Search Blog Posts

Friday, October 31, 2014

Patrick Barron: The End of the US Dollar Imperium, Part 2

Published on Oct 31, 2014

Jeff Deist and Patrick Barron continue their discussion on monetary imperialism. They delve deeper into US dollar supremacy, and how it might end with a whimper instead of a bang; how the Bundesbank is a potential savior for the world monetary order, while the IMF is a paper tiger; how elites will have an increasingly hard time denying gold a role in the global monetary system, and how America’s fiat dollar corrupts cultures as well as economies.

Ephemeral Explanations Drive Gold's Reality

By Staff News & Analysis - October 31, 2014

Gold Sharply Lower in Aftermath of Hawkish FOMC, Rallying Greenback; Silver Sinks to 4-Year Low ... Gold prices ended the U.S. day session sharply lower and hit a three-week low Thursday. Precious metals have been hit hard by a stronger U.S. dollar and a surprisingly hawkish Federal Reserve. Silver prices slumped to a four-year low Thursday. December Comex gold was last down $25.50 at $1,199.40 an ounce. Spot gold was last quoted down $12.40 at $1,199.40. December Comex silver last traded down $0.804 at $16.46 an ounce. – Kitco

Dominant Social Theme: Gold is going lower as the West ascends. Things are pretty good these days.

Free-Market Analysis: We cover gold closely week to week and are ever more astonished at mainstream media reasons given for the travel of the dollar against gold.

For one thing, gold is priced in dollars and while it may seem to be the most natural thing in the world to write "the price of gold," historically speaking, this is a misperception.

Gold has been around likely for tens of thousands of years as commercial enterprise. The fiat dollar has been around for about 100 years and probably will not be around much longer. Gold abides, paper (and increasingly digital money) does not.

Here's more from the article:

After a weak overnight session, gold prices slumped further in late-morning U.S. trading Thursday. Prices fell below what was key near-term chart support at $1,200.00, which triggered fresh chart-based selling, including sell stop orders being hit in the futures market.

A strong advance third-quarter GDP report issued Thursday morning, at up 3.5% on an annual basis, further undermined the safe-haven gold market.

The precious metals were still feeling the ill effects of a hawkish FOMC statement issued Wednesday afternoon. The FOMC statement was deemed surprisingly hawkish on U.S. monetary policy. The Fed ended its monthly bond-buying program (quantitative easing), which was expected. However, the FOMC statement emphasized the improving U.S. economy, which led many to believe U.S. interest rates will be raised in 2015. The majority of traders and investors were looking for a dovish lean from the FOMC statement.

The U.S. dollar index has posted a solid rally in the wake of the FOMC meeting and hit a three-week high Thursday. The greenback is hovering near a four-year high. Meantime, Euro currency prices slumped on the FOMC statement.

There's so much here that is wrong that it is hard to know where to begin. Supposedly, positive GDP estimates frightened gold buyers, but when have such reports ever proven accurate? Certainly not in the past half-decade. Yet gold traders supposedly believe these reports and buy or sell the yellow metal depending on their outcomes.

Second, there was supposedly a "hawkish" FOMC statement from the US Federal Reserve issued on Wednesday. Yet the market had been expecting just this sort of statement for months. Its impact should have been "priced into the market."

We also learn that the greenback is "hovering near a four-year high." Why the dollar should be "high" flummoxes us.

The US is involved in hundreds of wars and skirmishes around the world, the participation of the US electorate in its political system has slumped to an all-time low, there are as many as 100 million US citizens out of work (or working in the black or gray market) and as many as 50 million may rely on food stamps for part of their monthly food costs.

Yet the dollar is "high," presumably based on the success of the US system of capitalism and its prospects in the near term.

As far as we're concerned, the dial of the business cycle is still pointing to the golden bull; the price of gold may go up or down but the state of the economy is a big giveaway that the current fiat-paper boom is, well ... manipulated.

Yes, the value of a paper dollar can indeed be manipulated but the vitality of the larger economy is a good deal harder to fake. Keynes aside, it's extremely difficult if not impossible for government to create "jobs," certainly in the private sector.

Also, as we've pointed out, gold remains under considerable buying pressure in China, India and throughout Asia. In India, given the central government's efforts to suppress the price of gold, gold smuggling has risen dramatically to an estimated 36 tons per year.

How can prices be sinking when the yellow metal is in such demand that smugglers must import it into both India and Pakistan? See The Legal Manipulation of India's War on Gold.

The wars haven't gone away. Central banks still debase currencies by over-printing and many large economies in the West and Asia continue to be threatened with further downturns.

In the face of these undeniable realities, metals traders sell gold and presumably buy the dollar. It is really difficult to fathom.

A number of scenarios come to mind to explain these illogical actions, most of them having to do with manipulation. What is immediately provable, however, is that neither Western economies nor Western currencies are in very good shape.

We know what we would consider regarding the volatility surrounding both gold and silver. We'd buy on the dips. And when it comes to physical purchase, we'd take delivery.


The reality of gold is its current "price." But that may not be its reality in the future ..

via Thedailybell

Thursday, October 30, 2014

When It All Goes South - by Alabama YouTube

It'll creep up on you like a kudzu vine
Even miles above the Mason-Dixon line
'Til one day you're craving hominy grits
And scanning the jukebox for George Jones hits
Drinkin' Jack Black tryin' to kick back
'Til the condo's looking like a shotgun shack
You'll be one of us no matter where you're at

When it all goes south
(You'll be drivin' around on a John Deere tractor)
When it all goes south
(Wearing baseball caps but they won't be backwards)
Now it really don't matter what state you're in
One day the south's gonna rise again

There's a Wall Street wonder boy sittin' up north
Throwing darts like a monkey at a stock report
He's got two homes, car loans, in debt
And his third divorce ain't even final yet
Traded his MBA for a SUV on a backwoods road down in Tennessee
'Cause man, Manhattan ain't the place to be

When it all goes south
(With the live oak trees and the sweet magnolias)
When it all goes south
(Eatin' moon pies, drinking RC colas)
Now it really don't matter what state you're in
Someday the south's gonna rise again

When it all goes south
(Where the fog's as thick as Mississippi mud)
When it all goes south
(You'll be singing the blues 'cause it's in your blood)
Now it really don't matter what state you're in
One day the south's gonna rise again

When it all goes south
(You'll be drivin' around on a John Deere tractor)
When it all goes south
(Wearing baseball caps but they won't be backwards)

When it all goes south
(With the live oak trees and the sweet magnolias)
When it all goes south
(Eatin' moon pies, drinking RC colas)

Vicksburg, Birmingham, Natchez and Savannah, Panama City
Y'all sure look pretty in the sunshine
Getting' dixiefried get yourself some rebel pride

When it all goes south
(Where the fog's as thick as Mississippi mud)
When it all goes south
(You'll be singing the blues 'cause it's in your blood)
Now it really don't matter what state you're in
One day the south's gonna rise again

When it all goes south
(You'll be drivin' around on a John Deere tractor)
When it all goes south
(Wearing baseball caps but they won't be backwards)

When it all goes south
(With the live oak trees and the sweet magnolias)
When it all goes south
(Eatin' moon pies, drinking RC colas)

When it all goes south
(Where the fog's as thick as Mississippi mud)
When it all goes south
(You'll be singing the blues 'cause it's in your blood)

When it all goes south
(You'll be drivin' around on a John Deere tractor)
When it all goes south
(Wearing baseball caps but they won't be backwards)
(With the live oak trees and the sweet magnolias)
(Eatin' moon pies, drinking RC colas)

When it all goes south
(Where the fog's as thick as Mississippi mud)
When it all goes south
(You'll be singing the blues 'cause it's in your blood)

(When it all goes south)
When it all goes south


Read more: Alabama - When It All Goes South Lyrics | MetroLyrics

Secret Surveillance of Americans' Mail Revealed to be Widespread with Lax Oversight

Thursday, October 30, 2014, AllGov
(graphic: Steve Straehley, AllGov)

The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) routinely snoops on the mail of thousands of Americans at the behest of law enforcement, while not providing sufficient oversight for the program, according to the agency’s inspector general (IG).

Last year alone, USPS approved nearly 50,000 “mail cover” requests from police and agency inspectors to secretly monitor individuals’ mail for criminal and national security investigations.

The fact that USPS performed such activities was not new; mail covers have been in use for more than 100 years. But the scope of the surveillance was not previously known to be so widespread, Ron Nixon reported at The New York Times nor was the absence of oversight from potential abuses.

Federal and other law enforcement agencies have stepped up use of mail covers as part of counterterrorism and criminal cases since 9/11.

As part of its sorting system, the Postal Service routinely photographs each piece of mail that comes through its facilities. However, these images can also be used by law enforcement officials in an investigation.

An IG audit, first uncovered by Politico, showed the USPS often approved requests to monitor a person’s mail without ensuring the request was properly authorized or adequately justified.

According to the audit, “Of the 196 external mail cover requests we reviewed, 21 percent were approved without written authorization and 13 percent were not adequately justified or reasonable grounds were not transcribed accurately.”

In one instance of abuse of mail covers, the USPS allowed Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and County Attorney Andrew Thomas to investigate a political opponent, Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox, who had objected to Arpaio’s harassment of Hispanics and pry into communications between lawyers and their clients using mail covers. Thomas was eventually disbarred and Wilcox won a million-dollar settlement from the Postal Service.

-Noel Brinkerhoff, Steve Straehley

To Learn More:
Report Reveals Wider Tracking of Mail in U.S. (by Ron Nixon, New York Times)
Postal Service Photographs Every Piece of Mail in the U.S., Shares With Agencies That Request It (by Lauren Walker, Newsweek)
Audit Report: Postal Inspection Service Mail Covers Program (Office of Inspector General, U.S. Postal Service) (pdf)
Snail Mail Snooping Safeguards Not Followed (by Josh Gerstein, Politico)
Postal Service Photographs Every Piece of Mail Sent in U.S. (by Noel Brinkerhoff, AllGov)

Put on the Whole Armor of God

Put on the Whole Armor of God
November, 1972 American Opinion

Thomas Jefferson Anderson succeeded General Curtis LeMay as the nominee of the American Party for Vice President of the United States.  Mr. Anderson has long been America's foremost farm publisher, having built fourteen magazines with circulation in the millions, and his column is nationally syndicated to a vast audience.  Tom Anderson is one of the nation's most sought-after public speakers.

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

20-Year CBS News Veteran, Sharyl Attkisson, Details Massive Censorship and Propaganda in Mainstream Media

Screen Shot 2014-10-29 at 11.00.00 AM Journalists should be dark, funny, mean people. It’s appropriate for their antagonistic, adversarial role.
– Matt Taibbi, in this New York Magazine article
Reporters on the ground aren’t necessarily ideological, Attkisson says, but the major network news decisions get made by a handful of New York execs who read the same papers and think the same thoughts.
Often they dream up stories beforehand and turn the reporters into “casting agents,” told “we need to find someone who will say . . .” that a given policy is good or bad. “We’re asked to create a reality that fits their New York image of what they believe,” she writes.

– From the excellent New York Post article: Ex-CBS reporter’s book reveals how liberal media protects Obama
Earlier this week, I published a piece titled, Former CBS Reporter Accuses Government of Secretly Planting Classified Docs on Her Computer, which I thought was incredible in its own right, yet the information in that post seems almost trite compared to the flood of information Attkisson has revealed to the New York Post’s Kyle Smith.

The following excerpts from the piece will confirm all of your worst suspicions about mainstream media:

Sharyl Attkisson is an unreasonable woman. Important people have told her so.
When the longtime CBS reporter asked for details about reinforcements sent to the Benghazi compound during the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack, White House national security spokesman Tommy Vietor replied, “I give up, Sharyl . . . I’ll work with more reasonable folks that follow up, I guess.”

Another White House flack, Eric Schultz, didn’t like being pressed for answers about the Fast and Furious scandal in which American agents directed guns into the arms of Mexican drug lords.
 “Goddammit, Sharyl!” he screamed at her. “The Washington Post is reasonable, the LA Times is reasonable, The New York Times is reasonable. You’re the only one who’s not reasonable!”
Interesting, because as Matt Taibbi notes in the quote at the top, investigative journalists are not supposed to be reasonable. I digress…
In nearly 20 years at CBS News, she has done many stories attacking Republicans and corporate America, and she points out that TV news, being reluctant to offend its advertisers, has become more and more skittish about, for instance, stories questioning pharmaceutical companies or car manufacturers.

Working on a piece that raised questions about the American Red Cross disaster response, she says a boss told her, “We must do nothing to upset our corporate partners . . . until the stock splits.” (Parent company Viacom and CBS split in 2006).
Reporters on the ground aren’t necessarily ideological, Attkisson says, but the major network news decisions get made by a handful of New York execs who read the same papers and think the same thoughts.

Often they dream up stories beforehand and turn the reporters into “casting agents,” told “we need to find someone who will say . . .” that a given policy is good or bad. “We’re asked to create a reality that fits their New York image of what they believe,” she writes.

Reporting on the many green-energy firms such as Solyndra that went belly-up after burning through hundreds of millions in Washington handouts, Attkisson ran into increasing difficulty getting her stories on the air. A colleague told her about the following exchange: “[The stories] are pretty significant,” said a news exec. “Maybe we should be airing some of them on the ‘Evening News?’ ” Replied the program’s chief Pat Shevlin, “What’s the matter, don’t you support green energy?”
Says Attkisson: That’s like saying you’re anti-medicine if you point out pharmaceutical company fraud.
 One of her bosses had a rule that conservative analysts must always be labeled conservatives, but liberal analysts were simply “analysts.” “And if a conservative analyst’s opinion really rubbed the supervisor the wrong way,” says Attkisson, “she might rewrite the script to label him a ‘right-wing’ analyst.”
In mid-October 2012, with the presidential election coming up, Attkisson says CBS suddenly lost interest in airing her reporting on the Benghazi attacks. “The light switch turns off,” she writes. “Most of my Benghazi stories from that point on would be reported not on television, but on the Web.”

Two expressions that became especially popular with CBS News brass, she says, were “incremental” and “piling on.” These are code for “excuses for stories they really don’t want, even as we observe that developments on stories they like are aired in the tiniest of increments.”
Hey, kids, we found two more Americans who say they like their ObamaCare! Let’s do a lengthy segment.

When the White House didn’t like her reporting, it would make clear where the real power lay. A flack would send a blistering e-mail to her boss, David Rhodes, CBS News’ president — and Rhodes’s brother Ben, a top national security advisor to President Obama.
I had no idea that the President of CBS News’ brother was a top national security advisor to President Obama, did you?
Attkisson, who received an Emmy and the Edward R. Murrow award for her trailblazing work on the story, says she made top CBS brass “incensed” when she appeared on Laura Ingraham’s radio show and mentioned that Obama administration officials called her up to literally scream at her while she was working the story.

One angry CBS exec called to tell Attkisson that Ingraham is “extremely, extremely far right” and that Attkisson shouldn’t appear on her show anymore. Attkisson was puzzled, noting that CBS reporters aren’t barred from appearing on lefty MSNBC shows.

No interview with Holder aired but “after that weekend e-mail exchange, nothing is the same at work,” Attkisson writes. “The Evening News” began killing her stories on Fast and Furious, with one producer telling Attkisson, “You’ve reported everything. There’s really nothing left to say.”
Sensing the political waters had become too treacherous, Attkisson did what she thought was an easy sell on a school-lunch fraud story that “CBS This Morning” “enthusiastically accepted,” she says, and was racing to get on air, when suddenly “the light switch went off . . . we couldn’t figure out what they saw as a political angle to this story.”

The story had nothing to do with Michelle Obama, but Attkisson figures that the first lady’s association with school lunches, and/or her friendship with “CBS This Morning” host Gayle King, might have had something to do with execs now telling her the story “wasn’t interesting to their audience, after all.”
The who charade is completely incestuous.
Meanwhile, she says, though no one confronted her directly, a “whisper campaign” began; “If I offered a story on pretty much any legitimate controversy involving government, instead of being considered a good journalistic watchdog, I was anti-Obama.”

Yet it was Attkisson who broke the story that the Bush administration had once run a gun-walking program similar to Fast and Furious, called Wide Receiver. She did dozens of tough-minded stories on Bush’s FDA, the TARP program and contractors such as Halliburton. She once inspired a seven-minute segment on “The Rachel Maddow Show” with her reporting on the suspicious charity of a Republican congressman, Steve Buyer.
All I have to say is thank you CBS, or should I say SeeBS. Thank you for being so horrible at reporting that you have opened an enormous gap for myself and countless others in alternative media to fill. I genuinely couldn’t have done it without your incompetence.

In Liberty,
Michael Krieger

The State-Level Plan to Nullify Federal Gun Control

Want to stop federal gun control but don’t know where to start? Interested in solutions from the founding fathers? Looking for model legislation to get things done? The new ShallNot handbook for legislators and grassroots activists is the tool you need to protect the 2nd Amendment from federal abuse.

The ShallNot handbook serves as a guide to how the states can preserve the Second Amendment whether the politicians in Washington D.C., or the special interests that support them, want us to or not.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution for the United States reads, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Simply put, the federal government has no constitutional authority to restrict your right to keep and bear arms.

When the federal government places any restrictions on firearms it not only violates the Second Amendment but also the Tenth Amendment, which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

So what can we do when the federal government won’t respect its own limits?

James Madison, often referred to as “The Father of the Constitution,” wrote that when the federal government commits an unwarranted act, such as infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, or even a “warrantable act” that is simply unpopular, “the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand.” Madison went on to outline several steps that states could take, including “refusal to cooperate with officers of the union.” He also envisioned “legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions.”

In other words, Madison suggested that when the federal government passes “laws” that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, the states should refuse to cooperate with their implementation and enforcement, and pass legislation directing its agencies and employees to refuse to lift a finger to assist the federal government in any way. Madison’s strategy was to stand down when asked to help enforce federal gun laws, rules, orders or regulations.

Without state cooperation, the practical effect of federal laws becomes severely limited. This is why Judge Andrew Napolitano recently said that a single state refusing to assist in the enforcement of federal gun laws or regulations would make them “nearly impossible to enforce” in that state.

The federal government simply doesn’t have the resources. And because of that, Madison’s advice not only holds true today, it carries even more weight and more practical impact than it did in his day.

By simply refusing to cooperate, states can target and defeat unconstitutional federal gun “laws,” rules, regulations and orders, preserving the Second Amendment, and protecting the natural right of Americans to own firearms.

State legislatures in Kansas, Alaska and more recently Idaho have all taken steps to preserve the Second Amendment.

Idaho was the first state to pass what we consider a step-one bill into law, with Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter signing S.1332 in March 2014. The passage of Idaho’s law prohibiting state cooperation with any future federal firearms acts set the stage beautifully for further action in 2015 and beyond.

Idaho’s S.1332 should act as a model first step for states around the country in 2015.

We have developed model legislation for a step-one bill that can be adapted for passage in any state. The bill prohibits state cooperation with any future federal act relating to firearms and stipulates penalties for state agencies/employees that violate the state law.

Download the FREE 14-page ShallNot handbook at and learn more about what YOU can do to help today.

U.S. Suspected Israeli Involvement in 1960s Missing Uranium from Pennsylvania Company NUMEC- WSJ

On September 10, 1968 NUMEC receives a key coordinator of Israel's clandestine nuclear
weapons program (Avraham Hermoni) and three undercover Israeli intelligence operatives.
NUMEC tells the Atomic Energy Commission the Israeli visitors are "energy specialists."

U.S. Suspected Israeli Involvement in 1960s Missing Uranium Officials Believed Ally Used Materials Lifted From Pennsylvania Toward a Weapons Program

By John R. Emshwiller, WSJ, Updated Aug. 6, 2014 7:41 p.m. ET

Declassified documents from the 1970s provide new evidence that federal officials believed bomb-grade uranium that disappeared from a Pennsylvania nuclear facility in the 1960s was likely taken for use in a clandestine Israeli atomic-weapons program.

The documents, obtained earlier this year through public-records requests by a Washington-based nonprofit group, also indicate that senior officials wanted to keep the matter under wraps for fear it could undermine U.S. Middle East peace efforts.

Though the Central Intelligence Agency's case for the suspected theft wasn't conclusive, it was sufficiently persuasive that "I do not think that the President has plausible deniability" regarding the question, said a memo dated July 28, 1977, by a National Security Council staffer in President Jimmy Carter's administration.

A security council memo to Mr. Carter a few days later expressed more uncertainty about whether a theft had occurred, but noted that then-Secretary of State Cyrus Vance had a coming Middle East trip and discussed the need to keep attention "away from the CIA's information."

The question of whether one of America's closest allies was involved in the theft of some of its most valuable and dangerous material in pursuit of nuclear weapons has been one of the enduring mysteries of the atomic age. The suspected theft has drawn the attention of at least three presidents and other senior government officials.

The evidence suggested that "something did transpire," said Zbigniew Brzezinski, Mr. Carter's national-security adviser, in a recent interview. "But until you have conclusive evidence you don't want to make an international incident. This is a potentially very explosive, controversial issue." Besides, he added, even if a theft was proved, "What are we going to say to the Israelis, 'Give it back?' "

Israel hasn't ever said whether it has nuclear weapons. A spokeswoman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C., declined to comment for this article.

So did a spokeswoman for the Obama administration, which like past U.S. administrations has declined to say whether it believes Israel has an atomic arsenal. A CIA spokesman also declined to comment.

Mr. Carter, who said at a 2008 gathering in Britain that he believes Israel has nuclear weapons, declined through a spokeswoman to be interviewed.

His diplomatic efforts as president, which helped produce a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt in 1979, likely wouldn't have been possible "if there was some huge scandal at the time about this," said John Marcum, the staffer who wrote the July 28, 1977, memo, in a recent interview.

The theft suspicions surround events at a now-dismantled facility in Apollo, Pa., owned by a company called Nuclear Materials & Equipment Corp., or Numec. In the mid-1960s, some 200 pounds of bomb-grade uranium--enough possibly for several Hiroshima-sized bombs--couldn't be accounted for there.

An FBI investigation begun in the late 1960s, which drew interest from top Nixon administration officials, including the president, but couldn't determine what happened to the uranium, according to Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agency documents. But FBI officials did raise questions about suspected dealings between Numec's founder and president, Zalman Shapiro, and Israeli intelligence officials, according to government documents. 

Babcock & Wilcox Co. BWC -0.35%  , a nuclear-technology and energy company that acquired Numec in 1971, declined to comment.

In an interview late last year, the 93-year-old Mr. Shapiro, who has long argued the material had been lost in the production process, said that no theft took place. He said his dealings with Israel, where Numec had commercial activities, were legitimate and to his knowledge never involved intelligence officials.

Potentially crucial sections of the recently released documents--obtained by the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, an organization that has been critical of Israel--remain classified.

The latest document release underscores the need for the government to declassify the remaining information about the suspected theft, some former federal officials say.

"We know the CIA thought the material was stolen. We want to know why they thought that," said Victor Gilinsky, a former commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Government records show that a federal nuclear-enrichment facility in Ohio sent shipments to Numec containing the highest percentage of U235, the explosive form of uranium, ever known to have been produced, said Roger Mattson, another former NRC official.

Did the CIA later find that such uranium had turned up in Israel, as some documentary evidence suggests? "That's not something that's declassified," said Jessica Tuchman Mathews, a national-security official in the Carter administration who wrote or received some of the recently declassified documents.

Declassified Documents:

Read also:
 A brief history of unprosecuted Israeli foreign agent, smuggling and espionage cases.