Berlin Calls For “Countermeasures” To US Sanctions Against Russia, Hints At Trade War

While the Pentagon may be already contemplating its next steps in the escalating conflict with Russia, which as the WSJ reported will likely involve supplying Ukraine with antitank missiles and other weaponry – a red line for the Kremlin not even the Obama administration dared to cross – there is minor matter of what to do with a suddenly furious Europe, which as we discussed previously, has vowed it would retaliate promptly after Trump signed the anti-Russia legislation into law, due to allegations it was just a veiled attempt at favoritism for US-based energy companies.
And, sure enough, on Monday, the Germany economy minister said that tew penalties against Moscow proposed by US lawmakers violate international law and officials in Brussels should consider countermeasures.
Speaking to Funke Mediengruppe newspaper, Brigitte Zypries said that “we consider this as being against international law, plain and simple.” She added that “of course we don’t want a trade war. But it is important the European Commission now looks into countermeasures.”

This post was published at Zero Hedge on Aug 1, 2017.

The Globalist Long Game – Redefine Liberty Activism As Evil “Populism”

One of the most favored propaganda tactics of establishment elites and the useful idiots they employ in Marxist and cultural-Marxist circles is to relabel or redefine an opponent before they can solidly define themselves. In other words, elites and Marxists will seek to ‘brand’ you (just as corporations use branding) in the minds of the masses so that they can take away your ability to define yourself as anything else.
Think of it this way: Say you want to launch an organization called ‘Movement Blue,’ and you and others have gone through great struggle to grow this organization from the ground up. However, just as your movement is about to achieve widespread recognition, someone else comes along, someone with extensive capital and media influence, and they saturate every outlet with the narrative that your movement is actually more like ‘Movement Red,’ and that Movement Red is a terrible, no-good, bad idea. They do such a good job, in fact, that millions and millions of people start calling you ‘Movement Red’ without even knowing why, and they begin to believe all the negative associations that this label entails.
Through the art of negative branding, your enemy has stolen your most precious asset – the ability to present yourself to the public as you really are.
Negative branding is a form of psychological inoculation. It is designed to close people’s minds to particular ideas before they actually hear those ideas presented by a true proponent of the ideas. But beyond that, negative branding can also be used to trick groups and movements into abandoning their original identity.
For example, the concept of economic freedom for individuals – the freedom from overt government interference or government favoritism for certain people over others, the freedom to compete with ideas and ingenuity to build a better business and a better product, the freedom to retain the fruits of one’s labor – used to be widely referred to as ‘free markets’, as defined by Adam Smith. The very basis of free market philosophy was to remove obstruction and economic oppression from the common man in order to inspire a renaissance in innovation and prosperity. The problem is, you rarely hear anyone but libertarians talk about traditional “free markets” anymore.
Though Karl Marx did not coin the term ‘capitalism,’ he and his followers (and editors) are indeed guilty of the pejorative version now used. It has always been Marxist propagandists who have sought to redefine the idea of ‘free markets’ in a negative way, and the use of the term capitalism is how they did it. They have been so effective in their efforts that today even some free market proponents instead refer to themselves as ‘capitalists.’

This post was published at Alt-Market on 15 February 2017.

Are You a Deplorable? Take This Quiz to Find Out

Regardless of your ethnicity, class or religion, if you perceive the institutions that govern American life as corrupted, riddled with favoritism and spin or as broken, you’re a Deplorable.
Are you a Deplorable? The answer might surprise you. Take this short quiz to find out.
1. If you agree with this characterization of American Elites: “The self-satisfied cosmopolitan culture that sprang up among the affluent 20% or so of the industrial world’s population, who became convinced that the temporary ascendancy of policies that favored their interests was not only permanent but self-evidently right and just.”(The Fifth Side of the Triangle The Archdruid Report)
You’re a Deplorable.
2. If you question whether globalization is actually in the national interest:You’re a Deplorable.
3. If you question whether endless wars of choice, drone strikes and foreign interventions that cost the lives of countless civilians are actually in the national interest: You’re a Deplorable.
4. If you see the major institutions of American life as corrupt, ineffective, and blatantly favoring the financial/social elites: You’re a Deplorable.

This post was published at Charles Hugh Smith on DECEMBER 18, 2016.

Donna Brazile Shared More Debate Questions With Hillary

Over the past several weeks DNC Chair Donna Brazile has been pummeled in the media after Podesta’s emails revealed that she provided a debate question to Hillary in advance of a March 13, 2016 debate with Bernie Sanders.
Now, the latest WikiLeaks dump reveals that it wasn’t just a one-off thing. The following email from Brazile, sent one day prior to a March 6th debate with Bernie, shows yet another occasion of her providing an advanced peak at debate questions to the Hillary campaign. We can’t imagine that Bernie supporters are very happy that this is the person chosen to takeover the leadership position at the DNC after Schultz was pushed out for showing favoritism toward the Clinton campaign.


This post was published at Zero Hedge on Oct 31, 2016.

5 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE BLACKED OUT DAKOTA ACCESS PIPELINE PROTESTS

A small Standing Rock Sioux site in North Dakota called the Sacred Stone Camp has been propelled into the national news narrative following their stand against the Dakota Access Pipeline. Due in part to independent media coverage of the ongoing standoff, the Sacred Stone camp has grown into a formidable opposition against the $3.8 billion, 1,200-mile long pipeline.
Due to misinformation coming from law-enforcement, political favoritism toward the pipeline builders, and the media’s blatant reluctance to report on the pipeline, it’s hard to tell truth from fiction. Anti-Media, along with our partners in the independent media and our embedded journalist at the opposition encampment, have been covering the unfolding standoff continuously. Here are five things you need to know.
1. Who is opposing the pipeline – and why
The Standing Rock Sioux tribe is leading the opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline. They have been joined by the largest tribal coalition in over 100 years in their stand against the pipeline. The coalition is also comprised of activists, allies, and environmentalists, collectively known as ‘water protectors,’ at the Sacred Stone Camp, an encampment close to the location where the pipeline is planned to cross the Missouri River in North Dakota. According to the Sacred Stone camp website, they are opposing the pipeline because ‘[t]he Dakota Access threatens everything from farming and drinking water to entire ecosystems, wildlife and food sources surrounding the Missouri.’

This post was published at The Daily Sheeple on OCTOBER 28, 2016.

5 Things You Need To Know About The Dakota Access Pipeline Protests

A small Standing Rock Sioux site in North Dakota called the Sacred Stone Camp has been propelled into the national news narrative following their stand against the Dakota Access Pipeline. Due in part to independent media coverage of the ongoing standoff, the Sacred Stone camp has grown into a formidable opposition against the $3.8 billion, 1,200-mile long pipeline.
Due to misinformation coming from law-enforcement, political favoritism toward the pipeline builders, and the media’s blatant reluctance to report on the pipeline, it’s hard to tell truth from fiction. Anti-Media, along with our partners in the independent media and our embedded journalist at the opposition encampment, have been covering the unfolding standoff continuously. Here are five things you need to know.
1. Who is opposing the pipeline – and why
The Standing Rock Sioux tribe is leading the opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline. They have been joined by the largest tribal coalition in over 100 years in their stand against the pipeline. The coalition is also comprised of activists, allies, and environmentalists, collectively known as ‘water protectors,’ at the Sacred Stone Camp, an encampment close to the location where the pipeline is planned to cross the Missouri River in North Dakota. According to the Sacred Stone camp website, they are opposing the pipeline because ‘[t]he Dakota Access threatens everything from farming and drinking water to entire ecosystems, wildlife and food sources surrounding the Missouri.’

This post was published at Zero Hedge on Oct 28, 2016.

DNC WIKILEAKS SCANDAL CONTINUES: THREE MORE TOP OFFICIALS RESIGN

Three top Democratic National Committee (DNC) officials have stepped down in the wake of the email scandal that has already forced the ouster of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
CEO Amy Dacey, communications director Luis Miranda, and chief financial officer (CFO) Brad Marshall all resigned on Tuesday after facing scrutiny for emails that critics say showed favoritism toward Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders during the presidential primaries. Marshall was particularly criticized for suggesting questioning Sanders’ religion to sow dislike of him among the public.
Interim DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile apologized on Tuesday for what she called ‘insensitive and inappropriate emails.’
Politico reports:

This post was published at The Daily Sheeple on AUGUST 3, 2016.

SP 500 and NDX Futures Daily Charts – Peak Hubris and Complacency

“I don’t understand people…who talk about us as being in decline, and who act as though we are not yet the greatest country that has ever been on the face of the Earth for all of history!”
Hillary Rodham Clinton, 25 July 2016
The Democratic establishment’s lack of understanding of what a large portion of the public has been saying and thinking during this entire election cycle and beyond is both remarkable and yet understandable, given the bubble of easy money, crony capitalism, and endless favoritism in which their candidate and their pampered protgs exist.
This utter disconnect from the public why liberal establishment figureheads can write columns in the New York Times suggesting that all is well because things are great on the affluent bubble-land of the Upper West Side of Manhattan, or in Silicon Valley, and then imply that anyone else who is complaining in the rest of the country is ignorant, a malcontent, or just whining.
We have been hearing this sort of nonsense for some time now from the establishment cronies of both parties. Like all elites who have become insular and out of touch throughout history, the fortunate few have stopped listening to anything outside of their own circles, and have little attention or tolerance for dissent from their group thought.
And I suspect that the DNC power players, led by their poster child HRC, would like to take the support of the Sanders faction for granted, counting on fear of Trump to beat them into line. And so the very comfortable Wall Street wing of the Democrats will eventually toss their progressives under the bus, and try to garner more endorsements from disaffected establishment Republicans and their big money sponsors. After all, this has been Obama’s modus operandi for the past eight years.

This post was published at Jesses Crossroads Cafe on 25 JULY 2016.

“Folks, Put The Pieces Together” – Judge Jeanine Rages Over Comey/Clinton Debacle

Never one to mince words, Judge Jeanine Pirro goes on an epic rant regarding the FBI’s decision not to recommend charges against Hillary Clinton. Judge Pirro says that given all of her experience, the case against Hillary Clinton should have been presented to a grand jury. Not only that, but Pirro cuts right to the point by saying that the entire decision reeks of favoritism.
“You all know I think highly of Jim Comey, I worked with him when I was a DA and he was the United States attorney. Today however, was a very dark day for the Department of Justice, and the FBI and criminal justice at large in this nation. When Jim Comey presented facts that supported the actual indictment of Hillary Clinton and said no reasonable person would prosecute, that case defies logic.”

This post was published at Zero Hedge on Jul 6, 2016.

Demagoguery, Duopoly, & The Death Of America’s Body Politic

It seems such an improbability, impossibility at times, that such a diverse population in ethnicities, races, religions and ideologies be politically housed in two tents. But this United States of America for all its diversity, and at times forced accommodation, did manage early on in its history to develop an economic critical center of gravity – a large, unprecedented economic marketplace – that kept the nation un-fragmented, magically glued principally because of a single reason: an unrivaled economic prosperity that the United States maintained for its people vis- -vis other economies in the world.
However, that unique economic and political America that Alexis de Tocqueville would describe almost two centuries ago [Democracy in America] may have had its incredible seven-generation run, and be now ready for a meltdown; for the patent to that magic glue held by America has now expired, free for all to emulate via globalization. And, ‘though the international playing field has yet to become competitively flat, we might just be a short generation away from that occurring; and the miracle that once was America could soon become but a memory of recent past.
Poof… goes the American mythic star! The diamond-studded American exceptionalism, together with the touted and revered American dream – dual virtuosity that we were made to believe came from above… from a god who prejudicially played favoritism on our behalf – are rapidly coming to an end, as we begin to recognize and acknowledge that our lucky star was mainly the result of an unprecedentedly large marketplace that industrious Americans created in their westward territorial expansion… something which de Tocqueville clearly saw and aptly described in the 1820′s.

This post was published at Zero Hedge on Jun 6, 2016.

Do Rich People Pay Their “Fair Share”?

Earlier this month, information from a Panamanian law firm was leaked which showed that many wealthy people had set up Panamanian shell companies to hide income and avoid taxes.
Out of 11.5 million leaked documents, only 211 people (.00006% of the US population) with US addresses (not all of them citizens) were implicated by the documents. Nevertheless, American politicians and members of the media seized on the leak as an illustration of how high-income Americans aren’t paying “their fair share.”
The Whole Idea of “Fair Share” Is Problematic
First of all, we must note that the very concept of “fair share” is misleading as it assumes everything governments do is absolutely essential, so it should just be accepted as fait accompli that government agents are the good and reliable stewards of the more than three trillion dollars in tax receipts that will be collected from taxpayers this year.
The core assumption at work here is that more good things could be done if only more people were paying more in taxes.
However, if non-wealthy taxpayers feel they’re paying more than their fair share, they might want to reduce their own “share” by exploring cuts in both taxes and spending for everyone (including themselves), rather than demand that even more wealth be shipped off to government agents. After all, once that tax money iscollected, we then pay all over again for government spending in the form of business cycles, market distortions, and political favoritism.

This post was published at Ludwig von Mises Institute on 04/25/2016.

Doug Noland: Pushing Desperate Measures Too Far

The basic premise is that years of central bank monetary inflation and market manipulation have nurtured a ‘global pool of speculative finance’ of incredible dimensions. The unstable dynamic of ‘too much ‘money’ chasing too few real opportunities’ – along with the associated ‘Crowded Trade’ phenomenon – has made it extraordinarily difficult for active managers to compete with the indices. And as ‘money’ continues to gravitate to passive bets on the major indices, the markets’ dysfunctional trend-following/performance-chasing dynamic becomes only more deeply entrenched (and detached from fundamentals). When markets lurch higher, irrepressible forces begin pulling everyone in.
Albeit the Germans, Japanese bankers, pension fund managers or even the general public, it’s been a frustratingly long wait for policy normalization. And just when hope was running high, the rug was pulled right out from under. Around the world many had patiently accepted the favoritism and inequity of reflationary measures. But what was supposed to be extraordinary and temporary morphed into the normal and permanent: egregious wealth redistribution.

This post was published at Credit Bubble Bulletin

The March Against the March Against the March Against Monsanto

This Saturday, the third annual March Against Monsanto will be taking place in cities around the globe as people exercise their right to free speech and clean, organic food and really just simply to know what exactly it is they are eating and what effects that food has on their health.
Via the official March Against Monsanto website:
Research studies have shown that Monsanto’s genetically-modified foods can lead to serious health conditions such as the development of cancer tumors, infertility and birth defects. In the United States, the FDA, the agency tasked with ensuring food safety for the population, is steered by ex-Monsanto executives, and we feel that’s a questionable conflict of interests and explains the lack of government-lead research on the long-term effects of GMO products. Recently, the U. S. Congress and president collectively passed the nicknamed ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ that, among other things, bans courts from halting the sale of Monsanto’s genetically-modified seeds.
For too long, Monsanto has been the benefactor of corporate subsidies and political favoritism. Organic and small farmers suffer losses while Monsanto continues to forge its monopoly over the world’s food supply, including exclusive patenting rights over seeds and genetic makeup. Monsanto’s GMO seeds are harmful to the environment; for example, scientists have indicated they have caused colony collapse among the world’s bee population.

This post was published at NutritionalAnarchy on May 21st, 2015.

The EU’s Stalinesque ‘4 Year Plan’

They Didn’t Want to Call it the ’5 Year Plan’ We have already commented on previous occasions on the EU’s ‘investment plan’ (see: ‘EU Planning to Spend Money it Doesn’t Have’ for details), which is bound to result in the production of countless white elephants across Europe (such as Poland’s ‘ghost airports’). These investments are apt to ‘boost GDP’ in a number of countries, but will very likely leave nothing but proverbial bridges to nowhere behind. It is going to be yet another giant waste of scarce resources.
Apparently the EU has now given its placet to a ‘Four Year Plan’ with the aim of investinf 315 billion, with various EU governments vying for the best place at the trough. It seems they didn’t want to make it a ‘Five Year Plan’ – that would have been too reminiscent of the Soviet GOSPLAN agency, so a four year plan was adopted. However, what they may not have been aware of is that Stalin actually gave orders that the Soviet Union’s five year plans had to be fulfilled in four years:

As Reuters reports on this latest giant boondoggle thought up by the administrative apparatus of the European socialist superstate project:
‘EU finance ministers agreed the details of a 315 billion euro ($338 billion) investment plan on Tuesday to help revive the European economy without piling up more debt, and now aim to get the first projects going by the end of the year. EU lawmakers must now approve the fund.
‘The plan is the answer we need to confront the main handicap of the European economy: the lack of investment,’ said Pierre Moscovici, the EU economics commissioner, adding that investment had fallen by 15 to 20 percent since 2008.
The four-year plan fleshes out a call by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker to back riskier projects from airports to railways and to confront the fall in investment since the financial crisis. Setting up the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) has been sensitive, with EU governments fearful of not having their projects chosen from a list of almost 2,000 projects worth 1.3 trillion euros that countries put forward. Some EU lawmakers are wary of favoritism toward western European countries over poorer, eastern European members.
Another problem has been that the Commission wanted countries to stump up money for the fund, insisting that it would not be included in debt and deficit calculations. That idea flopped because countries had no guarantee that their projects would be chosen.
Instead, countries such as France, Spain and Germany said they would help fund projects in their country via national development banks, and Italy on Tuesday promised to contribute 8 billion euros to the Italian projects chosen, via its national promotional bank.

This post was published at Acting-Man on March 11, 2015.

Ron Paul Fires Back at Fed Apologists

Ron Paul published a scathing article attacking the Federal Reserve’s anti-audit propaganda. Responding to vocal Fed apologists, Paul writes that the American people have a right to decide if the Fed’s monetary system is harmful and current auditing laws are not comprehensive enough.
Paul’s main arguments for a Fed audit include:
Contrary to what Fed apologists claim, the bill does not have a provision that will allow Congress to infringe on the Fed’s independence. The Fed has always been under some form of political influence. Current auditing laws only record assets on the Fed’s balance sheet, not what was purchased and why. A one-time audit of the Fed’s response to the financial crisis found that it committed over $16 trillion to foreign central banks and private companies between 2007 and 2010. A full audit would address the Fed’s long-standing favoritism of political and financial elites.

This post was published at Schiffgold on MARCH 9, 2015.