activistpost--2020-01-14--Maine Could Become First State to Require Gun Owners to Carry Liability Insurance

Gun owners across Maine would be subject to a first in the nation and potentially expensive new mandate just for owning a firearm under a proposal put forward by Rep. Janice Cooper of Yarmouth .
The proposal will be considered by the Legislative Council of the Maine Legislature later this month before it can move forward .
Listed on the website of the Maine Revisor of Statute ’ s website is the proposed bill , LR 2645 “ An Act To Require a Person Who Owns a Firearm To Purchase Liability Insurance.
” While several states have attempted to impose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passed the requirement into law .
Supporters typically say that the measure will cut down on violent crimes committed with guns .
Opponents strongly disagree .
Insurance companies say that while advocates of such mandates often talk about cutting down on violent crimes committed with guns , liability insurance does not cover intentional acts – only accidents .
They say that puts the goals of supporters of the law at cross purposes with the principle of insurance .
Insurance companies have also said that a new requirement would be costly and complicated .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ related to driving up the cost of buying or owning a gun – some firearm liability insurance proposals that have been put forward in other states or nationally would have required gun owners to show proof of insurance before being allowed to even purchase a firearm .
But the concept of paying to exercise a constitutional right , they say , amounts to an unconstitutional infringement before any discussion about the cost of insurance comes into play .
“ This is just another in a long line of ‘ do something ’ attempts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a gun so onerous that they hope people will opt not to .
A solution to a non-existent problem .
I can ’ t think of any other right protected by our constitution that requires insurance to exercise , ” says Bruce Ashmore , a member of Gun Owners of Maine , a vibrant and effective grassroots organization focused on defending gun rights .
“ The Second Amendment doesn ’ t end with “ the right of the people to keep and bear Arms , shall not be infringed , if you have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Further , skeptics question how such a law could be enforced .
Would the government create a registry of gun owners and monitor their liability insurance ?
Unlike car insurance , which is only required for vehicles on public roads , firearm liability insurance would presumably be required at all times , even when firearms were locked away for months or years on end .
The penalty for not having adequate insurance could also be steep .
In 2013 , a Representative from New York proposed a law that carried a $ 10,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to someone without adequate liability insurance .
Another bill in the New York State Senate would have required gun owners carry $ 1 million in liability insurance coverage .
Mayor Sam Liccardo of San Jose , California earlier this year proposed requiring residents of his city purchase liability insurance for their firearms .
Liccardo argued that taxpayers had “ subsidized gun violence ” by not requiring residents to insure their guns or pay an alternative fee .
In a Washington Post op-ed , Liccardo admitted that the insurance requirement would not stop criminals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ the crooks ” won ’ t pay a fee or buy insurance ; only law-abiding gun owners would.
” Still , Liccardo argued , that the requirement would serve as a deterrent .
The deterrent effect Liccardo believes in , however , would likely serve to make law-abiding individuals in low-income , high-crime areas and high-risk situations less safe .
The outcome that Liccardo and others in support of the liability insurance mandate and “ robust ” fees as a deterrent almost certainly would have is one where many lower-income Americans and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to purchase a firearm for self-defense .
“ It will force Grandpa that has owned and used guns for the last 70 years to now pay a fee to keep his squirrel gun .
It will cost the single mother living out of town , barely scraping together enough to live , to pay a fee to keep protection in her home , ” says Bruce Ashmore .
“ The senior citizen living on SSI who keeps a pistol to protect his prescription drugs from the local druggies .
These types of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hardest , making them decide whether to pay the insurance or get food or pay their rent.
” Another aspect of the Rep. Cooper ’ s proposal that is certain to be questioned is simply the need .
Four years ago , a bipartisan coalition of Mainers passed a bill that was referred to as “ Constitutional Carry ” arguing that because Mainers have a constitutional right to bear arms and to defend themselves , they should not be required to obtain a government permit to carry a firearm .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s crime rate has not spiked , as gun control supporters predicted and Maine was recently named the safest state in the nation .
Widely regarded as a state with one of the highest rates of gun ownership , and now known as the safest state in the country , he says that makes Rep. Cooper ’ s proposal “ A solution to non-existent problem.
” No other state currently requires liability insurance for firearms , and some states are actively trying to undermine and drive out voluntary insurance programs for gun owners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ murder insurance ” by anti-gun activists .
From the perspective of those who defend gun rights , that amounts to a nearly impossible double bind .
For the Maine Legislature to consider the bill in the 2020 session , the Legislative Council must approve the bill by a majority vote .
The Legislative Council is made up of the ten members of House and Senate leadership .
Senate President Troy Jackson Chairs the council , while Speaker Sara Gideon serves as Vice Chair .
Gideon has been a strident supporter of several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who represents a more conservative district in Aroostook County , has been more reserved .
Sean Walton is a researcher and journalist for The Daily Sheeple .
Send tips to [ email protected ] Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and Steemit .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of @ @ @ @

By Sean Walton
Gun owners across Maine would be subject to a first in the nation and potentially expensive new mandate just for owning a firearm under a proposal put forward by Rep. Janice Cooper of Yarmouth. The proposal will be considered by the Legislative Council of the Maine Legislature later this month before it can move forward.
Listed on the website of the Maine Revisor of Statute’s website is the proposed bill, LR 2645 “An Act To Require a Person Who Owns a Firearm To Purchase Liability Insurance.”
While several states have attempted to impose such requirements, no state has successfully passed the requirement into law. Supporters typically say that the measure will cut down on violent crimes committed with guns. Opponents strongly disagree.
Insurance companies and gun rights advocates both have opposed efforts in other states for numerous reasons.
Insurance companies say that while advocates of such mandates often talk about cutting down on violent crimes committed with guns, liability insurance does not cover intentional acts – only accidents. They say that puts the goals of supporters of the law at cross purposes with the principle of insurance. Insurance companies have also said that a new requirement would be costly and complicated.
Gun rights advocates have some overlapping concerns related to driving up the cost of buying or owning a gun – some firearm liability insurance proposals that have been put forward in other states or nationally would have required gun owners to show proof of insurance before being allowed to even purchase a firearm.
But the concept of paying to exercise a constitutional right, they say, amounts to an unconstitutional infringement before any discussion about the cost of insurance comes into play.
“This is just another in a long line of ‘do something’ attempts by the socialist left to make owning a gun so onerous that they hope people will opt not to. A solution to a non-existent problem. I can’t think of any other right protected by our constitution that requires insurance to exercise,” says Bruce Ashmore, a member of Gun Owners of Maine, a vibrant and effective grassroots organization focused on defending gun rights. “The Second Amendment doesn’t end with “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, if you have liability insurance,” he says.
Further, skeptics question how such a law could be enforced. Would the government create a registry of gun owners and monitor their liability insurance?
Unlike car insurance, which is only required for vehicles on public roads, firearm liability insurance would presumably be required at all times, even when firearms were locked away for months or years on end.
The penalty for not having adequate insurance could also be steep. In 2013, a Representative from New York proposed a law that carried a $10,000 fine for individuals who sold a firearm to someone without adequate liability insurance.
Another bill in the New York State Senate would have required gun owners carry $1 million in liability insurance coverage.
Mayor Sam Liccardo of San Jose, California earlier this year proposed requiring residents of his city purchase liability insurance for their firearms. Liccardo argued that taxpayers had “subsidized gun violence” by not requiring residents to insure their guns or pay an alternative fee.
In a Washington Post op-ed, Liccardo admitted that the insurance requirement would not stop criminals, saying, “Of course, “the crooks” won’t pay a fee or buy insurance; only law-abiding gun owners would.” Still, Liccardo argued, that the requirement would serve as a deterrent.
Bruce Ashmore agrees that liability insurance won’t stop criminals from committing crimes.
“Laws like this have zero effect on criminal activity. Felons, murderers and abusers are not going to stop using firearms due to lack of finding coverage before committing crimes. So, who does it apply to? “It will only apply to those who are already not a problem,” says Ashmore.
The deterrent effect Liccardo believes in, however, would likely serve to make law-abiding individuals in low-income, high-crime areas and high-risk situations less safe.
The outcome that Liccardo and others in support of the liability insurance mandate and “robust” fees as a deterrent almost certainly would have is one where many lower-income Americans and battered spouses fleeing violence would not be able to purchase a firearm for self-defense.
“It will force Grandpa that has owned and used guns for the last 70 years to now pay a fee to keep his squirrel gun. It will cost the single mother living out of town, barely scraping together enough to live, to pay a fee to keep protection in her home,” says Bruce Ashmore. “The senior citizen living on SSI who keeps a pistol to protect his prescription drugs from the local druggies. These types of laws always hit those with the least the hardest, making them decide whether to pay the insurance or get food or pay their rent.”
Another aspect of the Rep. Cooper’s proposal that is certain to be questioned is simply the need. Four years ago, a bipartisan coalition of Mainers passed a bill that was referred to as “Constitutional Carry” arguing that because Mainers have a constitutional right to bear arms and to defend themselves, they should not be required to obtain a government permit to carry a firearm.
In the four years that followed, Maine’s crime rate has not spiked, as gun control supporters predicted and Maine was recently named the safest state in the nation.
“We live in the safest state in America and consistently have the lowest violent crime rate and guns are an integral part of our lives here,” says Ashmore, pointing to recent news reports that Maine is now the safest state in the U.S.
Widely regarded as a state with one of the highest rates of gun ownership, and now known as the safest state in the country, he says that makes Rep. Cooper’s proposal “A solution to non-existent problem.”
No other state currently requires liability insurance for firearms, and some states are actively trying to undermine and drive out voluntary insurance programs for gun owners, insurance that has been derided as “murder insurance” by anti-gun activists.
From the perspective of those who defend gun rights, that amounts to a nearly impossible double bind.
“So they want us to get insurance and at the same time make that an almost impossible thing to do,” says Ashmore, saying that the proposal is another attack in a ‘death by a thousand cuts’ strategy. “We need to make our opposition to such onerous laws loud, public and definitive. We will not go quietly away,” he says.
For the Maine Legislature to consider the bill in the 2020 session, the Legislative Council must approve the bill by a majority vote. The Legislative Council is made up of the ten members of House and Senate leadership. Senate President Troy Jackson Chairs the council, while Speaker Sara Gideon serves as Vice Chair.
Gideon has been a strident supporter of several gun control measures, while Jackson, who represents a more conservative district in Aroostook County, has been more reserved.
Sean Walton is a researcher and journalist for The Daily Sheeple. Send tips to sean.walton@thedailysheeple.com.
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-01-14--Top Apps Invade User Privacy By Collecting and Sharing Personal Data, New Report Finds

A new year often starts with good resolutions .
Some resolve to change a certain habit , others resolve to abandon an undesired trait .
Mobile app makers , too , claim to have user behavior and their preferences at their heart .
From dating to health to music , their promise is to add convenience to consumers ’ lives or to offer support when needed .
The bad news is that the ecosystem of the underlying ad tech industry has not changed and still does not respect user privacy .
A new report published today by the Norwegian Consumer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hidden side of the data economy and its findings are alarming .
Scrutinizing 10 popular apps in Google Play Store , such as Grindr , Clue , and Perfect365 , the NCC report ’ s technical analysis reveals comprehensive tracking and profiling practices .
Personal data is systematically collected and shared with dozens of third-party companies without users ’ knowledge .
EFF ’ s recent report on third-party tracking documents additional ways that companies profit from invading our digital privacy .
The NCC ’ s legal analysis concludes that companies have not obtained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data under the EU General Data Protection Regulation ( GDPR ) and consumers have no practical option to avoid being tracked .
The report highlights that profiling practices may not only be used to personalize advertising , but could also result in discrimination , manipulation , and exploitation of users .
Current tracking and profiling practices translate into exploitative practices in contradiction to the GDPR , the report says .
While the research was carried out in the EU , the analyzed apps are available around the globe , and many are owned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Responding to the report , consumer and digital rights organizations globally are notifying their data protection authorities .
What Needs to Be Done : Strong Privacy Rights and Alternative Solutions EFF has long advocated for critical and tangible privacy rights for users , including the right to opt-in consent , the right to know , and the right to data portability .
Rules should not only exist on paper but users should also be empowered to bring their own lawsuits against companies that violate their privacy rights .
The NCC report shows that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around us .
Instead , we need a user-oriented tech ecosystem that does not treat user data like a free resource to be exploited .
To build alternative solutions to the incumbent online advertising systems , we need new laws that create strong privacy rights .
This article was sourced from EFF.org Christoph Schmon is EFF ’ s International Policy Director .
He bridges EFF ’ s domestic priorities with our international policy strategy and helps to make sure that digital rights are respected and enforced beyond the United States borders .
Christoph @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a special focus on international copyright law and online intermediary liability .
Prior to working for EFF , he led the Consumer Rights Team at the EU Consumer Organisation ( BEUC ) and was appointed member of several expert groups to the EU Commission in Brussels .
Christoph has litigation experience and holds a Ph.D in law .
He was a researcher at several universities and teaches and writes about consumer law , digital rights , and private international law .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as little as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and Steemit .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Christoph Schmon
A new year often starts with good resolutions. Some resolve to change a certain habit, others resolve to abandon an undesired trait. Mobile app makers, too, claim to have user behavior and their preferences at their heart. From dating to health to music, their promise is to add convenience to consumers’ lives or to offer support when needed. The bad news is that the ecosystem of the underlying ad tech industry has not changed and still does not respect user privacy. A new report published today by the Norwegian Consumer Council (NCC) looks at the hidden side of the data economy and its findings are alarming.
Discrimination, Manipulation, Exploitation
Scrutinizing 10 popular apps in Google Play Store, such as Grindr, Clue, and Perfect365, the NCC report’s technical analysis reveals comprehensive tracking and profiling practices. Personal data is systematically collected and shared with dozens of third-party companies without users’ knowledge. EFF’s recent report on third-party tracking documents additional ways that companies profit from invading our digital privacy.
The NCC’s legal analysis concludes that companies have not obtained valid consent from consumers to process their data under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and consumers have no practical option to avoid being tracked. The report highlights that profiling practices may not only be used to personalize advertising, but could also result in discrimination, manipulation, and exploitation of users.
Actions by Consumer and Digital Rights Organizations
Current tracking and profiling practices translate into exploitative practices in contradiction to the GDPR, the report says. While the research was carried out in the EU, the analyzed apps are available around the globe, and many are owned by companies headquartered in the U.S. Responding to the report, consumer and digital rights organizations globally are notifying their data protection authorities.
What Needs to Be Done: Strong Privacy Rights and Alternative Solutions
EFF has long advocated for critical and tangible privacy rights for users, including the right to opt-in consent, the right to know, and the right to data portability. Rules should not only exist on paper but users should also be empowered to bring their own lawsuits against companies that violate their privacy rights.
The NCC report shows that a huge surveillance industry has built up around us. Instead, we need a user-oriented tech ecosystem that does not treat user data like a free resource to be exploited. To build alternative solutions to the incumbent online advertising systems, we need new laws that create strong privacy rights.
Report and materials: https://www.forbrukerradet.no/out-of-control/
This article was sourced from EFF.org
Christoph Schmon is EFF’s International Policy Director. He bridges EFF’s domestic priorities with our international policy strategy and helps to make sure that digital rights are respected and enforced beyond the United States borders. Christoph has deep expertise in EU policy-making and a special focus on international copyright law and online intermediary liability.
Prior to working for EFF, he led the Consumer Rights Team at the EU Consumer Organisation (BEUC) and was appointed member of several expert groups to the EU Commission in Brussels. Christoph has litigation experience and holds a Ph.D in law. He was a researcher at several universities and teaches and writes about consumer law, digital rights, and private international law.
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-01-15--The Truth About Shadowbanning — Propaganda Watch

Are you subscribed to The Corbett Report on GooTube ?
Are you sure ?
Today on # PropagandaWatch we tackle @ @ @ @ @ social media and the insidious nature of “ the intelligent manipulation of the organized habits @ @ @ @ @ to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist @ @ @ @ @ as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , @ @ @ @ @ Steemit .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a @ @ @ @ @ today .

By corbettreport
Are you subscribed to The Corbett Report on GooTube? Are you sure?
Today on #PropagandaWatch we tackle the concept of shadowbanning on social media and the insidious nature of “the intelligent manipulation of the organized habits of the masses.”
SHOW NOTES:
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-01-15--Virginia Senate Judiciary Committee Advances 4 Anti-Gun Bills

It appears that the Virginia State Congress hasn ’ t been taking enraged citizens very seriously .
In today ’ s meeting of the Virginia Senate Judiciary Committee , four of the recently proposed anti-gun bills were advanced to the Senate for a vote which could take place any day now .
Senate Bill 35 , Senate Bill 69 , Senate Bill 70 , and Senate Bill 240 were the bills under discussion today .
Which bills are these ?
The NRA provided a rundown on the bills .
• Senate Bill 35 will destroy Virginia ’ s firearm preemption @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ gun-free zones ” in and around public buildings and parks .
Criminals will ignore these restrictions , leaving law-abiding citizens unable to defend themselves and their loved ones .
• Senate Bill 69 , commonly referred to as “ one-gun-a-month , ” would impose an arbitrary one gun limit on an individual ’ s right to lawfully purchase a handgun within 30 days .
• Senate Bill 70 would ban many sales and transfers between private individuals without first paying fees and obtaining government permission .
Firearm sales between friends , neighbors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be exempted .
Transfers between family members are also likely to be banned based on the vague wording of the proposed legislation .
This proposal would have no impact on crime and is completely unenforceable .
• Senate Bill 240 looks to create so-called “ Red Flag ” gun confiscation orders .
This bill will take your constitutionally-guaranteed rights and throw them out the window with insufficient due process in place .
( source ) There are other bills which have yet to be discussed by the Judiciary Committee .
One would make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than 10 rounds a felony ( regardless of whether you possess an extended magazine ) and others would ban private gun ranges and create “ ammo-free ” zones .
They ’ ve banned guns in the capital for everyone but themselves .
These votes were taken in the newly gun-free ( as of last week ) capital .
Well , gun-free except for lawmakers .
We ’ d hate to see them “ slowed down.
” But as a practical matter , Capitol Police Col. Steve Pike said , the policy will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them to pass through metal detectors would probably slow them down as they travel between the Capitol and the adjacent Pocahontas Building , which the ban also covers .
In addition , he said , legislators are immune from prosecution during the session , under a law intended to ensure their performance of the people ’ s business is not impeded .
( source ) The hypocrisy is real , folks .
And this fight is just beginning .
Daisy Luther is a coffee-swigging , gun-toting blogger who writes about current events , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pursuit of liberty on her website , The Organic Prepper , where this article first appeared .
She is widely republished across alternative media and she curates all the most important news links on her aggregate site , PreppersDailyNews.com .
Daisy is the best-selling author of 4 books and lives in the mountains of Virginia with her two daughters and an ever-growing menagerie .
You can find her on Facebook , Pinterest , and Twitter .

By Daisy Luther
It appears that the Virginia State Congress hasn’t been taking enraged citizens very seriously. In today’s meeting of the Virginia Senate Judiciary Committee, four of the recently proposed anti-gun bills were advanced to the Senate for a vote which could take place any day now.
Senate Bill 35, Senate Bill 69, Senate Bill 70, and Senate Bill 240 were the bills under discussion today.
Which bills are these?
The NRA provided a rundown on the bills.
Senate Bill 35 will destroy Virginia’s firearm preemption laws by allowing localities to create new “gun-free zones” in and around public buildings and parks. Criminals will ignore these restrictions, leaving law-abiding citizens unable to defend themselves and their loved ones.
will destroy Virginia’s firearm preemption laws by allowing localities to create new “gun-free zones” in and around public buildings and parks. Criminals will ignore these restrictions, leaving law-abiding citizens unable to defend themselves and their loved ones. Senate Bill 69 , commonly referred to as “one-gun-a-month,” would impose an arbitrary one gun limit on an individual’s right to lawfully purchase a handgun within 30 days.
, commonly referred to as “one-gun-a-month,” would impose an arbitrary one gun limit on an individual’s right to lawfully purchase a handgun within 30 days. Senate Bill 70 would ban many sales and transfers between private individuals without first paying fees and obtaining government permission. Firearm sales between friends, neighbors, or fellow hunters, would not be exempted. Transfers between family members are also likely to be banned based on the vague wording of the proposed legislation. This proposal would have no impact on crime and is completely unenforceable.
would ban many sales and transfers between private individuals without first paying fees and obtaining government permission. Firearm sales between friends, neighbors, or fellow hunters, would not be exempted. Transfers between family members are also likely to be banned based on the vague wording of the proposed legislation. This proposal would have no impact on crime and is completely unenforceable. Senate Bill 240 looks to create so-called “Red Flag” gun confiscation orders. This bill will take your constitutionally-guaranteed rights and throw them out the window with insufficient due process in place. (source)
There are other bills which have yet to be discussed by the Judiciary Committee. One would make any firearm that is capable of holding more than 10 rounds a felony (regardless of whether you possess an extended magazine) and others would ban private gun ranges and create “ammo-free” zones.
They’ve banned guns in the capital for everyone but themselves.
These votes were taken in the newly gun-free (as of last week) capital.
Well, gun-free except for lawmakers. We’d hate to see them “slowed down.”
But as a practical matter, Capitol Police Col. Steve Pike said, the policy will not be enforced with lawmakers. Requiring them to pass through metal detectors would probably slow them down as they travel between the Capitol and the adjacent Pocahontas Building, which the ban also covers. In addition, he said, legislators are immune from prosecution during the session, under a law intended to ensure their performance of the people’s business is not impeded. (source)
The hypocrisy is real, folks. And this fight is just beginning.
Daisy Luther is a coffee-swigging, gun-toting blogger who writes about current events, preparedness, frugality, voluntaryism, and the pursuit of liberty on her website, The Organic Prepper, where this article first appeared. She is widely republished across alternative media and she curates all the most important news links on her aggregate site, PreppersDailyNews.com. Daisy is the best-selling author of 4 books and lives in the mountains of Virginia with her two daughters and an ever-growing menagerie. You can find her on Facebook, Pinterest, and Twitter.
Image: SHTFplan.com


activistpost--2020-01-15--US Debt Got Us Hooked on Petrodollars — and on Saudi Arabia

The Iranian regime and the Saudi Arabian regime are longtime enemies , with both vying for control of the Persian Gulf region .
Part of the conflict stems from religious differences — differences between Shia and Sunni muslim groups .
But much of the conflict stems from mundane desires to establish regional dominance .
For more than forty years , however , Saudi Arabia has had one important ace in the hole in terms of its battle with Iran : the US ’ s continued support for the Saudi regime .
But why should the US continue to so robustly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these close relations can ’ t be due to any American support for democracy and human rights .
The Saudi regime is one of the world ’ s most illiberal and anti-democratic regimes .
Its ruling class has repeatedly been connected to Islamist terrorist groups , with Foreign Policy magazine last year calling Saudi Arabia “ the beating heart of Wahhabism — the harsh , absolutist religious creed that helped seed the worldviews of al Qaeda and the Islamic State.
” The answer lies in the fact the Saudi state is at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dollar as the world ’ s reserve currency , and to ensure global demand for US debt .
The origins of this system go back decades .
By 1974 , the US dollar was in a precarious position .
In 1971 , thanks to profligate spending on both war and domestic welfare programs , the US could no longer maintain a set global price for gold in line with the Bretton Woods system established in 1944 .
The value of the dollar in relation to gold fell as the supply of dollars increased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Foreign governments and investors began to lose faith in the dollar , and both Switzerland and France demanded gold in exchange for dollars as stipulated by Bretton Woods .
If this continued , though , US gold holdings would soon be depleted .
Moreover , the dollar was losing value against other currencies .
In May of 1971 , Germany left the Bretton Woods system and the dollar fell against the Deustsche Mark .
In response to these developments , Nixon announced the US would abandon the Bretton Woods system .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Not surprisingly , devaluing the dollar did not restore confidence in the dollar .
Moreover , the US had made no effort to rein in deficit spending .
So the US needed to continue to find ways to sell government debt without driving up interest rates .
That is , the US needed more buyers for its debt .
Motivation for a fix grew even more after 1973 when the first oil shock further exacerbated the deficit-fueled price inflation Americans were enduring .
But by 1974 , the enormous flood of dollars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggested a solution .
That year , Nixon sent new US Treasury Secretary William Simon to Saudi Arabia with a mission .
As recounted by Andrea Wong at Bloomberg the goal was to From a public finance point of view , this appeared to be win-win .
The Saudis would receive protection from geopolitical enemies , and the US would get a new place to unload large amounts of government debt .
Moreover , the Saudis could park their dollars in relatively safe and reliable investments in the United States .
This became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spending on oil , the US — and other oil importers , who were now required to use dollars — was creating new demand for US debt and US dollars .
This dollar agreement wasn ’ t limited to Saudi Arabia either .
Since Saudi Arabia dominated the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries ( OPEC ) , the dollar deal was extended to OPEC overall which meant the dollar became the preferred currency for oil purchases worldwide .
This scheme assured the dollar ’ s place as a currency of immense global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 1970s and early 1980s .
After all , up until the early 1980s , OPEC enjoyed 50-percent market share in the oil trade .
Thanks to the second oil shock , however , much of the world began searching for a wide variety of ways to decrease dependency on oil .
By the mid 1980s , OPEC ’ s share had decreased to less than one-third .
Today , Saudi Arabia ranks behind both Russia and the United States in terms of oil production .
As of 2019 , OPEC ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has lessened the role of the petrodollar compared to the heady days of the 1970s .
But the importance of the petrodollar is certainly not destroyed .
We can see the ongoing importance of the petrodollar in US foreign policy which had continued to antagonize and threaten any major oil-exporting state that moves toward ending its reliance on dollars .
As noted by Matthew Hatfield in the Harvard Political Review , it is not likely a mere coincidence that especially belligerent US foreign policy has been applied to the Iraqi , Libyan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Other regimes that have called for abandoning the petrodollar include Iran and Venezuela .
The US has called for regime change in both these countries .
Threats can be leveled in both directions , however .
Last year , for example , Saudi Arabia threatened “ to sell its oil in currencies other than the dollar ” if Washington “ passes a bill exposing OPEC members to U.S. antitrust lawsuits.
” That is , the Saudi regime is aware that it has at least some leverage with the US because of the Saudi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system .
Saudi Arabia is one of few states that can even feign to call the US ’ s bluff on matters such as these .
As has been made abundantly clear by US policy in recent decades , the US is more than willing to invade foreign countries that run afoul of the petrodollar system .
In the case of Saudi Arabia , however , the Kingdom ’ s position as an Iran antagonist — and as the world ’ s third-largest oil exporter — means the US is likely to avoid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely that Saudi holdings of US debt and other assets are significant .
When the Saudis make threats , this implicitly also “ include [ s ] liquidating the kingdom ’ s holdings in the United States.
” As Bloomberg reported , Saudi Arabia has also “ warned it would start selling as much as $ 750 billion in Treasuries and other assets if Congress passes a bill allowing the kingdom to be held liable in U.S. courts for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
” We often hear about how China and Japan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and therefore hold some leverage over the US because of this .
( The problem here is that were foreigners to dump US assets , they would drop in price .
If US debt drops in price , then the the debt must increase in yield , which means the US must then pay more interest on its debt . )
But there is good reason to believe Saudi Arabia is a major holder as well .
It is difficult , however , to keep track of how large these holdings are because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US regime to keep Saudi purchases of American assets secret .
When the Treasury reports on foreign holders of US debt , Saudi Arabia is folded in with several other nations to hide the precise nature of Saudi purchases .
Nevertheless , as Wong contends , the Saudi regime is “ one of America ’ s largest foreign creditors.
” The Problem Grows as US Debt Grows All else being equal , the US should be growing less dependent on foreign holders of debt .
This should especially be true of Saudi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of OPEC and the Saudis have been diminishing in terms of global share .
But all else isn ’ t equal and the US has been piling on ever larger amounts of debt in recent years .
In 2019 , for example , the annual deficit topped one trillion .
In a past , less profligate age , this sort of debt creation would be reserved only for wartime or a period of economic depression .
Today , however , this immense growth in debt levels makes the US regime more sensitive to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and this has made the US regime ever more reliant on foreign demand for both US debt and for US dollars .
That is , in order to avoid a crisis , the US must ensure that interest rates remain low , and that foreigners want to acquire both US dollars and US debt .
Were petrodollars and petrodollar recycling to disappear , this would have a two-fold effect on US government finances : a sizable decline in petrodollar recycling would put significant upward pressure on interest rates .
The result would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as it had to devote ever larger amounts of the federal budget to payments on the debt .
( The other option would be to have the US ’ s central bank monetize the debt by purchasing ever-larger amounts of US debt to make up for a lack of foreign demand .
This would lead to growing price inflation . )
Moreover , if participants began to exit the petrodollar system ( and , say , sell oil in euros instead ) demand for dollars would drop , exacerbating any scenarios in which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This would also generally contribute to greater price inflation as fewer dollars are sucked out of the US by foreign holders .
The result could be ongoing declines in government spending on services , and growing price inflation .
The US regime ’ s ability to finance its debt would decline significantly , and the US would need to pull back on military commitments , pensions , and more .
Either that , or keep spending at the same rate and face an inflationary spiral .
Ryan McMaken ( @ ryanmcmaken ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Institute .
Send him your article submissions for Mises Wire and The Austrian , but read article guidelines first .
Ryan has degrees in economics and political science from the University of Colorado , and was the economist for the Colorado Division of Housing from 2009 to 2014 .
He is the author of Commie Cowboys : The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $ 1 per month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and Steemit .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Ryan McMaken
The Iranian regime and the Saudi Arabian regime are longtime enemies, with both vying for control of the Persian Gulf region. Part of the conflict stems from religious differences — differences between Shia and Sunni muslim groups. But much of the conflict stems from mundane desires to establish regional dominance.
For more than forty years, however, Saudi Arabia has had one important ace in the hole in terms of its battle with Iran: the US’s continued support for the Saudi regime.
But why should the US continue to so robustly support this dictatorial regime? Certainly, these close relations can’t be due to any American support for democracy and human rights. The Saudi regime is one of the world’s most illiberal and anti-democratic regimes. Its ruling class has repeatedly been connected to Islamist terrorist groups, with Foreign Policy magazine last year calling Saudi Arabia “the beating heart of Wahhabism — the harsh, absolutist religious creed that helped seed the worldviews of al Qaeda and the Islamic State.”
Saudis Behind the Petrodollar
The answer lies in the fact the Saudi state is at the center of US efforts to maintain the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, and to ensure global demand for US debt. The origins of this system go back decades.
By 1974, the US dollar was in a precarious position. In 1971, thanks to profligate spending on both war and domestic welfare programs, the US could no longer maintain a set global price for gold in line with the Bretton Woods system established in 1944. The value of the dollar in relation to gold fell as the supply of dollars increased as a byproduct of growing deficit spending. Foreign governments and investors began to lose faith in the dollar, and both Switzerland and France demanded gold in exchange for dollars as stipulated by Bretton Woods. If this continued, though, US gold holdings would soon be depleted. Moreover, the dollar was losing value against other currencies. In May of 1971, Germany left the Bretton Woods system and the dollar fell against the Deustsche Mark.
In response to these developments, Nixon announced the US would abandon the Bretton Woods system. The dollar began to float against other currencies.
Not surprisingly, devaluing the dollar did not restore confidence in the dollar. Moreover, the US had made no effort to rein in deficit spending. So the US needed to continue to find ways to sell government debt without driving up interest rates. That is, the US needed more buyers for its debt. Motivation for a fix grew even more after 1973 when the first oil shock further exacerbated the deficit-fueled price inflation Americans were enduring.
But by 1974, the enormous flood of dollars from the US into top-oil-exporter Saudi Arabia suggested a solution.
That year, Nixon sent new US Treasury Secretary William Simon to Saudi Arabia with a mission. As recounted by Andrea Wong at Bloomberg the goal was to
neutralize crude oil as an economic weapon [against the US] and find a way to persuade a hostile kingdom to finance America’s widening deficit with its newfound petrodollar wealth. … The basic framework was strikingly simple. The U.S. would buy oil from Saudi Arabia and provide the kingdom military aid and equipment. In return, the Saudis would plow billions of their petrodollar revenue back into Treasuries and finance America’s spending.
From a public finance point of view, this appeared to be win-win. The Saudis would receive protection from geopolitical enemies, and the US would get a new place to unload large amounts of government debt. Moreover, the Saudis could park their dollars in relatively safe and reliable investments in the United States. This became known as “petrodollar recycling.” By spending on oil, the US — and other oil importers, who were now required to use dollars — was creating new demand for US debt and US dollars.
This dollar agreement wasn’t limited to Saudi Arabia either. Since Saudi Arabia dominated the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the dollar deal was extended to OPEC overall which meant the dollar became the preferred currency for oil purchases worldwide.
This scheme assured the dollar’s place as a currency of immense global importance. This was especially important during the 1970s and early 1980s. After all, up until the early 1980s, OPEC enjoyed 50-percent market share in the oil trade. Thanks to the second oil shock, however, much of the world began searching for a wide variety of ways to decrease dependency on oil. By the mid 1980s, OPEC’s share had decreased to less than one-third.
Today, Saudi Arabia ranks behind both Russia and the United States in terms of oil production. As of 2019, OPEC’s share remains around 30 percent. This has lessened the role of the petrodollar compared to the heady days of the 1970s. But the importance of the petrodollar is certainly not destroyed.
We can see the ongoing importance of the petrodollar in US foreign policy which had continued to antagonize and threaten any major oil-exporting state that moves toward ending its reliance on dollars.
As noted by Matthew Hatfield in the Harvard Political Review, it is not likely a mere coincidence that especially belligerent US foreign policy has been applied to the Iraqi, Libyan, and Iranian regimes. Hatfield writes:
In 2000, Saddam Hussein, then-president of Iraq, announced that Iraq was moving to sell its oil in euros instead of dollars. Following 9/11, the United States invaded Iraq, deposed Saddam Hussein, and converted Iraqi oil sales back to the U.S. dollar. This exact pattern was repeated with Muammar Gaddafi when he attempted to create a unified African currency backed by Libyan gold reserves to to sell African oil. Shortly after his announcement, rebels armed by the US government and allies overthrew the dictator and his regime. After his death, the idea that African oil would be sold on something other than the dollar quickly died out.
Other regimes that have called for abandoning the petrodollar include Iran and Venezuela. The US has called for regime change in both these countries.
Oil Exporters Control US Assets
Threats can be leveled in both directions, however. Last year, for example, Saudi Arabia threatened “to sell its oil in currencies other than the dollar” if Washington “passes a bill exposing OPEC members to U.S. antitrust lawsuits.” That is, the Saudi regime is aware that it has at least some leverage with the US because of the Saudi position at the center of the petrodollar system.
Saudi Arabia is one of few states that can even feign to call the US’s bluff on matters such as these. As has been made abundantly clear by US policy in recent decades, the US is more than willing to invade foreign countries that run afoul of the petrodollar system.
In the case of Saudi Arabia, however, the Kingdom’s position as an Iran antagonist — and as the world’s third-largest oil exporter — means the US is likely to avoid unnecessary conflict.
Moreover, it is likely that Saudi holdings of US debt and other assets are significant. When the Saudis make threats, this implicitly also “include[s] liquidating the kingdom’s holdings in the United States.” As Bloomberg reported, Saudi Arabia has also “warned it would start selling as much as $750 billion in Treasuries and other assets if Congress passes a bill allowing the kingdom to be held liable in U.S. courts for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.”
We often hear about how China and Japan hold a lot of US debt, and therefore hold some leverage over the US because of this. (The problem here is that were foreigners to dump US assets, they would drop in price. If US debt drops in price, then the the debt must increase in yield, which means the US must then pay more interest on its debt.) But there is good reason to believe Saudi Arabia is a major holder as well. It is difficult, however, to keep track of how large these holdings are because the Saudi regime has worked closely with the US regime to keep Saudi purchases of American assets secret. When the Treasury reports on foreign holders of US debt, Saudi Arabia is folded in with several other nations to hide the precise nature of Saudi purchases. Nevertheless, as Wong contends, the Saudi regime is “one of America’s largest foreign creditors.”
The Problem Grows as US Debt Grows
All else being equal, the US should be growing less dependent on foreign holders of debt. This should especially be true of Saudi and OPEC-held debt since the global role of OPEC and the Saudis have been diminishing in terms of global share.
But all else isn’t equal and the US has been piling on ever larger amounts of debt in recent years. In 2019, for example, the annual deficit topped one trillion. In a past, less profligate age, this sort of debt creation would be reserved only for wartime or a period of economic depression. Today, however, this immense growth in debt levels makes the US regime more sensitive to changes in demand for US debt, and this has made the US regime ever more reliant on foreign demand for both US debt and for US dollars. That is, in order to avoid a crisis, the US must ensure that interest rates remain low, and that foreigners want to acquire both US dollars and US debt.
Were petrodollars and petrodollar recycling to disappear, this would have a two-fold effect on US government finances: a sizable decline in petrodollar recycling would put significant upward pressure on interest rates. The result would be a budget crisis for the US government as it had to devote ever larger amounts of the federal budget to payments on the debt. (The other option would be to have the US’s central bank monetize the debt by purchasing ever-larger amounts of US debt to make up for a lack of foreign demand. This would lead to growing price inflation.)
Moreover, if participants began to exit the petrodollar system (and, say, sell oil in euros instead) demand for dollars would drop, exacerbating any scenarios in which the central bank is monetizing the debt. This would also generally contribute to greater price inflation as fewer dollars are sucked out of the US by foreign holders.
The result could be ongoing declines in government spending on services, and growing price inflation. The US regime’s ability to finance its debt would decline significantly, and the US would need to pull back on military commitments, pensions, and more. Either that, or keep spending at the same rate and face an inflationary spiral.
Contact Ryan McMaken
Ryan McMaken (@ryanmcmaken) is a senior editor at the Mises Institute. Send him your article submissions for Mises Wire and The Austrian, but read article guidelines first. Ryan has degrees in economics and political science from the University of Colorado, and was the economist for the Colorado Division of Housing from 2009 to 2014. He is the author of Commie Cowboys: The Bourgeoisie and the Nation-State in the Western Genre.
Article source: Mises.org
Image: The Free Thought Project
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-01-15--Yes, China Is a Currency Manipulator — And the U.S. Banking System Is a Metals Manipulator

The U.S. Treasury Department announced Monday that China is no longer on a list of countries deemed to be “ currency manipulators.
” The timing was awfully convenient , coming just ahead of an expected Phase One trade deal between the two powers .
Nobody actually believes China has stopped manipulating the value of its yuan versus the U.S. dollar .
But the Trump administration is apparently willing to accept a certain degree of currency rigging in exchange for other concessions on trade .
It ’ s not as if the U.S. government has a stellar record when it comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ currency markets .
It ( through the Exchange Stabilization Fund and other vehicles ) is constantly trying to manage the value of the dollar versus the currencies of trading partners , too .
It ’ s not as if equity markets , interest rate markets , and precious metals futures markets are free from manipulation , either .
Price rigging schemes of various sorts – ranging from small-scale “ spoofing ” to large-scale suppression – occur practically around the clock .
Last year , for example , the U.S. Department of Justice criminally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racketeering in a conspiracy to rig precious metals markets .
Yet previous criminal investigations by federal regulators have often gone nowhere , with evidence of manipulation inexplicably disregarded .
Congressman Alex Mooney from West Virginia has asked Attorney General Bill Barr to look into price rigging , particularly within the silver market which is regularly subjected to artificial volatility induced by large institutional traders ( i.e.
, bullion banks ) with outsized positions .
The manipulation may be occurring on an even larger scale if the Federal Reserve or the U.S. government or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ widely suspected but difficult to prove since the Fed operates in secret and the government isn ’ t keen on investigating itself .
Regardless of what the motivation may be , it is an objective fact that the supply of futures contracts surged last year in both gold and silver markets .
Open interest in gold was up over 70 % .
Put another way , the supply of paper gold rose by 70 % or 33 million new ounces – absorbing much of the growing demand for the metal and preventing prices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Even as vastly more contracts for gold exchanged hands , the amount of physical gold available for delivery in vaults barely budged .
Thus , while gold itself is scarce and highly sought after , futures contracts can seemingly be generated in unlimited quantities to divert buyers away from the real thing .
According to Dave Kranzler of Investment Research Dynamics , Some gold bugs expect an eventual COMEX default – a force majeure , a run on the bank for physical metal that sends prices explosively higher .
While such a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessarily probable .
The powers that be have been adept at playing the paper charade to their advantage for decades .
They may be unscrupulous or even evil , but they are not dumb .
The campaign popularized briefly a few years ago of “ Buy Silver , Crash JPMorgan ” was based on a misunderstanding of the mega banks ’ short exposure to silver .
The banks aren ’ t making an enormous long-term bet that silver will fall and risking everything on it .
They are in the markets with complex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ micro-profits on minute-by-minute moves up or down .
Yes , the banks can suppress rallies and trigger sell-offs by going heavily short – even selling more ounces than they could possibly deliver .
But the reality is , they will never have to settle their contracts in physical metal .
Financial institutions are playing in a cash market tied to precious metals , not the actual physical market .
The best physical investors can hope for is that the cash/paper markets for gold and silver lose credibility and diverge from real-world pricing for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Or , alternatively the powers-that-be could avoid such an embarrassment by standing aside while prices reset higher , and then choose a new level at which to try to hold the line .
Ultimately , however , the supply of physical precious metals can not be manipulated into existence any bank or government .
Either it ’ s real and it ’ s available or it isn ’ t .
The key to defeating market riggers – or at least rendering their paper shenanigans irrelevant – is for buyers to avoid derivative markets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ physical sources .
Stefan Gleason is President of Money Metals Exchange , a precious metals dealer recently named “ Best in the USA ” by an independent global ratings group .
A graduate of the University of Florida , Gleason is a seasoned business leader , investor , political strategist , and grassroots activist .
Gleason has frequently appeared on national television networks such as CNN , FoxNews , and CNBC and in hundreds of publications such as the Wall Street Journal , The Street , and Seeking Alpha .
Subscribe to Activist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freedom news .
Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and Steemit .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Stefan Gleason
The U.S. Treasury Department announced Monday that China is no longer on a list of countries deemed to be “currency manipulators.” The timing was awfully convenient, coming just ahead of an expected Phase One trade deal between the two powers.
Nobody actually believes China has stopped manipulating the value of its yuan versus the U.S. dollar.
But the Trump administration is apparently willing to accept a certain degree of currency rigging in exchange for other concessions on trade.
It’s not as if the U.S. government has a stellar record when it comes to heeding principles of free and fair currency markets. It (through the Exchange Stabilization Fund and other vehicles) is constantly trying to manage the value of the dollar versus the currencies of trading partners, too.
It’s not as if equity markets, interest rate markets, and precious metals futures markets are free from manipulation, either. Price rigging schemes of various sorts – ranging from small-scale “spoofing” to large-scale suppression – occur practically around the clock.
Occasionally, there are prosecutions.
Last year, for example, the U.S. Department of Justice criminally charged several JPMorgan traders for fraud and racketeering in a conspiracy to rig precious metals markets.
Yet previous criminal investigations by federal regulators have often gone nowhere, with evidence of manipulation inexplicably disregarded.
Congressman Alex Mooney from West Virginia has asked Attorney General Bill Barr to look into price rigging, particularly within the silver market which is regularly subjected to artificial volatility induced by large institutional traders (i.e., bullion banks) with outsized positions.
The manipulation may be occurring on an even larger scale if the Federal Reserve or the U.S. government or its agents are involved. It is widely suspected but difficult to prove since the Fed operates in secret and the government isn’t keen on investigating itself.
Regardless of what the motivation may be, it is an objective fact that the supply of futures contracts surged last year in both gold and silver markets.
Open interest in gold was up over 70%. Put another way, the supply of paper gold rose by 70% or 33 million new ounces – absorbing much of the growing demand for the metal and preventing prices from rising even more than they did.
Even as vastly more contracts for gold exchanged hands, the amount of physical gold available for delivery in vaults barely budged. Thus, while gold itself is scarce and highly sought after, futures contracts can seemingly be generated in unlimited quantities to divert buyers away from the real thing.
According to Dave Kranzler of Investment Research Dynamics,
Since the introduction of paper gold, the Comex – gold and silver trading – has evolved into what can only be described as a caricature of a ‘market.’ The open interest in gold contracts is nearly 10 times the amount of physical gold reportedly held in Comex vaults. It’s 60 times the amount of ‘registered’ gold, the gold designated as available for delivery.
Some gold bugs expect an eventual COMEX default – a force majeure, a run on the bank for physical metal that sends prices explosively higher. While such a scenario is possible, it is not necessarily probable.
The powers that be have been adept at playing the paper charade to their advantage for decades. They may be unscrupulous or even evil, but they are not dumb.
The campaign popularized briefly a few years ago of “Buy Silver, Crash JPMorgan” was based on a misunderstanding of the mega banks’ short exposure to silver.
The banks aren’t making an enormous long-term bet that silver will fall and risking everything on it. They are in the markets with complex hedges and trading algorithms that can generate micro-profits on minute-by-minute moves up or down.
Yes, the banks can suppress rallies and trigger sell-offs by going heavily short – even selling more ounces than they could possibly deliver. But the reality is, they will never have to settle their contracts in physical metal.
Financial institutions are playing in a cash market tied to precious metals, not the actual physical market.
The best physical investors can hope for is that the cash/paper markets for gold and silver lose credibility and diverge from real-world pricing for industrial users and wholesale bullion buyers.
Or, alternatively the powers-that-be could avoid such an embarrassment by standing aside while prices reset higher, and then choose a new level at which to try to hold the line.
Ultimately, however, the supply of physical precious metals cannot be manipulated into existence any bank or government. Either it’s real and it’s available or it isn’t.
The key to defeating market riggers – or at least rendering their paper shenanigans irrelevant – is for buyers to avoid derivative markets and insist on obtaining physical metal from physical sources.
Stefan Gleason is President of Money Metals Exchange, a precious metals dealer recently named “Best in the USA” by an independent global ratings group. A graduate of the University of Florida, Gleason is a seasoned business leader, investor, political strategist, and grassroots activist. Gleason has frequently appeared on national television networks such as CNN, FoxNews, and CNBC and in hundreds of publications such as the Wall Street Journal, The Street, and Seeking Alpha.
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-01-16--The Entire Russian Government Resigns As Vladimir Putin Calls For Constitutional Reform

The entire Russian government led by former Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev resigned after Russian President Vladimir Putin gave a speech on constitutional reform , Reuters reported .
Medvedev said , this was “ to give President Vladimir Putin room to carry out the changes he wants to make to the constitution.
” Medvedev stated the constitutional reforms presented by Putin would make significant changes to the country ’ s balance of power and so “ the government in its current form has resigned ” .
“ All further decisions will be taken by the president , ” Medvedev added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s annual state of the nation address during which he proposed changes to the Russian constitution that would give Parliament a more powerful role .
The changes Putin proposed to the Russian constitution will give more authority to parliament , including the power to choose the prime minister and senior cabinet members , instead of the president as under the current system .
Further changes include enhancing the role of regional governors , tightening the residency requirements for presidential candidates and other top officials , and giving the Federation Council , Russia ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appointment of security officials .
“ Today in our society there is a clear demand for change , ” Putin said during his address .
“ People want development , they are striving to move forward in their careers , in their education , in becoming prosperous.
” The package of reforms will be presented as a national vote , Putin added , without specifying when that vote will occur .
“ I consider it necessary to conduct a vote by the country ’ s citizens on an entire package of proposed amendments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Putin said .
“ We will be able to build a strong prosperous Russia only on the basis of respect for public opinion , ” Putin added .
The move is intended according to many for Putin to retain power after the end of his presidency in 2024 .
There has been long speculation about potential changes to Russia ’ s political system that would allow Putin to stay on after 2024 , when he is currently required to step down .
However , that might not be the case anymore with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a way for Putin to continue ruling Russia after his fourth Kremlin term , perhaps as a behind-the-scenes role .
This could make Putin Russia ’ s President or shadow leader for life ( or at least until he dies ) .
Putin named Mikhail Mishustin , the head of the country ’ s tax service , to replace Medvedev , who he praised for his service .
Medvedev has been the PM for the past eight years , DW reported .
Medvedev became prime minister in 2012 , after serving four years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He currently heads the ruling United Russia party .
Mishustin will face a vote in the lower house of Russian parliament on Thursday , the RIA news agency reported .
Putin said he intended to create a new position of deputy secretary of Russia ’ s Security Council .
Medvedev , however , is still going to remain in a seat of power in the Russian government and is said to take on a new job as deputy head of Russia ’ s Security Council , which Putin is going to chair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Support us at Patreon .
Follow us on Minds , Steemit , SoMee , BitChute , Facebook and Twitter .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and Steemit .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Aaron Kesel
The entire Russian government led by former Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev resigned after Russian President Vladimir Putin gave a speech on constitutional reform, Reuters reported. Medvedev said, this was “to give President Vladimir Putin room to carry out the changes he wants to make to the constitution.”
Medvedev stated the constitutional reforms presented by Putin would make significant changes to the country’s balance of power and so “the government in its current form has resigned”.
“All further decisions will be taken by the president,” Medvedev added.
The announcement came during Putin’s annual state of the nation address during which he proposed changes to the Russian constitution that would give Parliament a more powerful role.
The changes Putin proposed to the Russian constitution will give more authority to parliament, including the power to choose the prime minister and senior cabinet members, instead of the president as under the current system.
Further changes include enhancing the role of regional governors, tightening the residency requirements for presidential candidates and other top officials, and giving the Federation Council, Russia’s upper chamber, powers over the appointment of security officials.
“Today in our society there is a clear demand for change,” Putin said during his address. “People want development, they are striving to move forward in their careers, in their education, in becoming prosperous.”
The package of reforms will be presented as a national vote, Putin added, without specifying when that vote will occur.
“I consider it necessary to conduct a vote by the country’s citizens on an entire package of proposed amendments to the country’s constitution,” Putin said.
“We will be able to build a strong prosperous Russia only on the basis of respect for public opinion,” Putin added.
The move is intended according to many for Putin to retain power after the end of his presidency in 2024.
“It’s not clear what role he will play, what will his status be. The only thing which is clear is that he will keep his role as the No. 1 person,” Alexey Chesnakov, a political analyst who previously served as a Kremlin aide, told The Wall Street Journal.
There has been long speculation about potential changes to Russia’s political system that would allow Putin to stay on after 2024, when he is currently required to step down. However, that might not be the case anymore with reform leading many to believe this is a way for Putin to continue ruling Russia after his fourth Kremlin term, perhaps as a behind-the-scenes role.
Putin among other changes, also proposed imposing a two-term limit on future presidents of Russia.
This could make Putin Russia’s President or shadow leader for life (or at least until he dies).
Putin named Mikhail Mishustin, the head of the country’s tax service, to replace Medvedev, who he praised for his service. Medvedev has been the PM for the past eight years, DW reported.
Medvedev became prime minister in 2012, after serving four years as president with Putin as his PM. He currently heads the ruling United Russia party. Putin has been in power as either the president or the prime minister since 1999 and now this new move seeks to give him job security going forward within Russia’s government.
Mishustin will face a vote in the lower house of Russian parliament on Thursday, the RIA news agency reported.
Putin said he intended to create a new position of deputy secretary of Russia’s Security Council. Medvedev, however, is still going to remain in a seat of power in the Russian government and is said to take on a new job as deputy head of Russia’s Security Council, which Putin is going to chair.
**By [@An0nkn0wledge](https://steemit.com/@an0nkn0wledge)**
Aaron Kesel writes for Activist Post. Support us at Patreon. Follow us on Minds, Steemit, SoMee, BitChute, Facebook and Twitter.
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-01-15--WV Lawmakers Invite VA 2nd Amendment Sanctuary Counties to Secede And Join Their State

West Virginia lawmakers introduced a resolution on Tuesday inviting Virginia ’ s Second Amendment sanctuary counties to legally secede and “ be admitted to the body politic of the State of West Virginia.
” Whereas , In a spirit of conciliation , the Legislature of West Virginia hereby extends an invitation to our fellow Virginians who wish to do so , to join us in our noble experiment of 156 years of separation from the government at Richmond ; and , we extend an invitation to any constituent county or city of the Commonwealth of Virginia to be admitted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ West Virginia , under the conditions set forth in our state Constitution , specifically , with the consent of a majority of the voters of such county or city voting upon such proposition ; and we hereby covenant that their many grievances shall be addressed , and , we further covenant with them that their firearms rights shall be protected to the fullest extent possible under our Federal and State Constitution .
Whereas , Article VI , Section 11 of The Constitution of the State of West Virginia explicitly permits additional territory to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this state , with the consent of the Legislature and of a majority of the qualified voters of the state ; and Providing for an election to be had , pending approval of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia , and a majority of qualified citizens voting upon the proposition prior to August 1 , 2020 , for the admission of certain counties and independent cities of the Commonwealth of Virginia to be admitted to the State of West Virginia as constituent counties , under the provisions of Article VI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ West Virginia Whereas , The Legislature of West Virginia finds that in 1863 , due to longstanding perceived attitudes of neglect for the interests of the citizens of Western Virginia , and a studied failure to address the differences which had grown between the counties of Western Virginia and the government at Richmond , the Commonwealth of Virginia was irretrievably divided , and the new State of West Virginia was formed ; and Whereas , Such division occurred as the Trans-Allegheny portions of Virginia perceived that they suffered under an inequitable measure of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ share of the tax burden ; and Whereas , In the latest , and most evident , in this string of grievances , the government at Richmond now seeks to place intolerable restraints upon the rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution to the citizens of that Commonwealth ; and Whereas , The Legislative body of West Virginia believes that this latest action defies the wise counsel which has come down to us in the august words of our common Virginia Founders : as the government at Richmond now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberty , Patrick Henry-who stated to the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788 that “ The great object is that every man be armed .
Everyone who is able might have a gun ” ; and Whereas , The government at Richmond now repudiates the counsel of a Signer of the Declaration and premier advocate of American independence , Richard Henry Lee-who stated in The Federal Farmer that “ To preserve liberty , it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms ” ; and Whereas , The government at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ zealous guardian of our inherent rights , George Mason-who stated that “ To disarm the people… [ i ] s the most effectual way to enslave them ” ; and Whereas , The government at Richmond now repudiates the counsel of the declaimer of our independence and theoretician of our freedoms , Thomas Jefferson-who stated in his first draft of the Virginia Constitution , that “ No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms ” ; and Whereas , The Boards of Supervisors of many Virginia counties and the Councils @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dangerous departure from the doctrine of the Founders on the part of the government at Richmond ; and Whereas , These Boards of Supervisors and Councils have passed resolutions refusing to countenance what they affirm are unwarranted and unconstitutional measures by that government to infringe the firearm rights of Virginians ; and Whereas , The actions of the government at Richmond undertaken since the recent general election have , regrettably , resulted in unproductive contention and escalating a lamentable state of civic tension ; and Whereas , That , as has been proven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been observed internationally in more recent times with the peaceful dissolutions of Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union , and the creation of South Sudan , or , earlier in Virginia ’ s own history , with the formation of Kentucky , the peaceful partition of neighboring peoples can occur , and , is often very beneficial to both sides in reducing tensions and improving the tenor of discourse over ongoing political and societal differences ; and Whereas , Article VI , Section 11 of The Constitution of the State of West Virginia explicitly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and become part of this state , with the consent of the Legislature and of a majority of the qualified voters of the state ; and Whereas , In a spirit of conciliation , the Legislature of West Virginia hereby extends an invitation to our fellow Virginians who wish to do so , to join us in our noble experiment of 156 years of separation from the government at Richmond ; and , we extend an invitation to any constituent county or city of the Commonwealth of Virginia to be admitted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ West Virginia , under the conditions set forth in our state Constitution , specifically , with the consent of a majority of the voters of such county or city voting upon such proposition ; and we hereby covenant that their many grievances shall be addressed , and , we further covenant with them that their firearms rights shall be protected to the fullest extent possible under our Federal and State Constitutions ; and Whereas , Providing that the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall give its assent to any county or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Virginia having the opportunity and ability to do so , therefore , be it Resolved by the Legislature of West Virginia : That the question of admission , or , the rejection of such admission , of any county or independent city of the Commonwealth of Virginia desiring admission to the State of West Virginia , and a majority of whose qualified voters , voting on the question , have approved such measure , prior to August 1 , 2020 , shall be submitted to the voters of the State of West @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be held in the year 2020 .
Such proposal shall be placed upon the general election ballot in the following form : “ Shall the following county ( or independent city ) _____________________ ( name ) , currently a constituent part of the Commonwealth of Virginia , be admitted to the State of West Virginia as a constituent county of the State of West Virginia.
” Should the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia give its assent to any county or independent city presently part of the Commonwealth of Virginia having the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ county or independent city desiring admission to the State of West Virginia , and a majority of whose qualified voters , voting on the question , not have approved such measure prior to August 1 , 2020 , but do approve such measure at a later date ; Then , this provision of this Act shall serve as an official request of the Legislature of West Virginia to the Governor of West Virginia to call a special session of this Legislature to provide for a special election to provide for the approval of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of such admission , of such county or independent city ; and , be it Further Resolved , That the Legislature directs that the Clerk of the House forward copies of this resolution to the Board of Supervisors of each county in the Commonwealth of Virginia who have voted to become sanctuary counties for firearms rights , and to the Council of each independent city in the Commonwealth of Virginia who have voted to become sanctuary cities for firearms rights ; and , be it Further Resolved , That the Legislature directs that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this resolution to the Clerk of the House of Delegates and Clerk of the Senate of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia and requests , in a spirit of peace and goodwill , that the General Assembly will allow this measure for the peaceful transfer of peoples and the restoration of harmony to the Virginias ; and , further requests , in a continuance of such spirit , that any firearms legislation proposed by that body have an effective date far enough into the future so that this exchange of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the effective date of such legislation .

By Chris Menahan
West Virginia lawmakers introduced a resolution on Tuesday inviting Virginia’s Second Amendment sanctuary counties to legally secede and “be admitted to the body politic of the State of West Virginia.”
House Concurrent Resolution 8 reads:
Whereas, In a spirit of conciliation, the Legislature of West Virginia hereby extends an invitation to our fellow Virginians who wish to do so, to join us in our noble experiment of 156 years of separation from the government at Richmond; and, we extend an invitation to any constituent county or city of the Commonwealth of Virginia to be admitted to the body politic of the State of West Virginia, under the conditions set forth in our state Constitution, specifically, with the consent of a majority of the voters of such county or city voting upon such proposition; and we hereby covenant that their many grievances shall be addressed, and, we further covenant with them that their firearms rights shall be protected to the fullest extent possible under our Federal and State Constitution.
Whereas, Article VI, Section 11 of The Constitution of the State of West Virginia explicitly permits additional territory to be admitted into, and become part of this state, with the consent of the Legislature and of a majority of the qualified voters of the state; and
From WVLegislature.gov:
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 8
(By Delegates Howell, Summers, Shott, Householder, C. Martin, Hott, Graves, Cadle, Barnhart, J. Jeffries, Maynard, Phillips, Foster, Hamrick, Steele, D. Jeffries, Wilson, Waxman, Bartlett, Paynter, Linville, Sypolt, Bibby, Hill, Ellington and Higginbotham)
[Introduced January 14, 2020]
Providing for an election to be had, pending approval of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and a majority of qualified citizens voting upon the proposition prior to August 1, 2020, for the admission of certain counties and independent cities of the Commonwealth of Virginia to be admitted to the State of West Virginia as constituent counties, under the provisions of Article VI, Section 11 of the Constitution of West Virginia
Whereas, The Legislature of West Virginia finds that in 1863, due to longstanding perceived attitudes of neglect for the interests of the citizens of Western Virginia, and a studied failure to address the differences which had grown between the counties of Western Virginia and the government at Richmond, the Commonwealth of Virginia was irretrievably divided, and the new State of West Virginia was formed; and
Whereas, Such division occurred as the Trans-Allegheny portions of Virginia perceived that they suffered under an inequitable measure of taxation by which they bore a disproportionate share of the tax burden; and
[…]
Whereas, In the latest, and most evident, in this string of grievances, the government at Richmond now seeks to place intolerable restraints upon the rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution to the citizens of that Commonwealth; and
Whereas, The Legislative body of West Virginia believes that this latest action defies the wise counsel which has come down to us in the august words of our common Virginia Founders: as the government at Richmond now repudiates the counsel of that tribune of liberty, Patrick Henry-who stated to the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788 that “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun”; and
Whereas, The government at Richmond now repudiates the counsel of a Signer of the Declaration and premier advocate of American independence, Richard Henry Lee-who stated in The Federal Farmer that “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms”; and
Whereas, The government at Richmond now repudiates the counsel of that zealous guardian of our inherent rights, George Mason-who stated that “To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them”; and
Whereas, The government at Richmond now repudiates the counsel of the declaimer of our independence and theoretician of our freedoms, Thomas Jefferson-who stated in his first draft of the Virginia Constitution, that “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms”; and
Whereas, The Boards of Supervisors of many Virginia counties and the Councils of many Virginia cities have recognized this dangerous departure from the doctrine of the Founders on the part of the government at Richmond; and
Whereas, These Boards of Supervisors and Councils have passed resolutions refusing to countenance what they affirm are unwarranted and unconstitutional measures by that government to infringe the firearm rights of Virginians; and
Whereas, The actions of the government at Richmond undertaken since the recent general election have, regrettably, resulted in unproductive contention and escalating a lamentable state of civic tension; and
Whereas, That, as has been proven in numerous instances, such as have been observed internationally in more recent times with the peaceful dissolutions of Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, and the creation of South Sudan, or, earlier in Virginia’s own history, with the formation of Kentucky, the peaceful partition of neighboring peoples can occur, and, is often very beneficial to both sides in reducing tensions and improving the tenor of discourse over ongoing political and societal differences; and
Whereas, Article VI, Section 11 of The Constitution of the State of West Virginia explicitly permits additional territory to be admitted into, and become part of this state, with the consent of the Legislature and of a majority of the qualified voters of the state; and
Whereas, In a spirit of conciliation, the Legislature of West Virginia hereby extends an invitation to our fellow Virginians who wish to do so, to join us in our noble experiment of 156 years of separation from the government at Richmond; and, we extend an invitation to any constituent county or city of the Commonwealth of Virginia to be admitted to the body politic of the State of West Virginia, under the conditions set forth in our state Constitution, specifically, with the consent of a majority of the voters of such county or city voting upon such proposition; and we hereby covenant that their many grievances shall be addressed, and, we further covenant with them that their firearms rights shall be protected to the fullest extent possible under our Federal and State Constitutions; and
Whereas, Providing that the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall give its assent to any county or independent city presently part of the Commonwealth of Virginia having the opportunity and ability to do so, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Legislature of West Virginia:
That the question of admission, or, the rejection of such admission, of any county or independent city of the Commonwealth of Virginia desiring admission to the State of West Virginia, and a majority of whose qualified voters, voting on the question, have approved such measure, prior to August 1, 2020, shall be submitted to the voters of the State of West Virginia at the next general election to be held in the year 2020.
Such proposal shall be placed upon the general election ballot in the following form: “Shall the following county (or independent city) _____________________(name), currently a constituent part of the Commonwealth of Virginia, be admitted to the State of West Virginia as a constituent county of the State of West Virginia.”
Should the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia give its assent to any county or independent city presently part of the Commonwealth of Virginia having the opportunity to do so, and such county or independent city desiring admission to the State of West Virginia, and a majority of whose qualified voters, voting on the question, not have approved such measure prior to August 1, 2020, but do approve such measure at a later date;
Then, this provision of this Act shall serve as an official request of the Legislature of West Virginia to the Governor of West Virginia to call a special session of this Legislature to provide for a special election to provide for the approval of the admission, or, the rejection of such admission, of such county or independent city; and, be it
Further Resolved, That the Legislature directs that the Clerk of the House forward copies of this resolution to the Board of Supervisors of each county in the Commonwealth of Virginia who have voted to become sanctuary counties for firearms rights, and to the Council of each independent city in the Commonwealth of Virginia who have voted to become sanctuary cities for firearms rights; and, be it
Further Resolved, That the Legislature directs that the Clerk of the House forward copies of this resolution to the Clerk of the House of Delegates and Clerk of the Senate of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia and requests, in a spirit of peace and goodwill, that the General Assembly will allow this measure for the peaceful transfer of peoples and the restoration of harmony to the Virginias; and, further requests, in a continuance of such spirit, that any firearms legislation proposed by that body have an effective date far enough into the future so that this exchange of peoples and territory could be accomplished before the effective date of such legislation.


activistpost--2020-01-15--Mainstream Media Warns Journalists AGAINST Printing The Truth In Aftermath Of Burisma Hack

The mainstream media desperately wants the truth about Joe Biden ’ s Burisma corruption swept under the rug .
They are warning journalists to not even look at the information available after a “ hack ” , let alone print the truth for people .
If someone DOES manage to print the truth and big tech doesn ’ t censor it , the mainstream media says that person is handing over the 2020 election to Russia .
Where have we heard this before ?
Even though no files have been released from the “ hack , ” the thought police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempt the truth from being printed .
The American political and media thought leaders have been issuing dire warnings to any journalists thinking of publishing or even reading them if they ever are released .
To do so would be giving aid and comfort to the enemy – one step above treason – and nothing less than a capital thoughtcrime , these individuals have suggested .
Noah Shachtman , the Daily Beast ’ s editor was one of those who warned against publishing data that was “ hacked by the Russians.
” Since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being copied , planted , or removed in that “ hack , ” editors might just want to be safe and ignore any negative information that might emerge relating to Biden or his corrupt son .
The truth will remain hidden , and mainstream media has actually admitted to not wanting people to know the truth .
As the government ’ s lapdog , we expected nothing less .
And leave it to Hillary Clinton to make sure that “ Russian election meddling ” narrative sticks !
Some are warning that from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” which is media speak for “ bad things will be revealed about Joe Biden.
” “ We are just not clear on what ’ s real and what ’ s not anymore , ” an ‘ expert ’ lamented , sounding vaguely panicked , according to RT .
The establishment media and the ruling class have decided that people don ’ t need information .
They need to be brainwashed .
News of the “ hack ” follows closely on the heels of anonymous U.S. officials ’ claim that “ Russian disinformation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the surefire Democratic frontrunner , but lately second to Bernie Sanders , Elizabeth Warren , and even Pete Buttigieg , depending on the poll .
The Biden campaign has already been spinning their own narrative as news of the “ hack ” broke .
Biden ’ s campaign is blaming Trump and using the “ hack ” as proof their candidate was still a force to be reckoned with , making sure to get in a dig at the President , campaign spokesman Andrew Bates ’ comment to the New York Times was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president who had not repeatedly encouraged foreign interventions of this kind would immediately condemn this attack on the sovereignty of our elections , ” he said , surprising anyone who didn ’ t realize “ the sovereignty of our elections ” extends deep into Ukraine .
So if the mainstream media is to be believed , Russians hacked a Ukrainian company on which Joe Biden ’ s son served as a director , and reporting on the information found is somehow handing the election over to the Russians , so censorship by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and mainstream media are flailing right now .
No one in their right mind is buying this snake oil .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $ 1 per month at Patreon .
Follow us on SoMee , Flote , Minds , Twitter , and Steemit .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Mac Slavo
The mainstream media desperately wants the truth about Joe Biden’s Burisma corruption swept under the rug. They are warning journalists to not even look at the information available after a “hack”, let alone print the truth for people.
If someone DOES manage to print the truth and big tech doesn’t censor it, the mainstream media says that person is handing over the 2020 election to Russia. Where have we heard this before?
Burisma Holdings – the Ukrainian company where Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden’s son Hunter served as a director – has been hacked, cybersecurity firm Area 1 announced on Tuesday. Area 1 has ties to both the NSA and Crowdstrike, the firm behind 2016’s still-unproven “Russian hacking” allegations, and has fingered “Fancy Bear” – the ‘hacking group’ at the center of those allegations – as the culprit. –RT
Even though no files have been released from the “hack,” the thought police are out in full force trying to attempt the truth from being printed. The American political and media thought leaders have been issuing dire warnings to any journalists thinking of publishing or even reading them if they ever are released. To do so would be giving aid and comfort to the enemy – one step above treason – and nothing less than a capital thoughtcrime, these individuals have suggested.
I hope my fellow editors will think hard — really hard, a lot harder than they did in 2016 — before publishing any material hacked by the Russians. https://t.co/k9JEKnCgli — Noah Shachtman (@NoahShachtman) January 14, 2020
Translation: any material hurtful to Democrats. — Maria Romanetti (@WriterRomana) January 14, 2020
Noah Shachtman, the Daily Beast’s editor was one of those who warned against publishing data that was “hacked by the Russians.” Since there was no confirmation of any data being copied, planted, or removed in that “hack,” editors might just want to be safe and ignore any negative information that might emerge relating to Biden or his corrupt son. The truth will remain hidden, and mainstream media has actually admitted to not wanting people to know the truth. As the government’s lapdog, we expected nothing less.
And leave it to Hillary Clinton to make sure that “Russian election meddling” narrative sticks!
Russians appear to be re-running their 2016 hacking playbook, once again to benefit Donald Trump. Will the media play along again? Will the GOP open the door again? Will the Russians help pick our POTUS again? https://t.co/cfVPcqbY5w — Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) January 14, 2020
Some are warning that from the hack, will come “disinformation,” which is media speak for “bad things will be revealed about Joe Biden.”
MSNBC warning that the Burisma Emails that we’re allegedly hacked by Russia might be Disinformation. Too bad the entire mainstream media, MSNBC included, fell for the Russian Disinformation in the Steele Dossier and acted as if it was accurate. pic.twitter.com/w1GvhUMKku — Benny (@bennyjohnson) January 14, 2020
“We are just not clear on what’s real and what’s not anymore,” an ‘expert’ lamented, sounding vaguely panicked, according to RT. The establishment media and the ruling class have decided that people don’t need information. They need to be brainwashed.
News of the “hack” follows closely on the heels of anonymous U.S. officials’ claim that “Russian disinformation operations” are targeting Biden – once the surefire Democratic frontrunner, but lately second to Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and even Pete Buttigieg, depending on the poll.
The Biden campaign has already been spinning their own narrative as news of the “hack” broke. Biden’s campaign is blaming Trump and using the “hack” as proof their candidate was still a force to be reckoned with, making sure to get in a dig at the President, campaign spokesman Andrew Bates’ comment to the New York Times was laughable at best. “Any American president who had not repeatedly encouraged foreign interventions of this kind would immediately condemn this attack on the sovereignty of our elections,” he said, surprising anyone who didn’t realize “the sovereignty of our elections” extends deep into Ukraine.
So if the mainstream media is to be believed, Russians hacked a Ukrainian company on which Joe Biden’s son served as a director, and reporting on the information found is somehow handing the election over to the Russians, so censorship by the media is mandatory. The political establishment and mainstream media are flailing right now. No one in their right mind is buying this snake oil.
Article source: SHTFPlan.com
Image Credit: chrisdiontewalker
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.