Who Killed Kurt Cobain?

WHO KILLED KURT COBAIN? TWENTY YEARS LATER, THE FREE MARKET LOOKS FOR ANSWERS

[Editor’s Note: The following post is by TDV head researcher, Justin O’Connell]

http://dollarvigilante.com/blog/2014/4/4/who-killed-kurt-cobain-twenty-years-later-the-free-market-lo.html#6302

Saturday April 5th, 2014, will mark the twentieth anniversary of the death of Kurt Cobain, perhaps the last true rock star. By the time Kurt had become an American icon in 1991, he was thinking of leaving the limelight and expatriating. He liked how other cultures didn’t ask him for autographs like Americans did. The tabloid nature of media in the US, also, was too much for him.

His band had changed music’s culture. Punk rock went mainstream when Nirvana went mainstream. In the band’s video for their seminal hit “Smells Like Teen Spirit,” cheerleaders wear uniforms with the Anarchy “A” symbol on them. And this video was in constant rotation on MTV and around the world.

The events surrounding his death are murky. What most people don’t know is there were two investigations of his reported ‘suicide.’ One by the Seattle Police Department, and one by the free market. Can you guess which one has been more fruitful? If you read this article, and delve a bit deeper, you’ll find out the answer to that question.

Kurt left a drug rehab center in Marina Del Rey California on April 1st, 1994. He was reported missing not long after, only to be found dead seven days later, on April 8th.

Tom Grant is a California state licensed private investigator and former detective with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. He was hired April 3rd, 1994, by Courtney Love to locate Kurt. While Tom went to Seattle to find Kurt, Courtney stayed in Los Angeles. From the moment Tom met Courtney, he began recording all of their conversations. Something seemed off about her to Tom. The very first thing she told him was a lie. (Tom had no idea who Courtney Love or Kurt Cobain were when he was hired.)

Although the police immediately concluded “suicide”, Grant wasn’t so sure. He had been searching for Kurt Cobain for five days at this point, and had investigated the circumstances surrounding him in detail by that time. Tom Grant learned quickly after Kurt’s death that Rosemary Carroll, Courtney Love and Kurt’s own entertainment attorney, also did not buy the suicide theory. Not only did Courtney Love’s own private investigator conclude Courtney was implicated in the murder of Kurt, but so too had her own attorney, though the latter has done a good job of keeping her mouth shut after some initial recorded skepticism.

From the very beginning Tom recognized Courtney was a habitual liar. After several months of intensive investigation, Tom concluded that Courtney Love and Michael Dewitt, the Cobain’s live-in male nanny, who Courtney had known personally for some time, were involved in a conspiracy that resulted in Kurt’s murder. Tom wasn’t positive at first. He figured Kurt had probably killed himself, but he couldn’t help notice things didn’t make sense, and that the Seattle Police Department’s investigation was lackluster at best.

Seven months after Kurt’s death, Tom was finally willing to speak out publicly. He believed he had investigated thoroughly enough. It took Tom seven months to conclude there had been a “conspiracy.” The police concluded suicide after five minutes. What did Tom have to gain by speaking the truth? Not much. He was accusing his own client of murder. He could have gone to jail for doing that, not to mention the lawsuits, and the fate of his own PI firm. Ultimately, he chose to speak out, and thanks to him a trove of information has been made available. Many years later, it came out that this wasn’t the first attempt on Cobain’s life. It was merely the first to succeed.

The fact is Kurt was looking to divorce Courtney and to leave Seattle. He mentioned in interviews he wanted to expatriate, he simply “didn’t want to live in the United States.” He had begun the process to change his will as he wanted Courtney taken out, and Courtney had called their attorney and asked her to find the “meanest, most vicious divorce attorney around.”

Tom points to numerous unanswered questions, such as who was using Kurt’s credit card after he is known to have been dead? Someone was attempting to use it, but these attempts stopped when the body was found. The police also claim there were no legible fingerprints on the shotgun found on scene! In fact, the Seattle Police Department did not even check the gun until May 6th, one month after Kurt was found. How’s that for shoddy police work?

“Any publicity is good publicity,” Courtney told Tom, before Kurt had even been found, as she trumpeted over-and-over again how suicidal Kurt was. In his investigation, Tom would find Courtney was really the only one who seemed to think Kurt was suicidal. Even Kurt’s own best friend, before Kurt’s body was found, told Tom Kurt was in good spirits. Tom found it suspicious how obsessed Courtney was with her own career in the days and weeks around Kurt’s death, and how she was the only one parading how suicidal Kurt was.

The police immediately determined the note was a “suicide note” written to Courtney and Kurt’s daughter, Frances Bean. But the note was not addressed to Kurt’s wife and daughter, nor does it say anything about “killing himself”. The note is clearly written to Cobain’s fans about his quitting the music business.

In fact, it later came out in an interview that Courtney had kept a second note private. It is a crime, mind you, to keep evidence from police. (She read the public “suicide” note aloud to adoring fans over radio) She didn’t tell anyone about the second note until it slipped out in a Rolling Stone interview, which Tom read as part of his investigation of her. The second note clearly defines the first note. Kurt’s leaving Seattle and the music business. There’s no mention in either that he is leaving the planet. The public suicide note reads suspiciously, as it appears there are two different handwritings. Handwriting experts say that it is inconclusive if Kurt wrote the entire note. If you look at the bottom of the note below, you’ll see the section in question.

Moreover, Cobain was injected with three times the lethal dose of heroin. Tom Grant wonders, IF Cobain injected three times the lethal dose of heroin, COULD he then pick up a shotgun and shoot himself? He also notes most heroin addicts agree: they wouldn’t kill themselves while they were riding a high. It would be too euphoric.

As Tom Grant writes on his website:

“THE FACT IS… The police and the Medical Examiner have no forensic evidence that proves Cobain’s death was a suicide. On the other hand, there’s a substantial amount of evidence for murder.”

Almost immediately after Kurt’s death, Tom spoke with Courtney’s entertainment lawyer, Rosemary Carroll, who indicated that she was suspicious about Courtney’s involvement in Kurt’s death. “He wasn’t suicidal, Tom. Kurt wasn’t suicidal!” Rosemary blurted with a deep sigh to Tom. Rosemary was also disturbed that Courtney wouldn’t let her or anyone else see the so-called “suicide note.” Tom mentioned to Rosemary that Courtney couldn’t come to Seattle to find her husband because she “had business in LA.”

“She didn’t have any business in LA!” Rosemary snapped. On April 15th Tom met with the police, one week after Cobain’s body was found. He brought up his numerous concerns:

“Numerous inconsistencies and contradictions in logic…

The missing credit card and continued activity on the card after Kurt’s death…

The fact that Courtney specifically told Dylan (Kurt’s best friend) to check the greenhouse where Kurt’s body was found and yet he didn’t even tell Tom about the greenhouse when they visited the Cobain home the night before Kurt was found…

Doubts about Kurt’s handwriting on the so-called “suicide note,” especially the bottom portion…

The electrician’s statement (person who found the body) about Kurt’s hair appearing to have been combed…

Courtney’s motives for possible involvement in Cobain’s death?…

She’d get more money from a suicide than from a divorce. With a suicide, Courtney would inherit and control the entire Cobain and Nirvana estate. If Kurt divorced her, she’d have to settle for half, at best, of Kurt’s assets…

Kurt’s record sales would increase, leaving Courtney with even more income…

And finally, based on what I’d learned about her personality, Kurt’s death and the publicity it generated would help Courtney launch her own career.”

Tom continued his investigation. He studied media material and found lots of planted stories and misinformation. As Tom writes, “One story had Courtney grieving at home, while she was actually calling me from Canyon Ranch in Arizona and bragging to me that she was sleeping with Billy Corgan. This was only three weeks after Kurt died!” Tom eventually sent Courtney a letter indicating his suspicions about Kurt’s death.

“Dear Courtney,

I’m sure you know by now that my investigation has been somewhat more active than you might have been aware of. The purpose of this letter is to clarify my position regarding our working relationship.

You may recall our trip to Carnation on Thursday, April 14th. I mentioned during the drive that I was beginning to turn over some “rocks” that I wasn’t sure you’d want turned over. I asked you if you wanted me to continue digging. Kat, who was in the back seat, said, “Oh yeah, she wants to know everything.” You responded, “Yeah Tom, do what ever it takes. I want to know everything that happened.” Your instructions were clear, so in the days and weeks that followed, I proceeded to “do whatever it takes.”

As the investigation continued, my attempts to get at the truth often seemed to be deliberately hindered. While reading some of the articles being written in newspapers and magazines, I discovered the information being released to the press was inaccurate and often cleverly misleading.

I consider the circumstances surrounding your husband’s death to be highly suspicious. My investigation has exposed a number of inconsistencies in the facts of this case as well as many contradictions in sound logic and common sense. I’m required to report findings such as these to the police, so on Friday, April 15th, I spoke with Sgt. Cameron about some of what I’ve learned so far.

As I’ve experienced in past cases, police detectives don’t often welcome the work of outside investigators. I’ve learned it’s somewhat idealistic and naive to think the truth might be more important than professional pride.

I’ve decided to continue working on this case until I see it to its conclusion, without additional charge. Attached you will find an invoice which accounts for the charges billed for our services, including time and expenses. As you can see, prior to my return to Seattle on April 13th, these charges exceeded the retainer amount. However, please consider your bill paid in full. There will be no further charges.

As I pursue the truth regarding the events surrounding your husband’s death, your cooperation and assistance will be appreciated, but not required.

Sincerely,

Tom Grant

THE GRANT COMPANY”

From there it only gets more interesting. Courtney kept Tom Grant on her payroll, giving her meaningless assignments for him to pursue. As soon as he finished one, she’d give him another. The live-in nanny, Michael DeWitt, whom Tom implicates in Kurt’s death, has never been available for an interview, even though both Michael and Tom live in LA. Tom has tried to interview Michael, the only person at the Cobain home around the time of Kurt’s death, to no avail. Moreover, Michael received $30,000 from Courtney in the weeks after Kurt’s death “to go to rehab.” Tom couldn’t help but wonder if this was the payoff.

The April 1996 edition of High Times featured an article entitled “Who Killed Kurt Cobain?”. In it, the views of a character named “El Duce” are made public. El Duce played in the Los Angeles punk scene. He met Courtney Love in the late 1980s. In the article, El Duce claimed that in December 1993, Courtney Love offered El Duce $50,000 to murder Kurt. The manager of the shop, where the conversation took place, remembers overhearing Courtney ask El Duce, “Can you handle doing this? Can you get this done? What do you want for it?”

In March 1994, according to the manager, Courtney contacted the shop asking for El Duce, who was out on tour at the time. Courtney was furious. “That son of a bitch, we made an agreement. What am I going to do?” The manager went on to say after Kurt was found dead about 10 days later: “I was like Whoa! I wonder if she actually did pay some sucker to blow off his head”? El Duce said: “Maybe she got somebody else. I think Kurt was getting ready to divorce her for adultery charges. She had to have him whacked right away so she could get the money.”

Tom Grant was skeptical of El Duce’s claims. He said: “Why didn’t they come forward sooner? At first I thought maybe Courtney put them up to it to set me up. I could start talking about these guys as proof and then they would come out and say they made the whole story up. I would then be discredited.”

On March 6th 1996, however, El Duce underwent and passed a lie detector test administered by Dr. E. Gelb a leading polygraph examiner, who trains the FBI in polygraph. He administered a polygraph test to O.J. Simpson two days after the murder of his wife and said that O.J. failed the test quite badly. According to Dr. Gelb, El Duce’s story is completely truthful.

In reply to the question, “Did Courtney Love ask you to kill Kurt Cobain?” Duce’s positive response showed a 99.91% certainty that he was being truthful, which falls into the category “beyond possibility of deception”. Duce also scores the same when the question was repeated. When asked the question “Were you offered $50,000 by Courtney Love to kill Kurt Cobain?” Duce scored a slightly worse 99.84%.

Following these tests Duce contacted the Seattle Police Departments Homicide division and also the Los Angeles Police Dept. He and the record shop owner have offered to take similar tests for the police, but both departments have declined to investigate. Of course, Tom Grant, the private sector hero in all of this, did investigate. However, about a week after El Duce did an interview with BBC, he was killed by a train in Riverside, LA. The events surrounding his death are murky.

Music journalist and friend of Duce, Al Bowman said: “There is something very, very strange about his death. Anybody who knew El knew that you could make friends with him by offering to buy him a drink. He had a problem with alcohol.” When asked if he thought El Duce committed suicide: “No way. He was all excited about his upcoming tour. He was in good spirits. He didn’t kill himself. I’m convinced this has something to do with Kurt Cobain.”

The fact of the matter is this. There are myriad more details about the death surrounding the US’s last great rock star than public police officers would like you to believe. And this means that a psychopathic murderer has been an American celebrity for the last twenty years (surprised? shouldn’t be…) Instead, the private investigator hired by Courtney Love ultimately concluded just months after Kurt’s death that Courtney and the Cobain’s live-in nanny had conspired to murder Kurt Cobain.

He pledged to continue the investigation and let his doubts be known. Why? Because, as a grandfather, Tom couldn’t stand the realities of the nearly more than 60 confirmed “copycat” suicides. He didn’t want to do it, he “just had to.”In fact, Tom has noted how embarrassed he is that THIS is how he gained notoriety. He wished it was because he was a professional athlete or something else instead.

The public police officers, on the other hand, have no reason to solve the crime. Their jobs are safe. Apparently they also have no moral motivation to do so either. As Tom notes in an interview, oftentimes after prisoners on death row are acquitted based on DNA evidence, the original police investigators stick by their guns: their conclusion was right. “It’s just politics,” Tom says.

Why does this matter? Well, it is pretty obvious the police didn’t even really investigate this death, and it is quite obvious there are gaping holes in the official narrative of Kurt’s “suicide.” Tom Grant doesn’t argue for a coverup within the Seattle Police Department, though he does note that Courtney Love was friends with the coroner at the time in Seattle. About two weeks ago, leading up to the twentieth anniversary of Kurt’s death, the Seattle Police “re-examined” the Kurt Cobain case and ruled there was “no new evidence,” which is essentially a lie, since there is new evidence since the case was originally closed, uncovered by the free market. I imagine SPD did this in order to steer the dialogue away from Tom Grant’s narrative. The police department says once-a-week they receive a request to re-open the investigation.

One argument for a large government is so the police can keep us safe, but as this story uncovers, the police fail to do so, allowing possible murderers continue living their lives unhindered. The free market, in this case Tom Grant’s PI Firm, has alternatively sought justice, and the investigation continues to this day. Here is an interview with Tom:

Justin O’Connell is the Head Researcher at Dollar Vigilante, author of the first full-length bitcoin book, Bitcoinomics, as well as a co-host at Our Very Own Special Show, a lifestyle podcast about music, news, life and other topics. While in boy scouts as a young boy, Justin was introduced to punk rock. Since his father, a police officer, would not let him listen to rap, he gravitated towards bands like Bad Religion, Anti-Flag and numerous anti-authoritarian bands. Justin’s worldview evolved into that of a “naturalist,” and he began seeking enlightenment in the natural world. When studying history at college in Portland, Ore., Justin focused on totalitarian societies such as, Soviet Union, Nazi Germany & the German Democratic Republic. Justin has numerous full length books coming out in 2014, including Change Of Ideas: Bad Religion In The New America, as well as an EP with his band Fencesitter.

Venezuela begins extreme rationing

VENEZUELA ISSUES ID CARDS TO CURTAIL FOOD HOARDING
By HANNAH DREIER
— Apr. 1, 2014 3:09 PM EDT

 

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — Battling food shortages, the government is rolling out a new ID system that is either a grocery loyalty card with extra muscle or the most dramatic step yet toward rationing in Venezuela, depending on who is describing it.

President Nicolas Maduro’s administration says the cards to track families’ purchases will foil people who stock up on groceries at subsidized prices and then illegally resell them for several times the amount. Critics say it’s another sign the oil-rich Venezuelan economy is headed toward Cuba-style dysfunction.

Registration began Tuesday at more than 100 government-run supermarkets across the country. Working-class shoppers who sometimes endure hours-long lines at government-run stores to buy groceries at steeply reduced prices are welcoming the plan.

“The rich people have things all hoarded away, and they pull the strings,” said Juan Rodriguez, who waited two hours to enter the government-run Abastos Bicentenario supermarket near downtown Caracas on Monday, and then waited another three hours to check out.

Rigid currency controls and a shortage of U.S. dollars make it increasingly difficult for Venezuelans to find imported basic products like milk, flour, toilet paper and cooking oil. Price controls don’t help either, with producers complaining that some goods are priced too low to make a profit and justify production.

As of January, more than a quarter of basic staples were out of stock in Venezuelan stores, according to the central bank’s scarcity index. The shortages are among the problems cited by Maduro’s opponents who have been staging protests since mid-February.

Checkout workers at Abastos Bicentenario were taking down customers’ cellphone numbers Monday, to ensure they couldn’t return for eight days. Shoppers said employees also banned purchases by minors, to stop parents from using their children to engage in hoarding, which the government calls “nervous buying.”

Rodriguez supports both measures.

“People who go shopping every day hurt us all,” he said, drawing approving nods from the friends he made over the course of his afternoon slowly snaking through the aisles with his oversized cart.

Reflecting Maduro’s increasingly militarized discourse against opponents he accuses of waging “economic war,” the government is calling the new program the “system of secure supply.”

Patrons will register with their fingerprints, and the new ID card will be linked to a computer system that monitors purchases. On Tuesday, Food Minister Felix Osorio said the process was off to a smooth start. He says the system will sound an alarm when it detects suspicious purchasing patterns, barring people from buying the same goods every day. But he also says the cards will be voluntary, with incentives like discounts and entry into raffles for homes and cars.

Expressionless men with rifles patrolled the warehouse-size supermarket Monday as shoppers hurried by, focusing on grabbing meat and pantry items before they were gone. Long shelves that should have been heaped with rice and coffee instead displayed six brands of ketchup. There was plenty of frozen beef selling for 22.64 bolivars a kilogram — $3.59 at the official exchange rate, or 32 cents at the black market rate increasingly used in pricing goods.

A local consumer watchdog, the National User and Consumer Alliance, invokes the specter of Cuba’s struggling economy and calls the ID program rationing by another name. It predicts all Venezuelans without cards will soon be barred from shopping at state supermarkets.

After five decades of rationing basic goods for Cubans, President Raul Castro’s communist government is phasing out subsidized foodstuffs as it opens the island’s economy to private enterprise. Cubans most dependent on the rationed goods say that in recent years their monthly quotas provided only enough food for a couple of weeks.

Until now, Venezuela’s restrictions on purchases have been toughest in its cities on the border with Colombia. Venezuelans can make a killing by buying goods at below-market prices and smuggling them into Colombia for sale at much higher prices.

Defenders of Venezuela’s socialist government say price controls imposed by the late President Hugo Chavez help poor people lead more dignified lives, and the United Nations has recognized Venezuela’s success in eradicating hunger.

Complaints aren’t heard in the long lines at government supermarkets. One young mother shielded her eyes against the afternoon sun as she approached a cashier with sugar, flour and Frosted Flakes cereal. She arrived at 10 a.m., but didn’t blame the government or its opponents for the long wait.

“I don’t know if it’s worth it, but when my children are crying what else can you do,” said the woman, who declined to provide her name as an armed National Guardsmen watched her at the checkout line.

She planned another five-hour run to another supermarket Tuesday to get everything out of stock at the downtown store.

___

Hannah Dreier on Twitter: https://twitter.com/hannahdreier

5 Reasons NOT to buy US real estate

http://nomadcapitalist.com/2014/04/01/five-reasons-buy-us-real-estate/

Five reasons not to buy US real estate
by Andrew Henderson | Apr 1, 2014 |

The future of US real estate investments?
Dateline: Tallinn, Estonia

I frequently talk about my five magic words for enhancing your freedom and prosperity: “go where you’re treated best”.
This is based around my idea that no one place is perfect for everything. For instance, the country with the world’s safest banks… but that charges you $80,000 to register your car if you dare live there.
In my mind, the US real estate market has been propped up by a bunch of people who don’t follow that rule. How many Americans do you see buying foreign real estate? The insular nature of American culture means that, unlike wealthy Russians or Chinese who gobble up overseas properties at lightning speed, few Americans look beyond their own borders for opportunities.
Worse, the US government’s fascination with thrusting homeownership on the public – complete with unsustainable tax deductions that makes every homeowner a crony capitalist – distorts the marketplace.
Back in 2005, I was just starting my business in the broadcast infomercial industry. I was living in Phoenix, Arizona at the time and real estate was hot as a pistol. People were camping out in front of new developments to pay insane prices for plots of land with little cookie cutter homes on the edges of the desert.
For me, this was good business. The real estate industry in California, Arizona and beyond was spending money like water. Everyone with a pulse wanted to produce radio infomercials for ego and profit. But as much as I enjoyed the success, I knew one thing: buying some tract house at an inflated price was a recipe for disaster.
Back then, my clients were shouting at radio listeners that “mortgage rates would never get any lower!” The idea that you could finance a house for 6% interest was unheard of at the time, and every bartender-turned-mortgage guru was making sure you knew all about it.
Of course, they were merely salesmen, not economic prognosticators. I later purchased a house not only at a fire sale price, but a 3.75% interest rates.

The point of this is simple: I benefitted from the mortgage frenzy in a way that benefitted me, without having to deal with the bad parts (such as buying a home that would plummet in value).
When I decided to travel full-time rather than just six months a year, I made the long-term decision to sell that house. And when the real estate agent told me I would earn a 60% return on a short-term holding, I knew something was wrong.
Yes, my conscious decision to wait until the bottom fell out of an obviously exuberant market paid off handsomely. But it paid off handsomely in large part because prices got so low that every hedge fund was buying up properties to rent out, drive up prices, and eventually dump. I believe that the nice price drops are well on their way in places like Arizona as cash buyers exit the market.
Five reasons not to buy US real estate
All of this got me to thinking about all of the reasons not to buy US real estate. I came up with five reasons not to buy, and I’m open to your comments below.
Poor rental yields
The average gross rental yield in the United States is a measly 4.2%, narrowly beating yields in Canada. Of course, Americans and even some foreign investors can get mortgages with as little as 10-20% down, making leveraged yields higher. Of course, the amount of leverage in the US real estate market is a large part of the problem.
Anyone with $25,000 lying around can become a landlord, often having no clue what’s involved. When he or she realizes they should actually have a few bucks stashed away to fix a leaking roof, they could lose the property and effect the entire market.
I saw this firsthand during my regrettable seven months living in California, where a guy earning $80,000 a year (in Los Angeles, mind you) not only had a highly-leveraged primary residence valued at $1 million, but owned four new construction condos in the suburbs that he paid $400,000 each for.
I can’t say I was surprised when I started getting foreclosure notices in my mailbox one day.
If you have no money and want to gamble in the US real estate market, go ahead. What do you have to lose when not putting up your own money? If you actually have some money, though, you shouldn’t settle for a 4.2% yield – nor the likely possibility that your fellow investors will crash the market.
Many of the places I’ve been in Asia offer yields of 8-9%. In Nicaragua, I saw a few properties with gross yields as high as 13%! (That’s why I’m offering anyone who joins The Nomad Society this month gets a free ticket to a three-day investment tour in Nicaragua.)
As a lifelong investor, I understand the power of leverage. However, the fundamentals of the US market are weak and don’t allow for much growth without leverage. This forces a bunch of ill-advised investors into the market who may ultimately increase your yield merely by causing the value of your property to plummet.
If you don’t have a lot of money to invest, there are plenty of properties in frontier markets like Cambodia for around $30,000 – the same as an investor’s down payment on a starter home. And because fast-growing markets like that actually have fundamentals for their price increases, you can actually do fix-and-flips that are based on real value, not bubbles.
Speaking of fundamentals..
The US real estate market has weak fundamentals.
What will drive US real estate going forward? One of the world’s lowest birth rates? The country’s declining status as a “wealthy” country? Most Americans would be surprised to learn that Singapore, not their homeland, is the richest country on earth. Next up: Luxembourg, Qatar, and Liechtenstein.
Americans who understand how bankrupt the western world is likely wouldn’t want to invest in Italy. The average salary in Italy is only about 18,000 euros. However, salaries in the United States are declining, as well.
On top of that, while there is a trend on “onshore” some jobs back from places like the Philippines, I believe further anti-business government policy will cause a long-term elimination of jobs due to further offshoring, companies moving their operations overseas, and technology replacing positions.
If real wages are decreasing, who will buy your real estate for a future appreciation gain, or rent it for a good rental yield?
Very little growth in the US is truly organic. It’s all on paper. In Southeast Asia, growth is very simple. People are getting better educations and higher paying jobs as their countries experience more entrepreneurship, more tourism, and more of other things that allow wealth in the country to increase.
The US, on the other hand, has just about hit a brick wall. Compare the number of people getting MBAs who would have dropped out of high school thirty years ago to sell gum on the street. In the US, the number is very low. In Cambodia, it’s very high. That is good for emerging markets real estate, but not so good for US real estate.
On top of that, governments can vote to keep investors out on a dime. Canada recently torched its Immigrant Investor Program, which attracted thousands of Chinese millionaires to buy high-end real estate in Toronto and Vancouver. Now that the government cancelled the program, real estate experts in Canada are bracing for the worst.
A single act of jingoism could send the value of your real estate tumbling.
Governments can (selectively) increase taxes on a dime.
Sure, this is true of any jurisdiction. It’s the same reason I wouldn’t be in a rush to buy real estate in Spain even with their offer of second residency.
But among “gotcha” tax jurisdictions, The Land of the Free must take the cake. This is a country whose President claimed his Obamacare wasn’t a tax… only for the Supreme Court to later rule it was to avoid having it overturned. The US government is the master of playing both sides of the coin.
Let’s say you’re doing well and you buy a nice home in the US. Your local or state government, which is likely drowning in red ink from decades of fiscal imprudence, realizes it needs more revenue and decides to append a “luxury property” assessment to your home. After all, you’re not living in a trailer park with the 99%, so you ought to be the one to bear the burden, you greedy fat cat.
While there are laws in states like California that purport to cap property taxes, there’s nothing stop almost any government from imposing “special fees” or something similar to wring more money out of you. In jurisdictions with no caps on property taxes, governments can simply raise rates. If you think they won’t, remember that “it’s for the children” is the easiest way to get voters to approve a new tax on you, and property taxes are part of what funds schools.
American voters will gladly raise your cost of property ownership in two seconds.
If you’re buying US real estate as an investment, you could be equally vulnerable. In a country where success is demonized and the rich are viewed as being deserving of punishment, it’s not inconceivable that local governments could impose special taxes on rental property. After all, owning a house you live in is one thing. Renting it is another.
The US government has proposed taxes and fees on investors from Wall Street to Main Street, and they’d be all too happy to curb your already mediocre rental yields by making you pay for their fiscal waste.
US real estate is denominated in US dollars.
An obvious but an important point. As the value of the US dollar declines and countries like Russia seek to wean themselves off of the global reserve currency, the global value of your real estate assets in the United States will decline. Sure, you’ll be able to buy locally made products (how ironic, right?), but imports will cost a fortune.
Remember what happened when Iceland’s economy totally collapsed several years ago? It cost a fortune just to go to McDonald’s. I suppose some American investors don’t ever intend to leave the United States to begin with, lessening the blow of a US dollar collapse on their lifestyle, but everyone will feel the pain.
Courts can seize US real estate, even if it’s held in an offshore trust.
We talk here about the benefits of using an offshore trust to protect your assets, not only from creditors and angry ex-spouses, but from future government confiscation. However, the entire point of an offshore trust is to be offshore.
If the government where an asset is located wants that asset badly enough, it will get it. Governments have repeatedly shown they don’t respect even their own rule of law.
One recent example of this involves infomercial king Kevin Trudeau, who is currently serving a ten-year sentence for “contempt of court”. While Kevin rented his primary residence in Chicago to avoid asset confiscation by a government that was constantly at odds with him, he did own a property in California through an Isle of Man corporation.
When the government imposed a $37 million fine on him, it eventually got around to forcing the sale of the house. Had it not been encumbered by a mortgage, the government would have sold it and pocketed all of the profits. That’s because some nut job on a California court could easily circumvent any provision of an offshore trust he likes. It may not be “legal” according to the laws of the trust, but what does a bankrupt nation care about other countries’ laws?
After all, the United States has been busy enforcing FATCA on as many other countries as possible, forcing banks in other countries to PAY for the privilege of tattling on Americans who bank with them. The United States doesn’t respect other countries’ laws, and if they ever claim you owe them money, no amount of asset protection will save you from the wrong court.
Of course, some of these reasons to avoid real estate investments in the US could be applying to other bankrupt western countries that have a kleptomaniac streak. When it comes to investing in real estate, “go where you’re treated best”.
http://nomadcapitalist.com/2014/04/01/five-reasons-buy-us-real-estate/

Sarah Palin’s keynote address to Alaska’s secessionist movement

I have some mixed messages and feelings when I watch this 2008 video of the former governer. It’s part pep-talk, it’s part campaign speech, party chummy condescension. If you love Sarah Palin, this video won’t bother you. If you don’t like her, this will make you hate her more.

But for those who live here, this is just another reason we are different here:

We had a sitting governor addressing the convention of the largest third party in Alaska, a secessionist party at that. While she clearly didn’t see them as a threat, she obviously feels they are legitimate enough to warrant comparison to her own viewpoint. She had during her time in office appointed and dismissed party members from her administration.

The AIP, while supposedly not wanting to secede but just vote on if we should… Remains the party that no one in Alaska has heard of but that everyone wants to join when they hear about it.

Why is this? What keeps the largest third party of capturing a single school board seat?

Anyhow, enjoy the show. Enjoy talking about peaceful secession and voluntaryism with people.

 

 

Sarah Palin speaks to the AIP

Question EVERYTHING!!!

Question Everything
By Jeff Thomas

From Internationalman.com

Image
The average person in the First World receives more information than he would if he lived in a Second or Third World country. In many countries of the world, the very idea of twenty-four hour television news coverage would be unthinkable, yet many Westerners feel that, without this constant input, they would be woefully uninformed.

Not surprising, then, that the average First Worlder feels that he understands current events better than those elsewhere in the world. But, as in other things, quality and quantity are not the same.

The average news programme features a commentator who provides “the news,” or at least that portion of events that the network deems worthy to be presented. In addition, it is presented from the political slant of the controllers of the network. But we are reassured that the reporting is “balanced,” in a portion of the programme that features a panel of “experts.”

Customarily, the panel consists of the moderator plus two pundits who share his political slant and a pundit who has an opposing slant. All are paid by the network for their contributions. The moderator will ask a question on a current issue, and an argument will ensue for a few minutes. Generally, no real conclusion is reached—neither side accedes to the other. The moderator then moves on to another question.

So, the network has aired the issues of the day, and we have received a balanced view that may inform our own opinions.

Or have we?

Shortcomings
In actual fact, there are significant shortcomings in this type of presentation:

The scope of coverage is extremely narrow. Only select facets of each issue are discussed.
Generally, the discussion reveals precious little actual insight and, in fact, only the standard opposing liberal and conservative positions are discussed, implying that the viewer must choose one or the other to adopt as his own opinion.
On a programme that is liberally-oriented, the one conservative pundit on the panel is made to look foolish by the three liberal pundits, ensuring that the liberal viewer’s beliefs are reaffirmed. (The reverse is true on a conservative news programme.)
Each issue facet that is addressed is repeated many times in the course of the day, then extended for as many days, weeks, or months as the issue remains current. The “message,” therefore, is repeated virtually as often as an advert for a brand of laundry powder.
So, what is the net effect of such news reportage? Has the viewer become well-informed?

In actual fact, not at all. What he has become is well-indoctrinated.

A liberal will be inclined to regularly watch a liberal news channel, which will result in the continual reaffirmation of his liberal views. A conservative will, in turn, regularly watch a conservative news channel, which will result in the continual reaffirmation of his conservative views.

Many viewers will agree that this is so, yet not recognise that, essentially, they are being programmed to simply absorb information. Along the way, their inclination to actually question and think for themselves is being eroded.

Alternate Possibilities
The proof of this is that those who have been programmed, tend to react with anger when they encounter a Nigel Farage or a Ron Paul, who might well challenge them to consider a third option—an interpretation beyond the narrow conservative and liberal views of events. In truth, on any issue, there exists a wide field of alternate possibilities.

By contrast, it is not uncommon for people outside the First World to have better instincts when encountering a news item. If they do not receive the BBC, Fox News, or CNN, they are likely, when learning of a political event, to think through, on their own, what the event means to them.

As they are not pre-programmed to follow one narrow line of reasoning or another, they are open to a broad range of possibilities. Each individual, based upon his personal experience, is likely to draw a different conclusion and, thorough discourse with others, is likely to continue to update his opinion each time he receives a new viewpoint.

As a result, it is not uncommon for those who are not “plugged-in” to be not only more open-minded, but more imaginative in their considerations, even when they are less educated and less “informed” than those in the First World.

Whilst those who do not receive the regular barrage that is the norm in the First World are no more intelligent than their European or American counterparts, their views are more often the result of personal objective reasoning and common sense and are often more insightful.

Those in First World countries often point with pride at the advanced technology that allows them a greater volume of news than the rest of the world customarily receives.

Further, they are likely to take pride in their belief that the two opposing views that are presented indicate that they live in a “free” country, where dissent is encouraged.

Unfortunately, what is encouraged is one of two views—either the liberal view or the conservative view. Other views are discouraged.

The liberal view espouses that a powerful liberal government is necessary to control the greed of capitalists, taxing and regulating them as much as possible to limit their ability to victimise the poorer classes.

The conservative view espouses that a powerful conservative government is needed to control the liberals, who threaten to create chaos and moral collapse through such efforts as gay rights, legalised abortion, etc.

What these two dogmatic concepts have in common is that a powerful government is needed.

Each group, therefore, seeks the increase in the power of its group of legislators to overpower the opposing group. This ensures that, regardless of whether the present government is dominated by liberals of conservatives, the one certainty will be that the government will be powerful.

When seen in this light, if the television viewer were to click the remote back and forth regularly from the liberal channel to the conservative channel, he would begin to see a strong similarity between the two.

It’s easy for any viewer to question the opposition group, to consider them disingenuous—the bearers of false information. It is far more difficult to question the pundits who are on our own “team,” to ask ourselves if they, also, are disingenuous.

This is especially difficult when it’s three to one—when three commentators share our political view and all say the same thing to the odd-man-out on the panel. In such a situation, the hardest task is to question our own team, who are clearly succeeding at beating down the odd-man-out.

Evolution of Indoctrination
In bygone eras, the kings of old would tell their minions what to believe and the minions would then either accept or reject the information received. They would rely on their own experience and reasoning powers to inform them.

Later, a better method evolved: the use of media to indoctrinate the populace with government-generated propaganda (think: Josef Goebbels or Uncle Joe Stalin).

Today, a far more effective method exists—one that retains the repetition of the latter method but helps to eliminate the open-ended field of alternate points of view. It does so by providing a choice between “View A” and “View B.”

In a democracy, there is always an “A” and a “B.” This illusion of choice is infinitely more effective in helping the populace to believe that they have been able to choose their leaders and their points of view.

In the modern method, when voting, regardless of what choice the individual makes, he is voting for an all-powerful government. (Whether it calls itself a conservative one or a liberal one is incidental.)

Likewise, through the modern media, when the viewer absorbs what is presented as discourse, regardless of whether he chooses View A or View B, he is endorsing an all-powerful government.

Two Solutions
One solution to avoid being brainwashed by the dogmatic messaging of the media is to simply avoid watching the news. But this is difficult to do, as our associates and neighbours are watching it every day and will want to discuss with us what they have been taught.

The other choice is to question everything.

To consider that the event that is being discussed may not only be being falsely reported, but that the message being provided by the pundits may be consciously planned for our consumption.

This is difficult to do at first but can eventually become habit. If so, the likelihood of being led down the garden path by the powers-that-be may be greatly diminished. In truth, on any issue, there exists a wide field of alternate possibilities.

Developing your own view may, in the coming years, be vital to your well-being.

 

Charity vs. Coercion

Another article from txfatherofseven.wordpress.com.

txfatherofseven


When we oppose subsidies, we are charged with opposing the very thing that it was proposed to subsidize and of being the enemies of all kinds of activity, because we want these activities to be voluntary and to seek their proper reward in themselves. Thus, if we ask that the state not intervene, by taxation, in religious matters, we are atheists. If we ask that the state not intervene, by taxation, in education, then we hate enlightenment. If we say that the state should not give, by taxation, an artificial value to land or to some branch of industry, then we are the enemies of property and of labor. If we think that the state should not subsidize artists, we are barbarians who judge the arts useless. — Frederic Bastiat



I’ve posted this quote onFacebookonce but never got to dig into it more. One of the things about the…

View original post 495 more words

Common Core creates new wave of home schoolers!

A new out-break of freedom as GenX parents reject statist monopolized education!

The department of education is barely older than most of these parents, yet it continually speaks to them as if they were the children.

Children are people- not mechanical property of parents or the state. Children deserve to have choice in their educations, not statist-mandated   tests and programs.

Adults enjoy free choice. When you go to lunch , you have dozens choices- Asian, Mexican, home-style, Italian, smoking and non-smoking.

As an adult, you typically enjoy your lunch due to the CHOICES you have. No one forces you to eat the same lunch day after day, much less a lunch mandated by an-ever shifting cadre of statist nincompoops.

Homeschool is a great way to introduce freedom and enjoyment into the educational life of the children in our families. Let them develop curriculum that enhance their talents, and challenge them.

We love them, we want them to grow into thinking individuals and not robots.

Homeschool offers the best chance.

 


 

MORE PARENTS CHOOSE HOMESCHOOLING DUE TO COMMON CORE
by DR. SUSAN BERRY 27 Mar 2014 241 POST A COMMENT

As Common Core champions like Jeb Bush, Bill Gates, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce continue to attack parents, teachers, and taxpayers for what they claim are “myths” spread about the centralized standards initiative, many parents across the nation are not convinced.
They are refusing to subject their children to the stress, pressure, and confusion associated with the Common Core by opting out of the assessments aligned with the standards, or by withdrawing them from school and choosing homeschooling instead.
WHNT 19 News in Alabama reports a growing number of families making the decision to withdraw their children from school in order to homeschool because of “confusion,” “chaos,” and stress related to the Common Core standards.
“It [Common Core] has caused chaos in our house, and it’s not worth it,” said Lori Peden, who has withdrawn two of her children from McBride Elementary in Muscle Shoals, Alabama. “The teachers are not comfortable teaching it. They’re frustrated. Parents are upset, kids are not making good grades. That’s what I’ve seen.”
Peden said she never had plans to homeschool her children, but did so after she observed her son struggling with Common Core math assignments in which he was required to find and learn up to half a dozen different pathways to the same final answer, an endeavor that created confusion and constant stress.
“In math, they take a very long road to go a short distance,” said Peden. “You’re fighting over which method to use and how to figure out how he needs to do it. It’s a lot of time wasted, a lot of effort wasted.”

Megan King, a parent from Kansans Against Common Core, is also homeschooling two of her children because she is unhappy with the Common Core standards.
“My oldest is in middle school, and is on an advance track that I felt comfortable leaving him where he is at, but even with him I am seeing problems in the area of English,” King told Breitbart News.
King said she pulled her kids from public school as Common Core was being implemented.
“I noticed the dumb and confusing way math was beginning to be taught, and as I looked more and more into Common Core, I didn’t like what I was seeing on so many levels,” she explained. “My 4th grader had only read one literature book through the year. I asked his teacher about their reading and she said they had been reading small non fiction books (informational text).”
“I just felt my kids were not going to learn at a level I know they can and should be learning at,” King said.
Though homeschooling has been an adjustment for the entire family, King said the results have been worth it.
“I do recommend homeschooling,” she said. “It’s very rewarding, but I had to quit my job as a preschool teacher in order to homeschool, so we have had to really tighten our belt financially. But, even if a state finds its way out of Common Core, it will be years before things are what they were before No Child Left Behind and Common Core, so we, as parents, have to get creative and find new ways to educate our kids.”
Justin and Jennifer Dahlmann of Kansas also have decided to homeschool their children in response to the implementation of the Common Core standards.
KAKE.com reports that the Dahlmanns, who have four daughters from ages two to nine, said Common Core had been implemented at their children’s private school.
“Our own kids were taking these standards that are driving the curriculum and we didn’t know anything about it,” Justin said. “That’s when we started doing the research on it and realized how overbearing it was.”
The parents asserted that the Common Core standards are making education more confusing, as opposed to encouraging more rigorous critical thinking, as the standards’ supporters tout.
Homeschooling, for the Dahlmanns, is, in some ways, a form of protest of the “top down” Common Core standards.
“If this does nothing more than wake people up to becoming more involved with their children, that’s great,” Justin said. “But absolutely parents need to become more involved in this.”
William Estrada, Director of Federal Relations of the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) wrote in December of 2012, that he believes “children – whether homeschooled, private schooled, or public schooled – do best when parents are fully engaged.”
Estrada said that centralized education policies do not encourage parents to be engaged in what and how their children are being taught.
“The CCSS [Common Core State Standards] moves education standards from the purview of state and local control to being controlled by unaccountable education policy experts sitting in a board room far removed from the parents, students, and teachers who are most critical to a child’s educational success,” Estrada wrote.