Spanish State Seizes Catalan Independence

By Stefan Matias Kløvning and Ken Mendersen

The Catalan regional Parliament has voted to declare its independence from Spain, while the Spanish Parliament has approved Madrid to impose direct rule over said region.
This is following Spain’s dismissal of Catalonia’s president , cabinet, and Parliament on Friday soon after lawmakers in the region defied Madrid and began to vote for their independence. Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy called new elections and fired the Catalan Police Chief stating that these moves were necessary to restore order after the occurrence of a political crisis that has had the country gripped for months.


“In this moment, we need to be serene and careful, but we also need to have confidence that the state has the tools, backed by the law and reason, [to] peacefully and reasonably go back to legality and take away threats to democracy,” – Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy.

Rajoy spoke only hours after the Catalonia Parliament voted by 70 to 10 to “form the Catalan Republic as an independent and sovereign state.”
So, why did the Prime Minister have such a problem with the declaration?
Other countries such as the US, UK, Germany and France have all been urging and pushing the notion of Spanish Unity. European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker said the EU “doesn’t need any more cracks, more splits.”
“The UK does not and will not recognize the unilateral declaration of independence made by the Catalan regional parliament,” the Number 10 spokesman said in a statement.”

With all of these outside voices all saying that a drastic move like this isn’t optimal, the Spanish Prime Minister has taken certain actions to at least restore order to Catalonia.
Madrid used its new emergency powers, under Article 155 of the Spanish constitution, to dissolve Catalan President Carles Puigdemont, his cabinet and the entire Catalan Parliament.
The deputy Prime Minister Soraya Sáenz de Santamaría, has been temporarily appointed to run the region.

Catalonia’s local police force, the Mossos d’Esquadra was taken over by the Spanish Ministry of Interior. The forces local Police Chief Josep Lluis Trapero, was also dismissed and replaced by his deputy Ferran López.
What does this mean for the future of Catalonia and the EU?
While Madrid has approved direct rule of Catalonia is remains unclear how quickly Spain can reassert its control over Catalonia.

Even though Catalonia separating from Spain would affect the EU, the EU, all of its member states and the US has expressed that this crisis is an internal matter of Spain.
If Catalonia’s declaration of its independence proves one thing it is that other countries/regions that declare their independence inspire others. Great Britain began the crescendo effect with their exit from the EU back in June of 2016. Catalonia is known as the largest region of Spain and their independence is undoubtedly going to effect other regions or countries desire to declare their independence from their respective countries or unions.

As Goldfire Media reported earlier this month, domestic tensions started rising in Spain on October 1, when secessionists held a referendum to vote whether Catalonia should become independent from Spain or not. The day after Catalan leaders had passed a declaration of independence for the region, Spain formally took direct control of Catalonia on the 29th, dismissing the government of Catalonia. The Spanish Prime Minister, Mariano Rajoy, even went as far as to dissolve the regional parliament and calling for a new regional election on December 21.

Charles Puigdemont, the Catalan leader, said “only the regional parliament can elect or dismiss the Catalan government,” and he vowed to “continue working to build a free country.” He also called for “democratic opposition” to the application of Article 155, which gives Madrid direct control over matters in Catalonia. After Spanish authorities took over Catalonia, Puigdemont and 12 other Catalan Cabinet members are no longer paid. Spanish prosecutors also said that they could face rebellion charges as early as Monday.





Leave The European Union IMMEDIATELY: Sign The Petition!

By Will Mannion

Nigel Farage had only got his foot in the door with the BREXIT vote, little did he know that BREXIT might not even happen at all. With both the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition voted remain, can we trust that the version of BREXIT UKIP pushed for in early 2016 to be delivered?

Leaving the EU right now means that the UK can immediately enter the free market with no deal, contrary to what the BBC (who does not want BREXIT to happen) says about how Britain would be better off in the European Union and how the government should ignore the democratic vote to leave.

Brussels has been making the laws for the UK and this puts ease on the UK politicians as it saves them having to do it themselves. Brussels is demanding billions off the UK for deciding to leave the EU and Parliament seems to be standing idly by.

Nobody voted to get in the European Union in the first place, it would only be democratic to leave it. Leave your signature down below and share the petition:


The petition must get 100,000 signatures by March next year if it is to be effective in any way.

Go Big Like Reagan! Huge GOP Tax Reform Framework Released

By Stefan Matias Kløvning

On Wednesday, 11th October, the Republican Party released an ambitious tax reform framework, with three goals, nine changes, and thirty-one reasons why we need tax-reform. They said they follow in 40th President Ronald Reagan’s footsteps for his 1986 tax reform, which they named the “single largest reform of the U.S. tax code in our nation’s history.” They also say that now, after more than 30 years, it’s once again time for a new such tax reform.

It’s three goals are: (1) more jobs, (2) fairer taxes, and (3) bigger paychecks. This seems to go for a laissez-faire economic system, free from government regulation and intervention. But how will they implement them? Primarily, the plan seeks to repeal the estate tax, also called “death tax”, and the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), which requires taxpayers to do their taxes twice. It shrinks the current seven tax brackets to three – 12%, 25% and 35% – with a potential additional top rate for the highest-income tax payers, so the wealthy don’t pay a lower share than they do today. It also limits the maximum tax for small and family-owned businesses to 25%, reduces the corporate tax to 20% – lower than the 22,5% average in the industrialized world – and allows businesses to write off (or “expense”) the cost of new investments for at least five years.
It seeks to eliminate loopholes for the wealthy, by eliminating itemized deductions and imposing a one-time, low tax rate on wealth that has already been accumulated overseas so there is no tax incentive to keeping foreign profits overseas and jobs offshore.
Among the incentives the plan proposes, it retains tax incentives for home mortgage interest, charitable contributions, work, higher education and retirement security. It also doubles standard deduction, and increases the child tax credit.

It’s certainly an ambitious plan, and the Libertarians in Congress could see this as a victory if the plan gets through. Trump told Congress to “show [him] the BIG tax reform”, and here it is, in simple wording, so that’s certainly something for them to be proud about, for now, though they have a lot to work on with strengthening the Iran deal – as Trump recently decertified it – and fixing healthcare.

Ron Paul, however, stated in a Mises Institute article on Tuesday called Will Tax Reform Increase or Limit Liberty, that tax reform won’t increase liberty without cutting spending as well. He suggested that Congress “should cut two dollars in spending on the military-industrial complex and other forms of corporate welfare for every dollar in tax cuts,” adding that “Cutting both taxes and spending is the only way to protect prosperity and liberty.” In his budget plan ‘Taxpayers First’ released earlier this year, Trump suggested a way to balance the budget by 2027, being the first President to suggest cutting $3,6 trillion from spending over 10 years. To what degree these plans will get through in the following years of his term will determine how much it will “increase or limit liberty”, but as Republicans have stated tax reform is their No. 1 priority, they won’t go down without a fight.

Though they have sent that clear message however, they do have a lot of other important issues to get through with which is yet to be completed. Reagan wasn’t just known for his domestic fiscal policy, but also for his strong foreign policy against the Soviet Empire. So, here’s an advice to Congress: Go big like Reagan!

Jeremy Corbyn Says NO to Automation

Leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, has criticised the idea that people are replaceable with computers. He also wants to introduce a tax system that puts a tax on any software that could replace a job done by a person.

Corbyn would like to use the money made from a taxing scheme (robot tax) to create a fund to retrain staff who lose their jobs because of new technology. Quoting what he said – “We should all get the benefits from greedy global corporations such as Amazon which have made a great deal of money out of incredibly advanced technology”. Corbyn also went on to blame capitalism for the corporation’s greed when it comes to cheaper labour but, according to Corbyn, the Labour Party ‘has no real plan’ to counter the ‘corporate greed’. He also went on to say that the government should be able to control all the decisions businesses make. Corbyn has been backed by the world banks, saying that if all the jobs are taken then people would make no money – therefore there will be no money to invest into the banks.

The question remains whether it is wise to replace working humans with software that can do as good a, or better, job. The truth is that it is a good idea, but to an extent. There are many jobs around the world that are growing in number which cannot be preformed by a computer – doctors, lawyers, builders, journalists and paramedics are good examples where a human mind is needed to perform the job role. If software did take over the workforce (at the ability it has now) it would take up approximately 33% of the workforce in the western world. With the new demand for new jobs, new businesses will open so when automation becomes a larger part of the world then there will be brand new positions made by brand new businesses. New markets could open altogether!

There is always the moral issue of replacing a human being with a robot. A human needs a wage in order for them to eat, pay rent and provide for their families. However a robot or a computer could do the same job for no annual cost, saving the corporate companies millions so they can keep the shareholders happy. Sadly, the employee who is replaced by a machine or software may struggle to provide for their family until they can find a new job. It may not always be as simple just to ‘find another job’ when the employee may be trained specifically in a certain area but that area of work doesn’t exist anymore due to a takeover by automation software.

Actions Speak Louder Than Words! The Comparable Inconsistency of the Oval Office

With so much misinformation in the media and politics today, it becomes difficult to know who to trust, no matter which side of the aisle a person is on, or even those in the middle. The best bet is to listen to what each group has to say, no matter how difficult, and then do your best to follow actual documents, voting records, policy statements, and presidential papers to see was was actually done. In reviewing the last administration, which is the last for which the record is complete, it becomes apparent how huge the inconsistencies between words and action can be.

Since they are the simplest of the Presidential tools, let’s look at the most seemingly innocuous: proclamations, and the overreach of presidential authority though their use. Understand that Obama is not the first to overextend his reach through the use of proclamations. FDR, Wilson, Carter, Clinton, and the Bushes have all been notable in their overuse of, and overreach through the use of, proclamations, signing statements, etc. But, with the possible exceptions of Wilson, FDR, and Clinton, Obama has outreached them all when you look at the combined number and especially the scope of his use of the Presidential tools — so much so that his “use” of presidential proclamations, orders, and statements certainly seems to be more appropriately termed “abuse”.1
Like Clinton, Obama has used these proclamations, which were designed to be simple declarations of special days or public policy, and which aren’t supposed to have the force of law without Congressional approval, to enact changes in trade regulations and, in at least one case, to declare a state of national emergency for medical reasons (Proclamation #8443, signed 10/23/09 declared a state of emergency for the H1N1 flu virus, providing free flu shots, but also requiring healthcare workers to follow ‘emergency plans’ as decided by their facilities, basically giving the facilities what amounted to presidentially-approved power to fire anyone who did not want to be injected with their facilities’ flu shot). So, what exactly did Obama say in his proclamations that should give us pause?

Proclamations #8394, 8405, 8414, 8468, 8467, 8504, 8536, 8539, 8596, and 8618, signed between 2009-2010, all deal with trade tariffs, and their clauses certainly seem much more like legal stipulations rather than the mere declarations or commentary they were designed to be. A quick overview shows us what these cover:

Provisions provided by proclamation
Changes preferred status and/or competitive need designations for the purpose of charging tariffs to specific goods imported by specific countries under the Trade Act of 1974.
Changing the rules of origin for goods with respect to NAFTA (trade agreement between Canada, US, and Mexico), and USIFTA (trade agreement between US and Israel) in 1988.


Changing the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to tires from China.
MAJOR trade changes to MANY countries/agreements (*see below)
Changing beneficiary status for African countries under the AGOA (African Growth and Opportunity Act) – gives preferential status to ISLAMIC Republic of Mauritania.
Changing statuses and tariffs for countries under the following trade agreements: CAFTA-DR (2004: Central American Countries), NAFTA, USSFTA (Singapore-US), USIFTA, and USCFTA (Chile-US).
Remove beneficiary status for several countries under the Trade Act of 1974.
Changing rules of origin for status and tariffs for countries under the Omnibus Trade and Competitive Act of 1988, NAFTA, and USBFTA (US-Bahrain), including Haiti, El Salvador, and the Dominican Republic
Changing beneficiary status for the Democratic Republic of the Congo and changing the list of duty free chemicals and pharmaceuticals from Uruguay under AGOA.
Proclamations #8467 and 8468(*) are especially interesting in terms of both what they say and what they don’t. Like several of the proclamations above, these change the terms for the rules of origin to decide which goods are from countries that benefit from trade agreements, many of which have been successful since 1974. These proclamations also tend to change the status of specific countries for the sake of how we treat them in respect to trade taxes/tariffs that we charge when they send goods to sell here in the U.S. Some countries get breaks, and usually these are the poorer countries, designated, for example, as “least developed beneficiary”, or ending the breaks for countries with a “high income” designation. Here, proclamations 8467-68, Obama removed the benefits for the countries of Trinidad and Tobago, Equatorial Guinea, Niger, Madagascar, Cape Verde, the Republic of Maldives, and Croatia. He only added beneficial status to one country: The Islamic Republic of Mauritania.

From 2008-2016, Obama made an additional 28 proclamations that affected trade regulations. What’s interesting is that, in the group of 9 proclamations listed above, only 8467-68 have annexes that are able to be viewed on the Federal Register website. Very few items in the Federal Register of laws/rules are unable to be viewed online, yet 7 out of the 9 proclamations on trade rules from 2009-2010 cannot be viewed to see exactly what was done and to whom. It was only through a long process of tracking down the information through the Harmonized Tariff Schedules, cross-referenced with the proclamations, that sense could be made at all of what the proclamations were intended to accomplish. Although the Federal Register is required by the Constitution to be published and distributed to the public, it is not required, by law, to be available online. The House of Representatives tried to pass a bill to get online publication included, but it was left to die in a Democratic Senate…twice.

An in depth explanation would require a long and complex look at the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) of the U.S., which is about as lengthy and technically complex as the federal income tax code. Basically, the HTS is a list of how much we charge other countries to allow them to sell their goods in our market –all countries, with four to six digit numbers assigned to each type of good – which is why I do not want to attempt to cover this classification schedule in its entirety here. One very noticeable trend, however, especially in light of world events over the last 8-25 years, is the trend toward rewarding countries with known or suspected ties to radical Islam, as well as the tendency to stick it to Israel at every opportunity.

When looking at the HTS for Israel, specifically at the amount of items they are allowed to send us ‘duty free’ (without paying a tariff; most countries are allowed some amount of this) each president has increased the number/amount of duty free items slightly, to account for factors such as inflation and population growth in the U.S., each year. At least, they did until Obama. For example, here’s an annual breakdown from 1996 (when Bill Clinton was president) of the HTS showing how much Ice Cream Israel is allowed to send us duty free each year:

Time Period

Quantity Allowed (kg)
Dec 4-31, 1996






















Notice anything? That’s right, all 8 years of Obama’s Presidency saw no increase for Israel. Of course, Obama made magnanimous-sounding statements about “continuing our relationship with Israel” by simply continuing the duty free agreements themselves, but failed to mention that he has denied them the standard increase that they had previously received, and which most other countries have still gotten. At the time he did this, right up until the end of his presidency, no one would have believed that our ‘diversity and unity’ President could act in such a seemingly anti-Semitic manner. But, of course, now we should all know better: On his way out of office, on a Friday evening in December 2016, he made sure to give Israel one more snub when he purposely decided that the U.S. would abstain from blocking a UN measure that would have protected their rights to continue claiming their hereditary rights to the Wailing Wall and the Temple Mount, their holiest sites for hundreds of years.

The other misuse of Proclamations has to do with the amount of land grabbed by Obama for Federal property through the declaration of “National Monuments”. One of the foundational freedoms that our nation’s founders wanted us to enjoy was the right to property ownership. The American revolutionaries were tired of being treated as little more than serfs by the British. They worked the land for generations, only to find themselves either taxed beyond their ability to pay and thereby forfeiting their lands to the crown, or having their lands directly seized by the monarchy or government for other uses. The rallying cry of the American Revolution movement was that they were no longer going to accept taxation and legislation “without representation”. The appropriation of property, and tax upon its ownership, was high on their list of grievances. Again, they included specific instructions regarding property.

Article IV, Section 3: “nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”
Amendment V (1791): “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentiment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”;
Amendment XIV, Section 1: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”
Yet, Obama used Proclamations to do just this: to claim lands, that should belong to the people through their States, for “National Monuments”. He, like other Presidents, has claimed authority from the Antiquities Act of 1806, first used by Teddy Roosevelt. But the problem with that is in the sections of the Constitution above. Plus, the Antiquities Act even states that areas claimed for National Monuments must be limited, such that “the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected”.

Let’s look at exactly how much land has been grabbed, and where it is. You can find a map of land claimed by the Federal Government for their administration and/or use at the Bureau of Land Management’s own website:


Did you see this and think, “That can’t be right, can it?” I did. But let’s see the Proclamations from Obama that account for a first portion of this large federal area on the map: the National Monuments acreage claimed in 2011-2016:
Proc #
Area of Country
Ft. Monroe, Old Comfort Point VA
Fort Ord, CA coast
Chimney Rock, near Choco Canyon, CO
Cesar Chavez, Keane, CA
Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad, NY
New Castle, DE
Charles Young Buffalo Soldiers, Youngstown, OH
Rio Grande del Norte, TX
San Juan Islands, WA
Enlarging CA coast monument
Organ Mountains, Las Cruces/Desert Peaks, NM
San Gabriel Mountains, CA
Pullman, Chicago, IL
Brown’s Canyon, CO
Honouliuli Gulch, Oahu, HI
Great Basin and Range, SE Nevada and Mojave
Berryessa Snow Mtn., N. CA
Waco Mammoth Nat’l Monument, Waco, TX
Castle Mountains, Mojave Reserve, CA/NV border
Mojave Trails, CA (including Cadiz Dunes)
Sonoran Desert/Joshua Tree, S. CA
Sewall-Belmont House in DC
Stonewall Nat’l, Christopher Park, Greenwich Vil, NY
Katahdin Woods & Waters, N. Central ME

Around N. Mariana Islands
Pacific Islands: Wake, Baker, Howard, Jarvis, Johnson, Palmyra Atolls, Kingman Reef
Midway Atoll, seas near HI
NE Canyons/Seamounts Marine, seas SE of Cape Cod

t rounded up from 4,034,522.8957 acres
*defined in terms of 3 miles out from tide lines of islands
**converted from nautical square miles
TOTAL: 487,885,644.17 ACRES

So, do you truly think we needed over half a billion acres, mostly borders and coastal or sea lane areas, for “National Monuments”? If so, why? If not, then what on earth has Obama grabbed so much land for? Whatever the reason, it’s quite clear that this is not what the founders had in mind at all when they protected our person and property from seizure, and said that our citizens should not be deprived of property without due process of law. THIS is why we must look deeper when trying to make sense of the political debates raging in media today. People can say anything, but it is a far greater indicator of their beliefs and values to see what they do.

(Find the papers of every administration in full text at The Presidency Project from UCSB, or the Federal Register, limited online availability.)


The BREXIT Reality

It is very possible that BREXIT might not even happen, however there is always a chance through certain politicians like Nigel Farage, Jacob Rees Mogg and David Davis. Nigel Farage has said that he is considering making a new party, insuring that BREXIT is properly delivered.

Some of the major factors of BREXIT include leaving the single market, gaining control of the British seas (in order to stop overfishing) and regaining Britain’s border.

Jeremy Corbyn will not follow through with BREXIT even though he says he will. The Labour Party leader has his own version of BREXIT which means that the UK physically leaves the single market but with all the same preset deals still occur.

The leader of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron, has absolutely no interest in leaving the EU whatsoever. In fact, the Lib Dems often host marches and parades in London protesting the democratic vote to leave the European Union. If the Liberal Democrats came to office, although it is very unlikely, then BREXIT will not become a reality. Ex-Liberal Democrat and EU executive, Henry Bolton, is now the leader of UKIP – the party behind BREXIT. This means the implementers of BREXIT cannot preform BREXIT!

Theresa May, leader of the Conservative Party and current Prime Minister, says that she will leave the European Union but having voted remain last year she may not. May has proved herself to be the contrary of a right wing Conservative and more of a Centrist, having refused to denounce the Alt Left and letting in tens of thousands of undocumented migrants flood in during her tenure as secretary of state.

There are three possible ways BREXIT can be securely delivered. The first way is the most likely way to secure BREXIT and the last way is the least likely. The first way is for Nigel Farage to set up a party in order to gain some seats in the House of Commons. It is unlikely that Farage would win, although 52% voted for BREXIT in the first place. The second way would be from inside the Conservative Party. If a pro BREXIT Conservative ran for the place of Prime Minister then it would be likely that they would win. However that person is simply not there, becoming Prime Minister is a very demanding job and that person would have to give up all the fruitful parts of their life to fully dedicate his or her life to the country. The third way is a third party candidate or an independent. There are parties in the UK that stand for BREXIT and all of its policies. The trouble is that these parties are too small and, in some cases, too far right. A good party would be the Populist Party, although their numbers are fairly small their agenda correlates with BREXIT perfectly. The Populist Party was originally a part of UKIP, until it broke up in the early 2000’s.

The more BREXIT gets bashed, the more people that will come to defend it. At some point, hopefully, there will be a politician that will deliver BREXIT and bring the establishment to its knees…

Italian Steel Workers Protest Potential 5000 Jobs Cut

By Stefan Matias Kløvning

Russian news site ‘Russia Today’ recently held a live stream of Italian steel workers protesting 5000 jobs being cut from the steel company Ilva. The protest was held in Genoa, the capital of the Italian region Liguria.
Ilva is one out of two companies in ‘Group Riva’, the third largest steel producer in Europe and eighteenth largest in the world. In 2012, Ilva was the largest steel facility in Europe, but was declared insolvent earlier this year with debts totaling €3 billion.

The plant was due to close in 2012, which would have led to 12000-20000 jobs lost. The announcement was made just days after the plant was hit by a tornado, where two dozen were injured, but the plant sustained significant damage. The reason for the potential closure was because of an Italian study done the year before finding that Taranto suffered from a “mortality excess” of between 10-15% due to release of dioxin and other chemicals causing cancer, respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.

Eight Ilva executives were arrested for bribing officials to cover up environmental damage at the sprawling site, and steel and semi-finished products were seized. Ilva denied their operations related to the elevated mortality rates in the region. The Italian government tried saving the company to the best of their abilities, and promised a €336m clean-up program for the city. The plant produced 30% of Italy’s total steel output in 2011.

The plant was then privatized and its majority shares sold to India’s ‘ArcelorMittal’ and Italy’s ‘Marcegaglia’. Some 1000 protesters, including members of local trade unions and Ilva workers, protested this in Genoa, early June, claiming this would lead to 5000 jobs cut, which they recently, a few months later, announced they would. The protesters reportedly met with officials like the Prefect of Genoa, Mayor of Genoa and President of Liguria region, demanding the protection of employee’s rights, particularly in compliance with an employment contract agreement signed in 2005.