Jamie Dimon Should Learn About Lemons

By Chris at www.CapitalistExploits.at

A tale of two James".

What does this guy:

Captain James Cook

...have in common with this guy:

Two things:

1. Same first name, and


2. similar opportunities.

Let me explain.

Captain James was probably just another ruffian salty with poor hygiene and bad teeth. But you know what the catalyst to his fame was? And by extension what turned muddy old Britain into an empire?

These:

You see, the thing holding back Captain Jamie from extended ocean going voyaging was a nasty disease called scurvy. We know now that Jamie was dead eager to get out there and bring nasty European diseases to natives in faraway lands and upon arrival announce, "By George it"s nice and lush here, we"ll take it."

And so when Scottish physician James Lind figured out via controlled experiments that, in fact, a diet including vitamin C rich foods cured this pesky disease, the advantage presented to sailors was enormous. After all, those poor sods used to routinely lose up to 60% of their crews to scurvy on voyages.

Imagine setting out knowing such odds.

Da Gama, for instance, lost 116 if his 170 crew, and Magellan 208 of his 230. You"d have better odds skulling a bottle of Absolut and then playing chicken with Mack trucks on a freeway.

It took the Brits about 40 years to put this knowledge to good use, but it has been argued by historians to have been a catalyst to the founding of the British Empire. At the time, there were plenty other countries who could quite easily have stacked up some lemon juice in the hull, set sail, and begun planting flags. But they didn"t.

Isn"t that amazing? The bloody British Empire owes its fortunes to the humble lemon. And, by golly, old Jamie Cook took advantage of that didn"t he? And the rest, as they say, is now history.

And this brings me to the other Jamie.

You see, Jamie (the old Brit Jamie), used something quite revolutionary at the time to alter the course of history and become a major player in it.

And Jamie (the not so old yank), Captain of the JPM ship has a similar opportunity today.

It"s why he should learn about lemons.

It seems he knows little about modern day "lemons" and their properties. Here"s some major ignorance points he shared with us all on his views just recently.

I think Alex Gurevich said it best:

I was mentioning this all to my lovely wife the other night, and you know what she said?

She said that if he was a she (Jamie that is), he probably wouldn"t be so arrogant and may look at the manual. Which in this case is, of course, Satoshi"s white paper.

And, as usual, she"s right. When we got our last DVD thingy player she immediately pulled out the manual to learn about how it all works so that when she wants to, she"ll be able to play exactly what she wants without delay and mess and fuss.

Me? I stabbed away at the buttons, safe in the knowledge that even if I"m trying to get the Blu-ray to play, I"ll probably get the USB figured out, and who knows what excellent films are on the thumb drive I"ve shoved in there.

I console myself with the fact I"m male, and as such, reading the manual is against my religion. But I tend to make up for it by diving in and learning by doing.

Jamie, bless him, isn"t even prepared to do either, and that"s fine.

It just means that when Bitcoin hits another all time high and history books are written (by the robots, of course), he won"t even make the pages. He"ll simply be like all those other sailors in Portugal, Spain, France, and the Netherlands who, in the 1800s, were sailing around at the same time Captain James Cook was.

And you know what? We don"t know anything about them, and neither will future generations know anything about the present Captain of the USS enterprise JPMorgan"s Jamie "I don"t know isht about Bitcoin" Dimon.

And that"s probably how it should be.

- Chris

"Do just once what others say you cannot do, and you will never pay attention to their limitations again." — Captain James Cook

--------------------------------------

Liked this article? Then you"ll probably like my other missives on

this topic as well. Go here to access them (free, of course).

--------------------------------------

'Beauty Queen' Jihadi Landed Top Job At UK Council

Authored by Ian Miles Cheong via The Daily Caller,

A female jihadi who was jailed for ten years for her participation in the July 21, 2005 failed terrorist strike in London now holds a top job with a Labour council.

Thirty-three-year-old Mulumebet Girma signed up with the Southwark Council after she lied about her history.

Colleagues who failed to do a proper background check on Girma didn’t realize they were working with a convicted criminal.

According to the Daily Mail on Tuesday, Girma never declared her criminal past or her role in aiding and abetting her terrorist brother-in-law, Hussein Osman, who tried to blow up a packed London commuter train.

The explosives failed to go off and all the main suspects were arrested. She was convicted of hiding him in her home and for failing to inform the police about his plans prior to the failed terrorist attack, which she was well aware of.

Mulumebet Girma (Image: REX/Shutterstock)

A former model, the Ethiopian-born Girma managed to lie her way through the ranks of the London council all the way to the top, and even appeared on the cover of its magazine to promote an apprenticeship program.

It is unknown how Girma managed to slip through the vetting process.

As the Daily Mail notes, it’s easy enough to find information about Girma on Google given her unusual name and appearance. Details about her conviction come up on the first page of the search results.

The publication states that Girma was recruited as a trainee customer services assistant in 2013 shortly after an early release from her 10-year jail sentence. She was one of 40 apprentices that year, and was later promoted as a systems and performance analyst before appearing as the cover girl for the council’s in-house magazine.

Southwark Council News (Credit: Southwark Council)

According to The Sun, her position at work allowed her access to a database with clients who are deemed “vulnerable.” Individuals who are on a police watch list or are suspected to have ties to terrorists are coded “vulnerable.”

Senior staff at the south London local authority deny that the former beauty queen-turned-terrorist had any access to confidential police “watch list” information, and that a review of her computer revealed nothing suspicious.

Southwark Tory councilor Michael Mitchell decried the oversight. “This is a truly shocking blunder,” he said.

“Allowing someone with that background to work with potentially vulnerable clients is an entirely avoidable risk. It’s a huge error.”

Following the news stories, Southwark Council chief executive Eleanor Kelly said that Girma no longer works for them.

Hillary Clinton's Alternative Take On What "1984" Was All About

Since the official release of Hillary"s new book "What Happened" yesterday, our sense of logic and rational thought has been under constant assault by a steady stream of "Hillary-isms" which provide some rather dark insights into the bizarro world in which she lives.

That said, we"ve seen nothing that tops the following excerpt in which Hillary offers up her expert opinion on the key life lesson that should be learned from "1984", namely that we should trust and rely on "our leaders, the press, and experts who seek to guide public policy."

"Attempted to define reality is a core feature of authoritarianism.  This is what the Soviets did when they erased political dissidents from historical photos.  This is what happens in George Orwell"s classic novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four," when a torturer holds up four fingers and delivers electric shocks until his prisoner see five fingers as ordered.  The goal is to make you question logic and reason and to sow mistrust toward exactly the people we need to rely on: our leaders, the press, experts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence, ourselves."

Bizarre misreading: @HillaryClinton thinks the lesson of Orwell"s 1984 is that you should trust experts, leaders and the press pic.twitter.com/7rPbrq11fV

— JamesHeartfield (@JamesHeartfield) September 12, 2017

Sorry, Hillary...but we"re pretty sure that the key takeway from "1984" was not that we should all trust the government and media just a little more...

We"ve been saying this a lot lately but we find it helpful to clarify in instances such as this...yes, this is real life.

The irony here is that the democratic party and the mainstream media, both entities that Hillary suggests should have your utmost trust and respect, have been on a mission to "sow mistrust" for over a year now with their perpetual "Russian collusion" narrative...a narrative for which no actual evidence has been presented. 

Of course, after reading that passage above, one can only come to one of two conclusions: i) Hillary has never read 1984 (best case) or ii) Hillary"s powers of self-delusion are far greater than anyone ever imagined (worst case).

Britain's Top Priest Slams Rich-Poor Divide In "Britain's Broken Economy"

While the world has grown used to The Pope sticking his papal nose in the world"s business ("horrrific" borders, "grave risks" of libertarians, and the virtues of socialism); Britain"s most senior clergyman, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has now decided that it is not enough to preach His word, but better to use his position of influence and adulation to discuss what"s wrong with capitalism...

The British economic model needs fundamental reform.

It is no longer generating rising earnings for a majority of the population, and young people today are set to be poorer than their parents. Beneath its headlines figures, the economy is suffering from deep and longstanding weaknesses, which make it unfit to face the challenges of the 2020s.

Fundamental reform has happened before, in the 1940s and 1980s.

The persistent economic problems we have experienced since the 2008 global financial crash demand change of the same magnitude now. This should be guided by a new vision for the economy, where long-term prosperity is joined with justice for all.

The Most Reverend Justin Welby, writing as part of a new report from think tank, the Institute of Public Policy Research,  said that Britain"s economic system is effectively not fit for purpose, benefitting the haves (to the detriment of the have-nots).

"Our economic model is broken. Britain stands at a watershed moment where we need to make fundamental choices about the sort of economy we need," Welby said in comments released as part of IPPR"s "Time for Change: A New Vision for the British Economy" report.

"We are failing those who will grow up into a world where the gap between the richest and poorest parts of the country is significant and destabilising."

The solution - simple - spend more "government" money, end fiscal austerity, and maker sure everyone "pays their fair share" - sound familiar?

We have experimented with bold monetary policy, but are constrained by pre-Keynesian fiscal orthodoxy. Since the financial crisis, the UK economy has been supported by extremely low interest rates and a major programme of ‘quantitative easing’ (unconventional money creation) by the Bank of England.

Fiscal austerity – public spending reductions and tax rises – has left the UK’s recovery in this period slower than almost all of our major competitors.

Growth is now being fuelled again by consumer spending, based on rising debt and falling savings. With monetary policy having little further scope to deal with a slowdown, there is a strong case for increased public investment now to drive demand.

Archbishop Welby"s comments are by no means the first time he has intervened in the UK"s economic debate. As BI reports, Welby famously said in 2013 that he would effectively help to try and put much maligned payday lender Wonga out of business, by assisting credit unions which compete with the firm. Welby - who worked in the oil business before becoming a clergyman - was later left embarrassed after it emerged that the Church of England had investments in funds which provided money to Wonga.

*  *  *

Full IPPR Report - "A New Vision for the British Economy"

Two New Totalitarian Movements: Radical Islam And Political Correctness

Authored by A.Z.Mohamed via The Gatestone Institute,

• The attempt in the West to impose a strict set of rules about what one is allowed to think and express in academia and in the media -- to the point that anyone who disobeys is discredited, demonized, intimidated and in danger of losing his or her livelihood -- is just as toxic and just as reminiscent of Orwell"s diseased society.


• The main facet of this PC tyranny, so perfectly predicted by George Orwell, is the inversion of good and evil -- of victim and victimizer. In such a universe, radical Muslims are victimized by the West, and not the other way around. This has led to a slanted teaching of the history of Islam and its conquests, both as a justification of the distortion and as a reflection of it.


• Thought-control is necessary for the repression of populations ruled by despotic regimes. That it is proudly and openly being used by self-described liberals and human-rights advocates in free societies is not only hypocritical and shocking; it is a form of aiding and abetting regimes whose ultimate goal is to eradicate Western ideals.

Political correctness (PC) has been bolstering radical Islamism. This influence was most recently shown again in an extensive exposé by the Clarion Project in July 2017, which demonstrates the practice of telling "deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them in order to forget any fact that has become inconvenient" -- or, as George Orwell called it in his novel, 1984, "Doublespeak."

This courtship and marriage between the Western chattering classes and radical Muslim fanatics was elaborated by Andrew C. McCarthy in his crucial 2010 book, The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.

Since then, this union has strengthened. Both the United States and the rest of the West are engaged in a romance with forces that are, bluntly, antagonistic to the values of liberty and human rights.

To understand this seeming paradox, one needs to understand what radical Islamism and PC have in common. Although Islamism represents all that PC ostensibly opposes -- such as the curbing of free speech, the repression of women, gays and "apostates" -- both have become totalitarian ideologies.

The totalitarian nature of radical Islamism is more obvious than that of Western political correctness -- and certainly more deadly. Sunni terrorists, such as ISIS and Hamas -- and Shiites, such as Hezbollah and its state sponsor, Iran -- use mass murder to accomplish their ultimate goal of an Islamic Caliphate that dominates the world and subjugates non-Muslims.

The attempt in the West, however, to impose a strict set of rules about what one is allowed to think and express in academia and in the media -- to the point that anyone who disobeys is discredited, demonized, intimidated and in danger of losing his or her livelihood -- is just as toxic and just as reminiscent of Orwell"s view of a diseased society.

These rules are not merely unspoken ones. Quoting a Fox News interview with American columnist Rachel Alexander, the Clarion Project points out that the Associated Press -- whose stylebook is used as a key reference by a majority of English-language newspapers worldwide for uniformity of grammar, punctuation and spelling -- is now directing writers to avoid certain words and terms that are now deemed unacceptable to putative liberals.

Alexander recently wrote:

"Even when individual authors do not adhere to the bias of AP Style, it often doesn"t matter. If they submit an article to a mainstream media outlet, they will likely see their words edited to conform. A pro-life author who submits a piece taking a position against abortion will see the words "pro-life" changed to "anti-abortion," because the AP Stylebook instructs, "Use anti-abortion instead of pro-life and pro-abortion rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice." It goes on, "Avoid abortionist," saying the term "connotes a person who performs clandestine abortions."

"Words related to terrorism are sanitized in the AP Stylebook. Militant, lone wolves or attackers are to be used instead of terrorist or Islamist. "People struggling to enter Europe" is favored over "migrant" or "refugee." While it"s true that many struggle to enter Europe, it is accurate to point out that they are, in fact, immigrants or refugees."

To be sure, the AP Stylebook does not carry the same weight or authority as the Quranic texts on which radical Islamists base their jihadist actions and totalitarian aims. It does constitute, however, a cultural decree that has turned religious in its fervor. It gives a glimpse, as well, into the intellectual tyranny that has pervaded liberal Western thought and institutions.

The main facet of this PC tyranny, so perfectly predicted by Orwell, is the inversion of good and evil -- of victim and victimizer. In such a universe, radical Muslims are victimized by the West, and not the other way around. This has led to a slanted teaching of the history of Islam and its conquests, both as a justification of the distortion and as a reflection of it.

As far back as 2003, the Middle East Forum reported on the findings of a study conducted by the American Textbook Council, an independent New York-based research organization, which stated:

"[Over the last decade], the coverage of Islam in world history textbooks has expanded and in some respects improved.... But on significant Islam-related subjects, textbooks omit, flatter, embellish, and resort to happy talk, suspending criticism or harsh judgments that would raise provocative or even alarming questions."

Thought-control is necessary for the repression of populations ruled by despotic regimes. That it is proudly and openly being used by self-described liberals and human-rights advocates in free societies is not only hypocritical and shocking; it is a form of aiding and abetting regimes whose ultimate goal is to eradicate Western ideals. The relationship between the two must be recognized for what it is: a marriage made in hell.

Mike Rowe Eviscerates "Smug" Snowflake Who Calls Him A "White Nationalist"

If you ever plan to attack Mike Rowe over Facebook then you better bring more than just a few "smug and snarky" comments to the table because anything less than a well-sourced, reasoned, fact-based argument might just earn you the same public humiliation that Rowe just dropped on Chuck Atkins.  Oh, and your grammar better be spot on too.

Unfortunately, Chuck didn"t follow any of the guidelines above when he decided to write on Mike Rowe"s Facebook thread accusing him of being at "white nationalist" for having the audacity to suggest that a $200,000 college education may not be the "best" option for all American high school graduates. Apparently Chuck is convinced that helping people get high-paying, stable trade jobs is just racism at it"s worst...

In any event, here is what Chuck Atkins made the mistake of posting on Rowe"s Facebook page:

"One of the tenants of white nationalism is that college educated people are academic elitests. Comment? No? I"m not surprised. You never take a political stand because you don’t want to alienate anybody. Its bad for business. I get it. But there is a current of anti intellectualism in this country - promoted by Republicans. Those people love you, and they think your initiative is their initiative. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is kickin our ass academically."

Which prompted an epic, multi-page response from Rowe that started out as follows:

Hi Chuck

Since we’re being candid, allow me to say how much I dislike your post. Everything about it annoys me – your smug and snarky tone, your appalling grammar, your complete lack of evidence to support your claims, and of course, the overarching logical fallacy that informs your entire position. What really bugs me though, is the fact that you’re not entirely wrong. It’s true; I haven’t shared any political opinions this week, in part anyway, because doing so might very well be “bad for business.”

Rowe goes on to beautifully explain how logical fallacies, much like the one presented by Chuck Atkins, are largely to blame for the toxic political climate in the country right now. 

You say that White Nationalists believe that everyone who goes to college is an “academic elite.” You then say that Republicans promote “anti-intellectualism.” You offer no proof to support either claim, but it really doesn’t matter – your statements successfully connect two radically different organizations by alleging a shared belief. Thus, White Nationalists and The Republican Party suddenly have something in common – a contempt for higher education. Then, you make it personal. You say that Republicans “love” me because they believe that my initiative and “their” initiative are one and the same. But of course, “their” initiative is now the same initiative as White Nationalists.

Very clever. Without offering a shred of evidence, you’ve implied that Republicans who support mikeroweWORKS do so because they believe I share their disdain for all things “intellectual.” And poof - just like that, Republicans, White Nationalists, and mikeroweWORKS are suddenly conflated, and the next thing you know, I’m off on a press tour to disavow rumors of my troubling association with the Nazis!

Far-fetched? Far from it. That’s how logical fallacies work. A flaw in reasoning or a mistaken belief undermines the logic of a conclusion, often leading to real-world consequences. And right now, logical fallacies are not limited to the warped beliefs of morons with tiki torches, and other morons calling for “more dead cops.” Logical fallacies are everywhere.

As I type this, a Democrat on CNN is making an argument that says, “because Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, those Republicans now opposed to tearing down his memorial are “pro-slavery,” and therefore aligned with the modern day KKK.” That’s a logical fallacy.

Over on Fox, a Republican is arguing that “any Democrat who has not yet condemned the Senator from Missouri for publicly wishing that Donald Trump be assassinated, is guilty of wishing for the exact same thing.” That’s a logical fallacy.

Meanwhile, there were many other pearls of wisdom in Rowe"s epic rant.

Here"s a great one demonstrating how pretty much everything can be misconstrued to develop whatever narrative is convenient for any given party at any given time...

Want to hear another one? Imagine something like this, unfolding over on MSNBC.

"Good Evening, America, our top story tonight… Chuck Atkins is a racist! Why? Because he can’t spell. Just look at his grammar! In a recent post on Mike Rowe’s Facebook page, Mr. Atkins, while bemoaning America’s global academic standing, not only misspelled “elitist,” he used “tenants” when he meant “tenets.” He neglected to use a hyphen in “anti-intellectual,” and he misplaced several commas and apostrophes! But why is he a racist, you ask? Simple. Because everyone knows racists are ignorant. Chuck Atkins is clearly a poor speller. Poor spelling and grammar are signs of ignorance. Ergo - Chuck Atkins is a racist! Boom! The matter is settled!"

...and another on celebrities forcing their political opinions in our face...

What can I say? I work for half-a-dozen different companies, none of whom pay me to share my political opinions. I run a non-partisan foundation, I’m about to launch a new show on Facebook, and I’m very aware that celebrities pay a price for opening their big fat gobs. Gilbert Gottfried, Kathy Griffin, Colin Kaepernick, Milo Yiannopoulos…even that guy from Google who just got himself fired for mouthing off. There’s no getting around it – the first amendment does not guarantee the freedom to speak without consequences. And really, that’s fine by me.

So no – I’m not going to share my personal feelings about Charlottesville, President Trump, or the current effort to remove thousands of statues of long dead soldiers from the public square. Not just because it’s “bad for business,” but because it’s annoying. I can’t think of a single celebrity whose political opinion I value, and I’m not going to assume the country feels any differently about mine.

Conclusion:

Below is the full rant from Mike Rowe:

* * *

Hi Chuck

Since we’re being candid, allow me to say how much I dislike your post. Everything about it annoys me – your smug and snarky tone, your appalling grammar, your complete lack of evidence to support your claims, and of course, the overarching logical fallacy that informs your entire position. What really bugs me though, is the fact that you’re not entirely wrong. It’s true; I haven’t shared any political opinions this week, in part anyway, because doing so might very well be “bad for business.”

What can I say? I work for half-a-dozen different companies, none of whom pay me to share my political opinions. I run a non-partisan foundation, I’m about to launch a new show on Facebook, and I’m very aware that celebrities pay a price for opening their big fat gobs. Gilbert Gottfried, Kathy Griffin, Colin Kaepernick, Milo Yiannopoulos…even that guy from Google who just got himself fired for mouthing off. There’s no getting around it – the first amendment does not guarantee the freedom to speak without consequences. And really, that’s fine by me.

So no – I’m not going to share my personal feelings about Charlottesville, President Trump, or the current effort to remove thousands of statues of long dead soldiers from the public square. Not just because it’s “bad for business,” but because it’s annoying. I can’t think of a single celebrity whose political opinion I value, and I’m not going to assume the country feels any differently about mine. So, rather than blow myself up, or chime in with all the obvious observations about the cowardly scum in the pointy hats, I’m going to talk instead about my belief that comments like yours pose a far greater threat to the future of our country than the existence of a memorial to Thomas Jefferson, or a monument to George Washington. Ready? Let’s start with a closer look at your claims.

You say that White Nationalists believe that everyone who goes to college is an “academic elite.” You then say that Republicans promote “anti-intellectualism.” You offer no proof to support either claim, but it really doesn’t matter – your statements successfully connect two radically different organizations by alleging a shared belief. Thus, White Nationalists and The Republican Party suddenly have something in common – a contempt for higher education. Then, you make it personal. You say that Republicans “love” me because they believe that my initiative and “their” initiative are one and the same. But of course, “their” initiative is now the same initiative as White Nationalists.

Very clever. Without offering a shred of evidence, you’ve implied that Republicans who support mikeroweWORKS do so because they believe I share their disdain for all things “intellectual.” And poof - just like that, Republicans, White Nationalists, and mikeroweWORKS are suddenly conflated, and the next thing you know, I’m off on a press tour to disavow rumors of my troubling association with the Nazis!

Far-fetched? Far from it. That’s how logical fallacies work. A flaw in reasoning or a mistaken belief undermines the logic of a conclusion, often leading to real-world consequences. And right now, logical fallacies are not limited to the warped beliefs of morons with tiki torches, and other morons calling for “more dead cops.” Logical fallacies are everywhere.

As I type this, a Democrat on CNN is making an argument that says, “because Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, those Republicans now opposed to tearing down his memorial are “pro-slavery,” and therefore aligned with the modern day KKK.” That’s a logical fallacy.

Over on Fox, a Republican is arguing that “any Democrat who has not yet condemned the Senator from Missouri for publicly wishing that Donald Trump be assassinated, is guilty of wishing for the exact same thing.” That’s a logical fallacy.

Yesterday, on The Science Channel, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, a noted astronomer, tweeted that the ability of scientists to accurately predict the solar eclipse, was proof that predictions of global warming were also accurate. That’s a logical fallacy.

Want to hear another one? Imagine something like this, unfolding over on MSNBC.

"Good Evening, America, our top story tonight… Chuck Atkins is a racist! Why? Because he can’t spell. Just look at his grammar! In a recent post on Mike Rowe’s Facebook page, Mr. Atkins, while bemoaning America’s global academic standing, not only misspelled “elitist,” he used “tenants” when he meant “tenets.” He neglected to use a hyphen in “anti-intellectual,” and he misplaced several commas and apostrophes! But why is he a racist, you ask? Simple. Because everyone knows racists are ignorant. Chuck Atkins is clearly a poor speller. Poor spelling and grammar are signs of ignorance. Ergo - Chuck Atkins is a racist! Boom! The matter is settled!"

There’s not much we can do about the news, but here on Facebook, I think we can do better. This isn’t Twitter. We’re not limited to a few inflammatory sentences and a flurry of emojis. Take a moment, Chuck. Think. Make a rational argument. Otherwise, just link us to a cat video. People love those, and they’re almost never “bad for business.” (Unless of course, the cat gets hurt. People hate that.) Just don’t assume that people will care about your beliefs, if you’re not willing to back them up with some relevant facts and a rational conclusion. Here, for instance, are a few facts that matter to me, with respect to my foundation and the recurring charge of “fostering anti-intellectualism.”

mikeroweWORKS is a PR campaign for the skilled trades. For the last nine years, we’ve partnered with numerous trade schools, raised millions of dollars for work-ethic scholarships, and called attention to millions of jobs that don’t require a four-year degree. But that doesn’t mean we’re “anti-intellectual.” We"re not even “anti-college.” We simply reject the popular notion that a four-year degree is the best path for the most people. And we’re hardly alone.

Millions of reasonable people – Republicans and Democrats alike – are worried that our universities are doing a poor job of preparing students for the real world. They’re worried about activist professors, safe spaces, the rising cost of tuition, a growing contempt for history, and a simmering disregard of the first amendment. These people are concerned that our universities – once beacons of free speech – now pander to a relatively small percentage of students who can’t tolerate any political opinion that challenges their own. And they’re concerned – deeply concerned - that millions of good jobs are currently vacant that don’t require a four-year degree, or any of the catastrophic debt that comes with it.

Again - these are not the concerns of “anti-intellectuals." They are the concerns of people who care about the future of the country. I don’t know how many of these people are Republicans, but I can assure you that no one who actually supports my initiative is remotely confused about my feelings on education, because I’ve been crystal clear on that topic from the very beginning. To quote Thomas Jefferson, (while I still can,) "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free and live in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." On this point, my foundation does not equivocate.

In other words, Chuck, I have no idea what The White Nationalists think about my efforts, or the Republicans, the Democrats, the elitists, the Italians, the Presbyterians, the unions, or the self-proclaimed anti-intellectuals. And really, I couldn’t care less. My question is, why do you?

Mike

PS. Ok, I’ve just re-read this, (in a desperate search for typos,) and I want to apologize for pointing out that you’re a lousy speller. This is probably not the time to trot out The Grammar Nazi, but your tenor and tone pissed me off, and I responded in my own snarky way. Sorry.

PPS Maybe this is how political correctness begins? Maybe we start by correcting each other’s grammar, and then move on to the business of correcting everything else? Today a missing hyphen, tomorrow a missing monument. Or, maybe not.

You Want A Picture Of The Future? Imagine A Boot Stamping On Your Face

Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

We have arrived, way ahead of schedule, into the dystopian future dreamed up by such science fiction writers as George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, Margaret Atwood and Philip K. Dick.

Much like Orwell’s Big Brother in 1984, the government and its corporate spies now watch our every move.

Much like Huxley’s A Brave New World, we are churning out a society of watchers who “have their liberties taken away from them, but … rather enjoy it, because they [are] distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing.”

Much like Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, the populace is now taught to “know their place and their duties, to understand that they have no real rights but will be protected up to a point if they conform, and to think so poorly of themselves that they will accept their assigned fate and not rebel or run away.”

And in keeping with Philip K. Dick’s darkly prophetic vision of a dystopian police state—which became the basis for Steven Spielberg’s futuristic thriller Minority Report which was released 15 years ago—we are now trapped into a world in which the government is all-seeing, all-knowing and all-powerful, and if you dare to step out of line, dark-clad police SWAT teams and pre-crime units will crack a few skulls to bring the populace under control.

Minority Report is set in the year 2054, but it could just as well have taken place in 2017.

Seemingly taking its cue from science fiction, technology has moved so fast in the short time since Minority Report premiered in 2002 that what once seemed futuristic no longer occupies the realm of science fiction.

Both worlds—our present-day reality and Spielberg’s celluloid vision of the future—are characterized by widespread surveillance, behavior prediction technologies, data mining, fusion centers, driverless cars, voice-controlled homes, facial recognition systems, cybugs and drones, and predictive policing (pre-crime) aimed at capturing would-be criminals before they can do any damage.

All of this has come about with little more than a whimper from a clueless American populace largely comprised of nonreaders and television and internet zombies. But we have been warned about such an ominous future in novels and movies for years.

The following films may be the best representation of what we now face as a society.

Fahrenheit 451 (1966). Adapted from Ray Bradbury’s novel, this film depicts a futuristic society in which books are banned and serves as an adept metaphor for our obsessively politically correct society where virtually everyone now pre-censors speech.

THX 1138 (1970). This is a somber view of a dehumanized society totally controlled by a police state. The people are force-fed drugs to keep them passive, and they no longer have names but only letter/number combinations such as THX 1138. Any citizen who steps out of line is quickly brought into compliance by robotic police equipped with “pain prods”—electro-shock batons.

Soylent Green (1973). Set in a futuristic overpopulated New York City, the people depend on synthetic foods manufactured by the Soylent Corporation. The theme is chaos where the world is ruled by ruthless corporations whose only goal is greed and profit.

Blade Runner (1982). In a 21st century Los Angeles, human life is cheap, and anyone can be exterminated at will by the police (or blade runners). Based upon a Philip K. Dick novel, this exquisite Ridley Scott film questions what it means to be human in an inhuman world.

Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984). The best adaptation of Orwell’s dark tale, this film visualizes the total loss of freedom in a world dominated by technology and its misuse, and the crushing inhumanity of an omniscient state.

They Live (1988). John Carpenter’s bizarre sci-fi social satire action film makes an effective political point about the underclass—that is, everyone except those in power—the point being that we, the prisoners of our devices, are too busy sucking up the entertainment trivia beamed into our brains and attacking each other up to start an effective resistance movement.

The Matrix (1999). Humanity is at war against technology which has taken the form of intelligent beings, and computer programmer Thomas A. Anderson, secretly a hacker known by the alias “Neo,” is actually living in The Matrix, an illusionary world that appears to be set in the present in order to keep the humans docile and under control.

Minority Report (2002). This film poses the danger of technology operating autonomously. Before long, we all may be mere extensions or appendages of the police state—all suspects in a world commandeered by machines.

V for Vendetta (2006). This film depicts a society ruled by a corrupt and totalitarian government where everything is run by an abusive secret police. The subtext here is that authoritarian regimes through repression create their own enemies—that is, terrorists—forcing government agents and terrorists into a recurring cycle of violence.

Land of the Blind (2006). This dark political satire is based on several historical incidents in which tyrannical rulers were overthrown by new leaders who proved just as evil as their predecessors.

All of these films—and the writers who inspired them—understood what many Americans, caught up in their partisan, flag-waving, zombified states, are still struggling to come to terms with: that there is no such thing as a government organized for the good of the people. Even the best intentions among those in government inevitably give way to the desire to maintain power and control at all costs.

Eventually, as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, even the sleepwalking masses (who remain convinced that all of the bad things happening in the police state—the police shootings, the police beatings, the raids, the roadside strip searches—are happening to other people) will have to wake up.

Sooner or later, the things happening to other people will start happening to us and our loved ones.

When that painful reality sinks in, it will hit with the force of a SWAT team crashing through your door, a taser being aimed at your stomach, and a gun pointed at your head. And there will be no channel to change, no reality to alter, and no manufactured farce to hide behind.

As George Orwell warned, “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever.”

Selective enforcement of Federal Law, the tragic cases of Sam Girod and Donald Trump.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
-George Orwell, Animal Farm"

In two days, the FDA and a federal judge are going to put a Kentucky farmer and grandfather, Samuel Girod, in jail for up to 68 YEARS with up to $3M in fines for charges related to selling a homemade herbal salve.

From: http://www.kyfreepress.com/2017/03/updated-sam-girod-v-fda/

Samuel Girod [G as in Gee: gi-ROD] and his family have been making and selling three all-natural herbal products for nearly 20 years.

No one has ever been harmed by the products; the Girods have pages of testimonials and scores of repeat customers.

Similar products are currently made and sold online worldwide (including on Amazon) by other people using the same or similar basic ingredients. The recipes are online as well, you can make them in your kitchen.

In 2001, an FDA agent informed Sam that his product labels were making medical claims regarding healing certain conditions. At the time, Sam’s label said, ““[g]ood for all skin disorders. Skin cancer, cuts, burns, draws, and poison ivy.”

Sam had to change his label, removing the skin cancer claim specifically, or do very expensive testing proving the claims. Sam changed the label, removing any reference to skin cancer.

Sam did not receive any further communication from the FDA until 2012 when someone called the FDA and reported that a store in MO was selling Sam’s products and that medical claims were being made.

The “medical claims” were in fact customer testimonials contained in a brochure about Sam’s products! These testimonials are no different than Amazon reviews.

Then the FDA claimed to have found a MO customer who had been harmed by Sam’s bloodroot salve.

In early 2013, during the investigation on that claim, FDA agents went to Sam’s home and demanded a warrantless search. Wanting to be cooperative, Sam said OK on one condition: that no photographs were taken (the Amish are religiously opposed to photography). The agents said no problem, no photos.

Then they got on the property, whipped out their cameras and took photos of everything.

Several months later, the Girods discover that, not only has this customer never been identified or produced, the bloodroot salve this customer used was not even Sam’s!!!

Yet that judge put an injunction on Sam’s products with three stipulations:

• none could be sold until all medical claims were removed (referring to the brochures);


• Sam’s bloodroot salve could never be sold again EVER (1); and


• Sam had to allow inspection of his property where the products were made FOR FIVE YEARS.


• Sam complied with 1 and 2: he stopped selling the bloodroot salve and stopped using the brochures. He was not so compliant with the searches.

In late 2013, after the injunction, FDA agents came to do a second search. Sam informed them that nothing had changed since the first search 7 months earlier, and that, since they had lied and taken photos during the first search, they were not welcome to do a second.

The FDA agents had a Bath County Sheriff’s deputy along with them (as they are required since they are federal agents rather than state). This sheriff witnessed the entire event and eventually told the agents to leave the property. Which they did.

These three product sales are how Sam’s family made their living. They had been denied this right via an arbitrary regulation made up by a federal agency with no true jurisdiction in the states — and with NO VICTIM.

So the Girods started selling their products again. Then, in 2014, Sam started a legal private membership club and sold his products to members via that framework. Perfectly legal.

Meanwhile, the FDA started criminal proceedings against Sam for disobeying the injunction (selling his products and refusing the search) plus two other very serious charges:

1. The FDA agents claimed that, when they came for the 2nd search, Sam and his family threatened them with physical violence. That is ludicrous enough on the face of it. Plus, the Sheriff’s deputy testified under oath that absolutely no threats were made, that, essentially, the FDA agents lied under oath.

2. The FDA also charged Sam with witness tampering. The witness who was supposedly tampered with? Read the eyewitness account of Mary Miller’s testimony, link below. (2)

The Trial 2.27.17

The Amish do not use lawyers as a rule and Sam did not. This is a decision made by the community, not just the accused. Apparently the Amish don’t trust lawyers. Imagine that.

Because he barely presented a defense against federal prosecutors for whom money and conscience are not problems, Sam was convicted on all counts. (3)

The judge ordered Sam to remain in jail until sentencing on 6/16/17. [apparently rescheduled to 6/30/17] He’s been in jail since 2/27/17.

Had Sam had a good attorney, he would certainly have been acquitted on the most egregious counts (threatening federal agents and witness tampering). These charges were clearly manufactured solely to make Sam into a “real” criminal, with the FDA being the only victim.

The only other charges — selling “drugs” across state lines — were manufactured out of whole cloth as well. The FDA’s own tests proved that the products were not drugs, that they were made from all-natural ingredients!!! These charges should have been dismissed from the start.

Sam’s sentencing is 6/30 and he is looking at up to 68 years in prison and up to $3M in fines. This is essentially a life sentence for charges stemming from an innocent labeling infraction!

Now, compare and contrast the prosecution of Girod"s case, above, with the complete lack of enforcement of the War Powers Resolution, in regards to the deployment of United States military forces in Syria and elsewhere.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-11/assad-calls-us-forces-syria-inv...

In Syria, the US is currently working with an alliance of Kurdish and Arab militias and its biggest focus at this moment is to encircle and ultimately capture the ISIS capital of Raqqa. This week, the U.S.-led coalition announced that around 400 additional U.S. forces had deployed to Syria to help with the Raqqa campaign and to prevent any clash between Turkey and Washington-allied Syrian militias that Ankara sees as a threat. Around 500 U.S. forces are already in Syria in support of the campaign against Islamic State, which this week added several hundred, marines who were recently caught on video as they prepare for the Raqqa offensive.

 

Asked about a deployment of U.S. forces near the northern city of Manbij, Assad said: "Any foreign troops coming to Syria without our invitation ... are invaders."

Unlike the Amish grandfather"s herbal salve, President Trump"s illegal invasion of Syria has actually harmed others.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/syria-civilians-killed-us-coalition-airstrik...

Dozens more civilians allegedly killed in U.S.-led strikes

...various activists groups reported different casualty tolls, saying the U.S.-led coalition, which is waging war on ISIS, was likely behind the attacks.

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) monitoring group said the strike hit the village of Akayrshi on Sunday night and that 12 women were killed. The activist-run, Raqqa Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently, said the strike hit a convoy of farm workers and that 22 died.

Below is what The Library of Congress has to say about the War Powers Resolution.  Apparently, however, our congress is too busy funding the FDA to prosecute Amish grandfathers and receiving unlimited campaign contributions from pharmaceutical and weapons companies and AIPAC to bother to read, understand, and do the job they were supposedly elected by the American people to do.

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/war-powers.php

The War Powers Resolution, Public Law 93-148, 87 Stat. 555, passed over President Nixon"s veto on November 7, 1973. The War Powers Resolution is sometimes referred to as the War Powers Act, its title in the version passed by the Senate. This Joint Resolution is codified in the United States Code ("USC") in Title 50, Chapter 33, Sections 1541-48.  

The term "Resolution" can be misleading; this law originated as a Joint Resolution and was passed by both Houses of Congress pursuant to the Legislative Process, and has the same legal effect as a Bill which has passed and become a law. For more information on Bills and Joint Resolutions see this explanation of Congressional Forms of Action.

The Constitution of the United States divides the war powers of the federal government between the Executive and Legislative branches: the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces (Article II, section 2), while Congress has the power to make declarations of war, and to raise and support the armed forces (Article I, section 8). Over time, questions arose as to the extent of the President"s authority to deploy U.S. armed forces into hostile situations abroad without a declaration of war or some other form of Congressional approval. Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in the aftermath of the Vietnam War to address these concerns and provide a set of procedures for both the President and Congress to follow in situations where the introduction of U.S. forces abroad could lead to their involvement in armed conflict.

Conceptually, the War Powers Resolution can be broken down into several distinct parts. The first part states the policy behind the law, namely to "insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities," and that the President"s powers as Commander in Chief are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization from Congress, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States (50 USC Sec. 1541).

The second part requires the President to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent, and to continue such consultations as long as U.S. armed forces remain in such situations (50 USC Sec. 1542). The third part sets forth reporting requirements that the President must comply with any time he introduces U.S. armed forces into existing or imminent hostilities (50 USC Sec. 1543); section 1543(a)(1) is particularly significant because it can trigger a 60 day time limit on the use of U.S. forces under section 1544(b).

The fourth part of the law concerns Congressional actions and procedures. Of particular interest is Section 1544(b), which requires that U.S. forces be withdrawn from hostilities within 60 days of the time a report is submitted or is required to be submitted under Section 1543(a)(1), unless Congress acts to approve continued military action, or is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Section 1544(c) requires the President to remove U.S. armed forces that are engaged in hostilities "without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization" at any time if Congress so directs by a Concurrent Resolution (50 USC 1544 (external link)). Concurrent Resolutions are not laws and are not presented to the President for signature or veto; as a result the procedure contemplated under Section 1544(c) is known as a "legislative veto" and is constitutionally questionable in light of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983). Further sections set forth expedited Congressional procedures for considering proposed legislation to authorize the use of U.S. armed forces, as well as similar procedures regarding proposed legislation to withdraw U.S. forces under Section 1544(c) (50 U.S. 1545-46a).

The fifth part of the law sets forth certain definitions and rules to be used when interpreting the War Powers Resolution (50 USC 1547 (external link)). Finally, the sixth part is a "separability provision" and states that if any part of the law is held (by a court) to be invalid, on its face or as applied to a particular situation, the rest of the law shall not be considered invalid, nor shall its applicability to other situations be affected (50 USC 1548 (external link)).

U.S. Presidents have consistently taken the position that the War Powers Resolution is an unconstitutional infringement upon the power of the executive branch. As a result, the Resolution has been the subject of controversy since its enactment, and is a recurring issue due to the ongoing worldwide commitment of U.S. armed forces. Presidents have submitted a total of over 120 reports to Congress pursuant to the Resolution.

If we are not a nation of laws, then what are we?

h_h

Nauseating Stupidity On Confiscating Homes For The Greater Good

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

When it comes to anti-war pieces and matters of the US government overstepping its bounds in matters of privacy and security, The Intercept is usually spot on.

On matters of social justice, The Intercept puts out some nauseating trash.

Intercept writer Zaid Jilani provides a perfect example with JEREMY CORBYN WANTS TO REQUISITION HOMES OF THE RICH FOR FIRE SURVIVORS — LIKE CHURCHILL DID IN WWII.

BRITISH LABOUR PARTY leader Jeremy Corbyn has a bold proposal to house the survivors of a devastating fire at London’s Grenfell Tower apartment complex in empty luxury homes.

YouGov polling found that Corbyn’s idea is popular among the British public, with 59 percent supporting it. Yet there has been a harsh backlash from the U.K.’s right-wing government and press, which equated his plan with a Marxist plot. “Suggesting requisitioning empty properties when empty student accommodation is available locally is completely in line with his Marxist belief that all private property should belong to the state,” Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen said.

But Corbyn’s plan has historical roots not in Marxist literature or state-run economies, but in his country’s own past.

To help bear the brunt of the Nazi war machine, the British government requisitioned both industrial and residential properties to accommodate soldiers and evacuees, run makeshift schools and hospitals, and train the military, among other uses.

All Corbyn is asking is that the the United Kingdom show the same compassion and patriotism as its forefathers.

Compassion My Ass

Even if one believes that confiscation of property is acceptable in wartime (try telling that to the Jews or US citizens of Japanese descent), does that make it OK now?

Confiscation of private property “for the greater good” is an even bigger government intrusion than spying on people.

Jilani’s article is so idiotic, it should be his last, anywhere.

Tim Price: "The UK Today Feels Like A Very Strange & Disturbing Place"

Authored by Tim Price via SovereignMan.com,

If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else’s expense, then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else, including themselves.

-Economist Thomas Sowell

It is difficult to know where to begin.

In our election last week, 262 British parliamentary seats fell to a party led by Jeremy Corbyn, a self-confessed Socialist.

Corbyn has also publicly supported the IRA, Hizbollah and Hamas.

Yet his message attracted 12.9 million votes while the United Kingdom is under attack by terrorists. It simply beggars belief.

Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, the British Secret Intelligence Service, points out that Corbyn, who seeks the office of Prime Minister, would not be cleared to join either his former agency, or GCHQ, or MI5 (the British equivalents of NSA/FBI).

It is said that you get the politicians you deserve. So what on earth did we do to deserve this?

Sadly we are not criticizing a single political party.

While Jeremy Corbyn offered the UK electorate the sort of swivel-eyed Trotskyism that ought to have died out in the 1970s along with flares and safari jackets, Theresa May has been making her own lurch towards the left.

So a plague on both your houses.

Our politics have gone mad, and our markets have gone mad with them. The plain numbers are stark.

Simon Mikhailovich of Tocqueville Bullion Reserve reminds us of those numbers with a sobering tweet:

A bit of math. With the global debt / GDP ratio at 320% and the cost of average debt service at 2%, it takes 6.4% growth per annum just to service the debt. Not happening.

The rise of Socialism will only create more of these financial challenges.

The only sensible and credible responses to the investment challenge of our times can be to diversify broadly, and then invest selectively, and defensively.

(Longstanding readers, along with our clients, will know that we put particular emphasis on Benjamin Graham-style value stocks, systematic trend-following funds, and gold.)

This is also a crisis of education.

How, aside from craven bribery, could so many young Britons flock to the sirens of socialism?

How did so many millions manage to avoid any grasp of history (or choose to ignore it)?

The millennials and Generation Z are right to be angry. They’ve been chewed up by the system.

But last week this anger manifested itself in the form of some socialist Corbyn supporters burning newspapers.

To anyone with a sense of history, the UK today feels like a very strange, and disturbing, place.

Do you have a Plan B?

Brexit Still Means Brexit! May's Mistake Not What Most Suggest

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

Contrary to what many are saying, the Tory election debacle was not about Brexit. Rather, the election was about everything but Brexit.

Sure, the youth vote, turned out en masse for Corbyn, but Labour and Corbyn himself had already admitted the Brexit reality.

Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg explains nicely in This election created no mandate for watering down Brexit. There must be no backsliding.

Negotiations are about to start, and the nation cannot afford to show weakness across the channel. Already, people who never wanted to leave the European Union are calling for a change of tune, by which they mean a reversal of the referendum. “Hard” and “soft” Brexit are code words for leaving or staying in the EU, rather than for the terms of our departure. No such denial of the people’s will can be permitted.

Indeed, the essence of our strength is in the negotiating reality that no deal really is better than a bad deal. By the end of March 2019, if nothing has been agreed, we leave with all our money, laws and border controls, and the ability to trade with the EU the way we successfully do with everyone else. This is rather an attractive position, and much preferable to being a European satrapy. Mrs May seems to be aware of the strength of this position, and that is a good reason for her to remain.

As for the claim that this result means Mrs May must now drop her approach to Brexit and seek to keep Britain inside the European Economic Area, that is simply wrong. Although the Tory party hoped that the general election of 2017 would be about Brexit, it was not. Indeed, it was about everything except Brexit – social care, grammar schools, foxhunting – and the cleverness of Labour’s campaign was to leave Brexit alone. It is clear that voters did not want to be asked the same question twice; one decision was made in 2016, and fresh ones were to be made on Thursday. Similarly, the Scots showed they did not want to be asked the same question multiple times, hence the SNP’s decline.

This means that there is no mandate at all from this election for undermining Brexit. Remainers kept quiet during the campaign because they knew the matter was settled – with the exception of the Lib Dems, who, despite getting a few seats, are irrelevant.

The Labour Party likewise made no serious challenge to the outline set out by the Prime Minister. This election was therefore a tacit endorsement of Mrs. May’s Brexit strategy, for voters showed no desire to change it; it is better that she should carry it out.

MP Daniel Hannan Tweets

Far from rejecting Brexit, we have just elected a House of Commons 90 per cent of whose members are pledged to leave.https://t.co/h7Dvbd504n

— Daniel Hannan (@DanielJHannan) June 10, 2017

It has only now hit me that the Conservative Government will be propped up by Scottish MPs. There"s a sentence I never expected to write.

— Daniel Hannan (@DanielJHannan) June 9, 2017

It has only now hit me that the Conservative Government will be propped up by Scottish MPs. There"s a sentence I never expected to write.

— Daniel Hannan (@DanielJHannan) June 9, 2017

Reflections on Hannan

May’s Mistake Not What Most Suggest

May"s mistake was not early elections. Her mistake was letting Corbyn steal the fight, pushing it to social care. https://t.co/e1qPJtUApA

— Mike Mish Shedlock (@MishGEA) June 11, 2017

The youth vote turned out, en masses, demanding “free stuff”.

In "Personal Blow" Theresa May's Two Closest Advisors Quit After Election Debacle

In the aftermath of the stunning loss by Theresa May"s Conservative party in the UK General Elections, bookmakers quickly made Labour"s Jeremy Corbin the odds-on favorite to become the UK"s next Prime Minister, implying May would resign shortly. That contingency, however, got a last minute reprieve when May announced on Friday she would seek to form a minority government with the help of a small Northern Irish party, the far-right Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), extending her political career if only for the immediate future. However, the turmoil within the Conservative Party re-emerged on Saturday when Theresa May was forced to part ways with her two closest advisors, after the PM was warned she faced a leadership challenge unless she sacked Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill.

While senior Tory party figures cautioned earlier against any immediate leadership challenge, saying it would only cause further disruption as Britain prepares to start Brexit negotiations as early as June 19, someone had to take the blame for the crushing electoral setback and according to both AFP and BBC they demanded the heads of May"s joint chiefs of staff, Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill, as the price for allowing the 60-year-old to stay in office.

May had relied on Timothy and Hill for advice and support since her previous job at the interior ministry, and their resignations will be a "personal blow."

Announcing his resignation on the Conservative Home website, Timothy urged Tory MPs to "get behind" Mrs May but said nothing should be allowed to get in the way of the process of forming a government and beginning Brexit talks. He said the Conservatives" failure to win was not due to a lack of support for Theresa May and the Conservatives but due to an "unexpected surge" of support for Labour.

He conceded his party had failed to communicate a sufficiently "positive" message to voters and address their concerns over years of austerity and inter-generational divisions, including over Brexit.

"We were not talking to the people who decided to vote for Labour," he said.

Meanwhile, Hill said it had been a pleasure to serve in government and she believed Mrs May would continue as prime minister.

* * *

The resignation of Hill - a combative character who one ex-colleague said had helped create a "toxic" atmosphere at the heart of government. - was confirmed on Saturday by a party spokesman. The news came as May prepared to name the rest of her cabinet, after revealing Friday that her five most senior ministers would remain in their posts.

Timothy said he took responsibility for the Conservative manifesto, including a plan for elderly social care that caused a backlash among many core voters. As AFP adds, prior to the election, she had been widely expected to sack finance minister Philip Hammond following a reported clash over her Brexit strategy.

The Labour party quickly responded with Labour"s deputy leader Tom Watson saying that the PM"s advisers had "taken the fall" for her but tweeted the PM was "responsible for her own defeat".

According to the BBC the pair"s departure bought the PM some "breathing space" following 24 hours of recriminations after the Conservatives lost their overall majority. It noted that the two were so close to the PM that critical MPs believed that, unless they made way, she would not be able to change her leadership style to adopt a more "outgoing, inclusive, responsive, empathetic approach". BBC adds that senior Conservatives had warned the PM they would instigate a leadership contest at a meeting of backbenchers early next week if the pair did not leave, and were confident they could get the required 48 signatures to trigger a contest.

One former minister, Anna Soubry, welcomed the clearout, saying it was the "right thing to do" and saying the PM must "build a consensus" on Brexit and other issues. But Labour"s deputy leader Tom Watson said the PM"s advisers had "taken the fall" for her but tweeted the PM was "responsible for her own defeat".

Who were the PM"s special advisers?

Fiona Hill: Fiercely loyal and seen as a formidable operator, Fiona Hill was at Mrs May"s side for four years at the Home Office, becoming a close confidante of the then home secretary. A former Sky News and Scotsman journalist in her 40s, she led work on the Modern Slavery Act and published her own report on the subject.

She was forced to resign as Mrs May"s special adviser in a 2014 dispute with Michael Gove over who was to blame for briefing newspapers about an increase in extremism in schools. But she was brought back into the fold when Mrs May became PM.

Nick Timothy: The bearded Brummie is the son of a steelworker, who went to grammar school and joined the Conservative Party at the age of 17. He is credited with influencing the PM"s views on social mobility and the need to put the Conservatives "at the service of working people".

His ambition to be a Conservative MP was reportedly thwarted by David Cameron, following a row over special advisers being asked to canvass in a by-election.

UK Terror Threat Level Lowered To "Severe" As Police Tear Down Terrorist Cell

Four days after UK Prime Minister Theresa May announced on Tuesday the nation"s terror threat level was raised to the highest possible, "Critical" level in response to the Manchester suicide bombing which killed 22 people, and resulted in British troops being deployed on the streets of London for the first time in a decade, on Saturday Theresa May said Britain had lowered its security threat level to "severe" following a number of arrests and significant activity by police investigating the suicide bomb attack. As a result the British soldiers who were deployed earlier in the week to assist police, would be withdrawn from Britain"s streets from midnight on Monday.

Earlier in the day, police hunting the terrorist network behind the suspected suicide bomber, Salman Abedi, said they had made two further arrests overnight as they closed in on other possible cell members. May said this meant that the independent body which sets the threat level had decided it should be lowered from its highest rating "critical", which means an attack could be imminent, to "severe". As a result, the UK"s threat assessment has now been returned to the level it was at prior to the Manchester attack, with no imminent attacks expected, although as May also added an attack is still "highly likely".

"A significant amount of police activity has taken place over the last 24 hours and there are now 11 suspects in custody," May said. "The public should be clear about what this means. A threat level of severe means an attack is highly likely. The country should remain vigilant."

UK terror threat level reduced from CRITCAL to SEVERE. WATCH @Theresa_May statement HERE: pic.twitter.com/ZYqzv8wATD

— Darren McCaffrey (@DMcCaffreySKY) May 27, 2017

Elsewhere, Reuters reports, that UK police officers said they had used a controlled explosion to gain entry to an address in the north of the city where two men were detained on Saturday. Some hours later, police cordoned off a large area in the Moss Side area of south Manchester and houses were evacuated with a bomb disposal unit sent to the scene. A man working in a local shop, who declined to be named, told Reuters he saw three men being taken away from the address.

"As part of an ongoing search at a property in Moss Side an evacuation is currently being carried in the area," police said in a statement.

On Friday, Britain"s most senior counter-terrorism officer said police were confident that they had made "immense" progress and had apprehended a "large part of the network". However, extra armed officers will be on duty across the country with security stepped up at some 1,300 events over the long holiday weekend.

The scope of the response to the Manchester attack has been dramatic, with the Times newspaper reporting on Saturday that intelligence officers had identified 23,000 jihahist extremists living in Britain. Earlier this week a source with knowledge of the matter told Reuters the security services were managing 500 active operations involving some 3,000 people who were thought to pose a threat.

An armed police officer at Manchester Piccadilly railway station

A concern for the UK, and perhaps explaining the reduction of the threat level, is that over the weekend there are a number of high-profile events including soccer cup finals in London and Glasgow, and the Great Manchester Run. However, Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, the UK police chief for counter-terrorism, advised people to be vigilant but to "go out as you planned and enjoy yourselves".

Meanwhile, the traditional blowback to these kinds of events has emerged, with Greater Manchester Police Chief Constable saying there had been a rise in reported hate crimes, from an average of 28 to 56 incidents on Wednesday even as the police and politicians praised communities in Manchester for their reaction to the bombing.  "We can"t directly link these to the events of Monday night and are continuing to monitor the situation," he said.

Also on Friday, political campaigning for the June 8 national election which was suspended after the Manchester attack resumed with the bombing becoming a central feature. The opposition Labour Party, emboldened by a rise in opinion polls, argued that Britain"s foreign policy had increased the risk of attacks and criticized Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May for cutting spending on policing. May said Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was saying Britain was to blame for the bombing.

"I want to make one thing very clear to Jeremy Corbyn and to you, and it is that there can never, ever be an excuse for terrorism," she said at the G-7 meeting in Sicily. A recent poll on Thursday put May"s Conservatives five points ahead of Labour suggesting a far tighter race than previously anticipated, sending the British pound tumbling..

Former Navy Seal To Katy Perry: 'Go To Hell... Hold One Of Your Concerts In Syria And See How It Goes'

Katy Perry, a woman so crazy Russell Brand divorced her over text message, broke down in tears Saturday night at a concert and urged the crowd "not to let terrorists win" in response to the Manchester bombing. Tuesday morning, she went on the radio to tell everyone all we need is open borders, hugs, and love in response to horrific terrorism. Basically this.

Paul Joseph Watson can bring you fully up to speed:

  

And today on Fox, former Navy Seal Carl Higbie who was responsible for triggering an entire CNN panel last week, had a few choice words for Ms. Perry - daring her to hold a concert in Syria if she thinks peace and love is all it"ll take to conquer ISIS:

"We don’t have people who respect the culture of the United States of America. You have people like Katy Perry, for instance. I mean, this woman has said ‘oh we need to give them hugs, hug it out. Go to hell Katy Perry."

"Hold one of your concerts in Syria and see how it goes."

  

What a strange, out of touch woman...

Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com * Follow on Twitter @ZeroPointNow

Discoverer Of DNA's Double-Helix Banned From U of I For "Failing Test Of Decency"

The University of Illinois has capitulated to faculty complaints and rescinded a speaking invitation to Nobel Laureate James Watson, who has ruffled feathers with past comments about race.

Watson is famous for co-discovering the double-helix structure of DNA, but even a preemptive email stating that he would be giving a "narrowly focused scientific talk" failed to assuage faculty concerns.

The issue is that outside of the research lab, Watson isn"t the same admirable figure: He has made all manner of offensive and racist comments. In a 2007 interview he said he was "gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really." He also said he hopes everyone is equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true." He apologized but has made other tasteless, sexist comments that call into question his character and judgment — but not his scientific expertise.

As CampusReform.org"s Adam Sabes reports, Watson is known primarily for co-discovering the double-helix structure of DNA along with Francis Crick, but had offered to give a “narrowly focused scientific talk” at the school’s Institute for Genomic Biology about his recent cancer research, Institute Director Gene Robinson told The News-Gazette of Champaign-Urbana, adding that he considered the offer “carefully” before deciding to accept.

Robinson said he had anticipated potential objections to Watson’s lecture, and attempted to head them off with an email making explicitly clear that the invitation was not an endorsement of Watson’s past comments.

"We tried to consider this very carefully in going forward, and different perspectives on the possibilities of him giving a science-based lecture,” Robinson explained. "With respect to his past, the email that I sent out stated very clearly that we didn"t condone any of his past comments, racist comments and sexist comments. And we noted that he had apologized and thought about all those very carefully.”

"We support Dr. Watson for his discovery and work, and believe that his remorse and subsequent apology to those groups he spoke against are genuine,” the email stated, “but the IGP"s stance is unchanged—we do not condone discrimination of any form, and the respect that we give to each individual in our community is paramount."

Robinson’s outreach did not assuage the concerns of many faculty members, however, particularly biological anthropology professor Kate Clancy, who drew the Institute’s attention with a series of tweets proposing to organize a protest against Watson’s talk. Less than an hour after she began tweeting, the Institute replied announcing that it had decided to cancel the lecture in response to her complaints.

"In hearing the faculty"s concerns, we decided that the right thing to do was not to have the lecture," Robinson said, adding that while he respects the principle of free speech, "I really respect the perspectives of the faculty who raised the concern. It was a tough call either way."

The Chicago Tribune, however, questioned Robinson’s judgment on that front in an editorial, arguing that Watson’s “tasteless, sexist comments” do not detract from his “scientific expertise,” and that cancelling the talk is an example of the “reflex on college campuses to shut down offensive or controversial speech as an affront to the community.”

:Watson"s nixed appearance at the U. of I., not intended as a venue for his repugnant opinions, could have been acceptable as a narrowly focused science talk, since the research institute was clear in repudiating his personal views,” the editorial concluded.

“Watson isn"t the only expert in some specific field who otherwise fails tests of decency. Attendees would have come away enlightened by his science lecture.”

Student Jacqueline Moffat, conversely, told Campus Reform that she supports the decision to cancel the speech, saying the Institute can just find another “smart” person who has not engendered past controversy.

“The school should not be promoting someone like that,” she asserted. “There are plenty of other smart people that we can hear from.”

Farage Rages "What's The UK Government Actually Gonna Do?"

Hours after the devastating terror attack in Manchester, England, and following UK PM Theresa May"s announcement of quasi-martial-law on the streets of Britain, Nigel Farage follows yesterday"s BBC anchor"s comments and asks "what is our government actually gonna do?"

"Get used to it"...

Farage reminds the world that Theresa May was British Home Secretary - in charge of "this stuff" for six years before becoming prime minister "and under her we did virtually nothing to deal with this problem... so I don"t see mass round-ups happening," citing the 500 terror suspects reportedly walking free in the UK.

Sparking painful memories of the 1930s rounding up citizens across Europe, Farage concludes "we have to stop the radicalization in our prisons and in our schools, and our immigration policy will vet absolutely everyone coming from middle-eastern and african countries."

And as the following poll from YouGov shows, up 14 percentage points on July 2010, an almost unanimous 90 percent said that they thought it was fairly or very likely.