Oakland Mayor, Who Supported 'Defund The Police' Has Her Car Stolen

Authored by Luis Cornelio via Headline USA,

An alleged thief stole Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee’s city-owned vehicle after breaking into her office just two days earlier, according to the California edition of the New York Post. 

The Oakland Police Department recovered the vehicle within hours, two days after somebody tampered with her office’s door. 

“The Oakland Police Department is investigating the theft of a city-owned vehicle. On February 17, 2026, OPD was notified that the vehicle was stolen from Oakland City Hall,” the OPD said through a spokesperson.

“The vehicle was recovered within hours. OPD is following up on potential leads.” 

Lee took office in May 2025 after serving more than two decades in Congress.

She previously expressed support for efforts to “restructure” and “overhaul” policing during the 2020 protests, language widely associated with the “defund the police” movement. 

In 2020, she told Politico she was “really proud” of the Minneapolis City Council’s pledge to defund the local police. 

In December 2020, she also said, “We have to restructure our funding priorities in terms of how we make our communities safe.” 

“We have seen video after video over the last few weeks of peaceful protestors being met with extreme violence from police,” Lee said during the 2020 protest in favor of George Floyd.

“We can’t wait. It’s time to overhaul our policing system.”  

According to the New York Post, police already had an arrest warrant for the alleged suspect.  

In a statement, Lee claimed her administration takes crimes seriously:  

“As with criminal cases such as this, the Oakland Police Department is actively investigating, and we cannot comment further at this time. No one in Oakland should have to worry about their car being stolen, whether they’re a resident, a city worker, or the Mayor. Public safety is a priority across our entire city.” 

The theft comes amid a broader problem for Oakland as the city reported 9,914 motor vehicle thefts in 2024, one of the highest rates in the country. 

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/20/2026 - 13:20

Goldman's Meeting With Top Memory Supplier Points To Higher Prices As Crunch Worsens

The high-bandwidth memory (HBM) shortage is already pressuring the margins of consumer electronics companies, disrupting product launches, and pushing up the prices of TVs and computers. The latest development is Valve's handheld gaming PC, which is reportedly out of stock in select regions as the memory crunch now filters into retail availability.

We have been leaning on institutional channel checks across the semis and hardware coverage universe to gain an insider's perspective on what's happening across the memory space and what to potentially expect in the quarters ahead.

The latest read comes from Goldman analysts led by Giuni Lee, following a discussion with SK Hynix, a critical supplier of HBM chips, on the implications of a very tight memory market.

Lee offered clients five key takeaways from her conversation with SK Hynix:

1. Memory pricing is likely to growth throughout this year driven by real demand and tight supply,

2. Healthy inventory levels and strengthening supplier leverage are leading to increased discussions around longer term contracts,

3. The current tight conventional DRAM S/D could lead to more favorable terms for HBM business in 2027,

4. The 1c nm ramp in 2026 mainly for conventional DRAM, while for HBM mainly starting from 2027, and

5. Capex guidance and focus on DRAM/HBM investments are largely inline with GSe. We reiterate our Buy rating on Hynix

On the memory market, Lee delivered clients a detailed readout on current conditions:

Memory pricing growth likely throughout this year driven by real demand and tight supply

Hynix thinks the current memory pricing uptrend could continue throughout this year driven by robust demand from AI customers. The company expects AI customers will continue to maintain sizable investment scale as they are making meaningful progress in their AI services. While the company acknowledged potential despeccing from PC/mobile customers could weigh on memory demand, it still expects upward pricing trajectory also led by limited supply growth. The company mentioned that the industry-wide limited clean room space is contributing to tight supply and favorable condition for memory pricing. The company sees low possibility of meaningful double-booking of memory orders, as customers are aware that memory capacity cannot be increased meaningfully in the short-term, hence they recognize double-booking will not lead to more allocation but rather drive up pricing further.

The rest of Lee's takeaways from her discussion with SK Hynix are available on the Marketdesk.ai portal for professional subscribers.

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/20/2026 - 12:40

Goldman's Meeting With Top Memory Supplier Points To Higher Prices As Crunch Worsens

The high-bandwidth memory (HBM) shortage is already pressuring the margins of consumer electronics companies, disrupting product launches, and pushing up the prices of TVs and computers. The latest development is Valve's handheld gaming PC, which is reportedly out of stock in select regions as the memory crunch now filters into retail availability.

We have been leaning on institutional channel checks across the semis and hardware coverage universe to gain an insider's perspective on what's happening across the memory space and what to potentially expect in the quarters ahead.

The latest read comes from Goldman analysts led by Giuni Lee, following a discussion with SK Hynix, a critical supplier of HBM chips, on the implications of a very tight memory market.

Lee offered clients five key takeaways from her conversation with SK Hynix:

1. Memory pricing is likely to growth throughout this year driven by real demand and tight supply,

2. Healthy inventory levels and strengthening supplier leverage are leading to increased discussions around longer term contracts,

3. The current tight conventional DRAM S/D could lead to more favorable terms for HBM business in 2027,

4. The 1c nm ramp in 2026 mainly for conventional DRAM, while for HBM mainly starting from 2027, and

5. Capex guidance and focus on DRAM/HBM investments are largely inline with GSe. We reiterate our Buy rating on Hynix

On the memory market, Lee delivered clients a detailed readout on current conditions:

Memory pricing growth likely throughout this year driven by real demand and tight supply

Hynix thinks the current memory pricing uptrend could continue throughout this year driven by robust demand from AI customers. The company expects AI customers will continue to maintain sizable investment scale as they are making meaningful progress in their AI services. While the company acknowledged potential despeccing from PC/mobile customers could weigh on memory demand, it still expects upward pricing trajectory also led by limited supply growth. The company mentioned that the industry-wide limited clean room space is contributing to tight supply and favorable condition for memory pricing. The company sees low possibility of meaningful double-booking of memory orders, as customers are aware that memory capacity cannot be increased meaningfully in the short-term, hence they recognize double-booking will not lead to more allocation but rather drive up pricing further.

The rest of Lee's takeaways from her discussion with SK Hynix are available on the Marketdesk.ai portal for professional subscribers.

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/20/2026 - 12:40

 

 

SCOTUS:  Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution specifies that “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.” The Framers recognized the unique importance of this taxing power—a power which “very clear[ly]” includes the power to impose tariffs. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 201. And they gave Congress “alone . . . access to the pockets of the people.” The Federalist No. 48, p. 310 (J. Madison). The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch. See Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509, 515.

–U.S. Supreme Court, February 20, 2026

 

The long-awaited Supreme Court decision on tariffs is finally out; it was a 7-2 decision in part, 6-3 decision more broadly (I thought this should have been 9-0 or 8-1, but…).

As we have seen in prior legal decisions with broad economic impact, the street doesn’t quite understand the subtle nuances of the case.1 Regular readers have seen my tariff criticism since Liberation Day (April 2, 2025); I have been tracking the case and thinking about the ramifications as it wound through the courts.

Rather than spike the football, I would rather take a moment to step back and consider the winners and losers of tariffs.

WINNERS:

• Consumers: There’s no way around it, but tariffs operate like a European VAT tax on consumers (minus free health care and college). The average American household has been paying ~$1,800 or more annually for tariffs; even more from wealthier families that account for nearly half of US consumer spending. The administration has been angry at people reminding consumers of this. 2

But the US Consumer is the big winner here. Assume about half of those few thousand dollars are no longer going to be a dragon their annual budgets.

The $5-7,000 tariff penalty on automobiles still exists, but at least other products may see higher prices ease.

• Companies that already filed for tariff refunds: Many of America’s largest companies have already filed for refunds. It is not all that simple or easy to demand a refund on paid tariffs – shepherding it through the process makes filing your taxes look easy. But many of the biggest retailers and manufacturers have already lined up for the nearly $200 billion in tariffs companies already paid. This will straight to the bottom line, as the consumers who willingly paid higher prices won’t see any of the cash refunds.

• The US Dollar: During 2025, the US Dollar fell 9.3%. The last time the US dollar fell this much was in 2017. Both years were the first year of a Trump Administration; each time there were substantial rises in tariffs, along with consternation from allies and trading partners, along with a modest repatriation of overseas investments in the United States.

Depending on how the White House responds, we could see the dollar’s decline slow and reverse itself over the course of the year.

• Neal Katyal: Obama’s former solicitor general argued and won the case at both the DC Court of Appeals and U.S. Supreme Court. His thoughtful approach to constitutional arguments have consistently carried the day. He has cemented his legacy as one of the most effective SCOTUS litigants of the modern era.

• Inflation: if tariffs are inflationary then the overturning of some or all tariffs should be disinflationary. The net impact on this going forward is positive for bonds. This might even clear the way for the Federal Reserve to have faster FOMC rate cuts.

• Separation of Powers, US Constitution: The plain language of Article 1, Section 8 reserves the power to tax, including levying duties and tariffs, to Congress. It’s not a big leap to suggest that this is the first time since January 20, 2025, that the US Constitution is the controlling factor in a major policy decision.

• Retailers, Manufacturers, and Consumer Discretionary: The biggest impact of the tariffs has fallen on several groups:

-Traditional Retailers:  Walmart, Amazon, Costco Target, Best Buy
-Home improvement: Home Depot, Lowe’s, IKEA, Williams‑Sonoma, etc.
-Appliance makers: Apple, Samsung, LG, Electrolux, GE Appliances, Lenovo
-Industrial Manufacturers  – Caterpillar, Deere, Polaris, Stanley Works, etc.
-Consumer discretionary –Lululemon, Nike, Revlon Luxottica
-Auto parts importers: Toyota, General Motors, Ford, Volkswagen, BorgWarner, Kawasaki, Goodyear, Yokohama Tire, etc.
-Food importers: Dole Fresh Fruit Co., Bumble Bee

That’s a short list; there are obviously hundreds more public companies and thousands more private ones that benefit from this ruling.

• Supreme Court: The past few years have not been kind to SCOTUS (although these have all been self-inflicted wounds). They have been mired in a kickback/gifts to sitting justices scandal; the lack of a standing, enforceable set of ethics rules is a disgraceful embarrassment. But the bigger issue has been a series of unconscionable and undefendable decisions. When partisan rulings remind constitutional law scholars of the Dred Scott “separate but equal” decision, the court has jumped the tracks.

There was every opportunity for the court to blow this decision ignore the plain written word of the constitution and the concept of separation of powers. It’s no surprise that Chief Justice Roberts, an institutionalist, wrote the lead decision himself, rebuking the president for his overreach.3

 

Coming later: The IEEPA Tariff Ruling’s Losers

 

 

 

 

Previously:
IEEPA Tariffs Update (January 27, 2026)

It’s Tariff Week! * (January 12, 2026)

Tariffs Likely To Be Overturned (November 5, 2025)

Might Tariffs Get “Overturned”? (July 31, 2025)

The Muted Impact of Tariffs on Inflation So Far (July 17, 2025)

Are Tariffs a New US VAT Tax? (March 31, 2025)

MiB: Special Edition: Neal Katyal on Challenging Trump’s Global Tariffs (September 3, 2025)

Neal Katyal on Challenging Trump’s Global Tariffs (September 8, 2025)

Which States Could Suffer the Most From Trade War Tariffs? (September 16, 2019)

 

 

 

__________

1. The usual pontificating pundits, whose track records leave much to be desired, have been breathlessly revealing their ignorance of all things jurisprudential. If you must preface your TV remarks with “I’m not a lawyer but” then perhaps you should pour yourself a tall glass of STFU and admit that you don’t know….

2. Companies like Amazon originally threatened to break out tariffs expenses in their displayed prices were met with wrath from the President; more recently, consider Kevin Hassett’s embarrassing hissy fit at independent New York Fed research that found consumers shouldered as much as 94% of the tariff expense.

3. It will be fun to watch the Justices sit in the front row of the State of the Union and suffer through Trump’s wrath. He won’t be able to help himself, and it could even mark an interesting moment in how things proceed.

The post Winners & Losers of SCOTUS Decision Striking Down Tariffs appeared first on The Big Picture.

Meta's AI Would Like To Keep You Posting After You're Dead

Ever since social media became a fixture of daily life, an uncomfortable question has lingered: what should happen to someone’s account after they die? Leave it frozen in time? Hand it to family members as a memorial? Or quietly let it fade into the algorithm?

A few years ago, Meta Platforms explored a far more ambitious possibility, according to Futurism. In 2023, the company received a patent describing how a large language model could be trained on a user’s past posts to simulate their voice and behavior — keeping an account active if the person were “absent,” including in the event of death. The filing, led by CTO Andrew Bosworth, outlined how such a system could generate posts, comments, likes, and even private messages in the user’s style.

The idea was striking, and for many, unsettling. Meta has since said it has no plans to move forward with that example. But the patent offers a snapshot of a moment when tech companies were aggressively testing the limits of what generative AI might do — including extending a person’s digital presence beyond their lifetime.

The Futurism piece says that the concept isn’t entirely theoretical. A small but growing “grief tech” sector has promoted AI tools that recreate voices or personalities of the deceased using photos, recordings, and written messages. Proponents argue that such tools could offer comfort. Critics worry they could complicate the grieving process.

Even within Meta’s own public comments, there has been ambivalence. CEO Mark Zuckerberg has spoken about AI companions as a way to address loneliness and, in a 2023 interview with podcaster Lex Fridman, suggested that interacting with digital representations of loved ones might help some people cope with loss. He also acknowledged the psychological risks and the need for deeper study.

The business logic behind such experiments is difficult to ignore. Platforms like Facebook are filled with dormant accounts — profiles that remain but are rarely updated. More AI-generated activity could mean more engagement and more data. As University of Birmingham law professor Edina Harbinja observed, the commercial incentive is clear, even if the ethical path forward is not.

Others urge caution. University of Virginia sociologist Joseph Davis has argued that part of grieving involves confronting the reality of loss, not blurring it with simulations.

Meta has distanced itself from the patent’s more provocative scenario. Still, its existence underscores how far companies have been willing to push generative AI — and how complex the questions become when technology intersects with death, memory, and identity.

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/20/2026 - 12:00

Meta's AI Would Like To Keep You Posting After You're Dead

Ever since social media became a fixture of daily life, an uncomfortable question has lingered: what should happen to someone’s account after they die? Leave it frozen in time? Hand it to family members as a memorial? Or quietly let it fade into the algorithm?

A few years ago, Meta Platforms explored a far more ambitious possibility, according to Futurism. In 2023, the company received a patent describing how a large language model could be trained on a user’s past posts to simulate their voice and behavior — keeping an account active if the person were “absent,” including in the event of death. The filing, led by CTO Andrew Bosworth, outlined how such a system could generate posts, comments, likes, and even private messages in the user’s style.

The idea was striking, and for many, unsettling. Meta has since said it has no plans to move forward with that example. But the patent offers a snapshot of a moment when tech companies were aggressively testing the limits of what generative AI might do — including extending a person’s digital presence beyond their lifetime.

The Futurism piece says that the concept isn’t entirely theoretical. A small but growing “grief tech” sector has promoted AI tools that recreate voices or personalities of the deceased using photos, recordings, and written messages. Proponents argue that such tools could offer comfort. Critics worry they could complicate the grieving process.

Even within Meta’s own public comments, there has been ambivalence. CEO Mark Zuckerberg has spoken about AI companions as a way to address loneliness and, in a 2023 interview with podcaster Lex Fridman, suggested that interacting with digital representations of loved ones might help some people cope with loss. He also acknowledged the psychological risks and the need for deeper study.

The business logic behind such experiments is difficult to ignore. Platforms like Facebook are filled with dormant accounts — profiles that remain but are rarely updated. More AI-generated activity could mean more engagement and more data. As University of Birmingham law professor Edina Harbinja observed, the commercial incentive is clear, even if the ethical path forward is not.

Others urge caution. University of Virginia sociologist Joseph Davis has argued that part of grieving involves confronting the reality of loss, not blurring it with simulations.

Meta has distanced itself from the patent’s more provocative scenario. Still, its existence underscores how far companies have been willing to push generative AI — and how complex the questions become when technology intersects with death, memory, and identity.

Tyler Durden Fri, 02/20/2026 - 12:00

Peter Schiff: Printing Money Is Not the Cure for Cononavirus



In his most recent podcast, Peter Schiff talked about coronavirus and the impact that it is having on the markets. Earlier this month, Peter said he thought the virus was just an excuse for stock market woes. At the time he believed the market was poised to fall anyway. But as it turns out, coronavirus has actually helped the US stock market because it has led central banks to pump even more liquidity into the world financial system. All this means more liquidity — central banks easing. In fact, that is exactly what has already happened, except the new easing is taking place, for now, outside the United States, particularly in China.” Although the new money is primarily being created in China, it is flowing into dollars — the dollar index is up — and into US stocks. Last week, US stock markets once again made all-time record highs. In fact, I think but for the coronavirus, the US stock market would still be selling off. But because of the central bank stimulus that has been the result of fears over the coronavirus, that actually benefitted not only the US dollar, but the US stock market.” In the midst of all this, Peter raises a really good question. The primary economic concern is that coronavirus will slow down output and ultimately stunt economic growth. Practically speaking, the world would produce less stuff. If the virus continues to spread, there would be fewer goods and services produced in a market that is hunkered down. Why would the Federal Reserve respond, or why would any central bank respond to that by printing money? How does printing more money solve that problem? It doesn’t. In fact, it actually exacerbates it. But you know, everybody looks at central bankers as if they’ve got the solution to every problem. They don’t. They don’t have the magic wand. They just have a printing press. And all that creates is inflation.” Sometimes the illusion inflation creates can look like a magic wand. Printing money can paper over problems. But none of this is going to fundamentally fix the economy. In fact, if central bankers were really going to do the right thing, the appropriate response would be to drain liquidity from the markets, not supply even more.” Peter explained how the Fed was originally intended to create an “elastic” money supply that would expand or contract along with economic output. Today, the money supply only goes in one direction — that’s up. The economy is strong, print money. The economy is weak, print even more money.” Of course, the asset that’s doing the best right now is gold. The yellow metal pushed above $1,600 yesterday. Gold is up 5.5% on the year in dollar terms and has set record highs in other currencies. Because gold is rising even in an environment where the dollar is strengthening against other fiat currencies, that shows you that there is an underlying weakness in the dollar that is right now not being reflected in the Forex markets, but is being reflected in the gold markets. Because after all, why are people buying gold more aggressively than they’re buying dollars or more aggressively than they’re buying US Treasuries? Because they know that things are not as good for the dollar or the US economy as everybody likes to believe. So, more people are seeking out refuge in a better safe-haven and that is gold.” Peter also talked about the debate between Trump and Obama over who gets credit for the booming economy – which of course, is not booming.

We are living in crazy times. I have a hard time believing that most of the general public is not awake, but in reality, they are. We've never seen anything like this; I mean not even under Obama during the worst part of the Great Recession." Now the Fed is desperately trying to keep interest rates from rising. The problem is that it's a much bigger debt bubble this time around , and the Fed is going to have to blow a lot more air into it to keep it inflated. The difference is this time it's not going to work." It looks like the Fed did another $104.15 billion of Not Q.E. in a single day. The Fed claims it's only temporary. But that is precisely what Bernanke claimed when the Fed started QE1. Milton Freedman once said, "Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program." The same applies to Q.E., or whatever the Fed wants to pretend it's doing. Except this is not QE4, according to Powell. Right. Pumping so much money out, and they are accusing China of currency manipulation ? Wow! Seriously! Amazing! Dump the U.S. dollar while you still have a chance. Welcome to The Atlantis Report. And it is even worse than that, In addition to the $104.15 billion of "Not Q.E." this past Thursday; the FED added another $56.65 billion in liquidity to financial markets the next day on Friday. That's $160.8 billion in two days!!!! in just 48 hours. That is more than 2 TIMES the highest amount the FED has ever injected on a monthly basis under a Q.E. program (which was $80 billion per month) Since this isn't QE....it will be really scary on what they are going to call Q.E. Will it twice, three times, four times, five times what this injection per month ! It is going to be explosive since it takes about 60 to 90 days for prices to react to this, January should see significant inflation as prices soak up the excess liquidity. The question is, where will the inflation occur first . The spike in the repo rate might have a technical explanation: a misjudgment was made in the Fed's money market operations. Even so, two conclusions can be drawn: managing the money markets is becoming harder, and from now on, banks will be studying each other's creditworthiness to a greater degree than before. Those people, who struggle with the minutiae of money markets, and that includes most professionals, should focus on the causes and not the symptoms. Financial markets have recovered from each downturn since 1980 because interest rates have been cut to new lows. Post-2008, they were cut to near zero or below zero in all major economies. In response to a new financial crisis, they cannot go any lower. Central banks will look for new ways to replicate or broaden Q.E. (At some point, governments will simply see repression as an easier option). Then there is the problem of 'risk-free' assets becoming risky assets. Financial markets assume that the probability of major governments such as the U.S. or U.K. defaulting is zero. These governments are entering the next downturn with debt roughly twice the levels proportionate to GDP that was seen in 2008. The belief that the policy worked was completely predicated on the fact that it was temporary and that it was reversible, that the Fed was going to be able to normalize interest rates and shrink its balance sheet back down to pre-crisis levels. Well, when the balance sheet is five-trillion, six-trillion, seven-trillion when we're back at zero, when we're back in a recession, nobody is going to believe it is temporary. Nobody is going to believe that the Fed has this under control, that they can reverse this policy. And the dollar is going to crash. And when the dollar crashes, it's going to take the bond market with it, and we're going to have stagflation. We're going to have a deep recession with rising interest rates, and this whole thing is going to come imploding down. everything is temporary with the fed including remaining off the gold standard temporary in the Fed's eyes could mean at least 50 years This liquidity problem is a signal that trading desks are loaded up on inventory and can't get rid of it. Repo is done out of a need for cash. If you own all of your securities (i.e., a long-only, no leverage mutual fund) you have no need to "repo" your securities - you're earning interest every night so why would you want to 'repo' your securities where you are paying interest for that overnight loan (securities lending is another animal). So, it is those that 'lever-up' and need the cash for settlement purposes on securities they've bought with borrowed money that needs to utilize the repo desk. With this in mind, as we continue to see this need to obtain cash (again, needed to settle other securities purchases), it shows these firms don't have the capital to add more inventory to, what appears to be, a bloated inventory. Now comes the fun part: the Treasury is about to auction 3's, 10's, and 30-year bonds. If I am correct (again, I could be wrong), the Fed realizes securities firms don't have the shelf space to take down a good portion of these auctions. If there isn't enough retail/institutional demand, it will lead to not only a crappy sale but major concerns to the street that there is now no backstop, at all, to any sell-off. At which point, everyone will want to be the first one through the door and sell immediately, but to whom? If there isn't enough liquidity in the repo market to finance their positions, the firms would be unable to increase their inventory. We all saw repo shut down on the 2008 crisis. Wall St runs on money. . OVERNIGHT money. They lever up to inventory securities for trading. If they can't get overnight money, they can't purchase securities. And if they can't unload what they have, it means the buy-side isn't taking on more either. Accounts settle overnight. This includes things like payrolls and bill pay settlements. If a bank doesn't have enough cash to payout what its customers need to pay out, it borrows. At least one and probably more than one banks are insolvent. That's what's going on. First, it can't be one or two banks that are short. They'd simply call around until they found someone to lend. But they did that, and even at markedly elevated rates, still, NO ONE would lend them the money. That tells me that it's not a problem of a couple of borrowers, it's a problem of no lenders. And that means that there's no bank in the world left with any real liquidity. They are ALL maxed out. But as bad as that is, and that alone could be catastrophic, what it really signals is even worse. The lending rates are just the flip side of the coin of the value of the assets lent against. If the rates go up, the value goes down. And with rates spiking to 10%, how far does the value fall? Enormously! And if banks had to actually mark down the value of the assets to reflect 10% interest rates, then my god, every bank in the world is insolvent overnight. Everyone's capital ratios are in the toilet, and they'd have to liquidate. We're talking about the simultaneous insolvency of every bank on the planet. Bank runs. No money in ATMs, Branches closed. Safe deposit boxes confiscated. The whole nine yards, It's actually here. The scenario has tended to guide toward for years and years is actually happening RIGHT NOW! And people are still trying to say it's under control. Every bank in the world is currently insolvent. The only thing keeping it going is printing billions of dollars every day. Financial Armageddon isn't some far off future risk. It's here. Prepare accordingly. This fiat system has reached the end of the line, and it's not correct that fiat currencies fail by design. The problem is corruption and manipulation. It is corruption and cheating that erodes trust and faith until the entire system becomes a gigantic fraud. Banks and governments everywhere ARE the problem and simply have to be removed. They have lost all trust and respect, and all they have left is war and mayhem. As long as we continue to have a majority of braindead asleep imbeciles following orders from these psychopaths, nothing will change. Fiat currency is not just thievery. Fiat currency is SLAVERY. Ultimately the most harmful effect of using debt of undefined value as money (i.e., fiat currencies) is the de facto legalization of a caste system based on voluntary slavery. The bankers have a charter, or the legal *right*, to create money out of nothing. You, you don't. Therefore you and the bankers do not have the same standing before the law. The law of the land says that you will go to jail if you do the same thing (creating money out of thin air) that the banker does in full legality. You and the banker are not equal before the law. ALL the countries of the world; Islamic or secular, Jewish or Arab, democracy or dictatorship; all of them place the bankers ABOVE you. And all of you accept that only whining about fiat money going down in exchange value over time (price inflation which is not the same as monetary inflation). Actually, price inflation itself is mainly due to the greed and stupidity of the bankers who could keep fiat money's exchange value reasonably stable, only if they wanted to. Witness the crash of silver and gold prices which the bankers of the world; Russian, American, Chinese, Jewish, Indian, Arab, all of them collaborated to engineer through the suppression and stagnation of precious metals' prices to levels around the metals' production costs, or what it costs to dig gold and silver out of the ground. The bankers of the world could also collaborate to keep nominal prices steady (as they do in the case of the suppression of precious metals prices). After all, the ability to create fiat money and force its usage is a far more excellent source of power and wealth than that which is afforded simply by stealing it through inflation. The bankers' greed and stupidity blind them to this fact. They want it all, and they want it now. In conclusion, The bankers can create money out of nothing and buy your goods and services with this worthless fiat money, effectively for free. You, you can't. You, you have to lead miserable existences for the most of you and WORK in order to obtain that effectively nonexistent, worthless credit money (whose purchasing/exchange value is not even DEFINED thus rendering all contracts based on the null and void!) that the banker effortlessly creates out of thin air with a few strokes of the computer keyboard, and which he doesn't even bother to print on paper anymore, electing to keep it in its pure quantum uncertain form instead, as electrons whizzing about inside computer chips which will become mute and turn silent refusing to tell you how many fiat dollars or euros there are in which account, in the absence of electricity. No electricity, no fiat, nor crypto money. It would appear that trust is deteriorating as it did when Lehman blew up . Something really big happened that set off this chain reaction in the repo markets. Whatever that something is, we aren't be informed. They're trying to cover it up, paper it over with conjured cash injections, play it cool in front of the cameras while sweating profusely under the 5 thousands dollar suits. I'm guessing that the final high-speed plunge into global economic collapse has begun. All we see here is the ripples and whitewater churning the surface, but beneath the surface, there is an enormous beast thrashing desperately in its death throws. Now is probably the time to start tying up loose ends with the long-running prep projects, just saying. In other words, prepare accordingly, and Get your money out of the banks. I don't care if you don't believe me about Bitcoin. Get your money out of the banks. Don't keep any more money in a bank than you need to pay your bills and can afford to lose.











The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists , visionaries , free investigative journalists , researchers , Whistelblowers , truthers and many more













The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists , visionaries , free investigative journalists , researchers , Whistelblowers , truthers and many more

The FBI released a summary of its file from the Hillary Clinton email investigation on Friday, showing details of Clinton's explanation of her use of a private email server to handle classified communications. The release comes nearly two months after FBI Director James Comey announced that although Clinton's handling of classified information was "extremely careless," it did not rise to the level of a prosecutable offense. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced the next day that she would not pursue charges in the matter. "We are making these materials available to the public in the interest of transparency and in response to numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests," the FBI noted in a statement sent to reporters with links to the documents. The documents include notes from Clinton's July 2 interview with agents, as well as a "factual summary of the FBI's investigation into this matter," according to the FBI release. Throughout her interview with agents, Clinton repeatedly said she relied on the career professionals she worked with to handle classified information correctly. The agents asked about a series of specific emails, and in each case Clinton said she wasn't worried about the particular material being discussed on a nonclassified channel.