| 0 comments ]

The Leftist Cult Vs. The Trump Cult: Similarities And Differences

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

Political demagoguery is a valuable and effective weapon in the arsenal of the establishment elites. As long as there is a wide ideological division between groups in society, biases and desires can be tapped and manipulated.  This allows those in power to direct vast portions of the public down one path or another. When fear of an enemy and the drive to “win” become more important than truth and evidence, the population has tied its own puppet strings and handed them over to the spin doctors.

This is why the false Left/Right paradigm has been so useful to the establishment for so long. Anytime the public starts to wake up to the web of control, all the elites have to do is push one or both sides of the political spectrum towards extremism and let the people rage at each other instead of picking up their torches and pitchforks and tearing down the oligarchy. This method of division and diversion keeps the masses occupied and feeling as though they are accomplishing something while actually accomplishing nothing.

As Carroll Quigley, globalist insider and mentor to Bill Clinton, admitted in his book 'Tragedy And Hope':

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy....Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.”

The false Left/Right tactic has become more and more exposed in the past decade to the wider public, and so the elites had to change their methods to adapt to the growing awareness. Conservatives in particular have started to leave the plantation, and something had to be done to drag them back. The liberty movement has become a force in western life with tens of millions of members. It is an unpredictable element that the establishment needs to lock down and redirect if they ever hope to achieve their goal of a “new world order”.

The elites have used two tandem strategies in this effort:

First, they pushed leftist indoctrination towards full bore cultism.

Second, they have attempted to co-opt the leadership of conservatives and the liberty movement using a political puppet figure in order to bottleneck our energy and momentum.

Leftist culture has become increasingly erratic and unhinged (even more so than usual), informed by elements of a new social justice fanaticism; a kind of religious fervor where faith in ideological gatekeepers is more important than facts. The majority of the left, while not necessarily part of this “woke” religion, is still influenced by SJW rhetoric. Delusional notions of “patriarchy” and “inherent racism” and “inherent sexism” are woven into the Democrat mindset today. They see oppression everywhere, and victim group status has become the social currency they use to acclimate to a fantasy world where big government and entitlements are the solutions to all the world's ills.

The conservative side of civilization doesn't participate in the oppression fantasies of the left. We don't even speak the same language, as the left's very vocabulary has shifted into an academic babble-language they simply made up to describe social dynamics that don't exist and gender politics that are biologically and scientifically absurd. Reconciling with leftists in any meaningful way has become nearly impossible, and fear of their fanaticism is causing conservatives to assume that whatever these people hate, must be good.

Enter Donald Trump, a kind of artificially created focal point machine, a figure that is designed to absorb liberty movement talking points and then regurgitate them in an alphabet soup puddle on Twitter. This rhetoric is relatively effective in that many conservatives recognize parts of the soup and find comfort that Trump “must be on their side”.

I have outlined in numerous articles Trump's dubious background and behavior. To summarize, we often hear lip service from Trump on anti-globalism and anti-elitism, even though it is an undeniable fact that he has saturated his cabinet with globalists and elitists.

We heard anti-banker talking points from Trump during his campaign, even though Trump has a longstanding relationship to the Rothschild family and works side-by-side with Rothschild and Goldman Sachs bankers in the White House. We heard lots of anti-Federal Reserve discussion from Trump and observations that the current economy is an explosive bubble engineered by them; yet he now openly demands that the Fed inflate the bubble further while he takes full credit for the fake stock market rally.  We also heard many promises that US troops would be coming home and the long wars in the Middle East would end for America; this has not happened and likely will not happen as tensions with Iran continue to grow.

In other words, Trump is a skin job. A robot. A false conservative and false prophet of the liberty movement. He tells us what we want to hear while his actions say something entirely different. Yet, a lot of conservatives still listen to him, because they despise the collectivist religion of the left, they desperately want mainstream recognition and representation, and because they want to believe that there is a white knight out there in Washington defending their interests and their future.

The establishment understands these desires and exploits them. They understand that the more extreme the left becomes, the more tempted conservatives will be to jump blindly on the Trump bandwagon.

Mainstream media outlets like CNN have taken to referring to Trump's base as a “cult” recently, which of course is the pot calling the kettle black; but it does not mean that the accusation is wrong. Trump's base is indeed acting more and more like a cult, but primarily in reaction to the cultism of leftists. The crazier the left gets, the more Trump becomes a folk hero to the right. The more the media promotes fabricated Russiagate nonsense or Ukrainian conspiracy narratives, the more conservatives assume that the establishment is “trying to take down” Trump.

It is rather rudimentary reverse psychology – If the establishment media attacks Trump, then he must be "anti-establishment". If the leftists hate Trump, then he must be good for conservatives. Nothing could be further from the truth, but if anyone points this out they will be immediately attacked as disinformation agents and purveyors of CNN talking points.

A common argument in defense of Trump is to ignore his associations and behavior entirely and focus on the prevailing circus surrounding him instead. People state indignantly that:

Trump is under attack! They are trying to impeach him! How can he be working with the globalists if they are trying to get rid of him...?”

I would point out that there is a usefulness to political theater that goes far beyond trying to remove a president from office. Again, the media viciously attacked Trump during his election campaign, but if one understands that public trust in the mainstream media has collapsed in the past ten years, then one also understands that media attacks on Trump would only cause more people to like him and vote for him. The question then needs to be asked: Does the establishment understand this inverse relationship in public psychology? Or, did they completely overlook it?

I seriously doubt they are overlooking it.

If this is the case, then the frothing leftist rage against Trump, while partially real, is also 4th Generation warfare designed to trick conservatives into developing their own cult-like fantasy that Trump is our fearless leader fighting the good fight even though his presidency is tightly intertwined with global elitists. The impeachment itself comes at a time when a large portion of the liberty movement is waking up to the Trump con game and is questioning many of his activities and associations.

The establishment has put a lot of effort into creating the Trump versus Leftist circus, and they really hate the idea that a number of people are refusing to pick a side.  For them, there is nothing worse than free thinkers who organize their own side separate from the false paradigm.

The impeachment, like Russiagate, is not designed to get Trump out of office. It is a Hail Mary attempt to pull liberty minded conservatives back into the Trump fold; to keep us predictable and under control. It is also designed to keep leftists feeling justified in their insanity. Remember, the crazier the left acts, the more fearful and malleable conservatives become.

The establishment likes Trump right where he is, and he will not be going anywhere, at least not until he has completely served his purpose. Whether that will be in the next year, or in another four years, it's hard to say at this time. Obviously, the elites have to keep the left/right sideshow going at full volume until they are done using Trump as a distraction. They will “attack” him as often as needed to create the illusion that he is anti-establishment, and Trump will continue to play along to please his masters, many of them standing over his shoulder everyday in the White House.

The Leftist Cult and the Trump Cult are similar in their refusal to accept facts and reality, as well as their ability to double and triple down on delusions that are consistently debunked.

I have witnessed people on the Trump-train dismiss every blatant piece of evidence of Trump's collusion with globalists on the basis that he is "keeping his enemies close".  I have seen them ignore his support for Red Flag gun laws, his refusal to pull US forces out of Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen, his hostility towards Iran, his support for totalitarian governments like Saudi Arabia, etc.  They call it "4D chess" and simply move on.  I have seen them shrug off endless data showing economic decline and proclaim instead an "economic boom".  I have seen them completely absorbed and distracted by the trade war and China while forgetting all about the banking elites that engineer most of the calamity in our society.

They act this way because they are afraid.  The political left frightens them, they are searching for a hero to save them, and they are willing to overlook almost any skeleton in Trump's closet in order to make their fantasy version of him real.  But, the leftists are nothing more than a symptom - They are useful idiots, not the source of the disease.  And, Trump is not the hero conservatives are looking for anyway.  In terms of the liberty movement, Trump is irrelevant.  He's a footnote.  The real work is being done by millions of activists breaking through decades of propaganda and exposing the truth.

The difference between the Leftist Cult and the Trump Cult is mostly intent: Leftists double and triple down on their lies because they are infatuated with collective power and they see the truth as an obstacle to the "greater good". The Trump cult ignores facts and evidence on Trump because they are hyperfocused on collective defense. Leftists are seeking to micromanage the thoughts and behavior of the world while conservatives are seeking to solidify enough political protection to ensure they are left alone. The Leftist Cult wants to burn everything to the ground, erase history and rebuild the world in their image. The Trump Cult is trying to keep the last structures of American heritage alive; they have simply put their faith in the wrong champion.

The sad reality is, leftists and conservatives are likely far too alien to each other now to ever come to a diplomatic solution. The division in society is very real; it's the division at the top that's Kabuki theater. The liberty movement is the key to everything, as we are the constant target of establishment 4th Gen propaganda. If we didn't matter, then the elites would not be spending so much time, money and energy trying to keep us in line. They need us to buy into the theater, otherwise we become an unknown element, a third party, a time bomb that could explode unexpectedly on them at any given moment.

*  *  *

If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/31/2019 - 23:55
Tags

https://ift.tt/2N0rMvR
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2N0rMvR
via IFTTT

The Leftist Cult Vs. The Trump Cult: Similarities And Differences SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend
| 0 comments ]

A Decade In Tech

As the decade draws to a close, it’s time to look back at some of the things the past ten years have brought us. To think that people clinking their glasses on New Year Year’s Eve 2009 had no idea what an iPad was and couldn’t post a picture of the fireworks on Instagram.

As Statista's Felix Richter rightfully points out, it was a different world back then.

Infographic: A Decade in Tech | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

While the 2000s will always be remembered as the eve of the smartphone era, the past decade brought us some of the world’s most beloved social media apps as well as several gadgets we wouldn’t want to miss today.

The PlayStation 4, launched in November 2013, went on to become the second best-selling video game console of all time. The Apple Watch (2015) helped wearables reach mainstream adoption and Amazon’s Echo rang in the smart speaker boom in 2014.

As for the next decade, we have no idea what to expect. 5G will surely be a big topic for the early 2020s and rumors suggest that augmented reality headsets could become a thing. With several technology companies among the world’s most valuable (not to mention most resourceful) corporations right now, it seems safe to say that the next decade won’t disappoint from a technological point of view.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/31/2019 - 23:30
https://ift.tt/2QO9NKb
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2QO9NKb
via IFTTT

A Decade In Tech SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend
| 0 comments ]

We Were Warned About The Deep State, But Refused To Listen

Authored by Larry Johnson via Sic Temper ZTyrannis blog,

Many of the critical tools employed in the coup to paint Donald Trump as a tool of the Russians and to manufacture a pretext for removing him from office, were created more than twenty years ago.

I am talking about the surveillance state that the American electorate has ignorantly accepted as necessary in order to keep us safe from terrorists.

Despite previous warning from whistleblowers like Russ Tice, Bill Binney, Ed Loomis and Kird Wiebe, no action to rein in the surveillance monster was taken until Edward Snowden absconded with the documents exposing the vast amount spying that the U.S. Government is doing to its own citizens. But even those weak efforts to supposedly rein in the NSA proved to be nothing more than mere window dressing.

The spying got worse. Just ask Donald Trump and the members of his campaign that were targeted first by the CIA and NSA and then by the FBI. Fundamental civil rights were trampled.

The real irony in all of this is that Barack Obama, as President, took credit for helping revise the laws in order to prevent the spying exposed by Edward Snowden. But under the Obama Administration, spying on political opponents--both real and perceived--escalated. We know for a fact that journalists, such as James Rosen and Sheryl Atkinson, were targets and their communications and computers attacked by the U.S. Government.

We know, thanks to a memo released by Judge Rosemary Collyer, that "FBI consultants" were making illegal searches of NSA material using the names of Donald Trump, his family and members of his campaign staff.

Some of this NSA material came courtesy of the Brits and their collection on U.S. targets. Some of this material came from the NSA's own collection and storage of all electronic communications and was obtained using a nifty NSA tool called XKEYSCORE. Listen to Ed Snowden's description. Also, take time to appreciate the irony that CNN and other journalists were actually trying to report real news. Now they are full blown apologists for the abuse of the intelligence collection tools.

Six years ago, former NSA Technical Director for Military and Geopolitical Issues, Bill Binney, and Russ Tice, a former NSA analyst, appeared on the PBS News Hour. Once again, they make very clear the enormous nature to the threat to our civil liberties.

Too bad Donald Trump did not listen to their warning.

Given the robust, wide ranging ability of the NSA to probe all communications by any person in the United States, it is remarkable that no real dirt on Donald Trump was ever uncovered. Had such information existed, it would be in the NSA's storage vaults in Utah and crooked CIA analysts under Brennan's direction would have found it and used it. But that did not happed. The best the intel folks could fabricate were the salacious claims attributed to reports ostensibly created by former British spy, Christopher Steele. Turns out that the titillating account that Trump hired hookers to perform coprophilia (could of been worse, coprophagia) was nothing more than idle bar talk.

What has happened to Donald Trump can happen to any of us. It is time to take this threat seriously and put the intel agencies back into a properly monitored corral. Otherwise, we will lose this Republic.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/31/2019 - 23:05
https://ift.tt/2SIt7uT
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2SIt7uT
via IFTTT

We Were Warned About The Deep State, But Refused To Listen SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend
| 0 comments ]

America's Top New Year's Resolutions For 2020

For 2020, Americans are making the resolution to adopt healthy habits – concerning their finances as well as their bodies. A survey by Ipsos for Urban Plates has found that out of all participants who said they were making one or several new year’s resolutions, 51 percent wanted to manage their finances better and an equal amount wanted to adopt healthier eating habits.

As Statista's Katharina Bucxhholz notes, more popular resolutions for the upcoming year also circled around improving one’s health, with a more active lifestyle and weight loss being favorite answers.

Infographic: America's Top New Year's Resolutions for 2020 | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

38 percent of participants wanted to improve their mental well-being or practice mindfulness, a sign of a growing awareness for these aspects of mental health. Despite environmental protection being an equally popular topic at the moment, only 22 percent of survey participants said they wanted to be more eco-friendly in 2020.

18 percent of Americans said they were making only one resolution, while an additional 20 percent said they would make more than one. The percentage of resolution-makers was highest among Hispanics. A total of 56 percent in that group said they were making one or more resolutions.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/31/2019 - 22:30
https://ift.tt/39vbW5Z
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/39vbW5Z
via IFTTT

America's Top New Year's Resolutions For 2020 SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend
| 0 comments ]

Strategic Folly & The Consequences Of America's Unending War In Afghanistan

Authored by Lawrence Sellin via The Modern War Institute,

If a recent article published by the Modern War Institute at West Point, “Don’t Let Kabul 2020 Look Like Saigon 1975: The Dangers of a Precipitous Afghanistan Withdrawal,” represents the prevailing American views on military strategy, then it goes a long way to explain why the United States lost the Afghanistan War.

The authors did get the premise right concerning the dangers associated with a precipitous withdrawal, but by getting all the basics wrong, they offer all the wrong solutions.

The article begins with a whopper, that “a US/NATO military withdrawal must be managed responsibly to conserve the hard-earned gains on issues like civil liberties and women’s rights made over the past eighteen years.”

No. Anyone who has spent any time in Afghanistan beyond the confines of a headquarters or a walled-in facility would know that is a not a valid reason to maintain a military presence in Afghanistan because it is simply not something within our capability either to establish or sustain.

A proper exit strategy is a process of burden shifting in a manner that protects vital US interests, while preventing US adversaries from unduly benefitting from a withdrawal.

Just like military leaders and policymakers over nearly two decades and through multiple administrations, the authors fail to address or even identify the true nature of the war in Afghanistan.

From that omission arises all the misinterpretations of the present situation and the mistaken prescriptions for the future—most notably, the recommendation for continued nation building.

The time is long overdue for a reality check.

First, the conflict in Afghanistan is not an insurgency. It is a proxy war being waged by Pakistan against Afghanistan and the United States. It is similar to Pakistan’s use of terrorist proxies against India in Kashmir.

Pakistan has always viewed Afghanistan as a client state and a security buffer against what it considers potential Indian encirclement and as a springboard to extend its own influence into the resource-rich areas of Central Asia.

The American counterinsurgency strategy was never winnable as long as Pakistan largely controlled the supply of our troops in landlocked Afghanistan and regulated the operational tempo through its proxy army, the Taliban, which has maintained an extensive recruiting, training, and financial support infrastructure inside Pakistan, all of which has been immune to attack.

Second, Pakistan has never been an ally of the United States, but a duplicitous partner, pursuing its own interests in coordination with its true ally, China, while being generously funded by us.

Nowhere have Chinese ambitions been more clearly and publicly articulated than in a June 2018 China Daily article by former Pakistani diplomat, Zamir Ahmed Awan, who works for the Beijing-controlled Center for China and Globalization [comments added].

New [Chinese] initiatives for peace in Afghanistan are welcome, and may change the scenario in the whole region. . . . I believe, American think tanks and leadership, especially military leadership has already realized that this war cannot be won. The only option is withdrawal, the sooner the better.

Pakistan can play a vital role in a sustainable solution to the Afghan conflict [controlling Afghanistan as a client state]. Complete withdrawal and an Afghan-led [Taliban-led] solution is the only permanent way out. Pakistan can facilitate an honorable and safe passage for US withdrawal.

Peace in Afghanistan will allow economic activity between Central Asia, Russia, China, and the Arabian Sea. . . . It can change the fate of the whole region. Chinese projects like the Belt and Road Initiative and the objectives of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization [SCO]. . . . At the recent SCO summit, the Afghanistan president was invited as a guest and observer. Hopefully, the country will soon join SCO. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor may also be extended to benefit Afghanistan in the near future if there is peace.

Since that article was published, China has offered to extend CPEC to Afghanistan; China will build a military facility in and deploy Chinese troops to Afghanistan; Afghan military personnel will be trained in China; and members of the Afghan Parliament have recommended that the Bilateral Security Agreement between the United States and Afghanistan be canceled, presumably to be replaced closer security ties with by China.

Ultimately, America’s most formidable adversary in South Asia will be China, on which future US strategic planning should focus.

China seeks global domination. One vehicle to achieve it is the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a collection of infrastructure projects and a network of commercial agreements in 152 countries designed to link the entire world directly to the Chinese economy through interconnected land-based and maritime routes.

One element of BRI is the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), an infrastructure and development project, the backbone of which is a transportation network connecting China to the Pakistani seaports of Gwadar and Karachi located on the Arabian Sea

The guarantor of that soft power approach is the hard power of Chinese military expansion.

China plans to establish a naval and air bases on the Arabian Sea within easy reach of the strategically important Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf. That military facility will complement China’s already operational naval base in Djibouti, located at another strategic chokepoint, the entrance to the Red Sea and the Suez Canal.

With or without US approval or participation, China intends to incorporate Afghanistan into CPEC and exploit the estimated $3 trillion in untapped Afghan mineral resources.

The wild card in that scenario is Islamist extremism, of which Pakistan, not Afghanistan, is the true epicentre.

Islamist militancy has long been an element of Pakistan’s foreign and domestic policies. Any threat by these groups to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is, therefore, largely self-created.

As early as the 1950s, Pakistan began inserting Islamists associated with its Jamaat-e-Islami party into Afghanistan.

In 1974, then Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto set up a cell within Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) to begin managing dissident Islamists in Afghanistan.

Under President Zia ul-Haq (1977–1988), Pakistan pursued a policy of aggressive “Islamization” with the proliferation of religious schools and religious political parties, resulting in a society that became ever more extreme and intolerant. Ethnic separatism was suppressed and Islamist fighters were found to be useful proxies for the Pakistani military.

One source of America’s current dilemma in Afghanistan was a failure by the Reagan administration in allowing the Central Intelligence Agency to blindly outsource mujahideen funding to Pakistan’s ISI, which funneled American money and arms not to Afghan nationalists like Ahmad Shah Massoud, but to pro-Pakistani Islamists such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Jalaluddin Haqqani.

It is an undisputed fact that the Taliban were created by the ISI, beginning in 1994, as a means of intervening in the Afghan civil war to influence the outcome in favor of Pakistani national interests.

Since its founding, the ISI and the Pakistani military have never stopped providing financial, logistical, and military support to the Taliban. The subterfuge underlying Pakistani policy was already apparent in the early days of the Afghanistan war.

The tens of thousands of madrasas, many unofficial, have offered a fertile recruiting source, not just for the Taliban, but for other Pakistan-based militant groups, such as Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba, responsible for attacks against India.

Contrary to the suggestion by the authors, it would be foolhardy to pump ever more international financial support into the region, funding largely supplied by the United States, an approach that would only benefit our adversaries.

Quite the opposite is needed. Financial pressure should be brought to bear on Pakistan for its continued support of terrorism and steps should be taken to thwart Chinese economic and military expansion in the region, including closer cooperation with India.

The only bargaining chip the United States has in peace negotiations is our presence in Afghanistan. The “presence” argument is clearly unsustainable. Between now and the beginning of a withdrawal, the United States should be identifying new forms of leverage, in the short term, to bolster our negotiating position, and, in the long term, as a basis of a new South Asian strategy.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/31/2019 - 21:55
https://ift.tt/2ZIgdhD
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2ZIgdhD
via IFTTT

Strategic Folly & The Consequences Of America's Unending War In Afghanistan SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend
| 0 comments ]

California's Woke Legislation For 2020: Students Can't Be Suspended

Among the dumbest of the state of California's new 'woke' legislation for 2020 is that it's set to ban all public and charter schools from suspending students for 'willful defiance' in this upcoming year: 

A California bill that passed the Legislature would prohibit schools, including charter schools, from suspending students for willful defiance.

That means if a student is acting up in class, teachers and school officials will not be able to suspend them from school.

"Fast Times At Ridgemont High" (1982)

As if California public schools weren't already woefully behind national education standards, despite the state pouring $90 billion into the system this year alone, schools will now be forced to keep kids on campus no matter their level of constant defiance and disruption to the educational process of others.

Under the law, SB 419, the only exception for which a student could still be suspended suspended will be for bringing a weapon or illegal drugs to school.

And what's the rationale? Because of course, racism

As a local NBC affiliate reported earlier when the bill was passed by the state House and Senate:

The bill by Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, would ban the suspension of students in grades K-8 for refusing to obey a teacher or administrator, a practice known as willful defiance.

“I’ve dealt with a lot of these cases,” said Berry Accius, founder of Voice of the Youth, a nonprofit mentoring program in Sacramento. “Unfortunately, I’ve had kids that have been suspended for sometimes three months.”

Accius said school suspensions are used disproportionately against students of color.

“African American males and females, they are suspended at a higher rate — especially the African American males,” Accius said.

No doubt the jobs of California school teachers and administrators just got immensely harder. It will take effect starting July 1, 2020.

Commenting at The American Conservative, Rod Dreher skewers the initiative and predicts the following outcome: "Now state legislators, in their wisdom, have condemned elementary school teachers and the well-behaved students — black, white, Latino, Asian, whatever — to the tyranny of brats."

And more: "Progressives are dismantling the ability of a basic social institution — the school — to defend itself, and to maintain order sufficient to fulfill its function." Further, Dreher notes the inevitability that "when the parents who can afford to get their kids out of the public schools do so, progressives will call them racist."

* * * 

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/31/2019 - 21:20
https://ift.tt/2MNQsaK
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2MNQsaK
via IFTTT

California's Woke Legislation For 2020: Students Can't Be Suspended SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend
| 0 comments ]

Ron Paul: Should Racists Get Health Care?

Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

Political correctness recently took a dangerous turn in the United Kingdom when the North Bristol National Health Service Trust announced that hospital patients who use offensive, racist, or sexist language will cease receiving medical care as soon as it is safe to end their treatment.

The condition that treatment will not be withdrawn until doing so is safe seems to imply that no one will actually suffer from this policy. However, health-care providers have great discretion to determine when it is “safe” to withhold treatment. So, patients could be left with chronic pain or be denied certain procedures that could improve their health but are not necessary to make them “safe.” Patients accused of racism or sexism could also find themselves at the bottom of the NHS’s infamous “waiting lists,” unable to receive treatment until it truly is a matter of life and death.

Since many people define racism and sexism as “anything I disagree with,” the new policy will no doubt lead to people being denied medical care for statements that most reasonable people would consider unobjectionable.

This is not the first time NHS has withheld treatment because of an individual’s behavior. A couple years ago, another local health committee announced it would withhold routine or nonemergency surgeries from smokers and the obese. Since reducing smoking and obesity benefits both individual patients and the health care system as a whole, this policy may appear defensible. But denying or delaying care violates medical ethics and sets a dangerous precedent. If treatment could be denied to smokers and the obese, then it could also be denied to those who engage in promiscuous sex, drive over the speed limit, don’t get the “proper” number of vaccinations for themselves and their children, or have “dangerous” political views.

Government bureaucrats denying care to individuals for arbitrary reasons is the inevitable result of government interference in the health-care market. Government intervention is supposed to ensure quality and affordable (or free) care for all. But, government intervention artificially lowers the costs of health care to patients while increasing costs to providers. As demand rises and supply falls, government imposes rationing to address the shortages and other problems caused by prior government interference.

Rationing has been part of American health care at least since the passage of the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973. Every plan to expand government’s role in health care contains some form of rationing.

Advocates for government intervention in health care will counter complaints about rationing by saying the related health-care decisions are being made to benefit people’s quality of life. But, claiming government officials know how medical treatment can best enhance quality of life is as absurd as claiming that government officials know the correct prices of automobiles.

The only way to reverse the slide into national health care and rationing is for those who understand the economic and moral case for liberty to keep pushing to replace Obamacare and all other government intrusions into health care. Government-controlled health care must be replaced by free-market health care that empowers individuals to determine for themselves what does and does not enhance their quality of life.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/31/2019 - 20:45
https://ift.tt/2SJjlbG
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2SJjlbG
via IFTTT

Ron Paul: Should Racists Get Health Care? SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend
| 0 comments ]

After Woman Killed By Falling Debris On Seventh Ave., New York Revamps Facade Inspections

220 buildings in New York must now take protective measures after a woman was killed by a piece of a facade that fell off a 17 story building near Times Square earlier this month. 

According to the Wall Street Journal, building owners must install sidewalk sheds and the city is doubling the number of its facade inspectors to 22. It's also increasing the frequency of facade inspections for buildings taller than six stories. 

After 60 year old architect and philanthropist Erica Tishman was killed on December 17, building department workers went on an inspection spree, checking 1,331 buildings that had outstanding violations. About one in six of those buildings lacked proper safeguards and owners were issued summonses on Monday. 

Tishman was hit by debris walking past 729 Seventh Ave. The building's owner had already been issued a violation in April for failing to maintain the facade. In September, the owner challenged the violation in a city administrative court where a judge downgraded the violation to state that it didn't pose an "immediate danger".

Which it obviously did...

After the hearing, the building's owner was issued a permit to put up a sidewalk shed and repair the facade, but no work took place prior to the incident. The building is owned by a limited liability company controlled by commercial real-estate firm Himmel + Meringoff Properties.

The company said the work had been delayed because a neighboring building owner wouldn't give it access to perform the work. A spokeswoman for Himmel + Meringoff said: “The safety of our buildings, and our tenants, remains our highest priority, and we will continue to do everything to ensure the safety of the public in and around our properties.”

On Monday, city officials said that under new rules the city will reinspect a building within 60 days of it being found to have an unsafe facade, in order to ensure that safety measures are taken. Officials also said that if owners fail to install protection for pedestrians, city contractors will do it at the owner's expense. Facade inspectors will now also conduct follow up inspections every 90 days until repairs are completed. 

Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer said: "The tragic death of Erica Tishman was preventable, and while these new facade enforcement efforts cannot bring her back to life, they can help avoid another tragedy.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/31/2019 - 20:10
https://ift.tt/2QNSwkj
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2QNSwkj
via IFTTT

After Woman Killed By Falling Debris On Seventh Ave., New York Revamps Facade Inspections SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend
| 0 comments ]

The Biggest Crypto Winners And Losers Of 2019

Authored by Jinia Shawdagor via CoinTelegraph.com,

Even though the cryptocurrency industry is not new to ups and downs, 2019 has turned out to be the year with the most surprising reveals. The long-lasting bear market of 2018 moved market analysts to call it the year of regulatory reckoning, leaving many jurisdictions uncertain about how to treat cryptocurrencies.

image courtesy of CoinTelegraph

However, 2019 also turned out to be the year of the comeback, as big tech giants like Facebook moved from banning crypto to embracing it. 

Escalating global events such as the trade war between the United States and China have shifted investors’ point of view on the utility of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, but there is still a lot to be done even as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission continues to turn down every other Bitcoin ETF proposal. 

As the year comes to a close, here is a look at the companies, individuals and various crypto projects that managed to come out on top in 2019, as well as those that failed to mark the year as a positive in their books.

The winners

Bitcoin’s double growth

This year, Bitcoin and the entire blockchain and cryptocurrency industry celebrated its tenth anniversary as proof of the resilience of Satoshi Nakamoto’s creation. However, at the beginning of 2019, the cryptocurrency industry was just recovering from the so-called crypto winter of 2018. 

Fortunately, Bitcoin kicked off the year with a bullish trend that resulted in an approximate price increase of 11% higher by the end of the first quarter. Anthony Pompliano, the co-founder of Morgan Creek Digital asset management firm, shared his view with Cointelegraph:

“Bitcoin’s price is up significantly in 2019 [as there are] more buyers than sellers on a net basis this year.”

As the trading volume and market capitalization increased throughout the second quarter of the year, Bitcoin led the market with a 165% gain as its price surged from $4,103 to $10,888. Furthermore, Bitcoin’s market dominance increased from 54.6% to 65%.

Among the reasons that have promoted Bitcoin’s continued growth despite a struggling market is the view that the digital currency can act as a hedge in the wake of increasing global uncertainty. This year, the U.S.–China trade war saw most investors look to Bitcoin and gold as hedges. Pompliano also told Cointelegraph that there were other contributing factors:

“The biggest moments probably revolve around the announcement of Libra and the subsequent reactions, both positive and negative, from various folks across the traditional and cryptocurrency markets.”

However, it was not all sunshine for Bitcoin in 2019. Over the third quarter of the year, a bearish outlook emerged as Bitcoin’s price decreased significantly as 100 billion in market capitalization was lost. Fortunately, even as the market struggled to gain ground against the bears, Bitcoin not only closed the quarter with the least amount of loss but also increased its market dominance by 5.4%. Ultimately, of all cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin’s performance has been the best so far.

Compared to assets from other markets, Bitcoin’s performance throughout the year is still far from tenuous. For instance, even though gold is regarded as a reliable store of value, its price has only increased by 17% since January. Even the S&P 500 Index, although with an excellent performance of +21%, is still dwarfed by Bitcoin’s growth throughout the year. Beyond price, Bobby Lee, CEO of the Ballet crypto wallet, told Cointelegraph that Bitcoin has benefited from several major technological developments:

“2019 was a great year for Bitcoin bulls because of the advances in the open-source ecosystem. Lightning Network is increasing Bitcoin’s transaction capacity, wallets with built-in, user-friendly features (Wasabi, Samourai) are improving privacy.”

Gods Unchained’s rise to popularity

According to reports, Gods Unchained, a blockchain-based virtual card game built on Ethereum, emerged as one of the highest-grossing and most popular blockchain games in 2019. This came about after the platform completely sold out its Genesis Card Pack to the tune of about $6.2 million. This came about after Blizzard, the creators of Hearthstone (a digital trading card game) banned Hearthstone player Chung Ng Wai (also known as Blitzchung) for expressing support for the Hong Kong protests. The Hearthstone game developer also stripped Blitzchung of his winnings. 

In addition to the backlash received from the gaming community, Blizzard’s actions were criticized in a tweet by Gods Unchained that claimed Blizzard “care[s] about money more than freedom.” Gods Unchained also promised to compensate Blitzchung for his lost winnings while offering him an invitation to their $500,000 tournament.

The tweet by Gods Unchained was retweeted over 10,000 times, and Google searches for the game have since surged. Unlike Hearthstone, Gods Unchained is decentralized and uses blockchain to ensure that players truly own in-game items and have the freedom to trade them at will.

In a move to give online game players long-term incentives, James Ferguson, CEO of Gods Unchained said that the game is “leveling up the outdated practices of the gaming industry.”

Coinbase’s continued expansion 

In the past, Coinbase maintained a reputation for employing a rather selective strategy for adding coins to its exchange. As one of the big league exchanges in the crypto space, Coinbase is also known for having significantly fewer large-scale hacks. In a year that saw other major exchanges like Binance fall victim to large scale security breaches, leading to the loss of thousands of Bitcoin, Coinbase stands out as a reliable and safe platform.

However, the company was heavily scrutinized by Twitter users this year over its acquisition of Neutrino, a startup that collects cryptocurrency transactional data using the blockchain. For most Twitter users, this move seems to facilitate the exchange’s spying on its customers. 

However, Coinbase’s move to acquire Neutrino is, according to a Coinbase blog post, part of its goal to support all assets while complying with applicable laws. In addition to acquiring Neutrino, Coinbase has doubled the number of listed cryptocurrencies on its exchange since 2018. Coinbase’s aggressive listing approach has seen the addition of coins such as Dash, Cosmos and Waves, to mention just a few.

The company has almost constantly been making news throughout the year, from making acquisitions to denying them, as well as securing multiple patents along the way. Meanwhile, Coinbases’s Visa debit card solution has also seen exponential growth this year, now available for use in even more countries. 

In May 2019, the company also expanded its reach to more than 100 countries while making its USDC stable coin — previously only available in the U.S. — available in 85 of those supported countries. In comparison, Coinbase was only available in about 32 countries last year. Its aggressive expansion appears to be in direct competition to other global players like Binance.

Binance ventures further

Ask any market analyst and they will admit that initial exchange offerings have grown into a big business in 2019. Reports have revealed a high demand for IEOs right from Q1 2019 to Q3, not to mention the fact that they collectively raised over $1.5 billion in the first half of 2019 alone. Unlike initial coin offerings, the biggest determining factor for a successful IEO is the availability of liquidity, and what better way to access liquidity than launching an IEO on a popular exchange. 

That is why Binance and its native cryptocurrency BNB have had one of the best years yet. As one of the biggest marketplaces for digital assets, Binance enjoys a significant share of the trading volume. The exchange’s performance has been so exceptional that the Binance Coin has gained value by 150% over the year. When taking everything into account and considering year-on-year growth, Binance Coin has even slightly outperformed Bitcoin.

Also, Binance expanded its reach with the launch of a fully independent U.S. arm of its trading platform. Despite heavy regulatory pressure that keeps the Binance exchange in the U.S. from operating in states such as New York, the company’s partnership with BAM, a registered money service in the U.S., has so far given the exchange some leeway.

The losers

Facebook’s uncertain Libra launch in 2020 

Facebook’s announcement of its Libra cryptocurrency has been one of the major events of 2019. However, on the unveiling of Libra as a stablecoin backed by a select number of national currencies, U.S. lawmakers reacted with skepticism, summoning Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to multiple hearings.

At its core, Libra is a stablecoin backed by real money and lets users buy, sell and send money at nearly zero fees across borders. According to the project’s white paper, Libra’s overall mission is “to enable a simple global currency and financial infrastructure that empowers millions of people.”

Libra’s white paper further claims that it will use “a new decentralized blockchain, a low volatility cryptocurrency, and a smart contract platform” to empower about 1.7 billion unbanked people. This will be achieved through the use of Facebook’s WhatsApp, Messenger and Calibra, which is a digital wallet designed for Libra users.

Despite Libra’s ambitious plan to empower the unbanked, the Libra project has not only come under heavy scrutiny from lawmakers but also faced internal problems of its own. While sharing his thoughts with Cointelegraph, Ballet wallet’s Lee expressed optimism about Libra, saying that although “legislators and regulators in the United States and Europe understand that non-government currencies are a threat to their power, government opposition will diminish over time.” Lee further explained:

“Governments will change their stance because they will come to understand that they can’t control or stop Bitcoin, and they will prefer to have their citizens use centralized corporate coins that can easily be regulated, monitored, and pegged to fiat currency.”

Despite Libra’s ambitious plan to empower the unbaked, the Libra project has not only come under heavy scrutiny from lawmakers but also faced internal problems of its own. 

The U.S. Congress has asked Facebook to pause further development of the Libra projects, and cynics now believe that the project will not get out of the starting blocks without the government’s approval. Multiple European countries have also spoken out against the proposed cryptocurrency, while China announced that it will soon launch its own stablecoin, a national central bank digital currency, likely as a retaliatory measure. Furthermore, in the wake of increased scrutiny from government regulators, some of Libra’s high profile backers like Visa, eBay, MasterCard and PayPal have abandoned the project.

A rocky year for Circle

In October 2018, Circle, a cryptocurrency firm based in Boston and backed by Goldman Sachs teamed up with Coinbase to launch the Centre consortium. Counting on its reputation as one of the most well-funded crypto startups, the two companies aimed to help accelerate adoption of cryptocurrencies. Through the Centre consortium, Coinbase and Circle would increase liquidity to the crypto industry through the issue of a stable coin called the USD Coin. 

In July this year, Coinbase and Circle broadened participation into their consortium in a move that will allow other financial entities interested in the project to issue the USD Coin. In the announcement, the Centre network mentioned that “a natural next step is to imagine a new global digital currency” that would include a basket of tokens backed by a variety of stablecoins. Simply put, Centre’s plan is to go with a Facebook-like approach to create a global currency.

However, Circle has had a rocky experience throughout 2019. Even though the USD Coin has received a positive reception, with Centre claiming that the stablecoin has been used to clear on-chain transfers worth over $11 billion, Circle closed its mobile app, reduced its fundraising goal by 40%, and laid off 10% of its staff between May and June this year. Just recently, the company let go of 10 more of its employees, citing efforts to streamline its services. 

The latest news of layoffs from Circle comes after the recent transition of the company’s co-founder Sean Neville from his position as CEO to a seat at the company’s board of directors. However, a representative of Circle has denied any connections between the recent layoffs and Sean’s transition, telling Cointelegraph that: 

“None of this is related to Sean transitioning out of the co-CEO role. Sean will continue to serve on Circle’s board.”

Craig Wright’s court battles

When Australian-born technologist Craig Wright claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto back in 2015, most people in the crypto community were skeptical and thought nothing of it. 

Most people expected that the Satoshi Nakamoto impersonator would have scurried back into obscurity by now. However, Wright and his claims have continued to headline the news throughout 2019. Wright claims that he invented Bitcoin a decade ago and mined over 1 million BTC along with his late business partner Dave Kleiman. After Kleiman’s death in 2013, Wright claims that he put the mined Bitcoin in the “Tulip Trust.”

However, the Australian entrepreneur and computer scientist was sued by Kleiman’s estate in 2018 for allegedly stealing up to 1 million Bitcoin. In the past, it is said that Wright and Kleiman worked together on mining and developing Bitcoin. According to Kleiman’s family, Wright stole between 550,000 to 1 million Bitcoin — worth about $10 billion. 

The ongoing case led to Magistrate Judge Bruce’s ruling that ordered Wright to turn over half of his Bitcoin holdings and intellectual property from before 2014 to Kleiman’s estate, presuming he is indeed Nakamoto. On Oct. 31, the trials re-emerged after Wright pulled out of the settlement agreement to forfeit half his Bitcoin and intellectual property.

In addition to his court battles, Wright was scrutinized by the crypto community after presenting what was considered forged documents as evidence of him being Nakamoto in another case of Wright against Peter McCormack. Wright’s case against McCormack is based on the fact that McCormack’s repeated statement that Wright is not Satoshi is harmful to Wright’s reputation. Most recently, Wright presented another document that allegedly proves how he came up with the Satoshi Nakamoto pseudonym.

Bitcoin ETF’s continual rejection by the SEC 

Even though U.S. regulators have always left a window for the possibility of approving Bitcoin exchange-traded funds in the future, up until now, every single attempt to license a Bitcoin ETF has been met with failure. In October this year, an ETF proposal filed by Bitwise Asset Management in conjunction with NYSE Arca was rejected by the Securities and Exchange Commission for failing to meet legal requirements that prevent illicit market manipulation. 

In fact, all Bitcoin ETF proposals presented to the SEC have been rejected on concerns about fraudulent activities and market manipulation. One of the main criteria for approving an ETF is establishing the underlying market of a new commodity-based ETF.

If the underlying market is resistant to manipulation, regulators can give the ETF the go-ahead. Given the complexities of the Bitcoin market, it seems approval from the SEC is unlikely. Despite the earlier rejection of Bitwise’s application, the SEC later announced that it would review Bitwise’s proposal once again.

While speaking to Cointelegraph on the realistic timeline of the first Bitcoin ETF approval, Charles Lu, the CEO of the Findora fintech toolkit provider said, “For a Bitcoin ETF proposal to gain SEC approval, the sponsor will need to prove that real price discovery is happening as opposed to market manipulations.” In Lu’s opinion, this will not happen anywhere soon, since the SEC would require “surveillance sharing agreements” with the big exchanges.

2019 and 2020

Overall, the crypto industry has shown some significant growth over the past year. Although volatile, Bitcoin is showing significant signs of growth. More institutional investors are looking into the industry to find more ways to invest as well. Even though there is a downtrend in market cap and trading volumes, prominent traders believe that a turn of fate might just be around the corner, especially for Bitcoin holders.

Out of all the winners and losers of 2019, perhaps Facebook Libra is one that stands to be most impactful in 2020. For most onlookers, it will be interesting to see whether Facebook’s Libra project will turn a new leaf and launch successfully in 2020. If it does, there is a high likelihood that big changes will take place throughout the entire industry.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/31/2019 - 19:35
https://ift.tt/37ieHpg
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/37ieHpg
via IFTTT

The Biggest Crypto Winners And Losers Of 2019 SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend
| 0 comments ]

Judge In Hunter Biden Paternity Case Mysteriously Recuses Hours After New Allegations Filed

The judge in Hunter Biden's paternity case suddenly recused himself from the case on Tuesday, following a string of third-party court filings accusing Biden of financial crimes. 

"...the undersigned Judge recuses from said case pursuant to the Administrative Plan of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit," reads a brief note by Independence County Judge Don McSpadden, who offered no explanation for the move.

The recusal came two hours after 'defrauded investor' Joel Caplan filed to become a party in the case, which included a witness statement from ex-Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin, who says he was fired for investigating a Ukrainian gas company which Biden worked for. 

Joel Caplan

That said, Caplan's claims are so bizarre that if one had enough tin foil, they might conclude that the recent string of filings in the case are being done to muddy the waters with absurdity. 

The latest claim is that Biden was involved in a 'multi-billion dollar stock scheme known as the China Hustle.

Shokin's witness statement was submitted to the court as part of Joel Caplan's motion this week to try and become a party in Roberts' paternity case with Biden.

He claimed in Monday's filing that he wanted in on the case so he could get his hands on Biden's bank account records in order to prove he allegedly received $1.5 billion from Chinese companies that 'hustled Americans out of their life savings'.

Caplan told Judge Don McSpadden to 'follow the money' and in a 30-page filing, lays out how he was allegedly swindled out of 10 years of his life savings in a 'multi-billion dollar stock scheme known as the China Hustle.'

Caplan, who filed papers from Jerusalem, Israel, claims many Chinese nationals made fortunes from the ploy, which involved presenting fake company documents and claiming they were genuine investments when they were actual frauds. -Daily Mail

Caplan referenced President Trump's October claim that Biden received a $1.5 billion payout from a Chinese private equity fund - a claim Biden has denied. Caplan has sought bank records in an attempt to regain his lost savings, and for 'justice.'

Last week private investigator Dominic Casey also attempted to enter the case, claiming Biden was involved in a $150 million 'counterfeiting scheme'. Hours after it was filed, Judge Casey tossed the motion on a technicality for being improperly filed.

On Friday, Dominic Casey (pictured) filed papers to Independence County on Friday, claiming he had provided Lunden Roberts with 'electronic access' to Biden's bank account records, which are 'subject of known felonies including fraud and counterfeiting'

Casey heads up D&A Investigations, which is based near Orlando, Florida, and he is known for pursuing right-wing conspiracy theories. During the Casey Anthony trial he claimed a psychic told him where to find Caylee's body.  

Casey claimed Biden was involved in a 'counterfeiting scheme' in Ukraine that accumulated a $150 million fortune. Judge Don McSpadden tossed out Casey's original motion six hours after it was filed.

 In Casey's Friday motion, he gives his consent for Roberts' legal team to use Biden's bank account records in their court case, claiming that he has them.

 Biden's lawyer Brett Langdon called Casey's filing "a scheme by a non-party simply to make scandalous allegations in the pending suit to gain some quick media attention."

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/31/2019 - 19:00
Tags

https://ift.tt/2QdakpP
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2QdakpP
via IFTTT

Judge In Hunter Biden Paternity Case Mysteriously Recuses Hours After New Allegations Filed SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend