To The Undeclared

 
We said in a previous post in difficult times like these it hard to tell who your friends are. With the recent slaughter in Orlando, the Brexit vote here and the upcoming election this November, it's most likely more important than ever to know who your friends are.

That may take some time and thought. And even worse for many some research and thinking. In the MSM world there is only the right and the left. We sometimes hear about the great undeclared, but it's usually a form of editorial page tokenism that comes with a condition: "We're interested in their view especially since it looks like their leaning our way."

Of course, realizing who your friends are can change with the subject. In this case American foreign policy. Here's quote from an article everyone who is still undecided about November should read before Election Day, putting aside if possible on whose site and where it ran.

Greider’s article is brief, and I recommend reading every precious word of it.  Here is but one quote: “Trump has, in his usual unvarnished manner, kicked open the door to an important and fundamental foreign-policy debate.”  And here is a passage from Trump’s interview with the Washington Post that Greider chooses to quote:

“’I watched as we built schools in Iraq and they’d be blown up,’ Trump told the editors.  ‘And we’d build another one and it would get blown up. And we would rebuild it three times. And yet we can’t build a school in Brooklyn.… at what point do you say hey, we have to take care of ourselves. So, you know, I know the outer world exists and I’ll be very cognizant of that but at the same time, our country is disintegrating, large sections of it, especially in the inner cities.’”

There's much more. Here's another quote, different author.

Next, Glen Ford, the eloquent radical Left executive editor of Black Agenda Report, a superb and widely read outlet, penned an article in March 2016, with the following title: “Trump Way to the Left of Clinton on Foreign Policy – In Fact, He’s Damn Near Anti-Empire.” Ford’s piece is well worth reading in its entirety; here are just a few quotes :

“Trump has rejected the whole gamut of U.S. imperial war rationales, from FDR straight through to the present.”

“If Trump’s tens of millions of white, so-called ‘Middle American’ followers stick by him, it will utterly shatter the prevailing assumption that the American public favors maintenance of U.S. empire by military means.”

“Trump shows no interest in ‘spreading democracy,’ like George W. Bush, or assuming a responsibility to ‘protect’ other peoples from their own governments, like Barack Obama and his political twin, Hillary Clinton.”

“It is sad beyond measure that the near-extinction of independent Black politics has placed African Americans in the most untenable position imaginable at this critical moment: in the Hillary Clinton camp."

One more quote of note and you can read the rest for yourself. 

Trump has also been noticed by the Left in Europe, notably by the sharp minded Jean Bricmont, physicist and author of Humanitarian Imperialism who writes here:

(Trump) “is the first major political figure to call for ‘America First’ meaning non-interventionism.  He not only denounces the trillions of dollars spent in wars, deplores the dead and wounded American soldiers, but also speaks of the Iraqi victims of a war launched by a Republican President. He does so to a Republican public and manages to win its support. He denounces the empire of US military bases, claiming to prefer to build schools here in the United States. He wants good relations with Russia. He observes that the militarist policies pursued for decades have caused the United States to be hated throughout the world. He calls Sarkozy a criminal who should be judged for his role in Libya. Another advantage of Trump: he is detested by the neoconservatives, who are the main architects of the present disaster.”

If you don't understand what these people are saying here even though they might clearly not be of  your total political persuasion, you're missing a basic truth: America has been going down the wrong foreign policy path for quite a while, led by the powers that be on the left and the right.

davidstockmanscontracorner.com/trumps-anti-interventionism-the-neocons-hate-it-but-the-anti-war-left-has-taken-note

Ditto Senior Think Tankers

As we were strolling through some posts in Business Insider we came across this gem from the Fiscal Times. But we're getting ahead of ourselves.

Before we got to the bottom or without seeing the story's byline we had a clue who wrote it. A guy named Rob Garver. Sure enough our intuition, what can we say, it just never fails when it comes to these entrenched Washington hacks. Garver is all upset about the proposal of Iowa Republican Congressman Steve King. Now nobody as far as we know ever accused King of being a mental giant. But as far as we know nobody ever accused Washington  D.C. and its inhabitants as a land of mental giants either.

King wants to do what Garver thinks is the unthinkable which means it's highly thinkable and most likely extremely necessary, put the reins once and for all on government waste. That's another way of saying make these lazy do-nothing elected officials in both parties finally make some difficult decisions. When you have a $13 trillion or so economy, to assume that there's no waste--and lots of it--you probably fall to sleep every night hoping once she retires Nancy Pelosi will become a lobbyist for the cosmetic surgery industry.

So what is this dastardly deed that King wants. Here in Garver's words it is:

In the space of just 36 words, King proposes a restriction on the Treasury Department that would not just hogtie the U.S. government's ability to manage its existing debt, but would at the same time create a global financial crisis.

The amendment, meant to be tacked on to the end of the "Financial Services and General Government" appropriations bill, is short and clear. It reads, "None of the funds made available by this Act can be used to issue bonds, or any other form of debt, on the credit of the United States Government or to in any way borrow money." If anything King should receive kudos for something extremely rare in Washington, brevity.

Garver then does what these people do, rolls out the requisite so-called expert, a senior think tanker, from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Now we don't know Bernstein and we're glad of it. We would suggest, however, that he needs to reacquaint himself with the definition of stiffing.

Here's Garver quoting Bernstein:

"This is up there with Trump's idea to default on the debt," Bernstein wrote in an email exchange. "Though it's way crazier (and would also be a default, as we couldn't borrow to pay holders of existing Treasury debt).

"Before we even think about how disruptive this would be to global debt markets, consider that because you can't even roll over existing debt under this amendment, it would mean stiffing veterans, Social Security and Medicare recipients, defense, and probably every other spending category in the budget."

That's interesting,  Mr.Bernstein. But here's the truth. With their ZIRP and NIRP they've been stiffing the veterans, the COLA crowd, Medicare and Social Security recipients for nearly a decade. If they get any stiffer you won't have worry about embalming them. Maybe that's their plan, one of the ways they'll cut government waste, save on embalming fluids. Maybe Hilary or Bernie can wheedle that into the party platform? And don't miss the neocon reference in there, defense.

As we said earlier, no one ever accused Washington D.C. as the land of mental giants. Ditto senior think tankers.

Overnight

When you see or hear words like edged or nervous related to investors you know caution can't be far behind and it wasn't in overnight trading in Asia. And that's how Reuters described Wednesday's session there for the most part.

Asian stocks edged up on Wednesday as nervous investors counted down to Britain's make-or-break European Union referendum, while Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen's cautious tone on future rate hikes added to a subdued mood in markets.

MSCI's broadest index of Asia-Pacific shares outside Japan rose 0.2 percent. Japan's Nikkei extended losses to shed 1 percent.

China's CSI 300 index and the Shanghai Composite both advanced about 0.3 percent, while Hong Kong's Hang Seng slipped 0.1 percent.

In the U.S. the market also edged up with the S&P 500 still below its 11-month high after rising 0.27% hit in early June.The Yellen-led Fed is still searching for better job numbers and any whiff of inflation. Hedge fund managers aren't the only ones who hedge. As one Street wag put it, a while back she was "cautiously optimistic, now she's just cautious looking for some optimism." 

As the days dwindle down, to quote an old song, to a precious few, it remains to be seen if Yellen will find the courage to pull the trigger on rate hikes even before the start of next year. The UK vote Thursday should it come out leave will solidify that. Her philosophy appears to be wait and see until all the facts are known that way if anything goes wrong it wasn't her fault.

From CNBC we get this report: 
Asia markets traded mixed on Wednesday, after U.S. stocks eked out gains Tuesday amid a drop in oil prices, and as investors counted down to the upcoming British vote to decide whether to remain in the European Union. Australia's ASX 200 was up 0.2 percent in morning trade, with the energy and financials sub-index leading gains. In Japan, the benchmark Nikkei 225 was down 0.93 percent, while across the Korean Strait, the Kospi was up 0.46 percent. 

In Hong Kong, the Hang Seng index was down 0.4 percent. Chinese mainland markets traded flat, with the Shanghai composite at 2,879.28 and the Shenzhen composite at 1,890.61.
Oil prices closed down overnight, likely due to profit taking following a two-day rally. Global benchmark Brent was down 3 cents at $50.62 a barrel, while the July front-month U.S. crude futures ended down 1 percent at $48.85 before expiring. 

During Asian hours Wednesday, Brent traded up 0.1 percent at $50.67 a barrel, while the new August front-month U.S. crude futures contract traded up 0.3 percent at $50 a barrel.
Yellen's more circumspect view on the future path of U.S. rates comes as many investors remain on the sidelines ahead of Thursday's British referendum on its European Union membership.

Polls in recent days showing rising momentum for the "Remain" camp helped boost risk appetite in global markets and have weighed on safe-haven assets such as German bonds and the Japanese yen since Friday.

But many investors are shunning trading as the vote remains too close to call, with an opinion poll published on Tuesday showing the "Remain" campaign's lead had shrunk.

"We still have three polls on the U.K. referendum before the vote, and another shift back to Brexit will see risk appetite disappear in a jiffy," Bernard Aw, market strategist at IG in Singapore, wrote in a note. The British pound edged back to $1.4678 after climbing to as high as $1.4788 on Tuesday, its loftiest level since January 4.

The implied volatilities of the pound have also pushed up from lows on Tuesday, reflecting investor anxiety over a sharp fall in the currency in the event of Brexit.
For the latest Reuters news on the referendum including full multimedia coverage, click
The euro also slid to $1.12585 from this week's high of $1.1383 hit on Monday, turning negative on the week.

European Central Bank President Mario Draghi said on Tuesday that Britain's referendum was adding uncertainty to markets, and that the ECB was ready to act with all instruments if necessary.The yen gained 0.3 percent to 104.45 yen to the dollar following a dip on Tuesday, but remained not far from its 22-month high of 103.555 hit last week. The ebbing risk appetite didn't help gold, though. Spot gold held steady at $1,268.77 an ounce, after touching a 1 1/2 week low of $1,264.10 on Tuesday.

On the other hand, oil prices extended their recovery after news of a larger-than-expected draw in U.S. crude stockpiles. Crude inventories fell by 5.2 million barrels for the week ended June 17, the American Petroleum Institute (API) said. The trade group's figures were triple the draw of 1.7 million barrels forecast by analysts in a Reuters poll. <API/S>
Brent crude futures advanced 0.3 percent to $50.77 per barrel, after rising high as $51.10 on Tuesday, its highest level since June 10. U.S. crude futures' new benchmark August contract rose 0.4 percent to $50.05.

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

 

The Smelly Part

When it comes to articles, like many things in life, some are just smelly. Others smellier and the rest smelliest.

For those who don't know or can't recall that is what once was known in the English language as the comparative case. You know, slow, slower and slowest; fat, fatter and fattest; dumb, dumber and dumbest. In today's WSJ--and the Journal is noted for doing what it accuses others of frequently, running fairly smelly articles without digging deeper before publishing them--we get another one. In this case a front page one, "Study Says Gifts Affect Physicians' Drug Choices."

We're most likely the penultimate person on the planet to come to the aid of the medical profession or big daddy pharma. With that disclaimer out of the way, we can now get to the smell test. The crux of the article is clear, drug representatives, also known in even bigger circles as lobbyists, bring free lunches and other such goodies when they call on doctors and those free meals cause these doctors to prescribe more expensive drugs than non-generic alternative medicines.

Critics say drugmakers’ payments and gifts to doctors can improperly influence medical decisions and inflate drug costs by steering doctors to pricey brand-name drugs. In the face of such criticism, drugmakers have tried to rein in some of the more lavish perks, like free golf trips and tickets to hot sporting events. In 2002, PhRMA adopted a voluntary code governing dealings with doctors. It states, for instance, that companies shouldn’t provide tickets to the theater or sporting events, or vacation trips, to any health-care professional who isn’t a salaried employee of the company.

But the code allows for providing modest meals to doctors. Drug-sales representatives routinely bring free food and beverages to doctors’ offices in an effort to get face time to promote their medicines. They also invite doctors to free dinners at restaurants to hear other doctors speak about certain drugs. The industry says the practice helps to educate doctors about the appropriate use of new medicines.

The author, Peter Loftus, pens this smelly sentence: "Prior studies have shown that large payments can sway physicians’ prescribing habits."  Wow! That's an earful, a real revelation. Since physicians are still, at least as far as we know, members of the human species, a group noted for succumbing from time to time to fear and greed, here's a question.

Can those large payments sway--and have they ever before--elected officials from the lowest to the highest offices when making decisions that affect many, many people?  And at what cost and to whom? Our money says it's commonplace. Anyone want to cover that bet? Or do those officials ever receive free meals on or below the table? Some might call it a stretch of imagination--others pure lunacy--that every time one of our elected representatives in Washington goes out to lunch or dinner with a lobbyist, he or she picks up the tab for his or her own meal.

Now the Journal rolls out the prerequisite so-called expert, in this instances a pulmonologist with the requisite pedigree of degrees, MD, MBA from the requisite schools. Now after we're all finished rolling over on our backs with all four paws upright or jumping up and down three straight times hollering: Whoopee! Whoopee! Whoopee! there are some other questions that need to be answered in the name of that term all interventionists love, transparency.

The new study shows that even relatively small payments or gifts are associated with increased prescribing of the promoted brands, said the lead study author, R. Adams Dudley, a professor of medicine and health policy at the University of California, San Francisco. That revelation implies that people can be influenced on the cheap. Wonder if all those Washington-based lobbyists realize this. They could probably be saving lots of money.

Since the good doctor is trying to affect public policy which means many, many lives again, he can no longer hide behind the veil of being a private citizen. He could, a cynic might argue, be a lobbyist.
In the interest of public disclosure he needs to publish on the Internet certain information like whom did he vote for in the last presidential election and whom is he supporting, if anyone, in this one. He needs to reveal several years of his tax returns to see if he has ever been on the payroll---a kinder term in the profession is honorarium--of politically-driven or agenda-driven organizations.

Was he an advocate for the Affordable Care Act and, if so, is he still an advocate?  Given his expertise and his position of influence these are all reasonable bits of information the public has a right to know.  As do those accused physicians. No suggested crime here, just more of what he and his study claims he wants, full disclosure.

We will be waiting, Dr. Dudley.

Overnight

Asian shares traded higher Tuesday as fear about Brexit subsided somewhat and oil prices rallied led by the Japanese yen which traded at a session high of 103.57 against the dollar before turning back down slightly.

The Nikkei 225 was up in early trading 0.5% after falling earlier as the yen gained strength.The Hang Send was up 0.47%. the Australian ASX 220 edged a bit higher, 0.11%, the Shanghai Composite gained 0.26% and the Korean Kospi was down 0.14%. Japaneses exporters were mixed with Nissan shares down 0.45%, Sony up 1.26% and Toyota stayed flat.

After a big rise overnight of 3% oil backed off a bit with global Brent down nearly 0.5% at $50.42 at mid-day. Part of the rally in prices was owing to a draw down at Cushng, Oklahoma, some were saying. Fed Chair Janet Yellen is set Tuesday to give her two-day appearance before Congress, but ahead of Brexit it's highly unlikely she will reveal much in the way interest rates are going and just when.

In the eyes of many the shooting of the UK MP this close to the election still has an odor. According to several reports, other female MPs had warned earlier, in some cases weeks earlier, about the possible threat to female members of parliament. Given the harshness of the debate about going versus staying and the fact that the victim was an ardent supporter of staying in the EU, some are wondering how someone with a weapon was able to pull the shooting off, not to mention the level
of security around the victim.

As you might expect, with the rally in stocks and the easing of tension over the possible Brexit vote, gold softened overnight to trade down 0.22 percent at $1,286.90 an ounce while government bond yields rose as the risk-on again trades seemed to gather momentum.

Take A Look For Yourself

We've said in times like these it's hard to know who your friends are. This interview is a matter of public record. It took place 16 years ago.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/flashback-trump-defends-gays-clintons-20

Are you serious about running?
Yes, I’m quite serious. Washington is in gridlock, and nothing is getting done. No health care reform, no tax relief, no campaign finance reform. The special interests run the country. I think it will take a nonpolitician to break the logjam. Somebody with a big-picture outlook. I’m someone who has built a billion-dollar business enterprise and created hundreds of thousands of jobs. I have made the tough decisions, always with an eye toward the bottom line. Perhaps it’s time America was run like a business.

Why should gays and lesbians be interested in you as a presidential candidate?
I grew up in New York City, a town with different races, religions, and peoples. It breeds tolerance. In all truth, I don’t care whether or not a person is gay. I judge people based on their capability, honesty, and merit. Being in the entertainment business — that is, owning casinos and … several large beauty pageants — I’ve worked with many gay people. I have met some tough, talented, capable, terrific people. Their lifestyle is of no interest to me.

Would we see gay people in a Trump administration?
I would want the best and brightest. Sexual orientation would be meaningless. I’m looking for brains and experience. If the best person for the job happens to be gay, I would certainly appoint them. One of the key problems today is that politics is such a disgrace, good people don’t go into government. I’d want to change that.

What would you do to combat antigay prejudice?
I like the idea of amending the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include a ban of discrimination based on sexual orientation. It would be simple. It would be straightforward. We don’t need to rewrite the laws currently on the books, although I do think we need to address hate-crimes legislation. But amending the Civil Rights Act would grant the same protection to gay people that we give to other Americans — it’s only fair. I actually suggested this first, and now I see [Democratic presidential candidate] Bill Bradley has jumped on the bandwagon and is claiming the idea as his own. [A bill to amend the Civil Rights Act that would have included protections on the basis of sexual orientation was first introduced in the 1970s. — Ed.] Let me tell you something. Bradley is as phony as a $20 Rolex. He says the president ought to have big ideas. His last big idea — the 1986 [Tax Reform Act] — caused a recession and cost thousands of people their jobs. This guy destroyed the real estate industry, and he tanked the S&Ls. It was a disaster. Bradley walked out of the Senate like he was some kind of statesman declaring that “politics is broken.” The truth is, the voters were going to dump him in New Jersey. He walked away. Now he poses as some kind of outsider. What a joke. Bradley was a member of the Senate Finance Committee and a longtime part of Washington establishment. When I was $900 million and my companies were $9 billion in debt, I didn’t walk away. While others were declaring bankruptcy, I clawed my way back. My businesses are now bigger and better than ever.

Are your gay employees allowed to be out?
 Everyone makes a personal choice. Look, it just doesn’t matter to me. I try to treat everybody equal and fairly. Maybe that’s why I can count men like Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier, and Sammy Sosa as my friends. When you hang with people who are different from you, you get an appreciation for other cultures.

Level Playing Fields

 So what will be the result if leave Brexit passes?

Some say huge. Maybe. Maybe not. At this point that's all perception, not yet fact. Perception, to be sure, is important but not infallible. If the worse happens, however, or something approximating it, part of the blame must rest with all those entrenched elitists who amped up their scaremongering, prophesying the worst.

In a sense it would've failed, in another exceed far beyond that intended. Some think Brexit if it wins will simply be another Y2K event, much ballyhooed, but like a one night stand, a brief flash of excitement.

One of the problems with globalization is contagion. Once the stone drops into the water the ripples go out and can't be recalled. So the worse the fallout if it happens, the worse it is for those globalists bureaucrats who want so much to control things. The nastier it gets, the further globalization gets pushed into the backwaters of history. If you're one of those who value your culture, your currency and your liberty, this is a good thing.

Despite all the QE and such banks have never fully recovered from the financial meltdown. Banks hate many things, stress tests (Whoever other than a central banker could've thought that gem up!) but one of their worst nightmares is a flat yield curve. No spreads, no profits. No risk, no reward. These are level playing fields by another name, the hallmark of interventionist dreamers.

Right now you're paying banks to hold your money and banks are paying central banks to hold theirs. There is a reason why the higher-ups are grossly worried and it doesn't have anything to do with them guarding your best interests. People like ECB President Mario Draghi should be scared. If this whole thing implodes he might be joining one of his fellow countrymen visiting a local lamp post.

A huge crash will effect millions and the finger pointing has to start somewhere.Wikipedia states:
Draghi previously worked at Goldman Sachs from 2002 until 2005 before becoming the governor of the Bank of Italy in December 2005, where he served until October 2011. In 2014 Draghi was listed as the 8th most powerful person in the world by Forbes.

The site also points out Draghi is a member of the Group of Thirty founded by the Rockerfeller Foundation. The Group of Thirty is a private group of lobbyists in the finance sector. For this reason he is accused of having a conflict of interest as president of the ECB. Some parties also see Draghi's former work at Goldman Sachs as a conflict of interest. (40,41,42,43).

Conflicts of interest in bad times don't go over well. None of this is meant to be inflammatory nor should it be interpreted as such. These are hardly good times, a fact. Draghi is ECB President and his former associations are fact. He is on the record for promising whatever it takes, a fact. He is also on the record, rather indirectly or otherwise, for giving the public the impression that he has an idea of what he's doing, a fact. Should it turnout otherwise, and  millions of peoples' lives and futures are tossed to the wind in the process, that too could turn out to be a fact.

In an age when nearly everyone wants to hold other peoples' feet to the flame, central bankers should not be exempt. Isn't that what level playing fields are all about?

You Read: You Decide

You have most likely in your life seen many things that were before they happened unexpected or even unbelievable. One could say welcome to the club.

Government censorship is one thing, private another. We place the following story in our "Your Decision: You Read It  And Decide" category. We already have heard about Facebook's bias and that brooks another question: Facebook, why not other social media?

Immediately after the Orlando tragedy, we said it would favor Trump more than Hilary. This past week in West Hollywood, an area well-know for its concentration of gays, signs popped up.
 


It's hard to tell exactly what the true meaning of these signs are. For some it might be literal, for others something else. Obviously, fear and frustration and uncertainty play into it. It's difficult in times like these to know who your friends are. That's why censorship irrespective of its intentions cannot be allowed. So we post this story in that Facebook vein. If Facebook can be censoring why not other social media?

Do gays who may--as unbelievable as it might sound--support Trump deserve to be censored for simply expressing their choice or views on a public social media? That's a question you're going to have to answer for yourself if you truly believe in gay rights?

We're not gay. That's not our lifestyle choice. But we believe in your right to have that choice. As we said: In times like these it's difficult to know who your friends are.

Here's another example. People lament black on black crime. This appears to be gay on gay crime. It's is ironic that groups of people who have been discriminated and intimidated against for years, possibly centuries, is now intimidating, discriminating and physically hurting their own.

nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/lgbtrump-gay-men-voting-donald-trump.

You Decide: Real or Fiction?

Here's an interesting post. Read it and decide for yourself whether it has any credibility. It's from today, 6-18-16. Do reports ever get altered? Sounds like a good question for Wall Street accountants and, now, maybe some others.

There might be some hyperbole here, but there's just as likely some truth, too.
blacklistednews.com/This_story_could_be_the_smoking_gun_for_false-flag_operations

Santa Monica; Two police officers who wish to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation say that James Wesley Howell, an Indiana man who was found with a car full of explosives and weapons on Sunday morning, told police he was part of a team that planned shooting attacks on gay communities in Florida and California.

Howell told police he was turning himself in because he wanted protection. His story was that he had been assured by his recruiters that he would not be harmed in the shooting but, when he heard on the news that Omar Mateen, the lead gunman in the Orlando group, had been killed by sniper fire, he realized he was being set up as a patsy and would be killed.
Soon after that, the FBI took over the investigation, and information to the public was filtered to remove any facts that might show the Orlando shooting as a planned event involving others. GetOffTheBS 2016 Jun 15 (Story) (Cached)
It is important to remember that the police officers who are the source of this story choose to remain anonymous, so it cannot be independently verified at this time, but circumstantial evidence supports it. For example:
(1) After the FBI took charge of the investigation, Police Chief Jacqueline Seabrooks changed her original report that Howell was part of a group of five people who intended to do harm at the gay-pride event in West Hollywood. Her altered report made no mention of anyone other than Howell.
(2) The web site that reported this story is still carrying the article without triggering legal action against it. That is significant because, if the story is false, immediate legal action would be expected. If it is true, Howell will be killed or ‘disappeared’ to prevent him from talking, but the last thing the perpetrators would want is a public trial where witnesses can be called to testify.
This news story could be one of the most important reports ever published in the annals of journalism.
That’s quite a statement but, when you consider the nature of its content, it is no exaggeration to say that it has the potential to fundamentally change the relationship between the United States government and the American people, and that could lead to a profound change, not only in America, but the entire world.
The story still is still unfolding, and it is likely that officialdom either will pull it off the Internet or do everything possible to discredit it but, unlike most false-flag scenarios, there are many people on the outside of the plot who can verify the accuracy of this one. In fact, there may even be an entire police department to do that. If so, the sheer number of witnesses could outweigh the threats against job security or physical safety. We shall see.

Stop At Nothing

Carlyle said that every man's death diminished him.

And we certainly decry the loss of life. That of the UK MP recently is no exception. But politics is politics and it's always been down and dirty. So call us sinister or whatever you want. But it remains to be seen and would hardly surprise from what we now know what the threatened will do to keep their power. In their world, one life or reputation is a small price to sacrifice. A young, attractive woman on the rise politically, a mother of two young children. That's the stuff of Hollywood dramas. The only real difference in this power struggle is real people get hurt, like those at Orlando, San Bernardino and now the UK. It's been done before and it will be done again.
T
Much like the  FBI here in the States is speculated as doing. Recruiting homeless people, often with a mental medical history. Befriending them, getting into their heads and giving them funds to buy guns only to arrest them as they're leaving the gun shop and announcing the capture of another would be terrorist. It's called good pub. It helps settle ruffled feathers.

Too bizarre you claim to be believable? Then you don't know how often the police plant incriminating evidence in the automobiles they pull over and search. It's been done before and it will be done again. Even the king of greens for the last two decades, Ralph Nader, a nerd by all accounts, was smart enough to know that the smiling, sexy tall blonde with all the exposed cleavage approaching him in the market had other interests than just bedding  him down.

Who is going to defend or believe the accused? The fear of being a victim of a terrorist attack is so globally widespread now everyone is a suspect. The stay crowd markets the EU as a symbol of unity and strength. Buried there in is an implied guarantee of security and safety. But trusting your future and your safety to a group of distant, cold, insensitive Brussels bureaucrats is akin to leaving a four-year old unattended at a backyard swimming pool with no fence around it, no gate and no lock.

You ought never be surprised when the people you know who will stop at nothing stop at nothing.