DOCUMENTS: OBAMA HAS SPENT $74 MILLION IN TAXPAYER DOLLARS ON HOLIDAYS

Steve Watson | Infowars - FEBRUARY 5, 2016

The Obama family has wracked up a bill of $74 million, charged to the taxpayer, in vacations since taking office, according to recently obtained records.

The watchdog group Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit to find out how much money the first family has spent on luxury getaways since Obama took office.

Documents, obtained after Freedom of Information Act requests were ignored, reveal that the total figure is at least $74,124,562.48.

“Now that we’ve sued, the Secret Service has stopped ignoring our requests for details on more of the costs of Barack Obama’s luxury vacations,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said on Wednesday.

The records show that just two of the most recent Obama family vacations cost taxpayers more than $5 million dollars.

Secret service accommodations alone for the 2014 Martha’s Vineyard and Honolulu vacations cost taxpayers $1,243,057.

“Taxpayers, the U.S. Air Force and the Secret Service are being abused by Barack Obama, who too often treats Air Force One and his security detail like some of sort of kingly entourage.” Fitton noted.

“Does Barack Obama really think that over $5 million for two family vacations, which include nearly $1 million in Secret Service hotel bills for a two week Martha’s Vineyard vacation, is an appropriate use of tax dollars?” the Judicial Watch President urged.

The group highlighted that in Martha’s Vineyard, the Obama family booked out a “plush, secluded seven-bedroom, nine-bath, 8,100-square-foot house in the exclusive Chilmark neighborhood.”

An earlier day trip to New York, just to “hang out with his girls” was said to have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In October, Judicial Watch revealed that in just two months the President spent close to $4.5 million on golfing and fundraising trips.

The documents showed that:

Obama’s February 14, 2015, golf outing to Palm Springs required a five-hour flight, costing taxpayers a total of $1,031,685.
Transportation for Obama’s February 19 day trip to Chicago cost taxpayers $619,011.00.
Transportation for Obama’s March 2015 fundraising trip to Los Angeles cost taxpayers $1,980,835.20.
Obama’s March 28, 2015, golf outing to Palm city required a 3.9-hour flight, costing taxpayers $804,870.30.

The two golf outings alone cost taxpayers $1,836,555 in travel expenses. Obama played a total of five rounds of golf, equating to a cost of $20,406 per hole.









—————————————————————-

Steve Watson is a London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com.

Book says Hillary talks to dead

CNN | June 22, 1996

First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton held imaginary conversations with Eleanor Roosevelt and Mahatma Gandhi as a therapeutic release, according to a new book written by Bob Woodward, says a report in Sunday's edition of The Chicago Sun-Times.

The first lady declined a personal adviser's suggestion that she address Jesus Christ, however, because it would be "too personal," according to Woodward's book, "The Choice."

The book, which is still to be published, takes a behind-the-scenes look at the Clintons, as well as Bob and Elizabeth Dole.

Woodward says the adviser was Jean Houston, co-director of the Foundation for Mind Research, which he describes as a group that studies the psychic experience and altered and expanded consciousness.

The book portrays Houston as an influential adviser who urged Mrs. Clinton to write her book, "It Takes a Village and Other Lessons Children Teach Us," and in the process "virtually moved into the White House" for days at a time to help with revisions, the Sun-Times reported.

Woodward suggests the White House hoped to keep Mrs. Clinton's relationship with Houston and her talks with the dead a secret.

"Most people in the White House did not know about Hillary's sessions with Houston. ... To some of the few who did, the meetings could trigger politically damaging comparisons to Nancy Reagan's use of astrology," Woodward wrote.

Mrs. Clinton's spokeswoman, Lisa Caputo, is quoted in the Sun-Times as saying the first lady's interest in Houston is no secret.

Woodward says anthropologist Mary Catherine Bateson, daughter of famed anthropologist Margaret Mead, joined her in sessions of imaginary conversations.

Woodward is an assistant managing editor at The Washington Post. As a reporter, he helped break the Watergate scandal with Carl Bernstein.

Mrs. Clinton herself wrote about her imaginary conversations with Eleanor Roosevelt in her June 10 column. She said she talked to Roosevelt about the role of a first lady.

"She usually responds by telling me to buck up, or at least to grow skin as thick as a rhinoceros," Mrs. Clinton wrote.

In the column, she described Houston as an expert on philosophy and mythology. "(Houston) has shared her views with me on everything from the ancient Greeks to the lives of women and children on Bangladesh," she wrote.

Mrs. Clinton also acknowledged her relationship with Bateson.

"She and I have spent hours discussing the ways in which women in different societies attempt to fulfill their responsibilities to their families, jobs and communities," Mrs. Clinton wrote.

BERNIE SANDERS IS THE 1%

Alex Jones | Infowars - FEBRUARY 4, 2016

Alex Jones breaks down and exposes the true superclass that is pulling the strings behind the world stage and uncovers the hellish nightmare that is socialism and communism.

Obama Urges Congress to Approve TPP ‘This Year’; Leading Presidential Candidates Oppose It

CNS News | By Patrick Goodenough | February 4, 2016 | 4:17 AM EST

After trade ministers from the U.S. and 11 other countries on either side of the Pacific on Thursday signed one of the biggest trade deals in history, President Obama called on Republicans and Democrats to approve it “this year.”

Obama said in a statement he would “continue working with Democrats and Republicans in Congress to enact it [the Trans-Pacific Partnership] into law as soon as possible so our economy can immediately start benefiting from the tens of billions of dollars in new export opportunities.”

“We should get TPP done this year and give more American workers the shot at success they deserve and help more American businesses compete and win around the world,” he said.

Obama clearly has the November election in mind: Leading candidates in both parties oppose the TPP while the deal has supporters and critics on both sides of the aisle in Congress.

America’s 11 partners in the TPP, which has been under negotiation for five years, are Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. All 12 countries must now ratify it.

At the signing ceremony in Auckland, New Zealand, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman expressed confidence that Congress would approve the deal.

“We are working with members of Congress, working with the leadership of Congress, educating everybody as to what’s in the agreement, addressing their questions and concerns,” he said.

“And I’m confident that at the end of the day, because of the strong benefits to the U.S. economy – which have been estimated to be over $130 billion a year in GDP growth, as well as more than $350 billion in additional exports – that members of Congress will see the benefits for their constituents and we’ll have the necessary bipartisan support to be approved,” Froman said.


Democratic primary frontrunner Hillary Clinton moved from backing the TPP while secretary of state – saying in 2012 that it set “the gold standard in trade agreements” – to rejecting it last July.

Her socialist opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, pledged last October to “lead the effort to defeat” the TPP.

Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has called the TPP “a horrible deal,”charging during a Fox Business Network debate last November that it was “designed for China to come in, as they always do, through the back door and totally take advantage of everyone.”

(Sen. Rand Paul accused Trump of mistakenly saying China was a TPP member although Trump did not exactly do so; TPP critics have warned that China may later join the original 12 members. Nonetheless, Politifact ratedTrump’s statement untrue.)

Among the other GOP candidates, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has been most supportive of the trade deal.

Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida voted last June in favor of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), giving the president “fast track” authority to negotiate agreements like the TPP. Later in the year he declared himself “generally very much in favor of free trade” but said he would need to understand the details of the TPP “before we can commit to voting for something. But generally, it’s very positive.”

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas voted against the TPA. After not taking a position in favor or against the TPP for months, he said in Iowa in November that he would vote against the trade pact.

Among others in the GOP pack, the TPP has the support of neurosurgeonBen Carson (“with reservations”) and of Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who has called it “critical.”

Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina last June voiced skepticism about the TPP, and also cited concerns that China could join later.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is on the record as saying he generally believes in free trade but that he has “real concerns about this president’s ability to negotiate anything that represents a great deal for America.”

THE MEN BEHIND TED CRUZ: NEOCONS AND A CIA PROPAGANDIST

Kurt Nimmo | Infowars - FEBRUARY 4, 2016

Ted Cruz, the junior Senator from Texas and presumptive Republican presidential nominee, is routinely billed by the mainstream media as a Tea Party outsider who is reviled by fellow Republicans as a “wacko bird” along with Kentucky Senator Rand Paul and GOP Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan.

It is not simply his wife’s connection to Goldman Sachs and investment banking or his unreported loan from the multinational investment banking firm, however, that betrays this image.

A closer look at Cruz reveals he is a neocon insider, not a renegade outsider.

His campaign manager, Chad C. Sweet, co-founded the Chertoff Group with former Bush and Obama administration Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff. Sweet, as a leader of the Chertoff Group, “advocated for expanding NSA metadata collection,” according to his bioon the risk-management and security consulting company’s webpage.

“Mr. Sweet formerly served as the Chief of Staff of the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Prior to becoming Chief of Staff of DHS, Mr. Sweet worked as an investment banker at the firms of Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs as well as served in the CIA’s National Clandestine Service,” the bio continues.

Cruz’s foreign policy advisor is the notorious neocon James Woolsey, the former director of the CIA during the Clinton administration. Woolsey is connected to the now largely defunct Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a think tank with an agenda formulated by top neocons William Kristol and Robert Kagan. PNAC was at the forefront of the Bush administration push to invade Iraq. He is a former vice president of the defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton and an advocate of the neocon hardline on Iran.

Ted’s foreign policy team includes Elliot Abrams, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and the son-in-law of Norman Podhoretz, a trailblazing neoconservative ideologue. Abrams was a key adviser on Mideast policy at the National Security Council (NSC) during the George W. Bush presidency and also a staunch advocate of the Iraq invasion, the hardline on Iran and military strikes against the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

Finally, the man in charge of public relations for the Cruz campaign is Dan P. Gabriel, a former CIA covert action officer and a founding partner of Applied Memetics, a company “focused solely on developing engineered influence for clients seeking to alter their tactical or strategic operational environments,”according to its webpage. The company specializes in propagating memes that ”can move through the cultural sociosphere in a manner similar to the contagious behavior of a virus,” in other words Applied Memetics specializes in propaganda.

The latest Cruz meme is working hard to convince followers of Rand Paul, who dropped out of the race in the wake of the Iowa caucus, that Cruz “is the natural inheritor of the modern libertarian movement built by Ron Paul, which was especially resonant here in New Hampshire, where the elder Paul won second place four years ago,” CNN reports.

“Cruz’s entreaties appear to be paying off. A number of state legislators—in places ranging from here in New Hampshire to the Paul family’s Texas—signed onto the Cruz team.”

Ted Cruz is not even remotely a libertarian. He is a neocon masquerading as a champion of liberty. If nominated and elected he will continue the forever war agenda initiated by the Bush regime and further expand the high-tech surveillance police state.

Unfortunately many Republicans, desperate to beat Hillary Clinton and the Democrats in November, are buying into the illusion.

The Secretive Hedge Fund That's Generating Huge Profits for Yale

Bloomberg | By Sabrina Willmer & Tom Moroney | February 4, 2016 — 5:00 AM EST

Yale University. IMAGE CREDIT: Flickr

In a year when titans Bill Ackman and David Einhorn each lost more than 20 percent for their investors, David Swensen’s bet on a little-known hedge fund kept making him money.

Nancy Zimmerman’s Bracebridge Capital has gone from $5.8 billion in assets four years ago to $10.3 billion today with a return of about 10 percent a year since its inception. That makes it the largest hedge fund in the world run by a woman. Zimmerman, who survived a 1990s scandal involving Russia, her husband and Harvard University, is so successful at avoiding the limelight that Leda Braga’s $9.5 billion Systematica Investments Ltd. is often cited as the top woman-led firm by assets.

David Swensen 
Photographer: Peter Foley/Bloomberg

Swensen, who runs Yale University’s $25.6 billion endowment, and Thomas Steyer of Farallon Capital Management originally staked Zimmerman in 1994 with about $50 million. Yale’s investment now is valued at around $1 billion, making it one of the endowment’s most profitable.


“She’s employing this leveraged strategy to exploit pricing differentials in the fixed-income world with an obsessive focus on risk,” Swensen said in an interview.

Bracebridge has had only eight losing months since 2009. The fund’s 2 percent gain last year eclipsed the industry, which was up 0.6 percent on average, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Hedge funds had trouble navigating unexpected market events, including a devaluation in the Chinese currency in August, a rally in European government bonds and a steep drop in oil prices.

Ackman’s Pershing Square Holdings, the publicly traded part of his activist hedge fund, lost 20.5 percent last year, hurt in part by a drop in the shares of drugmaker Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. Einhorn’s Greenlight Capital suffered the second losing year in its history, with its main fund falling 20.4 percent due to wrong-way stock picks.

“There were a lot of gopher holes that you could step in,” said Gabriel Sunshine, Zimmerman’s partner at Bracebridge. “We managed to miss most of them.’’

Heavyweight Network

Zimmerman, 52, has a powerful network of allies, including former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine, who was Zimmerman’s boss at Goldman Sachs Group Inc., where he was co-chief executive officer. Among her top investors is Princeton University’s endowment, run by Swensen protege Andrew Golden.

Corzine said he remembers Zimmerman as a brilliant trader who attracted the brightest of co-workers.

Bracebridge is a relative-value fixed-income fund that exploits small pricing differences in the credit market and hedges against those bets.

Zimmerman offered a typical scenario: Bracebridge buys a corporate bond it considers cheap while at the same time purchasing a credit-default swap on the bond in order to make money even if the company goes bankrupt. Leverage boosts returns.

The strategy hasn’t always come up roses. Long-Term Capital Management, a highly leveraged hedge fund run by John Meriwether, pursued a similar investment approach. In 1998, after Russia stiffed lenders including LTCM, the fund failed and was bailed out by its Wall Street competitors. The demise of LTCM hit other hedge funds, including Bracebridge, which held some of the same assets. Bracebridge lost about 26 percent, making it the worst year in its history.
Russian Economy

A few years prior, in 1992, Zimmerman’s husband, Harvard economist Andrei Shleifer, signed on to help privatize the Russian economy under the auspices of the university and the U.S. government. Zimmerman bought up beleaguered Russian debt, betting its value would rise, court filings show.

Complaints arose about Shleifer and his business partner allegedly using their position and influence for personal gain, according to court documents. Harvard, Shleifer and the U.S. Justice Department eventually reached an agreement in which the university paid $26.5 million to settle a civil lawsuit and Shleifer paid $2 million. Zimmerman’s company paid $1.5 million to resolve civil claims that it improperly used resources and staff from the government-funded project.

Neither Zimmerman nor her husband admitted wrongdoing in connection with their Russia dealings.

Zimmerman was born and raised just north of Chicago in Skokie, Illinois, the youngest of two girls. While attending Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, she worked summers at O’Connor & Associates, a Chicago derivatives-trading firm. She stayed with them for three years after graduation, on the raucous floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Her first job was buying Japanese yen options, she said.

She stands a few inches over five feet with brown hair that she sometimes tucks behind her ears. Though her roots are in the Midwest, she’s a Bostonian now, relishing Red Sox games and working behind the scenes for a number of the city’s philanthropies.

Zimmerman downplays the challenges faced by women in a male-dominated industry: “The bonds don’t know who owns them.”
Cashed Out

Initially, Zimmerman and Sunshine partnered with Steyer’s Farallon, which bought a minority stake in the new management company they called Farallon Fixed Income Associates. They had one employee.

Steyer cashed out after the Russia episode, but Swensen stuck with Bracebridge. “We took a hard look and found no reason to modify our relationship,” said Swensen, who describes himself as a close friend of Zimmerman’s.

After cutting ties with Farallon and changing its name, Bracebridge ended 1999 with $600 million under management.

Bracebridge’s biggest turnaround came in 2009. After losing 18 percent in the global financial crisis, it posted a 35 percent gain. That surpassed the 25.8 percent return on the HFRI Relative Value index.

Zimmerman owns most of Bracebridge, according to a 2015 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. As for the value, the document only says she and Sunshine control 12.6 percent of the assets. Of the $10.3 billion, that’s about $1.3 billion. It’s split between her and Sunshine and their partners, Zimmerman said, declining to be more specific.

Zimmerman credited her more than 100 employees for the firm’s success. “I’m very proud of the people who come to work here,” she said. “They are focused, intellectually honest and they love to collaborate.”

Clinton’s Security Clearance Is Under Scrutiny

Bloomberg | By Eli Lake & Josh Rogin | FEB 4, 2016 6:00 AM EST

SHE'S USED TO SCRUTINY. PHOTOGRAPHER: SAUL LOEB/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Now that several e-mails on Hillary Clinton's private server have been classified, there is a more immediate question than the outcome of the investigation: Should the former secretary of state retain her security clearance during the inquiry? Congressional Republicans and Democrats offer predictably different answers.

The State Department announced Friday that it would not release 22 e-mails from Clinton’s private server after a review found they contained information designated as top secret. U.S. officials who reviewed the e-mails tell us they contain the names of U.S. intelligence officers overseas, but not the identities of undercover spies; summaries of sensitive meetings with foreign officials; and information on classified programs like drone strikes and intelligence-collection efforts in North Korea.

The FBI is investigating the use of Clinton’s home server when she was secretary of state, which the bureau now has. The New York Times reported in August that Clinton is not a target of that investigation. We reported in September that one goal is to discover whether a foreign intelligence service hacked in.

Representative Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said Clinton should not lose her security clearance for receiving information that was not marked classified at the time. "I'm sure she does hold a clearance, and she should," he told us.

Representative Mike Pompeo, a Republican member of that committee who also has read the e-mails, told us, "It's important, given all the information we now know, that the House of Representatives work alongside the executive branch to determine whether it's appropriate for Secretary Clinton to continue to hold her security clearances."

Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr told us the decision lies with the White House. “I think that’s up to what the National Security Council is comfortable with,” he said.

Burr, who has also read all 22 e-mails, said Clinton should have known to better protect the information they contain. “They are definitely sensitive," he said. "Anybody in the intelligence world would know that the content was sensitive.”

His Democratic counterpart, Senator Dianne Feinstein, who also read them, told us that Clinton didn’t originally send any of the e-mails and that they were largely from her staff, although she did sometimes reply. Feinstein said the intelligence community is being overly cautious by designating the e-mails as top secret.

“There’s no question that they are over-classifying this stuff,” she said.

Clinton’s discussion of classified programs on an unclassified e-mail system is hardly rare. The issue, called “spillage,” has plagued the government for years. It can apply to anything from a spoken conversation about intelligence programs outside of a secure facility, to printing out a document with classified information on an insecure printer.

Still, it is forbidden. The State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual says "transmitting classified information over a communication channel that is unauthorized for the level of information being transmitted" is a "security violation." Such violations must be investigated by the State Department's own bureaus of human resources and diplomatic security. Punishment can vary from a letter of reprimand to loss of security clearance, according to the manual.

When asked about the status of Clinton's security clearance, State Department spokesman John Kirby said: "The State Department does not comment on individuals’ security clearance status. We will say, however, that generally speaking there is a long tradition of secretaries of state making themselves available to future secretaries and presidents. Secretaries are typically allowed to maintain their security clearance and access to their own records for use in writing their memoirs and the like.”

The Clinton campaign declined to comment.

During the Obama administration, it has not been automatic for officials to lose their security clearance while an investigation is underway. Just last week, the Washington Post reported that the chief of naval intelligence, Vice Adm. Ted Branch, had his security clearance suspended because he is wrapped up in a Justice Department investigation into contracting corruption. He has not been able to read, see, or hear classified information since November 2013. Branch has not been charged with any crime and continues to serve in that post.

But when then-CIA director David Petraeus came under FBI investigation at the end of 2012, his security clearance was not formally revoked. After he resigned, his access to classified information was suspended, according to U.S. officials. In that case, Petraeus had provided notebooks with highly classified information to his biographer and mistress Paula Broadwell, whose security clearances did not permit her to receive it.

Unlike Broadwell, officials familiar with the e-mails tell us that Clinton and her e-mail correspondents were cleared to receive the information that has been classified after the fact. Steven Aftergood, who heads the project on government secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists, told us, "It's entirely possible for information to start out as unclassified and to be classified only when the question of public disclosure arises."

William Leonard, who oversaw the government's security classification process between 2002 and 2008 as the director of the Information Security Oversight Office, told us this kind of "spillage" was common. "The bottom line is this, if you have the opportunity to pore through any cleared individual's unclassified e-mail account, it's almost inevitable you would find material that someone, some way would point out should be classified." He also said that in Clinton's case, "there is no indication that she deliberately disregarded the rules for handling classified information so I see no reason why she should not remain eligible for a security clearance."

Nonetheless, Leonard added that Clinton's decision to use the private e-mail server as secretary of state "reflected exceedingly poor judgment, and those that advised her on this did not serve her well."

The FBI investigation may determine that neither Clinton nor her aides broke the law, but Clinton herself has said she used poor judgment. It's an open question how that poor judgment will affect her access to state secrets, during and after the FBI's investigation.

Feds fight disclosure of Hillary Clinton Whitewater indictment drafts

Politico | By JOSH GERSTEIN | 02/03/16 05:33 PM EST

IMAGE CREDIT: GETTY

The National Archives is fighting a lawsuit trying to force disclosure of several draft indictments of Hillary Clinton prepared by a Whitewater prosecutor in the 1990s.

In a brief filed late Tuesday, Justice Department lawyers and the Archives argue that disclosure of the draft indictments would lead to an unwarranted invasion of Clinton's privacy and violate a court rule protecting grand jury secrecy.

"Despite the role that Mrs. Clinton occupied as the First Lady during President Clinton's administration, Mrs. Clinton maintains a strong privacy interest in not having information about her from the files of the Independent Counsel disclosed," wrote Martha Wagner Murphy, chief of the Archives "special access" branch that stores records of former independent counsels. "As an uncharged person, Hillary Rodham Clinton retains a significant interest in her personal privacy despite any status as a public figure."

The conservative group Judicial Watch, which filed suit for the records in October under the Freedom of Information Act, is arguing that Clinton's ongoing bid for the presidency reinforces the public interest in records about her alleged misconduct.

"She's one of the most well-known women in the world, seeking the office of the presidency and her privacy interests outweigh the public interest in knowing what's in that indictment? It's absurd and it's shameful that the administration is proposing this," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in an interview. "This is a political decision to protect her candidacy—because it is laughable, legally."

The Archives and Justice Department were dismissive about the impact of Clinton's presidential bid on public access to the records.

"While there may be a scintilla of public interest in these documents since Mrs. Clinton is presently a Democratic presidential candidate, that fact alone is not a cognizable public interest alone under FOIA, as disclosure of the draft indictments would not shed light on what the government is up to," Murphy wrote.

"Her interest in avoiding disclosure of the drafts is not diminished by the fact that she is a former public official who is running for President," Justice Department lawyers added in their brief.

Law enforcement records about living people who did not face charges in criminal investigations normally are not released under FOIA, or the names are sanitized from the records before they're published. However, sometimes judges have ordered the release of such records in cases involving public officials.

Despite the usual practice, though, the Archives has released fairly detailed information about the independent counsel's focus on Hillary Clinton. Just last week, Judicial Watch announced it had received 246 pages of records describing the crimes some prosecutors believed were committed in connection with the Whitewater land deal and related matters. Some of the memos are from the "HRC Team" in the counsel's office—apparently a team focused on Clinton. One discusses the jury appeal or lack thereof of a case based solely on circumstantial evidence. One prosecutor put the chance of a conviction for Clinton at 10 percent.

It's not clear from the government's court filings why the draft indictments would be more sensitive than that kind of analysis, but the new submissions do argue that the drafts are covered by grand jury secrecy. In its initial response to Judicial Watch, the Archives relied solely on Clinton's privacy (and that of others) and did not mention the grand jury secrecy issue. But the brief filed Tuesday contends the drafts would provide insight into the grand jury's activities by revealing the identities of witnesses and that they quote from grand jury testimony.

Fitton said that "if Mrs. Clinton was being truly transparent," she would provide a privacy waiver that could ease release of the records.

Spokesmen for the Clinton campaign did not respond to a request for comment on the legal filings.

The “Zika” Virus Was Created and Patented By The Rockefeller’s, The goal Is to kill Millions of People

By conspiracyclub | Feb 2, 2016

According to WHO “Zika virus expands explosively” and the infectious agent, possibly genetically modified mosquitoes Panda foremen psychopaths who control world power, is already present in 23 countries in Latin America.

In Spain Valladolid it has been diagnosed in the third case of the virus in Spain zika in a man who had returned from an area of risk for this disease as Colombia.

Panda criminals who rules the world is the same that controls anti WHO reports to hide their interests while reporting falsehoods to allow countless harmful to health from certain vaccines and transgenic glyphosate herbicides criminal Monsanto, to the permissibility of harmful technologies such as phone masts or wireless waves, or even fear of Ebola spreading or complicity with swine flu and some others of atrocities.

These bullies are the same who profit by Big Pharma to hide preventive medicines for the benefit of the proliferation of medical products unsuitable for the population.

Well, not to tire reiterándonos to denounce these tipejos, Zika virus (ATCC® VR-84 ™) was patented, yes, patented in 1947 by the Rockefeller Foundation, one of the families more interested in manipulating power even in scientific medicine to study in universities to train future professionals who unknowingly diagnose and prescribe as learned bases.



Source:

http://www.lgcstandards-atcc.org/products/all/VR-84.aspx?geo_country=es#history

DID HILLARY STEAL IOWA FROM BERNIE: HERE’S THE EVIDENCE SO FAR

The Daily Sheeple | JOSHUA KRAUSE | FEBRUARY 3, 2016

I don’t think anybody has any illusions about Hillary Clinton. And with the exception of her core supporters, I don’t think the people who voted for her have any illusions either. In their minds, she is simply the lesser of two evils, but evil nonetheless. It’s impossible to deny the fact that Hillary is a liar, a chronic flip-flopper, and most likely a criminal whose maliciousness knows no bounds. And now that the Iowa primary has come and gone, we may be able to add “cheater” to that list as well. Or at the very least, some powerful people in high places may have given her a hand in Iowa.

I’m no friend of socialism, nor do I approve of any of Bernie Sanders policies, but if we’re going have a political system that lets its citizens participate, then we always have to point out when electoral fraud is afoot. And this particular primary election looks incredibly shady.

For starters, everyone has been talking about the 6 delegates that Hillary won, each by coin toss. The odds of her winning 6 coin tosses in a row is 1 in 64. If half of those votes had been divided evenly to Bernie, he would have won. What people should be really asking themselves, is what are the odds of this many ties occurring in the first place? Or even one tie? Apparently it’s never happened before. Obviously that doesn’t prove anything, but it is suspicious when put into the context of more evidence.

Then there is the fact that the Democrats didn’t staff 90 of the precincts in Iowa. In other words, there are 90 precincts where it is impossible to know if the results were accurate. This amounts to about 5% of all the Democratic votes in Iowa. In a race this close, that is a pretty big deal.

And who could forget that Microsoft provided a free app to both political parties, that would help precinct officials count and validate the votes. This app called the election in favor of Clinton hours before anything was tallied. Of course, that’s pretty messed up considering this could convince some people to stay home. And the Sanders campaign admitted they were highly suspicious of Microsoft’s free software in the days leading up to the vote.

Why? Because Microsoft’s employees have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Clinton’s campaign in the past. The company itself has also given money to the Clinton Foundation while she was working for the State Department. They were among dozens of other companies that donated to the Clinton Foundation while simultaneously lobbying to the State Department. Clearly, Microsoft has no business being involved in any high-profile election.

Finally, the most damning evidence so far comes from this video that was posted to C-SPAN’s website.

According to one person who was at the event, this was actually the second recount. Here’s what apparently happened.

So basically in the caucus they have to hand count everyone depending on what side they’re sitting on. Well when it came time to do the second count the numbers were off. The first vote breakdown was like this:
FIRST VOTE: 215 Sanders 210 Clinton 26 O’Malley 8 Undecided 459 TOTAL
And this is the SECOND Vote: 232 Clinton 224 Sanders 456 Total
So somehow they lost 3 people but Clinton’s vote went up by 14.
So basically what had happened was Hillary’s team didn’t take the time to do a full recount instead she just added the new people who joined the second vote. Which clearly wasn’t an accurate count.

Of course, none of this should come as a surprise to anyone who pays attention to these primary elections, because this is nothing new. In 2012, there were plenty of dirty tricks employed against Ron Paul’s campaign in Iowa and other states, which essentially killed his momentum and paved the way for Mitt Romney’s victory.

It should be clear to anyone with eyes and ears that American elections are a farce, and have been for a long time. If a candidate hasn’t paid his dues to the political and corporate elites of this country, and he hasn’t waited his turn, he doesn’t stand a chance of winning.

Is technology causing us to 'evolve' into a new SPECIES? Expert believes super humans called Homo optimus will talk to machines and be 'digitally immortal' by 2050

Daily Mail | By SARAH GRIFFITHS | PUBLISHED: 06:14 EST, 1 February 2016

If you're under the age of 40, there is a good chance you will achieve 'electronic immortality' during your lifetime.

This is the idea that all of your thoughts and experiences will be uploaded and stored online for future generations.

That's according to a futurologist who not only believes technology will let humans merge with computers, that this will create an entirely new species called Homo optimus.

And, he claims this could occur as soon as 2050.

The predictions were made by Dr Ian Pearson as part of the lead up to The Big Bang Fair 2016.

He believes that within the next 35 years, humans will 'live' online, and our pets could even 'talk' to us, like real-life Furbies.

He also claims transhumanism – the idea we can make people technologically better – will be the norm by 2050.

'With optimised genomes and bodies enhanced by links to external technology, people could be more beautiful...more intelligent, more emotionally sophisticated, more physically able, more socially connected, generally healthier and happier all round.'

As humans embrace technological advances and gradually become androids, we could gradually see Homo sapiens being replaced by Homo optimus.

'We can expect our evolutionary process to change in response to technology.

'What's exciting is that it is no longer nature which is forcing changes on us but our own breakthroughs enabling changes we want, ' Dr Pearson explained.

 

Futurologist Dr Ian Pearson claims that in the next 35 years, humans will be able to communicate with computers to evolve better senses, memory and even intelligence. Electronic gold skin and tiny implants between cells could enable a direct link with devices, while we could 'wear' muscle too (illustrated above)

+4

As humans embrace technological advances and gradually become androids, we could gradually see Homo sapiens being replaced by Homo optimus. This conceptual image shows four stages of human evolution (left to right) showing Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and Homo sapiens

WE MAY TURN INTO 'FAIRIES' TO EXPLORE SPACE 

Biotech and nanotech developments will make it possible to develop small brains with far greater capabilities, so the rest of the body could be scaled down accordingly.

There are big advantages in being tiny for space travel, Dr Pearson explained, because it is a lot easier to accommodate and transport tiny people.

'It is not frivolous to suggest that most space travellers will be rather like fairies, and wings would make it easy to get around in zero gravity too,' he said.

'This could give rise to some weird and wonderful future forms and creations – from changing video displays on our faces to controlling our own dreams - our (evolving) imaginations are the only limit.'

Dr Pearson believes that with a full link between the human brain and a computer, people could move their mind into an improved android body.

'This would allow people to have multiple expistences and identities, or to carry on living long after their biological death,' he wrote in the 'Future Human Report.'

While this technology could be available as soon as in 2050, it may become cheap enough to be widespread by 2070.

Plus, by the end of the century, there will likely be several types of humans, including human-machine hybrids, and people living in android bodies, as well as 'smart creatures'.

Dr Pearson continued that anyone under the age of 40 today will have a good chance of electronic immortality, meaning they could essentially 'upload' their personality so it can continue posting after their death. In the film Transcendence (pictured) the character played by Johnny Depp uploads his consciousness onto a computer

+4

Research from academics and experts, collated by Dr Pearson for The Big Bang Fair, suggests humans will be able to directly communicate with electronics and we could clone teeth, fix surfaces and edit genes to make them self-replace (illustrated above)

+4

WHAT THE FUTURE COULD LOOK LIKE - FROM SKIN TO MUSCLE TIGHTS

Research from academics and experts collated by Dr Pearson for The Big Bang Fair suggests:

• We will be able to connect directly with technology through 'electronic skin' or tiny implants between our skin cells.
• Electronic 'support tights' will boost leg strength with wearable polymer gel muscles 1cm thick.
• Smudged make-up will be a thing of the past with smart make-up applied on top of a membrane on the skin surface to give a flawless, changeable look.
• Nanotechnology will monitor and repair our bodies from the inside, making self-replacing teeth a possibility.
• Technology will be used to enhance pets and wildlife, with the potential to hear our pets talk or to increase their IQ, and to create real versions of kids-craze Furbies. 

'We will certainly technologically advance some of our pets and even wildlife too and we might create entirely new species such as real Furbies,' Dr Pearson continued.

The predictions mean futuristic characters such as Dug the talking dog in Pixar's Up and the human-robot hybrids popular in hit TV shows like Humans could be a reality.

The Big Bang Fair – the UK's largest celebration of science, technology, engineering and maths (Stem) for young people - will give access to technologies shaping these developments, from a sensor placed on the skin that allows people to hear music using bone conduction, to robot orchestras.

'We will certainly technologically advance some of our pets and even wildlife too and we might create entirely new species such as real Furbies,' Dr Pearson continued

+4

'It's the young people who come to the fair who will help drive through the innovations our experts are predicting,' said Paul Jackson, chief executive of EngineeringUK, organisers of The Big Bang Fair.

'Today's young people will not only get to experience 'wearing' muscles or owning smart-pets, they will decide what these look like.'

The Big Bang Fair is free and runs from 16 to 19 March at the Birmingham NEC.

Cracks in America's economy are growing

CNN Money | by Patrick Gillespie @CNNMoney | January 29, 2016: 5:12 AM ET

America's economy hit the brakes during the holidays.

Some recent economic data even raises fears that we might be heading towards a possible U.S. recession in 2016. Big banks like Morgan Stanley (MS) estimate there's a 20% chance of recession this year.

On Friday, the government will release data that show how the U.S. economy fared in the last three months of the year. Many experts forecast that the U.S. economy barely grew -- about 1% or less -- between October and December of 2015 compared to a year ago.

Even the Federal Reserve admitted Wednesday that the economy "slowed" at the end of last year.

On Thursday, the bad news continued. A key sign of confidence is orders for new products and equipment -- known as "durable goods" -- placed by companies to power their business. Orders for durable goods fell 5% between November and December, according to the Commerce Department. That was a lot below expectations that orders would be flat.

It shows that some companies are delaying or deciding not to purchase any new piece of equipment they need.

The news on durable goods caused Barclays (BCS) to lower its GDP forecast to 0.4% on Thursday. Capital Economics, a research firm, admitted the new data posed risks "firmly to the downside" for its estimate of 1%.

Related: Apple CEO: 'extreme conditions' in global slowdown

Here are 3 more warning signs that the U.S. economy is heading in the wrong direction:

1. Americans are not spending much

U.S. economic growth depends on shoppers. Consumer spending makes up two-thirds of the nation's economic engine. Yet they're sending mixed signals: U.S. retail sales declined a bit in December and they were negative or flat seven times last year.

Consumer confidence has wavered too. It peaked at 98% in January 2015 but has since drifted down in general. Consumer confidence is currently 93%. While it's a lot better than what it was just a few years ago, any downward movement is still a cause for concern.

2. U.S. manufacturing already in recession

American factories are suffering from the global economic slowdown. Manufacturing makes up 10% of the U.S. economy, according to Morgan Stanley.

The key ISM manufacturing index has declined for six straight months, and its been negative -- below 50% -- for the last two months.

The strong dollar is making products manufactured in the U.S. more expensive overseas, lowering demand for American made goods. The slowdown in emerging market economies isn't helping trade either.

Related: U.S. economy: recession fears are growing

3. Corporate America is hurting

Earnings season isn't over yet but one thing is clear: American companies are making less money than a year ago. Put together, when America's biggest companies -- and employers -- suffer, the economy follows suit.

The S&P 500 -- the benchmark for U.S. stocks -- is down 7% so far in January. Apple, the nation's biggest company by market size, just announced record profits with a gloomy outlook ahead. It believes iPhone sales will decline in the first quarter of this year for the first time in 13 years.

Apple CEO Tim Cook expressed serious caution about the global economy. When a major American CEO raises the warning flag that's not good for the U.S. economy.

"We're seeing extreme conditions unlike anything we have experienced before just about everywhere we look," Cook said Tuesday.

Fed Back-Pedals Hawkishness, Hints At Policy Error: "Monitoring Global Developments", Admits "Growth Slowed Last Year"

Zero Hedge | by Tyler Durden on 01/27/2016 14:01

Surging bonds and bullion and slumping stocks was not what Janet had in mind so she had some 'splaining to do. Hopes for a "passive hawkish" note appear to be met as confirmation of dismal data dependence offers just enough dovishness for the stock bulls and just enough hawkishness for economy bulls.
*FED REPEATS ECONOMY EXPECTED TO WARRANT ONLY GRADUAL RATE RISES
*FED ASSESSING GLOBAL DEVELOPMENTS FOR ITS BALANCE-OF-RISK VIEW
*FED CLOSELY MONITORING GLOBAL ECONOMIC, FINANCIAL DEVELOPMENTS

Treading a fine line between losing all credibility and exposing their total devotion to the stock market, it appears The Fed is maintaining its delusion that everything will be fine as they unwind the largest and most experimental monetary policy of all time, and yet for the first time we get proof that the Fed admits it made an error by hiking into a slowing economy: "labor market conditions improved further even as economic growth slowed late last year.

Pre-Fed: S&P Futs 1901.75, 10Y 2.04%, Gold $1115, WTI $31.95, EUR1.0875

Before the statement hit, rate odds this year were as follows:





Since the last meeting - and the historic rate hike - things have not panned out for The Fed...





Nanex explains the liquidity situation right before the statement:





Further headlines:
FOMC: REMOVES 'REASONABLY CONFIDENT' RE 2% MED-TERM INFL
*FED: MKT-BASED INFLATION COMPENSATION MEASURES DECLINED FURTHER
*FED: SURVEY-BASED INFLATION EXPECTATION MEASURES LITTLE CHANGED

Except that is a total lie..




*FED SAYS INVENTORY INVESTMENT HAS SLOWED

Here's why!!



* * *

Full Redline Statement below:



There was some verbal "normalization" in the statement, which at 558 words had the fewest words since the July statement:



* * *

Even Steve Liesman knows it's over...





... Bringing us to the many faces of Yellen:

TOP BILDERBERGER: “GLOBAL SUPER ELITE” MUST STOP DONALD TRUMP

Infowars | Paul Joseph Watson | JANUARY 27, 2016

IMAGE CREDITS: GAGESKIDMORE / FLICKR.

Regular Bilderberg attendee and associate editor of the Financial Times Martin Wolf insists that the “global super elite” must stop Donald Trump from winning the presidency.

According to a New Republic profile, Wolf is “staggeringly well-connected within the elite circles he is writing for” and counts amongst his close friends many influential central bankers.

In an editorial entitled The economic losers are in revolt against the elites, Wolf writes that economic “losers” have rejected “the elites that dominate the economic and cultural lives of their countries” and that “the potential consequences are frightening.”

Asserting that “it may already be too late” to stop the wave of populism that Trump has spearheaded, Wolf notes that elites have become, “detached from domestic loyalties and concerns, forming instead a global super-elite.”

This in turn has left ordinary Americans “alienated” and “abused,” with discord over high levels of immigration that only benefits big business leading to the view that elites are “incompetent and predatory.”

“Nativist populists must not win. We know that story: it ends very badly. In the case of the US, the outcome would have grave global significance. America was the founder and remains guarantor of our global liberal order. The world desperately needs well-informed US leadership. Mr Trump cannot provide this. The results could be catastrophic,” writes Wolf, adding that, “If western elites despise the concerns of the many, the latter will withdraw their consent for the elite’s projects.”

As we reported yesterday, Davos power brokers are intent on preventing Trump from capturing the White House, with prominent CEO Martin Sorrell asserting, “It doesn’t matter who the Republicans put up…Hillary will win.”

The Financial Times is the paper of record for the global elite and has been represented at Bilderberg confabs by several other individuals, including Gideon Rachman, who in 2008 called for an “global government” to be imposed.

In his editorial, Rachman admitted that such a system would only be effective if it is “anti-democratic” and promoted via “soothing language” that would prevent “people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland.”

More recently, the FT published an anonymous editorial which called for the abolition of cash in order to give central banks and governments more power.