Jarrett from within White House May Have Launched a Watergate Style Attack on Trump During Election


Jarrett_Valerie

I have been hearing about the Obama Administration wiretapping and trying desperately to uncover links of Trump and Puttin without success for months. Obama was desperate to blame the Russians for Hillary’s loss. I have warned that Obama’s OFA was circumventing state level Democrats. The rumor mill alleges that this was a Valerie Jarrett operation which was directed from the White House – not the Justice Department as being claimed. The Obama officials are not denying the covert operation, but are trying to paint it as a legitimate investigation of Trump launched by Lynch at the Justice Department to give deniability to Obama. Jarrett was a Sinior Advisor to Obama between 2009 up until January 20th, 2017. She is a Chicago lawyer who previously has been tied to Obama and served as a co-chair of the Obama-Biden Transition Project.

Jarrett has joined Obama’s effort to help with an “insurgency” movement against President Donald Trump. Rumors also imply that both Chuck Schummer and Hillary knew of this investigation and were briefed, possible by Jarrett or others in the White House.

It is cleat that there was a June 2016 FISA request by the Obama administration to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. That request, uncharacteristically, is denied as too broad. The rumor is that the Court was very concerned this was a witch hunt by Obama without any evidence that was akin to Watergate.

Then in October 2016 before the election, the Obama administration submitted a new request that was more narrow to the FISA court which targeted a computer server in Trump Tower they alleged would show links to Russian banks. No such evidence was found and indeed it was a witch-hunt. However, the wiretaps continued claiming it was for national security to try to distinguish this from Watergate.

NSA Director Michael Rogers participated in session at Intelligence and National Security Summit in Washington. It turns out that Obama officially blamed Puttin on October 8th, 2016. Then on Thursday November 17th, 2016, Rogers traveled to New York and met with President-Elect Donald Trump without informing others. Then the next day, the Washington Post reported on a recommendation in “October” that Mike Rogers be removed from his NSA position. This was a recommendation from the Pentagon and the NSA to President Obama that Rogers must be removed. This was delivered to Obama by Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. Reuters reported on November 19th, that Carter and Clapper demanded to fire Rogers. Rogers didn’t want to participate in the Obama spying scheme led by Clapper.

Meanwhile, hackers are blackmailing Democrats to release other emails of their covert and illegal actions to overthrow Trump. Reports are surfacing that at least a dozen Democratic groups have been hacked demanding now a ransom and samples of sensitive data in the hackers’ possession have been leaked. One such leak involves a non-profit group using grant money to cover costs for anti-Trump protesters. If that proves correct, there is one non-profit that just committed tax fraud and that will justify 5 years in prison for all involved in that one. There appears to have been an all out effort by Democrats to undermine the government to prevent any reform process of the deep state.

Senate-House Combined 2017

We are looking at the complete meltdown of government. The Democrats have gone way too far and they need to clean house or we are looking at the complete breakdown of any decorum whatsoever. This may be why our computer is warning that private assets are the way to survive – not government. I have warned that our model projected that the Democratic Party was in a major bear market and has been making lower lows and highs since 1932. This is not being partisan or a cheerleader for the Republicans. There is something very very very wrong here and it looks like the unthinkable has taken place. If Jarrett briefed Schummer and Hillary, there is going to be a very serious crisis in governmen

Obama Engaged in Spying on Trump Campaign & May have Shared Intel with Schumer & Hillary


Obama-Spying

Trump’s Tweet that Obama was engaged in “wiretapping” the Trump campaign. The New York Times had the audacity to put on the front page saying there is no proof. The evidence is rather overwhelming that the Obama Administration did in fact use its power to engaged directly into the very same goals of Watergate. This is rather shocking to see how low the Democrats went and how the mainstream media is trying now to cover it up.

We are witnessing the complete collapse of integrity within the US government. The intelligence agencies have have carried out exactly what Watergate was all about that led to the impeachment of Richard Nixon.

There should be a major investigation into this and what information Obama then shared with members of the Democratic Party. Rumors are hinting Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton were aware of this covert spying and wiretapping.

Obama Wiretapping Trump Was Politically Motivated – Kellyanne Conway | Fox & Friends


Human Biodiversity and Criminality | Brian Boutwell and Stefan Molyneux


FBI Director Asked DOJ To Publicly Reject Trump Wiretapping Claims


Tyler Durden's picture

In the latest dramatic plot twist to emerge from Trump’s accusation that Obama wiretapped the Trump Tower prior to the election, the NYT reports that FBI director James Comey asked the Justice Department this weekend to publicly reject President Trump’s allegation that Obama eavesdropped on the soon-to-be president. According to the NYT, which cites ‘senior American officials’ Comey has argued that the “highly charged claim” is false and must be corrected as there is no evidence to back them up, but the DOJ has not yet released any such statement.

In other words, just a few months after Democrats savaged Comey for supposedly attacking Clinton, and even being responsible for the failure of her presidential campaign according to John Podesta, now it is the Republicans’ turn to accuse him of turning on Trump.

Comey, who made the request on Saturday after Mr. Trump leveled his allegation on Twitter, has been working to get the Justice Department to knock down the claim because it falsely insinuates that the F.B.I. broke the law, the officials said. What is strange is that the FBI is requesting the DOJ to publicly deny Trump’s claim when it is the FBI that has the jurisdiction to request a FISA warrant. It is therefore perplexing why Comey, if he wants to put the matter to rest, does not make the public denial himself instead of asking the DOJ to do it on the FBI’s behalf.

To be sure, as the NYT adds, a statement by the DOJ or by Comey refuting Mr. Trump’s allegations “would be a remarkable rebuke of a sitting president, putting the nation’s top law enforcement officials in the position of questioning the truthfulness of the government’s top leader” and adds that the situation “underscores the high stakes of what the president and his aides have unleashed by accusing the former president of a conspiracy to undermine Mr. Trump’s young administration.”

Furthermore, it is unclear who at the DOJ would issue such as statement, “even if it wanted to one”, as Trump’s close ally, AG Jeff Sessions has recused himself from any Trump-Russia investigation. As the NYT points out, “there are few senior politically appointed officials at the Justice Department who can make the decision to release a statement, the officials said. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself on Thursday from all matters related to the federal investigation into connections between Mr. Trump, his associates and Russia.”

Furthermore, such a public statement would further position the nation’s top law enforcement agencies against the Executive Branch.

Along with concerns about potential attacks on the bureau’s credibility, senior F.B.I. officials are said to be worried that the notion of a court-approved wiretap will raise the public’s expectations that the federal authorities have significant evidence implicating the Trump campaign in colluding with Russia’s efforts to disrupt the presidential election.

That, or raise even greater “worries” about allegations that the Obama administration was seeking to potentially sabotage a presidential candidate with a wiretap over Trump’s Russian connections that, as Clapper admitted earlier, has found nothing.

In an additional ironic twist, Comey’s behind-the-scenes maneuvering is certain to invite contrasts to his actions last year, when he spoke publicly about the Hillary Clinton email case and disregarded Justice Department entreaties not to.

Meanwhile as reported earlier, the White House showed no indication that it would back down from Trump’s claims. On Sunday, White House spokesman Sean Spicer said that the White House has demanded a congressional inquiry into whether Obama had “abused the power” of federal law enforcement agencies prior the 2016 presidential election. In the statement, Trump called “reports” about the wiretapping “very troubling” and said that Congress should examine them as part of its investigations into Russia’s meddling in the election.

As reported earlier, according to Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy, Trump was “pissed” about the wiretap story, and said that “when I mentioned Obama “denials” about the wiretaps, he shot back: “This will be investigated, it will all come out. I will be proven right.”

It is unclear if the Comey statement would be found evidentiary, and would put the matter to rest or if, as Trump has demanded, a full blown probe into the alleged wiretapping will proceed regardless, especially since as in the case of former DNI director Clapper earlier today, it would be the DOJ’s word against that of the president.

In case Mr. Comey (or Ms. Lynch) needed a reminder of just what the so-called ‘Obamagate’ timeline looks like – and where the DoJ was allegedly involved – here is the story so far

1. June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.

2. July: Russia joke. Wikileaks releases emails from the Democratic National Committee that show an effort to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) from winning the presidential nomination. In a press conference, Donald Trump refers to Hillary Clinton’s own missing emails, joking: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing.” That remark becomes the basis for accusations by Clinton and the media that Trump invited further hacking.

3. October: Podesta emails. In October, Wikileaks releases the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, rolling out batches every day until the election, creating new mini-scandals. The Clinton campaign blames Trump and the Russians.

4. October: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.

5. January 2017: Buzzfeed/CNN dossier. Buzzfeed releases, and CNN reports, a supposed intelligence “dossier” compiled by a foreign former spy. It purports to show continuous contact between Russia and the Trump campaign, and says that the Russians have compromising information about Trump. None of the allegations can be verified and some are proven false. Several media outlets claim that they had been aware of the dossier for months and that it had been circulating in Washington.

6. January: Obama expands NSA sharing. As Michael Walsh later notes, and as the New York Times reports, the outgoing Obama administration “expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.” The new powers, and reduced protections, could make it easier for intelligence on private citizens to be circulated improperly or leaked.

7. January: Times report. The New York Times reports, on the eve of Inauguration Day, that several agencies — the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Treasury Department are monitoring several associates of the Trump campaign suspected of Russian ties. Other news outlets also report the exisentence of “a multiagency working group to coordinate investigations across the government,” though it is unclear how they found out, since the investigations would have been secret and involved classified information.

8. February: Mike Flynn scandal. Reports emerge that the FBI intercepted a conversation in 2016 between future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — then a private citizen — and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The intercept supposedly was part of routine spying on the ambassador, not monitoring of the Trump campaign. The FBI transcripts reportedly show the two discussing Obama’s newly-imposed sanctions on Russia, though Flynn earlier denied discussing them. Sally Yates, whom Trump would later fire as acting Attorney General for insubordination, is involved in the investigation. In the end, Flynn resigns over having misled Vice President Mike Pence (perhaps inadvertently) about the content of the conversation.

9. February: Times claims extensive Russian contacts. The New York Times cites “four current and former American officials” in reporting that the Trump campaign had “repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials. The Trump campaign denies the claims — and the Times admits that there is “no evidence” of coordination between the campaign and the Russians. The White House and some congressional Republicans begin to raise questions about illegal intelligence leaks.

10. March: the Washington Post targets Jeff Sessions. The Washington Post reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had contact twice with the Russian ambassador during the campaign — once at a Heritage Foundation event and once at a meeting in Sessions’s Senate office. The Post suggests that the two meetings contradict Sessions’s testimony at his confirmation hearings that he had no contacts with the Russians, though in context (not presented by the Post) it was clear he meant in his capacity as a campaign surrogate, and that he was responding to claims in the “dossier” of ongoing contacts. The New York Times, in covering the story, adds that the Obama White House “rushed to preserve” intelligence related to alleged Russian links with the Trump campaign. By “preserve” it really means “disseminate”: officials spread evidence throughout other government agencies “to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators” and perhaps the media as wel

France’s Death Spiral


Tyler Durden's picture

Via Guy Milliere of The Gatestone Institute,

  • In 1990, the “Gayssot law” was passed, stipulating that “any discrimination based on ethnicity, nation, race or religion is prohibited”. Since then, it has been used to criminalize any criticism of Arab and African delinquency, any question on immigration from the Muslim world, any negative analysis of Islam. Many writers have been fined and most “politically incorrect” books on those topics have disappeared from bookshops.
  • The French government asked the media to obey the “Gayssot law.” It also asked that history textbooks be rewritten to include chapters on the crimes committed by the West against Muslims, and on the “essential contribution” of Islam to humanity. All history textbooks are “Islamically correct.”
  • In hospitals, Muslims are increasingly asking to be treated only by Muslim doctors, and refusing to let their wives be treated by male doctors.

February 2, 2017: A “no-go zone” in the eastern suburbs of Paris. Police on patrol hear screams. They decide to check. While there, a young man insults them. They decide to arrest him. He hits them. A fight starts. He accuses a policeman of having raped him with a police baton. A police investigation quickly establishes that the young man was not raped. But it is too late; a toxic process has begun.

Without waiting for any further evidence, the French Interior Minister says that the police officers have “behaved badly.” He adds that “police misconduct must be condemned”. French President François Hollande goes to the hospital to give his support to the young man. The president says he has conducted himself in a “dignified and responsible manner.” The next day, a demonstration against the police is cobbled together. The demonstration turns into a riot.

Riots continue for more than two weeks. They affect more than twenty cities throughout France. They spread to the heart of Paris. Dozens of cars are torched. Shops and restaurants are looted. Official buildings and police stations are attacked.

The police are ordered not to intervene. They do what they are told to do. Few arrests take place.

Police look on as a car, which was destroyed by rioters in a Paris suburb, is removed on February 13, 2017. (Image source: Ruptly video screenshot)

Calm is slowly returning, but the riots can easily start again. France is a country at the mercy of large-scale uprisings. They can explode anytime, anyplace. French leaders know it, and find refuge in cowardice.

What is happening is the result of a corrosive development initiated five decades ago. In the 1960s, after the war in Algeria, President Charles de Gaulle directed the country toward closer relations with Arab and Muslim states.

Migratory flows of “guest workers” from Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia, which had started a few years earlier, sharply increased. Immigrants were not encouraged to integrate. Everyone assumed they would return home at the end of their employment contracts. They were settled in the outskirts of big cities. The economy was dynamic, with strong job creation. It seemed there would be no problems.

Twenty years later, serious difficulties became obvious. The immigrants now numbered millions. People from sub-Saharan Africa joined those coming from Arab nations. Neighborhoods made up of just Arabs and Africans were formed. The economy had slowed down and mass unemployment settled in. But the jobless immigrants did not go back home, instead relying on social benefits. Integration still did not exist. Although many of these new arrivals had become French citizens, they often sounded resentful of France and the West. Political agitators started teaching them to detest Western civilization. Violent gangs of young Arabs and Africans began to form. Clashes with police were common. Often, when a gang member was wounded, political agitators would help to incite more violence.

The situation grew difficult to control. But nothing was done to fix it; quite the opposite.

In 1984, a movement called SOS Racisme was created by Trotskyist militants, and began to define any criticism of immigration as “racist”. Major leftist parties supported SOS Racism. They seem to have thought that by accusing their political opponents of racism, they could attract the votes of “new citizens.” The presence of Islamist agitators, alongside agitators in Arab and African neighborhoods, plus the emergence of anti-Western Islamic discourse, alarmed many observers. SOS Racisme immediately designated those who spoke of Islamic danger as “Islamophobic racists.”

In 1990, a law drafted by a Communist lawmaker, Jean-Claude Gayssot, was passed. It stipulated that “any discrimination based on ethnicity, nation, race or religion is prohibited.” Since then, this law has been used to criminalize any criticism of Arab and African delinquency, any question on immigration from the Muslim world, any negative analysis of Islam. Many writers have been fined, and most “politically incorrect” books on those topics have disappeared from bookshops.

The French government asked the media to obey the “Gayssot law.” It also asked that history textbooks be rewritten to include chapters on the crimes committed by the West against Muslims, and on the “essential contribution” of Islam to humanity.

In 2002, the situation in the country became dramatic.

Arab and African neighborhoods had become “no-go zones.” Radical Islam was widespread and Islamist attacks began. Dozens of cars would be torched each week. Muslim anti-Semitism was rising rapidly and led to an increase in anti-Jewish attacks. SOS Racisme and other anti-racist organizations were silent on Muslim anti-Semitism. Unwilling to be accused of “Islamophobic racism,” organizations tasked with fighting against anti-Semitism were also silent.

A book, The Lost Territories of the Republic, by Georges Bensoussan (under the pen-name “Emmanuel Brenner”), was released. It depicted accurately what was going on. It spoke of the sweeping hatred for the West among young people of immigrant origin, and of the full-blown hatred of Jews among young Muslims. It said that “no-go zones” were on the edge of secession and no longer a part of French territory. The mainstream media ignored the book.

Three years later, in October 2005, riots broke out across the country. More than 9,000 cars were torched. Hundreds of stores, supermarkets and shopping centers were looted and destroyed. Dozens of police officers were seriously injured. The storm stopped when the government reached an agreement to make peace with Muslim associations. Power had changed hands.

Since then, the state scarcely maintains law and order in France.

Another book, A Submissive France, was recently published by the man who had written The Lost Territories of the Republic fifteen years before, the historian Georges Bensoussan. Now, the French Republic itself is a lost territory.

No go zones” are no longer French territory. Radical Islam and the hatred of the West reign among Muslim populations and, more broadly, among populations of immigrant origin. Muslim anti-Semitism makes life unbearable for Jews who have not yet left France and who cannot afford to relocate to areas where Jews are not yet threatened: the 16th and 17th arrondissements, the Beverly Hills of Paris; or the city of Neuilly, a wealthy suburb of Paris.

Everywhere in France, high school teachers go to work with a Qur’an in their hands, to make sure that what they say in class does not contradict the sacred book of Islam.

All history textbooks are “Islamically correct”. One-third of the French Muslims say they want to live according to Islamic sharia law and not according to the laws of France.

In hospitals, Muslims are increasingly asking to be treated by Muslim doctors only, and refusing to let their wives be treated by male doctors.

Attacks on police officers occur on a daily basis. The police have orders: they must not enter “no-go zones.” They must not respond to insults and threats. They must flee if they are assaulted. Sometime, they do not have time to flee.

In October 2016, two policemen were burned alive in their car in Viry-Châtillon, south of Paris. In January 2017, three police officers fell into an ambush and were stabbed in in Bobigny, east of Paris.

Police officers did respond to the incident on February 2. When a man became violent, they did not flee. The French government could only find them guilty, accusing a police officer of raping his attacker. But the police officer was not guilty of rape; he was guilty of simply having intervened. The French government also found his colleagues guilty. They were all accused of “violence.” They now will have to go to court.

The young man who destroyed the lives of these police officers is not being accused of anything. In all the “no go zones,” he is now a hero. Mainstream television channels ask him for interviews. His name is Theodore, or Theo. “Justice for Theo” stickers are everywhere. Banners sporting his name are waved at demonstrations. Rioters shout his name along with the name of Allah.

A few journalists have said that he is not a hero; that “no go zones” are reservoirs of anti-Western, anti-Semitic and anti-French hatred ready to burst. But these journalists are also cautious. They know they might be prosecuted.

Georges Bensoussan, the Moroccan-born author of The Lost Territories of the Republic and of A Submissive France — is currently on trial. A complaint was filed against him by the Collective against Islamophobia in France (CCIF). They are suing him for having said: “Today we are witnessing a different people in the French nation; they are causing the return of a number of democratic values to which we adhere,” and “This visceral anti-Semitism, proven by the Fondapol Survey last year, cannot remain in silence.”

Judges were immediately assigned to the case. The verdict is due March 5. If Bensoussan is not sentenced, the CCIF will be sure to appeal. Bensoussan is a man from the left. He is a member of “J Call” (European Jewish Call for Reason), a movement criticizing “Israel’s occupation of the West Bank”, and asking for “the creation of a viable Palestinian state”. Even such positions are no longer enough to protect him. The International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism (LICRA), an organization founded in 1927 to combat anti-Semitism, supported CCIF. Organizations ostensibly fighting anti-Semitism in France instead seem to be clinging to futile fantasies of appeasing their tormentors. They never mention Muslim anti-Semitism, and have now fully joined the fight against “Islamophobic racism” against Jewish authors such as Georges Bensoussan.

Elections will be held in France, in April. The Socialist Party chose a candidate, Benoît Hamon, supported by the UOIF (Union of Islamic Organizations of France), the French branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The far-left and the communists will also have a candidate, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, an unconditional admirer of Lenin, Hugo Chavez and Yasser Arafat, and a resolute enemy of Israel.

Hamon and Mélenchon will likely each receive about 15% of the vote.

A third candidate from the left, Emmanuel Macron, is a former member of the French Socialist government under François Hollande. To attract the Muslim vote, Macron went to Algeria and said that French colonization was a “crime against humanity.” He stated several times that French culture does not exist, and that Western culture does not exist either; but he added that Arab Muslim culture must have “its place” in France.

The conservative candidate, François Fillon, promises to fight Sunni Islam, but says he wants a “strong alliance” between France, Iran’s mullahs and Hezbollah. His reputation is badly damaged by a “fake jobs” scandal. He has attacked France’s Jewish community, presumably to secure the Muslim vote. He said it does not respect “all the rules of the Republic.” He has said that Israel represents a threat to world peace.

Marine Le Pen, the far-right candidate of the National Front, may seem the most determined to straighten France out, but her economic program is as self-defeatingly Marxist as that of Hamon or Mélenchon. Le Pen also wants to attract the Muslim electorate. She went to Cairo a few months ago to meet the Grand Imam of al-Azhar. Like all other French political parties, her party supported the anti-Israeli positions of former U.S. President Barack Obama, as well as UN Security Council Resolution 2334, passed last year on December 23.

Le Pen will likely win the first round of the two-round election, but will almost certainly be defeated in the second round: all the other candidates will gather behind the candidate facing her, probably Macron or Fillon (if he still is in the race). Le Pen might think that in five years the situation in France will be even worse, and that then she will have a serious chance to be elected President.

A few months ago, in a recently published book, Civil War is Coming, the French columnist Ivan Rioufol wrote: “The danger is not the National Front, which is only the expression of the anger of an abandoned people. The danger is the ever-closer links between leftism and Islamism…. The danger must be stopped.”

 

Five years of PROOF that the CDC knows vaccines still contain mercury, formaldehyde, aluminum, antibiotics and MSG… all of which are toxic to human biology 


We have more problems now in childhood then we did when I was growing up after WW II why is that with all the advances?

Report: The Flu Shot & Pregnant Women – YouTube


The medical industry has gone rough and must be stopped.

Time Magazine Joins the Questionable Journalists


time-trump-person-of-year-2016

QUESTION: Is there any validity to this latest pronouncement by Time Magazine that Trump should be impeached for the foreign-emoluments clause?

ANSWER: This is up there with the whole issue Obama’s birth certificate, which went nowhere. The foreign-emoluments clause would have applied to Hillary because she was taking money from foreign governments directly via her pretend charity they shut down after losing the election and had no more influence to peddle. This is in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution: “… no person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office or Title of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”

They claim in Time Magazine Trump “runs afoul of the foreign-emoluments clause is that, first and foremost, he is a businessman with significant financial interests and governmental entanglements all over the globe. Indeed, as Norman Eisen, Richard Painter and Laurence Tribe stated at the Brookings Institution, “Never in American history has a [President] presented more conflict of interest questions and foreign entanglements than Donald Trump.” Moreover, Trump’s businesses dealings are veiled in complicated corporate technicalities and lack transparency.”

This does not apply to anyone doing private business. This clause states “no person holding any Office” so simply doing business in other countries that predated taking office has absolutely nothing that “runs afoul” of this clause and how many members of Congress own shares in companies they even make decisions on and have exempted themselves from inside trading. The Ex Post Factor clause bars the application of this to any business deal Trump may have had prior to office. Unlike Hillary, he did not accept donations from foreign governments. Filing applications for business licenses does not count. Our head quarters in the Nineties was Hong Kong. Does that now mean I worked with China? Such interpretations are absurd, but this only reveals the bias of those making such arguments.

I have stated before that Hillary could not have been impeached for anything she did before taking office – i.e. the email scandal. Impeachment applies ONLY to something someone does in office, not before. We spend so much time arguing over stupid things on both sides that keep journalists active but amount to nothing.

Cycles Why do They Exist?


DNA

Many comments have come thanking me for demonstrating that there is order hidden within this chaos. Yet, the underlying question is fundamental – Why do cycles exist? I suppose the real answer is the same reason why we exist. Cycles are the divine blueprint from which everything is constructed. It is a complex structure, but everything within the universe is built upon this core model of cycles – birth – life – death.

When two people have a child, it is a merger of each person’s DNA. This is also how markets unfold. The exception is that they have thousands of parents being each market/economy around the globe. Hence, this is what I mean when I say everything is connected. The complex combination of global trends at each moment produces a slightly different combination of events. Therefore, history repeats, but the actors change. Thus, looking at how a revolution in Ukraine unfolds is indicative of how all uprisings unfold against various states.

There is group behavior which for example can be demonstrated by the US share market which is split (1) Dow = big international money, (2) S&P 500 = mostly domestic big money, and (3) NASDAQ = predominant domestic retail money. Each group interacts with the other, but they respond to events differently, which is why which one leads reflects the sentiment being international v domestic. Although there are cycles, the individual moves through their own cycle of life learning as we go. In the early stage, we are driven as a member of of the herd of sheep. As we mature, those of us capable of rising above the herd can look down and observe the group behavior. That small group is the upper cut of the DNA chain and can decide to be one of the group or strike out on their own as the individual and trade against the herd. Thus, some of us are compelled to watch other repeat the same cycle unable to change the course of events or history until enough rise up and thus the group then follows the select few.

Understanding this complex nature is in itself a fascinating journey. The US share market has been rising with the MAJORITY of people bearish. All we hear is how the crash will be any day now. Why? Because people do not comprehend how everything is connected and thus judge a book by its cover. Even domestic so-called professional traders get vertigo and cannot trade this type of market. At this year’s WEC, I will review how to trade this type of market which is altogether different from 99% of the markets in normal time.

Then you have gold. Here you have diehards who stand on their soap-boxes and every rally they proclaim this is finally it exactly opposite of the prevailing bearish sentiment in the stock market. It is important to be able to rise above this and observe objectively the group sentiment in each segment and how they function. The constant bearishness in stocks propell it to rise just as the perpetual bullishness in gold has propelled it to decline. The majority MUST always be wrong for that is the fuel that drives market movements.

Real bull markets, as we see in the US shares, never take place with the majority being bullish. What happens is that those who were skeptical finally come in for the Phase Transition at the end buying just before the highs and then they refuse to believe they were wrong and expect it to explode again any day. They tend to hold on to losing positions refusing to admit that they were the fools who rushed in. In the case of gold, all you need do is search what some of these people said for the 19 year bear market in gold after 1980 and you will see that their entire lives have been in anticipation of that Phase Transition that will last forever.

Cycles exist because the passions of humankind never change no matter the race, creed, or gender. We are all the same inside and we respond to our environment. The saying: Oh to be young again, but to known what I know today, reflects that learning curve. The youth know it all and as they grow older, they suddenly realize they do not know much of everything.

So cycles exist because this is how everything functions from weather to planetary movement and the cycle of life from birth to death. Your heart beats to a cycle and you wake in the morning to a cycle that ends when you are tired and must go to sleep. This is the divine structure behind absolutely everything right down to how a virus evolves to beat the latest drug we just invented to kill it. Life simple goes on because it is cyclical – not linear.

Eastern religions are cyclical based. They believe what was always returns. We tend to be linear in the West. However, those who read the Bible have often asked, why will God release Satan after 1,000 years? Is it not also describing a cycle?


 

 Revelation 20:7-10: “When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. …”