Feb 24 2020

Sunday Talks: NSA Robert O’Brien -vs- Margaret Brennan…


Re-Posted from the Conservative Tree House on February 23, 2020 by 

Against the latest revelations that Ms. Shelby Pierson in the office of the Director of National Intelligence, manufactured false and misleading briefing material on Russian efforts to influence the U.S. election, it is interesting to watch the mainstream media create fake news stories attempting to exploit Ms. Pierson’s falsehoods.

During a pre-taped broadcast CBS’s Margaret Brennan questions National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien about the now identified false briefing material that was never shared with the White House prior to misrepresenting the intelligence to congress.  WATCH (transcript below):

.

[Transcript] – PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: They’re trying to start a rumor. It’s disinformation. That’s the only thing they’re good at, that Putin wants to make sure I get elected. Listen to this. So, doesn’t he want to see who the Democrat’s going to be? Wouldn’t he rather have, let’s say, Bernie, wouldn’t he rather have Bernie who honeymooned in Moscow?

MARGARET BRENNAN: That’s the President at a Friday rally in Las Vegas claiming that reports of Russia interfering in his favor was Democratic disinformation. When we were in Las Vegas Saturday I spoke with the White House National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien, who was in our Washington studio. I asked him if he had assured the President that this particular U.S. intelligence finding was real. He strongly disputed it.

ROBERT O’BRIEN (National Security Adviser): Well, I have not seen the finding. I think what he is referring to and what folks are talking about is a briefing that took place last week at the House Intelligence Committee that was leaked to the press. And I– I have not seen that report. I get this second hand, but from Republican congressmen that were in the committee, there was no intelligence behind it. I haven’t seen any intelligence to support the reports that were leaked out of the House.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But the White House was briefed on February 14th. Were you not in that briefing when the President was informed?

ROBERT O’BRIEN: Well, there’s no briefing that I have received, that the President has received, that says that President Putin is doing anything to try and influence the elections in favor of President Trump. We just haven’t seen that intelligence. If it’s out there, I haven’t seen it. I’d be surprised if I haven’t seen it. The leaders of our– the IC have not seen it. So I– again, I don’t know where this is coming from. I’ve heard these rumors and these leaks from Adam Schiff’s committee, but I– I have not seen them myself and I’ve seen no intelligence along those lines.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But just to clarify, are you saying that Joseph Maguire, the former acting director of National Intelligence, did not inform you about the U.S. Intelligence Committee’s– community’s findings?

ROBERT O’BRIEN: No. I, look, I think, you know, and again, I– I don’t want to get into private conversations in a– in a presidential daily brief, but I– I don’t think Admiral Maguire was necessarily informed of what was going to happen at that hearing in the House either. And– and again, there’s nothing that he’s given up– no information Admiral Maguire gave us, Gina Haspel has given us– Director Haspel, Ambassador Grenell the new acting DNI, that comports with what was leaked out of that House Intel Committee. So I haven’t seen it. The leaders of the– of the intelligence community that I have spoken with haven’t seen anything that comports with what was leaked out. But, again, those leaks, I don’t know if that’s what the briefers told the House committee. I mean those were just simply leaked–

MARGARET BRENNAN: But– well, that– that’s contradicted by reports that the director of National Intelligence, Maguire, did brief White House officials. But, more broadly, the FBI director at the beginning of the month, Chris Wray, testified that Russia continues to try to influence the elections mainly through social media manipulation. So, this pattern of behavior has continued, Russia is undeterred. Are you denying that that is happening?

ROBERT O’BRIEN: No, no. What I– look I– what I have heard from the FBI, you know– well, what I’ve heard is that Russia would like Bernie Sanders to– to win the Democrat nomination. They’d probably like him to be President, understandably, because he wants to– to spend money on social programs and probably would have to take it out of the military, so that would make sense. And– and, look, the Russians have always tried to interfere with elections because they want to divide Americans. They want to undermine our democracy. But the idea that they want to– they want to influence the election and somehow cause the President to win, I just don’t see it. But, look, I think there are a number of countries: China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, that would like to influence our elections to– to get the candidate that they feel would be best for their country.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So you are saying that it is not, in fact, the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment that Russia has a preference for President Trump?

ROBERT O’BRIEN: I– I have not seen that. And– and again, why would they have a preference for President Trump, who is rebuilding our military, who is giving the Ukrainians lethal aid to fight Russian troops? So that doesn’t make sense. Now, look, we want good relations with Russia. We’d like to have great relations with Russia. I haven’t seen any intelligence that there’s any active measures by the Russians to try and get the President re-elected. And– and we’ve got a simple message for the Russians or any other country that wants to– to meddle in our elections, whoever they are behind: stay out of our democratic elections. And– and we’re doing everything we can. We’re working with state and local officials. We’re going, in many cases–

MARGARET BRENNAN: But you–

ROBERT O’BRIEN: –to paper ballots to make sure that– that, you know, governments with ill intent can’t hack secretary of state websites, can’t get involved in our elections, change results. And– and we’re going to work on election security very, very hard through– across the interagency in the federal government and also with our state and– and local partners.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Why not have the intelligence community testify in public about what they are seeing, so that the public can arm themselves, so that they can understand what is disinformation and what is fact?

ROBERT O’BRIEN: Look I–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Why not declassify some of those?

ROBERT O’BRIEN: I’d– I’d have no problem with that. And– and– but that’s not my decision. And the intelligence community is– is very concerned and– and careful about sources and methods and I understand that. But I– I would personally have no problem with–

MARGARET BRENNAN: But back in 20– back in 2016 in October of 2016, when Russia was doing this disinformation campaign, the Obama administration did declassify information at that time. So there is a precedent. Why doesn’t the Trump administration do that?

ROBERT O’BRIEN: I think if there’s intelligence that we can declassify that– that we can get out there all the better, because, again, we weren’t in office in 2016 when– when the last election meddling took place and the administration did very little about it. And– and they– you know everyone admits that– that very little was done about it. We’re in office now and we’re doing everything we can across the interagency and– with our state and federal and local partners to– to ensure that– that American ballots are secure, that– that are our– our ballot machines are secure, that tabulations are secure, that– that state, secretary of state websites are secure. We want to make sure that this is a free and fair election, that Americans select their next President, not some foreign country. And– and we’re going to do– and the President’s been deadly serious about that.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I– I want to quickly ask you, though, about Afghanistan. If the Taliban does not make good on its promise to pull back on violence, to sign this deal at the end of the month, is the President positioned to stop the troop withdrawal?

ROBERT O’BRIEN: The President made it very clear the last time we were closed to signing a deal with the Taliban and they– they engaged in some malign activity, they– they had a vehicle-borne IED that killed a number of people, including one American, and the President pulled back from signing the deal. We’re hopeful that– that we can get to a– a place where the Afghans can talk with each other and negotiate some sort of resolution, a political resolution of the conflict. We’ve been there nineteen years. It’s time for us to stop bringing our– our sons and daughters home through Dover Air Force Base and dignified transfers. We’ve got to get out of– of the war in Afghanistan, but we’re going to do it in a way that protects American interests. So if the Taliban does not live up to their agreement on the reduction of violence plan, then we’ll take a very care– careful look at them. I think it’d be unlikely that we’d– we’d sign a peace treaty, but we’re not going to reduce troops to a level below what is necessary to protect American interests and our partners in Afghanistan. I can assure you of that.

MARGARET BRENNAN: All right. Ambassador O’Brien, thank you for joining us.

ROBERT O’BRIEN: Always great to be here, Margaret.

[End Segment Transcript]

Feb 24 2020

DNI Briefer Shelby Pierson “Overstated” (Manufactured) Intel on Russia Election Interference…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on February 23, 2020 by 

Sending shockwaves through the intelligence community, it was reported yesterday that newly appointed Acting DNI Richard “Ric” Grenell asked the intelligence community, specifically including Shelby Pierson, to produce the underlying intelligence within the briefing she gave to the House Intelligence Committee.

Well, what do you know…. All of a sudden today, anonymous intelligence officials are reporting to CNN that Ms. Pierson “overstepped” her position, was “misleading” in her briefing, and “mischaracterized” the underlying intelligence.   Imagine that.

Washington (CNN)-The US intelligence community’s top election security official appears to have overstated the intelligence community’s formal assessment of Russian interference in the 2020 election, omitting important nuance during a briefing with lawmakers earlier this month, three national security officials told CNN.

The official, Shelby Pierson, told lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee that Russia is interfering in the 2020 election with the goal of helping President Donald Trump get reelected.

[…] “The intelligence doesn’t say that,” one senior national security official told CNN. “A more reasonable interpretation of the intelligence is not that they have a preference, it’s a step short of that.

[…] One intelligence official said that Pierson’s characterization of the intelligence was “misleading” and a national security official said Pierson failed to provide the “nuance” needed to accurately convey the US intelligence conclusions.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, where Pierson is a senior official, did not respond to CNN’s request for comment. (more)

Why would Shelby Pierson and Joseph Maguire intentionally blindside the White House?

The briefing was obviously spun by HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff and democrats on the House intel committee; and there was no intelligence presented during the briefing to support the claims made by Pierson, Democrats and media.

If it seems like CNN just stumbled into the journalism thing, don’t react too quickly.  The underlying motive for CNN to narrate truthfully on this example is simply to get Ms. Pierson fired (which she should be).  If Pierson is fired, CNN will most likely jump back on the bandwagon of President Trump helping Russia again.

…”these are sick people we’re talking about.  Really sick people.”…

Feb 24 2020

Sunday Talks: Lindsey Graham -vs- Maria Bartiromo…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on February 23, 2020 by 

Sooner or later Ms. Bartiromo is going to have to call Senator Graham to task for his delays, obfuscations and can-kicking.   During an interview this morning Maria Bartiromo asks Lindsey Graham about whether he is actually going to hold the hearings he has discussed for over six months.  Graham’s response isn’t exactly inspiring confidence.

One of Graham’s “problems” per se’, is the reality that many members of the Senate, including John McCain, Richard Burr, Dianne Feinstein, Harry Reid and later Mark Warner, participated in the events in/around the intelligence targeting of candidate -then President- Donald Trump.  About mid-way through this interview it appears Bartiromo recognizes Graham is professionally can-kicking once again. WATCH:

Feb 24 2020

President Trump Impromptu Presser Departing White House – Video and Transcript


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on February 23, 2020 by 

Chopper pressers are the best pressers.  Earlier today President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump departed the White House heading to Ramstein Air Base in Germany on the first leg of their trip to India.  As the president departs he paused to answer a variety of questions from the media.  [Video Below, UPDATE Transcript added]

.

[Transcript] – THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody.

Q What’s your message to the people of India today?

Q (Inaudible) win for Bernie Sanders?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think it was a great win for Bernie Sanders. We’ll see how it all turns out. They’ve got a lot of winning to do. I hope they treat him fairly. Frankly, I don’t care who I run against. I just hope they treat him fairly. I hope it’s not going to be a rigged deal because there’s a lot of bad things going on. And I hope it’s not going to be one of those. So we’ll see what happens.

But I congratulate Bernie Sanders. And if it’s going to be him, he certainly has a substantial lead. We’ll see what happens.

Q Have you been briefed that Russia is trying to help Bernie Sanders? And if so, what’s your message to Putin? Are you comfortable with him intervening?

THE PRESIDENT: Nobody said it. I read where Russia is helping Bernie Sanders. Nobody said it to me at all. Nobody briefed me about that at all. What they try and do is — certain people like certain people to have information. No different than it’s been.

But I have not been briefed on that at all. Nobody told me about it. They leaked it. Adam Schiff and his group — they leaked it to the papers and — as usual. They ought to investigate Adam Schiff for leaking that information. He should not be leaking information out of intelligence. They ought to investigate Adam Schiff.

Q Are you trying to block the publication of Bolton’s book?

THE PRESIDENT: You’ll have to ask the Attorney General. I don’t know where it stands. But you’ll have to ask the Attorney General.

Q Did you call him a traitor? Mr. President, did you call him a traitor?

Q (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT: Say it?

Q Do you believe that Russia is trying to interfere to help Bernie Sanders?

THE PRESIDENT: You’ll have to ask Bernie Sanders that. I mean, he’d know better than me. I have not been briefed to that effect. But you’ll have to ask Bernie Sanders.

Q Are you concerned about Russian interference?

THE PRESIDENT: I think what it could be is, you know, the Democrats are treating Bernie Sanders very unfairly. And it sounds to me like a leak — a leak from Adam Schiff, because they don’t want Bernie Sanders to represent them. It sounds like it’s ’16 all over again for Bernie Sanders.

And he won. He had a great victory yesterday. But you know what’s happening. You can see the handwriting on the wall. And I watched last time, with respect to him. And they might’ve tried to do it with me, but I was able to catch it. That would be a terrible thing if that were the case.

Q Vladimir Putin said the other day that other countries are trying to split Russia and Ukraine apart, and if they came together, they would absolutely be a world superpower — Ukraine and Russia. What do you make of President Putin’s comments?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’d like to see them come together. I think if they came together in the sense that they got along with each other, that would be a great thing. It would be a great thing for the world. If Ukraine and Russia could work out some agreement where they get along, to me that would be very good.

Q (Inaudible) Mick Mulvaney as the Chief of Staff?

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. Sure. He’s here now. Sure. No problem.

Q Mr. President, what’s your updated thinking about a pardon for Roger Stone?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’ve seen a very sad thing going on with respect to Roger Stone. You have a juror that’s obviously tainted. She was an activist against Trump. Said bad things about Trump and said bad things about Stone.

And she somehow wheedled her way onto the jury. And if that’s not a tainted jury, then there is no such thing as a tainted jury. I think it’s a disgrace. And I could say plenty more about that whole situation, but I’ll hold it.

I don’t know why they gave a judgment — why the judge ruled prior to ruling on that. Because, in theory, you should rule on that and then you see what happens. But the judge gave a sentence without discussing that, and I guess she’s going to bring that up at a later date.

But I do think this: That juror is so biased and so tainted that that shouldn’t happen in our criminal justice system. That’s for sure.

Q What if he doesn’t get a new trial? What if she says no new trial? What are you going to do?

THE PRESIDENT: We’ll see what happens.

Q Who will you nominate for Director of National Intelligence?

THE PRESIDENT: We have four or five people that are great, very respected. In the meantime, we have our Ambassador to Germany who is a very smart person. And he’s doing a great job.

Q Who’s on the list?

THE PRESIDENT: I can’t tell you yet, but I’ll be announcing it very —

Q Why did you dismiss Maguire? Why did you dismiss him? Were you unhappy with him?

THE PRESIDENT: His time came up. You know, I think it was — March 11th, his time comes up. He ran out of time. Because on March — I think it was a date of March 11th. He’s a very nice man. His time came up, so he had to leave on March 11.

Q What is your message to the people of India? You are traveling to India today. What is your message to the people of India?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I look forward to being with the people of India. We’re going to have many millions and millions of people. It’s a long trip.

But I get along very well with the Prime Minister, Prime Minister Modi. He’s a friend of mine. I committed to this trip a long time ago, and I look forward to go — going.

We’re taking — as you know, the First Lady is coming. Some of you are coming. I hear it’s going to be a big event. Some people say the biggest event they’ve ever had in India. That’s what the Prime Minister told me. This will be the biggest event they’ve ever had. So it’s going to be very exciting. I’m going to be there one night. That’s not too much.

And then I’m stopping in South Carolina. We’re doing a big rally. And then I’ll be doing CPAC on Saturday. So there’s not a lot of time for rest, I will say that.

Q Will Bernie be the nominee?

THE PRESIDENT: I think so, unless they cheat him out of it. I think so. I think Bernie is looking more and more like he’ll be the nominee unless they cheat him out of it. A lot of people thought he was going to be the nominee last time, and that didn’t work out. I think they’re watching it very closely. I would imagine so.

Q Have you been updated on the coronavirus, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, we’re very much involved. We’re very — very cognizant of everything going on. We have it very much under control in this country.

Q Are you concerned for that virus expansion in Japan?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, it’s a big — it’s a big situation going on throughout the world. And I can say, the United States, we’ve very much closed our doors in certain areas, in about certain areas, through certain areas. And we’ll see what happens. But we have the greatest doctors in the world. We have it very much under control.

We accepted a few people — a small number of people. They’re very well confined and they should be getting better fairly soon. Very interestingly, we’ve had no deaths. We have a — I mean, you know, we’ve had a great practice.

We had 12, at one point. And now they’ve gotten very much better. Many of them are fully recovered.

Q Do you think President Xi should be doing something different?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I think President Xi is working very, very hard. I spoke to him. He’s working very hard. I think he’s doing a very good job. It’s a big problem. But President Xi loves his country. He’s working very hard to solve the problem and he will solve the problem. Okay?

Q Will you be (inaudible) Ambassador to Germany, Mr. Grenell, to continue?

THE PRESIDENT: I’ll be appointing a ambassador to Germany. I will say Ambassador Grenell has done a fantastic job. This is just a temporary job. We have five people that we’re looking at very seriously — expert people. And at a certain point in the not-too-distant future, we’ll be announcing who they are. Right?

Q Are you also appointing a new envoy to Kosovo and Serbia talks?

THE PRESIDENT: Say it?

Q Are you also appointing a new envoy to Kosovo and Serbia talks?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the ambassador will be doing that. He did a great job. He’s very familiar with the people, and he will be — he has done a fantastic job on that. He’s going to continue to maintain that because he’s got such a good dialogue. Everybody said that was a deal, you know, that couldn’t be done. And we got it done. It’s a great thing for those two countries.

Q When the DNI is in place, are you ordering the IC to not investigate Russian interference for the 2020 election?

THE PRESIDENT: I’m not involved in it. I’m not involved. I don’t have to, but I stay uninvolved. I don’t have to; I can be totally involved, as you know. But I very much stay uninvolved, and it’s all working out very well.

Q (Inaudible) Afghanistan, sir, do you trust the Taliban to keep their word?

THE PRESIDENT: Look, the Taliban has been fighting for decades. We’ve been over there 19 years. We’re like a law enforcement force. We think they want to make a deal; we want to make a deal. I think it’s going to work out. We’ll see.

We’re, right now, in a period that’s been holding up. You know, we have a certain period of nonviolence. It’s been holding up. It’s a day and a half. So we’ll see what happens.

But people want to make a deal, and I think the Taliban wants to make a deal too.

Q Would you sign the deal with them?

THE PRESIDENT: They’re tired of fighting.

Q Would you sign a deal with them? Would you have them here? Or where would you do that?

THE PRESIDENT: We haven’t made — we haven’t decided. I want to see how this period of a week works out. We can do that very quickly.

Q But you would put your name on it?

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. Yeah. Assuming it works out over the next less than a week, I would put my name on it. Sure. It’s time to come home. And they want to stop. You know, they’ve been fighting a long time. They’re tough people, we’re tough people. But after 19 years, that’s a long time.

Q So what’s your latest thought on Huawei? Great Britain, the other week, signed a deal with them.

THE PRESIDENT: We have to be very careful. National security. Huawei. National security. We have to be very careful.

Thank you very much, everybody.

Q Mr. President, did you watch the fight?

THE PRESIDENT: I did. Great fight. By the way, that was a great fight. Did you watch it?

Q (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT: You liked it? That was a great fight. Two great fighters. It was, really, very exciting. Maybe we have to bring them both to the White House — I don’t know. Because that was really a good one. In fact, I think we’ll do that. Have a good time. Have a good time.

END 9:14 A.M. EST

Feb 24 2020

UPDATE: Nevada Caucus Results (Day Two)…


Re-Posted from The Conservative Tree House on February 23, 2020 by 

Apparently, for reasons they cannot quite fully explain, it takes a few weeks to count the votes from Democrat caucuses.  The DNC has reported that sometime mid-week next week the Iowa caucus results will be released.  With that in mind the Nevada caucuses were held yesterday, here’s the most recent update:

♦ New York Times Nevada Results LINK

♦ CNN News Nevada Results Link

♦ Politico Nevada Results Link

♦ Reno Gazette Nevada Results Link

Feb 23 2020

Deep State Judge!


ORDER IN THE DEEP STATE COURT

Roger Stone was sentenced to 40 months in prison by a partisan Obama appointee, Judge Amy Berman Jackson.

She alluded to the Russia collusion conspiracy when she said, “Stone was not prosecuted for standing up for the President; he was prosecuted for covering up for the President.”

Covering up how? A slip of memory is a cover up? Being a journalist and contacting WikiLeaks is a cover up? What exactly is the cover up? Whatever the Democrats say it is.

Nancy Pelosi and her crew may start the impeachment process anew if Trump pardons Roger Stone. That’s rank hypocrisy. What about Bill Clinton? Roger Stone is not a criminal and committed no crime, but Bill pardoned many despicable crooks. Does anyone remember the pardon he granted to his billionaire friend, Marc Rich? Do the Democrats remember how Marc Rich  arranged a hefty sum to be deposited into the Clinton Foundation? Of course not.

Obama has populated courts with Democrat partisans who are more than willing to use our justice system to go after his enemies. President Trump committed no crime, but the Democrats wanted to impeach him anyway. Roger Stone committed no crime, but the Democrats want him locked up anyway. Meanwhile, real crooks such as Hillary Clinton remain unlocked up.

—Ben Garrison

 

Feb 23 2020

Science v Religion


Armstrong Economics Blog/Religion

Re-Posted Feb 23, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Dear Mr. Armstrong,
I have been an avid reader of your blog for over four years after watching The Forecaster on Norwegian TV in the fall of 2015. First, I would like to commend you for your tireless work, your integrity and your courageous struggle for justice and freedom of speech. Your voice is a breath of fresh air at a time when so much brain power is giving in to political correctness and group thinking under the purview of scientific consensus.

During my studies, I became aware of the limitations of academia early on in terms of open critical processes. As I investigated the situation within other disciplines as physics, cosmology, geology, climatology, archaeology, history, biology and medicine, I found serious issues of dissent that was not common known and most often not mentioned in the professional literature.

In my further attempt to understand how this could be possible, it gradually dawned on me that the Western scientific tradition had been reduced to an orthodoxy. Just like any other organization having a predictable resistance against change, protecting itself against the loss of influence and power resulting from being exposed as a promoter of heresy. Partly commercial since depending on grants and external funding, willing to compromise with its own integrity and important social mission.

Since then, of course, everything has only got worse. Critical questions are increasingly ignored or ridiculed, and alternative research dismissed with contempt and excluded from funding and publication under the pretext of a lack of anchoring in consensus. As if the scientific method is a democratic process leading to unassailable dogmas decided by the votes of an academic priesthood.

This leads me to my first question inspired of your blog post about The Decline & Fall of Religion from January 7th. Could the Western scientific tradition have grown into a believe system and thus actually a new religion? For what is really a religion other than an interpretation of reality, sprung from the quest of man to understand himself and his own context? At first offering a new and more powerful set of explanations, but later just to fall as victim of the same corrupt orthodoxy as the model of explanation it once defeated.

As when mathematical reasoning was accepted as a scientific proof in order to understand the universe, or when the limitations within the scientific method, being strictly materialistic, was suggested and by time widely accepted as the very boundaries defining reality itself. Giving rise a atheistic scientific tradition believed to have the power to explain the reality without any supernatural causation.

If this is correct, when did this shift in the cycle of religion take place? What about 1860 which your blog post shows as an important turning point in this cycle? The year when Charles Darwin’s book The Origin of Species reached the bookshelves in Europe (first edition published 24. November 1859). A book that is supposed to offer an explanation for the existence of life simply from natural causes, and which gradually emptied the churches of the West as the believers converted to science through the educational system of academia. A shift that probably has changed and shaped the West more than any in the time after 1860. First through the industrial revolution as a powerful demonstration of the possibilities and legitimacy of the new worldview.

Later through the ideas of among others Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud leading to socialism, the dismantling of the traditional family structure and the sexual revolution. And finally the post industrial society with the educational revolution lifting billions out of poverty and into the growing mega cities of our time.

After all, does not academia bear all the hallmarks of being a religion with its self-importance, dogmas, traditions, rituals, clergy, heretics, exclusion and even venerable buildings and costumes with weird hats?

Would love hear your thoughts about this perspective, and how it might be linked to the downfall of the West.
KAK

ANSWER: Yes, I believe your analysis is correct. Science became a sort of anti-religion. In economics, science became all about the power of the state to manipulate society while ignoring any connection to any other field. It was Albert Einstein who actually commented on the observation you have made. He said in his essay “Science and religion,” published in 1954, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

I actually have no problem with Darwin despite the fact that nobody has ever discovered the missing link. There were clearly three primary species: Homo sapiens, Neanderthals, and Denisovans. There is also genetic evidence that there was interbreeding. Nevertheless, all the evidence he gathered did not deny divine intervention. Evolution does exist insofar as the biological organisms do undergo their own cycle of evolution just as viruses do. Even humans have grown larger over the centuries. Above is the door entrance to the church built during the 4th century over the place where Christ was born. Walking through various ancient places, one notices how much smaller people were. Most Egyptian pharaohs were about 5’6 at best. A giant was someone about 6’1.

Stephen Hawking perhaps said what you are noticing: “There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works.” That stands in contrast to what Isaac Newton said on the subject: “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion.”


You are correct that from 1860 onward, there was a major turning point in religion on our model. Indeed, the emergence of “science” took on the position of the anti-religion to many people. This was a major crossroads in religion and we should also include the rise of the anti-religious elements within science. That anti-religion movement was probably best articulated by Karl Marx.

 

To me, understanding cyclical movement is by no means anti-religion. We are looking at how the universe functions. Even the idea of the Big Bang, to me, is simply a cycle where everything moves from the center, contracts back to its origin, and explodes once again. None of those scientific discoveries provides any confirmation that there is no God. There is nothing that explains how everything works that would deny the existence of God. They are not mutually exclusive. Thus, the climate change fanatics are really just pushing their agenda which denies the nature of everything and, like Marx, assumes humans are in control of everything.

 

Feb 23 2020

Bernie’s Victory Inspires a Panic Next Week?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics

Posted Feb 22, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

Just to let everyone know, since more than 50% of our clients are outside the USA, we have a very international reach with sources around the globe. Get prepared for volatility next week. Despite the Democrat’s personal hatred of Trump, the international view is that Trump is the ONLY sane leader in the world right now. The world is leaning so far to the left everywhere, capital is deeply concerned about where to hide. The #1 question we are getting from overseas:

What if Bernie beats Trump?

Capital can flee and seek shelter offshore. Labor cannot hoard itself nor move offshore. The average person is stuck for they cannot protect their labor so the working guy suffers the arrows that come from politicians who never understand that capital will just abandon their crazy agendas leaving only the wage earner to pay the bills which ends in revolution.

Bloomberg is the authoritarian dictator whose staff has just been “yes sir” and that was self-evident in his debate skills. He could not respond to negative attacks because he was not use to that. Bloomberg is really is no match for Trump no less Bernie. Despite all his money, he did not even make a respectable showing. He cannot buy the White House. Hillary tried that and spent 10x what Trump did and still failed.

The Democratic elites are beside themselves. They are not going to take this lightly. In United States politics, a brokered convention (sometimes referred to as an open convention and closely related to a contested convention) can occur during a presidential election when a political party fails to choose a nominee on the first round of delegate voting at the party’s nominating convention.

This time, the unpledged delegates, better known as superdelegates, will make up about 16% of Democratic Party delegates in 2020. These are the real party insiders who are not committed to voting based on the outcome of the state’s primary or caucus which flies in the face of the very purpose of primary voting. As Stalin said about elections, it is not the votes that matter, but who counts them.

The 2016 election was stolen from Bernie when many superdelegates announced early support for Hillary Clinton. The Democrats have claimed that they made a significant change for 2020. Superdelegates will no longer vote on the first ballot at the convention unless there is no doubt about the outcome. To win on the first ballot, the frontrunner must secure the majority of pledged delegates leading up to the Democratic Convention.  There are 3,979 total pledged delegates, so they are supposed to use the total required being 1,991. There is a loophole. If they can prevent Bernie from a majority on the first ballot, Hillary takes 16% again and they will then flip to her camp. That assumes they abide by this latest rule and do not change them again.

We are looking at the split of the Democrats for the elites are not about to accept Bernie and they will lose the financial support of both the corporates and the 1%. The rumblings are to draft Hillary. That will most likely be the straw that breaks the back of the Democratic Party.

Meanwhile, brace yourself for while markets next week. We may begin to see European and Asian liquidation of equities in fear of the 2020 election ahead.

Feb 23 2020

The Coming French Revolution


Armstrong Economics Blog/France

Re-Posted Feb 22, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

 

Ever since the civil unrest began on May 5, 2013, there has been escalating economic tension within France. A lack of economic growth has plagued France and Europe as a whole. The French share market peaked in 2000 and has been unable to elect ANY Yearly Bullish Reversals to date, and 2018 appears to be no different for this year’s closing. With the insane taxes of Hollande, the rich French invested outside the country. Without private investment, there is no job creation of any worthwhile level. This is what the Socialists refuse to consider.

This latest series of popular rebellions erupted on November 17, 2018, and has spread quickly via social media, with protesters blocking roads across France and impeding access to shopping malls, factories, and some fuel depots. They gather at the Arc de Triomphe, chanting “Macron Resign” and writing graffiti on the Arch itself: “The yellow vests will triumph.”

I previously warned: “We will see that risk erupt by 2020 or 51.6 years from the May 1968 cultural revolution.” The tensions have not subsided, but instead, they have begun to escalate.

Feb 23 2020

World Recession Outside USA?


Armstrong Eonomics Blog/Economics

Re-Posted Feb 21, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

Japan’s economic performance plummeted at the end of 2019, and a recession seems inevitable. The downturn in the land of the rising sun is a bad omen for the global economy. Nevertheless, the entire coronavirus scare has resulted in a sharp collapse in many areas globally that depend on tourism. We are seeing sharp declines in South East Asia, Hong Kong, and even in Dubai. We should expect that the first quarter numbers for many areas around the world will show recessionary trends. This is only further pushing the dollar higher as capital continues to flee from Asia, in particular, as well as Europe and heads into the dollar.