COMMENT: Mr. Armstrong; the hatred is off the charts as you say. I actually saw a young girl with a Trump hat at the gas station and two people were throwing things at her. You are right. This is how the Nazi movement began. They boycotted Jewish businesses. Then they seized control of the newspapers to publish propaganda. Then came the violence against Jewish businesses. They painted Jews as evil who had all the money and then began to confiscate their property. It looks like the same pattern here. I fear it is going to come to a head in November.
REPLY: It does not matter who wins now. If the Republicans win, the left will become outraged and will never accept the vote and we will see violence intensify. If the Republicans lose, then we will see the Trump supporters become angry. There seems to be no resolution. I fear the computer is just correct. The press has enraged so many people and for what end? It just seems that Democracy is dying here. People are no longer willing to accept a loss. It is their way or no way. Civilization cannot survive in such a manner.
We have to come to the reality that from 2019 onward, we are headed into a Pension Crisis that will be serious. Many are starting to yell about the debt crisis. They lump on private debt and yell its a bubble. What they miss entirely is the fact that we face more than a decade of crises that would have been avoidable, had governments been actually managers and central bank had not tried to keep using Keynesian Demand Side Economics that even Paul Volcker warned back in 1978 had failed.
This is by no means prophecies of doom and gloom. Unfortunately, they are prophecies not even of a pessimist, but only facts that are comprehensible simply using a pocket calculator and not even a computer. The Pension Crisis is the end of Socialism. Promises that were made which were never sustainable but were a scheme to win votes.Then the money needed to pay the pension required 8% interest annually. Then the central banks enter the game and mess everything up even more. Instead of DIRECTLY aiding the economy, they lower rates and HOPE that the banks will pass it along. They never did. The banks parked the money at the Excess Reserve Window that the Fed has still not closed.
The cost of pensions is currently stifling Western society beyond belief. Europe itself is ahead of the curve and will crack before the United States. Europe already has between 30% to 40% of the population who have already retired or are about to leave the labor market. They have used the old Roman pension system of the army which was earning an average of 20 years service to qualify for a pension.It was the pensions which contributed to the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
We have to realize that government state pensions are the real crisis. Like California, their solution is always to raise taxes to pay for government pensions. The amount of social insurance contributions and taxes is determined by the cost of providing retirement benefits. The Fed is trying to raise rates, but they fear raising them back to 8% too fast will disrupt the economy. The pressure is building on the ECB in Europe behind the curtain to stop this nonsense of Quantitative Easing that has failed to start with and is now the cause of a massive Pension Crisis for the next 10 years. This condition of a shortfall cannot change immediately and raising taxes to try to solve the problem will only lead to further economic decline.
I am certainly not partisan here in this matter. I have previously written that I did not care for Brett Kavanaugh based upon his decisions in law. I have read decisions from the Supreme Court and found that you cannot guarantee their reasoning will support Republican or Democrat. All this hype that they must oppose anyone appointed by Trump is just stupid and it really undermines the country. Justices who have been appointed by Republicans, as the Chief Justice, ended up being the key player who upheld Obamacare. So there is not a litmus test in such things. All of this yelling and screaming is really pointless.
This is a picture going around that asserts Dr. Christine Basley Ford with George Soros. There are a lot of problems with these allegations besides three witnesses saying they do not support her. She now claims she told four others back then of the incident. In law, the reason you have a statute of limitations is that one cannot defend against something 36-years before. The typical limitation in 5 years.
When the people making accusations are being promoted by political operatives, I no longer trust either side. Meanwhile, the same lawyer for Stormy Daniels, Michael Avenatti, is now involved in the whole Brett Kavanaugh affair. It is extremely curious how this guy is always defending women making claims yet they are not paying him. Now he has tweeted that Julie Swetnick is his client who has made allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge claiming she witnessed efforts by Kavanaugh and Mark Judge to get teenage girls “inebriated and disoriented so they could then be ‘gang raped’ in a side room or bedroom by a ‘train’ of numerous boys.” But a quick background check on Julie Swetnick revealed that her ex-boyfriend had to get a restraining order against her. This is just getting ridiculous. Avenatti is lucky. If this were the Obama Administration with the bureaucrats on his side, they would be targeting Avenatti for taxes or failing to file some form that carries 10 years in prison. He is obviously a reckless zealot if he does not check the stories of these women he loves to bring forward against any Republican.
There is absolutely no way to prove anything and that seems to be the whole point. This sort of sexual allegations that amounts to a bunch of I thinks should be outlawed plain and simple and anyone who makes such an accusation and their lawyer should be imprisoned. If someone actually raped someone and there was a report given to the police at that point in time, then you have something credible.
The list of wrongful conviction is horrendous to start with. There is an endless supply of wrongful convictions and few people pay attention to them. These sorts of allegations that Avenatti’s statement she believed that they intended to “gang-rape” girls is outrageous. That is what she wants to say but it is worthless in court. If they actually committed such an act then fine. To say she “thinks” that was their “intent” is like a cop throwing you in prison because he, “thinks” you wanted to kill your spouse but just never tried.
Even the New York Times wrote: “Exonerations of wrongfully convicted people have become so routine in recent years that their stories are almost commonplace. “ A woman knowingly falsely accused two men of rape. She testified against them and there was no physical evidence whatsoever. The jury, as far too often, assumed the woman was telling the truth and convicted the two men. After 26 years, they were released when DNA proved the evidence was not theirs. The woman finally confessed to investigators from the district attorney’s office and the Innocence Project the rape “never happened.” Her admission came after DNA testing connected the semen found on her body to another man through an F.B.I. database.
The BBC ran a story that was really shocking. The number of teachers in France who had been accused of sex with pupils between 2008 and 2013, were at least involving 959 teachers. Of all those allegations, of having inappropriate relationships with pupils, around 250 were actually prosecuted. Some teachers have committed suicide just being accused of child molestation. A false accusation will destroy a person’s life. Then there was the famous French Outreau trial that they made a documentary about. The Outreau trial was a 2004 criminal trial in France concerning sexual abuse allegations against children by a group of teachers. The trial revealed that the main witness for the prosecution, convicted for the abuse, had lied about the involvement of other suspects who were, in fact, innocent to reduce their own sentence. Several innocent suspects had nevertheless spent years jailed on remand and one died while in prison. The Outreau trial produced national outrage in France and everyone was asking how the prosecutors could carry out such a trial with innocent men and women being held for years in jail on unfounded suspicions made by a single witness. Finally, in January 2006 even the French President called the trial a “judicial disaster” and this is the very same quality of evidence being hurled around over Kavanaugh right now.
As I have said, I disagreed with his legal opinion in cases. I would have voted against it. But I certainly would not do so based upon this firestorm of accusation by women backed by questionable politically active lawyers.
Nobody should be allowed to come forward making allegations with no physical evidence and 36 years later no less. Then the attorneys involved are clearly political operatives and not legitimate attorneys. You should not destroy a person’s life with such vindictiveness all to what end? This is all mud-slinging just because a person is put forward by the opposite party. Argue on his decisions, not what he did when drunk in school. There is an abundance of studies that show memories of that far back are not reliable. Many researchers have also investigated whether people differ in how susceptible they are to such false memories.
“While research over the last few decades has shown that presenting contradictory evidence impairs memory, recent work by Anderson and others shows that presenting related material can also impair memory. Similarly, while 10 years ago there was relatively little work on meta-memory judgements, a vast amount has been conducted recently. We know not to take at face value statements like: ‘I have not thought about that for years’, and work my Merckelbach and colleagues suggests those people with recovered memories may have particularly unreliable meta-memories. In summary, 10 years of data has not altered our opinions, but has solidified them with scientific evidence. Here we only scratch the surfaces of large and sometimes controversial areas of research.”
Daniel B. Wright, James Ost and Christopher C. French look at how the evidence has developed since the Society’s working party report.
In 1995 the recovered memory debate was near its most vociferous height. Hundreds of people were recovering memories of childhood sexual abuse (CSA), sometimes in therapies where it was believed that repressed or dissociated memories had to be recovered in order for the person to ‘heal’. Many of the people who recovered these memories confronted the person whom they remembered abusing them, and some cases ended up in the criminal courts with successful prosecutions.
In 1995 the recovered memory debate was near its most vociferous height. Hundreds of people were recovering memories of childhood sexual abuse (CSA), sometimes in therapies where it was believed that repressed or dissociated memories had to be recovered in order for the person to ‘heal’. Many of the people who recovered these memories confronted the person whom they remembered abusing them, and some cases ended up in the criminal courts with successful prosecutions. However, there were those who questioned whether all such memories should be accepted as accurate reflections of real events (e.g. Loftus, 1993). It was argued that some, perhaps even most, of such recovered memories might in fact be false memories produced, at least in part, by the therapists themselves. In response
to such concerns, bodies such as the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association issued guidance to their members regarding the potential dangers of unintentionally implanting false memories in patients.
The argument is critical for the science of memory, but also for thousands of people who have either recovered memories or have been accused of abuse on the basis of such memories, not to mention the families and friends of all concerned. Against this backdrop, the British Psychological Society’s Working Party on Recovered Memories (WPRM) published their report, recommendations, and the results of a survey they conducted with BPS accredited practitioners (Andrews, Bekerian et al., 1995; Andrews, Morton et al., 1995).
However, in 1995 there was little direct experimental evidence of the impact of so-called ‘memory recovery’ techniques and the relative ease with which some false reports can be created. Much of the evidence at that time was based on memory studies not specifically designed to address the recovered memory debate. Before 1995 there was much literature showing that memories could be distorted (by misinformation, by stereotypes, and so on), but only a couple of studies on the creation of false memories for entire events (e.g. ‘the mousetrap study’ by Ceci et al., 1994, and ‘lost in the mall’, cited in Loftus, 1993) and a small literature on errors in autobiographical memory (e.g. Conway, 1990). There were also some case studies of memories for bizarre events (biologically impossible events, alien abduction, widespread Satanic ritual abuse).
Since the publication of the WPRM, there have been significant efforts directed towards designing studies that are more relevant to the recovered memory debate, and more emphasis within some case studies on investigating firstly the veridicality of the memories and, secondly, whether there had indeed been a period of forgetting. We focus on some of this research conducted since the publication
of the WPRM. Owing to length constraints, this is a selective review both in relation to the topics chosen and the studies cited. This selectivity is guided by our own beliefs, which are not idiosyncratic to us; many people on both so-called sides of the recovered memory debate also share these views. We believe:
– that what appear to be newly remembered (i.e. recovered) memories of past trauma are sometimes accurate, sometimes inaccurate, and sometimes
a mixture of accuracy and inaccuracy;
– that much of what is recalled cannot be confirmed or disconfirmed;
– that, because of these two beliefs, reports of past trauma based on such recovered memories are not reliable enough to be the sole basis for legal decisions.
Our review covers four areas: adding entire events into a person’s autobiography; forgetting memories; remembering forgetting and forgetting remembering; and using case studies. Further, we focus on research with non-clinical (usually student) populations. We do not cover the large trauma/PTSD literature (for thorough reviews see Brewin, 2003; McNally, 2003).
False reports of entire events
Before 1995 there were a couple of studies showing that false events could be added to people’s memories. With the eventual publication of the ‘lost in the mall’ study (Loftus & Pickrell, 1995), several laboratories began showing that, with a little encouragement (see Ost, 2006), it was possible for participants to come to report relatively unusual events (e.g. spilling a punchbowl at a wedding: Hyman et al., 1995; putting slime in a teacher’s desk: Lindsay et al., 2004), events occurring in the first few days of life (Spanos et al., 1999), medical procedures that never happened (Mazzoni & Memon, 2003), and negatively charged events (e.g. being attacked by a dog: Porter et al., 1999). This even occurs with interviewers who are trained in appropriate and non-leading interview techniques (Ost et al., 2005). It is easier to implant a memory
for an event if the person believes that the event is physically possible and also likely to happen (Pezdek et al., in press; Scoboria et al., 2004). Of course, laboratory studies are limited: within ethical constraints, making somebody think that they were attacked by a dog as a child (Porter et al., 1999) may be about as traumatic an event as can be added. This is an important point and is a necessary limitation of laboratory tasks. However, the case studies we discuss later provide strong evidence that it is indeed possible to implant false memories of extremely traumatic events.
Many researchers have also investigated whether people differ in how susceptible they are to such false memories (Read & Winograd, 1998). One of the most researched individual difference measures in this area is dissociative tendencies, or having difficulties integrating thoughts, memories, images, and so on. In lay terms, this is ‘spaciness’ and is closely related to cognitive failures (Wright & Osborne, 2005). People who report much dissociation are likely to be the most susceptible to memory distortions in experiments (e.g. Ost et al., 2005; Wright & Livingston-Raper, 2001). Clearly, further research is needed on the link between dissociation and false reporting, especially given that a tendency to dissociate is often associated with a history of abuse (Brown et al., 1998).
Forgetting memories for events
The term ‘recovered memory’ implies that, at some point, the memory must have become inaccessible to conscious awareness (as opposed to being a ‘continuous memory’). Although this terminology is not ideal, it is clear that people often fail to report important events, for example known hospitalisations (Loftus, 1993). Several surveys of people with documented childhood sexual abuse have found that some of the people fail to report this abuse. The most recent of these surveys, by Goodman et al. (2003), found a non-disclosure rate of around 19 per cent. The authors suggested that a lack of willingness to disclose, as opposed to a lack of memory, was the most parsimonious explanation for much of the non-disclosure, but that some of the cases may have arisen through forgetting (see also McNally, 2003, for a comprehensive review). Their data do not support the claim that there is some special memory mechanism responsible for forgetting about these traumas.
However, prior to 1995, two special mechanisms were generally put forward to explain the inaccessibility of memories for some events: repression and dissociation. Repression has historically been a difficult concept to define, and several incompatible definitions exist. This led to strong criticism of the concept and of the evidence for it (Holmes, 1990). As a result, recent investigations have focused on more precise definitions of the concept, akin to motivated forgetting (Brewin & Andrews, 1998). As for dissociation, the dissociative amnesia model (Brown et al., 1998) suggests that, rather than people consciously or unconsciously ‘repressing’ memories, individuals learn to deal with traumatic events by dissociating from them.
There is less laboratory work on forgetting memories (i.e. factors that may reduce levels of reporting for witnessed events) than there is on creating memories (i.e. factors that may lead individuals to report events that did not occur). The two most relevant procedures are the directed forgetting task and retrieval-induced forgetting, which can be related to the concepts of repression and dissociation, respectively (see papers in Wessel & Wright, 2004, for studies using both of these procedures). We focus on retrieval-induced forgetting.
Anderson and colleagues (e.g. Anderson & Spellman, 1995) have shown that re-presenting some associated words from lists of studied words decreases the likelihood that other studied words will be reported. They call this retrieval-induced forgetting. Like studies (e.g. Roediger & McDermott, 1995) showing that people falsely report semantically related words, the applicability of these studies to memory for events may be limited (Freyd & Gleaves, 1996), but important extensions have been made. For example, Barnier, Hung et al. (2004) found evidence of retrieval-induced forgetting for positive, negative and neutral autobiographical events. Wright et al. (2001, 2005) showed that re-presenting stories without certain critical scenes lowered the likelihood that these critical scenes were recalled. They argued that this situation is analogous to the situation where a perpetrator acts as if the abuse has not occurred and that such behaviour could make memories of the abuse less accessible.
Most of the studies examining individual differences in forgetting have examined what is called repressor personality types. These are people who state they are not anxious but show some of the signs of being anxious (Myers, 2000). Some of this research, for example studies showing that repressors are less likely to remember negative autobiographical memories (Davis, 1987), was conducted before 1995 and influenced the WPRM. Several laboratories are now looking at how repressors differ on different laboratory tasks (Barnier, Levin et al., 2004; Myers & Derakshan, 2004).
While the results are complex, it is clear that repressive coping style is related to the failure to report negative stimuli in many circumstances. Further research is needed on the link between the repressive coping style and non-reporting to gain a greater understanding of the processes involved. However, as we will now show, conducting research assessing the extent of non-reporting is difficult, as people generally lack a reliable metacognitive awareness regarding their memory.
Remembering forgetting and forgetting remembering
Was there any moment today when you forgot what you had for breakfast? This is not a philosophical conundrum, but an important question about people’s ability to make metacognitive judgments about their own memories.
There are two aspects of these metacognitive judgments that are important for the recovered memory debate. The first aspect relates to a question some mental health professionals asked in order to help them determine whether a client might have experienced trauma as a child. They would ask if there were any periods during the client’s life for which they had few or no memories (i.e. remembering forgetting). If a client reported such gaps in their memory this could suggest, to some, that some traumatic event had caused these periods of amnesia. The use of techniques intended to uncover these supposed ‘hidden’ memories might then appear justified.
However, Belli et al. (1998) wondered whether the way this question was asked could increase the likelihood that people report memory gaps. They found that participants who were asked to recall 12 childhood memories (a difficult task) subsequently rated their overall childhood memory as being worse than participants who were only asked to recall four such events. Although the responses are likely to be based in part on people’s actual autobiographical memory, they are malleable (see also Brewin & Stokou, 2002). Thus, responses to this question are liable to bias and are an unreliable way of showing whether an individual really does have atypical gaps in memory compared with the general population.
The second aspect of these metacognitive judgments is that people often forget that they have previously remembered an event. Merckelbach et al. (2006) have conducted one of the most important of these studies for the recovered memory debate. They asked people to report vivid memories for some childhood events. After either a one-hour or a two-day delay, they were asked if they had recently thought about any of these events and several others. Despite recalling the events either an hour or a couple of days before, many participants reported not having thought about the events for years. Critically, Merckelbach et al. compared people reporting continuous memories of CSA with those who reported recovered memories of CSA. The people reporting that they had recovered memories of CSA were more likely to forget remembering the recent events in their laboratory tasks. This finding has important implications. Could it be that these people had recalled the CSA continuously (or at least fairly often), but just forgot remembering it?
Different types of case studies have been used to illustrate the different processes described above. Illustrating false memories is simple. From biologically impossible events (Wagenaar, 1996) to alien abduction claims (e.g. French, 2003), people clearly come to believe in events that never occurred. Some well-documented case histories exist, like retractor cases against therapists (e.g. Bennett Braun, Roberta Sachs – see Bikel & Dretzin, 1995). These show that, without the constraints of psychology ethics committees, it is possible to create memories for truly traumatic and abusive events that did not occur. The number of these case histories has increased dramatically since 1995.
For methodological reasons, case studies demonstrating recovered memories of real events are more difficult to find. While a memory for space abduction can be taken as prima facie evidence of a false memory, to show a true recovered memory it is necessary to show that (a) the event occurred, (b) the person could not remember the event for a period subsequently, and (c) the information recovered could not have been gained from other sources (Schooler et al., 1997).
The largest archive of cases consists of, at the time of writing, 101 cases of ‘corroborated recovered memories’ (Cheit, 2005). To be included, the case must have ‘strong corroboration’, but this can simply mean testimony from other witnesses (which can be problematic; see Garven et al., 1998). Cases can also be included on the basis of ‘corroboration of significant circumstantial evidence’. In reading through the cases, it appears being found guilty in court is another form of corroboration. Of course, both inclusion in Cheit’s archive and the court decision should be based on other evidence. Critical and detailed scrutiny of many of these cases can lead to a sceptical view of the accuracy of many of these memories. Further, Cheit does not list not remembering the event, and evidence for this, as a criterion. This does not mean that the all the cases on this list are not examples of true recovered memories, only that the requirements to be in this archive are not as stringent as, for example, in Schooler et al. (1997). Theirs is a smaller archive, but one that we feel takes more care to make sure, for example, that there is a period of non-remembering.
Still, even surpassing Schooler’s criteria does not necessarily mean that the memory is a true recovered memory. A case discussed by both Cheit and Schooler, and reported in Corwin and Olafson (1997), appeared to show a water-tight case of a true recovered memory. Corwin and Olafson provided convincing evidence of the abuse, and provided no reason to doubt that it took place. However, when Loftus and Guyer (2002a, 2002b) looked more closely at the case it was clear that Corwin and Olafson had left out information that would have been useful to most readers to decide how water-tight this case was. It is worth reading the details (which are all available on the web) to make your own mind up about this fascinating case. It is important to remember that this is just a case study. If you conclude that this case is not a water-tight example of a true recovered memory, this does not mean that some recovered memories are not true.
How will history judge us?
Since 1995 and the BPS working party report there has been much research on reports of memories for events that have allegedly been recovered after a long period of non-remembering. The belief that some of these claims are based on events that did occur, some on events that did not occur, and some a combination of the two was held by us then, and research over the past decade has provided much evidence to support this view. We now know events can be implanted into a person’s autobiography, that some people are more suggestible than others, that particular techniques increase the likelihoods memories can be implanted, but also that most people will not believe bizarre memories, at least after the amount of persuasion applied in typical laboratory studies. We also know more about forgetting.
While research over the last few decades has shown that presenting contradictory evidence impairs memory, recent work by Anderson and others shows that presenting related material can also impair memory. Similarly, while 10 years ago there was relatively little work on meta-memory judgements, a vast amount has been conducted recently. We know not to take at face value statements like: ‘I have not thought about that for years’, and work my Merckelbach and colleagues suggests those people with recovered memories may have particularly unreliable meta-memories. In summary, 10 years of data has not altered our opinions, but has solidified them with scientific evidence. Here we only scratch the surfaces of large and sometimes controversial areas of research.
Finally, it is important to consider the wider implications of the recovered memory debate. Child sexual abuse is a large societal problem, and children often do not disclose abuse unless specifically asked (London et al., 2005). The debate about recovered memories should not be used to deny these facts. What is important for the discipline is how it has used science to inform this debate.
What evidence is necessary to show a true recovered memory?
How should the criminal courts treat recovered memories?
What role has the media played in the recovered memory movement over the past 20 years?
Have your say on these or other issues this article raises. E-mail ‘Letters’ on email@example.com or contribute to our forum via www.thepsychologist.org.uk.
Anderson, M.C. & Spellman, B.A. (1995). On the status of inhibitory mechanisms in cognition. Psychological Review, 102, 68–100.
Andrews, B., Bekerian, D., Brewin, C. et al. (1995). Recovered memories: The report of the working party of the British Psychological Society. In K. Pezdek & W.P. Banks (Eds.) The recovered memory/false memory debate (pp.373–392). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Andrews, B., Morton, J., Bekerian, D. A. et al. (1995). The recovery of memories in clinical practice. The Psychologist, 8, 209–214.
Barnier, A., Hung, L. & Conway, M.A. (2004). Retrieval-induced forgetting of emotional and unemotional autobiographical memories. Cognition and Emotion, 18, 457–477.
Barnier, A., Levin, K. & Maher, A. (2004). Suppressing thoughts of past events: Are repressive copers good suppressors? Cognition and Emotion, 18, 513–531.
Belli, R.F., Winkielman, P., Read, J.D., Schwarz, N. & Lynn, S.J. (1998). Recalling more childhood events leads to judgments of poorer memory. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 5, 318–323.
Bikel, O. & Dretzin, R. (Producers). (1995). The search for Satan [Television series edition]. In Frontline. Alexandria, VA: PBS.
Brewin, C.R. (2003). Posttraumatic stress disorder: Malady or myth? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Brewin, C.R. & Andrews, B. (1998). Recovered memories of trauma. Clinical Psychology Review, 18, 949–970.
Brewin, C.R. & Stokou, L. (2002). Validating reports of poor childhood memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 509–514.
Brown, D., Scheflin, A.W. & Hammond, D.C. (1998). Memory, trauma treatment, and the law. New York: Norton.
Ceci, S.J., Huffman, M.L.C., Smith, E. & Loftus, E.F. (1994). Repeatedly thinking about a non-event. Consciousness & Cognition, 3, 388–407.
Cheit, R.E. (2005). The archive: 101 corroborated cases of recovered memory. Retrieved 6 August 2005 from tinyurl.com/42yj7
Conway, M.A. (1990). Autobiographical memory. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Corwin, D. & Olafson, E. (1997). Videotaped discovery of a reportedly unrecallable memory of child sexual abuse. Child Maltreatment, 2, 91–112.
Davis, P.J. (1987). Repression and the inaccessibility of affective memories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 585–593.
French, C.C. (2003). Fantastic memories. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10, 153–174.
Freyd, J.J. & Gleaves, D.H. (1996). ‘Remembering’ words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 811–813.
Garven, S., Wood, J.M., Malpass, R.S. & Shaw, J.S. (1998). More than suggestion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 347–359.
Goodman, G.S., Ghetti, S., Quas, J.A. et al. (2003). A prospective study of memory for child sexual abuse. Psychological Science, 14, 113–118.
Holmes, D.S. (1990). The evidence for repression. In J.L. Singer (Ed.) Repression and dissociation (pp.85–102). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Hyman, I.E., Husband, T.H. & Billings, F.J. (1995). False memories of childhood experiences. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 181–197.
Lindsay, D.S., Hagen, L., Read, J.D., Wade, K.A. & Garry, M. (2004). True photographs and false memories. Psychological Science, 15, 149–154.
Loftus, E.F. (1993). The reality of repressed memories. American Psychologist, 48, 518–537.
Loftus, E.F. & Guyer, M. (2002a) Who abused Jane Doe? (Part I) Skeptical Inquirer, 26, 24–32.
Loftus, E.F. & Guyer, M. J. (2002b) Who abused Jane Doe? (Part II). Skeptical Inquirer, 26(July/August), 37–40, 44.
Loftus, E.F. & Pickrell, J.E. (1995). The formation of false memories. Psychiatric Annals, 25, 720–725.
London, K., Bruck, M., Ceci, S.J. & Shuman, D.W. (2005). Disclosure of child sexual abuse: What does the research tell us about the ways that children tell? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 194–226.
Mazzoni, G. & Memon, A. (2003). Imagination can create false autobiographical memories. Psychological Science, 14, 186–188.
McNally, R.J. (2003). Remembering trauma. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Merckelbach, H., Smeets, T., Geraerts, E. et al. (2006). I haven’t thought about this for years! Dating recent recalls of vivid memories. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 33–42.
Myers, L.B. (2000). Identifying repressors. Psychology and Health, 15, 205–214.
Myers, L.B. & Derakshan, N. (2004). To forget or not to forget. Cognition and Emotion, 18, 495–511.
Ost, J. (2006). Recovered memories. In T. Williamson (Ed.) Investigative interviewing (pp.259–291). Cullompton: Willan.
Ost, J., Foster, S., Costall, A. & Bull, R. (2005). False reports of childhood events in appropriate interviews. Memory, 13, 700–710.
Pezdek, K., Blandon-Gitlin, I., Lam, S., Hart, R.E. & Schooler, J. (in press). Is knowing believing? Memory & Cognition.
Porter, S., Yuille, J.C. & Lehman, D.R. (1999). The nature of real, implanted, and fabricated memories for emotional childhood events. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 517–537.
Read, J.D. & Winograd, E. (1998). Individual differences and memory distortion: Introduction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12, S1–S4.
Roediger, H.L. & McDermott, K.B. (1995). Creating false memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 803–814.
Schooler, J.W., Ambadar, A. & Bendiksen, M. (1997). A cognitive corroborative case study approach for investigating discovered memories of sexual abuse. In J.D. Read & D.S. Lindsay (Eds.) Recollections of trauma: Scientific research and clinical practices (pp.379–388). New York: Plenum.
Scoboria, A., Mazzoni, G., Kirsch, I. & Relyea, M. (2004). Plausibility and belief in autobiographical memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 791–807.
Spanos, N.P., Burgess, C. A., Burgess, M.F., Samuels, C. & Blois, W.O. (1999). Creating false memories of infancy with hypnotic and non-hypnotic procedures. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 201–218.
Wagenaar, W.A. (1996). Anchored narratives. In G.M. Davies et al. (Eds.) Psychology, law and criminal justice (pp.267–285). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Wessel, I. & Wright, D.B. (Eds.) (2004). Emotional memory failures. Hove: Psychology Press.
Wright, D.B. & Livingston-Raper, D. (2001). Memory distortion and dissociation. Journal of Trauma and Dissociation, 3, 97–109.
Wright, D.B., Loftus, E.F. & Hall, M. (2001). Now you see it: now you don’t: Inhibiting recall and recognition of scenes. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 471–485.
Wright, D.B., Mathews, S.A. & Skagerberg, E.M. (2005). Social recognition memory: The effect of other people’s responses for previously seen and unseen items. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 200–209.
Wright, D.B. & Osborne, J.E. (2005). Dissociation, cognitive failures, and working memory. American Journal of Psychology, 118, 103–113.
The 2018 March for Justice in Memphis, TN. Photo by Lacy Atkins.
Today, October 2, 2018, marks the fifth annual Wrongful Conviction Day, an international day to raise awareness of the causes and remedies of wrongful conviction and to recognize the tremendous personal, social and emotional costs of wrongful conviction for innocent people and their families.
Wrongful Conviction Day began as an effort of the Innocence Network, an affiliation of organizations dedicated to providing pro bono legal and investigative services to individuals seeking to prove innocence of crimes for which they have been convicted, working to redress the causes of wrongful convictions and supporting the exonerated after they are freed.
Sixty-three percent of the 513 people exonerated by members of the Innocence Network are people of color. This Wrongful Conviction Day, the Innocence Network is aiming to raise awareness about the role racial bias plays in wrongful convictions.
To stand with the Innocence Network against racial bias in the criminal justice system, sign the pledge today and add your name to a growing list of advocates.
In honor of this year’s wrongful conviction day, seven NBA coaches came together to speak out about wrongful convictions. View their video below:
Do you want to know more about wrongful conviction, but you’re not sure where to look? No worries. You don’t need to sit in court or be a lawyer to learn more. Here are tv shows and movies that tell true stories and fictional accounts of individuals who have been wrongfully convicted.
Time Simply Passes
James Richardson was a citrus picker in Florida who was convicted of the deaths of his seven children in 1968 by poisoning them. Time Simply Passes follows his conviction, miraculous release in 1989, and the following twenty-five years as he battles with the state to attain a settlement through landmark legislation. Filmmaker Ty Flowers created the Award-winning film with his father Charles, an investigative journalist from Florida who has spent the majority of his life working on the case. It is now available to stream via Amazon Prime.
Amanda Knox was an American foreign exchange student in Perugia, Italy, who was wrongly convicted, along with her then-boyfriend, of killing her roommate in what prosecutors speculated was a sex act gone wrong. Knox recounts the nightmare of her conviction and how she was vilified in tabloids and media across the world.
Watch the trailer here and full Netflix Original documentary here.
David and Me
Filmmakers Ray Klonsky and Marc Lamy set out to help their friend David McCallum, who was forced to confess to a 1985 murder he didn’t commit as a teenager, prove his innocence. The friendship between Klonsky and McCallum began over a decade ago, when McCallum contacted Klonsky’s father after reading an article he wrote about Rubin “Hurricane” Carter, a former boxer and exoneree who became a strong advocate for the wrongly convicted.
Watch the trailer here and stream the documentary on Netflix.
Southwest of Salem: The Story of the San Antonio Four
Four best friends–Elizabeth Ramirez, Kristie Mayhugh, Cassandra Rivera and Anna Vasquez–also known at the San Antonio Four, were wrongfully convicted of raping Ramirez’s seven- and nine-year-old nieces in 1994. Their convictions were motivated by homophobia and eventually it was revealed that evidence used in court room testimony was erroneous. One of the victims also recanted her testimony, admitting that she had been forced by family members to deliver false testimony.
Watch the trailer and look for a screening near you here.
Making a Murderer
This widely acclaimed 2015 Netflix documentary series exposes the details around the case of Steven Avery, a man who, despite being exonerated for a crime he did not commit in 2003, found himself behind bars again in 2005 for an unrelated crime. Netflix recently announcedthat a second season is coming soon and will follow up on the post-conviction process.
Watch the trailer here and stream the first season on Netflix here.
Fear of 13
Nick Yarris is the sole subject of this 2015 documentary feature. Nick tells his story starting with his youth to his murder conviction. He explains the 21 years he spent on death row and his exoneration. The film was nominated for Best Documentary Film at the 2015 London Film Festival.
This documentary, directed by Jean-Xavier de Lestrade, is based on the true story of Brenton Butler, who was 15 years old when he was wrongfully convicted of murder. It won the Academy Award for Best Documentary Film at the 74th Academy Awards in 2002.
After Northwestern journalism students uncovered new evidence that exonerated 13 people on Illinois death row, Illinois Governor George Ryan ordered a moratorium on the death penalty. This 2004 documentary follows the process of rehearing all the death row cases in Illinois and the history of the death penalty in America through a critical lens.
Watch the trailer here, rent it on YouTube here, and buy it on Amazon here.
This documentary, produced by a former Innocence Project clinic student, focuses on the DNA exonerations of seven wrongfully convicted men. It received the 2005 Sundance Film Festival Special Jury Prize.
In 1986 Michael Morton’s wife Christine is brutally murdered in front of their only child, and Michael is convicted of the crime. Locked away in Texas prisons for a quarter century, he has years to ponder questions of justice and innocence, truth and fate. Though he is virtually invisible to society, a team of dedicated attorneys spends years fighting for the right to test DNA evidence found at the murder scene. Their discoveries ultimately reveal that the price of a wrongful conviction goes well beyond one man’s loss of freedom.
In 1989, five black and Latino teenagers were arrested and charged with brutally attacking and raping a white female jogger in Central Park. News media swarmed the case, calling them a “wolfpack.” The five would spend years in prison for a crime they didn’t commit before the truth about what really happened became clear.
This 2010 episode of PBS’ Frontline examines the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in Texas in 2004 for allegedly setting a fire that killed his three young daughters 13 years earlier. He always claimed his innocence, and the arson investigation used to convict him was questioned by leading experts before Willingham was executed. Since 2004, further evidence in the case has led to the inescapable conclusion that Willingham did not set the fire for which he was executed.
• “The Confessions” (2010) – An award-winning documentary on the case of the “Norfolk Four” – Navy sailors convicted of a murder they didn’t commit after giving false confessions under pressure.
• “Burden of Innocence” (2003) – This look into the lives of five men who served years in prison for crimes they did not commit reveals the social, economic, and psychological challenges that people face post-exoneration.
• “Requiem for Frank Lee Smith” (2002) – An investigation by Ofra Bikel into Frank Lee Smith’s wrongful conviction of the rape and murder of a young girl.
• “What Jennifer Saw” (1997) – An examination of flaws in eyewitness identifications as evidence, through the lens of the case of Ronald Cotton, who served 12 years in North Carolina prison for a crime he didn’t commit.
• “Innocence Lost” (1991) – Ofra Bikel’s three-part documentary raised serious questions about evidence in a notorious North Carolina day care abuse case.
This SundanceTV drama, starring Aden Young, tells the story of a man who, after spending 19 years on death row, must readjust to his life in Georgia after DNA evidence exonerated him.
The show started in 2013 and three seasons have been released, with a fourth on its way.
Watch the trailer for season 1 here and follow the show on its website.
Ed Honaker is the subject of an episode of Forensic Files called “Crime Seen” from 1998. Ed was convicted of rape and was sentenced to three life sentences. He was exonerated using DNA evidence. This episode features both Ed Honaker and Barry Scheck, co-founder and co-director of the Innocence Project.
Watch the episode on YouTube here.
Directed by Tony Goldwyn and starring Hilary Swank and Sam Rockwell, Conviction (2010) tells the true story of a woman’s fight to prove her brother’s innocence.
Court-TV’s 2005 film version of the award-winning Off-Broadway play features the stories of six people who were exonerated after being sentenced to death. The cast includes Susan Sarandon, Danny Glover and Aidan Quinn.
Lifetime Movie Network’s 2010 original movie about Calvin Willis, who was released from Louisiana State Penitentiary after more than 21 years of wrongful incarceration. The film focuses on Willis’ relationship with his longtime advocate, Janet Gregory, a single mom and paralegal, and her critical role in his exoneration.
In the Name of the Father
This Oscar-nominated film tells the true story of a Gerry Conlon’s coerced confession to an IRA bombing he didn’t do; and a British lawyer’s fight to free Conlon and his father.
When Michael Graham walked off Louisiana’s Death Row after 14 years — cleared of two murders he always said he did not commit — he got the same thing the guilty departing prisoners got: 10 bucks and a coat.
“Talk about a crime? That’s a crime,” says John Holdridge, the lawyer who saved Graham’s life by proving his innocence.
Graham was convicted of the two murders when he was barely out of his teens. Fourteen years later, his lawyers proved that prosecutors relied on witnesses they had every reason to know were untruthful. Now, Holdridge is trying to help Graham get a lot more than $10 for those years. He thinks the state of Louisiana owes Graham not only money, but a another look at the death penalty.
In Texas, attorney Randy Schaeffer is fighting a similar battle for Anthony Robinson, who served 10 years in prison after he was wrongfully convicted of rape.
“Sometimes I’ll wake up in the middle of the night and I have to get up and walk around to make sure I’m not still in the cage,” says Robinson, who had never been in trouble with the law before.
“I had worked very hard to escape the confines of being raised in the ghetto,” says Robinson, who graduated from a top college and served in the military. “You finally get out and you say, ‘OK, I made it through’ and then all of a sudden someone says, ‘No you didn’t.'”
Wrongly identified as a rapist by a white woman in 1986, his dreams vanished. It wasn’t until after he had served 10 years in prison and was released that Robinson was able to prove with DNA testing that he was innocent.
Compensation Programs: How Much Is Enough?
Graham, Robinson and hundreds of others wrongly imprisoned say society has to at least try to make up the years to them — not just the years spent in a locked cell, but also the years they missed with their families, once-in-a-lifetime events that can never be recaptured.
How much were those years worth? And after so many years behind bars, their lives forever changed, should they be compensated monetarily?
“There’s talk of compensation,” says Robinson. “There’s recognition that you’ve lost something. Not that we put you in a cage and released you, but you’ve actually lost something.”
Defense attorney Barry Scheck, a pioneer in using DNA to free innocent people says that over the last 10 years, 50 innocent people have been released from death row alone. Most were set free with no compensation.
“Everybody’s thinking: ‘Oh, they spill hot coffee on you at McDonald’s, and you can recover money. So certainly if you were wrongfully convicted and spent all these horrible years in jail, you’re going to get a lot of money.’ Well you don’t,” says Scheck.
Fourteen states do have compensation programs. For example, in North Carolina, the state will pay $10,000 for each year of wrongful imprisonment up to $150,000. Wisconsin pays $5,000 a year up to $25,000. In Texas, the limit is $25,000; for Robinson that means $2,500 for every year of his life spent in prison. Robinson’s lawyer, Schaeffer, thinks that sum of money is inadequate and that $500,000 would be a more reasonable sum.
“If you were locked up for the weekend wrongly, you’d probably take $25,000 to settle it,” he says. “[But] if you were locked up for a decade, you certainly wouldn’t take it. I guess at the time the law was enacted 35 years ago, $25,000 probably was a lot of money. But today it won’t get you far.”
Schaeffer has two suggestions for how to come up with a suitable compensation package. “You either have to allow a lawsuit to be filed and let a jury decide the number, as it does in virtually every other type of case,” he says. “Alternatively, you’d probably have to find a number based on the amount of time served instead of a flat number that would give the same amount to somebody that wrongly served a month as opposed to somebody that wrongly served 17 years.”
The money, he says, is not merely to compensate for what the person was deprived in a paycheck. “I think if you’ve lost the right to have a family, to go free in the world, and you’re put in a cell every night and treated like a rapist, the damages for that are worth more than not being able to go to work every day from 9 to 5.”
Is the State to Blame?
Louisiana state Sen. Jay Dardenne opposes the idea of legislation to compensate people for wrongful convictions and years in prison.
“A jury believed beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual should be convicted,” he says, based on the evidence available at that time. So, if a ruling is later overturned because of DNA evidence that was not previously available, this “does not suggest to me that the state was somehow wrong or at fault.”
Even in cases like Graham’s, where prosecutors committed misconduct, Dardenne does not think taxpayers should pay. Instead, he thinks Graham should sue the prosecutor.
“There is a civil remedy in place in Louisiana against a prosecutor who takes such reprehensible action,” says Dardenne. “The wrongfully incarcerated individual has a right to go to court … and seek monetary damages,” he says. “If the prosecutor acted wrongly, that’s where the fault should lie.”
But Scheck says suing the prosecutor is a bad idea that almost never works.
“There is a very very narrow class of cases where you can succeed,” he says. Such cases are rare instances where you can prove “bad faith misconduct by a police officer or a prosecutor in the investigatory stage which led to the arrest or the indictment … but everybody else who can’t fit into that very narrow category, can’t pass through the eye of that needle … out of luck. That’s not right.”
Scheck adds, “You can’t sweep these people under the rug. Because their suffering is too great. Their moral lesson is going to be heard.”
Solar minimum decline https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/agriculture/solar-minimum-biggest-decline-maybe-ever/
The sun is entering perhaps one of the deepest Solar Minima in thousands of years. Sunspots have been absent for most of 2018. This is really alarming. Since the start of 2018, there have been totally spotless days for weeks. The sun’s ultraviolet output has sharply declined and this is not going to end well.
We can see that this decline in Solar Cycle #24 has been a rapid decline that is twice as fast than any previously. Already the the upper atmosphere is losing heat energy. NASA has conceded that if the current trend continues, this could become a dramatic cold period far worse than many people suspect. The Global Warming crowd is leading the world down a dangerous path because they have been paid $1 billion to create fake research in order to raise taxes as they have been doing in Europe and Canada. Our computer us projecting a very serious decline in sunspot activity. This will be the backdrop to the rise in agricultural prices we see between 2020 and 2024. Of course, thanks to the Global Warming people, it will be too late to prepare.
The facility, a nondescript warehouse on Chicago’s west side known as Homan Square, has long been the scene of secretive work by special police units. Interviews with local attorneys and one protester who spent the better part of a day shackled in Homan Square describe operations that deny access to basic constitutional rights.
There has been a long-running scary report about how the Chicago policedepartment has been operating a clandestine off-the-books interrogation compound where they take Americans, hold them there with no lawyers or rights, and just threaten you without any oversight. Americans who have been snatched up by the Chicago police are unable to be found by family or attorneys. Even lawyers are coming forward saying that this is the domestic equivalent of a CIA black site. Of course, it takes a British newspaper to report the story as was the case with Snowden.
This is the problem with our legal system. They get to do whatever they desire and it is our burden to argue it violates the Constitution. It should be the other way around.
New York State Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo has blamed the upstate extremely cold weather (Global Warming) for the reason people have been fleeing his state NOT taxes. This comes as no surprise, for Democrats are closet Marxists and love more taxes and assume the peoplelove to be taxed and always ask for more. Like the Global Warming people who ignore all history before 1850, Cuomo prefers to ignore the fact that the American Revolution slogan was:
“No Taxation Without Representation”
The stunning thing is how politicians always play with fire and never learn from the past. Since 1500, there have been 354 tax rebellions in the world. Back in 2014, French vegetable farmers set a tax office and a building on fire in protest. I don’t think that had to do with weather. In fact, there is an average of every 1.46 years for a tax rebellion somewhere in the world. I moved to Florida to get closer to Global Warming – TRUE. But my lawyer also told me if I died, to tell my family to drag my body across the river before they told the State of New Jersey. Then, even if we held a conference in Hong Kong, we had to pay almost 10% to the State of New Jersey just for the privilege of being given a parking ticket in front of Starbucks in a private parking lot.
Under Cuomo’s logic, it sounds like New York State should join Canada and slap a $1,000+ tax on every house, condo, or apartment to stop Global Warming and then they will happily stay and vote for even more taxes. While he’s at it, since we are the problem with creating Global Warming like the cows in Europe, they should just tax sex to reduce the population and I am sure they can authorize surveillance cameras in everybody’s abode to enforce the tax.
Politicians will not listen, which is why there should be no career politicians. You are asking for them to reform and they will NEVER act other than their own self-interest as long as they can get away with it. We can ONLY have a country of the people and for the people when the people are actually running the joint! Once you allow career politicians, they act in their own self-interest and that is ALWAYSagainst the self-interest of the people.
QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; You do not give much credence to the world returning to a gold standard. Didn’t the entire world use the gold standard before?
Thank you for your input
ANSWER: The entire world has NEVER been on the gold standard simultaneously. Asia was on a silver standard while the West was on a gold standard. Above is the first coin struck in Hong Kong in 1866 which was the Hong Kong Dollar. The West struck Trade Dollars during the 19th century to pay for goods from Asia and they were silver – never gold. Here is an example of both the British and American trade dollars used in payments particularly with China. The Spanish 8 reals Americans called Pillar Dollars and slicing this up into pieces like a pie gave rise to the term for a Piece of Eight – 2 bits, 4 bits, 8 bits a dollar.
The Spanish silver “Pillar Dollar” became a recognized coin worldwide more so than perhaps any other European coin. The Chinese loved this coin and it inspired the development of the yuan. This became the recognized standard in Asia. British, Americans, and even the Japanese, all had to strike silver trade dollars to meet that standard which was even slightly different to meet the standard in Asia for trading purposes.
It is just not practical that we have a monetary system that is based upon a commodity. Historically, inflation would come in waves depending upon new discoveries of the metal. So the quantity theory of money was not developed purely from fiscal mismanagement as often portrayed today. The true value of money is the productive-capability of its people. China, Germany, Japan, all rose from economic depression WITHOUT gold. They did it with the productive capacity of the people. The produce whatever and sell it to someone else and then get gold or whatever in return. This theory that you have nothing without gold is just stupid. It would mean that no nation could ever rise no matter how good their people are because they lack a natural source of gold.
The collapse of the Turkish lira is a reflection of the collapse in confidence in the government. The same has taken place in Venezuela. China and Japan rose from the ashes, not because of their possession of commodities, but because they could bring their people to bear and produce various items efficiently and cost-effective. It was the people first that produced the economic recovery and then they bought even gold.
HYPERINFLATION has nothing to do with the quantity of money – that unfolds when the CONFIDENCE in the government collapses. You cross that line from normal inflation all nations experience into the realm of a collapse in the faith and trust of government. This is HOW revolutions even unfold. They have nothing to do with the quantity of money.
The big hoopla is that the divorce rate has declined among Millennials. University of Maryland professor Philip Cohen found that from 2008 to 2016, the U.S. divorce rate dropped by 18%. Around the globe, the number of unmarried women has been rising The numbers seem to point to women and men are not simply postponing marriage, but forgoing it altogether. Indeed, in the USA, the trend is moving to just live together. Many are saying it is just cheap to live that way these days.
Among women in their late 30s or early 40s, 29% are unmarried in Denmark. In Italy where the family has been more of a tradition, still, 18% remain unmarried in the same group. Cross over the Mediterranean to Lebanon and the number is 22% and move to Libya and it jumps to 32%. In the United States, one in six women remains unmarried in her early forties or almost 17% which is a record high with the same level in Japan.
What is happening is the age difference is rising to return more to the historical norm. Boys just mature slower than girls and as the younger girls give up on the same age boys, the marriages are lasting longer as they did before Holywood turned lust into love at first sight. Curious to watch how the trends are changing back to historical norms.
Prior to the Industrial Revolution and socialism, the boy first had to get the house, farm, and the chickens and then approach a girl’s father. There was none of this stuff; oh we just love each other and that’s enough. Socialism seems to have enabled the age gap to collapse on the assumption that the state was there so you did not have to prove you could support a family in advance. Today under socialism, you can marry a homeless person and the state will provide the welfare. It depends upon your self-esteem and ambition in life.
Some birds seem to practice the same trend. The male has to build a nest and make it look attractive to attract a female. Perhaps that is just the way nature intended which is why girls become women before boys become men.
Kavanaugh’s hearing exposed the serious fact that the US Congress has become too polarized to even govern. What has been done to Kavanaugh is a serious disgrace for if the allegations of Ford are true, then she is at fault for not bringing charges back then and claiming it has defined her life. NOBODY should be allowed to bring any allegations against anyone decades after with no proof. They call them a Cold Case when they cannot solve a murder and Chicago’s track record is that they solve less than even one in six such murders and that is current incidents.
The Kavanaugh vote was strictly down the party line and that demonstrates the problem. The hatred and degree to which a person is attacked goes beyond that person but seriously harms his entire family. This is now becoming a serious deterrent to anyone in the future looking at taking such a post. Will they find someone in your past you just hates you for some reason who now thinks it is pay-back time? The Congress is now far too disconnected from the notion of God, truth, and justice for all. There is a complete breakdown of anything civilized in the country they are supposed to serve. The judiciary, which is traditionally distant from partisan bickering, is now smack in the middle of it. This nonsense that those appointed to the court vote only partisan means that we should simply replace the court with an artificial intelligence system that decides cases based strictly upon the Constitution.
This Congress would NEVER be capable of even writing a Constitution. If they existed in 1776, there would be NO United States. If they would have ever agreed to have a revolution against the King, they would have then turned on each other. Very few would have survived such an event. I personally am fed up with politics. My cousin has the musket that our family used in the American Revolution. If my family, who has fought in every war from the American Revolution onward were alive today, they would seriously wonder what they even fought for.
There is no doubt that historians will look back on the hearing as a turning point in this country when the Decline and Fall of the United States was at least exposed and some will make this event as the tipping point. This has exposed that hatred that is brewing beneath the surface. The computer will no doubt be correct. We have gone way too far to ever return to normality.
‘I don’t want to die this way’: Starbucks clerk relives attack after customer shoots assailant, police say
By Liesl Nielsen, KSL.com | Posted – Oct 4th, 2018 @ 10:32pm
10PM: ‘I don’t want to die this way’: Starbucks clerk relives attack after customer shoots assailant, police say
Kate Valentine, KSL TV
+Show 3 more videos
MILLCREEK — Shelby Hamilton’s first thought as she lay bruised and bleeding on the ground of a Millcreek Starbucks was that she didn’t want to die this way. It would be a painful way to go.
It all began while Hamilton was working an early morning shift at the coffee shop near 3900 South and 900 East Thursday morning. Hamilton was standing behind the counter when a “haggard-looking” man entered, she said.
Instead of coming to the register to order, the man came behind the counter and asked Hamilton if she knew who he was. When she replied that she didn’t, he became angry and began beating her with his fists, she said.
“It was all just kind of random. I didn’t really know him. … He just came in the door and hit me in the back of the head from behind,” Hamilton told KSL.com.
She backed up and tried to put distance between herself and the man, but once she reached the end of the counter, she was trapped — and he continued hitting her. Hamilton’s co-workers, however, remained frozen, unsure what to do, she said.
“I started to think why no one was helping me, ‘cause he was only hitting me, and I felt kind of angry for a moment,” she said.
Before Hamilton had much time to ponder the question, however, the man picked up a metal supply basket and hit her on the side of the head. Hamilton crumpled, and the man continued kicking her in the back. The only thought left in her mind: “I don’t want to die this way.”
As soon as she fell to the ground, however, her co-workers ran out the door and began screaming for help. The next thing Hamilton knew, the man had stopped beating her and gone back around the counter.
Soon after, she heard a gunshot.
“The first thought in my head was that this had turned into a shooting,” she said. “My second thought was … he just shot my friends, and my third thought was … he’s going to come back here and shoot me.”
Hamilton said she crawled under the counter to hide from the would-be shooter, but it was the police that found her soon after. It was then she overheard on one of the officers’ radios that her attacker had been shot by a customer.
“My honest thought? I just hoped that he was dead,” she said.
Unified Police Lt. Ken Hansen confirmed later that the attacker was shot by a man in his late 60s who saw what was happening while visiting the shop for his morning coffee. The customer drew the man’s attention, and the attacker began to approach him.
As he came closer, the customer pulled out a gun and shot the attacker once in the chest, Hansen said. The man then stumbled out of the store.
Police arrived shortly after and used a Taser to take Benjamin Overall, 37, into custody. They then realized that Overall had been shot and summoned medical help for both Hamilton and Overall, Hansen said. Police believe Overall may have mental health issues, Hansen said.
Overall was transported to a hospital in serious condition — though he has since been upgraded to satisfactory. Hamilton was transported in fair condition, though she’s since been released — albeit with a black eye, swollen face, cuts and bruises covering her hands and back.
Hamilton is grateful, however, that she’s alive. And especially grateful for the man with a gun who she said is a frequent customer.
“I know his drink,” she said. “He comes in every morning and gets a large, blonde coffee in his personal cup. He’s always been very sweet. He’s always been very patient.”
Hamilton was initially surprised, however, when she heard he had shot the attacker.
“I never would have expected that from him,” she said. “He just seemed like a very meek guy. So I was surprised, but also very grateful. I was very grateful that he was there. And I was glad it was somebody we see regularly so that hopefully, in the future, I can thank him.”
The customer has a concealed carry permit, Hansen said, and, though he doesn’t know for sure if the customer will face charges, he believes the shooting can be interpreted as self-defense. The customer is being “very cooperative” with police, Hansen added.
“We are thankful all partners (employees) and customers are safe after going through such a terrifying experience,” Starbucks said in an emailed statement. “Our focus is on supporting our partners at this time. We are grateful local authorities were there to help and would direct any further questions their way.”
In 2013, Starbucks made a request that customers not bring firearms into its stores or outdoor eating areas, but the company specified that it was a request and not an outright ban.
As for Hamilton, she’s just happy someone was there.
“I’m just really grateful to be alive, and I’m thankful for everyone who was there to help me,” she said.
Contributing: Derek Petersen, KSL TV and Peter Karabats, KSL Newsradio
Hatch, Lee: No evidence to support allegations against Kavanaugh in new FBI report
By Lisa Riley Roche, KSL | Posted – Oct 4th, 2018 @ 12:06pm
5PM: Hatch, Lee: No evidence to support allegations against Kavanaugh in new FBI report
SALT LAKE CITY — Both of Utah’s Republican senators, Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee, said Thursday there’s no evidence in a new FBI investigation to support the sexual assault allegations made against U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
“The FBI found no evidence corroborating the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh during his seventh background investigation,” Hatch said in a statement after reviewing the secret report.
“Likewise, none of the previous six investigations found any hint of misconduct by Judge Kavanaugh, who has been a public servant for more than two decades,” he said. “Given that no new information was brought to light, it is time to vote.”
HATCH after reviewing the supplemental FBI investigation files:
Hatch said he appreciates “the professional and expeditious manner in which the FBI handled this matter.”
Lee said in a statement after reading the same document: “The new information in the supplemental FBI report does not corroborate the allegations made against Judge Kavanaugh. I look forward to voting for his confirmation immediately.”
Hatch and Lee heard testimony last week as members of the Senate Judiciary Committee from Christine Blasey Ford about an alleged sexual assault by Kavanaugh when they were both in high school in 1982.
A top Senate Republican said Thursday the confidential FBI report on charges that Brett Kavanaugh sexually abused women three decades ago “found no hint of misconduct” by the Supreme Court nominee.
Kavanaugh, a federal judge who also testified, has denied the allegations. The FBI investigation was ordered following the hearing at the request of Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, a key Republican vote needed to approve Kavanaugh to the high court.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., took action Wednesday night to set up a Senate vote for Friday on President Donald Trump’s second Supreme Court nominee despite criticism that report was not thorough enough.
Senators were set to individually review the report throughout the day Thursday.
One month ago Friday, an unidentified Trump administration official set off a White House firestorm by claiming in a New York Times opinion piece to be part of a secret “resistance” force out to undermine parts of President Donald Trump’s agenda.
The article triggered cries of “treason” from Trump and a demand that the powers of the federal government be brought to bear to root out the disloyal officials.
And then … not much happened.
The investigation, which existed more in name than practice, stalled. A move to clean house never occurred. The author’s identity is still a mystery.
Still, publication of the piece, along with a new Bob Woodward book painting a picture of a president whose impulses were being thwarted by his own staff, has had some lasting aftershocks.
The president, already besieged by leaks, has closed ranks around the Oval Office, growing far more suspicious of staff and trusting fewer West Wing personnel. That’s according to four White House officials and Republicans close to the White House who were not authorized to speak publicly about private conversations.
The Sept. 5 publication of the op-ed rocked Washington. The author, described only as a senior administration official, wrote that “Many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.”
The writer went on: “It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.”
The piece landed the same week as Woodward’s “Fear” and emphasized the new book’s themes: that Trump appeared unfit for office and some of his closest aides viewed themselves as a bulwark between his worst decisions and the American public.
Trump was incensed about the op-ed, calling around to confidants to vent about the author, solicit guesses as to his or her identity, seethe that it appeared in the newspaper he loves to hate, and complain that a “deep state” within the administration was conspiring against him. At a rally that week in Montana, he called the author “an anonymous, gutless coward.”
“You look at this horrible thing that took place. Is it subversion, is it treason?” Trump bellowed. “It really is terrible.”
The Beltway guessing game seeped into the White House, as current and former staffers traded calls and texts trying to figure out who could have written the piece, some even asking reporters for clues. Trump ordered aides to unmask the writer, cited “national security” concerns to justify a possible Justice Department investigation and issued an extraordinary demand that the newspaper reveal the author.
Trump’s anger triggered an extraordinary parade of senior officials, Cabinet members and even the vice president, who issued statements and stood before cameras to deny that they were part of the resistance.
Some Trump advisers, like attorney Rudy Giuliani, suggested that it would be “appropriate” for Trump to ask for a formal investigation into the identity of the op-ed author. And Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, a key ally of Trump’s, called for the president to order those suspected of being the author to undergo lie-detector tests.
But then, mirroring the very thesis of the op-ed, Trump’s requests to the government largely went ignored.
It was never expected that the Justice Department would move to open an investigation. A White House official later said Trump’s call for the investigation was an expression of his frustration with the op-ed, rather than an order for federal prosecutors.
White House chief of staff John Kelly, communications director Bill Shine and press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders convened a series of closed-door meetings and ordered a cursory leak search, including enforcing a pre-existing ban on personal phones, according to three White House officials not authorized to speak publicly about internal meetings. But as the op-ed was wiped from the headlines by other news events, most notably the contentious confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, the probe was quietly pushed aside.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
Though the president continued to vent about the leaks, aides never conducted an exhaustive search, according to two of the officials. And many administration officials recognized that there was a long list of officials who plausibly could have been the author.
The West Wing and, for the most part, Trump himself moved on, focusing on the upcoming midterm elections and the push to get Kavanaugh on the bench.
But Trump has confided to allies that he still is frustrated by frequent leaks and feels that there are few aides around him whom he can fully trust, according to the three White House officials and Republicans close to the White House.
Beyond a network of outside advisers Trump has known for decades, the officials said, those on the inside the president continues to trust include family: daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, both senior advisers.
Emergency alert test sounds off on mobile phones nationwide
By Colleen Long, Associated Press | Posted – Oct 3rd, 2018 @ 3:41pm
10PM: Emergency alert test sounds off on mobile phones nationwide
+Show 1 more video
WASHINGTON (AP) — Electronic devices across the United States sounded off Wednesday as the Federal Emergency Management Agency conducted its first-ever national wireless emergency alert test.
The tone went off at 2:18 p.m. EDT. The subject of the alert read: “Presidential Alert” and text said: “THIS IS A TEST of the National Wireless Emergency Alert System. No action is needed.”
FEMA officials estimated that about 225 million devices would receive the alert at about the same time, but the message was broadcast by cell towers for 30 minutes so some people got it later than others. Some got as many as four alerts on their phones; others didn’t get any.
In a real emergency, devices would get the alert at the same time or as close to the same time as possible.
A second alert on television broadcast and radio went off at 2:20 p.m. EDT. The TV and radio alert has been tested for several years.
The system test is for a high-level “presidential” alert that would be used only in a nationwide emergency. It was completed in coordination with the Federal Communications Commission.
It’s not clear how successful the test was. FEMA officials said they would share test result data on how the testing went with mobile carriers to help ensure the system works well in a true emergency.
Phones with mobile carriers that participate in the wireless emergency alert system, which sends out information on hazardous weather, or missing children, got it. FEMA officials estimated it would reach about 75 percent of all mobile phones in the country, including phones on all of the major carriers.
The wireless alert system was launched in 2012. While users can opt out of messages on missing children and natural disasters, they can’t opt out of the presidential alerts, which are issued at the direction of the White House and activated by FEMA.
FEMA officials said the administration can only send such an alert for national emergencies or if the public were in peril, according to rules outlined in a 2006 law, and say it can’t be used for any sort of personal message from a president.
In New York, U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla rejected a last-minute effort to block the test. Three people sued, claiming it violates their constitutional rights. The plaintiffs said the alert system fails to give people the chance to opt out.
Failla called the constitutional questions raised by the lawsuit significant and urged the litigants to find lawyers to help them proceed. She said she believes the plaintiffs want to ensure that President Donald Trump doesn’t turn the alert system into a second Twitter feed.
The judge asked a government lawyer if there were standards in place to prevent someone from using the system for political purposes.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Anthony Sun said telephones were being added to a century-old alert system that is controlled by law. A FEMA lawyer said via a phone connection to the courtroom that decisions about alerts are at the discretion of the president, just as are many other decisions involving national security.
Some Trump critics seized on the alert’s transmission to poke fun at the president.
“Oh my. A ‘Presidential Alert’ emergency. I thought that was the entire Trump presidency,” actor and activist George Takei tweeted.
Associated Press writers Larry Neumeister and Jeff McMillan in New York contributed to this report.
Government talks about Islamic terrorists, but their number one fear is YOU. The internment camps are for you, not Islamic extremists. Government CANNOT honor its promises so it will not even try. They are confiscating money everywhere, doubling fines, and punishing people for insane things.
A neighbor received a ticket and a $200 fine for using a cell phone while driving. The use? Looking at the Google Maps. She even went to court with her phone records to prove she was not on the phone. The judge declared that she should have looked at that BEFORE she left. I suppose if you write down the directions and look at the piece of paper that is OK, you just can’t look at it on your phone. That applies to even looking at the time on your phone.
The government claims it wants to eliminate guns to protect society. The problem will be that the criminals do not buy their guns at a store. They want to disarm the public because you are their number one fear as outlined in this discussion paper.
National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism
A Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Center of Excellence
Understanding Law Enforcement Intelligence Processes 8
The 2013-14 study results show that law enforcement’s top concern is sovereign citizens. Although
Islamic extremists remain a major concern for law enforcement, they are no longer their top concern.
Approximately 39 percent of respondents agreed and 28 percent strongly agreed that Islamic extremists
were a serious terrorist threat. In comparison, 52 percent of respondents agreed and 34 percent strongly
agreed that sovereign citizens were a serious terrorist threat. This is interesting because sovereign
citizens were ranked as the eighth highest group of concern among the 2006-07 sample. Third, although
estimates about some groups were a serious terrorist threat increased comparing the two time periods,
(e.g., Left-Wing Revolutionaries; Extreme Anti-Abortion Extremists), the concern about whether most
groups were a serious terrorist threat actually declined for most groups (e.g., the KKK; Christian Identity;
Neo-Nazis; Racist Skinheads; Extremist Environmentalists; Extreme Animal Rights Extremists).
The change is interesting as there was significant concern about the resurgence of the radical far right (as
evidenced by the 2006-07 survey, as well as additional concerns raised after the 2008 election of
President Barack Obama), but it appears as though law enforcement is, at present, less concerned about
these groups. Such changing perceptions about what is a serious terrorist threat is an important finding
because identifying and prioritizing a threat is akin to hitting a moving target and evolves as new
intelligence, data, and events develop. Law enforcement must be steadfast in identifying major concerns,
substantiating the concerns, providing products and resources to better understand the nature of the
threat, and supporting efforts to respond to such concerns.
Table 3 presents findings of the perceived likelihood of various types of terrorist incidents comparing the
2006-07 and 2013-14 survey results. In general, law enforcement perceptions on the likelihood of
various types of terrorist incident are similar when comparing the two periods, although their top
concerns changed. In the 2006-07 survey, law enforcement officers rated an attack with conventional
explosive devices and cyberterrorism as the two most likely events in that order. Although the mean
average for cyberterrorism was identical in the 2013-14 survey results, concern about the use of
conventional explosive devices declined somewhat. Similarly, the results from the 2013-14 survey show
that law enforcement was somewhat less likely to think that most other types of incident were going to
occur, compared to the 2006-07 results.
Table 3. Perceptions of Likelihood of Terrorism-Related Crimes by Type of Incident
Type of Incident Likelihood of Incident
Likelihood of Incident
Cyberterrorism 3.09 (1) 3.09 (2)
Conventional Explosive Devices 2.85 (2) 3.18 (1)
Military Weapons Incident 2.60 (3) 2.50 (5)
Biological 2.37 (4) 2.47 (7)
Agroterrorism (food) 2.35 (5) 2.56 (3)
Agroterrorism (disease) 2.26 (6) 2.56 (3)
Chemical 2.25 (7) 2.50 (5)
Radiological 2.13 (8) 2.1
Law enforcement is much more concerned about sovereign citizens, Islamic extremists, and militia/patriot group members compared to the fringe groups of the far right, including Christian Identity believers, reconstructed traditionalists (i.e., Odinists), idiosyncratic sectarians (i.e., survivalists), and members of doomsday cults. Second, the major concerns of law enforcement have changed considerably over time. For example, when examining the 2006-07 survey results, law enforcement’s top concern was Islamic extremists.
The 2013-14 study results show that law enforcement’s top concern is sovereign citizens. Although Islamic extremists remain a major concern for law enforcement, they are no longer their top concern.
Government talks about Islamic terrorists, but their number one fear is YOU.
Trying to predict the outcome of any encounter with the police is a bit like playing Russian roulette: most of the time you will emerge relatively unscathed, although decidedly poorer and less secure about your rights, but there’s always the chance that an encounter will turn deadly.
Levar Jones was stopped for a seatbelt offense, just as he was getting out of his car to enter a convenience store. Directed to show his license, Jones leaned into his car to get his wallet, only to be shot four times by the “fearful” officer. Jones was also unarmed.
Dontrell Stevens was stopped “for not bicycling properly.” The officer pursuing him “thought the way Stephens rode his bike was suspicious. He thought the way Stephens got off his bike was suspicious.” Four seconds later, sheriff’s deputy Adams Lin shot Stephens four times as he pulled out a black object from his waistband. The object was his cell phone. Stephens was unarmed.
If there is any lesson to be learned from these “routine” traffic stops, it is that drivers should beware.
The tiny robot with caterpillar legs that could eventually be used to deliver medicine inside the human body.City Uni. of Hong Kong/SWMS.com
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED BY:
A tiny robot with “caterpillar” legs and the equivalent strength of a human able to easily lift a 26-seat mini-bus could also be used to deliver drugs inside the human body.
Researchers say that the robot is capable of carrying relatively heavy loads and adapting to adverse environments and could pave the way for medical technology advances.
They say it can move efficiently inside surfaces within the body lined with, or entirely immersed in, body fluids such as blood or mucus.
But what makes the “milli-robot” stand out is its hundreds of less than one millimeter long pointed legs that look like tiny hairs. The research was published in Nature Communications.
The research team at City University of Hong Kong (CityU) had studied the leg structures of hundreds of ground animals including those with two, four, eight or more legs, in particular, the ratio between leg-length and the gap between the legs.
Study leader Assistant Professor Shen Yajing, of CityU’s Department of Biomedical Engineering (BME), said: “Most animals have a leg-length to leg-gap ratio of 2:1 to 1:1. So we decided to create our robot using 1:1 proportion.”
The robot’s body thickness measures around 0.15 mm, with each conical leg measuring 0.65 mm long and the gap between the legs measuring about 0.6 mm, making the leg-length-to-gap ratio around 1:1.
Shen said the robot’s pointed legs have “greatly reduced” their contact area and hence the friction with the surface.
Laboratory tests showed that the multi-legged robot has 40 times less friction than a limbless robot in both wet and dry environment.
Apart from the multi-leg design, Shen said the materials also matter.
The robot is fabricated with a silicon material called polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) embedded with magnetic particles which enables it to be remotely controlled by applying electromagnetic force.
Professor Wang Zuankai, who conceived the research idea, said: “Both the materials and the multi-leg design greatly improve the robot’s hydrophobic property.
“Besides, the rubbery piece is soft and can be cut easily to form robots of various shapes and sizes for different applications.”
Controlled by a magnetic manipulator used in experiments, the robot can move in both a flap propulsion pattern and an inverted pendulum pattern, meaning that it can use its front feet to flap forward as well as swinging the body by standing on the left and right feet alternately to advance respectively.
Wang said: “The rugged surface and changing texture of different tissues inside the human body makes transportation challenging. Our multi-legged robot shows an impressive performance in various terrains and hence open wide applications for drug delivery inside the body.”
The research team further proved that when facing an obstacle ten times higher than its leg length, the robot, with its deformable soft legs, is able to lift up one end of its body to form an angle of up to 90 degrees and cross the obstacle easily.
And it can increase its speed by increasing the electromagnetic frequency applied.
The researchers said the robot also shows a “remarkable” loading ability.
Lab tests showed that it was capable of carrying a load 100 times heavier than itself, a strength comparable to an ant, one of the strongest creatures in nature, or to a human being able to “easily” lift a 26-seated mini-bus.
Shen said: “The amazingly strong carrying capability, efficient locomotion and good obstacle-crossing ability make this milli-robot extremely suitable for applications in a harsh environment, for example delivering a drug to a designated spot through the digestive system, or carrying out medical inspection.”
Before conducting further tests in animals and eventually in humans, the research teams are further developing and refining their research in three aspects, namely finding a biodegradable material, studying new shapes and adding extra features.
Shen added: “We are hoping to create a biodegradable robot in the next two to three years so it will decompose naturally after its meds delivery mission.”
Believe it or not, back in 1989 the United Nationswarned: “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.” It really is astonishing how such absurd forecasts were made 20 years ago to start this whole crazy belief in Global Warming and how the threat would be rising sea levels all created by us driving to work. The rhetoric continues relentlessly with every storm now being blamed on Global Warming.
The 2000 Presidential Election came and Al Gore made Global Warming a campaign issue. In August 2000, Gore announced that he had selected Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut as his vice presidential running mate. Then in 2007 Al Gore still kept preaching Global Warming and declared we reached a dangerous climate “tipping point”, he warned in his 2007 book Assault on Reason.
There have been critics who rarely are ever heard. Yet to this day, the press blames each and every storm on a theory that has never been proven to be even plausible. Nonetheless, they then turn Global Warming into a political weapon against Trump. The headline in the Washington Post: “Yes you can blame President Trump for Hurricane Florence.” So the implication is if Hillary had been president, there would be no more storms, which by the way has never existed even before humans walked the planet.
Nobody is ever held accountable for their forecasts that are NEVER correct!
In Germany, the overwhelming number of refugees have no papers whatsoever. The government remains clueless as to who so many people really are. Over 200,000 refugees/economic migrants have official dates of birth as January 1st. The number is 207,347 persons who have sought protection since 2014 with fictitious birthdays was released by Federal Ministry of the Interior in response to a written request by AFD member Anton Friesen. Most of these people, some 125,408 refugees, were reportedly in Germany in 2015. The government does not know where 60% of the refugees have gone. The Federal Ministry of the Interior admitted in their response that the “date of January 1 is recorded when asylum seekers cannot produce passports” and they only are able to their “year of birth but not the exact day or month.” They admit they have no idea how many refugees have given birth to children while in Europe. It is impossible to understand if there are terrorists who are setting up networks throughout Europe.
A Yazidi girlwho was sold into slavery by the Islamic State managed to escape and fled to Germany. She was only 15 when her entire family was captured by Isis in northern Iraq four years ago. She was eventually sold along with her sister and all other young teenage girls and she had to live with an Isis member she knew as Abu Humam.
She managed to escape and made it to Germany as a refugee. She was reunited with her mother and several other family members who all managed to flee. Then while walking down the street in February this year, she was stopped by a man. It was her ISIS captor there in Germany. He apparently searched and followed her to Germany. She ran to the authorities for help. They told her that they could not do anything about it because the man was registered as a refugee as well and thus above the law. She then feared for her life and fled Germany going back to Iraq where she said she felt safer there.
Just claiming you have no papers and not even knowing your date of birth, clearly has opened the door to Europe for terrorism. You can’t even make up such stupidity of government programs. There is just NO common sense in government. They are not paid for that.
A very curious thing seems to be going on. A person donated money to Trump, all of a sudden, emails begin to arrive from Joe Biden asking for donations to the Democrats. What is really curious is that there were no emails before donating to Trump. Have the Democrats hacked the Republican donors?
If anything, this is going to be a crazy election cycle with an all-out war. They have no case to actually impeach Trump on this whole Russian nonsense and I find it unbelievable how they have turned Russia into this dangerous enemy claiming they hacked the Democrats and released emails that defeated Hillary. Yet there has been NO ALLEGATION that any of the emails were fake or altered. If the Russians fabricated the emails to influence the election, then we have something. This is like someone who was robbing your house and blamed you for coming home early so they got caught. This is really a twisted affair.
So they cannot impeach Trump for a Collusion with Russians, then we have the Woodward book and the New York Times OP-ED desperately trying to make a case that he is crazy and should be removed. That too seems to lead nowhere. This appears to be a grand conspiracy to so taint the airwaves that the Democrats take Congress and run the Republicans out of town.
Meanwhile, it appears that there is a very serious DEEP STATEconspiracy going on here with the Democrats who began the Russia allegations and the FBI and Justice Department conspired with them to take down Trump. The Democrats are even calling it their War Roomagainst Trump. It is not an election about policy, it is an election against Trump.
There is a very slow flow of incriminating evidence which seems to grow almost daily revealing that FBI and Justice Department officials both worked together with Democrats in the Obama Administration to prevent President Trump’s presidency from getting underway. The whole Russia investigation conducted by Robert Mueller must now come under serious question, and it seems likely that key FBI officials should be charged with crimes. Mueller is charging anyone remotely connected with Trump for things with no connection to Russia and then he tells the prosecutors in New York to charge Trump’s lawyer.
Mueller is way off the playing field here and if Trump fires him, as he legally should, then the Democrats call it Obstruction of Justice and argue that for impeachment. The Oath of Office Trump took includes going after these people who are openly violating the Constitution: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to be best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Obama did not say these words correctly when he took the oath. He had to take it again after the ceremony or he was not really the President under the Constitution.
The latest release by Congress of documents late Monday revealed an “apparent systemic culture of media leaking” among top officials at the FBI and Justice Department, which really included James Comey. This is quoting a letter that North Carolina Republican Rep. Mark Meadows sent to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. It turns out that FBI official even discussed their “media leak strategy” before making any Trump-Russia revelations. Under Article VI of the Constitution, there is a requirement that all government Officials take an oath “to support this Constitution.” Today, 5 U.S.C. 3331 specifies the language of the oath for federal officials. According to this statute, officials must “solemnly swear (or affirm)” that they “will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” and that they “will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”
Every official involved in this coup has violated the Constitution. The writer of the Op_Ed has violated and the people who told Woodward they stole papers so Trump would not sign them violated their oath of office and in fact have become the very “enemies” of the state. Woodward legally should have turned them over and anyone else would be charged with conspiring with them to hide their crimes. They are like a thief who robs your home and then say he did it to protect your belongings because he really wanted to burn it down.
This really is probably treason for bureaucrats to conspire to undermine a Democratically elected president for they have become the enemies within. This is obviously at the very minimum about draining the Swamp. Newly released text messages reveal disgraced FBI official Peter Strzok asked to speak to former FBI lawyer Lisa Page about a “media leak strategy” during a crucial period of the Trump-Russia investigation in 2017. This is really getting out of hand. The problem is that we have the FBI and Department of Justice conspiring to take down a President.
Regardless if you agree or disagree with Trump, this is very serious. For even if you hate Trump, this evidence suggests that whoever is in that position can be blackmailed by the bureaucrats to run the country as they demand. This is treason for it is in direct confrontation of the entire establishment of the Constitution for it rejects any vote of the people and supplants it with their personal opinions. This is a version of what Joseph Stalin had to say that the person who decides and an election is the one who counts the votes. Here, regardless of who the people vote for, bureaucrats will undermine the entire nation to keep it in their hands. This is the same in the end as Joseph Stalin stated. This is no longer about Trump – this is about National Security for such people could just as easily be taking bribes from third parties domestic or foreign. Trump should now appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate Mueller and crew.
COMMENT: Mr. Armstrong; As a Canuck, I was shocked to come to realize that our Canadian government is confiscating the property of innocent people following the same practice in Washington. How can they justify this? Read the Canadian Justice Review Board.
ANSWER: Yes, politicians do seem to get ideas from each other. The US had this civil asset forfeiture and now everyone is confiscating money because that’s what the Americans do. Today, civil asset forfeiture is an outright crime against the people for it is not even a tax – just an illegal taking of innocent people’s money. Its origin is in ancient law that the King of England adopted as a means to pretend he was God and entitled to confiscate everyone’s money on a whim.
The United States Supreme Court in J. W. Goldsmith Jr., Grant Co. v. The United States, 254 U.S. 505 (1922), noted the origins of government forfeiture power in the historical practice of Deodand. The court cited Sir William Blackstone (1723–1780), in his “Commentaries of the Laws of England”, which noted that this practice extended back to the times of Ancient Greece. A Deodand is a thing forfeited or given to God, specifically, in law, an object or instrument that becomes forfeited because it has caused a person’s death.
The English common law of Deodands traces back to the 11th century and was applied, on and off, until Parliament finally abolished it in 1846. Deodand is not practiced in the United States or Canada, yet it has been transformed into the government’s right to seize your property even if you have done NOTHING wrong for it is the object that commits the offense, not you. Politicians have assumed the role of God and it is no longer a justification that says you had a horse that suddenly was spooked and it took off running and killed someone. The horse was then forfeited to really help pay for the funeral costs of the victim. This has been transformed into civil asset forfeiture.
The U.S. Supreme Court relying on Deodand to justify the confiscation of property to enrich the coffers of government is no different than being robbed on the street at gunpoint. Under this ancient practice, the object is guilty, not the owner. This is really an example of how judges are owned by the government and do not defend the Constitution or the people. The right to property is the foundation of civilization. This is why we banned together and formed governments to provide a rule of law to ensure our cooperation with each other. Now we have governments claiming someone sold drugs from your home and seize your home for the house committed the crime, not you even if you had no idea. Basic rules of civilization mean nothing anymore because the rule of law has been turned into a profit mechanism for government.
It cannot be justified but we have no independent judges who will stand up for our basic human rights. There was a revolution, in case these judges forgot, which meant that just because some practice existed in common law does not mean it survived. It plainly begins:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the commondefence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of …”
I do not see how ANY reasonable interpretation of the Constitution can justify Civil Asset Forfeiture. It is in direct conflict with the very stated purpose of the American Constitution.
The left has always been the most violent in politics mainly because they blame others for their own failure. Already we are starting to see a trend where threats are being made against political rallies for the Republicans. Police have had to respond to threats of violence against Republicans but perhaps the most serious threat was targeting the Trump International Hotel in Washington DC. An anonymous threat to pull off a mass shooting there was made on Twitter account that supports the Democratic Socialists and the far-left political group. The Twitter read: “I am coming with a gun and I expect to get numerous bloodstained MAGA hats as trophies,” Of course, that is the Make America Great Hats.
Sources believe that we will see more such violent threats targeting Republicans this political season which seem to be an attempt to suppress and democratic opposition to the left whatsoever. The more such things continue to build, we simply seem to be cascading out of control headed into a civil war in the years ahead. One source characterized the objective was to prevent people from attending any political rallies for the Republicans in the months ahead. The question really becomes, will this backfire against the Democrats and then lead to real bloodshed later? I have just never seen such outright hatred for a president of any party as we are witnessing against Trump. I fear the computer is forecasting something important with an unbiased and objective analysis that is unsettling. Trump is the false move or counter-trend against the swamp (corruption) but the trend in motion will revert back and conclude with the destruction of the West as we have known it. It will certainly not be politics, as usual, anymore.
COMMENT: I know a guy who just hates Trump and claims he hates Trump because he is a racist and incompetent and says I am a racist because I did not like Obama. But nobody that I ever knew hated Obama with such personal vindictiveness. These people would rather burn the house down and seem to refuse to live under any Republican. Just insane. I can see that we are definitely headed into a civil war. They are just hateful people.
REPLY: Ironically, the left also accused the last Emperor of Russia of being a racist and hurled almost identical insults at him as well as they are doing to Trump – history repeats. They published anti-Semitic materials and the Emperor condemned that so they claimed he defended the Jews (“rich”) they portrayed as a separate race, which of course they are not. The left not merely staged a revolution seizing all the property of anyone who had it, but they then killed the Emperor and his entire family. The hatred is a pattern that will always manifest on the left. They are really blaming everyone else for their failures in life.
The Russian Revolution of 1917 involved the collapse of an empire under Tsar Nicholas II and the rise of Marxian socialism under Lenin and his Bolsheviks. This is really the goal here and the people who call Trump a racist are displaying the same patterns. They also simply hate the “rich” and you can guarantee this will eventually manifest into a rise in anti-Semitic movements they will justify by blaming the bankers during the next crisis. Tsar Nicholas II (r. 1894 – 1917) had complete control over the bureaucracy and the army refusing to share his power which led to people regarding him as incompetent as well. During the summer of 1915, the Duma (parliament), demanded a government with democratic values and which responded to the people’s needs. Later that year, however, Nicholas dissolved the Duma and went to the war front. His leaving was detrimental for there the opposition made its move.
We see the same insults hurled at Trump of being a racist and incompetent. It is a cyclical pattern that strangely emerges. As soon as someone calls Trump a racist you know they are blind with hate and are weak-minded spouting out propaganda they just regurgitate. Muslim is a religion, not a race and Mexican is also not a race. There are only four races and you will find them among all Mexicans as well as Muslims. Both the Russians and the Germans called Jews a separate race to really justify seizing their property.
So as soon as they call Trump a racist it demonstrates their lack of intelligence and their incompetence to have any sort of an independent mind. I too agree. I did not like Obama for the fact that he supported the NSA, installed Obamacare which failed to work but supported the insurance companies, and raised taxes. Nobody I ever heard called him vicious names. It was a disagreement with politics. The left is incapable of drawing such a line and their hatred is always personal. To call you a racist because you disagreed with those policies also demonstrates the lack of intelligence and the high probability that is some person who will eventually take out their hatred and support the civil war against anyone who disagrees with them. That is why all revolutions begin from the left. These are people who cannot sleep at night hating others who typically have more.
This is a shame, but it is what our future holds. The left should just put a bumper sticker on their cars – CAUTION – Do not Play Nicely with Others.
QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; I take it your concern over Trump from the market perspective is the sheer uncertainty that is evolving. How do you see this playing out for the world economy?
Thank you. I agree. These people who hate Trump just hate him so passionately.
ANSWER: Markets do not like UNCERTAINTY. These people who want to see Trump gone have no clue what may result in the aftermath. My concern is global. This is far beyond Trump. We have chaos in Turkey, Argentina spilling over into other Emerging Markets. We have politicians trying to punish Britain and German companies asking what are they just nuts in Brussels? Britain is the BIGGESTmarket for Germany cars in Europe. We have building uncertainty in Southern Europe. We have the head of Australia playing the game of musical chairs. We have new political parties emerging in Canada and Ireland. We have private debt concerns in China. We have South Africa following the mistakes of Zimbabwe and we have major change sweeping the Middle East. The discontent in Iran is building toward yet another revolution and in Japan, Abe Economics is failing. South America is in turmoil which has spread even to Mexico.
In all honesty, throughout my career, there have been places that are in turmoil and it was crystal clear where capital would move. I honestly have to say I have NEVER witnessed a period quite like this. There is no place that is a safe haven at this point. The entire world is just coming unglued. All we can do is now rely on the computer for personal opinions will be probably the most dangerous things upon which to base forecasts.
My concern about US politics stems from our computer. Here is the array on 3rd party trends out into 2029. The people who hate Trump so much may be crying later if he is forced out for they will find their lives completely destroyed economically if confidence in government collapses as they try to put in one of their own career politicians. We have a Panic Cycle arriving in Politics in 2021 and again in 2024. The presidential elections will be 2020 and 2024. Note that both Panic Cycles are aligned with these events. I am NOT joking about blood in the streets. Those who hate Trump so much right now will be the very people hunting others who disagree with them. It will not take much to turn them extremely hateful – that is 100% always the case throughout history.
QUESTION: With Bob Woodward joining the plot to overthrow Trump, do you think he can survive?
ANSWER: No. Woodward says he recorded all his interviews. I do not see him as just making this up with a personal opinion. That does not say what he has been told is true. It is unlikely that what Woodward was told was the truth. This is the Deep State. Nobody would take a job in the White House and then deliberately undermine the administration. This is somehow connected to other efforts and is not wholly independent. Woodward may be a pawn in a larger game here to overthrow Trump – he just does not know the game behind the curtain. He thinks this is like trying to investigate Nixon and reliving his past. Sorry, it’s not that simple anymore.
As said before, the prevailing view behind the curtain was that Kennedy was assassinated by the CIA because he would not authorize a Vietnam War. He was angry about their failure in Cuba. When the Soviet Union fell, files became available. A memo from December 1st, 1966 reported that the Russians believed there was a plot to assassinate Kennedy from within the U.S. government. Today, the Democrats want to invade Russia because they released Hillary’s genuine emails. Back then, Oswald was blamed on Russia but nobody called for war as they do today.
Many people saw the Warren Report on the Kennedy Assassination as a cover-up. To remove Trump, I seriously doubt they would take that approach. That means the only way to remove Trump is to discredit him to such an extent that they can somehow justify invoking the 25th Amendment for they might not be able to even prove a case in a public trial in the Senate for impeachment given that Trump would probably press all the way. They do not have the evidence of Russian collaboration so Mueller is prosecuting people for taxes and anything he can find other than what he was appointed to investigate.
If we assume what Woodward was told was exaggeration or lies to turn him into an unwitting pawn in this chess game, then with the New York Times publishing the anonymous Op_Ed (Extremely unusual), seems to be connecting the dots that there is really a very serious coup to overthrow Trump taking place behind the curtain. Perhaps they will try to put together a case that he should just resign or be replaced under the 25th Amendment since there is no proof of a conspiracy with Putin. They cannot risk a public trial in the Senate on this Russian nonsense. They do not want to assassinate him. That leaves murdering him through a fake accident by car or plane. An assassination would make him a hero and they would hate the idea of a $1 coin with Trump on it.
The Kennedy assassination cleared the way for the Vietnam War. Is the Deep State trying so hard to remove Trump to launch a war with Russia? That is appearing more and more the drive behind this strange internal coup against Trump. You have to also understand that Trump is an outsider, but the people who took positions in the White House were career bureaucrats. I even knew some who went for interviews for key roles so I am not making speculation or an opinion. I even spoke to people who were interviewed to work in the White House. The interviews were career Republican bureaucrats part of the very “swamp” Trump promised to drain. The way the Democrats are acting with this hatred of Russia makes it seem they want war because their weapons are warning expiration label – “Best used before 2020.”
We have not seen such political intrigue since the Civil War. Ironically, despite calling Trump a racist, the only President who inspired such violence and hatred on the same level as Trump was Abraham Lincoln who was not merely an outsider, but he was someone intent on changing the economic structure of government – also draining the swamp. Lincoln also faced a deep swamp of political intrigue and corruption and plots to assassinate him.
The issues between Trump and Lincoln are not the same on the surface. Oh, there will immediately be people that get angry at that statement and say Lincon was the emancipator. Forget the slogans. You need to pick up the rug and look closer. Did the South just want to oppress blacks or was there money at stake? We are talking about labor costs! What is the same between Trump and Lincoln is that both wanted to change the system for different reasons.
There is nothing that Trump has done that would threaten national security. This plot against Trump in part is about keeping the trade agreements in place for you will find too many hidden links to people who like things as they are. There are American manufacturers who do not want to bring jobs back because of pensions and healthcare benefits are far too disruptive and costly. This contributes to the trend for replacing pension hungry union workers with robots. Some just prefer their overseas manufacture because taxes in the USA are far from stable. Trump lowers taxes and as soon as the Democrats retake the White House, they rise again. This is not a stable economic environment in which to make long-term business plans.
In the case of Lincoln, there were so many death threats against him they stopped counting. Ending slavery would ALSO drive the cost of labor higher in the South. The security concerns with Lincoln led to the hiring of a detective who could pose as a Southerner to infiltrate the conspiracy that was developing to kill Lincoln before he was sworn in on his way to Washington. That man was Allan Pinkerton who wrote that “opposition to Mr. Loncoln’s inauguration was most violent and bitter.” The South looked at ending slavery from an economic perspective not so different than companies who do not want to bring overseas jobs back to America for similar reasons today.
In Brazil, the man leading the Polls they call the Trump of Brazil has encountered the same response. The opposing forces just attempted an assassination to stop him from changing the system. Jair Bolsonaro will survive, but he was the leading candidate in Brazil’s presidential elections. He was stabbed during a campaign rally last week. There are many people who are beginning to emerge around the world who have been inspired by Trump to upset the establishment. Taking down Trump may also have an important message to others who think they can change the system.
I do not know how, but it seems I strangely end up knowing so many people in all the key places. Trump would not agree to such a move to wage war on Russia. The meeting of Trump Jr with the Russians at Trump Tower was a rouse promising dirt on Hillary. The main purpose was to inform Trump that there were Americans who interfered in the Russian 2000 elections and tried to blackmail Yeltsin after convincing him to steal money from the IMF loans.
The New York Times reported: “Prosecutors with the United States attorneys’ offices in Manhattan and Brooklyn noted that the money laundering scheme at the Bank of New York involved unlicensed transmissions of about $7 billion that originated in Russia, passed through American accounts, and then moved into other accounts worldwide.” They further reported that the money was the result of “possible corruption among Russia’s business elite and officials of the Kremlin.” (NY Times,
Now, to further all of these coincidences, one of the lawyers involved in the Trump Tower meeting was Scott Balber, who also worked on my case. Who was the US Attorney on my case? James Comey. Now to really make it interesting, during April 2000 there was a Reverse Proffer session between me and the prosecutor Richard Owens. Owens had the audacity to say we know you didn’t steal any money but we won’t drop the charges. We will release you if you just plead to a conspiracy with Edmond Safra was his offer. Since the only way to get $1 billion out of a bank is to write a check or wire the money out, I said no shit!. That’s why the bank had to plead guilty and repay the money. The bank stole the money and I had no restitution. They had even the audacity to impose a completely illegal GAG ORDER on me to prevent me from helping my clients against the bankers. Lawyers cannot believe that one. There is just no rule of law in New York City. They will do whatever it takes to protect the bankers. It is just beyond corruption – it is outright treasonous.
I then said there was no way I would agree to say I was in league with a conspiracy with Safra and the New York bankers. I laid the whole thing out about the attempt to blackmail Yeltsin and why the prosecutors could not get past the Minister of Interior of Russia to trace the money. I said absolutely no way I would put my family at risk saying I had anything to do with Safra. They would not go to trial fearing what I knew and they would not drop the charges and admit they made a mistake. So until I got into the Supreme Court, it became just a Mexican standoff. They tried to kill me, but I was in the hospital in a coma for three days and to their shock I survived.
CNN had even confirmed that the money was stolen from the IMF and later that was completely dropped and they pretended the money was a ransom for a Russian businessman.
Everyone is supposed to be entitled to a FAIR and PUBLIC Trial. Judge Lawrence McKenna was doing his best to protect me. The government went to the Chief Judge and had him order to take my case away from Judge McKenna and handed it to Judge John F. Keenan. I am supposed to have the right to object which I was denied. Then the government sealed my docket sheet so neither I nor the public will ever know what they said even as late as 2013. I believe all of these sealed documents go directly to the Russian connection. I can only suspect that they pulled the National Security card out because they could never allow me to get on the stand and reveal the entire Russian connection. What is on this blog is not the mainstream press. When it makes the nightly news, then you have the Senate investigations.
Now if you really think everything is a coincidence, I do not know what to say. Trump clearly knew what took place in 2000 because he was briefed. This is why the Deep State is so desperate to drive him from office. Trump stood there and knew what Putin wanted. There was no surprise. Look at Trump’s face when Putin asks to interrogate Americans. Then the Senate strangely passes a unanimous (98-0) resolution that Putin cannot interrogate any American. CNN spins this as Trump supports Putin. So is the glass half full or half empty? Why can Mueller demand to question Russians but somehow Russians are so dishonest they cannot question Americans? What are they hiding? Very Strange.
The resolution was brought by three Democratic Senators: Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, New Jersey’s Bob Menendez, and Hawaii’s Brian Schatz. Chuck Schumer is, of course, protecting New York City and the same people I faced and he protects the banks. Menendez was indicted on corruption charges. Who was President in 2000 when this manipulation into the Russian elections was staged? Bill Clinton. Putin also named besides Bill Browder, Ambassador Michael Anthony McFaul to Russia who served as the United States Ambassador to Russia from 2012 to 2014 during the Obama Administration. Very curious that Chuck Schumer would rally to protect anything from the Democrats.
If the Democrats were hacked by the Russians, there are no allegations that the Russians altered any email or manufactured any of the information that came out. Did Chuck Schumer organize this resolution to prevent any evidence that Democratic Administrations attempted to interfere in Russian elections? If there is nothing to hide, then let Putin question and in return Mueller gets to question Russians. Why the smoke-screen?
Now watch Browder the night before the Putin meeting. Why did Fox even ask him to be on to comment about a President meeting with Putin? Why is Browder trying to keep the negative image of Russia? He knew what Putin would ask for to interrogate him? There have been those who alleged that it was Browder who had Magnitsky killed in a Russian prison because he would give Putin the evidence of who was behind the plot to blackmail Yeltsin. Some have alleged that Browder agreed to work with the CIA to avoid tax charges. Nobody seems to know the truth behind that curtain. Why would Browder go on TV as a “FORMER” American who resigned his American Citizenship to avoid taxes appear to speak out against a US president meeting with Putin when he is no longer an American, to begin with?
Trump is being driven from office because he is an outsider, but he seems to stand in the way of a higher agenda as did Kennedy and Vietnam. Between the New York Times OP_ED and Woodward’s book, it seems that the bureaucrats are out to drive Trump from office using the discredited strategyrather than a fake assassination that nobody really believes. Of course, they can stage the classic fake accident by plane or car. Interesting food for thought.
I suppose we will see if they remove Trump and we suddenly go to war history will repeat. Yes, they are working night and day to drive Trump from office. This is why I am deeply concerned about what comes AFTER Trump. There are way too many people working together from every possible angle to remove him from office. They get the fools to cheer but they may be crying later. There is an agendahere that is not exposed and the press will never protect the people or the nation any more.
I cover education as a sector and as the bedrock of all sectors.
Is a Masters in Management (or MiM) the Answer to Your Job Woes?
Sixty percent of U.S. college graduates cannot find a full-time job in their chosen profession, according to job placement firm Adecco. Dubbed ‘Generation Jobless’, college graduates ages 24 and younger face an uncertain job future that, even with improving employment numbers, is only going to get more difficult if we continue to turn out graduates without what an Apple execdescribed as “the skills we need.” Career and job websites, such as Monster Worldwide, ostensibly exist to address the challenge, but, in practice, offer only generic resume-building tips and interview skills.
The needs of this job-seeking cohort are more granular. It is no longer sufficient to have quality undergraduate training in a specific area (say, journalism or architecture). Today’s employers can choose from candidates all over the globe. And what sets one applicant apart from another are skill sets that transcend one’s major or desired profession.
In particular, employers are looking for applicants with core business competencies. Unfortunately, most U.S. undergrads, focused on training in their desired field, never bother to accrue such skills. I see this first-hand at Monk. When we actively seek out creative professionals in writing, marketing, production and post-production, we find that applicants often lack basic training in 21st century tech skills, such as programming, web design, and search engine optimization. In addition, applicants lack training in vital “soft skills,” including critical thinking and shared inquiry that come from a rigorous, deep chronological reading of “the Great Books” (not the leftist secondary source pablum fed to many undergraduates). Moreover, few, if any, come equipped with training in finance, marketing, project management, and business administration.
Some people have asked if it was the Obama Administration that used the IRS against its enemies. I am not Republican or Democrat and have stated countless times that I see no difference between them behind the curtain when it comes to maintaining power. Judicial Watch reported on documents it received showing that Republicans, as well as Democrats, approved of the IRS’s political targeting of American citizens. Yes, the Obama Administration targeted the Tea Party because they began this movement to Drain the Swamp. I believe that Boehner was supporting that effort because he could not “deliver” the Republican vote in Congress because the Tea Party member of Congress wanted reform. More details leaked-out about how widespread the abuse of the IRS after the Lerner affair. Ultimately, the IRS formally admitted to ill-treatment of “36 Tea Party and other conservative organizations from 20 states that applied for 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) tax-exempt status” during Obama’s first four years in office. During that time, the agency subjected “those applications to heightened scrutiny and inordinate delays,’” and demanded, “’information that TIGTA determined was unnecessary to the agency’s determination of their tax-exempt status.”
The Judicial Watch obtained IRS Documents that revealed John McCain’s Subcommittee Staff Director urged IRS to engage in “the solution is to audit so many that it becomes financially ruinous.” So here we have a Republican, John McCain, abusing the power of the IRS for the same ends. And people are shocked McCain did not want Trump to speak at his funeral?
In my own case, I discovered that the judge was changed all the transcripts. I confronted him in open court and he did not deny “editing” the transcripts, but he claimed he did not recall changing anything “material” and at that moment under the law, he became a witness in my own case but refused to recuse himself. Legally, I should have been allowed to call him to the stand under oath and interrogate him as to the materiality of all the changes I specified he was making in the record. There was $400 million stolen from the company authorized by the court. I have never been able to even put this to a trial. Whenever I filed an appeal, the 2nd Circuit lost it. The 2nd Circuit NEVER would allow me to exercise my Due Process Right under the Constitution to be heard on this issue.
The 2nd Circuit actually ordered the Southern District of New York judges to “revise” the practice of changing the transcripts in:
UNITED STATES v. ZICHETTELLO
208 F3d 72 (2d Cir 2000)
The judges NEVER did. You have no idea that the words you say even under oath will be recorded or changed to make it a crime. They do not allow audio recordings in court because they would get caught changing the transcripts. To my shock, this case on changing transcripts appears to have been removed from FindLaw and many other sites and appears to be yet a cover-up that is ongoing. Here is what the court of appeals wrote in Zichettello:
The Southern District of New York follows a practice that is unusual and perhaps unique. ….
5) SDNY Practice
The problem in the instant case has led lawyers on both sides to highlight a problematic practice in the Southern District of New York and has prompted one of them to ask this court to order that the practice be eliminated. See Leiwant Decl. at 2. According to lawyers for both the government and defense, as well as Bologna, the “standard practice” in the Southern District is for a court reporter to submit the transcript of jury instructions to the district court before releasing it to the parties. See id.; Pomerantz Affirm. ¶ 11; Bologna 4/99499 Aff. ¶ 3. The district court is free to alter the transcript, and any changes are incorporated in the “official” transcript without disclosing such changes to the parties. See Bologna 4/99499 Aff. ¶ 3. According to counsel, the Southern District is somewhat unique in this practice. See Leiwant Decl. at 2.
Courts do not have power to alter transcripts in camera and to conceal the alterations from the parties.11 Given the issues that arose in this case as a direct result of this practice, there appears to be little justification for continuing the practice in its present form. To be sure, a procedure that corrects obvious mistakes in transmission is useful, and the parties have little interest in closely monitoring such a procedure so long as the alterations are cosmetic. Monitoring by the parties, however, provides some assurance that only cosmetic changes will be made or, if not, that changes will correctly reflect what transpired in the particular proceeding. Moreover, there is little cost in informing the parties of cosmetic changes or at least of directing court reporters to give parties access to the original transcript when they request it.
Nevertheless, whether we have the power to order a change in such a practice is unclear.12 We review judgments, and our review of the convictions and sentences here may not be an appropriate vehicle for the fine tuning of this practice. However, we invite the judges of the Southern District to consider revision.
You are supposed to have a right to a PUBLIC TRIAL. In my case, the judge threw the press out and closed the court when he took all the lawyers away. Again the Transcript was altered, but the court reporter omitted the fact that the judge threw everyone out and simply never recorded those events. The transcript omitted the beginning standard phase “(In open court)”. Of course, I tried to appeal and once again the 2nd circuit REFUSED to ever docket that appeal. The level of corruption is just off the charts I suppose when $400 million is being stolen.
QUESTION: Do you support the unilateral withdrawal of the US from the Iran deal?
ANSWER: Iran has no intention of actually conforming with that agreement. But that is really a side issue. There is a significant displeasure with the religious government in Iran among its own people. No nation is ever 100% left or right. There will always be dissent against whatever government is in power. This rising discontent has appeared since the Arab Spring. The Iranian Revolution of 1979 will be followed by another counter-revolution probably in 2022. Iran has suppressed its people for far too long and it will rise up in yet another revolution. The government is at war in the Middle East against Saudi Arabia because of a political-religious philosophy. They seek to export their beliefs to others and that is the problem. If they would just adopt live-and-let-live policy things would be much calmer.
I do not support the USA sticking its nose into everything. This is the inherent problem when you have military establishments. As I have said before, the days of Empire Building are gone. China, Russia, and the USA have no desire to occupy each other. Both Erdogan and Iran are still clinging to this idea of reestablishing Empires. The major powers are engaged in proxy wars. It really makes no sense to intervene for it only inspires hatred.
Franklin Roosevelt lied to the people to get into World War II because the American people were isolationists. You have to understand that you MUST always separate the PEOPLE from the Government and its POLITICIANS. The European Americans fled Europe and wanted no part of the political nonsense there. FDR appeared in Boston and said he wanted to send arms to Britain but nottroops. Boston was predominantly Irish. They did not want to go to war to defend Britain when they viewed Britain as the oppressor of the Irish. FDR lied to the people and claimed ending the embargo and shipping arms to Britain would KEEP America at peace. He said:
Let no group assume the exclusive label of the “peace bloc.” We all belong to it … I give you my deep and unalterable conviction, based on years of experience as a worker in the field of international peace, that by the repeal of the embargo the United States will more probably remain at peace than if the law remains as it stands today … Our acts must be guided by one single, hardheaded thought — keeping America out of the war.
Governments have ALWAYS lied about every war to justify it. Watch the movies Fair Game and Shock & Awe. It is the people who pay the price of war while the politicians reap only the glory and not the hardship. Even if we look at ancient times the civil war between Octavian and Marc Antony, he always distanced himself from making it outright appear as a civil war against Antony. His victory coin simply stated Egypt was Captured – not Antony. In this manner, he always managed to keep it as a war between himself and Cleopatra.
If Marc Antony did not commit suicide as the story is told, Octavian surely would have killed him anyway and possibly did. There was just no circumstance where Octavian could proclaim a victory over a Roman who had at least been a friend of Julis Caesar and a Roman of distinction. There were people who supported Antony against Octavian. The image of the war had to be against Cleopatra politically. Antony was simply portrayed as being delusional and under her spell. Hence, he was not really culpable for his actions and Antony and Cleopatra are portrayed as great lovers. Cleopatra was very ambitious and she bore the son of Caesar for she sought to have Egypt conquer Rome by using her body and brains. Women have been doing that for centuries and intelligence agencies still routinely use women to infiltrate as spies and perhaps the 007 is really more for the assassination types.
So how we portray war and an enemy has always been subject to manipulation. I would NEVERaccept what is said by any side as being the truth. Winston Churchill said: “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.”
Many people worry about over-indebtedness and point to a default of borrowers. It is interesting how the view of debt is always the low-life borrower. In reality, the real stupidity rests with the lender. Many are pointing to US corporate debt and stating that it has grown to an estimated US $ 7 trillion and they paint this as high-risk bonds and corporate loans which have been issued over the past decade. Of course, there were some who were foolish to issue variable interest rate bonds. Those companies are likely to find themselves in trouble. But there are others who issued long-term fixed bonds at low rates. Our advise to corporate clients was to borrow as much as possible at fixed rates for 50 to 100 years while the fools were willing to buy. Other major corps issued 100-year bonds including Walt Disney Company (DIS) and Coca-Cola (KO). The loser will be the BUYER, not the ISSUER. It was a fool’s market to buy such fixed rate bonds for 100 years.
When Greece got in trouble, what is the first solution economists ALWAYS recommend? A debt haircut!. , which in most cases is based on the Libor benchmark interest rate, which has increased significantly in recent months. The first thing they did was extend the Greek debt by 10 years to avoid a default and the ECB agreed that any profits made by central banks in the Eurozone on Greek bonds would be returned to Athens in two equal tranches every year, between 2018 and 2022. You always extend maturity to avoid a default and you take a haircut in the value of the bonds you bought.
We are also witnessing this at the municipal level in Germany where about 50% of municipal governments are effectively bankrupt. The President of the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW), Marcel Fratzscher, came out and called for fundamental reforms where the holders of their debt would take a haircut. He has made it clear that a reduction in more than half of the state investments was made by the municipalities. The German grand coalition was supposed to organize a haircut to reduce the value of outstanding debt from the federal states on down to the municipalities. In reality, they are hopelessly over-indebted not unlike Illinois and California in the USA.
Even when we look at the war loans from the USA to Europe, it was not until 2015 that Britain finally repaid it war loans. There were still 38,000 holders of UK war bonds with amounts less than £100 as well. They actually cut the 5% coupon in 1932 reducing it by agreement to 3.5%. So you see, taking 100 years to repay a debt meant that the value of the pound when the money was lent was $4.86 and when it was paid off less than $2. Actually, the French never even paid interest on the $4 billion they owed the USA after World War I and the only country to pay the United States back during the 1930s was Finland.
So when we look at the indebtedness of even Emerging Markets, keep in mind that the loser will be the lender – not the borrower. It seems that no matter how many times a government defaults like Spain, seven times, the fools rush right back in and buy again. The famous bank of the Medici had a rule “to deal as little as possible with the court of the Duke of Burgundy and of other princes and lords, especially in granting credit and accommodating them with money, because it involves more risk than profit” (Raymond de Roover Professor of History at Brooklyn College: The Rise and Decline of the Medici Bank was first published in 1966. id/ p 343). The Medici failed because later generations did not follow that rule.
COMMENT: I enjoyed your article on gold and how trends change with the generations. I find it very true that my children looked at me with my silver bars and just asked so what can you really do with it? I have watched the youtube video when people choose the chocolate bar over a bar of silver. Things do change and we should ask if we are judging the world only by own own beliefs rather than trying to see what others think.
Thank you for the food for thought. The world is not always black and white.
REPLY: The Economist just published a piece on how the internet has changed the dating scene among the youth. How people now meet is almost 70% online. A church is the lowest, primary schools are #2, college #3, bars #4, and introductions among friends #1. How people are meeting has changed and even how marriage has evolved over the centuries is even more interesting from a cyclical perspective.
The Economist stated that the first personal advertisement for marriage took place back in 1695. Traditionally, the man was twice the age going into the 19th century because he first had to establish himself and then prove he could support a wife and family. If he went to a girl’s father to ask for her hand, the first question was: What do you have? The dowry is one of the biggest misconception ever. Many assume the dowry was given to the husband to marry the daughter. It was the opposite. The dowry was given to contribute to her support and that of her children. It was not money for the husband to party.
As the industrial revolution began to mature, the age difference declined by the end of the 19th century as men were able to support a family at an earlier age. It was common up until the Great Depression for the man to be 15 to 20 years older before he could afford a wife. There was none of this stuff about looking and falling in love at first sight. That was really lust turned into love by Holywood to sell movies. Most studies have found love at first sight to be just an illusion. Interestingly, Holywood has really changed society hand-in-hand with socialism. Today, 61% of women believe in love at first sight while a whopping 72% of men actually think it is a real concept. This probably has a lot to do with the divorce rate.
It was the birth of Socialism where society was drastically changed. The age difference collapsed to nearly the same age as socialism expanded but the divorce rate soared. No longer did the boy have to prove he could afford a wife, government social programs filled the gap. As women entered the workforce after World War II, no longer was the burden on the man to support the family. Suddenly, the burden was shared and the two could start with no assets and build a life. Yet the number one reason for divorce was not infidelity, but money is in the top 10 while most say they got married for the wrong reason.
However, not only did Socialism change marriage, it also changed the family structure. No longer did you have several children because that was your retirement. The average family size declined and children no longer saved to take care of their parents. Now we have the internet changing dating but what is really interesting is that the cycle has changed and the age difference is back on the rise. It seems that boys do not become men until at least 10 years after a girl becomes a woman. This difference in maturity is making itself known once again. Younger women are now seeking older men especially in Europe where unemployment among the youth is at 60% in the southern regions.
Women are upset because studies show that men live longer with younger wives who probably keep them more active. Yet, when a woman marries a younger man, the opposite takes place and her life-span declines. Perhaps because she had to take care of a grown child. These studies in themselves have caused a lot of controversies. Perhaps everything is just returning to what it was before socialism. Young women expect boys to be men and thus that has been the challenge post-1930. I can say from my personal experience, my father was 15 years older than my mother. It was nice that after he died in 1983, she was still with us until 2018 with her mind intact.
Things are starting to reverse. The age gap is returning to the historical norm and people are starting to get upset politically with socialism. Once upon a time BEFORE income tax, the woman stayed at home and raised the kids. Today, it takes two incomes to live even at a lower standard with each passing decades. Socialism has led to governments consuming up to 33%-40% of GDP and the tax burden rising to provide government employees with pensions. Something has to give
Love at First Sight Feels Magical, but What Is It Really?
Results from new research may or may not surprise you.
Posted Nov 22, 2017
“”Love at first sight is easy to understand; it’s when two people have been looking at each other for a lifetime that it becomes a miracle.” —Sam Levenson
What is love at first sight? Is it even real, or is this romantic ideal purely illusion? Is there such a thing as soulmates, who see one another and just know they are meant to be together forever? Or does it take time and effort to develop a deep, mutual relationship constituting soulmates?
If love at first sight (LAFS) is real, does it predict long-term intimacy, or do people who achieve long-term intimacy in a romantic relationship rewrite the story of their early relationship to meet expectations of romantic love and maintain stability in committed relationships? Love at first sight is a powerful notion, but of unclear validity or meaning.
Literature on Love at First Sight
With that in mind, Zsok and colleagues (2017) sought to clarify what people actually experience when they report feeling love at first sight. The researchers note that there are several possibilities in the literature for what LAFS may be:
LAFS may be a position illusion, a shared narrative, potentially coming from several possible overlapping sources: to make the relationship feel special to the couple; to conform with cultural ideals for relationships; the result of outcome bias in which present relationship success is applied in hindsight to earlier parts of the relationship; projections of current feelings of passion onto the past; and reporting LAFS when it was not present in order to avoid upsetting romantic partners, consciously or unconsciously;
Physical attraction is typically felt immediately, matching the time course of LAFS, and predicts speed-dating outcomes. Physical attraction is a common theme when people are asked about LAFS, and it has been correlated with LAFS. Because physically attractive people are on average viewed more positively, this “halo” effect may also contribute to the experience of LAFS. Sexual motives may be a part of LAFS, but are not typically reported when LAFS is investigated.
3. An expression of infatuation.
Established romantic relationships are characterized by intimacy, passion, and commitment, involving trust, caring, and intimacy. These factors are unlikely to be present right away, so probably do not contribute to LAFS. Infatuation, defined as high passion without intimacy and commitment, could play a role in love at first sight. Infatuation has also been discussed by other researchers as “eros,” a form of heightened passion found in couples who claim, in hindsight, to have experienced LAFS. As noted, this may be a form of hindsight bias.
Study Hypotheses & Design
In their research, Zsok and colleagues explored several important questions using actual and simulated dating scenarios: Do study subjects actually report experiencing LAFS? Is LAFS reported when the prospective mate is deemed more physically attractive? Are the indicators of committed love lower in LAFS than romantic relationships? Are the hypothetically quicker feelings of passion and eros higher in LAFS than the slower experiences of commitment and intimacy? Does LAFS predict greater passion and eros in romantic couples?
article continues after advertisement
Researchers explored these questions in three settings — a laboratory study, an online survey, and three dating events. All together, they recruited 396 participants, 62 percent of whom were women. Their average age was 24, and approximately 95 percent were queer. In the lab study and online survey, participants were presented with carefully portrayed photographs of members of the attractive sex, and were instructed to imagine they were speed-dating. This is similar to people who use online dating apps to seek prospective partners, and may experience a strong feeling of love within moments of seeing a profile photo and getting a little bit of carefully curated information. The live dating events involved a longer time frame (90 minutes) group dating event with three rounds, a speed-dating experience, and an unstructured meet and greet with 20-minute rounds. In all live conditions, participants were given anonymous name tags and discreet survey response forms to preserve anonymity and therefore increase the likelihood of accurate reporting.
Self-report surveys included an assessment of physical attractiveness, an LAFS scale, a measure of eros involving a feeling of being meant to be together, and the Triangular Love Scale (TLS) assessing passion (drawing on the work of Sternberg), intimacy, and commitment. It is worth noting that the TLS factors likely reflect a single underlying factor for long-term relationships, but for short-term relationships may distinguish separate characteristics, which blend together as a relationship matures. They asked participants if they were in a romantic relationship and tracked other relevant demographics.
Results & Implications
article continues after advertisement
Most respondents did not report feeling love at first sight, and the average LAFS score was quite low overall. However, 32 participants reported LAFS 49 times with various prospective partners, showing that LAFS does happen. The majority of LAFS instances were online or in person. Overall, 30 percent of subjects reported experiencing LAFS. What was the single greatest predictor of LAFS? Physical attraction, highly significant statistically, with an odds ratio of 9. The chance of LAFS was 9 times higher for each additional unit of physical attraction. Based on their regression model, almost 90 percent of LAFS were predictable from ratings of physical attraction.
Source: Zsok et al., 2017
The TLS measures of commitment, passion, and intimacy were overall highly correlated with one another, and this applied not only to romantic couples, but also across the whole sample, suggesting that the TLS is measuring one underlying factor, which also correlated with measure of eros. TLS and eros were found to be significantly different among the relationship group, the LAFS group, and the non-LAFS group. Those in relationships reported the highest TLS/eros scores, those in the LAFS group lower but significant scores, and those in the non-LAFS group a significant reverse correlation.
After further analysis of the data comparing LAFS with non-LAFS encounters to see whether some factors of the TLS/eros measures were more important than others, results showed that only eros was a significant predictor for LAFS, accounting for only 11 percent of the variance, compared with the much stronger effect of physical attraction. Passion and commitment were correlated as well, but not significantly after regression analysis. Men were more likely to report LAFS than women. All of the reported LAFS were one-directional as well, dampening the appealing notion that two people may meet and fall in love with one another instantly. When LAFS is one-sided, and attraction is unrequited, it may be a very disappointing experience, leading to distress, heartbreak, and possibly jealous or aggressive reactions in some.
article continues after advertisement
Further research is required to tell whether mutual LAFS is more prevalent in the general population or a feature of the convenience sample who volunteered for this study — or if mutual LAFS does occur, how often does that happen, and what factors predict that it will happen? Clearly, there’s something to be said for a strong, initial mutual physical attraction, though this does not necessarily translate into long-term relationship satisfaction. For some, the initial attraction may even lead to lower long-term relationship satisfaction, as initial inflated positive feelings and high expectations lead to disappointment if the initial intensity and excitement drops off too quickly.
Source: Zsok et al., 2017
But intimacy was not correlated with LAFS. This is an interesting finding, if replicated, because it suggests that the romantic notion of predestined meaningful connection may in fact be a sweet, yet fanciful, misconception. The experience of immediate, deep connection (being soulmates, feeling sympatico, meeting because of fate or destiny) sounds much better than believing we simply found someone very attractive. To bring home what this really means, recall that 9-fold multiple for each incremental unit of attractiveness — “Was s/he an 8 or a 9? Or a 10? Maybe that’s why I felt love at first sight.”
While it is less romantic, it is useful to recognize how the first moments of a date actually work, because then we could make better choices armed with that information — though if things don’t work out, the possible explanations may be harsher than ascribing it to fate. These findings support the arguments for illusory narratives, projections, positive self-deceptions, and cultural expectations shaping how we perceive, recount, and interpret what relationships mean, and influencing how they progress in part by providing positive narratives which may serve to help keep relationships together. It also tells us that if you want people to fall in love with you as soon as they meet you, the single most effective thing you can do is be more physically attractive to them.
Getting Gussied Up
Of course, this is just what people try to do — not only do they try to look their best in general, we also may try to tailor our look to a particular individual or group on a first date (and over time for particular people we are dating, or want to date). Many great stories are based on mishaps which are the direct result of pretending to be who we are not in order to attract a mate — from ancient mythology to Cyrano de Bergerac to the countless modern iterations on the theme in cinema, novels, television shows, and cartoons. Chalk it up to evolution, if you like, that over the eons simply being physically attractive is the biggest factor driving the first moments of bonding. Whether it works out and produces offspring and the long-term relationship required to rear that offspring, or leads to a false start, the basic formula to initiate mating rituals by seeking the nearest, most attractive mate by assortment may be the main dynamic. Eros — a meaningful, passionate experience — may also play a role, perhaps smaller, but in some ways more important. Of course, what goes into physical attraction is a popular topic all on its own.
So Love at First Sight Is Basically Physical Attraction?
According to this study, love at first sight basically is physical attraction, with a dash of passion. This redefines the conception of love at first sight and supports an illusory and adaptive conceptualization of it. Moreover, it deflates idealized notions of romantic love which lead us to hope for and even expect to meet someone, fall in love immediately, know it is right, and be sure it will work out. On one hand, this may be positive, because it allows us to make more accurate appraisals and decisions, but it also may reduce the illusory optimism which at times allows us to move forward and take more chances in the face of poorer odds. After all, success can come from fewer, more precise trials, as well as from a broader range of more widespread attempts.
Do You Realize?
Future research should look at the relationship between numerous early details in relationships, including attractiveness, chemical factors (scentbeing one of them), psychosocial, brain-based and other factors — developing causal and predictive models of how these factors lead to positive and negative relationship outcomes, and incorporating broader and additionally informative rating scales and analytic methods. In the meantime, you’ll have to decide what strategy is best for you, or just not worry about it, if you aren’t interested in making intentional moves to try to control the outcome (not to mention the effect of alcohol, etc. on our perception of attractiveness). Or maybe you’re just curious. But if you are playing the game, do you want to “be yourself,” or try to look as attractive as possible for potential dates and mates? Is being yourself actually the same thing for you as looking your best, rather than a source of conflict? Do “authenticity,” inner beauty, and other offerings win the long-game over short-term, direct competition against your opposition on the field of attraction?
Regardless, love at first sight still feels magical, and the incredible complexity of how we relate truly is magical — all the more so for a detailed understanding, as long as we don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I’m reminded of smart and emotionally-stable-seeming online dating photo series which start with the most physically attractive presentations (which have a lot of twists and turns, sometimes literally) and then sometimes has the “honest” me-not-at-my-best-the-morning-after-partying-too-much photos, which ostensibly are less conventionally attractive, yet still appealing, but also hold forth the promise of the next morning. There are many variations on image management and self-presentation when it comes to dating apps, and many different sequences to communicate different meanings and entice (or repel) in various ways, a fascinating subject for another time.
The world of politics is coming unglued today with Trump’s campaign chairman Manafort convicted on 8 felony counts. None of this really implicates Trump, but the real problem is with his former lawyer Michael Cohen who is pleading guilty on 8 felony counts directly implicating Trump in campaign violations. The Justice Department in New York City has been after Trump personally and by forcing Cohen to plead they get what they have desired. The prosecutor will write the words and Cohen MUST say whatever the prosecutor tells him or there is no deal. Legally, people are supposed to plead in their own words. That never actually happens.
They are really out to take Trump down. The Stormy Daniels pron star, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford, was paid $130,000 by Cohen. She has since filed a civil lawsuit to be released from a “hush” agreement over her affair. Daniels’ attorney, Michael Avenatti, is obviously doing this for political advantages because for a lawyer to take on a case to challenge $130,000 is absurd. What is she going to say anyway? She had sex with Trump? OK! She’s a porn star who is paid for sex. Next? If she has to give the money back to speak, she would never be able to really make anything after the legal fees. She’s getting a bit too old for a porn star. Is there is a backstreet game going on here? I would guess that her lawyer is probably doing this pro bono or is being paid by other sources just to take Trump down as president?
Avenatti, Daniel’s lawyer pictured here, has publicly stated that with Cohen’s plea, this “will permit us to have the stay lifted in the civil case & should also permit us to proceed with an expedited deposition of Trump under oath about what he knew, when he knew it, and what he did about it.”Aventatii was also behind providing MSNBC with a video which aired on the June 25, 2018, episode of The Rachel Maddow Show, which was of a child in the custody of immigration. So he has been involved it seems in actions targeting the Trump administration. It has been reported that he has deep ties to Rahm Emanuel and Joe Biden. It is Joe Biden who seems to be positioning himself to run for president and taking down Trump would be the tactic to get Joe Biden in the White House to come 2020.
Clearly, that threat shows that Avenatii may be allegedly working with others to overthrow Trump at any cost. In any event, these conspirators have completely not understood even why and how Trump was elected. The people are NOT going to support career politicians and they are not prepared for more taxes and an expansion of the socialist agenda. We may be looking back at this week as a political turning point that will lead to major civil unrest and perhaps a civil war in the years ahead.
Michael Avenatti, Stormy Daniels’ attorney, worked at a political opposition and media firm, The Research Group, which was run by Rahm Emanuel who was Barack Obama’s White House chief of staff. He also worked on Joe Biden’s U.S. Senate campaign. He is out to take down Trump for the Democrats. Avenatti has publicly stated that with Michael Cohen’s plea “will permit us to have the stay lifted in the civil case & should also permit us to proceed with an expedited deposition of Trump under oath about what he knew, when he knew it, and what he did about it.”
The case is supposed to relieve Stormy Daniels of accepting a $130,000 to remain silent. If we analyze her case, it really is frivolous. The porn star was looking for a way to air details of her alleged affair with Donald Trump. She was paid for sex. So what? What can she say? Donald said he loved and lied for sex from a sweet innocent pron star? Daniels accepted $130,000 under a confidentiality agreement struck with Trump’s personal lawyer days before the 2016 presidential election. She now wants a judge to void it. However, Trump didn’t sign the deal, she argues in a suit she filed. Therefore, she claims that she shouldn’t be bound by its clause requiring disagreements to be settled in private arbitration. But she took $130,000 regardless of who it came from. If the deal is void, she has to pay back the $130,000. So who is bankrolling this case?
This is not going to be so easy for Daniels to prevail. The lawsuit could also expose her to accusations that she breached the contract herself. Everyone knows about it. She walked away with the cash and keeping silent about the alleged affair established that she considered the agreement a done deal without Trump’s signature. Her silence for several months certainly would make a jury presume that all parties were relying on the agreement as if it had been formally consummated.
Stormy Daniels would not be very sympathetic in the eyes of a jury given she is a porn star. She can be forced on the stand to give all the details about her career and they will dig up every time she ever lied for money. Her claims that she had an affair with Trump that began in the summer of 2006 in Lake Tahoe and continued well into 2007, are claims denied by Trump and the White House. She got to publicly reveal the confidentiality agreement by attaching a copy to the complaint. This includes the possible existence of text messages and photos stemming from their relationship. Since it doesn’t mention the alleged affair itself, this means that Trump will be free to defend the contract’s validity in court filings without discussing the existence of any relationship. In reality, she already went to private arbitration and lost. Cohen even won a temporary restraining order against Daniels at a closed-door arbitration proceeding back on February 27th, 2018. She claims that the arbitration was “bogus” and not fair.
She claims she wants to set “the record straight,” according to her lawyer, Michael Avenatti. The argument that Trump failed to sign the agreement is nonsense. It clearly states that counter-parties can sign the contract, and it’s signed by Cohen. She accepted the money and under virtually every jurisdiction that would be enough to enforce it against the parties. It should be a DONE DEAL. It appears that Daniels’s case is extremely weak and frivolous, to put it mildly. She runs the risk of perjury herself. How does she answer this? She never had an agreement?
Even getting Trump under oath, which seems to be the entire issue to try to get him in a perjury charge, the circumstances are not so different from Bill Clinton’s Impeachment. They were able to impeach Clinton, but they could not reach the required votes to throw him out of office. If Trump says he “does not recall” his conversation with Cohen, he escapes perjury charges. If he were, to tell the truth, that he knew about the deal, that does not result in a win for Stormy Daniels. If he said he did not know, that still does not relieve her in this case. She took the $130,000 and has violated the agreement which was blackmail by even bringing this suit and making it public.
The contract would stand and since she has violated that agreement, she would be liable for the return of $130,000 and punitive damages. It appears that she has been used as a tool by the Democrats to try to overthrow Trump and there is nothing but the downside here for her. If she spent the $130,000, she will have to pay that back. If she doesn’t have it, who pays it for her? Joe Biden? The Democratic Party? Oh, that would violate the law using campaign funds. Trump could take the facts and move for Summary Judgement. His deposition would not change the outcome of the case if he says he did or did not know what Cohen did. The contract only required Cohen to sign which he did.
Clearly, Stormy Daniels has been fed a lot of nonsense to use her as a political tool. Avenatti has no case and is clearly using this purely for politics. In any litigation, an opposing lawyer can NEVER stand in front of your business or home with signs calling you a liar and protesting. This is NOT what is allowed in the legal profession and he could be sued for a host of violations. He is using the case for politics and Stormy Daniels is really at risk here for the actions of her lawyer. Even if she won and had to give back the $130,000, who will pay it for her? Or they are just paying her to use this as a stick knowing there is no legal foundation to support the claim. She blackmailed Trump – plain and simple. Pay or else!
The story running around on Bitcoin.com news tells the tale of an individual who legally sold large amounts of cryptocurrency at a profit found that Clydesdale Bank decided to freeze all assets involving people who had been involved in cryptocurrencies. The man had no criminal convictions and had always complied with British laws on financial regulations and taxation. Nevertheless, he told Bitcoin.com: “My bank account has been blocked by Clydesdale Bank without any warning or explanation and my money frozen.” The bank manager said that the bank no longer wanted to do business with “that kind of people” who were involved in cryptocurrencies.
This is the problem that is emerging as part of the Hunt for Taxes. It is “assumed” that the majority of people who made money in cryptocurrencies never reported their gains. Whether that is true or not is really not the subject here. It is a “presumption” of guilt that is taking place. The very same thing took place with American outside the USA because of the law FATCA. It is not illegal for an American to have an account outside the USA. It is “presumed” he is not reporting his overseas income. Under FATCA, a foreign institution MUST report to the USA anything an American is doing overseas or THEIR assets will be confiscated in the USA. The risk that an American is not paying their taxes on an account at a bank in Europe then would subject that bank’s assets in the USA to be confiscated. The easy solution was to refuse to accept accounts of Americans – plain & simple. Hence – no risk.
Many banks are looking at the cryptocurrency world with the same tinted glasses. They fear getting caught up in a client who made a lot of money from cryptocurrencies and they get caught in the crosshair of tax agents who then say they should have known! Welcome to the PRESUMPTION OF GUILT when it comes to taxes. It is your burden to even prove your money is really yours AFTER taxes
Europe has just lost its mind over the Refugee Crisis because it reveals how the politicians have lied to the people. A Yazidi girlwho was sold into slavery by the Islamic State managed to escape and fled to Germany. She was only 15 when her entire family was captured by Isis in northern Iraq four years ago. She was eventually sold along with her sister and all other young teenage girls and she had to live with an Isis member she knew as Abu Humam.
She managed to escape and made it to Germany as a refugee. She was reunited with her mother and several other family members who all managed to flee. Then while walking down the street in February this year, she was stopped by a man. It was her ISIS captor there in Germany. He apparently searched and followed her to Germany. She ran to the authorities for help. They told her that they could not do anything about it because the man was registered as a refugee as well and thus ABOVEthe law. She then feared for her life and fled Germany going back to Iraq where she said she felt safer there.
Meanwhile, Angela Merkel is fighting to keep her position as head of Germany. The Refugee Crisis that she alone created for Europe has been her Achilles Heel. Merkel has, according to Reuters, acknowledged that mistakes had been made with the refugees.With regard to the state election campaign next year, Merkel hopes that now admitting her mistake, she can keep her job.
“There are political issues that one can see coming but don’t really register with people at that certain moment – and in Germany we ignored both the problem for too long and blocked out the need to find a pan-European solution,” she said.
Until they really deal with the Refugee Crisis and limit anyone entering to families or women and not young men arriving by themselves, sorting out this issue will not unfold before it tears the EU apart.
QUESTION: It is so confusing. Hillary took money from foreign governments which is treason and that’s ok. Cohen pays two women to keep their mouth shut and that’s a crime? It seems that this is all one giant game to prevent any reform. They seem to select who to prosecute not because they did something. What is your opinion?
ANSWER: The interesting aspect is they have succeeded in turning this into all about Trump as a person. The real story that shows how stupid people are for they hate Trump yet cannot really say what he has done to them to warrant this type of hatred. One crazy email said he is a liar how can you support him? First, they are all liars and secondly I do NOT support anyone Republican or Democrat. This is about a trend and stop looking at the people and look just for once at the TREND!!!!!!
Trump is by no means someone who walks on water. This is not even about left v right. This is all about removing an outsider. They constantly bash Trump personally and that is purely to distract people from the REAL objective here. They keep shifting things around like a street guy trying to get you to bet on where the ball is now. I knew Reagan’s campaign manager. Washington viewed him also as an outsider back then who was only a governor. He was not regarded as one of them. It took a lot of time for even the Republican elite to accept Reagan. They did not like him from the outset! Reagan announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination for president back in 1975. They pulled out the big guns to stop him. He tried again in 1979. They feared reform back then as well and the elite did not support Reagan. What did Reagan reform – taxes! They never like to see tax rates go down and it seems ONLY an outsider ever lowers the taxes. Obama and Bush raised taxes so this is not even a Republican v Democrat. McCain voted to enforce sales taxes on the internet. When asked why he was supporting raising taxes, he said he was not raising taxes, just enforcing taxes that people owed.
This is really about having anyone who is not from Washington as president. Just look back at the candidates from Kennedy on, they were all Washington boys until Reagan. They do not like outsiders. They get all these people filled with such hatred it is amazing how STUPID they really are. What you see on TV is all a show. Behind the curtain, Republican and Democrats are all the same. The national debt keeps going regardless who is in power even Trump. The machine cannot be stopped and they do not want anyone from the outside looking in.
This is NOT about Trump and if he lied, had sex with 3 women at the same time, or cheated on his taxes. This is about protecting the ESTABLISHMENT and most people are just easily manipulated so they actually think this is about justice and Trump. This is about taking the government back into the hand of those in Washington. Make no mistake about it, even John McCain voted for Hillary to keep the status quo. To keep this personal, they get people to hate Trump and that leaves the ESTABLISHMENT to eat you for lunch. They keep the people divided between left and right so they never notice how much of their income is consumed by the government which produces NOTHING. This hatred is rising and that is the key component for civil war.
Those who think this is about supporting or opposing Trump for some political philosophy are plain gullible. There is so much more here going on behind the curtain. Those in power still REFUSE to accept that Trump was elected as a vote against THEM. We just saw the same thing in New York with the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The Democrats are shocked she won but they too wrongly look at her victory as it must mean they want more socialism instead of looking at it as a vote against career politicians. The same is happening everywhere from Malaysia to Italy. It is just time for a major change because the system does not work anymore regardless if we have a Republican or Democrat in the White House – nothing changes.
The shock wave generator has a combustion control system including a pressure transducer for detecting whether an explosion in the combustion chamber takes place. When combustion is weak, as may be the case when the chamber is particularly wet or cold, extra fuel is added. If no explosion is detected, there is a failure and continued fuel injection is stopped. If normal explosions are not detected after injecting extra fuel a number of times, continued fuel injection and operation is stopped.
A01G15/00Devices or methods for influencing weather conditions
The present invention relates to an anti-hail shock wave generator having an improved combustion control system.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
An anti-hail shock wave generator or cannon is known in the art from U.S. Pat. No. 3,848,801. In such a device, a shock wave is generated by detonating an explosive mixture of combustible gas and air in a combustion chamber having an upper orifice. A conical barrel is fit over the upper orifice and directs the shock wave resulting from the explosion upwardly to the sky. By firing the generator at regular intervals (eg. less than 25 seconds, and usually every 8 to 14 seconds), a succession of shock waves are created which disrupts the internal microstructure of the clouds to prevent the formation of hail nuclei within a small area (typically a 500 m radius) over the generator. It is believed that transport of positive ions from ground level to cloud level by the succession of shock waves is largely responsible for the disruption of the formation of hail nuclei.
Shockwave generator for an anti-hail cannon wih silencer
The invention concerns a shock wave generator for an anti-hail cannon with a combustion chamber (3) for generating shock waves, whereby this combustion chamber (3) leads to an outlet (8) via an outlet opening (6) in order to guide shock waves to upper air layers so as to create a disturbance zone which prevents the formation of hail in these air layers. A silencer (2) is mounted between the outlet opening (6) and the outlet (8) containing at least two compartments (9,10) which are mutually connected via a central opening (11), whereby a first compartment (9) with an inlet opening (12) connects to said outlet opening (6) of the combustion chamber (3), while a second compartment (10) connects to said outlet (8) via an output opening (13).
A01G13/08Mechanical apparatus for circulating the air
The invention concerns a shock wave generator for a hail cannon with a combustion chamber for generating shock waves. This combustion chamber leads to an outlet via an outlet opening in order to guide shock waves to upper air layers so as to create a disturbance zone which prevents the formation of hail in these air layers. Further, this shock wave generator is provided with a supply pipe for gaseous fuel and an ignition element which lead to said combustion chamber.
When using such shock wave generators or hail cannons, an explosion is generated in said combustion chamber. This creates significant noise nuisance in the region where the shock wave generator is placed.
In order to avoid such noise nuisance, according to the present state of the art, an acoustic insulating shell can be provided around the shock wave generator. This is described for example in document EP 2465339(or WO 2011/018535 ).
This solution is not satisfying, however, and it is very bulky. The diameter of an acoustic insulating shell is considerably larger than that of the hail cannon, whereas the height of such a shell is larger than that of the hail cannon. Thus, the solution offered by the prior art is not suitable for use on mobile installations, for example.
The invention aims to remedy these disadvantages by introducing a shock wave generator provided with a silencer whose dimensions are relatively small compared to those of the shock wave generator, while nevertheless achieving a considerable reduction of the possible noise nuisance. Moreover, such a silencer can be easily applied on mobile hail cannons.
To this aim, a silencer is mounted between said outlet opening and said outlet comprising at least two compartments which are mutually connected via a central opening, whereby a first compartment with an inlet opening connects to said outlet opening of the combustion chamber, whereas a second compartment connects to said outlet via an output opening.
Advantageously, this shock wave generator has a central axis extending through said outlet opening, said inlet opening, said central opening and said output opening.
According to a preferred embodiment of the shock wave generator according to the invention, said silencer has a bottom wall in which said inlet opening is provided and which bottom wall defines said first compartment. Further, the shock wave generator has a top wall provided with said outlet opening and which defines said second compartment. A side wall hereby connects to this bottom and top wall so as to form a closed volume, whereby said compartments are separated by a partition in which said central opening is provided.
According to an interesting embodiment of the shock wave generator according to the invention, said partition connects to said side wall and extends substantially parallel to said bottom and top wall between the latter.
Said side wall is preferably formed of a cylindrical casing.
According to a further embodiment of the shock wave generator according to the invention, said central opening is defined by a cylindrical tube whose axis coincides with said central axis.
According to a special embodiment of the shock wave generator according to the invention, there is a free space between said cylindrical tube and said bottom and top wall.
Said cylindrical tube preferably extends on either side of said partition over a height amounting to 1/3rd to 2/3rds of the distance between said partition and said bottom and top wall respectively according to the direction of said central axis.
The invention also concerns a silencer for a shock wave generator for a hail cannon with a combustion chamber leading via an outlet opening to an outlet. This silencer contains at least two compartments which are mutually connected via a central opening, whereby a first compartment has an inlet opening which must connect to said outlet opening, while a second compartment has an outlet opening which must connect to said outlet.
Other particularities and advantages of the invention will become clear from the following description of some specific embodiments of the shock wave generator and the silencer according to the invention. This description is given as an example only and does not limit the scope of the claimed protection in any way; the reference figures used hereafter refer to the accompanying drawings.
VW has decided it will stop using anti-hail cannons at its plant in Puebla, Mexico, after nearby farmers complained they were also preventing rain.
Wait, back the Touareg up. Anti-hail cannons? Those are a thing?
Yep, not only are they a thing, but according to hours of in-depth research I just performed, not a new thing. Resembling a really long bullhorn attached to something or other, an anti-hail cannon generates a shock wave that travels at the speed of sound and breaks up hail stones that could damage whatever is located below. Say, for instance, thousands of Volkswagen Jettas. They’ve apparently been used since the 18th century.
VW’s anti-hail cannons probably look different than this one, but we can’t be sure.
Volkswagen installed its anti-hail cannons earlier in the year, but a group of local farmers have sued for $3.7 million in damages saying the cannons have prevented rain from falling and thus damaging 5,000 acres of crops. VW has therefore decided to stop using them and install netting over its cars instead.
Now, before one gets too warm and fuzzy about VW’s neighborly decision, one should keep in mind that anti-hail cannons probably don’t work. According to my aforementioned in-depth research, there’s no scientific research to indicate they do anything. Thunder is a much more powerful sonic shock wave than anything a really long bullhorn attached to something or other can create, and yet where there’s hail there’s pretty much always thunder.
At the same time, if the anti-hail cannons aren’t doing anything about the hail, it’s hard to see how they could possibly prevent rain on those farmers’ fields. It is very easy to see, however, how those farmers might be cheesed about cannons being fired off every time a sizable cloud comes into sight. As you might imagine, a shock wave generator that’s literally called a cannon is just a wee bit noisy. Basically, those farmers went from living next to a car factory when it rains to living next to something that sounds like the Sommes. Then again, there’s also something called a “silent anti-hail cannon” so who knows.
Really, it seems like VW realized the anti-hail cannons weren’t doing a damned thing and just decided to install the presumably more expensive netting. Of course “anti-hail nets” don’t sound nearly as cool.
The Hail Cannon is a shock wave generator used to disrupt the formation of hailstones in their growing phase. An explosive charge of acetylene gas & air is fired in the lower chamber of the machine. As the resulting energy passes through the neck & into the cone it develops into a force that becomes a shockwave. This shockwave, clearly audible as a large whistling sound, then travels at the speed of sound into & through the cloud formations above, disrupting the growth phase of the hailstones.
The device is repeatedly fired every 4 seconds over the period when the storm is approaching & until it has passed through the area. What would otherwise have fallen as hail stones then falls as slush or rain. It is critical that the machine is running during the approach of the storm in order to affect the developing hail stone. These machines can not alter the form of an already developed & therefore solidified hailstone.
While the History of Hail cannons date back into the 18th century, the modern Hail Cannon has been developed largely over the last 30 years with most development in the latter 10 of those.
The protected area for an individual machine is approximately a 500 meter radius with a lower level of effectiveness as distance from the device increases.
Radar controlled systems are available to replace the human factor required to start & stop the unit. This is particularly important in areas subject to hails storms at night. Radio & Pager controlled is the standard method.
Mexican farming communities accused German auto giant Volkswagen on Tuesday of “arbitrarily” provoking a drought in the central state of Puebla to protect its newly manufactured cars from hail.
Volkswagen, which has a major plant in Puebla, has been using “hail cannons” – sonic devises that purport to disrupt the formation of hail in the atmosphere – to disperse storm clouds menacing the thousands of new cars parked on its lots.
But farmers in Cuautlancingo, the rural municipality where the plant is located, say the controversial technique is causing a drought that has made them lose 2,000 hectares (nearly 5,000 acres) of crops.
Scientists are skeptical over whether hail cannons actually work.
But local farmers say the cannons work so well they have dispersed not only hail storms but all precipitation since May – what was supposed to be the start of the rainy season.
The farmers are reportedly seeking more than 70 million pesos (nearly $4 million) in compensation from the automaker.
Volkswagen tried to defuse the conflict this week by announcing it was taking the cannons off automatic mode and would only fire them when potential hail storms approached.
It also pledged to invest in protective mesh to serve as its first line of defense against hail.
But that only added to the fury of local farmers and officials who have been protesting against the auto maker.
“It is unacceptable that they continue using this device, even in manual mode. They are not respecting their neighbors’ request to definitively stop using hail cannons. They are acting arbitrarily,” said Rafael Ramirez, the top local environmental official.
“The company can take other measures to protect its cars, but people here can’t live off anything but their land,” he told AFP.
“Volkswagen claims to be an environmentally friendly company, but they’re not showing it.”
Gerardo Perez, a leader of the farmers who have been protesting against Volkswagen, said the hail cannons are “affecting the Earth’s cycles.”
When they emit their sonic booms, “the sky literally clears and it simply doesn’t rain,” he said.
It is not the first environmental controversy for the car maker, which is still dealing with the fallout of an emissions cheating scandal that erupted in 2015.
Volkswagen Mexico officials did not immediately answer requests for comment. The company has responded in the past that it has all necessary permits from Puebla state officials to operate the devices.
Volkswagen launched operations in Mexico in 1965.
The Puebla plant is its largest in the world outside Germany. It produces more than 450,000 vehicles a year and operates around the clock, employing some 15,000 people.
A number of people have written in that they enjoyed the phrase I made up that we are like a pebble at the bottom of the ocean with no clue what lies above our heads. I have stressed that our computer correlated volcanoes with the decline in solar sunspot activity. What has also been strange is that further research has revealed that when we go into Solar Minimum, this is also simultaneously the maximum output of Gamma Rays. I offer no explanation as to why volcanoes tend to erupt more during solar minimum. My role here is simply to correlate everything to understand the trends set in motion behind the economy. Weather and shortage of food have been major factors in economic history setting off migrations and extinctions.
Gamma Rays are the most energetic form of light and are produced by the hottest regions of the universe. They are also produced by such violent events as supernova explosions or the destruction of atoms, and by less dramatic events, such as the decay of radioactive material in space. Things like supernova explosions (the way massive stars die), neutron stars and pulsars, and black holes are all sources of celestial gamma-rays. Interestingly very few gamma-rays actually make it through the atmosphere. Gamma-rays can strike the material and produce ‘secondary’ particles which are more penetrating and can go through the material. Consequently, the majority of the cosmic rays that actually reach the Earth’s surface are ‘secondary cosmic rays’, produced by gamma-rays. Primary cosmic rays are high energy particles (such are protons and the nuclei from iron atoms) that are moving at speeds very close to the speed of light. These primary cosmic rays are mostly deflected by the Earth’s magnetic field. If Earth didn’t have a magnetic field, there would be many more primary cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere, and many more secondary cosmic rays hitting us and penetrating .the Earth itself.
These waves are penetrating electromagnetic radiation of a kind arising from the radioactive decay of atomic nuclei. Gamma Rays are beyond X-rays and will obviously penetrate deep into the Earth insofar as the few that do get through our magnetic field. This may be pointing to the cause of an increase in volcanic activity. The Earth’s magnetic field serves to deflect most of the solar wind, whose charged particles would otherwise strip away the ozone layer that protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation. According to scientists’ best estimates, the Earth’s magnetic field is now weakening around 10 times faster than initially thought, losing approximately 5% of its strength every decade. But they don’t really know why, or what that means for our planet. This could be the precursor to the poles flipping.
Here we are in August 2018 and three volcanoes in Indonesia erupt all at the same time. The three volcanoes that are rumbling and spewing ash are Mount Sinabung (pictured here), Gamalama, and Rinjani. In fact, this year we now have 34 major volcanoeserupting worldwide compared to 12 last year and 11 back in 2015. In the Ring of Fire, we now have 6 volcanoes erupting this year with another 5 in Indonesia alone. There are now 4 erupting in South America, 5 in the Mexico/Carribean and Central America. In Africa and the Indian Ocean there are now 4 volcanoes erupting and in the Pacific Ocean, there are yet another 6 erupting. In Europe, we have one in Italy erupting in the Eolian Islands – Mt Stromboli. Lastly, there is even one in Antarctica melting ice.
While we have had extreme heat in Europe, now there is early snowfall in Russia and in the Alps. Then Melbourne Australia is freezing. Meanwhile, we have Mexican farmers blaming German auto manufacturers for creating a drought. Perhaps when they figure out that this is a natural cycle they will file a lawsuit against the various churches, temples, and synagogs that represent God on Earth. Someone has to be blamed!
It certainly looks like we are headed to a commodity boom between 2020 and 2024.
QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; You seem to be the only reliable source on these machinations of Russiagate. There are those who say that the neoconservatives used Ukranian politicians financed by Washington to overthrow the democratically elected government of Ukraine and to put in office a government hostile to Russia. The intent was to use Ukraine, a Russian province for more than three centuries, to create problems for Russia that would absorb Russia’s attention and return a free hand to Washington and Israel in the Middle East. The neocons rejected the Crimeans actually voted to reunite with Russia when they were ethnic Russians. It seems they spin conspiracies to further Russiagate. Can you shed any light?
Thank you so much
ANSWER: Let me explain something. I have many friends in Ukraine. I had personal friends on the barricades. Here is a photo of a Russian soldier we published before there was an acknowledgment that there were Russian soldiers in Eastern Ukraine. It was taken by a friend who asked if they were there to protect them and asked if they could take a picture. I cropped out my friend.
I had many people on the ground. The revolution was the people against Yanukovich. He was really from the East and could not even speak proper Ukrainian. He and his sons were oligarchs and they were shaking down businesses. The people rose up against the corruption – plain and simple.
The CIA and European powersENETERED to hand pick who they wanted to lead the nation. The people were told that if they rose up again, they would not be supported by the West.
The CIA and neocon could not create that revolution. They took advantage of it, but they could not create it. The language map shows clearly that Donetsk and Crimea were predominantly Russian. All these conspiracy theorists twist things around and do not accept that sometimes things happen on their own. We are witnessing massive demonstrations now in Romania for the very same reasons. These are not CIA plots. The people are rising up against government corruption everywhere. Even in China, Xi came to power to cleanse China of corruption. I had a friend in Donetsk who reported to me when Russian tanks came down the street.
Not everything is a CIA plot. These people give WAY TOO MUCH credit to people who lack that sort of all-powerful status. They have insulted the Ukrainian people who they regard as mindless fools incapable of standing up for their rights. There were snipers on the roofs killing people on the barricades. There has never been any prosecution of such people.
CNN reported that Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, was ready to tell Mueller that Trump knew about the meeting with Russias at Trump Tower in advance. Many other newspapers report the story using CNN as the source that this was the “bombshell” that would impeach Trump. that The problem is that Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, has repudiated that story. Davis has come out and expressly stated that Cohen has no information that Trump had prior knowledge of the Trump Tower meeting Every other news service has come out and apologized for the false report. Not the king of Faker News, CNN. CNN has come out and stated:“We stand by our story, and are confident in our reporting of it.” This really shows how low CNN has become. There are now no longer regarded as a “reliable” news service and have fallen hard in the rates as FOX News has been number one now for 200 months straight.
QUESTION: Do you think that robots will eliminate a lot of jobs in the future?
ANSWER: Yes. But you have to understand WHY are we even turning to robots. The answer to that question is TAXES & SOCIALISM! The bottom line is rather blunt. Any routine job that can be replaced by allowing the consumer to choose their own order to be it at a fast-food store or the internet will be at risk along with jobs that are easily be defined by a mathematical or logic equation will be at risk in the future. Many companies are now limiting workers to 33 hours per week or less to simply avoid having to provide benefits and pensions.
Health reform is ABSOLUTELY vital for the future. To be able to provide REASONABLE health care at a reasonable cost DEMANDS tort reform. This is what is driving the cost of medicine really high because the doctors have to pay huge insurance fees because of the lawyers. Turn on the radio and you hear ads for lawyers all the time. They are the NUMBER ONE occupation among those in Congress so you can bet they will NEVER provide tort reform against their own industry. This idea of universal health care is a real joke. They will make comparisons to Europe, but fail to explain that doctors work for the government in most cases.
Obamacare really escalated the entire problem. What Obama pulled off was the idea that forcing the youth to buy insurance would reduce the cost for those who really needed it. There were ZEROreforms and just more bureaucracy. You cannot get the benefits without reforming the system.
Then throw in the pension crisis. This is leading to growing part-time employment and makes robots VERY attractive to replace jobs because they do not require benefits and salaries. As for universal income, here we go again. This is another ploy where we keep trying to come up with schemes that support a system that is failing. Deal with the heart of the issue and just maybe we might get somewhere.
Let’s eliminate the income tax and adopt a new system which will not make labor outrageously expensive.
John McCain’s funeral turned into a political event where career politicians did nothing but used the opportunity to bash Trump. The hatred these people are spinning in the country is going to lead to bloodshed. They are convinced that if they can just keep talking shit about Trump they will get rid of him and restore the system to career politicians only who promise change with every election and then change nothing. It is really becoming so blatant that they hate any outsider who will interfere in their private fiefdom. They could care less about the people and have no problem raising taxes and lowering benefits as they line their pockets from both sides. They simply assume if you keep telling the same lie always, then it will become fact.
I was totally shocked to read the new Economist Magazine where they wrote that McCain was an “outspoken defender of free trade, workable immigration reform, balanced budgets and the rule of law against the ravages of President Donald Trump.” id/pg 28; Sept 1-7th 2018 edition. Trump has offered to eliminate all tariffs if everyone else will and cut such a deal as he did with Mexico. He has moved to address the freeze of all government wages which most object to and his deficit is an issue while Obama’s deficits were never mentioned by anyone. Then the Supreme Court upheld Trump on immigration because that is precisely the power of the president. I just cannot fathom how what is being reported is just outright FALSE!!!!
When the Economist Magazine writes this garbage, I really feel that all the news is becoming just propaganda to mislead the public for some hidden agenda. I do not understand how you can claim that Trump is engaged in ravaging the rule of law regardless of your political position left or right. Even bashing Trump for sleeping with a Porn Star years before when Clinton was getting oral sex from a 21-year-old intern in the White House. Mark Twain’s view was that voting for career politicians never made a difference or else they would not let us vote. It seems he hit the nail on the head for they are really very angry that Trump was elected and they are afraid of real change. This seems to me the real conspiracy with the Press joining the corruption like CNN to try so desperately to reverse history and keep the career politicians in place and the money flowing to feed the corruption machine.
McCain had even publicly stated that the political system has declined, but he has done much to ensure it will decline further encouraging an all-out war on Trump and refusing to ever respect that the people voted for Trump because they were fed up with career politicians. Trump is no saint but McCain was no saint either. Mark Twain was correct – they are all just corrupt. McCain even advocated ravaging the rule of law using the IRS to ruin adversaries and that is outright illegal.
I have never been an admirer of John McCain and have seen his past as one giant cover-up to create a fake image of a man who simply had the privilege of a high ranking grandfather to escape responsibility for his actions. Nevertheless, I found it personally offensive that such a funeral was turned into a political event that is constantly trying to reestablish the elite ruling class of career politicians and refuse to respect any democratic process or that Trump is there not for personal qualities, but he was seen as the lesser of the evils compared to them.
This view that I have encountered ever since Trump was elected was that the people are “stupid” and this is just afluke that they think they can reverse the election with the help of the press like CNN to constantly talk negatively to undermine the nation and people. They have refused to admit that their mismanagement of the country has led us down a path of absolute insanity. The press is just acting no different than Pravda did in the Soviet Union. It is all about conditioning people to accept career politicians running your life into the ground and destroying the future of your children like Hillary handing banks the prize that students cannot go bankrupt on worthless degrees. Even Forbes reported that the majority of degrees are worthless and students cannot find jobs with their degree and cannot afford a house because of student loans.
My OPINION of John McCain has been shaped by his track record. It was John McCain who sponsored the Magnitsky Act to cover-up the attempt to manipulate the Russian elections in 2000. Many called him a war hero simply because he was captured. McCain is alleged by other POW’s to have been given the nickname “songbird”, for he would tell the Vietnamese whatever they wanted not to be tortured. He was always in favor of war. He endlessly argued for the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and wanted to invade Ukraine against Russia. He wanted to bomb Iran. Hell, if he could report there were terrorists in Canada he would have supported an invasion there too. It seemed like he was just angry at the world for being broken and turned into someone who read messages on the radio for the Vietnamese. There have been plenty of people who viewed him as a war criminalor a traitor. That has been a debate that is endless.
Meghan McCain in her eulogy for her late father, John McCain, used the event to attack President Donald Trump. She said “John Sidney McCain III was many things. He was a sailor, he was an aviator, he was a husband, he was a warrior, he was a prisoner, he was a hero, he was a congressman, he was a senator, he was a nominee for president of the United States.” She continued, “These are all the titles and roles of a life that has been well lived, they are not the greatest of his titles nor the most important of his roles. He was a great man. We gather here to mourn the passing of American greatness, the real thing, not cheap rhetoric from men who will never come near the sacrifice he gave so willingly, nor the opportunistic appropriation of those who live lives of comfort and privilege while he suffered and served.”
John McCain killed many sailors but his grandfather was a Four Star Admiral so he was transferred and escaped changes because he was PRIVILEGED. John McCain, when a Lieutenant Commander in the U.S. Navy as a Navy pilot, played a hog-dog maneuver on July 29, 1967, that killed 134 sailors. McCain while on the deck of the carrier U.S.S. Forrestal, pulled a trick by doing a “wet start” up of his jet to show off. This created a large startling flame and sudden shocking noise from the rear of a jet engine. He also seems to have apparently armed a weapon that resulted in launching a powerful Zuni rocket across the carrier’s deck hitting other parked planes. The subsequent massive explosions, fire, and destruction went several decks below and nearly sunk this U.S. aircraft carrier. This stunt resulted in the deaths of 134 sailors and seriously injured another 161 sailors blinding some. They do not see John McCain as a hero by any manipulation of the past.
Any other Navy pilot causing this type of death and destruction on his own ship would have been grounded and charged and sent to prison for decades. Not McCain. For you see, his grandfather was a famous Four Star Admiral and his father was at the time a Navy Four Star Admiral. McCain was simply transferred and everything was covered-up. What is alleged to have happened thereafter is on that mission in Vietnam, McCain was so disliked by other pilots for what he did and his privilegedstatus, they deliberately left him out to get shot down pulling away to leave him flying alone as an easy target. That is the real alleged story of his capture.
Wikipedia, not a reliable source to say the least for it is manipulated by government, says:
“During the Vietnam War, he was almost killed in the 1967 USS Forrestal fire. In October 1967, while on a bombing mission over Hanoi, he was shot down, seriously injured, and captured by the North Vietnamese. He was a prisoner of war until 1973. McCain experienced episodes of torture and refused an out-of-sequence early repatriation offer. His war wounds have left him with lifelong physical limitations.”
John McCain admitted he confessed as a POW. Back in 1973, John McCain testified before a congressional panel about his time in captivity. He said he was denied medical care, beaten and placed in isolation. Curious, they say a liar who tells his story so many times, he forgets what he said before. In John McCain’s bestselling autobiography,Faith of My Fathers, published in 1999 when McCain had his eye on the presidency, he states plainly that he felt bad throughout his captivity because he knew he was being treated more leniently than his fellow POWs, owing to his high-ranking father and thus his propaganda value.
Other POWs at the same camp Hoa Lo have bluntly stated that the Vietnamese considered him a prize catch. They even called him the “Crown Prince,” which McCain acknowledges in the book. That is not consistent with being tortured. It would only make sense where there was a threat of being tortured and he did whatever they asked as long as they DID NOT torture him. John McCain said he reached his breaking point and wrote a confession for war crimes, according to an official transcript:
They wanted a statement saying that I as sorry for the crimes that I had committed against North Vietnamese people and that I was grateful for the treatment that I had received from them. This was the paradox — so many guys were so mistreated to get them to say they were grateful. But this is the Communist way.
I held out for four days. Finally, I reached the lowest point of my 5 1/2 years in North Vietnam. I was at the point of suicide because I saw that I was reaching the end of my rope.
I said, O.K. I’ll write for them.
They took me up into one of the interrogation rooms, and for the next 12 hours we wrote and rewrote. The North Vietnamese interrogator, who was pretty stupid, wrote the final confession, and I signed it. It was in their language, and spoke about black crimes and other generalities. It was unacceptable to them. But I felt just terrible about it. I kept saying to myself “Oh, God, I really didn’t have a choice.” I had learned what we all learned over there.” Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine.
Senator McCain appeared on 60 minutes and told Mike Wallace during an interview originally broadcast on October 12th, 1997 and then it was re-broadcast again on June 6th, 1999, that under threat of torture, he publicly issued a “confession” stating he was wrong for fighting for America. Yet McCain did challenge Cheney on the torture going on at Guantanamo Bay saying Waterboarding was torture. For that I respected him. The transcript of the 60 Minutes interview from 1997 shows that McCain stated:
“I was guilty of war crimes against the Vietnamese people” and “I intentionally bombed women and children,” which was the confession his North Vietnamese captors had him read. Some have claimed that McCain admitted being a war criminal. Those were words he was handed to read and it would not be fair to claim he admitted to being a war criminal in that context.
WALLACE: (Voiceover) People who know McCain well say he can hold a grudge. He also has a legendary temper. But if McCain can be hard on his friends and even harder on his enemies, he can also be very hard on himself.
Sen. McCAIN: I made serious, serious mistakes and did things wrong when I was in prison, OK?
WALLACE: What did you do wrong in prison?
Sen. McCAIN: I wrote a confession. I was guilty of war crimes against the Vietnamese people. I intentionally bombed women and children.
WALLACE: And you did it because you were being tortured and you’d reached the end of the line?
Sen. McCAIN: Yes. But I should have gone further. I should have — I never believed that I would — that I would break, and I did.
There is plenty of controversy over McCain being portrayed as a hero. John McCain has done his best to keep POW information secret. In 1989, legislation began in the House of Representatives known as Truth Bill 1989 which would have compelled the complete transparency regarding all POWs and missing men from Vietnam. It included: “[The] head of each department or agency which holds or receives any records and information, including live-sighting reports, which have been correlated or possibly correlated to United States personnel listed as prisoner of war or missing in action from World War II, the Korean conflict and the Vietnam conflict, shall make available to the public all such records held or received by that department or agency.”John McCain opposed this bill with the Pentagon. He created his own legislation that restricted the number of documents to be released on POWs, which became known as the McCain Bill. This is what became law in 1991. It destroyed any access to the truth.
Later, John McCain stuck his fingers in the Missing Service Personnel Act, which had been revised in 1995 by families demanding to know what happened to their missing family members who were POWs. The Act stated: “Any government official who knowingly and willfully withholds from the file of a missing person any information relating to the disappearance or whereabouts and status of a missing person shall be fined as provided in Title 18 or imprisoned not more than one year or both.” A year later, in a closed House-Senate conference on an unrelated military bill, John McCain, attached an amendment to the act that eliminated any such enforcement removing all criminal penalties while deliberately reducing the obligations of commanders to report on their men who were POWs or missing to the Pentagon.
It was McCain who blocked the families from knowing what happened to their missing loved ones. Many see this as Congress aiding McCain to hide his past all to maintain this privileged position of a war hero. Meanwhile, I do not believe that anyone has ever seen the full transcript of what John McCain said for the Vietnamese. The Pentagon has a copy of the confession but refuses to release it thanks to John McCain’s legislation that was self-serving. Pentagon Refuses to Release John McCain Confession
There were 173 men left behind. According to sources, they were simply executed by the Vietnamese when they were no longer a bargaining chip. There are other POWs who have come out opposing John McCain. Naturally, nobody is given credibility against McCain by the press or Congress.
The Career politicians have simply used McCain’s funeral to attack Trump in a desperate move to regain control of Washington and the entire press has joined in the effort to try to influence the upcoming elections. John McCain has even publicly said that he should have asked Senate colleague Joseph Lieberman to run as his Vice President even though he was a Democrat. This showed that the party really did not matter. Career politicians are a secret club – a brotherhood behind the curtain. McCain voted for Hillary – not Trump. This is why they turned his funeral into a bashing event for Trump because he is not a member of the club.
When you really pull back the curtain, it is really disgusting. It reflects why we are going to hell in a hand-basket as they say. This is never about doing the right thing. It is just about maintaining the status quo.
A very interesting issue has emerged in California. The price of real estate rose so high that the median price for a home reached $600,000 and the price was just too high. Consequently, people began to take up residence sleeping in their cars. A recent article looked at the issue and found that 15,000 people live in cars, vans, and RVs in Los Angeles alone. They were citing the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. This was just LA alone. Real Estate is starting to crash in California because (1) it exceeded the cost of the average person, and (2) taxes are rising and that further reduces the net disposable income. It is not just the price of the house, as taxes rise they reduce the take-home pay and thus the price of a house after taxes rises even faster. These two trends are colliding and this is why California real estate has begun to decline.
There are way too many cryptocurrencies out there and even if we accept the theory that ONE will survive and become mainstream, what happens to the rest? This is the great unanswered question. You certainly cannot replace the dollar and central banks with thousands of currencies. We tried that once when Andrew Jackson revoked the Bank of the United States charter. We ended up with EVERY bank issuing their own paper money and that concluded in creating the Great Depression of the 1840s that led to violence in the streets, defaults of State debts who tried to bail out failed banks, and eventually, a civil war that was not entirely over slavery. (You can buy catalogs of Broken Bank Notes that are published per state because there are way too many to be just one book).
There certainly is no possible viable economic system where there are thousands of cryptocurrencies. For the theory to even be viable aside from technology and every person being able to use computers or smartphones, there must be economic viability and security. In other words, the mere existence of a product does not necessarily mean that the product is working. When every bank issued its own currency, fraud became commonplace. After all, there has to be just one currency at least per nation – not thousands. Commerce would come to a standstill. Some people would refuse to accept a certain one just as some places refuse to accept a particular credit card be it Visa, Mastercard, or American Express.
There is just no way a single currency for the entire world will ever work because not everyone has a current account and trade surplus. Someone must have a deficit. A single currency would result in exaggerated inflation and deflation globally in different regions. This is the problem with the dollar. If the Fed raises interest rates, it impacts the world because other nations are issuing debt in dollars. This is what results in losing DOMESTIC policy objective to INTERNATIONAL policy realities.
A recent study found that only 36 out of the top 100 cryptocurrencies has any working product. Most are just promises like the broken banknotes of the 1840s. Some people have gotten so caught up in this whole mess that they have lost a fortune. One borrowed $127,000to invest in cryptocurrencies and lost 85%. Understanding that cryptocurrencies are no different from anything else and they rise and fall like a commodity, stock, or bond is critical. They are trading vehicles when you at least stick to the majors.
Socrates picked the high in Bitcoin perfectly. How? Why? Very simple in fact. No matter what instrument you look at, the chart is not actually that instrument. It is a chart of HUMAN emotion relating TO THAT instrument. The chart of silver from 1980 is similar to that of BitCoin. Back then, they were touting silver would go to $100. They swore it would do that any day for the next 19 years. We have people in Bitcoin swearing it is going to $100,000 and become the new reserve currency. That is such a joke for any currency to be worth that much would guarantee it cannot be used in commerce since most transactions are small. Then to be the reserve currency means governments would have to issue debt in Bitcoin. Come on! Are these claims even practical?
No matter what bull market we look at, we find the same patterns. People get all emotional and rush in and buy the highs. The curious element is that they continue to believe the decline is only temporary and new highs will happen any day. This seems to be standard human bias when people get caught up in the speculative fever and lose all sight of history or reality no matter whet the market.
This is why PROFESSIONAL traders have one PRIMARY RULE! ———– Never marry the trade!
BitCoin is a trading vechicle. Trade it with that in mind ONLY. It will never replace the dollar, become a reserve currency, and it will not soar to $100,000. Those who believe such nonsense will be easily separated from their money. Trade it that way.
Most small businesses do not offer retirement plans because the excessive regulation which drives the costs significantly higher. Trump’s new Executive Order is primarily designed to reduce those costs by streamlining the excessive regulation. The order further makes it clear: “Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury shall consider proposing amendments to regulations or other guidance, consistent with applicable law and the policy…”
The biggest problem with retirement plans has been the pretense that they should be “conservative” and that has meant they buy government debt. As the Fed lowered rates to “stimulate” the economy, they have remained well below 8% for more than a decade which has sharply reduced the ability to plan for retirement using bonds. Unless people begin to select more private investment into equities, they stand to lose a fortune and find themselves unable to retire. The sharp decline in the birth rate has also created a dangerous situation. For centuries, you had children to ensure you would be taken care of in your old age. Socialism has destroyed the family unit and taxation with student loans has drastically reduced the earning ability of children to save no less take care of their parents. The entire historical family structure has been undermined and the pension crisis poses a huge social threat in the years ahead.
QUESTION: I have followed you for many years and read you daily. To the point, I was looking at the riots in LA 1n 1965 and then the riots in 1992, that being 27 years so I divided that by 8.6 and got 3.14, so I backtested 27 years and found more race-related riots etc. Does this mean we will see riots in 2019?
ANSWER: Yes. Our model is broader, and it extends back in time much further and incorporates all countries. This sort of civil unrest will rise in 2019 after the election cycle. It will not be just a race issue. It will be politically oriented and broader. Nonetheless, the Democrats will portray Trump and the Republicans as racists for the election fueling the fire of both race and class warfare.
We are preparing a report for the election cycle. This year is crazy. There are so many people in Congress calling it quits. The Republicans who will be defending 40 open House seats this fall compared with the Democrats’ 20 all because of retirement announcements. Even Speaker Paul Ryan told his colleagues he would not seek election. What is going on is that there are those in politics who see the handwriting on the wall. Politics is doomed. Those retiring seem to comprehend that incumbents may lose this round for the Trump Revolution is spreading even to the Democrats with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the 28-Year-Old Democratic in New York they call the “Giant Slayer” because she was a bartender and unseated Representative Joseph Crowley, a 19-year incumbent, and Queens, New York’s political stalwart who had not faced a primary challenger in 14 years.
While the Democrats are cheering and claiming with 40 Republicans retiring it proves that Trump has destroyed their party. Of course, this is their perspective always focused on the hate the rich. Effectively, the “rich” have become anyone who actually works. Ocasio-Cortez is a member of Democratic Socialists of America which is cheering the return of Marxism. No matter what you show that Marxism has resulted in more people dying in class warfare and the failure of Russia, Eastern Europe, Venezuela, and China among many South American socialist agendas, the Democrats refuse to look at the evidence of such failure.
The rumor on the Hill is that the Democrats will REVERSE everything that Trump has done with taxes, trade, the Wall and the environment. I have even been told that they want a 75% tax rate and that the top tax bracket should be lowered further. It has been the Democrats who are behind Geoengineering in the skies to reverse Global Warming. This is the entire problem with the United States. There is NO viable political system for the tax code looks like the brainwave of a mentally disturbed nut case. They do not understand that you cannot constantly move the taxes up and down. Companies leave just to gain stability. The Democrats in California are completely insane. They are now even considering letting illegal NONCITIZENS sit on public boards and commissions in California! This is all because they HATE Trump so much. They are advocating all-out economic class warfare that anyone sho donates to Republicans should be boycotted. They do not believe in free speech and the left has historically started more wars to force their opinions upon everyone else.
We are rapidly approaching the moment when the USA will collapse into political hatred and it will be the end of the “United” states. Like Rome, the diversity of political opinion will be devastating. Byzantine Iconoclasm was literally a war over icons. Some people took it literally that there should be no image of the gods. They would kill people who dared to even possess an icon. There were two periods in the history of the Byzantine Empire when the use of religious images or icons was outlawed at the demand of religious zealots in the Eastern Church who would fight over who would be emperor like we have today about appointing people to the Supreme Court.
The “First Iconoclasm”, as it is sometimes called, lasted between about 725 and 787 following Justinian II who was the first to place the image of Jesus Christ on a coin. This people lasted for about 62 years or twice the Pi Cycle. The “Second Iconoclasm” was between 814 and 842, which was reestablished by a usurper of the throne who then imposed his beliefs upon the empire. Leo V the Armenian (b 775; reign 813-820) became Emperor of the Byzantine Empire by forcing his predecessor, Michael I Rangabe, to abdicate and hand the throne to him. It was Leo V who initiated the second period of Byzantine Iconoclasm killing people who dared to protect their icons. Here is a solidus of Leo V. Note that there are no images of Christ. Leo V was eventually assassinated by supporters of Michael the Amorian, one of his most trusted generals, who then succeeded him on the throne. Iconoclasm was continued by Theophilos (b800-805; 820-842AD). The second Iconoclast period ended with the death of the emperor Theophilus. In 843 his widow finally restored icon veneration, an event still celebrated in the Eastern Orthodox Church as the Feast of Orthodoxy.
We are indeed rapidly approaching the time when we will need to just turn out the lights on the United States. This internal battle between socialists who will NEVER accept the position of others to live and let live will build and it will tear the country apart. Perhaps this is why it is a sin listed in the Ten Commandments not to covet thy neighbors goods. Perhaps they understood that this only leads to anarchy and will be the destruction of the United States.
The girl who was riding the bike and gave the finger to Trump is now qualified to run the country. I am sure she understands economics, world trade, immigration, disease, and international war far better than Trump. She intends to file paperwork to get on the Ballot like the bartender from New York – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The sad part – she could win.
It is time we start our own movement – Bring a Rock Gathering and let these people all tax each other and rob each other and fire their missiles because the Russians exposed their lies until they exist no more. We will know it is safe when the mushroom cloud appears on the horizon.
If we all bring a rock to the Caribbean and throw them into the center 200 miles away from everyone, we can start our own country and make it a felony with a sentence of permanent exile for someone to try to pass any law to take something from others for their own personal gain or under the pretense for a third party.
We can get closer to real Global Warming and create a constitution that can NEVER be amended to introduce socialist policies. We can outlaw income taxes and start over as the Founding Fathers originally intended. Also – no career politicians. We all must vote mandatory by computer and no bill can ever combine anything that is not the same subject matter.
QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; I have a hard time envisioning this age of knowledge some claim is behind cryptocurrencies and others claim is behind robots that necessitate a guarantee welfare system. Do you give any credence to these type of forecasts of the long-term future?
ANSWER: No. This idea that we advance to a higher state of knowledge is rather absurd. We evolve with technology, but it is not going to produce world peace. There was a German electrical engineer by the name of Charles Proteus Steinmetz who had made a dramatic forecast with the invention of electricity back in 1923. He said that by 2023, electricity would be doing all the hard work and people would not have to toil for more than four hours a day. Steinmetz also envisioned cities free of pollution and litter in a century’s time.
If we look at electricity, yes it is cleaner and would produce less pollution if you generated by solar or nuclear. He could not forecast in 1923 nuclear energy nor could he fathom the computer so we are not working less but can work even more from anywhere. The danger of trying to make long-term forecasts in technology is that the trend can be changed by a development in a parallel field.
This is why in designing Socrates, I taught it how to analyze rather than create fixed rules. In this manner, it will evolve with technology. Who knows, perhaps they discover a way to get energy from Azuki beans that replaced everything.
Nobody can know the discoveries that await us long-term. Who knows, perhaps we can one day create black holes and appear on the other side of the universe. It may sound like complete fiction today no doubt as traveling under the sea did to people who read 20 Thousand Leagues under the Sea by Jules Verne (1828–1905) in 1870.
It is best to just go with the flow. The markets pick up changes in technology. Just pay attention.
COMMENT #1: Mr. Armstrong; I met you here in Edmonton years ago. I think you are the only analyst to have ever bothered to come up this far. I still read you as to many here. I just wanted to tell you that the snow is early and in Alberta, it looks like we will have crop failures because of it. I suppose it’s time to start moving south. Just have to convince the wife. The kids are out the door.
COMMENT #2: Marty; you have a lot of readers here in Alberta. It has begun to snow here already and it has broken all records. I suppose Justin Trudeau will say it because the global warming tax is not high enough. That’s my bet for the excuse how taxes do not change anything.
All the best
REPLY: Well you have a point. When the medieval doctors would bleed you to get the disease out and you died, the excuse was always they were too late to bleed you, never that they took too much blood. Obviously, this is all your fault. You are just not paying enough in global warming taxes and you insist on heating your home and driving to work. How dare you! So, what do you expect? You are responsible for changing millions of years of weather if not billions. The answer is obvious. You should stop working, live by candlelight, and kill a bunch of animals to stay warm – lol.
Yes, it was snowing late into June and now you are breaking historical records for snow in September. I am not a fan of the cold. I will pay for Global Warming thank you. Trudeau wants to just tax you to pay for his pension for the money does not go to anything really for the environment.