The Insufferable and Political Media Stupidity Around “The Russian Bounty” Narrative…


In case you might have missed the latest faux-controversy assigned by political operatives to the media narrative engineers, the issue surrounds leaked sketchy intelligence reports, to the New York Times, claiming Russians were willing to pay Taliban members to kill U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.  The evidence provided by the Times includes:

(New York Times Graphic Source)

From this tenuous evidence footnoted with “according to multiple officials familiar with the intelligence”, democrat operatives in media desperately clutch their pearls and stake out another batch of apoplexy claiming President Trump is not doing anything about it.

Setting aside for the moment that nothing claimed by media or the DNC political operatives in/around capitol hill has any substantive intelligence to prove the claim, let’s first look at the underlying premise: ‘Russians are paying the Taliban to kill American soldiers.’

First, obviously these same voices need to ignore that in 2010 Iran was paying insurgent fighters in multiple fields of combat including Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, to kill Americans. Those well-documented examples must be overlooked because despite the overwhelming evidence the Obama administration paid Iran over $170 billion in cash and entered a nuclear deal with them.  Once again, in order to retain their left-wing political position the media must pretend not to know things.

Iranian bounties on American soldiers during the 2010 Obama administration were rewarded. Contrast that against unsubstantiated rumors of Russian bounties on American soldiers in Afghanistan in 2020 being the most horrific and alarming situation in history.

It was reported in 2010 that five Iranian companies were winning construction contracts in Afghanistan funded with foreign aid. The money was sent back to Iran via the underground hawala money transfer networks and was used to pay Taliban fighters $200 per month. If they kill a U.S. soldier, they get a $1,000 bonus and a $6,000 bonus for the destruction of a military vehicle. Bounties began being offered as early as February 2005, when a U.S. government document reported that Iran was offering $1,470 for the killing of Afghan soldiers and $3,841 for the death of Afghan officials.

Taliban and similar terrorists are also trained in Iran and are paid for their time. Hundreds go to Zahedan in the winter. The first month is focused on learning how to attack convoys without getting captured. Improvised explosive devices (IED) are the trade taught in the second month. In the last month, attacks on military outposts are simulated.  (LINK)

Again, ignoring that Iran also funds Hezbollah, which involves payments for the killing of U.S. and allied western soldiers, the politics of the narrative engineers are so hypocritical they are choking.

Additionally, when Russia invaded Afghanistan, guess who was paying the Mujahideen to kill Russians?  Yup, that would be USA.  Not only did we pay the Mujahideen (the early Taliban) to kill Russians, we also supplied all the arms and munitions they needed to do it.  The U.S. were paying bounty for the killing of Russians.  Hypocrisy much.

Decades later, when U.S. President George W Bush invaded Iraq, again we put bounties on the heads of Iraq commanding officers we wanted to kill or capture.  Anyone remember the paying cards with the faces and names of the targets?

Oh, and lets not forget the billions that President Obama, Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta spent on bounties in Libya and Syria where we gave money and weapons to al-Qaeda factions to kill Libyan and Syrian soldiers.

All bounties are not created equal I guess.

The entire argument underpinning the pretext of the claim is ridiculous.  However, what’s even more ridiculous is how the media has to set aside all prior information and all pretense of journalism in order to sell a narrative that, even if true, is nothing more than a continuation of proxy war fighting where the U.S has been the largest financial player in history.

Does Russia pay elements, possibly Taliban in Afghanistan, to maintain a forceful position against the U.S.?  Hell, I would certainly think the answer is yes.  Why should Russia be more magnanimous to our Afghanistan boondoggle than we were to theirs?

Does Russia pay the Taliban directly to kill Americans?  There is no direct evidence supporting that claim; and specifically the U.S. intelligence apparatus including the NSA, CIA, NSC and ODNI have said there’s no such direct evidence; but that’s not really the point is it.

Even if there was direct evidence that Russia was offering bounties against U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, how is that different from Iran offering bounties against U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan during the Obama administration?

The entire premise of the outrage is ridiculous; and too make matters worse the number one facilitator of U.S. bounties paid to kill foreign fighters is Senator Lindsey Graham.

FUBAR.

Ayman Al Zawahiri and Osam Bin Laden

Mohamed Al Zawahiri was on the CTH radar since his release from prison in March 2011 during the Egyptian Islamist uprising.   The interim “governing” Egyptian leaders released Mohamed Al Zawahiri after they permitted the Muslim Brotherhood to re-organize following 30 years of banishment.   The Brotherhood then opened the jails to release all the Hosni Mubarak captured prisoners.

Mohamed al Zawahiri was the guy who coordinated and called for the protests at the U.S. embassy in Cairo September 11, 2012.  He is also the guy who coordinated with the Benghazi rebels in 2011 to assist their uprising against Libyan leader Qaddafi.

President Obama, Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta paid these guys.

Mohamed planned to coordinate efforts in Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Libya, Tunisia and Turkey toward al-Qaeda North Africa (AQIM).  Meanwhile his brother, Ayman al Zawahiri, continued the same efforts in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq, while aligned with AQAP (al-Qaeda Arabian Peninsular).

In 1999, security forces picked up Mohamed Al Zawahiri in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), where he had settled with his family and was working as an engineer for a construction company.

He claims UAE authorities tortured him for four months — at the behest of the CIA — in an attempt to extract information about his brother. During that time, Zawahiri says, he offered to mediate between his brother and the West, something he believes could have prevented the Sept.11 attacks, but his overtures were rebuffed by UAE officials.

In 1999, he was extradited to Egypt to face terrorism charges related to Sadat’s assassination and conspiracy to topple the regime — charges he denies, but he was jailed by Mubarak in Egypt.   He was later acquitted upon appeal, but Mubarak refused to let him leave prison.   He remained in jail until March of 2011 when he was released.

Zawahiri spent the following five years in solitary confinement in Egypt’s notorious underground prisons. There, in a 6-by-6-foot cell with no access to sunlight, he says, he was repeatedly waterboarded, electrocuted, and subjected to sleep deprivation.

His family had no idea where he was, or even if he was alive, until it emerged that the United States wanted his DNA to compare it to a skull found in a cave in Afghanistan — one that might belong to his brother Ayman.

Zawahiri thinks that militant Islamist movements pose a big enough threat that the United States will ultimately yield to his demands. “Hundreds or thousands of attempts may fail, but one can succeed and destroy the Western civilization,” he writes in his proposal, citing al Qaeda’s attempts to obtain weapons of mass destruction and the escalation of violence in Iraq. “The next hit or string of attacks cannot be anticipated. No single group or persons can force themselves to control the situation or prevent it.”

Learn about his approach and his intentions in this article.

Judging by what the “West” has put this guy and his family through, it would be pretty darned difficult to think of him burying the hatchet per se’, without his intention to bury it deep in the psyche of the United States.

Apparently, “we” have created this monster, “we” have hardened him, and subsequently he holds MAJOR street cred with all factions of radical Islam.   This guy is a Martyr in life, he did not need death.  He says “pull the trigger” – everyone shoots.  

Given Mohamed’s  enormous Islamist pulpit, he will leverage influence over multiple varying factions within all of the aforementioned radicals (al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, Taliban, Salafists, Brotherhood etc).

Guess what happened next?…. Yep,  ISIS !

More Domestic Terrorism – Armed Black Lives Matter Terrorists Shoot SUV Driver in Provo Utah…


The level of cultural Marxism within the media reports is even more significant than ever before.  U.S. media are trying to protect the domestic terrorists. It is quite unnerving.

In Provo, Utah, a group of armed Black Lives Matter terrorists surrounded a vehicle at an intersection.  The driver would not exit the vehicle to be beaten by the mob.  One of the BLM activists pulled a gun and demanded the driver come out, when the driver refused the terrorist opened fire shooting the driver.   The driver hits the gas and tries to escape, the terrorist fires through the rear window as another armed terrorist joins the fray from the opposite side of the street.   WATCH:

.

According to local media, police are determining whether to charge the driver of the vehicle for not complying with the mob’s demand for the beating; thereby putting the other terrorists at risk.   “It’s unclear if the driver of the SUV who was shot is facing any possible charge for driving through the protesters after being shot.”

Here’s an enhanced video of the incident:

.

UTAH – “Several protesters began crowding around the vehicle,” said John Geyerman, Provo Police deputy chief. “The male protester ran toward the SUV on the passenger side, pointed a handgun at the driver, and shot one round through the window. The driver who was struck by the bullet accelerated, trying to leave the situation. The same protester ran after the vehicle and fired a second shot that went through the rear passenger window.”

Officials said the same man who allegedly fired the shots into the SUV also approached another vehicle and broke the window with a handgun.

The driver was taken to Utah Valley Hospital.

Police are looking for the alleged shooter and are asking for anyone with videos or pictures of the incident, or any other information, to contact PPD at 801-852-6210. (link)

Four Toledo City Council Members Arrested in Bribery and Extortion Scheme…


Earlier today federal arrest warrants were served to Toledo, Ohio, city council members Larry Sykes, Tyrone Riley, Yvonne Harper, and Gary Johnson.  The FBI is actively looking for a fifth person – attorney Keith Mitchell, as the FBI and US Attorney Justin Herdman culminate a two-year investigation into the city council for bribery, extortion and abuse of their public office for financial benefit.  [Local Press Report]  FBI News Conference:

.

[DOJ Press Release] – Four sitting Toledo City Council members and one local attorney were charged in a criminal complaint today for their participation in a bribery and extortion scheme that encouraged soliciting and/or accepting cash, checks, money orders, or other things of value from local business owners in exchange for their votes on City Council.

Charged today were Tyrone Riley (District 1), Yvonne Harper (District 4), Garrick “Gary” Johnson (At-Large), Larry Sykes (At-Large) and Keith Mitchell all of Toledo. All defendants were charged via a federal criminal complaint filed in the Northern District of Ohio with Receipt of Bribe by Agent of Organization Receiving Federal Funds and Hobbs Act Extortion Under Color of Official Right. Additionally, defendant Harper was charged with Interstate Communications with Intent to Extort.

“As alleged in the Complaint, four Toledo City Council members and a local attorney have been engaged in a pay-to-play scheme involving bribes for Council votes,” said U.S. Attorney Justin Herdman. “Maintaining the public’s trust in its elected officials is one of the Department of Justice’s core responsibilities. The residents of Toledo should know, as should every other resident of the Northern District of Ohio, that where there are allegations of public corruption and kickbacks, we and our federal partners will be there every time.”

[…] According to the criminal complaint, in early 2018, the FBI began to investigate Toledo City Council members for soliciting monetary payments or other things of value from local business owners in exchange for their votes on City Council. In addition, Councilwoman Harper was investigated for an extortion attempt on a local business.

The following is a summary of the events listed in the complaint:(Read Allegations)

The court documents detail each of the council members allegedly accepting thousands of dollars in payments from an FBI source in exchange for support with a business matter that was up for council approval over the course of 2019 and into early 2020.

Kayleigh McEnany White House Press Briefing – 3:30pm ET Livestream…


White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany is holding a press briefing from the Brady room.  Anticipated start time 3:30pm ET.

UPDATE: Video Added

.

[Transcript] – MS. MCENANY: Hello, everyone. The front page of the New York Times is not the venue for discussing classified information. The White House podium is not the venue for discussing classified information. We are here today, having this discussion, because of an irresponsible, anonymous leak to the New York Times. There is no good scenario as a result of this New York Times report.

Who’s going to want to cooperate with the United States intelligence community, who’s going to want to be a source or an asset, if they know that their identity could be disclosed? Which allies will want to share information with us if they know that some rogue intelligence officer can go splash that information on the front page of a major U.S. newspaper?

Specifically, there are two bad scenarios that emerge from this report: Number one, this report makes it more difficult to come to a consensus on this matter, to verify intelligence. And number two, this level of controversy and discord plays directly into the hands of Russia and, unfortunately, serves their interests.

Since before President Trump assumed office, damaging and oftentimes erroneous leaks seeking to undermine or delegitimize the duly elected president have been published. According to the DOJ, classified leaks surged in this administration. There were, under President Obama, just 39, on average, criminal leak referrals. In this administration, we’ve seen 100 criminal leak referrals to the DOJ in 2017, 88 in 2018, and 104 on average per year.

We have seen targeted leaks of classified information against this President, and it is irresponsible: phone calls with foreign leaders, meetings with government officials, and now reports of alleged intelligence. Make no mistake: This damages our ability, as a nation, to collect intelligence.

As the National Security Council noted just yesterday, “To those government officials who betray the trust of the people of the United States by leaking classified information, your actions endanger our national security.”

The ODNI said, “The selective leaking of any classified information disrupts the vital interagency work to collect, assess, and mitigate threats, and places our forces at risk. It is also, simply put, a crime.”

And finally, the CIA said this: that “Leaks compromise and disrupt the critical interagency work to collect, assess, and ascribe culpability.”

To the anonymous sources who leak classified information, you should know this: You may seek to undermine our President, but in fact, you undermine our country’s safety and our country’s security.

And with that, I’ll take questions.

Kristin.

Q Thank you, Kayleigh. When did White House officials first learn that this intelligence about Russian bounties existed?

MS. MCENANY: I will say this: The President was never briefed on this, this intelligence still has not been verified, and there is no consensus among the intelligence community.

Q Does the President wish that he had been briefed sooner? I mean, today, Joe Biden called it a “dereliction of duty.”

MS. MCENANY: This is a piece of intelligence information that had no consensus, has not been verified. Still, to this day, has not been verified. And there are several intelligence agencies on the record noting that. You have the Department of Defense saying that there has — they have no corroborating evidence to validate [sic] — validate the recent allegations. The NSC: “…Allegations in recent press articles have not been verified or substantiated by the intelligence community…” And the ODNI: “We are still investigating the alleged intelligence referenced in recent media reportings.”

But that didn’t stop the New York Times from putting it on the very first page of their newspaper and stopping us from getting to an ultimate conclusion and an ultimate place of having a consensus on the alleged intelligence.

Darlene.

Q You said that —

Q Just one more question. If this intelligence does turn out to be true, is the President prepared to take some serious action against Russia and Russian President Vladimir Putin?

MS. MCENANY: The President has always taken tough, unadulterated action against Russia. We saw that there’s no diplomatic presence on the West Coast of our country, of Russia, because the President closed the consulates. We saw he expelled 60 Russian intelligence officers; sanctioned hundreds of targets; withdrew from the INF Treaty, the Open Skies Treaty; tried to halt Nord Stream — still trying to do that; impose visa sanctions, and many other actions.

So make no mistake: This President is prepared to act and will always act in protecting our American troops. We saw in Syria, in the strikes in 2018, that dozens of Russian mercenaries were killed. He will always act, prot- — to protect American troops. That is indeed his track record.

Darlene.

Q There’s a briefing — an intel briefing on the President’s schedule today. Will this matter be part of his briefing this afternoon?

MS. MCENANY: The President has been briefed on what is unfortunately in the public domain because of the New York Times and the irresponsible leak. Yes, he has been briefed, but that does not change the fact that there is no consensus on this intelligence that still has yet to be verified.

Q I have one more question.

MS. MCENANY: Yeah. Darlene?

Q On another subject: Republican allies of the President, like Kevin McCarthy and Lamar Alexander, have said that it would be great if the President would wear a mask in public, sometimes, to set an example. How much weight do words from McCarthy and Lamar Alexander carry with the President?

MS. MCENANY: The President has said he has no problem with masks; that he encourages people to make whatever decision is best for their safety and to follow what their local jurisdictions say. CDC guidelines are still recommended, but not required. And the President is the most tested man in America. It’s his decision whether to wear a mask.

Justin.

Q But to set an example?

MS. MCENANY: Justin.

Q I wanted to look back on you saying that the President had never been briefed. There’s, I think, some dispute over whether, in February, his PDB included this intelligence information. And so I’m wondering if you can say whether or not, you know, he may not have read the briefing book that he was presented with, but was he at some point at least given access to this information.

MS. MCENANY: So the PDB is a top-secret document that is widely disseminated among government. I will never sit here and confirm or deny what is in a top-secret document. So I’ll leave it at that.

One thing I will say that is routine is when there is intelligence — and I was speaking with some folks over at NSC about this earlier and some other folks around the White House — when we get intelligence — verified or unverified, deemed credible or not credible, deemed consensus or no consensus — if that information in any way impinges upon the safety of our troops, that information goes to our troops on the ground and to our allies so they can take the appropriate measures.

What is briefed up to the President — and in this case, it was not the case; was never briefed to the President of the United States because there was no consensus — what is briefed to the President is when there’s a strategic decision to be made. So in this case, if there was a strategic decision to be made vis-à-vis Russia, those are the kind of things that are briefed to the President when they’re deemed credible. But in this case, it was not briefed to the President, there is no consensus, it was not credible.

But make no mistake: This President will always protect American troops.

Q I mean — sorry, just — just to follow on that. I think there’s two points. One, I would say that press secretaries in the past have disclosed, in certain instances, what was in the PDB.

But secondly, I mean, this is a relevant issue because — and I think critics have seized on this and said, “Well, if the President isn’t reading his PDB, he might not know that there are these policy decisions to be made,” right? If a President was presented with this information, it’s unverified, he could be alarmed; change his posture towards Russia; conceivably ask intelligence officials to work harder to determine whether or not this was true; make, you know, a series of judgments.

And so, I guess more broadly, you know, I would re-ask the question of whether it was in his material, but asking maybe to defend why the President isn’t necessarily reading his PDB when there are these types of issues that could arise.

MS. MCENANY: The President does read, and he also consumes intelligence —

Q So, then it wasn’t in his PDB?

MS. MCENANY: — verbally. This President, I’ll tell you, is the most informed person on planet Earth when it comes to the threats that we face. You have Ambassador O’Brien, who sees him in person twice a day, who sometimes takes the upwards of half a dozen calls with this President. He’s constantly being informed and briefed on intelligence matters.

But I’m not going to allow the New York Times to dictate when we give top-secret information and don’t give top-secret information. That’s —

Q But let me just square the —

MS. MCENANY: — an untenable proposition.

Q Just to square the circle there, then —

MS. MCENANY: Yes, Emerald.

Q Thanks, Kayleigh. Does the White House have any comment on Bruce Ohr testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Hill today?

MS. MCENANY: So, no comment on that specifically. But what I would say more generally is that what Bruce Ohr and others in the Obama-era government have to answer for is quite substantial: When you had a dossier full of lies weaponizing against this President — Bruce Ohr’s wife, of course, being involved in the creation of that dossier, which was funded by the Democrat National Committee and in coordination with the Hillary Clinton campaign, and was used to spy on the Trump campaign, to be the basis for two FISA warrants, to launch a three-year investigation into Russia collusion that ultimately ended in an exoneration of this President and an immense waste of taxpayer dollars — Mr. Ohr and many others have a whole lot of questions to answer for.

Q So why wasn’t it — why was it behind closed doors? Why wasn’t it televised, given the public interest in these players in the Russia investigation?

MS. MCENANY: That would be a question for Congress, but I think the public deserves to know Mr. Ohr’s answers on those matters.

Q And then one more, if I may. You opened about leakers. Democrat lawmakers are calling for a briefing from intelligence officials. They aren’t satisfied with the White House personnel today. Is there a concern to brief Democrat lawmakers, especially Adam Schiff, given the leaks out of his committee?

MS. MCENANY: Look, I mean, I think that Democrats should come forward in good faith. And if anyone has politicized intelligence — we’ve had the New York Times acting entirely irresponsibly, and you have the Democrat Party politicizing this information, which I think is absolutely disgraceful.

Alayna.

Q Hi. Yes. Thank you, Kayleigh. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should, quote, “absolutely not,” unquote, be allowed back into the G7. Does President Trump agree with Mitch McConnell?

MS. MCENANY: Look, I haven’t spoken to him on that matter. The President believes that we have to have diplomatic relationship — relations with the top economies of the world. But there’s been no one that’s been tougher on Russia than this President. I went through several of those actions.

And also, I would note that when it comes to acting on viable, actionable, credible intelligence, there has been no one who has acted more forcefully than this President. He has a track record of that. He has made protecting our American troops overseas his highest and strongest priority.

As you know, Soleimani was responsible for the deaths of 600 Americans and thousands maimed from, quote, “explosively formed penetrators, other improvised explosive devices, improvised rocket-assisted munitions, rockets, mortars, rocket-propelled grenades, small-arms, snipers, and other attacks in Iraq.” This is what Soleimani did to our American troops.

You had President Bush, who declined to strike Soleimani, who was, quote “in the crosshairs,” according to the New York Times. You had Obama-Biden who, quote, “never made an effort to strike Soleimani.”

But you had this President who, when he had actionable intelligence to protect American troops, he did it. He took that option. He was criticized by Democrats. “Democrats condemn Trump’s strike on Soleimani,” as your publication, Axios, had in a headline. NBC said, “Democrats demand answers on Soleimani killing.” Politico, “Top Democrats blast Trump’s ‘false’ justification for Soleimani killing.” And the Atlantic asked, “Why Kill Soleimani Now?”

We removed Soleimani from the battlefield — President Trump did — to protect our American troops, based on credible intelligence. He did the same with al-Baghdadi, who was responsible for 300 public beheadings, who killed thousands of captured prisoners of war. When this President had actionable intelligence, he took action, criticized by Democrats for it, but that’s what this President does: He acts in defense of our American troops.

David.

Q You said it was “targeted leaking” in the New York Times. Who’s doing the targeting and why are they doing it?

MS. MCENANY: It’s a — it’s a great question. But these are rogue intelligence officers who are imperiling our troops’ lives. We will not be able to get — very likely not be able to get a consensus on this intelligence because of what was leaked to the New York Times. And you have both the NSC, ODNI, and CIA all noting what damage this leaks does, not just to the safety of our troops, which is paramount, but to the ability of the United States to aggregate information from our allies and have assets and have — get this valuable information. So who’s doing it? It’s —

Q Are you saying members of the IC are going after Trump? Is that what you’re saying?

MS. MCENANY: It very possibly could be. And if that’s the case, it is absolutely despicable.

Q Kayleigh —

MS. MCENANY: Yes.

Q On that note, is the Trump administration doing anything or taking any action, like an audit of the IC? Or what steps are you planning on taking to try to find the source of the leaks?

MS. MCENANY: Well, make no mistake: The DOJ has done several criminal leak referrals — 120 in 2017, 88 in 2018, 104 on average, per year, under President Trump. So we do take those steps.

And we do have a President who, ultimately, when it comes down to the safety of our troops, he doesn’t take impulsive action, he takes deliberate action. And we saw that in the killing of Soleimani and the killing of al-Baghdadi and the protecting of our troops. And at the same time, when you had Iran, who shot down a drone, he chose not to strike back in that instance. He chose to protect civilians, protect our troops. It was the measured response; it was a proportionate response.

And ultimately, the ultimate way to protect American troops is to not get into needless foreign wars. This President is on record for decades and decades and decades opposing — opposing foreign wars. And Iraq is a great example, a 20 — nearly two-decade war. You have this President who, when Washington was unanimous in saying, “We’re going into Iraq,” this President said, “No, that’s not the right decision.”

He’s wound down our troop presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. And he’s ultimately protected American troops and kept this country safe. And this President has a very strong foreign policy record to be incredibly proud of.

Thank you.

END 4:04 P.M. EDT

White House Livestream Link – Fox Business Livestream – PBS Livestream Link

.

.

.

Lockdowns Have Pushed Government Pensions Over the Edge


COMMENT: Facing a vicious circle of conflicting demands and priorities, the California Public Employees Retirement System is turning to debt – a risky scheme to borrow billions of dollars in hopes of juicing its investment returns.

The California Public Employees Retirement System, the nation’s largest pension trust, benefited greatly from the runup in stocks and other investments during the last few years, topping $400 billion early this year.

CalPERS needed it because it was still reeling from a $100 billion decline in its investment portfolio during the previous decade’s Great Recession and was tapping state and local governments for ever-increasing, mandatory “contributions” to keep pensions flowing and reduce its immense “unfunded liability.” But it faced a backlash from local officials who said vital services were being cut to make their CalPERS payments.

Just when CalPERS appeared to be climbing out of its hole, the COVID-19 pandemic erupted early this year, sending the economy into a tailspin. Virtually overnight, the fund saw its value take a $69 billion hit as the stock market — CalPERS’ biggest investment sector — tanked. Stocks have since recovered, but CalPERS is still down about $13 billion from its high early this year.

Further investment erosions would, almost automatically, trigger even greater CalPERS demands for contributions from government employers, but the recession is also eating into their tax revenues, creating substantial budget deficits.

It underscores CalPERS’ vulnerability to capital market gyrations. Investments more immune to fluctuations would be safer but they offer very low returns and CalPERS could not safely meet its lofty earnings goal — an average of 7% a year.

It’s a vicious circle of conflicting demands and priorities, driven by an official policy of providing generous, inflation-adjusted pensions for government workers, bolstered by the political clout of public employee unions.

CalPERS desperately needs an escape route and has chosen the perilous path of debt.

It plans to borrow billions of dollars — as much as $80 billion — to fatten its investment portfolio in fingers-crossed hopes that earnings gains will outstrip borrowing costs. It mirrors the recent and risky practice of local governments borrowing heavily to pay their pension bills via “pension obligation bonds.”

“More assets refers to a plan to use leverage, or borrowing, to increase the base of the assets generating returns in the portfolio,” the system’s chief investment officer, Ben Meng, wrote in the Wall Street Journal recently. “Leverage allows CalPERS to take advantage of low-interest rates by borrowing and using those funds to acquire assets with potentially higher returns.”

What could possibly go wrong?

The new scheme is an implicit admission that CalPERS can’t meet its 7% mark without increasing its exposure to the vagaries of the market. “There are only a few asset classes with a long-term expected return clearing the 7% hurdle,” Meng wrote.

Perhaps, then, the real problem is the 7% goal, much higher than those of private industry pension plans.

CalPERS and other public systems use higher earnings projections because they need them to pay for the expensive pensions that politicians have awarded. Inferentially, if they fall short of the mark, they can tap employers — i.e. taxpayers — to close the gap. However, that option is pretty much maxed out, which may explain why the very risky borrow-and-invest approach is being adopted.

This is serious stuff, so risky that the Legislature should dump its informal hands-off policy toward CalPERS and order up a comprehensive and independent examination of the system’s assets, liabilities, and long-term prospects of meeting its pension obligations.

SB

REPLY: We are looking at state and local pension funds collapsing. There is not much they can do. This is the collapse of socialism of which I am referring to. This is why the 2020 election will be so critical. The left is determined to overthrow Trump because they are looking to raise taxes dramatically. The World Economic Forum is already suggesting a 400% increase in taxation in Europe. These people are insane. We have states raising property taxes between 30-40% because the lockdowns have deprived them of revenues that are pushing pension funds over the edge. They are brain dead, for so many people live hand-to-mouth and cannot afford such drastic increases in taxation. The Democrats are really hoping to draft Hillary for they believe that is their best shot to beat Trump. This is the entire objective for career politicians who have no real business to return to and they will always exempt trusts and themselves. Trump would never agree to the agenda and this is the battle to the death here in 2020.

Guaranteed Basic Income & Marxists


COMMENT: Dear Mr. Armstrong,
Thank you!!! for opening our eyes to the scary new world in which we live in. Are there more Socialist/Marxist to other political groups?

Our neighbor is a professor at a major university in South Florida with a Doctorate in Nursing. She recently shared with us her strong ideologies and political views which caught us a little off guard. We started off talking about COVID 19. She definitely refuted anything we had to say regarding the virus and any information we provided (which of course we learned from your blog and the many videos from Drs working on the frontline). She said, that we should be following the WHO, the NIH, and not so much the CDC. We are sad because she conveyed to us, “ let’s leave the leadership of the future to the youth, of course, this is where she has direct influence. Well, here are some of her responses to our questions. She is 100% on board with disbanding the police. And in mentioning the economy, She feels just leave it to artificial intelligence/robotics. We suddenly had a flashback of the robots you showed in an earlier video on your blog and their capabilities, and how they could be used to police our country. We then said, What about jobs? She blatantly expressed that she was for a guaranteed basic income for all. She said, Europe is more socialistic than the United States, as though that was the way it should be. She came out and literally said, she was a “Marxist”. We were shocked. We were always democrats as many of our friends are still. Thanks to you and your blog that we stumbled upon one day. She ended by stating there are “more of her than us”. We are assuming that she means Marxist/Socialist.

We are no longer leaning left or consider ourselves Democrats. Most of our friends consider us “trump lovers” and they will not accept any of our thoughts or reasoning. And when they reveal their point of view, it’s always an example of one person and how they were so unjustly treated. Never do they provide the big picture. We forwarded Michael Moore’s new movie to one of our friends and their email response was “what happened to Michael Moore….he use to make great movies.

Keep up the good work. There are many people who are listening.

Cheers,
Mj

REPLY: The greatest mistake these people make is they have no respect for human nature. Some people are thieves while others are honest. Some women have no problem selling their bodies to the highest bidder and others will not wear even a two-piece bathing suit. One thing is certain: not everyone will be willing to stay home and just watch TV and never work. They assume if they hand out guaranteed basic income that everyone will be happy. They are judging everyone by themselves. We are all NOT the same. Some people hate work and others are addicted to it. I could never sit home, not work, and just watch TV.

I am probably more Libertarian. I respect that there are many versions of human nature. The object is FREEDOM, and I strongly disagree with those who always want to seize politics to FORCE their view upon the rest of society, as Bill Gates and his crew are doing right now. Trump gave the WHO 30 days to explain their false forecasts or he would cut off all funding. They REFUSE to reply. Just ask a simple question — why did they refuse to respond if they are so perfect?

Guaranteed Basic Income & Marxists


COMMENT: Dear Mr. Armstrong,
Thank you!!! for opening our eyes to the scary new world in which we live in. Are there more Socialist/Marxist to other political groups?

Our neighbor is a professor at a major university in South Florida with a Doctorate in Nursing. She recently shared with us her strong ideologies and political views which caught us a little off guard. We started off talking about COVID 19. She definitely refuted anything we had to say regarding the virus and any information we provided (which of course we learned from your blog and the many videos from Drs working on the frontline). She said, that we should be following the WHO, the NIH, and not so much the CDC. We are sad because she conveyed to us, “ let’s leave the leadership of the future to the youth, of course, this is where she has direct influence. Well, here are some of her responses to our questions. She is 100% on board with disbanding the police. And in mentioning the economy, She feels just leave it to artificial intelligence/robotics. We suddenly had a flashback of the robots you showed in an earlier video on your blog and their capabilities, and how they could be used to police our country. We then said, What about jobs? She blatantly expressed that she was for a guaranteed basic income for all. She said, Europe is more socialistic than the United States, as though that was the way it should be. She came out and literally said, she was a “Marxist”. We were shocked. We were always democrats as many of our friends are still. Thanks to you and your blog that we stumbled upon one day. She ended by stating there are “more of her than us”. We are assuming that she means Marxist/Socialist.

We are no longer leaning left or consider ourselves Democrats. Most of our friends consider us “trump lovers” and they will not accept any of our thoughts or reasoning. And when they reveal their point of view, it’s always an example of one person and how they were so unjustly treated. Never do they provide the big picture. We forwarded Michael Moore’s new movie to one of our friends and their email response was “what happened to Michael Moore….he use to make great movies.

Keep up the good work. There are many people who are listening.

Cheers,
Mj

REPLY: The greatest mistake these people make is they have no respect for human nature. Some people are thieves while others are honest. Some women have no problem selling their bodies to the highest bidder and others will not wear even a two-piece bathing suit. One thing is certain: not everyone will be willing to stay home and just watch TV and never work. They assume if they hand out guaranteed basic income that everyone will be happy. They are judging everyone by themselves. We are all NOT the same. Some people hate work and others are addicted to it. I could never sit home, not work, and just watch TV.

I am probably more Libertarian. I respect that there are many versions of human nature. The object is FREEDOM, and I strongly disagree with those who always want to seize politics to FORCE their view upon the rest of society, as Bill Gates and his crew are doing right now. Trump gave the WHO 30 days to explain their false forecasts or he would cut off all funding. They REFUSE to reply. Just ask a simple question — why did they refuse to respond if they are so perfect?

Kennedy Assassination Files Delayed until 2021 Again


 

Sidney Powell Discusses In-Depth Background of Michael Flynn Case….


Michael Flynn’s lead defense counsel Sidney Powell sits down for a lengthy discussion with Epoch Times’ host Jan Jekielek.

In the court case against Lt. General Michael Flynn, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has ordered Judge Emmet Sullivan to grant the DOJ’s request to dismiss. But what will happen next?

In the eyes of General Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell, what are the implications of Judge Sullivan keeping the case open? Is there more exculpatory evidence to come in the Flynn case? And, what are some possible steps to take to strengthen the U.S. Department of Justice as an institution?

Advertisements

Rumors Still Abound that Hillary Will Emerge in August


Hillary Clinton and friends are still plotting to have her drafted at the Convention now scheduled for August 17-20. The rumors remain that Joe Biden is “seriously senile” or has dementia. It’s not really “sleepy Joe” as Trump politely calls him, they keep him off the road because they are scared to death what he will say next. He just said 130 million Americans died from COVID. He is losing it – plain and simple.

The interesting thing is the computer is already targeting the week of the Democratic Convention – August 17th. It seems strange that the computer is targeting that week if this is a shoo-in for Biden. The Republican Convention is the next week – August 24th. That will be no surprise as to who is the candidate. This is interesting, to say the least. The Democrats can manipulate the polls, but they know Biden would make a fool of himself in any debate and the people will see he is not all there nor is he fit to be president. This is a socialist agenda and to win, they know they need Hillary.