In its latest reminder that China is a (for now) happy holder of some $1.2 trillion in US Treasurys, Chinese credit rating agency Dagong downgraded US sovereign ratings from A- to BBB+ overnight, citing “deficiencies in US political ecology” and tax cuts that “directly reduce the federal government’s sources of debt repayment” weakening the base of the government’s debt repayment.
Oh, and just to make sure the message is heard loud and clear, the ratings, which are now level with those of Peru, Colombia and Turkmenistan on the Beijing-based agency’s scale of creditworthiness, have also been put on a negative outlook.
In a statement on Tuesday, Dagong warned that the United States’ increasing reliance on debt to drive development would erode its solvency. Quoted by Reuters, Dagong made specific reference to President Donald Trump’s tax package, which is estimated to add $1.4 trillion over a decade to the $20 trillion national debt burden.
“Deficiencies in the current U.S. political ecology make it difficult for the efficient administration of the federal government, so the national economic development derails from the right track,” Dagong said adding that “Massive tax cuts directly reduce the federal government’s sources of debt repayment, therefore further weaken the base of government’s debt repayment.” …
In a preemptive shot across the bow in the coming trade wars, last week Bloomberg reported that Beijing officials reviewing China’s vast foreign exchange holdings had recommended slowing or halting purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds. That warning spooked investors worried that sharp swings in China’s massive holdings of U.S. Treasuries would trigger a selloff in bond and equity markets globally. The report sent U.S. Treasury yields to 10-month highs and the dollar lower, although China’s foreign exchange regulator has since dismissed the report as “fake news.”
Still, Dagong was quick to point out that not much would be needed to crush the public’s confidence in the value of US Treasurys:
“The market’s reversing recognition of the value of U.S. Treasury bonds and U.S. dollar will be a powerful force in destroying the fragile debt chain of the federal government,” Dagong said.
To be sure, China’s move is far more political than objectively economic, and is meant to send another shot across the bow as the Trump administration prepares to launch a trade war with Beijing in the coming weeks. Still, while both Fitch and Moody’s give the United States their top AAA ratings (and the S&P is the only agency to infamously downgrade the US to AA+ in 2011), US raters have also expressed concerns similar to Dagong‘s….
The United States Air Force’s 59th Medical Wing’s molecular biology branch recently was revealed to have been collecting specifically Russian RNA and synovial (connective) tissue samples, prompting fears in Russia of a possible US-directed ethnic-specific bioweapons program.
TeleSUR‘s article, “‘Ethnic Bomb’ Feared as US Air Force Confirms Collection of Russian DNA,” would report:
Russia has raised its concerns over attempts by the U.S. military to collect DNA samples from Russian nationals, noting the potential use of such biological samples for the purpose of creating new genetic warfare weaponry.
The U.S. Air Force has sought to calm the Kremlin’s concerns, noting that the samples would only be used for so-called “research” purposes rather than for bioterrorism.
Addressing Russian reports, U.S. Air Education and Training Command spokesperson Captain Beau Downey said that his center randomly selected the Russian people as a source of genetic material in its ongoing research of the musculoskeletal system.
The report would also state that:
However, the usage of Russian tissue samples in the USAF study fed the long-brewing suspicion that the Pentagon is continuing in its hopes to develop an alleged “biological weapon” targeting specifically Russians.
Russian President Vladimir Putin would be quoted as stating:
Do you know that biological material is being collected all over the country, from different ethnic groups and people living in different geographical regions of the Russian Federation? The question is – why is it being done? It’s being done purposefully and professionally.
And while the US military attempted to brush off the notion that any sort of ethnic-specific bioweapon was being researched, the notion of such a weapon is not far fetched at all.
US policy papers have included them in America’s overall long-term geopolitical and military planning for nearly two decades, and the US Air Force itself has produced papers regarding how the various combinations such weapons could manifest.
There is also the disturbing history of Western-aligned nations having pursued ethnic-specific bioweapons in the past, including the Apartheid regime in South Africa which sought to use its national vaccination program as cover to covertly sterilize its black population.
US Policy Papers Have Discussed Ethnic-Specific Bioweapons
In the Neo-Conservative Project for the New American Century’s (PNAC) 2000 report titled, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (.pdf) it states (emphasis added):
The proliferation of ballistic and cruise missiles and long-range unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) will make it much easier to project military power around the globe. Munitions themselves will become increasingly accurate, while new methods of attack – electronic, “non-lethal,” biological – will be more widely available. (p.71 of .pdf)
It also stated:
Although it may take several decade for the process of transformation to unfold, in time, the art of warfare on air, land, and sea will be vastly different than it is today, and “combat” likely will take place in new dimensions: in space, “cyber-space,” and perhaps the world of microbes. (p.72 of .pdf)
And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool. (p.72 of .pdf)
More recently – in 2010 – the US Air Force in a counterproliferation paper titled, “Biotechnology: Genetically Engineered Pathogens” (PDF), would list multiple ways such weapons could be deployed (emphasis added):
The JASON group, composed of academic scientists, served as technical advisers to the U. S. government. Their study generated six broad classes of genetically engineered pathogens that could pose serious threats to society. These include but are not limited to binary biological weapons, designer genes, gene therapy as a weapon, stealth viruses, host-swapping diseases, and designer diseases.
The paper discusses the possibility of a “disease that could wipe out the whole population or a certain ethnic group.” While the paper claims its purpose is to study such weapons as a means of developing defenses against them, America’s history as a global military aggressor and the sole nation on Earth to have ever wielded nuclear weapons against another nation-state suggests a high likelihood that if such weapons can be produced, the US has already stockpiled them – if not already deployed them. …
Vaccines as Biological Weapons? Live Avian Flu Virus Placed in Baxter Vaccine Materials Sent to 18 Countries
Teen Brains on Trial
The science of neural development tangles with the juvenile death penalty
Later this year, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments about whether federal law should continue to permit executions of 16- and 17-year-olds convicted of murder. On this life-or-death issue, controversial legal and ethical views on teenagers’ capacity to control their behavior and obey the law will take center stage. However, a relative newcomer to the debate—the burgeoning science of brain development—may critically influence the high court’s final decision.
A coalition of psychiatric and legal organizations plans to submit a brief to the justices contending that teenagers often make poor decisions and act impulsively because their brains haven’t attained an adult level of organization. Consequently, the coalition argues, teenage killers are less culpable for their crimes than their adult counterparts are. Capital punishment of teens thus violates the constitutional amendment protecting citizens from cruel and unusual punishment….
Well now if kids aren’t yet capable of controlling their rage and depression at the predatory depravity of obstetrical abuse and circumcision and psychiatric drugging and abuse, or rewire themselves to work around the pleasure deprivation resulting from broken mother-bonding and life-long sexual sensory lobotomy, maybe we should just admit that they’re not fully “human”. They are medical property as they always were and always will be. Overachieving know-it-all sexually perverted psychopathic control freaks in white robes are obviously trustworthy judges of the character of their victims. That’s what liberals are, doncha no? Compassionate monsters. Yet another luciferian reversal.
Oh the irony here.
Above is the video of me confronting Matt Rothschild, then-Editor of The Progressive magazine, asking why he is hiding the truth about who really killed Martin Luther King Jr. and why. Below is a transcript of my interview with William Pepper, the King family attorney, who won a civil lawsuit proving the US government killed Dr. King.
So…happy MLK Day! I’m ready for the revolution whenever you are.
Do you see the blood on his hands? Is that dripping from his fangs? Chumpsky would be proud.
If I still read the “progressive” magazine I’d want my money back. But how do you unsubscribe from an entire orchestrated controlled opposition “movement”?
Similar embarrassment can be found in democracynow’s self-adulatory coverage of this dismal anniversary.
By now it is commonplace that most people in the western industrial world link the corporation Monsanto with something not healthy nor quite good. This is a major reason that Monsanto in a friendly takeover by the German chemicals giant, Bayer AG, is determined to hide behind the skirts of Bayer. Amid a torrent of industry-financed positive propaganda around the use of genetically modified crops, amid claims they can solve world hunger, greatly reduce chemical use, and on and on, some basic geopolitical facts are useful to review. The world is by no means about to be overrun by GMO, and this is good news. The bad news is that the GMO cartel of companies, centered in the USA has by no means recognized their defeat.
Rarely is there a discussion of what countries allow cultivation of GMO on their soil. This itself is worth considering. When we do so it becomes clear that it’s so far, after more than twenty years of huge effort by the GMO agribusiness cartel and their backers in government, enormously restricted, of course not enough, but very limited to just a handful of countries. Those countries, with the recent exception of the Peoples’ Republic of China, fall under the direct domination of the Anglo-American corporate world, US-dominated agribusiness.
USA Leader of the Pack
Far the world leading GMO grower is the United States. Since President G.H.W. Bush met with the board of Monsanto in Washington in 1992 and opened a regulatory laissez faire to GMO crops, astonishingly enough with no independent US Government controls or safety tests to be allowed, GMO has come to dominate most of the daily diet of Americans and of the high-protein corn and soybean mix used in almost all animal feed. Monsanto lawyers came up with a diabolical name for it: The Doctrine of Substantial Equivalence. But there is no such thing. GMO plants are unnatural artificially altered plants, and dangerously so when combined with their special agri-chemicals like Roundup with glyphosate and more.
As of end of 2015 US farmland had cultivated 175 million acres of GMO crops, more than half of all US farmland. The GMO crops include corn, soybean, cotton, canola, sugarbeet, alfalfa, papaya, squash and potatoes.[i] More impressive is the overwhelming domination today of several key GMO crops in the United States. Of all GMO crops planted worldwide, nearly 40% are planted in the USA….
Can we all agree that the federal government as an entity is trying to depopulate the country? Or is that paranoid? When does corruption become a capital crime?
Paranoid? With satanic terrorists in high places? Who knows?
There are two diametrically opposite views on civil defense. Russian official policy holds that civil defense is feasible even in a nuclear war. American official policy, or at any rate the implementation of that policy, is based on the assumption that civil defense is useless.
The Russians, having learned a bitter lesson in the second world war, have bent every effort to defend their people under all circumstances. They are spending several billion dollars per year on this activity. They have effective plans to evacuate their cities before they let loose a nuclear strike. They have strong shelters for the people who must remain in the cities. They are building up protected food reserves to tide them over a critical period.
All this may mean that in a nuclear exchange, which we must try to avoid or to deter, the Russian deaths would probably not exceed ten million. Tragic as such a figure is, the Russian nation would survive. If they succeed in eliminating the United States they can commandeer food, machinery and manpower from the rest of the world. They could recover rapidly. They would have attained their goal: world domination.
In the American view the Russian plan is unfeasible. Those who argue on this side point out the great power of nuclear weapons. In this they are right. Their argument is particularly impressive in its psychological effect.
But this argument has never been backed up by a careful quantitative analysis which takes into account the planned dispersal and sheltering of the Russian population and the other measures which the Russians have taken and those to which they are committed….
An alternative interpretation is that russia cares about its people and the USA doesn’t.
(Natural News) Parents of school-age children in Wisconsin are making their grievances known about the latest onslaught of racist curriculum to creep into the state’s public “education” system. According to reports, eighth-graders in West Bend, a northwest suburb of Milwaukee, are apparently now being taught that they’re bad people if their skin color is white, or if their families have two parents of the opposite sex who are still married.
During a recent segment on “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” host Tucker Carlson explained that students attending schools in the West Bend area, which is predominantly white, are being given so-called “privilege tests” during class that identify being white and having an intact family as representing undue “privilege” in society. Students who fall into either or both of these categories are basically being shamed by their teachers and told that they’re inherently racist, while black and brown students are being told that they’re victims who deserve special treatment in society….
It’s ludicrous to think the genocidal luciferian controllers of this empire have some misguided moral objective here. This is social destabilization and control 101. The luciferians are EVERYONE’S enemy: black, white, young, old, poor, middle class, wealthy … human. The objective of such manipulation is to prevent us from organizing against our common foe.
Normalizing the broken families that they have very deliberately created through economic and medical manipulation is hugely ironic. http://thoughtcrimeradio.net/2014/02/the-war-on-empathy-love-and-family/ They are child abusers without parallel. The mass misery they have created for profit is beyond imagination.
So the FBI is again investigating the “Bill, Hillary & Clinton Foundation.” That should make Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffett, and other affluent Americans who have given to the Clinton Foundation wish they had asked more questions before writing those checks.
Here’s why: “Due diligence” doesn’t end when the Clinton “charities” cash your check.
The FBI agents and forensic accountants probing the Clinton Foundation must go all the way back to Oct. 23, 1997, and examine precisely how a public charity, organized to hold federal records of the Clinton presidency, somehow evolved by 2002 to “fight HIV/AIDS internationally,” plus a raft of additional tax-exempt purposes that were never properly authorized in the foundation’s Articles of Incorporation.
The FBI should train its sights on the Dallas office of the IRS. On May 19, 2015, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives called on the federal tax agency to investigate the Clinton Foundation. The IRS treated this solidly grounded request dismissively.
It was not until July 22, 2016, following a second congressional request led by Blackburn, that then-IRS chief John Koskinen said agency officials in Dallas would open a review of the multiple issues flagged by the Republican members of Congress.
Records already held by the IRS concerning the main Clinton Foundation and its affiliates are voluminous and include key information the public does not have, such as the names and precise amounts donated by major contributors each year from 1998 through 2016.
The IRS also has the ability to cross-check declarations made by the Clinton Foundation with declarations made by donors such as the Gates Foundation that are private foundations. The Clinton charity is a public foundation, and there are significant differences involved.
The FBI should review the IRS’s work from July 22, 2016, forward to determine how comprehensively the tax agency examined Clinton Foundation filings and to spot the multiple massive defects in the charity’s official reports, including false statements and noncompliant financial audits.
Big trouble for big donors to the Clintons. Without access to a Nov. 18, 2004, agreement signed by the Clinton Foundation, investigators will not know the foundation is required to remain a “public charity” as long as federal records of the Clinton presidency are kept in its Little Rock, Arkansas, presidential library.
Note here that a “public charity” must be supported broadly by members of the public and cannot be controlled by a single family. Then further note that as of Nov. 2, 2013, the Clinton Foundation violated its presidential library agreement with the National Archives by amending its bylaws to create Class A and Class B directors.
This fact has yet to be shared as required with all of the regulators in all of the states where the Clintons solicit charitable contributions, perhaps because the amendments gave Class A directors unchallenged authority to dominate the Clinton Foundation. The amendments specifically named as Class A directors Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton.
That created major league tax problems for the Clinton Foundation and its private foundation donors such as the Gates, beginning in 2013 when the charity switched auditors from BKD, LLP to PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Why? Because both the Clinton Foundation and its multiple affiliates ceased being validly organized and operated public charities as a result of the Class A/Class B amendment. This is key for both the IRS and FBI investigators, and such donors as the Gates and Buffett.
Clock ticks for Clintons’ private foundation donors. A private foundation may not contribute money to an entity claiming to be a public charity when the recipient is not in fact a validly organized and operated public charity. Such grants are treated by the IRS as “taxable expenditures.” A longstanding pattern and practice of making taxable expenditures can provoke stiff penalties and even lead to winding up of a private foundation donor.
The Clinton Foundation and many large private foundations operate in New York State where charities must register and where they are required to report “material changes” in their legal status and operating structures within 30 days.
Starting in 2001, the Gates Foundation made numerous donations to the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates as can be seen through careful review of Gates Foundation public filings. The Gates and Buffett foundations have experienced and highly intelligent persons who should have spotted the raft of defects evident in filings of the Clinton Foundation charity network.
Why have the Gates and Buffett worked so closely with a set of charities whose public record is so deeply flawed and that now is under investigation by the FBI and IRS?…