QUESTION: Dear Mr. Armstrong, could you please explain what happens in technical terms from a capital flow perspective, when confidence is lost and hyperinflation starts to begin? For example Turkey. When Erdogan was elected i think you wrote that ever since the lira started dropping. So confidence in politics is key. Do you think one day we will see hyperinflation in Turkey? And another example, is Yugoslavia: what caused the hyperinflation (in technical terms/capital flow perspective)? Are foreign investors getting rid of the dinars? Too many dinars than suddenly rushed back into Yugoslavia causing hyperinflation? Regards, Magdalena Š.
ANSWER: The misnomer about hyperinflation is that it is caused by printing money. It is a RESPONSE to the collapse in the confidence of the government. If we look at the 3rd century, this is where we find the greatest number of hoards of ancient coins. What began this was the capture of Valerian I by the Persians in 260AD.
Valerian was the first Roman Emperor to be captured and Rome was unable to recuse him. That shook the confidence of the Roman people, but it also was a signal to the barbarian tribes in the North that if the Persians could do it, they could as well. Within 10 years, Emperor Aurelian constructed the great wall around Rome. Never before did Romans have such a defensive wall. That had a powerful army.
There was a trend toward debasing the silver coinage which began with Nero to try to fund the rebuilding of Rome after the Great Fire. But that did not undermine the confidence in the Roman Monetary System any more than our perpetual deficit spending since World War II.
However, a spark is ignited and suddenly that trend turns into what I have called a Waterfall event in the purchasing power of the currency. Such an event has taken various forms. However, the end result is the collapse in the confidence of the government and as a result, that is when you get that waterfall event.
In the case of Germany, Yugoslavia, Hungary, etc, there was a 1918 Revolution where communists seized power and the emperor of Germany lost power. In that case, they actually asked Russia to take Germany after their revolution in 1917. This was the beginning of the Weimar Republic.
Germany was saddled with reparation payments demanded by France. First, you had a communist revolution and people with capital began to flee to other places in Europe or certainly move their money out of German banks. It was this drain of wealth that forced the Weimar Republic to print money to try to make their reparation payments. Then in December 1922, they seized 10% of everyone’s assets and handed them a bond.
Here you can see that after that December 1922 confiscation, hyperinflation simply took over. It was NOT the printing of money that caused the hyperinflation it was the collapse of confidence FIRST which then compels the government to expand the money supply lacking taxation revenues etc.
I suspect the spark this time may be the Digital Currency and the proposed cancellation of paper currency. This is why people are moving to anything tangible from real estate, gold, silver, ancient coins, and even equities. With DIGITAL CURRENCY they will have capital controls and prevent you from even moving money outside of your country.
The precise day of the ECM was the announcement of the IMF Digital Currency which they intend to replace the US dollar as the reserve currency. This may be timed with the turning point in 2024. It is unlikely that they would cancel paper currencies before the 2024 election. This is all being
Canceling student loan debt was a lofty promise Biden made during his presidential bid. Three years later, he has made no progress. This was one of those single-issue items that caused many to vote for Biden, and he can’t risk reducing his dwindling support. “I’m not going to back down on my efforts to help tens of millions of working- and middle-class families,” Biden said. “That’s why I’m going to veto this bill.”
Per usual, Dem policies that claim to help the middle class only cause more financial pain. What about the working-class families who chose not to attend college due to costs? What about the families who worked hard to pay off their loans? Universities can continue charging massive fees with no end in sight and his administration has done nothing to curtail the costs of college. So there is no plan to fix the real issue that has caused so many Americans to be saddled with student debt that is nondischargeable in bankruptcy due to the repeal of Glass-Steagall by the Clintons. As a reminder, the debt will not vanish in thin air. Taxpayers will be responsible for this burden.
Instead of “relief,” we should call it what it really is intended to be – payment redistribution. The Senate had agreed to undo the damage in a 52-46 vote before Biden shot it down. Even some Democrats disagree with Biden’s plan to pass on the debt to taxpayers. Senator Joe Manchin said the “reckless” plan“forces hard-working taxpayers who already paid off their loans or did not go to college to shoulder the cost.” Democratic Senator Jon Tester and Independent Senator Krysten Sinema agree.
Extremists like Elizabeth Warren said that it’s “shameful” that Republicans want to “claw back relief from public servants.” They are undermining our intelligence. The hated rich use tax loopholes to avoid payments. The burden will fall on the middle and working class, which is entirely unconstitutional. “ The executive branch cannot spend money that has not been appropriated by Congress,” 31 USC 1301 et seq (Antideficiency Act (P.L. 97-258)) and Article I, Section 7, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution.
Posted originally on the CTH on June 11, 2023 | Sundance
I have been reviewing interviews, looking at discussion, and some of them I will share in the next few articles. However, for a solid representation of the state of our current dynamic, as it relates to the targeting of President Donald J. Trump, this interview below is a solid outlook from the detractors.
CBS News legal analyst Rikki Klieman and CBS News investigative correspondent Catherine Herridge join “Face the Nation” to discuss what’s in the indictment — and what it means for Trump. [Transcript Here]
Before getting to the video, it’s valuable to see Rikki Klieman representing the interpretation of the media outlook toward the indictment handed down by Special Counsel Jack Smith. It is also valuable to see CBS’s Catherine Herridge represent the defenders of the institutions, from the outside vulgarian personage of Trump.
Klieman buys the Lawfare narrative completely, including the framework of classified documents as opposed to documents containing classified markings. She sells the Lawfare outline as gospel and makes all assertions from that position. Herridge looks at how the bureaucracy responds to Trump, including how the institutions hold power of determination higher than a President of the United States.
As Bill Barr said emphatically earlier today, “The documents do not belong to Trump,” continuing with “The documents belong to the government who created them, not the man for whom they were created.” So sayeth the defender of the omnipotent Dept of Justice. This is where a sharp intellectual knife to cut through the chaff and countermeasures is needed, and notice no one brings up the visible and practical deconstruction point.
If the documents did not belong to President Donald J. Trump, then why did the government dump them in the parking lot of the White House and tell him to deal with them?
If the documents belonged to the government, and not to the man for whom they were created, then why did that same government give them to him and force him to take them to a location of his choosing? Can you see the obtuse argument fall apart when simple pragmatic questions are raised?
The institutions are presented, by the sellers of the Lawfare narrative, as higher than the authority of the President of the United States. This is how ridiculous our government has become.
Institutions are not omnipotent entities; they are buildings and networks full of people who facilitate processes that are an outcome of policy. Those buildings and offices are not the government. The elected politicians who we send to Washington DC are not subservient to the processes, norms and morays they determine within the bureaucracy that the politicians are in charge of.
The argument(s) against Donald Trump are akin to a business saying that all work product created during the tenure of employment belongs to the enterprise of the business and not to the employee. If you want to hold that line of thought, fine. However, you then need to reconcile that the business enterprise intentionally gave all the work product to the employee, dumped it in their lap, told them to take it and leave, and then comes back at a later date and says – we now need to review the stuff we forced you to take because some of it might not actually belong to you.
Does this happen anywhere else? Of course not.
The fact that the National Archives and Record Administration refused to take custody of the documents upon the end of the White House tenure, combined with the fact the NARA dumped those documents in the parking lot of the White House for Trump to deal with, is a direct statement the bureaucracy was telling President Trump these are your records. His records – not their records on loan to him.
The Presidential Records Act is the overriding legislative guidance for the flow of work product post term in office. These are essentially document arguments. The fact that NARA together with the Biden administration would weaponize the disposition of documents, they intentionally forced Trump to take ownership of, speaks to an intent within the bureaucracy that is transparently obvious.
Bill Barr’s entire mindset is based on a belief the institutions are of a higher power than the individuals we elect to control them. In essence, the President of the United States is subservient to the bureaucracy. This is nonsense. This is also why former AG Bill Barr was more concerned about preserving the institutions than stopping the weaponizing activity that flows from them.
President Trump could store his “presidential records” anywhere he wants to; they are his records.
Now, watch Klieman obscure the difference between classified documents and documents containing classified markings. Despite her pontifications to the contrary, the indictment is not based around any classified documents. The classification of the documents is technically and factually moot to the ridiculous point the special counsel is making.
.
[Transcript] -JOHN DICKERSON: For more on the legal implications, we’re joined by senior investigative correspondent Catherine Herridge and CBS News legal analyst Rikki Klieman.
Rikki, I want to start with you.
You have been a prosecutor and a defense lawyer. So what stands out to you, now that you have read this indictment?
RIKKI KLIEMAN: I think what stands out, obviously, is the magnitude of detail in this indictment.
It’s not only that you’re dealing with 31 counts under the Espionage Act, which simply means the unlawful, willing retention of classified information, or even unclassified information that would hurt the defense of the United States and aid our enemies. It’s the detail of a speaking indictment.
We have to remember that much of this indictment, John, is to educate not only ultimately a court and jury, but it’s really to educate the public. Much of this indictment, in terms of the detail, may not even come into evidence, in terms of what’s admissible or not in the course of a trial.
What also strikes me, John, is, the overwhelming detail leaves the Trump legal team with real need to have powerful motions to dismiss, because, if this goes to trial, the way it reads, it’s rather overwhelming for anyone to be able to fight it on the facts themselves.
JOHN DICKERSON: And I want to get to that motion-to-dismiss question in a moment.
But, Catherine, you have been doing reporting about the risk assessment about just what was in these documents. Educate us on that.
CATHERINE HERRIDGE: Well, what jumps out to me, John, is when you go to the section the willful retention of national defense information, by my count, there are 21 top secret documents, and the disclosure of top secret information has the expectation of exceptionally grave damage to national security.
But what out — stands out to me is some of the classified codings, like TK, or Talent Keyhole. You don’t see that very often. That’s about intelligence from overhead imagery. For example, if we’re looking at a terrorist target, do we have such good visibility that we can count the hairs on their head? Can we see what they’re eating for breakfast on their terrorist patio?
Those are capabilities that we don’t want our adversaries to know that we have. And then also Special Access Programs, or SAP, these are highly restricted programs because of the sensitivity of the intelligence and the technology, such as stealth technology, for example.
Think of classified information like the Pentagon. Special Access Programs are these handful of rooms where there are just a limited number of keys to control and restrict access to that information.
JOHN DICKERSON: So it’s not just secret; it’s the top of the — top of the top?
CATHERINE HERRIDGE: Some of these are way beyond top secret, like, I said, Talent Keyhole, when you’re talking about Special Access Programs or SCI, sensitive, compartmentalized information.
These really are the crown jewels of the U.S. intelligence community.
JOHN DICKERSON: Rikki, let me ask you about a part of this indictment which seems to come — which comes from one of the former president’s lawyers.
Educate us on the crime-fraud exception, how it’s possible for a prosecutor to have this information. And is that a weakness? Because we know, from our reporting, that this is something that the Trump defense team is going to talk about, is the behavior of the prosecutors.
RIKKI KLIEMAN: We all believe that, when you go to a doctor, that there’s a privilege, that what you say and what your ailments are will remain confidential.
Same thing if you go to a clergyperson. And it’s exactly the same thing. When you go to a lawyer. You believe that, if you are a client, that what you say will never be disclosed to anyone, let alone in the grand jury or court of law. It’s called the attorney-client privilege. It protects all conversations relating to legal advice.
So, how did it get broken? That is, how did a court in Washington, D.C., a judge, and then an appellate court affirm the idea that you could hear, listen, read the notes and the voice memos of a lawyer to testify against his own client?
It’s called the crime-fraud exception. So what the court believed was, the conversations between Evan Corcoran, the lawyer, and Donald Trump were really in furtherance of a crime or a fraud, and he was ordered and forced to testify.
Now, one could say, well, that’s one and done. So now Mr. Corcoran is going to be a witness in this case, should it go to trial. But we have to remember that that took place, that decision, in the District of Columbia. Now we are in Florida. So can it come up to a new judge? Might a new judge decide that it is not admissible at trial? Yes.
Will that hurt the case? Not necessarily. There’s plenty of other evidence.
JOHN DICKERSON: Catherine, I have got two questions for you.
The first is, what happens if you’re just a regular old Joe and you have this kind of information? Legally, what happens to you? What’s happened?
CATHERINE HERRIDGE: Well, as one example, I have contacts who work in the nuclear weapons capability arena.
Let’s say you have a nuclear document, it’s on top of the photocopier, and you walk away, you leave it there. Your clearance is gone. You are out the door. There are immediate consequences.
JOHN DICKERSON: Let me ask you about a number of the president’s defenders.
Well, first of all, we should note, the current president is under investigation by a special counsel.
CATHERINE HERRIDGE: Correct.
JOHN DICKERSON: We don’t know much about that. But Republicans have brought that up in defending the president. They have also brought the case of Hillary Clinton.
You have been looking at that. Give us a sense of the apples and oranges or apples and apples in comparison with what’s on the table here.
CATHERINE HERRIDGE: Well, what strikes me, John, in this indictment is I think the special counsel, Jack Smith, specifically charged willful retention of national defense information in an effort to sort of blunt criticism that these cases may be the same.
If you go back to the summer of 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey said that they found multiple e-mail chains on Hillary Clinton’s private server that she used for government business that contained highly classified information, including these Special Access Programs that we just discussed, but, in his view, it should not be charged because he didn’t feel there was sufficient evidence of intent or willfulness.
Critics would say that even just purchasing the server was an example of intent. And then, finally, you have to look at just the scope of the information and also the timeline. But I think this charging of willful retention really is by design.
JOHN DICKERSON: Right, the facts of the case quite different. But thank you so much for that and for all your other answers.
And, Rikki Klieman, thank you.
And Face the Nation will be back in one minute. Stay with us. (link)
Published originally on the CTH on June 11, 2023 | Sundance
Appearing on Rupert Murdoch’s network Fox News, former Attorney General Bill Barr frame his false construct in the documents case against President Trump.
First, the obvious. Barr is motivated in his position because this is the constructed inflection point against Donald Trump. The severity of his position, the pretending not to know things, the defensive position about the power of government institutions, all of it is expressed in sum and total for one primary purpose; this is the moment they have manufactured to take Trump down. This is the DC Republican moment all preceding moments were designed to support.
Second, on the details. Barr states with emphasis, the “presidential daily brief (PDB) is not the president’s personal document,” it is a document provided for him by the U.S. intelligence community (IC). Worth noting here is a little factoid that runs in opposition to Barr:
WASHINGTON – […] “while through most of its history the document has been marked “For the President’s Eyes Only,” the PDB has never gone to the president alone. The most restricted dissemination was in the early 1970s, when the book went only to President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, who was dual-hatted as national security adviser and secretary of state.
In other administrations, the circle of readers has also included the vice president, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with additional White House staffers. By 2013, Obama’s PDB was making its way to more than 30 recipients, including the president’s top strategic communications aide and speechwriter, and deputy secretaries of national security departments.” [Source]
No one is saying the Trump PDB is Trump’s “personal document“, the point is the PDB’s in question -those noted in the indictment- were part of President Trump’s papers, his administration records; able to be reviewed and critiqued by anyone the president would assign, including speechwriters. Barr us making a non-sequitur.
Third, Barr notes the documents created by government officials are different from personal papers of the President. Perhaps technically true, an argument and debate that takes place after all administrations. However, if government owned, why did government officials (NARA) then stack the documents in the White House parking lot for President Trump to take.
Lastly, like all pundits and commentators all weekend, everyone is intentionally pretending not to know the difference between ‘classified documents’ and ‘documents containing classification markings’. The former is not part of the argument, the latter wording is artful Lawfare language.
Posted originally on the CTH on June 9, 2023 | Sundance
In the Trump indictment the DOJ is not, repeat NOT, arguing a classified documents case. The entire legal framework is centered around documents they define as vital to the defense security of the United States. EVERYTHING is predicated on this 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) violation:
18 U.S. Code § 793(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it.
According to the Trump indictment, COUNT #7 – page 29, a document “concerning communication with the leader of a foreign country” is considered a classified document in violation of US Code 793, vital to national defense interests.
Do you want a historic example of this exactU.S. Code § 793 violation taking place?
(Sept. 11, 2012) – ”Denis McDonough, Deputy National Security Advisor, left, updates the President and Vice President on the situation in the Middle East and North Africa. National Security Advisor Tom Donilon and Chief of Staff Jack Lew are at right.” (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza) [SOURCE]
In Joe Biden’s hands are the notes of a phone call, taken by then Vice-President Biden, recording the conversation between Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as recorded on September 11, 2012. [The night of the Benghazi, Libya, attack on the U.S. Consulate]
Posted originally on the CTH on June 9, 2023 | Sundance
I would strongly urge people, especially those who walk the deep weeds, to READ THE INDICTMENT carefully, before watching the remarks by special counsel Jack Smith as delivered today. What you will notice is that 31 of the 37 counts alleged in the indictment are individual counts, one per document, specific to Statute 793(e) which pertains to defense department information.
There were, as claimed in the justice department prior court arguments, and again affirmed today in the indictment itself, 100 classified documents located by the FBI and DOJ after the Trump certification of compliance. Of those 100 documents, 31 of them were specifically selected to represent the baseline for the 793(e) charge. Listen to Smith emphasize Defense and Defense Intelligence, and soon you will see why. WATCH:
Jack Smith is relying on 18 U.S. Code 793, a law created in 1948 intended to stop contractors to the Defense Dept from stealing, selling, or copying U.S. defense system secrets, or patents on defense products. [READ THE LAW] The premise of 31-counts [each an individual document] pertain to “National Defense Security.” The subsequent six counts are predicated around the claimed 793(e) violations.
The DOJ is not, repeat NOT, arguing a classified documents case. The entire legal framework is centered around documents they define as vital to the defense security of the United States. EVERYTHING is predicated on this 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) violation:
18 U.S. Code § 793(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it.
Despite the verbose language in the indictment, a key element of Lawfare, the case is weak. The prosecutors know it. I will explain.
NOTE: Sixty nine documents in a Deep State rabbit hole! ~Sundance
Posted originally on the CTH on June 9, 2023 | Sundance
I am deep in the weeds and assembling notes for outlines to be delivered in the next several articles. However, that said, perhaps the only time Mark Levin’s shouting was tolerable was last night as he responded to the indictment of President Trump. WATCH:
.
NOTE: Sixty nine documents in a Deep State rabbit hole! ~Sundance
The anti-religious left originally set their targets on the “Christian extremists” who were ruining America. The far-left originally left Muslims out of the argument because they thought Trump’s refugee ban on Islamic nations would lead to votes for the Democrats. Since everything the woke agenda stands for goes against Islam, the left has turned on the community.
Democrat Kristin Mink, a member of the Montgomery County Council for District 5, criticized Muslim parents who did not want their young children to learn about adult content. “This issue has, unfortunately, does put… some Muslim families on the same side of an issue as White supremacists and outright bigots,” said Mink. “I would not put you in the same category as those folks, although, you know, it’s complicated because they’re falling on the same side of this particular issue.” So now Muslims are ”white supremacists.” Welcome to the club of the hated majority who is hated for simply existed outside the woke narrative.
In this particular instance, Muslim parents wanted the ability to opt out of teaching young impressionable children the LGBTQQIAAP2S+ agenda (yes, that is the acronym now). Mothers protested outside the school. Students joined in as well and said that they wanted to respect their religion. If you watch the video above, the sane parents are visibly upset. The other side is dancing around in rainbow flags completely ignoring the pleas of the parents, many who likely expected better education opportunities in America.
Armenian Americans, predominantly Christian, recently faced the same problem with public schools. The protest turned physical and numerous fights broke out. What would Armenians, who were only recently recognized for the genocide of their people, know about the struggles of the LGBTQQIAAP2S+? You’ll be hard-pressed to claim victimhood to people who may have lost relatives for simply existing.
Here is a teacher from that school in Glendale telling Armenians that they do not understand oppression. “I deal with a lot of the trauma of LGBT youth related to the hetero-normative, Judeo-Christian, patriarchal, imperialist, capitalist system that oppresses them…Armenians talk about the genocide but they received SSI but they don’t want to talk about the indigenous genocide in 1850, and the lack of reparations for indigenous and black people in this country,” the disturbed teacher stated.
OUT OF 2 MILLION ARMENIANS, 1.5 MILLION WERE MURDERED DURING THIS GENOCIDE!!!! But go on and tell us how you’re oppressed for being unable to tell little kids about sex.
The conservative Christians have been under attack for a long time in America. Muslims do not permit others to speak badly about their traditions and values. Christians have become immune to being the hated majority. No one is trying to erase the gay community, but the other side is trying to erase traditional values and religion. Christians and Muslims will unite under this cause to protect children from groomers pushing adult content into the public school curriculum.
San Francisco and other blue cities are overrun with crime, permitted by light-on-crime policies. I know numerous people who travel for work, and all they can discuss after visiting cities such as San Francisco and Seattle is the urban encampments and rampant crime that occurs in broad daylight. Companies no longer wish to hold conferences in these dangerous drug-ridden cities, and it is causing hotels to shutter.
The Hilton San Francisco Union Square Hotel, the largest hotel in the city, and Parc 55 Hotel, the fourth largest, are fleeing the city. CEO Thomas J. Baltimore Jr. said that his hotels have lost almost all of their business from conferences and conventions. Park Hotels & Resorts Inc. (NYSE:PK) announced that it has stopped all payments toward its $725 million loan. They want to completely remove these hotels from their portfolio immediately. There is no saving the city at this point, and the smart money is leaving. “Unfortunately, the continued burden on our operating results and balance sheet is too significant to warrant continuing to subsidize and own these assets,” the company politely stated.
Quite a shame as this was once a beautiful city in a prime location. Hotels in San Francisco have to remind guests to park within enclosed, monitored parking garages because theft is so prominent. Some residents would like to turn a blind eye to the growing problem as the homeless population is beginning to outnumber them. The New York Post recently featured an article showing images of the vacant stores throughout the once desirable downtown as retail vacancy rose 6% in Q1 alone. Businesses, such as Whole Foods which was only open for one year, said they were worried about the safety of their employees.
What is the city doing to correct the problem? Nothing. They are downplaying the true crisis and wondering why tourism is nearly non-existent. The $120 million in budget cuts for the police department since 2020 has not helped the situation. Reports state that fewer than 80% of 911 calls are answered in a timely fashion, if at all. This is how cities fall under incompetent leaders who ignore problems in favor of votes.
Posted originally on the CTH on June 5, 2023 | Sundance
Here we go again with the ever-familiar silo defense. The FBI is refusing to hand over the unclassified FD-1023 stating there is an ongoing investigation using the confidential human source who made allegations outlined in the document. Remember, the allegations and the statement record was created in July of 2020, almost three years ago.
Prior to last week, the FBI refused to say the 6-page unclassified document existed. After House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer told FBI Director Chris Wray he had already seen the unclassified document via a whistleblower, then Comey admitted the FBI indeed had it. Today, the FBI is refusing to release the document, stating it is now captive as part of an “ongoing investigation.” The claimed investigation began July 2020 – the investigation is “ongoing”. Go figure.
James Comer said he will begin the process, this Thursday, to hold FBI Director Christopher Wray in contempt of Congress. WATCH:
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 