en Greeks Trust Putin Most Relative To Trump, Brits Undecided <p><strong>Around the world, few people trust Russian President Vladimir Putin to do the right thing when it comes to international affairs. </strong>A global median of roughly one-in-four (26%) say they have confidence in the Russian leader. However, as <a href="">KeepTalkingGreece reports</a>, <strong><em>Greeks love the Russian President; much more so in fact than US President Donald Trump.</em></strong></p> <p>According to a survey conducted by <a href="">PEW Research Center</a>, <strong><em>only in three countries surveyed do majorities express a favorable opinion of Russia: Vietnam (83%), Greece (64%) and the Philippines (55%).</em></strong></p> <p><strong><em><a href=""><img height="888" src="" width="400" /></a></em></strong></p> <p><strong>Doubts about Putin&rsquo;s handling of foreign policy, however, do not necessarily coincide with perceptions of Russia as a security risk. </strong></p> <p>Across 37 countries, a median of 31% describe Russia&rsquo;s power and influence as a major threat to their country &ndash; identical to the median percentage who say the same about China, and similar to the median share (35%) that sees America&rsquo;s power and influence as a large threat.</p> <p><strong>Europeans are particularly harsh in their assessment of Putin, with a median in Europe of 78% expressing a lack of confidence in the leader.</strong> In the U.S. and Canada, few are confident in Putin&rsquo;s global leadership, with more than three times as many people disliking Putin as liking him.</p> <p><a href=""><img alt="" src="" style="width: 400px; height: 1498px;" /></a></p> <p><strong>Faith in both leaders is high in South Africa and India while Australians, Canadians, and Brits just about trust Trump over Putin.</strong></p> <p><a href="" title="Infographic: Global Confidence In Trump &amp; Putin | Statista"><img alt="Infographic: Global Confidence In Trump &amp; Putin | Statista" src="" style="height: 285px; width: 400px;" /></a></p> <p><em>You will find more statistics at <a href="">Statista</a></em></p> <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-image-teaser"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <img class="imagefield imagefield-field_image_teaser" width="534" height="280" alt="" src="" /> </div> </div> </div> China Donald Trump Donald Trump Government Grand Croix of the Légion d'honneur Greece India Pew Research Center Politics Politics Politics of Russia Putin Russia under Vladimir Putin Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections Vladimir Putin Vladimir Putin Fri, 18 Aug 2017 09:00:00 +0000 Tyler Durden 601893 at European Stocks Have Never, Ever Been This Cheap Relative To American Markets <p>European stocks are offering the <strong>biggest discount on record relative to U.S. peers</strong>, according to one metric.</p> <p>Members of the Stoxx Europe 600 Index are trading at 1.8 times the value of their assets, almost half that of S&amp;P 500 Index constituents, the largest gap since Bloomberg started tracking the data in 2002.</p> <p><a href=""><img height="283" src="" width="600" /></a></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>World-beating gains in U.S. equities since the bull market kicked off in 2009 has widened the distance between the two, <strong>while recent volatility has also rendered its derivatives the&nbsp;most expensive relative to Europe since August 2015&#39;s China deval collapse...</strong></p> <p><a href=""><img alt="" src="" style="width: 600px; height: 316px;" /></a></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>However, it appears Europe&#39;s macro surprise data is rolling over and catching down to US macro surprise data...</p> <p><a href=""><img alt="" src="" style="width: 600px; height: 316px;" /></a></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>And perhaps worse still, EURUSD is rolling over (just as it did in 2013), ready to catch down to its rates-implied level, crushing USD-relative returns...</p> <p><a href=""><img alt="" src="" style="width: 600px; height: 298px;" /></a></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>But of course, it&#39;s what happens next here that really matters...</p> <p><a href=""><img alt="" src="" style="width: 600px; height: 317px;" /></a></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Yellen and Draghi next week in Jackson Hole may hint ath whether this is the end of the beginning or the beginning of the end.</p> <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-image-teaser"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <img class="imagefield imagefield-field_image_teaser" width="1160" height="547" alt="" src="" /> </div> </div> </div> Business China Deutsche Börse Draghi Economic data Economy Index Mathematical finance S&P 500 STOXX Technical analysis Volatility Volatility Fri, 18 Aug 2017 08:15:00 +0000 Tyler Durden 601892 at Brexit Britain And Trump America: A New "Special Relationship"? <p><a href=""><em>Authored by Henrik Choy via,</em></a></p> <p><strong><em><em>Can common enemies and threats keep Britain and the United States together for decades to come?</em></em></strong></p> <p><em><em><strong><a href=""><img height="363" src="" width="600" /></a></strong></em></em></p> <p><em><strong>British prime minister Theresa May&rsquo;s narrow victory in the<a href="" style="text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"> 2017 general election</a> has earned her the reputation of a &ldquo;<a href="" style="text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">dead woman walking</a>,&rdquo; given that her <a href="" style="text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">failure to win</a> a Conservative majority in the House of Commons has drastically <a href="" style="text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">slimmed her chances</a> of executing her party&rsquo;s manifesto. Across the Atlantic, President Donald Trump is facing domestic and international problems of his own. </strong></em>Faced with polarization in both their parties and respective countries, Trump and May face uphill battles to achieve their political agendas. Appealing to the more nationalist and populist elements of society, Trump and May have entered uncharted territory by promising to tackle issues in ways that differ from their predecessors. For decades, Britain and the United States have been bound together in a unique relationship through their common vision of a world they wish to create, the external and internal threats they share, and the personal relationships their leaders have developed. <strong>Today, the changing mood in both Washington and London is forging an unusual new chapter in this long standing &ldquo;special relationship.&rdquo; Trump and May face an uncertain future, but they can still look back to see how their predecessors maintained the Anglo-American special relationship during the tumultuous and transformative years following World War II.</strong></p> <h3><u><strong>1941: A Grand Vision</strong></u></h3> <p><strong>Coined in 1946 by British prime minister Winston Churchill, the term &ldquo;special relationship&rdquo; between Britain and the United States describes a bond born out of common cause in defeating the fascist powers in World War II.</strong> Since then, it has endured strain and a cyclical reinvigoration of mutual understanding and commitment. While the origins of this relationship precedes World War II, it was solidified in 1941. That&rsquo;s when Churchill and President Franklin D. Roosevelt came up with eight principles that were to promote world peace and spread democracy worldwide: the<a href="" style="text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"> Atlantic Charter</a>. These principles, with a general emphasis on Wilsonian style self-determination and economic liberalization, would act as a foundation for the Anglo-American special relationship well into the twenty-first century. World War II left a power vacuum that the North American superpower quickly raced to fill at the encouragement of the exhausted Brits. Under the guidance of the Atlantic Charter, both Britain and the United States utilized their power and influence to create the United Nations and develop other international organizations based on the liberal Western democratic vision of the world. The Soviet Union and its allies challenged this vision, creating a common threat against which the United States and Britain could consolidate the anti-Communist bloc under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.</p> <p>In addition to pursuing a common cause, British and American leaders developed personal bonds that were crucial in the early days of the special relationship, as demonstrated by Churchill and Roosevelt. Away from the war maps and professional public atmosphere, the two men had their personal bonding moments, such as when the president accidentally<a href=";pg=PT98&amp;lpg=PT98&amp;dq=churchill+roosevelt+bathroom+moment&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=cX4jtoEuex&amp;sig=S9v54wf8wSr_MtjCtcfeFk6wtjc&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj-zY-arrnUAhVIyT4KHd_WCJYQ6AEIPzAH#v=onepage&amp;q=churchill%20roosevelt%20bathroom%20moment&amp;f=false" style="text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"> walked into</a> the prime minister&rsquo;s room in Washington to find him naked shortly after showering. The joyful Brit assured the embarrassed Yank that he had nothing to hide.</p> <p><strong>The close-knit relationship was not always smooth, as disagreements erupted early over how to honor the principles of the Atlantic Charter. </strong>On one hand, Britain was very reluctant at first to grant independence to its colonies, while the United States appeared idealistically hypocritical with its increased military involvement in Vietnam throughout the 1960s and 1970s. The Suez Crisis of 1956 represented the low point in bilateral relations, when Prime Minister Anthony Eden&rsquo;s decision to<a href="" style="text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"> send troops</a> to Egypt along with French and Israeli forces angered President Eisenhower. Unlike his predecessor, Eisenhower did not have the best <a href="" style="text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">relations</a> with Churchill during World War II and was suspicious of British colonial interests after the conflict ended. The Suez Crisis demonstrated that the former general had had enough of dealing with British politicians, angry that his counterparts in Westminster had not given him prior notice of this military venture.</p> <h3><u><strong>1980s: Cold War Hawks</strong></u></h3> <p><strong>By the early 1980s, new leadership on both sides of the Atlantic reinvigorated the special relationship in a way not seen since the end of World War II. </strong>President Ronald Reagan and British prime minister Margaret Thatcher both came to power with the intention of reintroducing the old school Anglo-American way of thinking, with an emphasis on free-market capitalism, less government intervention, and a hard-line foreign-policy stance against the Soviet Union and Communism. The two had each other&rsquo;s back in times of international crisis, with the United States supporting Britain in its 1982 war over the Falkland Islands, and Britain allowing the United States to use its airbases during the latter&rsquo;s bombing campaign against Libya in 1986. It was this ability to see eye-to-eye that made it easier for them to cooperate in the struggle against Communism and engage with Mikhail Gorbachev and his attempts to reduce tensions with the West. This would help bring down the Berlin Wall and, eventually, the whole Eastern bloc.</p> <p><strong>For Reagan and Thatcher, their ideological perspectives made them ideal partners but also created numerous disagreements.</strong> Reagan was initially reluctant to support Thatcher&rsquo;s war against Argentina&rsquo;s military junta in 1982, as Buenos Aires was a key anti-Communist ally. In 1986, Thatcher flew to Iceland to convince Reagan to forgo the<a href="" style="text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"> Reykjavik Summit</a> due to her fear of the security consequences of nuclear disarmament. Nevertheless, both leaders managed to contain any bilateral dispute that came in the way of the special relationship, which they both needed in order to sustain a hard-line approach against the Soviet Union. Their<a href=";pg=PA71#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" style="text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"> unwavering friendship</a> hastened the end of the Cold War, bringing a new chapter for the special relationship and opening up new opportunities for their successors to implement the ideals of the Atlantic Charter.</p> <h3><u><strong>1990s&ndash;2000s: New Idealists</strong></u></h3> <p><strong>The United States found itself being the world&rsquo;s undisputed superpower in the early 1990s, with Western capitalism attempting to fill the vacuum left as a result of the collapse of the Eastern bloc. </strong>The &ldquo;<a href="" style="text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Washington Consensus</a>,&rdquo; a term coined by British economist John Williamson, was essentially an expansion of the Atlantic Charter&rsquo;s principle of economic liberation. Interestingly enough, it was not the Thatcherites or the Reaganites who brought this new &ldquo;consensus&rdquo; into the twenty-first century, but the traditional left-leaning political parties and politicians who accelerated the transition towards globalized capitalism. President Bill Clinton&rsquo;s &ldquo;New Democrats&rdquo; and Prime Minister Tony Blair&rsquo;s &ldquo;New Labour&rdquo; party revealed their firm idealistic views for a new world order based on the Atlantic Charter, which meant encouraging developing countries to open up their markets to Western capital investments, as well as military interventions (very reluctantly in most cases) to stop the rising power of authoritarian leaders. The most notable foreign-policy issue of the Clinton-Blair years was the<a href="" style="text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"> successful intervention</a> in Kosovo in 1999. The joint Anglo-American decision to pressure Yugoslav president Milosevic to end hostilities proved to be the decisive move that tipped the balance against the use of mass violence to achieve political objectives in the Balkans. This active interventionist policy carried over when George W. Bush took over as president. Despite coming from different political backgrounds, the new president and Blair<a href="" style="text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"> got along well</a> and bolstered the special relationship as they joined together to fight the War on Terror in wake of the 9/11 attacks. <strong>Their unshakable belief in promoting democracy led to their fateful decisions to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. As the conflicts dragged on with increasing loss of life and money, both leaders faced mounting political backlash for being overly ambitious and perhaps carried away in their idealistic military crusades. </strong>By 2008, the war-weary public gave their optimistic leaders the boot when the housing market crashed and a worldwide recession brought tensions to a boiling point. Bush and Blair left office with controversial scars on their political legacies and domestic populations that today are increasingly skeptical of the global neoliberal economic system and the interventionist military policies they pursued during their leaderships.</p> <h3><u><strong>2010s: Reluctant Partners</strong></u></h3> <p><strong>By the time Barack Obama entered the White House in 2009 and David Cameron took his first steps to 10 Downing Street in 2010, the special relationship was at risk of being pulled apart by dissatisfied populations on both sides of the Atlantic. </strong>These new leaders took measures to resolve the problems that their predecessors left behind, although they had stark disagreements regarding the best methods to tackle them. Starting with the economy, the Obama administration implemented deficit spending to bail out the nation&rsquo;s most troubled banks, acquire debt-ridden assets, and ultimately pull the nation out of recession. Across the Atlantic, Cameron pushed through a series of<a href="" style="text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"> austerity measures</a> that gradually reduced Britain&rsquo;s deficits, but nonetheless caused major contractions in the economy. The arduous task of restoring public confidence in the global capitalist system was quickly followed by the problems related to the War on Terror and other matters of foreign policy. Cameron resembled his predecessor more than Obama resembled his, opting for direct intervention where there was trouble. The prime minister took the helm with French president Sarkozy in the overthrow of Muammar el-Qaddafi in 2011, with reluctant support from the Obama administration. It was the crisis in Syria that brought the biggest challenge to both Obama and Cameron and ultimately the Anglo-American special relationship. In August 2013 both governments were ready to use military force in response to Assad&rsquo;s use of chemical weapons. Their plans<a href="" style="text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"> fell apart</a> after a vote from both Parliament and Congress shut down the idea, a reminder that the public had not forgotten the long drawn-out wars from the Bush and Blair years.</p> <p><strong>Relations between Obama and Cameron did not improve much. </strong>The Brexit referendum in June 2016 and the election of president Donald Trump in November of that same year saw the end of their administrations and also the end of the world they both knew. As much as Obama and Cameron differed in the best course of action when responding to crises, they both shared the vision that their predecessors had and openly sought policies that promoted democratic values and globalized trade. Their legacies will be saturated with the failure to bring peace to the Middle East, unpopular economic policies that stirred populist sentiment, a divided Europe in wake of the Brexit referendum, the growing scarcity of jobs available for the working and middle classes, and ultimately the end of the Atlantic Charter establishment as we knew it.</p> <h3><u><strong>Today: A New Type of Special Relationship?</strong></u></h3> <p><strong>Where does that leave the special relationship today?</strong> To start off, neither the Atlantic Charter nor any of its post&ndash;1941 evolutions appear to be the guiding principle for today&rsquo;s Anglo-American special relationship. President Trump and Prime Minister May share a vision of the world that departs from the neoliberal policies of their predecessors and focuses more on protecting jobs at home and the public from terrorism. Both leaders are suspicious of twenty-first century globalization, and they hope to challenge this trend by implementing policies that reflect the interests of the nationalist and populist sectors.</p> <p><strong>Economically, Trump and May have already begun pursuing such policies, with the former having<a href="" style="text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"> withdrawn</a> the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and<a href="" style="text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"> renegotiating</a> the U.S. position in the North American Free Trade Agreement, and the latter having<a href="" style="text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"> activated Article 50</a> in March of this year. </strong>We will most likely see a general shift in preference towards bilateral free-trade agreements and away from multilateral ones. This will allow them to pick and choose which nations they would like to trade freely with and also provide more leverage in negotiating trade terms. Both leaders, however, may find it difficult to maintain such policies. May&rsquo;s weakened position following the 2017 general election and the creation of a coalition government with the Democratic Unionist Party may pressure her <a href="" style="text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">to compromise</a> on the &ldquo;hard Brexit&rdquo; that she originally sought, potentially leaving the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland as an EU-style free-trade zone. Should this happen, an ideal response would be for both nations to prioritize a U.S.-UK free trade deal. This has already been put on the table, as both leaders have expressed great interest during the recent<a href="" style="text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"> G20 Summit</a> in Hamburg. Such a deal could potentially open up new bilateral deals with other nations worldwide, with an emphasis on the Commonwealth of Nations, such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, as well as with wealthy developing economies throughout Latin America, Asia and Africa.</p> <p><strong>Common enemies and threats have kept Britain and the United States together for decades. Today&rsquo;s leaders agree that global terrorism is a major threat that has to be dealt with. </strong>Trump and May have pledged to continue the War on Terror in response to the<a href="" style="text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"> recent terror attacks</a> that hit Britain. Although Trump himself did not explicitly endorse NATO initially, he has since backtracked from his previous remarks during the<a href="" style="text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"> joint press conference</a> with the Romanian president in June, ensuring that the United States will continue to be a major player in military global affairs. Even before changing his opinion, Trump has demonstrated his willingness to use force after his<a href="" style="text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"> decision to strike</a> a Syrian airbase in April of this year. While May has promised to increase defense spending, she has a long way to build up her credibility due to the major defense cuts she oversaw as Home Secretary under Cameron&rsquo;s administration. Considering both nations have shaky relations with the EU, they may have little choice than to rely more on members of the<a href="" style="text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"> Five Eyes</a> intelligence pact for information, binding the major English-speaking nations closer than ever before.</p> <p>Trump and May appear to have started off well in a long-term partnership, given that they are both struggling to deal with domestic problems and shaky international reputations. <strong>Their suspicions of modern globalization, in particular towards free trade and immigration, will cement their personal bond. But that does not mean they will entirely escape the looming possibility that their shared vision of a post&ndash;Atlantic Charter era may follow up with disagreements.</strong> Disputes regarding<a href="" style="text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank"> intelligence sharing</a> after the Manchester attacks in May of this year have opened up potential weak spots in the struggle against terrorism, and the pursuit of bilateral trade agreements may not be enough to sustain economic growth in the long run. Trump and May&rsquo;s vision to roll back post-war Atlantic Charter ideals may become compromised should their execution strategies conflict with one another.</p> <p>For the moment however, the current leaders of the Anglo-American partners seem content with one another and will put their differences aside to tackle bigger problems that lie ahead.<strong> May&rsquo;s stiff manner may clash with Trump&rsquo;s blunt character, but their common interests and the threats they face will more than overcome the obstacles in developing a resurgent special relationship. </strong>Their desire to create new economic models, fight global terrorism, and promote democratic values without excessive military intervention will ensure the transatlantic alliance does not falter. If Trump and May are serious about transforming the world, then perhaps it is time for them to fully understand the significance of the special relationship and to realize the potential impacts they could have on a global scale.</p> <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-image-teaser"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <img class="imagefield imagefield-field_image_teaser" width="728" height="441" alt="" src="" /> </div> </div> </div> Afghanistan Australia Balkans Barack Obama Bond British Commonwealth Cameron’s administration Cold War Congress Deficit Spending Democratic Unionist Party Donald Trump European Union Freemen of the City of London G20 Government of the United Kingdom House of Commons Housing Market Iceland Iraq Ireland Latin America Leaders of the Conservative Party Margaret Thatcher Members of the Order of Merit Middle East Middle East New Zealand North Atlantic Treaty Organization Obama Administration Obama administration Parliament of the United Kingdom Politics Politics of the United Kingdom Recession Soviet Union–United States relations Special Relationship United Kingdom–United States relations United Nations White House White House Winston Churchill Fri, 18 Aug 2017 07:30:00 +0000 Tyler Durden 601891 at Urban Warfare: NATO Issues RFP For Training To Fight In Big Cities With "Dense, Interconnected Populations" <p>Throughout the 2016 campaigning cycle, then candidate Trump frequently criticized NATO as “obsolete” and repeatedly knocked allies for not paying their “fair share.”</p> <p>Then, in a shocking reversal, Trump hosted a joint press conference with NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg, just a few months after moving into the White House, in which he declared: <strong>"I said it was obsolete.&nbsp; It's no longer obsolete."</strong></p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"> <div></div> </div> <div class="quote_end"> <div></div> </div> <p>"The Secretary General and I had a productive discussion about what more NATO could do in the fight against terrorism.&nbsp; I complained about that a long time ago and they made a change.&nbsp; And now they do fight terrorism.&nbsp; <strong>I said it was obsolete.&nbsp; It's no longer obsolete."</strong></p> </blockquote> <blockquote class="twitter-video"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">"(NATO) is no longer obsolete." <a href=""></a></p> <p>— Salvador Hernandez (@SalHernandez) <a href="">April 12, 2017</a></p></blockquote> <script src="//"></script><p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Well, it now seems he may have been right in the first instance.&nbsp; According to a new request for pricing (RFP) from NATO entitled, "<a href=";mode=form&amp;id=0797786edaff233a27d85aab8f18e5f8&amp;tab=core&amp;_cview=0">Development of NATA Military Operations In Urban Environment Concept</a>," NATO forces are "not sufficiently organized, trained, or equipped to&nbsp; comprehensively understand and execute precise operations" in modern urban environments.&nbsp; Here's how NATO defines their problem:</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"> <div></div> </div> <div class="quote_end"> <div></div> </div> <p>Problem statement: <strong>NATO is not sufficiently organized, trained, or equipped to&nbsp; comprehensively understand and execute precise operations</strong> across the maritime, cyberspace, land, air, space dimensions/domains in order to create desired effects in an emergent complex, <strong>urban littoral system possessing a dense, interconnected population.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p><iframe src="" width="600" height="337" frameborder="0"></iframe></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>So why the sudden interest in urban warfare</strong>?&nbsp; NATO's RFP conveniently cites urban population statistics from the United Nations as its justification but that's hardly a new trend so it will undoubtedly leave the cynics among us a bit skeptical.</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"> <div></div> </div> <div class="quote_end"> <div></div> </div> <p><strong>Projections by the United Nations indicate that by the year 2035 the world population will increase to 8.7 billion people, an increase of 1.4 billion people, and that most of this growth will take place in developing countries and in urban areas.</strong> Currently 80% of the global population lives on or within 100 km of the coast; this also will likely continue. The SFA1 2013 Report – including 2015 Interim Update Report and the FFAO2 2015 have identified this trend of urbanisation as a potential instability situation for NATO. <strong>The world as a whole passed the 50% urban mark seven years ago.</strong> Estimates are that five billion people live in cities with two billion of these living in slums. It is also estimated that 1.4 million people worldwide migrate to cities each week. Studies, based upon global demographic trends, suggest that an increasing percentage of armed conflicts will likely be fought in urban surroundings.</p> </blockquote> <p>But, irrespective of the motivation, one thing is certain...modernizing an "obsolete" international force is going to be expensive.&nbsp; Perhaps it's <a href="">time for Trump to write up some new invoices</a>...</p> <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-image-teaser"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <img class="imagefield imagefield-field_image_teaser" width="813" height="415" alt="" src="" /> </div> </div> </div> Alt-right American people of German descent Climate change skepticism and denial Donald Trump International security Military NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization Politics The Apprentice Twitter Twitter United Nations War War on Terror White House White House WWE Hall of Fame Fri, 18 Aug 2017 06:45:00 +0000 Tyler Durden 601886 at The Death Of A Nation <p><a href="">Authored by James George Jatras via The Strategic Culture Foundation,</a></p> <p><strong><em>Every living nation needs symbols. They tell us who we are as one people, in what we believe, and on what basis we organize our common life.</em></strong></p> <p><a href=""><img alt="" src="" /></a></p> <p><strong>This fact seems to be very clear to the current leadership in Russia, particularly to President Vladimir Putin, in restoring and&nbsp;<a href="" target="_blank">reunifying a country rent by three generations of Red and White enmity to achieve a national synthesis</a>. </strong>With regard to things spiritual, this meant first of all the world-historic reunification of the Russian Orthodox Church, between the Moscow Patriarchate and the New York-based Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. It also meant the rebuilding of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior dynamited by the communists 1931, not coincidentally the recent target for&nbsp;<a href="" target="_blank">desecration by degenerates</a>&nbsp;<a href="" target="_blank">hailed by western &laquo;democracy&raquo; advocates</a>.</p> <p>Civic and military symbols matter as well. After 1991 there were those who wanted landmarks of the communist era to be ruthlessly expunged the way the Bolsheviks had themselves sought (in Solzhenitsyn&rsquo;s description) to rub off the age-old face of Russia and to replace it with a new, ersatz Soviet image. Instead, wisdom prevailed. The national anthem adopted in 2001 retains the Soviet melody but with new lyrics (written by Sergey Mikhalkov, who with Gabriel El-Registan had penned the original lyrics in 1944!) &ndash; Lenin and Stalin are out, God is in. The old capital is again Saint Petersburg, but the surrounding district still bears the name Leningrad. The red star marks Russia&rsquo;s military aircraft and vehicles, while the blue Saint Andrew&rsquo;s cross flies over the fleet. The red stars likewise are still atop the Kremlin towers while the&nbsp;<a href="" target="_blank">Smolensk icon of Christ once again graces the Savior Gate</a>. The red banner that was hoisted triumphantly on the Reichstag in 1945 is carried on Victory Day. The remains of exiled White commanders like Anton Denikin and Vladimir Kappel were repatriated and reburied at home with honor.</p> <p><u><strong>I may be wrong, but I would like to think that perhaps Russia took a lesson from what until recently had been the American example.</strong></u> In his Second Inaugural Address in March 1865, as the &laquo;<a href="" target="_blank">brothers&rsquo; war</a>&laquo; was drawing to a close, Abraham Lincoln spoke of the need to &laquo;bind up the nation&rsquo;s wounds&raquo;. In striving to do so, nothing was more important than our honoring the heroes of both the Blue and the Gray, perhaps most poignantly demonstrated decades later in the&nbsp;<a href="" target="_blank">veterans&rsquo; reunions at Gettysburg</a>. &laquo;Unconditional Surrender&raquo; Grant and &laquo;Marse Bobby&raquo; Lee, &laquo;Uncle Billy&raquo; Sherman and &laquo;Stonewall&raquo; Jackson, naval legends David &laquo;Damn the torpedoes&raquo; Farragut and Raphael &laquo;Nelson of the Confederacy&raquo; Semmes, cavalrymen &laquo;Fightin&rsquo; Phil&raquo; Sheridan and J.E.B. Stuart, and many, many others &ndash; these names belong to all of us. As Americans.</p> <p>To say this is not to avoid the centrality of slavery in the southerners&rsquo; attempted secession or to address the constitutional question of whether they were legally entitled to do so. (Maybe&nbsp;<a href="" target="_blank">California will have better luck heading for the exit</a>.&nbsp;&iexcl;Adios, amigos!) Nor does it sugarcoat white southerners&rsquo; perception of Reconstruction as a hostile, armed occupation or of the institution of Jim Crow racial segregation after federal troops were withdrawn and the Democratic Party assumed power. <strong>But the fact is that the&nbsp;mythos&nbsp;of North-South reconciliation in a reunited American nation was a foundation of our becoming an economic giant by the late 19<sup>th</sup>&nbsp;century, a world power at the beginning of the 20<sup>th</sup>&nbsp;(at the expense of the decrepit Spanish empire, with the celebrated military participation of former Confederates), and a dominant power after two victorious world wars.</strong></p> <p><u><strong>That America may soon be gone with the wind.</strong></u> The violence at Charlottesville, the pulling down of a Confederate memorial by a mob in Durham, the removal of four monuments from Baltimore (which has one of America&rsquo;s&nbsp;<a href="" target="_blank">highest homicide rates</a>) under the&nbsp;<a href="" target="_blank">cowardly cloak of night</a>, and calls for&nbsp;<a href="" target="_blank">getting rid of many more</a>&nbsp;are simultaneously the death throes of the old America built on one national concept and the birth pangs of a new, borderless, multiethnic, multilingual, multireligious, multisexual, ahistorical, fake &laquo;America&raquo; now aborning in violence and lawlessness.</p> <p><strong>He who says A must say B. When one accepts demonization of part of our history and placing those who defend it beyond the pale of legitimate discourse, one should hardly be surprised when the arrogant fury of the victors is unleashed. </strong>That takes two forms: the nihilist street thugs of &laquo;Antifa&raquo; and &laquo;Black Lives Matter&raquo;, and the authorities (both governmental and media, a/k/a the Swamp) who confer on them immunity for violent, criminal behavior. The former are the shock troops of the latter.</p> <p><a href="" target="_blank">They&rsquo;ve been at it for months</a>, well before Charlottesville, across the country, with nary a peep from the party that supposedly has uniform control over the federal government.<strong> Our First Amendment rights as Americans end where a black-clad masked thug chooses to put his (or her or indeterminate &laquo;gender&raquo;) fist or club.</strong> To paraphrase&nbsp;<a href="" target="_blank">U.S. Chief Justice Roger Taney in&nbsp;Dred Scott,</a>&nbsp;loyalists of the old America have no rights which the partisans of the new one are bound to respect. <strong><em>Where&rsquo;s the Justice Department probe of civil rights violations by this organized, directed brutality? </em></strong>(Or maybe there will be one,&nbsp;<a href="" target="_blank">including looking into George Soros&rsquo;s connection</a>. If not, what&rsquo;s the point of having RICO?)</p> <p><strong>To be sure, the spectacle of genuine racists on display in Charlottesville provided the perfect pretext for these people, but they&rsquo;re not the cause.</strong> Far from forestalling the violent, revolutionary abolition of the historic America (definitively&nbsp;<a href="" target="_blank">described by Pat Buchanan</a>) by inciting some kind of white backlash &ndash; perhaps in the form of a&nbsp;<a href="" target="_blank">race war as some of them despicably hope</a>&nbsp;&ndash; the &laquo;Unite the Right&raquo; organizers at Charlottesville have accelerated the revolution. It&rsquo;s a revolution that dovetails with the anti-constitutional &laquo;RussiaGate&raquo; coup in progress against President Trump, who is the last hope for preserving the historic American nation. If he is removed (is he&nbsp;<a href="" target="_blank">the&nbsp;only&nbsp;one, even in his own Administration, fighting back</a>?) and the nice&nbsp;respectable&nbsp;anti-Trump Republican party is restored, they&rsquo;ll gladly join hands with their Democratic and media Swamp buddies in dragging what remains of America down.</p> <p><strong>If anyone is tempted to think that the new America will be more peaceful in world affairs, think again.</strong> It&rsquo;s no coincidence that the same forces that want to bring Trump down and also redefine our country&rsquo;s identity coincide almost entirely with those who want America aggressively to impose &laquo;<a href="" target="_blank">our values</a>&laquo; &ndash; meaning&nbsp;their&nbsp;values &ndash; on the globe. As I put it almost 20 years ago in a somewhat different context, this fake &laquo;America&raquo; is the vanguard of&nbsp;<a href="" target="_blank">Rainbow Fascism, at home and abroad</a>.</p> <p><strong>No doubt the same terrible sense of foreboding, even worse, must have occurred to Russians in 1920, when they saw their&nbsp;<a href="" target="_blank">country bloodily sacrificed on the altar of a crazed, internationalist ideology</a>.</strong> Somehow, after paying an unimaginable price in war and repression, they emerged three quarters of a century later still remembering how (as the late General Aleksandr Lebed put it) &laquo;<a href="" target="_blank">to feel like Russians again</a>&raquo;.</p> <p><em><strong>If we fail to avoid the impending long night, will we Americans be so lucky?</strong></em></p> <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-image-teaser"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <img class="imagefield imagefield-field_image_teaser" width="348" height="238" alt="" src="" /> </div> </div> </div> American people of German descent B+ Business Charlottesville, Virginia Climate change skepticism and denial Democratic Party Department of Justice Donald Trump Fail federal government First Amendment George Soros Politics Republican Party Russian Orthodox Church Strategic Culture Foundation The Apprentice United States Vladimir Putin WWE Hall of Fame Fri, 18 Aug 2017 06:00:00 +0000 Tyler Durden 601890 at How Can We Learn From The Past If We Erase History? <p><a href=""><em>Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blog,</em></a></p> <p><strong>Removing monuments from the Civil War to erase history is a mistake.</strong></p> <p>This won’t be a popular opinion, and I’m okay with that. Because for now, we still have freedom of speech.</p> <p>While I can understand why some people would strongly disagree, I’d like to respectfully offer a different perspective. My opinion that those monuments should be left alone isn’t because I support the horrible things that have been done in our history. It’s exactly the opposite.</p> <p>Every country’s history has a dark spot in it. More than one, if we’re being honest. But the fact that we aren’t still mired in those dark places means that we have made strides toward becoming better. <strong>Erasing history, though, is a dangerous path because it means that the truth becomes something malleable that has been created instead of recorded.</strong></p> <p>Rewriting history is positively Orwellian, and a terribly dangerous path.</p> <p><strong>After President Trump won the election, his opponents began snapping up copies of 1984 so quickly that Amazon sold out of the classic.</strong> At that point, I was hopeful that it meant people would find some common ground.</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"> <div></div> </div> <div class="quote_end"> <div></div> </div> <p>Amazon has sold out of copies of George Orwell’s authoritarian classic,&nbsp;<a href="">1984</a>, and they won’t have more until Feb. 2nd. The book was the number one bestseller on Tuesday and Wednesday. The publishing company, Penguin, is&nbsp;<a href="">rushing more copies to print</a>.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>This&nbsp;<a href="">surge in sales came after</a>&nbsp;Trump’s senior adviser Kellyanne Conway used the creepy term “alternative facts” to explain away some misleading statements in White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer’s statement to the press. (<a href="" target="_blank" rel="noopener">source</a>)</p> </blockquote> <p>Alas, my hope was short lived.</p> <p><strong>All sorts of breathless articles were penned, comparing President Trump to Big Brother.</strong> (<a href="" target="_blank" rel="noopener">This one</a>, for example.) But then, something else happened. And it isn’t good.</p> <h3><span style="text-decoration: underline;">1984 has become an instruction manual.</span></h3> <p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href=""><img src="" style="width: 600px; height: 315px;" /></a></span></p> <p>Despite the initial furor, now it seems like these folks have decided to instead use 1984 as a how-to manual. As you watch people destroying monuments of Southern Civil War generals, renaming streets, and planning to deface the side of a mountain with their faces on it, let this chilling quote ring in your ears.</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"> <div></div> </div> <div class="quote_end"> <div></div> </div> <p class="quoteText"><strong>“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”</strong> (<a href="" target="_blank" rel="noopener">George Orwell, 1984</a>)</p> </blockquote> <p>Without our history, good or bad, who are we? If we don’t remember where we came from, how can we hope to continuously improve? If we can’t learn from the mistakes of the past, and if the truth is “created” by the vocal minority, then how does the truth even exist anymore?</p> <h3><span style="text-decoration: underline;">History teaches us important lessons.</span></h3> <p>We’ve all heard that quote, “Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.” So what happens when we completely erase it?</p> <p>When my daughter and I <a href="" target="_blank" rel="noopener">took a road trip</a> to explore American history last year, we stopped and visited many of these historic markers that are now pending demolition. We discussed the hypocrisy of a man who was responsible for resounding words of freedom in the US Constitution keeping hundreds of slaves. Her curiosity was piqued by the old homesteads. Her heart was saddened by walking into old slave quarters and seeing the shocking difference of their cramped quarters to the huge mansions beside them. Nothing you can read about in a book could possibly compare to walking through those doors and seeing the real thing.</p> <p>We looked up information about General Lee and General Jackson. We learned of the famous battles where thousands of Americans from the North and the South died. When in California, we visited Manzanar, the site of an internment camp for Americans of Japanese heritage. She learned so much about our country’s ugly past and about how our ideals as a nation were changed for the better.</p> <p>We also spent a lot of time at various civil rights monuments, in particular, the Harriet Tubman Museum and the Underground Railroad Byway. (My daughter has been fascinated by Tubman since she read her biography in third grade.) After seeing the old plantations and the slave quarters, Tubman’s heroism was suddenly writ large. Would her heroic acts have made so great an impression if my daughter hadn’t learned the backstory? <strong>Heroism doesn’t exist in a vacuum.</strong></p> <p>Erasing the negative part of history doesn’t make it go away Sanitizing the facts doesn’t mean that they never happened. It just means no one can learn from them.</p> <h3><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Our very language is being rewritten.</span></h3> <p>Everything has now become so politically correct that most of us have no idea what to say in certain situations, lest we be chastised as horrible bigots. The schools are systematically brainwashing children and the indoctrination is completed in our colleges and universities.</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"> <div></div> </div> <div class="quote_end"> <div></div> </div> <p><strong>“Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.”</strong>&nbsp;(<a href="" target="_blank" rel="noopener">George Orwell, 1984</a>)</p> </blockquote> <p>By manipulating language, opinions are manipulated, as is a sense of right and wrong.</p> <p>Newspeak is real.</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"> <div></div> </div> <div class="quote_end"> <div></div> </div> <p><strong>“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.</strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>By 2050, earlier, probably – all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron – they’ll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually changed into something contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of the Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like ‘freedom is slavery’ when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking – not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”&nbsp;</strong>(<a href="" target="_blank" rel="noopener">George Orwell, 1984</a>)</p> </blockquote> <p>How can anyone not see this is happening right before our very eyes.</p> <p>It isn’t Donald Trump who is bringing in an Orwellian future. It’s the rabid politically-correct thought police.</p> <h3><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Where will it end?</span></h3> <p>It isn’t likely to end with the removal of icons related to the Civil War. Ajamu Baraka, the Green Party’s vice-presidential candidate in 2016 suggests that all memories of Trump, Washington, and Jefferson should also be erased.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">If you want to remove symbols of white supremacy why are you limiting it to confederacy? Yes Trump, Jefferson &amp; Washington must be next.</p> <p>— Ajamu Baraka (@ajamubaraka) <a href="">August 16, 2017</a></p></blockquote> <script src="//"></script><p>Good, bad, and ugly, this is part of our national story. Tearing down everything that was related to the sordid parts doesn’t mean that they never happened.</p> <h3><span style="text-decoration: underline;">I strongly denounce these groups who are filled with hatred for their fellow Americans.</span></h3> <p>While I believe these historic monuments should not be destroyed, I certainly could never align myself with the neo-Nazis, the KKK, and the Alt-Right people who are protecting them, because they’re doing so out of hatred and a misplaced sense of glory. Nor would I ever align myself with the Antifa, the most ironic group ever in existence that proclaims to be against fascism but noisily and brutally stifles the First Amendment rights of those with whom they disagree.</p> <p>These groups all represent what is worst about our country. Violence, vandalism, hatred, and terror are wrong, no matter who is perpetrating those acts.</p> <p>In any argument, it’s always the loudest people who get heard, but that doesn’t mean they speak for everyone. We must be careful not to over-generalize when it comes to these groups.</p> <p><strong>The Alt-Right and the neo-Nazis cannot be confused with every conservative Republican out there any more than the Alt-Left and the Antifa can be confused with every liberal Democrat. All of these labels are divisive and painting everyone with a broad brush is a lazy generalization. But this isn’t what the media is telling us. Instead, the mainstream media is pouring gasoline on this fire on a daily basis and they’re polarizing our country even more.</strong></p> <p>Most of us are decent human beings who have no argument with our fellow Americans. We&nbsp;have a lot more in common than this noisy minority and if we could respectfully find those points of agreement, we could, perhaps, find peace amongst our neighbors once again.</p> <p><strong><em>I only hope that we haven’t gone so far down this road that there’s no way back.</em></strong></p> <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-image-teaser"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <img class="imagefield imagefield-field_image_teaser" width="322" height="154" alt="" src="" /> </div> </div> </div> Censorship Culture Donald Trump Donald Trump Fiction First Amendment George Orwell George Orwell Green Party Historical revisionism Ingsoc Ku Klux Klan Literature Newspeak Nineteen Eighty-Four Satire White House White House Fri, 18 Aug 2017 03:55:00 +0000 Tyler Durden 601887 at "He's A Greedy Little Man" And A "Snake" - Transcripts Of Shkreli Jury Hearings Emerge <p>Martin Shkreli&rsquo;s lawyers reportedly had to interview more than 250 prospective jurors before agreeing on 12. At the time, media reports hinted at some of the funnier reasons given by prospective jurors to get out of serving (one individual said he was biased against Shkreli because he had &ldquo;disrespected the Wu Tang Clan&quot;). Ultimately, the jury found the former hedge fund manager and pharmaceutical company CEO guilty on three out of eight counts of fraud.</p> <p>Now, Harper&rsquo;s Magazine has published transcripts from the Voir Dire hearings. The transcripts offer insight into how the trial of &quot;the most hated man in America&quot; came together. <em>In most cases, the prospective juror offers some version of &quot;he&#39;s terrible&quot; and is promptly excused. </em></p> <p>When asked if he was aware of the defendant, one juror said yes and &ldquo;I hate him,&rdquo; before calling Shkreli &ldquo;a greedy little man.&rdquo;</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p>&ldquo;The court: The purpose of jury selection is to ensure fairness and impartiality in this case. If you think that you could not be fair and impartial, it is your duty to tell me. All right. Juror Number 1.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Juror no. 1: <strong>I&rsquo;m aware of the defendant and I hate him.</strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Benjamin Brafman: I&rsquo;m sorry.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Juror no. 1: <strong>I think he&rsquo;s a greedy little man.</strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>The court: Jurors are obligated to decide the case based only on the evidence. Do you agree?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Juror no. 1:<strong> I don&rsquo;t know if I could. I wouldn&rsquo;t want me on this jury.</strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>The court: Juror Number 1 is excused. Juror Number 18.&rdquo;</p> </blockquote> <p>One guy said he felt biased against Shkreli as soon as he saw his face.</p> <p><a href=""><img alt="" src="" style="width: 500px; height: 383px;" /></a></p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p>&ldquo;Juror no. 40: I&rsquo;m taking prescription medication. I would be upset if it went up by a thousand percent. <strong>I saw the testimony on TV to Congress and I saw his face on the news last night. By the time I came in and sat down and he turned around, I felt immediately I was biased.</strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>The court: Sir, we are going to excuse you. Juror Number 47, please come up.&rdquo;</p> </blockquote> <p>Another juror equated Shkreli with Bernie Madoff who, let&rsquo;s remember, stole $70 billion from his clients.</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p>&ldquo;Juror no. 47: He&rsquo;s the most hated man in America. In my opinion, he equates with Bernie Madoff with the drugs for pregnant women going from $15 to $750. <strong>My parents are in their eighties. They&rsquo;re struggling to pay for their medication. My mother was telling me yesterday how my father&rsquo;s cancer drug is $9,000 a month.</strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>The court: The case is going to come before you on evidence that you must consider fairly and with an open mind.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Juror no. 47: I would find that difficult.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>The court: And that&rsquo;s based on your parents&rsquo; experience with medication?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Juror no. 47: <strong>It&rsquo;s based on people working very hard for their money. He defrauded his company and his investors, and that&rsquo;s not right.</strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>The court: Ma&rsquo;am, we&rsquo;re going to excuse you. Juror Number 52, how are you?&rdquo;</p> </blockquote> <p>One guy said he didn&rsquo;t know who Shkreli was, but after taking one look at him said he looks like a &quot;snake.&quot;</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p>&ldquo;Juror no. 52: <strong>When I walked in here today I looked at him, and in my head, that&rsquo;s a snake &mdash; not knowing who he was. I just walked in and looked right at him and that&rsquo;s a snake.</strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Brafman: So much for the presumption of innocence.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>The court: We will excuse Juror Number 52. Juror Number 67?&rdquo;</p> </blockquote> <p>One prospective juror said he&rsquo;d &ldquo;never be able to forget&rdquo; how Shkreli raised the price of Daraprim.</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p>&quot;Juror no. 67: <strong>The fact that he raised the price of that AIDS medication, like, such an amount of money disgusts me. I don&rsquo;t think I&rsquo;ll ever be able to forget that. Who does that, puts profit and self-interest ahead of anything else?</strong> So it&rsquo;s not a far stretch that he could do what he&rsquo;s accused of.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>The court: Please go to the jury room and tell them you have been excused. Juror Number 70.&rdquo;</p> </blockquote> <p>One person described Shkreli as &ldquo;the face of corporate greed in America,&quot; and that he&#39;d need to be convinced of his innocence because he assumes Shkreli is guilty.</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p>&ldquo;Juror no. 77: <strong>From everything I&rsquo;ve seen on the news, everything I&rsquo;ve read, I believe the defendant is the face of corporate greed in America.</strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Brafman: We would object.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Juror no. 77: You&rsquo;d have to convince me he was innocent rather than guilty.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>The court: I will excuse this juror. Hello, Juror Number 125.&rdquo;</p> </blockquote> <p>Juror number 144 said Shkreli &ldquo;looks like a dick.&rdquo;</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p>&ldquo;Juror no. 144: <strong>I heard through the news of how the defendant changed the price of a pill by up-selling it. I heard he bought an album from the Wu-Tang Clan for a million dollars.</strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>The court: The question is, have you heard anything that would affect your ability to decide this case with an open mind. Can you do that?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Juror no. 144: <strong>I don&rsquo;t think I can because he kind of looks like a dick.</strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>The court: You are Juror Number 144 and we will excuse you. Come forward, Juror Number 155.&rdquo;</p> </blockquote> <p>One juror said he couldn&rsquo;t understand whether Shkreli was stupid, or just greedy.</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p>&ldquo;Juror no. 28: <strong>I don&rsquo;t like this person at all. I just can&rsquo;t understand why he would be so stupid as to take an antibiotic which H.I.V. people need and jack it up five thousand percent. I would honestly, like, seriously like to go over there.</strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>The court: Sir, thank you.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Juror no. 28: <strong>Is he stupid or greedy? I can&rsquo;t understand.</strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>The court: We will excuse you. Juror 41, are you coming up?&rdquo;</p> </blockquote> <p>Shkreli is totally guilty, another juror said&hellip;and he disrespected the Wu Tang Clan.</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p>&ldquo;Juror no. 59: <strong>Your Honor, totally he is guilty and in no way can I let him slide out of anything because... </strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>The court: All right. We are going to excuse you, sir.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Juror no. 59: <strong>And he disrespected the Wu-Tang Clan.&rdquo;</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>While no date has been set, Shkreli is expected to be sentenced by federal judge Kiya Matsumoto some time during the coming months. Though Shkreli said on one of his post-trial livestreams that he expects to only serve a few months, possibly under house arrest. But legal experts believe that the sentencing is when Shkreli&rsquo;s past demons will come back to haunt him in the form of a lengthy stay in federal prison. He could also be on the hook for millions of dollars in fines. <strong>After all, Shkreli has mocked not only the Brooklyn prosecutors who tried him, but members of Congress. It wouldn&rsquo;t exactly look like a prosecutorial victory if they just let him walk away.</strong><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-image-teaser"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <img class="imagefield imagefield-field_image_teaser" width="437" height="241" alt="" src="" /> </div> </div> </div> 12 Business Congress English-language films Fiction Juries Juries in England and Wales Jury Jury selection Law Law Legal procedure Martin Shkreli Testimony The Jury UN Court Fri, 18 Aug 2017 03:30:00 +0000 Tyler Durden 601879 at Privatize The Public Monuments <p><a href=""><em>Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,</em></a></p> <div class="body-content body-content embedded-media clearfix"> <p>When I was a student at the University of Colorado, I regularly walked by the Dalton&nbsp;Trumbo&nbsp;memorial fountain which&nbsp;<a href="" target="_blank">was named after</a>&nbsp;the communist&nbsp;Stalin-sympathizing novelist and screenwriter.&nbsp;</p> <p>Once upon a time, the fountain had been simply known as &quot;the&nbsp;fountain,&quot; but around 25 years ago, it was unnecessarily renamed after a controversial person.&nbsp;</p> <p>The reason for the renaming&nbsp;was the same as with any memorial or monument designed to honor a person or idea&nbsp;&mdash; to create an emotional connection and familiarity with the person or idea connected to the place; to communicate a certain view of history.&nbsp;</p> <p>The renaming of the fountain followed an&nbsp;earlier renaming controversy. One of the University&#39;s dorms,&nbsp;<a href="" target="_blank">Nichols Hall</a>, was named after a participant in the infamous Sand Creek Massacre.&nbsp;Even in its own time, the massacre had been denounced,&nbsp;<a href="" target="_blank">earning condemnation from Indian fighters like Kit Carson</a>. Not surprisingly, the dorm that bore Nichols&#39;s name&nbsp;was eventually renamed &quot;Cheyenne Arapahoe&quot; in honor of the Indian tribes whose members Nichols had helped attack.</p> <p>As with the&nbsp;Trumbo&nbsp;fountain, the dorm&#39;s name was&nbsp;changed in order to send subtle messages &mdash; messages about what is valued, what is good, and what is bad.&nbsp;</p> <p>There&#39;s nothing inherently wrong with this, of course. The problem only arises when we&nbsp;begin&nbsp;to use taxpayer funded facilities and institutions to carry out these attempts at education.&nbsp;</p> <p><em><strong>Thus, in a sense, when approaching the problem of government monuments and memorials, we &nbsp;encounter the same problem we have with public schools. Whose values are going to be pushed, preserved, and exalted? And, who&#39;s going to be forced to pay for it?&nbsp;</strong></em></p> <h4><u>Ideology Changes Over Time&nbsp;</u></h4> <p><strong>This problem is further complicated by the fact that these views change over time.</strong></p> <p>Over time, the &quot;good guys&quot;&nbsp;can change&nbsp;as majority views&nbsp;shift, as new groups take over the machinery of government institutions, and as ideologies change.&nbsp;</p> <p>In 1961, when&nbsp;Nichols Hall was named, few people apparently cared much about the Sand Creek Massacre. 25 years later, however, views had changed considerably among both students and administrators.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>For a very&nbsp;obvious illustration of how these changes takes place, we need look no further than the schools.&nbsp;</strong></p> <p>In the early days of public schooling &mdash; an institution&nbsp;founded by Christian&nbsp;nationalists to push their message &mdash;&nbsp;students were forced to read the King James Bible.&nbsp;Catholics were forced to pay taxes so schools could instruct students on how awful and dangerous Catholicism was. Immigrant families from Southern and Eastern Europe&nbsp;were forced to pay for schools that instructed their children on the inferiority of their non-Anglo ethnic groups.</p> <p>A century later, things have changed considerably.&nbsp;Today, Anglo-Saxons are taught to hate themselves, and while Catholics are still despised (but for different reasons), they now are joined in their pariah status&nbsp;by most&nbsp;other Christian groups as well. Italians and Eastern Europeans who were once treated in public schools as subhuman&nbsp;are <a href="">now reviled as members of the white oppressor class</a>.&nbsp;</p> <p>Similar changes have taken place in art and in public monuments and memorials.&nbsp;</p> <h4><u>Public Memorials Serve the Same Function as Public Schools&nbsp;</u></h4> <p><strong>But the principle remains the same, whether we&#39;re talking about public schools or public&nbsp;monuments: we&#39;re using&nbsp;public funds&nbsp;and facilities to &quot;educate&quot; the public about what&#39;s good and what&#39;s not.&nbsp;</strong></p> <p>This has long been known by both the people who first erected today&#39;s aging monuments, and by the people who now want to tear them down.&nbsp;The leftist who support scrapping certain monuments&nbsp;actively seek to change public monuments and memorials to back up their own worldview because they recognize that it can make a difference in the public imagination. They&#39;re fine with forcing the taxpayers to support their own worldview, of course, and actively seek to use public lands, public spaces, public roads, and public buildings to subsidize their efforts. They already succeeded in doing this with public schools decades ago.&nbsp;</p> <h4><u>The Answer:&nbsp;Privatize the Monuments</u></h4> <p>In a way, the combined effect of public memorials, monuments, streets, and buildings function to turn public spaces into a type of large open-air social studies class, reinforcing some views, while ignoring others.&nbsp;</p> <p>Libertarians have long noted the problem of public education: <strong><em>it&#39;s impossible to teach history in a value-neutral way, and thus public schools are likely to teach values that support the state and its agendas. Even some conservatives have finally caught on.&nbsp;</em></strong></p> <p>To combat this problem, those who object to these elements within public schooling support homeschooling, private schooling, and private-sector alternatives that diminish the role of public institutions.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Governmental public spaces offer the same problem&nbsp;as public schools.&nbsp;</strong></p> <p><em><strong>In both cases the answer is the same:&nbsp;minimize the role of government institutions in shaping public ideology, public attitudes, and the public&#39;s view of history.&nbsp;</strong></em></p> <p>Rather than using publicly funded thoroughfares, parks, and buildings as a means of reinforcing public &quot;education&quot; and &quot;shared history&quot; as we do now, these government facilities should be stripped down to their most basic functions. Providing office space for administrative offices, providing streets for transport, and providing parks for recreation. (The last thing we need is a history lesson from the semi-illiterates on a typical&nbsp;city council.)</p> <p>Some might argue that all these properties and facilities should be privatized themselves. That&#39;s fair enough, but as long as we&#39;re forced to live with these facilities, we need not also use them to &quot;honor&quot; politicians or whatever persons the current ruling class happens to find worthy of praise.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>The nostalgia lobby&nbsp;will react with horror to this proposition. &quot;Why, you can&#39;t do that!&quot; they&#39;ll complain. &quot;We&#39;ll be robbed of our heritage and history.&quot; Even&nbsp;assuming&nbsp;these people could precisely define exactly who &quot;we&quot; is they still need to explain why public property is necessary to preserve this alleged heritage.&nbsp;</strong></p> <p>After all, by this way of thinking, the preservation of one&#39;s culture and heritage relies on a subsidy from the taxpayers, and a nod of assent from&nbsp;government agencies.&nbsp;</p> <h4><u>Preserving and Promoting Culture Through Private Action&nbsp;</u></h4> <p><strong>Once upon a time, however, people who actually valued their heritage did not sit around begging the government to protect it for them. Many were willing to actually take action and spend their own money on preserving the heritage that many&nbsp;now rather unconvincingly&nbsp;claim is so important to them.</strong></p> <p>A good example of the key role of private property in cases such as this can be seen in the work of the Catholic&nbsp;Church&nbsp;in the US &mdash; which has never enjoyed majority support from the population or from government institutions. If Catholics were to get their symbols and memorials in front of the public, they were going to have to build them on private property, and that&#39;s exactly what they did.</p> <p>In Denver, for example, the Catholics of the early&nbsp;20th&nbsp;century knew (correctly) that no public park or government building was going to erect any Catholic-themed art or&nbsp;memorials&nbsp;on their property. So, the Catholics proceeded to erect an enormous cathedral on a hilltop one block from the state capitol. The new cathedral was highly visible and&nbsp;provided easy access to religious ceremonies for the few Catholic politicians and officials who worked at the capitol. It provided meeting space. It contained <a href="" target="_blank">stained-glass art created by German masters</a>. Moreover, the new building served as a huge symbolic&nbsp;middle finger to the anti-Catholic Ku Klux Klan which was growing in importance in Denver at the time.</p> <p>So, did Church officials sit around whining about how there was no crucifix on the front lawn of the State Capitol? Did they demand that the taxpayers pay to maintain a central town plaza featuring a statue of Saint Peter?&nbsp;<em>Some&nbsp;</em>probably did. Those who made a difference, though, took action&nbsp;and acquired real estate in prominent places&nbsp;throughout&nbsp;the city. They put universities on that land, and&nbsp;cemeteries, and convents, and friaries, and&nbsp;schools, and even some memorials and statues. Today, next to the cathedral, on a busy&nbsp;street corner, is a large statue of a Catholic pope: John Paul II. It&#39;s on private property. It&#39;s seen by thousands every day.&nbsp;</p> <div class="ds-1col file file-image file-image-jpeg view-mode-wide_player clearfix"> <div class="img img-responsive"><img alt="5755374557_271075ae66_z.jpg" height="640" src="" width="408" /></div> </div> <p><a href="" target="_blank"><em>Source.&nbsp;</em></a></p> <p><strong>And why should the self-appointed protectors of American&nbsp;&quot;traditional&quot; values think they deserve anything different?</strong> Indeed, we&#39;d all have been saved a lot of trouble if the organizations that demanded statues of Confederate generals everywhere had put them on private land instead of in public parks. We&#39;d all be better off if the private owners of the Stone Mountain monument hadn&#39;t sold it to the State of Georgia because they were too cheap to maintain it themselves.&nbsp;</p> <p>In the past, had the purveyors of publicly-funded culture instead taken a principled and successful stand against using public lands and funds&nbsp;to push a certain view of history,&nbsp;no one would have to now waste his time sitting through city&nbsp;council&nbsp;meetings where politicians decide who&nbsp;deserves a statue, and who is&nbsp;to be thrown in the dustbin of history. Were we&nbsp;to quit using public parks as showcases for public&nbsp;indoctrination,&nbsp;we wouldn&#39;t have to worry about the Church of Satan erecting a monument in the &quot;free speech area&quot; of a public park &mdash;&nbsp;<a href="" target="_blank">as they recently did</a>&nbsp;near Minneapolis.&nbsp;</p> <p><u><em><strong>The next time someone wants a statue of some politician, artist, or intellectual &mdash; whether they be <a href="" target="_blank">communists</a>, Confederates, or satanists &mdash;&nbsp;they ought to be told to buy a&nbsp;nice little plot of land somewhere &mdash; perhaps along a busy street or next to an important street corner in town &mdash; and put their statue there.&nbsp;</strong></em></u></p> </div> <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-image-teaser"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <img class="imagefield imagefield-field_image_teaser" width="236" height="129" alt="" src="" /> </div> </div> </div> Anti-Catholicism Catholic Church Church of Satan Cultural studies Eastern Europe Eastern Europe Ku Klux Klan Mises Institute Mises Institute Persecution of Catholics Private school Real estate Religion Religion Southern Europe State school Structure University of Colorado Fri, 18 Aug 2017 03:05:00 +0000 Tyler Durden 601881 at "It Is A Battle Between Data And Theory" - Fed PhDs Second-Guess Inflation Model After 5 Years Of Failure <p>Federal Reserve officials are finally waking up to the fact that there&rsquo;s something wrong with their inflation models. <strong>It only took them five years.</strong></p> <p>As <a href="">Bloomberg</a> points out, the minutes from the Fed&rsquo;s July policy meeting, released yesterday, included a debate about whether the models that help the central bank set its inflation target are no longer functioning properly.</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p>&ldquo;Federal Reserve officials are looking under the hood of their most basic inflation models and starting to ask if something is wrong.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Minutes from the July 25-26 Federal Open Market Committee meeting <strong>showed a revealing debate over why the economy isn&rsquo;t producing more inflation in a time of easy financial conditions, tight labor markets and solid economic growth.</strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>The central bank has missed its 2 percent price goal for most of the past five years.</strong> Still, a majority of FOMC participants favor further rate increases. The July minutes showed an intensifying debate over whether that is the right policy response.&rdquo;</p> </blockquote> <p><iframe allowscriptaccess="always" frameborder="0" height="315" src="" width="560"></iframe></p> <p>Some economists worry that if the Fed begins to publicly question their methods, <strong>it could ruin what little credibility the central bank has left.</strong></p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p><strong>&ldquo;These minutes to me were troubling,&rdquo;</strong> said Ward McCarthy, chief financial economist at Jefferies LLC in New York. <strong>&ldquo;They don&rsquo;t have their confidence in their policy decisions; and they don&rsquo;t have confidence that they can provide the right kind of guidance.&rdquo;</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Of course, Fed officials did everything in their power to communicate that these questions were being raised by a small minority on the FOMC, and didn&rsquo;t represent anything resembling an official opinion.</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p>&ldquo;In several passages, the minutes asserted that &ldquo;most&rdquo; officials were sticking with a forecast that higher inflation would eventually show up. <strong>However, the debate over resource slack models and whether standard data sources were telling them the whole story also showed convictions about their forecast are fraying.&rdquo;</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>As <a href="">Bloomberg </a>explains, prices have been resistant to any upward movement even as the US unemployment rate has fell to a 16-year low of 4.3 percent in July. The U.S. consumer price index rose 1.7 percent for the 12 months ending July, while the PCE price index, the Fed&rsquo;s preferred measure, which is tied to consumption, rose 1.4 percent in June. <strong>Another gauge calculated by the Dallas Fed, which trims index outliers to highlight the underlying price trend, rose 1.7 percent for the 12 months ending June. That was the same as May, which was down from 1.74 percent in April.</strong></p> <p><a href=""><strong><img alt="" src="" style="width: 500px; height: 282px;" /></strong></a></p> <p>A few officials pointed out what many investors have believed for years: <strong>That the Fed&#39;s inflation forecasting model is totally useless. </strong></p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p>&ldquo;The minutes said &ldquo;a few&rdquo; officials described resource slack models as &ldquo;not particularly useful&rdquo; while &ldquo;most&rdquo; thought the framework was valid.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Members also questioned whether there&rsquo;s another theory that might better explain the inertia in prices.</strong></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>The committee also pondered a number of theories as to why inflation wasn&rsquo;t responding to tightening labor resources, <strong>such as &ldquo;the possibility that slack may be better measured by labor market indicators other than unemployment.&rdquo; </strong></p> </blockquote> <p>One notable economist described it as &ldquo;a battle between data and theory.&rdquo;</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p><strong>&ldquo;It is a battle between data and theory,&rdquo; said Ethan Harris, head of global economic research at Bank of America Corp. in New York.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>But it almost doesn&rsquo;t matter that the Fed&rsquo;s vaunted inflation models no longer make any sense, because, the Fed is going to keep hiking no matter what now that the risks have struck the &ldquo;appropriate balance&rdquo; &ndash; at least that&rsquo;s what one member of the leadership (probably Chairwoman Yellen) believes.&nbsp; &nbsp;</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p>&ldquo;The minutes also included an unusual signal that someone - <strong>possibly a member of the committee&rsquo;s leadership</strong> - saw additional rate increases as striking the &ldquo;appropriate balance&rdquo; on policy goals, dedicating two sentences to the views of &ldquo;one participant.&rdquo;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&ldquo;That seems like an awful lot of air time as well as a very definitive answer coming from a mere &lsquo;one participant&rsquo; - unless that single person happened to be someone really important - <strong>like, I don&rsquo;t know, maybe the Chair?,&rdquo; Stephen Stanley, chief economist at Amherst Pierpont Securities in New York, wrote in a note to clients, referring to Janet Yellen.&rdquo;</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Maybe in whatever model they concoct to replace this one, the Fed should include a metric probably more relevant today than economists realize: <a href="">The amount of time</a> Americans&rsquo; spend on Instagram per day.<br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-image-teaser"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <img class="imagefield imagefield-field_image_teaser" width="1078" height="608" alt="" src="" /> </div> </div> </div> Bank of America Bank of America Business Dallas Fed Dallas Fed Economics Economy Ethan Harris Federal Open Market Committee Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System Fellows of the Econometric Society Inflation Inflation targeting Janet Yellen Janet Yellen Macroeconomics Monetary policy Open Market Committee Unemployment Unemployment Unemployment in the United States US Federal Reserve Fri, 18 Aug 2017 02:40:00 +0000 Tyler Durden 601840 at "Let's Blow Up Mount Rushmore" Says Vice <p>We may have hit peak media crazy here. A prominent online news publication says, &ldquo;Let&#39;s blow up Mt. Rushmore.&rdquo;&nbsp;No, this is not al-Qaeda&#39;s &quot;Inspire&quot; magazine or the Islamic State&#39;s &quot;Dabiq&quot; propaganda publication - it&#39;s Brooklyn based Vice News.</p> <p>On the same day a <a href="" target="_blank">barbaric terror attack</a> takes place in Barcelona, resulting in 13 deaths and 100 people injured, the popular liberal news org known for its edgy investigative approach and stylistic &quot;cooler than thou&quot; appeal to millennials tweeted out an article which <strong>advocates for blowing up Mount Rushmore.&nbsp;</strong></p> <p>Vice initially titled the article, authored by Vice Senior Editor Wilbert L. Cooper, as follows:</p> <p><a href=""><img alt="" src="" style="width: 500px; height: 460px;" /></a></p> <p>After fierce online push back on a day there was a literal terror attack unfolding across the Atlantic, Vice hastily deleted the tweet and changed the article title to the toned down, <a href="" target="_blank">Let&#39;s Get Rid of Mt. Rushmore</a> - this time with an editor&#39;s note at the bottom of the page attempting to explain the change:&nbsp;</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p><em>Editor&#39;s note: The headline and URL of this story have been updated. We do not condone violence in any shape or form, and the use of &quot;blow up&quot; in the original headline as a rhetorical device was misguided and insensitive. We apologize for the error.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Rhetorical device? The content of the article still supports destroying America&#39;s most celebrated and iconic historic monument dedicated to American presidents. The author literally states he is &quot;onboard&quot; should there ever be &quot;a serious push to blow up Rushmore&quot;:</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p>With the president of the United States basically justifying neo-Nazism, it seems unthinkable that we will ever see a day <strong>when there is a serious push to blow up Rushmore and other monuments like it</strong>. But if that moment ever arrives, I suspect I&#39;d be onboard.</p> </blockquote> <p>Cooper further (not so) eloquently calls for leveling the whole place, and presumably all monuments devoted to past US &quot;cults of personality&quot; (as he calls them):</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p>Demystifying the historical figures of the past, pulling them off the great mountain top back down to Earth where they shat, farted, spit, pissed, fucked, raped, murdered, died, and rotted seems like important business for this country. As long as we allow those men to be cults of personality who exist beyond reproach, we&#39;re never going to be able to see them for all of their good and all of their evil.&nbsp;</p> </blockquote> <p>Disturbingly, the call for leveling such monuments is contained in the conclusion of an article with <strong>repeat references equating President Trump with neo-Nazis</strong>:</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p>Trump and his white supremacist cohorts believe the reverence some Americans have for these statues is simply respect for history, and that tearing them down is tantamount to ripping pages out of a textbook.</p> </blockquote> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p dir="ltr" lang="en">Timestamps. I should probably just take the rest of the day off. <a href=""></a></p> <p>&mdash; Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) <a href="">August 17, 2017</a></p></blockquote> <script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script><p>Ironically, the article does acknowledge the truthfulness of Trump&#39;s recent words that we are headed towards a dangerously iconoclastic slippery slope set to end in the demolishing of American history. But the Vice article at the outset essentially says... yes! Let&#39;s do just that:</p> <blockquote><div class="quote_start"><div></div></div><div class="quote_end"><div></div></div><p>Donald Trump says removing confederate statues is a slippery slope that could get out of control. Maybe he&#39;s right&mdash;would that be such a bad thing?</p> </blockquote> <p><a href=""><img alt="" src="" style="width: 500px; height: 457px;" /></a></p> <p>And if a private citizen said &quot;let&#39;s blow up Mount Rushmore&quot; and published an article which seriously explored destroying the site - an article which was clearly &quot;pro&quot; dynamiting the monument? It doesn&#39;t take much imagination to know who would come knocking if this were anything but a <a href="" target="_blank">$5.7 billion news organization</a>.</p> <div class="field field-type-filefield field-field-image-teaser"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <img class="imagefield imagefield-field_image_teaser" width="1013" height="728" alt="" src="" /> </div> </div> </div> al-Qaeda Black Hills Donald Trump Donald Trump Films Great Sioux War Rushmore South Dakota Twitter Twitter United States Fri, 18 Aug 2017 02:23:45 +0000 Tyler Durden 601888 at