On ABC’s “Good Morning America,” FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver predicted that Hillary Clinton will win the presidential election against Donald Trump. Clinton has a 79 percent chance of winning, compared with Trump’s 20 percent, according to FiveThirtyEight’s forecast. -ABC
Nate Silver is back at it, predicting a Trump defeat. The most famous pollster in America was wrong about Trump numerous times during Trump’s rise to the GOP nomination.
Each time, Silver would predict that Trump was about to fade. But instead Trump would surge.
You would think he’d have learned. Instead, on ABC, he said this:
“We’re at halftime of the election right now,” Silver said. “She’s taking a 7-point, maybe a 10-point lead into halftime. There’s a lot of football left to be played. She’s ahead in almost every poll, every swing state, every national poll.”
Does Silver really believe what he’s predicting?
Certainly he’s been successful in the past. In 2008 he correctly picked the presidential winner in 49 and in 2012 he picked all 50 correctly.
But Trump is touching a nerve that other modern presidential candidates missed.
And Silver seems to have missed this.
Trump, a nationalist or populist, preaches a message of freedom and prosperity.
This is anathema to corporatists like Silver who seem to believe that government should be in control and that prosperity is not necessary when government can hand out the necessary checks.
In fact, according to Rasmussen, Trump surged in the polls not long after Silver made yet another incorrect prediction. Now, for the first time, Trump leads Hillary nationwide.
After trailing Hillary Clinton by five points for the prior two weeks, Donald Trump has now taken a four-point lead. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Trump with 43% of the vote, while Clinton earns 39%. Twelve percent (12%) still like another candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided.
So Silver was wrong again and in fact has never been right.
Like many others functioning in America’s corporate culture, he finds Trump threatening.
We find some of Trump’s statements and positions confusing.
On the other hand, the people he is offending richly deserve to be offended.
That is all to the good.
People like Silver clearly cannot conceive a freer and more just society driven by personal liberty and respect for the individual.
Silver is so indoctrinated by the current system that he is like a fish that does not recognize the water it is swimming in.
Perhaps now that Trump is in the lead, Silver will once more adjust his methodology.
Conclusion: But chances are he is so frightened (and offended), that he would rather be wrong about Hillary than right about Trump. We’ve seen this with others. In fact, top GOPers are walking away from the part to endorse Hilary. They would rather destroy the GOP than support Trump. And Silver is so uncomfortable with Trump that he is letting his business fail.
ECB’s Mario Draghi Urges Central Banks to Align Monetary Policy … ECB chief warns against competitive currency devaluations Speaking at a European Central Bank conference in Portugal, ECB President Mario Draghi says divergent monetary policies among major central banks can create uncertainty about their policy intentions.-Wall Street Journal
How is it that people have been put in jail for conspiring to create monopolies but central banks are exempt?
Here comes Draghi demanding that central banks act together around the world in a disciplined and forceful way. Surely this would create vast economics movements that over time that would result in an enormous snap-back in the other direction.
Central banks have monopoly privileges and only become more powerful when they act in concert.
Because of monopoly privileges, the market itself cannot constrain them. This is what Draghi wants.
Speaking at a European Central Bank conference in Portugal … Mr. Draghi said central banks should think about whether their policies are “properly aligned” with those of their peers. He warned that currency devaluations aimed at boosting competitiveness are a “lose-lose” for the global economy.”
“In a globalized world, the global policy mix matters—and will likely matter more as our economies become more integrated,” Mr. Draghi said. “The speed with which monetary policy can achieve domestic goals inevitably becomes more dependent on others.”
Government exists without competition just as modern central banks exist without internal competition. When they work together, they can create enormous economic distortions.
The remarks indicate a “definite shift” in Mr. Draghi’s thinking, said Frederik Ducrozet, senior economist with Banque Pictet & Cie SA in Geneva. “It suggests that the ECB is increasingly concerned about those ‘global factors’ driving inflation that they cannot directly influence,” Mr. Ducrozet said.
Draghi wants total control over worldwide money printing. He is worried that too much currency creation will create conditions in which price inflation will flourish.
He is even concerned with the Brexit vote according to the article, which is stripping him of some power to coordinate with the Bank of England.
Of course, the Bank for International Settlements tries to coordinate as well, but presumably Draghi wants something even more aggressive.
The more that central banks act in a concerted way, the more they can move the world’s economy in a single direction. This is what Draghi wants.
Conclusion: Economies are already unbalanced from decades of central banking manipulation. The next swing could be the most violent of all. It could literally destroy economies around the world. Of course, by then Draghi may have left his post. It will be someone else’s problem: yours and ours.
Trump Dares Corporate America to Leave the GOP … The speech Trump delivered in Pennsylvania on Tuesday, attacking globalization and trade, will provide more cause for panic among Republican elites. –Bloomberg opinion
This article disparages Trump’s appeal and suggests that large corporations might leave the GOP.
That’s a direct result of Trump, of course. In his speech Tuesday, he blasted globalization in such stark terms that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce took to social media to counter him in real time.
Good for Trump. Let ‘em leave.
Corporations shouldn’t exist in the size and quantity they do in.
We’ve written numerous times that corporations are the result of judicial force.
The free market would never create such incompetent, multinational corporations. A truly free market would put them out of business quickly.
America’s vast corporations are the product of an authoritarian state that has reduced freedom generation after generation at least since the Civil War.
Thomas Jefferson and the founders were so worried about corporate power that they left the supervision of corporations up to the states. They refused to give that power to fedgov.
And purposefully, the states did little to facilitate corporate power.
Only after the bank-run industrial North had won the Civil War, did corporations begin to amass power.
In the late 1800s, they received corporal status and then were further boosted by the creation of the Federal Reserve, the consolidated stock market and, eventually, evermore stringent intellectual property rights.
In every case, the market would never have granted corporations the privileges that the courts bestowed.
Large corporations are in many ways an extension of government and a signal that the market doesn’t function correctly and that the government is protecting a few at the expense of the many.
The editorial calls corporations “[the only] powerful moderating influence left in the party. But then writes that, “Some corporations are now getting spooked.
Trump hasn’t just elevated the party’s crudest instincts. He is alienating its most sober components, and posing a direct challenge to corporate Republicans with his improvisational populism.
Actually, it’s great that Trump is challenging the “corporate agenda.” And while the article concludes with a question – “Extremism didn’t drive corporations out of the GOP. Could Trump?” – we’d make the case that US would be far better off without these behemoths.
In fact, the US ought to get rid of monopoly fiat money, which creates vast businesses cycles that benefit the very largest corporations, and “intellectual property rights” that enhance the competitive stature of only a very few corporations. The explosion of prosperity and freedom would be noticeable.
Conclusion: Trump is on the right track when it comes to corporatism. If he manages to reduce corporate influence over the GOP, that would be a valuable achievement.
Trump slams globalization, promises to upend economic status quo … Donald Trump on Tuesday trashed U.S. trade policies that he said have encouraged globalization and wiped out American manufacturing jobs in a speech in which he promised to herald a U.S. economic resurgence. -CNN
We recently identified a growing global meme as one that is now pitting “populists” against “globalists.”
There has been, in fact, a populist consolidation with the passage of Brexit.
Trump represents populism in the US and Brexit presents a similar profile across the pond.
Trump has been identified as a “nationalist” because of his crusade to “Make America Great Again.”
But essentially, his positions are populist ones. While Hillary champions ways of making the system work more powerfully on behalf the poor and working class, Trump is apt to emphasize areas where he intends to confront the “system.”
Speaking in the Rust Belt Pennsylvania as a change agent who would bring back manufacturing jobs and end the “rigged system,” … Trump promised sweeping changes if elected — including killing the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal and renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement.
… “Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very, very wealthy. I used to be one of them. Hate to say it, but I used to be one of them.”
Trump’s speech casts Clinton as an insider who has “voted for virtually every trade agreement” – making the point that these trade deals have hurt average citizens.
He received almost immediate pushback for his speech from the US Chamber of Commerce, traditionally a GOP ally.
The lobbying group stated that Trump’s approach would lead to a “recession” – though why the Chamber doesn’t believe the US is in a recession now is unclear.
A helpful feedbacker recently introduced us to an alternative view of globalist strategies. This perspective is that current “freedom movements” advancing in the West and elsewhere are being supported by internationalists in order to splinter nation-states.
Trump’s populism fits right into this speculation.
The idea, enunciated in the writings of David Rockefeller back in the 1950s, is that smaller states are easier to control. Within this context, Trump can be seen as the eventual victor in US elections because his policies are anti-globalist as well as populist.
In the past, we’ve indicated that Trump may inadvertently spark a resurgence of interest in the North American Union. Indeed that may be taking place as various Hispanic groups increasingly make common cause to confront Trump’s supposed racism.
But this fits into the larger hypothesis if the overall strategy is to build up large systems before splintering them apart.
From this standpoint the European Union was built to fail, and indeed it seems to be failing now.
Perhaps the North American Union will be erected with the same goal in mind.
Conclusion: Using this yardstick, Trump would end up the winner of the upcoming presidential election because of his populist approach and support for a federal government that has less centralized power rather than more. Certainly Trump is no globalist as compared to Hillary but perhaps his platform is in keeping with larger elite strategies. It would indeed be ironic if Trump’s message of America First facilitated a splintering of the union.
From Julia Gillard to Hillary Clinton: online abuse of politicians around the world … Analysis of abuse of politicians in the US, UK and Australia sheds light on a problem often dismissed as par for the course. Former Australian prime minister Julia Gillard (left) and US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton have both been subjected to online abuse. -Guardian
The Guardian newspaper has reported on a survey by a Brisbane-based social media company, Max Kelsen, that shows both Julia Gillard and Hillary Clinton are recipients of major online abuse.
The newspaper also cautions that public figures are generally subject to more abuse than ever before.
US Clinton received abusive tweets at a rate almost twice that of Sanders. Of 4.27m tweets mentioning Clinton, 2.08% were found to be abusive, compared to 1.12% of 3m tweets mentioning Sanders.
Three-quarters of the abuse of either candidate was by men. Abuse of Clinton ramped up in recent weeks as her selection as the Democratic presidential candidate became more of a certainty.
… Former Australian prime minister Julia Gillard also received about twice as much abuse as Kevin Rudd, who she deposed as prime minister before he returned to depose her.
The article seems to be part of a larger editorial series entitled , “The Web We Want.” The Guardian shared information about the program in mid-March as follows:
As most people — and most women on Twitter — know, the Internet can be an ugly and abusive place. The Guardian, which receives more than 50,000 reader comments a day, is taking steps to help change that with “The Web We Want.”
… For the great bulk of our readers, and — yes — to respect the wellbeing of our staff too, we need to take a more proactive stance on what kind of material appears on the Guardian.”
A website named “OffGuardian,” apparently composed of disgruntled readers, reported on the program as follows:
“The web we want”? No, don’t think so…
The “we” in this sense is purely a gesture, or a rhetorical flourish toward democracy. The discussion that follows is neither democratic nor diverse. There are no shades of opinion on offer. No debates between those with different views on what the Web should be.
Oh sure, the different writers, persuaded or coerced into offering their variously begrudging support to this new campaign might notionally come from different backgrounds or ideologies, but their articles are – so far – diverse only in tone.
They are all almost identical in message. All hit the same few, eerily repetitive, talking points: 1. Freedom of speech is actually elitist 2. An unregulated internet will discriminate against women and minorities 3. Free speech should maybe not include “abuse”.
The Guardian seems to take the position that politicians like Hillary and Gillard are at least in part subjected to excess abuse because of their gender.
More likely, the Guardian, as OffGuardian suggests, is trying to justify sociopolitical censorship by leveraging claims that offensive comments aimed at minorities and women are commonplace.
In fact, both politicians are exceptionally controversial.
Just yesterday we offered a selected list of Hillary’s SCANDALS, which allegedly ranged from stealing White House Furniture to murdering Vince Foster.
In a series of articles, the Sydney Morning Herald reported on the Rise and Fall of Julia Gillard. It sorted through a variety of problems that Gillard had as Australian Prime Minister and lays much of the blame on her own management style and policies.
Perhaps the most costly blunder was breaking her word on implementing a carbon tax.
Gillard had promised before the election that “there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead”, but the price of the alliance with the Greens was that there would indeed have to be a carbon tax. This broken promise was one of the greatest problems for the Gillard government …
Conclusion: Of course discrimination exists and does affect women and minorities, among other select groups. But sometimes even the most raucous or punishing commentary may be rooted in the target’s own behavior. In this day and age that is certainly not politically correct to suggest.
Brexit — how will central banks respond? Policymakers’ existing struggle with low productivity and high debt has become more complicated –Financial Times
This article provides us with a useful survey of what central banks are going to be doing to confront the Brexet-initiated downturn.
Start with the Bank of England. Governor Mark Carney acted quickly to provide liquidity by injecting £3.1bn into banks just after Brexit.
Nonetheless, the pound dropped hugely and UK equities plunged too. The next possible step is a rate cut but the falling pound has already initiated price inflation and a rate cut would add inflationary pressures.
Depending on what the numbers show, the BOE could not only cut rates, it could re-initiated quantitative easing.
When it comes to the Fed, the potential hike that Janet Yellen drones on about on a regular basis is probably off the table.
Despite its troubles, the dollar remains the currency of choice as a safe-haven and post-Brexit has risen a good deal.
That means Yellen is under even more pressure not to raise rates, thus strengthening the dollar against other currencies even more.
Over in Europe, ECB head Mario Draghi is sticking to its form of QE and recently he chopped rates.
But the glimmers of what Draghi thought was going to be a recovery seem to have been snuffed for the moment by the stock downturn that took place after Brexit.
Now Draghi may have to cut rates further and expand QE.
Over in Japan, Brexit has shoved capital into the yen, raising its value relative to other currencies. But FT expects that the Bank of Japan could cut rates among other options.
We can see from this abbreviated roundup that central banks are doing what they do best when confronted with a crisis: print more money.
The business cycle has turned away from stocks in any case and Brexit is merely an additional example of that.
Jim Rogers sees the promise in the dollar as a safe haven during these difficult times, and Jim Rogers is one of the world’s most savvy commodity traders.
But you may also wish to consider judicious exposure to gold and silver both in physical and paper form.
Physical metals held safely out of harm’s way, but not in a bank where it would be subject to confiscation, may provide solid solvency in times of great crisis.
But even great crises take time to develop. One way to capitalize on tumultuous times is to gain exposure to selected junior miners.
Of course, you need to be selective and cautious. But if chaos really does mount in Europe and the West, the metals sector will soar and juniors have terrific leverage in such circumstances.
One mining company you may want to examine is a new sponsor of ours, Golden Arrow. The CEO is Joe Grosso. You can see an interview we did with him HERE.
Golden Arrow is partnered with a well-known mining firm Silver Standard in exploiting what could be a major silver discovery.
Miners are likely still cheap, relatively speaking, and silver has a long way to travel to reach parity with its historical ratio.
Conclusion: Whether you are invested in juniors or not, silver should be considered for at least a modest part of your portfolio along with gold.
If you have questions about Golden Arrow, you can reach representative Shawn Perger here: Shawn: 1-800-901-0058 or 778-686-0135. See the website HERE.
Brexit could spell more trouble for Trump, who supported leaving … Donald Trump plans a major trade speech on Tuesday that the campaign is billing as “declaring American economic independence,” a clear reference to the U.K.’s decision to leave the European Union. If trends continue, he could be doing it against a backdrop of markets crashing and the pound hitting lows last seen in the 1980s. – CNBC
In past articles we’ve pointed out the beginning of a new, elite dominant social theme: globalism versus populism.
Brexit is being positioned as a populist uprising and so is Trump’s campaign.
And below, after further exploration of this emergent propaganda, we travel back in time, as we have in the past, to explore some fairly definitive evidence that shows that Hiroshima/Nagasaki were also used as globalist propaganda in their day.
(The main page we were using for our research has suddenly been “suspended” – see Editor’s Note at the bottom of the article. We’d ask that people make copies of this post, if possible.)
The “atom bombs” dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki created our “modern” world. And this world has always been portrayed, like all directed history, as a natural and unstoppable evolution.
Now, thanks to Brexit, globalism, too, will be portrayed as natural and necessary adaptation to a more complex world. Donald Trump may well win the election, just as Brexit won.
But ultimately, it seems, populism is fated to be discarded. A new and gentler globalism may emerge in the East and include the BRICs. or pieces of them.
Already we are being instructed that because the Brits made the wrong, “populist” decision, chaos threatens that world leaders are now powerless to prevent.
But the starting gun for technocratic corporatism was the explosion of the nuke over Hiroshima.
That changed everything.
Yet what has come to bother us lately is that, like vaccines, these technical evolutions always favor government control as a necessary adaptation to scientific progress.
It is hard to believe that the major discoveries of the past 200 years inevitably demand government supervision.
Consider what we have already uncovered just by scrutinizing the Internet and looking for evidence of “directed history” regarding the initial atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
- The dreaded mushroom cloud presented by the Hiroshima memorial is actually a photo of Hiroshima on fire. HERE.
- A squadron of 66 bombers was directed to Imabari. in the early morning of August 6 (666) – the morning of the A-bomb – but Imabari. had been bombed already, twice. This bombing squadron might have fire-bombed Hiroshima instead. HERE.
- Initial reports in Japan were that Hiroshima was firebombed. AP filed the same report. HERE.
- In the aftermath of the explosion, Hiroshima (and Nagasaki) look no different than Tokyo after it was firebombed. HERE and HERE.
- In Hiroshima numerous buildings are standing along with erect tree stumps. HERE.
- Limited trolley service was revived in Hiroshima after only three days. HERE.
- The Hiroshima bank at the epicenter of the bomb is fully functional and can be seen HERE.
- Predictions of endless radiation poisoning for thousands of years proved untrue. Today, Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s radiation levels are normal. HERE.
- Outdoor shadows and other dramatic evidences of the Hiroshima bombing seem to be faked. HERE.
- The initial American reporting on Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs came from Wilfred Burchett and William L. Laurence. One was a communist (Burchett) who hated America and reportedly ended up on the Kremlin’s payroll. HERE.
- The other was secretly a paid employee of US armed forces. He was the man who rode with the crew to witness the nuke dropped on Nagasaki. His report on the attack is painful to read for all the wrong reasons. HERE.
- Laurence was also the only reported to cover the development of the atomic bomc, see the initial bomb testing (from 20 miles away) and to report from Nagasaki. In other words, only one reporter, paid by the US war dept, provided the entirety of the initial civilian narrative for the testing of nuclear devices and then bombing of Nagasaki. Just one. It was roughly the same at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Reporters were not allowed to visit. HERE.
- Military officers were asked to exaggerate the injury count. (See ´Crawford Sams interview below.)
- Hiroshima and Nagasaki were apparently shut down for months. There was no influx of Western reporters. The nuclear narrative was developed by the Pentagon from what we can tell. HERE.
- It was immediately made a crime punishable by death in both the US and Japan to discuss nuclear attacks and the technology that created them. (“The restricted data clauses of the US Atomic Energy Act specifies that all nuclear weapons-related information is to be considered classified unless explicitly declassified, and makes no distinction about whether said information was created in a laboratory by a government scientist or anywhere else in the world by private citizens.”) HERE.
- As for Little Boy, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, photos show it seems to lack the necessary antennas to function. HERE.
- There were apparently several Little Boys of various sizes, not just one. HERE.
- The narrative surrounding the dropping of the Hiroshima bombing is reportedly inaccurate. “Levers” were “pulled” to drop the bomb, but the automatic system did the job. HERE.
- The automatic targeting system itself was an inaccurate device that reportedly might drop bombs miles from where the pilot hoped to deliver them. The odds that both bombs ended up delivering effective blasts are surprisingly low.
- The Nagasaki bombing narrative was confused for decades. The story kept changing. Even the pilot was misidentified. The crews were switched. HERE.
- The photos of the Nagasaki mushroom cloud are suspicious. They appear to be composite images with cloud cover inserted to ensure that identification of Nagasaki is impossible. HERE. Other Nagasaki photos appear fake.
- One of the two famous and supposedly identical photos of the Nagasaki mushroom cloud includes the wing of a plane, presumably the Enola Gay. But there were no windows over the wing of the plane. The photo is fake. HERE.
- For events of such magnitude, there are surprisingly few eyewitness accounts of the actual blast. Many eyewitness accounts start the day after the blast or during the firestorm. Only a few Japanese survivors have stepped forward to become regular “faces” of the blast.
- There don’t seem to be any civilian photos of either mushroom cloud taken by Japanese civilians or even military facilities. This one HERE looks evidently faked.
- Much of the Western Hiroshima narrative regarding the blast was developed by a single Jesuit priest who, along with other Jesuits, had survive at the epicenter of the blast through the intervention of the Virgin Mary. HERE.
- The eyewitness accounts of the blast itself have a repetitive and artificial quality to them, at least the ones we read. One doctor claims to have treated 2000-3000 injured on the first day. HERE.
There are other disturbing elements to the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings, and if you are interested, you can see more documents calling many elements of the attacks into question HERE.
Here is direct testimony of some of the exaggerations that took place from Crawford Sams – (of the ‘Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission’). HERE.
The object of this instruction, called Letter of Instruction, was “You will play up the devastating effect of the atomic bomb.” All right? So I was the one who set the deadline this time. Anybody who had been in Hiroshima and died within six months, whether they got run over by a bicycle or whatnot, would be credited to the atomic bomb.
When the bomb went off, about 2 thousand people out of 250 thousand got killed [in Hiroshima] – by blast, by thermal radiation, or by intense x-ray, gamma radiation.
You see, it wasn’t “Bing” like the publicity here [said]: a bomb went off and a city disappeared. No such thing happened. That was the propaganda for deterrent.
When I came back to this country, I was appalled, from a military standpoint, to find that our major planners in the War Department were using their own propaganda, 100 thousand deaths, Bing!
You don’t hear much about the effects of Nagasaki because actually it was pretty ineffective. That was a narrow corridor from the hospital … down to the port, and the effects were very limited as far as the fire spread and all that stuff. So you don’t hear much about Nagasaki.
Conclusion: The entirety of the Cold War, including the “arms race” and the “space race” all have elements of directed history. In other words, they are not what they seem. They are what authorities wish us to believe. While here at DB we have never written that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not bombed with nukes, we do have grave reservations about the narrative.
Editor’s note: As we were working on this story, one of the main pages we were using as reference was suddenly suspended.
The page was https://w w w.big-lies.org/NUKE-LIES/www.nukelies.com/forum/5-Hiroshima-Nagasaki-myth-in-fact-not-nuked.html.
The address now reads: https://w w w.big-lies.org/cgi-sys/suspendedpage.cgi
In the long-running global war on drugs, arguably no country in the world has suffered more than Colombia, where I have been doing business and living part-time for over 15 years. Violence, poverty, fear, destruction of families and communities, political upheaval, economic chaos – the black market has wreaked havoc throughout this beautiful land.
But today, the courageous and forward-looking leadership of Colombia has taken another giant step on its path to turning a drug that was previously so damaging into a force for global good. The Ministry of Heath has granted the nation’s first license for the production and manufacturing of cannabis for medical and scientific purposes. This first license was awarded to PharmaCielo Ltd., a Canadian corporation with operational headquarters in Colombia. As long-time Daily Bell readers and those following my work at The Wile Group know, I am a director of the PharmaCielo Foundation and a private investor in PharmaCielo Ltd.
For a number of significant reasons, it makes perfect sense for Colombia to embrace the burgeoning medical cannabis industry now, during its infancy, when the regulatory structure that will eventually frame the entire global market is just being developed. Colombia is in position to create the standard for high-quality, low-cost, standardized medicinal cannabis cultivated using environmentally net positive practices, processed using pharmaceutical-grade techniques, and shipped internationally safely and securely.
First, Colombia is an ideal place to naturally cultivate and process cannabis in an environmentally net positive manner. Temperatures are ideal for open-air greenhouse production, rainfall is plentiful and regular, allowing growing facilities to use their own natural water reserves rather than drain localized water tables, and, being located at the equator, the daily 12 hours light/12 hours dark cycle – exactly the light requirement cannabis needs to properly flower – is consistent, year-round. The diverse microclimates within Colombia also facilitate cultivating a wide variety of strains, each of which thrives best in slightly different growing environments.
Second, a tremendous amount of support exists within Colombia to facilitate the rapid development of a cannabis industry, from the world-class university system, agricultural/research organizations and leading engineering firms. The University of Antioquia is renowned for its third-party testing lab services that help companies extend their R&D capabilities and its impressive work to identify and investigate the nation’s diverse flora, Universidad EAFIT has an exchange partnership with Purdue’s School of Industrial Engineering and Universidad de La Salle has an innovative sustainable agriculture program for young farmers in rural Colombia, to mention just three examples.
Colombia’s agricultural success is supported by research organizations such as Corpoica, the Colombian Corporation for Farming Research, a quasi-private public agricultural research and technology organization. The nation’s massive cut-flower industry ascribes to the high environmental and social standards of the Florverde Sustainable Flowers certification as well as those set forth by the association of flower producers, Asocolflores. Finally, international trade security is guided by BASC, the World Business Alliance for Secure Commerce, which facilitates trade through internationally recognized standards and procedures.
The engineering expertise needed to develop cannabis processing facilities, required because Colombian law only allows export of cannabis oil extracts, is readily available from internationally recognized firms like Indisa S.A. This strong, broad infrastructure is part of the reason companies like Kimberly Clarke, IBM, Hewlett Packard and Citibank and have relocated or expanded into Colombia. It’s not surprising Colombia has long been an area of interest to big pharmaceutical companies for research and clinical trials, conducting initial investigations and investigating initial indications for new products.
Already the world’s second largest exporter of cut flowers, Colombia has a work force of 94,000-plus with extensive experience in the industry as well as the infrastructure and relationships in place for global exportation through major channel distributors – in many cases, the same ones who will most likely be distributing medical cannabis in markets worldwide – both of which can be smoothly transitioned to include medical cannabis as well. With coasts on two oceans, Colombian ports facilitate lower-cost sea shipping throughout the world. Air freight, already highly efficient due to the massive volume of cut flowers being exported, allows for direct, expedient shipments of goods to Europe, Asia and the Americas.
The stable political climate, especially as compared to the leftist-leaning governments of neighboring regions, provides another important comparative advantage for Colombia. The previous decades of guerrilla warfare has ended with the peace process nearing a successful close, allowing the government to refocus its energy on economic and social improvement, which has been massive. Today, Colombia has a proven track record of encouraging and protecting foreign investment, enabling investors to feel confident about putting capital into the region. The World Bank’s 2015 Ease of Doing Business report ranked Colombia 34th in the world and 1st in Latin America, with a comprehensive legal framework in place for foreign direct investment.
Colombia is a perfect “one-stop shop” to lead the global development of the medical cannabis industry, where leadership can be brought forth on the environmental front as well as in the standardization of scientifically advanced processes that enable natural processing of the cannabis plant into extracts that reflect the purity of the whole plant’s constituents.
This can be accomplished so that the world has access to natural, low-cost, environmentally friendly cannabis produced at pennies on the dollar compared to other countries, creating a white market vertical structure between local producers, exporters, importing distributors and governments. The vertical of that pricing structure is easily lower than that of local black markets operating in regions around the world not climatically suited to producing in outdoor low-cost environments – which means the black market can more readily be replaced and extinguished.
The white market can be regulated, controlled, governed and taxed. At the same time consumers can receive natural products at price points much lower than can possibly be offered by domestic producers operating in indoor warehouses or winterized greenhouses that require extensive power use and drain water from community sources
The world is today more focused than ever on producing and purchasing environmentally sound products, and world leaders continue to gather frequently to discuss climate change and related environmental issues. It’s on the forefront of everyone’s minds, and no matter one’s position on the question of climate change, we can certainly all agree we should be good stewards of the land. Opportunities to lower our collective carbon negative impact should be embraced – particularly when consumers can save money at the same time the dangerous black market is put to rest.
We should support countries like Colombia as they establish a new brand image by turning one of the two plants most responsible for their tarnished international reputation into a force for good by bringing the universities, scientific minds, business leadership and work force together in the effort it takes to do so. Colombia is now in a ready position to lead the world in the development of a new global industry.
I personally applaud the country. And as a person with a vested interest in this space, I certainly support with great enthusiasm the bold moves taken by President Santos and his government to give Colombia and all Colombians this fantastic opportunity.
Special invitation: For those of you who enjoy the work I’ve been doing, I want to invite you to peruse WileGroup.com, where you can now follow my work, including editorials, articles and media appearances being published in various media outlets in addition to The Daily Bell. While at the site, please consider accepting a complimentary subscription to Wile Reports in order to be notified of new material and informed of deal-specific profit opportunities being identified and researched by The Wile Group. I look forward to the opportunity to continue sharing my thoughts and ideas with many of you who have appreciated my work with The Daily Bell via your subscriptions to Wile Reports.
Clinton on voters’ trust issues: ‘I know I have work to do’ … Hillary Clinton, facing direct criticism about her trustworthiness from rival Donald Trump, admitted Monday she needs to do more to earn voters’ trust. “I personally know I have work to do on this front,” Clinton said at a Rainbow Push Collation luncheon, from prepared remarks. –CNN
This recent speech by Ms. Clinton was an effort to rectify a growing “trust gap” between her and voters. It was all about acknowledging mistakes – and showing she listened and cared.
Clinton has long struggled to explain why voters don’t trust her, but Monday marked the most thorough and comprehensive attempt she has made to address the issue during this campaign.
“It certainly is true, I have made mistakes. I don’t know anyone who hasn’t,” she said.
But Clinton also blamed external factors. She pointed out that opponents “have accused me of every crime in the book. None of it is true, never has been.”
The CNN article (above) expanded on this point, explaining how being in the public eye for so long had allowed criticism to take hold and fester.
Clinton acknowledged in her speech that she couldn’t simply talk away the doubts.
It remains a problem. A New York Times/CBS News poll earlier this year discovered 64% of voters answered “no” regarding their belief that Clinton was “honest and trustworthy.”
And even as Clinton addressed the issue as best she could, the Internet, or certain parts of it, were flooded by reports of a UN official who died accidentally before a trial that supposedly would have seen him testify against her.
The imputation, of course, was that she somehow had him murdered.
From the NY Post’s Page Six:
John Ashe was due in court Monday with his Chinese businessman co-defendant Ng Lap Seng, who is charged with smuggling $4.5 million into the US since 2013 and lying that it was to buy art and casino chips.
According to Page Six, prosecutors would have linked Ashe to the bagman Ng. “It would have been very embarrassing. His death was conveniently timed.”
Snopes contradicted this perception: “Ashe wasn’t going to testify against Hillary Clinton.” The reports were simply fallacious.
This is perhaps symptomatic of Hillary’s larger plight. Her reputation for supposedly nefarious deeds is so extensive and well known that people easily think the worst of her.
And her enemies, of which there are many, exploit her reputation by continually circulating items about her that further impugn and reduce her reputation.
Sometimes, Ms. Clinton is her own worst enemy.
Not long ago she told an urban radio show that she liked to carry hot sauce in her handbag. This may have been a clumsy attempt to reduce the impact of a quote of hers regarding young black men. According to the Washington Post:
“They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘super-predators,’ ” Clinton said in 1996, at the height of anxiety during her husband’s administration about high rates of crime and violence. “No conscience, no empathy, we can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel.”
Clinton has been near the center of the political scene for so long that her gaffes are probably as well known as they are numerous. And it is easy to find lists of serious accusations leveled against her.
Among others, the conservative website WorldNetDaily posted a list of 22 purported Clinton scandals in mid-2015. You can see the list HERE,
Excerpts below (some language from WND):
Turning the IRS into a ‘gestapo’ to attack enemies during her husband’s presidency.
Attacking Bill’s former lovers via blackmail, intimidation, harassment and worse.
Shielding Bill from accusations of rape and battery leveled at him as a result of numerous fleeting trysts.
Vandalizing the White House when leaving office and trying to steal its furniture.
Stealing a comprehensive list of FBI files in order to gain information on adversaries who were then blackmailed.
Murdering deputy White House counsel Vince Foster to ensure he wouldn’t talk about two others scandals: Travelgate and Whitewater.
Keeping top secret emails, on a private email server located at her home – instead of using the government-mandated process while serving in high appointed positions.
Soliciting million-dollar donations during Bill’s re-election campaign from technology companies in return for permission to sell high-tech secrets to China.
Firing the staff of the White House Travel office in order to replace them by friends and then trying to put the head of the travel office, Billy Dale in prison. (Travelgate.)
Assisting in the collapse of Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, a Little Rock savings bank, as a result of the collapse of a real estate deal. (Whitewater.)
Murdering dozens of additional individuals to ensure that additional scandals were never prosecuted. (Lists of suspicious deaths and suicides circulated regularly on the Internet during the years of the Clinton administration.)
Providing favors for various foreign individuals and enterprises while Secretary of State in return for donations to the Clinton Foundation.
Filing false tax returns regarding Clinton Foundation’s income and activities.
There are even more scandals in the WND list, which apparently doesn’t include one that took place during Bill’s Arkansas governor days involving cocaine smuggling in and out of the Mena airport to generate income for covert Latin American wars.
Many of these scandals are well-documented but for some reason both Hillary and Bill have escaped indictment.
That may not be the case now, as the private email server scandal is so well known and egregious that it can neither be explained-away nor ignored.
Ultimately, the “trust issue” that Ms. Clinton is determined to rectify may be more deeply rooted than she wants to admit. It seems to have to do with an almost compulsive level of brutality, arrogance and contempt.
This was briefly on display when she told a reporter regarding Libya and Muammar Gaddafi, “We came, we saw, he died.”
She seemed more amused than regretful, though the Libyan war, in addition to its great violence, left an entire country shattered, its infrastructure ruined, its prosperity destroyed.
Conclusion: When evaluated all at once, her actions seem those of a sociopath who will go as far as necessary to achieve her goals. Her terrifying personality traits are probably what Americans are responding to subconsciously when they find her untrustworthy. These traits will not be fixable no matter how hard she tries to bridge the “trust gap.”
Central Banks Worry About Engaging World Markets After ‘Brexit’ … As global markets reel after an establishment-rattling vote by Britain to sever ties with Europe, investors are again expecting central banks to ride to the rescue. And that may be the problem.- New York Times
Yesterday, we wrote about a new dominant social theme emerging as a result of Brexit.
The propaganda seemed to be resolving itself into Globalism vs. Populism.
Brexit supporters were being characterized as populists. “Remainers” were in the globalist camp.
In this New York Times article, we can see this theme repeated clearly.
Globalist central bankers want to do the right thing, we read. But they are holding back because of the emotion of the crowd. The populists, in other words, are standing in the way of the globalist saviors.
Investors and economists … worry that another round of central bank intervention in the markets will compound the sense of alienation, frustration and anger at global elites that encouraged a majority of Britons to opt for leaving the European Union.
Interestingly, there is a secondary theme emerging as well. It seems – and we have suggested this before – that some globalist enterprises are more equal than others.
Despite the larger meme, central banks are taking serious and sustained blows from the mainstream media.
The negativity can be seen even in this Times article. Farther down, we read:
“People say that central bankers have not done enough, but they have done too much already,” said Stephen Jen, a former official at the International Monetary Fund who now manages a hedge fund in London.
It seems the IMF is the “golden-haired globalist child” these days. Central banking is running a distant second.
Here’s an article that ran in the Straits Times. It’s a virtual rewrite of the New York Times article, but with some strange differences.
The headline reads. Ruinous Effect of Persistent Central Bank Interventions.
Contrast that to the New York Times headline on virtually the same article: Central Banks Worry About Engaging World Markets After ‘Brexit’
The Straits Times headline is significantly more negative. Additionally the IMF quote (see above) appears at the very beginning of the article.
It seems two things may be going on. One, the globalist meme will advance against the populism of Brexit in Britain and Trump in the US.
Two, central banks will continue to receive a mainstream pounding.
None of this would be happening if the world system was going to stay the same. But it is changing.
The idea no doubt is to collapse national central banks into larger regional ones. The case must be made that current central banks are dysfunctional and must get bigger.
The continued high profile of the IMF in the mainstream media probably means that the IMF is still central to globalist plans.
However, it appears that Christine Lagarde may not be, as we have previously reported. She is due to go on trial in France.
The continued, unusual, negative treatment of central banking in the mainstream media may give us some clues as to how they will operate going forward.
It seems that the banks are to be constrained by criticism and public opinion, and therefore, the easing everyone expects may be less aggressive than it seemed directly after Brexit.
Conclusion: If this is the case, then there will be immediate, continued economic dislocations as well. The inevitable implosion will arrive more quickly. And it may take place in October, as we have indicated previously.
What Is Wonks For Hillary? … If you happen to be receiving emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign, then you undoubtedly received an email last night with the subject line “We need wonks, [Your Name].” After some mild confusion, you might be wondering: What is Wonks for Hillary? -Bustle
Like her husband, Hillary is fond of being portrayed as a policy “wonk.”
It’s hard work of course as “wonks” tend to the engine of legislation. They are not interested in the glamour of government but in using the bureaucracy in creative ways to “make a difference.”
Or so we are told.
The word wonk … [can mean] a studious or hardworking person, or a person who takes an excessive interest in minor details of political policy — and that latter definition is exactly what Hillary’s campaign is honing in on.
Jacob Leibenluft, the campaign’s senior policy adviser, explained in a Hillary for America email: In an election that has often seemed like it’s about anything but policy — Donald Trump seems to prefer name-calling and empty slogans — I’m proud that Hillary is a bona fide policy buff.
Given the amount of controversy and corruption swirling around Clinton, she surely likes the idea of being recognized as a wonk.
And actually she’s pretty good at talking policy. Or some would say “glib.”
Bill Clinton liked to portray himself as a wonk, even though he played the saxaphone. In fact, on January 28, 2012, he actually received a “wonk” award. Here, from an American University media:
President Bill Clinton, Founder of the William J. Clinton Foundation, and 42nd President of the United States, and first popularly acknowledged wonk to occupy the Oval Office, has been named American University’s inaugural Wonk of the Year …
“In the end, there’s one true policy wonk—President Clinton. He’s known as the policy wonk because he’s so knowledgeable about policy and was able to use that in a variety of ways to impact the country and the world,” said Alex Kreger ’14, director of KPU.
The announcement goes on to explain the wonk award recognized former President Clinton for creating the Clinton Foundation, taking on the world’s “toughest challenges” and improving the lives of some 400 million people.
Of course, today, the Clinton Foundation is under suspicion as a gigantic money-laundering machine. And Hillary doesn’t want to talk about such matters. She hasn’t held a formal press conference in months.
But the Bustle article tells us that she recently declared campaign website policies to be “a little wonky.”
The Hillary for America campaign email further emphasized her wonkishness.
If you’re a policy nerd like Hillary, we’d love to invite you to a special new group: Wonks for Hillary. Add your name now to be one of the first to join, and we’ll keep you updated on key policy rollouts throughout the campaign — and even invite you to join exclusive calls with policy advisors like me.
The article ends by mentioning that Hillary is using the word “wonk” to emphasize “being methodical, studious and thorough.” And that presumably this will further “connect” voters to Hillary.
Thus the article seems fairly positive about wonkishness. But those who are not interested in yet more government activism, may find the concept unpersuasive.
It assumes that if a law or regulation is detailed enough and thorough enough, then supporters will have created admirable policy.
The problem with government is simply one of competence. The more wonks the better.
Of course this isn’t right.
As we have often pointed out, laws and regulations are price-fixes. Such price-fixing inevitably will create economic distortions and terrible results over time.
The more comprehensive the legislation, the more destructive. The more wonks in government, the worse the outcome.
A “wonk” sounds like an innocent-enough person, but the reality of the wonkish process entails creating and enforcing various kinds of mandates that people have no choice but to obey.
Fruits of fedgov wonkishness:
Some six million in various stages of incarceration.
Some $200 trillion in nominal and contractual debt.
100 million not working in the formal economy.
Hillary’s past shows clearly that she is comfortable with repression at home and military activism abroad. She may present herself or her policies in a wonkish way but the result will be no different than what has gone before.
She is a corporate authoritarian who will continue to pursue a globalist ideology and tear down America in order to realize the goals of the banking class she serves.
Conclusion: A competent government is surely worse than an incompetent one. But both will inevitably advantage the wealthy and further impoverish the poor. Government creates wars and destroys civilizations, often for no real reason. In the modern era it seeks to weaken culture in order to make a more centralized society and methodically debases currency as a way to achieve it. Enough wonkishness, please.
‘Brexit’ in America: A Warning Shot Against Globalization … The Dow Jones industrial average finished down over 600 points after the vote results became known … What’s far more worrisome is whether Britain’s decision represents an end to the economic integration and opening [of] the last few decades. – New York Times
Did we ever think we would see the day when the New York Times would willingly acknowledge a battle over globalization?
And it not just the New York Times. Here are some other mainstream media headlines mentioning globalism:
- Brexit: Unraveling of a Global Post-War Structure
- Brexit: Asian powers warnings over global stability
- Brexit’s Impact on Global Economy Depends on Leaders
The mainstream media usually doesn’t acknowledge globalism as an issue. Like central banking it is simply asserted as a fact, as natural as the air we breathe.
But now all of a sudden we are finding out it is a policy after all – something made by the hand of man and not descended from on high.
And thus what may be a new dominant social trend: Globalism versus Populism.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news in this regard.
We had several hours of euphoria after Brexit before we calmed down and realized it might be “too good to be true.”
Then we wrote an article on Friday you can see HERE.
And HERE is an article by Bernard-Henri Levy on the new emergent meme. Levy is an eloquent, leftist, French philosopher and writer:
Brexit marks a victory not of the people but of populism. Not of democracy but of demagogy.
It is a victory of the hard right over the moderate right and of the radical over the liberal left. It is a victory of xenophobia in both camps, of long-simmering hate for the immigrant and of obsession with the enemy within.
It is the revenge of those throughout the United Kingdom who could not bear to hear Barack Obama, Francois Hollande, Angela Merkel and others offering their views on a matter that was theirs to decide.
It is, in other words, a victory of sovereignism at its most rancid; of nationalism at its most idiotic.
What is the future of this war? We think we know. An excerpt of an article from the South China Morning Post.
Britain’s Brexit vote has far-reaching consequences with the potential to throw the world into even bigger economic chaos and disorder than the 2008 global financial crisis. The catastrophic collapse in the UK pound, free-falling global equities and a dramatic surge in market volatility is just the start of it …
Here is one from the Financial Review that we already anticipated.
Brexit may destroy Britain but make EU stronger … The irony is that Brexit could lead to change that is entirely antithetical to its proponents’ goals: it could both irreversibly destroy the United Kingdom and strengthen the European Union with few meaningful consequences for the global economy.
So we have a strengthened EU (presumably with its own army) undergoing an economic collapse along with the rest of the world.
What else? Brexit may well ignite a new shooting war. David Cameron warned about this in a speech in May.
HERE from the Telegraph before the speech:
A Brexit will increase the risk of Europe descending into war, David Cameron will warn … Britain will pay a high cost if “we turn our back” on the EU. The Prime Minister will … highlight the battles of Trafalgar, Blenheim, Waterloo and the two World Wars as evidence that Britain cannot pretend to be “immune from the consequences” of events in Europe.
And what will happen to London’s City itself? Brexit may facilitate the spread its tentacles throughout Europe.
The City may even be subject to considerable deregulation to ensure its competitiveness. Here, a further excerpt from the initial Times article:
With a recession in Britain now a distinct possibility, some experts worry that a government desperate to create and maintain jobs could seek to save the financial sector by making the City more attractive as an offshore haven.
Let us sum up:
The outcome of Brexit may be considerable, grinding financial ruin. It may even cause such political instability as to lead to various kinds of warfare.
At the same time (and we predicted this) Brexit will give Eurocrats a justification to “deepen” the EU political union.
Finally, the institution that will emerge with a strengthened, international profile will be the City.
While all these tensions are brewing, the media-defined struggle between populism and globalism will deepen and spread.
Of course, globalism is in bad odor, so it shouldn’t be much of a contest But here’s a thought:
The way to increase its prestige is to make sure that whatever is bad, is blamed on populism. The economic collapse. The wars. The European disharmony.
Sound far fetched? Perhaps. But note please that Donald Trump has been cast as a “populist” as well as a “nationalist.” And now the Brexit victory has the same label.
On both sides of the pond you suddenly have “populist” movements.
And the mainstream media doing its best to turn “populist” movements into a swear word.
Of course, we hope for the best with Brexit. And maybe its establishment is indeed a precursor to a great wind of freedom.
But just as possibly, things will get worse … and people will be told to blame it on populism.
Then, you see, a solution will be offered, one involving a new and glorious globalist interregnum. And people will be so oppressed and frightened that they may accept it and support it, even though they are cooperating in their own enslavement.
Conclusion: The above scenario is “worst case,” of course. But we can’t shake the perception that Brexit is not what it seems to be. As the manipulation is now in motion, we shall likely be exposed, sooner or later, to the consequences of what we often call “directed history.”
Gold faces own headwinds after Brexit shock … Analysts question whether bullion can rise further after solid gains already this year … As the UK voted to leave the EU, the only people celebrating more than Brexit politicians were a clutch of small brokerages that benefit when the world gets a little more volatile: bullion dealers that offer gold coins and bars to retail investors. –Financial Times
FT has reported on the increased interest in gold following Brexit but there are differing opinions regarding how it will do for the rest of 2016.
The paper quotes Helima Croft, head of commodity strategy at RBC Capital Markets, as follows:
“We believe that there remains limited price upside for gold from current levels after today’s safe-haven driven jump higher … Gold will have to contend with a strong dollar and will probably refocus on global monetary policy (namely the Fed) for the remainder of 2016.”
Interestingly, Goldman analyst Jeff Currie told the FT that purchases of gold might better be denominated in pounds or euros than dollars given that most of the Brexit impact will be felt more severely in Europe.
The idea here is that more money will eventually flow into the dollar rather than precious metals. This thinking is historical in nature, based on what happened in 2008 when Lehman Brothers collapsed.
After Lehman, gold fell some 30 percent or more as the dollar rallied.
Blooomberg reports that one of the most famous metals investors, Jim Rogers, is betting on the dollar rather than gold. In a phone interview he told Bloomberg that the prices of bullion were due for a drop.
He even reportedly predicted that gold would end the year lower than at current levels.
Rogers [added] that he would buy the metal again once it declines enough. That view is at odds with the median of 12 forecasts in a Bloomberg survey that predicts a gain of more than 7 percent for gold from where it’s trading now.
… Rather than selling his gold, Rogers said he would take some some short positions as a hedge against his holdings. “I own plenty of gold, I assure you.”
Rogers has been a consistent supporter of both gold and silver so it is probably not surprising he will continue to hold his gold.
In any event, the dollar-gold question is not a difficult one to answer.
One holds physical gold as an investment and also paper gold – ETFs and junior miners – especially if the business cycle looks promising.
And surely the business cycle continues to favor gold. Here, from FT:
From London’s Harrods department store in Knightsbridge, to online precious metals dealers, many reported record volumes and demand on Friday. Sharps Pixley, which has a store in Mayfair, said online sales had drained its stocks of larger bullion bars, leading it to call on emergency reserves in Germany.
After 2008, we estimated that central banks would end up printing some $200 trillion in order to keep the world economy afloat.
Now, again, central banks face the prospect of impossibly massive liquidity injections. Post Brexit, European countries are going to start lining up front door of the European Central Bank to demand debt relief.
Debt generally is at levels that even central banking officials don’t see as feasible. Sovereign debt, bank debt and consumer debt are simply not going to be honored.
The situation is so bad that earlier this year William White, a top former official at the Bank for International Settlements told the UK Telegraph that the only way to fix the financial system was to declare a “debt jubilee” followed by a reset.
Looking at a post-Brexit business and financial environment, it is difficult to see how any currency can provide a long-term “safe harbor.” The dollar too is under attack and gradually losing its exclusivity as the world’s dominant reserve currency.
As always, we look back to the 1970s for insights about what we can expect going forward. We recall that precious metals did extraordinarily well during that decade, and junior miners too.
Conclusion: In a world about to flooded with yet more trillions of fiat currency, gold and silver could retrace what occurred during the 1970s. Then both the yellow and white metals achieved valuations against the dollar that still have not been equaled, adjusting for price inflation.
Britain and the EU A tragic split How to minimise the damage of Britain’s senseless, self-inflicted blow … HOW quickly the unthinkable became the irreversible … By the early hours of June 24th, it was clear that voters had ignored the warnings of economists, allies and their own government … -Economist
The Economist thinks the victory of Brexit is a tragic split. But they’re wrong. They are also wrong that Brexit is “irreversible.”
Unfortunately, as you probably know, Brexit is not a given. And negotiations could take two years or even longer.
Supposedly it’s David Cameron’s fault that Brexit took place. He traded the referendum for support from part of his party.
London’s City seems to run the world. It couldn’t have stopped Cameron from doing this?
George Soros purchased gold months ago. He’s just made a lot of money. What did he know about Brexit? That its passage was planned?
What is going on with Brexit and the EU could be something we have called “directed history” (see other Brexit article, this issue). That means that powerful people manufacture scenarios that give rise to the events that they want to occur.
It could be that Brexit destabilizes Europe. Perhaps the derivatives markets will begin unravel, tearing apart the European banking system.
An article posted over at ZeroHedge suggests this possibility. Here:
The $555 Trillion Derivatives Debt Implosion Is About to Begin … The next crisis is here. The BREXIT or British exit from the EU is this crisis’ Bear Stearns: an unexpected situation that Central Banks will go all out to sweep under the rug. Whether or not they will succeed remains to be seen. But what has started cannot be undone.
Will Brexit begin a wave of top-level commercial bankruptcies?
Perhaps that sounds apocalyptic. But the notional derivatives market is something like a thousand trillion dollars.
How did it get so big? That could only happen in a monopoly-based central-bank economy extending worldwide.
The EU is barely staving off insolvency now. Brexit will likely make the pressure worse.
The ZeroHedge article explains:
Now that the BREXIT has happened, the restructurings will begin. Previously, the EU could always threaten the perceived financial Armageddon of leaving the EU to problem countries that wanted debt forgiveness.
Not anymore. Britain left the EU and Armageddon didn’t hit. So Spain, Italy and other nations will start threatening to leave if they don’t get debt forgiveness or a restructuring.
Presumably few banks will appear solvent once restructuring starts.
Italy’s banks for instance are balanced on a knife’s edge. Even a little more pressure can send them tumbling into ruin.
Disaster will pile on top of disaster. And bankruptcy on top of bankruptcy.
Will it happen? It certainly seems possible.
Please protect yourself as best you can. Purchases of physical gold and silver are a good idea. A second passport and second residence are recommended along with access to fresh foodstuffs and potable water.
You may also wish to consider judicious exposure to gold and silver in paper form. One way to do this is to seek exposure to selected junior miners.
You need to be selective and cautious. But if chaos really does strike Europe, the metals sector will soar and juniors have terrific leverage in such circumstances.
One mining company you may want to examine is a new sponsor of ours, Golden Arrow. The CEO is Joe Grosso. You can see an interview we did with him HERE.
Golden Arrow is partnered with a well-known mining firm Silver Standard in exploiting what could be a major silver discovery.
Miners are likely still cheap, relatively speaking, and silver has a long way to travel to reach parity with its historical ratio.
Whether you are invested in juniors or not, silver should be considered for at least a modest part of your portfolio along with gold.
Conclusion: Is Brexit directed history? Time will tell. Elite propaganda is all around us. Dissecting and exposing it has nothing to do with “conspiracy theory” and much to do with truth.
If you have questions about Golden Arrow, you can reach representative Shawn Perger here: Shawn: 1-800-901-0058 or 778-686-0135. See the website HERE.
After years of struggle against the EU, which we documented at The Daily Bell, anti-EU forces have finally removed Britain from the European Union.
The tribes of Britain were the first to make the jump back into fuller nationhood. But there will be other countries trying as well.
It’s a great day for Britain and a good day for The Daily Bell that has had as one of its main missions analysis of the “Internet Reformation” and the freedom building because of it.
While I am no longer involved in an ownership position with The Daily Bell, I remain proud of our accurate commentaries and predictions.
We saw very early on that the Internet’s truth-telling would change the world. And despite many negatives and considerable controversy, it certainly has.
We published many interviews that dealt, at least in part, with the EU. I was looking through past Daily Bell issues and found some British interviews.
Like The Daily Bell’s statements on the EU, theirs anticipated Brexit.
Lord William Rees-Mogg provided an interview on the EU in 2010, two years before his death, HERE. Rees-Mogg, who was president of the Oxford Union in 1951, became a writer for The Financial Times in 1952, moved to The Sunday Times in 1960 and then served as editor of the London Times from 1967 to 1981.
I think the EU will survive but the EU in its present shape probably won’t. The strain the euro is putting on the weaker economies is more than they will be able to sustain …
I find that younger people tend to hold increasingly liberalist views. Liberalist is a difficult word because it means different things in different places. In the classical sense, the meaning is that liberty is the essence of sound political structure.
Rees-Mogg certainly predicted what’s going on: “The EU in its present shape won’t survive.”
John Browne’s interview can be found HERE. Browne, a well-respected financial observer and free-market commentator, is also a distinguished former member of Britain’s Parliament. He was a close associate of the late Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Here’s a bit of what he said in 2009:
The Germans tolerate the stage strutting of the French to offset the British threat … When she feels more secure, Germany will discard France and rule in a decidedly Prussian manner. It could lift Europe into a top superpower. It could be great for Europe. However, all Europeans who do not speak German as their mother tongue will be second-class citizens …
Europe is likely to make a futile attempt at becoming a “United States of Europe.” Germany will pick up the pieces, and the EU will become the New German Empire.
Browne knew that Europe’s attempt at becoming a United States of Europe would be futile. (At least, any such integration with Britain would be.) Let’s wait and see if Germany picks up the pieces.
Robert Oulds gave us an interview HERE. Oulds is the director of the London-based, anti-EU Bruges Group. He is also a Conservative Councilor in Chiswick.
The Bruges Group is working to take Britain out of the European Union … Our independence is our strength allowing us to be free to follow our own policy agenda and put the national interest above party political considerations …
[Our] inspiration was Margaret Thatcher’s Bruges speech in September 1988, in which she remarked that, “We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level.”
Oulds and his group worked hard to remove Britain from the EU and now their hard work has paid off. These folks and many others will surely turn their energy to creating a nation that can prosper as external regulatory chains fall away.
Nigel Farage sat for an interview with us HERE. He’s been head of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) since 2010 and is leader of the Eurosceptic Europe of Freedom and Democracy group.
UKIP stands for independence from the EU and the ability to make our own laws and control our own borders … Like Communism, it is a good idea that has gone badly wrong …
The Euro will endure a slow, lingering death that will condemn the eurozone to a lost decade. Getting government spending under control is vital. However, for the southern eurozone devaluation is a higher priority. Competent or not, the euro is fatally flawed.
As we can see, Farage was correct about the euro, certainly for Greece and increasingly for other EU countries, especially in the South.
Farage was a City broker and commodities trader before he joined UKIP – so it’s possible he traded precious metals. If he were trading gold, he might have made a good profit post-Brexit, as gold and silver both went up hard. At the same time, stocks crashed.
From an investment standpoint, investors should be very careful about how they are adjusting their portfolios. The Daily Bell has always advocated holding precious metals in one’s portfolio as a way of securing wealth and ensuring portfolios against uncertain times.
But in the past, I’ve personally made the point that gold and silver stocks are paper, not precious metals.
I’ve pointed out many times that there is a big difference between paper plays masquerading as gold and silver and the real thing. Be careful about rushing into the gold and silver stock market anytime soon.
We can see that Brexit offers both promise and problems. In fact, there are globalist forces in the world that may have anticipated this Brexit and even supported it – for malevolent rather than positive reasons.
Much is in flux. There is already speculation that EU officials will try to rewrite the EU-British relationship and then try for another referendum. Additionally, both Scotland and Northern Ireland are unhappy with the results of the referendum and may seek to declare independence.
However the future unfolds, what the Daily Bell calls the Internet Reformation has given a voice to those who wouldn’t have had a voice otherwise. And this voice is causing major changes. I’m confident that the removal of Britain from the EU is part of a larger evolution of freedom and free markets – just as we predicted years ago.
The US, for instance, is in the middle of shedding its dependence on a two-party system that is so homogenized that most can’t tell the difference between candidates. Donald Trump’s presence and campaign is changing all that and whether or not you are a Trump fan, he’s indicative of positive political changes.
Let’s not lose sight of the larger trend: Just as we anticipated, the Internet and related factors are supporting a resurgence of markets and freedom around the world.
Progress is slow and may not be easily noticed. But it’s taking place and surely will continue. I’m proud of our coverage of these serious issues and I’ll be happy to write another article about the accuracy of further predictions. Hopefully I can do that sooner rather than later.
Anthony Wile is founding editor of The Daily Bell.
Brexit: What happens now? … David Cameron announces he will step down as PM by Oct … Prime Minister David Cameron is to step down by October after the UK voted to leave the European Union. Mr Cameron made the announcement in a statement outside Downing Street after the final result was announced. He said he would attempt to “steady the ship” over the coming weeks and months. -BBC
This is great news and at the same time it makes us suspicious. The globalist bankers behind the European Union must be upset.
We rejoice in Britain’s sudden freedom from the corrupt and authoritarian EU.
We’re happy David Cameron is leaving. He did his best to start wars and shut down free speech, especially when it came to the Internet.
But we can’t believe it’s that simple. A vote and then … done.
Won’t there be repercussions? There have been threats already. What’s next?
When Andrew Jackson shut down the US’s second central bank, its head Nicholas Biddle threatened to cause a depression. Later on he did, making money scarce and getting Jackson censured in the process.
We’ve already carried one article a while ago explaining that it seemed as if officials at the Bank of England were issuing veiled threats before Brexit.
Let’s see what happens now. The fallout has hit world markets hard.
What happens now? Kuenssberg: PM’s luck runs out World reaction as UK votes to leave EU Labour ‘must change’ after EU campaign The referendum turnout was 71.8% – with more than 30 million people voting – the highest turnout at a UK-wide vote since 1992.
Labour’s Shadow chancellor John McDonnell said the Bank of England may have to intervene to shore up the pound, which lost 3% within moments of the first result showing a strong result for Leave in Sunderland and fell as much as 6.5% against the euro.
The biggest puzzle for us is why Cameron called Brexit in the first place.
Supposedly he promised the referendum to gain political support in his own party. But that doesn’t make much sense to us.
Politicians regularly break their word. If he didn’t want to hold the referendum he probably could have found some way to scuttle it.
In our view, Cameron was never an independent actor.
We wrote an article hypothesizing that London’s City wanted to renegotiate certain business terms with the Brussels and the referendum provided the necessary excuse.
We’ve also speculated that the passage of Brexit would give Brussels an excuse to purse an “ever deeper” political union.
Ultimately, we have a hard time accepting Brexit at face value. The City of London in particular has tremendous control over central banks worldwide. It’s difficult to imagine this is simply a stumble.
Of course we’ve long proposed the Internet Reformation would have a bigger and bigger impact on the world.
Maybe it is exactly what it seems to be: Emancipation. But maybe it foretells something deeper and darker.
A feedbacker who provided a post we used in an article entitled “Speculation: Lagarde Is Out and India’s Rajan Is In” suggests a grimmer future as a result of Brexit.
You can find his full feedback under yesterday’s editoria, “Brexit: I’ve seen more subtle propaganda coming out of North Korea.”
Here’s what he thinks the future might hold. He’s been studying London City’s globalist enterprise since the mid 1990s.
He writes that we might expect, ” A big ramp up in “terror” attacks throughout Europe (and the USA too, most likely) throughout the summer. They want you to react … and [place] blame on the EU technocrats for causing it all.”
This will convince other EU nations to setup votes to leave the EU as quickly as possible. Evidence for this terror rampage going live now comes from a US travel alert warning for all tourists planning to visit Europe this summer… and the fact that the curtain has just been raised for this 1st act in Germany.
… The new debt deal for Greece will not be allowed to happen. LaGarde from the IMF has made it clear in a few missives now that Greece isn’t getting anymore relief. This should result in a loan payment default by Greece next month. The purpose of this denial is to cause greater financial instability within the EU to go along with the political instability within the EU, brought by their terror campaign.
Likely in September … the black hats “evil western nations” will go after the white hats BRICS … This is intended to bring an immediate stop to all goods trade and financial trade between the two warring sides, resulting in a global financial freezeup, or “Lehman moment.”
This is a cynical interpretation of what Brexit will bring. It is also one that makes some sense generally if we accept that Brexit and its outcome was actually part of a larger plan. We do believe for instance that globalist elements have been looking for a big event to further structure an internationalist regime.
Many people in the alternative media are giddy over Brexit, as well they should be. But there is another side to what’s going on that may end up being a lot less positive. We’ll only know as events play out.
One fact is certain: Brexit has been good for precious metals. Gold is up, and silver too. There’s talk gold could now go to $1,400. Who knows how high silver might climb.
We recently introduced a junior mining sponsor, our first ever: a Vancouver-based explorer with promising silver projects in Argentina.
The company is Golden Arrow and the CEO is Joe Grosso. You can see an interview we did with him HERE. Golden Arrow is partnered with a well-known mining firm Silver Standard in exploiting what could be a major silver discovery.
Conclusion: Brexit has changed the dynamic in the marketplace. Bitcoin and precious metals have both moved up and may have considerably farther to travel. These are strange times and they may get stranger still.
If you have questions about Golden Arrow, you can reach representative Shawn Perger here: Shawn: 1-800-901-0058 or 778-686-0135. See the website HERE.
Exclusive: Prominent GOP Neoconservative to Fundraise for Hillary Clinton A prominent neoconservative intellectual and early promoter of the Iraq War is headlining an official campaign fundraiser for Hillary Clinton next month, Foreign Policy has learned. -FP
The husband of State Dept. political agitator Victoria Nuland is raising money for Hillary.
According to Foreign Policy, Robert Kagan, co-founder of the Project for the New American Century, is going to speak at Hillary’s fundraiser in DC’s Logan Circle neighborhood, July 21.
Foreign Policy states that this marks a shift in the Clinton campaign because it seems she is now willing to associate with high level Republicans who are determined to ruin Trump’s chances of becoming president.
Mr. Kagan and Victoria Nuland sit near the heart of a certain kind of global authoritarianism that will use any tool to sustain itself and expand its presence.
Nuland was a central figure in the forceful political transition in Ukraine. As co-founder of the Project for the New American Century, Kagan helped orchestrate the US response to 9/11. Some might think he actually had a hand in 9/11, though there has never been any evidence offered that he had.
No doubt his vision helped supporte the advent of Homeland Security and other bureaucratic and intelligence entities that have fundamentally changed the way the US operates, and not for the better.
According to an invite obtained by FP, the “event will include an off-the-record conversation on America’s continued investment in NATO, key European allies and partners, and the EU.”
“I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,” Kagan told the New York Times in 2014. “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”
Basically, Kagan is calling Hillary a fellow neocon, at least when it comes to foreign policy.
But Kagan’s solidarity with Hillary doesn’t extend to Obama whom he has criticized, according to the article, for not being more forceful in Syria or more confrontational with Russia.
Kagan wants more defense spending and in a New Republic Cover story entitled “Super Powers Don’t Get to Retire,” he supported an aggressive, global U.S. diplomatic and military presence.
His views are much different than Trump’s, though supposedly they belong to the same party.
What we have here is a situation where the Democratic nominee is a good deal more attuned to an important Republican than the putative GOP presidential candidate.
The problem here is really one of labels. Kagan and Hillary are actually agents of empire. They are facilitators of globalism and will use the military apparatus of the US to advance their goals.
The quarrel Kagan and others really have with The Donald is that he has stated his discomfort with Kagan’s style of empire building.
Ironically, as Hillary shares Kagan’s point of view, the two have more in common with each other than Kagan has with Trump.
This is the real schism of American politics. And because of Trump, it cannot be papered over anymore.
Trump has certainly been a polarizing influence. One could even say he has forced truthfulness onto the political scene.
The real political struggle in the US remains between empire and small-r republicanism.
The party system itself is an inchoate mess. The most powerful political party, the Party of Empire embodied by Kagan, is hidden inside both parties without a name.
Conclusion: It is the Party of Empire that has been in charge in the US since World War II. And this nameless party sees Trump as a threat. He has so polarized the electoral process that real alliances have now had to emerge. They are much different than what one might expect.
Donald Trump’s much-anticipated speech attacking Hillary Clinton Wednesday seemed more designed to reassure the candidate’s Republican base than to broaden his appeal to independents or Democrats. The fact is Trump raised valid questions about Clinton’s foreign policy positions, fund-raising practices and email quandary — but he did so in his vintage over-the-top fashion, with so many personal insults that many will ignore or forget the substance of his criticism.-CNN
CNN has now weighed in with an analysis of Trump’s Wednesday speech acknowledging its emotional appeal and criticizing Hillary for apparent ethical lapses.
This is a much more balanced analysis of Trump’s speech than the one we analyzed yesterday from the AP.
Our analysis of the AP article explained that it missed the point of what Trump was trying to do.
Sure, he might have exaggerated or made some factual errors but in the largest sense, the speech was effective because it caught the essence of Hillary’s corruption and lack of moral commitment.
CNN rectifies the AP’s errors by explaining the emotional competence of Trump’s approach.
Trump’s speech wasn’t about debating policy points, it was an all-out trashing of Clinton designed to rally conservatives … Indeed, Clinton’s use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state, and donations to the Clinton Foundation raise important questions about potential conflicts of interest that the campaign has not fully answered.
We would argue that Trump’s approach will appeal to far more than conservative voters ultimately. At least CNN acknowledges it.
And CNN goes farther than that. Instead of merely cataloging Trump’s factual lapses, the CNN article actually begins to mention some of Hillary’s questionable dealings.
[Here are] several questionable relationships between the Clintons and donors. The Clinton Global Initiative, a tax-exempt charitable organization (and spinoff of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation), in 2010 helped arrange a $2 million commitment from a Canadian businesswoman and CGI member to invest in a for-profit company owned by Clinton friends, according to a Wall Street Journal article last month.
That year, Bill Clinton lobbied then-Secretary of Energy Steven Chu for a grant; the Department of Energy gave the company an $812,000 grant, the article said.
Another big donor, Rajiv K. Fernando, a Chicago trader ended up on the State Department’s International Security Advisory Board.
These are just two examples among what are surely many more.
As Secretary of State, Hillary seems to regard politics as a kind of “pay to play” environment.
Probably it is, but Hillary seems especially blatant about it and seems to have broken laws as a result of her practices.
The CNN article concludes:
What’s left is the kind of red-meat, anti-Clinton bombast Trump has been serving up from the podium for a year now. Clinton-haters love it, but it’s hard to see how it will change minds in the swing states likely to settle the election in November.
This doesn’t strike us as especially accurate. Trump will have appeal wherever he goes because he is skilled at touching people’s emotions.
Of course, if Hillary is indicted, still a possibility, Trump may not have to run against her at all.
Conclusion: Bernie Sanders remains in the race and he seems to feel that he may have a chance to emerge as the Democratic presidential candidate. He may have a better feel for Hillary’s fate than others. But no matter who Trump runs against, his skill at speechifying will serve him in good stead.
Do the Experts Know Anything? … This has been a terrible day for experts. Economic professionals were overwhelmingly of the opinion that leaving the European Union would hurt the United Kingdom. And until a few hours ago, the consensus of public opinion experts — at least if one uses prediction markets as a proxy — was that voters would in the end decide to stay in the EU. Didn’t work out that way, did it? Brexit won. Take that, experts! – Bloomberg
Now here’s an interesting reversal. A Bloomberg editorial that blows up a powerful dominant social theme – the competence of experts.
Experts are central to the evolution of the modern, globalist state. The technocrat is the white knight of the modern age, going wherever the need for his services is the most acute.
Such technocrats rarely fail, according to the mainstream media. Or when they do, it’s not reported.
The emergent international state is to build on corporatism and be populated by technocratic experts.
To say bad things about experts in Bloomberg, one of the core news facilities of mainstream media is bold. It is an unusual occurrence.
And yet this article, as we can see from the excerpt beginning it, is calling expertise into question.
Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy, for example, can fairly be seen as a rejection of expertise in all its forms. And long before the Trump phenomenon, critics in the U.S. were gleefully attacking the expert consensus on everything from climate change to vaccinations.
Why are experts having such a tough time? From my current perspective (that of a generalist business-and-economics journalist sitting at a desk in the Bloomberg News bureau in Beijing, which I am visiting this week), three main reasons stand out …
The article then lists the three reasons:
- Experts are wrong a lot.
- 2. Experts are elitist.
- 3. Nonexperts can be pretty susceptible to nonsense.
To this list we’d add a fourth – one that has to do with the reality of expertise, which is almost always forward-looking.
Common-sense economics informs us that forecasting the future is almost impossible. When one is correct, one is merely lucky.
The reason for the cult of expertise, as we have pointed out in the past, has to do with the necessity of central bank forecasting.
To exist, central bankers must be able to foretell the future. And thus the expert meme has been constructed, piece by painful piece.
And today experts are everywhere, making predictions that rarely come true and passing judgment that often ill-advised.
In our view, public patience is certainly starting to wear thin. We’d like to think the Internet itself has undermined “expertise.”
It’s not easy to be an expert when the public is no longer subject to amnesia. People can go online and see the malfunctioning of expertise whenever they want.
There is one more reason for the growing distrust of expertise. That has to do with expanding skepticism of elite dominant social themes generally.
This Bloomberg article itself mentions some memes that are increasingly questioned – including the efficacy of vaccines and the dangers posed by “global warming.”
We see this as the inevitable result of this Internet era, when people can use the information at their fingertips to make up their own minds about elite themes.
As this process evolves, we fully expect it to have an increasing impact on the validity of modern technology.
It is for this reason that we have begun to take a more skeptical look at areas of technology such as space travel and nuclear weapons.
After all, the Internet is a process not an episode and the Western military industrial complex will not remain impervious to the trends affecting other elements of “common wisdom.”
Conclusion: It is almost inevitable that Western society is facing ongoing turmoil as questions are raised on a variety of fronts hitherto considered untouchable. The failure of confidence in experts and “expertise” marks the beginning of this occurrence, not the end.
On November 11, 1947, Winston Churchill, then ex-Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, rose to speak at a debate in the House of Commons:
“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise.
Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time;
but there is the broad feeling in our country that the people should rule, continuously rule, and that public opinion, expressed by all constitutional means, should shape, guide, and control the actions of Ministers who are their servants and not their masters.”
This may be the perfect summation of what democracy is supposed to be.
And western nations– particularly the US and UK– have been champions of ‘democracy’ around the world (though they typically mean ‘republic’).
Now, today the voters of the United Kingdom go to the polls to decide whether or not their country will remain in the European Union.
This is about as democratic as is gets– direct voting by the people to choose their fate.
Or so they claim.
In reality, each side has had a long, drawn out campaign to influence the outcome.
The ‘leave’ leadership has been scaring voters with horrific stories of evil brown people who will infiltrate the United Kingdom should the country remain in the EU.
I mean, I’ve seen more subtle propaganda coming out of North Korea.
Meanwhile the ‘remain’ side has been threatening eternal economic damnation and financial Armageddon.
Most of the political and media establishment falls in the ‘remain’ camp, so this is where the propaganda becomes painfully obvious.
The IMF, for example, published a report recently suggesting that Britain leaving the EU would permanently lower incomes in the United Kingdom.
So if voters choose to leave the EU, then the UK, which traces its sovereignty back more than 1,000 years and once had an empire so vast they ruled the entire world, will never be able to recover forever and ever until the end of time…?
We’re honestly supposed to believe that a few decades within the European Union has irrevocably thwarted Britain’s 1,000 year history in being able to achieve economic growth independently?
Or that Iceland (not a member of the European Union) can do it, but the UK cannot?
Or that a bunch of IMF bureaucrats can see decades, let alone centuries into the future with 100% certainty?
This is such blatant scaremongering, they’re not even pretending to be professional and unbiased. And this is direct from one of the top financial agencies in the world.
Clearly these people truly love democracy and embrace the idea of voters independently determining their own fate.
The British government (firmly in the ‘remain’ camp) has been using taxpayer funds to support its cause, which is really bizarre when you think about it.
If you’re British, even if you want to vote ‘leave’, the government has been using your money to influence your vote in the other direction.
One of the most absurd scare tactics has been telling people that they’ll lose visa-free travel rights to the European continent if the UK leaves the EU.
This is completely absurd.
Nicaragua has visa-free travel to Europe. Paraguay has visa-free travel to Europe. Are we really supposed to believe that Brits will be shut off from the continent?
They’ve rolled out every possible threat, every human emotion, every celebrity they can find, to influence voters.
In fact, these people love democracy so much they even had Barack Obama fly in to explain to British voters why they should remain in the EU.
(Because, of course, Mr. Obama would willingly hand over US sovereignty to a pan-American political commission based in Mexico City…)
Whichever side wins, it’s clear that no one in power gives a damn what voters want.
Despite having waged wars in foreign lands to ‘make the world safe for democracy’ and despite all the song and bombastic speech about your freedom, they have no respect for your right to self-determination, or even their own electoral system.
All they care about is getting their own way.
And they’re willing to engage in the most vile propaganda and blatant manipulation to do so.
This is a pitiful excuse for the democracy they claim to love so much.
And I’m not sure how long a road it is from here, to how Josef Stalin was quoted in his former secretary’s 1982 memoirs:
“Comrades, you know,” said Stalin, “I think that it’s totally irrelevant who votes, and how they vote. It’s extremely important who counts the votes, and how they’re counted.”
I suppose we’ll find out in a few more hours.