Roberto Abraham Scaruffi

Saturday, 21 May 2016

The European Union Times


Posted: 21 May 2016 03:29 AM PDT


Senator Barbara Boxer was booed off stage as all hell broke loose at the Nevada Democratic Convention last weekend. She also claims that Bernie Sanders supporters were so unhinged that she feared for her life.
CNN reports:
Earlier Wednesday, California’s other Democratic senator, Barbara Boxer, said Sanders supporters should attempt “to change the primary process, but not to go out there and throw chairs and to put people’s lives in danger because the democratic process as put forward and ratified by the two parties is being carried out.”
Boxer said she felt threatened after outbursts and threats at the Nevada Democratic Convention from supporters of Sanders over the weekend.
“I feared for my safety and I had a lot of security around me,” she told CNN’s Kate Bolduan on “At This Hour.” “I’ve never had anything like this happen.”
After Sanders supporters thought the Nevada Democratic Convention was being shut down prematurely, shouting ensued and there were reports of chairs being thrown. The phone number and address of the chairwoman of the Nevada Democratic Party, Roberta Lange, was posted on social media — prompting a flood of more than 1,000 calls, angry voicemails, text messages and even death threats.
“It was a scary situation,” said Boxer, a Clinton supporter. “It was frightening. I was on the stage. People were six feet away from me. If I didn’t have a lot of security, I don’t know what would have happened.”
Democrats didn’t seem to mind when Bernie supporters showed up and caused trouble like this at Trump rallies. They didn’t mind it when Bernie supporters threw punches at Trump supporters. But, now that it’s happened to them, it’s a matter of national security.
Source
        
Posted: 21 May 2016 03:15 AM PDT


CNN weakly attempted to defend Hillary Clinton’s record on rolling back the Second Amendment on Friday after presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump said the Democrat frontrunner is an enemy of the right to bear arms.
Trump made his remarks in Kentucky after the candidate won an endorsement by the NRA.
“If she gets to appoint her judges, she will abolish the Second Amendment,” Trump told an enthusiastic crowd. “In my opinion, that’s what she’s going to go for.”
Clinton immediately responded on Trump’s twitter feed:
“Donald Trump on Friday told the National Rifle Association that Hillary Clinton would take away the right to bear arms—a position the Democratic front-runner has never taken and immediately denounced,” CNN reported.
Clinton, of course, has not come out and boldly stated she plans to take firearms away from the American people. Instead, along with other key Democrats, she has worked methodically in that direction while deceptively stating she supports the Second Amendment.
Clinton’s interpretation of the Second Amendment would undoubtedly lead to Americans denied ownership of handguns and semiautomatic weapons.
In October, during a fundraiser secretly recorded in New York, she criticized the Supreme Court for upholding the amendment.
“I was proud when my husband took [the National Rifle Association] on, and we were able to ban assault weapons, but he had to put a sunset on so 10 years later. Of course [President George W.] Bush wouldn’t agree to reinstate them,” said Clinton. “We’ve got to go after this… And here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”
Clinton’s remarks referred to the Heller ruling. In 2008, the Court affirmed the Second Amendment grants firearms rights to individuals whether or not they are members of an organized government militia. Clinton and the Democrats oppose the ruling because it strikes down the ability of government to impose draconian limitations on the possession of firearms.
Clinton has also supported the virtual elimination of firearms through confiscation.
“You know, Australia’s a good example, Canada’s a good example, the UK’s a good example. Why? Because each of them had mass killings, Australia had a huge mass killing about 20 or 25 years ago. Canada did as well, so did the UK. In reaction, they passed much stricter gun laws,” she said during an October 16 town hall meeting.
“In the Australian example, as I recall, that was a buyback program. The Australian government as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of … weapons offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns and basically clamped down going forward, in terms of having more of a background check approach, more of a permitting approach.
“But they believed, and I think the evidence supports them, that by offering to buy back those guns, they were able to, you know, curtail the supply and set a different standard for gun purchases in the future.”
The Australian government imposed a “special tax” on its citizens to buyback 650,000 to one million guns. It outlawed semi-automatic rifles, certain categories of shotgun, and implemented strict licensing and registration requirements.
The Australian buyback program was not an “offer,” as Clinton suggested—it was compulsory, in other words, a widespread government program of firearms confiscation.
Clinton is calling for firearms confiscation in America.
“When the Left says that we should respond to shootings as Australia did, they don’t mean that we should institute background checks on private sales; they mean that they we should ban and confiscate guns. No amount of wooly words can change this. Again, one doesn’t bring up countries that have confiscated firearms as a shining example unless one wishes to push the conversation toward confiscation,” writes Charles Cooke.
In its reportage, CNN intends to obfuscate the fact that Clinton is determined to push gun confiscation on the American people. Naturally, she will not come out and say she favors an outright round-up of firearms and a consignment of the cornerstone of the Constitution to the dustbin of history.
In 2016, political campaigns in America are run on false promises, feel-good rhetoric, demonizing the opposition, and outright lies and falsehoods. Hillary Clinton is a master at this game. She is determined to whittle the Second Amendment down to the point where it is a useless anachronism.
A large part of this deceptive campaign consists of feel-good platitudes spoken on behalf of reducing “gun violence,” which is deviously exaggerated by the corporate media and the government, most outrageously theObama administration.
Source
       
Posted: 21 May 2016 03:02 AM PDT

According to several reports the Hillary Clinton Campaign cheated in order to give her the win in Kentucky.
In Pike County Kentucky, card readers reportedly malfunctioned and votes were fully erased.
The Pike County Clerk’s office told local Kentucky station WKYT there were issues with one of their card readers which caused a delay in the numbers and as a result, the AP then erased Sanders’ votes, pushing Hillary to the lead by over 4,000 votes.
The gatewaypundit noted the discrepancy in a tweet Tuesday night.
According to Real Clear Politics Clinton eventually received 212,550 votes in Kentucky to Bernie Sanders’ 210,626 votes for a difference of only 1,924 votes. The 4,000 vote discrepancy gave Clinton the Primary.

There were more than 76 reports of election fraud in 31 different counties called into Kentucky’s Attorney General hotline during the closely contested Democrat primary, according to Attorney General Andy Beshear. The Sanders campaign was expectedly outraged by the reports which were similar to what has occurred in other states – and many are pointing the finger at the Clinton campaign.
Source
        
Posted: 21 May 2016 02:40 AM PDT

Experts claim that the policies Bill Clinton followed as US president a quarter century ago will not rescue the current recession-plagued American economy with its industries destroyed by the free trade agreements he championed.
The policies Bill Clinton followed as US president a quarter century ago will not rescue the current recession-plagued American economy with its industries destroyed by the free trade agreements he championed, Experts told Sputnik.
“Several historical events blessed Bill Clinton’s economy — I don’t think they are replicable,” Ohio Northern University Assistant History Professor Robert Waters said. “There will be no economic expansion when Hillary Clinton takes office, and probably a recession will welcome her.”
Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton said this week that if elected to be US president in November, she will make her husband, the 42nd US president, in charge of economic policy.
“Making things worse, [current US President Barack] Obama’s regulations and the uncertainty they have produced are a permanent drag on the economy, and Hillary will use her phone and pen to bandage and expand them,” Waters warned.
Even if Hillary Clinton proves not to be the neo-conservative hawk that many people assume her to be, Obama’s defense and foreign policies are going to force increases in military spending, Waters predicted.
“She has promised, and her base will demand higher taxes and higher spending, which will be another drag on the economy. Personally, I think Hillary is at heart pretty far to the left and Bill is too, and they are opportunists, so they will move left for at least the first two years,” Waters continued.
All of the additional bureaucratic regulations imposed by Obama will make it hard for any technological breakthroughs during the Clinton years that could change the equation, Waters noted.
“Hillary has promised almost open borders and complained about Obama’s few fig leaf enforcement efforts, so [there will be] no tight labor markets at the bottom. Since the Democratic Party is a subsidiary of the tech industry, we will be friending a wave of foreign tech workers,” he maintained.
Waters concluded that the economic prospect for a Hillary Clinton presidency would be bleak and that her husband would not be able to transform the economy.
Retired Brown University Assistant Professor of Economics Barry Friedman expressed skepticism that Clinton would be given any effective power to make a difference in directing the US economy if his wife won the November election.
“Since when is a presidential spouse someone who is expected to take programmatic responsibility and be held accountable: Aren’t they supposed to be counselors and goodwill ambassadors and advocates?” Friedman asked.
Friedman said Bill Clinton had an impressive record on the economy during his own two terms of office, but he expressed skepticism that the former president would be able to repeat that achievement in the ill-defined role of being some kind of economic policy overlord.
Source
        
Posted: 21 May 2016 02:07 AM PDT

With tensions between Russia and the West at post-cold war highs, a former NATO deputy military chief is now saying that a nuclear war with Russia over the Baltic nations in 2017 is “entirely plausible” according to RT.
General Sir Richard Shirreff, from Britain, served at the second highest NATO military office in Europe between 2011 and 2014, has written a fictional book about a nuclear war with Russia in 2017 triggered by a dispute of the Baltic nations. While the story is indeed fictional, Shirreff said the story is based on an “entirely plausible” scenario.
The scenario in which Shirreff lays out is that Russia would first occupy Ukraine to secure a land route to Crimea and then invade the three Baltic nations, all of which are members of NATO. Shirreff claims Russia will do this because it feels that NATO is perceived as weak, and Russia will be oppositional about what it sees as the alliance’s attempt to encircle it.
“We need to judge President Putin by his deeds not his words. He has invaded Georgia, he has invaded the Crimea, he has invaded Ukraine. He has used force and got away with it” the retired General told BBC.
The general’s thesis is hard to disagree with of course. As NATO has recently moved 4,000 troops to Russia’s border, followed by the US turning on the missile defense system and immediately wargaming in Romania, the scene has already been set for such an occurrence. Russia has responded to NATO’s troop positioning by creating new military divisions of their own, and deploying them to the borders.
Even more to Shirreff’s point, as we noted a few days ago, Russia has already hinted at nuclear war in response to the US activation of the missile defense system in Romania. Last fall, as Russia grew concerned that the defense system would take away its first mover advantage of being able to strike in the event of a war, Russian security officials hinted that one miltary response would be to use a nuclear-armed drone submarine that would be detonated in coastal waters, causing a radioactive tsunami to flood and contaminate seaside cities. The purpose would be to “defeat important economic objects of an enemy in coastal zones, bringing guaranteed and unacceptable losses on the country’s territory by forming a wide area of radioactive contamination incompatible with conducting military, economic or any other activities there for a long period of time.” In fact, Russian commentator Konstantin Bogdanov wrote that the antimissile sites in Eastern Europe might even accelerate the slippery slope to nuclear war in a crisis.
All that’s left is a catalyst, something the US is apparently trying desperately to deliver as it continues to fly spy planes over Russia’s border, and encircles Russia with troops. If ever either side were to make one small mistake in how they choose to interact with each other, it could very well lead to nuclear war.
Source
        
Posted by Roberto Abraham Scaruffi at 18:14