QUESTION: I went to the New York show and I sat in on that CNG auction to watch the Diocletian medallion. A friend said you told him you thought it would bring $750,000 on an estimate of $500,000. Well, it brought $1.9 million to everyone’s shock. It seemed that prices were generally double estimates on most things. I was curious if you would comment on that.
Cheers
CP
ANSWER: Yes I know. I was watching it online. I do not know who was the buyer or the underbidder. One dealer told me it was a collector. Ancient coins are rising because they are a global market. If you have American, British, or German coins, naturally the best market will be in those countries. However, when it comes to ancients, there are buyers in China and Russia coming into the marketplace in addition to Americans and Europeans. Simply put, ancients are a global market for they bring to life history and much of history has even been confirmed by the coinage.
The prices have continued to rise even in the face of rising interest rates and the Fed’s attempt to cause a soft landing. The fact that these coins are still rising sharply confirms what I have been warning that our computer does NOT see another Great Depression and complete collapse in the share market. We are in this trend where money is simply trying to get off the grid.
Posted originally on the CTH on January 15, 2023 | sundance
Journalist Matt Taibbi appears on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo to discuss his findings within the ongoing review of the Twitter communication files.
As Taibbi notes, the FBI was asking for the unmasking of several thousand accounts to include usernames, use identity, ip addresses, geolocation of the account holders and other personal identification data that would normally require a search warrant. The Dept of Homeland Security (DHS), the FBI and in some cases the CIA would submit these requests and Twitter was fulfilling, albeit sometimes uncomfortable in the compliance demand. WATCH:
.
If you have followed the research behind “Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop,” none of this is likely surprising. However, the ramifications and blatant violations of the fourth amendment are quite stark. It was not that long ago when you would have been accused of being a conspiracy theorist for making these now provable claims.
Mr Taibbi continues to provide the most pertinent takeaways from his reviews. And to his credit, Taibbi always notes there is a pre-filter applied to the information he is receiving; so, it’s highly likely the intelligence state is still controlling the scope of public awareness behind the justification of “national security”.
Posted originally on the CTH on January 15, 2023 | sundance
There’s no politics here. Washington DC is comprised of magnanimous institutions filled with exceptionally moral people who commit their lives to a career of public service on behalf of this nation. So sayeth Rod Rosenstein as he takes up a defensive position against the vulgarian horde who do not cherish their rulers with enough reverence, or something like that.
As the story is told, there are only honorable and altruistic officials within the institutions of the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation. The examples of Robert Mueller, Christopher Wray, Merrick Garland and both special counsels Smith and Hur are presented as evidence to highlight the great fortune of an ungrateful nation.
If Washington DC is a bubble, the great pretending Bubble Boy is Rod Rosenstein. WATCH (or, transcript Below):
[Transcript] – CHUCK TODD: And joining me now is the former Deputy Attorney General under President Trump, Rod Rosenstein. The newly-appointed special counsel looking into Biden, Robert Hur, served as Rosenstein’s top aide in the Justice Department, overseeing the special counsel investigation into the Russian election interference. Mr. Rosenstein, welcome to Meet the Press.
ROD ROSENSTEIN: Thank you. Glad to be here, Chuck.
CHUCK TODD: In December, after the appointment of the Trump special counsel, when asked whether you would’ve done it, you said you probably wouldn’t have. How about this Biden special counsel?
ROD ROSENSTEIN: Yeah, I think, Chuck, having made the appointment in the Trump case, Merrick Garland put himself in a position where he really had no choice when this matter came along, unless the preliminary inquiry were to establish that there was no chance that a crime had been committed. And according to what we’ve heard, John Lausch did not make that decision.
CHUCK TODD: Do you believe that appointing a special counsel strengthens the Trump special counsel, and strengthens their ability to come to different conclusions? Or does it muddy the waters?
ROD ROSENSTEIN: I think, Chuck, you have to differentiate between the political consequences and the practical consequences for the special counsel. For Jack Smith and Rob Hur, they’re conducting independent investigations. They’re going to go evaluate the facts and the law, make their recommendation based upon what they find. So I don’t anticipate that the existence of two special counsels is going to influence the way either one of them goes about their jobs.
CHUCK TODD: To the public it appears – I had somebody use this metaphor with me, and I want to use it, there are two car wrecks: one clearly is an accident, one appears to be intentional. Is that a fair way to look at these two classified document situations?
ROD ROSENSTEIN: I think, Chuck, we should wait until we know the facts. You know, the key fact with regard to the Biden documents, of course, is what did the president know about those documents? Was he aware that they’d been moved? Did he, in any case, in the past five years, has he handled those documents? Was he aware of them? We just don’t know that yet. So I think even that we really can’t speculate, just based on what’s been public record.
CHUCK TODD: Tell me your confidence level in Jack Smith and in Robert Hur.
ROD ROSENSTEIN: Well, these are two professionals who spent extended amounts of time in the Department of Justice. They understand that their goal is to focus on the facts, and law, and apply department policy. And both of these men are not going to be influenced by political pressure.
CHUCK TODD: You feel that they’re both – you said something intriguing to me. You said, “You know, every special counsel starts with sterling credentials, and then the public gets a hold of them.” But would you say that’s the case with both of these gentlemen?
ROD ROSENSTEIN: It’s certainly true of these gentlemen, as it was with people like Ken Starr and and Bob Mueller, that you pick people with sterling reputations who are known for being nonpartisan. But you’re in the political arena where it’s inevitable you’re going to be attacked.
CHUCK TODD: There’s two sort of unique defenses in each of these cases that I’m curious your take on. One is Donald Trump’s claim that he could declassify anything he wanted. Now, he’s not made a legal claim that he did that. And the second is, Joe Biden’s currently president. So is it currently illegal for him to have classified documents in his possession, even if it’s at his home, next to his Corvette?
ROD ROSENSTEIN: Well, that’s one of the questions the special counsel will have to look into. And in addition, you know, the legal status of the vice president, whether or not he has authority to make any declassification decisions. But the key question, the threshold question here is going to be: was President Biden aware of those classified documents?
CHUCK TODD: And how does that get proven? Do you think he’s going to have to sit for an interview?
ROD ROSENSTEIN: Well, that would be a logical step if I were conducting this investigation. I want to go right to the source and ask the president directly whether or not he was aware of those documents.
CHUCK TODD: A sitting president can’t be indicted, according to the Justice Department. So let’s say something is found, what would happen?
ROD ROSENSTEIN: You know, Chuck, I think what should happen in a special counsel investigation is that the special counsel should evaluate the facts and the law, look at Department of Justice policies, and make a recommendation to the attorney general about whether or not prosecution is warranted. Then it’s up to the attorney general to make the decision whether to apply that DOJ policy.
CHUCK TODD: Alright. If you were – you had been in this similar situation. It’s November 4th, it’s four days before the elections. The National Archives informs you that, “Hey, you know, President Biden has just turned over some classified documents that he had in his possession.” Is it too close to the election to tell people? Is that why the Justice Department didn’t inform folks publicly? Is it too soon? Are there questions that should be raised about this or not?
ROD ROSENSTEIN: Chuck, it’s not the Justice Department’s job to make public announcements like that. The decision about whether or not to go public would be left to the president and the White House. So I would not anticipate the Justice Department under any circumstances to make a public announcement about something like that.
CHUCK TODD: You wouldn’t have done that in that similar situation?
ROD ROSENSTEIN: In the Justice Department I would not have publicized it, no.
CHUCK TODD: I am curious. There’s a lot of new committees on the Hill that want to investigate some Justice Department practices. And some of these are for current investigations. You essentially said, you know, no, when you were there and others, you didn’t turn stuff over to Congress in active investigations. Do you expect Merrick Garland to do the same?
ROD ROSENSTEIN: I think the bright line, Chuck, is not to turn over anything that’s going to in any way interfere with the investigation. And so that’s a decision the department needs to make in addressing each request as it comes along. There are legitimate congressional oversight requirements that the department can accommodate. But there really is a bright line when it comes to anything that might interfere with the investigation.
CHUCK TODD: So the fact that they have already sent letters demanding certain things now, in your mind there’s nothing Justice can do until they’re done with this investigation, correct?
ROD ROSENSTEIN: I wouldn’t say that. I mean, there are, as I said, legitimate oversight issues that can be resolved without interfering with the investigation. So for example, one bright line would be investigating the prosecutor while the case is ongoing. I think that’s a place where the department would need to draw a line.
CHUCK TODD: Let’s go back in time. In hindsight, doing special counsels, is this the slippery slope that many previous attorneys generals have always feared, that once you appoint one you essentially can’t stop appointing them? Once you claim there’s a rationale of a perception of unfairness, aren’t you stuck, basically, appointing them throughout the rest of the term?
ROD ROSENSTEIN: Yeah, that was true, Chuck, under the independent counsel statute, where there was actually a statutory obligation to appoint an independent counsel. It’s not true under the special counsel guidelines. It’s always left to the discretion of the Attorney General to decide whether the public interest warrants it in that particular case. So I do think when you have a similar case, as you do with the Trump and Biden documents, that you have established a precedent. But I don’t know that you need to apply that universally.
CHUCK TODD: I ask that because a decision was made last year not to appoint a special counsel on the Hunter Biden investigation. But now he has appointed a special counsel to look into Joe Biden and these classified documents. Merrick Garland made the decision to put both January 6 and the classified documents under the umbrella of one special counsel. Is he going to be forced to do the same thing with Hunter Biden?
ROD ROSENSTEIN: Well, I think you need to distinguish Hunter Biden from President Biden. We don’t know whether that Hunter Biden implicates the president in any wrongdoing. If it did, I think Merrick Garland would need to make that decision. But as long as it’s just about Hunter Biden, I don’t think that decision point will be reached.
CHUCK TODD: There’s a lot of criticism on Capitol Hill of the FBI. You worked pretty closely with Christopher Wray. What say you about Christopher Wray?
ROD ROSENSTEIN: I think Christopher Wray is doing a superb job under very challenging circumstances. You know, this criticism of the FBI has been ongoing for some time. But if you look at the work the Bureau is doing on a day-to-day basis, I think the American people should have confidence in what they’re doing. And I think Chris Wray is the right person to be in that job now.
CHUCK TODD: Judging by our political climate of the last decade, do we have to figure out another way to politically appoint members of the Justice Department? Or do you think we can get through this moment?
ROD ROSENSTEIN: I don’t think there’s any reason to mess with the appointment process, Chuck. You know, the majority of employees of the department are career employees. The leadership is subject to political appointment, and I think that that’s an appropriate way to manage the department.
CHUCK TODD: All right, Rod Rosenstein, former Deputy Attorney General who’s seen his share of special counsels, and has been through this. Appreciate you coming on–
The goldbugs are cheering that there has been a central bank buying of gold. They think somehow that this is because they are bullish on gold. What seems to be going over their heads is what I warned before – when China starts to sell US debt, war is coming. I have made it very clear that the precursor to war is always capital flows. That will be on steroids this year.
My clients taught me how capital and war move. At conferences, I stated that we were advising the Universal Bank of Lebanon. They found a ledger in the basement where someone wrote down the price of the Lebanese pound every day into the 19th century. They asked if we could build a model. I said sure! Here is a chart from back then. Our model warned that their currency would drop dramatically in 8 days. I thought there was something wrong with the data. Needless to say, I formed the client what the computer said and I commented that something had to be wrong. Very calmly, they asked what currency would be best. I said the Swiss franc. 8 days later the civil war began. The computer was correct. Then the same thing happened with the Iraq-Iran war.
By 1998, I understood the model’s ability to forecast war. I have never created a model to do that. It figured it out all on its lonesome. I stood up in June 1998 in our London WEC and warned that Russia would collapse in about 30 days. The London Financial Times reported that forecast and that became the collapse of the Russian debt market and Long-Term Capital Management debacle.
I have warned that if China was preparing to invade Taiwan, then they would start to sell off all US government debt. They would not risk owning US government bonds and watch Biden freeze it all and then claim it will be used to rebuild Taiwan as they are doing to Russia. So China began selling off US debt at the end of 2021. They have been buying gold because they cannot hold US or EU debt in time of war. It is as simple as that. The gold is simply neutrality, for it also does not pay interest. – So much for the inflation nonsense.
Posted originally on the CTH on January 8, 2023 | Sundance
Um, I’m not saying that introducing a genetically modifying vaccine into the human population through the use of the pollinizing process in agriculture via honeybees was a plot line for an X-Files movie, except it actually was. Now this:
(New York Times) – A biotech company in Georgia has received conditional approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the first vaccine for honeybees, a move scientists say could help pave the way for controlling a range of viruses and pests that have decimated the global population. It is the first vaccine approved for any insect in the United States.
The company, Dalan Animal Health, which is based in Athens, Ga., developed a prophylactic vaccine that protects honeybees from American foulbrood, an aggressive bacterium that can spread quickly from hive to hive.
[…] The vaccine is incorporated into royal jelly, a sugar feed given to queen bees. Once they ingest it, the vaccine is then deposited in their ovaries, giving developing larvae immunity as they hatch.
[…] In 2015, she and two other researchers identified the specific protein that prompts an immune response in the offspring and realized they could cultivate immunity in a bee population with a single queen.
[…] The introduction of a vaccine comes at a critical moment for honeybees, which are vital to the world’s food system. […] honeybees pollinate about one-third of the food crops in the United States and help produce an estimated $15 billion worth of crops in the United States each year. Many beekeepers lease their hives across the country to assist in pollination of almonds, pears, cherries, apples and other types of produce. (read more)
Wait,… wasn’t there some weird story about some vaccine promoting guy buying up a bunch of farmland in the United States for some unknown reason?…
“Gates is the largest private owner of farmland in America after quietly amassing some 270,000 acres across dozens of states, according to last year’s edition of the Land Report 100, an annual survey of the nation’s largest landowners.” (link)
I’m sure there is nothing to worry about. I mean it’s not an mRNA vaccine…
Posted originally on the CTH on January 8, 2023 | Sundance
The true enemy of a constitutional republic are the Mitch McConnell’s and Nancy Mace’s of the professional political class who build systems to undermine the will of the people under the pretense of representing them. These are the abusers, the professional abusers, the psychologically Machiavellian and inherently evil people within the system of power who operate on false pretense. They are smiley-faced fascists and liars, period.
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.” ~ Taylor Caldwell
[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: We begin with one of the Republican members of Congress who was with Speaker McCarthy on all votes. That’s Nancy Mace of South Carolina. Good morning to you, Congresswoman. Welcome back.
REP. NANCY MACE: Good morning.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Again and again, 14 times the hard right faction of your party refused to vote for Kevin McCarthy even after he was making repeated concessions to them. How can Republicans possibly govern when your party is so unruly?
REP. MACE: Well, first of all, I want to say number one, Kevin McCarthy, is the only member that- that I know of, that could bring all the different groups together within our own party, because we do have different factions, just like Democrats do. And that’s, that’s the first thing. And then the second thing is that sometimes democracy is messy. It looked kind of like an unnecessary and prolonged food fight last week. And I agreed with many Americans who thought that. I came home this weekend and listened to folks of all sides. I represent a very purple district, I have all sides to serve. And there was a lot of frustration with the prolonged and unnecessary food fight that we had this week. But you saw democracy on full display. And I think that’s healthy to have that kind of debate. I’m glad that it’s over and we can move forward.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, I mean, some would say it wasn’t so much democracy as it was dysfunction. The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page was pretty scathing. Said: don’t believe the happy talk this was a healthy display of deliberative democracy. It was a power play. A group of backbenchers saw an opportunity to exploit the narrower GOP margin of five seats to put themselves in positions of power that they hadn’t earned through seniority or influence with colleagues. If this rules package passes, with all the concessions that Speaker McCarthy made, this will leave you beholden, won’t it? To those backbenchers?
REP. MACE: Well, a couple of things I want, I want to say on the rules package, the rules that are governed the way- that will govern the way the House operates. There are some very great good ideas in there like the 72 hour rule, having three days to read a bill before it comes to the floor for a vote, having a path to balance the budget over the next 10 years, ensuring that they’re spending off- offsets, especially with mandatory spending. If you’re gonna increase in one area, then you have to decrease in another. But I will tell you, when I ran for Congress two years ago, I won by one point, and I ran to be a new Nancy in the house. And what I saw last week was a small faction of the 20, who were acting just like the old Nancy, trying to cut back room deals in private, in secret without anyone knowing what else was going on. And when they did the rules package. At the end of the day, there was only one point that was changed. That was on the motion to vacate. That was the only difference in the package that we’re going to be voting on tomorrow that was different from the original package that was proposed. So my question really is today is what back room deals were cut- did they try to cut? And did they get those because we shouldn’t be operating like Nancy Pelosi, this small faction. They’re the ones that are saying they were, quote, fighting the swamp, but then yet went and tried to act like you know, like, they actually are the swamp by trying to do these back room deals. And we don’t know what they got, or didn’t get. We haven’t seen it. We don’t have any idea what promises were made or what gentleman’s handshakes were made. We just, we just have no idea at this point. And it does give me quite a bit of heartburn, because that’s not what we ran on.
(crosstalk)
MARGARET BRENNAN: So Speaker–
REP. MACE: It’s quite ironic.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you are saying Speaker McCarthy is not being transparent about all the deals that he brokered in order to win this job.
REP. MACE: I’m saying there’s a small handful of individuals in that 20 who were trying to cut deals in secret.
(crosstalk)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Didn’t they succeed in doing that?
REP. MACE: And not let anybody else know about them. We’re not sure, we don’t know at this point. And that does give me pause and gives me significant heartburn on what direction we’re going to take. I represent a purple district, I have to represent Republicans, Democrats and Independents. I want to know that the positions that I have are going to have a voice that it will have weighed in the conference. There are a lot of members like me that- that have issues with some of the policies that we’re going to be working on. Look at what happened after overturning of Roe v. Wade. We didn’t have a plan and I want as a woman and as a victim of rape want to know that we’re going to be serious. That we’re going to be balanced in protecting the rights of women and protecting the rights of the unborn. There’s a way to do it both and not be guided by one extreme or the other.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, I just want to clarify there because I had asked you initially about the rules package, which is published and would be voted on tomorrow. Are you saying that you’re going to withhold your vote on those published agreements until you know what these back-room deals were?
REP. MACE: I am considering that as an option right now. I like the rules package. It is the most open, fair, and fiscally conservative package we’ve had in 30 years. I support it, but what I don’t support is a small number of people trying to get a deal done or deals done for themselves in private, in secret to get a vote or vote present. I don’t support that. That is just what Nancy Pelosi does. And that’s not what they should be doing. And so, I am on the fence right now about the rules package vote tomorrow for that reason.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Got it. It reportedly includes a pledge that would likely require a $75 billion cut to national security funding. Do you support that part of it?
REP. MACE: I want to see- I want to see it in writing. I want to see what promises were made. And what we are being told is that- that these handshakes, what’s going on these promises will go through regular order and go through the regular appropriations process. I don’t want to see defense cuts. I- again, we don’t, we don’t know what deals were made. And that’s something that we should be transparent about. Sunshine is the best medicine. That’s what we’ve always said. So what, what are we guaranteeing or what promises were made? We should know.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The speaker has reportedly given the Freedom Caucus, that ultra-conservative faction, a third of the seats on the powerful Rules Committee which controls which bills make it to the floor. You’ve called Matt Gaetz, one of its members, a political D-Lister and a fraud. You’ve sparred with Marjorie Taylor Greene, I’ll show our viewers part of that and let them interpret your meaning. How are you going to work with these folks to get anything done for the American people?
REP. MACE: It’s going to be very difficult. Matt Gaetz is a fraud. Every time he voted against Kevin McCarthy last week he sent out a fundraising email. What you saw last week was a constitutional process diminished by those kinds of political actions. I don’t support that kind of behavior. I am very concerned as someone who represents a lot of centrists, a lot of Independents. I have as many Independents and Democrats as I have Republicans in my district. I have to represent everybody. I am concerned that common sense legislation will not get through to get a vote on the floor. And I, for example, we have 12 bills that we’re supposedly going to be voting on in our first week in office. Three of them are abortion- abortion bills and pro-life bills. I am pro-life. But I have many exceptions. But they are not legislation, pieces of legislation, that can pass the Senate and get onto the desk for the president to sign into law. And so if we’re going to be serious about protecting life, for example, maybe we should look at more centrist views, like ensuring every woman has access to birth control, because if you can reduce pregnancies, you can reduce the need or want for women to have abortions, for example, a very common-sense pragmatic point of view. But that’s not what we’re going to be voting on this week. And I am concerned I want to see pragmatic- pragmatics at work, common sense, fiscal, conservative issues at work that represent all views.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Before I let you go, I have to ask you, you have a new colleague from the state of New York, Representative George Santos. He says he’s embellished his resume. You could say he just flat-out lied about work history, education, family background, how can you work with someone like that? And does he need to be removed from office?
REP. MACE: It’s very difficult to work with anyone who cannot be trusted, and it’s very clear his entire resume in life was- was manufactured until a couple days ago when he finally changed his website. It is a problem. If we say we can’t trust the Left when they are telling the truth, how can we trust our own? Americans want transparency, and the one lesson I’ve learned in DC: if you want a friend you can trust, get a dog.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I understand you are a dog fan. All right, Congresswoman. Thank you.
REP. MACE: I am a huge dog fan. Thank you.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Thank you. Nancy Mace. Thank you for your time this morning. (link)
Fox News Host Shannon Bream, one of the true Machiavellian conscripts, is given the responsibility to maintain the great pretending on behalf of the Republican chattering class. One of the key tactics of the professional pretenders is to ¹frame constant opposition narratives as questions.
To reply, Representative Jim Jordan is responsible for dispatching the pretending narrative delivered by Bream and hitting back with the reality hammer.
¹This is why I do not watch Fox News puppets much. Their production group is a functional set of background puppeteers. This is also why Fox News host Tucker Carlson produces and directs his own show from outside the system, just like Lou Dobbs used to. Tucker Carlson Tonight is essentially a podcast distributed by broadcast media.
We must really start to look at what the hell is going on. There are proposals to inject these vaccines into the food supply to thereby circumvent those who do not want to take vaccines. What is really the end objective here? It certainly is NOT to promote health and to ensure that society eliminates disease that naturally acts as a limitation on population growth.
It is inconsistent with these people who behind closed doors discuss how to REDUCE the population. Perhaps all these experiments should be first tested on journalists who think they are the next best invention since sliced bread. Just maybe, then we may, at last, get honest journalists who really investigate instead of propagating what they are told to push.
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 