The combo killary and Obama killed over $1 million people in Sudan, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Palestine, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Georgia , Pakistan, Bahrain, Nigeria and indirectly many European countries where ISIL is taking hold as both Killary and obama are the founders of this terror group.

Millions of American women stated their intentions to vote for killary because she has a a big vagina that is oozing cancer yet they are stupid enough not to know that she is a killer or simply they do not care.

Most of these women already hate life as they commit atrocities by killing millions of babies because they are too busy to swallow a pill to prevent the pregnancies, not even the day after pill again to stop the pregnancy , not try to use a condom or other methods, as if they get pregnant on purpose simply to kill a life.

What happened to the women of the 1800, 1900 who cared about the lives that they were entrusted to care for??

Best of all, Killary is a known murderer, her list of dead body trail is as long as the road from Arkansas to new York

Let’s not forget the American spies that got caught and killed by Killary’s unsecured server including an Ambassador and 3 CIA assets in Benghazi Libya , she started the war and Americans died, of course these are the ones we are aware off.

Her lies are encyclopedic , she holds the Guinness world record of 1 trillion 900 billion and 890 million lies  .

Killary is dying a slow death as the souls on the million people who she killed are torturing her, tormenting her day and night and will take her life within month.

Killary is one of many women who held or still holding positions of power in the last 30 years that either destroyed their countries or on the way to total destruction.

From Thatcher to Merkel to Killary and hundreds more as per the video below.





maxresdefault (1)












this bitch is crazy











James  Albert




Was the Panama Papers “Leak” a Russian

Intelligence Operation?

As I wrote on Monday, ever since I started reading about the Panama Papers “leak” something kept rubbing me the wrong way. From the absence of any well known, politically powerful Americans on the list, to the anonymous nature of “John Doe” as whistleblower and the clownish reporting from Soros and USAID affiliated organizations, the whole thing stunk from the start.

The first plausible theory I came across attempting to explain the strangeness of it all was proposed by Craig Murray, and it basically went something like this. The leaker is a real whistleblower, but he placed the information in the wrong hands, therefore the organizations and journalists reporting on the story were not giving us the whole truth. Here’s some of that theory from the post, Are Corporate Gatekeepers Protecting Western Elites from the Leaked Panama Papers?

Whoever leaked the Mossack Fonseca papers appears motivated by a genuine desire to expose the system that enables the ultra wealthy to hide their massive stashes, often corruptly obtained and all involved in tax avoidance. These Panamanian lawyers hide the wealth of a significant proportion of the 1%, and the massive leak of their documents ought to be a wonderful thing.

The Suddeutsche Zeitung, which received the leak, gives a detailed explanation of the methodology the corporate media used to search the files. The main search they have done is for names associated with breaking UN sanctions regimes. The Guardian reports this too and helpfully lists those countries as Zimbabwe, North Korea, Russia and Syria. The filtering of this Mossack Fonseca information by the corporate media follows a direct western governmental agenda. There is no mention at all of use of Mossack Fonseca by massive western corporations or western billionaires – the main customers. And the Guardian is quick to reassure that “much of the leaked material will remain private.”

The corporate media – the Guardian and BBC in the UK – have exclusive access to the database which you and I cannot see. They are protecting themselves from even seeing western corporations’ sensitive information by only looking at those documents which are brought up by specific searches such as UN sanctions busters. Never forget the Guardian smashed its copies of the Snowden files on the instruction of MI6.
Initially, this seemed to be a theory worth exploring, but in the following days I’ve come to a far different conclusion. The primary divergence between what I currently believe and what Mr. Murray proposed is that I do not think the leaker was a genuine whistleblower motived by the public interest. I think the leaker was working on behalf of a sophisticated intelligence agency.

The fact that we seem to know nothing about “John Doe” concerns me. Say what you will about Edward Snowden, but he came out publicly shortly after his whistleblowing and offered himself up for the world to judge. His life, career and personality have been put on full display, and each and every one of us has had the opportunity to decide for ourselves whether his motivations were noble and pure or not.

With the Panama Papers’ “John Doe” we are given no such opportunity, and in fact, the whole thing reads very much like a script concocted by some big budget intelligence agency. Once I started coming around to this conclusion, the obvious choice was U.S. intelligence; given the lack of implications to powerful Americans, the clownishly desperate attempts to smear Putin, and the appearance of Soros, USAID, Ford Foundation, etc, linked organizations to the reporting.

So for someone who already thinks the whole Panama Papers story stinks to high heaven, a CIA link to the release seems obvious; but is it too obvious? Perhaps.

Earlier this morning, I read an absolutely fascinating theory put forth by Clifford G. Gaddy at the Brookings Institution. Here’s what he wrote in the piece, Are the Russians actually behind the Panama Papers?

The “Panama Papers”—does this strike anyone else as a very fishy story? It’s like something out of a cheap spy movie.
Yes, yes it does.

In early 2015, “John Doe” sends (out of the blue) an email to the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ), offering 11.5 million documents from a Panamanian law firm relating to offshore shell companies. SZ accepts. Under the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), some 400 journalists from 80 countries spend a year sifting through the documents. Then, in a coordinated launch, they present their first findings: With nearly identical language in all media (down to the local TV station in Washington that I happened to watch this week), they talk about the grand new revelations of corruption, money laundering, and financial secrecy by over 140 world leaders.

Most reports, no matter where, feature Russian President Vladimir Putin as the headliner. But that might obscure a much bigger and more twisted story.

The dog that didn’t bark
Despite the headlines, there is no evidence of Putin’s direct involvement—not in any company involved in the leak, much less in criminal activity, theft, tax evasion, or money laundering. There are documents showing that some of his “friends” have moved “up to two billion dollars” through these Panama-based shell companies.

But nothing in the Panama Papers reveals anything new about Putin. It is in fact far less of a story than has been alleged for a long time. For over 10 years, there have been suspicions that Putin has a vast personal fortune, claimed at first to be $20 billion, then $40, $70, even $100… And now all they find is “maybe” a couple of billion belonging to a friend?

This is the dog that didn’t bark.
I completely agree with this conclusion. Putin probably does have a huge fortune stashed away somewhere, but this “leak” doesn’t reveal anything about it. In fact, the Panama Papers will have absolutely zero impact on Putin’s political power at home, while making Western efforts to trash him look manufactured and clownish. Net-net Putin wins from the release of the Panama Papers.

As Mr. Gaddy explains.

Some (geo)political context is important here. In recent years, the media has become a key battleground in which Russia and the West have attempted to discredit each other. Early last year, circles in the West sought to use the media to respond to what they described as Russia’s “hybrid warfare,” especially information war, in the wake of the Russian annexation of Crimea and related activities. They identified corruption as an issue where Putin was quite vulnerable. It’s worth looking at the Panama Papers in that context: Journalists are targeting Putin far out of proportion to the evidence they present.

As soon as one delves below the headlines, it’s a non-story. A “friend of Putin” is linked to companies that channel a couple of billion dollars through the offshore companies. Why? To evade Russian taxes? Really? To conceal ownership? From whom? You don’t need an offshore registration to do that. To evade sanctions? That’s a credible reason, but it makes sense only if the companies were registered after mid-2014. Were they?

This information will not harm Putin at all—instead, it gives Putin cover, so he can shrug and say: “Look, everybody does it.” A more serious possibility is that the leaked data will lead to scandals throughout the West, where corruption does matter—a point I’ll discuss. On net, the Russians win.

The cui bono principle connects profits with motives, asking who stands to gain from a certain action. If it’s the Russians who win, isn’t it possible that they are somehow behind at least part of this story?

Who is “John Doe”?
The ICIJ is the self-described elite of investigative journalists—but what have they discovered about the source of all these documents? The only information we have about John Doe is from SZ, which begins its story: “Over a year ago, an anonymous source contacted the Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) and submitted encrypted internal documents from the law firm Mossack Fonseca.” When the staff at SZ asked John Doe about his motive, he reportedly replied in an email: “I want to make these crimes public.”

But how can the journalists—and the public—be sure he’s trustworthy, and that the documents are real, complete, and unmanipulated? It’s not clear that John Doe is a single individual, for one, nor why he would have been confident that he could reveal the documents without revealing himself. He’d also have access to a pretty impressive documents cache, which suggests that an intelligence agency could have been involved.
The above seems clear to me as well, which is why I feel pretty strongly that this was some sort intelligence operation.

Moreover, the revelation brings collateral damage upon legal business and innocent individuals—was that not a worry? In my view, no responsible person with a real concern for rule of law would advocate this sort of sweeping document release. There might be many unintended consequences; it could topple regimes, with unforeseen consequences. It’s pure and naïve anarchism, if the thinking was (as it seems from the outside) to create maximum chaos and hope it will all purge the system of its evils. In any event, the potential for using such a leak for political purposes is immense.

If “we” (in the United States or the West) released these documents, the motive would apparently be to embarrass Putin. This is part of the fantasy that we can defeat Putin in an information war. If that was the motive, the result is pathetic: No real damage is being done to Putin, but there is collateral damage to U.S. allies.

If the Russians did it, a good motive might be to deflect the West’s campaign against Putin’s corruption. But as I’ve explained, any actual reputational damage to Putin or Russia caused by the Panama Papers is in fact pretty trivial. For that cheap price, the Russians would have 1) exposed corrupt politicians everywhere, including in “model” Western democracies, and 2) fomented genuine destabilization in some Western countries. What I wonder, then: Is it a set-up? The Russians threw out the bait, and the United States gobbled it down. The Panama Paper stories run off Putin like water off a duck’s back. But they have a negative impact on Western stability.
Personally, I’m not convinced they will have any impact on Western stability whatsoever. Rather, here’s what they do achieve: 1) they make the Western press look ridiculous in its obsession with Putin 2) the absence of any notable Americans makes it look like a CIA operation.

So let’s say that the “who” is the Russians, and the “why” is to deflect attention and show that “everybody does it.” But how? Given Russia’s vaunted hacking capabilities, a special cyber unit in the Kremlin may have been able to obtain the documents. (Monssack Fonseca is maintaining that the leak was not an inside job.) But it is most likely that such an operation would be run out of an agency called the Russian Financial Monitoring Service (RFM). RFM is Putin’s personal financial intelligence unit—he created it and it answers only to him. It is completely legitimate and is widely recognized as the most powerful such agency in the world, with a monopoly on information about money laundering, offshore centers, and related issues involving Russia or Russian nationals. An operation like the Panama Papers, which is only about financial intelligence, would have to be run out of RFM. Not the FSB, not some ad hoc gang in the Kremlin. While it might not (legally) have access to secrets kept by a firm like Mossack Fonseca, it’s privy to lots of international financial information through the international body of which it is a leading member, the Financial Action Task Force. In short, Russians are better equipped than anyone—more capable and less constrained—to hack into secret files.

As for how to leak the documents, it would actually be pretty ingenious to “incriminate” Russia in a seemingly serious (and headline-grabbing) way without actually revealing incriminating information. That’s exactly what we have. The Panama Papers revealed no Russian secrets. They added nothing to the rumors already circulating about Putin’s alleged private fortune. And the story-that-isn’t-a-story was advanced by none other than the ICIJ. So, done right, the last thing anyone would suspect is that the Panama Papers are a Russian operation.

A more serious Russian motive?
Granted, this would be a complicated operation just to defuse the West’s campaign to point to “Putin the kleptocrat.” But maybe there’s another motive.

As many have already pointed out, it’s curious that the Panama Papers mention no Americans. But it’s possible that they do and that the ICIJ hasn’t revealed that information. Perhaps, since the ICIJ is funded by Americans, they’re not going to bite the hand that feeds them. But suppose the ICIJ actually doesn’t have information on Americans—that calls into question the original data, which if actually real and uncensored would most probably include something on Americans. There are undoubtedly many American individuals and companies that have done business with the Mossack Fonseco crew, and it wouldn’t make sense for a collection of 11.5 million documents involving offshore finances to omit Americans entirely. Perhaps, then, someone purged those references before the documents were handed over to the German newspaper. The “someone” would, following my hypothesis, be the Russians—and the absence of incriminating information about Americans is an important hint of what I think to be the real purpose of this leak.
Some have argued that the reason no powerful Americans are named is because Americans use other jurisdictions for such behavior. Considering the size of this data leak and the fact that it supposedly contains information going back to the 1970s, I find this explanation unconvincing.

Now back to Brookings.

The Panama Papers contain secret corporate financial information, some of which—by far not all—reveals criminal activity. In the hands of law enforcement, such information can be used to prosecute companies and individuals; in the hands of a third party, it is a weapon for blackmail. For information to be effective as a blackmail weapon, it must be kept secret. Once revealed, as in the Panama Papers case, it is useless for blackmail. Its value is destroyed.

Therefore, I suggest that the purpose of the Panama Papers operation may be this: It is a message directed at the Americans and other Western political leaders who could be mentioned but are not. The message is: “We have information on your financial misdeeds, too. You know we do. We can keep them secret if you work with us.” In other words, the individuals mentioned in the documents are not the targets. The ones who are not mentioned are the targets.

Kontrol, the special Russian variety of control
In sum, my thinking is that this could have been a Russian intelligence operation, which orchestrated a high-profile leak and established total credibility by “implicating” (not really implicating) Russia and keeping the source hidden. Some documents would be used for anti-corruption campaigns in a few countries—topple some minor regimes, destroy a few careers and fortunes. By then blackmailing the real targets in the United States and elsewhere (individuals not in the current leak), the Russian puppet masters get “kontrol” and influence.

If the Russians are behind the Panama Papers, we know two things and both come back to Putin personally: First, it is an operation run by RFM, which means it’s run by Putin; second, it’s ultimately about blackmail. That means the real story lies in the information being concealed, not revealed. You reveal secrets in order to destroy; conceal in order to control. Putin is not a destroyer. He’s a controller.
At this point, I want to make something perfectly clear. I do not profess to know the “real story” behind the Panama Papers. The truth is, nobody knows, except for John Doe and the people he was working for (or with). The only thing I feel fairly confident about is that the story we are being fed is not the real story. The more I read and reflect upon the very minor consequences of the leak thus far, the more I become convinced this was a geopolitical play by a powerful intelligence agency. At first, I assumed it was U.S. intelligence, but Mr. Gaddy puts forth a compelling theory. If this was the work of the CIA, it was an extremely sloppy and obvious hit job. On the other hand, if this was the work of Putin for the purposes of blackmail, it’s one of the most ingenious chess moves I’ve ever seen played on the global stage.

I want to conclude with a very important observation. If Clifford Gaddy’s theory is correct, it’s the worse case scenario for American citizens. It means that Putin essentially has the goods on the U.S. elite and he can now blackmail them for his purposes. Indeed, perhaps Iceland was put forward as an example of what can happen if truly damaging information makes it to the public.

So if Putin is behind this, and does have the goods on the U.S. elite, not only do we not get rid of the these corrupt oligarchs, we now have to live with them in an even more compromised state than they were before. For all of our sakes, I hope Mr. Gaddy is wrong. By: Michael Krieger

James  Albert



You’ve heard the axiom “History repeats itself.” It does, but never in exactly the same way. To apply the lessons of the past, we must understand the differences of the present.

During the American Revolution, the British came prepared to fight a successful war—but against a European army. Their formations, which gave them devastating firepower, and their red coats, which emphasized their numbers, proved the exact opposite of the tactics needed to fight a guerrilla war.

Before World War I, generals still saw the cavalry as the flower of their armies. Of course, the horse soldiers proved worse than useless in the trenches.

Before World War II, in anticipation of a German attack, the French built the “impenetrable” Maginot Line. History repeated itself and the attack came, but not in the way they expected. Their preparations were useless because the Germans didn’t attempt to penetrate it; they simply went around it, and France was defeated.

The generals don’t prepare for the last war out of perversity or stupidity, but rather because past experience is all they have to go by. Most of them simply don’t know how to interpret that experience. They are correct in preparing for another war but wrong in relying upon what worked in the last one.

Investors, unfortunately, seem to make the same mistakes in marshaling their resources as do the generals. If the last 30 years have been prosperous, they base their actions on more prosperity. Talk of a depression isn’t real to them because things are, in fact, so different from the 1930s. To most people, a depression means ’30s-style conditions, and since they don’t see that, they can’t imagine a depression. That’s because they know what the last depression waslike, but they don’t know what one is. It’s hard to visualize something you don’t understand.

Some of them who are a bit more clever might see an end to prosperity and the start of a depression but—al­though they’re going to be a lot better off than most—they’re probably looking for this depression to be like the last one.

Although nobody can predict with absolute certainty what this depression will be like, you can be fairly well-assured it won’t be an instant replay of the last one. But just because things will be different doesn’t mean you have to be taken by surprise.

To define the likely differences between this depres­sion and the last one, it’s helpful to compare the situa­tion today to that in the early 1930s. The results aren’t very reassuring.



Banks, insurance companies, and big corporations went under on a major scale. Institutions suffered the consequences of past mistakes, and there was no financial safety net to catch them as they fell. Mistakes were liquidated and only the prepared and efficient survived.


The world’s financial institutions are in even worse shape than the last time, but now business ethics have changed and everyone expects the government to “step in.” Laws are already in place that not only allow but require government inter­vention in many instances. This time, mistakes will be compounded, and the strong, productive, and ef­ficient will be forced to subsidize the weak, unproductive, and inefficient. It’s ironic that businesses were bankrupted in the last depression because the prices of their products fell too low; this time, it’ll be because they went too high.



If a man lost his job, he had to find another one as quickly as possible simply to keep from going hungry. A lot of other men in the same position competed desperately for what work was available, and an employer could hire those same men for much lower wages and expect them to work harder than what was the case before the depression. As a result, the men could get jobs and the employer could stay in business.


The average man first has months of unemployment insurance; after that, he can go on welfare if he can’t find “suitable work.” Instead of taking whatever work is available, especially if it means that a white collar worker has to get his hands dirty, many will go on welfare. This will decrease the production of new wealth and delay the recovery. The worker no longer has to worry about some entrepreneur exploiting (i.e., employing) him at what he considers an unfair wage because the minimum wage laws, among others, precludes that possibility today. As a result, men stay unemployed and employers will go out of business.



If hard times really put a man down and out, he had little recourse but to rely on his family, friends, or local social and church group. There was quite a bit of opprobrium attached to that, and it was only a last resort. The breadlines set up by various government bodies were largely cosmetic measures to soothe the more terror-prone among the voting populace. People made do because they had to, and that meant radically reducing their standards of living and taking any job available at any wage. There were very, very few people on welfare during the last depression.


It’s hard to say how those who are still working are going to support those who aren’t in this depression. Even in the U.S., 50% of the country is already on some form of welfare. But food stamps, aid to fami­lies with dependent children, Social Security, and local programs are already collapsing in prosperous times. And when the tidal wave hits, they’ll be totally overwhelmed. There aren’t going to be any breadlines because people who would be standing in them are going to be shopping in local supermarkets just like people who earned their money. Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of it is that people in general have come to think that these programs can just magically make wealth appear, and they expect them to be there, while a whole class of people have grown up never learning to survive without them. It’s ironic, yet predictable, that the programs that were supposed to help those who “need” them will serve to devastate those very people.



Most economies have been fairly heavily regulated since the early 1900s, and those regulations caused distortions that added to the severity of the last depression. Rather than allow the economy to liquidate, in the case of the U.S., the Roosevelt regime added many, many more regulations—fixing prices, wages, and the manner of doing business in a static form. It was largely because of these regulations that the depression lingered on until the end of World War II, which “saved” the economy only through its massive reinflation of the currency. Had the government abolished most controls then in existence, instead of creating new ones, the depression would have been less severe and much shorter.


The scores of new agencies set up since the last depression have created far more severe distortions in the ways people relate than those of 80 years ago; the potential adjustment needed is proportionately greater. Unless government restrictions and controls on wages, working conditions, energy consumption, safety, and such are removed, a dramatic economic turnaround during the Greater Depression will be impossible.



The income tax was new to the U.S. in 1913, and by 1929, although it took a maximum 23.1% bite, that was only at the $1 million level. The average family’s income then was $2,335, and that put average families in the 1/10th of 1 percent bracket. And there was still no Social Security tax, no state income tax, no sales tax, and no estate tax. Furthermore, most people in the country didn’t even pay the income tax because they earned less than the legal minimum or they didn’t bother filing. The government, therefore, had immense untapped sources of revenue to draw upon to fund its schemes to “cure” the depression. Roosevelt was able to raise the average income tax from 1.35% to 16.56% during his tenure—an increase of 1,100%.


Everyone now pays an income tax in addition to all the other taxes. In most Western countries, the total of direct and indirect taxes is over 50%. For that reason, it seems unlikely that direct taxes will go much higher. But inflation is constantly driving everyone into higher brackets and will have the same effect. A person has had to increase his or her income faster than inflation to compensate for taxes. Whatever taxes a man does pay will reduce his standard of living by just that much, and it’s reasonable to expect tax evasion and the underground economy to boom in response. That will cushion the severity of the depression somewhat while it serves to help change the philosophical orientation of society.



Prices dropped radically because billions of dollars of inflationary currency were wiped out through the stock market crash, bond defaults, and bank failures. The government, however, somehow equated the high prices of the inflationary ’20s with prosperity and attempted to prevent a fall in prices by such things as slaughtering livestock, dumping milk in the gutter, and enacting price supports. Since the collapse wiped out money faster than it could be created, the government felt the destruction of real wealth was a more effective way to raise prices. In other words, if you can’t increase the supply of money, decrease the supply of goods.

Nonetheless, the 1930s depression was a deflationary collapse, a time when currency became worth more and prices dropped. This is probably the most confusing thing to most Americans since they assume—as a result of that experience—that “depression” means “deflation.” It’s also perhaps the biggest single difference between this depression and the last one.


Prices could drop, as they did the last time, but the amount of power the government now has over the economy is far greater than what was the case 80 years ago. Instead of letting the economy cleanse itself by allowing the financial markets to collapse, governments will probably bail out insolvent banks, create mortgages wholesale to prop up real estate, and central banks will buy bonds to keep their prices from plummeting. All of these actions mean that the total money supply will grow enormously. Trillions will be created to avoid deflation. If you find men selling apples on street corners, it won’t be for 5 cents apiece, but $5 apiece. But there won’t be a lot of apple sellers because of welfare, nor will there be a lot of apples because of price controls.

Consumer prices will probably skyrocket as a result, and the country will have an inflationary depression. Unlike the 1930s, when people who held dollars were king, by the end of the Greater Depression, people with dollars will be wiped out.



The world was largely rural or small-town. Communications were slow, but people tended to trust the media. The government exercised considerable moral suasion, and people tended to support it. The business of the country was business, as Calvin Coolidge said, and men who created wealth were esteemed. All told, if you were going to have a depression, it was a rather stable environment for it; despite that, however, there were still plenty of riots, marches, and general disorder.


The country is now urban and suburban, and although communications are rapid, there’s little interpersonal contact. The media are suspect. The government is seen more as an adversary or an imperial ruler than an arbitrator accepted by a consensus of concerned citizens. Businessmen are viewed as unscrupulous predators who take advantage of anyone weak enough to be exploited.

A major financial smashup in today’s atmosphere could do a lot more than wipe out a few naives in the stock market and unemploy some workers, as occurred in the ’30s; some sectors of society are now time bombs. It’s hard to say, for instance, what third- and fourth-generation welfare recipients are going to do when the going gets really tough.



Relatively slow transportation and communication localized economic conditions. The U.S. itself was somewhat insulated from the rest of the world, and parts of the U.S. were fairly self-contained. Workers were mostly involved in basic agriculture and industry, creating widgets and other tangible items. There wasn’t a great deal of specialization, and that made it easier for someone to move laterally from one occupation into the next, without extensive retraining, since people were more able to produce the basics of life on their own. Most women never joined the workforce, and the wife in a marriage acted as a “backup” system should the husband lose his job.


The whole world is interdependent, and a war in the Middle East or a revolution in Africa can have a direct and immediate effect on a barber in Chicago or Krakow. Since the whole economy is centrally controlled from Washington, a mistake there can be a national disaster. People generally aren’t in a position to roll with the punches as more than half the people in the country belong to what is known as the “service economy.” That means, in most cases, they’re better equipped to shuffle papers than make widgets. Even “necessary” services are often terminated when times get hard. Specialization is part of what an advanced industrial economy is all about, but if the economic order changes radically, it can prove a liability.



The last depression is identified with the collapse of the stock market, which lost over 90% of its value from 1929 to 1933. A secure bond was the best possible investment as interest rates dropped radically. Commodities plummeted, reducing millions of farmers to near subsistence levels. Since most real estate was owned outright and taxes were low, a drop in price didn’t make a lot of difference unless you had to sell. Land prices plummeted, but since people bought it to use, not unload to a greater fool, they didn’t usually have to sell.


This time, stocks—and especially commodities—are likely to explode on the upside as people panic into them to get out of depreciating dollars in general and bonds in particular. Real estate will be—next to bonds—the most devastated single area of the economy because no one will lend money long term. And real estate is built on the mortgage market, which will vanish.

Everybody who invests in this depression thinking that it will turn out like the last one will be very unhappy with the results. Being aware of the differences between the last depression and this one makes it a lot easier to position yourself to minimize losses and maximize profits.

So much for the differences. The crucial, obvious, and most important similarity, however, is that most people’s standard of living will fall dramatically.

The Greater Depression has started. Most people don’t know it because they can neither confront the thought nor understand the differences between this one and the last.

As a climax approaches, many of the things that you’ve built your life around in the past are going to change and change radically. The ability to adjust to new conditions is the sign of a psychologically healthy person.

Look for the opportunity side of the crisis. The Chinese symbol for “crisis” is a combination of two other symbols—one for danger and one for opportunity.

The dangers that society will face in the years ahead are regrettable, but there’s no point in allowing anxiety, frustration, or apathy to overcome you. Face the future with courage, curiosity, and optimism rather than fear. You can be a winner, and if you plan carefully, you will be. The great period of change will give you a chance to regain control of your destiny. And that in itself is the single most important thing in life. This depression can give you that opportunity; it’s one of the many ways the Greater Depression can be a very good thing for both you as an individual and society as a whole.By : Doug Casey

James  Albert



One has simply to look at people’s faces who were present at a forum in St Petersburg Russia to see the love they have for their super smart president.

The entire audience was in total awe at the talent this man has.

Putin Wows With German Skills at St. Petersburg Journalism Forum


Speaking during a forum in St. Petersburg, Russia, the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, surprised everyone when he jumped in as a translator for a former West German MP.

During a question and answer session at a journalism forum in St. Petersburg, former West German Defense Secretary Willy Wimmer was asked a question about Russia’s national values. As the translator prepared to interpret, President Putin stepped in.

“I was misunderstood, said our guest. Please continue,” Putin translated, stopping the show with his excellent German.

Wimmer went on to defend Russia’s value system.

“I was surprised that Russian representatives have said that there are no national ideas,” he said. “And if I, as a foreigner, look at Russia, well, for me it is absolutely clear what they are talking about.

“This is respect for peace. You defend your national interests. You support family values and the value of faith.”

Speaking to RT International, Wimmer expressed his own surprise at the Russian president’s foreign language skills.

“My wonderful translator was surprised, I was surprised, and I think the whole audience was surprised that the President made use of this opportunity and showed us his excellent knowledge of [the] German language,” he said.

Wimmer dismissed the notion that the incident was a prearranged PR stunt.

“There was no chance to prepare somebody for this event because everything happened because a young man…raised a question which concerned the day before,” he said.

“Nobody could have prepared himself for this event. It was a surprise attack. It was a wonderful surprise attack.”

During the forum, Putin addressed other issues concerning Russia. On Syria, he explained why Moscow’s military role is complete.

“It is too early to say that some radical change happened there [Syria]. But it is obvious that we have completed our task there. It was, above all, to strengthen the statehood in Syria and the legitimate authorities,” Putin said.

“The [Syrian] statehood has strengthened, as well as the government structures and the armed forces of the Syrian Republic.”

He also addressed the baseless charges that he was implicated in the Panama Papers leak.

“Your humble servant is not there, so there’s nothing to talk about.”

James  Albert


There are reports that presidential candidate Raphael ( Ted) cruz  has or had a minimum of 5 mistresses and other reports having him visiting hookers and playgirls, the scandal is threatening to end his presidential campaign if proven true.

Even anonymous hacking group is threatening to release videos of Cruz visiting escorts and prostitutions  salons .



These are the faces of politicians who engaged in hiring prostitutes or cheating on their wives with multiple partners. The expressions on their faces are the same.



It appears lying Ted is the major cause of his wife’s Heidi terrible depression that almost consumed her few years ago, she became mentally unstable.


SHOCKING CLAIMS: Pervy Ted Cruz Caught Cheating — With 5 Secret Mistresses!

The romps that could destroy his presidential campaign!

Presidential candidate Ted Cruz is trying to survive an explosive “dirt file” on the finger-wagging conservative senator!

And the new issue of The National ENQUIRER — on newsstands now — reveals how the reports say the staunch Republican is hiding FIVE different mistresses!

In the new issue of The National ENQUIRER, on newsstands now, sources say the steadfast Republican has multiple skeletons in his closet, including five mistresses!

“Private detectives are digging into at least five affairs Ted Cruz supposedly had,” a Washington insider told the magazine, adding, “The leaked details are an attempt to destroy what’s left of his White House campaign!”.

As Radar previously reported, an individual purporting to be a representative of the hacker group Anonymous recently posted a disturbing Twitter video that threatened to expose Cruz’s “very dirty secrets,” including information about the prez hopeful “visiting prostitutes!”





Screen-Shot-2016-03-25-at-11 07 50-AM





James  Albert


According to Dr. Charles Lemieux  a facial stress line specialist at John Hopkins university  who analyzes subjects  for the CIA, that Emine Erdogan face shows she is starving for sex and the only explanation is that her husband the president of Turkey, Recep Erdogan is IMPOTENT.

This has been corroborated by erdogan’s security details that he has threatened his wife if she does not suck his rubbery floppy cock but she refuses because it makeS her gag for days.








Playing Macho, does not fool anybody especially Emine his wife.




Some of his  former personal security details claims to have surprised him masturbating on short hindu clips from Youtube, few clips below:


James  Albert




Willard Mitt Romney got creamed by Obama in the last election




Former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney stated that Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump, Texas Senator. Ted Cruz (R-TX)  and Florida Senator  Marco Rubio (R-FL) ought to release their taxes for “the last two years that have already been filed” and that there’s “good reason to believe that there’s a bombshell in Donald Trump’s taxes” on Wednesday’s “Your World with Neil Cavuto” on the Fox News Channel.

Romney began by saying that both Trump and Democratic candidate Senator Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) were connecting with voters who were upset with the Washington, which hasn’t made progress.

He added, “I think there’s no question but that Donald Trump has the clearest path to become the Republican nominee. I think for the other people still in the race, their path is becoming a slimmer and slimmer opening, and they’re having a difficult time communicating to their supporters just how they could become the nominee. It’s not impossible. I think it’s very difficult for any one of the non-Donald Trump contenders to be able to be a real threat, unless perhaps the field narrows. The field narrowing would, I think, create an opening, but that doesn’t seem to be happening other than Jeb Bush, who I think really put country first by saying, look, I’m going to step aside, and let my supporters go to someone else who they feel is representative of the kind of views that the country needs.”

Romney then said, when asked about his lack of an endorsement for anyone so far, “Well, frankly, I’d like to see a number of things from the candidates, not just their positions on issues in some detail, and some candidates are more thorough in laying out what they’re going to do than others, but I’d also like to see their back taxes. I’d like to see where they filed their taxes in the last several years. I’m not talking about their taxes this year. I’m talking about the taxes that have already been filed with the IRS. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have [not] shown us their back taxes.”

Romney further stated that “the last two years that have already been filed” would “give us a real sense of whether these people are on the up and up, and whether they’ve been telling us things about themselves that are true or not.” He then said, “I think we have good reason to believe that there’s a bombshell in Donald Trump’s taxes.”

He explained, “I think there’s something there, either he’s not as anywhere near as wealthy as he says he is, or he hasn’t been paying the kind of taxes we would expect him to pay, or perhaps he hasn’t been giving money to the vets, or to the disabled, like he’s been telling us he’s been doing. And I think that’s — the reason that I think there’s a bombshell in there, is because every time he’s asked about his taxes, he dodges and delays and says, well, we’re working on it. Hey, we’re not talking about the taxes that are coming due this year. Of course they’re working on those. They won’t be ready for months. We’re talking about taxes already filed, back taxes. And my back taxes, when I ran in 2012, my back taxes, I put out in January of 2012. We’re now in late February and we still haven’t seen either Donald Trump’s, or Marco Rubio’s, or Ted Cruz’s taxes. And frankly the voters have a right to see those tax returns before they decide who our nominee ought to be.”

Romney said that the scrutiny over his taxes when he ran back in 2012 is “a good reason for getting these things out before the voters make their choices to who our nominee will be.” He continued, “I put my taxes out in January of 2012, and that gave people a chance to digest it, and decide whether I was going to be the nominee or not. And if in fact Donald Trump’s taxes, or Marco Rubio’s, or Ted Cruz’s, have some real problems in there, let’s get them out there and see them. But I think it’s pretty clear that, given Donald Trump’s dodging and weaving and delay, I think the last time he was asked about his taxes he said, well, it’s going to be a month. Look, people have a right to know if there’s a problem in those taxes before they decide.”

Romney further said of Trump “[T]he fact that he is so aggressive in avoiding any discussion of taxes — of his taxes, and is not willing to put them out so far, suggests that there’s something in there he doesn’t want us to see. By the way, any time you talk about money, Donald Trump likes to tell you how wealthy he is, how he’s worth billions of dollars. And the first time he was asked about his taxes on the ‘Today’ show, he said, you know, they’re beautiful, alright, they’re big and they’re beautiful. Well, great, let us see them. He likes to tell people how well he’s done. Why isn’t he willing to let us look at the tax returns? And that’s something — I mean, this was an issue in my campaign, that’s why I’m so sensitive to it. It’s an issue in my campaign. we’re going to select our nominee. We really ought to see, from all three of these fellows, what their taxes look like, to see if there’s an issue there. I think in Donald Trump’s case it’s likely to be a bombshell.”

Romney concluded, “You know, Donald Trump has said he’s the best in the country for the disabled veterans, and for the disabled generally. Well, if his taxes show that he hasn’t made any contributions to the disabled veterans, or to the disabled generally, that would be a big issue. So — and I’m not saying that’s the case. I have no evidence of that. But I’m just saying there are things that could be issues, and when people decide they don’t want to give you their taxes, it’s usually because there’s something they don’t want you to see.”

Without knowing, the idiot Romney did a favor for Donald Trump by bringing up a subject that Hillary Clinton will bring during the confrontation with Donald Trump.

Trump has no obligation to release any past tax reports prior of becoming president, only forward reports are usually released.

Romney just demonstrated how Jealous he is of Teflon DON  who is bulldozing his way to the nomination.

James  Albert




Obama is terrified that Donald Trump would become president  as Trump would prosecute Obama and Bush as well as all the neocons who committed war crimes against the US constitution.

Obama: ‘I Continue to Believe That Mr. Trump Will Not Be President’


The arrogant bastard believes that only criminals can be presidents.

Barack Obama says he still believes that Donald Trump will not become president of the United States and suggested that Trump will lose popularity as the election grows more serious.

“I continue to believe that Mr. Trump will not be President,” Obama said. “And the reason is because I have a lot of faith in the American people.”

The president made his remarks during a press conference in Rancho Mirage, California, during a US-ASEAN summit with Southeast Asian leaders.

During his press conference, Obama said he believes that foreign leaders were “troubled” by the notion that Trump could become president. “I think foreign observers are troubled by some of the rhetoric that’s been taking place in these Republican primaries and Republican debates,” he said.

He included the entire Republican party in his criticism of Trump. “I find it interesting that everybody’s focused on Trump, primarily just because he says in more interesting ways what the other candidates are saying as well,” he said.

Obama said that Trump managed to “up the ante” in anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiment, which Obama said was repeated by other candidates.

Obama singled out Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)  for “running away” from immigration reform “as fast as he can” after working on a bill with Senate Democrats that he (Obama) also supported.

The president also said that the GOP candidates’ views on climate change concerned business leaders around the world. “I think that’s troubling to the international community since the science is unequivocal,“ he added.

“This is not just Mr. Trump,” he stated. “Look at the statements that are being made by the other candidates. There’s not a single candidate in the Republican primary that thinks we should do anything about climate change.”

What the bastard does not know is he is the reason Trump is popular, his own incompetence  caused the people to go to   the only honest Candidate that will save the country before it becomes a muslim country .

James  Albert


The senile King of Saudi Arabia and son retard son are committing collective suicide by sending mercenaries to Syria  with an army with 5 years experience  against green horns Sudanese  , Colombians and other inexperienced soldiers who will get killed the minute they step foot on Syria land.

Not to forget the Russian who will take the opportunity to destroy the Arab gulf states oil and gas facilities for supporting terrorists and since they are not members of NATO , the risk is quite minimal.

Putin is going to warns the ruler of Bahrain that any hostile move in Syria will cause the total destruction of the Arab gulf states , Bahrain and UAE may abstain, but hard core Qatar and Saudi Arabia wwho are already stuck in a war they can’t win in Yemen will push for the war and this will Give the Yemenis, the Iraqis  and possibly and possibly Iran to move on Saudi Arabia and liberate the country from the royal family.


Bipolar Prince in Charge of the  military, will end up beheaded in a coup.


Senile King, kept in his room 24/24

UAE joins chorus of Arab monarchies ready to invade Syria


Following in the footsteps of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, The United Arab Emirates (UAE) stated on Sunday that it was ready to ground troops to Syria to fight Islamic State. Damascus earlier said it would send unwelcomed invaders back ‘in coffins.’
The UAE’s preparedness to participate in a ground military operation in Syria was confirmed by Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash, who said that “US leadership on this” would be a prerequisite.

“We are not talking about thousands of troops, but we are talking about troops on the ground that will lead the way … that will support … and I think our position remains the same and we will have to see how this progresses,” he added, as cited by Reuters.

Earlier this week, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain said they would contribute troops for a ground operation in Syria, should the US choose to start one. The three countries are already participating in the aerial bombing campaign spearheaded by Washington. The US however has repeatedly said it would not send ground troops to fight Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) and wants the Arab nations to do the fighting on the ground.

The Syrian government warned that any foreign army entering Syria without an invitation would be considered an enemy and resisted.

“Let no one think they can attack Syria or violate its sovereignty because I assure you any aggressor will return to their country in a wooden coffin,” Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem said on Saturday.

Iran, the key regional ally of Damascus and a rival of Saudi Arabia, said Riyadh lacked the courage to deliver on the premise.

“(The Saudis) have made such a claim, but I don’t think they are brave enough to do so … Even if they send troops, they would be definitely defeated … it would be suicide,” Iran’s Revolutionary guards Commander Mohammad Ali Jafari said.

Russia, which is providing air support to the Syrian government army in a campaign separate from the US-led coalition, dismissed the Saudi statement, pointing out the lack of progress in its other ongoing military operation in Yemen.

Saudi Arabia sent its warplanes and troops to the neighboring country to fight against the Shiite rebels from the Ansar Allah movement, also known as the Houthis. The intervention, which the UAE is supporting militarily, resulted in significant civilian casualties and a humanitarian crisis, but has not seen a military victory.


James  Albert