Posts by Jaime Ortega-Simo:

    The US hidden card against Russian and Chinese gold reserves?

    October 22nd, 2018

    By Jaime Ortega. 

    Precious metals are undervalued compared to the US dollar because the US runs trade deficits which keep the artificial price of the dollar high making it the world reserve currency.  The US dollar remains the most liquid fiat currency in the money supply given its popularity and tangibility, easy to exchange in any market, its trade volume is second to none.

    The goal of the US dollar was to tare the popularity away from silver and gold so trade could centralized and manipulated by a central bank that could issue new loans to investors in exchange for higher interest rates.

    Gold and silver are both speculative assets but serve as units of accounts. Precious metals cannot be centralized since they cannot be created, they can be mined and dugout the earth. Any major central bank knows precious metals are a kryptonite to paper currency since gold and silver have historically remained the survivors of economics bust and booms.

    Whether or not the Federal Reserve holds gold reserves in its vaults it’s a question of speculation and rumors. But for the US to remain competent in the market where outside players like Russia and china have acquired precious metals to devalue the US dollar, it most hold assets in its vaults whether or not it has gold and silver.

    There is one asset class that can compete with precious metals and that is precious stones. If gold and silver are scarce assets, gems and diamonds are scarcer. Little is known about the price volatility of stones relative to the artificial value of US notes, since unlike precious metals they are not traded in an exchange and rarely listed on indexes. A table full of precious diamonds might be worth a basketball court of Russian and Chinese precious metals.

    In my opinion the US might hold a vast reserve of precious stones used as special insurance to hedge risk aversion against a comeback of precious metals – the kryptonite of the money supply – that would weaken the artificially bloated US dollar.  Gold can only compete with other asset classes relative to its scarce value within its market volume, including its historical appreciation rate, which means diamonds could easily overtake gold prices if investors jump from debt to equity markets during a credit crisis. Historically, the purchasing power of diamonds in exchanges is far greater than that of any precious metal known to man. In fact, diamonds are the most stable asset class in the world with the least volatility in price fluctuations relative to inflation.

    If the US bond market collapses to the value of Chinese and Russian bonds pegged by precious metals, the US could issue the debt to its investors with precious stones as it underlying asset would skyrocket once the US dollar devalues. Such tradable exchange would mean that a devaluation of the US dollar, would be an appreciation of the nominal value of precious stones worldwide which would be many times greater than that of gold.

    If a new exchange for precious stones was created it could potentially destabilize the speculative price of precious metals and halt the rise of crypto-currencies, hurting both gold-silver prices and Bitcoin. The only way the US could avoid a total meltdown of its currency, is by pegging precious stones with the total money supply in circulation and use contractionary monetary policy to shrink bank created money into a one thousand year bond of debt of repayment pegged by precious stones — or the promise it would dig for more diamonds in during the life spam of the long term debt — ending the Federal Reserve power to create interest.

    Comments Off on The US hidden card against Russian and Chinese gold reserves?

    The Bond game, artificial inflation and dark bubbles

    October 19th, 2018

    By Jaime Ortega.


    US Treasuries are considered the safest of all securities in the financial world. The US knows that in order to dominate the global economy, investment grade treasuries must be ranked above all other foreign bonds. Bonds must be of the highest grade to prevent a devaluation of the US Dollar which in turn could cause systemic risk in the never ending bull market that continues to grow artificially with constant corrections from the Federal Reserve trying restore investor confidence in equities and debt markets.

    In my opinion, the US Government has set up an ingenious scheme to control the phase of foreign bonds. Their goal is to push tariffs, trade deficits and financial sanctions in emerging markets like Russia and China that expand transnational investments to the Middle East, Europe, Central Asia and East Africa. Russia and China acquired in the past decade thousands of metric tons of precious metals to collateralize their fiat currencies against the US Dollar and push undecided investors to rethink their holding positions in the US debt market. The US knows, the American greenback has zero intrinsic value compared with Russia and China’s gold pegged currencies, so they must apply a different strategy to buy time and find an exit strategy as the Fed keeps hiking interest with much uncertainty in the market. The US is also aware other BRIC economies look forward for alternative partners hoping to finally end the US spell of running a trade deficit of debt to these countries through central banking.

    Russia and China know that the best way to expand financially is to issue their foreign bonds and dump US treasuries to other desperate buyers in Open Market Operations. Countries that park their currency in Russian and Chinese bonds know that incase of default –unlike the US dollar which can only print more paper to restore confidence in the market– they will receive precious metals in exchange to hedge their loss. The Trump administration despite their quarrels with the Federal Reserve, know full well that a destabilization of US treasuries in foreign markets would end the reign of the US dollar as the choice of trade. The Trump administration must be secretly working alongside the Fed to fix the economy and buy time, by also not allowing other nations to surpass the US by issuing more secure debt.

    The reason why the US has imposed new financial sanctions and tariffs to rival world powers is to create a form of artificial inflation that would eat up the value of short term foreign notes and bills, so investors move back again into purchasing US treasuries. This artificial inflation is created when normal inflation is influenced by a combination of sanctions, tariffs or other externalities that simultaneously affect the market at the same time like a perfect storm created by government. Artificial inflation can be manipulated by the US to sporadically destabilize any foreign economy. With high inflationary rates the GDP of the country slows, and pushes away investors trying to seek new economic opportunities as was observed recently in Turkey.

    Artificial inflation triggered by outside governments offset competitors creating what I denote as a “black bubble”. A black bubble is formed not out of normal domestic growth or lines of credit, but through direct outside intervention. This was the case of Qatar, a famously known wealthy country, which suffered an embargo of goods from the Arab League. A normal bubble originates from risky investments, but a black bubble is not created by risky investments but foreign trading obstructions.

    With slapping sanctions in effect, the prices of commodities drastically increase as a shortage of consumer goods creates immediate demand, which in turn stagnates corporate growth and hurts the performance of stock prices and affects the volatility of underlying assets inside short term future contracts. With chocking tariffs, the US can intercede with crude oil barrel production and sell it at a better price than Russia, which also creates a dark bubble in oil trade, where Russia is forced to sell oil cheaper than its domestic market value in relation with regular inflation to stay competitive. In essence, bond holders of Chinese and Russian sovereignties panic as artificial inflation eats up the value of the yields of interest they promise to repay in coupons forcing Russia and China to borrow from banks, since their weakened central bank is unable to print more money because an excess of yuan’s and rubbles in the world economy would only devalue their currency against the dollar making manufacturer goods and services more expensive in the global economy.

    Artificial inflation is double the size of regular inflation. Whereas volatility in prices during regular inflationary stages takes a long time to manifest and eat up a 30 year bond, artificial inflation eats up the bond in a faster time frame. Devaluation occurs faster as prices spike out of control from normal inflationary conditions which results in a modern day financial weapon made by the policy making of Washington that regulates foreign markets to bolster its in own survival. If China and Russia continue to aggressively expand their investments and influence worldwide, the United States can only watch or try to slow down their growth to look for a solution to its own emerging debt crisis that is likely to collapse in the form of derivatives through shadow banking and a lack of central regulation.

    Comments Off on The Bond game, artificial inflation and dark bubbles

    Guest Posting and Your Rankings: How It Can Affect Them

    September 25th, 2018



    Guest posting to help boost your overall rankings can be rewarding when done right. Guest posting is a part of inbound marketing which can provide a number of great benefits to your overall website long term. Some benefits you can gain from guest posting include, but aren’t limited to:


    • You can gain a backlink on high authority websites.
    • You can gain organic traffic back to your website.
    • You can be promoted on another person’s social media.
    • You can build better brand/individual reputation.
    • You can become an industry leader by writing high quality content.


    While these are many of the great benefits of guest posting, especially from companies like No BS Agency, how can the process really help you and how can the backlink affect your website rankings? Let’s have a look.


    A Link’s Value


    When you gain a backlink on a website, it’s generally treated by search engines as a vote of confidence. In simple terms it’s like the site you’re linking to is saying that your site has value. This is how Google works in a sense.

    So here’s a break down of a link’s worth of rankings based on different types of websites:


    • If a link is tagged as a nofollow backlink, the link is worthless in regards to ranking as it doesn’t allow for link juice to be counted by Google.
    • If a link is from a restricted domain like a government website, it’s worth the highest ranking, but these are generally the hardest to gain access on.
    • If a link is from a website with high quality (DA 50+) it’s worth the second highest points to your ranking.
    • If linking to a site that features a different topic to your own (different niche) it’s worth less than in-niche website backlinking.
    • If linking to another of your own websites, depending on the metrics, it’s worth the least to your ranking.


    When looking to link build, it’s important to understand the importance of how different types of websites, as suggested above, can affect your ranking.

    Mid Tier Links and Their Value

    Middle Tier links are the links that are between high authority websites and low spam websites. These are generally sites within the DA25/DA40 range. These types of sites have recognition in their industry but they aren’t up to influencer status just yet.

    These types of sites have two uses, the first one is they can help you gradually and slowly build your SEO value. These sites while they aren’t influencer status, can help you slowly gain quality SEO value over time. The more mid tier links you start to build the stronger your backlink profile and ranking will gain.

    The second use of mid tier links is they can help with building and reinforcing trust. Google knows when you’re link building and will monitor any unnatural link profiles. You can gain up to 5 backlinks on a high quality website, but the more you backlink to it, the less value that link will give you as it will start to look unnatural. Instead you need diversity in your link profile, this is where mid tier links are great options as it creates a more natural link profile that can help influence your rankings and push them higher over time.

    No Follow Link Value

    While nofollow links don’t add any value in regards to link juice back to your website, they can provide value in other ways. The first is to help improve your link diversity. If you have a mix of nofollow and dofollow links back to your website, it’ll look more natural and can help you over time without being suspect in the eye’s of Google. Other indirect value you may get includes more traffic to your website which can lead to more boosts indirectly and more sales and profits if you’re a business.  


    Guest posting to gain backlinks is a good idea, and when done right it can affect your rankings. Overall if you add a mixture of high tier, mid tier and nofollow links across your link building efforts you’ll find that you SEO ranking will improve dramatically over time. Are you ready to start your link building efforts?


    Comments Off on Guest Posting and Your Rankings: How It Can Affect Them

    What To Consider When Insuring Your Business

    September 25th, 2018



    One major responsibility when it comes to running a business, is to ensure you’ve put all the necessary measures in place to protect yourself, your employees and the company at large should unfortunate circumstances arise. You’d be acting truly irresponsibly indeed if you failed to recognize the importance of taking out business insurance, irrespective of your line of work.


    You may be feeling overwhelmed by the details, terms, and conditions of varying business insurance policy plans — it can feel as though they are purposefully complicated. Good insurance agencies, such as Melton McFadden, will do what they can to guide you through the process. For now, here are four factors you should consider when insuring your business…


    Where do you work out of?


    You may not think it, but even if you work out of your own home, it’s recommended that you take out a separate business insurance policy to cover all your equipment and so on; they may not be covered by your home contents insurance.


    If you hire a working space or own your office building, there will be other building and contents insurance details to work out. You should also consider insuring any other assets that are vital to the success of your business. If you manufacture goods, guarantee you’ve insured the machines you use; if they go bust, you can’t work, and so you can’t earn money.


    How many people do you employ?


    You’ll likely need to organize insurance cover for every member of staff employed by your company — this could be to cover their presence at work (personal liability), office health and safety, etc. You may also wish to offer life insurance and health cover as part of your employee benefits; this can be a real draw for motivating prospective workers.


    In truth, even if you are a sole trader, you’ll want to think about insuring yourself as part of the business.


    What work do you do?


    We’ve mentioned the need to insure your workers’ tools and equipment, but you must also consider the role of other insurance types, such as travel, motor, public liability and personal indemnity within your business.


    If you, or your employees, travel and drive for work, you’ll want to take out travel and vehicle insurance to cover the cost of any accidents, delays or other unfortunate claims in the company name. Public liability is crucial if you work in retail, entertainment, or any other space where the public frequent daily. Personal indemnity is unpleasant to consider, but would prove invaluable should the time come to rely on it; this cover comes into play if a client of yours makes a loss of some sort, as a result of a mistake by your company; think medical negligence, misinformation from stock brokers, etc.


    Don’t regret not taking out insurance…


    Insurance is a business purchase you hope you’ll never get to see pay off — you don’t want to end up in a situation where you need to put in a claim. Nevertheless, to risk not having insurance in place is a dangerous business strategy… don’t regret, insure your business.


    Comments Off on What To Consider When Insuring Your Business

    3 Hobbies That Could Help Improve Your Finances

    September 25th, 2018


    Leisure time is often seen as a luxury for working adults as it’s a chance to take a break from work and indulge in something enjoyable. While everyone uses their time differently, some choose to engage in fun hobbies. The good thing about hobbies is that some of them can be monetized which can be beneficial in this day and age. This is because often, people are looking for ways to generate extra income, but don’t seem to have the spare time required to do so. However, if you’re able to take something you do for fun and make money from it, you can kill two birds with one stone. On that note, you’re going to find three hobbies that could improve your finances below.


    For all of the game lovers out there, this is definitely a hobby that can improve your finances. In case you’re wondering how you could join the many other people out there who have decided to start gaming channels. As you likely already know, starting a gaming channel on a live streaming platform like Twitch could help you build a following which could be monetized in different ways. You could start by buying the equipment you need to film yourself and then looking for Twitch stream overlays to help with the graphics and visuals. Once you’ve set your channel up, marketing and getting people to engage in a good way to generate buzz.


    In addition to gaming, another hobby that could improve your finances is writing. Some people write as a way of expressing themselves while for others, it’s their way of being creative. However, writing is a core skill that is used for communication, so if you can do it well, it’s a valuable asset. Regarding how you can make money writing, you could start with the common route of creating your own blog. After ensuring you have good content and are consistent enough, you could look into making money through ads or affiliate marketing. In addition to this, you can write blog posts, write for a digital magazine, or try copywriting on a freelance basis.


    If you happen to be more of the visual type of creative and find yourself making illustrations in your free time, then you should know that this hobby could make you money. People are always on the lookout for both illustrations and designs whether for a billboard, a new ad, or a website. For this reason, you should consider selling your designs online to anyone who’s interested in buying. You could also see if you can find clients you can do ongoing jobs for as a source of regular income.

    Financial stability is something that is usually important to every working adult. Knowing that if you lose your job tomorrow or an emergency arises, you have the finances to survive it can give you peace of mind. For this reason, taking the opportunity that arises when you have a hobby that can make you money is key. Hopefully, this article has been helpful in regards to giving you ideas that you can use as a starting point.


    Comments Off on 3 Hobbies That Could Help Improve Your Finances

    5 Personal Finance Skills You Should Learn While You’re Young

    September 25th, 2018



    Young people really shouldn’t be too concerned with money. When you’re a teenager you’ve got other important things on your mind.


    You haven’t quite figured out how the financial world works yet and you probably have no idea how you even want the rest of your life to go.


    The closer people get to their 20’s though, the more important thinking about these things becomes.


    Once you finish college you’re out on your own, and if college isn’t for you then you’re out on your own even before that.


    If you don’t have a handle on your personal finance things could very difficult, very quickly for you. Educating yourself about this when you’re young will work wonders for you long-term.


    Here’s five personal finance skills that will change your future if you learn them while you’re still young.


    1.    Budgeting


    This is arguably the most important thing that you can learn when it comes to your personal finance. Budgeting is essential.


    When it comes to organizing a budget for yourself, the best way to do it is to be as detailed as possible and factor in any money that you’ll be making.


    You need to know where all of your money is going and you need to make sure that it’s all going to the right place.


    This actually takes a lot more self-discipline than you might think. It’s very easy to overspend on certain things or to forget about a particular expense that you have.


    The consequences of not budgeting can be pretty disastrous so you need to make sure that you are always keeping track of how much you have and how much you should have.


    The most obvious thing that you should do first is make a list of your expenses and of all of your income. But that’s just the start.


    You need to accomodate for a certain amount of unexpected expenses every month too and set aside some of your income for that.

    Unfortunately, something unexpected is pretty much guaranteed to happen to all of us at some point.


    Your expenses could also change with very little notice so you need to ensure that you have enough money to react to that if it happens.


    And then of course you have to keep a certain amount every month to spend at your leisure. That part is painless of course, sticking to it however is not.


    These are just some of the things that you need to think about when making a budget, there is a lot more to it.


    If you’re not naturally good at this sort of thing, you could try getting your hands on a budgeting app. There’s a lot of really good ones that could be very helpful.


    Having a set, detailed budget will lay the foundation for every financial decision you make and will be massively beneficial.


    1.    Planning for Retirement


    This might sound a little crazy to you, but as soon as you start making money, you need to start thinking about retirement.


    And I don’t mean that you should be counting down the seconds until you can finally stop working, but you should be preparing for your financial state once your working life is over.


    The best thing to do is to start accumulating funds in a specific account on a monthly basis. And if you can, you might as well start with your very first paycheck.


    An IRA account is a good way to go about it or you can go for a Roth IRA account if you meet the income limits for that.


    This is something that you will be contributing to on a monthly basis and it will grow and grow until the day you retire.


    Some business offer a similar system called a 401(k), which is essentially an individual retirement account that is sponsored by your employer.


    This is a respected system that has been in place for almost forty years but it’s worth learning about how a 401(k) works before you actually decide if that’s how you want to save.


    Whichever way to decide to save, make sure that this is one of your top priorities when you start earning.


    It will seem unnecessary at the very beginning, but if you take the time to set up a retirement plan you will thank yourself later on.  


    1.    Continuous Investment


    Budgeting and saving is great, but if you really want to get yourself into top-notch financial shape, you should also start investing.


    Once you’ve planned your budget and you’ve worked out how much you need to spend every month and what you’ll have left over, you should take that leftover cash and invest it.


    The idea behind this is that you can take a small amount of money that over time will turn into something really worth the initial input.


    It’s not easy, it takes a lot of planning and in truth, it can backfire quite badly if you get very unlucky. But if you approach this correctly it should work out fine.


    Do your research first and find out which companies are the best ones to invest in and have a track-record of a good return on investment (ROI) for their investors.


    You should also try to look for companies that offer high-yielding dividends. These shares will ensure that you have a steady income as the investors get a share of the company’s profit.


    Once you’ve found the right shares to invest in, make sure that you commit to actually investing every month. You will have to be persistent with it to get any kind of value.


    You’ll also have to be patient and make sure that you stick by these investments. It can get frustrating but trying to predict the turnover yourself will probably not end well.


    Do the work first and invest in the right places. It’s an extremely worthwhile practice.


    1.    Negotiating


    First thing’s first, when I say negotiation, I don’t meant that you should negotiate for absolutely everything.


    You don’t have the negotiate a discount for the gallon of milk that you buy at the supermarket or anything, but it is a good idea to get into the habit of negotiating when it’s appropriate.


    Think of it for bigger expenses like cars and houses and also if you’re trying to sell something yourself.


    You’ll usually find that there is a bit of wiggle room with most people in this regard and if you try your hand at negotiating you will often come away with more in your pocket than you expected.


    Always be reasonable though, you don’t want to sour any relationships or cheat anybody unnecessarily. Try and stay within an acceptable price range.


    It’s also a good skill to have when you’re being offered a job. You should always try to ensure that you’re getting the best salary and benefits possible.


    1.    Refusing


    This might seem like a no-brainer, but you would be surprised at just how difficult this actually is for some people.


    As we said earlier, the first thing you should do is make a budget and once you’ve done that you’ll be left with a certain amount of money every month that you can spend at your leisure.


    If you don’t want to overspend this particular portion of your budget, you’ll realize pretty quickly that you have to say no to some things.


    I’m not exclusively talking about fun things either. Sure sometimes you might have to refuse a night on the town or a road trip, but there’s other stuff too.


    You don’t always have to volunteer your time and money to help out other people. If you don’t have the means to contribute to fundraisers or lend cash to a struggling friend, don’t do it.


    It might be hard to refuse things that you feel you’re being pressured into, but it’s important to do so. It’s your money at the end of the day, and your budget is there for a reason.




    The most important thing to take away from all of this, is that these are skills that are best learnt at a young age.


    If you pay attention to these things and get a handle of the appropriate skills early, things will run smoothly for the rest of your life.

    Comments Off on 5 Personal Finance Skills You Should Learn While You’re Young

    Should I Get A Credit Card?

    September 25th, 2018


    Credit card debt continues to mount for millions of people worldwide. We continuously hear radio ads stressing the dangers of too many financial obligations, and at the same time, the ads push their next best solution to the problem. However, what they fail to mention is the effect on your credit score and the ensuing high interest rates caused by a low credit score.


    Credit Cards and Your Credit Score


    The truth about credit cards is that you can, and should, use them to help build your credit score. The catch is that overuse gets you in trouble and suddenly you find yourself unable to make the payments. Your credit score takes a hit when your debt to income ratio shows high debt to low income, and your score follows suit.


    On the brighter side of things, when your ratio improves, and you show that you increasingly pay more than the minimum payment, your score begins to rise. If you maintain the pattern of on-time payments with a smaller balance every month, your score shows marked improvement.


    Bad Credit is Easy to Get


    Surprisingly, many people still rack their credit cards up to the limit and realize they’re stuck making those big payments. Multiply that payment by the number of credit cards they’re using, and it’s easy to see how the proverbial snowball gets rolling. Multiple large payments represent one way that lousy credit begins to affect many people.


    The reasons for mismanagement of credit cards are many, but one of the common reasons is the lure of easy credit. The temptation to spend sometimes get the better of people and when money is tight, a credit card is the answer. Before they know it, those payments get too large, and they’re hard to make.


    After a single missed payment, the late fees snowball and cause the balance to climb rapidly. It’s a double-edged sword. You can’t make the payment because you don’t have the money, and the fees compound the problem to the point of not paying any amount at all. A mere thirty days later and your credit score takes yet another hit downward.


    Desperation Begins to Take its Toll


    Most people with credit card debt had, at one time, good credit which is how they qualified for the credit in the first place. A continued good performance with the credit line helped to influence the card company to increase the limit. However, eventually, the payments grew too large, and the payments stopped.


    The unfamiliar feeling of trying to figure out how to climb out of the financial hole you find yourself in can lead to feelings of despair with no hope in sight. While low to moderate financial responsibilities is understandable, too much debt ruins your dreams and halts any progress toward financial goals for the future.


    Stop the Downward Slide and Get Help


    Fortunately, there is help available. Debt settlement solutions exist today that usually have a better outcome for your credit than in earlier years. Any balance that isn’t paid hurts your credit score and continues to do so until a remedy is put into action. It’s best to act sooner than later to stop the rapid drop in your score.


    Stay away from debt settlement companies that might suggest bankruptcy as your only choice. Creditors would rather receive their money from you, but in a reasonable amount of time, instead of losing most or all of it through bankruptcy.


    Creditors willingly discuss payment options either from you directly, or through a reputable debt settlement company. Many companies have a professional relationship with the major credit card companies and can assist you in developing a workable payment plan to stop the late fees and daily phone calls.

    Comments Off on Should I Get A Credit Card?

    Military Power Overruns Financial and Political Conspiracies

    February 16th, 2017


    By Jaime Ortega.


    One of the errors of modern day conspiracy theorist is that it overrates the power of government and depreciate the historical influence military wields on sovereign nations. The argument goes, wealth alone is the determinant factor that controls the security and stability of any country. Without wealth how can we buy Tanks? Pay our military? Help businesses expand? Develop more nuclear weapons? Sponsor research? – And so goes the theory.

    According to conventional wisdom, the lifespan of the military apparatus depends exclusively on the nation’s wealth — and it’s an unnegotiable bond. Yet, the conventional theory misses one crucial point hard to dismiss, that is, western conspiracies only follow the model of western democracy to predict economic cycles: democracy is just one of many ancient systems of government that have existed throughout millennia. Monarchies, theocracies, republics, totalitarian/autocratic states and ancient aristocratic states happen to be the rule of thumb in history.

    The conventional theory plays with the modern rules of financial preservation. A man sees another man and offers to pay a large sum of cash to buy a helicopter, and after the purchase, the new legal owner is entitled to his asset protected under basic constitutional laws. Under a democratic system, access to wealth depends on status and economic growth; financial restrictions apply to those who can’t afford to buy new assets in the free market economy. A bank can purchase property and increase its wealth having a regulated system that protects its interest under judicial watch. Anyone using fiat currency is capable of playing by the rules of democracy no matter how big or small such business or institution is.

    Now imagine, we dump democracy out the picture and supplant its basic tenants with ancient systems. A man sees another man and instead of offering money, he murders the other man in cold blood and steals his assets — he is now legally entitled to a new helicopter. Under western democracy, the man deserves to receive the full wrath of justice; however, under the rules of a military government laws no longer pertain to democracy. If the military decided to burn every single dollar, controlled all private and public assets, executed every bank CEO and decided to seize all national resources without having to amend to any constitutional law – their actions would suffer no repercussions because ultimately no one would be able to stand up against their supremacy, unless it’s another military threat. In other words, those who have wealth have developed a system to protect their assets using lawsuits in courts of law – the military would not follow such protocol, if it were to raise to power because their system doesn’t abide by the same constitutional laws that protect ordinary citizens.

    It’s interesting to note, that US military justice follows a different protocol than civil justice. When soldiers are trialed for war crimes they cannot appeal to the US Supreme Court; instead they are judged and prosecuted under military courts. Such contrast of justice shows that even at a democratic and constitutional level, the military follows its own judicial structure. Most democratic and undemocratic countries have it set where military law is not intertwined with civil justice – only showing the stark contrast between democracy and what dictatorships look like.

    The military is the strongest force in human affairs, it can change drastic situations in no time. The military has the ability to destroy other nations, take their resources and summit people against their will without following rules or regulations. If the military campaign ends in victory, it guarantees free access to power and expansion. If the military decided one day insurrect and declare martial law, no politician would be able to stop it; likewise if the military decided to go to Wall Street and capture the most powerful financial figures alive, and confiscated their wealth, no one would be able to stop it.

    If the US generals rebelled against the system and decided to overthrow the government, they would seize the Federal Reserve and Treasury without much difficulty. They could seize the media, corporations, universities, land and other sectors devoid of suffering any repercussions. Whether or not a military coup would result in public admiration depends on the dictatorship itself and how it deals with people.

    The military has a power that financial institutions and governments don’t have, they can use force and have the numbers to challenge any intruder with war. They can conquer wealth and distribute it to the population to gain more followers, or they can corrupt their authority with tyranny – of course it depends on the moral belief of the general behind a dictatorship and his intention – at such point, democracy ceases to exist and the constitution becomes a dull useless document. The free market could continue after a dictatorship – of course, if capitalism is allowed to thrive — but most likely it would be replaced or under strict control of military supervision.

    As I mentioned on my previous articles there is a fine line between Government, financial institutions and military; they all subsist under the same constitutional umbrella, guided by rules and regulations. But each of these three elements follows its own function and acts as an independent subdivision. Governments set federal agencies to closely monitor the activities of military and financial institutions, in case they step out of line violating federal law.

    The military receives funds from the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury when the Executive order and congress agree to prepare for armed conflict. In 2008, banks were bailed out when congress decided to intercede and inject TARP money (Tax payer money) to save Wall Street from a complete financial meltdown. The government monitors financial institutions and military under the condition, that they follow the constituencies of the Founding Fathers.

    However, the interworking’s of Wall Street, and the military are not analogous; they both operate differently and their logistics and dimensions are worlds apart. Banks are wired with millions of different operations webbed around the world connected through trade routes. The military has thousands of operations webbed all around the world controlled by the Unified Combatant Command, placed all over the world in order to operate missions.

    Now the conspiracy theorist like Noam Chomsky believe that an oligarchy of wealthy elitist run the government and the financial markets worldwide. Secret organizations like the Bilderberg’s, Opus Dei, the Council of Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission and other groups pull the strings of the world economy. Others theorize that more ancient religious sects like the Jesuits, the Illuminati, the masons, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Jacobins, the Mormons and other groups run the world, and influence world governments.  No one agrees with ‘who is who’ but most conspiracy theorist agree that such groups run the world under a predetermined system.

    History shows ‘conflict of interest’ alone makes it virtually impossible for religious groups to be controlled by other religious groups. It is comical to suggest the order of the Jesuits, and the Muslim Brotherhood – ancient enemies since before the first Crusades — would work together under a council run by a catholic sinister ruler.  Mason and Mormon holding hands trying to plot how to conquer the world sounds like ‘Pinky and the Brain’; such absurdity view shows the lack of proper study of ancient history and the lessons taught throughout millennia.

    History also shows that total world unity has never worked.  No civilization has successfully tried to manipulate the system, implode its economy without travailing popular polarization, which did not end with revolts turned into full scale revolutions that ousted the plotters.  The Arab Spring in 2011, was a classic example of what happens to nations that decide to declare ‘martial law’ and how that ends in civil war – only one winner comes out from the ashes of civil wars and it is definitely  ‘not secret elites’.

    Yet, the conspiracy theorist fail to recognize history shows the most powerful force in civilization are neither democratic governments, corporations nor secret elites. The real dark horses are military generals. When generals unite, they can overrun and overthrow any other national force set around its confines and blockade its powers. The military has the ability to confront the population and set order under financial chaos or state of emergency.

    The second greatest force after the generals are not secret elites, corporations or governments; the second greatest force is the arch-enemy of the military, ordinary people that turn themselves into combatants and start to unite within the chaos formed from social disorder ideologically united to defeat the military coup. When millions of people unite to counter the military establishment, they have to either win or face massive genocide as the response of the military historically tends to be brutal.

    Military campaigns that turn into victory end with the control of new resources. Why buy banks, when you can just take it from bankers? Corporations, financial institutions and secret elites do not have that sort of power; instead their ecosystem only thrives under democracy, courts of laws and social order. Politicians and secret elites are not immune to social revolutions and military coups, no matter how powerful or great these are.

    Now, the economy can shift from bad to great under the right military leader, emperor or king. The military under the command of a great general can achieve great expansionist goals to help its nation thrive while ruling new satellite states. China knows NATO and the UN, are against them, so they respond by building new military garrisons and artificial islands on strategical points in the Pacific Ocean to control trade. China knows that by using its aggression, it can offset the financial retributions set by western politicians with military might.  The same is true with Russia, Russia is showing military aggression to counter all the financial sanctions imposed by the EU and the US. Russia knows that by interfering in the Syrian conflict, and setting bases in the Middle East, it can start to build strategic relations with Arab nations and offer their protection to counter US policy in the region and offset the current western balance.

    Russia might have the same economic power as Italy, but they have the military might to conquer many parts of the world; whereas Austria, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland and other northern European nations despite their inherit wealth do not have the same military capabilities as Russia – such paradox shows that wealth itself cannot sustain great military power.

    If conspiracy theorist are true, and the US is run by a secret group of elitist, they must be hands down the most stupid planners of human history.

    • If they declare martial law, people will fight back, order will split into chaos and new revolutionary factions will rise. It would be the end of the US economy and the nation. The secret elites turned the country into a ball of fire, and no one can survive under fire, not even the Oligarchs of Noam Chomsky.
    • A military coup could spark under the mismanagement of the government. The Democratic Party has done a superb job in making the military hate them. If a military coup happens, the market would immediately collapse —- and generals do not need to follow the orders of secret elites like the Star Wars movie to run their operations. The generals will execute the masterminds of the conspiracy plot, and take full control of the country, for the entire military follows their command. If money doesn’t exist, resources become opportunistic assets.
    • The secret elites implode the US economy. China, Iran, India, Turkey, Pakistan and Russia lick their chops watching the world market collapse, they invade different countries not worrying anymore about US interventionism, and they seize all strategical trading ports around the world. The end of the US as a superpower – great job! — Secret elites couldn’t be more brainless, they just lost millions of resources and investments to other raptorial military powers. The dumbest part is that they imploded the economy knowing that other military powers were on the rise.

    As I stated, the economic conspiracy model deals with a highly developed democratic system, but fails to recognize that the world has mostly been run by military nations, who used warfare to control all resources.  Sometimes, military powers were driven to conquer other countries based on faith, and vengeance rather than wealth. If secret elites exist, they are prawn to commit human error like anyone else, and must be very naïve about world affairs if they gamble a military rise.

    Comments Off on Military Power Overruns Financial and Political Conspiracies

    The Mexican vs Black American Ethnic War Is A Ticking Bomb

    January 23rd, 2017

    By Jaime Ortega.

    The Mexican vs Black American Ethnic War Is A Ticking Bomb

    After years of troublesome signs, the liberal media has done a tedious job covering the relationship between Hispanics and blacks — particularly the relationship involving Mexicans and blacks in low income neighborhoods across the US. One of the reasons the liberal media has left the conflict aside outside most editorial desk is because it fears taking sides on a new ethnic war which involves minorities that support Democrats.  The liberal media has advocated ethnic wars fume by consenting black and white supremacist groups to benefit from the media’s plot to turn every cop versus black issue into a racial agenda.  Yet, the media is dead silent about the racial tension boiling between Mexicans and blacks across the nation, living in low income communities — a lid to burst sooner than later.

    The Mexican migratory waves are pushing black communities on the south and the southwest further away from the suburbs into isolated areas. First generation Mexican families living in the US, patronize their culture and willingly segregate their communities to detach themselves from external influences. Most first generation Mexicans are religious traditionalist who neglect adopting the progressive American lifestyle, which they view as corrosive, anti-religious and individualistic.  Mexican illegal and legal immigrants left Mexico to seek new opportunities out of financial necessity and not out of personal choice.

    In the 40’s and 50’s blacks were overemployed, the black working class reached a historical peak and thrived in almost every blue collar sector. The black American working class not only worked hard, but helped rebuilt America during the recovery of the Great Depression.

    Blacks in America adopted the progressive and liberal forms of politics in the 70’s – It is not coincidence that to this day, the black majority continues to embrace the Democratic Party showing loyalty to its cause. The exponential decline of the black working class is glued with the adoption of progressive values; the correlation shows its no coincidence black traditionalism faded away as times changed. Traditionalism in black communities faded away and conservatism was replaced with Darwinian education coated with progressive values. The Darwinian model was anarchist and pro-separation of church and state. The Woodstock generation of 1969 took the black baby boomer generation into unknown ideological waters where anarchism and hippy contra-culture corroded black traditionalism.

    Drugs started to engulf entire black communities, and as a result ravaged and destroyed the bonds holding black families together. Darwinian education led many progressive blacks to embrace Planned Parenthood — and a large populace of uneducated black women aborted babies at rate never before observed in black history. It was the progressive educated black men and woman who led the uneducated black working class into a social downfall spiral. Just as many blacks in America abandoned traditionalism and conservative values and became addicted to narcotics, most black communities today are ‘hooked’ to federal programs; many families depend on federal aid to subsist and pay for housing. The few black men who escape poverty tend to become highly successful, and completely forget the perils behind their rundown neighborhoods as hopeless; even though, recently a few Hip Hop artist have waged a campaign to fund education and promote entrepreneurship in predominately black neighborhoods.

    Mexicans started in low income areas and over the decades settled on predominantly large black communities to begin their new American experience. The first migratory integration of Mexicans in black communities was opposed by xenophobic blacks who rejected the adoption of outsiders into their neighborhoods. In the early 70’s blacks still suffered the consequences of white supremacist, but as Mexican waves settled in black communities, blacks started to discriminate against Mexicans.  The second Mexican American generation attended schools in predominantly black districts and suffered from constant ethnic prejudice. As discrimination against Mexicans grew into violence, second generation Mexicans united and formed their own communities inside black communities. Integration was not possible, and as a result tension among both ethnic groups boiled – drugs only exacerbated the problem. With drug trade running the streets both ethnic groups incited violence against each-other and fights turned into retaliatory murders. The innocent lives taken away from the drug wars and gang violence permeated into the larger populace of both ethnic groups creating animosity between the two. For the past 40 years, the black versus Mexican phenomena has worsen to unprecedented levels.

    For years, the growing tension between blacks and Mexicans contained resentment and hatred – it became a cultural norm.  As time progressed, black women aborted children at an alarming rate and helped lower the black population to significant levels. Such move was managed by the progressive movement to help lower the numbers of blacks in America and control their population with free government fund clinics; on the other hand, Mexicans never fully adopted the Darwinian progressive model led by more Americanized progressive Mexican leaders, and stuck with their catholic values. The Mexican population will quadruple the black population in less than 10 years, and it will collide and financially disfranchise black communities with racial oppression and violence, if crimes rates continue to grow in ghettos across America. The hate against blacks won’t just come from Mexicans, but also Hispanics.

    As Mexicans and Hispanics move to positions of power and infiltrate the government with policies of self-preservation, black leaders will feel threatened by the initiative to focus on their communities instead of black neighborhoods. The reason blacks feel threatened is because Hispanics and Mexicans will become majority numbers inside many black communities and suburban low income projects. Mexicans and Hispanics who felt discriminated by blacks during their first migratory waves will undoubtedly unite to combat prejudice against them. Many of the Mexicans taking positions of government started in low income areas and lived alongside black communities – making future Hispanic leaders instinctively oppose blacks due to past frenzy between the two ethnic groups. The Hispanics and Mexicans cater to their own social problems and will never fully support black problems as long as it conflicts with their interest.

    Unlike many white kids who fear blacks, Mexicans don’t fear blacks. Based on the statistics I collected in 2015, a majority of Mexicans dislikes blacks and despise their lifestyle. Many Mexicans view blacks as crybabies who whine about life, not working hard to escape poverty. The average Mexican views himself as a tireless worker capable of taking on any job and situation without external help, and simply views blacks as people who leach from the grapevines of other people’s vineyards without taking self responsibility.  Unlike the 40’s and 50’s where the black working class thrived, today the average low income Mexican outworks and out-skills the average working black man. The average unqualified Mexican takes on jobs like dish washing, car cleaning, carpet cleaning, construction, cooks, janitorial, housekeeping, textile production, crop picking, cow dung collecting and other low skilled jobs; uneducated blacks simply avoid low skilled jobs opting to work in better sectors or simply join gangs — very few continue to thrive in the blue collar sector.  Blacks are on a precarious situation and have reached a worrisome, and problematic future. Mexicans take black jobs and outwork blacks; Mexicans are pushing blacks out of their communities as their numbers grow; Mexicans will significantly outnumber blacks four to one, and will challenge the dominance of the white population soon.

    Many blacks and Mexicans have to coexist together in low income areas. But what started as black discrimination against Mexican immigration in the early 70’s, will spill into a greater ethnic collision since bad blood between the two groups never fully croaked. Mexicans share the same cultural bonds, language and skin color; many Mexican parents don’t want their children to become part of the black community or associate themselves with blacks. Blacks also see Mexicans as inferior to them and view them as threats to their own cultural subsistence. Blacks see Mexicans as outsiders who are taking their jobs, steadily conquering their communities. The ethnic tension continues to worsen and it will soon spill into greater violence as time progresses, and the issue is silenced by the liberal media.  The media has done a poor job in reporting the growing ethnic conflict that promises to become a great peril between minorities in the future.  It is also likely that the Asian communities living in low income areas will join the Mexican minorities to expel blacks from their communities as they also suffered discrimination from blacks when they settled as newcomers.

    Many blacks are being killed by Mexicans. The tables have turned and the liberal media wants to stay out of the conflict to show impartiality even though they not show it when it comes down to blacks versus white stories. The issue needs to be addressed because the problem is here to stay and its a few steps from becoming the new American ethnic war.

    Comments Off on The Mexican vs Black American Ethnic War Is A Ticking Bomb

    Hillary Clinton Is Faker Than Online News

    December 12th, 2016


    By Jaime Ortega.



    As a journalist who predicted Donald Trump’s presidential bid, I find it inconceivable and outright stupid that Hillary Clinton would make the outrageous claim, “fake news is a growing problem which we know now can affect elections and it needs to be stopped in the name of democracy.”

    In this piece, I won’t hide my anger toward a women who publicly acts like Mary Poppins but slithers her tongue in private like a snake. Hillary and the word democracy should never be put on the same sentence. Hillary is more fake than any fake news that circulated during the 2016 elections. Hillary, John Podesta and comrade George Soros bribed and bagged CNN, The New York Times, Fortune, Politico, ABC, CBS, NBC, Times, Washington Post and MSNbc among other networks to help aid her political crusade as Wilkileaks emails showed. Hillary uses democracy as a Guinea-Pig to achieve her own political interest, withholding public demand in exchange of courting Wall Street’s favoritism.

    Fake news circulating on the web are no different than editorial censorship and fake information biasedly reported by mainstream media outlets to influence public opinion. The Clinton News Network is the epithet of ‘fake news’ and ‘bias liberal media coverage’. As a defender of public integrity – taking out the ‘basked of deplorables and basement dwellers’ comments – shouldn’t Hillary also publicly state the obvious? That liberal mainstream media networks kissed her behind, and made up fake polls to deceive millions of voters who thought Hillary was comfortably ahead of Trump? That wasn’t fake right? Mainstream media manipulation on public opinion is disgusting because unlike Independent News Networks owned by small fries, larger networks spend their unlimited resources trying to endorse Hillary at any cost possible – even at the expense of journalism itself.

    It is comical how Hillary’s subordinates continue to deceitfully accuse Russia for election tampering, but fail to mention how her foundation received big money from foreign donors as US Secretary of State. It is also funny how they accuse the Kremlin for hacking her foundation and the DNC, but fail to accuse other countries like China, Iran, Egypt or North Korea which also dislike US foreign policy. The Director of National Intelligence is fully aware that Russia is only one of many countries which regularly breach US Government servers – the fact that other countries are not mentioned by Hillary pundits should automatically raise questions. The fact China or Iran are not suspects of hacking the DNC or Clinton’s Foundation, might be a clear indicator that Hillary secretly dispatches negotiations with both countries and doesn’t want to alter the friendship by accusing them —- despite clear evidence from the CIA of their constant cybersecurity attacks. I find it odd, Russia is mentioned by the mainstream media as the only hacking source.

    When Project Veritas uncovered how Democracy Partners instigated and provoked riots inside Trump’s rally in Chicago to stir controversy and media attention against his campaign, the Clinton News Network questioned more the journalist credentials of filmmaker James O’Kefee, than the undeniable fact which proved how the DNC backed and serviced such crooked organization to create hysteria and blame Trump supporters. The DNC, should be investigated for co-sponsoring fake riots in the streets to drive off Trump supporters to vote for Hillary. Hillary is such master of peace and harmony that she was responsible for continuing the Neo-Conservative occupation policy firstly introduced by Ronald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney during the Bush Administration, which ultimately destroyed the balance of power in the Middle East — Syria and Libya surely thank Ms. Clinton.

    Hillary is so fake that her close colleagues played the DNC against Bernie Sanders to oppose his socialist revolution. Not only was it done behind his back – backstabbers are a special breed of people – but it took Wikileaks to uncover the whole truth. Then after the underserved preliminary victory, Hillary had the guts to use his reforms – which surely presented anti-capitalist and anti-globalist agendas– to win the confidence of millennials, sick and tired of Wall-Street; the same rich powerful and gluttonous big fat bankers and corporate institutions that Hillary recently invited to a “thank you” party. She partied with her Wall Street donors, and not with the poor unemployed millennials who sent her money — typical hypocrite politician.

    Hillary, used women rights to self-satisfy her vindictive agenda to win the hearts and souls of feminist who have no clue about politics, finance or global affairs – and view the world one-dimensionally focused primarily on women issues. Then if that wasn’t enough, Hillary silenced all the women who slept with Bill Clinton to ensure it wouldn’t damage her political campaign among the watchful eyes of other progressive feminist. Hillary supports women rights? So why does she support Muslim countries that brutally beat and spay women? Or why does she support Chinese corporate donations? When these exploit women and children in factories? – Women who work ten times harder than Hillary, and verily make a penny to survive! Meanwhile, Hillary probably has ‘house maids’ and ‘house servants’ who degrade themselves as women to satisfy her lust for luxury? She has enough courage to ask for women votes? If she was truly for women rights, she wouldn’t have women maids and servants working under her — either as First Lady in the White House, or her majestic mansion. You cannot publicly support women rights, and have maids and servants washing your dishes and cleaning up your dirt!

    Hillary says, she woefully supports LGBT rights. But how can one support countries that publicly execute Lesbians, Homosexuals and burn transgender men and women without remorse and openly claim to defend LGBT communities? Every time, Hillary shakes the hand of Muslim Salafist leaders or hugs a sheik, she admits to her hypocrisy; in the Middle East those rulers and religious authorities have no pity when they behead women, lesbians, homosexuals and transgender men and women. Those handshakes aren’t fake either right? So political agendas can be fake – as her “private discourse is different than public discourse” according to one of her leaked emails – but she plans to only persecute fake news instead of fake politicians? This woman is an absolute mogul and any derogatory word used against her is fair game.

    She is so fake, that instead of fully accepting the results and embracing the new president, Hillary decided to initiate a vote recount started by Jill Stein to challenge the elections – wishing for controversy to go her way, she miserably failed. She then accused Trump in one of the presidential debates for questioning the election results in case she became president of the United States. Now, she has created an unnecessary vacuum where elections will be contested by future losing candidates.

    To end my rant, I would like to conclude that before we prosecute and regulate fake news on the internet, I expect the government to prosecute and also regulate fake politicians. Hillary has shown to be the biggest crybaby I’ve ever witnessed in US politics, and an evil one also!


    Comments Off on Hillary Clinton Is Faker Than Online News

    Elections Will Never Be The Same Again: The Hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton Leads to Civil War

    November 28th, 2016

    By Jaime Ortega.


    Green Party leader Jill Stein recently decided to recount the votes in Wisconsin suspicious of voter fraud. I strongly suspect, George Soros the backbone of the DNC, is directly responsible of Steins decision to recount votes. Why would Stein suddenly care about the election results when she never had a chance on earth of winning the presidency? Why just contest Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin —states Trump won? Why not contest all the states Hillary Clinton won? Double standards! I have little doubts, Wall Street subordinates have triangle a strategy alongside with Soros to rig the official election results fearing Trump might damage and possibly regulate the market with authoritarian demands counter to their private interest.

    It wasn’t Trump who laid in bed with ‘too big to fail banks’. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Clinton’s top contributors JPMorgan Chase & Co, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup Inc. were involved with her campaign. Even the own US Government contributed $764,569 USD to the Clinton bid – possibly courtesy of Barack Obama himself. Above were some of the institutions that openly contributed to her campaign — but as the Clinton Foundation leaks show, she also received funds from foreign governments – which proves that the presidential stakes were high this year.

    The stock market shows symptoms of insecurity and panic amid national and foreign traders. Lenders who regularly trade with China invested future projects opting for Clinton’s TPP agreement to fructify– not ensured what specific financial reforms Trump might adopt when he steps on office, lenders and traders view outsourcing under siege and trade affected.

    Progressive demagogues fail to understand that 90 percent of contributions Clinton received to plump her campaign came from Super-Pac’s, and only 10 percent came from middle class donors. She received a lot of money, and there’s a lot of outside pressure from financial institutions to crown Clinton the next US president at any cost possible – the desperados want to desperately make one last final attempt to achieve their mischievous goal. On the flipside, contesting late election results against the demands of the working class creates a perfect storm for the conservative movement to think in terms of civil rebellion — if Clinton suddenly became the first lady and Trump’s presidency was overturned – the change would spark terrifying cultural consequences felt across the nation. When the agrarian and industrial sectors revolt, it resonates a chilling social effect that shakes the pillars of the banking system. Once the conservative movement protest and views the liberals and the progressive establishment as traitors and violence instigators, social order draws into open conflict.

    A few Republicans before the election also worried Trump would win the presidency. What would it mean for right wing congressmen deeply rooted with bundlers and lobbyist inside Capitol Hill to have Trump as the next president? Surely, many Rep. Congressmen akin Liberal Democrats don’t want The Executive branch to interfere with foreign economic policy or diminish its globalist role. The irony is that Trump champion’s free market mobility, but plans international trade reforms help boost national employment –he is not interested in solving the problems of other nations — unless of course they pay their fair share.

    The Soros-Wall Street-Clinton ‘triangle’ wants to use Russia as a ‘guinea pig’ to contest the official result of the election. The Russian government know it’s the ‘triangle’s’ strategy to delegitimize Trump’s presidency at all cost, using Cold War propaganda to incite paranoia among Democrat loyalist. It is also curious to note China and Iran – renown for hacking Pentagon servers for the past few years — are not mentioned by the ‘triangle’, which should automatically raise alarms of distrust in their quest to easily influenced public opinion. Russia’s impact as a foreign actor to affect the US election wouldn’t make much sense anyhow because Trump might end as a bad diplomatic option for the Kremlin’s interest abroad –risking and unknown unknown in Trump, might be worse than trusting a known unknown in Clinton.

    The excuse to recount votes came with the over 2 Million votes that summed after the election — the popular vote. As I mentioned on my previous editorial post, what liberal and progressive news networks fail to inform people is that the state of California and the state of New York have mega-populace compared to other smaller populated states, so the popular votes predominantly come from those two states which are traditionally democratic states.

    Hillary Clinton complained on her last debate that “Trump should accept the election results and not contest the votes for the sake of democracy.” Like a sudden storm out the blue sky—- a team of progressive professors has decided to question the electoral result and give Clinton the benefit of the doubt. The DNC jumped right away on the recommendation and decided to follow the steps of Stein – which without a doubt should be vetted in case she received money from Soros and Wall Street top players to initiate a last minute recount.

    One ought to remember that Bernie Sanders – a supposedly pioneer of socialism and anti-capitalist — received money from the DNC to support her party rival Ms. Clinton. Sanders sold his soul to the Clinton machine and changed his revolutionary reformist rhetoric to support her campaign against the outcry of the “Basement Dwellers” whom endorsed him for his anti-globalist stance. Many anti-capitalist millennials obviously felt betrayed by Sanders the moment he decided to endorse Clinton in exchange of money. If Sanders was influenced, why wouldn’t Stein? The funny anecdote is that when Sanders lost to Clinton in the primary election, Clinton asked him to cede and not contest the results for the sake of democracy— Sanders had the decency to not contest the results and conceded his loss – the DNC is truly disgusting from the inside-out.

    The recount is a complete mockery of the US Electoral College historical process. Even President Barack Obama has showed “concerns” with the DNC’s attempt to whitewash the election. Obama wants a peaceful transition to take place without last minute controversy, but knows that the recount will stir distrust from the conservative movement hard to fathom. Obama is not happy about the recount and the consequences involved — prompting cynicism from the right that will start to contest every election won by the Democratic Party in the future. Once a particular group disputes the results of an election, it should be branded with suspicion and mistrust and likewise contested – not good folks!

    The progressives and liberal movement are playing a dangerous head-game which might trigger a series of future events that could lead to an open civil war – such events could create a perfect storm for secession to take place within the US — like the split during the Confederacy and the Union, that resentment still exist today. The democratic establishment has created two evils that will dissolve national unity in the future and inflict an incurable wound without political remedy. The wealthy liberal’s support the Wall-Street economic model and elitist agenda caters to the bourgeois class; the progressive support proto-soviet individualist dogmas that act as anti-national propaganda to oppose conservatism. The hypocrisy of the democratic left is that liberals and progressives today — as opposed to the past — are actually ideologically at odds with each-other because one supports constitutional civil rights and financial freedom and the other believes in social justice without a capitalist cap. The left will do anything in their power to stop Trump without looking closer at the DNC – having both progressives and liberal serious discrepancies with one another and the economic model they plan to adopt. Liberals are not proclaimed socialist nor do they endorse proto-soviet or proto-French dogmas.

    The Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Daily Beast, Vox, The Huffington post and other liberal and progressive networks are fully responsible for inflaming anti-Trump rhetoric and helping fume the drums of an unnecessary ideological war that perhaps one day will bite them back in the ass.


    Comments Off on Elections Will Never Be The Same Again: The Hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton Leads to Civil War

    Black Lives Matter And The Black American Incognito

    November 17th, 2016

    Interview conducted by Jaime Ortega.



    Dr. Carol M. Swain

    Professor of political science and professor of law at Vanderbilt University. She is passionate about empowering others to raise their voices in the public square.  She has authored award-winning books. 



    1) Has Obama helped black communities like he promised to do? Has he divided Americans?

    President Obama has used the politics of race and class to divide Americans. He has done this by politicizing interactions with the police and by ignoring the crime rates in many African-American communities. His policies have not improved the economic well-being of low-income, low-wage Americans.

    2) What is your opinion of the BLM movement?

    Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a loose collection of organizations with no central leadership.  It has proven itself to be a destructive force in some cities because of the inflammatory messages and actions of some of its leaders and followers attracted to the slogan. Its initial website and demands read like a page from a Marxist handbook with its condemnation of the State for all manner of atrocity. In the last few months, BLM has improved its website and image by toning down the rhetoric.  

    I don’t see BLM as a logical outgrowth of the black civil rights movement of the 1960s. It is more anti-American and pro-violence. It is a Marxist movement that depends on financial support from leftist organizations such as Democracy Alliance and Freedom Road Socialist Organization.

    By ignoring the excessively high black abortion rates in black communities and the shocking levels of black-on-black crime, BLM has missed an opportunity to give meaning to its name. Surely, BLM should be concerned about crime rates, the murder of the unborn, and the cycle of poverty and hopelessness in black communities. Engaging in anarchy, blocking traffic, advocating violence against law enforcement officers creates a destructive force in society and it drives away potential allies.

    While politicians and university administrators publicly court the group, I suspect this is being done out of fear rather than respect for what the organization purports to represent.  For the organization to become a positive society force, it would have to put forth policy alternatives that don’t involve advancing Marxist goals. It would also have distance itself from the agendas or organizations such as Occupy Wall Street and factions that attack American values as it relates to law and order, capitalism, free markets, and traditional values, morals, and family structures.

    3) Is its correct to categorize blacks in America as ‘African-American’, since they were not born in Africa? 

    I usually refer to myself as black. African American should apply to individuals, white or black, who were born in Africa and emigrated to the United States.

    4) Do blacks suffer discrimination from their own community? 

    Blacks suffer from intragroup and well as intergroup discrimination. Discrimination within the group can be based on skin color (light skin v. dark skin), social class (middle class v. underclass), and partisanship (democrat v. Republican).  

    – Are blacks afraid to report crime inside black communities fearing to be identified’ as a “snitch” or a “traitor” for complying with law enforcement?

    I have no independent means of knowing if blacks are more fearful than other inner-city groups to report crimes.

    – Blacks who don’t follow the democratic narrative are called Uncle Toms and coons by their own ethnicity. Do you think that is bad? 

    Of course, it is bad for a group to use intimidation and epithets to silence others.

    5) Spike Lee once said that racism is an institution, therefore assessing that blacks could never be racist, but only elites could. Do you agree with his point of view? Or do you believe racism depends on the individual? 

    I totally disagree. Any racial or ethnic group can practice racism. America has had a black president, two black attorney generals, numerous state and federal office holders who exert power over millions of Americans.  Individuals and organizations can be racist to the core.  

    6) Rap music has several genres, but the most popular one is gangster rap. The lyrics of some of the songs offer a very violent approach to society. When people dance to music that calls women “hoes and bitches” glorify “drugs”, “criminal activity” and “violence” has society not shifted to its own moral deprivation? Has rap helped black communities thrive, or has it harm the moral standard of a once family oriented and morally integrated group? Is rap a gateway to violence for black communities?

    These songs degrade and demean black men and women. Plus, it has a corrupting influence on society that extends beyond the black community.

    7) A lot of blacks believe Caucasians owe them something in return for the slavery days. Are blacks today morally entitled to put themselves in the shoes of black men and women who passed through slavery? Do Caucasians today owe blacks anything?

    I can’t speak for all black Americans. When I look at the history of America, I see a nation that has spent billions of dollars trying unsuccessfully to eradicate the past and present effects of discrimination.

    8) Is it fair to compare the generation of the Civil Rights movement guided by Martin Luther King Jr. with what some call today the ‘Thug generation’? Would Martin Luther King Jr. advocate in favor of black gangs, criminal behavior, drug exchange, degradation of women values, broken parenthood, dependency on government programs and violent rap lyrics that seem to exist today in most black neighborhoods across America but did not exist during the civil rights movement?

    I have no way of knowing what Dr. King would do or say if he were alive today. I would imagine he would be deeply disappointed with the people who purport to represent blacks and some of the nonsense emerging from America’s colleges and universities.

    10) There is no doubt that Americans are among the highest drug users in the world. Have drugs crippled black communities and Americans in general? Are drugs responsible for all the troubles in the African American community?

    The crippling effects of drugs are not confined to any one community.

    11) The Harvest of Shame was a powerful documentary filmed in the 1960’s that showed how hard working blacks, Caucasians and Mexicans struggled to survive in the agricultural farmlands of America to earn a modest living. It showed a strong black working class prevalent before in blue collar sectors raging from construction and fishing, to mining jobs. Unlike in the past, today the black working class has been replaced by Mexicans, Guatemalans, Salvadorians and Hondurans who have no problems finding jobs. Does the present generation of uneducated blacks work as hard as the generation of the 60’s and bellow? Are Americans in general lax about acquiring new opportunities, and feel entitled to high paid jobs without earning the skills or rights to move forward? Simply put, are many Americans today lazy people who want the whole world at their feet without working hard for it?

    I think this question conflates too many things. There are plenty of hard working, low-skilled blacks who work several jobs. If America would address illegal immigration and the surplus of cheap labor, it might result in higher wages for blacks and low-skilled Hispanics.

    -The Harvest of Shame documentary also shows how black children were eager to get an education to escape poverty, but had a hard time doing so. It is clear in the documentary that it was tough for black children to settle in school because families traveled from state to state trying to find work in the agricultural fields of America. In contrast, the generation of blacks today, having significantly greater opportunities than blacks in the past, show the complete opposite behavior while claiming that the government is not supportive. Do you think that the newer generation of blacks is akin the generation of the 60’s who seem to have worked much harder having less access to educational programs?

    Do black kids of this generation really have an excuse to fail having it easier to succeed as compared to the past? 

    I have not seen the film, so I cannot comment on its depiction of blacks.

    12) Africans that come to the United States start in low income areas and work hard to get an education. Many Africans become lawyers and doctors among other college degrees and end up moving to higher income areas; the same is true with other ethnic groups from Vietnam, Laos, and China among others countries. In contrast, black Americans per-capita are significantly less successful overall than their African counterparts. Are blacks taking real advantage of the educational system? And are they more likely to buy a brand new pair of Jordan’s instead of purchasing a $3 dollar math or history book in Goodwill? Are they more likely to dropout from school and engage in crime, than attend a free local public library and spend time lifting a solid education? What is the difference between the African migrant mindset as opposed to the black American mindset?

    Immigrants who come to America tend to have higher education and more resources. They start from a higher vantage point than many black descendants of slaves.

    13) Many teachers across the nation complain that they find it almost impossible to teach elementary schools in many black communities. They are many recorded cases and documentaries that support those claims, including students who abuse their teachers and record it. On the contrary, many activist like BLM, and other community activist like Rev Al-Sharpton, and Jessie Jackson campaign against the government for lack of funding. Do you detect any hypocrisy?  

    This is too complicated to address in a few sentences. What you are describing are two different things. The teachers are complaining about disciplinary problems and the activists are focusing on the achievement gap and attributing this to a lack of resources. Resources will not fix the disciplinary problems that often stem from broken homes and absent fathers.

    14) The terminology behind the word ‘racism’ is disputed among academic theologians. But the overwhelming majority believe it means “the belief to be superior” to another ethnic group. Do you believe America is racist or xenophobic? When whites or other minorities have a negative stereotype against black Americans, is that ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobic’ in origin? Is the word racism being used correctly now days?

    The word racism is overused by liberals. Nowadays, it is used to silence people who hold opposing views on any number of topics.

    -There is only one race, and that is the human race, so the terminology of ‘racism’ makes little sense. When we talk about ‘racism’ are we really taking about ‘ethnic intolerance’? In your opinion is ethnic intolerance the same as racism?

    I don’t think it matters what you call it. Cultural differences often result in situations where one group or the other see themselves as victims of racism or unfair discrimination.

    15) In the Daily Journalist we conducted a survey a few years ago on different shops and restaurants in Las Vegas owned by foreigners and new American ethnic groups. To our surprise we discovered that Asian, Middle Eastern, Mexican, Indian, Easter European, Pakistani, Latinos and surprisingly Africans distrusted black-Americans out of every other ethnic group. In almost all instances criminal behavior was the ‘main concern’ and they encouraged police to inflict harsher surveillance laws to protect their business. In the study, we excluded surveying Caucasians just to understand what other ethnicities felt about other minority groups in America. In your opinion, is racism among other minorities towards blacks caused not by skin color but by crime? Or are these minorities inherently racist?

    I didn’t conduct the survey so I have no independent means of assessing what was going on in the heads of the respondents. It strikes me as a typical case of stereotyping.

    The media covers a lot of cop vs black related issues to portray white racism against blacks and create public outrage, but fails to cover the racial war taking place in many cities like Los Angeles, where Mexicans overthrow —- and sometimes kill blacks in many neighborhoods — the opposite is also true in heavily black populated neighborhoods. Such wars have taken the lives of many innocent people from both sides and its growing –especially in gang related communities. Why do you think the media focuses on whites killing blacks, but it doesn’t focus on blacks killing Mexicans, or Mexicans killing blacks?

    The media has been conditioned to focus on whites killing blacks because these cases tend to be sensationalized more by vocal black activists who are quite adept at holding press conferences and creating a frenzy among bystanders. While this is happening stories of minorities killing each other gets short shrift. These include Mexican gangs singling out and killing blacks in communities that were once historically black and the crimes that take place within and across minority groups.  Blacks and Hispanics compete for jobs, housing, and educational opportunities. This creates a measure of resentment because blacks believe other groups are favored. Of course, this deserves more media attention than it gets.

    -In another study (which still needs revision) minorities and American Caucasians were asked several questions regarding racism targeted against blacks. For our surprise, the minorities were more vocal about blacks than Caucasians, who seemed less vocal and passive on their response. The minorities surveyed above described how they view a large percentage of blacks as “lazy thugs”, “gang affiliated” “criminals”, “thieves”, “violence instigators”, “problematic” and “dangerous”. Others minorities complained that they “should have laws where blacks wearing a certain dress code should not be allowed to shop or dine inn” especially the shops closest to black communities. It seems akin Jim Crow laws. Minorities are growing rapidly and the Latino and Asian population is expected to boom by 2025. What is your opinion? Do you have any concerns? Are the black stereotypes an issue?

    Of course, I have concerns about actual and perceived racism, as well as the impact of stereotyping on blacks and other dark-skinned people.  It is a reality that needs to be monitored and addressed whenever it creeps into a situation.

    16) Gang violence has proliferated in cities like Las Vegas, Phoenix, Chicago, Detroit, Newark, Houston, Atlantic City, Cincinnati, Los Angeles and Albuquerque among many other cities. Criminal activity is very high among inner-city districts and things are getting worse especially in black neighborhoods. Most of crime violence per-capita is topped by African Americans and Latinos, but Latinos are involved in organized crime especially in the southwest and west coast; whereas, blacks are mostly active on individual crime and smaller gang violence related cases. Are minorities who stereotype blacks as violent instigators exemplifying a problem that is seems to be getting worse over time?  Why are gangs and violence proliferating? Gangs might be proliferating because we have tied the hands of many police officers and created a disincentive for them to engage with individuals displaying suspicious behavior.

    – Do black communities have a real problem with criminal activity in their neighborhoods compared to other ethnicities? True or false and why?

    Crime rates are higher in predominantly black inner-city neighborhoods.

    17) Are people in general confusing racism with stereotyping criminal behavior? Are blacks aware that the stereotype might be why racism might be growing in America? If criminality significantly went down in black communities will the black stereotype finally vanish?

    I don’t know if the average black American is aware of how the crime rates in their communities compare with crime rates in non-black communities.

    – Many people stereotype blonde women as non intelligent, loudly and easy; others stereotype Mexicans as dish washers, illegals and alcoholics. Many people stereotype blacks in America as chicken eaters, criminals and thugs; others stereotype Asians as bad drivers, midgets with a small male reproduction organ; the list goes on and on… Are stereotypes racist? Or do people who give stereotypes not be categorized as racist or ethnic intolerant?  

    Stereotypes exist because they often contain a kernel of truth. Stereotyping is harmful when people make snap decisions based on someone’s outward experience. Non-discrimination laws offer a modicum of protection against certain forms of harmful stereotypes. Stereotypes can work to the advantage of some groups when they are positive. For example, stereotypes of Asians being smart, blacks being talented and gifted in sports, and women being better caretakers and cooks than men.

    18) Law enforcement has been under a lot of criticism by black communities after the few incidents that involved the killings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile. They point out that “blacks are not treated like whites on judicial cases and indictments” do you believe this to be true?

    It depends on the circumstances. Blacks will have a higher rate of violent encounters with police if they are more likely to resist arrest or fail to comply with officer commands.

    -Many of the police killings that targeted Blacks were caused by Latino law enforcement officers. Is this concept of white cops versus black suspects handled properly by the media or are white cops responsible for how law enforcement is conducted?

    It does not matter when the offending officer is black, white, or Latino. People who are concerned about police brutality and aggression paint with a brush that tarnishes all officers.

    – Cops killed nearly twice as many whites in 2015. More whites and Hispanics die from police homicides than blacks according to the McDonald report conducted by The Washington Post. According to McDonald, 12 percent of white and Hispanic homicide deaths were due to police officers, while only four percent of black homicide deaths were the result of police officers. Why has the mainstream media concentrated most of its powers in reporting black homicide from police officers instead of Latinos and whites? Why is the media so focused on blacks when Hispanics triple the cop death statistics? Do you think it’s wrong that the media reports black- death by the hands of cops and not Latinos or whites?

    -They are about 317 million Americans, over 1 million police officers, and over one thousand killings committed by Police officers per year. They are about 9,225,197 crimes committed in 2015. Is one thousand cop kills compared to the overall population and the crimes committed per year a small number? What you think is the percentage of the 1 thousand police killings that involve the death of innocent people?  

    I don’t have this information.  Given your statistics, you seem well positioned to answer your own question here.

    19) Is the liberal media racist against Latinos (predominantly Mexicans) and against Caucasians for only biasing cops killing blacks?

    The media clearly operates with a double standard when it comes to police shootings and hate crimes. Hate crimes involving minority attacks on whites, Hispanics, and Asians are rarely covered.

    20) With the rise of the internet, crime is reported and uploaded by citizen journalist on a daily basis outside the radar of mainstream media networks and their selective filter of news. Youtube, Liveleak, reddit among other online sites have become the visual and viral hall-mark of cases were criminal incidents are likely to be published for their visual impact. These range from burglary, stabbing, death, gang shootouts, theft and violence; these also includes cops killing blacks, whites and Latinos for resisting officers. The mainstream media on the other hand focuses more on bashing law enforcement, than on crime itself. Many claim that mainstream media networks have started a race war between Americans. The idea is to focus less on crime itself, and more on cop versus black incidents to stirrup greater controversy and gain greater television ratings that help sponsors set more TV ads. What is your thought on this? Why are mainstream media networks likely focused on reporting cop-on-black cases, than reporting the hundreds violent criminal incidents published daily on social media networks? Are mainstream media networks purposely making local news, national headlines —– if it comes down to police related cases — but avoid virulent crime to not make national headlines? Is mainstream media fair on their coverage?

    Mainstream media operates as if it doesn’t have a clue about what fair coverage would look like. It really makes one wonder what is being taught in schools of journalism and about the messages that come from the heads of media organization. There is no pretense of being fair.

    21) New Orleans is now the murder capital of America, with Detroit not far behind and Chicago well on its way. Should the black issues that affect New Orleans be the issues of black communities in New York City, or Seattle? Is it fair that people in Boston protest the problems of people in St Louis? Should local issues stay local? And if not, should all local crime be reported in national news and not just cops vs black issues?

    It is important for all Americans to know which cities and towns have the highest murder rates. Local crimes and gang violence can have national consequences, especially if they are related to drugs and gang warfare.

    22) In your opinion is the problem going to get worse before it gets any better? What is your biggest hope and biggest fear regarding the black community in America?

    I think America is headed for unprecedented levels of racial and ethnic conflict. I wrote about this in a 2002 book titled, The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration (Cambridge University Press).  The conditions I outlined more than a decade ago are converging to create a devil’s brew for heightened racial and ethnic conflict.

    Comments Off on Black Lives Matter And The Black American Incognito

    Rants, Outcomes And Donald Trump Predictions

    November 16th, 2016


    By Jaime Ortega.


    Before I start, I want to point out that mainstream liberal media networks keep shoving the idea that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by large margins to raise public debate. What they don’t mention, is that states like New York and California naturally lure more votes than any other state given their mega population. The popular vote that grants Clinton the lead comes from these mega populated states that are extremely liberal and progressive and do not represent the rest of the continental United Sates.  It is almost comical how that important factor goes unreported.

    The Obama administration underestimated the Trump campaign. The leftist model of politics has started to crumble all over the world like dominos. The Obama’s administration privately fears that the conservative movement might vanish all policy that western liberal democracy has fought to maintain. The left is hopeless and it might try to pull a last minute stun – don’t be surprised if something happens – it has the popular vote and the anti-trump momentum to propel a social revolution. George Soros is behind a lot of the protest and riots taking place.

    The destabilized left now relies on progressive factions to revolutionize the party. The liberal model failed the party and the progressive model has different subdivisions that split from socialist views of economics, to far left extreme dogmas. Kanye West wants to make a 2020 presidential bid. Such moves shows the danger of the left and rest assure many ignorant people will vote for him – it is not a joke.

    Donald Trump has won the hearts and minds of The South and The Midwest, but has broken the spirit of liberal states that are progressive and liberal minded. If Hillary Clinton would had won it would have the opposite effect, it would have energized the conservative base to protest and riot in the streets, enraged as a result of political and media bias — which would be far more serious than the manifestations reported on cities like LA, NY, Portland and Seattle –mostly immigrants that might be directly affected by Trump’s illegal deportation policy.

    The main issue that has disconnected many US citizens from adopting immigration positively is the lack of integration and lack of acceptance of cultural American values from foreign newcomers — that live in the US and exploits opportunities— but secretly or openly despise its customs never to fully embrace Americanism. Many immigrants show anti-military conduct and defile veterans for their service; they have don’t support nationalism and only support US freedom when it benefits them. Many immigrants also don’t want to learn English even though they lived in the US for decades. It is true that US history is limited, but the lack of integration has surely not helped many US citizens welcome immigration. On top of that, US citizens have lost their jobs to many new immigrants who simply work harder.

    The difference behind ‘Syrian and Libyan refugees’ and ‘illegal Guatemalan, Salvadorian, Honduran and Mexican immigrants’ presents a paradox to a lot of US citizens, who clearly can’t distinguish the cultural difference between the two groups. The Syrian and Libyan refugees present a long term danger because they cannot be screened — and a few but dangerous individuals import Salafist fundamentalism —-which is even banned in other Islamic countries.  Islamic radicalization cannot coexist alongside constitutional values which promote progressive dogmas that clearly oppose Quranic tenants.

    The stupidity behind some of the present riots showing Muslim women with Hijabs marching alongside LGBT members is completely ridiculous and phony. In Muslims countries LGBT members would be burned alive or simply beheaded – and somehow the lies of the progressive left show Muslims who highly condemn same-sex marriage with criminal punishment walking peacefully alongside homosexuals, lesbians and transgenders. Then of course, the riots also show Communist marching alongside Marxist and Anarchist, which couldn’t be any less stupid, since the Spanish Civil War shows that Communist tried to prosecute and kill Marxist and Anarchist under the direct command of Stalin while they were warring General Francisco Franco.

    In my past articles I predicted that secession would eventually end as a real possibility in the US given that the problems of ‘Texas’ have little to nothing to do with the problems ‘California’ or ‘New York’ experience. The government permeates federal policies that boost liberal laws on states like New York and California, but it has little effect on states that promote the sovereignty of state laws like Texas which adopt a traditionalist conservative market model.

    Barack Obama was not responsible for the financial recovery experienced after the recession. As Commander And Chief, he allowed Timothy Geither and Ben Bernanke to continue financial deregulation at the cost of tax payer money — and on top of that he helped too big to fail banks and CEO’s not face federal prosecution. The reason why the US escaped the turmoil caused by the financial recession of 2008, was mostly because of the financial growth of fixed republican states – not swing states — and how they helped boost the economy without federal liberal influence.  States like Texas, Arizona, Utah, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and others made financial progress –which is why many implants from Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Detroit, and Cleveland among other traditionally democratic cities have migrated to the south and the south west in large numbers to settle and look for opportunities.

    It is true that Colorado isn’t a Republican state; however, it is not a liberal state, it is a progressive state that is not influenced with top-down federal laws. Remember that Colorado adopted the Bernie Sanders reform, and voted for him. Clinton’s reforms would only benefit Wall-Street having little effect on financially progressive states like Washington and Colorado.

    The takes couldn’t be higher

    Donald Trump has taken a deeply divided country which opposes his reforms. So here go a bunch of predictions and situations that I think will take place during his reign as president.

    • Trump has potential to become a great reformist. He connects with rural America better than Clinton, who stated on one of her emails that she adopts “a private and public agenda”. Clinton’s downfall was her biggest addiction — Wall Street. Trump’s reign will either end in a disastrous presidency, or he will become the next great president after Ronald Reagan to never earn recognition. Given his unique character and lack of political discourse, he could start a new era in politics where traditional politicians no longer control government. Obama’s administration left behind a deeply divided nation. Extreme reformists like Trump are needed to revert the national chaos. People forget that Trump is a bright individual, and when he commits a mistake he is likely to apologize and keep fighting. The key to understand his presidency is really understand his achievement as a business man – and he was a successful man despite his bankruptcy. I believe he will also be a successful politician. The only concern I have, is that leftist propaganda will fuel hate among the heathen in a desperate attack to encircle him into a despaired presidency.
    • The giant who no one ever saw. The left will unite and bash Trump no matter what he does. For the left it is payback time as republicans constantly bashed Obama’s presidency without much tolerance. Trump’s first year will be tough, expect amateurish mistakes – by amateurish mistakes I don’t mean nuking Saudi Arabia — but getting the grasp of government. Trump will rapidly excel. However, what people will observe, is a good president who will be portrayed as a ‘dictator’ for his entire presidential term. If the leftist media did not pardon his past mistakes – if Clinton despite her Wall Street sell out and FBI controversy still gained the popular vote – it shows that Trump will be criticized no matter what he does and how bad the left has become.
    • Trump has a high probability of assassination. He is under a lot of scrutiny and pressure from the left and Wall Street. I mentioned in one of my past stories, where I predicted his presidency that Trump might end up assassinated like John F. Kennedy. In fact, he is probably hated more than any other US president in history. Don’t be surprised if he doesn’t finish his presidential bid without a bullet.
    • Trump won’t have it any easier than Clinton dealing with republican legislators. If Clinton would have won the elections, her laws would have been rejected by the republican legislation. Trump is no different than Clinton, he is another threat to the establishment and possibly more than her democratic counterpart. In fact, probably much more of a threat than Clinton because Trump’s radical fiscal policy reforms might severely play a de-facto paradigm among republicans, who did not vote for his canons; it should be hard for Trump to pass executive orders in congress without veto, as a significant part of republicans in the house and the senate are in bed with Wall-Street and support an economy free of Keynesian regulations. Expect a hostile environment between Trump’s administration and the republican legislation. It would be the first time where the republican legislation won’t see eye to eye with the president who represents their party. Remember that many republicans endorsed Clinton because she championed free market laws, foreign partnerships and outsourcing – Trump presents the contrary viewpoint.
    • Clinton might flee the country. The Clinton Foundation is still under investigation and Trump could assign Rudy Giuliani as the next Attorney General to prosecute the Clintons, if Obama doesn’t pardon her now. I suspect that the Clintons are aware of Trump’s menace – especially during the debate when Trump publically promised to appoint an independent investigation to prosecute Hillary – so don’t be surprised if the Clintons gather all their wealth and leave the country to seek political asylum elsewhere. If Trump prosecutes Clinton, it would evoke Hillary supporters to revolt and chastise Trump’s government which could play out against his plan to unify the country and the liberals that doubt him.
    • Trump might return Wikileaks the favor. Without a cast of a doubt Julian Assange saved Trumps campaign. Without exposing Clintons leaked emails Trump would have not defeated her political machine. If Clinton would have won the elections – renown in DC for her revengeful behavior — Assange would probably be a dead duck. Trump might grant Assange liberty or political asylum after what he indirectly contributed to his campaign to save his election.
    • Texas and Arizona will push for constructing the wall more than Trump. Mexico needs the United States partnership, more than the United States needs Mexico. In my opinion, Pena Nieto’s government will publically badmouth Trump and the republicans, but secretly negotiate a deal to help pay for the wall – it’s the art of politics and Mexican politicians are masters of drama like the telenovelas they show on regular television; showing public discontent, but private acceptance. Arizona and Texas are infested with sanctuary cities and they experience migration at a level that other states don’t experience, they will be vocal against Trump if he doesn’t build the wall.
    • Liberal cities become new sanctuary safe-havens for undocumented workers. As I mentioned above, republican states will force illegal immigration to scatter to cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle, New York City, DC, and San Francisco on large numbers to avoid deportation. This will backfire on liberal states and really hurt jobs and labor. US citizens living on larger cosmopolitan cities will start to lose jobs in inner cities and suffer. Stiff competition among illegal immigrants for low paid jobs will not make the minimum wage decline. Even if the minimum wage is raised in major cities like Los Angeles or Chicago, many companies to save cost will continue to hire undocumented workers under the table with less compensation, instead of hiring US citizens. It would only exacerbate unemployment inside large liberal inner cities if they adopt sanctuary laws.
    • Trump is going to stifle the economy with his massive deportation plan. As I explained above liberal inner-cities will suffer from unemployment for adopting immigration, but republican states will suffer large production cost if they lose immigrant labor. Many US Small-Medium Enterprises depend on illegal workers to supply business efficiency. American labor cannot replace the worship of Latinos and Asians in under-skilled jobs; the dishwashers, maids, crop pickers, farm workers, cooks and other services in general depend largely on immigration to operate. Replacing Latinos and Asians with US citizens without proper training will severely ravish Mains Street – It will be a mistake. In contrast, many immigrants that come to US to study with visas – if Trumps laws are indeed imposed on all immigration – will end with a shortage on science jobs like engineering, hard to replace because fewer American’s graduate under science based majors. That will tumult the economy on a scientific level. The US is dependent on foreign students to cover the quota of science related jobs.
    • The relationship between China and the US is going to significantly deteriorate. China devaluated their currency not long ago to suffix dependency on foreign markets. Nonetheless, China is deeply rooted with the US market — and under Trumps foreign policy to increase tariffs and end outsourcing – expect a highly problematic relationship between Beijing and Washington DC. The US dependency on China will also increase lobbyist activity on Capitol Hill to stop Trump’s executive reforms at all cost from hurting trade. A trade war would hurt American exports and hurt imports, but it would mostly hurt Wall Street and elites.
    • Soon, the ‘environment protection’ treaty signed in Paris by Barack Obama won’t be worth anything. The Trump administration will bury the treaty and allow coal miners to replace the disastrous hybrid technologies meant to replace fossil fuels — that according to environmentalist produce carbons that result in global warming. The environmentalist won’t be happy, but the miners will happily cheer on states like West Virginia and Ohio where they are banned from using carbon emission gasses. It is still disputed whether global warming is produced by the Green House Effect, or by Sun spots. Such policy chance will no doubt infuriate many Bernie Sanders supporters and those who support the Green Party, but it might revive the economy on many small towns across the US.
    • The relationship between the European Union and the US could be based on political affiliations rather than on Trump’s pragmatism. Western Europe has shifted to the right, and only Andrea Merkel, Germany’s chancellor remains the only progressive leader in the union. Leftist idealism has created subdivisions in the EU, thanks to the refugee crisis and Greek bankruptcy – the idea of a united Europe has started to aggravate regionalist and nationalist pride. Brexit is the culmination of such division and it is only going to worsen before it gets any better. A lot of Euro-skeptics endorse Trump’s policy and champion his radical reforms. I expect some European progressive countries to reject his policy, but I expect more countries to endorse it as the pendulum shifts right. If Trump destroys ISIS with a nuclear bomb or sends ground troops — din clear violation of the UN resolution of human rights — he win the hearts and minds of many Europeans who will vote for right wing parties.
    • Russia and Trump’s relation will foster a double edge sword between Russia and the US. Trump will initially get along with Putin on the basis of foreign diplomacy, but that could be a tricky card. Trump is just as likely to initiate world-war III as Clinton; the volatile attitude of Trump in contended places like Syria where Russia, Ben Assad, Turkey, the Arab League, Iran, the Kurds and America could easily turn into war for control of the Middle East. Russia’s military incursion on Syria, is a serious warning that it intends to extend its influence in the Middle East. Trump and Putin’s relationship depends on Syria and Iran. Putin won’t be as cocky under Trump’s presidency like he masked with Obama’s weak foreign policy – if anything Putin will have to torpedo his own foreign policy and possibly deescalate in aggression and stop his provocative military intrusion on airspaces all around the world. The best solution for Putin and Trump to get along, would be to display a joint operation campaign between Russia and the United States to defeat ISIS and Al-Nusra – it would at least secure a short and peaceful environment between the two nations; yet, Iran might play a negative role in their slippery friendship.
    • Iran versus the US will likely start a next war. Trump has repeatedly condemned the Obama administration for allowing John Kerry to negotiate a resolution with Iran that would legally permit the usage of uranium enrichment under the strict supervision of UN inspectors. Trump plans to abort the resolution and throw away the agreement to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons – the republican legislation rejected the bill. Israel and Saudi Arabia abhor the Obama administration for its ‘nuclear gift’ to Iran –both countries have abandoned the compromise set by US foreign policy in the Middle East and labelled as disastrous. Trump will likely engage on a war with Iran, if indeed cancels the resolution to end the agreement. Iran is less fearful of facing the US, than Russia or China at this particular point in time. A war with China and Russia would no doubts take a direct toll on US foreign trade and its geo-strategical dominance. Russia at one point depended heavily on Iranian oil, but now it is busy trying to sell petroleum drilled on the Baltic Sea; over the past decade Russia has become an oil independent nation – at this point Iran has become a secondary market for Russia. Also it is key to understand how Vladimir Putin reacted to Erdogan’s Turkey, when they shot down two Russian fighter jets and no escalation ensued — which speaks miles about Russia’s military response after it suffered a humiliating blow. If Russia didn’t militarily retaliate with Turkey – which is one third the military size of Russia – it’s a clear sign that they won’t interfere with US interventionism in Iran. China relies primarily on Sudanese and Iraqi oil refineries to run its nations infrastructure. China is oil dependent and their military is crippled without access to oil reserves. China is desperately trying to encompass a foreign strategy that will eventually grant it greater access to the Middle East market — and just recently rented space on Djibouti to control its oil exports. China also heavily depends on eastern African countries to run their agricultural demands, so it is key that they remain a strong presence on the region to protect its interest. Also China is still financially intrinsic to the US economy — more than any other country in the world given its assembly power. If war was declared, I am not convinced that Russia or China would join Iran to fight against the United States. Also China, Russia and the US have nuclear capability which would make them avoid confrontation at all cost. Trump’s highly volatile foreign policy would not put up with Iranian demands, in the case it rebelled or threatened the US. Saudi Arabia would join the US, as it currently fights a war against the rebel Houthis, who control northern Yemen. Israel would also co-sponsor an assault on Iranian soil and provide aerial and ground logistics. Despite Iran’s military threat, it lacks nuclear capability making its military susceptible to invade. If the US decide to declare war on Iran, this is the best time. Once Iran manufactures nuclear technology it would no longer be categorized as a feeble military power. Iran versus the US, could very well develop into a war soon.
    • Iraq will be reconstructed and prosper after ISIS is out. The Iraqi National Army has started their campaign to drive out ISIS from Mosul. Iraq is currently under the leadership of a Shia Prime Minister Haidar Al-Abadi and its dumping sectarianism to embrace nationalism — the last time nationalism exited on Iraq was under Saddam Hussein’s regime. If the US intervenes on Iraq under president Trump, it would drive off ISIS back to Syria. Unlike Syria, Iraq currently is the 5th largest oil reserves in the world and will end as a major oil exporter to resurrect its economy. I strongly believe that Iraq will be reconstructed with the financial influence of China, the US, South Korea and other European countries to avoid future sectarian divisions. The world needs the Middle East to stabilize. Don’t be surprised if ancient cities like ancient Nineveh and Babylon are reconstructed to create a new capital for all Iraqis under a new nationalist agenda – in fact as of today the University of Babylon shows signs of reconstruction. Higher education would be great for the country if it manages to build itself from its ashes after fourteen years of constant turmoil.
    • Arab countries will have a better relation with Trump, than Obama. Trump won’t necessarily suffer a backlash from Arab countries for not accepting Muslim refugees. Many countries in the Middle East have extensive tough migratory laws that mainstream liberal media fails to expose — a phenomena observed during the refugee crisis and the rise of terrorist organizations – consequently, Middle Eastern countries have not accepted Libyan, Yemeni or Syrian immigrants, but instead constructed fenced refugee camps to feed, clothe and bathe the needy. Muslim activism in America is deeply entrenched with CAIR, MAS, NAIT, MSA, etc. — the US version of the Muslim Brotherhood – and they don’t represent its affiliate versions in the Middle East which are completely banned in countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Egypt to name a few. What Arab leaders mostly care about is how the US will deal with the Middle East crisis, ISIL and the rise of Iran as a Shia regional hegemon. Trump has a interventionist policy that attracts the Arab league.
    • Al-Qaeda might target Las Vegas. A lot of people sleep on Al-Qaeda as ISIL takes the spotlight. Al-Qaeda is much more organized than ISIS, and unlike ISIS it knows how to operate without having territorial advantage; it has experience, and the border with Mexico offers a ‘prime-entrance’ to conduct a terrorist plot in South Western United Sates. If Trump defeats ISIL, ISIL members will join Al-Qaeda as many foreign fighters will be banned from travelling back to Europe. I expect an Afghani truck bomb attack on US soil.
    • Egypt, Libya and Syria will likely get along with Trump. Many Middle Eastern leaders utterly despise Obama’s administration and Clinton’s foreign intervention policy which led to a power vacuum that engulfed and destabilized many nations. Libya’s House of Representatives and general Kalifa Haftha; Egypt’s dictator Al-Sisi and the Assad regime are going to get along better with Trump than with Hillary by a long shot –mark my words.
    • Members of NATO and the UN won’t like Trump’s America, but will have to forcibly embrace his policy. Trump’s universe revolves on renegotiations and agreements; on the other hand, NATO –and particularly the UN – revolve on foreign diplomatic resolutions to ban or set financial restrictions to any country that violates international law. Unlike Barack Obama, Trump doesn’t care about NATO and the UN, he cares more about the US – at least that is what he publically states. NATO heavily depends on the US military to function, more than China financially depends on the US to thrive. If NATO wants to continue to adopt a protectionist policy, they will vow to the demands and renegotiations agreements that Trump wants to settle. The military rise of China, India, Pakistan and Russia are concerns that scares members of NATO; without the US, NATO is simply a worthless paper organization – no different than the UN.
    • The liberal mainstream media will inflame more flames. The mainstream media establishment could either help propagate hate or stop their leftist propaganda. Networks like CNN, NYT, MSNBC, NBC, the Huffington Post and CBS helped fuel an ethnic and ideological divide with their biased coverage of cop versus black crime during Obama’s administration. They’re so biased that they only cover cops killing blacks, but not cops killing Latinos or Caucasians– which both triple black deaths by 12 percent compared to 4 percent according to the Washington Post, McDonald report. With all the protest and riots currently taking place, the media has fueled hate and unnecessary propaganda against Trump. The media are not for freedom of information, and no longer behave as journalist, but rather as opportunist organizations to self-indulge and push leftist dogmas to contradict the right at any cost. The leftist media is the one medium which could ignite the draw-lines between the right and the left with dangerous rhetoric that could inflame a civil war.
    • The rise of proto-soviet ideologies will rise in the US under Trump’s presidency. Many extreme leftist groups mistakenly label Trump as an American ‘fascist’ — such notion couldn’t be more flawed. Trump is a nationalist, and it could be argued whether or not he is a true conservative – I highly doubt growing up in New York City, Trump ever adopted a true-purist conservative stance as his republican acolytes in the south – who don’t necessarily support his moral ideals and question his republican roots. Trump is no fascist, and he opposed the Neo-conservative movement to globalize the Middle East and its transnational corporatist model, when George W. Bush administration decided to invade Iraq. Others view Trump as a dictator who opposes the will of the constitution and the values of American traditionalism — which is a progressive strategy to demonize Trump’s radical reforms. So on one side, liberals view Trump as a fascist, and on the other side progressives view Trump as a dictator; such false narrative will induce and convert ignorant people to join the utopias of the far left — and as ignorance increases in America —- so will proto-soviet ideals continue to multiply in dangerous numbers. Anarchism has also taken off in the last eight years and the number of converts has increased over the decade to worrisome numbers – and continues to worsen. The Anarchist symbol is proudly worn in many protest. Since its inception and independence from England, the US has thrived on nationalism and military values to unify the country. Today millennials living inside liberal oriented states no longer adopt a patriotic model and wrongly label it as fascist. When anarchism, communism and Marxism thrive on western countries, it is a clear indicator of disunity and contingency that could potentially spill into a new civil war. Expect the rise of far left ideologies to increase during Trumps presidency. Once such leftist dogmas start to creep, it’s a cancer which remedy relies uniquely on force to extirpate from society.
    • Trump will try to unify the US, but might create separatism instead. Trump spoke as a solitary voice in the wilderness to represent the industrial sector and farmlands of America. His enemies are Wall-Street, the Media and the rise of far left ideological faction—-which happen mostly to live on states like California and New York. The left and the establishment feel threatened by rural states and it will create dissension and separatism. Proud states like Alabama, Kentucky and Texas won’t swallow the demands of hallmark states like California or New York; they will also not adopt progressive values or surrender state laws. The US relies on unification, but it is no longer unified ideologically and secession is now a real possibility as I predicted on my past posts.

    Comments Off on Rants, Outcomes And Donald Trump Predictions

    What About Russian Expansionism?

    November 14th, 2016

    Interview conducted by Jaime Ortega.


    Dr. Nikolay Kozhanov.

    He is an academy associate at the Russia and Eurasia Programme of Chatham House and a visiting lecturer in the Political Economy of the Middle East at the European University at St.Petersburg.


    1) Since 2014, Russia has officially committed 67 military violations on international airspace and waters all over the world. Why has Russia started to aggressively violate international law? And will they also commit airspace violations in different sovereign countries across the Middle East to challenge US influence, if they grow stronger in Syria? Do you fear Russia?

    There is no a simple answer to this question. First of all, Moscow’s evolution in a serious troublemaker on the international arena started not in 2014 but two years earlier – in 2012 when Putin was re-elected for the third presidential term. That time most of the experts on Russian foreign policy made a serious mistake: they assumed that Putin’s return into the presidential office will bring little changes in Moscow’s behavior. The main argument in favor of this theory was that the Russian leader had been in the continuous control of the Russian foreign policy since 2000 and most of his habits were well-know to the international society. Yet, the Putin of 2012 was different from the Putin of 2000 and 2004: more authoritarian, more decisive and more anti-Western. He was seriously disappointed by the failure of the reset in Russian-US relations and existing tensions with the West. This could not but affect Moscow’s stance on its relations with the US, EU and the Middle East. Thus, to a large extent, the active support provided to the Assad regime was the Kremlin’s revenge to the West for what Moscow saw as its political and economic losses in Libya and Iraq. The Russian leadership was apparently offended that its silent support for the Western military operation did not receive any acknowledgement in the US and EU. This, in turn, impelled the Russian authorities to prove that they could cause serious trouble if their position on regional affairs was not taken into consideration by Western players.

    By 2012, the general domestic situation in Russia also favored changes in Moscow’s foreign policy towards more provocative actions in the West and Middle East. Quite a substantial share of the Russian society were still trying to get along with the fact that after the fall of the Soviet Empire in 1991 Russia seized to play the role of a super-power. This part of the population was experiencing – what I call – “the post-Imperial syndrome”: the situation when people forgot or even do not know (if we take into account those who were born after 1991) about the ugly side of the Communist regime which, at the end of the day, was the reason for its fall but start to  miss about what they saw as “the symbols of the past imperial glory” often associated with the ability of the USSR to confront the West. Consequently, in 2012, the Kremlin decided to shore up the social base of its support by active appealing to the nationalistic sentiments of the Russian population. Their appeals received a positive response. A large proportion of the mid- and lower layers of the Russian population wished to see the Putin of 2012 more actively protecting their national interests and cementing relations with the non-Western world. Putin gave them what they wanted. Russian support for Damascus, close relations with Tehran and rapprochement with Egypt were supposed to symbolize a return to the old traditions of the Soviet Empire for those missing the “imperial” glory of the USSR. Prior to its fall in 1991, the USSR had good political and economic relations with these countries. The same could be said about those 67 military violations on international airspace and waters that happened all over the world since 2014. Moscow exploits it both for domestic and external interests: it tries to reestablish its image as the leading world power on both tracks.   

    2) Not long ago Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov vowed to attack and use “nuclear ballistic missiles” against Denmark and Finland if they joined the NATO scud missile defense system. Is Russia’s threat serious, or are they playing “new bully in the school?”.

    This question is directly connected to the previous one: should we fear Russia? I believe that while Russia is definitely a serious troublemaker it still does not deserve the “evil empire” label used by Reagan to characterize the USSR. On the one hand, given the Kremlin’s intention to reestablish the image of Russia as a great power that is ready to use force to defend its interests, we should not have expected Lavrov saying something different. He reacted to the rumors about the possible alignment of Denmark and Finland with the NATO exactly in the way to support the image of Russia “rising form the political and military weakness of the 90es”. On the other hand, Putin’s Russia is not the new version of the USSR. Its elite is extremely pragmatic and free from ideological motivations. “Bulling” allows Moscow to gain political dividends both externally and domestically whereas it will try to do its best to avoid the real full-scale conflict with the West as this will inevitably hurt the political and, what’s more important, economic interests of the Russian ruling clans.    

    3) Has the Arab League, seriously considered the adoption of an strategical partnership with Russia, considering Americas default foreign policy for the last eight years on the ME?  

    Russia is awkwardly trying to reclaim its Cold War role as a counterweight to the US in the region. From this point of view, the strong memory of Soviet presence in the region still exists among Middle Eastern policymakers and local population. However, as opposed to the USSR the Kremlin does not directly oppose Washington, but rather exploits the region’s pre-existing disappointment with the US through practical moves which contrast American and European behavior. In other words, Moscow exploits the shortcomings of Western policies in the Middle East. Thus, the reluctance of Washington to protect Mubarak compared with the Russian support provided to Assad encourages regional powers to consider Moscow a more reliable partner. The fast dispatch of Russian weapons to the Iraqi authorities in 2014 when Bagdad badly needed new equipment to defend itself from the rising Islamic State while the US-led Western states were only thinking about whether and how they should help the Iraqi army was also to demonstrate that Moscow is a much more responsible friend. All these examples naturally push the Arab League and the Middle Eastern countries of the region towards Russia even in spite of those atrocities done by the Assad forces in Aleppo under the cover of Russia. Yet, there is also an understanding in the region that Russian political and economic capacities will never be enough to match or replace that of the US. Under these circumstances, the real partnership between Russia and the countries f the region will always be limited. Some countries of the region might use this rapprochement with Moscow as a way to diversify their foreign policy and hedge the risks of being solely dependent on the US support. The others may use these closer contacts with Moscow as leverage to shape their own relations with the US: they intensify dialogue with Russia in order to make Washington more flexible on sensitive bilateral issues.

    4) United States under the direction and influence of Obama, was not capable to defend Ukraine and Crimea from Russia– even though the annexation of Crimea was constitutionally adopted. in retrospect, the same principle could be applied with ISIS in Iraq, and US ineptitude not to defeat ISIS. Has the United States betrayed its geo-strategical alliance with key nations and partnerships that depend on US military intervention and logistical support under enemy threat? Would the US intervene, if Iran declared war with Saudi Arabia –looking at Yemen — and Russia backed Iran?  

    I am not in the position to make judgments on the US foreign policy. Definitely, Moscow’s road to Damascus started in Georgia and Ukraine. The absence of a proper international reaction on the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008, the annexation of Crimea and Moscow’s support for the separatists in Eastern Ukraine made Putin confident enough to challenge the interests of the US and its allies in the Middle East. However, as I have said, Moscow success in the region is often determined by the policy mistakes made by the West. This suggests that “corrections” in Western approaches to regional issues would limit Russia’s capacity to maneuver.

    5) Will Donald Trump get along with Putin?

    The election of Trump as a new president of the US can bring both opportunities and challenges for Moscow and its foreign policy. While the Russian elite – de-facto – wanted him to win the presidential race, I believe that, in reality, Hillary Clinton’s victory would be a better outcome for Moscow. In case of Mrs. Clinton, Russia would deal with the “devil” it knows. Her decisiveness to confront Moscow if necessary as well as her views on the US presence in the Middle East were more-or-less well-known. If she won the Kremlin would be well-aware about what to do. At the same time, Mr. Trump’s views on Russia and its presence in the region are very unclear. During his presidential campaign, he made several bold statements regarding the possibility of Russian-US cooperation in Syria and beyond. Yet, it is still early to make judgments on whether he is ready to implement them. Like Putin, Trump is a populist and pragmatic. This can be a base for mutual sympathy. Nevertheless, the example of Turkish president Recep Erdogan and British MFA Boris Johnson also show that pragmatism and populism are not enough to build long-lasting positive relations: initial mutual sympathies did not prevent either Erdogan or Johnson form making bold moves against Putin’s interests.  

    6) Russia has backed Assad’s forces against the overwhelming consensus of the Arab League to support democracy– discarding Iran. Why is Russia strategically in favor of backing Assad against the will of most Sunni countries? Is that helping Russia earn support in the ME?

    There is a set of factors that brought Moscow in Syria on the side of Assad. It includes Russian interests in opposing the Western attempts to support the revolution against the ruling regime, Moscow’s plans to create additional leverage of influence on the US and EU through its involvement in the Syrian civil war and, finally, pursuing its own military interest. However, the key role is played by the Kremlin’s concerns regarding the possible overspill of the Syrian instability to the post-Soviet space. My experience shows that the Russian government sincerely believes that Assad’s removal from power would trigger the expansion of jihadism and instability in the Caucasus and southern Russia. Moscow is deeply concerned about the efforts of some forces in Qatar and Saudi Arabia to support the most radical factions in Syria. Officials believe that the current situation in the region directly influences domestic stability by provoking Russian religious extremists to undertake more aggressive anti-government actions. Unsurprisingly, then, Moscow does not want the Islamist influence in the Middle East to grow. And that’s where Putin’s experience may play crucial role. The rise of his career and popularity began with the Second Chechen war (1999-2001/2009). Putin probably remembers how hard it was to return the rebel province to control and how expensive it is to keep Chechnya under it. Presumably, he does not want the story to be repeated.

    7) Russia recently threatened the US, by deploying anti-aircraft missiles in Syria. Clinton has repeatedly said that even though she plans not to set “boots on the ground” she plans to use “Syrian Airspace”. If The United States decided to use Syrian Airspace would Russia use the defense aircraft missiles to stop the US?

    I doubt that Moscow decide to get involved in the open conflict with the US. However, when playing in a “chicken game”, there is always a danger that your opponent can finally use the real force. In case of Syria, this can work both in case of the US and Russia.    

    8) Not long ago, Russia and Turkey suffered a serious dispute after two Russian jet fighters were flag down and shot close to Turkey’s/Syria border. A showdown between Turkish president Recep Erdogan and Putin looked imminent, but escalation never resumed to war. If Russia did not carry out war with Turkey after the incident, would it really take a bigger risk facing the US?

    As I said, Moscow is extremely pragmatic. It knows its chances and the real war is not in Moscow’s interest. Yet, while avoiding the open confrontation with the West, Moscow can use the measures of the asymmetric response to react on any Western actions it considers as aggressive. I should remind about Russian sanctions imposed on Turkey after the incident with the Russian fighter jet as well as about Moscow’s increased support to the Kurdish movements. Both of these steps were very painful for Ankara and, definitely, not in its interests. That’s why complete ignoring of the Russian opinion may be dangerous.

    9) Clinton’s foreign policy as Secretary of State, was responsible for the Arab Spring and the dissolution of dictatorships across the Muslim world. How do military generals like general Khalifa Hafta (Libya). Abdel Fattah el-Sisi (Egypt) – including Iraqi General Othman Al-Ghanimi feel about Clinton’s policy? Does Russia offer a better solution than the US in the Middle East?

    Again, I would like to avoid making judgments about the US foreign policy as I am not an expert on it. Both Russian and Western analysts are arguing about Putin’s sympathies to strong and authoritarian leaders that bring him closer to figures such as Sisi, Haftar and, previously, Erdogan. Thus, some members of Putin’s administration are even saying about certain “chemistry” existing between the Russian and Egyptian presidents that helps them to find common language.

    10) General Al-Sisi supports, General Khalifa Haftar; the Muslim Brotherhood is banned in Egypt, but it does retain some ground in Libya under the General National Congress. Clinton’s relationship with Muslim Brotherhood is more open, as even in the US, they represent several political organizations under a different synonym. Does the Egyptian and Libyan general view the Clinton administration as a threat to their power-structure, bearing in mind she hasn’t ban the Muslim Brotherhood in America and Obama disliked their undemocratic rise to power? Could that bring Russia –and even China—closer to Egypt and Libya and their relationship further away from the US?

    For the regimes existing in the Middle East cooperation with Moscow has one tangible advantage. As opposed to the US, Russia demonstrates little care about the domestic affairs of the Middle Eastern countries. In most cases, the Kremlin also remains extremely pragmatic. Thus, Moscow was equally interested in dealing with Morsi as the president of Egypt and, later on, with General Sisi as his “successor”. Moreover, Muslim Brotherhood is officially banned in Russia as terroristic. Yet, one of the first signals that Morsi received from Moscow was saying: “we ready to deal with you irrelatively to your background as long as you are ready to deal with us.” Under these circumstances, Russia does not raise the question of political freedoms in Iran, and tries not to be critical of Israel’s policies in Palestine and Gaza in spite of its support for a two-state solution.

    11) The head of the Russian armed forces Sergei Shoigu, is said to be “more influential” than Putin, when it comes to military strategies and decision making. Shoigu is supposed to replace Putin as president soon; how will he fair with Clinton, in the case she wins the US election?

    I am afraid that it is too early to tell about Putin’s successor and the time of the transfer of powers from Putin to a new leader of Russia. However, I would suggest that under Shoigu we would see the continuation of the current semi-confrontational policies of Russia in its relations with the West.

    12) Does Israel play a central role in Russia’s and even China’s success to captivate the attention of the Arab League, considering the Israeli-US historical partnership? If Russia vowed to defend Arab countries from Israel, would it win the appeal of Middle Eastern leaders who oppose US interventionism?  

    The situation when Russia vow to defend Arab countries from Israel seems hardly possible for me. Currently, Russian-Israeli relations experience positive trend. The bilateral dialogue is based on a high level of mutual pragmatism that boasted an impressive improvement in the depth of their military, political and business cooperation. Russian engagement in Syria only strengthened this cooperation. Moscow openly promised Israel that it moves in the Middle East will not undermine Israeli security. It is believed that Russian-Israeli dialogue achieved a “special relations “status”. Thus, Israel refused to condemn Russia’s annexation of Crimea and criticized the Western sanctions imposed on Russia. Russia, in its turn, has also consistently avoided direct criticism of Israeli policies in the occupied territories. Relatively recently, according to Israeli sources, Putin also promised “not to push” the idea of the WMD free zone in the Middle East. Russia and Israel also reached a high level of information sharing and coordination of their activities in Syria enhanced by a special secure telephone line that will allow a direct and encrypted connection between Putin and  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    13) If Russia were to declare war to the United States, who is more prepared? Who would win? 

    I am afraid that I do not have enough information to make such judgments. Moreover, I do not believe in the possibility of the open US-Russian conflict in spite of Moscow’s behavior.

    14) Will the Middle East in the next 10 years, be a split between Russia, the US, and  China? 

    I think that neither of these countries is interested in dividing the Middle East in “the zones of influence” as it was during the cold war. At least, Russia does not have enough capacities to do this. The others might not have enough will. On the other hand, why should we limit the range of players by Russia, the US and China? I could name more countries that can play an important role in the region’s destiny in the next decade such as India and Japan, for instance. What we can say for sure is that, in the next ten years, Russia and China will be more active in the region whereas the US will also maintain its important role. Currently, the Kremlin believes in its Middle Eastern strategy. Success in Syria, rapprochement with Iran, the strengthening of ties with Egypt and the development of dialogue with Israel and the GCC add to the Kremlin’s confidence. Consequently, any attempts to change Russian approaches towards the Middle East will be challenged. While the Russian government will remain interested in dialogue with international players on key Middle Eastern issues, it will try to impose its own vision of the region’s future with little inclination to make concessions.

    Comments Off on What About Russian Expansionism?

    Against All Odds, All My Predictions Came True: Donald Trump New US President

    November 9th, 2016

    By Jaime Ortega.


    A lot of people criticized my prediction when I stated that Donald Trump was going to win the US presidential election against the hyped Hillary Clinton. I also predicted about a year and half ago, that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders were going to make noise because they represent true change whereas the present establishment represents backwardness and institutional corruption. A few analyst mocked my prediction – but then soon enough the unthinkable happened — and my critics froze in amusement the day the that Trump started to create a movement.

    I predicted Trump would win the republican nomination, and I almost predicted that Sander’s would pull an upset against the almighty Clinton campaign – that prediction I lost with a caveat — the DNC as Wikileaks has shown shoved Sanders out the race to give Hillary the Democratic nomination. Had it remained an even playing field, my prediction would have come about correctly. I am not a socialist, but had Sanders won the democratic nomination, he would of beat Trump in the general election. Very stupid move from the DNC!

    Tons and tons of political experts from private elite schools like Harvard, Yale, Brown, Berkley and other blah…blah professors; political analyst from the Brooking’s Institution, Gartner, CATO, and almost all other organizations overwhelmingly stipulated a comfortable victory for Clinton. Yet, I was unconvinced about their strange and unrealistic breakdown that Hillary would “cremate Trump”, even when the poll numbers indicated that Clinton was ahead 10-12 points on late July. As I will show on my articles bellow, I even said that he might probably win via landslide – guess what just happened today?

    What this election has showed people is that analyst that participate on prestigious shows with news networks like CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, ABC, New York Times, Washington Post and other mainstream media networks are not too knowledgeable about political predictions and should not be qualified to feed into the propaganda of liberal media pundits —not all of course – but a majority of experts lack common sense. It also shows that polls conducted by liberal mainstream media networks are quite a joke and unreliable.

    People were willingly misled by the liberal mainstream media ‘trustworthy’ propaganda polls to believe Trump had absolutely no chance to obtain victory — which showed poll results that simply staggered the imagination and were completely out of touch with reality. They absolutely ignored other factors that play into voter psychology which I predicted would create paranoia among constituents. They absolutely ignored the fact that social media was a battle field against Clinton and ‘the true’ indicator that showed who would be elected as president — they ignored it.

    The arrogance and despotism of liberal mainstream media to manipulate the election started a war with Independent News Networks like The Daily Journalist; organizations like Wikileaks, DC Leaks, Guccifer and social media that fought a hot-contested media battle to defend the values of integrity of what is left in journalism against the establishment. They were powerful, but we always had the numbers to counter their false rhetoric and expose their lies. Here is my related media war article.

    Here are a few of my predictions of why Trump would win:

    Two months ago (He is going to win) El Cafe community question:

    Early August (Why Trump will win) My article:

    Over a year ago (Trump and Sanders are coming) El Cafe community question:

    Comments Off on Against All Odds, All My Predictions Came True: Donald Trump New US President

    Only A Dictatorship Can Change America: Democracy Under Siege

    October 24th, 2016


    By Jaime Ortega.



    “Force is not friendly, but it is effectively friendly,” Jaime Ortega.


    Watching the 2016 US presidential election reveals evident signs of growing antipathy against the Government. The reason is clear and self-evident; the motives are non-negotiable and the path leads to the evident control of the establishment over voter psychology. All the moves are set in place to bring about the collapse of democracy in the US — Europe’s revolutionary bells also have started to make noise.

    The cover-up and buried sins reflected in Hillary Clinton’s email scandal, show the moral decadence of political interest groups and the rise of regulatory forces behind mainstream media networks that supposedly ‘defend’ journalism against editorial bias; categorically hypocritical networks in favor of permeating political propaganda in exchange of favors. The media has decided to lean in favor of political interest groups, covetous bureaucrats and political actors – far removed from the constitution and the principles that the US founding fathers introduced after rebelling against England and its authoritarian system. Such elitist groups represent themselves and not the status-quo, and the media has in-avertedly ceded to their demands posing a serious threat to public awareness.

    During the generation of the US founding fathers outside forces like bi-partisanship, the Fed Reserve, lobbying, media manipulation and corporate hegemony did not exist. Wall Street’s stock exchange and proprietary trade did not exist; neither existed a free market economy based on privatization. The constitution and the Bill of Rights were not originally scripted to withhold or challenge policy reforms that could run loopholes around the law under judicial scrutiny. The forces that have dragged members of congress to introduce modern policy alongside bribery and new predatory laws, would had presented a serious threat to the Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights. The Founding Fathers introduced the constitution to defend the nation from military insurrection, bipolarization of state and foreign powers. The idea was to create a trilateral structure of checks and balances to not allow monopolization in government. But with Wall Street and the manipulation of information executed by the rise of corporate media, everything changed. The constitution now, is just a playbook to pass bills that defend the financial sector and not the average citizen.  The whole system is heckled, top to bottom; the constitution means absolutely nothing today, the amendments only serve to protect powerful political interest institutions –too big to fail banks and corporations from federal prosecution. At a civil level criminal prosecution exist as a reminder that law and order prevail, but only at the bottom end of the financial structure where income inequality subsist in low income areas.

    The US Supreme Court, and the Department of Justice failed to trial and indict politicians and bureaucrats at a rate never observed before in US history; politicians and bureaucrats are too big to fail. The FBI’s inability to polarize institutional malpractice, clearly indicates the dishonesty of the bureau. US Government Agencies influence corporate policy and corporate voracity vivifies government interest nationally and globally. Large corporations unwilling to participate in political affairs come under siege if they don’t comply with protocol, while corrupted congressmen create new bills that benefit their wallets and the investors they represent in exchange of favors at the expense of civil demands. What good is the constitution, if a senator or a governor can be influenced with money?

    The media is no longer friendly or trustworthy, it no longer defends the ‘average Joe’. The media is not a watchdog and overseer of justice. The media no longer practices investigative journalism at government levels — it practices corporate business –as Wall Street is the core-foundation that sets fiscal standards during elections and pushes regulators offshore if threatened; It works marvels for CEO’s who have vested investment interest in political affairs. Real change applies mostly to big companies and major financial players, but small concessions are given to what is left of the middle class –which hardly ever existed —since the working class no longer have real acquisitive power to moderate unions or influence government. Capitol Hill is the brothel of US policy, and lobbyist and bundlers are the true policy makers in Washington; in fact, lobbyist and bundlers have greater policy control than the US Supreme Court because they can buy politicians and even judges with money to bypass bills against public interest. Everything about government is founded on legal corruption; a caste and a bureaucratic class system where major power brokers have political immunity over the law to break all the rules.  The market is controlled by private regulators that have similar — if not greater influence – than most government regulating agencies.

    Voting today doesn’t mean anything. The Daily Journalist interviewed 100 register voters, and asked questions regarding why constituents elected a certain candidate over another. When asked the reasons behind picking a candidate, 89 people answered that they really didn’t follow the policy behind their nominee, but looked instead at the candidates in accordance to their “moral behavior”. Only 11 people out of 100, were successfully able to explain the policies behind their pick. Such problem, shows the ideological decadence of political affairs in the US. Most people have absolutely no idea about the political reforms Trump or Hillary support — yet somehow — they’re allowed to vote in ignorance. If democracy is run by ignorance, then choosing a candidate to become a president should not be legally permitted. For those who vote out of ignorance, elect leaders in ignorance. Election should be based on policy — not on emotions and opinions – but on facts and comprehension. Our current model of voting is completely flawed and it prevents those who vote out of comprehension to separate themselves, from those who vote out of ignorance; if the ignorant and the knowledgeable are set on the same bracket, then voting is no different than communism — in that, the doctor should get paid the same as the janitor — making a mockery of Darwinian socio-economics and the idea that the better prepared should make more money; similarly, those who don’t study policy should not be allowed to cast votes alongside those who study hard to understand policy. The system is a complete fiasco and failure; leaders are mostly elected in ignorance and not discernment.

    The neo-conservative movement and the progressive left have transformed the military into a social project and a global enterprise. The military itself has been replaced by private military contractors, and private security companies; quasi-government dependence in contractors on Afghanistan and Iraq show the conflict of interest, and shift that challenges US military sovereignty around the world. The left and the right, have betrayed the military in exchange for PMC’s and PSC’s – otherwise known as ‘mercenary companies’. Mercenaries get paid generously and perform similar tasks to military operations in foreign countries. PMC’s and PSC’s don’t respect military values, they conduct assignments based on privatized authority where they are invulnerable to military respect.

    The function of the military itself has recently played the ‘good Robocop’ role in Iraq and Afghanistan, thanks to the social manipulation of civil activist groups to politicize the armed forces into a model that is completely degrading and retroactive to its historical destructive nature. The influence of forced victimization shoved by activism in times of war, has psychologically affected military personnel and hurt the morale of soldiers who love their country and don’t believe in politics. The real issue behind military experimentation doesn’t encompass the introduction of homosexuals, lesbians and transgenders in the armed forces –death and honor are not indicators of sexual variance—but the fact that in times of combat and battle, the military is subject to preach political correctness with the enemy so heads of state maintain a good relation with the US in exchange of political nepotisms that gifts transnational corporations more control. The elitist — and the progressive activist unknowingly— act as one unit in this case to neutralize military force into a perpetual state of political correctness.

    The progressive movement in general has not only ostracized military involvement on foreign affairs, but gradually propagandized the idea that ‘war is not a necessary evil’ and that ‘holding hands’ and ‘singing songs’ will bring about a better world.  Millennials and generation-x, do not feel patriotism and nationalism because baby boomers rebelled against the silent generation and transformed the military apparatus into a diplomatic catechesis based on globalized trade, financial coexistence, human rights and foreign diplomacy that ultimately paralyzed the true destructive and constructive nature of military power and its historical influence of transformation around the world. The left has propagandized military affairs into a state of paranoia, where military power is the real enemy of civility, progress and public justice. Since the late 60’s the left has propagandized the idea that death is evil under all circumstances making every culture the same culture, when history itself contradicts such stupid idea. The Roman Empire would have completely destroyed the threat of ISIS on a heartbeat, and ended its reign. The Roman Empire would of also expulsed millions of Syrian refugees, and executed those who dare tried to reform the Roman aristocracy into a sharia law state. But when the US fights ISIS, media pressure, civil right activists, vacillating politicians, financial interest groups, foreign unknowns and idealist get on the way of the military and unjustly demonize its cause. The military does not need to heed to the demands of politicians, leftist media pressure, idealist, activist, foreign actors and financial interest groups; In fact, the military at this point should only listen to itself because as I pointed above the government has forsaken the constitution already. The political and bureaucratic class is not above the military class; it’s the military class who is above the political class — for in the end of the road —no member of congress can replace the life of a serviceman who died in combat to defend the constitution that government, progressive activists and foreign agents seek to destroy with their devise ideological reforms. The military is a unifying force, politics a devise force.

    The millennial and x-generation not only hate and rubbish baby boomer control over policy and government, but also despise the very foundation and pillars of capitalism. As pointed on my previous post, the rise of past Bolshevik and proto-anarchist ideologies have risen in the past decade to staggering numbers all across the US; with the emergence of progressivism, the radicalization of soviet utopias in education has stimulated a counterrevolution to defeat corporatism and globalization inside many university classrooms. The baby boomer generation embraces the libertarian economic model, and degrades the economic progressive model that young Americans try to adopt.  The millennial and x-generation have also shown alarming signs of inherit comfort to compete in the globalized economy; citizenship means entitlement, and entitlement means lack of efficiency on financial sectors when preference doesn’t present a realistic alternative of financial survival.

    Millennials and Generation X, have chosen to benefit from a flawed system originally introduced by the baby boomer generation. An ‘American dream’ not standardized upon the hard work ethic of the silent generation, but a credit generation —aka baby boomers — where borrowed money means financial freedom, profit debt and dependency! Consumerism is the model that baby boomers promote and credit is the force behind lavish expenditure that has ultimately hurt the nation. The government acts like a medium for financial institutions, like diviner uses demons to speak on its behalf; consequently, the government encourages consumers to spend and not save, withholding the growth of the middle class. The middle class never truly existed in America, because most people buy themselves back to poverty with the encouragement of government mediums that represent powerful banks on Wall Street. Such dependency on credit and loans has tampered the culture of new Americans, who were taught to spend money without saving and sacrificing to attain concessions. In contrast, whereas the silent generation was able to liftoff from the Great Depression — with hard work and determination to succeed — they worked any job available to socially flourish. In addition, many millennials under the Great Recession depend on credit to subsist, never capable of saving money and moving forward. Such dependency on credit, has also resulted in low productivity and the end of the working class in America. Black America —once over employed – is now under employed, losing terrain in the job market against new ethnic groups that take full advantage of the system. The new immigrants are akin the silent generation, they save money and take any job available to succeed regardless of status to abandon poverty.  Therefore the Jobs available in the crop fields of America are considered underprivileged and neglected — prestigiously inadequate for the uneducated US youth without skills — seeking the need to work only under comfortable conditions that fit an unqualified resume. The immigrant will take those jobs — and not only is she/he willing to get paid less —- but work with greater efficiency and longer hours to eliminate the competition making them difficult to replace. How can the US youth, even stand a chance competing against these newcomers?

    The unskillful US youth wants the fruits of entitlement, but lag well behind in work ethic compared to the millions of immigrants that come to America and compete in the free market. The immigrants never served under the ideological influence of baby boomers and depend on their hard work to thrive and compete. Latino, Asian and Mexican workers simply master the low unskilled market with greater work efficiency without unions and regulators interceding for their rights. Its easy employment with greater efficacy; immigrants take farm, textile and service jobs — work harder — get paid less. Small-medium enterprises hire immigrants and illegals over the spoiled American youth that seek the fruits of financial freedom without struggle and hard work — mainly thanks to the destructive policies of baby boomers like former president Bill Clinton, who allowed trade deals like NAFTA, without better preparing the American youth to compete with outside players. The left buried the fundamental principles of work discipline and work efficiency. Abandoned the youth under predatory laws and credit abuse, at the cost of making ‘real money’ from outsourcing cheaper labor overseas; the consumerism of a brainwashed youth of millennials and X’ers, who’re stuck inside a psychological quagmire that Hillary Clinton ironically labelled as the ‘basement dweller’ generation. The left completely betrayed its recipients, and liberal voters know it. The youth is indebted to loans and is unable to compete with foreign players that show relentless determination to succeed deprived of government aid, relying only on themselves to survive. The average immigrant is highly more competitive than the average US citizen, especially those who’re blinded by the spoils of capitalism and privilege — seeking for support and assistance – rather than sacrifice and hard work.

    While the average millennial despises the idea of working in the crop fields of America, the average millennial is also incapable of competing on scientific university related programs. The average educated millennial overwhelmingly select Bachelor of Arts majors, but find it hard to enroll on Bachelor of Science majors. Thanks again to the baby boomer generation that progressively ruined with false narratives the philanthropic expectations of America’s youth, painting a world of class entitlement deprived of hard work ethic — otherwise known as the ‘American Dream’ which has created a consciousness of frustration among millennials in the US to seek a better life. Sometimes, the best way to enter Rome is not a straight path; you have to take a giant loop to achieve the same goal. The baby boomers taught you not to rely on yourself, but many learned from the silent generation how hard it is to achieve financial success. During a recession few companies need painters, music artist, public relations, designers, photographers, philosophers, botanist, etc. Companies require engineers, doctors, chemist, geophysicist among other harder majors – and immigrants are taking all the harder courses and finding jobs. The Latino (mainly Mexicans) and Asian population will replace the middle class, or whatever is left of it.

    With the rise of anarchist, Marxist and communist ideals swarming higher education; the bacchanalia between elitist, technocrats, bureaucrats and politicians; the corporate and political control of radio, print and telecommunications and bias of the media; the imminent rise of social media, Independent News Networks and anti-government organizations; the new ethnic phenomena and social replacement of traditional American working values; the US will suffer a political implosion that won’t end with democracy. The key element is the military and its relation with the political and civil class. If the civil and political class despise each other, the military is the only force capable of retaking the country and evanesce the constitution; the military should sort-out to eliminate all ideologies that oppose nationalism, patriotism — and ideologies that comprise chauvinism and jingoism sponsored by the progressive mainstream media –which they wrongly label as fascism; therefore, controlling all resources with regulations and ideological bans to stop Wall Street and the counterrevolutionary rise of proto-soviet and anarchist factions from asserting control of the country. If the military doesn’t harshly intervene, a civil war will spark with the up-rise of the proletarian class that will demand to control resources against government and corporate interest; the constitution is doomed either way. The new insurrectionists coming out of college will be on the hedge-front of the counterrevolution that will likely divide US states into separate independent nations. Also if a second civil war ignites, power houses like China and Russia will take over the world by controlling trade. The civil war would kill millions of people, and PMC’s and PSC’s would fight against an ideologically divided military –which would eventually collapse; nothing good. Foreign interventionism in America would likely be likely scenario during a civil war. Therefore, the military has the option to take over government, and stop the ideological drift that has pushed constitutional freefall since Wall Street and the corrupted media took control of the country. The military should limit political and bureaucratic actors and act as regulators.

    The political class has cheated the military and brainwashed people to believe that democracy is the ultimate social good; when democracy itself with the help of neo-conservatives, liberals and the progressive left have absolutely betrayed the constitution and the principles that protect all people under national law against leftist dogmas. The military knows its role and how it can change the country. The military also knows that the country is only going to self-destruct itself if it continues to be ideologically divided. The military will reformat the social brainwash imposed on millennials by baby boomers, and share its military discipline with youngsters to compete and outwork against foreign competitors, giving US citizens the edge in skills and work ethic. The military should also crackdown on the mainstream media networks, and regulate their influence over the ignorant men and women who believe everything they hear — trusting national news — thinking they don’t impose a biased agenda not having time to research and fact check lies.  If the US continues to stay divided the country will burst into chaos, and a dictatorship will eventually sprout sooner than later. Democracies leaning left end with dictatorships. It’s time for the military to not bow to politicians and citizens who oppose their cause and sacrifice, and stand up for themselves because they’re the ultimate force that sustains the US and protects its interest worldwide against foreign intruders. It’s not a question of if, but a question of when; only a dictatorship can change America: Democracy is under siege.



    Comments Off on Only A Dictatorship Can Change America: Democracy Under Siege

    Clinton Campaign Manager On Foreign Donors, “Take The Money, We Will Deal With It”

    October 18th, 2016


    By Jaime Ortega.



    Wikileaks most recent email release shows Hillary Clinton staff accepted campaign contributions from foreign donors knowing the decision might end in controversy. The email was sent before the democratic nomination between Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Clinton, who took a moral impact on Clinton’s “lobbyist” practices as she claimed to help defend “the middle class” against institutional forces, denying Sander’s allegations that she horned powerful and foreign institutions.  Clinton in the past claimed she found lobbying “deeply disturbing”.

    However, emails from Dennis Cheng, national finance director for Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign show a starch contrast to Hillary’s public message, and demonstrate that she received campaign contributions from foreign lobbyist.

    “We really need to make a policy decision on this soon – whether we are allowing those lobbying on behalf of foreign governments to raise $ for the campaign. Or case by case.” Cheng wrote to his staff.

    Karuna Seshasai, whose official role in the campaign is unclear replied to Cheng, that lobbyist for her campaign were also the donors for Clinton’s role as State Secretary.

    “I want to add that these folks can also be divided into two categories – those who lobbied while HRC was at State and those who are currently registered,” Seshasai replied to her staff.

    Marc. Elias the man in charge of Clinton’s campaign general counsel replied to Cheng and to Seshasai, that lobbying was valid under the conditions of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and implied that it they could case funds from a country like North Korea.

    “This is really a straight up political call. One middle option is to take case by case. If, for example, they are FARA registered for Canada, we may not case. If for N. Korea we would,“ Elias replied.

    After asking Seshashi to send the full list of email donors, Senshashi used the word “Bundlers” multiple times on her replies.

    “Bundlers, who are often corporate CEOs, lobbyists, hedge fund managers or independently wealthy people, are able to funnel far more money to campaigns than they could personally give under campaign finance laws,” according to the definition of Public Citizen, which is a consumer protection non-profit organization based in Washington DC, that targets lobbyist malpractices.

    “This is only 23 names of the first 350 prospective bundlers we looked at pre-launch. I anticipate more coming down the pipeline,” Senshahi wrote on her reply.

    After a quick lunch break, Senshani immediate follow-up email wrote,” We’re consistently flagging more FARA registrants daily. In terms of # – we’re at 27 out of 370 prospective bundlers – but to Jesse’s question – that does not represent the costs of how much these folks would likely raise. If we were looking at these folks below on a case by case basis, I’d want to specifically raise: Tony Podesta (Iraq, Azerbaijan, Egypt), Ben Barnes (Libya), John Merrigan (UAE), Wyeth Weidman (Libya), and Mike Driver (UAE connections)”

    After a 10 minute phone call with the Clinton campaign staff management, Seshasai suggested a loophole for bundlers to evade FARA and be allowed to lobby.

    Seshasai proposed the following plan, “The policy would be to not allow any currently registered foreign agents (those who register with FARA) to contribute or raise for the campaign. If someone terminates their registration, they would be allowed to contribute or raise for the campaign.”

    After the loophole suggestion, Cheng adopted a moral stance in the whole foreign lobbyist ordeal and reflects the impact it could have on individual democratic donors that trust in them and Clinton –specially, after Clinton publicly denied lobbying to attract Sander supporters. He also implies that the Clinton Foundation took money from foreign donors when Hillary was in-charge of the State Department.

    “I do want to push back a bit (it’s my job!): I feel like we are leaving a good amount of money on the table (both for primary and general, and then DNC and state parties)… and how do we explain to people that we’ll take money from a corporate lobbyist but not them; that the Foundation takes $ from foreign governments, but we now won’t?” Cheng replied to Seshasai, Elias and the rest of the staff.

    Elias replied to Cheng and made a case to why it shouldn’t be an issue to receive money from foreign bundlers, when it is okay to take from national corporations; making FARA an illogical process.

    “Responding to all on this. I was not on the call this morning, but I lean away from a bright line rule here. It seems odd to say that someone who represents Alberta, Canada can’t give, but a lobbyist for Phillip Morris can,” Elias replied.

    After trying to make a final decision in whether or not they should bundle foreign donors, Robby Mook, Clinton’s campaign manager replied to the staff and said “It is okay”, incriminates Obama, and doesn’t care about the repercussions of accepting money would have for Clinton’s campaign as the message ends.

    “Marc made a convincing case to me this am that these sorts of restrictions don’t really get you anything…that Obama actually got judged MORE harshly as a result. He convinced me. So…in a complete U-turn, I’m ok just taking the money and dealing with any attacks. Are you guys ok with that?”

    Leave your comment bellow

    “Clinton Campaign Manager On Foreign Donors, “Take The Money, We Will Deal With It”

    Comments Off on Clinton Campaign Manager On Foreign Donors, “Take The Money, We Will Deal With It”

    Emails show Hillary Clinton deeply rooted with corporations and outsourcing jobs

    October 14th, 2016


    By Jaime Ortega. 


    Democratic Nominee for President Hillary Clinton, harshly campaigned against Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, and promised her supporters that she advocated against outsourcing jobs. Sanders ratcheted up her jobs record, and said that she helped companies move jobs overseas –something Clinton denied.   

    Emails released by wikileaks have shown that Clinton is a versatile politician who seems to cater two different agendas. 

    “Politics is like sausage being made,” she said. “It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the backroom discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.”

    In 2004, Clinton was slamming outsourcing as she led the Democrats’ criticism of the Bush administration. She even said that outsourcing was “a strategy for decline. This is a strategy for the destruction of the American job market.”

    She pledged to present a Senate resolution, her goal was “to stand against this philosophy in the White House that turns a blind eye to the damage that is being done to the American economy: The loss of jobs, the loss of income, the loss of self-confidence and prestige that is now sweeping our land.”

    Thousands of pages of Hillary Clinton’s schedules from her time as secretary of state shed light on the access corporate executives and foundation donors enjoyed at her State Department, but missing portions leave questions about how Clinton spent her days in the administration.

    From the private meetings she held with donors at her Foggy Bottom office to a “conference call with CEOs” to raise money for a State Department project, Clinton mixed her exhaustive diplomatic engagements with appointments that favored her political and philanthropic networks.

    Clinton met frequently with Kris Balderston, who has remained a shadowy figure that once served in the Office of The Secretary of State, and managed the Global Partnership Initiative, which is an entry point for collaboration between the US Department of State, the public and private sectors, and civil society.

    Balderston and Clinton showed determination to court corporate donors in the run-up to the 2010 World’s Fair in Shanghai.

    A U.S. presence at the expo became a diplomatic priority for Clinton shortly upon her arrival at the agency, but because she was barred from using taxpayer money to fund the $60 million project, Clinton tapped Balderston to raise the cash.

    Wikileaks emails reveal how much Clinton had turned a blind eye on outsourcing. Clinton emailed Bladerston trying to obtain “a call sheet for Bloomberg LLC” to set negotiations that would benefit her foundation through the State Department which gave her political access.   

    Balderston replied, “It’s not like a traditional trade/Expo with specific booths.” And added, “It is more subtle and the pavilion folks would negotiate creatively on what they want depending on the amount they get on the big wall of contributors.” This email shows that donors would receive favors for their contributions, which should worry those who think Clinton works in favor of the middle class and not elites — something she accuses Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump of supporting.   

    In the email, Hillary responded to Balderston, and asked, “If a city gives $ do they put up display/exhibits?”   

    Balderston replied, “This will be an important two weeks to nail down these big companies. We are negotiating with them now about possible options. I’ll keep you posted. May be good to mention this to Mayor Bloomberg if you run into him or see him. Doctor off gave us from B4 Bloomberg, LLC but he thought the Mayor may be interested for the city.”

    Clinton replied, “What else can I do to help?”

    The email also shows that other companies might have had suspicions and raised eyebrows regarding the intentions of the deal coming from the Clinton foundation, the Secretary of state and the Global Partnership Initiative — but it was important to insist— Google one of them.  

    “Google has been weird about this whole deal but this whole Expo experience has been fascinating. Some companies will say absolutely no for months (Qualcomm, Bloomberg, J&J) and then pop out of nowhere and say yes. Others like are all in for and then decide not to give us a penny. Therefore we have to keep bugging these guysm,” Balderston replied. 

    Balderston also rants that they raised $54M, and Bloomberg gave them $500k, but they still needed $7M.

    According to the email, Monsanto, Disney and Oracle spoke with Balderston, on behalf of Hillary. He also said that companies like Hormel, Mattel, Invitrogen and Major League baseball “were in range” to negotiate deals with Hillary.  

    One surprising aspect of the email, is that Balderston and Hillary had the ability to force large companies to push and influence smaller business to raise money for their initiative.  

    “We have approached groups like Pharma and the fashion industry thru Diane von Furstenburg to get them to bundle smaller companies and both have agreed to do it. I met with DVF and she wants you to know that she is very excited about helping (they are in the range), Balderston said.

    In fact the email shows that the Chamber of Commerce was contemplating to push Small Medium-Sized Enterprises to raise $2-3 Million in smaller increments for Clinton.

    A few days later, Clinton replied, that “she had made no progress” in raising $7 Million.

    The email also shows Clinton courted commercial diplomatic deals with China, and wanted a bridge between Small and medium-sized enterprises in the US to get access to Chinese growing market. As Bernie mentioned, she was all pro-outsourcing jobs. 

    Balderston replied, “Google should be an obvious co-sponsor of the USA Pavilion and they have consistently pushed us off. Although they bring up IP issues as a reason not to participate, the Chinese frequently note that they do a lot of business in China. We are now at $54 million. If the opportunity arises, it would be helpful to note the importance of a USA standing in Shanghai.”  

    Balderston’s update Friday, March 5, 2010 6:26 AM:

    “Just a quick note to tell you that we are moving forward on the Expo funding. ATT came in at $500k, McGraw Hill at $200k, Intel at $250k more, Delos Living (a Mantz client) $250k, and CITI at a minimum of $2M brings us down to $3.7M. The following are on deck and likely to come in soon – Boeing (more), Carlyle, Blackstone, Alcoa, and AECOM. EB and I chatting with many others.”

    Clinton replied, “Good work. Let me know if I need to do anything else.”

    However, the letter that seems to confirm that Clinton is pro-outsourcing and might have questionable financial ties with foreign donors came from an email sent by Balderston that recalls a meeting with a high CEO of PNB Indonesia.

    “Madame Secretary.

    Thank you for meeting with Asep Sulaeman, the Chairman of the local PNB Committee in Indonesia and the Sr VP for Exxon Mobil in Jakarta and Robin McClellan, a newly retired FSO who was the CG in Perth, Australia and is now employed by Exxon.

    You briefly met Asep during the PNB dinner earlier this year and I spent time with them both in Jakarta last month. Indonesia promises to be a successful PNB country because like Turkey, a number of US companies are interested in participating.

    “Your “hello” and statement that PNB is an important item on your agenda will allow the funding will help them hire a full time Exec Director to run the project. We are helping them develop a mechanism to accept the funds and move forward. She and I have talked about how to move forward.”

    The Daily Journalist also released information thanks to Guciffer about how The Clinton Foundation  gave banks and corporations TARP in exchange of funding. 

    New Documents Show Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi Amid TARP Controversy

    Comments Off on Emails show Hillary Clinton deeply rooted with corporations and outsourcing jobs

    The US Media Armada Versus The Online Battleships

    October 8th, 2016



    By Jaime Ortega.



    A Little History

    The Spanish in the 16th century decided to go to war with England, after Queen Elizabeth the first endorsed Protestantism to take over Roman Catholicism in England. The Spanish had the greatest galleons and the best fleet in the world. 22 galleons left Spain to Flanders, to invade the English coastline. The English united, and small fire-ships sailed in great numbers to combat the great Spanish Galleons. After an intense battle the English won and drove off the Spanish in retreat. Suffering a catastrophic defeat that would eventually rewrite history, the Spanish retreated only to encounter several storms in the North Atlantic that also ravished their fleet.  One of the worst military humiliations in history, shows also an interesting paradox — size and wealth doesn’t guarantee victory.

    The Biased Bias

    There is little doubt that most US mainstream media networks support Hillary Clinton’s presidential nomination. The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Atlantic and other publications have publicly endorsed her candidacy to become the next president of the United States. CNN, MSNBC, ABC and CBS despite not publicly endorsing any nominee, are trying to stop Donald Trump at all cost.

    The networks trying to cover-up Hillary’s multiple scandals knew all along that it would take a toll on their reputation as trustworthy mediums in the eyes of viewers across the nation — and still ran with the agenda.  As a result, credibility in the media is on an all-time low, and skepticism is on all-time high. The media has become the enemy of the same people it claims to represent. The US media is like whorehouse, the highest bidder gets to sleep with the network it chooses to seduce.

    Most mainstream media networks today, are totalitarian news networks. If a republican janitor doesn’t endorse a republican candidate, Fox News wont hire him; the same is true with liberal media, if MSNBC workers don’t pledge allegiance to the democratic party, they might was well exit the building escorted by police. Liberal media not long ago, was capable of deciding elections and court audiences to elect presidents without much challenge, but a monster emerged, a rip inside the communications field that not only impeded mainstream media networks from deciding elections but also balanced media bias itself.

    Two Baby’s Were Conceived; And Yet Another…

    The internet gave birth to social media, and social media gave birth to citizen journalism. The internet conceived another progenitor, his name was ‘independent news’ —and since the inception of the web— thousands of independent news networks have emerged from the ashes of mainstream media populace including The Daily Journalist.

    Both social media platforms and online independent news networks are so innumerably large, that they have not only taken viewers by storm, but have taken away millions of loyal viewers away from popular mainstream media networks.  It took years for social media platforms and online independent news networks to develop a cavalry capable of hurting mainstream media – not even during Barack Obama versus John McCain or Mitt Romney was it so palpable – but now both are stronger than ever and numerously large.

    The internet offered the possibility for the average Joe to produce his own online news network, without need to invest money in print publications. Print publication were costly and did not allow for the average person to invest in such big project, the same is true with radio and television. Also print publication, broadcast and radio required physical buildings to maneuver the work and logistics of the company, whereas most online publications don’t require a physical building to run online.  The internet was the perfect storm to counter media bias, and mobile tablets only made the obvious more evident, the end of print supremacy and the beginning of alternative news networks.

    Yet, the real nail in the coffin is hacking. The insurrection of WikiLeaks, DC Leaks, Cryptome, Guciffer, and Anonymous among other organizations, has really damaged the reputation of mainstream media networks and given bullets to social media, and independent networks to strategically target the weak credibility left among popular media giants.

    This presidential duet is much more than a battle between Trump and Clinton or a battle between Main-street and Wall Street; it’s a battle between mainstream media supremacy and the emergence of social media and independent news networks.  Mainstream media networks know they will eventually lose the race against the rise of citizen and private journalism; the days are counted before a physical insurrection takes place, so the goal of popular mainstream media is to freeze the process and gather as much wealth as possible from the same politicians they endorse, before the power is transferred to the little guys. Buying time is essential to keep mainstream media alive.

    Once Upon A Time

    Once upon a time, journalism was run by journalist. They were disliked by politicians, elites, and corporations; they were the watchdogs of ordinary citizens and defended the constitution and the rights of Americans. Media had trust issues, but it wasn’t the norm; it wasn’t morally accepted to take bribes as most reputable news networks took pride on their investigative reports. But as time passed, somewhere in the late 1970’s greed started to engulf the wallets of the families that owned media outlets. Business-journalism became the real scheme – investors, lenders, advertisers and sponsors all wanted a piece of the cake knowing full well they would profit serious wealth from the media effect.

    No platform could compete with television, print or radio; the money was there to stay. After many years, avid politicians realized that the once stubborn media run by Journalist, could now finally be approached and influenced; business was priority over news, and politicians took full advantage of the change. The relationship between news business moguls and corporations and politicians were enriched in exchange of favors. Lobbying was now morally permitted in news networks, and media networks slept with politicians who utilized political powers to grant media business immunity for their public support.

    The Paradigm Conflicts With Honest Journalist

    Today journalist who graduate from university are trapped inside a major paradigm. It’s hard to find a job where journalism won’t spew you. The spirit of journalism is trapped inside the body of business crooks that represent institutional growth only. Journalist want to report important stories, but fail because mainstream media networks impose their will on the stories published. Journalist no longer ‘go fishing’ for stories, they have to comply with the rudiments of corporations that careless about investigative news, and more about sensationalist tabloid stories that will increase financial revenue. Journalist are also restricted from reporting stories that could negatively affect certain politicians, organizations and affiliated sponsors. Journalist are sadly affected by the politicization of media, and it is too late to revert the problem.  If a journalist wants to keep his job, he must bend over and obey. I know many journalist that bite their tongues in despair for good news, and yet to make a living ‘kiss ass’ every day questioning the morality behind the networks they work under– its not even funny!

    Change Proliferated Under The Mainstream Radar

    People might be dumb, but they are not stupid; people might act in ignorance, but they’re aware of circumstances. For years, people saw how the media turned their backs on them at a national level. Even though they expressed anger, the anger was somewhat blotted out, and manipulated in news coverage to appear mild instead of controversial. People retorted media bias just by holding town-hall meetings at grass root levels, but the impact was limited to the locality and hardly became a national issue. Frustration ended the day the internet allowed for ordinary people to buy public domains on the web; for the first time people could express themselves in forums and chat-rooms across the US and counter media rhetoric without physical meetings and protests. For years, the mainstream media ignored the rise of a counter-communicative upheaval progressively emanating from the internet.

    It all really changed on the wake of the Arab Spring in 2011, it became clear that social media not only could help stir revolutions but also breakdown organized governments in a matter of days. Western media networks paid close attention to these events, suddenly afraid of the power of twitter, Facebook and Youtube as they witnessed rebellions unfold. Bias could now be countered in social media and media lies could be exposed with transparency and clarity.

    Hillary promoted the social revolution that ignited the Middle East; she promoted social media to weed-out the dictatorships that once ruled the Middle East with an iron fist –yet with all that said –the same social revolution she once promoted to expel dictators, has completely turned against her and ruined her trustworthiness as a leader revealing her true intentions as a politician. One thing Hillary dislikes is social media and independent news networks for exposing her scandals; and she knows its frustrating as an ‘old timer’ to not be able to manipulate the internet, like she influences traditional big news networks that support her cause. Like many millennials say “Karma is a b#tch!”.

    Today, the relationship between people and media is at ‘ground 0’. CNN, MSNBC, CBS and ABC to name a few are looked upon as ‘problem makers’ and not ‘problem solvers’; they are playing Russian roulette endorsing Hillary, and they know that if she doesn’t win its check-mate for a lot of them. Fox News isn’t any better than the networks I’ve discussed above, but despite its rightist propaganda, it looks like they’re the only broadcast channel willing to report Hillary’s scandals. If Fox News didn’t exist, all the other media outlets would cover up Hillary’s mess under a silk rug.

    Mainstream media were once the watchdogs of ordinary citizens; now it is social media and independent news the unofficial watchdogs of mainstream media. Communication has changed, and it is going to destroy the traditional pillars of media networks already ravished by the technological advancement of digitalization in the globalized world. Generation X, and Millennials have ruined the print industry and broadcast supremacy, and baby boomers have also changed their customs obtaining news online. The future doesn’t look promising for many mainstream media companies.

    The Final Deal

    The goal of politicians is now to lay hold on the internet and set nepotism to influence people’s behavior online. The frantic dream of government is to control resourceful information emanating from Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Blogger – a few powerful online companies— but the greater goal is to control Google. Google is the hegemon of the internet! When users type the key words ‘Hillary Clinton’ a new Google App called AMP, shows all the latest news results related with Hillary. For now, it looks like there is no inherent bias, as Google shows negative and positive reports of each candidate when browsing their server —but for how long? When will money get on the way?

    Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google and current chairman of the board, had ties to the State Department when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. That is not good news for the average citizen looking for balanced news online. Such affairs could also transpose the transparency behind Google Mail, and the US Government. If Hillary becomes the next Commander-ln-Chief, she will probably influence and sharpen her influence with Google. Julian Assange wrote a book in 2014 titled “When Google Met Wikileaks,” detailing the company’s close ties with US policy makers.

    History Is Cyclical

    Just as the all-powerful Spanish Armada jointed its biggest galleons to fight the rise of Queen Elizabeth, mainstream media has also bonded to destroy Trump. Just as the small English battleships united in large numbers to try to take down the big powerful Spanish galleons, so is the amalgamation of small independent news networks, social media and hacking organizations trying to defeat mainstream media networks in the field of public communication. The battle of communication supremacy is ever clearer this election, and it’s a battle that comprises favoritism in polls, surveys and stats to eliminate credibility and audience support. This election has shown conflicting evidence that polls show biased results when compared to other major publications online.

    One interesting factor is that Russia Today — another biased totalitarian news network in Russia —and Middle Eastern based news Al-Jazeera have temporally truce with the US anti-media establishment to help take down the powerful American Networks. Donald Trump could be that perfect storm that after the English defeat, ravished the Spanish galleons and changed history. The media has played people for stupid and its about to pay the price sooner or later — with or without Trump in office; CNN is really no different than RT, one is totalitarian under a kleptocracy and the other totalitarian under the free market; same crap, different toilet. As Scarface once said, “What difference does it make?”. Time calls for change in the media, and the days of mainstream media supremacy are over.

    Comments Off on The US Media Armada Versus The Online Battleships

    New Documents Show Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi Amid TARP Controversy

    October 5th, 2016


    By Jaime Ortega.


    The website Guciffer, uploaded crucial information related with the Clinton Foundation, exposing democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her affiliation with controversial donors.


    The document shows how banks like Goldman, UBS, ABA, JP Chase, Morgan Stanley. Merrill Lynch, and corporation like Boeing, General Electric, Met life, Prudential and other institutions donated to the Clinton Foundation.


    According to the documents big banks and corporations agreed to donate to the Democrats a certain percentage of the allocated Trouble Asset Relieve Program funds. TARP,  was government money “loaned” to private corporations to prevent those private corporations from becoming insolvent.

    Hillary blamed Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump for catering to financial elites and not paying taxes, but documents seem to show that Hillary herself has bonded with powerful banks and corporations in exchange for contributions on her campaign.

    The documents show that top democrats including Nancy Pelosi, were injecting TARP funds to their Pac’s. The news could severely ravish the little credibility Hillary has left to become the next president of the United States.



    The Clinton Foundation is already under a lot of scrutiny. Reports show that Bill Clinton solemnly promised after the 2001 earthquake that killed thousands of people in India, Thailand and Sumatra, that his new nonprofit — called the American India Foundation (AIF) — would rebuild 100 villages. Rajat Gupta, his millionaire co-chairman, pledged $1 billion for the victims.

    It never happened. Years later, AIF’s annual reports were reviewed by the Daily Caller News Foundation and show only seven villages were partially rebuilt by Clinton’s group, and a mere $2.7 million of $53 million raised over a decade went to the earthquake victims.

    Comments Off on New Documents Show Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi Amid TARP Controversy