The Federal Reserve has a role to play in the election process. We already know they are directing this bubble-blown economy in a way central bankers have never done before.
Are you an American citizen worried that your vote in this November's election is going to be stolen? Do you fear that the voting machines are rigged? That the results on (s)election day will not accurately reflect the actual votes cast?
Well you're not alone. Once the realm of crazed conspiracy theorists (by which, of course, I mean whistleblowers with first-hand knowledge who testified on the record), vote rigging, hacking and tampering is now entering the mainstream consciousness thanks to our friends at the Department of Homeland Security. After all, as you may have seen on the last edition of New World Next Week, the DHS is now considering whether to declare the electoral process as "critical infrastructure."
Although vague and amorphous, "critical infrastructure" is defined in Section 1016(e) of the PATRIOT Act as "systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters." A 2013 Presidential Policy Directive outlined the DHS' role in coordinating federal oversight of those industries and processes deemed to be critical infrastructure.
So are we supposed to sleep easier when some cyber false flag during the 2016 election necessitates the feds coming in and taking over the whole voting process? Are we supposed to believe that the only way to make sure every vote is fairly counted is to have Big Brother counting the ballots? Of course not. As Ron Paul so aptly puts it:
"Are they worrying, when they talk about doing something about rigged elections, [that] the votes are counted? No, they’re making sure that the votes aren’t counted and they’re irrelevant and the government has all this power.”
(Feel free to speculate, then, about why Paul didn't say a peep about suspicious election results in 2008 or 2012, or how the RNC flagrantly rigged the process to keep his delegates from exerting any authority over the 2012 nomination.)
But as I say, you've probably heard about that story. Here's one that might have slipped under the radar in all the (s)election frenzy of recent days: "Clinton Tells Trump to Shut Up on Federal Reserve." As Kurt Nimmo reports, Clinton had a pretty predictable reaction to Trump's recent criticisms of the artificially low interest rates maintained by the Fed during this post-Lehman (bubble) recovery: shut up!
"You should not be commenting on Fed actions when you are either running for president or you are president," she told reporters earlier this week. "He should not be trying to talk up or talk down the economy, and he should not be adding the Fed to his long list of institutions and individuals that he is maligning and otherwise attacking."
Think about what Hillary is admitting here: Not only do politicians have no role over the erstwhile-public Federal Reserve system (whose charter derives from Congress), but that even criticizing their actions is verboten for any would-be president. They are literally above criticism and their actions cannot be second-guessed...which come to think of it sounds pretty familiar. It's almost as if the Fed is actually in control of the government...
But there's yet another layer to this onion. Clinton might have a personal stake in protecting the economy over the next few months. It isn't hard to see, after all, how a precipitous popping of the central bank bubble between now and November would work against the incumbent Democrats in favor of the Republicans. In fact, we don't have to speculate. We saw the exact mirror image happen in 2008, when the Bush-era Greenspan housing bubble popped, the economy plunged into a crisis right before the public went to the polls, and the Obama-led Dems beat the incumbent Repubs handily.
That 2008 bubble pop was instructive in and of itself, as we got to see that bizarre display of unity where Obama and McCain took time out of their stage-managed (s)election politics to pimp the $700 billion$29.6 trillion bankster bailout. We also saw how when push comes to shove the banksters will literally threaten Congress with chaos in the streets and martial law in the United States if they don't get exactly what they want...and then play a game of chicken with the American economy until they get their way.
The lesson here is simple: If you're leading the incumbent party into an election, you don't want any major emergencies cropping up before election day. All it would take is an economic crisis (or even a big scare) and a media that is willing to blame it on Obama and the Democrats and Clinton's chances to become President would be significantly reduced (unless of course the DHS steps in to count the vote in her favor).
This raises an interesting corollary: The Federal Reserve has a role to play in the (s)election process. We already know they are directing this bubble-blown economy in a way central bankers have never done before. By simply raising rates too much or too soon, they could pull the rug out from under it. Conversely, by holding off on a rate raise or even lowering rates, they could buy more time for the bubble to continue. And by doing so in an election year they can work for or against whichever party happens to be in power at the moment.
As Bob Murphy recently remarked on Twitter: "Some people (a) believe in false flags where gov't gains power & (b) think Fed won't hike because would cause crash?" Indeed. If and when the Fed hikes and the economy plunges, we can be certain of one thing: It was not an accident.
Do you really think that Clinton is unaware of this? Do you really think that the Obama admin hasn't had words behind closed doors with the FOMC about maintaining the status quo until the election? Do you really think the Fed is going to raise rates before November?
Conversely, do you think Trump is unaware of this? Do you think that his sudden about-face on low interest rates (first praising them now hating them) isn't a realization that a bubble pop would work to his advantage?
But look at me. Here I am a voluntaryist talking about the whole (s)election process as if it matters anyway. Team Coke, Team Pepsi, the shadow government is still in control. And the Fed is closer to the center of power of that shadow government than the Oval Office. Or is that the DHS?...