Saturday, February 4, 2023

BREAKING: Seth Rich Hush Money?

from af-mag.com:

During the 2016 Presidential Election, the biggest story became how Russia “hacked” the election. The “17 intelligence agencies” that Hillary Rodham Clinton cited all relied on word from a contracted company, Crowdstrike.

Crowdstrike is a technology company that specializes in cyber-security. Not only is there conflict of interest with Crowdstrike receiving payments, campaign data shows some incredible correlations with the payments that were made.

 

All payments cited below are part of the Federal Election Committee data of campaign spending on the www.fec.gov website.

The first payments made were preemptive measures on May 5th, 2016 when the DNC was looking to figure out where the breach of security was. Payments made on May 5th, 2016 of $7,650.00 and $1,462.50 were likely paid for Crowdstrike to install their Falcon software, a stellar technology security suite that would identify any internal or external security breach.

The final email on Wikileaks from the DNC is dated May 25th, 2016. Crowdstrike would have had complete knowledge of the party that ripped the emails from the server.

The next payment that was made to Crowdstrike occurred on July 11th, 2016 for the amount of $98,849.84. The relationship to this date happens to be the day after DNC Data Director of New Voter Registration Seth Rich was murdered.

The final payment to date is August 3rd, 2016. This coincides with another murder in the District of Columbia. Shawn Lucas, who died on August 2nd of last year, was the DNC Process Server and close friend of Seth Rich. The payment on August 3rd included two checks, one for $113,645.77 and the other for $4,275.00.

We find it highly coincidental that both of these payments came within 24 hours of two high profile murders in Washington D.C., which both have connection to the DNC.

Updates:
The initial and final payment was referring to Technology Consulting and Technology Infrastructure Maintenance, linked here. It does not include the licensing of the software under the description of Data Services Subscription.

Read More @ af-mag.com

THE PEDO AGENDA: New Studies Promote Child-Adult Sex, Establishment is SILENT

The “powers-that-be no longer seem interested in drawing the boundary between ‘right’ and ‘perverse’ sex.” 

by Mark Regnerus, The Public Discourse:

Two new studies use a small amount of old data to try to undermine the idea that it is abusive or damaging for adults to have sex with minors. Disturbingly, no one seems to be challenging this conclusion.

The Archives of Sexual Behavior, a journal I respect and have recently published in and reviewed for, has printed a pair of studies by Bruce Rind in the past year. The recent publication of his work marks a significant, unnoticed, and unnerving turn in the dissemination and consumption of research on sex and sexuality.

Almost twenty years ago, both houses of Congress and the American Psychological Association condemned Rind’s claims, published in the August 1998 issue of Psychological Bulletinthat the long-term damages caused by child sexual abuse are overestimated. I would have thought that nearly twenty years, a concurrent resolution of Congress, and a fair bit of social trauma would have convinced him to shift topics.

But I was wrong. His new studies are on the same theme: sex between adults and minors as young as thirteen. Rind is banking on a more amenable political and scholarly atmosphere in which to conclude comparable things. And from the sound of it—or rather, the utter lack of sound—he has gotten his wish. There has been no congressional concern, no APA scrutiny, just silence.

So what do the studies say?

Old Data and Small Sample Sizes

The first study concerns adolescent girls’ first same-sex sexual experience, and mirrors an earlier one on boys. The data Rind uses, curiously enough, are the Kinsey data, collected by the famous early student of American sexual behavior Alfred Kinsey. These are old data—most of the participants were born before 1930—but that does not mean they have no value. Rind praises Kinsey because his was not a clinical sample, studying people who are seeking help of some sort. Agreed. But Kinsey is hardly representative. I don’t believe Kinsey’s data are a good guide to understanding what behavior was normative in its time, or in ours, given his nonrandom approach to locating participants. But neither do I believe that Kinsey’s interviewees were lying.

The second study is on the “long-term adjustment and functioning” of boys who experienced their first same-sex sexual experience with adult men, using data from the 1992 National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). These data have a comparative advantage over Kinsey’s by being far more recent and population-based. Both articles seek to “test,” and purport to undermine, the child sexual abuse (CSA) framework in which “all minor-adult sexual interactions are considered abusive, traumatic, and psychologically injurious by nature.”

On average, girls in the Kinsey data set were fifteen years old at the time of their first same-sex sexual event with a woman (who was, on average, twenty-six years old). For men in the NHSLS, their mean age was fifteen and their partner was twenty-eight. In each study, fewer than half of the respondents describing such early same-sex experience currently identified as homosexual. Most of the women’s first experiences were what Rind termed “outercourse,” involving no oral sex or penetration (i.e., less invasive). The opposite was the case with boys, where oral sex was reported by 67 percent, and anal sex by 29 percent. In other words, these encounters were invasive and “severe,” Rind admits. “Despite this,” he argues, their “adjustment was not inferior to that in the comparison groups.” He makes this claim while admitting that only 19 percent of such male respondents said the sex was “wanted at the time,” well below the 54 percent who experienced first sex with age-similar peers. Sixty-seven percent “went along” and 14 percent report being forced, well above the 3 to 4 percent among other scenarios.

However, both Kinsey and the NHSLS suffer from very small sample sizes in Rind’s population of interest. We are talking about only twenty-six cases of girl-woman sexual events from a study that sought participants wherever it could find them, and twenty-one cases of boy-man sex from a population-based study. But since we are talking about very small samples, Rind is able to conclude that there is no difference among groups in having been forced into first sex. That is not how scientific literatures ought to be built, nor legal cases won. (But it is.)

Does Sex with Adults Have Negative Consequences for Minors?

The central claim of Rind’s studies, however, is that minor-adult sex tends not to be reported as a bad experience, as unwanted, or as one with longstanding negative consequences. Eighty-five percent of women who said their first same-sex sexual experience was as a minor with an adult told Kinsey interviewers they “much” enjoyed the experience. Sixty-three percent of comparable men reported “positive” reasons for participating in the act (an estimate far below that of those respondents who first had sex with a similar-age peer). Fewer than 10 percent said they knew their first (male) partner well.

Nevertheless, Rind believes the evidence vindicates him: “Men whose first postpubertal same-sex sexual experience was as a minor with an adult were as well adjusted as controls.” Such men reported to be “just as healthy, happy, sexually well adjusted, and successful in educational and career achievement.” It’s a tough conclusion to swallow. Recall, for example, the furor over atheist Richard Dawkins’s assertion about his boarding school sexual abuser, claiming that “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.” Rind concludes similarly about teen girls’ first same-sex experience. This result, he holds, “is sharply at odds with the pathology perspectives” (that is, the sexual abuse narrative). In fact, the results “showed that same-sex attracted adolescent minors were especially receptive to these relations.”

As a social scientist of sexual behavior who is surprised by very little, I’m willing to admit that it is possible for this to be the case, while holding firmly to the assertion that such events remain diabolical and an unequivocal abuse of power. Moreover, the emotional consequences of teen sex with adults are something that may never be readily accessible to “discursive consciousness,” those experiences and emotions to which humans have conscious access, can understand, and verbally express and evaluate.

Pleasure, Power, and Sexual Exploitation

I ran Rind’s studies past a friend of mine who had experienced it all—childhood molestation by an opposite-sex older relative and then a sustained relationship of same-sex “outercourse” initiated by a counselor who was eighteen years her senior. Like many in Rind’s study, she “went along” due to the counselor’s manipulation. She spoke of willingness, well short of enthusiasm, in order not to threaten the relationship. The sexual activity became mutual. And yet it was all exploitative, and deeply damaging.

At twenty years old, she was legally of age. Yet she sees obvious parallels between minor-adult relationships and therapist-client relationships: there are inherent power imbalances in both that make sexual contact of any kind wrong. Even mutual desire or initiation by the youth or the client cannot erase these power differences, as all professional and legal establishments used to understand.

Read More @ ThePublicDiscourse.com

Photos: Sioux Tribe Says Elder Beaten and Tased by Cop While Trying to Visit Dying Mother

0

by James Holbrooks, The Anti Media:

South Dakota — The Yankton Sioux Tribe is claiming police used excessive force to prevent one its tribal elders, 64-year-old Raymond Cournoyer Sr., from seeing his dying mother in a nursing home last weekend. Cournoyer was detained following the incident with police and wasn’t able to see his mother before she passed.

Cournoyer, who spoke to Argus Leader on Tuesday, says he spent most of Saturday at the nursing home and that his mother was doing well, so he left that evening and returned home. He says the call he got from sister telling him to rush back to the city of Wagner to say his goodbyes was unexpected.

According to the Grand Forks Herald, an affidavit from the South Dakota Highway Patrol says one of their troopers clocked Cournoyer, a resident of Lake Andes, doing 72 in 65 mph zone. Cournoyer’s refusal to pull over prompted the trooper to call for backup from the Wagner Police Department when the vehicle crossed into those city limits.

The trooper followed Cournoyer to the nursing home. The Yankton Sioux Tribe released a statement to the press, and its claims of what happened next were summed up by the Yankton Daily Press & Dakotan:

“After verbally informing the officer of his intention to be at his mother’s side during her final moments and then taking a few steps, Cournoyer was allegedly grabbed from behind and pushed against his vehicle. At that point in time, the tribe claims a member of the Wagner City Police Department arrived on scene and slammed Cournoyer to the ground face first and tazed him. Both officers then placed Cournoyer in handcuffs, the tribe said.”

The tribe further claimed that the Wagner police officer, Eli Kuhlman, who fired the taser, was a recent hire and uncertified. Argon Leader confirmed that claim with Wagner’s city attorney. Kuhlman had been with the six-person force for less than a year and had that full year to complete officer certification.

In fact, Cournoyer’s daughter Philomena, who was a witness and posted photos of the encounter to Facebook, wrote in her post that she had to put her own skills to use that night due to the officer’s inexperience:

“I just thought I would share this as well, I am the one who had to remove the taser prongs that were stuck in his skin after they tased him. They police officer didn’t know how to remove them. If the officer is too incompetent to remove the taser after firing it how is he even allowed to use it?”

Speaking to Argus Leader, Chiara Cournoyer described her sister Philomena as a trained medical technician with a goal of becoming a tribal police officer.

Philomena further claimed in her post that the reason her father wasn’t able to say his goodbyes is that the officers made the family wait outside the nursing home for 45 minutes while they talked over what to charge Raymond with.

According to the South Dakota Highway Patrol, the eventual charge was eluding law enforcement. That agency has since claimed in a press statement that the behavior of its trooper, Weston Fischer, was justified that night:

“South Dakota Highway Patrol has reviewed the actions of our trooper during this incident, and the trooper’s actions were professional and within South Dakota Highway Patrol policy. The South Dakota Highway Patrol did not request DCI investigation, but we have and will fully cooperate with it.”

The aforementioned investigation into the incident, being conducted by the state’s Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI), came at the request of the city of Wagner police chief, Argus Leader confirmed.

As of Friday, whether or not charges will be brought against the officers remains unclear. In an update on the case on Thursday, Argus Leader reported that that if charges are indeed filed, they won’t be handled by the county prosecutor.

Read More @ TheAntiMedia.com

Defiant Catalans Block Spain’s Military Boats From Landing; Spain Seizes “.CAT” Domain

by Mish Shedlock, MishTalk.:

Spain’s plan to send boatloads of military police to Catalonia to prevent its independence referendum have backfired with dockers in two ports staging a boycott and a third refusing access.

The Express writes Police boats Blocked by Catalan ports as unrest threatens to Rip Spain Apart.

More than 4,000 members of Spain’s Guardia Civil are being dispatched to the troubled region amid concerns over divided loyalties in the autonomous community’s own police force, the Mossos d’ Esquadra.

Spanish authorities wanted to house the Guardia Civil officers on four cruise ships – two in Barcelona, one in Tarragona and another in Palamos.

But as thousands took to the streets to protest against the detention of Catalan officials, local dock workers joined the backlash.

The Assembly of Stevedores of the Port of Barcelona announced that workers would not provide any services to boats carrying security forces, a decision it said was taken “in defence of civil rights”.

Colleagues in Tarragona quickly followed suit and the Catalan government then denied permission to dock in Palamos – which, unlike Barcelona and Tarragona, falls under regional rather than national control.

More than 40,000 people have gathered in Barcelona to protest over the arrests and the intervention of the Spanish government in the Catalan independence vote.

Many of the angry protesters have been waving Catalonia’s red and yellow flag while chanting “We will vote” and “Hello Democracy!”

In a television address, Catalan’s President Carles Puigdemont said: “The Spanish state has by all rights intervened in Catalonia’s government and has established emergency rule.

“We condemn and reject the anti-democratic and totalitarian actions of the Spanish state.”

A spokesman for the Catalan National Assembly said: “They made a big mistake; we wanted to vote and they declared war.”

Catalans are split on the issue of independence but support for a vote is high and few are happy with Spanish police arresting Catalan leaders.

Tensions have been further fuelled by reports that some of those detained are likely to face charges of sedition, which carries a lengthy prison sentence.

Support for a Vote

The Spanish newspaper La Vanguardia (via Mish translation) notes ‘The Times’ joins foreign dailies asking for a referendum for Catalonia.

The Times joins the list foreign newspapers that support a referendum. Le Mondeand the New York Times also support a referendum.

In an editorial, The Times, a historic British conservative daily, accuses prime minister Mariano Rajoy of “repression.”

The text of the British newspaper is especially blunt against the reaction of the Spanish state. The editorial maintains that Spain is in a serious “constitutional crisis” with risk of “rupture”, the greatest since “the end of the Franco dictatorship.”

The editorial also accuses Rajoy of “feeding the crisis”. The Times ventures to ask the central government to allow the referendum even if it is contrary to the Spanish Magna Carta.

Spain Seizes “.CAT” Domain

The New York Times reports In Catalonia, Spain Seizes the .Cat Internet Domain

On the same day this week that the Spanish authorities stormed the offices of the Catalan regional government, detaining at least 14 people, a less-noticed raid took place.

The puntCat foundation, which oversees the registry of websites with the “.cat” domain, tweeted Wednesday that its offices had also been raided and that one of its senior executives had been arrested.

Given the web’s rich cat history, you’d think that domain names ending in .cat would be another online feline gold mine. [But] almost all sites with the .cat suffix belong to the Catalan-speaking community thanks to the efforts of the puntCAT (“dot-cat” in Catalan), the foundation approved in 2005 to manage its registry by Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a global organization. That made it one of the first domain suffixes to explicitly refer to a language and culture, paving the way for others, when it first appeared online in 2006.

In a letter to ICANN, the foundation said that the Spanish authorities had asked it to “block all .cat domain names that may contain any kind of information about the forthcoming independence referendum.”

“We are being requested to censor content and suppress freedom of speech,” the organization added.

The internet naming corporation said, “We are aware of the reports about Fundacio PuntCAT, the registry operator for .CAT, and we continue to monitor the situation.”

Read More @ MishTalk.com

How the US Became a Warmonger Police State

by Paul Craig Roberts, Paul Craig Roberts:

Professor David Ray Griffin is a tenacious person. He has written a number of carefully researched books that demonstrate the extraordinary shortcomings in the official account of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon and the subsequent anthrax attack. He has provided the mountains of evidence completely ignored by the US government’s account and the presstitute media.

In his recently published latest book, Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World , Professor Griffin demonstrates how 9/11 was used by the Zionist Neoconservatives, the Cheney/Bush regime, and the military/security complex with the complicity of Congress and the US media to create Islamophobia among the American public in order to launch wars of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria, and provinces of Pakistan with Iran in the crosshairs. These wars are based on lies and fabricated “evidence,” on determination to control pipelines and oil flows, on maximizing profits for the military/security corporations in which Cheney has a personal interest, and on extending neoconservative hegemony over the world.

One consequence has been the destruction of US constitutional protections that protect liberty and violations of US and international law such as the laws against torture.

Another consequence has been millions of displaced refugees from Washington’s wars over-running the countries of Europe.

Indeed, Europe faces a “Camp of the Saints” situation, and the US now has a police state in which all citizens are subject to: indefinite detention (imprisonment) on suspicion alone without conviction or evidence presented to a court; assassination on suspicion alone without due process of law; and total violation of privacy, including body cavities, without presentation of a court warrant. American women are now subjected to having their vaginas examined by police in public on the roadside.

The hoax “war on terror” has turned America into a Gestapo state. Not many Americans directly experience the consequences, but they will be denied valid information as the Gestapo American state closes down all dissent on the grounds that it is harmful to national security. People who speak their minds will find that they no longer have First Amendment protection.

Every passing day truth is less and less prevalent in the United States. Democratic control over the government is already nonexistent. Essentially, Americans live in the Fourth Reich which has already budded and is now blossoming.

Wars and their expense will continue to multiply as the military/security complex uses manufactured “threats” to continue the excessive flow of American resources into more weapons to be used in the destruction of more countries.

Professor Griffin provides the details of the story of how the United States ceased to be a free country ruled by law and became instead a threat both to American civil liberty and to life on earth.

In world polls 25{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528} of the respondents recognize the United States as the greatest threat to peace in the world. This is 5 times higher than those who regard North Korea and Iran as threats, much less Venezuela which does not even register. When Trump gave his UN speech he should have said that the United States, controlled as it is by the CIA and military/security complex, is the great threat that the entire world faces, including Americans.

Read More @ PaulCraigRoberts.org

Big brother Facebook releases new ad restrictions and plans to add 3,000 content reviewers to the “hate speech” fight

0

by Jayson Veley, Natural News:

Considering the fact that the liberals who reside in Washington D.C. are on a never ending quest for power, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the liberals who run Facebook are power hungry as well. Yet again, the social media giant has implemented new rules and standards as part of their effort to combat the spread of “hate speech,” which more and more each day looks like nothing more than a code for “conservative news.”

This time, however, instead of censoring conservative viewpoints outright, Facebook is tightening the rules and restrictions regarding who can make money from advertising on its network. The social media site has explained that content that includes “family entertainment characters engaged in violent, sexualized, or otherwise inappropriate behavior” would be ineligible to make money off of advertising. In addition, Facebook’s guidelines prohibit content that is incendiary, inflammatory, demeaning, or disparaging towards others. If this system is abused — which it no doubt will be — then conservatives who run websites, blogs or businesses are in a lot of trouble. (Related: Facebook censors Natural News from users who want it, but won’t allow you to block Mark Zuckerberg’s feed.)

The new advertising standards are only the latest in Facebook’s ongoing push to censor content that doesn’t conform with the progressive agenda. In fact, last year, Fox News put together an entire list of times when Facebook trampled upon the free speech rights of their conservative users. The list told the stories of people like Lauren Southern, a conservative activist and supporter of Donald Trump who was banned from Facebook for 30 days for simply expressing outrage over her friend’s account being censored.

Other examples of Facebook censorship compiled by Fox News included a kid whose account was locked after he posted a video of Rudy Giuliani criticizing Barack Obama, the removal of a photoshopped picture posted by a conservative page depicting Obama wearing Che Guevara gloves, and the removal of a patriotic photo honoring fallen Marines.

Given the new standards regarding advertising on Facebook, and given the countless examples of conservatives being directly censored, it is safe to assume that Mark Zuckerberg and his team are addicted to power. In many ways, they are like a schoolyard bully that picks on smaller students to boost his inflated ego. And as everybody knows, the only real way to deal with a bully is to deliver a quick punch to the nose, followed by a stern warning to knock it off.

Quite frankly, the time for conservatives and free speech advocates to take a stand against Facebook is long overdue. In an ideal world, Facebook would just do an Internet search for the United States Constitution (assuming that Google hasn’t censored that yet) and remind themselves of what the First Amendment actually says. Then they would realize that they had overstepped their boundaries and back off. Sadly, that doesn’t look like it is going to happen. Facebook either doesn’t understand the meaning of free speech, or worse, they understand it but simply do not care. (Related: If Google and Facebook are not regulated, their politically-motivated censorship will drive America to open warfare in the streets.)

That is exactly the reason why conservatives should call on congress to debate and eventually pass legislation that limits the amount of power Facebook has to censor right wing voices. Frankly, this should be something that receives bipartisan support. Once liberty begins to erode and tyranny starts to fill its place, everybody suffers, regardless of political positions and ideological viewpoints.

As Ben Franklin once said, “Freedom of speech is a principle pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected in its ruins. Republics… derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates.”

Read More @ NaturalNews.com

Central Bank “Cryptocurrencies”? Just a Different Kind of Funny-Money – Jeff Nielson

by Jeff Nielson, Sprott Money:

It is quite hilarious to watch the posturing of central banks and their media mouthpieces on the subject of cryptocurrencies. A recent Reuters article on the subject provided numerous moments of mirth. The title alone is good for a chuckle.

Too Soon to Determine Risks of Central Bank-Issued Cryptocurrencies: BIS

It’s always amusing when these shameless con-men (and women) attempt to portray themselves as sober arbiters of risk. Those who understand our monetary system are aware that the funny-money that these shysters are currently peddling is completely worthless.

The “fiat currencies” of Western central banks have had highly questionable value ever since the final connection to the gold standard was severed in 1971. However, since 2009 there has no longer been any question at all – ever since the Federal Reserve launched the Bernanke Helicopter Drop.

U.S. dollars have value only to the extent that they are strictly limited in supply.

— B.S. Bernanke, November 21, 2002

Since 2009 and the era of unlimited dollar-supply began, the U.S. dollar (and all its fiat currency derivatives) has been completely worthless. It is with this backdrop that we watch these Clown Princes of our monetary system debating the “risks” involved with crytpocurrencies.

The article starts with a straight line and then heads straight for laughs.

It is too soon to determine whether central banks should issue their own cryptocurrencies, the Bank for International Settlements said on Sunday, as the risks could not yet be fully assessed and the technology underpinning them is still unproven.

Central banks already use electronic money – only a very small proportion of their assets are now backed by gold – but this is exchanged in a centralized fashion, across accounts at the central bank.

“Only a very small proportion of their assets are now backed by gold”. What proportion would that be? Zero – a very small proportion indeed.

Currency reserves (including gold) represent – at best – indirect backing for these worthless currencies. A government trying to prop up their own paper can liquidate their currency reserves, and use the proceeds to buy-up their own currencies. Hardly “backing” in any formal sense.

The whole objective of these criminal central banks in assassinating the gold standard was to completely divorce their money-printing from gold. Gold-backed money is Honest Money , and there is nothing remotely honest about central bank fiat currencies.

Central banks already have their own funny-money that they can conjure into existence in infinite quantities. So why are these institutions of monetary crime openly expressing interest in cryptocurrencies?

Envy.

Blockchain technology enables peer-to-peer payments to be made using decentralized cryptocurrencies like bitcoin, by means of a shared ledger that verifies, records and settles transactions in a matter of minutes.

“While it seems unlikely that bitcoin or its sisters will displace sovereign currencies, they have demonstrated the ability of the underlying blockchain or distributed ledger technology (DLT),” BIS said.

Cryptocurrencies can also be conjured into existence in infinite quantities, limited only by the algorithms that spawn them into existence. But adding blockchain technology adds a money-pump dimension not possessed by current central bank money-printing operations.

“Peer-to-peer payments.”

What is the appeal here? Such a totally electronic means of delivering payment for transactions makes the War on Cash that these criminals have already declared even easier to impose upon us. Furthermore, the whole concept of cryptocurrencies adds an element of quasi-legitimacy not possessed by central bank fiat currencies.

What gives a gold-backed currency value? It is backed by a hard asset with a 5,000 year pedigree.

What gives a fiat currency value? Our (honest and trustworthy) governments say that that this funny-money has value.

What gives a cryptocurrency value? An algorithm.

The vast majority of our populations have no clear understanding of what an algorithm is. That’s how and why the banksters have gotten away with imposing their totally fraudulent trading algorithms on our markets – no one understands the obvious criminality of allowing computers to hijack our markets .

So it comes down to a choice. Are the masses more likely to retain faith in our funny-money knowing that it is “backed” by an algorithm, or “backed” by the good word of our governments? Framed in those terms, the choice seems obvious: fiat currencies out; cryptocurrencies in.

A recent article distinguished cryptocurrencies from real money: gold and silver or precious metals-backed money.

mere currencies (such as all of our paper currencies) are not “money”. They are not a store of value. They are not rare or precious. They have no intrinsic value. Their utility is purely as a medium of exchange.

Crypto-currencies, as the name directly implies, are not money. They are not a store of value. They are mere currency.

They can still be distinguished from our fraudulent (central bank-created) fiat currencies. As was previously discussed, many credible sources will attest to the fact that crypto-currencies are not fraudulent.

Here is the appeal. Cryptocurrencies are not money, meaning they are not a store of value, thus they will notintrinsically help the masses preserve their wealth. At the same time, unlike the central bank’s fiat currencies, cryptocurrencies are not open frauds that are rapidly losing any veneer of legitimacy.

Cryptocurrencies are becoming more legitimate in the eyes of the masses, eyes which (more and more often) are coloured by greed. See how high Bitcoin soared last week/month/year?

For 45 years, all we have seen is the purchasing power of our (so-called) money plummeting. The same chocolate bar that cost a dime when the gold standard was killed costs a dollar today. Now the masses are actually catching a glimpse of currencies that rise in purchasing power , even as the supply increases.

Something for nothing.

Read More @ SprottMoney.com

BREAKING: Crowdstrike Payments Coincide With Deaths Of Seth Rich, Shawn Lucas

by Elizabeth Vos, Disobedient Media:

A breaking report from America First Media Group appears to show that payments were made from the DNC to private cyber security firm Crowdstrike, which coincided with the dates of two mysterious deaths: the unsolved murder of Seth Rich and the sudden, unexpected death of process server Shawn Lucas.

Disobedient Media previously reported on Shawn Lucas’ death, which occurred shortly after he attempted to serve former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz with papers regarding the DNC Fraud Lawsuit. Attorneys for the plaintiffs in that case later sought protection from the court, and in doing so cited both Seth Rich and Shawn Lucas‘ deaths, as well as that of Beranton Whisenant Jr.

In their report, America First Media Group  illustrates that the first payments from the DNC to Crowdstrike were made on May 5th, 2016. They show that the next payment to Crowdstrike, totaling $98,849.84, took place on July 11th.

Their report specifically stated that: “The relationship to this date happens to be the day after DNC Data Director of New Voter Registration Seth Rich was murdered.”

The report further indicates: “The final payment to date is August 3rd, 2016. This coincides with another murder in the District of Columbia. Shawn Lucas, who died on August 2nd of last year, was the DNC Process Server and close friend of Seth Rich.”

That Lucas and Rich were friends is an extremely important and noteworthy detail, and may provide some connection between their deaths which has not previously been considered. If true it provides significant potential context for their deaths and the political furor surrounding both men.

Disobedient Media has provided ongoing coverage of Crowdstrike, including their connection to George Soros via the Atlantic Council. We have also extensively reported on the groundbreaking work of Adam Carter, who has raised strong concerns regarding Crowdstrike’s possible role in the creation of the Guccifer 2.0 persona and possible fabrication of Russian hacking in coordination with the DNC.

Read More @ DisobedientMedia.com

GOVERNMENT BY GOLDMAN

0

by Gary Rivlin, and Michael Hudson, The Intercept:

STEVE BANNON was in the room the day Donald Trump first fell for Gary Cohn. So were Reince Priebus, Jared Kushner, and Trump’s pick for secretary of Treasury, Steve Mnuchin. It was the end of November, three weeks after Trump’s improbable victory, and Cohn, then still the president of Goldman Sachs, was at Trump Tower presumably at the invitation of Kushner, with whom he was friendly. Cohn was there to offer his views about jobs and the economy. But, like the man he was there to meet, he was at heart a salesman.

On the campaign trail, Trump had spoken often about the importance of investing in infrastructure. Yet the president-elect had apparently failed to appreciate that the government would need to come up with hundreds of billions of dollars to fund his plans. Cohn, brash and bold, wired to attack any moneymaking opportunity, pitched a fix that would put Wall Street firms at the center: Private-industry partners could help infrastructure get fixed, saving the federal government from going deeper into debt. The way the moment was captured by the New York Times, among other publications, Trump was dumbfounded. “Is this true?” he asked. Was a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan likely to increase the deficit by a trillion dollars? Confronted by nodding heads, an unhappy president-elect said, “Why did I have to wait to have this guy tell me?”

Within two weeks, the transition team announced that Cohn would take over as director of the president’s National Economic Council.

1GOLDMAN ALWAYS WINS

GOLDMAN SACHS had been a favorite cudgel for candidate Trump — the symbol of a government that favors Wall Street over its citizenry. Trump proclaimed that Hillary Clinton was in the firm’s pockets, as was Ted Cruz. It was Goldman Sachs that Trump singled out when he railed against a system rigged in favor of the global elite — one that “robbed our working class, stripped our country of wealth, and put money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities.” Cohn, as president and chief operating officer of Goldman Sachs, had been at the heart of it all. Aggressive and relentless, a former aluminum siding salesman and commodities broker with a nose for making money, Cohn had turned Goldman’s sleepy home loan unit into what a Senate staffer called “one of the largest mortgage trading desks in the world.” There, he aggressively pushed his sales team to sell mortgage-backed securities to unaware investors even as he watched over “the big short,” Goldman’s decision to bet billions of dollars that the market would collapse.

Now Cohn would be coordinating economic policy for the populist president.

The conflicts between the two men were striking. Cohn ran a giant investment bank with offices in financial capitals around the globe, one deeply committed to a world with few economic borders. Trump’s nationalist campaign contradicted everything Goldman Sachs and its top executives represented on the global stage.

Trump raged against “offshoring” by American companies during the 2016 campaign. He even threatened “retribution,”­ a 35 percent tariff on any goods imported into the United States by a company that had moved jobs overseas. But Cohn laid out Goldman’s very different view of offshoring at an investor conference in Naples, Florida, in November. There, Cohn explained unapologetically that Goldman had offshored its back-office staff, including payroll and IT, to Bangalore, India, now home to the firm’s largest office outside New York City: “We hire people there because they work for cents on the dollar versus what people work for in the United States.”

Candidate Trump promised to create millions of new jobs, vowing to be “the greatest jobs president that God ever created.” Cohn, as Goldman Sachs’s president and COO, oversaw the firm’s mergers and acquisitions business that had, over the previous three years, led to the loss of at least 22,000 U.S. jobs, according to a study by two advocacy groups. Early in his candidacy, Trump described as “disgusting” Pfizer’s decision to buy a smaller Irish competitor in order to execute a “corporate inversion,” a maneuver in which a U.S. company moves its headquarters overseas to reduce its tax burden. The Pfizer deal ultimately fell through. But in 2016, in the heat of the campaign, Goldman advised on a megadeal that saw Johnson Controls, a Fortune 500 company based in Milwaukee, buy the Ireland-based Tyco International with the same goal. A few months later, with Goldman’s help, Johnson Controls had executed its inversion.

With Cohn’s appointment, Trump now had three Goldman Sachs alums in top positions inside his administration: Steve Bannon, who was a vice president at Goldman when he left the firm in 1990, as chief strategist, and Steve Mnuchin, who had spent 17 years at Goldman, as Treasury secretary. And there were more to come. A few weeks later, another Goldman partner, Dina Powell, joined the White House as a senior counselor for economic initiatives. Goldman was a longtime client of Jay Clayton, Trump’s choice to chair the Securities and Exchange Commission; Clayton had represented Goldman after the 2008 financial crisis, and his wife Gretchen worked there as a wealth management adviser. And there was the brief, colorful tenure of Anthony Scaramucci as White House communications director: Scaramucci had been a vice president at Goldman Sachs before leaving to co-found his own investment company.

Even before Scaramucci, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., had joked that enough Goldman alum were working for the Trump administration to open a branch office in the White House.

“There was a devastating financial crisis just over eight years ago,” Warren said. “Goldman Sachs was at the heart of that crisis. The idea that the president is now going to turn over the country’s economic policy to a senior Goldman executive turns my stomach.” Prior administrations often had one or two people from Goldman serving in top positions. George W. Bush at one point had three. At its peak, the Trump administration effectively had six.

Earlier this summer, Trump boasted about his team of economic advisers at a rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. “This is the president of Goldman Sachs. Smart,” Trump said. “Having him represent us! He went from massive paydays to peanuts.”

Trump waved off anyone who might question his decision to rely on the very people he had demonized. “Somebody said, ‘Why did you appoint a rich person to be in charge of the economy?’ … I said: ‘Because that’s the kind of thinking we want.’” He needed “great, brilliant business minds … so the world doesn’t take advantage of us.” How else could he get the job done? “I love all people, rich or poor, but in those particular positions, I just don’t want a poor person.”

“Does that make sense?” Trump asked. The crowd cheered.

Read More @ TheIntercept.com

FEMA conducting “mandatory nationwide test” on Sept. 27

0

by Shepard Ambellas, Intellihun:

FEMA says that there is nothing to worry about “this is only a test”

WASHINGTON D.C. (INTELLIHUB) — The Federal Emergency Management Agencywill be taking over the “radio, television, cable, and direct broadcast satellite systems” for one minute on Sept. 27 as part of a “mandatory nationwide test of the Emergency Alert System.

The test will take place on Wednesday at “2:20 pm EDT,” according to FEMA’s official website.

The agency put out a bulletin Tuesday which instructs the general public not to worry “this is only a test.”

FEMA maintains that the system offers a prompt way to notify the people of an impending disaster such as an asteroid strike, global thermonuclear war, a terror attack, hurricane, earthquake or another major disaster.

Read More @ Intellihub.com

Soros Has Created the Battleground for America’s Second Civil War- Exclusive Report

by Dave Hodges, The Common Sense Show:

This is a breaking and exclusive story that has not even made its way into Independent Media. California’s seismic activity centered around the San Andreas fault is no match for the tremendous upheaval that is going on inside the state. What is going on in California is a breeding ground and a presecription for violent revolution. And as you would expect, at the center of it all, is George Soros.

A State with No Cohesion

California is a state which is going through tremedous upheaval. There are competing forces which are fighting for the control of the 8th largest economy in the world. The political interests of California could not be more diverse. Economically, California is home to the greatest poverty in the nation as well as the greatest level of affluence. California’s political interests could not be more diverse. The political interests of the State Legislature would make Hitler and Mussolini blush with envy at the extreme liberalism and lack of personal libertiess. However, some of the most ardent conservatives live in one of America’s most affluent counties (Orange County). For 10 million of California’s diverse population, English is not the first language spoken. In short, the interests in California are so diverse that it is hard to believe that a violent revolution does not lie in the state’s future.

The State of Jefferson

The people in No. California have received no help and protection from their state government emanating from the ravages perpetrated upon the residents by the BLM and the EPA. Water compact and historical land use agreements have been frequently been violated by the Federal government to the extent that the residents and their elected representatives, mostly the County Commissioners, led a political rebellion to create their own state, the State of Jefferson.

The movement was completely legal and followed the creation of the new proposed state through Article IV Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution which states:

 “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.” 

Thus, the legal and well-respected movement was born and was moving towards accomplishing the goal of statehood. However, George Soros, the United Nations and the globalists, as a whole had very different ideas.

CALEXIT

CALEXIT: The Planned Violent Overthrow of California

According to Paul Preston, reports are circulating that numerous state legislators from California, including “California Senate pro tem Kevin de Leon), State representatives from Florida, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah and Colorado have been meeting with members of La Raza, the Mexican government (consulate), Mexican Mafia (“La EME”), California’s violent Mexican gangs (Nortenos /Sureños/ Sur 13), La Familia () and religious leaders (Catholic / Jesuits) to come up with a plan to separate from the United States as well as the above mentioned states”. Governor Brown, his aides, and the Bank of China have been in attendance in several of these meetings designed to sever California from the US. Further, The Common Sense Show has learned, independent of Paul Preston, that George Soros is bankrolling some of the costs associated with this movement. In addition to Soros, the United Nations and the Chinese government have had representatives at the CALEXIT meetings.

Read More @ TheCommonSenseShow.com