Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.
BLOGSPOT.COM
Saturday, Mar. 3, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
FINALLY HOME
Reporter: DOJ Secretly Swapped My Hard Drive During Benghazi Scandal
By Randy DeSoto
Former CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson accused the Department of Justice of replacing one of the hard drives on her computer when it was in their possession.
“What would you think if I told you the hard drive of one of my personal computers was secretly switched out w/another while in the custody of the Justice Dept. Inspector General– before they gave it back to me?” Attkisson asked in a tweet on Wednesday.
Sharyl Attkisson ✔@SharylAttkisson
Re: My govt. computer intrusions...What would you think if I told you the hard drive of one of my personal computers was secretly switched out w/another while in custody of the Justice Dept. Inspector General-- before they gave it back to me? (Tick-tock.) #GettingCloserToAnswers
10:43 PM - Feb 28, 2018
She was questioned why the government had her computer in its possession, and the reporter replied that he had asked officials to look it over following her CBS News laptop being hacked by apparently an entity within the government.
Sharyl Attkisson ✔@SharylAttkisson
I asked them to look at one of them some years ago after the govt intrusion. Not the main one but one of my personal computers involved to see if they might come up with more info. Instead, they did withheld the report from me, did a lot of weird stuff. https://twitter.com/Mister_Twines/status/969066750225670144 …
11:29 PM - Feb 28, 2018
Attkisson confirmed in a subsequent tweet the reason she knew this is because she had copied down serial numbers of the hard drive, motherboard and other internal parts.
In 2012, Attkisson’s work computer was hacked while she was reporting on the Benghazi scandal for CBS. She was one of the first to call into question the narrative being promulgated by the Obama administration that the attacks were the result of spontaneous uprising caused by a YouTube video.
Earlier that same year the journalist received the Edward R. Murrow Award for Excellence in Video Investigative Reporting for her coverage of the DOJ’s Operation Fast and Furious gun running program.
CBS News spokesperson Sonya McNair stated during this time period that a cybersecurity firm had “determined through forensic analysis” that “Attkisson’s computer was accessed by an unauthorized, external, unknown party on multiple occasions in late 2012.”
“Evidence suggests this party performed all access remotely using Attkisson’s accounts. While no malicious code was found, forensic analysis revealed an intruder had executed commands that appeared to involve search and exfiltration of data,” McNair added.
“This party also used sophisticated methods to remove all possible indications of unauthorized activity, and alter system times to cause further confusion. CBS News is taking steps to identify the responsible party and their method of access,” the spokesperson said.
In her 2015 book “Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington,” Attkisson related that the perpetrator of the breach appeared to be the government.
“(A) sophisticated entity that used commercial, non attributable spyware that’s proprietary to a government agency: either the CIA, FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency or the National Security Agency,” she wrote, according to PJ Media.
Atkisson is suing the DOJ for allegedly illegally surveilling her computers and seeking $35 million in damages, Politico reported.
If the award-winning journalist’s suspicions about Obama’s DOJ are true, it would not be the first time the administration was accused of targeting the media for government surveillance.
The DOJ tracked Fox News reporter James Rosen’s visits to the State Department and obtained a search warrant in 2010 to access his personal emails.
The agency also secretly gathered two months worth of phone records of reporters and editors at The Associated Press in 2012.
AP CEO Gary Pruitt called that a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into how news organizations gather news. The records revealed news-gathering operations involving confidential sources and other methods “that the government has no conceivable right to know,” he added.
Racist Chuckie Schumer: I Won't Vote For This Judge Because He's White
By BEN SHAPIRO @benshapiro
Drew Angerer/Getty ImagesAs The Daily Caller reported on Thursday, Senate Minority Leader Chuckie Schumer (D-NY) stated on Wednesday that he would not vote for a judicial nominee because of the color of his skin. The Trump nominee, Marvin Quattlebaum, is white. This, according to Schumer, is absolutely unacceptable. Schumer fumed:
The nomination of Marvin Quattlebaum speaks to the overall lack of diversity in President Trump’s selections for the federal judiciary. Quattlebaum replaces not one, but two scuttled Obama nominees who were African American. As of February 14th, 83 percent of the President Trump’s confirmed nominees were male, 92 percent were white. That represents the lowest share of non-white candidates in three decades. It’s long past time that the judiciary starts looking a lot more like the America it represents. Having a diversity of views and experiences on the federal bench is necessary for the equal administration of justice.
It’s become tedious to remind Democrats that if they reversed the races here, they’d see just how racist they’ve become — if Schumer were to claim that there were simply too many black judicial nominees, and therefore a white nominee had to be selected, he’d be Bull Connor. But this sort of rhetoric has become commonplace for Democrats.
That’s because Democrats have embraced a philosophy of intersectionality, wherein identity trumps perspective. We are supposed to judge people according to their level of victimization in American society, which can be determined only by group identity, not actual individual victimization. Thus, black judges have a “black view” of the law that can never be understood by white judges. Justice Sonia Sotomayor made precisely this argument in 2001 when she stated, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
This belief system runs in direct contravention of the historic American commitment to the rule of law, not of men — meaning that the arbitrary feelings and life experiences of judges aren’t supposed to decide the meaning of the law. But according to Schumer and Democrats, we can determine exactly who’s fit to be a judge by looking at them.
Donald Trump: ‘Respect 2nd Amendment’
by CHARLIE SPIERING
President Donald Trump commented on the dramatic gun control meeting with members of Congress on Thursday, urging them to “respect” the Second Amendment.
Despite tacit endorsement of many of the gun control proposals from Democrats in the meeting, Trump noted on Twitter that some of them were good and “some not so good” on Thursday morning.
The NRA reacted to the meeting by calling it “great TV” but “bad policy.”
“Instead of punishing law-abiding gun owners for the acts of a deranged lunatic our leaders should pass meaningful reforms that would actually prevent future tragedies,” said NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker.
On Twitter, Trump only endorsed the idea of background checks for purchasing firearms.
“Gun free zones are proven targets of killers,” Trump wrote. “After many years, a Bill should emerge. Respect 2nd Amendment!”
Many ideas, some good & some not so good, emerged from our bipartisan meeting on school safety yesterday at the White House. Background Checks a big part of conversation. Gun free zones are proven targets of killers. After many years, a Bill should emerge. Respect 2nd Amendment!
6:53 AM - Mar 1, 2018
Eric Bolling Addresses Son’s Death from Opioids in White House Video
This had to be the hardest thing in the world to do. In fact, it was admitted as such by the man himself.
Eric Bolling, former Fox News host, gave a powerful testimony as part of a White House project addressing the opioid crisis that is ongoing in our country. Eric’s son tragically died of an opioid overdose last fall.
Eric has been understandably quiet about his son’s death, revealing only recently that President Trump called him after learning the news to express his condolences.
Now that the White House is starting in earnest a campaign to combat the opioid scourge that is ravishing small-town America, Bolling is lending his story to the effort. Grab your Kleenex, because this one will shake you to your core:
What powerful words. “We never saw it coming. We never thought we would get that call. Every parent doesn’t want it, and we got it,” Bolling said. How true is that?
Here was the most affecting part: “I didn’t know where to go. I had no support system. And so I went to Twitter and I said, ‘Look, this happened.’ I was overwhelmed by the number of people who opio[i]ds are affecting.”
The truth is there is little in the way of support systems for those affected by opioid addiction or their families. It’s a shame upon our country that we’ve let this slow killing fester for so long, that we allow families to make billions off the addiction and misery of others.
That was incredibly brave of Bolling to share the story of his son’s death. And it couldn’t have been easy. Eric said as much over Twitter:
President Trump was moved by Eric’s story and wished him well:
Let’s hope the White House initiative to combat the opioid crisis isn’t just window dressing. Under any other administration, this problem would be ignored. A President Hillary Clinton or President Jeb Bush would deliberately avoid the epidemic, because they don’t regard those suffering as “their” people.
Thank goodness we have a president in the White House who actually cares for those hurting from opioids, and wants to do something about it.
Street Artist Skewers #MeToo with Hollywood Billboards: ‘Oscar for Biggest Pedophile Goes to …’
by JEROME HUDSON
Sa
Street artist known as Sabo is trolling celebrities ahead of Sunday’s Academy Awards, erecting three billboards that send searing messages to a town whose most powerful men have been accused of decades of sexual abuse.
Photos of the three billboards, which are a play on the Oscar-nominated drama Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, emerged online on Wednesday, just days before hundreds of stars show up to celebrate themselves on Hollywood’s biggest night.
“And the Oscar for biggest pedophile goes to…” reads one of the near-fifty-foot signs.
Street artist Sabo erects billboards over Hollywood ahead of the Academy Awards.“We all knew and still no arrests,” another billboard reads.
“Name names on stage or shut the hell up!” another says, sending a message to the many celebrities expected to urge support for the #MeToo and Time’s Up anti-sexual harassment movements on the red carpet and from the stage.
Street artist Sabo erects billboards over Hollywood ahead of the Academy Awards.
Street Artist Sabo erects billboards over Hollywood ahead of the Academy Awards.Sabo says, according to the Hollywood Reporter, that his billboards are “meant to criticize those who allegedly enabled sexual harassment with their silence, and to tell celebrities they should refrain from preaching during their Oscar acceptance speeches — for this one year, at least.”
The street artist is no stranger to controversy. Sabo saturated the streets of Los Angeles in January with art showing Golden Globes host and late-night star Seth Myers with the caption “We All New” and a fake “Stop” sign urging stars to stop “Pedophiles,” “Perverts,” and “Rapists.”
Twitter/@unsavoryagents
Twitter/@unsavoryagents
Hollywood celebrities arriving for Sunday night’s Golden Globes in Los Angeles with artwork implying that many of them knew about widespread allegations of sexual misconduct in the entertainment industry, and did nothing to act.
Photos posted on social media show the art, which consists of several pieces including a mock poster featuring this year’s Globes host, late-night host Seth Meyers, as well as a fake “Stop” sign that urges a stop to “Pedophiles,” “Perverts,” and “Rapists.”
Sabo has lampooned celebrities, CEOs, and politicians from Harvey Weinstein to Oscar-winner Leonardo DiCaprio to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg to former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to disgraced Sen. Al Franken.
ABC late-night funnyman Jimmy Kimmel — who has recently been mocked by Sabo — is set to return to host the 90th Academy Awards and says he doesn’t want to “ruin” Sunday’s show by cracking jokes about Hollywood’s widespread sexual misconduct scandal.
Stop treating the Southern Poverty Law Center like it's a respectable and responsible organization
by Becket Adams
In 2016, the Southern Poverty Law Center labelled women's rights activist, female genital mutilation victim, atheist, and ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali an "anti-Muslim extremist" because she opposes Islamic extremism. (AP Photo/Shiho Fukada)
YouTube has tapped the Southern Poverty Law Center to help it police objectionable content, the Daily Caller reported this week.
What a disaster. YouTube couldn't have chosen a worse or less trustworthy partner.
The SPLC is a dishonest, irresponsible and obnoxiously partisan organization. Trusting them to decide what constitutes objectionable and “extremist” content, as YouTube’s more than 100 “Trusted Flaggers” have been asked to do, is like asking the inmates to run the asylum.
YouTube’s monitoring program dates to 2012. However, according to the Caller, it has “exploded in size in recent years amid a Google push to increase regulation of the content on its platforms, which followed pressure from advertisers.”
“Fifty of the 113 program members joined in 2017 as YouTube stepped up its content policing,” the report added. “[T]he third-party groups work closely with YouTube’s employees to crack down on extremist content in two ways … First, the flaggers are equipped with digital tools allowing them to mass flag content for review by YouTube personnel. Second, the partner groups act as guides to YouTube’s content monitors and engineers designing the algorithms policing the video platform but may lack the expertise needed to tackle a given subject.”
Spokespersons for the SPLC have not yet responded to the Washington Examiner’s request for comment. In the meantime, though, it’s worth repeating: This group is not to be taken seriously, especially when it comes to identifying objectionable content and so-called hate speech.
In 2015, for example. the group caught well-deserved criticism after it put Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson on its “extremist watch list,” citing the one-time presidential candidate’s “anti-LGBT views.” Later, in 2016, the SPLC labeled women’s rights activist, female genital mutilation victim, atheist, and ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali an “anti-Muslim extremist” because she opposes Islamic extremism. The British activist and extremist-turned-counter-extremist Maajid Nawaz was placed in the same category.
The left-wing advocacy group lumps pro-family and pro-Israel organizations with actual neo-Nazis. If YouTube is serious about monitoring and rooting out actually objectionable content, this is not the way to go. The SPLC will slap the word “extremist” on just about anything so long as it's right-tilting.
While we’re on the topic of extremism, the SPLC is itself more closely tied to acts of political violence than many of the people and groups they monitor. One wonders if they have plans to add their own name to their “hate map.”
The SPLC is not in the business of making the world a more loving, tolerant and polite place. They are interested only in crushing anything to the right of the Democratic Party, not just crazy white nationalist groups.
Journalist Ken Silverstein, who has covered SPLC extensively, summed it up best in 2010 when he said the group is "essentially a fraud" with "a habit of casually labeling organizations as 'hate groups.'"
Update: An SLPC spokesperson confirmed in a statement to ThinkProgress that the organization is indeed a member of YouTube's "Trusted Flaggers" program. What a farce.
Goldman Sachs: Steel tariffs a likely prelude to NAFTA exit
by Sean Higgins
President Trump announced tariffs of 25 percent on steel imports and 10 percent on aluminum imports on Thursday, and justified them as a way to protect U.S. national security. (AP Photo/Martin Meissner)Investment firm Goldman Sachs said Friday that President Trump's decision to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports likely signals that the administration will eventually pull the U.S. out of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Trump announced tariffs of 25 percent on steel imports and 10 percent on aluminum imports on Thursday, and justified them as a way to protect U.S. national security.
"Unlike routine antidumping and countervailing duty cases or less common safeguard cases, the Section 232 authority the President will apparently use is rarely used and more controversial," wrote Jan Hatzius, chief economist at Goldman Sachs, according to CNBC. "There is a good chance that this could eventually lead the President to announce he intends to withdraw from NAFTA, but such an announcement does not appear likely in the near term."
Trump has previously threatened to pull the U.S. out of 1993 trade deal with Canada and Mexico if talks to renegotiate it come up short. The last round of talks is currently ongoing in Mexico City, The talks have been rocky, and by most accounts, Canada and Mexico are resisting most of the U.S. demands.
On Thursday morning, Trump took on critics of his trade policies by tweeting, "When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win." In another tweet, he said, "We must protect our country and our workers. Our steel industry is in bad shape. IF YOU DON’T HAVE STEEL, YOU DON’T HAVE A COUNTRY!"
The Myth of Global Markets Explains Why The DC UniParty View POTUS Trump As a Risk To Their World Order…
Peter Navarro Pushes Back Against False Narrative from GOPe and Wall Street Financial Class – America First Economic Policy…
If the U.S. were to exit NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), the price you pay for most foodstuff at the grocery store would drop 10% in the first quarter and likely drop 20% or more by the end of the first year. Here’s why:
Approximately a decade ago the U.S. Dept of Agriculture stopped using U.S. consumer food prices within the reported measures of inflation. The food sector joined the ranks of fuel and energy prices in no longer being measured to track inflation and backdrop Fed monetary policy. Not coincidentally this was simultaneous to U.S. consumers seeing massive inflation in the same highly consumable sector.
Approximately a decade ago the U.S. Dept of Agriculture stopped using U.S. consumer food prices within the reported measures of inflation. The food sector joined the ranks of fuel and energy prices in no longer being measured to track inflation and backdrop Fed monetary policy. Not coincidentally this was simultaneous to U.S. consumers seeing massive inflation in the same highly consumable sector.
There are massive international corporate and financial interests who are inherently at risk from President Trump’s “America-First” economic and trade platform. Believe it or not, President Trump is up against an entire world economic establishment.
When you understand how trade works in the modern era you will understand why the agents within the system are so adamantly opposed to U.S. President Trump.
The biggest lie in modern economics, willingly spread and maintained by corporate media, is that a system of global markets still exists.
It doesn’t.
Every element of global economic trade is controlled and exploited by massive institutions, multinational banks and multinational corporations. Institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO) and World Bank control trillions of dollars in economic activity. Underneath that economic activity there are people who hold the reigns of power over the outcomes. These individuals and groups are the stakeholders in direct opposition to principles of America-First national economics.The modern financial constructs of these entities have been established over the course of the past three decades. When you understand how they manipulate the economic system of individual nations you begin to understand understand why they are so fundamentally opposed to President Trump.
In the Western World, separate from communist control perspectives (ie. China), “Global markets” are a modern myth; nothing more than a talking point meant to keep people satiated with sound bites they might find familiar. Global markets have been destroyed over the past three decades by multinational corporations who control the products formerly contained within global markets.
The same is true for “Commodities Markets”. The multinational trade and economic system, run by corporations and multinational banks, now controls the product outputs of independent nations. The free market economic system has been usurped by entities who create what is best described as ‘controlled markets’.
President Trump smartly understands what has taken place. Additionally he uses economic leverage as part of a broader national security policy; and to understand who opposes President Trump specifically because of the economic leverage he creates, it becomes important to understand the objectives of the global and financial elite who run and operate the institutions. The Big Club.
Understanding how trillions of trade dollars influence geopolitical policy we begin to understand the three-decade global financial construct they seek to protect.
That is, global financial exploitation of national markets.
FOUR BASIC ELEMENTS:
♦Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national outputs and industries of developed industrial western nations.
♦The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks.
♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).
♦With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint.
Against the backdrop of President Trump confronting China; and against the backdrop of NAFTA being renegotiated, likely to exit; and against the necessary need to support the key U.S. steel industry; revisiting the economic influences within the modern import/export dynamic will help conceptualize the issues at the heart of the matter.
There are a myriad of interests within each trade sector that make specific explanation very challenging; however, here’s the basic outline.
For three decades economic “globalism” has advanced, quickly. Everyone accepts this statement, yet few actually stop to ask who and what are behind this – and why?
Influential people with vested financial interests in the process have sold a narrative that global manufacturing, global sourcing, and global production was the inherent way of the future. The same voices claimed the American economy was consigned to become a “service-driven economy.”
What was always missed in these discussions is that advocates selling this global-economy message have a vested financial and ideological interest in convincing the information consumer it is all just a natural outcome of economic progress.
It’s not.
It’s not natural at all. It is a process that is entirely controlled, promoted and utilized by large conglomerates, lobbyists, purchased politicians and massive financial corporations.
Again, I’ll try to retain the larger altitude perspective without falling into the traps of the esoteric weeds. I freely admit this is tough to explain and I may not be successful.
Bulletpoint #1: ♦ Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national elements of developed industrial western nations.
This is perhaps the most challenging to understand. In essence, thanks specifically to the way the World Trade Organization (WTO) was established in 1995, national companies expanded their influence into multiple nations, across a myriad of industries and economic sectors (energy, agriculture, raw earth minerals, etc.). This is the basic underpinning of national companies becoming multinational corporations.
Think of these multinational corporations as global entities now powerful enough to reach into multiple nations -simultaneously- and purchase controlling interests in a single economic commodity.
A historic reference point might be the original multinational enterprise, energy via oil production. (Exxon, Mobil, BP, etc.)
However, in the modern global world, it’s not just oil; the resource and product procurement extends to virtually every possible commodity and industry. From the very visible (wheat/corn) to the obscure (small minerals, and even flowers).
Bulletpoint #2 ♦ The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks.
During the past several decades national companies merged. The largest lemon producer company in Brazil, merges with the largest lemon company in Mexico, merges with the largest lemon company in Argentina, merges with the largest lemon company in the U.S., etc. etc. National companies, formerly of one nation, become “continental” companies with control over an entire continent of nations.
…. or it could be over several continents or even the entire world market of Lemon/Widget production. These are now multinational corporations. They hold interests in specific segments (this example lemons) across a broad variety of individual nations.
National laws on Monopoly building are not the same in all nations. Most are not as structured as the U.S.A or other more developed nations (with more laws). During the acquisition phase, when encountering a highly developed nation with monopoly laws, the process of an umbrella corporation might be needed to purchase the targeted interests within a specific nation. The example of Monsanto applies here.
What was always missed in these discussions is that advocates selling this global-economy message have a vested financial and ideological interest in convincing the information consumer it is all just a natural outcome of economic progress.
It’s not.
It’s not natural at all. It is a process that is entirely controlled, promoted and utilized by large conglomerates, lobbyists, purchased politicians and massive financial corporations.
Again, I’ll try to retain the larger altitude perspective without falling into the traps of the esoteric weeds. I freely admit this is tough to explain and I may not be successful.
Bulletpoint #1: ♦ Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national elements of developed industrial western nations.
This is perhaps the most challenging to understand. In essence, thanks specifically to the way the World Trade Organization (WTO) was established in 1995, national companies expanded their influence into multiple nations, across a myriad of industries and economic sectors (energy, agriculture, raw earth minerals, etc.). This is the basic underpinning of national companies becoming multinational corporations.
Think of these multinational corporations as global entities now powerful enough to reach into multiple nations -simultaneously- and purchase controlling interests in a single economic commodity.
A historic reference point might be the original multinational enterprise, energy via oil production. (Exxon, Mobil, BP, etc.)
However, in the modern global world, it’s not just oil; the resource and product procurement extends to virtually every possible commodity and industry. From the very visible (wheat/corn) to the obscure (small minerals, and even flowers).
Bulletpoint #2 ♦ The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks.
During the past several decades national companies merged. The largest lemon producer company in Brazil, merges with the largest lemon company in Mexico, merges with the largest lemon company in Argentina, merges with the largest lemon company in the U.S., etc. etc. National companies, formerly of one nation, become “continental” companies with control over an entire continent of nations.
…. or it could be over several continents or even the entire world market of Lemon/Widget production. These are now multinational corporations. They hold interests in specific segments (this example lemons) across a broad variety of individual nations.
National laws on Monopoly building are not the same in all nations. Most are not as structured as the U.S.A or other more developed nations (with more laws). During the acquisition phase, when encountering a highly developed nation with monopoly laws, the process of an umbrella corporation might be needed to purchase the targeted interests within a specific nation. The example of Monsanto applies here.
Bulletpoint #3 ♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).With control of the majority of actual lemons the multinational corporation now holds a different set of financial values than a local farmer or national market. This is why commodities exchanges are essentially dead. In the aggregate the mercantile exchange is no longer a free or supply-based market; it is now a controlled market exploited by mega-sized multinational corporations.
Instead of the traditional ‘supply/demand’ equation determining prices, the corporations look to see what nations can afford what prices. The supply of the controlled product is then distributed to the country according to their ability to afford the price. This is essentially the bastardized and politicized function of the World Trade Organization (WTO). This is also how the corporations controlling WTO policy maximize profits.
Back to the lemons. A corporation might hold the rights to the majority of the lemon production in Brazil, Argentina and California/Florida. The price the U.S. consumer pays for the lemons is directed by the amount of inventory (distribution) the controlling corporation allows in the U.S.
If the U.S. lemon harvest is abundant, the controlling interests will export the product to keep the U.S. consumer spending at peak or optimal price. A U.S. customer might pay $2 for a lemon, a Mexican customer might pay .50¢, and a Canadian $1.25.
The bottom line issue is the national supply (in this example ‘harvest/yield’) is not driving the national price because the supply is now controlled by massive multinational corporations.
The mistake people often make is calling this a “global commodity” process. In the modern era this “global commodity” phrase is particularly nonsense.
A true global commodity is a process of individual nations harvesting/creating a similar product and bringing that product to a global market. Individual nations each independently engaged in creating a similar product.
Under modern globalism this process no longer takes place. It’s a complete fraud. Massive multinational corporations control the majority of production inside each nation and therefore control the global product market and price. It is a controlled system.
EXAMPLE: Part of the lobbying in the food industry is to advocate for the expansion of U.S. taxpayer benefits to underwrite the costs of the domestic food products they control. By lobbying DC these multinational corporations get congress and policy-makers to expand the basis of who can use EBT and SNAP benefits (state reimbursement rates).
Expanding the federal subsidy for food purchases is part of the corporate profit dynamic.
With increased taxpayer subsidies, the food price controllers can charge more domestically and export more of the product internationally. Taxes, via subsidies, go into their profit margins. The corporations then use a portion of those enhanced profits in contributions to the politicians. It’s a circle of money.
In highly developed nations this multinational corporate process requires the corporation to purchase the domestic political process (as above) with individual nations allowing the exploitation in varying degrees. As such, the corporate lobbyists pay hundreds of millions to politicians for changes in policies and regulations; one sector, one product, or one industry at a time. These are specialized lobbyists.
EXAMPLE: The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)
CFIUS is an inter-agency committee authorized to review transactions that could result in control of a U.S. business by a foreign person (“covered transactions”), in order to determine the effect of such transactions on the national security of the United States.
CFIUS operates pursuant to section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended by the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA) (section 721) and as implemented by Executive Order 11858, as amended, and regulations at 31 C.F.R. Part 800.
The CFIUS process has been the subject of significant reforms over the past several years. These include numerous improvements in internal CFIUS procedures, enactment of FINSA in July 2007, amendment of Executive Order 11858 in January 2008, revision of the CFIUS regulations in November 2008, and publication of guidance on CFIUS’s national security considerations in December 2008 (more)
Bulletpoint #4 ♦ With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint.
The process of charging the U.S. consumer more for a product, that under normal national market conditions would cost less, is a process called exfiltration of wealth. This is the basic premise, the cornerstone, behind the catch-phrase ‘globalism’.
It is never discussed.
To control the market price some contracted product may even be secured and shipped with the intent to allow it to sit idle (or rot). It’s all about controlling the price and maximizing the profit equation. To gain the same $1 profit a widget multinational might have to sell 20 widgets in El-Salvador (.25¢ each), or two widgets in the U.S. ($2.50/each).
Think of the process like the historic reference of OPEC (Oil Producing Economic Countries). Only in the modern era massive corporations are playing the role of OPEC and it’s not oil being controlled, thanks to the WTO it’s almost everything.
Again, this is highlighted in the example of taxpayers subsidizing the food sector (EBT, SNAP etc.), the corporations can charge U.S. consumers more. Ex. more beef is exported, red meat prices remain high at the grocery store, but subsidized U.S. consumers can better afford the high prices.
Of course, if you are not receiving food payment assistance (middle-class) you can’t eat the steaks because you can’t afford them. (Not accidentally, it’s the same scheme in the ObamaCare healthcare system)
Agriculturally, multinational corporate Monsanto says: ‘all your harvests are belong to us‘. Contract with us, or you lose because we can control the market price of your end product. Downside is that once you sign that contract, you agree to terms that are entirely created by the financial interests of the larger corporation; not your farm.
The multinational agriculture lobby is massive. We willingly feed the world as part of the system; but you as a grocery customer pay more per unit at the grocery store because domestic supply no longer determines domestic price.
Within the agriculture community the (feed-the-world) production export factor also drives the need for labor. Labor is a cost. The multinational corps have a vested interest in low labor costs. Ergo, open border policies. (ie. willingly purchased republicans not supporting border wall etc.).
This corrupt economic manipulation/exploitation applies over multiple sectors, and even in the sub-sector of an industry like steel. China/India purchases the raw material, coking coal, then sells the finished good (rolled steel) back to the global market at a discount. Or it could be rubber, or concrete, or plastic, or frozen chicken parts etc.
The ‘America First’ Trump-Trade Doctrine upsets the entire construct of this multinational export/control dynamic. Team Trump focus exclusively on bilateral trade deals, with specific trade agreements targeted toward individual nations (not national corporations).
‘America-First’ is also specific policy at a granular product level looking out for the national interests of the United States, U.S. workers, U.S. companies and U.S. consumers.
Under President Trump’s Trade positions, balanced and fair trade with strong regulatory control over national assets, exfiltration of U.S. national wealth is essentially stopped.
This puts many current multinational corporations, globalists who previously took a stake-hold in the U.S. economy with intention to export the wealth, in a position of holding contracted interest of an asset they can no longer exploit.
Perhaps now we understand better how massive multi-billion multinational corporations and institutions are aligned against President Trump.
G’ day…Ciao… Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus Article
That's an article
This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article with the link address https://capitalstories.blogspot.com/2018/03/www_3.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment