When the myth of ‘US courts’ collapses, so does the support of US citizens for their cruel regime. The realisation that US courts are fake, is even more unsettling to US citizens, than learning that 11 Sep 2001 was a mass murder of US citizens by the US government –



RMB joins IMF basket Oct 1

By Chen Weihua in Washington(China Daily USA)


The Chinese yuan will be officially available for loans and repayments for members of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on Oct 1, as previously scheduled, according to the international financial organization.

It means that the yuan, also known as the RMB or renminbi, will join the US dollar, euro, British pound and Japanese yen as one of the five currencies in the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights (SDR) basket. The SDR itself is not a currency, but represents a claim held by IMF member countries on which currencies may be exchanged.

Such a move has been widely regarded as a major step that gives the yuan a prized reserve currency status. It also helps move the yuan a step closer to being freely usable internationally. The IMF executive board made its decision to include the yuan in the SDR basket on Nov 30, 2015.

In a press briefing on Wednesday, IMF officials indicated that the relative amounts of the five currencies that will be fixed for the next five years will be announced on Sept 30.

Siddharth Tiwari, director of the IMF’s strategy, policy and review department, called the inclusion of the yuan in the SDR basket “an important milestone in the process of China’s global financial integration”.

“It recognizes and reinforces China’s continuing reform efforts,” he told the briefing.

The yuan will be at a weighting of 10.92 percent, lower than the dollar and euro, but higher than the pound and yen.

Tiwari said that the IMF and Chinese government have been keeping in close communication in order to ensure a smooth transition. He added that the Chinese government has launched several measures to prepare for the yuan’s inclusion in the basket, such as reporting to the IMF its foreign currency reserve composition and improving its banking sector.

Eswar Prasad, the Tolani Senior Professor of Trade Policy at Cornell University and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said the yuan’s inclusion in the IMF’s SDR basket is a symbolically momentous event both for China and the international financial system.

“It is the first time an emerging market currency is being seen as on a par with major advanced economy currencies,” he told China Daily on Wednesday.

The former IMF chief in China added, however, that the IMF’s elevation of the yuan to the status of an elite reserve currency will not be an immediate game-changer in global finance.

“China needs more well-developed and better regulated financial markets, as well as a more open capital account and market-determined exchange rate, for its currency to become a major reserve currency in practice,” said Prasad, who latest book is Gaining Currency: The Rise of the Renminbi.

Early this week, the Bank of International Settlements warned about the dangers of debt in China’s banking system.

The IMF Article IV Consultation on China report released on Aug 12 described the yuan as “broadly in line with fundamentals, although the external position in 2015 was moderately stronger than consistent with fundamentals”.


2KillingTheHost_Cover_ruleCelebrating the One Percent: Is Inequality Really Good for the Economy?  

To paraphrase Mark Twain, everyone complains about inequality, but nobody does anything about it.

What they do is to use “inequality” as a takeoff point to project their own views on how to make society more prosperous and at the same time more equal. These views largely depend on whether they view the One Percent as innovative, smart and creative, making wealth by helping the rest of society – or whether, as the great classical economists wrote, the wealthiest layer of the population consist of rentiers, making their income and wealth off the 99 Percent as idle landlords, monopolists and predatory bankers.

Economic statistics show fairly worldwide trends in inequality. After peaking in the 1920s, the reforms of the Great Depression helped make income distribution more equitable and stable until 1980.[1] Then, in the wake of Thatcherism in Britain and Reaganomics in the United States, inequality really took off. And it took off largely by the financial sector (especially as interest rates retreated from their high of 20 percent in 1980, creating the greatest bond market boom in history). Real estate and industry were financialized, that is, debt leveraged.

Inequality increased steadily until the global financial crash of 2008. Since then, as bankers and bondholders were saved instead of the economy, the top One Percent have pulled even more sharply ahead of the rest of the economy. Meanwhile, the bottom 25 percent of the economy has seen its net worth and relative income deteriorate.

Needless to say, the wealthy have their own public relations agents, backed by the usual phalange of academic useful idiots. Indeed, mainstream economics has become a celebration of the wealthy rentier class for a century now, and as inequality is sharply widening today, celebrators of the One Percent have found a pressing need for their services.

A case in point is the Scottish economist Angus Deaton, author of The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality. (2013). Elected President of the AEA in 2010, he was given the Nobel Economics Prize in 2015 for analyzing trends in consumption, income distribution, poverty and welfare in ways that cause no offense to the wealthy, and in fact treat the increasingly inequitable status quo as perfectly natural and in its own kind of mathematical equilibrium. (This kind of circular mathematical reasoning is the criterion of good economics today.)

His book treats the movie The Great Escape as a metaphor. He deridingly pointed out that nobody would have called the movie “The prisoners left behind.” Describing the escapers as brilliant innovators, he assumes that the wealthiest One Percent likewise have been smart and imaginative enough to break the bonds of conventional thinking to innovate. The founders of Apple, Microsoft and other IT companies are singled out for making everyone’s life richer. And the economy at large has experienced a more or less steady upward climb, above all in public health extending lifespans, conquering disease and pharmaceutical innovation.

I recently was put on the same stage as Mr. Deaton in Berlin, along with my friend David Graeber. We three each have books translated into German to be published this autumn by the wonderful publisher Klett-Cotta, who organized the event at at the Berlin Literaturfestival in mid-September.

In a certain way I find Deaton’s analogy with the movie The Great Escape appropriate. The wealthy have escaped. But the real issue concerns what have they escaped from. They have escaped from regulation, from taxation (thanks to offshore banking enclaves and a rewriting of the tax laws to shift the fiscal burden onto labor and industry). Most of all, Wall Street banksters have escaped from criminal prosecution. There is no need to escape from jail if you can avoid being captured and sentenced in the first place!

A number of recent books – echoed weekly in the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page – attribute the wealthiest One Percent to the assumption that they must be smarter than most other people. At least, smart enough to get into the major business schools and get MBAs to learn how to financialize corporations with zaitech or other debt leveraging, reaping (indeed, “earning”) huge bonuses

The reality is that you don’t have to be smart to make a lot of money. All you need is greed. And that can’t be taught in business schools. In fact, when I went to work as a balance-of-payments analyst at Chase Manhattan in 1964, I was told that the best currency traders came from the Brooklyn or Hong Kong slums. Their entire life was devoted to making money, to rise into the class of the proverbial Babbitts of our time: nouveau riches lacking in real culture or intellectual curiosity.

Of course, for bankers who do venture to “stretch the envelope” (the fraudster’s euphemism for breaking the law, as Citigroup did in 1999when it merged with Travelers’ Insurance prior to the Clinton administration rejecting Glass-Steagall), you do need smart lawyers. But even here, Donald Trump explained the key that he learned from mob lawyer Roy Cohn: what matters is not so much the law, as what judge you have. And the U.S. courts have been privatized by electing judges whose campaign contributors back deregulators and non-prosecutors. So the wealthy escape from being subject to the law.

Although no moviegoers wanted to see the heroes of the Great Escape movie captured and put back in their prison camp, a great many people wish that the Wall Street crooks from Citigroup, Bank of America and other junk-mortgage fraudsters would be sent to jail, along with Angelo Mazilo of Countrywide Financial. Little love is given to their political lobbyists such as Alan Greenspan, Attorney General Eric Holder, Lanny Breuer and their hirees who refused to prosecute financial fraud.

Deaton did cite “rent seekers” – but in the sense that his predecessor Nobel prizewinner Buchanan did, locating rent seeking within government, not real estate, monopolies such as pharmaceuticals and information technology, health insurance, cable companies and high finance. So any blame for poverty falls on either the government or on the debtors, renters, unemployed and not-wellborn who are the main victims of today’s rentier economy.

Deaton’s Great Escape sees some problems, but not in the economic system itself – not debt, not monopoly, not the junk mortgage crisis or financial fraud. He cites global warming as the main problem, but not the political power of the oil industry. He singles out education as the way to raise the 99 Percent – but says nothing about the student loan problem, the travesty of for-profit universities funding junk education with government-guaranteed bank loans.

He measures the great improvement in well-being by GDP (gross domestic product). Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs notoriously described his investment bank’s managers and partners of being the most productive individuals in the United States for earning $20 million annually (not including bonuses) – all of which is recorded as adding to the financial sector’s “output” of GDP. There is no concept at all that this is what economists call a zero-sum activity – that is, that Goldman Sachs’s salaries may be unproductive, parasitic, predatory, and the rest of the economy’s loss or overhead.

Such thoughts do not occur in the happy-face views promoted by the One Percent. Deaton’s praise-hymn to the elites assumes that everyone earns what they get, by playing a productive role, not an extractive one.

An even more blatant denial of rent-seeking is a new book by one of the founders of Bain Capital (Mitt Romney’s firm), Edward Conard, The Upside of Inequality attacking the “demagogues” and “propagandists” who claim that the winnings of the One Percent are largely unearned. Curiously, he does not include Adam Smith, David Ricardo or John Stuart Mill as such “propagandists.” Yet that is what classical free market economics was all about: freeing economies from the unearned rental income and rising land prices that landlords make “in their sleep,” as John Stuart Mill put it. This propaganda book thus misrepresents the program that the major founders of economics urged: public ownership or collection of land rent, natural resource rent, and pubic operation of natural monopolies, headed by the financial sector.

For Conard, the reason for the soaring wealth of the One Percent is not financial, real estate or other monopolistic rent seeking, but the wonders of the information economy. It is Josef Schumpeter’s “creative destruction” of less productive technology, by hard working and dedicated innovators whose creativity raises the level of everyone. So the wealth of the One Percent is a measure of society’s forward march, not a predatory overhead extracted from the economy at large.

Conard’s policy conclusion is that regulation and taxation slows this march of economies toward prosperity as led by the One Percent. As a laudatory Wall Street Journal review of his book summarized his message: “Redistribution – whether achieved through taxation, regulatory restrictions, or social norms – appears,” he asserts, “to have large detrimental effects on risk-taking, innovation, productivity, and growth over the long run, especially in an economy where innovation produced by the entrepreneurial risk-taking of properly trained talent increasingly drives growth.”[2] His solution is to lower taxes on the rich!

My friend Dave Kelley notes the policy message that is being repeated ad nauseum these days: the assertion that “progressive moves like taxation end up hurting the economy rather than helping it. This ‘I would feed you but you might become dependent on food’ theory is central in showing how consumer societies like ours are returning to feudal distributions of wealth.” This seems to be the policy proposal of the three leading candidates for U.S. President – in our modern post-Citizens United world where elections are bought in much the way that consulships were back in the closing days of the Roman Republic.


[1] Anthony B. Atkinson, author of Inequality: What Can Be Done? coined the phrase “Inequality Turn” to describe when economic inequality began to widen around 1980. He was a mentor of Thomas Piketty, and together they worked with Saez to create an historical database on top incomes.

[2] Richard Epstein, “The Necessity of the Rich,” Wall Street Journal, September 15, 2016. The libertarian reviewer’s only criticism is hilarious: “Mr. Conard overlooks vast numbers of possible reforms. He never, for instance, discusses the weakening of patent law (a real inhibitor of innovation), or the arduous compliance culture that has grown up in the wake of Dodd-Frank and ObamaCare, or how zoning, rent stabilization and affordable-housing laws strangle the housing market. By ignoring the threat that regulation increasingly poses to the economy, his case for the upside of inequality is far weaker than it should be.”


Michael Hudson’s new book, Killing the Host is published in e-format by CounterPunch Books and in print by Islet. He can be reached via his website,

More articles by:


LADD Auggie Doggie 2>><<







Wall Street Today: Fake Accounts, Fake Money, Fake Courts, Fake Regulators

"Make America Honest Again" Poster Appears at the New York City March for Bernie Sanders for President, April 16, 2016By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: September 13, 2016

Last Thursday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced that Wells Fargo was paying $185 million in fines and penalties for allowing its employees to open “more than two million deposit and credit card accounts” that were not authorized by its customers. The employees were attempting to “hit sales targets and receive bonuses.” In one of the most audacious forms of bank fraud, according to the CFPB, employees actually “transferred funds from consumers’ authorized accounts to temporarily fund the new, unauthorized accounts.” This resulted in untold numbers of customers being charged for insufficient funds in their legitimate accounts or paying overdraft fees.

If anyone ever doubted Senator Bernie Sanders when he repeatedly said during campaign stops that fraud has become a business model on Wall Street, that debate is over. According to the CFPB, this conduct at Wells Fargo went on for five years. Yesterday, Fortune’s Stephen Gandel reported that the woman who headed up this division at Wells Fargo, Carrie Tolstedt, will be “walking away with $124.6 million in stock, options, and restricted Wells Fargo shares.”  Fraud is not only a business model but a road to riches for the overlords on Wall Street. Just ask John Paulson, Sandy Weill, Robert Rubin, John Reed, and Jamie Dimon.

Fake accounts are just the latest alchemy on Wall Street. Let’s not forget that Bernard Madoff was generating fake statements to thousands of clients showing that $65 billion in fake money was in their accounts as the industry’s top watchdog, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), ignored the repeated warnings from whistleblower Harry Markopolos for years. But Ponzi schemers are not the only source of fake money on Wall Street. Just consider how the Federal Reserve secretly funneled $13 trillion in cumulative, below-market-rate loans to some of the most hubristic banks on Wall Street and on foreign shores during the 2007 to 2010 financial crisis. How did the Fed create that money without any appropriation from Congress? It simply pressed a button.

Wall Street is able to sustain its business model of fraud because it has fake courts to hear cases brought by its customers and employees. Wall Street is the only industry in America which universally requires by written contract that its customers and employees agree to use its private justice system prior to opening an account or getting a job. That system, called mandatory arbitration, is overseen by Wall Street’s crony self-regulator, Finra, and offers none of the protections of the nation’s taxpayer-funded courts where juries are randomly selected from a broad  base of the population, decisions are based on case law, and higher courts can hear appeals. Gloria Steinem once called the system “McJustice.”

Then there are the fake regulators of Wall Street who seamlessly move from their multi-million dollar pay packages at corporate law firms to head the SEC and Justice Department. On June 2 of last year, Senator Elizabeth Warren sent a 13-page letter to the SEC Chair, Mary Jo White, listing her abysmal failures and conflicts of interest in doing the job of a tough cop on the beat. Wall Street On Parade has also repeatedly pointed out the impossible conflicts of Mary Jo White and her husband, John White, who between them have represented every major Wall Street firm. Last year, the New York Times reported that in a span of two years as head of the SEC, Mary Jo White had recused herself from more than four dozen enforcement investigations as a result of her conflicts or those of her husband. And yet the Obama administration ignores this untenable situation as serial crimes continue to pile up on Wall Street.

The U.S. Justice Department under Attorney General Eric Holder, who served from February 2009 until the spring of 2015, was also a casebook study of conflicts of interest. Both Holder and his head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, Lanny Breuer, hailed from the corporate law firm, Covington & Burling, which regularly represented the biggest Wall Street banks. This is how the PBS program, Frontline, reported on the Holder/Breuer pursuit of justice on Wall Street following the largest financial crash and crime spree since the Great Depression. (The program was brilliantly titled “The Untouchables.”)

NARRATOR: Frontline spoke to two former high-level Justice Department prosecutors who served in the Criminal Division under Lanny Breuer. In their opinion, Breuer was overly fearful of losing.

MARTIN SMITH (Frontline Producer and Moderator): We spoke to a couple of sources from within the Criminal Division, and they reported that when it came to Wall Street, there were no investigations going on. There were no subpoenas, no document reviews, no wiretaps.

LANNY BREUER: Well, I don’t know who you spoke with because we have looked hard at the very types of matters that you’re talking about.

MARTIN SMITH: These sources said that at the weekly indictment approval meetings that there was no case ever mentioned that was even close to indicting Wall Street for financial crimes.

Both Holder and Breuer returned to their high paying jobs at Covington & Burling after leaving the Justice Department. The law firm kept a corner office awaiting Holder’s return. During their tenure at the Justice Department, not one criminal case was brought against a major Wall Street bank or its top executives for crimes related to the 2008 crash that toppled the U.S. economy.


Clinton & Russia: Has US Media Forgotten the 1990s?

324234324234234US media is filled with unproven allegations that Russia is working to defeat Hillary Clinton at the polls in November. Despite no solid evidence being provided, Clinton continues to allege that Russia is responsible for the leaking of DNC e-mails, and mainstream media echoes her allegation.

What motive could possibly exist for this alleged crime? According to Clinton it is about ideology. As Clinton put it in her recent speech: “The grand godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism is Russian President Vladimir Putin.” Essentially, Clinton argues that Putin holds similar political views to Trump, and is trying to get him elected.

The unproven allegations based on a rather loose perception of ideological similarities, forces students of Americna history to recall the Cold War rhetoric of the far- right. For example, Martin Luther King Jr. was frequently called a Soviet agent by the US right-wing simply because both Soviet Communists and the Civil Rights Activists believed in racial equality. In the early 1960s, a widely circulated documentary from Edward G. Griffin purported to “prove” a link between the Civil Rights Movement and the Cuban government because “Venceremos” and “We Shall Overcome” have a similar meaning.

Regardless of unproven allegations and perceived ideological similarities, when discussing Hillary Clinton’s Presidential campaign, and Russia, there is an obvious factor that is being left out. It’s an entire decade called the 1990s.

Clinton’s Man-Made Famine

Americans generally have no idea what life was like for Russians during the 1990s. They naively assume that because Russia swiftly adopted capitalism, the result was great economic prosperity. The reality was quite different.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Boris Yeltsin took office and dramatically re-organized Russia’s economy on free market lines. When Bill Clinton was elected as President of the United States, it was widely understood that Yeltsin was “Clinton’s man.” According to the US Bureau of Public Affairs, Boris Yeltsin and Bill Clinton were very close. The official US government website states: “Clinton was strongly inclined not only to like Yeltsin but also to support his policies, in particular, his commitment to Russian democracy.” US President Bill Clinton met with Boris Yeltsin 18 times while he was in office.

The US Bureau of Public Affairs goes on to explain exactly how the administration of Bill Clinton pushed Yeltsin’s free market policies : “At the time, and periodically throughout his term in office, Yeltsin faced growing opposition at home to his efforts to liberalize the economy and enact democratic reforms in Russia. At Vancouver, Clinton promised Yeltsin strong support in the form of financial assistance to promote various programs, including funds to stabilize the economy… Although not always able to deliver such assistance, Clinton also supported Yeltsin and his position on economic and political matters by other means.”

While only 6% of the Russian public approved of Yeltsin’s “reforms,” the Clinton administration directed and sponsored the Yeltsin administration’s efforts in Russia. With the approval of Washington, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank, Yeltsin privatized state owned industries, lifted price controls, and in the process left millions of Russians in desperate conditions. US economist Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University was dispatched to Russia in order to oversee the process.The result was not the establishment of a free market paradise, but rather a huge catastrophe. US Senator Bill Bradley explained it this way: “30% unemployment, rampant inflation, pensions gone, savings gone, 30 or 40 years… it’s all gone. No jobs. A few people doing very well, who bought all assets from the state, but the average person, no.”

According to Naomi Klein’s 2007 book “The Shock Doctrine” between 1991 and 1998 “more than 80 percent of Russian farms had gone bankrupt and roughly seventy thousand state factories had closed creating an epidemic of unemployment.” As a result, 74 million Russians were living below the poverty line. Klein goes on to say that “25 percent of Russians – almost 37 million people – lived in poverty described as ‘desperate.’”

During the 1990s, when Yeltsin was dramatically changing the country under the direction of the Clinton administration, the rate of drug addiction in Russia increased by 900 percent. The suicide rate almost doubled. HIV, which had previously only infected no more than fifty thousand Russians, became a nationwide epidemic with millions contracting AIDs.

An entire population of people who had lived with guaranteed employment, guaranteed healthcare, old age pensions, and a planned economy saw the social safety net swept from underneath them, as widely unpopular policies, backed by Washington, were imposed on the country. US Senator Bill Bradley describes the tone of US diplomats in their interactions with Russia, saying Clinton administration officials spoke of “stuffing shit down Boris throat,” gleefully taking pleasure in ordering him to wreck his country’s economy.

Anti-Communist scholars frequently accuse Stalin and other Soviet leaders of creating “man-made famines.” Sometimes the anti-communist scholars will say these “man made famines” amounted to “genocide.” The words used by many people to describe what US President Bill Clinton and economist Jeffrey Sachs presided over in Russia during the 1990s sound a lot like descriptions of a “man-made famine.”

Naomi Klein quotes a Russian Academic named Vladimir Gusev as saying “The years of criminal capitalism have killed off 10 percent of our population.” Russia’s population decreased by 6.6 million between 1992 and 2006. Klein quotes US Economist Andre Gunder Frank calling what took place in Russia as “economic genocide.” Russian Vice President Alexander V. Rutskoi used the same words as the policies were beginning in 1992, saying it would have catastrophic results for children and the elderly.

Clinton Represents Neo-Liberalism

When people speculate that Russia is intervening in US elections, why is Clinton’s record in Russia not discussed? The last time Hillary Clinton was residing in the White House, though only as the first lady, millions of Russians lives were ruined in what some have called an “economic genocide.” Is this fact not relevant in discussing Russia and 2016 US Presidential elections?

It has only been since  the ascension of Vladimir Putin that the situation in Russia has improved. During the first eight years of Putin’s presidency, wages doubled and the poverty rate was reduced by 14%. During this same period Russia experienced overall industrial expansion of more than 70%. The country’s Gross Domestic Product increased from $764 billion to $2096.8 billion between 2007 and 2014. John Browne, the CEO of BP has praised Putin’s policies saying “No country has come so far, in such a short space of time.”

What was the secret to fixing Russia’s economy? Putin dropped many of the extreme free market policies that had been championed by Clinton and Yeltsin. Russia’s economy re-emerged primarily due to public control of oil and natural gas. The Russian economy is now centered around state controlled natural resources with a very high rate of public ownership. Putin’s “National Priorities Project” focused on building a social safety net for the population. The Russian government has also created “Nashi” summer camps, hoping to cultivate and train the best and brightest young Russians to work for the good of their nation.

Despite being described as “left,” both Hillary Clinton and her husband are closely identified with neoliberalism and privatizations. Bill and Hillary Clinton’s political careers are closely associated with the Democratic Leadership Council, a non-profit organization that maneuvered within the Democratic Party to push for free market policies and undermine the remaining Social-Democratic and Rooseveltian factions that existed in the late 1980s. Bill Clinton signed the widely unpopular North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
In the aftermath of de-industrialization, which escalated under Bill Clinton’s presidency, some regions of the United States are experiencing things similar to what took place in Russia during the 1990s. Factories have closed their doors, with the stable employment and high wages they symbolized being eliminated. Heroin addiction and suicide rates across the United States are the highest they have been in decades.

Donald Trump’s campaign has made a point of reaching out to those who have been highly affected by de-industrialization in places like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. According to left-wing Film-maker Michael Moore: “Trump is going to hammer Clinton on this and her support of TPP and other trade policies that have royally screwed the people of these four states.”

Hillary Rodham Clinton, as the first lady of President Bill Clinton, and Secretary of State during the first years of the Obama administration, is associated with the swift imposition of globalist capitalism and the deregulation of markets.

As Secretary of State, Clinton directed NATO’s destruction of Libya. Libya once had an Islamic Socialist government that was centered around publicly owned oil resources. Libya had the highest life expectancy on the African continent. Like her husband’s efforts to dismantle the Soviet system in Russia, Clinton’s toppling of “Islamic Socialism” and imposition of “Free Markets” have been disastrous for Libya. The conditions in Libya have gotten so bad since the 2011 intervention that thousands of people have drowned, fleeing the country on rafts, hoping to cross the Mediterranean and reach Europe.

In the minds of many people across the planet, Hillary Clinton stands for free market policies, imposed by globalist banking institutions based in western countries. These policies have arguably resulted in an extreme amount of societal decay, and won Clinton many enemies.

When discussing the prospects of Hillary Clinton re-entering the White House, and how this is perceived across the planet, including Russia, this factor cannot be ignored.

Caleb Maupin is a political analyst and activist based in New York. He studied political science at Baldwin-Wallace College and was inspired and involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.



Clinton Trump

Hillary’s Fake Health and Fake Transparency

The fakery continued after Clinton’s nomination coronation as queen at the DNC. Ever since the topic of Hillary’s health has come to light, Hillary has been in damage control mode, trying to convince a skeptical public she is well enough for the office of president, despite her coughing fits, bouts of dizziness and confusion, struggling to walk up stairs, tripping and falling, bouts of inappropriate laughter, wild crossed-eyed looks and her public seizures (see The Real Hillary Clinton for more info). Wikileaks apparently discovered that Hillary was searching online for adult diapers. Maybe she currently wears them.

Meanwhile, corrupt Hillary continues her campaign without conducting press conferences, which is highly unusual for a US presidential candidate. Zero Hedge reports it has been 273 days (absolute zero) since her last press conference! Clearly we can deduce from this that Hillary is scared of being asked some tough questions, given how flooded she is with scandal after scandal (Clinton Foundation fraud and corruption, email deletions, foreign bribery, pay to play shenanigans, the growing Clinton Body Count, etc.). There’s nothing open and transparent about her; she’s barely holding on, keeping quiet and hoping Trump will shoot himself in the foot some more between now and November 8th.

Trump’s Connections to the Shadow Rulers

Although this article has so far highlighted the fraud surrounding Hillary, the point here is not to support Trump. The Donald himself has a myriad ofconnections and associations with NWO agents such as the head of the Rockefeller CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) Tommy Haas. Trump is also close to Paypal founder, millionaire and transhumanist Peter Thiel, CIA asset and Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi, as well as Louis Lesser partner of CIA Asset Meyer Lansky (who was involved the JFK assassination). To what degree Trump is influenced or controlled by these men is an open question, however we know enough to say that he has tyrannical tendencies, is an ardent Zionist and a possible or probable pedophile – hardly the choice you want to be given in a free and open society.


On August 10th, Kunle Ekunkonye arrived in Boston from his home in Miami to promote his new documentary, “Community Doctors.” The film highlights Cuba’s medical scholarship program for young people from around the world, but especially focuses on U.S. students at the Latin American School of Medicine (ELAM). Kunle wrote, directed and filmed the documentary. His brother, Akin Ekunkonye, graduated from ELAM in July and is credited as the producer of the film.

Kunle is a software engineer and this is his first film. Visiting his brother at ELAM awakened such passion and interest that he decided to dedicate a period of four years to making a documentary that would help inform the world about this valuable project that has graduated 24,000 doctors from some 120 countries.