly if you tried to print that garbage.

    That was 30 years ago, and I THINK perhaps things have gotten less accurate since then. So there was no “Golden Age.” It was the golden age of us starting illegal wars because everyone incorrectly thought having no morals but to get your way was the Highest Good™, that the other guy was doing his job, and so believed the most astounding nonsense, even after reading the Church Report among many other scandals, like when Dateline? 60 Minutes? put explosives into that car to make sure the gas tanks blew up? When CNN was caught on the Green Screen in Iraq I? When Rockefeller went before a room of NY journalists and said, “I’d like to thank you for covering for us, we couldn’t’ve done it without you”? Nope, no clues were had.

    It was never true. So look out for all the embedded knowledge you’ve inherited before 2010, every New York Times, Reader’s Digest, Newsweek, the textbooks you read since 1964, all total bulls–t. Yet that is how the structure of our mind were created to integrate the information we are receiving today. No wonder we’re going insane. The answer is super-simple: They’re LYING to you. Say it again until you finally believe it.

    “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false” — CIA Director Casey, 1981

    There is a class war. As Warren Buffet said: they won, because “none but ourselves can free our minds.” Redemption. Redemption Song.

    #51766

    zerosum
    Participant

    @Dr. D
    Before the web, I was at peace in my ignorance

    #51767

    Maxwell Quest
    Participant

    Thanks for the admin help, Ilargi. Was in a hurry this morning and got sloppy.

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.