At the conclusion of the NATO summit, President Trump held a press conference prior to departing Brussels.
Tag Archives: Hunt for Taxes
The Violence in Northern Ireland is Not Finished
Armstrong Economics Blog/Civil Unrest
Re-Posted Jul 13, 2018 by Martin Armstrong
Reuters is reporting that Northern Ireland was hit by a new wave of street violence overnight on the eve of annual parades. This is demonstrating that there remains underlying tensions between pro-British Protestants and Irish nationalist Catholics in the British occupied region. Vehicles were set on fire, petrol bombs were thrown, and roads were closed off in violence in several towns. The parade marks the 1690 victory of Protestant King William of Orange over Catholic King James of England. Therefore, it feeds right into the conflict between the Protestants and Catholics which has existed since the time of Henry VIII’s seizure of the Catholic Church to affect the divorce he was being denied.
The first death in the conflict in Belfast is disputed involving Francis McCloskey (aged 67) who died one day after being hit on the head with a baton by a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) during street disturbances in Dungiven, County Derry on Sunday, July 14th, 1968. The official first death was the fatal shooting of a Catholic on Thursday, August 14th, 1969. The person was John Gallagher was shot dead by the Ulster Special Constabulary (‘B-Specials’) during street disturbances on the Cathedral Road in Armagh. John Gallagher is recorded as the first ‘official’ victim of tensions in Northern Ireland. The first Protestant Civilian to be killed took place on Friday, August 15th, 1969 named David Linton (aged 48) who died after being shot by a Republican group during street disturbances in North Belfast. The actual first members of Irish Republican Army (IRA) to be killed took place on Friday, August 15th, 1969. His name was Gerald McAuley (aged 15), who was a member of Fianna Éireann, which was the youth section of the Irish Republican Army (IRA). He was shot dead by Loyalists during street disturbances in the Lower Falls area of Belfast.
From a cyclical perspective, if we begin on August 15th, 1969, then we are concluding a 51.6-year wave on 2021.2219178, which will be March 22nd. It is lining up with the Economic Confidence Model and the Monetary Crisis Cycle. Therefore, the violence will reemerge with a new trend once again driven by economics. Violence has continued sporadically but it has been rising gradually again since 2013.
The violence against Irish Catholics in America erupted in 1844 during the Sovereign Debt Defaults of states and the economic decline in the aftermath of the Panic of 1837 (Dates of ECM Waves). When Andrew Jackson shut down the central bank, the Bank of the United States at that time, all banks began to issue money of their own. The economy was flooded with frauds and nobody knew what banks were real or safe. As banks failed, the States tried to bail out the banks to save their economy and they too were pushed into default. The Depression that followed raised unemployment and violence.
They Want to Charge the Elderly for Needing Help After a Fall
Armstrong Economics Blog/The Hunt for Taxes
RE-Posted Jul 13, 2018 by Martin Armstrong
QUESTION: Hi Martin,
You are unique in your insight into the growing theft of our money and dignity by the increasingly draconian authorities. Sometimes it’s hard to tell in this era of clickbait and fake news whether something you read is real. In the case of Councils, however, which universally seem to be repositories for people with no skills and not enough guts or street smarts for real politics, anything is possible. How do we, especially the elderly, defend ourselves from these rapacious thieves?
Regards,
Pete
ANSWER: I wish I had an answer for you. For governments there in Britain to proposed to charge £25.92 to help an elderly person who has fallen is outrageous. This is beyond belief. As lawyers often say, “If you hit someone with your car, back up and make sure you kill them. It’s cheaper than to have to pay for the rest of their lives for an injury.” This seems to be the policy adopted by governments. As the crisis in finance builds, we will see more and more of this sort of thing to “save” money.
In the USA, all I can do is recommend moving to one of the 7 states without an income tax. If you are elderly and need medical services, Florida is probably the best spot. They also have Homestead, so nobody can take your house and throw you out on the street. The Florida homestead exemption is a Florida constitutional provision which protects Florida residents by providing them with legal benefits and protection. Thereby, a resident’s primary home is secure from levy and execution by their judgment creditors. A judgment creditor cannot force the sale of your homestead to satisfy a money judgment. Florida is THE BEST spot to protect property.
The Disturbing Reasoning of Judge Brett Kavanaugh
Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law
Re-Posted Jul 13, 2018 by Martin Armstrong
QUESTION: What is your opinion of Trump’s Supreme Court pick?
MG
ANSWER: The main decision that I believe allows us to pierce the veil of judicial reasoning is Susan SEVEN-SKY v. Eric H. HOLDER, 661 F.3d 1 (2011). In this decision, Judge Brett Kavanaugh did not join Silberman’s opinion. Instead, he wrote a sixty-five-page opinion that argued that the court could not even decide this case. In other words, his dissenting opinion deliberately did not resolve the case on the merits. What is more disturbing is his reliance on an 1876 law that has effectively placed government rights above that of the people. This I find VERY disturbing.
Judge Kavanaugh’s opinion was based on the 1876 law called the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) that applied to the tax code, which I would argue is unconstitutional on its face. A court cannot raise arguments not raised by the parties, but it has a duty to first determine if the court has the jurisdiction to hear the case. It was down this path that Kavanaugh took a stroll which is rather disturbing for his conclusions. The government did not rely on this provision of the tax code with respect to jurisdiction. Few people ever heard of it. It appears he search the universe to find something that he could use to justify no making a decision of the merits.
The purpose of the Anti-Injunction Act was to prevent taxpayers from challenging a tax in court before it is assessed. In other words, a citizen must first pay a tax under protest and then challenge it after the fact by seeking a refund, which presumes you even have the money to hire lawyers to TRY to get your money back. This effectively alters the entire legal system. You are entitled under EQUITY to seek an injunction to PREVENT a harm.
An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that compels a party to do or refrain from specific acts. A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties, including possible monetary sanctions and even imprisonment. They can also be charged with contempt of court.
The Constitution under Article III created the courts and gave them the power under “law and equity” under Section 2. Therefore, Congress cannot pass any law that would negate the Constitution. Therefore, you have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to injunctive relief to PREVENT a harm. If the government seizes all your property under some tax statute, the 1876 Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) would then prevent you from hiring a lawyer, and in effect, you will be denied any redress in a court of law.
Therefore, I would bluntly disagree with Kavanaugh’s dissenting opinion. Because it was a dissent and not the majority of the court, then it did not take any effect. My concern is his willingness to allow Congress to circumvent the Constitution. If this statute was actually in play, I would argue it is patently unconstitutional for it would deny the application for equitable relief.
US Constitution Article III
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
Justin From Canada Announces He Has Control of NATO Mission in Iraq…
Watch out Iraqi peoplekind. You can go ahead and cancel that jihad thing… Chrystia and Justin are in charge now:
Booyah. Feel the fear…
President Trump and First Lady Melania Participate in NATO Welcoming Ceremony – 1:00pm Livestream…
President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump participate in the NATO Belgium welcoming ceremony. Anticipated start time 1:10pm EST
UPDATE: Video Added
.
WH Livestream Link – RSBN Livestream Link
President Trump and Emmanuel From France – BiLat During NATO Summit…
Following a bilateral meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, President Trump meets with Emmanuel from France. {transcript will follow later}
“I think its going to be very successful,” President Trump said, noting that the two have a tremendous relationship. Additionally, President Trump remarked the two leaders are discussing “trade, NATO, and a lot of different things, and hopefully in the end, it’ll all work out.”
.
[Transcript 4:23 P.M. CEST] PRESIDENT TRUMP: (In progress) — the President of France, who’s doing a terrific job being President of France. He’s changing a lot of things around. And I guess that had to happen. And I think it’s going to be very successful. We have a tremendous relationship. We’re discussing trade. We’re discussing NATO. We’re discussing a lot of different things. And hopefully, in the end, it will all work out. And so it’s great to be with you.
PRESIDENT MACRON: (Speaks French.) (No translation provided.) “Merci beaucoup.Trs heureux de retrouver le prsident Donald Trump. Il a presque un an maintenant il tait Paris et il nous avait fait lhonneur dassister notre fte nationale et nous navons pas cessdepuis dchanger de manire rgulire et nous allons continuer aujourdhui sur videment les sujets commerciaux et lOTAN mais galement la Syrie et les sujets gopolitiques sur lesquels nous avons beaucoup faireensemble”
PRESIDENT TRUMP: It sounded beautifully. (Laughter.) I have no idea — it sounded great.
PRESIDENT MACRON: I told them exactly the same — (laughter) — but in French, for French journalists. (Inaudible.)
I just reminded everybody that almost one year ago you were present with your wife in Paris for Bastille Day.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Beautiful.
PRESIDENT MACRON: (Inaudible) 14th of July. And we’ve worked together for 12 months now.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: True.
PRESIDENT MACRON: And took some great decisions.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We’ve made some good decisions.
PRESIDENT MACRON: And we’ll continue to work together (inaudible).
PRESIDENT TRUMP: That’s right. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Q President Macron, do you agree that Angela Merkel is beholden to the Russians?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Oh, I believe they asked you that. (Laughter.)
Thank you. Thank you very much.
PRESIDENT MACRON: No, I think —
Q No?
PRESIDENT MACRON: We just discussed the nature of that. We work together.
President Trump and Chancellor Merkel BiLat During NATO Summit…
Earlier this morning President Trump stunned NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg with the atomic sledgehammer of truth. Stoltenberg never recovered. The issue was/is NATO asking the U.S. for defense against Russia while the NATO member nations, driven by the construct of Germany, finance Russia through energy purchases.
Then comes the Angela Merkel bi-lateral meeting.
.
[Transcript 3:45 P.M. CEST] – PRESIDENT TRUMP: We’re having a great meeting. We’re discussing military expenditure. We’re talking about trade. We have a very, very good relationship with the Chancellor. We have a tremendous relationship with Germany. They’ve made tremendous — you’ve had tremendous success and I congratulate you. Tremendous success. And I believe that our trade will increase and lots of other things will increase. But we’ll see what happens over the next period of a few months.
CHANCELLOR MERKEL: (As interpreted.) Well, let me say that I am very pleased, indeed, to have this opportunity here for this exchange of views. And, indeed, we had an opportunity to have an exchange about economic developments, on issues such as migration, and also the future of our trade relations.
We also briefly touched upon the upcoming trips of the President. And let me say that I’m very much looking forward to further extending our exchanges in the future and enhancing them. I think they’re very important to have those exchanges together. Because after all, we are partners, we are good partners, and we wish to continue to cooperate in the future.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Okay, thank you very much, everybody. Thank you.
Q Did you discuss the gas pipeline?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yes.
Q (Inaudible.)
PRESIDENT TRUMP: We discussed that. Thank you very much.
…”Germany is totally controlled by Russia, because they will be getting from 60 to 70 percent of their energy from Russia and a new pipeline. And you tell me if that’s appropriate, because I think it’s not, and I think it’s a very bad thing for NATO and I don’t think it should have happened.”.. ~President Trump
Chancellor Merkel was ‘triggered‘… President Trump was not supposed to point out the truth about the financial relationship between Russia and Germany. Germany funds Russia and simultaneously asks the U.S. to spend money protecting them from Russia.
Chancellor Angela Merkel has turned off nuclear energy development, banned fracking, and has almost no wind/solar development. The primary way Germany keep the lights on, and manufacturing continuing, is Russian gas. Simultaneously Germany gives subsidies for the industrial use of electricity.
Germany buys Russian gas from Putin, subsidizes their auto-manufacturing, ships cars to the US, imposes tariffs on U.S. automakers, and questions President Trump’s relationship with Putin and commitment to NATO? Nuts.
Epic: President Trump Eats NATO for Breakfast – Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg Confronted By Trump On EU Gas Pipeline Agreement With Russia…
Oh snap. Brilliant, simply brilliant. President Trump keeps the cameras rolling during a breakfast with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg; and absolutely crushes the NATO position on needing money to defend against Russia when NATO -specifically Germany- is funding Russian expansion financially through energy development, and simultaneously asking the U.S. for money to defend against Russia.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo looks like he is half going to break out laughing, and half saying to himself: oh, it’s on..
Stoltenberg: […] I think that two World Wars and the Cold War taught us that we are stronger together than apart.
Trump: But how can you be together when a country is getting its energy from the person you want protection against or from the group that you want protection?
Stoltenberg: Because we understand that when we stand together, also in dealing with Russia, we are stronger. I think what we have seen is that —
Trump: No, you’re just making Russia richer. You’re not dealing with Russia. You’re making Russia richer.
This is a MUST WATCH:
Transcript – AT BILATERAL BREAKFAST – Chief of Mission Residence – Brussels, Belgium – 9:13 A.M. CEST – PRESIDENT TRUMP: Good morning, everybody. Good morning to the media — the legitimate media and the fake-news media. Good morning to them. A lot of good people here. Surprising.
Q Mr. President, which countries did you want to spend more on NATO in particular?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Just look at the chart. Take a look at the chart. It’s public. And many countries are not paying what they should. And, frankly, many countries owe us a tremendous amount of money for many years back, where they’re delinquent, as far as I’m concerned, because the United States has had to pay for them. So if you go back 10 or 20 years, you’ll just add it all up. It’s massive amounts of money is owed. The United States has paid and stepped up like nobody. This has gone on for decades, by the way. This has gone on for many Presidents. But no other President brought it up like I bring it up. So something has to be done, and the Secretary General has been working on it very hard.
This year, since our last meeting, commitments have been made for over $40 billion more money spent by other countries. So that’s a step, but it’s a very small step. It sounds like a lot of money, and it is. But it’s a very small amount of money relative to what they owe and to what they should be paying. And it’s an unfair burden on the United States.
So we’re here to talk about that, and I’m sure it will be resolved. I have great confidence in the Secretary General. He’s worked very, very hard on this, and he knows it’s a fact. But I have great confidence in him and his representatives.
You going to say something?
SECRETARY GENERAL STOLTENBERG: First of all, it’s great to see you again, Mr. President. And good to have you here for a summit. And we are going to discuss many important issues at the summit. Among them is defense spending. And we all agree that we have to do more. I agree with you that we have to do make sure that our allies are investing more. The good news is that allies have started to invest more in defense.
After years of cutting defense budgets, they have started to add billions to their defense budgets. And last year was the biggest increase in defense spending across Europe and Canada in that generation.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Why was that last year?
SECRETARY GENERAL STOLTENBERG: It’s also because of your leadership, because of your carried message. And —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: They won’t write that, but that’s okay.
SECRETARY GENERAL STOLTENBERG: No, I have said it before, but the thing is that it really has. And your message is having an impact, and we are going to build on that to make sure that we have further increases. You initiated last year that all allies are going to develop national plans on how to spend more on defense. And based on these national plans, we now estimate that European allies and Canada will add 266 extra U.S. dollars for defense from now until — billion U.S. dollars — until 2024.
So this is really adding some extra momentum. It helps and we are moving in the right direction. But we still have to do more, and that is what we’re going to address after the summit later on today.
Let me also add that a strong NATO is good for Europe and it’s also good for the United States. The U.S. (inaudible) presence in Europe helps to protect Europe, but it also helps the United States project power to the Middle East, to Africa. And I think also that clout — the military clout of Europe, economic clout, the political clout — also is helpful dealing with Russia. And we look forward to the meeting you’re going to have with President Putin. And I think that leaders are also looking forward to your thoughts about the meeting with President Putin later on.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I have to say, I think it’s very sad when Germany makes a massive oil and gas deal with Russia, where you’re supposed to be guarding against Russia, and Germany goes out and pays billions and billions of dollars a year to Russia. So we’re protecting Germany. We’re protecting France. We’re protecting all of these countries. And then numerous of the countries go out and make a pipeline deal with Russia, where they’re paying billions of dollars into the coffers of Russia.
So we’re protect you against Russia, but they’re paying billions of dollars to Russia, and I think that’s very inappropriate. And the former Chancellor of Germany is the head of the pipeline company that’s supplying the gas. Ultimately, Germany will have almost 70 percent of their country controlled by Russia with natural gas.
So you tell me, is that appropriate? I mean, I’ve been complaining about this from the time I got in. It should have never been allowed to have happened. But Germany is totally controlled by Russia, because they will be getting from 60 to 70 percent of their energy from Russia and a new pipeline. And you tell me if that’s appropriate, because I think it’s not, and I think it’s a very bad thing for NATO and I dont think it should have happened. And I think we have to talk to Germany about it.
On top of that, Germany is just paying a little bit over 1 percent, whereas the United States, in actual numbers, is paying 4.2 percent of a much larger GDP. So I think that’s inappropriate also. You know, we’re protecting Germany, we’re protecting France. We’re protecting everybody. And yet we’re paying a lot of money to protect.
Now, this has been going on for decades. This has been brought up by other presidents. But other presidents never did anything about it because I dont think they understood it or they just didnt want to get involved.
But I have to bring it up, because I think it’s very unfair to our country. It’s very unfair to our taxpayer. And I think that these countries have to step it up not over a 10-year period; they have to step it up immediately. Germany is a rich country. They talk about they’re going to increase it a tiny bit by 2030. Well, they could increase it immediately tomorrow and have no problem. I dont think it’s fair to the United States.
So we’re going to have to do something because we’re not going to put up with it. We can’t put up with it. And it’s inappropriate.
So we have to talk about the billions and billions of dollars that’s being paid to the country that we’re supposed to be protecting you against. You know, everybody is talking about it all over the world. They’ll say, well, wait a minute, we’re supposed to be protecting you from Russia, but why are you paying billions of dollars to Russia for energy? Why are countries in NATO, namely Germany, having a large percentage of their energy needs paid to Russia and taken care of by Russia?
Now, if you look at it, Germany is a captive of Russia because they supply. They got rid of their coal plants. They got rid of their nuclear. They’re getting so much of the oil and gas from Russia. I think it’s something that NATO has to look at. I think it’s very inappropriate. You and I agree that it’s inappropriate. I dont know what you can do about it now, but it certainly doesnt seem to make sense that they paid billions of dollars to Russia and now we have to defend them against Russia.
SECRETARY GENERAL STOLTENBERG: You know, NATO is an alliance of 29 nations, and there are sometimes differences and different views, and also some disagreements. And the gas pipeline from Russia to Germany is one issue where allies disagree. But the strength of NATO is that despite these differences, we have always been able to unite around our core task, to protect and defend each other, because we understand that we are stronger together than apart.
I think that two World Wars and the Cold War taught us that we are stronger together than apart.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: But how can you be together when a country is getting its energy from the person you want protection against or from the group that you want protection?
SECRETARY GENERAL STOLTENBERG: Because we understand that when we stand together, also in dealing with Russia, we are stronger. I think what we have seen is that —
PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, you’re just making Russia richer. You’re not dealing with Russia. You’re making Russia richer.
SECRETARY GENERAL STOLTENBERG: Well, I think that even during the Cold War, NATO Allies were trading with Russia, and then there have been disagreements about what kind of trade arrangements we should (inaudible).
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I think trade is wonderful. I think energy is a whole different story. I think energy is a much different story than normal trade. And you have a country like Poland that won’t accept the gas. You take a look at some of the countries — they won’t accept it, because they don’t want to be captive to Russia. But Germany, as far as I’m concerned, is captive to Russia, because it’s getting so much of its energy from Russia. So we’re supposed to protect Germany, but they’re getting their energy from Russia. Explain that. And it can’t be explained — you know that.
Thank you.
Q What are the consequences if they don’t spend more, Mr. President?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: They will spend more. I have great confidence that they’ll spend more. I have great confidence.
Q Mr. President, does something have to change on trade for you to keep your troop levels in Europe?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I have great confidence that they will be spending more money, as they should be.
Q Mr. President, why is it (inaudible) spend 10 times more than Russia for defense? Why is it necessary to spend 10 times more money on defense (inaudible)? You are a businessman.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: It’s a shame they made that deal. Too bad. It’s too bad. Thank you.
ROFLMAO…. and this is only breakfast! Imagine when President Trump gets hold of EU President Donald Tusk…
Oldest Version of Homer’s Iliad and The Odyssey was Just Discovered
Armstrong Economics Blog/Ancient History
Re-Posted Jul 12, 2018 by Martin Armstrong
A remarkable discovery has been made and reported by the BBC. A clay tablet recording the story of Odysseus after the fall of Troy by Homer who is the famous Greek poet who was born sometime between the 12th and 8th centuries BC. He is believed to have possibly been born somewhere on the coast of Asia Minor in Turkey rather than the mainland Greece. He is famous for the epic poems The Iliad and The Odyssey, which have had an enormous effect on Western culture, but very little is known about their author.
This latest discovery of a clay tablet was found near the ruined Temple of Zeus in the ancient city of Olympia, during an excavation which has taken three years. The tablet has been dated to Roman times generally and was engraved with 13 verses from the poem The Iliad and The Odyssey. It has been argued that Homer was simply a tale for children because it was handed down in an oral tradition for hundreds of years before the tablet was inscribed. Far too often ancient history is disregarded as myth.
Heinrich Schliemann (1822 – 1890) was a German businessman and a major pioneer of field archaeology. He believed in the historical accuracy of Homer’s Iliad and The Odyssey and Virgil’s Aeneid and that they recorded stories that reflected actual historical events. Of course, all the academics pronounced Homer’s writing was a story for children. Schliemann was an amateur archaeological excavator. He took Homer at face value and believed it was history. To this day people still diminish his contributions because he dared to challenge the academics. Many hate his guts for proving them wrong since they pontificated Homer was a story for children without any proof because they never set foot out into the field to prove that statement was even correct.
This picture of Schliemann’s wife wearing the jewels discovered in Troy was accused of being fake by academics while Schliemann called it Priam’s Treasure. The treasure was smuggled out of Turkey and the official assigned to watch the excavation was sent to prison as a result. The Ottoman government revoked Schliemann’s permission to dig and sued him for its share of the gold. Schliemann thereafter went on to Mycenae where he discovered another part of the Homer epic.
Eventually, Schliemann traded some treasure to the government of the Ottoman Empire in exchange for permission to dig at Troy again. That is located in the Istanbul Archaeology Museum. The rest of his discovery was acquired in 1881 by the Royal Museum of Berlin where it remained until 1945 when it disappeared from a protective bunker beneath the Berlin Zoo. The Russians seized the Treasure yet denied they had it until September 1993 when the treasure turned up at the Pushkin Museum in Moscow. Germany’s request to return it was rejected as Russia asserted that was compensation for the war destruction by Germany. Whether this Treasure was Priam’s is doubtful for it appears to be actually a thousand years older than Homer’s King Priam of Troy.
Schliemann not merely discovered Troy, he discovered much of ancient Greece including the Lions Gate pictured here as the entrance to Mycenae. disagreed. He was not an archaeologist, just a history enthusiast with money. He discovered Troy and most of the Greek cities of the Heroic Age, including Mycenae with its Lion’s Gate, described by Homer, not to forget the gold death mask of Agamemnon where Homer said he was buried.
This latest discovery of a clay tablet recording Homer’s tale is the oldest so far. This further demonstrates that the story was part of Greek history and not merely just a legend
Centinel2012 