Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg Cancels Again – Pushes Trump Grand Jury Into Next Week


Posted originally on the CTH on March 23, 2023 | Sundance

No one knows for sure what the current issues are around the corrupt political case that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is trying to assemble.  However, given all the preparations that are known to have taken place this week, and given the overtime paid to police in order to staff security in/around the Manhattan courthouse this week, something big has shifted and delayed the entire fiasco.

On Thursday morning, CNN was first to report that Alvin Bragg had once against cancelled the grand jury review of the case he was been building against Donald Trump.  The grand jury did hear other evidence in unrelated cases, but the case presumably pushing toward a Trump indictment was pushed into next week.   President Trump responded to yet another delay via Truth Social:

CNN – The Manhattan grand jury investigating Trump’s alleged role in a scheme to pay hush money to an adult film star will not hear that case when it convenes today, according to two sources familiar with the matter, pushing the Manhattan’s district attorney’s probe into next week. After today, the Manhattan grand jury will next convene on Monday, when it is possible they could hear additional testimony from a witness.

The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office is trying to determine whether to call back Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, to refute the testimony provided earlier this week by lawyer Robert Costello —or to call an additional witness to buttress their case before the grand jurors consider a vote on whether to indict the former president, the source familiar with the investigation said. (read more)

It is entirely possible that Alvin Bragg has lost the case inside the grand jury of 23 people, and there is now reluctance to continue the effort.  However, when the scale of the politicization is overlaid against the issue, there doesn’t seem to be a way for DA Bragg to back down and not come under fire from the ideologues in Lawfare that have been advising him.

At this point, the only thing we know with certainty is that the case is a hot mess of nonsense.

Ziiggii’s Point About Senator John Thune…


Posted originally on the CTH on March 23, 2023 | Sundance

Throughout the process of explaining events, situations, contexts, people and ultimately motives, I always try to introduce metaphors, analogies and comparative situations as reference points to understand the premise behind the interpretation of events, data and analysis as it surfaces.

Treepers in general, likely by the outcome of our association, also do the same thing in the comment section.

That’s why reading the comments is always enlightening as it expands the thoughts and considerations.

In the comments section here, as with some other voices in social media, there are some exceptionally brilliant minds that review events and have fantastic ways to distill complex issues into the core essence of the thing.

Ziiggii said something today that is so perfectly succinct, it is worth emphasizing.

Overall, we can see the fingerprints of Mitch McConnell in the background of the Ron DeSantis campaign. It’s not that McConnell is attached directly to the campaign, but rather is aligned with the overarching theme of DeSantis as being the acceptable Republican candidate.

Wall Street and the multinational corps, along with K-Street writ large, are the mechanisms that support the philosophy of the professional GOPe, those are the same entities supporting DeSantis. The core objective is in synergy. Trump represents a loss of control for the financial operators, DeSantis retains the system.

This was a point I was making when I said McConnell’s outlook is essentially DeSantis’. Then Ziiggii replied with a mic drop. It’s not McConnell per se’ that is in alignment with the RdS ’24 objective, it’s John Thune!

THAT is a brilliant note.

The ideological difference between McConnell and Thune is nonexistent. However, the difference between McConnell and Thune is the GOPe baton being handed down to maintain the status quo. McConnell has been grooming Thune for years… Thune’s time is soon to surface; there will be no challengers to Thune becoming the next Republican Senate Leader; the system supports it.

McConnell does represent the legacy Republican outlook, and to Ziiggii’s point, Thune represents the next in line to maintain it.

Yes, Senator John Thune is representative in the DC system of corrupt DeceptiCon activity, as Ron DeSantis is representative in the GOPe presidential aspirations.

A point very well taken.

One of the more challenging facets, to awakening the general public on the scale of corruption within Washington DC, is the need for people to drop party designations.

This is never truer than within the U.S. Senate where the mistaken “us -vs- them” perspective remains a pesky hurdle.

The blue team and red team are mirror images of themselves.  They are not opposites, they are mirrored – a big difference.

The policy objective is the same, the business model within DC (K Street) benefits the upper chamber the most.

Within this dynamic, Mitch McConnell is the mirror image of Harry Reid.  Mitch has been grooming his replacement for a long time; that replacement is John Thune. Senator Thune is in a position that demands stealth.  Ideologically, think of John Thune as the mirror image of Gavin Newsom.  They are not opposites, they are mirrored – a big difference.

The system of affluence and influence has been created to self-sustain regardless of party affiliation. The Senate is one club with one ideological perspective. Within that club rule #1 dominates: none of the members will ever expose another member. So, when there is corrupt activity within the Senate, no one from within the institution will expose another. This is the code of Omerta within the upper chamber.  This is the way of the “my good friend” Senate and how it operates.

Current Senate Leader Mitch McConnell has a leadership group who carry out the institutional objectives of the upper chamber as a body.  They include: Senator John Thune (whip), Senator John Barrasso (conference chair), Roy Blunt (committee chair), Todd Young (NRSC chair), Jodi Ernst (conference vice-chair), and Chuck Grassley (president pro tempore). None of these senators make a move publicly without approval from Leader McConnell.

In August of 2020, before the presidential election, Senate Whip John Thune rebuked the mail-in ballot concerns expressed by President Trump. Thune did this because ultimately the objectives of the upper chamber were more favorably aligned if President Trump was removed.

WASHINGTON DC – […] Asked if he agreed with the president’s repeated charges that mailed-in balloting will lead to a “rigged election” and “massive voter fraud,” the Senate majority whip told reporters, “I don’t.”

“Mailed-in voting has been used in a lot of places for a long time and, honestly, we’ve got a lot of folks that, as you know, they’re investing heavily in trying … to win that war. It’s always a war too for mail-in ballots. Both sides compete, and it’s always an area where I think our side, at least in my experience, has done pretty well,” Thune answered, adding: “I think we want to assure people it’s going to work, it’s secure and if they vote that way it’s going to count.” (read more)

(L-R) Barrasso, Blunt, McConnell, Thune and Ernst.

You often hear people wonder why the GOP doesn’t push back against the Democrats.  The reason is simple, the GOP are the right wing of the UniParty bird, the Democrats are the left wing.  They are mirror images of each other.

Both clubs are attached to the body of big corrupt corporatist government.

Watch the trade front.  Watch international trade, economics, banking and multinational corporation influence.   That’s the ‘trillions are at stake,’ and that’s where the opposition to everything MAGA comes from.

Reminder – June, 2015  ]

Tucker Carlson Tonight (Full episode) – Tuesday, March 21


By Tucker Carlson Tonight Posted originally on Rumble on March 23, 2023

the 1933 Bank Holiday – Can it Happen Again?


Armstrong Economics Blog/Banking Crisis Re-Posted Mar 23, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Marty there are a lot of people who seem to be trying to create a panic. Some are claiming the stock market will plunge by 50%. Others are saying nothing will survive other than gold. It seems like none of these people have any sense of what is really unfolding. They were saying the same thing for different reasons before the banking crisis. Can you offer any historical perspective?

Thank you. You seem to be the only real source these days.

Pete

ANSWER: The Bank Holiday took place the first week of March 1933. It began with governors closing down the banks in their states. Once one began, like COVID rules, they quickly jumped on the bandwagon. As reported by March 4th, 1933, some 41 states had already declared a banking holiday. Back then, the president took office in March – not January. Thus, Roosevelt was sworn in on March 4th, 1933. As the new president, FDR delivered what is arguably his best-known speech.

“So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is…fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and of vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. And I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.”

The following day, Roosevelt declared a national banking holiday on March 5th, 1933. Then Congress responded by passing the Emergency Banking Act of 1933 on March 9th, 1933. This action was combined with the Federal Reserve’s commitment to supply unlimited amounts of currency to reopened banks. Back then, they effectively created a de facto 100% deposit insurance and this was before the FDIC was created.

However, what the history books have omitted because it revealed the real reason for the major banking crisis, was the confiscation of gold precisely as Germany did in December 1922 seizing 10% of all assets which unleashed hyperinflation in 1923.

In Herbert Hoover’s memoirs (1951), he documents the fact that Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) played a very dirty game of politics. There were rumors that FDR would confiscate gold in 1932 BEFORE the election. These rumors spread and people ran to banks to withdraw their funds. The night before the election in 1932, FDR denied that he would do such a thing. After FDR won the election, the real bank panic began. FDR would not take office until March 1933.

The run on banks began as the Great Depression started. In 1929 alone, 659 banks closed their doors due to mismanagement and speculation. Ironically, to save money on paper, it was also in 1929 when the currency was reduced in size to save money. This time, they want to move to digital and save 100% on printing money. Here in 2023, the failures are due to the WOKE agenda which has deprived the banks of risk management rather than speculation.

However, as the 1931 Sovereign Debt Crisis hit, the number of bank failures skyrocketed. Goldman Sacks and others were selling foreign bonds to Americans in small denominations., As Europe began to default, US banks holding foreign debt and individuals in need of cash led to a banking panic for external reasons. Here is a chart showing the listing of bonds on the NYSE. We can easily see the collapse in the bond market thanks to the 1931 Sovereign Debt Crisis.

By 1932, an additional 5,102 banks went out of business. Families lost their life savings overnight. Thirty-eight states had adopted restrictions on withdrawals in an effort to forestall the panic. By March 4th, 41 states had declared a bank holiday shutting down banks. Bank failures increased in 1933, and Franklin Roosevelt deemed remedying these failing financial institutions his first priority after being inaugurated.

However, it was actually the election of FDR that started the banking crisis post-1931. Hoover pleaded with FDR to please come out and address the gold confiscation rumors. People had been hoarding their gold coins fearing the rumored confiscation. Despite Hoover’s plea for FDR to come out and deny the rumors after the election, he remained silent. Given FDR’s manipulation of Japan and the attack on Pearl Harbor which he appeared to instigate with sanctions confiscating Japanese assets in the USA, denying the sale of any energy to Japan, and then threatening to use the fleet to block them from buying fuel from anywhere else, They Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. There were Senate investigations afterward about FDR’s role because the US had already broken the Japanese code and knew in advance about the attack on Pearl Harbor. He did that to force the US into World War II.

It was in his character to remain silent and create the worst banking crisis in history before he was sworn in as president. FDR was a radical socialist and many viewed that he admired Lenin. If it were not for Mr. Jones exposing the truth behind Stalin, even the corrupt New York Times journalist promoting Stalinism was meeting with FDR. The run on the banks became massive when FDR won the election on November 8th, 1932. FDR allowed the banking system to implode with people rushing to withdraw the money in gold coins.

At 1:00 a.m. on Monday, March 6th, 1933, President Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2039 ordering the suspension of all banking transactions, effective immediately. Roosevelt had taken the oath of office only thirty-six hours earlier.

The terms of the presidential proclamation specified:

[N]o such banking institution or branch shall pay out, export, earmark, or permit the withdrawal or transfer in any manner or by any device whatsoever, of any gold or silver coin or bullion or currency or take any other action which might facilitate the hoarding thereof; nor shall any such banking institution or branch pay out deposits, make loans or discounts, deal in foreign exchange, transfer credits from the United States to any place abroad, or transact any other banking business whatsoever.

For an entire week, Americans would not have access to banks or banking services. They could not withdraw or transfer their money, nor could they make deposits. The entire economy ran simply on cash in your pocket.

While the first phase of the banking crisis unfolded after 1929 due to speculation losses (hence Glass–Steagall Act), then the second phase was the 1931 Sovereign Debt Crisis, it was the third phase with the election of FDR that led to thousands of banks failing as there was a mad rush to withdraw your gold coin. But a new round of problems that began in early 1933 placed a severe strain on New York banks, many of which held balances for banks in other parts of the country. About 4,000 banks failed during this period alone bringing the total to over 9,000.

Much to everyone’s relief, when the institutions that could reopen for business on March 13th, 1933 saw depositors standing in line to return their stashed cash to neighborhood banks. Within two weeks, Americans had redeposited more than half of the currency that they had withdrawn post-FDR’s election on November 8th, 1932. This would prove to be a sneaky trick of FDR to get people to redeposit all the gold coins they had withdrawn – as we are about to explore.

The stock market was also ordered closed when FDR came to power. With the cleverness of a real con artist operating a Ponzi Scheme to gain the confidence of the people, FDR needed the gold coin to be deposited for Phase 4 of the banking crisis. On March 15th, 1933, (The Ides of March), the stock market was allowed to reopen. On the first day of trading, the New York Stock Exchange recorded the largest one-day percentage price increase ever.

The week before the closure, the Dow Jones Industrials fell to 49.68. The week following the closure, the Dow rallied to 64.56 – a percentage gain of virtually 30% over the banking holiday. The shorts who were better on the collapse of the market once it reopened were devastated. It was a major short-covering rally.

With the benefit of hindsight, the nationwide Bank Holiday and the Emergency Banking Act of March 1933, ended the bank runs that had plagued the Great Depression, but it also set the stage for the confiscation of gold. What you have to understand is that Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s (FDR) actions in 1933 were not directed simply at gold. He was embarking on what he called the New Deal, which was a Marxist Agenda that was very popular at the time. His New Deal would end austerity, whereby they were maintaining a balanced budget in the belief that they needed to inspire confidence in the currency.

It was this balanced budget philosophy that also inspired John Maynard Keynes who argued that in times of economic distress when the demand has collapsed, that is when the state needs to run a deficit and increase the money supply. There was a simultaneous international flight of capital from Europe to the United States in the face of European sovereign debt defaults.  That capital flight lasted for nearly two years until FDR won the election in 1932. There was much concern that Roosevelt would do what Germany did in 1922 in confiscating assets. That was the rumor about the possible confiscation of gold.

Milton Friedman criticized the Fed because the capital flows poured into the US but they refused to monetize it. We can see that as Europe defaulted on its debts in 1931, the capital rushed head-first into the dollar. Then we see that the dollar peaked in November 1932 with the election of FDR fearing that would weaken the dollar and exploit the economy. All this gold came to the USA pushing the dollar higher, but the Fed refused to monetize it, was Milton’s criticism. The backing of gold behind the dollar doubled in supply between 1929 and 1931.

So, you must separate gold and the devaluation of the dollar to comprehend what the issue was all about. FDR could have simply abandoned the gold standard, as did Britain, and not confiscated gold. However, that would have also been sufficient to end austerity. But the bankers would have profited and sold the gold overseas at higher prices. Roosevelt in his confiscation of gold was intended to deprive the private sector of profiting from his devaluation of the dollar which was rising the price of gold from $20 to $35. You must keep in mind that he even degraded Pierre du Pont (1870-1954) and called him the “Merchant of Death” because he produced arms for World War I and made a profit off of that war demand. Many saw Roosevelt as a traitor to his own class.

ExecutiveOrder-Gold-Confiscation

The confiscation of the gold was for two reasons. First, FDR was changing the monetary system from one where there was no distinction domestically from internationally to a two-tier system. Gold would freely circulate without restriction only internationally. Therefore, the confiscation of gold was altering the monetary system moving to a two-tier monetary system with gold only used in international transactions.

Consequently, FDR confiscated gold to move to a two-tier system and to deprive Americans of any profit from his devaluation. What FDR then did was confiscate gold from all institutions ordering them to turn over whatever they had. Ironically, this move was intended to target bankers rather than the public. FDR did not have people knocking on every door demanding all their gold. That is why there are plenty of US gold coins that have survived. If individuals possessed them rather than an institution, then they kept what they owned

Therefore, Roosevelt was able to seize whatever gold existed in banks. He declared all contracts void that had gold provisions for payment. It was in Perry v. United States – 294 U.S. 330 (1935) that the US Supreme Court ruled that Congress, by virtue of its power to deal with gold coin as a medium of exchange, was authorized to prohibit its export and limit its use in foreign exchange. Hence, the restraint thus imposed upon holders of gold coins was incidental to their ownership of it, and gave them no cause of action. id/P. 294 U. S. 356.

The Supreme Court held that it could not say that the exercise of this power by Congress was arbitrary or capricious. id/P. 294 U. S. 356. They held that even if the Government’s repudiation of the gold clause in the government bonds was unconstitutional, it did not entitle the plaintiff to recover more than the loss he has actually suffered, and of which he may rightfully complain. id/P. 294 U. S. 354. Therefore, the Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, held:

“insofar as it undertakes to nullify such gold clauses in obligations of the United States and provides that such obligations shall be discharged by payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts, is unconstitutional. id/P. 294 U. S. 349.

Yet, swapping gold for dollars created no loss that was cognizable even though the taking of gold was unconstitutional. Clearly, the Supreme Court did not consider the loss in terms of foreign exchange. The Court reasoned:

“Plaintiff has not attempted to show that, in relation to buying power, he has sustained any loss; on the contrary, in view of the adjustment of the internal economy to the single measure of value as established by the legislation of the Congress, and the universal availability and use throughout the country of the legal tender currency in meeting all engagements, the payment to the plaintiff of the amount which he demands would appear to constitute not a recoupment of loss in any proper sense, but an unjustified enrichment.”

In my understanding of the law, those who argued before the Court made purely a domestic argument. A dollar was still a dollar in domestic terms so there was no cognizable loss and the Court did not reach the constitutional question. Had they argued that their loss was with respect to some debt owed in British pounds, they there was a loss. Purely domestically, the only loss would have been to inflation and the Court would never rule against the government on such an issue.

All of that said, there does not appear to be any historical precedent for the stock market to collapse by 50%, all tangible assets to turn to dust, and only gold will survive given a banking crisis where Biden and Yellen sit on each other’s hands and do nothing. Trust me. Every major Democratic donor will be screaming. And as for those claiming the Fed will reverse its position, say inflation is suddenly no longer a problem, and monetize everything in sight, this is even too big for the Fed. have to create QE and absorb all the debt, there to things have changed. If the Fed does that, it will also lose all credibility. It squarely understands that inflation comes from handing Ukraine a black check to the most corrupt government in the world. The Fed raised rates yesterday for it cannot back down. It is choreographing the best it can but the bankers do not listen.

If they simply stand behind all the deposits, then there will be no panic. That is what they did in 1933 and the market rallied in confidence thereafter.

The Fed Does Not Back Down


Armstrong Economics Blog/Interest Rates Re-Posted Mar 22, 2023 by Martin Armstrong

COMMENT: Marty, it’s refreshing to have Socrates that is totally unbiased. It projected continued rising rates into next year and the Fed just proved its point. It is not backing down.

Thank you. Socrates is very enlightening.

GS

ANSWER: I know there were a lot of talks that surely the Fed had to lower rates and start QE all over again. Most of those sorts of comments have no real experience in markets. They just mouth a lot of hot air. Perhaps instead of putting masks on cows, we should do that on the shills. The Federal Reserve had no choice but to raise interest rates although it was just by a quarter point. Not to do so and the Fed would lose all credibility and the market would then not take them seriously.

You MUST understand that this crisis has unfolded because too many banks were wrapped up in WOKE culture and hired people who were UNQUALIFIED to run risk management. Some were more excited about cross-dressing as a woman and winning the Rainbow award in banking than actually protecting the bank from the risk of rising interest rates.

In a statement released at the conclusion of the meeting, Fed officials acknowledged that recent financial market turmoil is weighing on inflation and the economy, though they expressed confidence in the overall system. “The US banking system is sound and resilient.” They had no choice but to make this statement.

“Recent developments are likely to result in tighter credit conditions for households and businesses and to weigh on economic activity, hiring and inflation. The extent of these effects is uncertain.”

The Fed is saying that their rise in rates will in fact reduce inflation and economic activity. The banks have this yield curve risk and that is different from the 2007-2009 crisis where the debt was based on fraud. Here, the debt is US Treasuries so they are not going bankrupt from that aspect, but it is a liquidity crisis.

If these people who scream loudly but know nothing really about finance keep up the nonsense, they will only add to the uncertainly. This inflation is accelerating thanks to the war.

Bombshell 2018 Letter From Cohen Attorney to FEC *SHOULD* Collapse Pretext of Alvin Bragg Nonsense Case Against Donald Trump


Posted originally on the CTH on March 22, 2023 | Sundance

A letter from lawyers representing Michael Cohen to the Federal Election Commission in 2018 should end the case being attempted by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.  However, given the highly political nature of the DA bringing the case, it is possible the ideologically driven witch hunt will continue.

The 2018 letter states that Michael Cohen made a payment to Stormy Daniels without any consultation with Donald Trump.  This undermines the cornerstone of the prosecution’s case.

(Via Daily Mail) The bombshell document, exclusively obtained by DailyMail.com, could throw a wrench in the works of prosecutors pursuing criminal charges against Trump over the payments. Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and the star witness in the case over which Trump reportedly faces imminent arrest, claims that Trump got him to pay $130,000 to Daniels to keep her quiet about her alleged affair with the real estate mogul, just days before the 2016 presidential election.

[…] But in a February 8, 2018 letter to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Cohen’s attorney Stephen Ryan wrote: ‘Mr. Cohen used his own personal funds’, and that ‘Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed Mr. Cohen for the payment directly or indirectly.’

The letter was written in response to an FEC probe launched after complaints of campaign finance violations, lodged by Paul Ryan and the organization Common Cause.

‘In a private transaction in 2016, before the U.S. presidential election, Mr. Cohen used his own personal funds to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to Ms. Stephanie Clifford,’ Cohen’s lawyer, who worked at McDermott Will & Emery, wrote.

‘Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed Mr. Cohen for the payment directly or indirectly.

‘Contrary to the allegations in the complaint, which are entirely speculative, neither Mr. Cohen nor Essential Consultants LLC made any in-kind contributions to Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., or any other presidential campaign committee. (more)

President Trump responded to the letter surfacing, via Truth Social:

Mexican President AMLO Hits Biden Over Likely Arrest of Trump, While Pushing Back Against Dangerous Cartel Narrative


Posted originally on the CTH on March 22, 2023 | Sundance

Let it not be said that Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez-Obrador (AMLO) does not understand what the Biden administration is attempting in the recent criticism and passive aggressive posturing toward Mexico.

Yesterday, AMLO was outlining a specific set of infrastructure initiatives that are ongoing.  Three new oil refineries together with new railroads and highways are under construction as the government continues positioning itself for energy independence. [Video Here]  However, it’s what he said after the energy remarks that’s really stunning.

The energy plan, which runs counter to the expressed demands of Canada and the United States, includes two regional ‘green’ refineries that will have the ability of turning used cooking oil into fuel.  However, the plan also includes new oil refinery capacity that will permit cheap gasoline independent of the need for Mexican oil to be refined in Texas and returned.

All of the refinery projects are on schedule to be completed by the end of this year and into 2024.  In essence, Mexico will have very cheap gasoline and diesel fuel in the near future.  This was previously outlined as a goal by AMLO in July 2022, and is against the interests the Biden administration.  Now those plans are becoming a reality.  Mexico is not joining the North American suicide mission of windmills, solar panels and reliance on unstable green energy.

Ever since the July 2022 Oval Office press conference at the White House, CTH has been saying to keep an eye on Mexico, because these energy plans align more with the BRICS nation agenda than the goals and objectives of the World Economic Forum (western nations).   It is not accidental the U.S. government, including our intelligence agencies and DHS, has been seeding a negative overall impression of Mexico ever since.

During his remarks, and showcasing that AMLO does actually understand how the Biden administration will/is using alternate angles to undermine the Mexican government, AMLO publicly hit back at Joe Biden over the pending arrest of President Trump.  As noted by U.S-Mexican correspondent José Díaz Breseño, “Angry at US criticism of human rights in Mexico, AMLO comes out in defense of Trump, assuring that his arrest would be a move to prevent him from running for President in 2024.”

President Lopez-Obrador also pushed back against the U.S. narrative about dangers in Mexico related to the cartels. “AMLO goes further to say that the Biden Administration has no right to speak about violence in Mexico since it allegedly authorized “sabotaging” the Nord Stream gas pipeline as journalist Seymour Hersh argues.” Breseño notes.

Have you noticed that not a single U.S. media outlet is reporting on this issue?  I have been looking, waiting to see if anyone would pick up on this very important story; yet, it is almost invisible in the United States.  This silence is not a mistake.  The UniParty media do not want these notations taking place.  Indeed, if we stand back and look at the larger geopolitical picture, we can again see that AMLO is a thorn in the side of the larger objectives of the western alliance.

We will keep watching…