Wednesday, August 31, 2016

The Brazilian Economic Collapse Reaches Unprecedented Proportions

While the mainstream media was focused on today's primetime Brazilian spectacle, namely Dilma Rouseff's impeachment vote in the Senate, which passed as expected with a substantial majority permanently removing Rouseff from office and assuring that her replacement, Michel Temer rules until at least 2018 (unless the unpopular politician is also impeached in the meantime), what has gotten far less press is the ongoing devastation of the Brazilian economy which has failed to see even a token pick up in recent months despite the change in the ruling administration.
Here are the latest stunning updates.
According to the most recent economic data, the labor market continues to implode: the unemployment rate surged to 11.6% with the ranks of the unemployed topping 11.8 million (up from 8.6 mn a year ago) as the following chart from Goldman Sachs shows.

The national unemployment rate printed at 11.6% in the 3-month period ending in July, up from 11.3% in June and up from 8.6% a year ago, and 6.9% two years ago. In seasonally adjusted terms the unemployment rate climbed to 11.4% in July, from 11.1% in June and 8.4% a year ago.
Formal salaried employment in the private sector shrank 3.9% yoy, while employment in the informal sector grew 0.9% yoy. Self-employment grew 2.4% (a reflection of increasingly limited salaried employment opportunities). By sector of economic activity, industrial employment shrank by a large 10.6% yoy (-1.4mn jobs).
Employment declined 1.8% yoy in the 3-month period ending in July, while the economically active labor force grew 1.5%.
Meanwhile, as the number of working Brazilians tumbles, average real wages conttinued their unprecedented decline, sliding 3.0% yoy. The labor force participation rate rose one-tenth from a year ago: to 61.5%.

Alas, there is little hope in sight: according to Goldman, the labor market is set to deteriorate further given the forecasted weak performance of the economy, particularly of the labor-intensive services sector.
It wasn't just the labor market that continues to flounder, however. According to today's GDP report, in the second quarter the economy continued to contract , driven, among other things by the impact of the ongoing credit crunch and severe labor market deterioration on consumption. Specifically, real GDP dropped -0.6% qoq in Q2 sa (non-annualized) once again missing the consensus print of -0.50%.  Real GDP contracted 0.6% qoq sa in 2Q2016, adding to the large contractions averaging -1.3% qoq sa during 1Q2015-1Q2016. The 1Q2016 figure was revised to -0.43% qoq sa, down from the original -0.28% qoq sa.
In yoy terms, real GDP declined -3.8% during 1Q2016, a modest improvement from the -5.4% Q1 plunge. Private consumption declined 5.0%, and public consumption retrenched 2.2%. Finally, gross fixed capital formation declined by a large 8.8% yoy. Just like in China, which historically was a major source of Brazilian upside, aggregate investment remained low and decline again: 16.8% of GDP during 2Q2016, down from 18.4% of GDP in 2Q2015 and 20.1% of GDP in 2Q2014. The national gross savings rate was even lower (15.8% of GDP), still much lower than the 19.7% of GDP reached during 1Q2013 and 18.8% of GDP in 1Q2014.
According to an analysis by Goldman's Alberto Ramos, the contraction of real activity during 2Q was driven by private consumption on the demand side and services on the supply side. Final domestic demand contracted again (-0.5% qoq sa); sixth consecutive decline and printed in negative territory in eight of the last nine quarters. On the supply side, the large labor intensive services sector retrenched again at the margin as noted above (-0.8% qoq sa; -3.3% yoy); sixth consecutive quarterly decline averaging -0.9% qoq sa.

As Ramos concludes, "the ongoing economic recession/depression has now lasted an extraordinarily long period of time and has been unusually deep: leading to a 9.7% cumulative decline in per-capita real GDP. By 2Q2016, real GDP was at the same level of 3Q2010. Final private sector domestic demand has declined a very large 12.4% cumulatively since 2Q2014."
* * *
Completing the abysmal picture was the latest capital flow data, according to which Brazil's primary fiscal deficit remained stuck at -2.5% of GDP, while gross debt now approaching a record 70% of GDP.
More details: The consolidated public sector posted a R$12.8bn primary deficit in July significantly worse than the R$4.7bn deficit recorded a year ago. The central government posted a R$11.9bn deficit, and the states and municipalities a smaller R$334mn deficit. The performance of subnational governments is expected to deteriorate further in the months ahead given tightening budgetary pressures and the recent re-profiling of debt service payments to the treasury. Finally, state-owned enterprises recorded a larger than expected R$629mn deficit.

On a 12-month trailing basis, the consolidated public sector primary fiscal deficit remained broadly unchanged from June to July at a high 2.54% of GDP (vs. 2.51% of GDP in June), but rose visibly from 1.88% of GDP in December 2015. The overall public sector fiscal deficit (primary surplus minus interest payments) is running at an extraordinarily high 9.6% of GDP (slightly down from 10.4% of GDP in December due chiefly to gains in the outstanding stock of Dollar swaps driven by the recent BRL appreciation). The 12-month net interest bill is tracking at 7.0% of GDP, compared with 8.5% of GDP in December.
According to Goldman, given the 0.9% BRL depreciation against the USD in July, the stock of Dollar swaps issued by the central bank added R$1.8bn from the overall public sector net interest bill (the difference between the DI rate and the exchange rate variation plus the “cupom cambial”). The 12-month trailing implicit interest rate on total net public debt is tracking at a very high 22.3%.
Putting all this together means that gross general government debt is now tracking at 69.5% of GDP, up from 66.5% of GDP at end-2015. Net public debt has deteriorated 5.6 percentage points of GDP since December.
Goldman's conclusion:
A deep, permanent, large structural fiscal adjustment remains front-and-center on the policy agenda to restore both domestic and external balance. In our assessment, fiscal consolidation in Brazil will be a multi-year endeavor. Most likely, returning to primary fiscal surpluses will take no less than 2-3 years, and returning to a primary surplus level that stabilizes the debt dynamics (around 2.5% of GDP) likely 4-5 years, or perhaps longer. At the end of the fiscal consolidation process we estimate that Brazil needs to end up with a primary surplus of 3.0% to 3.5% of GDP. This would be the level of primary surplus that would put gross public debt on a clear declining trajectory, something that is required for Brazil to rebuild fiscal buffers and regain room to use fiscal policy counter-cyclically, whenever needed and appropriate. Furthermore, we believe a deep fiscal adjustment that would elevate public sector savings is needed to facilitate a permanent structural current account adjustment (rather than just a cyclical adjustment driven by the sharp contraction of domestic demand), and also to endow the central bank with extra degrees of freedom to set monetary policy at a less restrictive level.
What is most fascinating, however, is that despite the all too clear economic depression raging in Brazil, which gets progressively worse by the month, the stock market continues to rise pricing in a Phoenix-like recovery, which even Goldman now admits will take "4-5 years, or perhaps longer." Why this unprecedented surge in asset prices? Simple: a mountain of central bank-created liquidity which finds its way into any market that offers even a modium of incremental yield, such as Brazil's. Alas, for those asking when the record divergence shown below closes, and the Bovespa will be painfully reacquainted with gravity, we have no answer.

Ron Wyatt- The Ark of the Covenant

The Miracle of Noah's Ark with Ronny Wyatt

Cross hole and crevice rediscovered in Garden Tomb - Exp. AC 1

Telling you its worthless, but you have to pay attention to the message delivery system evil uses

One day you look at a dollar and realize it will buy NOTHING

Sunday, August 28, 2016

Economics For Dummies, By DNB

BullionStar Perspectives: Chris Powell - The Gold Market is Manipulated

Starting today, the Royal Bank of Scotland will become the first bank in the U.K. to impose a negative interest rate on depositors.

Every week across Europe, a new bank goes NIRP on its people and customer base, stealing their money. And we don't have bank runs?


The negative rate will apply only to corporate customers, including mutual fund managers and pension funds, holding deposits of certain foreign currencies including euros. This means that RBS—in which the U.K. government still maintains a majority ownership stake since its 2008 bailout—will actually charge these customers to “borrow” their deposits. A few weeks ago, RBS notified more than one million small-business customers that they could also be charged for deposits if the Bank of England lowered the target interest rate, which now stands at .25%, into negative territory. Experts are warning that the latest move by RBS would “set alarm bells ringing” among small businesses and ordinary customers. The stage is set for a glorious and long overdue old-fashioned bank run if the BOE ventures to push rates into negative territory.

They make it important to hold cash and gold, don't they...

Maintain value while you can...they are coming for your money


How Jews Lost The Lord's Prayer - Madalyn Murray

In 1995, O'Hair, her son Jon, and her granddaughter Robin disappeared from Austin, Texas, and were kidnapped, murdered, and mutilated by David Roland Waters, a convicted felon out on parole, and fellow career criminals Gary Karr and Danny Fry. Waters was an employee of the American Atheists from February 1993 to April 1994

Negative Interest Rates: A Tax in Sheep’s Clothing … A negative interest rate is just a tax on the banks’ reserves. The tax has to be borne by someone: The banks can choose not to pass it on and just have lower after-tax profits. This will depress the share price of banks and weaken their balance sheets by having lower equity values.

 Thoughts from around the internet...everyone sees what cashless and NIRP really mean - CONTROL AND THEFT OF WEALTH.


Giving a small group of individuals the power to decide on the value and volume of money is a ludicrous concept from any standpoint. But the problem is abetted by the mainstream narrative that never discusses the underlying lack of logic.

 The mechanism of central banking is purposeful ruin. The end-result of this ruin is global governance. In the short-term this goal is disguised by an academic patina. But the long-term goal, an increasingly apparent one, is a brutal restructuring of the lives of seven billion people to benefit a handful of elite controllers.

 Negative rates should be integral part of central bank policy options … Central banks should make negative interest rates a fully integrated part of monetary policy in order to respond effectively to future recessions, according to an academic paper presented on Friday to some of the world’s top central bankers.  “It is only a matter of time before another cyclical downturn calls for aggressive negative nominal interest rate policy actions,” concludes Marvin Goodfriend - what a deceitful name, a professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University and a former policy adviser at the Richmond Federal Reserve bank.  – Reuters (this man is a devil hiding under a cloak of academia and, BTW, what future recessions? we've been in the greatest recession for over 8 years and counting. This is why the front men for the machine of evil use pugs like this in jobs that pay nearly half a million dollars a year in salaries, because they sing the song of new world order and everyone trusts them because they have..."credentials.")

The problem with real money, banks can't make any money out of it every time is changes hands.
Thank god for counterfeit money, which is just one's and zeros stored on a computer somewhere.
Central Banks can move it around, create it, delete it and there's no record of it, that's why the Pentagram has "lost" over 9 Trillion Dollars, but it's pretty hard to loose something that never actually existed in the first place except inside a computer.

 - If they were serious about reducing crime, etc., they wouldn't allow big banks (eg, HSBC) to launder illegal monies for countries and drug cartels.
 - If they were serious about reducing income tax evasion, they wouldn't allow big corps (eg, Apple) to offshore their profits.
 - If they were serious about reducing corruption, they wouldn't allow big money in politics (eg, Citizens United ruling). Clinton is a poster-child for corruption, but I doubt she's ever received an envelope stuffed with $100 bills.
As most here realize, this is all about forcing the 99% into digital currency so they can be more easily controlled thru neg rates. Problem is, how do we get the masses to wake up to this grim future? I don't have the link handy, but Grep Ip of the WSJ recently wrote a piece praising more of the same from Rogoff about the evils of cash. All this is doing is giving the govt cover from "deep-thinking academic experts" to enact these draconian yet idiotic policies.

 This is very scary mainly because I see no resistance to the trend. One day I will wake up and cash will be gone and along with it all individual freedom ( whatever is left of it today.) 

 Beware the Money Changers.

the result of a constriction of credit and money, abject poverty for a nation

Saturday, August 27, 2016

Argument Clinic - Monty Python's The Flying Circus

The War On Whistleblowers & Why Hillary Will Kill Julian Assange

Submitted by Jake Anderson via,
I’m worried about Julian Assange. This is not a maternal instinct, but rather, a pragmatic one. The increasingly hostile statements made by top state officials and their surrogates show a widespread condemnation of whistleblowers in the halls of government. President Obama set the tone early in his administration.
In the case of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, the rhetoric goes well beyond condemnation of methodology and straight to advocating for his brutal murder.
We already know that Obama, Clinton, Sanders, and Trump have all said they would prosecute Assange. Clinton, to get more specific, wants him extradited from Ecuador, prosecuted for espionage, and his WikiLeaks removed from the Internet. Her desire to charge him with espionage is only a little ironic considering the Clinton Foundation’s Pay-to-Play system arguably warrants an espionage indictment, as does Clinton’s storing of Special Access Program intelligence on an unencrypted private server.
Meanwhile, over in the Trump Tower of Mordor, the business mogul’s draconian approach to just about everything includes a ruthless hatred of all journalists, and most certainly whistleblowers. Trump has indicated his treatment of an extradited Assange or Snowden would be severely harsh. Snowden, in particular, would be assassinated if Trump had his way. I can only shiver imagining how a President Trump would react to a major leak from the inner chambers of his new political empire.
The transition from authorities’ vows of prosecution to their use of surrogates who openly call for Assange’s assassination is highly disturbing, to say the least.  Granted, Assange supposedly has his ‘thermonuclear’ device — a 1.4 GB cache of files containing the identity of spies, military secrets, and unredacted documents from Bank of America and BP that can be unencrypted and released upon his death or arrest — but with a large faction of the mainstream media acting as a bullhorn for state propaganda, any damage inflicted by Julian’s ‘insurance’ packet could likely be mitigated by some social engineering. Remember the Panama Papers? A couple months ago people were saying it was the biggest leak in human history. Have you heard even a nostalgic reference to it since?
All this wouldn’t be quite as surprising — or alarming — if the anti-democratic venom hadn’t trickled down into the daily talking points of media figures and network journalists (whom I affectionately refer to as the State Department’s paid interns). Voices from across the political spectrum have repeated the claim that Russia has ‘weaponized’ Wikileaks. Sometimes they pose the conspiracy theory as a question. “Has Russia weaponized Wikileaks to disrupt a U.S. election?” My question in response would be: has the U.S. media questionized State Department propaganda in order to deflect attention away from a rigged primary and a political power structure that is rotten to the core? It’s actually a brilliant little piece of state agitprop. They managed to turn the public’s attention away from one of the most egregious examples of election fraud in recent history and demonize both Russia and Wikileaks in one fell swoop.
Such blatant propaganda is to be expected from the government. But coming from a journalistic establishment that is ostensibly there to dig for the truth, it’s rather shocking to see rampant election tampering from a major American political party get trumped by an unproven accusation toward a foreign country. Regardless of one’s conspiratorial appetite, seeing the 4th estate function as the infotainment branch of the State Department, parroting its every chirp of propaganda, should be profoundly distressing.
Let me give you a couple of examples, first from a mainstream right-of-center publication, then from a wildly popular left-of-center ideologue. In the former, we have TIME Magazine, which has had the hickeys of state propaganda on its neck for decades. On August 12th, 2016, TIME published an article called “WikiLeaks Is Getting Scarier Than the NSA.” I’ll let that sink in for a moment. I don’t even have the emotional bandwidth to explain why that title earns the ‘Psyop of the Century’ award. Just. . . remember to be scared.
On the left, we have Bill Maher, whose excoriations of hypocritical Republicans can be extremely entertaining and perceptive. Like The Daily Show, Maher functions as the liberal end of what some cultural philosophers think of as a manufactured spectrum of acceptable discourse. When Maher, who claims solidarity with Assange and the cause of WikiLeaks, repeats the same government talking point that Russia is tampering with our elections, it kind of forces you to consider that all corporate media — left or right — operates under the same tent.
The anti-WikiLeaks propaganda wouldn’t feel so existential if I didn’t believe anti-whistleblower messaging is soon going to escalate into an actual long-term military campaign against leakers and hacktivists around the world. In the near future, don’t be surprised if there is some ‘event’ that catalyzes a mobilization of military campaigns against targets that are deemed ‘a danger to our democracy because of their unlawful disclosures of matters of national security.’ This would almost assuredly include symbolic targets like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden to achieve a “chilling effect.” We’ve already seen Intercept writer Barrett Brown receive prison time for essentially hyperlinking to leaked information in an article. Add to this the fact the Obama Administration has used the Espionage Act to prosecute twice as many defendants as all previous administrations combined, and you get a sense of how power structures are increasingly criminalizing the dissemination of information.
Now back to my non-maternal worrying over Julian’s safety. Recently, in a stunning interview (above) with Dutch television program Nieuwsuur, Assange may have underhandedly confirmed that the recently murdered DNC operative Seth Rich was the leaker of the 3,000 emails that showed the DNC colluded with the Clinton camp, the implication being he was killed either out of revenge for the leak or to prevent future leaks. He didn’t state this explicitly but his abrupt and completely random reference to the murder in the context of assessing the dangers faced by WikiLeaks sources doesn’t make sense unless that was his way of ‘accidentally’ signaling a connection.
The interviewer picked up on that and asked him, “Why make the suggestion of a young guy being shot in the streets of Washington?”
The fact that Wikileaks posted a $20,000 reward for any information on Seth Rich’s murder suggests they do not believe it was a random robbery, which is further evidenced by the fact that his wallet, credit cards, and phone were not taken.
It is also certainly a bit coincidental that within days of the conspiracy going viral, Seth Rich’s family made a public statement asking for rumors about his death to stop. On a likely related note, their new family spokesman is none other than Brad Bauman, who is a Democrat ‘crisis communications’ consultant with the Pastorum Group. According to his LinkedIn profile, Brad’s job is “providing strategic communications advice to Democratic candidates.”
Disputes over this conspiracy persist, but there is no hard evidence linking his death to a politically motivated act of violence by DNC or Clintonian operatives. However, one can surely admit it is unusual for a family to hire a high-powered PR firm that provides “public relations for progressive candidates.” One logical explanation is that the Clinton campaign realized suspicions would surface after Seth Rich was found murdered and immediately started damage control. If Pastorum hadn’t only been created last year, it might not seem so peculiar. And if their web page had any content on it whatsoever, it would be possible for people to easily learn about the origins of their creation. But, like Russia’s connection to the DNC leak, it’s just a theory.
Again, the assertion that a whistleblower was murdered by an operative for a major political party cannot be proven at this time. Nor can the assertion that the murders of five people (in two months) who were going to testify against Clinton had any connection with Clinton operatives.
What can be proven, and what should be taken far more seriously, is the metamorphosis of the state’s rhetoric against Wikileaks from hostile to downright war-like. Not vitriolic, but war-like — as in quite literally the kind of rhetoric that leads to actual war with tanks, guns, and bomber planes — or, in this case, maybe just a bomb robot or a stealthy climber.
It’s a worrisome time for Assange supporters. The last two weeks, in particular, have been downright surreal. First, Obama hagiographer Michael Grunwald tweeted with maniacal delight his support of Assange being killed in a drone strike. Then, Clinton strategist Bob Beckel went on Fox News and jumped up and down in his seat begging for someone to “illegally shoot the son of a bitch…[because] a dead man can’t leak stuff.”
These two men, Democrat luminaries regularly featured on POLITICO and CNN, advocated the extrajudicial killing of a whistleblower to millions of people.
The stigmatization and demonization of whistleblowers and hacktivists come after a decade in which the U.S. government’s civil liberty abuses have been laid bare for all to see. Snowden’s history-altering revelations about the NSA set the precedent that in the information age, state abuses can be illuminated for citizens to see. Transparency doesn’t bode well for Big Brother.
Notably, the NSA leaks facilitated by WikiLeaks are still pouring out. The Intercept recently began publishing internal NSA newsletters written by and circulated among its critically important Signals Intelligence Directorate, or SIGINT. Intercept writer Micah Lee spoke to Anti-Media about the SIDtoday articles.
“Besides the hundreds of small, but significant, individual revelations about the NSA,” he said, “the SIDtoday articles as a whole describe a secret history of the United States’s response to the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Until Snowden leaked documents, the public didn’t understand, or consent to, what America’s spies were doing, but SIDtoday tells the story of how and why it came it be.”
Micah says the Intercept has only published 9% of what it has, which will amount to around 4,500 articles. Micah acknowledged the dangerous environment in which whistleblowers now find themselves.
“No matter [who is elected], it will be an uphill battle for whistleblowers, but I doubt that will stop them.”
It is my assertion that both Trump and Clinton are likely to engage in specific military operations to dismantle organizations responsible for high-level leaks. It could very well be the next ubiquitous war.
Clinton has cultivated a well-documented track record of pro-war ideologies, not the least of which is her perpetual use of the War on Terror to trigger fear and trauma in the minds of voters. Who could forget the primary debate in which she used 9/11 imagery to defend her Wall Street connections?
An example that may have flown under the radar was the Clinton Foundation’s advertisement for the 2014 exhibit “Spies, Traitors, and Saboteurs: Fear and Freedom in America.” It was a featured installation at the William J. Clinton Presidential Center in my hometown of Little Rock, Arkansas.
According to the Clinton Foundation’s site:
Americans have endured thousands of incidents of terror, violence, or subversion right here at home by domestic terrorists and foreign agents, militant radicals and saboteurs, traitors and spies…The exhibition reminds us that Americans have known and dealt with acts of terror since the founding days of the republic and will continue to face these challenges in the years ahead.”
For Clinton (and assuredly Trump, too) war is a permanent fixture in the American empire, as it was for Bush, Obama, and virtually all presidents before them. But the enemies are scattered and amorphous now. Radical jihadists are not like traditional standing armies; their prosecution requires a global, never-ending ubiquitous brand of war that is encoded into the very structure of American foreign policy. A widespread declared war against hackers, hacktivists (Anonymous), whistleblower organizations (WikiLeaks) and individual whistleblowers (Snowden, Chelsea Manning, etc.) would be similar. The empire’s enemy would be scattered, and tracking them would require that the tentacles of the security state slither further into every home and digital device.
For the empire, these leaks are a direct assault on the power and hegemony of the ‘deep state,’ the synergistic nexus of state diplomats and officials, defense contractors, financial institutions, surveillance courts, and the military-industrial complex that together forms the connective tissue holding together a globalist oligarchy.
They stand to lose too much from hacked information showing their improprieties. And the rhetoric continues to accelerate. Guccifer 2.0’s recent hack of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi’s computer provoked her to use the phrase “electronic Watergate.”
It will be a bipartisan war, and the battle lines will be drawn harshly. In the same vein as Bush’s “you’re either with us or against us” axis of evil, the umbrella of terrorism will expand to include any organizations that leak classified information, any group that publishes the information, and eventually, any journalist that links to a publication containing the information. Barrett Brown, currently serving 63 months for linking to a leak, may agree with me.
Whatever administration is in office will, of course, invoke national security as the pretext for the War on Leaks.
Maybe a giant financial institution is hacked, and the information released is said to be the catalyst for an economic downturn; then another leak is blamed for a terrorist attack that kills hundreds of innocent people; then several more major corporations have their entire systems compromised; then an individual hacker releases 50 million social security numbers; celebrities see more of their lascivious sex acts on TMZ (maybe a couple of A-listers are outed).
Soon the entire country agrees: we must go to war with hackers and organizations that leak information.
After years of hating the government, Americans welcome Big Brother back into their lives as the protector of information. They need the state.

New York Times columnist calling on google to censor commentary on Hillary's health...

The recent media frenzy surrounding Clinton and Trump's health records has accomplished little more than to, once again, expose a "press" that is becoming increasingly partisan with each passing day.
Right-leaning media outlets have spent countless hours reporting on the various health issues experienced by Clinton over the years and pointing to pictures of her falling down on the campaign trail or seemingly zoning out at times as evidence of her frailty.  Meanwhile the left-leaning organizations have mostly dismissed the Hillary health concerns as conspiracy theories of right-wing nut jobs.
Like this tweet from a New York Times columnist calling on google to censor commentary on Hillary's health...

Or this interview by Rachel Maddow where Hillary's health concerns are repeatedly dismissed as conspiracy theories.

The problem is that Hillary's potential health issues were easy to dismiss when they were only being covered by some "right-wing" media outlets like Breitbart.  But now, as The Hill points out, reputable doctors are starting to come forward to suggest that Hillary's health might be a serious issues.  One such person is Dr. Bob Lahita, Chairman of the Department of Medicine at Newark Beth Israel Medical Center, who offered the following comments on Hillary's health:
"This is a very unusual story with Hillary,” said Lahita, pointing to the two blood clots she's been diagnosed with in the past. "The very fact that she’s having these clots and she’s had two bouts of thrombosis is disconcerting to say the least."

When asked if questions about Clinton's health are legitimate and not part of a political conspiracy, Lahita said without hesitation, “I don’t think it’s a conspiracy.”

Lahita then pivoted to past presidents who entered office with health problems.

“You go back to the history of our presidents and we’ve had many presidents up until Lyndon Johnson who’ve concealed their health during their campaigns," explained Lahita.

"It had dire effects for our country, going from Kennedy to Roosevelt, to Woodrow Wilson, whose wife ran the White House for some time," he continued, "So we have issues here and I think both candidates should be very forthcoming and perhaps have an impartial panel of physicians review the data and make that kind of decision before Americans go to the polls."
Last week, we also reported how Dr. Drew Pinsky, board-certified medicine specialist and CNN employee, broke the mold of conformity at CNN, when he said that he is "gravely concerned" about presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s health, pointing out that treatment she is receiving could be the result of her bizarre behaviors (see "CNN Cancels Dr. Drew's Show One Week After He Voiced "Grave Concern" For Hillary's Health").  Pinsky's honesty promptly got him fired from CNN.
With legitimate doctors coming forward with questions about Hillary's health, the left has been forced to pivot on their "conspiracy theory" narrative.  Which is why they are now going on the offensive by raising questions about Trump's health and painting his doctor as someone who belongs in the "loony bin" (they may have a point there actually).
Countless hours of media coverage have been spent analyzing the following letter from Trump's doctor who declares "If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency." 
Trump Health Letter

And the following video where Trump's doctor admits he threw together the letter in a rush...

While we find the media circus "entertaining", we have some radical ideas on how to put this topic to bed.  Is the health of the next President of the United States a legitimate issue?  Of course it is - let's face it, no one is voting for the candidate with the best VP.
So why not just have a transparent process where independent doctors review and assess the historical health records of both candidates?  Wouldn't the American voters benefit from some facts rather than the empty media rhetoric?

Conflict with Russia

By Biblicism Institute
“The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.” – Winston Churchill

The current conflict between the US and Russia is due to one simple reason: the Ashkenazim. They have a debt to settle with Russia.

Allow us to forward a bit of chronological tables as we delve into the nitty-gritty behind the conflict.

The Ashkenazim – descendants of the gentile Ashkenaz the Japhetite – are a resilient roaming Turkic people. They have a knack for reinventing themselves. They first surfaced in world annals as the notoriously barbaric Scythians or Sakadeans depending on regional phonetic.
“Here there is no Gentile or Judahite, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.” Colossians 3: 11
The word Scythian or Sakadean comes from the word Saka – with its Iranian verbal root Sak meaning to roam.
The Scythians settled Central Eurasia which they conquered with their Gentile brother Togarmath and various other cousins expanding across a vast track of land that encompassed but was not limited to parts of present-day Turkey and Iran. Their Gentile brother Riphath along with their uncle Javan’s descendants settled in Greece.
Later on, the Ashkenazim reinvented themselves and settled a land they would call Khazaria – from the word Qasar with its Turkic root Qaz meaning to roam – following the break-up of the western Turkish Steppe Empire. Then the country converted en masse to Judaism/Pharisaism sometime between 740 and 920 AD just so they could remain independent of the two competing empires of that time: Christianity and Islam.
Judaism was the most actively proselytizing religion…The most significant mass conversion occurred in the 8th century, in the massive Khazar kingdom between the Black and Caspian seas,” explained Jewish historian Shlomo Sand.
Then, Sviatoslav I of Kiev destroyed Khazaria around 1048 and absorbed it into Kievan Rus’, a territory that would later become part of the Russian Empire.
In Imperial Russia, the Ashkenazim were kept under tight control and enclosed in the Pale of Settlement. Something the Ashkenazim never forgave Russia.
Khazar Jews 1878
Khazar Ashkenazi Jews 1878
Biding their time, they nurtured their hatred and plotted their revenge along with a new reinvention. They became the power behind the heinous Bolsheviks who took over the Russian government in the 1910s, killed 66 million Christians, including 200,000 members of the Christian clergy, and destroyed 40,000 churches according to famed Christian Russian writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
SolzhenitsynThe great majority of the Bolsheviks were Russian Ashkenazi Jews such as Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trosky, Lev Kamenev, Gregory Zinoviev, Yakov Sverdlov, and Grigory Sokolnikov. They were financed by Ashkenazi bankers from New York and London such as Rothschild Bank and Jacob Schiff of Kuhn and Loeb & Co. who themselves championed the destructive ideology of the Ashkenazi Karl Marx and found it profitable to invest in Communism’s disastrous conquest of Russia while making a few bucks in the process by plundering the country via well placed agents who would later be known as “oligarchs“.
Russia’s entire Soviet Empire collapsed in 1991. Thus the Ashkenazim succeeded in bringing Russia to its knees.
Revenge Round 1. Done.
Khazaria Map
Khazaria overlapped Ukraine & Crimea
Today, Russia is under fire for the conflict in Ukraine. A conflict that was started by the neocon Ashkenazi Victoria Nuland in the US State Department with her neocon Ashkenazi husband Robert Kagan working in the background via powerful organizations such as Project for a New American Century, the Brookings Institution, and Council on Foreign Relations. The Ashkenazi George Soros also contributed financially to the Ukrainian Maidan “Revolution”.
“Many of the participants in Kiev’s ‘EuroMaidan’ demonstrations were members of Soros-funded NGOs and/or were trained by the same NGOs in the many workshops and conferences sponsored by Soros’ International Renaissance Foundation (IRF), and his various Open Society institutes and foundations. The IRF, founded and funded by Soros, boasts that it has given ‘more than any other donor organization’ to ‘democratic transformation’ of Ukraine,” wrote William F. Jasper in The New American.
In other words, the Ashkenazim or the Jewish neocons are goading the Russian bear by wagging the American dog. The dog can’t really decline because AIPAC has it by the groin, bribing equally both the Republicans and the Democrats, who are nothing but political whores willing to betray their country. And remember, AIPAC is controlled by powerful Ashkenazi-American business leaders. See How the Ashkenazi Jews conquered the West.
Their sole purpose is to destroy Russia once again by starting a fire in its underbelly, Ukraine. A fire they’re planning to spread into Russia proper via military and economic warfare. Why? Because Russia has had the gall to rise from its still warm Ashkenazi-induced ashes. And because Russia has had the temerity to arrest their well placed thieving agents known as “oligarchs” with some fleeing the country. And because Russia has had the audacity to impede the American war on Syria which was orchestrated by AIPAC for the benefit of Israel.
Revenge Round 2. In progress.
After the destruction of Khazaria, the Ashkenazim scattered East and West throughout Europe and reinvented themselves as Errant Jews or Wandering Jews – meaning Roaming (Khazarian/Sakadean or Scythian) Jews. That label had nothing to do with a longing for Palestine but a longing for Khazaria or perhaps a longing for a new land, any new land. Here’s an excerpt from Wikipedia:
In 1903 Theodore Herzl presented the British Uganda Program at the Sixth Zionist Congress in Basel.
In the late 1930s, the British Zionist League considered a number of other places where a Jewish homeland could be established. The Kimberley region in Australia was considered until the Curtin government (in office: 1941–1945) rejected the possibility.
With the support of the then Premier of Tasmania, Robert Cosgrove (in office from 1939), Critchley Parker proposed a Jewish settlement at Port Davey, in south west Tasmania. Parker surveyed the area, but his death in 1942 put an end to the idea.
The Jewish Autonomous Oblast set up in the Russian Far East in 1934, represented a Soviet approach to providing a Jewish homeland.
Jewish Autonomous OblastBirobidzhan Main Square
In the wake of World War 2, a great number reluctantly assimilated themselves throughout the Americas. However, the great majority migrated to Palestine where they created many terrorist groups such as the Irgun, the Stern gang, and Haganah. They terrorized the Palestinian population, killed thousands upon thousands, and forced hundreds of thousands out of their homes and into neighboring Arab countries. Consequently, they stole Palestine and renamed it Israel in order to reinvent themselves as Hebrews and hoodwink gullible Christians in the West.
“It is certain that there is no ethnic or racial continuum between the Biblical Israelites and the (Ashkenazic) Khazarians who lead the Jewish state,” explained Gilad Atzmon, Jewish writer and musician.
In their adoptive countries outside of Israel, including the US and Europe, the Ashkenazim have become financial and influential powerhouses, not because they’re Jews – at heart the majority of them are really not religious at all and couldn’t care less – but because they’re a shrewd people. They have learned much from their roaming throughout history, and they assimilate themselves fast and hard. They’re the ultimate Nomads.
Khazaria Map
Was this on Putin’s mind?
Now could it be that, after two successive ideological failures in the forms of Communism and the current slow-motion destruction of Zionism in Israel, somewhere deep inside the minds of die-hard Ashkenazi leaders lies a plan for a new reinvention?
Will that reinvention be the re-conquest of their Khazar Khaganate – a land that is situated deep inside Russia and encompasses Ukraine and Crimea? Is that why Putin suddenly reattached Crimea to Russia?
Could it be that the Ashkenazim’s plan is to take back and re-settle their ancient Khazaria after the Downfall of Apartheid Israel? Is it why the duly elected President of Ukraine was forcibly removed in order to install a puppet government with a new Prime Minister named Arseniy Yatsenyuk who according to The Guardian is playing down his Jewish roots (Arseniy Yatsenyuk was recently replaced by another Jew, Volodymyr Groysman)?
Will they be okay with just Ukraine?
Revenge Round 3? If so, prepare for World War 3.
“I saw the prosperity of the wicked… Their strength is firm… Pride serves as their necklace; Violence covers them like a garment… This is what the wicked are like—always free of concern as they go on amassing wealth... Surely (Lord) You place them on slippery ground… How suddenly they fall and are destroyed, completely swept away by terrors!” Psalm 73:2,4,6,12,18,19

Friday, August 26, 2016

Hillary wants to Import 1.4 million Muslim Jihadis her first year in office,

Politifact, the left-of-center mainstream media “fact-checker,” has some bad news for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
Donald Trump was right when he said Hillary Clinton wants “a 500 percent increase in Syrians refugees” in his Manchester, New Hampshire speech on Monday:

there is not a single case of Trump supporters circling Clinton events like feral dogs in order to harass her supporters as they tried to enter or leave the venues where the events were being held.

But every single Trump event has hundreds and thousands of militant, angry, violent, and VERY VICIOUS CLINTON THUGS who attack and spit on, and physically assault people who show up to hear Trump speak. They also commit voter fraud and have been caught doing so.

But not Trump supporters.

And this is the new left. This is the SJW group of Nazis.

And, it looks like these maniacal thugs are about to get their witch in the White House and GOD HELP  US ALL.

The devil's minions are loose on the streets of America and the police aren't doing a thing about it.

The Real Threat

The meme that somehow Trump’s supporters are not just armed but prone to violence is one of those ideas that, if explored with even a small corner of the cranium, would be revealed as utter nonsense.
For starters, you might wish to revisit press coverage of the events hosted by Trump vs. Mrs. Clinton during their respective campaigns.
As far as I can tell, there was not a single case of Trump supporters circling Clinton events like feral dogs in order to harass her supporters as they tried to enter or leave the venues where the events were being held.
Yes, there were a couple of isolated incidents where Trump supporters were overly enthusiastic in assisting security as they subdued protesters inside Trump events, and those were shameful.
But that was nothing compared to the violence committed against participants at Trump rallies in cities such as San Jose, Richmond, Chicago, and Pittsburgh.

The latest such incident occurred this past week in Minneapolis where a pack of cowards, unhindered by police, took turns sucker punching and robbing people trying to enter a Trump event.
It is equally disturbing when individuals are being targeted simply because they display symbols indicating they are pro-Trump.
The always erudite John Derbyshire recently asked whether Clinton supporters would be concerned for their personal safety as a consequence of placing a pro-Clinton placard on their lawn?
Of course not.
But what about a Trump supporter?
The answer is completely obvious in the affirmative.
If you accept the populist narrative, to plant a Trump sign in front of your home is the same as announcing to the world you’re a crazy white racist.
For certain demographics—in which I include brainwashed young white hipsters—that makes you and yours fair game.
At this point, there are too many examples of violence against Trump supporters to recount here, but I’ll toss into the ring a 62-year-old man beaten with a crowbar for wearing a Trump T-shirt, and a recent assault against Trump supporters in West Hollywood. If you read that article, you’ll note that prior to the attack, the Trumpsters were refused service and asked to leave a restaurant solely because of their political affiliation.
Oh, the irony of watching people who profess to worry about Trump being a fascist… trying to silence him and his followers. You know, because the defense of free speech extends only to their free speech.
Want to debate the Second Amendment, trade policies, the legal process for orderly immigration, the size of government, monetary policy? Pull a Trump T-shirt over your head, and all bets are off. It’s like waving a red cape in front of a herd of bulls.
Of course, it’s not all that one-sided. The odds of a dedicated Trump supporter listening with an open mind to someone making a case for electing Hillary are roughly equal to those of Bill Clinton taking a pass on an attractive and willing intern.
But based on the evidence, acts of violence toward those expressing an opposing view—in this case, pro-Trump—appear to come almost exclusively from the left.
This is only conjecture, but if you polled a wide swath of Clinton supporters as to whether they thought it a good thing if Trump were to die on the spot, I suspect the majority would answer solidly in the affirmative.
Okay, okay. I guess a similar poll directed at Trump’s supporters and having to do with Hillary Clinton’s immediate demise would probably have the same results.
Face it, the nation is divided, and dangerously so.
But as to who is more likely to actually open fire, you’ve got to place your bet on the anti-Trump crowd.

A Disturbing New Reality

In researching the violence and threats of violence against Trump supporters, I googled “Trump Supporters Attacked.” What I got was a page of listings about Trump verbally attacking someone or another.
I finally had to go to the far less rigged search engine in order to find a report, by Breitbart - the only semi-major media outlet actually reporting on this stuff - about the latest attacks in Minneapolis.
Do you remember the overenthusiastic Trump supporter who helped subdue a protester at one of his events by sucker-punching the man as security was taking him out of the venue?
The reason you probably do is that it was all over the news for the better part of a week.
Yet the latest attacks in Minneapolis were buried in the equivalent of the back pages, in small print, by the big search engines and mainstream media.
Now, imagine if it were the other way around… that a group of Trump supporters blocked the doors of a Hillary event and made the participants run a gauntlet of fists and spit.
This new reality of the media and Google (among others) acting as unindicted co-conspirators for the takeover of the American government is highly disturbing.
Their manipulation of the news is so aggressive and so overt (as well as covert) in this election that I suspect this era will be looked back on in history as an inflection point signaling the end of democracy as we know it. That is, if history won’t likewise have been rewritten by the mega-manipulators.
It’s clear the media is determined to deny Trump a fair shot at winning the election, but this continued pounding of the drums about violence could turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. In which case, everyone loses.
Frankly, I’m appalled at what’s going on in this country. Which is why some years ago I voted with my feet, a decision I have never regretted, not for a minute.
If you’d like to experience what life is like on the other side of the curtain, consider attending the upcoming Discover Cafayate event hosted by Doug Casey here in the quaint wine-growing Argentine valley where we live. The dates are November 1–6, and there is a limit to the number of guests who can participate.
If you’re interested, drop my friend Juan Larranaga a note at

Here Come the Clowns

Save the Planet, Take Over the Economy! Another recent example of the socialist mindset is provided in a New Republic article by Bruce McKibben, a true believer of the most dangerous sort.
In his article entitled, “A World at War,” he calls for a takeover of the American industry and property by the government, similar to that in WWII, but in this case in order to fight the war against weather.
Here’s a telling quote:
Mark Wilson, a historian at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, has just finished a decade-long study of the mobilization effort, entitled Destructive Creation. It details how the federal government birthed a welter of new agencies with names like the War Production Board and the Defense Plant Corporation; the latter, between 1940 and 1945, spent $9 billion on 2,300 projects in 46 states, building factories it then leased to private industry. By war’s end, the government had a dominant position in everything from aircraft manufacturing to synthetic rubber production.

“It was public capital that built most of the stuff, not Wall Street,” says Wilson. “And at the top level of logistics and supply-chain management, the military was the boss. They placed the contracts, they moved the stuff around.” The feds acted aggressively—they would cancel contracts as war needs changed, tossing factories full of people abruptly out of work. If firms refused to take direction, FDR ordered many of them seized. Though companies made money, there was little in the way of profiteering—bad memories from World War I, Wilson says, led to “robust profit controls,” which were mostly accepted by America’s industrial tycoons.
Remarkably, McKibben and a number of similarly dangerous socialists are thought-leaders for millions of Americans. As the useful idiots increasingly take the reins of political power, could we see this enviro-fascism lead to calls for arresting climate-change skeptics? You betcha.

Getting paid to win Olympic much for amatuer status

Infographic: Some Athletes Are Chasing Huge Gold Medal Bonuses | Statista
Plus product endorsement deals, makes millionaires out of gold medal winners.

America's vanishing gold where?

Less than a month later, on September 8, 2014, the above paragraph had been subtly changed to the following, and the words ‘gold and’ had been removed:
“Today, the United States Mint at Denver manufactures all denominations of circulating coins, coin dies, the Denver “D” portion of the annual uncirculated coin sets and commemorative coins authorized by the U. S. Congress. It also stores silver bullion.'s gone. The gold that is.

'Mr. Brexit' Nigel Farage Speaks at Donald Trump Rally in Jackson, MS

We need more Nigel Farages in this world...

Remember when Obama said, "Now you've got new competition, because insurers want your business. And that means you will have cheaper prices." Oops.

Remember when Obama toured around the country telling everyone that Obamacare was going to increase competition and lower premiums?  If not, here is an example to help jog your memory (comments taken from Obama remarks delivered at Prince George's Community College on 9/26/13):
Now, this is real simple.  It’s a website where you can compare and purchase affordable health insurance plans, side-by-side, the same way you shop for a plane ticket on Kayak -- (laughter) -- same way you shop for a TV on Amazon.  You just go on and you start looking, and here are all the options.

It’s buying insurance on the private market, but because now you’re part of a big group plan -- everybody in Maryland is all logging in and taking a look at the prices -- you’ve got new choices.  Now you've got new competition, because insurers want your business.  And that means you will have cheaper prices.  (Applause.)
Well, as we've pointed out numerous times things are not really playing out as Obama had hoped with premiums skyrocketing (see "Obamacare On "Verge Of Collapse" As Premiums Set To Soar Again In 2017") and "competition" collapsing (see "Tennessee Insurance Commissioner Warns Obamacare "Very Near Collapse"").
The two maps below prove that point beautifully by illustrating the epic collapse of Obamacare coverage in just 1 year.  A collapse that will leave a stunning number of people across the country with only 1 option for health insurance.  Meanwhile, healthcare shoppers in Pinal
County, Arizona will actually be left with no options in 2017 as all carriers have abandoned service there. (charts per the New York Times)

2016 healthcare insurance carries by county:
Obamacare 2016
Soon, there will be only one provider, and then they HAVE YOU against the wall. Just like under Stalin and Hitler

2017 healthcare insurance carries by county:
Obamacare 2017

Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues to insist that all is well with the Affordable Care Act.  Per the New York Times:
The Obama administration says it is too early to evaluate competition in the Obamacare markets for 2017. Marjorie Connolly, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said: “A number of steps remain before the full picture of marketplace competition and prices are known. Regardless, we remain confident that the majority of marketplace consumers will have multiple choices and will be able to select a plan for less than $75 per month when Open Enrollment begins Nov. 1.”
The first step is admitting you have a problem.

Why does my car need to be connected to the Internet? Convenience? Convenience for whom? Insurance companies, law enforcement agencies, vehicle manufacturers, and advertisers, each spying on my movements for their own purposes? What happened to being left alone? What happened to the Fourth Amendment?

I Love My Dumb Car!

Guest Blog NMA Member Michael Jabbra
Why does my car need to be connected to the Internet? Convenience? Convenience for whom? Insurance companies, law enforcement agencies, vehicle manufacturers, and advertisers, each spying on my movements for their own purposes? What happened to being left alone? What happened to the Fourth Amendment?
Driverless cars are even worse. Hacking of them has been demonstrated already. Techno-geeks, socialists, and environmentalists never miss an opportunity to tell us that cars should be shared because none of us drive our cars 24/7. Nonsense! I don’t want to share my car, or somebody else’s. Sure, I don’t drive my car 24/7. So what? I’m not in my house 24/7; must I share it with some gang of strangers too? Can the car-sharing advocates explain how to ensure cars for everyone on holidays and other high demand days, or during evacuations of a suburb or a major city?
My car is mine. I like driving my car! I like driving on a wide-open freeway and singing along with the music pouring out of the loudspeakers. I like being able to go anywhere I please, anytime I want, without having to wait for a taxi, a lumbering bus, or a “car sharing” service. I don’t want to give that up. I don’t want to hand control over to a computer. Handing over control to a computer is touted as “safer” than millions of individuals driving at various levels of skill and attention. I’d like to see the “safety” advocates address what will happen when someone (a teenage punk in a dorm? Islamic State? China? Russia?) uploads a computer virus into the system of cars exchanging information (all in the name of safety, of course) and creates a tremendous traffic accident that can’t be untangled by the Almighty. Don’t tell me that this will never happen. One of my professors was fond of saying “If it’s made by man, it’s not perfect.” This applies to the makers of driverless vehicles, too. Make no mistake, computer hackers of all stripes are drooling over the prospect of millions of connected, driverless vehicles.
The push toward driverless cars and car sharing has a number of justifications: safety, or reducing traffic congestion, or reducing carbon emissions. Let’s call it what it really is: a frontal assault on citizen empowerment. The ability to go anywhere, anytime, in a personally owned vehicle, is hugely empowering. The safety advocates (whom Ray Bradbury called the “Spoil-Funs” in his short story “Usher II”) don’t trust people with this level of empowerment because people cause accidents, whether through incompetence or intoxication. The environmentalists hate this form of empowerment because of the carbon usage that comes from manufacturing and driving cars. Even electric vehicles are not immune from environmentalist angst; electricity has to be generated, and most methods of generating electricity result in some carbon emissions. The complaint about congestion is valid, as those of us who live in Los Angeles and other big cities know all too well, but the proposed solutions are not worth the loss of independence.
Driverless cars and car sharing, therefore, are another salvo in the ongoing battle against freedom and individual choice. Our country started out as a bastion of freedom. Now, through endless litigation and regulation, the United States has become a timid country, concerned much more about safety than about freedom. Add the fact that technology makes computer-controlled cars possible, and hey presto – the Silicon Valley crowd now sees a chance to make money from the bugaboos of safety, carbon emissions, and congestion. Many corporations are racing to develop driverless vehicles, and ride-sharing corporations like Uber and Lyft are drooling at the piles of money to be made if people are forced to depend on them instead of, God forbid, having their own vehicles which they drive all by themselves.
I’m aware that I could get into an accident that will kill me or leave me severely injured. Furthermore, I frequently experience the hassle of being caught in a traffic jam, or trying to find a place to park, or having close calls with reckless drivers. However, freedom isn’t free. The risk of being injured or killed, and the annoyance of congestion, are the prices I pay for the freedom of being able to go anywhere, anytime. And sometimes driving is what it should be: the pure joy of an open road and good music, whether by myself or with others.
So I say to the Silicon Valley geeks, the politicians, the environmentalists, the advertisers, and the insurance companies: Give us freedom, not dependence on car sharing or on driverless cars controlled and/or spied on by government or big businesses! Leave our present system of decentralized, independent transportation alone! I don’t want my driving freedom to be taken away in the name of convenience, or safety, or reducing carbon emissions, or any other excuse. I don’t want to be dependent on a computer-controlled “smart” car that is all too vulnerable to hacking. I want to be left alone, behind the wheel of my personally owned dumb car, in full control, making my own decisions, and going my own way. Leave me alone!
New NMA member Michael Jabbra lives in Los Angeles, CA.

While the Tesla is indeed slick, its quickness is extremely short-lived if used. It has the capability to reach 60 MPH in just over 3 seconds. But it does not have the capability to do so more than a handful of times before you run the battery pack to “empty” — at which point you had better be within close proximity of an electric hook-up and have at least 30-45 minutes to kill while the car recharges itself. That’s assuming the hook-up is one of Tesla’s “super” charging stations. On ordinary household current, the recharge time is several hours.

If the Tesla D’s Such a Great Car..

By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist
My teeth hurt.
Over the past week, I’ve been assaulted by one “news” story after the next about the latest fruit of government motors. Not GM. Tesla. The Model D. It is very slick! And very quick! It has all-wheel-drive! Not one but two electric motors (which isn’t new, by the way). Orgiastic comparisons with Porsche 911s and other exotic high-performance cars.
No mention, of course, that the government doesn’t pay people to buy 911s. Nor is Porsche a rent-seeking cartel whose existence depends on government support.
I was asked recently during a radio interview (here) why I do not like the Tesla. But that is not the right question, much less a fair question.
I haven’t got any particular like — or dislike — for the Tesla as such. If Elon Musk — or anyone else wants to build a car (powered by whatever, be it electricity or air or unicorn farts) and offer it for sale, they ought to be free to do so. I certainly have no objection to that.
What I do object to is being forced to “help” anyone else manufacture — or purchase — a car. I especially object to being forced to “help” the very affluent buy this toy.
The least expensive Tesla is a $60k car. Anyone who can afford to spend $60k on a car is someone who does not need my “help” to buy it. I’ve never spent more than $10,000 on a car myself — and all of it was my money. The guy who buys a Tesla gets a $7,500 federal tax kickback — more than what I paid for one of my trucks.
Why is it that — so far as I have been able to determine — no one in the mainstream media ever bothers to ask Elon Musk: If your car is so uber-luscious, how come it’s necessary to dangle large amounts of other people’s money in front of prospective buyers? Porsche doesn’t need to do this. Indeed, Porsche typically sells every car at full mark-up. Good luck trying to haggle down the price of a GT3.
Why is this?
I’ll tell you why. Rather, I’ll tell you what the supine (and engineering-ignorant) media will not tell you:
While the Tesla is indeed slick, its quickness is extremely short-lived if used. It has the capability to reach 60 MPH in just over 3 seconds. But it does not have the capability to do so more than a handful of times before you run the battery pack to “empty” — at which point you had better be within close proximity of an electric hook-up and have at least 30-45 minutes to kill while the car recharges itself. That’s assuming the hook-up is one of Tesla’s “super” charging stations. On ordinary household current, the recharge time is several hours.
In order for the Tesla to deliver on its touted maximum rage (an alleged 275 miles) it must be driven like a Corolla — not a 911. Accelerate pedal to the metal more than a handful of times or run it up to 80 and hold it there — and watch the battery charge indicator drop more rapidly than the gas needle in a ’70 Hemi ‘Cuda with 3.90 gears.
And the ‘Cuda at least refuels in minutes rather than hours.
Which rather defeats the point, does it not?
What, after all, is the point of paying $60k-plus for a car with excellent performance which you can realistically use only every now and again? Imagine if Porsche 911s came with a 1 gallon fuel tank — which you had to refill using a syringe. The car would accelerate furiously…. until you burned up the gallon of fuel. Which would happen very quickly. Now, you’d get to spend the next 30-45 minutes drawing gasoline into a syringe and squeezing it little by little into your car’s one gallon tank. If you needed to drive any significant distance, you’d have to drive as if you had an egg under the accelerator pedal. Keep it around 55-60. Do not pass that slowpoke up ahead. Indeed, you’d better drive like a slowpoke.
How many people would buy such a car? Would pay $60k-plus for such a car?
This is why billionaire Musk needs your money to make his “business” work. His cars are unsalable on their merits. So he resorts to government force. And that’s why I dislike Elon Musk — and disparage the Tesla.
Note, by the way, that Apple computer never resorted to force. I mention Apple because of the oft-repeated Elon Muskian BS that “early adopters” of Apple’s initially expensive gadgets up-ended the usual model of trying to sell basic, inexpensive stuff to a large audience and then building the fancy/expensive stuff. No one that I am aware of ever got a government kickback to induce them to buy a Mac or an iPhone or tablet. And so, I am not annoyed when I see a young hipster playing with his $600 iPhone. I figure he either bought it with his own money or his parents’ money.
But he did not buy it with my money.

The Truth About Hillary's 'Alt-Right' Speech

Thursday, August 25, 2016

The Clinton body count grows in many ways CNN Cancels Dr. Drew's Show One Week After He Voiced "Grave Concern" For Hillary's Health

One week ago, board-certified medicine specialist, TV personality and CNN employee Dr. Drew Pinsky broke the mold of conformity, when he said that he is "gravely concerned" about presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s health, pointing out that treatment she is receiving could be the result of her bizarre behaviors.
Appearing on KABC’s McIntyre in the Morning, Pinsky said he and his colleague Dr. Robert Huizenga became “gravely concerned….not just about her health but her health care,” after analyzing what medical records on Hillary had been released. Pinsky pointed out that after Clinton fainted and fell in late 2012, she suffered from a “transverse sinus thrombosis,” an “exceedingly rare clot” that “virtually guarantees somebody has something wrong with their coagulation system.” “What’s wrong with her coagulation system, has that been evaluated?” asked Dr. Drew.
Pinsky described the situation as “bizarre,” and said that Hillary’s medical condition was “dangerous” and “concerning”. Dr. Drew also went on to add that it was a sign of “brain damage” when Hillary had to wear prism glasses after her fall.

Just as stunning as Pinsky's assessment which promptly went viral and led to the immediate takedown of the original interview webpage by KABC-AM radio, was that it came from an employee of HLN, which is part of the pro-Clinton CNN network.
As such it is probably not surprising that earlier today, just one week later, CNN executive vice president Ken Jautz announced Thursday that "Dr. Drew and I have mutually agreed to air the final episode of his show on September 22."
"Dr. Drew and his team have delivered more than five years of creative shows and I want to thank them for their hard work and distinctive programming," Jautz said in a statement. "Their audience-driven shows, in particular, were innovative and memorable TV. And Dr. Drew has been an authoritative voice on addiction and on many other topical issues facing America today."
"It has been a privilege working at HLN," Pinsky said in a statement of his own. "My executive producer Burt Dubrow and our outstanding staff and contributors were consistently exceptional. I am very excited to stay within the CNN Worldwide family as a contributor."
There was no mention of the Hillary fiasco in the official parting statement; it was deemed redundant.
HLN will air reruns of "Forensic Files" and episodes of CNN originals in the "Dr. Drew" 7 p.m. ET time slot.