Why are the Swedish people offending the Muslims all they have to do is obey the Islamic laws and they will be fine , well maybe not but its the best they can hope fore now that they brought them in,
Tag Archives: Race riots instigated by BLM
LIMBAUGH: UNDERMINING Of American Elections Is Happening Today On Capitol Hill
I can not disagree with RUSH but Trump will not back down we picked a fighter not a RINO
Trump Vindicated As Comey Says ‘No Evidence’ Russia Stole Election
Washington is Fake to the core its not our government its a Mafia organization there to rip us off.
Sean Spicer White House Press Briefing – Monday March 20th 2017…
Used Car Prices Crash Most Since 2008
by Tyler Durden
Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,
According to NADA Used Car Guide, wholesale prices on used vehicles are getting crushed. Let’s take a look at the details.
Used Car Prices Since 1995
Used Car Prices by Type of Vehicle
Used Market Update
In a reversal of what typically occurs in February, wholesale prices of used vehicles up to eight years old fell substantially last month, dropping 1.6% compared to January. The drop was counter to the 1% increase expected for the month and marked just the second time in the past 20 years prices fell in February (last years’ scant 0.2% being the other instance).
NADA Used Car Guide’s seasonally adjusted used vehicle price index fell for the eighth straight month, declining 3.8% from January to 110.1. The drop was by far the worst recorded for any month since November 2008 as the result of a recession-related 5.6% tumble. February’s index figure was also 8% below February 2016’s 119.4 result and marked the index’s lowest level since September 2010.
Incentives Jump by 18.1%
Automakers grew incentive spending once again in February, making it the 23rd month in a row where spending was increased. On average, spending reached $3,594 per unit versus $3,043 per unit in February 2016 according to Autodata.
Among the U.S. Big Three, GM raised incentives by 27.4% in February to an average of $5,125 per unit. Spending at Ford Motor Company rose by 20.9% to $4,012 per unit, while FCA increased incentives by 10.6% to $4,365.
As for Import automakers, Toyota Motor Sales raised incentives by 7.9% in February, reaching an average of $2,267 per unit. American Honda grew incentives by 26.6% to $1,886, while Nissan North America increased spending by 20.1% to $4,080 for the month.
Inventory Falls to 74 Days
Compared to January, days’ supply fell by 11 days in February, landing at 74 days for the period. Looking back, February 2016 saw a supply of only 69 days according to Wards Auto.
GM’s supply reached 91 days over the month, due largely to Buick’s industry high 167-day inventory. Ford Motor Company’s supply fell to 78 days, while FCA’s inventory dropped to 83 days.
Toyota Motor Sales’ supply decreased to a lean 67 days, matching Nissan’s figure for 67 days for the month. Meanwhile, inventory for Honda fell to 74 days. Subaru’s 38 days of supply remained lowest in the industry.
As for luxury automakers, BMW’s inventory fell to 46 days, while Daimler inventory remained unchanged versus January at 44 days’ supply. Cadillac’s inventory of 107 days was the highest in the luxury sector, while Tesla’s two days was the lowest.
Desutche Bank is gravely concerned…
We’ve grown increasingly concerned about U.S. Used Vehicle Pricing down 7.7% yoy during February, per NADA. A decline in used prices has been widely anticipated given a significant increase in used vehicle supply (off-lease vehicles). But the magnitude of the recent drop was nonetheless surprising (February’s drop was largest recorded for any month since Nov. 2008). NADA cited a number of factors contributing to the drop, including an increase in late model auction supply from rental fleets, and delayed tax refunds. Used prices have a significant impact on New Vehicle demand/pricing through their effect on affordability (most new car purchases involve a trade-in).
New/Used Vehicle Pricing & Demand Relationship. Some consumers shift from New to Used when Used Vehicle prices become relatively more attractive, negatively impacting New Vehicle demand. Used price deterioration also has an impact on credit, as lenders watch loan loss severity (and frequency), and tighten when this stat. weakens (potentially creating a negative feedback loop). At a more macro level, used vehicle price weakness is also seen as an indicator of aggregate vehicle supply/demand imbalance in the economy–caused by new vehicles entering the parc significantly faster than the rate of scrappage and net new licensed driver growth. This situation should ultimately self-correct as new car sales come under pressure. That said, the biggest fear for investors is that Auto OEMs become incrementally more price aggressive to support New Vehicle sales. Historically, every 1% decline in Used Vehicle prices has corresponded with a 0.2% decline in New Vehicle prices.
Fundamentally Speaking
NADA partially blames late tax refunds for some of the declines in March.
While it’s true the IRS slowed claims for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC) to combat fraud, late refunds in 2017 cannot possibly explain an eight-month trend.
Yet, based on tax refunds, NADA expects a rebound in used car prices in March.
With massive incentives on new vehicles, I say, let’s see. Regardless, it’s pretty clear that car sales are slowing, and it takes bigger and bigger incentives to push them out the door.
Recall that on March 7, GDPNow 1st Quarter Forecast Plunges to 1.3% Following Vehicle Sales and Factory Orders Reports.
Also recall that the FRBNY Nowcast did not take auto sales into consideration.
On March 15, I reported GDPNow Forecast Dips to 0.9%: Divergence with Nowcast Hits 2.3 Percentage Points – Why?
Is this all related to slow tax refunds? We will soon find out.
“Retailers Are Running Out Of Time”: Channel Checks Show 13% Collapse In Traffic
by Tyler Durden
Re-Posted from ZERO HEDGE Mar 20, 2017 1:33 PM
While the market is treading water, with the S&P modestly in the red, offset by some strength in the DJIA, retail stocks are broadly lower, with 83 of 91 components of the S&P 1500 Retail Index trading in the red, led by Tuesday Morning, Caleres, Express, Shoe Carnival, Francescas as BBG notes.
Some observations: according to Wells Fargo’s Ike Boruchow, it’s “increasingly clear that retail is under significant pressure” adding that store traffic remains weak (likely to get softer this week due to Easter shift), while markdown rates are not only elevated on an annual basis, but also getting sequentially worse. He concludes that “retailers are running out of time” to reach elevated Q1 numbers as consumption is failing to rebound.
In a separate note, Cowen’s retail team conducted channel checks and found that March week 3 traffic declined 13.3% vs -2.4% y/y, “slightly worse” than Cowen’s estimate down 11%-13%, vs last week’s -10.6%, citing national traffic devices.
And then there were various overnight news, among which:
- Movado reported 4Q sales that missed estimates and issued forecast for year EPS and sales that also trailed
- Caleres cut to nuetral vs positive at Susquehanna (PT to $31 from $40); cites disappointing 4Q results, forecast
- Target announed plans to open 43k square-foot small-format store in NYC’s Herald Square
- Macy’s, whose flagship store is also located in Herald Square, is down as much as 2.7%, to lowest intraday since Feb. 1
- For Macy’s, TGT’s entry could put some pressure on apparel business given TGT’s strength in signature categories, Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Poonam Goyal says in email
- She adds that Macy’s challenges “are far beyond TGT’s entry,” traffic at other non-flagship locations must turn, which appears “a difficult task given move to online”
- EBay Plans to Guarantee 3-Day Delivery for 20m Eligible Items
- Consumer sell ideas include AEO, BBBY, DDS, GCI, GIII: MKM managing director and chief market technician Jonathan Krinsky
- Amazon’s Clothing Success Could Doom Department Stores and Malls: Fox Business
- House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady hopes a tax reform bill will be ready for markup this spring: Bloomberg
- Fly reported M Science issued Street-high 1Q rev. forecast for Wayfair (up as much as 1.9%)
In short, whether due to displacement (from online vendors), due to concerns about border tax, or simply because the US consumer’s plight – despite the recent surge in Trump=induced animal spirits – has not changed one bit, the pain for US retailers continues, and as a result, the outlook for malls and other retail-associated secondary industries will remain bleak for the foreseeable future.
Finally, a quick look at “the next (original) big short“, i.e., CMBX, shows that recent negative trends are accelerating to the downside.
NSA DOCUMENTS PROVE SURVEILLANCE OF DONALD TRUMP & HIS FAMILY
Trump was right!
Budget Director Mulvaney Admits No Hope “To Balance The Budget This Year”
by Tyler Durden
Re-Posted from ZERO HEDGE Mar 20, 2017 4:15 AM
Appearing on Meet the Press earlier this morning with the always condescending, well at least if he’s interviewing a Republican guest, Chuck Todd, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Mick Mulvaney, said there’s no hope of achieving a balanced budget this year. Of course, that should hardly come as a surprise to almost anyone other than the suddenly fiscally conservative Chuck Todd.
“No, we won’t be able to balance the budget this year, but we’re working on trying to get it to balance within the ten-year budget window, which is what Republicans in the House and the Senate have traditionally done the last couple of years.”
A smirking Chuck Todd also pressed Mulvaney regarding his thoughts on raising the debt ceiling with a series of ‘gotcha’ questions:
Todd: “Debt ceiling. We hit it on Friday. Extraordinary measures by the Treasury Secretary will mean a couple more months. You were a tough nut to crack on the debt ceiling when you were Congressman Mulvaney. Why should people who were like minded with you who basically said ‘hey look, I’ll give you that debt ceiling but I want real cuts, I want real deficit reduction, I want a real plan.’ I think at one point you said I’ll raise the debt ceiling in exchange for a balanced budget. You’re not going to be making that ask this time, are you?”
Mulvaney: “I have voted to raise the debt ceiling before as most people in Congress have. Traditionally, you go back to the 1920’s and 1930’s, the debt ceiling debate has been used to try and step back and say ‘why do we have a deficit problem, why do we have a debt problem and how can we fix it.’ So we’ll be coming forward with ideas to raise the debt ceiling but at the same time try to address some of those long-term reasons that we have the debt in the first place.”
Meanwhile, Mulvaney took a shot of his own saying that Trump’s vision for the budget is consistent with his comments on the presidential campaign trail and that “He’s trying to do something that politicians are not very famous for, which is actually following through on his promises.” For those who missed it, here is our previous summary of Trump initial “skinny budget” proposal:
Today at 7am, Trump released his “skinny budget”, his administration’s first federal budget blueprint revealing the President’s plan to dramatically reduce the size of the government. As previewed last night, the document calls for deep cuts at departments and agencies that would eliminate entire programs and slash the size of the federal workforce. It also proposes a $54 billion increase in defense spending, which the White House says will be offset by the other cuts.
“This is the ‘America First’ budget,” said White House budget director Mick Mulvaney, a former South Carolina congressman who made a name for himself as a spending hawk before Trump plucked him for his Cabinet, adding that “if he said it in the campaign, it’s in the budget.”
In a proposal with many losers, the Environmental Protection Agency and State Department stand out as targets for the biggest spending reductions. Funding would disappear altogether for 19 independent bodies that count on federal money for public broadcasting, the arts and regional issues from Alaska to Appalachia. Trump’s budget outline is a bare-bones plan covering just “discretionary” spending for the 2018 fiscal year starting on Oct. 1. It is the first volley in what is expected to be an intense battle over spending in coming months in Congress, which holds the federal purse strings and seldom approves presidents’ budget plans.
Trump wants to spend $54 billion more on defense, put a down payment on his border wall, and breathe life into a few other campaign promises. His initial budget outline does not incorporate his promise to pour $1 trillion into roads, bridges, airports and other infrastructure projects. The budget directs several agencies to shift resources toward fighting terrorism and cybercrime, enforcing sanctions, cracking down on illegal immigration and preventing government waste.
The White House has said the infrastructure plan is still to come.
That said, Congress controlled by Trump’s fellow Republicans, is likely to reject some or many of his proposed cuts with some republicans calling the budget “dead on arrival.” Some of the proposed changes, which Democrats will broadly oppose, have been targeted for decades by conservative Republicans. Moderate Republicans have already expressed unease with potential cuts to popular domestic programs such as home-heating subsidies, clean-water projects and job training.
Trump is willing to discuss priorities, said Mulvaney. “The president wants to spend more money on defense, more money securing the border, more money enforcing the laws, and more money on school choice, without adding to the deficit,” Mulvaney told a small group of reporters during a preview on Wednesday. “If they have a different way to accomplish that, we are more than interested in talking to them,” Mulvaney said.
The defense increases are matched by cuts to other programs so as to not increase the $488 billion federal deficit. Mulvaney acknowledged the proposal would likely result in significant cuts to the federal workforce. “You can’t drain the swamp and leave all the people in it,” Mulvaney said.
A visual summary of the proposed budget changes is shown below, courtesy of Reuters:
The biggest losers:
Trump asked Congress to slash the EPA by $2.6 billion or more than 31 percent, and the State Department by more than 28 percent or $10.9 billion. Mulvaney said the “core functions” of those agencies would be preserved. Hit hard would be foreign aid, grants to multilateral development agencies like the World Bank and climate change programs at the United Nations.
Trump wants to get rid of more than 50 EPA programs, end funding for former Democratic President Barack Obama’s signature Clean Power Plan aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and cut renewable energy research programs at the Energy Department. Regional programs to clean up the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay would be sent to the chopping block.
Community development grants at the Housing Department – around since 1974 – were cut in Trump’s budget, along with more than 20 Education Department programs, including some funding program for before- and after- school programs. Anti-poverty grants and a program that helps poor people pay their energy bills would be slashed, as well as a Labor Department program that helps low-income seniors find work.
Long reviled by conservatives, the Internal Revenue Service would get a $239 million cut, despite Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin’s request for more funding. The Education Department would receive $1.4 billion to invest in public charter schools and private schools, even as its overall budget is cut by 14 percent. But other numbers appear to contradict some of Trump’s top priorities. One of his campaign pledges was to work to cure diseases, but the National Institutes of Health will reportedly see $5.8 billion slashed from its budget.
Trump calls for a 13 percent cut to the Transportation Department, which would ostensibly play a big role in Trump’s promised infrastructure overhaul. That includes $500 million from the TIGER grant program, which provides funding for road and bridge projects.
Trump’s rural base did not escape cuts. The White House proposed a 21 percent reduction to the Agriculture Department, cutting loans and grants for wastewater, reducing staff in county offices and ending a popular program that helps U.S. farmers donate crops for overseas food aid.
And the winners
White House officials looked at Trump’s campaign speeches and “America First” pledges as they crunched the numbers, Mulvaney said. “We turned those policies into numbers,” he said, explaining how the document mirrored pledges to spend more on the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal, veterans’ health care, the FBI, and Justice Department efforts to fight drug dealers and violent crime.
The Department of Homeland Security would get a 6.8 percent increase, with more money for extra staff needed to catch, detain and deport illegal immigrants. Trump wants Congress to shell out $1.5 billion for the border wall with Mexico in the current fiscal year – enough for pilot projects to determine the best way to build it – and a further $2.6 billion in fiscal 2018, Mulvaney said.
The estimate of the full cost of the wall will be included in the full budget, expected in mid-May, which will project spending and revenues over 10 years. Trump has vowed Mexico will pay for the border wall, which the Mexican government has flatly said it will not do. The White House has said recently that funding would be kick-started in the United States.
The voluminous budget document will include economic forecasts and Trump’s views on “mandatory entitlements” – big-ticket programs like Social Security and Medicare, which Trump vowed to protect on the campaign trail.
“There is no question this is a hard-power budget,” said Mulvaney. “It is not a soft-power budget.”
The budget requests $1.5 billion to detain and remove undocumented immigrants, and $314 million to hire 500 new Border Patrol officers and 1,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.
Why The Press Is Hated…
by Tyler Durden
Authored by Eric Peters via EricPetersAutos.com,
The press wonders – or pretends to wonder – why it’s held in contempt by more than just a small handful of people. Maybe the pressies should read what they publish.
The other day, Automotive News published the following:
“Dozens of U.S. cities are willing to buy $10 billion of electric cars and trucks to show skeptical automakers there’s demand for low-emissions vehicles, just as President Trump seeks to review pollution standards the industry opposes.”
This slurry of dishonest or simply idiotic “reporting” is stupendously revealing – all the more so because it is representative of the norm. Where to begin?
Let’s work from the back, since the worst lie – and that is exactly the correct word – squats toward the end of this vile dreck:
“…to review the pollution standards the industry opposes.”
Utter falsehood. I mean, other than the industry opposing part. Which of course is portrayed as all-but-demonic, with sulfurous undertones that practically waft off the page.
The lie worthy of Dr. Goebbels at his best, though, is this business about carbon dioxide being a “pollutant.” In which case – uh oh! – it is time to put giant cones on top of volcanoes and catalytically converting muzzles on cows and for that matter us, too. Carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” in the same way that di-hydrogen monoxide (water) is a “pollutant.”
It does not foul the air. Even slightly.
It does not cause cancer or respiratory problems or acid rain.
Or even acne.
The Automotive News story is despicable because it purveys without comment or qualifier the package-dealing of an inert, non-reactive gas – C02 – with the byproducts of internal combustion engines that do foul the air, contribute to the formation of smog, irritate people’s lungs, create public health problems and cause acid rain.
Those compounds which are pollutants, properly (scientifically) speaking.
Carbon dioxide is a natural constituent component of the atmosphere, like water vapor and nitrogen and oxygen. To characterize C02 as a “pollutant” is either a titanic imbecility or a purposeful attempt to mislead.
It is of a piece with the progagandizing the media performed for the government when it decided it was time to conflate those who (so they said) attacked America on 9/11 with the Iraqi government. You may recall. One minute, it was al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Then – as if a batch fax had been sent to every media organ in the country – it was non-stop Saddam. Just as C02 isn’t a “pollutant,” Saddam didn’t attack America. But the press did its best to purposefully confuse the issue, aiding and abetting a Nuremburg-worthy high crime – aggressive war – that went unpunished. Reichsmarschall Goring is smiling cynically, somewhere above . . . or below.
The new Fake News is that carbon dioxide is something like carbon monoxide, or unburned hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, or particulates – a danger that must be regulated and controlled. Not only is the untrue (see above) but unlike the actually harmful compounds classified (accurately) as pollutants, carbon dioxide can’t be “cleaned up” because of course it’s not “dirty” to begin with. The only thing that can be done – here it comes – is to reduce the volume produced and the only known way to do that is to . . . burn less fuel.
In other words, it’s a fuel efficiency fatwa masquerading as an anti-pollution measure. And the object is not to increase fuel efficiency. It is to reduce the size of engines (and so, cars) and make them expensive – so that fewer people can afford to buy them. This is not spoken of openly, but it is the end goal. It must be; a single fool or demagogue could be dismissed as aberrant; this is systematic, organized.
The government – which is a bunch of people – calculated, drew up ad then decreed (in the waning days of Obama’s presidency, knowing his successor might be . . . skeptical) that henceforth carbon dioxide would be considered a ”pollutant.”
The media lapdogged that up. No “excuse me, but…”
Nada.
Just willing, complicit, lazy regurgitation. Or something much worse . . .
The reaction of anyone reading the Automotive News pabulum who is in possession of junior high school-level chemistry knowledge will – rightly – be one of outrage. Unfortunately – deliberately – a working majority of the public is not in possession of junior high school-level knowledge of chemistry.
Next item up for dissection:
“Dozens of U.S. cities are willing to buy $10 billion of electric cars and trucks to show skeptical automakers there’s a demand for low-emissions vehicles.”
God, my teeth ache.
Firstly, it’s not not “dozens of cities” who will be buying these force-produced electric Edsels. It is the taxpayers of these cities who will be forced to buy them (but not own them) via the extorted funds they are compelled to provide, so that government workers can drive around in the electric Edsels.
This isn’t supply and demand, market forces. It is make-work and wealth transfer. To characterize it as “demand for low-emissions vehicles” is another despicable upchuck of putrefying propaganda that depends upon the stupefaction (or enstupidation) of the reader, who will only allow the morsel to pass by if he is utterly in the dark about basic economic laws.
And “low emissions”?
Seriously?
How many times must this be whack-a-moled? Electric vehicles do produce emissions, just not at the tailpipe. Does the source of pollution matter? Or just that it is produced?
Bingo, if you picked the latter.
First of all, the raw materials necessary to make the hundreds of pounds of batteries per electric car are not gently taken from Gaia’s willing bosom – and the batteries themselves are mini-Chernobyls of toxic waste. Oh, but they’ll be recycled! Except when they’re not. What then? Out here in The Woods, decrepit olds cars abound, left to rot in the backyard. The same fate awaits even shiny six figure Teslas. Which – one day – will be paint-blotched old hoopties left to rot – and leak – in someone’s back yard. Only instead of one roughly 45 pound led acid battery leaching into the earf, it’ll be 400-plus pounds of life-unfriendly compounds.
Does anyone care? Shouldn’t “environmentalists”?
Electric cars, by the way, also produce C02. In fact, they produce more “climate changing” C02 than a conventional car. Not at the tailpipe, perhaps.
At the smokestack.
At the “tailpipe” of the coal and oil-fired utility plants that generate the electricity which powers electric cars. If hundreds of thousands – if millions – of these electric cars are put into circulation, the demand on the grid will be great and the output of C02 even higher.
What then?
The press does not ask such questions. Instead:
“Demonstrating demand” . . . so reads the subhead in the Automotive News propaganda piece.
And yes, again, propaganda.
Words matter. Using certain words conveys a certain meaning. People who deal in words professionally know this, instinctively. As the hawk knows how to dive.
“Demonstrating demand” is a statement, as if of fact, that an entirely fictitious and fraudulent thing is the same thing as the real thing.
Government buying things isn’t “demand” anymore than one is a “customer” of the IRS.
Whatever “demand” is created, is artificial – dependent on wealth transfer, on the coercive power of the government. It is the same sort of “demand” that built the Volga canal in Stalin’s Soviet Union.
Automotive News quotes – without comment – a statement made by a Seattle bureaucrat named Chris Bast, who is a “climate and transportation policy adviser” to the city of Seattle:
“If you build it, we will buy it.”
He means: If the government forces car companies to build electric cars, the government will force taxpayers to buy them. This, of course, is not translated thusly.
The loathsome “news” article concludes:
“Tailpipe fumes (my italics) are crucial in the fight to stop global warming.”
The illiteracy is almost as striking as the dishonesty – or the imbecility, you decide which.
Note the conflation – the inert, non-reactive gas (C02) is now a fume. And it is “crucial” in “the fight to stop global warming.”
Not the galloping unchecked assumptions; the blithe acceptance, as of gravitation, of the political “science” of “global warming.”
The awful construction would be enough to make my teeth feel loose. But the oily proselytizing is just too much.
And they ask me why I drink . .
NY Times First Reported Trump was Wiretapped Back in January
Armstrong Economics Blog/Corruption
Re-Posted Mar 20, 2017 by Martin Armstrong
The New York Times print story on the front page of January 20th, 2017 read: “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides”. Of course now, the New York Times is trying to downplay that story simply because Trump said Obama had wiretapped his campaign. Since “wiretapped data” was being used to investigate President Trump’s associates and they are going over those conversations, it seems self-evident that someone has the recorded conversations. INFOWARS is reporting that have evidence now of the wiretapping from a law enforcement source. How is it possible to go over conversations to investigate if any of Trump’s people spoke to Russians without recording those conversations?
The two Republicans who are trying to dethrone Trump I have stated are two men I would not shake hands with. John McCain, when a Lieutenant Commander in the U.S. Navy as a Navy pilot, played a hog-dog maneuver on July 29, 1967 that killed 134 sailors. McCain while on the deck of the carrier U.S.S. Forrestal, pulled a trick by doing a “wet start” up of his jet to show off. This created a large startling flame and sudden shocking noise from the rear of a jet engine. He also seems to have apparently armed a weapon that resulted in launching a powerful Zuni rocket across the carrier’s deck hitting other parked planes. The subsequent massive explosions, fire and destruction went several decks below and nearly sunk this U.S. aircraft carrier. This stunt resulted in the deaths of 134 sailors and seriously injure another 161 sailors blinding some.
Any other Navy pilot causing this type of death and destruction would have been grounded and charged. Not McCain. For you see, his grandfather was a famous FOUR STAR Navy admiral and his father was at the time a Navy FOUR STAR admiral. McCain was simply transferred and everything was covered-up. What is alleged thereafter is on a mission is that he was disliked by other pilots and they deliberately left him out to get shot down.
Wikipedia, not a reliable source to say the least, says: “During the Vietnam War, he was almost killed in the 1967 USS Forrestal fire. In October 1967, while on a bombing mission over Hanoi, he was shot down, seriously injured, and captured by the North Vietnamese. He was a prisoner of war until 1973. McCain experienced episodes of torture, and refused an out-of-sequence early repatriation offer. His war wounds have left him with lifelong physical limitations.”
This paragraph is added by Centinel2012, I have heard the McCain’s stay in the Hanoi Hilton was not as bad as claimed and that while there his nickname was “songbird” I’ll leave it to the reader what that means. I have also heard from a sailor that was on the Forrestal that the above incident is true, although there is a minor deviation which Doesn’t change the story but what happened afterwards.
John McCain is no conservative, which has been his complaint against Trump. McCain voted to tax the internet. He wrote in correspondence: “On May 7, 2013, I voted to support the Marketplace Fairness Act because this bill will ensure that sales tax is collected on all purchases, regardless of whether in a brick and mortar retailer or through internet transactions.”
The other Republican trying to stop Trump is none other than Lyndsey Graham who sponsored the Act that allows the government to arbitrarily imprison you without a trial or a lawyer. All they need do is claim you were associated with “terrorism”. However, the definition of “terrorism” has expanded to anyone who resists government domestically as well. Members of the protest in Oregon protesting against the government has had the Washington Post asking – Why aren’t we calling the Oregon occupiers ‘terrorists’? Lyndsey Graham has unleashed the very tool that has wiped out the Constitution with changing the definition of a single word.
These are the two Republicans trying to say Trump was not “wiretapped” but implying that there was no surveillance at all in any form. Yet Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, James Clapper and John Brennan, warned Trump that Michael Flynn did speak to Russian about the sanctions. They had access to those recorded conversations. What is stunning is how now everyone has amnesia about Flynn or how is it possible to investigate conversations if they do not have them?
It just appears that government is just so corrupt, there is nothing much we can do but just watch. Sooner or later, Humpty Dumpty will fall and nobody can put him back together again. This is part of the critical key to a Phase Transition. Such moves take place when people lose all trust and confidence in government. We are getting there.
Centinel2012 