The Endlessness Of A Temporary Tax

Authored by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

Governments regularly claim that they favour tax reform. When this claim has been repeated so many times that virtually no one believes them anymore, they announce a tax reform, to show that they really mean it. They then reshuffle the existing taxes to give the appearance that taxation will actually be lowered.

When it becomes apparent that the reform is a sham, they often pull a rabbit out of a hat in the form of a “temporary” tax, that’s pre-legislated to end sometime in the future.

Sounds promising.

So, let’s have a look at one such temporary tax and see how things worked out.

The US government introduced the War Revenue Act of 1898—a tax on telephone use—under the claim that it was necessary to pay for the Spanish American War.

In what way does telephone use pertain to a government invading another country? Well, actually, one has nothing to do with the other. But, let’s leave that discussion for another day and see how this temporary tax played out.

The Act was repealed in 1902 but was reinstated, this time as the Emergency Internal Revenue Tax Act of 1914. The justification then given was that another war was on the way and increased taxation to pay for it couldn’t begin too soon. Telephone users needed to cough up.

It was decided by both parties to increase the tax on telephones and the War Revenue Act of 1917 was created. It hadn’t passed the debate stage until the war was over, but they decided that they’d implement it anyway, as the work had already been done. In the bargain, they introduced not only increased rates, but graduated rates.

This act was also repealed, in 1924, but was reinstated with the Revenue Act of 1932. Since that date, it has been reauthorised 29 times.

In 1941, an increase was put in place to pay for (you guessed it) another war—World War II. This was increased again in 1943, but people complained and the new law contained a provision that the increased rates would end six months after “the date of termination of hostilities in the present war.” However, the Excise Tax Act of 1947 was passed to assure that the tax would continue indefinitely.

Over the subsequent years, periodic changes were made. Although the rates went up and down like a bride’s nightie, most, not surprisingly, were upward.

As further (undeclared) wars came and went, taxation on telephone calls repeatedly needed to be increased and, regardless of the party in power, increases continued.

At long last, on 14 September, 2000, the House of Representatives took up legislation which included the repeal of the telephone excise tax. This measure passed both houses, but the fix was in. President Clinton vetoed the repeal. (The legislative branch and the executive branch have to take turns playing the bad cop, but the outcome is the same: increased taxation.)

Then, in 2006, a case was made (in the words of the Treasury Secretary), to amend the Internal Revenue Code “of an outdated, antiquated tax that has survived a century beyond its original purpose, and by now should have been ancient history.”

Finally, American citizens could wash their hands of a one-hundred-year theft of their earnings that, even at the start, was based upon a ludicrous concept.

Unfortunately… it didn’t happen.

The repeal was never enacted and Americans continue to pay for the Spanish American War today.

So, what’s the takeaway here?

Well, first off, this little history serves as a reminder that there’s nothing so permanent as a temporary government measure.

Second, although not a month goes by without one politician or another, from one party or the other, rising up in righteous indignation that a new tax or an expanded tax is absolutely necessary to continue the welfare of the American people, there is, in truth, no sincerity in their claim. They simply want more money.

Third, no amount of money is ever enough. Even if Washington, D.C., is the only part of the US that is enjoying prosperity, even if no congressman leaves office without more zeroes behind his net worth than when he went in, virtually every legislator will vote for increases in taxation.

And, fourth, there’s no such thing as tax reform. From time to time, legislators will need to trot out the idea of tax reform, and be seen to be arguing over the details, but will ultimately always do the same: the deck will be reshuffled, but somehow, taxes will rise once again.

But the overall lesson to be learned is that Government is, and has always been, a shell game. Its purpose is not to serve the electorate; it is to separate them from the fruits of their labours.

Full stop.

As former US Chief Justice John Marshall stated,

The power to tax involves the power to destroy.

More recently, Ron Holland offered the following:

Since the beginning of recorded history, the business of government has been wealth confiscation.

However, both these individuals were conservatives, and it would only be fair to ask for commentary from the liberal side. One such liberal political leader is none other than Vladimir Lenin, who stated,

The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.

Of course, the reader may wish to consider relocating to a jurisdiction where the taxation is far lower, but if he chooses to remain in the US, EU, Canada, or other jurisdiction where the tax level is already oppressive, his plans should include temporary taxes that are unlikely to end in his lifetime.

*  *  *

Few people realize this, but it is possible to escape the US government’s “power to destroy.” Find out how in The American Expatriation Guide: How to Divorce the US Government. Click here to download your free PDF copy now.

Tax-Reform Opponents Blast Treasury Report As "Nothing More Than One Page Of Fake Math"

Yesterday, we highlighted a one-page report prepared by the Treasury Department which claimed that – in what was perhaps one of the most unrealistically optimistic budget projections to ever be produced by the US government agency - the Senate’s version of the Republican tax plan would, somehow, bolster GDP to a 2.9% real growth rate over 10 years.

The report – a transparent attempt to distract from the plan’s elimination of more than $1.5 trillion in total receipts, while emphasizing its potential pro-growth aspects – relies on a scenario where the economy achieves a baseline of 2.9% GDP growth over the coming decade, compared with the Treasury’s previous projection of 2.2%.

This additional 0.7 percentage point of annual growth, the report claims, will lead to an increase in tax revenue of $1.8 trillion. Treasury "expects approximately half of this 0.7% increase in growth to come from changes to corporate taxation, while the other half is expected to come from changes to pass-through taxation and individual tax reform, as well as from a combination of regulatory reform, infrastructure development, and welfare reform as proposed in the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2018 budget."

To transform these projections into a reality, the US economy would need to achieve the longest cycle of uninterrupted growth in US history.

Unsurprisingly, the report has elicited howls of outrage from Democratic lawmakers and academics, who blasted Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin – a former Goldmanite – for the obviously bogus report, as Reuters reported.

Even Mnuchin’s fellow Republicans joined in the outrage pow-wow: Case in point, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a conservative fiscal watchdog in Washington, claimed the report, which was prepared by Treasury’s Office of Tax Policy, “makes a mockery of dynamic scoring and analysis."

Meanwhile, Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer said the Treasury analysis was “nothing more than one page of fake math."

Of course, when the next recession hits – which, if the past is any guide, should happen before the end of 2019 - the yield curve will be steeply negative, crushing the financial sector. Government tax revenues will plunge and government-borrowing will soar. In a scramble to monetize the explosion of debt before it snowballs into one of the most severe debt crises in modern history, the Fed will launch QE4 at a time when interest rates are still low by historical standards and the central bank’s swollen, post-crisis balance sheet may not yet be fully unwound.

In what was perhaps the report"s most entertaining paragraph, Mnuchin & Co. engage in what could be construed as a little light-hearted trolling of the economic community.

We acknowledge that some economists predict different growth rates. OTP projects that at approximately 0.35% of incremental annual GDP growth, Treasury tax receipts would generate approximately $1 trillion of incremental revenue. Neither JCT nor Treasury has released a score showing increased tax receipts from the House plan, though we would not expect the results to be materially different.

As Reuters points out, the Wharton Business School at the University of Pennsylvania also issued a report on Monday, which found that the plan approved by the full Senate would add $1.5 trillion to the national debt over 10 years, “even with assumptions favorable to economic growth."

One week ago, in its latest assessment of the current state of tax reform in the aftermath of the Senate"s passage of the tax bill, Goldman analysts calculated that, while the growth impact from tax reform would increase fractionally to around 0.3% in 2018 and 2019 "reflecting the slightly larger amount of tax cuts in the Senate plan following revisions, and our expectations regarding the eventual compromise", there would be a very modest - if any - boost to US economic growth from tax reform.

Notably, the sparring over economic forecasts came as Republicans resumed efforts to reconcile two tax-overhaul bills, one approved by the Senate and one by the House of Representatives.

Regardless of whether its projections are based on sound numbers, Republicans probably won’t hesitate to use it as a cudgel to beat back deficit hawks who are threatening to delay the tax plan by demanding that Republicans rein in cuts to stop the plan from blowing out the deficit and piling on the debt.

Trump: "I Don"t See A Deal" On Keeping Government Open, Leading To Bill Turmoil

President Trump said he will meet on Tuesday with the Democratic leaders of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, to discuss keeping the government open. But, in a tweet, Trump cast doubt on whether they can agree to fund the government beyond a Dec. 8 deadline, saying: "I don"t see a deal!"

Trump said Democrats "want illegal immigrants flooding into our Country unchecked, are weak on Crime and want to substantially RAISE Taxes."

Says Trump: "I don"t see a deal!" adding that Democrats "want illegal immigrants flooding into our Country unchecked, are weak on Crime and want to substantially RAISE Taxes."

Meeting with “Chuck and Nancy” today about keeping government open and working. Problem is they want illegal immigrants flooding into our Country unchecked, are weak on Crime and want to substantially RAISE Taxes. I don’t see a deal!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 28, 2017

And while the mid-December Bill market has already been turmoiling, Trump"s comments only led to more stress as the spread between 12/7 and 12/21 widening to 12bps after Trump cast doubt on whether he and congressional leaders can agree to keep the government funded.

Taxes: Here"s What"s Going To Stay The Same

Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

On October 3, 1913, US President Woodrow Wilson signed the Underwood-Simmons Act into law, creating what would become the first modern US income tax.

The legislation (at least, the income tax portion) was only 16 pages and imposed a base tax rate of just 1%.

The highest tax rate was set at 7%– and it only applied to individuals earning more than $500,000 per year, which is about $12.6 million today according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

And individuals earning less than $3,000 (about $75,000 today) were exempt from paying tax.

Tax rates moved up and down over the years– the government raised rates to fund World War I, then lowered them in peacetime.

In fact, taxes were cut at least four separate times during the 1920s alone, reaching a low in 1929 of just 0.375% for the bottom tax bracket.

Back then, making major changes to tax law was pretty simple. Today, thanks to heavily vested interests on all sides, it takes a miracle to make any serious modifications to the tax code.

That’s why there hasn’t been any significant tax reform in the Land of the Free since Crocodile Dundee was the #1 movie in America (that’s 1986, by the way).

There are now two versions of legislation that will make major changes to the US tax code– one in the Senate and one in the House of Representatives.

I spent most of the nearly 30 hours of travel time during flights over the past week from Santiago to Sydney, Sydney to Bangkok, and Bangkok to Singapore, reading the proposals’ 400+ pages.

The media is touting these bills as a ‘major overhaul’ and ‘comprehensive reform,’ and financial markets have been treating this legislation as if the second coming of capitalism is walking across the water.

It’s not.

Sure, there are a few significant changes.

They’re scrapping the idiotic Alternative Minimum Tax, which ensnares more and more people each year.

Tax rates on certain business profits are going down substantially.

And they’re making tax reporting a lot simpler, saving countless hours of senseless paperwork.

Undoubtedly there are plenty of positive changes in this proposed tax code.

There are also plenty of negative changes.

Some people will benefit. Others will see their tax bills grow.

But for the most part the tax code will stay the same– they’re essentially just rearranging the pieces on the board rather than coming up with an entirely different game.

The existing tax code is built on a legal framework that goes back to the 1950s… a time when manufacturing and agriculture were economic mainstays.

Businesses rarely outsourced their production back then or even thought about selling their products overseas.

Entrepreneurship was uncommon. Employees often remained with the same company for decades. And few women were in the labor force.

Today it’s completely different. The digital economy has displaced manufacturing; business is now dominated by ideas, not factories.

And it’s easier than ever before in human history to start a business, sell products and services worldwide, and even hire employees who live on the other side of the planet.

It seems ludicrous to govern the digital, global businesses of the 21st century with such an antiquated, industrial-era tax code.

True reform would have started by throwing all of it in the garbage, right where it belongs.

You wouldn’t even have to reinvent the wheel; there are plenty of great examples in the world of tax systems that work extremely well– like right here in Singapore.

Singapore’s government is awash with cash.

They almost always run a small budget surplus, yet they’re able to provide ample public services, world class health care, high quality education, strong national defense, pristine infrastructure, and a substantial reserve fund.

But at the same time they encourage people to become wealthy, ensuring that they keep the vast majority of what they earn.

Tax rates in Singapore are quite low and incredibly competitive. Whereas the US corporate tax rate may drop to as low as 20%, in Singapore a company pays no more than 17%, and typically less than 10%.

Right now I’m in the process of negotiating the sale of an asset we purchased here a couple of years ago which will likely produce several million dollars in net realized gains once the deal is closed.

But we won’t pay a dime of tax here on any of it… because Singapore does not tax capital gains.

It’s a model that works: Singaporeans have one of the highest standards of living in the world… plus there are more millionaires per capita here than in any other country.

And this country is just one example. There are plenty more.

Point is, while it’s nice that they’re trying, it’s going to be very difficult for the US government to achieve anything meaningful or truly revolutionary when they’re essentially just making some changes to the pitifully outdated, existing tax code.

But the good news is that, even though the euphoria and expectations about this new proposal are totally overblown, there are still plenty of gems from the current tax code that aren’t going anywhere.

For example– if you’re a self-employed professional and you’re worried that the new tax code will probably increase your tax bill, you still have some excellent options.

There’s nothing in the proposed law that changes, for example, the substantial tax benefits you can realize from establishing a solo 401(k) or SEP IRA plan.

Nor did I see anything changing the enormous benefits from setting up a captive insurance company (in which you effectively insure yourself against certain risks, shielding up to $2 million per year from taxation).

Those are still fully intact.

So is the US federal tax exemption for certain legal residents of US territories. Which means that you can still qualify for Puerto Rico’s ultra-generous 0%/4% tax incentive programs.

There are dozens of other great tax strategies from the old tax code which will remain.

To continue learning how to legitimately reduce your taxes, I encourage you to download our free Perfect Plan B Guide.

Bill Clinton Faces Sexual Assault Accusations From Four More Women

In a stunning revelation that could leave an indelible stain on the Clintons’ political legacy and possibly quash Hillary Clinton"s dreams of running for president again in 2020, the Daily Mail is reporting that four women have shared their accounts of being sexually assaulted by Clinton in a new book written by former New York Times editor Ed Klein that will hit shelves later this week.

According to the mail, the women allege the former president assaulted them in the early 2000s, when Clinton was working with playboy billionaire investor Ron Burkle. Clinton and Burkle used to travel together on Burkle’s private jet, which earned the reprehensible nickname “Air F*** One”. All of the women are former employees of Burkle who said Clinton took advantage of his power over them.

Bill Clinton is facing explosive new charges of sexual assault from four women, according to highly placed Democratic Party sources and an official who served in both the Clinton and Obama administrations.

 

The current accusations against the 71-year-old former president — whose past is littered with charges of sexual misconduct — stem from the period after he left the White House in 2001, say the sources.

 

Attorneys representing the women, who are coordinating their efforts, have notified Clinton they are preparing to file four separate lawsuits against him.

 

As part of the ongoing negotiations, the attorneys for the women are asking for substantial payouts in return for their clients" silence.

 

A member of Clinton"s legal team has confirmed the existence of the new allegations.

Two days ago, the Washington Post reported that the torrent of abuse allegations against powerful men in Hollywood, finance, tech and politics has revived scrutiny into allegations of sexual abuse that have surrounded Clinton since his days in the Arkansas governor’s mansion. A growing number of Democrats now say they were wrong to have so vigorously defended the former president against allegations  ranging from groping to rape.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) — Hillary Clinton’s successor as senator from New York, a staunch backer of her presidential campaign and a talked-about presidential possibility — was the first big-name Clinton ally to speak out, telling the New York Times that by today’s standards, the “appropriate response” for Clinton would have been to resign the presidency when his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky was revealed in 1998. In response, Gillibrand was viciously attacked as a hypocrite by several Clinton toadies.

The women plan to file a lawsuit against the former president. Of course, this isn’t the first time Clinton has been sued for sexual misconduct. Back in the late 1990s, Clinton paid $850,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit by Paula Jones, a former Arkansas state employee whose case led to Clinton"s impeachment in the House of Representatives and his subsequent acquittal by the Senate in 1999. Several senior Democratic party sources confirmed the allegations with Klein, and also confirmed that negotiations about a possible settlement with the women had reached “a critical stage.”

If they fail to reach a settlement, one source told the Mail that the women plan to hold a press conference to share their stories, a media event that would undoubtedly make Clinton the most high-profile figure in the long list of men from Harvey Weinstein to Kevin Spacey who’ve been felled by the widening scandal.

To be sure, Clinton is unlikely to face criminal charges because the assaults allegedly took place more than 10 years ago, beyond the reach of statues of limitations in many states.

The new allegations refer to incidents that took place more than 10 years ago, in the early 2000s, when Clinton was hired by Ron Burkle, the playboy billionaire investor, to work at his Yucaipa companies.

Clinton helped Burkle generate business and flew around the world with a flock of beautiful young women on Burkle"s private jet, which was nicknamed "Air F**k One."

 

The four women, who have not yet revealed their identities, were employed in low-level positions at the Burkle organization when they were in their late teens and claim they were sexually assaulted by the former president.

 

There is no evidence that Burkle knew anything about these alleged assaults by Clinton.

 

Contacted for a comment on the women"s allegations, a member of Clinton"s legal team said: "Obviously, I"m aware of [the allegations] but can"t talk about them."

The list of women whom Clinton has allegedly assaulted includes not only Jones, but also Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and others. Clinton also famously had an affair with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern.

"Bill is distraught at the thought of having to testify and defend himself against sex charges again," said a Democratic Party official who is familiar with the case.

 

"He hopes his legal team can somehow stop the women from filing charges and drag him through the mud."

The source added that Hillary Clinton is furious with her husband for getting entangled in yet another sexual scandal.  

In a disturbing though unsurprising detail, Hillary reportedly offered to hire private detectives to dig up dirt on the women, but Bill Clinton"s attorneys persuaded her to not interfere. In the past Hillary has hired teams of detectives who managed to silence a number of women in Little Rock who had complaints about Bill"s unwanted sexual advances, the Mail reported.

But now Hillary admits there"s a different atmosphere in our culture about sexual harassment and it"s not possible to intimidate women into silence about charges once they make up their mind to speak up. Hillary wants to remain in the public eye as a leader of the resistance to Donald Trump and play a major role in politics for years to come, including possibly running for president again in 2020.

As the Mail pointed out, the Clintons haven’t lived as man and wife for many years.

"She"s afraid this latest scandal could destroy the Clinton legacy and torpedo her plans.

 

"The relationship between Bill and Hillary has been more of a business relationship for a number of years, except when it comes to their daughter and grandchildren.

 

"They haven"t lived as man and wife for a number of years, mostly due to Bill"s running around with other women.

 

"It became obvious years ago that even age wasn"t going to make Bill settle down and stop chasing women. Hillary has simply ignored it and lived her separate life.

 

"Bill spends a great deal of his time in his penthouse apartment above the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock.

 

"Hillary occasionally goes to Little Rock, but she refuses to stay in the apartment because she knows that"s his love nest."

Unsurprisingly, the mainstream press haven’t caught on to the Clinton story yet. But given all the attention these types of allegations have received lately, we imagine CNN, the New York Times and their ilk won’t be able to ignore the story forever.

"Hopelessly Compromised": Judiciary Member Calls For Mueller"s Resignation Over Uranium One Scandal

Earlier this morning House Judiciary Committee representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL) submitted a resolution calling for Robert Mueller to resign as special counsel overseeing the FBI investigation of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government saying, among other things, that the former FBI director is "hopelessly compromised" as a result of his failed oversight of the controversial Uranium One transaction.  Here is an excerpt from a press release posted to Gaetz"s website earlier today:

“Evidence has emerged that the FBI withheld information from Congress and from the American people about Russian corruption of American uranium companies. A confidential U.S. witness, working in the Russian nuclear industry, revealed that Russia had deeply compromised an American uranium trucking firm through bribery and financial kickbacks.

 

Although federal agents possessed this information in 2010, the Department of Justice continued investigating this “matter” for over four years. The FBI, led at the time by Robert Mueller, required the confidential witness to sign a non-disclosure agreement. When the witness attempted to contact Congress and federal courts about the bribery and corruption he saw, he was threatened with legal action. By silencing him, Obama’s Justice Department and Mueller’s FBI knowingly kept Congress in the dark about Russia’s significant and illegal involvement with American uranium companies.

 

These deeply troubling events took place when Mr. Mueller was the Director of the FBI. As such, his impartiality is hopelessly compromised. He must step down immediately,” Rep. Gaetz said in a statement.

Gaetz’s resolution currently has two cosponsors, both of whom are members of the House Freedom Caucus: Representatives Andy Biggs (R-AZ) and Louie Gohmert (R-TX).

Of course, pressure has been growing on Mueller for the past couple of weeks and reached a fevered pitch when the The Hill recently reported the sordid tale of "Confidential Source 1," a man that the FBI used as an informant back in 2009 and who says he was silenced by the FBI and Obama administration when he attempted to come forward with information that linked the Clinton Foundation directly to the Uranium One scandal.

Toensing added her client has had contact from multiple congressional committees seeking information about what he witnessed inside the Russian nuclear industry and has been unable to

provide that information because of the NDA.

 

“He can’t disclose anything that he came upon in the course of his work,” she said.

 

The information the client possesses includes specific allegations that Russian executives made to him about how they facilitated the Obama administration"s 2010 approval of the Uranium One deal and sent millions of dollars in Russian nuclear funds to the U.S. to an entity assisting Bill Clinton"s foundation. At the time, Hillary Clinton was serving as secretary of State on the government panel that approved the deal, the lawyer said.

 

It has been previously reported that Bill Clinton accepted $500,000 in Russian speaking fees in 2010 and collected millions more in donations for his foundation from parties with a stake in the Uranium One deal,

transactions that both the Clintons and the Obama administration denied had any influence on the approval.

 

“All of the information about this corruption has not come out,” she said in an interview Tuesday. “And so my client, the same part of my client that made him go into the FBI in the first place, says, "This is wrong. What should I do about it?"”

 

When he tried to bring some of the allegations to light in the lawsuit last year, “the Obama Justice Department threatened him with loss of freedom. They said they would bring a criminal case against him for violating an NDA,” she added.

 

“The government was taking a very harsh position that threatened both your reputation and liberty,” the civil lawyer wrote in one email. In another, she added, “As you will recall the gov’t made serious threats sufficient to cause you to withdraw your civil complaint."

As we pointed out last week, "Confidential Source 1" has since been cleared by the DOJ to meet with Congress to tell his tale.

Meanwhile, the scandal took another turn for the worse earlier this week when, despite numerous assurances to the contrary from the Obama administration, new memos obtained by The Hill confirmed that, in fact, Uranium One yellowcake was exported from U.S. shores repeatedly between 2012 - 2014.

Yet NRC memos reviewed by The Hill shows that it did approve the shipment of yellowcake uranium — the raw material used to make nuclear fuel and weapons — from the Russian-owned mines in the United States to Canada in 2012 through a third party. Later, the Obama administration approved some of that uranium going all the way to Europe, government documents show.

 

NRC officials said they could not disclose the total amount of uranium that Uranium One exported because the information is proprietary. They did, however, say that the shipments only lasted from 2012 to 2014 and that they are unaware of any exports since then.

 

NRC officials told The Hill that Uranium One exports flowed from Wyoming to Canada and on to Europe between 2012 through 2014, and the approval involved a process with multiple agencies.

Of course, we"re certain that Mueller will promptly admit his conflicts and do the right thing...right?

* * *

Below is the full text of the Gaetz" resolution:

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Robert Mueller should resign from his special counsel position.

Whereas from 2001–2013, Robert Mueller served as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation;

Whereas as early as 2009, the FBI discovered that Russian officials were engaging in bribery and extortion, tainting the American uranium industry in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to strengthen their own nuclear program;

Whereas investigations into Russia’s corruption of American uranium-related businesses were supervised by then-United States Attorney Rod Rosenstein, currently serving as Deputy Attorney General, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, currently serving as Deputy Director of the FBI;

Whereas despite knowledge of this corruption, backed by documents and an eyewitness account, neither the Department of Justice nor the Federal Bureau of Investigation under the leadership of Mr. Mueller brought charges;

Whereas the Department of Justice actively threatened the liberty of a confidential informant embedded within Russia’s nuclear program who wished to inform Congress about Russian corruption of American uranium-related companies, and the FBI required this informant to sign a non-disclosure agreement, intentionally depriving Congress of information vital to national security and Congressional oversight authority;

Whereas Members of Congress have raised objections to, and concerns with, the sale of American uranium assets to Russian companies, and raised these concerns in official correspondence to then-President Obama as early as 2010;

Whereas in 2010, when the Russian Federation needed American approval of uranium sales, former President William Jefferson Clinton received hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees from Kremlin-linked institutions, and requested approval from the State Department to meet with central figures in Russia’s nuclear industry, and eventually met with Russian leader Vladimir V. Putin at Mr. Putin’s private residence;

Whereas the Clinton Foundation has either directly or indirectly received undisclosed donations totaling millions of dollars from Russian-linked sources, including from officials in Russia’s nuclear program;

Whereas in 2010, Hillary Clinton, founder of the Clinton Foundation, wife of former President Clinton, and then Secretary of State, approved the sale of Uranium One to a Russian state-owned nuclear technology corporation;

Whereas any thorough and honest investigation into the corruption of American-uranium related business must include investigating the willful blindness of the FBI and its leaders;

Whereas under 28 CFR 45.2, no individual can participate in a criminal investigation if he has a personal or political relationship with any organization substantially involved in the conduct that is subject of the investigation;

Whereas under 28 CFR 45.2, no individual may participate in a criminal investigation if the individual’s participation would create an appearance of conflict of interest likely to affect public perception of the integrity of the investigation;

Whereas the Code of Federal Regulations, applied to Mr. Mueller, demonstrates that he cannot be allowed to investigate his former colleagues, supervisors, and subordinates;

and

Whereas these obvious conflicts of interest are unacceptable to the United States justice system and the American people:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved,

That House of Representatives expresses its sense that Robert Mueller is compromised and should resign from his special counsel position immediately.

If American Federalism Were Like Swiss Federalism, There Would Be 1,300 States

Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

In a recent interview with Mises Weekends, Claudio Grass examined some of the advantages of the Swiss political system, and how highly decentralized politics can bring with it great economic prosperity, more political stability, and a greater respect for property rights. 

Since the Swiss political system of federalism is itself partially inspired by 19th-century American federalism, the average American can usually imagine in broad terms what the Swiss political system looks like. There are Swiss cantons, which are like the American states. And there is the Swiss federal legislature, which is like the American congress.

What the American tends to miss, however, is that the scale of political units in Switzerland is much, much smaller than that found in the United States. When a Swiss person talks about how Swiss politics is based largely around the cantonal level of government, what he"s really telling us is that Swiss politics is centered around a political unit that is often the size of a small American city. 

While we may often equate a Swiss canton with an American state, the truth is that even the smallest US state by population (Wyoming) is larger than all but four of the 26 Swiss cantons. 

In contrast, the largest Swiss canton (by population) is Zurich, with a population of 1.5 million. That makes it smaller than all but 11 US states. 

But most Swiss cantons are much smaller than this. Indeed, the median population for Swiss cantons is 234,000 people, or the size of Irving, Texas or Gilbert, Arizona. (The average is 324,000). The smallest canton boasts a mere 16,000 people. 

The physical size of Swiss cantons is much smaller as well, given that the entire size of Switzerland is smaller than West Virginia. Rhode Island, the smallest US state, is larger than all but five of the Swiss cantons. The largest Swiss canton, Graubunden, is about the size of Puerto Rico, and is smaller than Connecticut. 

Obviously, then, in terms of size and scope, American states are much much larger than Swiss cantons in general. 

In the United States, the median population size for a state is 4.5 million, or more than 20 times the median size of a Swiss canton. (The average US population per state is 6.4 million). 

Needless, the say, in Switzerland, when we"re talking about the cantonal level, we really are talking about local government in contatrast to US states where even sparsely populated states like South Dakota are considerably larger than all but the two largest cantons, while being vastly larger in terms of physical geography. 

If the United States were composed of states approximating the median population size of Swiss cantons, the US would have over 1,300 states total. Each would have a population of around one-quarter of a million inhabitants. 

Given the small size of these political subdivisions, the potential for taxpayers "voting with their feet" is even greater than it is in the US, where it is already likely that migration patterns often show preferences for states with lower tax and regulatory burdens. 

Size and Political Representation 

The size of political jurisdictions has significant implications for political representation as well. 

In an earlier article titled "The US Should Have 10,000 Members of Congress" I noted that the United States has an exceptionally high politician-to-citizen ratio. 

That is, electoral districts (i.e., Congressional districts, for example) are absolutely huge by the standards of both Europe and Latin America. Moreover, they"re also huge by the standards of the 18th-century Americans who wrote the US constitution and the various state constitutions of the time. 

Specifically, in the United States, there are 535 Members of Congress who allegedly represent 320,000,000 people. This means there are 598,000 US residents per member of Congress. Meanwhile, in Germany, there are 130,000 residents per member of the national legislature. In Canada, the number of 99,000. In Switzerland, the number is 33,000. (The US is so off-the-charts, I"ve excluded it from this graph for the sake of scale): 

Moreover, the number of legislators compared to the overall size of the population is now tiny compared to what was expected at the time the US Constitution was written:

In 1790, members of congress represented on average 37,000 people. In Massachusetts in 1800, for example, there were 422,000 people sharing 16 members of Congress. Senators were not directly elected at the time, however, so if we include only members of the House, the average constituency size in Massachusetts in 1800 was 30,142. To reach a constituent size like this today, the US Congress would require 10,000 members.

 

(The size of the House of Representatives remains small today because Congress arbitrarily capped the total number of Representatives in the early twentieth century.) 

Nor is this just an issue for the national legislature. 

Electoral districts are also huge within US states, when compared to the number of members of cantonal legislatures in Switzerland. 

For example, in the US, the number of residents per state legislator ranges from 3,105 in New Hampshire up to a gargantuan 310,000 in California. 

In Switzerland, the number of Swiss residents per cantonal legislator ranges from 8,200 in Zurich down to a miniscule 327 in Appenzell Innerhoden. 

But rather than look just at extremes, let"s consider a mid-sized Swiss canton and a mid-sized US state. 

In Indiana, for example, there are 6.6 million residents, and 150 legislators, which means there are about 43,000 residents per legislator. In the Swiss canton of Fribourg, with a population of 311,000, the cantonal legislature boasts 130 members. Thus, in Fribourg, there are approximately 2,400 residents per legislator. 

This means that even a mid-sized canton has far fewer residents per legislator than even the most representative legislature in the US, which is New Hampshire, with 3,100 residents per legislator. 

In other words, in Switzerland, it is entirely reasonable to expect that one"s cantonal representatives be familiar with one"s neighborhood, local culture, and local concerns. One might even expect to run into his legislator on the street, especially if he"s representing only 2,000 or so other people. The number of voters per legislator, of course, is even smaller. 

In the US, on the other hand, even a state legislator often represents a small city, in terms of his or her constituency size. 

Members of Congress are far worse, with each member representing a population equivalent in size to a Fresno, California, or Tucson, Arizona. 

Implications

When we look at differences in the size and scope of political and electoral jurisdictions, we find that in many cases, US jurisdictions are ten or twenty times the size of what they are in Switzerland. 

These vast differences in geography and demographics may highlight some of the realities that underpin many of the political and institutional differences that divide Americans and the Swiss. 

Both the United States and Switzerland employ a federal structure. In many ways, however, the Swiss political system is far more decentralized than is the American. There is no single executive in Switzerland, for example, and policy continues to be highly decentralized, with cantonal governments exercising large amounts of control and influence within the fields of naturalization, culture, public finance, and healthcare. 

Moreover, when we speak of the cantonal level in Switzerland, we"re really referring to what an American would recognize as the local level in politics. Swiss cantons are usually equal in size to a small American metropolitan area.

On top of this, political representation is hyper-democratic by modern American standards (but not necessarily historical American standards), with many cantonal legislators representing perhaps only 1,500 residents in many cases.1

The implications of this reality are significant. Given the small and local nature of government, and the smallness of electoral districts, voters have a completely different relationship with government institutions.

For example, when local government amenities are funded largely by one"s local cantonal government, this means that government services — including social benefits like healthcare subsidies — are funded not by some other anonymous taxpayer living hundreds or even thousands of miles away. A small cantonal size means taxpayer-funded amenities are funded by one"s neighbors, and other living nearby with whom one is likely to interact peacefully on a daily basis. In cases like this, it"s more difficult to see democratic politics as a matter of getting as much as one can get out of some distant, faceless "oppressor."  When important political institututions are close to home, and at a human scale, one might feel more inclined to take an additude of stewardship toward one"s community rather than an attitude of "take the money and run." 

In fact, constituency size has been shown to correlate to government spending in many cases, as shown in research by Mark Thornton, George S. Ford, and Marc Ulrich. See here and here. 

As Thornton et al. conclude: 

[T]he evidence is very suggestive that constituency size provides an explanation for much of the trend, or upward drift in government spending, because of the fixed-sized nature of most legislatures. Potentially, constituency size could be adjusted to control the growth of government.

Other factors mentioned by Thornton, et al. and others include:

• Large constituencies increase the cost of running campaigns, and thus require greater reliance on large wealth interests for media buys and access to mass media. The cost of running a statewide campaign in California, for example, is considerably larger than the cost of running a statewide campaign in Vermont. Constituencies spread across several media markets are especially costly. 


• Elected officials, unable to engage a sizable portion of their constituencies rely on large interest groups claiming to be representative of constituents. 


• Voters disengage because they realize their vote is worth less in larger constituent groups. 


• Voters disengage because they are not able to meet the candidate personally. 


• Voters disengage because elections in larger constituencies are less likely to focus on issues that are of personal, local interest to many of the voters. 


• The ability to schedule a personal meeting with an elected official is far more difficult in a large constituency than a small one. 


• Elected officials recognize that a single voter is of minimal importance in a large constituency, so candidates prefer to rely on mass media rather than personal  interaction with voters. 


• Larger constituent groups are more religiously, ethnically, culturally, ideologically, and economically diverse. This means elected officials from that constituent group are less likely to share social class, ethnic group, and other characteristics with a sizable number of their constituents. 


• Larger constituencies often mean the candidate is more physically remote, even when the candidate is at "home" and not at a distant parliament or congress. This further reduces access. 

None of this, of course, can diminish the importance of significant cultural differences between the Swiss and the Americans. However, these differences can also be reenforced by political institutions. When looking at the super-sized institutions of the United States — as compared to the small, localized political institutions of Switzerland — it"s hard to conclude that these vast differences in the constitutional landscape can be ignored.

How The Elite Dominate The World – Part 4: They Buy Politicians, And Incumbents Almost Always Win

Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

Once we wake up to how the game is being played, then we will have a real shot at changing things.  For decades, the elite have been pulling the strings behind the scenes in both major political parties.  That is why nothing has ever seemed to change very much no matter which party has been in power. 

The agenda of the elite has always seemed to march forward, and ordinary people like us have always been frustrated that we can’t seem to make a difference.  But now a shift seems to be taking place.  Donald Trump took on the establishment in both major parties, and he miraculously won the presidency.  Down in Alabama, the elite spent more than 30 million dollars to defeat Roy Moore, and he still defeated Luther Strange.  A political awakening is taking place, and I can’t wait to see what happens during the mid-term elections in 2018.

In Part I and Part II of this series, I talked about how the elite use debt as a tool of enslavement.  In Part III, I went over how the elite use the colossal media corporations they own to control what we think.  Today, I want to talk about their influence in the realm of politics.

In Washington D.C., it is well understood that the game of politics is all about the money.  If I win my election, and online polling suggests that there is a ton of enthusiasm for my campaign, I will be expected to spend most of my time on the phone raising money.  As a freshman member of Congress, at orientation it will be explained to me that I am supposed to spend approximately four hours a day doing fundraising, and that is why the House and Senate floors are so empty most of the time.

By law, members of Congress cannot make fundraising calls from their offices, and so both parties have huge call centers just across from the Capitol.  Especially around lunch and dinner times (because those are some of the best times to reach people), those call centers are packed as members of the House and Senate run through lists of potential donors.

And it isn’t just about raising money for their own campaigns.  As a freshman member of Congress I would be expected to raise at least $200,000 for the NRCC (the National Republican Congressional Committee).  If I don’t pay my dues, I would get into big trouble with party leadership.

But you know what?  I have already pledged that I am not going to participate in this very corrupt system.  If I am sent to Congress, I am going to spend my time doing the job that the people of Idaho sent me there to do.

So will Paul Ryan and the others in leadership get very upset with me for not “paying my dues”?

Of course.

But it is time for some of us to take a stand and do what is right.  Congress has become a cesspool of filth and corruption, and it is time to flush the toilet.

Because if we don’t fight this corrupt system, the influence of money in politics will just get worse and worse.  Today, the elite pour millions upon millions of dollars even into small campaigns, and in 2016 it took an average of more than 10 million dollars to win a U.S. Senate seat…

While the White House may not have gone to the biggest spender, an awful lot of House and Senate seats did — as usual. And it was pricier than ever to win them.

 

This election cycle, an average winning Senate candidate had spent $10.4 million through Oct. 19 (reflecting the latest reports filed with the Federal Election Commission). That’s a $1.8 million increase over the same period in the 2014 cycle. By the end of last cycle, the number rose to $10.6 million, and a similar uptick is expected this time once post-election and year-end reports are filed.

Once you win, the pressure to raise money for your next campaign never ends.

The elite know this, and they use this pressure to influence votes.  Prior to a big vote, lobbyists will make it abundantly clear how they want certain members of Congress to vote, and if they vote the “right way” those members of Congress will be rewarded.

Just across from the U.S. Capitol there are clubs where fancy receptions are regularly held.  If you vote the “right way” on a particular bill, you may be invited to one of these receptions, and there will be big, fat donation checks waiting there for you.

Of course most members of Congress have learned how to play the game, and this is why it is nearly impossible to defeat incumbents.  Over the past six decades, the re-election rate for members of the House of Representatives has consistently been well over 80 percent, and according to the UVA Center for Politics incumbents actually did far better than that in 2016…

This election cycle, 393 of 435 House representatives, 29 of 34 senators, and five of 12 governors sought reelection (several of the governors were prohibited from seeking another term). Of those, 380 of 393 House members (97%), 27 of 29 senators (93%), and four of five governors (80%) won another term. These members of Congress and governors not only won renomination, but also won in November.

Since World War II, the overall success rate for Senate incumbents has been 84 percent, and the overall success rate for House incumbents has been 94 percent.

Incumbents are almost always armed with huge war chests and most of them have tremendous name recognition, and so toppling them is not easy.

Fortunately, there is no incumbent in my race because Raul Labrador is running for governor.  So the race is completely wide open, and right now my campaign has the most enthusiasm by far.  If you would like to help me flush the toilet in Washington, I would encourage you to visit MichaelSnyderForCongress.com.

If we don’t fight back, we will never break the stranglehold that the elite have on our political system.

Every generation of Americans has had to stand up and fight for liberty and freedom, and now it is our turn.  This particular battle will not be fought with guns and bullets, but rather with ideas, values and principles.

We are part of a movement that is sweeping the nation.  Good men and women are rising up to run in federal, state and local races all across the country, and it is absolutely imperative that we all get behind them and support them.

*  *  *

Michael Snyder is a Republican candidate for Congress in Idaho’s First Congressional District, and you can learn how you can get involved in the campaign on his official website. His new book entitled “Living A Life That Really Matters” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com.

Ron Paul Rages At The Decades Of Wars" Damage To The American Economy

In a new interview with host Jesse Ventura at RT, former presidential candidate and House of Representatives Member Ron Paul discusses the harm imposed on the American economy by the succession of US wars over the last few decades, from the Korean War onward, that drain money away from prosperity-building activities in America.

“Just think if all the money we have spent overseas since World War II ended, if that money had been left in this country to let wealth grow,” proposes Paul.

 

Had that happened, Paul says there would not be so many people using food stamps, the middle class would not be dwindling, and the jobs situation would be better in America.

 

While the American economy in general has been hurt by the wars, Paul notes that some Americans have benefited financially. Paul concludes,

 

“It’s insanity to think that war improves your economic condition; it improves the condition of the war manufacturers.”

As The Ron Paul Institute"s Adam Dick details, this economic damage, Paul points out in the interview, is just one of the ways that “the wars hurt us here at home.”

Wars also lead, Paul argues, to government efforts, such as via the USA PATRIOT Act, in contravention of Americans’ freedom.

Watch Paul’s complete interview here:

Watch Live: Trump To De-Certifies Iran Deal, Ask Congress To Impose Sanctions "Trigger Points"

In what is set to be the least-surprising, and most-telegraphed event of the day (unless the president decides to do a press conference Q&A afterwards), Trump delivers his statement de-certfiying the Iran Deal and punting it to Congress...

Live Fed: due to start at 1245ET...

*  *  *

Update (11:40 am ET): As expected, Trump has confirmed that the White House wants to leave the Iran deal intact - for now, at least. In its official announcement, the administration said it plans to decertify the Iran nuclear deal on Oct. 15, but instead of withdrawing from the pact, it will punt the issue to Congress. Most of the official announcement was not unexpected. However, in one notable development, the administration said it would push Congress to amend US law to adopt sanctions "triggers" - such as evidence that Iran has come within one year of building a bomb. By endorsing triggers, Trump is effectively endorsing the Corker-Cotton plan for strengthening scrutiny against Iran - an amusing coincidence given Trump"s recent spat with Senator Bob Corker.

Other trigger points could include future ballistic missile launches or a refusal to restrict its fuel production.

However, as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson noted, it"s entirely possible that Congress will choose to do nothing and leave the current deal intact.

Trump will also direct Treasury Dept to target Iranian Revolutionary Guard members with sanctions

* * *

After months of feverish speculation about the fate of the Iran nuclear deal, President Trump is expected on Friday to announce that he will refuse to certify that the accord serves US interests, leaving the dirty work of deciding whether to kill it to Congress.

In response, Russia warned yet again that abandoning the deal would have a negative impact on global stability and efforts to ensure non-proliferation of atomic weapons, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on a conference call. Peskov added that reports of Russian military officers being denied US visas to attend a UN briefing on missile-defense were "very worrying."

Trump will make the declaration in a speech set for 12:45 pm ET, during which he’s expected to outline a broader policy of containment aimed at curbing Iran’s controversial ballistic missile program, as well as its support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah, Bloomberg reports.

Reuters reports that the new strategy will include three key goals: Fixing the nuclear deal to make it harder for Iran to develop a weapon, addressing its ballistic missile program and countering Iranian activities that Washington says contribute to instability in the Middle East.

The administration has long argued that the way the deal is structured will eventually allow Iran to develop a weapon. Of course, Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful and denies it is developing nuclear weapons.

Two Republican senators, Bob Corker and Tom Cotton, say they’ve developed a plan to address the administration’s complaints about the deal. Their proposal would involve automatically reimposing sanctions should Iran’s nuclear program advance to the point where it could develop a nuclear weapon in less than one year.

As the administration announced its plan for Iran, Republican Senators Bob Corker and Tom Cotton said they had developed legislation intended to address what they see as deficiencies in the Iran nuclear deal.

In a proposed legislative framework, they offered a plan to automatically reimpose sanctions if Iran’s nuclear program were to get to a point where Tehran could develop a nuclear weapon in less than one year, known as a “breakout” period.

They said their measure, if passed by Congress, would remain in force indefinitely, lead to tougher inspections and limit Iran’s centrifuge development.

It was unclear what chance the measure, expected to be offered as an amendment to the existing Iran nuclear review law, would have of winning enough support to be passed by both the House of Representatives and Senate.

The deal’s other signatories – the UK, Germany, France, China, Russia and the European Union – are less than pleased with the US’s attempts to kill the accord, particularly since they disagree with the US’s assertion that Iran hasn’t complied with the terms of the deal.

Given that the notoriously fickle US Congress will now decide the fate of the deal, the other signatories will be forced to brook the uncertainty surrounding the deal"s ultimate fate. Last month, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the only way Iran would be persuaded to continue to observe the limits on its civil nuclear program would be if the other signatories all agreed to defy the US’s order to reimpose sanctions.

According to Bloomberg, European diplomats have discussed a scenario where they “create a win” for Trump by endorsing his criticisms of the Iranian ballistic missile program and the country’s support for groups like Hezbollah. 

Efforts to unwind or rewrite the accord will be a hard sell to the other nations that joined the U.S. in hammering it out in months of talks - not only Iran, China and Russia but also the U.K., France and Germany. The U.S. assertion that Iran isn’t complying with the agreement “contradicts the assessment of all member states of the European Union - and it contradicts our assessment,” German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel told reporters in Berlin on Oct. 9.

European leaders have echoed some of Trump’s concerns, especially about Iran’s ballistic missile program and its support for groups they consider terrorists. One European diplomat said on condition of anonymity that allies hope to “create a win” for Trump by endorsing his criticism of Iran in the hope that he will move on to other issues.

Unfortunately for the White House, Corker is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, so any legislation will need to pass his committee before the broader senate can bring it to a vote.

Trump famously laid the blame for the Iran deal at Corker’s feet after the senator told the New York Times that the White House was functioning like an “adult daycare center”. Notably, Corker’s plan would stop short of trashing the deal.

But with only a slim two-vote majority, a handful of foreign-policy moderates could feasibly stop the Senate from implementing its plan, creating another situation where Republicans are begrudgingly forced to accept the status quo.  
 

Pennsylvania Will Run Out Of Cash Tonight, Leaving $860MM Of Bills Unpaid

As equity markets spike to all new highs with each passing day, the number of fiscal crises springing up within local and state governments around the country are reaching somewhat alarming levels, even if they"re being completely ignored by investors.  As Reuters notes this morning, the state of Pennsylvania may become the latest example government failure when it runs out of cash later tonight leaving some $860 million worth of bills unpaid.

Pennsylvania could run out of cash on Friday, leaving $860 million of bill payments up in the air as lawmakers continue to argue over a revenue package that is more than two months overdue.

The state legislature passed a $32.5 billion spending plan on June 30, the end of the fiscal year and the deadline for the current year’s budget.

But it failed to agree on a revenue package to pay for those expenses, and the state has been borrowing money from its own short-term investment pool.

Treasurer Joe Torsella has said he will not issue more such loans and that the state’s general fund will likely run down to zero on Friday.

While Pennsylvania will be able to make some payments - including nearly $102 million of debt service costs due on Friday - it will not be able to pay all the bills that are due, said Treasury spokesman Mike Connolly.

An estimated $860 million of payments for various items, possibly including schools and Medicaid, could be delayed until the legislature fully funds the budget.

Not surprisingly, Pennsylvania"s funding crisis has only been exacerbated by a political dispute over whether the state"s budget gap should be filled with extra taxes and/or expense cuts.

On Wednesday night the state House of Representatives narrowly approved a revenue package, but the Senate appeared likely to reject it unless a compromise can be reached over the weekend.

“We plan to take a few days to review the House plan. At this point, we will return Monday,” said Jennifer Kocher, a spokeswoman for Senate Republicans.

The Senate had passed its own plan in July, proposing to close a $2.3 billion budget gap with borrowing and two new taxes: a first-ever severance tax on natural gas and a gross receipts tax on consumer utility bills.

But tax-averse Republicans in the House balked and did not pass their own bill until Wednesday night. It proposes no new taxes but would raise about $1 billion by selling a portion of the funding stream from the 1998 tobacco settlement, in which tobacco companies agreed to pay U.S. states for tobacco-related healthcare costs.

All of which should serve to comfort Pennsylvania public employees that their jobs, and 56% funding pensions, are "money good."

Liberal Media Continues To Turn Against 'AntiFa': "This Is Food For The Adversary"

Yesterday, the Washington Post surprised readers by turning against black-clad “Antifa” protesters who violently assaulted no fewer than five conservative demonstrators at a rally in Berkeley, Calif. on Sunday. Previously, the US capital’s paper of record and its mainstream media cohorts had focused their scorn on violence committed by conservative protesters, particularly in the aftermath of the tragic car-attack in Charlottesville, Va. earlier this month.

But as it turns out, WaPo was ahead of the curve. Because today, both the Los Angeles Times AND The Atlantic published similarly scathing attacks on the black-clad demonstrators, portraying members of Antifa as brutal thugs who routinely gang up on overmatched supporters of President Donald Trump at events like Sunday’s anti-Marxist rally in Berkeley. Violent confrontations instigated by AntiFa have also occurred at rallies and events stretching from Portland, Ore. to Washington D.C. However, before this week, accounts like these were mostly confined to “conservative” media like the Daily Caller and Washington Times.

The LATimes" report focuses on how Antifa has alienated other leftist groups, who object to its violent tactics. One of the individuals quoted in the story, Todd Gitlin, founder of Students for a Democratic Society, one of the original anti-Vietnam War groups, blamed Antifa for sullying the left’s reputation and accused them of being “food for the adversary.”

…first, the headline…

…now, the story...

“But as the protest got underway, some of those in masks would resort to mob violence, attacking a small showing of supporters of President Trump and others they accused, sometimes inaccurately, of being white supremacists or Nazis.

The graphic videos of those attacks have spurred soul-searching within the leftist activist movement in the Bay Area and beyond. Emotions remain raw in the wake of this month’s white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va., which left one woman dead and dozens injured.”

...

‘This is food for the adversary,’ said sociologist Todd Gitlin, a founder of Students for a Democratic Society, which organized the first national protests against the Vietnam War. He pointed out that violent acts committed by a few will almost always hijack the narrative of the entire protest, and that it is happening now should be no surprise.”

The Atlantic continued with a more comprehensive accounting of Antifa’s sins, beginning with the protester who famously punched Richard Spencer in the face on inauguration day…

“In Washington, D.C., the response to that question centers on how members of Congress can oppose Trump’s agenda, on how Democrats can retake the House of Representatives, and on how and when to push for impeachment. But in the country at large, some militant leftists are offering a very different answer. On Inauguration Day, a masked activist punched the white-supremacist leader Richard Spencer. In February, protesters violently disrupted UC Berkeley’s plans to host a speech by Milo Yiannopoulos, a former Breitbart.com editor. In March, protesters pushed and shoved the controversial conservative political scientist Charles Murray when he spoke at Middlebury College, in Vermont.”

...responses sometimes spill blood. Since antifa is heavily composed of anarchists, its activists place little faith in the state, which they consider complicit in fascism and racism. They prefer direct action: They pressure venues to deny white supremacists space to meet. They pressure employers to fire them and landlords to evict them. And when people they deem racists and fascists manage to assemble, antifa’s partisans try to break up their gatherings, including by force.

Such tactics have elicited substantial support from the mainstream left.

...

Antifa believes it is pursuing the opposite of authoritarianism. Many of its activists oppose the very notion of a centralized state. But in the name of protecting the vulnerable, antifascists have granted themselves the authority to decide which Americans may publicly assemble and which may not. That authority rests on no democratic foundation. Unlike the politicians they revile, the men and women of antifa cannot be voted out of office. Generally, they don’t even disclose their names.

...

Revulsion, fear, and rage are understandable. But one thing is clear. The people preventing Republicans from safely assembling on the streets of Portland may consider themselves fierce opponents of the authoritarianism growing on the American right. In truth, however, they are its unlikeliest allies.

Antifa has until now effectively enjoyed immunity from criticism in the mainstream press.

But the first inklings of a sea-change in public opinion emerged over the weekend, when one local reporter shared his story about being harassed and attacked by members of Antifa at Sunday’s rally. His remarks appear to have struck a chord...

KTVU anchor Frank Somerville, a well-known Bay Area TV personality, took to Facebook this weekend to share what happened to him when he took a day trip to Berkeley on Sunday. Somerville – hardly a conservative – explained how the Antifa protesters threatened to destroy his phone and needlessly demeaned and attacked him for the simple act of trying to document a rally taking place on public property.

In response, Somerville declared that he “experienced hate first hand today... It came from these people dressed in all black at a protest in Berkeley.”

“Ironically they were all chanting about NO hate.

Some had shields and gloves. Some had helmets. Some had gas masks.”

Anyone who’s been paying attention has been presented with many examples of Antifa’s violent thuggery. Now, it’s almost encouraging to hear that the MSM at least has enough sense not to fall on its sword protecting a bunch of violent, embittered hoodlums.

Like they say, three’s a trend…
 

Former Australian PM Admits He Was Passed Out Drunk During Crucial Financial Crisis Vote

After years of lies and deflections, Australia’s former prime minister Tony Abbott has admitted on a local television program that he missed a crucial 2009 vote on a $42 billion stimulus package intended to shore up the country’s banking system during the financial crisis because he was passed out drunk.

Abbott, then a member of the Liberal party’s front bench, said he fell asleep on the couch in his office after consuming “quite a few bottles of wine” with two of his peers in the MP’s dining room “and could not be roused.” The next thing he knew, it was morning, and he had missed the vote, according to the Herald Sun.

The admission comes years after a public row erupted between Abbott and former Labor Treasurer Wayne Swan when, back in 2013, Swan accused Abbott of missing the crucial vote because he drank too much. At the time, Abbott demanded that Swan stop “telling lies” about him, and members of Abbott’s party asked that Swan withdraw his comments from the parliamentary record.

The disclosure, which was seemingly made on a whim, took Abbott’s friends and opponents by surprise. Abbott served as prime minister for two years between 2013 to 2015 before losing a party leadership vote to his former communications minister and current Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

Abbott made his big reveal during an interview with Annabel Crabb, the eponymous host of popular Australian politics program “The House With Annabel Crabb.” The interview will be included in an episode set to air on September 5, according to the Herald Sun.

“There was one famous occasion when Peter Costello, Kevin Andrews and I hung out rather a long time here,” he told Crabb.

“The night that the then-Rudd government was trying to bring in measures to deal with the GFC.

“I think quite a few bottles of wine were consumed by the three of us,” Abbott said with a laugh.

“Peter was close to leaving at that stage, and I think all of us were in a mellow and reflective mood, so the reflections went on for longer, and later, than they should have.

“The impact was rather greater than it should have been.

“I think I famously slept through several divisions.”

Crabb pressed Abbott to confirm that the rumors about his drinking were, in fact, true.

“Crabb prompted the former PM to go on, saying, “the story was that you repaired … to the couch in your room and could not be roused”.

Mr Abbott confirmed this is what happened.

“It was a late night sitting, against all OH&S rules as you can imagine,” he said.

“I lay down, and the next thing I knew it was morning.”

Swan jumped on the opportunity to take a few jabs at his longtime political rival. Both Swan and Abbott continue to serve in Australia’s House of Representatives.

“When the jobs of Australians were on the line, Tony Abbott didn’t care,” he said.

“His recklessness knows no bounds.”

While the revelation is amusing, it likely won’t impact Abbott’s chances of retaining his seat. Abbott’s district, Warringah, which is located along the northern edge of Sydney, has long been dominated by Liberal Party politicians.