British should wake up – Electoral Commission has no ethics

Quite frankly if anyone had an ounce of grey matter in the United Kingdom – they would realise that when Prime Minister Heath signed the Lisbon Accord – he signed away Britain’s sovereignty.

Simple – illegal as it was – the British sovereignty no longer existed after the Lisbon Treaty was signed.

Brexit – Britain leaving the EU – is one subject that I will leave to the Poms – but – your government – and in particular the Electoral Commission are unethical twats.

They allowed this ‘How to Vote’ card to be delivered to postal voters.


In case one missed it ….



Apparently – 47,000 – before it was stopped.

That is not the point – it should not have been condoned in the first place.

This has similarities to another voter card.


Mind you if Britain stays in the E.U. – I understand that Merkel is jockeying to be head honcho of the E.U. when her current term expires in Germany.

Just saying – just saying.



Hat Tip to Pierre.

Whilst The Telegraph U.K. a column on this left wing Guardian has covered it a tad better.



Protectionism – does anyone think why? what for?

The absurdity of protectionism.


Protection is is best describe as the practice of shielding a country’s domestic industries from foreign competition by taxing imports.

Throughout history when one has currency wars – countries revert to ‘protectionism’ – it is not a good tactic – as the domestic industries may need to retool – reassess markets and change – or simply reduce costs to compete internationally.

The United States Commerce Department – has now escalated its trade war with China – implementing the latest strategy on steel imports by announcing that corrosion-resistant steel from China – will face final U.S. anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties of up to 450%.

Get that?


A huge tariff to apply to one product.

The U.S. In its wisdom applied current duties of 210% on all Chinese-produced corrosion resistant steel – with final anti-subsidy duties ranging from 39 percent for many producers – to 241% for some of the largest ones including Baosteel, Hebei Iron & Steel Group and Angang Group.

Reuters has reported that

“China’s Commerce Ministry said it was extremely dissatisfied at what it called the “irrational” move by the United States, which it said would harm cooperation between the two countries. “China will take all necessary steps to strive for fair treatment and to protect the companies’ rights,” it said, without elaborating.”

I am scratching my head as to the rationality of this latest escapade by the U.S. Commerce Department – for a simple reason.

China has no standards – none zippo.

When I refer to standards I am referring to the International Standards – quality assurance – in what you buy is not what you get.

Standards are best described ‘as a strategic tools and guidelines to help companies tackle some of the most demanding challenges of modern business. They ensure that business complies with manufacturing standards and delivers what it promises.

Quite frankly anyone that buys ‘cheap Chinese corrosion-resistant steel’ should get a sample tested before acquisition.

Then again – is there corruption within the manufacturing and construction companies that demand the cheap counter-part?

This applies to Indian steel as well – both products can be best described as garbage – so the easiest way to overcome the situation is to stipulate in the building regulations on any industry – that ‘all’ construction should be undertaken with materials that conform to International Standards.

Simple – no one would touch the cheap Chinese and Indian imports – then again they may utilize Spanish steel – that then would pose a problem – for not only the overpriced US steel industry but for the U.S. Commerce Department as well.

Europe would not accept the 450 percent tariffs that the U.S. applied to China – yet has similar protectionism in place.

imageJust think for a moment though – where does China dump all of the steel produced?

Food for thought – as it is necessary to either discount the cost to others parties – stop production – or stockpile for internal use.

The problem is though is this overproduction – must hit sometime in the future – thereby reducing steel prices further and affecting the raw material imports.

For every action there is a re-action – in this case it will affect steel and raw material prices – hello deflation.

Game of Clones


Yes – Game of Clones – Central Wankers


On 27 February this year in Shanghai there was a G20 meeting – the G20 being the key players in global finance from the 20 biggest economies – commentators suggested that a deal had been reached to curb USD strengths or at least no longer weaken their own currencies.

Thereafter the USD clearly did weaken across the board – which allowed a number of markets to recover.

Whether this was the agreement or not – it is obvious that they know not what they do – with a fair few countries caught in the crosshairs of Japan’s negative interest rate – those being the major trading partners – China, Australia and to a lesser extent Singapore.

The ECB delivered a rate cut in March – strengthened the EUR:USD pair and appears on the face of it that the EUR’s trade-weighted index has been more stable – the financial conditions in Europe have eased a tad – with the exception of Italian banks – and the zone’s inflation expectations recovered.

It amazes me of the ignorance of the G20 – here they were planning something – anything to relieve the stresses on the world currencies and in particular the strength of the USD – yet they are blinded by the simple fact that they cannot control capital flows.


The Japanese Yen is a prime example – the Bank of Japan in its attempt to ease and deflate the Yen further – introduced negative interest rates – and achieved a further devaluation of the yen – overall a 39 plus percent devaluation of the yen over 4 years.

But which Bank in their right mind would lend monies on negative interest rates – paying the borrower to take the money – this is a recipe for a disaster – and as I mentioned before in a prior blog – the BoJ knew this.

The problem was – the Yen had to retrace some of those losses – the procrastinations of Yellen opened the door – capital sought Yen – and now the BoJ is attempting to stop the Yen strengthening against the USD.

So the currency wars a far from settled – the USD appears to me to be oversold and strength of the global reserve currency looks to continue.

I have predicted a June rate increase by the U.S. Fed – the reason is simple – in that if the Fed does not raise rates after seven years of apparent “growth” – then its credibility suffers.

For some reason one thing the Fed looks at is the Job Report Data – U.S. employment data – whilst December’s figures showed 292,000 increase – way in excess of what was anticipated – the recent data is dismal.

Real Time Economics (1) reported this data – with the majority of jobs employers are creating ‘in their own words’ – not good – part time – temporary or seasonal minimum-wage positions offering scant benefits – mostly in the service sector.

I suspect that a fair few observers agreed that it comes down to the quality of the jobs not the quantity – that message is finally getting through and the subsequent effect on the U.S.D. has been felt. My feelings were always that the average hourly earnings were flat and or declining – prior to December – borne out in December’s figures.

Chart courtesy of Real Time Economics – if one is interested – the data can be sourced from the link below. (1)

So – if the Fed raises rates – that accelerates the capital flow into USD and the U.S. – pushing the dollar higher – which then triggers mayhem in China – emerging markets – commodity markets and U.S. corporate profits earned overseas.

China is ‘ad nauseam’ and will continue on this track – the trade balance was published over the weekend with a startling headline of a $45.6 billion surplus.

Dig down and exports fell by 1.8 percent on the year – much worse than the ‘unchanged’ forecasts and imports overall were way down by a whopping 10.9 percent – this is the eighteenth (yes 18th) consecutive month of declines and this had a negative impact on the countries that supply China and which supply commodities – because China’s imports are dominated by raw material products.

Get that commodity producers – it ain’t getting any better.

Global trade will continue to decline for the foreseeable future.


The Federal Reserve should increase interest rates – if anything to ‘normalize’ rates – to restore credibility to the U.S.D. – to offset the demand for precious metals and allow volatility to abate – but hey – why create a global stable currency – whereby the knock on effect will be for indebted countries will be greater interest payments due to their ridiculous debt levels.

Then again – this may be my illusion of credibility.

No one is a winner – so let the Game of Clones (aka Central Bankers) continue with the wars.




U.S. Corrupt – thank you to Hillary

I was castigated big time for this photograph on the Blog – people took offense.


Well my apologies – it is how I feel about this woman and her husband. Money talks but the stupidity of the U.S. State Department – the F.B.I. – Obama – to acquiesce to this gross and misuse of power.

The N.S.A. collects ALL metadata – is this negligence or corruption?

The U.S. State Department – has been able to locate emails for the time period after Clinton left the State Department

The department has searched for Mr. Pagliano’s e-mail PST file, and has not located one that covers the time period of Secretary Clinton’s tenure.

To be clear, the department does have records related to Mr. Pagliano and we are working with Congress and FOIA requesters to provide relevant material. The department has located a PST for Mr. Pagliano’s recent work at the department as a contractor.

But the files are from after Secretary Clinton left the department. We are continuing to search for Mr. Pagliano’s e-mails which the department may have otherwise retained.

“The department does acknowledge, we must work to improve our systems for record management and retention as part of the ongoing effort, the department is not automatically archiving Secretary Kerry’s e-mails as well as the e-mails of numerous senior staff.”

Here are some headlines from Bloomberg:



Enuff said – picture will be deleted when she goes to jail.

Update 05/10/16: After publication, former U.S. Attorney Matthew Whitaker, who directs the watchdog group Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, called for a special counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton.

“The report out today that Hillary Clinton received almost $75,000 in political contributions from Justice Department employees is yet another reason why the Justice Department cannot and should not decide whether to bring a case against Hillary Clinton for her reckless handling of classified information while Secretary of State,” Whitaker said in a statement. “The decision of whether or not to bring a case against Clinton will be a difficult one for Attorney General Loretta Lynch, as I don’t believe she has the fortitude to oppose President Obama, who has publicly said Clinton’s behavior didn’t put our national security at risk. Since this Administration has shown no ability to be impartial, looking the other way at every turn of this investigation, I’m renewing an urgent call for the appointment of a special counsel in this case.”







The Master of Coin



Yes they will increase interest rates in June.

Why? – Rather than maintain the rage of the major trading partners – they will do the right thing for once this year.



Obama – his legacy?

Obama- Your legacy as President

Well I heard one President Obama told a student gathering in the U.K. that one of his legacies whilst President was that he stopped another Great Depression.


Amazing – I cannot see how he stopped this – may have kicked the can down the road for a few years – but definitely did nothing to stop or diminish the economic collapse coming.

Strange – from the Nobel Peace prize winner – he does not count mass slaughter of innocent civilians through his US Drone strike policy and bombing hospitals in Afghanistan and Syria.



Mind you the United Nations now do – they have Adopted an 80 member state resolution that the U.S. should cease and desist bombing hospitals.

Adopting resolution 2286 (2016), which was co-sponsored by more than 80 Member States, the 15-member Council strongly condemned attacks and threats against the wounded and sick, medical personnel and humanitarian personnel exclusively engaged in medical duties, their means of transport and equipment, as well as hospitals and other medical facilities.  It deplored the long-term consequences of such attacks for the civilian populations and health-care systems of the countries concerned.

And what did the U.S. representative say?

“…..expressed regret over that country’s air strikes on the MSF hospital, and offered condolences, noting that more than a dozen military personnel had been disciplined for the errors that had led to the bombing.  She also voiced regret over last week’s horrific attack in Aleppo, which had killed at least 27 people, saying it was clear that the Syrian regime was deliberately targeting medical workers and facilities.”

That last sentence was bullshit – it was a US bomber attack that specifically targeted the hospital in Aleppo Syria.

How do I know?

Russia did not have aircraft in the sky – Syrian pilots too inexperienced – and that only leaves the main H.B.C. (Hospital Bombing Culprits) the U.S.A.F. – with their precision weaponry.

Check out anything – but mainstream media – otherwise you are assured of first degree bullshit.

U.S. Presidents Corrupt – They are not above the law.

Atypical US Policy – So high the leaders are – well above the law

Do you ever read an article – then afterwards thought you should not have done that?

imageMany things played on my mind after reading an article in the Guardian last night – the words – not necessarily the story – triggered memories and made me think about things that I preferred not to get involved with.

In order to clear my mind and concentrate on other ideas – I had to write these matters down – and I knew it would not be a short read.

The article I read was about an arrest – and the story behind that arrest was the result of the Italian Courts – in 2009 – doing the right thing.

“Twenty-three Americans were tonight convicted of kidnapping by an Italian court at the end of the first trial anywhere in the world involving the CIA’s “extraordinary rendition” programme for abducting terrorist suspects.
The former head of the CIA in Milan Robert Lady was given an eight-year jail sentence for his part in the seizure of Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr, known as Abu Omar, who claimed that he was subsequently tortured in Egypt. Lady’s superior, Jeff Castelli, the then head of the CIA in Italy, and two other Americans were acquitted on the grounds that they enjoyed diplomatic immunity.
But another 21 alleged CIA operatives and a US air force officer were each sentenced to five years in jail. All were tried in absentia and those who were convicted will be regarded as fugitives under Italian law.
Extraordinary rendition, which has been criticised as “torture by proxy’, involves the snatching of suspects and their forcible transfer for interrogation to third countries – often those states where torture is routinely employed.”

That was the background and the full story behind this arrest from the Guardian UK (1) from November 4, 2009

The article that triggered everything was the arrest recently of one ‘Sabrina’ – who had a minor role before the rendition of translation – needless to say she ‘was’ involved in the matter anyway – this whilst employed by the CIA.


Yes the CIA – a covert government agency that meddles in illegal activities (2) and not the the only agency – NSA – numerous others.


The cleric who was illegally abducted – and subsequently proven innocent – made this comment.

“Sabrina and the others who were convicted are scapegoats. The US administration sacrificed them. All of those higher up in the hierarchy are enjoying their immunity,” he said. “These people higher up, without doubt they should be convicted in this case. They should face trial.” (3)


Agreed wholeheartedly – but drill down further and we have ‘immunity’ – and yes the hierarchy within the U.S. Administration cannot be touched.

Why did this play on my conscience so much?

The powers that be are immune – simple – it is not the ‘Rule of Law’ it is ‘politics’ and division within an Administration – the power behind the decisions that should be questioned and the ‘Rule of Law’ applied.

Do not get me wrong – immunity is technically a good thing – until it gets abused by the powers that be – for that we can thank one Pope Gelasius I (Circa 494AD). (4)

It is not one country – it is a fair few countries – but the one that irks me most through the blatant disregard for there own constitution and the international laws is non other than the US Government.


The actions of Obama – prior Presidents and that of the US Government are not transparent – in many cases their actions are unlawful – and yes against their own constitution or international law.

We hear about these through ‘whistleblowers’ – those that highlight the Government’s illegal actions usually end up without a job – in despair – and if against the Government the majority end up in jail (1) – a whistleblower is a person who exposes any kind of information or activity that is deemed illegal, unethical, or not correct within an organizationthat is either private or public. (5)

So one wonders – when the Government blatantly breaks the law (8) and the majority of whistleblowers lives end in despair -why do people stick their neck out to at their own risk?
Well because they do – it is the right thing to do – just ask one Edward Snowden and the other people named in the Timeline of Whistleblowers (4) – starting from Benjamin Franklin.

Then more recently Snowden – on the NSA and then one Bradley Manning who goes to jail whilst torturers go free. (9)(10)

I am amazed that the U.S. Government is so immune – from all their wrongdoings – I especially remember vividly the incredible storyline relating to the then President Nixon and his fall from grace and subsequent resignation. (11)

God forbid if those standards applied – if Presidents had to be accountable – if every Government agency had to be accountable and do the right thing. Then again if the latter was the case then one Hillary Clinton would be in jail.

There is a long line on indiscretions by leaders of countries – and dare I say that the list includes current and previous Presidents of the U.S. In the U.S. even those employees of the government that are found guilty – following the Government agencies direction are granted immunity – as was the case of ex President Bush’s CIA torturers. (12)

So why?

You can be an absolute liar and hypocrite – as in the case of the current and prior Presidents of the US – yet immune from prosecution?


Please refer to my prior articles on war crimes during Obama’s reign – War crimes bombing hospitals in Afghanistan and Syria – Drones stricken made under an ‘apparent’ executive order killing innocent civilians – and prior to that Bush and Cheney (13) – massive lies and deception to force the Iraq war – go way back to L.B.J. (14) yes the Liberty – if we look hard enough there are others – far too many.

I am aware on the Bush Cheney situation in as much there was no crime under U.S. law – as the only body that had the power to prosecute the then President George W. Bush at the time was the Congress of the United States.


Bush had been given the legal authority to invade Iraq by the Congress – as there was an explicit vote – that authorized him to use military force.

It is now called the Iraq War Resolution – with the vote 297 to 133 in the House – with 3 not voting. In the Senate the vote was 77 in favor and 23 against.

Mind you – Bush lied to the Congress in the lead up to the war and ‘could’ have been impeached on that basis – the basic charge being making substantial mis-representations to Congressional committees.

From various readings two Congressional representatives drew up 35 articles of impeachment and these articles were referred to the Judiciary Committee – note – by a large majority – for further consideration.

It was understood that the Committee would never take any further action on the matter.

So it is all politics – and a non-starter.


If George W. Bush – and Obama – were to be prosecuted for war crimes it could not be under international law.

With Bush’s Iraq excursion and given the UN Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq this would be an extremely difficult prosecution to carry out.


One must thank the Malaysians – their Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission – in early 2015 – for what is the first ever conviction of its kind anywhere in the world – the former US President and seven key members of his administration were found guilty of war crimes.

Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were tried in absentia in Malaysia. (15)

For Obama however – on the war crimes in the bombing of hospitals in Afghanistan and Syria – I would dearly love these prosecutions to be carried out – not to mention the so called ‘executive order’ issued by him to carry out Drone attacks in Afghanistan – Libya – Syria – Yemen.

Immunity from prosecution is provided to elected leaders – head of states and other officials either for life – or during their time in office – in many legal and constitutional systems.

This may only be connected to matters directly related to office – or it may be for any prosecution – and this immunity has its origin from English common law based on doctrine that “rex non potest peccare” means the king (or queen) can do no wrong and the King could not be sued in his own courts.

It was Pope Gelasius 1 – who established sovereign immunity as a political principle – (4) as a mean to protect the sovereign pontiff and Holy See from trials and persecutions – mind you around that time they were absolute ‘tossers’ attempting to enforce the Church over the State – so it was necessary to protect the Pontiff.


Then that same concept was adopted in many countries as French presidential office carries with it, the immunity from all prosecution while the president remains in office.

In the U.K. – as too other Commonwealth countries – parliamentary immunity operates so that Members of Parliament cannot be sued for libel for what they say in Parliament. One does wonder though about blatantly misleading parliament Mr Blair.

The USA also follows the suit and adopted the same concept in the constitution – but – and you know I love buts – as the U.S. Supreme Court pointed out long ago, “no man in this country is so high that he is above the law. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it. It is high time for the American people to uphold and defend this fundamental principle of equal justice for all, which is one of the most important American values now ingrained in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution “equal protection of the laws”. (16)

On criminal prosecution of an incumbent President I managed to find a quote by John H. Kim, Esq.

“in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other. Nothing in the international law, U.S. Constitution, federal statues or court cases provides a blanket immunity for an incumbent President or other federal officials from criminal prosecutions. History and public policy also argue against such immunity.” (17)

So what happened?

Politics happened – protection – corruption – in the end it is those that have no ‘power’ that end up in jail.

I made a ‘presumption’ that trends are changing – as many States have waived the immunity to allow for civil suits as well as criminal prosecution – as one US President Clinton faced a prolonged court case over accusations of sexual misconduct and an impeachment attempt in Congress.

That failed dismally – cigars rule!


This then sends a clear message – not only to the leaders of other countries – but to the constituents – that is if they can think for themselves.


A not so brief legal eagle briefcase summary of this Law.

In United Kingdom, the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 extended the liability of the Crown to areas of tort and contract and allowed – for the first time – that civil actions against the Crown to be brought in the same way as against any other party.

So for as criminal trial is concern it is argued that a civil case like libel is one thing – and a criminal trial where the defendant faces the possibility of going to prison is quite another – so one of the most famous and controversial case in Stuart England’s history was of Charles I (1649) – who was the first monarchs to be put on trial for treason that led to his execution.

In U.S. v. Isaacs, the 7th. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of former Gov. Otto Kerner, who was appointed as a Federal Judge and prosecuted for actions taken while he was Governor of Illinois.

He raised the issue that he could not be prosecuted criminally prior to a formal impeachment conviction. The 7th Circuit denied that defense and cites a long list of officials who were prosecuted prior to their impeachment. The weight of the authorities, hold for the proposition that there is no such legal theory as “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution of a public official recognized by the courts in the United States.

In United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220, 1 S.Ct. 240, 261, 27 L.Ed. 171 – it was stated that:-

“No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with immunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it”.

In Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) – the Supreme Court ruled that the President is entitled to absolute immunity from liability for damages based on his official acts.

Justice Lewis Powell noted that the Court had never before ruled on the scope of presidential immunity. Many public officials have a limited, or “qualified,” immunity that applies so long as they have acted in “good faith.”

Some other officials, such as judges and prosecutors, have been given an unlimited, or “absolute,” immunity because of the special nature of their duties.

Giving the President only qualified immunity – Justice Powell observed – would make his actions subject to review by the judicial branch and might compromise the separation of powers.

Law suits could distract the President from his official duties.

The scope of the President’s authority and responsibility is so broad that it is not realistic to restrict his immunity.

Powell wrote that determining “good faith” would mean that the President’s motivations would have to be examined in each case – which would be highly intrusive.

Justice Byron White’s dissent argued that the majority’s rule was too broad – under it a President could “deliberately cause serious injury to any number of citizens even though he knows his conduct violates a statute or tramples on the constitutional rights of those who are injured.”


Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case establishing that a sitting President of the United States has no immunity against him – for acts done before taking office and unrelated to the office.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.

In the majority opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court ruled that separation of powers – does not mandate that federal courts delay all private civil l suits against the President until the end of his term of office.

In his concurring opinion – Breyer argued that presidential immunity would apply only if the President could show that a private civil suit would somehow interfere with the President’s constitutionally assigned duties.

The Supreme Court noted that Nixon v. Fitzgerald gave the president “absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts” – but did not extend this immunity to actions that were clearly outside the scope of his presidential duties.

The major rationale of Fitzgerald was to remove the possibility that the threat of litigation would make the President “unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties.”

Jones’s allegations involved acts that allegedly occurred before Clinton became President – so Fitzgerald’s reasoning did not apply and therefore Jones should be allowed to bring her case.

Finally, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the trial court judge would have the discretion to schedule the various aspects of the case to minimize disruption of the President’s official duties.

The Court ruled that it is not appropriate however – to automatically require the plaintiff to wait until the end of the President’s term in office.

International law however is structured differently and recognises ‘functional and personal immunity’ from prosecution and allows an accused to avoid prosecution for criminal offences.

Any person who in performing an ‘act of state’ commits a criminal offence is immune from prosecution e.g. President or Head of Government – senior cabinet members – Foreign Minister – and Minister for Defence.

Such officers are immune from prosecution for everything they do during their time in office.


In Mugabe, reported at (2004) 53 ICLQ 789 it was held that a warrant could not be issued for the arrest of Robert Mugabe on charges of international crimes on the basis that he was a presently serving President at the time the proceedings were brought.

Other examples are the attempts to prosecute Fidel Castro in Spain and Jiang Zemin in the USA. Yes initiated by none other than The Hegemon – the USA.

Plainly difficult to entertain the International Law to apply to U.S. Presidents – even for war crimes.


So if one really thinks that the President of the US is immune – in the United States then he is not and from my point of view should be prosecuted therein – to maintain the sanctity of the office in which he sits.

“no man in this country is so high that he is above the law. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.”

It is high time for the American people to uphold and defend this fundamental principle of equal justice for all, which is one of the most important American values now ingrained in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution “equal protection of the laws”. (16)

The question to the American people is will they?