President Trump Accuses Obama Of Watergate-Like Conspiracy – Tapped Trump Tower Phones

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton | Right Wing News

My sources were whispering this to me even before it broke on Twitter and Fox News this morning. According to President Trump, Obama wiretapped Trump Towers. It is being reported that Obama back in late summer went to the FISA court and requested a wiretap on Trump and he was denied. Then in September, he requested it again and apparently was approved and Trump Tower was bugged. The excuse of collusion with the Russians was supposedly used, but the taps found no evidence whatsoever to support this. This, my friends, does not pass the legal ‘sniff test’.

What I would like to know is if those ‘taps’ are still in place. It would explain a great deal about the leaks in the White House. This is brazen sabotage on the part of Barack Obama. The FISA court should not have granted that request and there is an excellent case here to prosecute Obama on all this. The article was based off a segment by radio host Mark Levin. That whole scandal over Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his reported meetings with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in 2016 was arranged by the Obama administration by the way. It was a trap. Obama’s Watergate may be unfolding right before our eyes here.

From Fox News:

President Trump made a startling claim Saturday that former President Barack Obama had Trump Tower phones tapped in the weeks before the November 2016 election.

In early Saturday morning tweets that began at 6:35 a.m., the president said the alleged wiretapping was “McCarthyism” and “Nixon/Watergate.”

“Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism,” Trump wrote.

“Is it legal for a sitting President to be ‘wire tapping’ a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!” he said in another tweet.

Trump also tweeted that a “good lawyer could make a great case of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!”

“How low has President Obama gone to tap (sic) my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergage. Bad (or sick) guy!” Trump tweeted.

Trump does not specify how he uncovered the Obama administration’s alleged wiretapping.

However, he could be referencing to a Breitbart article posted Friday that claimed the Obama administration made two Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) requests in 2016 to monitor Trump communications and a computer server in Trump Tower focusing on possible links with Russian banks. No evidence was found.

The mainstream media is saying that Trump has no evidence of this. I’m willing to bet, coming from this many sources, that there is indeed evidence and a lot of it. Mark Levin does not make baseless accusations. Levin called Obama’s effort “police state” tactics and suggested that Obama’s actions, rather than conspiracy theories about alleged Russian interference in the presidential election to help Trump, should be the target of congressional investigation. I absolutely agree.

Per Breitbart, here is the damning timeline:

1. June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.

2. July: Russia joke. WikiLeaks releases emails from the Democratic National Committee that show an effort to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) from winning the presidential nomination. In a press conference, Donald Trump refers to Hillary Clinton’s own missing emails, joking: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing.” That remark becomes the basis for accusations by Clinton and the media that Trump invited further hacking.

3. October: Podesta emails. In October, WikiLeaks releases the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, rolling out batches every day until the election, creating new mini-scandals. The Clinton campaign blames Trump and the Russians.

4. October: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.

5. January 2017: Buzzfeed/CNN dossier. Buzzfeed releases, and CNN reports, a supposed intelligence “dossier” compiled by a foreign former spy. It purports to show continuous contact between Russia and the Trump campaign, and says that the Russians have compromising information about Trump. None of the allegations can be verified and some are proven false. Several media outlets claim that they had been aware of the dossier for months and that it had been circulating in Washington.

6. January: Obama expands NSA sharing. As Michael Walsh later notes, and as the New York Times reports, the outgoing Obama administration “expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.” The new powers, and reduced protections, could make it easier for intelligence on private citizens to be circulated improperly or leaked.

7. January: Times report. The New York Times reports, on the eve of Inauguration Day, that several agencies — the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Treasury Department are monitoring several associates of the Trump campaign suspected of Russian ties. Other news outlets also report the existence of “a multi-agency working group to coordinate investigations across the government,” though it is unclear how they found out, since the investigations would have been secret and involved classified information.

8. February: Mike Flynn scandal. Reports emerge that the FBI intercepted a conversation in 2016 between future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — then a private citizen — and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The intercept supposedly was  part of routine spying on the ambassador, not monitoring of the Trump campaign. The FBI transcripts reportedly show the two discussing Obama’s newly-imposed sanctions on Russia, though Flynn earlier denied discussing them. Sally Yates, whom Trump would later fire as acting Attorney General for insubordination, is involved in the investigation. In the end, Flynn resigns over having misled Vice President Mike Pence (perhaps inadvertently) about the content of the conversation.

9. February: Times claims extensive Russian contacts. The New York Times cites “four current and former American officials” in reporting that the Trump campaign had “repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials. The Trump campaign denies the claims — and the Times admits that there is “no evidence” of coordination between the campaign and the Russians. The White House and some congressional Republicans begin to raise questions about illegal intelligence leaks.

10. March: the Washington Post targets Jeff Sessions. The Washington Postreports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had contact twice with the Russian ambassador during the campaign — once at a Heritage Foundation event and once at a meeting in Sessions’s Senate office. The Post suggests that the two meetings contradict Sessions’s testimony at his confirmation hearings that he had no contacts with the Russians, though in context (not presented by the Post) it was clear he meant in his capacity as a campaign surrogate, and that he was responding to claims in the “dossier” of ongoing contacts. The New York Times, in covering the story, adds that the Obama White House “rushed to preserve” intelligence related to alleged Russian links with the Trump campaign. By “preserve” it really means “disseminate”: officials spread evidence throughout other government agencies “to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators” and perhaps the media as well.

Obama went after Trump to get dirt on him before he was inaugurated by eavesdropping on him. The taps stayed in place even after no evidence was found and may still be in place. Obama also relaxed NSA rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within the government just before he left office. This left a gaping hole for leaks. Levin called the effort a “silent coup” by the Obama administration and demanded that it be investigated. In addition, Levin ripped Republicans in Congress a new one for focusing their attention on Trump and Attorney General Sessions rather than Obama. Levin is exactly right here and this is going to blow up on the Democrats big time.


Trump’s Court Battle in Perspective

By: Roger Aronoff | Accuracy in Media

Now that a federal appeals court panel has upheld the freeze on President Donald Trump’s executive order on refugees and immigration, he will likely have his first case before the U.S. Supreme Court in the not too distant future. This may have been an unforced error on the part of the President. While I believe it was wrong and counter-productive for President Trump to belittle the Washington state judge and suggest that even a “bad high school student” would understand the law, the media, in their hyper-hostility toward Trump, are demonstrating their complete double standard. Where was their criticism of Obama when he attacked and pressured the courts to rule in his favor, or condemned them after rulings went against him? The press was missing in action.

President Obama wasn’t shy about criticizing the courts. He did so during his 2010 State of the Union address where he criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling on Citizens United. “With all due deference to separation of powers,” said Obama, “last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.” Justice Samuel A. Alito made news by mouthing “Not true” in response to the president’s comments.

Just “two days before oral arguments” in the Obamacare case known as King v. Burwell, writes Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston, Obama told Reuters, “In our view, [there was] not a plausible legal basis for striking [the IRS rule] down.”

As we reported at the time, a favorable outcome of King v. Burwell could have gutted Obamacare subsidies, but the media predictably “marshaled their forces in defense of Obama and his signature legislation.”

Why did the media, time and again, come to Obama’s aid? It was because the media were generally in support of Obama’s agenda, and more importantly, chose to cover for him and protect his legacy and political viability.

Yet, as Blackman writes, “It is wrong when Trump does it [criticize the courts]. It was wrong when Obama did it.”

Ilya Shapiro of the CATO Institute finds that the Supreme Court decided unanimously against the Obama administration 44 times, nearly 50 percent more than under Bill Clinton or George W. Bush.

In other words, Obama’s attempts to expand the power of the executive branch was widespread and pervasive, and he often could not win favor for his agenda, even from the two Supreme Court justices that he had named to the court. “But the reason Obama was hit with so many more unanimous decisions was because he went rogue early on, asking his staff to look for novel theories that would allow him to move forward with implementing his agenda,” writes Merrill Matthews for Rare. “And if that meant twisting the Constitution—and basic logic—to get it, so what?”

“President Obama…stands alone in his pointed and directed arguments to the Supreme Court,” argues Blackman. “The forty-fourth president, himself a former constitutional law lecturer, has set a new precedent for ex parte arguments [by one side only] to the Supreme Court.”

The media have also continued a double standard in their coverage of presidential executive power. One example of Obama’s executive overreach, although not tied to executive orders, is when he exchanged five high-ranking members of the Taliban held at Guantanamo for deserter Bowe Bergdahl “without following a statutory notice requirement.” Another, the Post writes, is the “job-destroying environmental regulations” created by Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency. And yet another was when Obama unilaterally changed an immigration law by ending the “wet foot dry foot” policy that had “allowed most Cuban migrants who reach U.S. soil to stay and become legal permanent residents after one year.” That was a sop to the communist regime that has gripped Cuba for nearly six decades. Where were the protests then?

On a recent segment of MSNBC’s “The 11th Hour with Brian Williams,” Ali Velshi, formerly of CNN and Al Jazeera, said that “We’re now into our third presidency where executive orders and White House action is deemed more important. George W. Bush, with the help of Dick Cheney, started this with a lot of executive orders. President Obama wasn’t shy about that. He approached it differently with a lot more legal backing to his executive orders. Donald Trump has taken this to a new level.”

Velshi’s statement is false in several ways. First, if Obama failed before the Supreme Court so many times, it is hard to argue that he had more legal backing for his actions.

Second, executive actions have been used more frequently by a number of presidents throughout history—far exceeding the usage by recent presidents. For example, The American Presidency Project at UC Santa Barbara finds that Franklin D. Roosevelt issued approximately 307 executive orders per year, dwarfing Obama’s 35 per year and George W. Bush’s 36 per year. In addition, Bill Clinton issued an average of 46 per year, Ronald Reagan 48 per year and Jimmy Carter 80 per year. President Trump hasn’t had enough time to demonstrate the number of executive orders that he will use over the next four or eight years.

It’s true that it’s not always about the quantity of executive orders, as much as it is about the substance of those orders, as Jonah Goldberg of National Review pointed out: “The entire issue of executive orders amounts to misdirection. The serious complaint is that Obama is abusing executive powers (which he is) not that he’s abusing executive orders (which he may or may not be).” Citing The Washington Post, Goldberg adds: “While Obama issued only 20 executive orders in 2013 (the lowest single-year total in more than a century), that same year he issued 41 presidential memoranda to the heads of departments and agencies, along with nine additional presidential ‘determinations’ designed to serve as the basis for bureaucratic behavior.”

While Trump’s rate of executive overreach is unknown, it is clear that he is not holding back in criticizing the courts. “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!” tweeted Trump.

Judge Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, told Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut (D) that he finds criticism in general of a judge’s integrity and independence to be “demoralizing and disheartening.”

This, of course, made major national news. But Obama himself criticized the courts and bullied them to rule in his favor.

This is the state of our news media, which goes to great lengths to protect Democrats and the progressive agenda, and goes on the attack against Obama’s successor. Predictably, the media are unwilling to acknowledge their blatant double standard on executive action and criticism of the courts.

Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. He can be contacted at [email protected]. View the complete archives from Roger Aronoff.


A.N.S.W.E.R. Sued over Free Speech Space on Inauguration

By: Denise Simon | FoundersCode.com

The biggest protest site at the Presidential Inauguration on Jan. 20 will be Navy Memorial!

The Navy Memorial stage will feature leaders from every grassroots movement — immigrant rights, labor, environmental justice, women’s rights, Movement for Black Lives, LGBTQ equality, anti-war and others — as well as progressive leaders from the whole spectrum of faith communities. Artists, musicians and DJs will be performing throughout the day.

Pennsylvania Ave. NW between 7th & 9th
28-foot stage • Big sound system
Speakers from across the grassroots movement!

Days Before Trump Inauguration, D.C. Circuit OKs Limits on Protests


Mauro/Law: Just three days before the presidential inauguration, a federal appeals court panel on Tuesday ruled that allotting parts of the parade route to the official Presidential Inaugural Committee does not violate the free speech rights of protesters who want to use the same space to demonstrate.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected the notion that the regulation granting priority space to the inauguration committee amounted to viewpoint discrimination, instead asserting that it was “a reasonable time, place, and manner regulation of the use of a public forum.”

Judge Nina Pillard authored the opinion for the panel, which included Judges Sri Srinivasan and Patricia Millett. All three were appointed by President Barack Obama.

The ruling came in A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition v. Basham, a suit that had its roots in the 2013 inauguration. The acronym stands for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. The court panel heard arguments in November.

The group wanted to demonstrate in Freedom Plaza, a high-visibility park area on Pennsylvania Avenue that has been the locale for demonstrations of all kinds for years. The regulation governing the inaugural parade allots 13 percent of footage on the parade route to the official inaugural committee, including space for bleachers on Freedom Plaza. The rest of the space is available on a first-come-first-serve basis to individuals and organizations, with certain restrictions.

Giving the bleacher space to the official committee, the protest group claimed, violated the First Amendment by preferring the government’s message over others.

But the panel disagreed. “The First Amendment requires that any reasonable, content-neutral regulation limiting expression along the parade route leave ample space available for peaceful demonstrations,” the panel asserted. “The First Amendment does not, however, support ANSWER’s claim of a right to displace spectator bleachers with its own demonstration at Freedom Plaza.”

Because the inaugural committee is the organizer of the event, the panel agreed, giving it priority space “turns not on the content of any speech, but on the desirability of providing to the Inaugural Committee as the event organizer a limited amount of reserved seating for ticketed spectators.”

The National Park Service and the Secret Service defended the regulation in part by arguing that the allotment of parade-route space amounted to government speech, which is largely immune from First Amendment scrutiny. The court said it was not necessary to rule on that point.

In the ruling Pillard also celebrated the right to protest in public places. “One of the great accomplishments of our Constitution is its guarantee of the people’s right to take to the streets to say what they think.”

*** More on A.N.S.W.E.R.:

ANSWER has played an important role in the fight against racist and religious profiling, in support of immigrant and workers’ rights, and for economic and social justice for all. Our members are engaged in a range of struggles, from the local battles against police brutality to the international campaigns against militarism and war.

ANSWER Chapters are organizing in cities and towns throughout the United States connecting the flight for social justice at home and in opposition to war and occupation abroad.

Below is a listing of major events in ANSWER’s history

Tens of thousands march on the White House for Gaza

Tens of thousands from across the country gathered in Washington, D.C. for a national march against the U.S.-backed Israeli massacre in Gaza

Thousands nationwide take part in Sept. 7 protests against war on Syria

On Sept. 7, just before Congress returns from its summer recess to decide whether or not to bomb Syria, demonstrations were held in cities across the country against another war


Hillary: Lock Her Up!

By: Lloyd Marcus

Hillary’s post-election speech about fake news was beyond the pale; the height of arrogance and deceit. Her wickedness makes my skin crawl. Blaming fake news for her loss, this deplorable woman had the chutzpah to say, “…it’s now clear that so-called fake news can have real-world consequences. Lives are at risk, lives of ordinary people just trying to go about their days to do their jobs. Its a danger that must be addressed.” http://bit.ly/2h2tmOz

So we are suppose to believe Hillary cares about ordinary people. Remember the leaked emails exposing Hillary’s team’s disdain for Catholics, Southerners, needy Latinos and common folks? http://bit.ly/2dxwkpL

Knowing how the Democrats roll, Hillary saying fake news is “a danger that must be addressed” is yet another attack on free speech, justifying government censorship and regulations. Why are leftists called liberals when they are power obsessed control freaks?

Meanwhile, Hillary and her leftist minions planted, watered and nurtured fake news which continues to reap them a bountiful harvest of racial hate and division. Hillary and Company’s fake news has painted a bright red bulls-eye on the backs of America’s police; our brave men and women in blue. http://bit.ly/2gQiFLW

Hillary’s long list of lies which have devastated lives and even led to the deaths of Americans are well documented. http://bit.ly/2hDfZRH And yet her fake news speech emitted an air of moral superiority. Clearly, Hillary will continue lying and deceiving the American people for as long as she can get away with it – no remorse, no humility and no humanity.

Some have advised President-Elect Trump not to pursue further investigation of what a former FBI agent called the Bill and Hillary Clinton “Crime Family.” http://bit.ly/2eY7wuY I was pretty neutral on the issue. After hearing her nose-up-in-the-air fake news speech, I say, let the law follow its course.

The average jail time for a kid possessing a small amount of drugs is 3 years. Why should Hillary walk with multiple crimes that jeopardized national security? Everyone knows she became filthy rich by selling influence to whomever from banks to foreign governments. http://bit.ly/2a3hwSY

Knowing that the mainstream media has her back, Hillary dared to boldly come to the national microphone and preach to us about fake news. Truly repulsive.

Please do not think I am advocating locking her up without following the legal process; indictment, trial and being found guilty. Some are saying it would be politically wise to give Hillary a pass; not pursuing further investigation. I disagree. The woman is like Jason and Michael Myers in those horror movies. Her fake news speech confirms that unless she is stopped, Hillary will relentlessly keep coming back; finding new ways to attack our freedom and liberty.

Move forward with the investigation Mr President! If all proceeds as the evidence so far leads, lock her evil crooked condescending derriere up!

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Chairman: The Conservative Campaign Committee


Geert Wilders as Patrick Henry

By: Renee Nal | New Zeal

Geert Wilders via WND

“I will never be silent. You will not be able to stop me… And that is what we stand for. For freedom and for our beautiful Netherlands.” — Geert Wilders, Dutch MP and leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV).

“Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.” – Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

If you are not familiar with the Gatestone Institute, you are missing out on thought-provoking and intellectual articles written in a way to educate readers on the truth sans the agenda. One such article, titled “The Dutch Death SpiralFrom Paradise to Bolshevik Thought Police” explains that the recent, terrifying conviction of Geert Wilders was “historic” in that for a dissenting opinion about Islam was “criminalized.”

Geert Wilders was convicted of “inciting discrimination and insulting a minority group.” As reported extensively at the Gatestone Institute in 2014, young male Moroccans are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime.

Author Giulio Meotti writes: Continue reading


Beware of the Patent Bubble

By: Scott Cooper, CEO and Creative Director, World Patent Marketing, [email protected]


Does anybody even want to think about this?

I’m certainly not going to win any popularity contests for writing this article.  The last thing anybody wants to talk about after a presidential election is a patent bubble.  After all, most of us took a nice stock market beat down during the recent housing bubble and mortgage crisis.

For the past 40 years, intellectual property,  technology development, and invention ideas have been the driving force behind the United States and much of the world’s developed economy. Companies like Apple, Amazon and Amgen have been the leaders in wealth creation. Biotech, software, and communications systems have made fortunes for many and changed the world we live in.

It has resulted in a mad rush to capitalize on the “next big thing.” And that is creating a global patent bubble.  The chase of Intellectual Property (IP) has created the next “irrational exuberance.”  If the term rings a bell, it’s because it was the phrase that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan used when warning about stocks being overvalued during the DotCom Bubble of the 1990s.

Since Microsoft burst onto the scene, IP has been seen as the next gold rush. Companies, venture capitalists, private equity shops, and universities worldwide are searching for new patents and copyrights that will create killer returns.

Patent Bubble Numbers Don’t Lie

The prices being paid for patents are all over the place. In 1975, more than 80% of an S&P 500 company’s net worth was based on tangible assets (real estate, machinery, receivables, etc.). By 2010, that number has completely flipped to 80% of the net worth being based on intangible assets (patents, goodwill ,etc.).

The numbers are clear. Intellectual property  now accounts for over 38% of the U.S. economy, but interestingly only 12% of exports. If that’s not the start of a patent bubble forming, I don’t know what is.

It seems that the race to patent a product has overshadowed the product itself. I am not discounting the importance of patents, however, when almost 40% of the economy is about protecting the right to make a product (rather than the product itself), there is something wrong.

95% of Patents Don’t Make a Dime

The common perception is that patents are a path to riches. If an inventor or entrepreneur files a patent, he can then build a successful technology company under the protection of that patent and eventually sell out to companies like Apple and Facebook.

Nothing can be further from the truth. A patent does not create a shield or grant you freedom to operate without competition. It gives you a tool to attack a competitor that you believe is infringing on your patent. Enforcing your patent is typically a nightmare, even for well funded corporations.  It can take up to 5 years and cost up to $5 million to actually win a patent litigation.  And that’s if there isn’t an appeal. And you better pray that the company infringing on your patent isn’t too comfortable in a courtroom.  They can make your life a living hell and make you wish you never filed for a patent in the first place.

Ever Heard Of The Tulip Bubble?

The Tulip Bubble is regarded as the first record of a widespread financial bubble in history. In the early 1600s, Tulips were newly introduced in the Dutch Republic and investors scrambled to get on board. At the peak of the bubble a single tulip bulb could sell for ten times the annual income of a skilled craftsman. Tulips were the fourth largest Dutch export! This was at a time when food and clothing absorbed almost the entire bulk of national income. In this environment where most people had barely enough to eat, it was simply bizarre that a useless luxury item absorbed such a huge chunk of Dutch wealth. Then in 1637 the bubble burst and the price of tulips fell to 1% of their former value. The Dutch economy crashed and the consequences were felt throughout Europe.

The bursting of the Tulip Bubble didn’t just affect those who owned and traded tulips. It caused a deep recession and a liquidity crisis in the Dutch Republics. The tulip bulbs were leveraged by finance, just as we leverage homes and commodities in the United States today. When a widespread bubble bursts, it up-ends the balance sheets of the entire nation.

The price of tulips never recovered, as you can see for yourself at any WalMart in Spring. You can buy them by the dozen for under five bucks.

The Crash of 1929 and the Mortgage Crisis Were Bubbles


The great Stock Market Crash of 1929 was brought on by similar forces. Investors were making huge returns all through the 1920s. The stock market was the place to be if you wanted to get rich quick. People borrowed heavily to purchase shares. And then it all came crashing down.

The Mortgage Bubble, which burst in 2008 showed us the same pattern again. Following 1999, when the Tech Bubble burst, the safe place to put your money was into homes. Prices were bid to unsustainable levels. All of it was commodified for investment purposes. When it crashed, almost every major bank in the U.S. and Europe found themselves in negative territory. On paper they were bankrupt. They owned a bunch of mortgages tied to homes with inflated values. The government had to step in with cash to keep the banks afloat.

The bursting of the Mortgage Bubble led to the deepest economic downturn since 1929 and its aftermath is still felt throughout the U.S. economy.

The Patent Bubble Will Hurt the Entire Economy

It is my opinion that when the Patent Bubble bursts, it could be far worse than the housing bubble.

Today, a company’s most valuable asset is  its intellectual property. Their wealth is in their patents. These patents are held on their balance sheets as intangible and undisclosed assets. They attract investment, issue bonds, and obtain credit based upon those numbers.

These patent bubble assets are not liquid and they do not trade easily. It isn’t like selling a publicly traded security. Patent assets do not trade frequently and don’t have any valuation consistency.  If a company fails, it is forced to liquidate these patent assets at fractions of their assumed value.  When Kodak filed for bankruptcy, experts were predicting patent portfolio sales of $1.8 billion to $4.5 billion.  They sold between $94 million to $525 million.  Quite a difference. There was nothing unique about the way Kodak was valuing its patents. They were just following accepted accounting principles. Imagine Kodak happening over and over again. It would create an international liquidity and balance sheet crisis.

Don’t Confuse Inflated Prices with Economic Growth

Too much money chasing the same sector results in price inflation. Those inflated prices are always unsustainable. When this patent bubble bursts, it will hurt the entire economy.

This is the opposite of productive investment, which has given us tremendous growth and a high standard of living. Investment in goods and services for reasonable returns is vital to economic growth. Investment in paper monopolies, patents and copyright, can be good for the economy. But when it gets out of balance, as it is now, it can lead to very bad economic outcomes for the global economy.

Why isn’t anybody sounding the patent bubble alarm?

When bubbles are on the rise, a tremendous amount of wealth is created. Even a pure Ponzi scheme created plenty of profit for the early investors. During the Housing Bubble, many on Wall Street and in government knew that housing prices were unsustainable.  Even Federal Reserve made comments suggesting that the economy was now “different” and there would be a soft landing.

Well the economy wasn’t different. Ponzi Schemes and bubbles always end the same way. Traders like Nassim Taleb, who wrote the influential book “The Black Swan”, and made a killing by investing against the home mortgage industry, were laughed out of the room. They were called alarmists or even branded as negative and destructive. But of course, Ponzi Schemes always fail. Everybody wants to believe it is different this time. But, it never is.

There is one thing for sure. We are in a Patent Bubble right now and history always repeats itself.

Learn more about World Patent Marketing.


Illegal Alien Driver Massacre in Louisiana

By: Cliff Kincaid | Accuracy in Media


Kristen Welker informed viewers of the NBC Nightly News that an “undocumented worker” was at fault in a terrible bus crash in Louisiana on August 28 that killed two people and injured 41 others. It is typical of the media to use that phrase when referring to illegal aliens. It is how the media try to condition people to accept their presence in the United States. After all, if these people are “workers,” they can’t be such terrible people. On the other hand, the word “alien” implies something foreign to the United States.

The Breitbart website, under fire from the liberal media and Hillary Clinton, was accurate, noting that “illegal alien” Denis Yasmir Amaya Rodriguez drove the private rental bus that crashed into a fire truck, two other vehicles and three firefighters.

By using the phrase “undocumented workers” over and over again, the media think that people will gradually change their views about the invasion of the United States through our southern border and become more accepting of the foreigners on American soil. This is how liberal brainwashing is designed to work over time.

The problem for the media is that, in this case, the terrible crash involved the deaths of two people and injuries to 41 others. Even using the sanitized term “undocumented worker” can’t paper over the serious nature of what happened.

A statement from the Louisiana State Police explained that emergency vehicles were attending to one crash when they were hit by the bus driven by the illegal alien. Victims included first responders. It said, “For reasons under investigation, the bus struck the left side of the fire truck that was angled in the right lane. The bus then struck the rear of a 2012 Toyota Camry, and the Camry was pushed into the rear of a 2016 Chevrolet Silverado and flatbed trailer. After striking the rear of the Camry, the bus veered into the right lane between the Trooper unit and the Titan. It struck the three firefighters who were standing near the guardrail. The firefighters were thrown over the edge of the elevated interstate into the water below, approximately 30-40 feet. The Fire Chief, Spencer Chauvin, was transported to River Parishes Hospital where he was pronounced deceased.”

There is much more to the story, in terms of those who were injured, but what’s also critical is that the official police statement goes on to say that “The driver of the bus has been identified as 37 year old Denis Yasmir Amaya Rodriguez. Rodriguez is an illegal alien from Honduras and does not have a driver’s license.”

So the police, at least, still have enough integrity and honesty to use accurate terminology.

Rodriguez was charged with two counts of negligent homicide, reckless operation, negligent injuring and no driver’s license, and “additional criminal charges are forthcoming.”

Don’t look for any in-depth news reports on this illegal alien killing and injuring people in Louisiana. That might help the Trump campaign.

Many news media outlets, including CNN, used the phrase “undocumented immigrant” to describe the illegal alien.

ABC News called him an “unlicensed bus driver.” The Washington Post called him an “unlicensed party bus driver.”

The New Orleans Advocate reported that he had been pulled over by State Police on August 5 and cited for driving without a license. Yet he was on the road again, speeding down a highway.

A New York Daily News headline glossed over all of this saying, “Bus full of Louisiana flood workers crashes, killing 2, including fire chief, over 30 injured.” The number of injuries has since risen to 41.

The bus was full of flood workers, many of them also illegal aliens.

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected]View the complete archives from Cliff Kincaid.


The ‘separation of church and state’ and ‘religious persecution’

By: Renee Nal | New Zeal

Thomas Jefferson asked for the "the following inscription, & not a word more" on his tombstone: Here was buried Thomas Jefferson Author of the Declaration of American Independence of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom & Father of the University of Virginia

Thomas Jefferson asked specifically for the “the following inscription, & not a word more” on his tombstone: “Here was buried Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of American Independence of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom & Father of the University of Virginia”

“That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.” – The Virginia Declaration of Rights, adopted by the Virginia Constitutional Convention on June 12, 1776

The founding fathers believed in religious freedom, not religious suppression and persecution. The Library of Congress confirms that “the great majority left Europe [to come to America] to worship God in the way they believed to be correct.” In Europe, “majority religious groups who controlled political power punished dissenters in their midst.” The “New England colonies, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland,” the article continued, “were conceived and established as ‘plantations of religion.'”

While most of the founding fathers were undeniably deeply religious, they also wanted to ensure that the federal government would impose “no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

It is quite unfathomable that their intent has been somehow interpreted over time to mean that all semblance of religion should be removed from the public square. That action, one could reasonably conclude, is suppression of religion, or “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion.

Read more here…


LISTEN: Glenn Beck breaks silence on tyrannical court order forcing him to reveal sources

By: Renee Nal | New Zeal

Glenn Beck via TheBlaze

Glenn Beck via TheBlaze

On Thursday, Glenn Beck broke his silence on a recent court order that would force the media mogul to reveal sources stemming from the Islamic terror attack during the Boston marathon in 2013 or potentially face time in prison.

As previously reported at TrevorLoudon.com:

Media mogul Glenn Beck has been ordered by U.S. District Court Judge Patti Saris (appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1993) “to identify at least two confidential sources” that gave him information about Abdulrahman Al Harbi, the Saudi national and initial “person of interest” in the Boston Marathon bombing, which took place on Monday, April 15, 2013.

It was reported yesterday at Politico that Beck and his colleagues who were in contact with the sources refused to name them as ordered by a federal judge.

Beck’s attorney wrote in part:

“Defendants cannot disclose the identities of Confidential Sources 1 and 2 for several compelling reasons. First and foremost, as a matter of fundamental journalistic integrity, Defendants cannot disclose the identities of the Confidential Sources without their authorization…”

Beck addressed the case on his Thursday radio broadcast, referring to the First Amendment. Beck said in part that the sources “have begged us not to reveal them and we are not going to reveal sources…” Whistle-blowers against the government, Beck continued, should be protected.

Beck quickly addresses the issue in the beginning of his show.

Listen to the show here:

Read more:


REVOLT: Judge Blocks Obama’s Insane Bathroom Directive

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

Thank God for Texas! There’s a sane federal judge in the Lone Star state that has blocked Obama’s insane edict on transgenders and bathrooms in public schools. He took a solid stance in opposition to the president’s mandate that a student should be able to choose the bathroom they wish to use based on their chosen gender preference rather than reality. Figures it would take a Texan with a set to stand against this Marxist bullcrap.

As excited kids headed back for a new school year this morning, they were informed that they should use the bathroom that coincides with their anatomical differences determined at birth. I’m sure students for the most part were relieved by this and radical liberals were ticked off. Schools should be allowed to weigh in on this and have a say. You cannot separate common sense and morality from the public school system… regardless of what liberals think.


From TheBlaze:

AUSTIN, Texas (TheBlaze/AP) — A federal judge in Texas has blocked the Obama administration’s directive to public schools that transgender students must be allowed to use the bathrooms and locker rooms coinciding with their chosen gender identity rather than their biological sex.

On Monday — the first day of class for most public schools in Texas — hundreds of school districts awoke to news of the order by U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor.

On Sunday, O’Connor ruled that the federal education law, Title IX, “is not ambiguous” about sex being defined as “the biological and anatomical differences between male and female students as determined at their birth.” O’Connor concurred with Texas Republican state leaders who argued that schools should have been allowed to weigh in on the directive.

Texas is leading 12 other states in taking a stance against Obama and his unconstitutional mandate. The Texas-led lawsuit was filed in May alongside Alabama, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Utah and Georgia. It also included the Republican governors of Maine, Mississippi and Kentucky. Two small school districts in Arizona and Texas — which have fewer than 600 students combined and no transgender persons on their campuses — also joined the effort to prevent the directive from being enforced.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a statement hailing the judgement:

We are pleased that the court ruled against the Obama Administration’s latest illegal federal overreach. This President is attempting to rewrite the laws enacted by the elected representatives of the people, and is threatening to take away federal funding from schools to force them to conform. That cannot be allowed to continue, which is why we took action to protect States and School Districts, who are charged under state law to establish a safe and disciplined environment conducive to student learning.

That is exactly what Texas and the other states are doing… they are protecting their students, who, should this mandate be implemented, would find themselves at the mercy of deviants and sexual predators. School would no longer be a remotely safe haven for our children and grandchildren.

Paxton pointed out that it was necessary to block the directive and its enforcement before school commenced, or the schools would risk losing federal funding because of non-compliance. Obama has made it clear that schools who oppose his mandate “are clearly on notice” and they must follow his order or lose that funding. Personally, I would tell him to stuff his funding and find another way. I believe that all schools should be privately held and not take anything from the federal government. But that’s just me. Texas receives approximately $10 billion a year in federal funds.

The Department of Education and Department of Justice did not immediately react to the injunction. Oh, but they will. This sets precedent and you can bet there will be a massive, harsh response.

This all started last May when the federal government decreed that transgender students must be allowed to use bathrooms and locker rooms in accordance with their gender identity. This followed the Justice Department’s lawsuit over a North Carolina state law requiring people to use public bathrooms that corresponded with the biological sex printed on their birth certificate. US Attorney General Loretta Lynch characterized the law as akin to the policies of racial segregation. Republicans have argued that such laws are commonsense privacy safeguards. And they are.

What Obama, Lynch and others have tried to force on America is not only unconstitutional, it is unethical and immoral. I’m just saddened that only 12 states have had the spine to fight and have kept their principles intact enough to dig in their heels.

I hope this spreads and that other judges follow this example. This directive must not stand… this isn’t so much about choosing your gender as using the bathroom meant for your biological needs. It’s about ensuring that those that would take advantage of such a directive will not get the chance to prey on our kids. Sexual preference should never be valued more than the safety of our children.