• Paul Craig Roberts Rages "The Leftwing Has Placed Itself In The Trash Can Of History"

  Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

  At a time when the Western world desperately needs alternative voices to the neoliberals, the neoconservatives, the presstitutes and the Trump de-regulationists, there are none. The Western leftwing has gone insane.

  The voices being raised against Trump, who does need voices raised against him, are so hypocritical as to reflect less on Trump than on those with raised voices.

  Sharon Kelly McBride, speaking for Human Rights First, sent me an email saying that Trump stands on the wrong side of “America’s ideals” by his prohibition of Muslim immigrants into the US.

  My question to McBride is:

  Where were you and Human Rights First when the Bush/Cheney/Obama regime was murdering, maiming, orphaning, widowing, and displacing millions of Muslims in seven countries over the course of 4 presidential terms?

  Why is it OK to slaughter millions of peoples, destroy their homes and villages, wreck their cities as long as it is not Donald Trump who is doing it?

  Where does Human Rights First get off. Just another fake website, or is McBride seizing the opportunity to prostitute Human Rights First in hopes of donations from the DNC, the Soros’ NGOs, the Isreal Lobby, and the ruling One Percent?

  Money speaks, and alternative voices need money in order to speak.

  As so many Americans are indifferent to the quality of information that they get, many alternative voices are thrown back to relying on whatever money is available. Generally, it is the money of disinformation, of information that controls the explanations in ways that favor and enhance the ruling oligarchy. Is this the position in which McBride has placed Human Rights First?

  Turn now to Truthout. This website says that Trump is demonizing Muslims by denying them immigration into the US.

  Where has Truthout been for the past 16 years? Did Truthout not notice that the George W. Bush regime said “We have to kill them (Muslims) over there before they (Muslims) come over here.”

   

  Did Truthout not notice that Obama continued the policy of “killing them (Muslims) over there”?

  How insane, how corrupt, does Truthout have to be to say that it is Trump who is demonizing Muslims?

  Trump has not said that he wants to “kill them over there.” He has said that if the masses of peoples we have dislocated and whose families we have murdered want to come here, they might wish to exact revenge. Having made Muslims our enemies, it makes no sense to admit vast numbers of them.

  According to Bush and Obama, we are supposed “to kill them over there,” not bring them “over here” where they can kill us as a payback for the murder machine we have run against them.

  This is common sense. Yet, the deranged left says it is “racism.”

  What happens to a country when the alternative voice is even more stupid and corrupt than the government’s voice?

  

  

• Media Turning On Itself: USAToday's Wolff Slams CNN's Stelter As "Ridiculous, Self-Righteous Figure"

  Amid the ever-increasing virtue-signaling fanaticism of the mainstream media in their incessant anti-Trump (so-called 'fact-checking') propaganda, it appears the infighting has begun. As The Hill reports, USA Today and Hollywood Reporter columnist Michael Wolff slammed CNN's Brian Stelter on his media affairs program Sunday, telling the host he was becoming "quite a ridiculous figure."

  With mainstream media credibility at record lows, The Hill points out that Wolff accused Stelter, in a recent Newsweek column, of delivering "a pious sermon about [Donald] Trump’s perfidiousness and nursing personal grudges."

  The 31-year-old "Reliable Sources" host asked Wolff if his style or substance was wrong in attempting to "fact-check the president."

  And then the fireworks began…

  "I think it is, and I mean this with truly no disrespect, but I think you can border on being sort of quite a ridiculous figure. It is not a good look, to repeatedly and self-righteously defend your own self-interest. The media should not be the story every week."

   

  "Every week in this religious sense, you make it the story," Wolff added. "We are not the story."

   

  "Isn't there room for one hour a week on CNN for this?" Stelter asked.

   

  "Listen, I love your show, but I wish every weekend you did not turn to the camera and lecture America about the virtues of the media and everyone trying to attack it. The media will be fine," Wolff  replied.

   

  "The media doesn't need defending?" Stelter followed.

   

  "The media doesn't need defending by the media," Wolff responded. "The New York Times front page looks like it's 1938 in Germany every day."

   

  "No it does not. Give me a break," retorted Stelter.

  Enjoy…

  

  

• It's Time To Start Worrying About China Again

  One year ago, S&P futures would tumble the second a flashing red headline noted that things involving China, the Yuan, or the PBOC were not playing out as expected. One year later, the market has forgotten it ever cared about the world’s biggest debt bubble.

  However, the time may have come to once again start worrying about China.

  With China coming back from its week-long holidays last Friday, a very important event took place under the radar, and was largely missed by the broader investing public masked by the relentless noise out of Washington and the January payrolls report: China has resumed tightening. For those who missed it, here is a recap of what we said first thing on Friday:

  “this morning China announced an unexpected tightening of policy when it raised rates on 7, 14 and 28-day reverse repos by 10bps to 2.35%, 2.50% and 2.65% respectively. That’s the first increase in the 28-day contracts since 2015 and since 2013 for the other two tenors. Keep in mind that this is the first working day following the New Year holiday in China, so it seems to be a decent statement of intent by the PBoC.

  

   

  Additionally, the SLF rate was increased to 3.1 percent from 2.75 percent. The implicit tightening sent Chinese stocks lower, with the Shanghai Composite closing down 0.6%, and accelerating the selloff in Chinese 10Y government futures.

  

  While China’s first effective tightening in two years largely slipped between the market’s cracks, the press is starting to pay attention (“China’s central bank raised key interest rates in the money marketFriday, reinforcing a shift toward tightening monetary policy aimed atdeflating asset bubbles and reducing long-term financial risk.” MarketWatch, Feb 3; “China’s surprise increase in interest rates on medium-term loansweighed on bond prices. …Some traders were clearly rattled by China’s first-ever increase in interest rates for its medium-term lending facility (MLF) loans, which was seen as signaling that short-term funding costswill move higher eventually as authorities try to cool an explosive increase in debt.” Reuters, Jan 25).

  To be sure, Friday’s explicit tightening followed several similar implicit actions by the government, which has been flashing warnings it would tighten and/or engage in deleveraging to slow down China’s stupendous ascent toward 300% debt/GDP, including a sharp slowdown in government spending which has collapsed from 20% one year ago to only 8% Y/Y at the end of 2016, the first slowdown in home price acceleration in 19 consecutive months following Beijing eagerness to pop China’s housing bubble, the recent hike in auto sales taxes from 5% to 7.5%, and so on.

  China’s sudden tightening move, which according to many will end the single biggest catalyst for the global reflation/growth story of 2016, namely China’s dramatic debt-fueled growth impulse which in turn then spilled over to the rest of the world, has already been dubbed as “The Most Important Unnoticed Global Event” by the likes of Cornerstone.

  * * *

  And since China’s push to tighten financial is really that important, here again courtesy of Goldman, is a full recap of what happened, why it matters, and a breakdown of all the key Chinese acronyms to keep an eye on in the coming days as the PBOC is very likely to continue expanding its tightening bias into other monetary conduits.

  PBOC raised interest rates on key monetary operations, further reinforcing tightening bias

  On Friday, PBOC increased interest rates on OMOs (open market operations) by 10bp and on SLF (standing lending facility) by 10-35bp–shortly following the rise in interest rates on MLF (medium-term lending facility) less than two weeks ago. We believe that the PBOC will retain its tightening bias in the near term as the underlying financial-leverage and macroeconomic arguments for tightened monetary policy have largely remained.

  Main points:

  Daily OMOs have been a key PBOC tool to manage interbank liquidity conditions.

  The central bank on Friday increased the interest rates on reverse repo OMOs (liquidity injections) of 7/14/28-day tenors by 10bp (to 2.35%/2.50%/2.65%). The last time the PBOC raised OMO rates was more than two years ago in 2014.

  The PBOC also increased SLF rates on overnight/7-day/1-month tenors by 35bp/10bp/10bp (to 3.10%/3.35%/3.7%).

  SLF is collateralized lending by the PBOC to financial institutions which request funding (see Appendix table for key PBOC toolkit). SLF usage has been relatively small (e.g., in January, the turnover and outstanding balance of SLF were well below RMB 100bn, while those of OMOs were about 20 times larger at roughly RMB 2tn). But given that SLF is likely tapped only when the interbank funding conditions are particularly tight, the SLF rate increase should still matter for the marginal funding cost in the system. The asymmetrically large increase in the overnight SLF rate will likely be an encouragement for financial institutions to lengthen the maturity of their interbank funding (we estimate that small commercial banks’ interbank repo borrowing has an average maturity of only about 2 days).

  Media reports also suggest that the PBOC has increased SLF rates further by 100bp for those banks that fail Macro-prudential Assessment (MPA) requirements. This has not been confirmed by the PBOC, however. As background, the PBOC set up MPA at the beginning of 2016 through which the central bank may fine-tune each individual bank’s required reserve ratio (RRR) on a quarterly basis depending on its performance based on several prudential metrics (see here for further official details of MPA).

  The underlying financial-leverage and macroeconomic arguments for tightened monetary policy have largely remained. We continue to expect that the PBOC’s tightening bias will remain unless either i) there is a clearer deleveraging in the interbank funding market, and/or ii) economic activity slows materially.

  Appendix table: OMOs and SLF play different roles in PBOC’s policy toolkit

  PBOC toolkit
  

  

  

• Trump To Push On With Voter Fraud Probe, Puts Mike Pence In Charge

  As if trying to prove MSNBC, which last week reported that “Trump’s campaign against imaginary voter fraud quietly fades“, wrong President Trump announced during an interview with Bill O’Reilly on Sunday that he would put Vice President Mike Pence in charge of a commission to probe what he believes was voter fraud in last November’s election, and which he says helped Hillary Clinton win the popular vote.

  “I’m going to set up a commission to be headed by Vice President Mike Pence and we’re going to look at it very, very carefully,” Trump told Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly.

  “Many people have come out and said I’m right, you know that,” Trump said. “Look, Bill, we can be babies, but you take a look at the registration, you have illegals, you have dead people you have this, it’s really a bad situation, it’s really bad,” he said.

  Previously, the Washington Post reported that Pence pledged to GOP lawmakers at the annual Republican retreat in Philadelphia that the administration would initiate a “full evaluation” of voting rolls nationwide.

  Trump’s plans for a “major investigation” into what he claims were fraudulent votes by as many as 3 million to 5 million illegal immigrants may not get too far without congressional funding, which may be an issue because already Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said he doesn’t want to spend federal funds on the investigation and leave it to state authorities. But Trump on Sunday stuck to his claim of massive voter fraud, which even Republicans on Capitol Hill have questioned while The New York Times has openly dismissed as an outright “lie.”

  Of course, many of Trump’s “ludicrous” statements have been discounted in the past, only to eventually be proven right.

  Trump said there is evidence of votes being attributed to dead people and of people voting in different states in the same election. He may be referring to the various Project Veritas videos which captured precisely that.

  Meanwhile, McConnell and other GOP leaders agree there is voter fraud but not on the scale claimed by Trump. “There is no evidence that it occurred in such a significant number that would have changed the presidential election,” he said on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday morning.

  That said, we eagerly look forward to the findings of the “Pence voter fraud commission.”

  

  

• Why Is The New York Times Lying About Trump?

  Submitted by Scott McConnell via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

  Even amidst a cacophony of nearly nonstop media fusillades against President Trump, the New York Times’ charge has stood out. After months of stories presenting Donald Trump as a sexual predator, business fraudster, puppet of Vladimir Putin, tax dodger, walking emolument disaster and whatever else it can dream up, the New York Times called Trump a liar in a prominent headline—proclaiming “Meeting with Top Lawmakers, Trump Repeats an Election Lie.”

  Speaking in a closed door meeting with congressional leaders, Trump had apparently claimed that he would have won the popular vote were it not for the votes of millions of noncitizens. After escalating this bit of semi-private braggadocio into “a lie,” the Times justified itself three days later, explaining somberly that it had not made the charge lightly, but that it “ultimately chose more muscular terminology” instead of terms as “baseless” or “bogus” because, as editor Dean Baquet stated, Trump had made a similar assertion months ago in a tweet. “We should be letting people know in no uncertain terms that it’s untrue.” Times opinion columnists, who—with the notable exception of Ross Douthat—have for a year seemed to write about little else than how despicable Trump is, followed up, rolling around passionately with the L word. “Our president is a pathological liar. Say it. Write it. Never become inured to it,” wrote Charles Blow, in one instance among many.

  Of course President Trump doesn’t know how many people voted illegally, but, in a country where millions of undocumented immigrants are commonly accorded driver’s licenses, access to public benefits and other accoutrements of civic normalcy, and after President Obama gave a pre-election interview to Hispanic media in which he seemed, in lawyerly fashion, to minimize the legal consequences of voting illegally, all while urging higher turnout, it’s difficult to believe the number is nugatory.

  It clearly galls the new president that he lost the popular vote. So he repeats random speculations about voter fraud (though Rep. Steve King’s assessment of the extent of illegal voting strikes me as meriting serious examination) and inflates them. He does much the same thing in the even less essential question of the size of Trump’s inaugural crowd (plainly smaller than Obama’s in 2008). He does it in extolling the excellence of his very good golf courses. If one speculated about why Trump bothers, one might surmise that he thinks his supporters expect—and deserve—some pushback against a media determined, from the outset, to paint, as far as possible, his presidency as partially or wholly illegitimate.

  In other words, Trump did what politicians do routinely: take more credit than they deserve, make an unsubstantiated claim, stretch the truth. Trump probably does it a little more. And New York Times editors conclude that instead of being a so-what issue, or fodder for a Saturday Night Live skit, it should be elevated into a “lie” to serve as the “not my president” talking point of the week, until it is replaced by a new one. (It was replaced by Trump’s doubling down on a previous Obama order pausing admissions of refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries, a policy that went virtually unnoticed when Obama did it in 2011.) The increasingly interlocking alliance between the establishment media and the protest left is a new phenomenon, one that hasn’t been seen in America since the radical 1960s.

  When does a politician’s unsubstantiated statement merit being labeled a “lie”? The line between political misrepresentation and lying is not always a bright one. When, in 1988, Bob Dole accused George H. W. Bush of “lying about his record” (after taking a pounding from Bush’s attack ads in New Hampshire), the remark was taken as evidence of Dole’s hot temper, not Bush’s lack of veracity. When an official gives deliberately false or misleading testimony under oath before Congress, it is commonly deemed more serious, and if discovered has serious legal consequences. If the question is generally murky, one thing is clear: a casual and unsubstantiated political boast gets turned from a “so what” into a “lie” when the paper publishing it has fully internalized its role as part of the opposition.

  Yet one might have thought that, given its recent history, the Times would be more careful about making such claims. Twice in recent memory, the Times has felt the need to publicly acknowledge its failings to readers about matters regarding its journalistic mission, that is, about presenting a true picture of the world. The most recent (and more benign) came five days after the election, when in a letter to subscribers, publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and executive editor Dean Baquet, vowed to “rededicate ourselves” to honest reporting, “striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories we bring to you.” It was a tacit admission that the Times had failed in its horserace reporting, which up until Election Day had emphasized stories like the frazzled and unprofessional nature of the Trump effort, in contrast to the finely honed Hillary ground game and the surging anti-Trump Latino vote. On election eve, Times “data-driven” estimates had placed Hillary’s chances of victory at 84 percent, but a Times reader would have been hard put to explain how there could be any doubt about the outcome at all, so missing were respectable arguments for Trump from the paper’s pages. The final pileup came on the morning after, when the headline acknowledging Trump’s victory seemed to parody the solipsism of the paper’s editors. “Democrats, Students, and Foreign Allies Face the Reality of the Trump Presidency.” The editors could not bring themselves to acknowledge that the nation’s voters had opted for fundamental change and upended an election scenario long assumed inevitable by bicoastal elites.

  In the interceding two months, some flashes of the Times’ pledges to cover the Trump phenomenon with more objectivity were apparent: one report on women who voted for Trump allowed them to speak in their own words, as did a recent story on voters who backed Trump’s immigration restrictions. But emphasis on “the lie” illustrates that in its present incarnation the Times is not going to reform itself. The paper’s reporters, editors and columnists—with a handful of exceptions—harbor a visceral hatred for Donald Trump and feel it their higher calling to act on their hate in everything they put in the paper. When it comes to Trump’s ties to Russia, the paper has acted upon the thinnest of evidence to lodge the most sweeping of claims against Trump. Is it lying, or just engaging in reckless hyperbole?

  However biased the Times’ Trump coverage, the consequences were mild compared to the paper’s record in the run-up to the Iraq War. In the year prior to the invasion of Iraq, the Times published numerous front-page “scoops” based primarily on fake facts leaked to its reporters from Iraqi defectors whose goal was to spur an invasion of Iraq. Judith Miller wrote several stories promoting disinformation from the notorious fabricator Ahmed Chalabi and others in his network; so, too, did the Times give credulous play to the most alarming (and incorrect) administration interpretations of Saddam’s effort to procure aluminum tubes. As some media analysts have pointed out, numerous voices in the intelligence and nonproliferation world doubted the claims reported in the Times scoops, and tried to warn the paper. The Times customarily ignored them, or buried skeptical voices in small paragraphs deep inside the paper.

  A year after the invasion, after no “weapons of mass destruction” had turned up, the Times acknowledged in an editor’s note that its coverage was “not as rigorous as it should have been.” It explained that “editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism” failed to do so. In short, the Times had printed a great deal of what might fairly be called “fake news.”

  Unlike many political untruths, the Times’ false Iraq coverage was enormously consequential. As perhaps the principal voice of the liberal establishment, it played a critical role in persuading the leading Democrats to go along with the hawks in the Bush administration while marginalizing those who challenged the administration’s war plans. The results are all too tragically evident. The conflagration pushed by the Times has left the Middle East in havoc fourteen years later. Millions of people have been killed or displaced, vast refugee flows that threaten to destabilize close allies have been unleashed, hundreds of thousands of American veterans have been left permanently disabled. Given that its own lack of truthful reporting had an immeasurable and tragic real-life impact on the lives of tens of millions, one might have hoped the Times would be more circumspect about how it characterized Trump’s transparent and inconsequential boasts about the size of his Inauguration Day crowd or the degree of voter fraud. And if the president’s concerns about voter fraud are indeed baseless, it would be logical for the Times to support voter-identification measures that would render them moot.

  The bottom line is that if the Times is determined to create a new standard for what constitutes lying by a president, then the newspaper cannot exempt itself from that standard either. The Times, in other words, has been repeatedly lying for months about Trump and for years about other matters. Is that really a path that a paper that purports to contain “all the news fit to print” really wants to embark upon? Apparently so.

  

  

• Extreme Vetting, But Not For Banks

  Authored by Matt Taibbi, originally posted at RollingStone.com,

  Donald Trump, the man who positioned himself as the common man's shield against Wall Street, signed a series of orders today calling for reviews or rollbacks of financial regulations. He did so after meeting with some friendly helpers.

  

  Here's how CNBC described the crowd of Wall Street CEOs Trump received, before he ordered a review of both the Dodd-Frank Act and the fiduciary rule requiring investment advisors to act in their clients' interests:

  "Trump also will meet at the White House with leading CEOs, including JPMorgan's Jamie Dimon, Blackstone's Steve Schwarzman, and BlackRock's Larry Fink."

  Leading the way for this assortment of populist heroes will be former Goldman honcho Gary Cohn, now Trump's chief economic advisor.

  

  Dimon, Schwarzman, Fink and Cohn collectively represent a rogues' gallery of the creeps most responsible for the 2008 crash. It would be hard to put together a group of people less sympathetic to the non-wealthy.

  Trump's approach to Wall Street is in sharp contrast to his tough-talking stances on terrorism. He talks a big game when slamming the door on penniless refugees, but curls up like a beach weakling around guys who have more money than he does.

  The two primary disasters in American history this century (if we're not counting Trump's election) have been 9/11 and the 2008 financial crisis, which cost 8.7 million people their jobs and may have destroyed as much as 45 percent of the world's wealth.

  The response to 9/11 we know: major military actions all over the world, plus a radical reshaping of our legal structure, with voters embracing warrantless surveillance, a suspension of habeas corpus, even torture.

  But the crisis response? Basically, we gave trillions of dollars to bail out the very actors who caused the mess. Now, with Trump's election, we've triumphantly put those same actors back in charge of non-policing themselves.

  In between, we passed a few weak-sauce rules designed to scale back some of the worst excesses. Those rules presumably will be tossed aside now.

  Trump's "extreme vetting" plan for immigrants and refugees is based upon a safety argument – i.e., that the smallest chance of a disaster justifies the most extreme measures. Infamously this week, administration spokesdunce Kellyanne Conway resorted to citing a disaster that never even happened – the "Bowling Green Massacre" – as a justification for the crazy visa policy.

  This makes Trump's embrace of the Mortgage Crash Dream Team as his advisory panel for how to make Wall Street run more smoothly all the more preposterous.

  The crisis was caused by the financial equivalent of open borders. Virtually no one was monitoring risk levels or credit worthiness at the world's biggest companies.

  The watchdogs who are supposed to be making sure the morons on Wall Street don't blow up the planet all failed: the compliance people within private companies, the so-called self-regulating organizations like the NYSE, and finally the government agencies like the OCC and the OTS.

  These companies are now so enormous that they can't keep track of their own positions. Also, in sharp contrast to the propaganda about what brainy people they all are, many of them lack even the most basic understanding of the potential consequences of deals they might be making.

  The leadership of AIG, for instance, basically had no clue how its derivatives portfolio worked, despite the fact that they had $79 billion worth of exposure. Similarly, then-CEO Chuck Prince of Citigroup told the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission that a $40 billion mortgage position "would not in any way have excited my attention." Both companies ended up needing massive bailouts.

  Not only can they not keep track of their own books, they already blow off regulators whenever they get the chance. Take JPMorgan Chase's "London Whale" episode, in which some $6.2 billion in losses in one portfolio accumulated practically overnight. In that case, Dimon simply refused to give the federal regulators routine, required reports as to what was going on with his bank's positions, probably because he himself had no idea how big the hole was at the time.

  "Mr. Dimon said it was his decision whether to send the reports to the OCC," a regulator later told the Senate.

   

  This is the same Jamie Dimon about whom Trump said today, "There's nobody better to tell me about Dodd-Frank than Jamie Dimon, so thank you, Jamie."

  The enduring lesson of the financial crisis is that in markets as complex as this one, the most extreme danger is in opacity. The big problem is that these egomaniacal Wall Street titans want markets as opaque as possible.

  This is why they want to get rid of the fiduciary rule, because they don't think it's anyone's business if they choose to bet against their clients (as Cohn's Goldman famously did), or overcharge them, or otherwise screw them.

  They don't want to have to submit to even the most basic capital requirements, or be classified a systemically important company, or have to keep their depository businesses separate from their gambling businesses, or have to have a plan for dissolution if they melt down, or really deal with any intrusions at all.

  Trump – a man who doesn't want you to see what's going on underneath his hair, let alone in his books – naturally sympathizes with Wall Street's efforts to keep the markets opaque. The obvious conclusion is that these orders will eventually lead us back to ballooning risk, overheated markets (the NYSE is already soaring) and speculative bubbles.

  

  If we're very lucky, it won't crash soon. But can we at least put an end to the "drain the swamp" nonsense?

  

  

• Visualizing The Shifting Income Distribution Of American Jobs

  When we talk about the money that the “average” American worker makes, we are usually referencing a “median” or “mean” income statistic. While this number can be useful in many different contexts, Visual Capitalist's Jeff Desjardins notes that it can also be extremely limiting. The reality is that there’s a very wide range of incomes out there, even within a particular type of industry. Some people can barely make ends meet, and others make millions of dollars more.

  To view income distribution through a wider lens, data visualization expert Nathan Yau has created an interactive chart that breaks down millions of data points into just 50 dots per industry. The dots are visualized on a scale from $0 to $200k+ and binned in $5,000 increments. Data is also adjusted for inflation.

  INCOME DISTRIBUTION BY INDUSTRY IN 1960

  Here’s a snapshot showing what income distribution looked like 57 years ago for a variety of broad industries:

  

  Generally speaking, many of the ranges are on the lower side of things and tend to have data points clustered around the “middle” of each distribution.

  INCOME DISTRIBUTION BY INDUSTRY IN 2014

  Fast forward to 2014, and nearly every income bracket has expanded out.

  

  In many of these professions, workers are now making more money – this is good news for the economy.

  The downside? There are two problems: (1) Higher inequality, and (2) Many of the new jobs created recently are on the lower end of the income spectrum.

  As you can see, top earning lawyers, engineers, or managers are able to climb up towards the tops of their brackets. A lucky few are able to make $200k+, which is far more than the vast majority of the workforce.

  However, workers in other industries like food preparation or healthcare support are not so lucky. Unfortunately, in these sectors, making a middle-class income is very difficult – and many people are bringing in less than $25k per year. Yet, it is in these types of sectors that we’ve seen the majority of “new jobs” appear over recent years.

  It makes it difficult for society to solve the income inequality problem when this is the case.

   

  

  

• America's Relief Valve – Football And Orwell's 'Two Minutes Hate'

  Submitted by Eric Peters via EricPetersAutos.com,

  Strong passions can erupt in unpredictable ways.

  The government understands this – and desires that strong passions be diverted in a harmless – to the government – way.

  Enter the cultivated, culturally and socially enforced obsession with organized, mass spectacle sports.

  Fuuhhhhhtttttball especially but also the others.

  These games – a new one to keep people busy almost every day, year-round –  are not so much “bread and circuses,” as they are often called. They are the vivification of the fictional Two Minutes’ Hate in Orwell’s 1984. A means by which the passions – the frustrations and anger of men in particular – are diverted and dissipated.

  In order that they aren’t directed at anything important. 

  Such as the ever-increasing control exercised over men by the state.

  In red giant stage America, the average man has little meaningful control over his life. He does as he’s told – from driving the speed limit to paying “his” taxes. In the land of individuality, collectivism and conformity is the rule.

  

  He must Submit and Obey. He must never raise his voice to question authority.

  This stifling of independent action, punishment of deviation from any official orthodoxy and relentless suppression of independent judgment and self-reliance… this systematic thwarting of a normal man’s inclination to be a man. . .  well, the pressure builds.

  The movie, Falling Down, captured this brilliantly. Unfortunately for Michael Douglas’ character, he wasn’t interested in “the game.”

  The demand that men submit and obey is also hammered into today’s boys – usually by women.

  Orwell got one thing wrong. It is not Big Brother.

  It is Big Sister.

   

  Everywhere, there are short-haired, pants-suited termagants vested with power; the sort who in a better time would have been spinster librarians and generally harmless. Today they infect bureaucracies such as EPA and DOJ and many others besides.

  We encounter them at the doctor’s office and DMV.

  The beetle-like little men that Orwell described abound, too. But they tyranny of our times is not a masculine tyranny such as Stalin’s. Note that in the Soviet Union, people were still largely free to partake of petty vices such as booze and cigarettes. Soviet power didn’t limit the size of sodas or force people to wear seat belts. It enforced political conformity only.

  Maybe that’s why fuhhhhhhttttttball was never a big deal in the Soviet Union.

  America’s tyranny is the tyranny of the elementary school marm over grown up men.

   

  These days, a man can’t even paint his own house without first begging permission from the local Gertrud Schlotz-Klink. . . and if he doesn’t cut his grass when ordered or erects a shed unapproved…

  Threatening letters.

  Then a lien or some other encumbrance. Eventually, the thug scrum will come. So he learns to do what he’s told.

  The rage boils but silently; it must have an outlet.

  Enter the game.

  He is empowered! On Sunday, he can be bellow like a rutting Cape Buffalo as his team takes the field. He basks in the reflected glory of their victory. He merges with the crowd, it overtakes him. Becomes him.

  He is a member of the community of men once more.

  Garish flappy pennants festoon his vehicles.

  This, of course, being not only allowed but encouraged by the government.

  

  And when “we” lose the game, our cuckolded American sports worshipper is demoralized and dejected – sometimes, for days on end. He feels great disappointment.

  He is angry.

  But in a way utterly harmless to the government.

  He seethes, he yells, he shakes his fist . . . at the enemy team on the screen.

  Never at the true enemy. . .  .

  Axiom: The more hopeless a society is, the more under the thumb of the government-corporate nexus, the greater the adulation of professional sports teams and the deification of athletes. It is a kind of sweaty lottery – a means of dangling desperate hopes before hopeless people who might become dangerous if it ever occurred to them that there is no hope for them.

  But hey – did you see that tackle?

  The most loathsome dog torturing thug, outright rapists and murderers… beloved and forgiven, so long as they can run and throw or catch.

  Always “the game.” Tonight’s. Yesterday’s. Tomorrow’s. An endless obsession with irrelevance.

  Enstupidation accelerates.

   

  It has been said that religion is the opiate of the masses. But religions center on values – and so, upon philosophy.

  In other words, on things that matter.

  The game does not matter.

  All the natural, healthy emotions – including most especially anger – are adroitly redirected. Instead of being furious about constantly being required to disprove his alleged guilt, about having to submit to random, probable cause-free searches and such like by an increasingly tyrannical state, about being micromanaged and taxed and never, ever left in peace . . . the gelded, stoop-shouldered creature sitting in front of his TeeVeee is apopletic  about that “bad call,” that the “we” weren’t able to convert on third and long.

  He is a fan – truly, in the actual derivation of that word. A fanatic  – about things properly the concern of children and the feeble minded.

  Just what’s needed, from a certain point of view.

   

  

  

• Has Trump – Who Ran On an Anti-War Platform – Already Sold Out to the Warmongers … Or Is He Just Playing for Leverage?

  Conservative Patrick Buchanan – who endorsed Trump for president – writes:

  High among the reasons that many supported Trump was his understanding that George W. Bush blundered horribly in launching an unprovoked and unnecessary war on Iraq.

  ***

  Unlike the other candidates, Trump seemed to recognize this.

  Trump's anti-war, anti-interventionist statements appealed to many Americans.  Indeed, quite a few Sanders supporters switched to Trump (or stayed home on election day) because of Trump's anti-war promises … and Clinton's record as a warmonger.

  Buchanan expresses disappointment that Trump is already saber-rattling:

  It was thought he would disengage us from these wars, not rattle a saber at an Iran that is three times the size of Iraq and has as its primary weapons supplier and partner Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

  Former long-time Congressman Ron Paul notes that Trump has already engaged in bombings in Yemen:

  Andrew Spannaus notes:

  The early Trump administration has sent mixed signals regarding relations with Russia. Trump’s initial comments indicated that the U.S. would seek a diplomatic deal to reduce tensions around Ukraine, including by potentially recognizing the pro-Russian referendum in Crimea, in exchange for a broader deal with Russia involving cooperation against terrorism or nuclear arms reduction. However, Trump’s United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley on Thursday vowed to continue sanctions against Russia until it surrendered Crimea.

  Brandon Turbeville says, "The new boss is now starting to look extremely similar to the old boss."  Turbeville also points out that Trump appears to be mucking about in Syria.

  And since Trump took the helm, war with China is looking increasingly likely.

  So it's starting to look like – despite his promises of being an anti-war non-interventionist – Trump will be a warmonger.

  I hope I'm wrong … and that Trump is just playing the unpredictable madman to gain negotiating leverage with foreign powers.

  Conservative Michael Rivero – a smart guy – notes:

  I too am alarmed by Trump's rhetoric.

   

  But there are two factors to consider.

   

  The first is that Trump is still trying to win Senate confirmation for his nominees, and Trump and the Nominees may be saying what they know the Warmongers in the Senate (like McCain and Graham) want to hear. What Trump does after the confirmations will be telling.

   

  Second, if you read Trump's book, "The Art of the Deal", he writes that the opening bid in any negotiation should be very aggressive, far beyond reasonable, then let the counterparty negotiate back to what you actually wanted in the first place. That tactic served him well in business and he may well be using it here with Russia, China, and Iran.

   

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• "Is Trump About To Cause Another Crisis?": 2008 Could Be Eclipsed As Bank Restrictions Eliminated

  Submitted by Mac Slavo via SHTFPlan.com,

  Beware of what may be coming next. We already know the establishment has a plan to blame President Trump for the next financial crisis, and now there are moves being made that will support that narrative.

  

  After the 2008 fiasco, a spotlight on Wall Street misbehavior and some weak, but better-than-nothing regulations were put on the industry in the hopes of preventing another string of bank failures and crippling economic disasters.

  But as the system teeters on edge and prepares to endure the backlash of increased rates at the Fed, Trump is also taking off the shackles that have been put in place by the Dodd-Frank Act which instituted certain protections for consumers, including a requirement that pensioners don’t have their nest egg devoured, etc.

  For the tens of millions of baby boomer retirees and aging pensioners, the social security net is all they’ve got to count on, apart from a few debt-saddled kids who have hardly been able to save a dime under eight years of Obama.

  The 2008 economic crisis penalized everyone with an entire cycle of wage freezes, job starvation and crushing dependence upon government programs for assistance. Wall Street, and the banker class at large were spared from blame or reparations to a society that was robbed blind. Instead, eight years of quantitative easing sent a tidal wave of easy money to the financial sector that created a gorge of asset buy-up from the top – especially in housing, where soaring rates are forcing single households to become renters instead of mortgage debt-slave owners once again.

  The election of President Trump created optimism about our collective financial prospects – with seemingly tangible promises of bringing home jobs and returning to American Greatness™. But the banksters also cheered his election; stock markets shot upwards in celebration. Key positions in the White House were offered to Goldman Sachs men and others of their ilk.

  Now, President Trump has issued an executive order that has Wall Street once again self-congratulating for backing the right man. The order is expected to gut protections that currently require financial products sellers

  As the London Independent reports:

  Donald Trump is expected to order a review of the Dodd-Frank Act, which was implemented in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis to prevent a repeat of the worst financial crash since the Great Depression.

   

  […] council has the right to break up banks that it thinks could pose a systemic risk to the global financial order. It also has the ability to demand that banks hold higher reserves, or cash buffers, to minimise a squeeze. Separately, the Dodd-Frank Act also created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to oversee consumer financial products, such as mortgages.

   

  A key part of the Act is the Volcker Rule, which restricts the way that banks are allowed to invest and places restrictions on speculative trading. It also restricts banks from engaging in so-called proprietary trading, or trading for the firm’s direct gain, instead of on behalf of a client.

   

  So in effect, the rule is designed to separate the investment and commercial businesses of banks.

  It seems clear enough that this move benefits many of those at the top of the pyramid, but a Bloomberg report directly quoting from senior leadership on Wall Street, and now inside the Trump Administration, makes crystal clear that the intentions are quite self-interested:

  Chief executives including Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s Lloyd Blankfein and JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s Jamie Dimon have been pushing for changes for years, arguing that the industry has been too constrained by the system put in place by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act. After Trump focused on limiting trade and immigration during his first two weeks in office — policies opposed by many in the financial industry — the president’s stroke of a pen unleashes a process to undo many of the rules they find most irksome.

   

  “We’re going to attack all aspects of Dodd-Frank,” Gary Cohn, director of the White House National Economic Council, said Friday in an interview with Bloomberg Television. “We are going to engage the House, we’re going to engage the Senate. They are equally interested in reforming some of the regulatory processes as well. We can do quite a bit without them, but the more help we get from Congress the better off we’re all going to be.”

  Not necessarily the brightest news for the people.

  Though it isn’t immediately obvious that this change in the rules would cause immediate trouble, there is reason for concern. If the limitations – inadequate as they were – are lifted off the banks, specifically with investing in commercial banking and with pensions, things could once again take a turn for the worse.

  If the same reckless behavior is repeated, it could not only bring the system to a halt, and crash the stock market, but it could potentially wipe out the holdings of those who need it most – pensioners.

  Meanwhile, defaults and the burden of a debt-supercycle are also threatening to topple the system. One way or another, the next era will have to handle enormous risk of total economic crisis.

  As the Independent notes:

  Does this mean we’re at risk of facing another financial crisis? Some economists have even been bold enough to say that getting rid of Dodd-Frank could indeed pave the way for another crisis.

   

  What makes matters a lot worse, is that many experts believe that global financial systems and economies are more vulnerable now than they were ahead of the last financial crisis. So if we do suffer another major crash, the damage has the potential to be a lot more grave.

   

  Central banks around the world have already slashed interest rates to record lows leaving them with limited ammunition to do more to stimulate economic growth. Government debt has also sky rocketed over the decade since the last crisis.

  Whatever comes next, there is a toxic cycle that is waiting to crash down upon us with a tsunami of financial misfortune.

  Federal Reserve policies in the wake of the last crisis set up the American people for a very bad fall. Economic vibrancy among the middle class and general population has been sucked dry, and they will be ill prepared to handle a new crunch in credit and possible hyper inflationary/deflationary crisis.

  Trump’s pro-business, pro-American policies may help if they are instituted correctly, but enabling the financial sector to once again prey upon people and fuel the rise-and-collapse of a massive series of bubbles and a derivatives WMD is not a healthy option.

  The stage has been set for a nightmare that we must pray never comes.

  

  

• "Davos Man Is Dead" – Trump's EU Ambassador Slams Out Of Touch Elites

  As prominent MEPs are slamming US President Donald Trump's choice for ambassador to Brussels, RT’s Afshin Rattansi sat down with Ted Malloch for his personal views on the matter.

  RT: The EU parliament is somehow trying to veto your appointment as the next ambassador to the European Union. What is your reaction?

  Ted Malloch: They must not have got the notice that Donald Trump won the American election. Of course, ambassadors are chosen by their home countries to represent those countries and those national interests in foreign capitals, in this case, in Brussels.

  RT: Is it symptomatic of the fact that European politicians don’t really understand their power relations with Washington?

  TM: I think there is some sense of that. But there is also an inkling, particularly in some leftist political circles in Europe, to wish Trump away or to think that in four years they might have Obama back or basically to call me things like ‘malevolent’  which actually requires a theory of ‘good and evil,’ which they don’t have.

  RT: How out of touch are elites continuing to be in European capitals and the MSM when it comes to Trump?

  TM: I don’t think it is just Europe. It is certainly the case around the world. The Davos Man is dead. We had the Davos World Economic Forum the other week and of course they had a lot of has-beens there. The keynote speakers were all people who were leaving office, for example, US Secretary of State John Kerry. Xi Jinping was their poster boy for globalization, and in effect, China has been a beneficiary of globalization. The 300 million jobs that were created in China was a significant economic fact, but lots of those jobs were taken out of the hallowed places of Western Europe and Middle America.

  RT: In the diplomatic world, Britain’s ambassador to Washington, Sir Kim Darroch, believes that “Trump inexperience will be able to be exploited by the UK.” Wise for Britain to have a diplomat there that thinks like that? 

  TM: Good luck. Of course, facetiously, Donald Trump suggested that someone else be the ambassador to the UK, obviously that didn’t come to fruition and wasn’t going to happen. Everyone underestimated Donald Trump this entire past year and a half. Seventeen political candidates and Republican primaries, Hillary Clinton, the most experienced, seasoned pro in American politics – what happened to all of them?

   

  

  

• Gorsuch May Not Shift The Balance Of Power On The Supreme Court As Much As You Think

  Submitted by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

  On Tuesday, President Trump announced that he would nominate Neil Gorsuch to fill the open seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.  Gorsuch currently serves on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, and he was confirmed unanimously by the Senate when he was appointed to that position by President George W. Bush in 2006.  Gorsuch appears to have some strong similarities to Antonin Scalia, and many conservatives are hoping that when Gorsuch fills Scalia’s seat that it will represent a shift in the balance of power on the Supreme Court.  Because for almost a year, the court has been operating with only eight justices.  Four of them were nominated by Republican presidents and four of them were nominated by Democrats, and so many Republicans are anticipating that there will now be a Supreme Court majority for conservatives.

  Unfortunately, things are not that simple, because a couple of the “conservative” justices are not actually very conservative at all.

  For example, it is important to remember that Scalia was still on the court when the Supreme Court decision that forced all 50 states to legalize gay marriage was decided.  Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the four liberal justices in a majority opinion that Scalia harshly criticized.  So with Gorsuch on the court, that case would still have been decided the exact same way.

  Sadly, even though Kennedy was nominated by Ronald Reagan, he has turned out to be quite liberal.  In the past, not nearly enough scrutiny was given to justices that were nominated by Republican presidents, and a few of them have turned out to be total disasters.

  And let us also remember that Scalia was still on the court when the big Obamacare case was decided.  Chief Justice John Roberts joined the four liberal justices in a decision that was perhaps one of the most bizarre in the modern history of the U.S. Supreme Court.

  For some reason, Justice Roberts was determined to preserve Obamacare, and if you read what he wrote it is some of the most twisted legal reasoning that I have ever come across.

  As someone that was once part of the legal world, let me let you in on a little secret.  Most judges simply do whatever they feel like doing, and then they will try to find a way to justify their decisions.  So if you ever find yourself in court, you should pray that you will get a judge that is sympathetic to your cause.

  Fortunately, Gorsuch appears to be one of the rare breed of judges that actually cares what the U.S. Constitution and our laws have to say.  In that respect, he is very much like Scalia…

  Gorsuch is seen by analysts as a jurist similar to Scalia, who died on Feb. 13, 2016. Scalia, praised by Gorsuch as “a lion of the law,” was known not only for his hard-line conservatism but for interpreting the U.S. Constitution based on what he considered its original meaning, and laws as written by legislators. Like Scalia, Gorsuch is known for sharp writing skills.

   

  “It is the role of judges to apply, not alter, the work of the people’s representatives,” Gorsuch said on Tuesday at the White House event announcing the nomination in remarks that echoed Scalia’s views.

  One of the most high profile cases that Gorsuch was involved with came in 2013.  That was the famous “Hobby Lobby case”, and it represented a key turning point in the fight for religious freedom.  The following comes from CNN…

  In 2013, he joined in an opinion by the full Court of Appeals holding that federal law prohibited the Department of Health and Human Services from requiring closely-held, for-profit secular corporations to provide contraceptive coverage as part of their employer-sponsored health insurance plans.

   

  And although a narrowly divided 5-4 Supreme Court would endorse that view (and affirm the 10th Circuit) the following year, Gorsuch wrote that he would have gone even further, and allowed not just the corporations, but the individual owners, to challenge the mandate.

  Donald Trump said that he wanted a conservative judge in the mold of Scalia, but I think that he was also looking for someone that he could get through the Senate.

  And considering the fact that Gorsuch was confirmed unanimously by the Senate in 2006 will make it quite difficult for Democrats to block him now.  Gorsuch has tremendous academic and professional credentials, and he will probably have a smoother road to confirmation than someone like appeals court judge William Pryor would…

  Trump may have favored Gorsuch for the job in hopes of a smoother confirmation process than for other potential candidates such as appeals court judge William Pryor, who has called the 1973 Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion “the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history.”

  But Pryor is still reportedly on the short list for the next spot on the Supreme Court that opens up, and by then the rancor in the Senate may have died down.

  If Gorsuch is confirmed, what will this mean for some of the most important moral issues of our time?

  As for abortion, even if Gorsuch is confirmed I do not believe that the votes are there to overturn Roe v. Wade.  But if Trump is able to nominate a couple more Supreme Court justices that could change.

  But even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it would not suddenly make abortion illegal.  Instead, all 50 states would then be free to make their own laws regarding abortion, and a solid majority of the states would continue to keep it legal.

  The analysis is similar when we look at gay marriage.  If the Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states was overturned, each state would get to decide whether gay marriage should be legal or not for their own citizens.  And just like with abortion, it is likely that only a limited number of states would end up banning gay marriage.

  So the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court appears to be a positive step, but it does not mean that we are going to see dramatic change when it comes to issues such as abortion or gay marriage any time soon.

  But at least Gorsuch can help stop the relentless march of the progressive agenda through our court system.  So in the end we may not make that much progress for right now, but at least the liberals won’t either.

  

  

• TEPCO Admits Fukushima Radiation Levels Reach Record Highs As Hole In Reactor Discovered

  With just 3 years left until the 2020 Olympics, Japan is likely desperate to reassure the world's athletes that all is well, but an admission from TEPCO – the Fukushima nuclear plant operator – that they discovered a hole at least one square meter in size beneath the reactor's pressure vessel, and lethal record-high radiation levels have been detected, will not likely reassure anyone.

  

  Radiation levels of up to 530 Sieverts per hour were detected inside an inactive Reactor 2 at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex damaged during the 2011 earthquake and tsunami catastrophe, Japanese media reported on Thursday citing the plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO). A dose of about 8 Sieverts is considered incurable and fatal.

  

  As RT reports, a hole of no less than one square meter in size has also been discovered beneath the reactor's pressure vessel, TEPCO said. According to researchers, the apparent opening in the metal grating of one of three reactors that had melted down in 2011, is believed to be have been caused by melted nuclear fuel that fell through the vessel.

  The iron scaffolding has a melting point of 1500 degrees, TEPCO said, explaining that there is a possibility the fuel debris has fallen onto it and burnt the hole. Such fuel debris have been discovered on equipment at the bottom of the pressure vessel just above the hole, it added.

   

  The latest findings were released after a recent camera probe inside the reactor, TEPCO said. Using a remote-controlled camera fitted on a long pipe, scientists managed to get images of hard-to-reach places where residual nuclear material remained. The substance there is so toxic that even specially-made robots designed to probe the underwater depths beneath the power plant have previously crumbled and shut down.

   

  However, TEPCO still plans to launch further more detailed assessments at the damaged nuclear facility with the help of self-propelled robots.

  TEPCO confirmed a black lump in the space beneath the pressure vessel. There is a possibility of nuclear fuel melting down (fuel debris). If it is fuel debris, it will be the first time that fuel melted down will be taken after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident.

  

  

• The Market Wizard's Wizard – An Interview With Jack Schwager

  Submitted by Erico Matias Tavares via Sinclair & Co.,

  

  Mr. Schwager is a recognized industry expert in futures and hedge funds and the author of a number of widely acclaimed financial books. He is one of the founders of FundSeeder, a platform designed to find undiscovered trading talent worldwide and connect unknown successful traders with sources of investment capital. Previously, Mr. Schwager was a partner in the Fortune Group (2001-2010), a London-based hedge fund advisory firm. His prior experience also includes 22 years as Director of Futures research for some of Wall Street’s leading firms, most recently Prudential Securities.

  Mr. Schwager has written extensively on the futures industry and great traders in all financial markets. He is perhaps best known for his best-selling series of interviews with the greatest hedge fund managers of the last three decades: Market Wizards (1989, 2012), The New Market Wizards (1992), Stock Market Wizards (2001), Hedge Fund Market Wizards (2012), and The Little Book of Market Wizards (2014). His other books include Market Sense and Nonsense (2012), a compendium of investment misconceptions, and the three-volume series, Schwager on Futures, consisting of Fundamental Analysis (1995), Technical Analysis (1996), and Managed Trading (1996). He is also the author of Getting Started in Technical Analysis (1999), part of John Wiley’s popular Getting Started series.

  E Tavares: Jack it is a pleasure and an honor to be speaking with you today. You are a reference, even sort of like a guru for us in the futures / commodities industry. Throughout your work – and we read much of it – you seem to have a slight preference for trading futures over stocks and bonds. Is that right, and if so why?

  J Schwager: That’s absolutely true. First of all, I got into the industry as a commodities analyst. There were no financial futures, which now dominate the markets, in those days. Two years as an analyst then 22 years as director of futures research for several firms, with several years designing trading systems along the way. Much of that continues in different shapes and forms, so the bulk of my professional career has been in futures. That’s the primary reason for me.

  The stock trading that I do has been sporadic. It’s very different from my futures trading, which basically consists of trades with stops to control risk. In stocks I will be much more contrarian, looking to buy things when they have been out of favor, at low or pummeled prices. Not because I know much about the underlying fundamentals, just that it’s a type of business where I believe the long-term downside is very limited irrespective of the technical/price chart patterns, and there is much more upside than downside.

  For example, in late 2008 I had no idea when the whole collapse in the equity markets would end but it seemed to be the classic panic. So I looked to buy very long-term out of the money LEAPS (call options) in things that were totally crushed, like FXI (China ETF) or XME (Metals & Mining ETF). They were trading so low that it was unlikely they would lose much more value from there. I did not have any stops even if the whole thing went to zero so it is quite a different way of trading from futures.

  In fact it’s a complete 180 degrees different. For me futures is more like trading and stocks is more contrarian, long-term investing…

  ET: … like value investing?

  JS: Sort of, although I don’t do all the related fundamental work. That’s not my forte. But I look at things like prices hitting fifteen, twenty years lows, it’s a pure panic, commodities will not go out of favor, China and India will continue to grow, and so forth. So it makes sense to buy now and put it away for a few years. And if it goes to zero it goes to zero.

  If XME goes from 50 to 12, it can go anywhere but I figure that at 12 it probably will not go much lower, but not because I have done any fundamental work.

  ET: You just published a new edition of A Complete Guide to the Futures Market, which we can’t recommend enough. The first edition came out in 1984 and was already considered to be a seminal book on the subject. What prompted you to write a second edition more than thirty years later? Is it because the markets have fundamentally changed and as such the materials needed an update?

  JS: No, the catalyst was the publisher! They bugged me throughout the 1990s to do an update and I finally balked once they threatened to get somebody else to do it. Once I got started I ended up turning it into three volumes and 1800 pages.

  Then they wanted another update but just in a single volume. I finally agreed but at that point started working with a co-author that I respect a great deal, and just went over his revisions. The original 1984 book was still relevant; in fact without wanting to sound immodest it was very good. I thought I did a good job the first time around. However, today nobody is going to read a book that is over 30 years old. I thought it was a shame to let it go by the wayside when ninety percent of it was still pertinent and the rest could be easily updated.

  There were no real meaningful changes to the first edition other than market updates, expansions in some topics and contractions in others. There were no analytical approaches that I thought were wrong now. Actually, hardly anything of substance needed to change.

  So the book was still pertinent, it just needed to be revised and updated and a new edition was necessary to bring it to the attention of a new readership.

  ET: Picking up on the analytics point, markets do evolve over time right? As such systems need to adapt. Perhaps a good example might be the famed Turtles system, which supposedly produced many millionaires almost a generation ago, but seems to be much less applicable today. Do these market changes prompt you to revise your techniques from time to time?

  JS: That’s absolutely true but in the original book, while I did not cover the Turtle system per se, I did talk about broader trend following systems which are still applicable today. Back in the 1970s and 1980s these systems used to work extremely well but as more and more people started to use them they lost their efficacy, like anything else.

  However, my approach in the whole book was not to say “this works absolutely”. Instead, I explained why a system worked. If you are going to do systems development you need to strictly avoid hindsight otherwise the results will be meaningless. All of that is still pertinent today. The systems I presented then worked, but I chose them primarily for illustration purposes.

  When you get down to the particulars, like the exact signals, you are quite right – these tend to change over time. You have to be willing to adapt as a result. What doesn’t change is the appropriate methodology for developing, testing and implementing systems. What also remains true is the types of inputs that you might use. Yes, markets change but the broad principles and methodologies to me did not seem like they needed a lot of change.

  That’s on the technical side. It’s really the fundamental approaches that changed the most because markets tend to go through these structural changes and such fundamental models can quickly lose their efficacy.

  ET: Related to that, perhaps as an effort to keep traders aligned with the evolution of the market one of the sections of your book covers the development of systems for futures trading, an area that attracts a lot of interest these days, since most people now have access to enough computing power and market data to do all sorts of analyses.

  However, when retail traders go into the market they are up against hyper sophisticated funds which most likely have examined all profitable combinations ahead of everyone else. Some can even execute trades much faster. So how can those retail traders have any chance of competing successfully in the market, meaning being consistently profitable over time? Are there areas like picking longer timeframes, higher risk tolerance and so forth that can give them an edge over the big players?

  JS: You are probably talking about a sophisticated retail trader, someone who has experience and know what they are doing, meaning having an edge and a methodology with good risk management. In other words, someone who has a reason to be trading which in my opinion excludes the majority of people, who don’t have any of that. They are better off not trading at all.

  In that sense, how does such a trader compete against the super firms with not only tremendous computing power but also teams of PhDs? You can’t beat the likes of Renaissance and DE Shaw at their own game. They are using super sophisticated and effective quant strategies. You can’t do it that way.

  But the retail trader may have an approach that works. There are so many different possibilities and combinations that people can still come up with something that works. This is very possible although much more difficult compared to the 1980s for instance, let alone the 1970s.

  The other distinction I would make is between systematic and discretionary trading. It is probably more difficult for a retail trader to excel using a systematic approach but I think a large percentage of them would fall under the category of discretionary. That’s where I think there still is quite a bit of room to be profitable with reasonable risk control.

  Let’s say that a trader is making discretionary decisions based on charts. You can program some patterns, like a breakout or even a more complicated head & shoulders formation, test a mechanical approach based on that and you will probably come up with something that is not that great. However, the human mind is actually extremely good at finding patterns, to the point where certain people who have a particular skill in noticing them – especially at the subconscious level through intuition – are able to use them as a signal that would otherwise be missed in a pure mechanical system.

  In that sense, as an example, it’s not that the market is forming a flag pattern, but rather that it is forming that pattern in a broader context with some other chart features that improves your edge. Then you go in with a stop to control your risk, and you can very much compete against the big funds with that approach.

  Also, the retail trader has one big advantage over the big funds and that is size. It is a lot easier to trade and put in stops when you are trading small size as opposed to when you are trading billions or even hundreds of millions of dollars.

  ET: What about timeframes? It seems longer is better for the smaller investor.

  JS: Not necessarily. That depends on the individual methodology of each trader. However, if you are thinking in terms of conventional things like trend following, then you are correct.

  I think I had in the original edition of the book, but is certainly there in the current edition, the concept that longer trends are more reliable. In other words, longer term crossovers perform better than shorter term ones. And there’s a very good reason for that: they are very difficult to trade. Markets tend to punish traders who employ easier approaches and reward those willing to suffer some pain.

  The idea is that yes, when you use a long term approach it is true that you are getting in much later on a trend and you also surrender a much larger portion of open profits when you are right – and not many people are willing to go there since both are painful things. However, it is also true that shorter term systems give you so many back and forth whipsaws – and you can test this empirically over time like I did – that on balance you are worse off. Those whipsaws more than offset the larger gains from getting in earlier and the smaller surrender of profits from getting out earlier.

  In that sense trading over a longer horizon has more efficacy, but emotionally it is a very difficult thing to do.

  ET: In the book you describe in detail various trading approaches, including technical and fundamental. And while expressing some preference for the former you suggest that it is up to traders to find what works for them. This is a crucial point that is often forgotten.

  JS: When I give talks about trading and lessons from Market Wizards one of the foremost points I make, maybe the first point about what you should do, is the need to find an approach that works for you. That’s going to be different for everybody. So many people don’t realize that. They try to chase the best methodology or learn from somebody else.

  It’s like you can have the most expensive suit but if it’s from someone who is not your size you will not look good in it. It’s much better to have a cheaper suit that fits you. It’s the same thing with trading. You can’t make someone else’s trading methodology work for you. Everybody has their own skills, preferences, biases, emotional strengths and weaknesses and all those traits suggest having a different approach for each person.

  This is matter of trial and error and being conscious of what seems to work, what you are comfortable with, what you believe and so forth. Some people should use just technical, other just fundamentals and others a combination of the two. I can’t really tell anybody what would work for them – that's a question only they can answer.

  ET: What really moves the markets in your opinion? Some people say it’s just a random walk, a coin flip, and so impossible to make money since it is very hard to figure out if the next flip will be heads or tails. Others say there is a hidden structure, at least during certain time periods, and with enough education and determination you might be able to figure it out. Who is right?

  JS: If the random walkers are correct, all market participants are wasting their time because you can only make money if you are lucky. It also means that I wrote four Market Wizard books about a bunch of very lucky people. There are many reasons as to why there is something else at play. In fact, I wrote a whole chapter on this in another book, Market Sense and Nonsense, debunking the random walk theory.

  Now, the markets behave like they are random or have a lot of randomness to them. That part is true. But what is generally wrong about the random walk theory is that, first of all, the idea that everything is discounted and fully reflected in the price at all times, and therefore nobody can make money, is demonstrably false.

  I’ll give you a recent example, in addition to the many I outlined in that chapter. It’s one of my favorites and it’s from a recent talk by Richard Thaler, the renowned behavioral economist. There is a closed end fund with the ticker CUBA (like the Caribbean island), which like most closed end funds usually trades at a 15-20% discount to the value of the basket of securities that compose it. And then in one day all of the sudden it skyrocketed up to a 70% PREMIUM. What could have happened?

  Well, President Obama had just given a speech that he would normalize relations with Cuba. Now, CUBA did not hold any Cuban securities for two reasons: 1) there were no Cuban companies to invest in; and 2) even if there were it would have been illegal to do so. It did hold some South American companies, but nothing directly in Cuba!

  So you had this huge change in one day in the price of the fund when none of its securities were directly affected by the catalyst causing the price surge. And of course a couple of days later the price went back to the prior levels.

  There are so many other examples. Take the internet bubble. You have this sixfold share price rise in one and a half years then back to the original prices in one and half years. But there were no major news developments that satisfactorily explained the moves in either direction. During the advance, there was a market euphoria and a buying-at-any-price mentality because people were afraid of missing the bull market. Then the music stopped and everybody is looking for a chair and there are no more chairs around. Once the buying fever broke, prices collapsed because the gains were never justified in the first place.

  And the random walk theory is wrong because it misses a tremendously essential component of the markets and that is human emotion. It does not play a major role all the time, but when it does it can cause massive dislocations.

  However, it doesn’t mean it’s simple. The irony is that while I believe the efficient market hypothesis is wrong, it is still very difficult to beat the markets. In early 1999 you could have said that the market was experiencing a bubble and that one should go short, and you would have been absolutely right. But when the market finally topped out in March 2000, you could have gone bust by then. So you can have markets be non-random and yet be very difficult to beat. And that is what fools many people into believing that they are random.

  It’s also a fault in logic. The converse of a true statement is not necessarily true. You can say that because markets are random they are difficult to beat. However, the converse – markets are difficult to beat and therefore the markets are random – is a flaw in logic. It is true that all polar bears are white mammals, but not all white mammals are polar bears.

  ET: Over the years you have interviewed the best in the business, the Market Wizards. These guys are truly amazing but there is one question that has always intrigued us, appreciating how hard it is to make it in the markets, as you just described. How can you truly distinguish luck from excellence, since both play such a significant role in speculation?

  For example, statistically speaking it is very unlikely to have twenty flips that all come out heads, but with enough people flipping coins there will be a very small group who will do it. Without this perspective you could get the erroneous idea that they really know how to produce heads. How can you distinguish those lucky flippers from investors who happened to be profitable over, say, twenty years? In other words, couldn’t the Market Wizards be more a product of chance than a particular trading approach, especially as markets continuously change?

  JS: Yes, in most cases it is very difficult to figure that out. Just because someone has done well for ten years or even twenty years doesn’t guarantee that they weren’t just lucky over that period.

  If you have 1024 people flipping 10 coins, on average, you can expect one of them to toss 10 heads. However, even if you had every person on earth flip 200 coins instead of ten, what are the odds that one of them will get 195 heads? That’s going to be infinitesimal small. 

  I’ll give you an example. The first fund of Edward Thorp ran for 19 years, with only three losing months during all that time, and all of them less than a 1% loss. The gains were much larger than the few losses that occurred. Using a binomial loss-win distribution to gauge the probability of his performance is actually very conservative because his wins were much larger. But even with that conservative approach, the probability of achieving Thorp’s record is actually significantly less than the probability of randomly picking the same atom twice out of the mass of the Earth.

  So there are people out there who have records that are so lopsided, so preposterously skewed towards winning, that evidence of skill is very strong. DNA evidence probabilities are in the order of a few billion to one, but here we are talking about extraordinarily greater odds. So track records such as Thorp’s would be impossible if there were not non-randomness in the markets. 

  ET: That is very interesting. And actually very relevant for your FundSeeder venture, since we believe the goal is to find the best trading talent out there that would have otherwise remained hidden, correct?

  JS: Yes, although you need a long track record to demonstrate that irrefutable evidence of skill. However, while finding people who can deliver superior return-to-risk – our key measure of performance, as opposed to just returns – based on a daily basis (which is statistically far more significant than the conventional use of monthly data) may not guarantee that they are skilled you will have some assurances that this is a person who more likely than not has skill. It doesn’t prove it though. For that you need a very long track record.

  ET: Yes, but at the same time we are reminded of how past results don’t guarantee future results. This means that if you pick a trader based on a great performance over the last, say, 5 years, even if you use the most refined risk-adjusted returns measurements all that can easily change on a dime going forward.

  So how can you navigate through all this and reach a solid, informed decision on trading performance? Or, rather than results, are traits like consistency, a good trading plan, risk management and so forth the key differentiator for you?

  JS: That cliché remains absolutely true. But there are a couple of elements to it.

  If you are talking about strategies that correlate to sectors, indexes or hedge fund style, a good past performance in the past can actually be an indication of potential poor performance in the future. In my book Market Sense and Nonsense, I empirically showed that for these strategies investing in the worst performers over the past 1, 3, and 5 years actually does better than investing in the best.

  So not only do I agree with the contention that past superior performance does not necessarily imply superior future performance, the relationship is often inverse. My qualification here is that it depends on the strategy. Those strategies that correlate significantly with sectors, indexes, or specific hedge fund styles can become overbought and oversold as we talked about earlier, hence the tendency for a reversal in performance.

  However, I want to separate this situation from a trader who is uncorrelated to any index, sector or hedge fund style. For that type of trader superior return/risk performance could indicate trading skill as opposed to reflecting a portfolio in a sector of strategy style that has become overbought. While even then you can’t say that past performance is predictive, if you are going to look for good traders, it certainly makes more sense to focus on those who have been successful. There is no rationale for assuming a trader who has not done well in the past will suddenly start doing well. 

  So you might as well focus your research on those who have demonstrated that ability. Then, as you suggest, you have to evaluate other things more carefully, like why they have done well, what their edge is. For example, someone with a great risk-adjusted return might have employed a strategy of selling way out-of-the money puts on equities since late 2008. That strategy would have produced great return/risk performance, almost like a money machine, but the trouble is that type of strategy also embeds a large tail risk. So even though the track record of this strategy would show low volatility, there would be the risk of catastrophic losses if there were another abrupt market selloff as in 2008 or 2000.

  So you have to take into account exposure to event risk. Ironically, many strategies with low volatility are the most susceptible to event risk. For these strategies you can have low volatility, low volatility, low volatility… and then all of the sudden extraordinarily high volatility.

  If there was no adverse event in the track record, you can end up with very misleading conclusions if you don’t account for this. I only look at risk-adjusted returns to select from a larger universe and then I take a deeper look into the associated strategies. 

  ET: Finally, there’s this somewhat inspirational belief that if you do well in the industry at some point you can trade for a living – from your mansion at the beach sipping daiquiris. You have met so many people over the years. Do you know any smaller investors that live exclusively from market speculation, or is this just a mirage used to suck people into the markets?

  JS: Sure. I’ll just provide one example because he is a friend. Peter Brandt started trading some forty years ago, starting at Commodities Corp, a firm that hired proprietary traders back then. He then left after some years and ended up trading his own account for the rest of his career. Not managing other people’s money but living off his trading income, making money consistently over the years.

  That’s the trader you just described. He doesn’t use any powerful computers. He’s just an experienced chart analyst with good risk management discipline. He hasn’t won every single year although he has been profitable most of the years. He has lived his entire life like that.

  ET: One major drawback regarding that lifestyle is that not having a steady income stream on the side could really affect your psychology because your heightened emotions might get in the way. The pressure to make money can really throw you off track.

  JS: That’s a great point. I have never put myself in a situation where my livelihood depends exclusively on trading. I trade sporadically. Sometimes I trade, sometimes I don’t. I have never entertained any thought of trading for a living. It is more of a hobby than anything else. But I believe that if I tried doing it for a living I would fail because I couldn’t handle the emotion of your living expenses coming out of trading. So it does require a special kind of person to be able to do that and only a small percentage of people can do that.

  If I had enough money to live comfortably for the rest of my life then I might be able to do it. But if I had a cushion that would only last two or three years, I’m pretty sure my emotions would eventually sabotage me. So that would not be a good idea. This is actually a very important point.

  ET: Thank you very much for sharing your insights. It sure has helped us and we’re sure many, many other people over the years. All the best to you

  JS: Thank you.

   

  

  

• How The IRS Can Empty Your Bank Account Without Warning

  Having just filed his 2016 taxes, a Zero Hedge reader submits the following bizarre story.

  On January 20, the reader filed his Federal tax return using Tim Geithner’s favorite TurboTax software, which the IRS formally accepted three days later, on January 24. One week later, on January 31, the IRS made an automatic deposit into the reader’s bank account, who then used the refund to pay down his credit card debt the very next day.

  This is when things turned bizarre, because as our readers writes, just two days later, without warning, on orders of the IRS his bank empties out the bank account handing over its contents to the IRS: 

  “the IRS emptied our bank account February 3, 2017 for erroneous refund with no notice! (please see attached letter).

   

  The only other thing I could think of was that TurboTax did not work correctly and calculated to large of a refund but the letter from the IRS stated it was a “processing error at the Internal Revenue Service”. The refund we received was the same as what TurboTax calculated. I researched the IRS manual about erroneous refunds and could not find anything referring to a “R17” code as stated in the letter.

   

  Called them. Our return was fine. The amount of refund was fine. Not an identity theft problem. Error on their side. According to the person I spoke with they are doing this to a large block of filers. They seemed hesitant to give more info.

  He then adds that “in our phone conversation they told me that the return was fine and the refund amount was correct, it was not an over refund issue but some kind of IRS internal error and they would reissue the same refund after receiving the money back. It makes absolutely no sense to me but this is what I was told.”

  So, as our reader summarizes, “no outstanding taxes. Never been audited. Always file on time. Not a small business, just a normal employee W2, not a structuring issue. Only typical deductions and student loan interest. Scrambling to cancel auto payments and trying to figure out how we will pay mortgage and any payment that will not accept credit card.

  His question, “how can this be legal with no notice?” is not simply rhetorical. To be sure, the IRS has virtually unlimited rights over individual fund flows and stock, among which to:

  • File a tax lien against you;
  • Levy your bank account;
  • Garnish your wages;
  • Close down your business;
  • Seize and sell your home;
  • Assess you personally for corporate employment taxes;
  • Put you in a monthly installment payment arrangement that is too high;
  • Contact your banker, neighbors, friends and business relationships concerning your tax liabilities;
  • Go after third party transferees of your assets.

  … but all of the above are only permitted in the course of “due process”, when an individual taxpayer has been found in violation of US tax laws.

  In this case the IRS counterparty was in no way at fault, and was merely the lucky recipient of a clerical IRS error, in the IRS’ own words, without any justification or validation. That the IRS would then have full liberty to indirectly enter the account with no warning, and take out whatever funds it deemed appropriate – again, with no explanation of just what the “error” was – is sufficiently disturbing, and is why the person who this happened to would like to know if it has happened to other ZH readers and if so, does he have any legal rights in this particular case.

  The redacted IRS notice sent to the readers’ bank, in this case the ASCU, is below:

  

  

  

• BuzzFeed Sued For Defamation Over Trump Dossier 'Fake News'

  BuzzFeed (as well as editor in chief Ben Smith and former British spy Christopher Steele) faces a new lawsuit over its publication of an unverified dossier of claims against President Trump and others, McClatchy reported Friday evening. In response to the lawsuit, Politico reports that BuzzFeed issued an apology on Friday evening (presumably admitting to publishing ‘fake news’).

  

  McClatchy reports XBT Holdings, a tech firm with Russian ties named in the document, is suing over the January 10 publication of what the suit calls “libelous, unverified and untrue allegations.”

  The dossier, which includes uncorroborated allegations about Trump, claims the Cyprus-based XBT, which is owned by Russian tech magnate Aleksej Gubarev, “had been using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data and conduct ‘altering operations’ against the Democratic Party leadership” in 2016.

  In response to the lawsuit, Politico notes that BuzzFeed on Friday evening issued an apology and said that it had redacted Gubarev’s name, and the names of his companies, from the dossier.

  “We have redacted Mr. Gubarev’s name from the published dossier, and apologize for including it,” BuzzFeed spokesman Matt Mittenthal told POLITICO in a statement.

  CNN Money and McClatchy were the first news organizations to report on the existence of the lawsuit against BuzzFeed. (You can read Gubarev’s full defamation complaint against Buzzfeed here.)

  “Although Buzzfeed and Mr. Smith claim that they had the dossier in their possession for weeks prior to its publication, and despite their claims that they had four reporters working near full-time on attempting to verify the claims made in the dossier, prior to publishing the Defamatory Article and the dossier, neither Buzzfeed nor Mr. Smith contacted the Plaintiffs to determine if the allegations made against them had any basis in fact,” the complaint states.

   

  “After the dossier’s publication numerous journalists (more than 30) contacted Mr. Gubarev with some even arranging to travel to Cyprus to discuss the publication with Mr. Gubarev. During this time, and up to the present day, neither Buzzfeed nor Mr. Smith contacted the Plaintiffs to determine if the allegations made against them had any basis in fact.”

  The complaint also states that Gubarev is not a public figure and that the publication of the dossier has ruined his reputation.

  “Plaintiff Aleksej Gubarev, who is married with three young children is not, in any way, shape, or form, a public figure,” the complaint states.

   

  “As a result of Buzzfeed and Mr. Smith’s reckless publication of defamatory materials, he has found his personal and professional reputation in tatters. His wife has found herself a target of online harassment and the family’s personal security has been compromised.”

  Although BuzzFeed did not redact Gubarev’s name when it first published the dossier, it did redact the names of a few other people mentioned in the dossier.

  The lawsuit, filed in London and Fort Lauderdale, Florida, seeks unspecified damages, according to The Hill, and says BuzzFeed’s story has been viewed nearly 6 millions times.

  

  

• Trump Files Appeal Challenging Judge's Block Of Travel Ban

  Following angry tweets all day from President Trump, the U.S. Justice Department filed notice Saturday evening of a formal notice of appeal of a Seattle judge’s temporary restraining order which put the administration's immigration order on hold. The notice followed a statement by the DHS to comply with Friday night’s court ruling by reverting to immigration procedures in place before the Jan. 27 executive order on immigration, and by the State Department to reverse the provisional revocation of about 60,000 visas.

  “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!” the president told his 23.6 million followers after U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle lifted the ban on all refugees and on visa holders from the seven countries. He later wondered “what is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban.”

  The administration said it was taking the case to the U.S. court of appeals based in San Francisco, hours after it was promised by the White House. Ironically, as Bloomberg notes, that court is considered far more liberal than most other federal appellate courts, which means that after this action, the next move will be an almost certain escalation to the Supreme Court.

  Robart’s comprehensive ruling eclipsed a Trump administration win earlier on Friday, when a federal judge in Boston refused to extend a temporary ruling blocking enforcement at that city’s airport of the ban on immigrants from seven countries. “Why aren’t the lawyers looking at and using the Federal Court decision in Boston, which is at conflict with ridiculous lift ban decision?” Trump said on Twitter.

  The DOJ appeal faces an uphill battle: “The Washington suit is so much more broad than anything else we’ve seen because it goes into the economic interests of the parties — that’s a very big development,” Hoffman said of a likely appeal by the federal government. “Appeals of temporary orders occur only in very, very extraordinary measures. I doubt it would be successful.” The reason why Robart was so quick with his decision is because he had the support of some of America's largest tech companies.

  Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said the effects on his state included economic consequences for employers based there, including Microsoft Corp., Starbucks Corp. and Amazon.com Inc. Bellevue, Washington-based Expedia Inc. had about 1,000 customers with flight reservations in or out of the U.S. from the seven countries, he said.  Meanwhile, DOJ lawyer Michelle Bennett, arguing at Friday’s hearing, said the president was acting within the authority granted him by Congress and there was no financial harm to the states. The judge disagreed.

  Unless the appeals court blocks the lower court order, it will remain in place while the judge considers a request to permanently invalidate the president’s order, Ferguson said that hearing will probably occur within a month.

  Echoing criticism of Trump's action from within the Democratic party and progressive human rights groups, David Miliband, president and chief executive officer of the International Rescue Committee, said Robart’s ruling demonstrated that Trump’s executive order wasn’t adequately thought out. “There is every right for the administration to review and build on existing arrangements,” Miliband said in an e-mailed statement from the refugee assistance group. “There is no excuse for tearing up carefully developed procedures that have kept America safe.”

  Ironically, the appeal hit just minutes after Trump tweeted:

  Why aren't the lawyers looking at and using the Federal Court decision in Boston, which is at conflict with ridiculous lift ban decision?

  — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 4, 2017

  The judge opens up our country to potential terrorists and others that do not have our best interests at heart. Bad people are very happy!

  — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 5, 2017

  The appeal made official what the Trump White House had promised on Friday night.

  

  As AJC reports, the official notice of appeal was a barebones legal document filed by the Trump Administration.

  PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the defendants Donald Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States; United States Department of Homeland Security; John F. Kelly, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Rex W. Tillerson, in his official capacity as Secretary of State; and the United States of America hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the February 3, 2017 Order (ECF No. 52) enjoining and restraining enforcement of portions of the January 27, 2017 Executive Order on Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.

  This legal fight will now shift to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals – an appellate court with a long legal history that shades to the liberal side, guaranteeing weeks of increasingly more angry Trump tweets, before Trump ultimately ends up at the Supreme Court.

  

  

  

• "Dear Leftist, You Need To Take A Closer Look At The Real 'Refugees' Before You Denounce 'Vetting'"

  Submitted by Duane via Free Market Shooter blog,

  

  Plenty of mainstream media outlets have been critical of the Trump executive orders regarding immigration and “vetting” of refugees.  There are too many to list, but I will use an excerpt from a U.S. News article to drive the general point home:

  When the United States accepts refugees from countries with a significant Muslim population, we undermine the anti-American hatred that underlies Islamic State group recruitment. Closing America’s door to Syrian refugees, therefore, is not only a heartless hiccup in our nation’s history, it also validates Islamic State group propaganda, advances the group’s agenda and drives refugees back into the arms of dangerous terrorists. By turning away Syrian refugees, Trump is plunging America into a national security nightmare.

  The “fact-check” website Snopes (which has previously been outed as being heavily liberal-biased, being run by a “failed liberal blogger”) also gets in on the act, saying that Syrian kids aren’t holding guns, instead labeling them as “Pakistani”:

  The above-displayed photograph, however, was not taken in Syria and does not show refugees. The claim that the children are orphans is also baseless, as well as the claim that the children are holding real guns.

   

  The photograph was taken in July 2014 on Al-Quds (Jerusalem Day) in Pakistan. The description accompanying the photo on Alamy states that the children are “Pakistani Shiite Muslims” and are holding toy guns during a protest.

  If there is one thing Snopes is correct about, it is that Pakistani refugees also need to be intensely vetted, and should be on the list of countries, possibly above others Trump listed.  However, Snopes is mostly doing this to dispute the notion that refugees could be dangerous.  Which, given the information that is out there, is willfully ignorant at best, outright malicious at worst.

  Take a closer look at the children from the opening image, in the below video:

  Without question, they would just strike you as “cute children” who deserved a country of their own if you took away the guns and put them in a TV promo looking for donations.

  But, Express makes it appear as though these are just “hopeless” children who are playing with toy guns, and that Western nations denying refugees entry into our nations are just awful.  Do they realize just how easy it would be for one of these children posing with real guns and real ISIS training to slip in with the kids who deserve a place?

  I can already feel the next quote coming: “Those kids in Express’s slideshow were playing with toy guns, and even if the kids in the above video have real guns, they have no real training, and would never shoot anyone!”

  Well… when I said the MSM and the many immigration protesters were either willfully ignorant or outright malicious, I really meant it.

  The below video is so graphic, I was hesitant to post it.  But Free Market Shooter is not a “safe space,” and if you are looking for one, you’re in the wrong place.  I will however provide one last warning – if you are squeamish, easily disturbed, or just plain scared of the truth, DO NOT WATCH THIS VIDEO, BECAUSE IT IS EXTREMELY GRAPHIC.  A description is provided below the video, if you cannot watch. 

   

  For those who did not watch, the video showed armed ISIS-trained children clearing a house methodically and professionally, just like a team of commandos, and executing ISIS detainees within the house.  Funker530 originally provided the video, and their commentary is below:

  Take a good look at the world today. We have children in the streets of the United States throwing a temper tantrum because they believe that the politicians have failed. Maybe they have. They have failed them by allowing them to believe that they live in a world of sunshine and rainbows.

   

  Politics completely aside, this video is a snap back to reality. This is the real world that we live in today as a species. Grown men are training children, some as young as six, to move through a house in a tactical fashion with live ammunition, having them kill actual living human beings. To put the cherry on the cupcake, they are recording it with some serious production value, and then uploading it to the internet to show the world that their children are ready to die for their cause. I don’t see you marching for women and children’s rights in Syria.

   

  While you whine and complain about social issues that are a moot point in our society, women and children are being raped and murdered around the world by maniacs. Take a look outside of your own safe space, and realize that the world can’t be the Utopian place you want. It isn’t possible, it is never going to happen.

   

  This is why.

  If you think this is all just a big production, you clearly have not watched the video.  Children are actually delivering kill shots on real live people.  This is not The Matrix – this is the real world, and it will never cease to shock and disturb you.

  So, think long and hard next time you see that cute refugee kid in the video, and ask yourself – is it possible that this child is actually a trained killer?  Whether its man, woman or child, is there any real way to know if someone coming from a war zone is just an innocent, or a seriously dangerous individual?

  For the record I’m not certain if Trump has all the answers to the “refugee” question, and whether or not his immigration actions will actually be effective or not.  I also realize that these actions are likely harming some innocent individuals who truly mean no harm.  Certainly, he can’t just wave a magic wand and make the country’s immigration problems go away overnight, especially given how difficult it is to know exactly who is trying to enter into and/or emigrate to the USA on a daily basis.

  However, Trump is clearly aware that the world is a bad place, and is trying to do something to protect and safeguard this country from a very cruel world that very much means to do our citizens harm.  At least he is not sticking his head in the sand and being naive or willfully ignorant about the truth, like our MSM outlets are doing every day when they denounce him just for trying something his predecessor didn’t.

  

  If the protesters took the MSM blinders off, and saw the world for what it really is, would they really be so opposed to Trump’s actions?

   

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Boston Judge Unblocks Trump Travel Ban, Asks "Where Does It Say Muslim Countries?"

  Update: It appears President Trump is pleased with the judge's decision…

  We must keep "evil" out of our country!

  — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2017

  *  *  *

   

  As we detailed earlier, in a blow to every mainstream media news outlet (and likely hurting a lot of feelings), President Donald Trump’s ban on immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries will take effect in Boston on Sunday after a federal judge refused to extend a temporary ruling blocking its enforcement.

  As Bloomberg reports, the decision by U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton on Friday dealt a setback to rights advocates who argued that blocking people from seven nations in the Middle East was unconstitutional. Gorton was weighing whether to extend a seven-day order blocking parts of Trump’s Executive Order.

  The case, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of several affected immigrants, is one of several that followed Trump’s Jan 27 order, which roiled global travel by barring entry to the U.S. of citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Individuals, organizations, politicians and some states called it unconstitutional religious discrimination against Muslims.

  As GMA News Onine reports, U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton on Friday asked Matthew Segal, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) representing the plaintiffs in the Boston case.

  "Where does it say Muslim countries?"

  Segal replied…

  "If your honor's question is, 'Does the word 'Muslim' make a profound presence in this executive order?,' my answer is that it doesn't,… But the president described what he was going to do as a Muslim ban and then he proceeded to carry it out."

  Gorton shot back,

  "Am I to take the words of an executive at any point before or after election as a part of that executive order?"

  Judge Gorton on Friday asked U.S. Justice Department lawyer Joshua Press how the seven countries had been selected.

  Press responded that the list had come from a law passed in 2015 and amended early last year requiring that citizens of the seven countries apply for visas to enter the United States, "out of concern about the refugees that were coming, mainly from Syria at that time and terrorist events that were occurring in Europe."

  As we noted previously, only 12.5% of the world's Muslims live in the seven countries on Trump's immigration ban list…

  

   

  Which left the judge to decide (as the full docket explains here),

  “The language in Section 5 of the EO is neutral with respect to religion,

   

  "The provisions of Section 5, however, could be invoked to give preferred refugee status to a Muslim individual in a country that is predominately Christian. Nothing in Section 5 compels a finding that Christians are preferred to any other group.”

  Gorton wrote there is a rational reason for the Trump administration’s policies. The federal Immigration and Naturalization Act gives the president broad power over immigration.

  “The order provides a reasonably conceivable state of facts (which concerns national security and) that could provide a rational basis for the classification,” he wrote. “Accordingly, this Court declines to encroach upon the “delicate policy judgment” inherent in immigration decisions.”

   

  ORDER

   

  For the forgoing reasons, the Court declines to impose any injunctive relief and will not renew the temporary restraining order that was entered on January 29, 2017 (Docket No. 6).

  Full Order below:

  

  

• Exposing The Left's War Against Ordinary Americans

  Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

  The Saker is a level-headed person. I take it seriously when he spells out the threat to Trump’s presidency presented by the paradoxical alliance of the ruling oligarchs with what purports to be the “liberal/progressive/left.”

  It is amazing that the “liberal/progressive/left” are aligned with war and not with peace and are aligned with the OnePercent against the working class, whom they despise as “Trump deplorables.”

  The Saker believes that Trump is under serious threat of being overthrown and that he must strike first or go down. 

  As my readers are highly intelligent, I am not surprised that some of them have arrived at the same conclusion as The Saker. Here is what one had to say:

  I am totally astounded by the madness – even at formerly reasonable left – liberal websites. Alternet is one big hysteria factory. Although Counterpunch has had good articles by Mike Whitney, you (I presume, since I read your articles on your website), Diana Johnstone and a few others, I can’t believe how they’ve jumped in, too. I’ve been reading CP since the beginning of the newsletter in the 90s. Until this year, they were (after yours) my go-to website when I turned the computer on. I can’t believe they have a new article titled “Beyond Resistance – Defeating Trump’s Burgeoning Dictatorship”. And another: “Democracy in Exile and the Curse of Totalitarianism”. And another: “Muslim Bans, White Supremacy and Fascism in Our Time”. Patrick Cockburn has an article titled: “Trump’s Muslim Ban Will Only Spark More Terrorist Attacks”. Even the World Socialist Website has gone bananas.

   

  Almost all of the German left-mainstream sites have gone insane. On the one hand, it seems like almost every protest group, in the end, has a source of money from Soros. On the other, it seems like 40% of the population must have been put through an MK-Ultra program. How could such mass hysteria otherwise be produced?

  This is the level of argument with which protesters oppose Trump’s presidency:

  Readers share my amazement that there are large numbers of people so stupid as to think that a ban on Muslim immigrants is far worse than murdering Muslims in seven countries for fifteen years. Bush and Obama conducted genocide against Muslims over the course of four presidential terms, and no protesters sought their impeachment for what are most certainly war crimes and crimes against humanity. But Trump’s perfectly legal immigration action is alleged to be grounds for impeachment!

  The protesters are completely nonsensical, so much so that it must be an orchestration. As the protesting websites, if not all of the protesters in the streets, accept the 9/11 storyline and the hoax “war on terror” that the storyline justifies, it follows logically that Muslims, already “terrorists” by definition (just ask the neoconservatives and Israel), fleeing their death and destruction by Washington might harbor thoughts of harm to Americans. Considering the ruling storyline, to let them in would be irresponsible.

  But not to the protesters. It wasn’t the killing of their families and destruction of their homes and countries that might make Muslims into terrorists. It is banning them from entry as refugees that turns them into terrorists!

  Try to imagine the absurdity of political leadership in the US and Europe during the 21st century. Western governments inflicted so much death and destruction that they created millions of Muslim refugees in order to accept as immigrants peoples who might harbor thoughts of revenge.

  Are we to conclude that there is no such thing in the US and Europe as a liberal/progressive/left, only Soros-funded protesters for hire, as in the orchestrated Maiden protests in Kiev and today in Macedonia and Hungary?

  Correct or not, this is the conclusion of many.

  Illegitimate protests discredit all protests.

  Could we be witnessing the ruling oligarchy using its pawns to discredit in advance valid protests at the time when they move to reassert their control?

  An astute citizen of Hungary sees similarity between the protests against Trump in the US and the Soros-orchestrated protests against the government of Hungary:

  Dear Dr. Roberts,

   

  Being the citizen of Hungary, a country heavily infested by Soros-financed NGO’s, and with a government that is openly anti-Soros, it breaks my heart to see the USA in a situation very much like what we have had to put up with since 2010, the year when Viktor Orban won a two-thirds majority, which he won again in 2014. Today, there is one piece of experience that is, I think, crucial for us, Hungarians, to share with the USA. It is this: nothing is sacred or too dear for Soros, his NGO’s and associates of all stripes in their fight for power. This has been a concept quite hard to come to terms with for many of us in Hungary. They will sacrifice the country, the future, the people, they will sacrifice anything, just to (re-)gain power. As I follow news from the USA, I see photos of crowds that appear to be filled with hatred. They are like the (fortunately quite diminished) crowds paraded around by the Hungarian opposition parties, who like to call themselves “democratic” as opposed to the government elected to office by the people, which they refer to as “fascist, nazi, anti-democratic, anti-semitic” etc.

   

  These crowds are the embodiment of hypocrisy. Chanting slogans of “love”, they act out of pure hatred, for power, and refuse to be reasoned with. They refuse to consider facts. They call themselves liberals, but act against liberty through exercising total intolerance. I assume that the people who voted for President Trump are patriotic. If my assumption is correct, this also means that it will take quite some time, until the reality sinks in that Soros, his NGO’s and allies will trample down, unhesitatingly, the nation and the empire that they seek to rule unchallenged. This is because they do not rule for the people. They need the power to be in the position to exploit the nation and the empire, for their own benefit. This is not an easy thought to come to terms with for a patriot. The sooner the US electorate understands this, the more resistant it can become against the propaganda campaign and high visibility demonstrations so happily covered by the mainstream media. It is important to keep in mind that the room to maneuver President Trump has is directly proportionate to the popular supporthe enjoys, at any given time.

   

  Dr. Roberts, thank you for all your valuable work invested into making the world a better – and safer – place, for the benefit of all Mankind.

   

  Kind regards, Anita

  

  

• Berkeley Antifa Attacker Unmasked As UC Employee? CNN and Young Turks Lookin’ So Dumb

  Today, propagandists on the left attempted to change the narrative over the violent “Antifa” riots, suggesting that Trump supporters were secretly behind the group’s spate of violent terrorist acts since the election:

  Of course, the ultra-liberal, Armenian Holocaust denying, TalcumX hiring, “better than you” elitists – also known as “The Young Turks,” started furiously parroting these Alisnsky tactics to cast doubt on just who keeps co-opting student protests and turning them violent…

   And Thursday night, The Young Turks Ana Kasparian – a horrible human being, introduced the question of just who IS this Antifa?

  

  Don’t worry Ana – Twitter user Pave Darker (@PaveDarker) has your back, hack.

  In a nutshell: A violent Antifa attacker bragged about beating up a Trump supporter over Twitter. In that user’s profile, @PaveDarker found a link to the attacker’s Facebook account with his real name [Note: This man is a suspect – name withheld from this post pending official investigation]:

   

  

  

  Witness journalism in action Ana:

  

  Mmmm hmm:

  

  Deeper we go:

  

  And this $69,824K/year Antifa rebel appears to be a “Digital Comm Spec 4” at Berkeley:

  

  

  

  The authorities have been notified, and the UC Employee is thought to be in New York right now. Developing…

  

  Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com * Follow on Twitter @ZeroPointNow

  

• World Leaders "Stunned" By Trump's Bluntness

  As President Trump drops tape (and tweet) bombs left, right, and center; often saying exactly what he is thinking, it appears the world’s leaders (and establishmentarians) are “shocked” at his inconvenient truthiness. As Tim Bale, politics professor at Queen Mary University of London, said, reflecting on Brexit concerns,

  “…our reliance on the United States, in normal times, wouldn’t worry too many people… But Donald Trump doesn’t seem to be a normal president.”

  Which seemed to sum things up nicely.

  

  From Australia to Iran, and from Germany to Russia, no one is safe from President Donald Trump’s blunt, win-the-deal approach to diplomacy. As The Wall Street Journal reports, his style has U.S. adversaries and some allies struggling to assess its impact for their countries and puzzling over how to react if they land in the new American leader’s crosshairs next.

  “The troubling thing for allies is this kind of hard-edged, transactional approach, where longstanding relationships and all that shared history and shared military sacrifices going back to World War I just doesn’t seem to count for anything,” said Andrew Shearer, who served as national-security adviser to two Australian prime ministers.

   

  “Every deal is a struggle between a winner and a loser,” he said of Mr. Trump’s style. “That approach might work in business, but as someone who’s been around foreign policy for a long time, I just don’t see how it’s going to work internationally.”

   

  …

   

  “In the short run everyone is trying to get a handle on the new administration,” Mr. Haass said. “But in the medium and long run, whether governments like or loathe what they’re seeing, I believe what every government will do is essentially rethink its relationship with the United States.”

   

  …

   

  “Worrying declarations by the new American administration all make our future highly unpredictable,” European Council President Donald Tusk, who represents the governments of the EU’s 28 member states, wrote in a letter to EU leaders this week. He stressed the need to maintain a united Europe “whether we are talking to Russia, China, the U.S., or Turkey.”

   

  “We had hoped for a more nuanced, sophisticated version of Trump after inauguration,” said a senior European diplomat. “Alas, that was not to be.”

  Trump has often remarked he prefers to be unpredictable and it seems that is exactly his approach, and Richard Haass, the chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, said Mr. Trump has introduced uncertainty into the role the U.S. plays in the world.

  
  

  Furthermore, Mr. Haass said, the new president has shown an openness to upending the foreign policy status quo. “He doesn’t feel confined by what he inherited,” he said.

  

  

• "The Center Didn't Hold"

  Submitted by Howard Kunstler via Kunstler.com,

  The Purpose of Decadence and the Pleasures of Coercion

  

  I guess you’ve noticed by now that the center didn’t hold. Instead of a secure platform for political premises like tradition, precedent, rationality, and cultural norms, you see a fiery maw of sheer emotion between the camps of the so-called Left and the so-called Right.

  I say so-called because the campus Left and the Trump Right have escaped the categorical corrals they formerly occupied. And they may have left their customary official parties stranded and dying too. It may be fatuous to say whether that is a good or bad thing; it just is, for the moment. They are two halves of a polity so broken and so far apart that it is also hard to see how they might ever come back together into a consensus about how a society might operate successfully.

  Not having a consensus — some substantial overlap between circles of perspective — it’s not surprising that America can’t construct a coherent view of what is happening, or make a plan for what to do about it. Mainly what’s happening is the running down of fossil fuel based techno-industrial economies, and the main symptom is falling standards of living, with fading prospects for future happiness and security.

  As I’ve said before, our economic picture is basically untenable due to the falling energy-return-on-investment of the crucial oil supply (shout-out to Steve St. Angelo). At the high point of 1920s oil production the ratio was around 100-1. The shale oil “miracle” is good for about 5-1. The aggregate of all oil these days is under 30-1. Below that number, you’ve got to shed some activities in our complex economy (or they just get too expensive to support) — things like high-paying labor jobs, medical care, tourism, college, commuting, heating 2500 square foot homes…). Oddly the way it’s actually working out is that America is simply shedding its whole middle class and all its accustomed habits and luxuries. At least that’s how it adds up in effect. Naturally, that produces a lot of bad feeling.

  President Trump is unlikely to be able to fix that essential problem, unless he can pilot the whole political-economy into a glide-path leading toward neo-medievalism — what I call the World Made By Hand. Trump’s call for restoring the factory economy of 1962 is a low-percentage prospect. Instead, he’ll be saddled with the collateral damage caused by the dishonest effort of his recent predecessors to borrow from the future to pay for the way we live now — that is, racking up debt. This mighty debt-load, never before seen in history, and the accounting fraud that enables it, has helped produce all kinds of distortions, perversities, and fragilities in our money system (finance and banking) which can easily slip into collapse if a crucial prop fails here or there, and that is exactly what I think will happen under Trump. It will not be his fault, but he’ll get blamed for it. And when it happens, he won’t be able to give his attention to anything but that.

  In the meantime, society shows all the symptoms of this literal economic disease in the political and cultural fissures of the day. The political Right failed in its role as prudent conservator of values, resources, and practical custom; the political Left has taken refuge in sentimental fantasy, using the semantic ploys of the graduate school seminars to pretend that reality is whatever they wish it to be. Uncomfortable with the age-old tensions of sexuality? Then pretend that you can opt out of the dynamics of biology by declaring yourself “non-binary,” a term with a pleasing science-y flavor. Tensions gone? Not really. You’ve only made them worse as, for instance, expressed in “non-binary” suicide rates. The perversities of transsexual triumphalism are related directly to the falsehoods of Federal Reserve trans-monetarist triumphalism, and all parties are subject to the matrix of racketeering that has taken the place of plain dealing in goods, money, and ideas in this society — especially ideas grounded in reality.

  Societies may not exactly be organisms with intentions, but they move in a particular direction because they are emergent phenomena. That is, they are self-organizing according to the circumstances and forces they are subject to at a certain time and place in history. Decadence is specifically the decay of social and cultural boundaries, a process that is manifestly accelerating now. Both sides of the political spectrum are acting out this dynamic, with the vacuum in the middle sucking vitality out of each side. The Left has become a kind of pagan religion of sacred victims and victimhood, collecting sacred injuries and martyrs. Its dark secret, though, is that these sacred things are only straw-dogs and wicker-men. The real animating motive for the Left these days is simply the pleasure of coercion, of exercising the power to punish their adversaries and watch them suffer.

  The Trump Right also enjoys the writhings and sufferings of its adversaries, squashed bug style, as it goes forth in the quixotic battle to bring back 1962 at all costs. Both the Left and the right show not a little sadism in their methods. In the background of these histrionics, the great groaning machine of Modernity lurches toward collapse — not the end-of-the-world as many foolishly imagine, but the end of a phase of history when things that used to work, don’t. At a certain point, we’ll have to try other ways of being with each other on this planet, and then for a while things will come together again.

  

  

• 400,000 Fewer Americans Enrolled In Obamacare For 2017

  Despite The Democrats decrying the Trump administration for its efforts to repeal and replace President Obama's Affordable Care Act, it seems around 400,000 fewer Americans decided for themselves that Obamacare wasn't for them in 2017.

  As Axios reports, Obamacare enrollment for this year appears to have ended slightly down from last year, according to enrollment numbers released this afternoon by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

  The agency said about 9.2 million people signed up in the 39 states that use the federal HealthCare.gov website by Jan. 31.

   

  While that's not a total enrollment figure, 9.6 million people signed up through that website at the end of last year's open enrollment.

  It's the first indication that the Trump administration's opposition to the law, and its decision to pull TV advertising, may have had an impact, since the pace of enrollment had been ahead of last year's until mid-January.

  

  For context:

  • New customers in 2017: 3 million
  • New customers in 2016: 4 million

  Just before the numbers were released, an HHS spokesman from the Trump team released a statement declaring that "Obamacare has failed the American people, with one broken promise after another."

  “As noted in the report today from [the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services], premiums in the ACA marketplace have increased 25 percent while the number of insurers has declined 28 percent over the past year,” he added.

   

  “We look forward to providing relief to those who are being harmed by the status quo and pursuing patient-centered solutions that will work for the American people.”

  As The Hill adds, The Trump administration did not release enrollment numbers for all 50 states, so it is not clear how the nationwide signup numbers compare to the Obama administration’s target of 13.8 million signups across all 50 states. The administration said it would release more information on nationwide enrollment in March.

  Democrats pointed to a drop-off in signups at the end of the enrollment period as evidence that the Trump administration's cancelation of ads hurt sign-ups.

  • Federal marketplace signups, Jan. 15-31, 2017: 376,260
  • Federal marketplace signups, Jan. 24-31, 2016: 686,708

  So what the Democrats are saying is that without spending millions to advertize the benefits of Obamacare – after years of discussion and explanation – notably fewer people are interested in it, or believe they need it (or are willing to spend money on it).

  

  

• Judge Blocks Trump Travel Ban Nationwide; White House Vows To Challenge "Outrageous Order"

  Update: Moments ago, the White House issued a statement saying the DOJ would, as expected, challenge the federal court’s ruling that halted travel ban “at the earliest possible time” and will file an emergency stay of Robart’s “outrageous order.”

  

  Expect angry Trump tweets to follow.

  * * *

  Following a brief moment of ‘success’ for the Trump administration as a Boston judge ruled Trump’s immigration policy was not a Muslim ban, a Bush-appointed federal judge in Seattle, who said the states of Washington and Minnesota can sue claiming their residents were harmed by the ban, granted a nationwide temporary restraining order blocking Trump’s immigration ban.

  District Judge James Robart ruled the executive order would be stopped nationwide effective immediately: his ruling was the most comprehensive legal rebuke of Trump’s Jan. 27 executive order prohibiting immigrants from Iran, Iraq, Syria and four other nations from entering the U.S. for 90 days. Judges in Brooklyn, New York, Los Angeles and Alexandria, Virginia, had previouslyissued orders that are less sweeping.

  Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson was delighted with the decision: “The Constitution prevailed today,” Ferguson said in a statement after the ruling.

  “It is not the loudest voice that prevails on the Constitution,” Ferguson continued speaking outside the courthouse. “We are a nation of laws, not even the president can violate the Constitution. It’s our president’s duty to honor this ruling and I’ll make sure he does,” Ferguson added hopefully.

  Good luck with that.

  In his ruling, Robart said that “the state has met its burden in demonstrating immediate and irreparable injury” while Fergsuon added that “Judge Robart’s decision, effective immediately, effective now, puts a halt to President Trump’s unconstitutional and unlawful executive order. It puts a stop to it immediately, nationwide.” The court order, effective immediately, will remain in place until the judge considers a motion – probably within a month – to permanently invalidate the president’s order, Ferguson said.

  Ferguson, a Democrat, filed the lawsuit three days after Trump signed the executive order. The suit argued that the travel ban targets Muslims and violates constitutional rights of immigrants and their families. 

  In his request for the order, according to Bloomberg, Ferguson had said the effects on the state included economic consequences for employers based there, including Microsoft Corp., Starbucks Corp. and Amazon.com Inc. Expedia Inc., based in Bellevue, Washington, had about 1,000 customers with flight reservations in or out of the U.S. from the seven countries, he said. Minnesota, like Washington, cited the effect of the ban on students at its colleges and universities, as well as health care centers including the Mayo Clinic. The state’s 5.4 million residents included 30,000 immigrants from the affected countries, it said in the lawsuit.

  According to The Hill, in a phone interview with CNN Friday evening, Ferguson said he “expected win, lose or draw” that the case would move “fairly quickly through, up to the Ninth Circuit” Court of Appeals — “just because of the magnitude of the executive order.”

  And hinting that the Supreme Court showdown we suggested previously now appears inevitable, Ferguson added that he is “prepared for this case to go all the way to the Supreme Court whichever way the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals goes,” he said, anticipating a challenge to Robart’s ruling. “It’s a case of that magnitude, it’s a case that frankly I think will ultimately end up before the U.S. Supreme Court, so that would not surprise me one way or the other.”

  Ferguson’s ruling was on the basis that states had already suffered harm from the travel ban. He also said the lawsuit challenging the legality of the order has a good chance of succeeding. Lawyers for the government had argued the states lacked standing to sue, according to the Seattle Times, and that the order was within Trump’s executive powers.

  That said, it is likely that like last Saturday’s Brooklyn decision, that this ruling oo is being blown out of proportion: to wit, a Department of Homeland Security official told NBC News that “the judge’s order will have no immediate practical effect” adding that “all previously issued visas from the seven affected countries were canceled by last week’s executive order” meaning all travelers would have to reapply.

  Furthermore, the Trump administration could seek a stay of the Seattle judge’s order.

  The decision came on a day that attorneys from four states were in courts challenging Trump’s executive order. Trump’s administration justified the action on national security grounds, but opponents labeled it an unconstitutional order targeting people based on religious beliefs – which the Boston judge has since ruled invalid.

  Also on Friday, Hawaii’s Doug Chin became the sixth state attorney general to sue or support lawsuits seeking to block Trump’s order.

  At this rate, it now appears almost certain that the Trump executive order showdown will conclude in the Supreme Court… where the tie breaking Justice will be the just appointed by Trump, Neil Gorsuch. Which is why one can see why Trump may feel confident about the outcome of the case.

  * * *

  The case is State of Washington v. Trump, 17-cv-00141, U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington (Seattle). The Boston case is Loughghalam v. Trump, 17-cv-10154, U.S. District Court, Massachusetts (Boston). The text of the full Temporary Restraining Order is below.

   

  

  

• This Is How Russia & The United States Are Cooperating In Syria

  Submitted by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

  

  Since Donald Trump became President of the United States, we have been witnessing some interesting developments in Syria. We have only fragmentary and seemingly unconnected information at this time, but, as one puts the pieces of the puzzle together, it appears likely that some kind of deeper level of coordination between the US and Russia exists. While it cannot be said with certainty, Trump and Putin have probably agreed to cooperate in the fight against Daesh in Syria without making it publicly known. These represent only intentions, especially after the misunderstanding in recent days about joint strikes between Moscow and Washington against Daesh in Syria.

  The following list is intended to facilitate an understanding of a tentative hypothesis that posits secret coordination between the US and Russia.

  Let us start with some points concerning recent months.

  1. Russia has fought terrorism in Syria for nearly two years, repeatedly requesting the US to cooperate in this effort, at least in terms of sharing sensitive information on intelligence.

   

  2. Trump, during the election campaign, always said he would be willing to work with Moscow to fight terrorism in Syria, focusing on Daesh as the number one priority.

   

  3. Once becoming president, Trump reiterated this position without backtracking, as many had anticipated.

   

  4. Over the past ten days (21^st, 23^rd and 31^st January 2017) the Russian Federation has conducted at least two aviation missions involving as many as six Tu-22M3 strategic bombers over the village of Deir ez-Zor, representing an important display of firepower.

   

  5. The Russian Ministry of Defense (MOD) reported that they targeted structures and facilities used for making weapons in addition to the command centers and arms depots of Daesh.

   

  6. The areas around Deir ez-Zor have been under Daesh control for a very long time.

  Now let us look at some recent but rather obscure events that have never been fully clarified.

  7. The most cryptic news coming out of Syria usually involves areas around Deir ez-Zor and Palmyra, which has included the cowardly bombing by the international coalition of the Syrian Army on September 17, 2016, and also in recent weeks, as well as the extraordinary crossing of hundreds of Daesh members from Mosul to Deir ez-Zor that did not provoke any air intervention from the international coalition.

   

  8. Given the above, it is likely that the American deep state (CIA and State Department) is in contact with Daesh, coordinating the repeated attacks on the Syrian state.

  Some considerations on the Russian operations in Syria, in addition to the earlier observations.

  9. From experience, thanks to the story of the heroic sacrifice of Alexander Prokhorenko, we know that Russian aviation relies on Russian special forces (acting as spotters) for bombings in such locations as Palmyra and Deir ez-Zor, relying on such soldiers to identify and confirm targets on the ground that are often disguised as civilian structures (e.g., weapons-manufacturing plants and arms depots). But we also know how dangerous and difficult it is for spotters to infiltrate such areas.

   

  10. Russian strategic bombers have employed «dumb» bombs that do not require laser-guided targeting systems. Evidently Russians have been confident in their ordnance hitting their targets.

   

  11. Given points (1), (6), (9), (10) and the repeated attacks in recent days of strategic bombers, it is evident that the Russian ministry of defence has acquired new, previously unknown intelligence information regarding ground targets in the area of ??Deir ez-Zor that was. Moscow has been requesting from Washington the sharing of intelligence information for years now. The Obama administration has consistently refused to cooperate. Trump has always offered the opposite.

  In addition, a note on recent news of joint efforts between the American and the Russian air forces in Syria.

  12. The episode involving the joint bombing conducted by the Russians and Americans (but denied by sources in the international coalition) has taken on a particular significance when Trump's spokesman, Sean Spicer, declined to comment on the story, perhaps indicating possible differences of opinion between the Trump administration and members of the US-led international coalition.

  Finally, two logical deductions, consistent with those reported previously.

  13. It is very likely that Moscow received from American sources, thanks to the points (7) and (8), the coordinates of Daesh in Deir ez-Zor. This would also explain the issues covered (4), (9) and (10).

   

  14. The Russian MOD has not released information on how they acquired the information that led to the bombing of the past days.

  Conclusions.

  In summary, we can draw a picture of events in recent days in Syria, assuming a hidden coordination between Moscow and Washington.

  We know, for example, that Trump does not intend to overthrow the Assad government. With no need for ground troops (AKA terrorists), the newly established administration does not intend to finance or arm «moderate rebels», as was repeatedly stated by the new president in the election campaign.

  Equally likely is that as a result of the US-Russian joint mission in Syria against Daesh, confirmed by the Russian Ministry of Defence and repeated by RT and not denied by Spicer (12), the US deep state (especially the Republican Party, the mainstream media and intelligence communities at high levels) has strongly protested against this, maintaining the traditional hostility towards Moscow.

  It is therefore likely that the Trump administration has gone from active support (joint missions) to hidden coordination with Moscow to avoid further friction with some of the components of the so-called ‘deep state'.

  To confirm this hypothesis, strategic bombers have struck with unguided bombs targets that were previously unknown, probably thanks to newly acquired intelligence (otherwise it is not clear why these targets would have not been previously engaged in such missions given the critical situation in Deir ez-Zor for the Syrian Arab Army).

  Regarding paragraphs (6), (7) and (8), it is easy to understand why it is likely that this kind of information is in the possession of Washington. This is also one of the reasons why the previous administration has consistently refused to cooperate with Moscow. The American deep state has deep, hidden links with terrorism in Syria, and the US intelligence community has every intention of maintaining these secrets.

  In conclusion, the call scheduled between Trump and Putin on Saturday, January 28 is another indication of an agreement that is currently developing without much publicity to combat terrorism in Syria. Keeping an eye on the situation in Syria and the talks between the US and Russia over the coming days, it will become easier to evaluate the accuracy of this tentative hypothesis.

  

  

• Meet The New, "Safe" Synthetic CDO's That Could Spell Disaster For The European Banking System

  So what do you do if you’re a European banking regulator faced with the task of maintaining a safe, sustainable financial system amid a concerning growth in bank leverage.  Well, if you said sell down risk assets then you’re just being silly or completely ignoring your implicit obligation to engineer higher banking profitability at all costs.

  If we can get serious for a moment, like in the early 2000’s, when all else fails you turn to synthetic CDO’s which, courtesy of some magical, if completely incomprehensible, math, slashes the risk of bank balance sheets while having a negligible impact on profitability.  It’s called the Synthetic Collateralized Loan Obligation and it’s all the rage in Europe.

  Here’s how it works:

  In a synthetic securitisation a bank buys credit protection on a portfolio of loans from an investor. This means that when a loan in the portfolio defaults, the investor reimburses the bank for the losses incurred on loans in that portfolio up to a maximum, which is the amount invested. This amount therefore provides credit protection for a slice of the portfolio, which is often called the ‘first loss tranche’. The size of this tranche is typically chosen in a way to cover at least the expected losses on the portfolio as well as a share of unexpected losses. The bank usually retains the rest of the risk, which is called the ‘senior tranche’.

   

  Before closing, the bank and the investor agree on the terms of the transaction, such as the amount the investor is at risk for, the duration of the contract and the loans that are eligible for inclusion in the portfolio. Choosing which loans are eligible can be on a disclosed basis, where the investor knows the exact names of the borrowers of these loans, or on a blind pool basis, where the investor does not know the identities of the borrowers. In the latter case the loans are chosen based on criteria, such as the type of loans, sector, geography, credit risk, et cetera.

   

  The term ‘synthetic’ comes from the fact that, unlike in a true sale transaction, the loans being securitised are not sold by the bank but are referenced, which means they remain on the bank’s balance sheet. This way, the bank reduces the credit risk on the securitised loans and remains in charge of managing the loans and the lending relationship with their client itself. Synthetic securitisations are often used for hedging the credit risk on loans that cannot easily be sold.

  As Bloomberg points out, from the regulator’s perspective the logic is that these deals are usually fully funded, with investors posting the full amount that they’re on the hook to cover should a lot of a bank’s loans go bust. They’re not highly leveraged wagers similar to the pre-crisis synthetic collateralized debt obligations, which were backed by who knows what and sold to whomever.

  Of course, the problem with that perspective is that it views the risk profile of the synthetic CLO in a bubble and completely ignores all other possible second derivative implications. 

  One such second derivative implication can by linked back to the primary demand for these structures, hedge funds. 

  

   

  Per the graphic above, hedge funds are all too willing to post the collateral required to backstop losses on a bank’s loan portfolio but only if they can juice their returns somehow.  So how do they do that?  Well, they borrow money from banks, of course.  Yes, you read that correctly, banks are lending money to hedge funds which use that leverage to backstop losses on the bank’s loan portfolio…effectively the bank is issuing loans to backstop loans.

  We vaguely remember similar shenanigans occurring roughly 10 years ago when most of wall street’s modern day titans were still watching Power Rangers in their PJs…as we recall, in the end, it didn’t work out well.

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Irreversible Damage – The U.S. Economy Cannot Be Repaired

  Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

  

  As I outlined in my article 'The False Economic Narrative Will Die In 2017', the mainstream media has been carefully crafting the propaganda meme that the Trump administration is inheriting a global economy in “ascension,” when in fact, the opposite is true. Trump enters office at a time of longstanding decline and will likely witness severe and accelerated decline over the course of the next year. The signs are already present, and this fits exactly with the basis for my prediction of the Trump election win – conservative movements are indeed being set up as scapegoats for a global economic crisis that international financiers actually created.

  Plus, it doesn’t help that Trump keeps boasting about the farcical Dow hitting record highs after his entry into the White House. Talk about the perfect setup…

  With the speed at which Trump is issuing executive orders, my concern is that people’s heads will be spinning so fast they will start to assume an appearance of economic progress. Here is the issue — some problems simply cannot be fixed, at least not in a top down fashion. Some disasters cannot be prevented. Sometimes, a crisis has to run its course before a nation or society or economy can return to stability. This is invariably true of the underlying crisis within the U.S. economy.

  It is imperative that liberty activists and conservatives avoid false hope in fiscal recovery and remain vigilant and prepared for a breakdown within the system. Despite the sudden political sea change with Trump and the Republican party in majority control of the D.C. apparatus, there is nothing that can be done through government to ease fiscal tensions at this time. Here are some of the primary reasons why:

  Government Does Not Create Wealth

  Government is a wealth-devouring machine. The bigger the government, the more adept it is at snatching capital and misallocating it. Such a system is inherently unequipped to repair an economy in a stagflationary spiral.

  I’m hearing a whole lot of talk lately on all the jobs that will be created through Trump’s infrastructure spending plans, which reminds me of the desperation at the onset of the Great Depression and the efforts by Herbert Hoover to reignite the U.S. economy through a series of public works programs. Reality does not support a successful outcome for this endeavor.

  First off, Trump’s ideas for infrastructure spending to kick start a U.S. recovery are not new. The Obama administration and Congress passed the largest transportation spending bill in more than a decade in 2015 and pushed for a similar strategy to what is now being suggested by Trump. I should point out though that like Herbert Hoover, Obama’s efforts in this area were essentially fruitless. Obama was the first president since Hoover to see “official” annual U.S. GDP growth drop below 3 percent for the entirety of his presidency, with GDP in 2016 dropping to a dismal 1.6 percent.

  Though projects like the Hoover Dam were epic in scope and electrifying to the public imagination during the Depression, they did little to fuel the overall long-term prospects of the American economy. This is because government is incapable of creating wealth; it can only steal wealth from the citizenry through taxation to pay debts conjured out of thin air, or, it can strike a devil’s bargain with central banks to print its way to fake prosperity.

  Some might argue that Trump is more likely to redirect funds from poorly conceived Obama-era programs instead of increasing taxes or printing, but this does not change the bigger picture. Redirected funds are still taxpayer funds, and those funds would be far better spent if they were returned to taxpayers rather than wasted in a vain effort to increase GDP by a percentage point. Beyond this, the number of jobs generated through the process will be a drop in the bucket compared to the 100 million plus people no longer employed within the U.S. at this time.

  Bottom line? Though new roads and a wall on the southern border are winners for many conservatives, infrastructure spending is a non-solution in preventing a long-term fiscal disaster.

  Interdependency Is Hard To Break

  Another prospect for raising funds to pay for job generating public works projects is the use of tariffs on foreign imports. Specifically, imports of goods from countries which have maintained unfair trade advantages through global agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA or the China Trade Bill. This is obviously a practical concept and it was always the intention of the founding father post-revolution for government to generate most of its funding through taxation of foreign imports and interstate commerce, rather than taxation of the hard earned incomes of the citizenry. However, the idea is not without consequences.

  Unfortunately, globalists have spent the better part of a half-century ensuring that individual nations are completely financially dependent on one another. The U.S. is at the very CENTER of this interdependency with our currency as the world reserve standard. In order to change the nature of the inderdependent system, we have to change the nature of our participation within that system. This means, in order to assert large tariffs on countries like China (which Trump has suggested), America would have to be willing to sacrifice the main advantage it enjoys within the interdependent model — we would have to sacrifice the dollar’s world reserve status.

  Keep in mind, this is likely to be done for us in an aggressive manner by nations like China. China’s considerable dollar and treasury bond holds can be liquidated, and despite claims by mainstream shills, this WILL in fact have destructive effects on the U.S. economy.

  Also keep in mind that with higher tariffs come higher prices on the shelf. The majority of goods consumed by Americans come from outside the country. Higher tariffs only work to our advantage when we have a manufacturing base capable of producing the goods we need at prices we can afford. The American manufacturing base within our own nation is essentially nonexistent compared to the Great Depression. In order to levy tariffs we would need a level of production support we simply do not have.

  The point is, an unprecedented change in America's production dynamic would have to happen so that we do not face heavy fiscal consequences for the use of tariffs as an economic weapon.

  Manufacturing Takes Time To Rebuild

  Much excitement has been garnered by reports that certain U.S. corporations will be bringing some manufacturing back within our borders over the course of Trump’s first term as president. And certainly this is something that needs to happen. We should have never outsourced our manufacturing capability in the first place. But, is this too little too late? I believe so.

  I remember back in 2008/2009 mainstream economists were applauding the Federal Reserve’s bailout efforts and the call for quantitative easing, because, they argued, this would diminish the dollar’s value on the global market, which would make American goods less expensive, and by extension inspire a manufacturing renaissance. Of course, this never happened, which only adds to the mountain of evidence proving that most mainstream economists are intellectual idiots.

  It is important that we do not fall into the same false-hope trap in 2017. While Trump may or may not handle matters more aggressively, there is only so much that can be accomplished through politics. Rebuilding a manufacturing base after decades of outsourcing takes time. Many years, in fact. Factories have to be commissioned, money has to change many hands, wages have to be scouted for the best possible labor per-dollar spent and people have to be trained from the very ground up in how to produce goods again. In many cases, the skill sets required to maintain functioning factories in the U.S. (from engineers to machinists to assembly line labor to the people who know how to manage it all) just don’t exist anymore.  All we have left are millions of retail and food service workers forming mobs to demand $15 an hour, which is simply not going to encourage a return to manufacturing.

  Beyond this, at least in the short term, America will have a much stronger dollar on the global market, rather than a weaker dollar, due to the fact that the Federal Reserve has initiated a renewed series of interest rate increases just as Trump entered office.  While the mainstream theorizes that the Fed will turn "dovish" and back away from rate hikes, I think this is a rather naive notion.  It serves the elites far better to create a battle between Trump and the Fed – therefore, I see no reason for the Fed to back away from its rate hike process.  Trump will demand a weaker dollar, the Fed won't give it to him, and ultimately, the global economy will start to see the dollar as a risky venture and dump it as the world reserve; which is what the globalist have wanted all along so that they can introduce the SDR as a bridge to a new world currency.

  With a "strong" dollar (relative to other indexes) there is even LESS incentive for foreign nations to buy our goods now than there was after the credit crisis in 2008. If the dollar loses world reserve status (as I believe it will during Trump’s first term), then at that point we will have a swiftly falling currency — but too swift to fuel a manufacturing reboot.

  Is there even enough internal wealth to support the rise of manufacturing within the U.S. for a period of time necessary for our economy to rebalance?  If there is I’m not seeing it.  We are a nation mired in debt.  So much so that even selling off our natural resources would not erase the problem.

  Ultimately, the shift away from being tied to a globalized system towards a self-contained producer nation with a citizenry wealthy enough to sustain that production in light of limited exports to foreign buyers is a shift that requires incredible foresight, precision and ample time. It is not something that can be ramrodded into existence through force or by government decree. In fact, the act of trying to force the change haphazardly will only agitate an economy already on the verge of calamity.

  Solutions Start With The Citizenry, Not Washington

  I understand that conservatives in particular want to “make America great again,” and I fully agree with that goal. But, someone has to point out the inconsistencies in the current strategy and recognize that the situation is beyond repair. To make America great again would require decentralized efforts to maximize production and self reliance at a local level, not centralized federal tinkering with the economy. The globalists have been far too thorough in their programs of interdependency. The only way out now is for the system to crash and for the right people to be in place to rebuild.

  Sadly, not only will a crash result in great tragedy for many Americans, but it is also an outcome the globalists prefer. They believe that THEY will be the men in the right place at the right time to rebuild the system in an even more centralized fashion. They hope to sacrifice the old world order to inspire the social desperation needed to convince the masses of the need for a “new world order.” Again, this crash cannot be avoided, it can only be mitigated. We can prepare and become self sufficient. We can fight to ensure that the globalists are not in a position to rebuild the system in their image once the dust settles. But, we should not place too much expectation that the Trump administration will be able to solve any of our economic problems, if that is even their intent.  The solution remains in our hands, not in the hands of the White House.

  

  

• Payrolls Preview: Expect An Upside Surprise (Thanks To The Weather)

  Despite ADP's blowout print this week, consensus January payrolls is 175k (somewhat below the 6- and 12-month averages), but Goldman Sachs expects a higher 200k print thanks to a combination of lower-than-usual year-end layoffs, favorable weather effects, and further improvement in labor market indicators.

  Notably, Bloomberg Intelligence explains that over the past decade, consensus has tended to overestimate the January payrolls gain, but it appears to have corrected this bias over the past five years — a period in which the average miss has been less than 5k. As such, the current consensus forecast implies a significantly weaker outcome than was suggested by the latest ADP employment survey, which showed a 246k increase in private payrolls.

  The seasonal adjustment of the payroll data turns sharply negative in January, as recurring winter layoffs commence in a range of sectors. In recent years, the seasonal adjustment factor for January has averaged near -3036k. (In other words, employers typically layoff 3 million workers in January.)

  Furthermore, as Goldman notes, the report will also be accompanied by the annual benchmark revision to the establishment survey as well as the annual introduction of new population controls in the household survey.

  Overall Goldman forecasts that nonfarm payroll employment increased 200k in January, after an increase of 156k in December and 204k in November. Labor market indicators generally strengthened last month, with a drop in jobless claims between the survey periods to four-decade-lows and further improvement in the employment components of many service-sector and manufacturing surveys. The key labor market subcomponent of the consumer confidence report also rose to levels close to cycle highs. We also expect two temporary factors to boost January employment growth relative to surrounding months, specifically a weather-related rebound (on the order of 20-40k) and lower-than-usual year-end layoffs in the retail sector. On the negative side, we expect some pullback in transportation and warehousing payrolls following elevated growth in December, itself likely related to the secular shift toward online holiday sales.

  Factors arguing for a stronger report:

  • Weather rebound from December. Our analysis of NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) weather station data suggests that unusually high snowfall during the December payroll survey period may have reduced job growth by roughly 20-40k. As shown in the left panel of Exhibit 1, snowfall in early January was much more in line with seasonal norms, suggesting scope for a weather-related rebound. Updating this analysis to incorporate regional granularity from the December state and local employment survey bolsters the case for January improvement, in our view. In addition to a 3k drop in the weather-sensitive construction category, the softness in overall December payrolls was particularly pronounced in the East North Central and Pacific regions, two parts of the country where snowfall was above seasonal norms during the week of December 17th. More specifically, in the right panel of Exhibit 1 we show that below-trend December payroll growth occurred in several states that also exhibited unusually high snowfall (in the weeks relevant for December payroll growth). Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana stand out as four relatively large states where payrolls may have been depressed by weather in December.

  Exhibit 1: Weather Likely to Boost January Payrolls Relative to December

  

  Source: Source: National Centers for Environmental Information, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Labor, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research

  • Jobless claims and retail layoffs. Initial claims for unemployment insurance benefits moved lower, averaging a four-decade-low 248k during the four weeks between the December and January payroll survey periods. While seasonally adjustment difficulties likely account for much of the drop, we believe some of the decline reflects underlying labor market improvement and relatively fewer January retail layoffs – both of which would suggest scope for a rebound in January payrolls growth.
  • ADP. The payroll processing firm ADP reported a 246k rise in private payroll employment in January, up from +151k in December and well above expectations of +168k. In past research, we have found that large surprises in the ADP report tend to be predictive of the subsequent nonfarm payroll surprise. Additionally, we believe the above-trend growth in ADP construction employment (+25k) provides evidence for a rebound in weather-sensitive payrolls categories.

  

  • Manufacturing sector surveys. The employment components of manufacturing surveys generally improved in December, with most now in expansionary territory. The ISM manufacturing employment component rose to a 30-month high (+3.3pt to 56.1), and the Philly Fed (+9.2pt to +12.8), Dallas Fed (+9.5pt to +6.1), Richmond Fed (+9pt to +8), and Empire State (+10.5pt to -1.7) employment indices also improved. On the negative side, the Kansas City Fed (-2pt to +6) employment component softened, and the Chicago PMI employment index declined into contractionary territory. Manufacturing payroll employment rose 17k in December, its first increase in five months.
  • Service sector surveys. Most of the employment components of service sector surveys improved or remained at encouraging levels in January. The Philly Fed non-manufacturing employment index rose to a 1-year high (+2.8pt to +19.5) and the New York Fed index increased to an 18-month high (+4.5pt to +16.9, SA by GS). Meanwhile, the Richmond Fed (-4pt to +8.0) and Dallas Fed (-2.1pt to +4.8) measures pulled back modestly to levels still consistent with expansion. The ISM non-manufacturing survey will be released tomorrow, though the December employment index of 52.7 was consistent with moderate growth in service-sector jobs. Service sector payroll employment increased 132k in December and has increased 167k on average over the last six months.
  • Job availability. The Conference Board’s Help Wanted Online (HWOL) report showed an increase in online job postings for a second consecutive month in January, though their total job ad count remains 9.5% lower on a year-over-year basis (vs. -8.8% in December and -14.9% in November). We place a limited weight on this indicator at the moment in light of research by Fed economists, which suggests the HWOL ad count has been depressed by higher prices for online job ads.

  Arguing for a weaker report:

  • Transportation jobs. Transportation and warehousing payrolls have seen elevated growth in December in recent years followed by softer growth or outright declines the next month, a phenomenon that may be driven by a secular shift toward online holiday sales. This winter seems to be exhibiting the same pattern, as transportation payrolls increased at an above-trend pace of +15k in December. With the holidays now behind us, we expect tomorrow’s report to show restrained growth or a modest decline in this category.
  • Early-month storms in the South. Despite fairly unremarkable snowfall on a national basis during early January, one counterargument against the case for a weather-related rebound is the early-month snowstorms in the South, a region less accustomed to severe winter weather. While admittedly a risk, we would note that these storms generally occurred the Friday and Saturday before the survey week, and our analysis of snow cover – the depth of snow recorded by weather stations on a given day – indicates that most of the snow accumulation had melted by the Monday or Tuesday of the survey week (see Exhibit 2). Accordingly, we believe the negative payrolls impact of these storms is likely to be fairly modest, though storm-related absences could exert some downward pressure on hours worked (for employees with multi-week pay periods).

  Exhibit 2: Most of the Snow Accumulated in the Southern Winter Storms Had Melted by the Monday and Tuesday of the Payroll Survey Week

  

  Source: Source: National Centers for Environmental Information, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research

  • Seasonals. Since 2010, January payroll growth has surprised negatively relative to consensus in five of the seven instances, with an average miss of -18k. While this may suggest some downside risk at the margin, we would note that severe winter weather was likely a factor in some of these observations (2010 and 2011, for example).

  Neutral factors:

  • Federal Hiring Freeze. The new administration’s announced hiring freeze for Federal works took place on January 23rd, over a week after the January payrolls survey period had ended. As a result, we do not expect any negative impact on the January employment report. In fact, we see some possibility of a positive impact if, for example, some federal departments anticipated the hiring freeze and front-loaded employment growth accordingly. That being said, we doubt we will observe evidence of a material impact in the aggregate data.
  • Job cuts. Announced layoffs reported by Challenger, Gray & Christmas after our seasonal adjustment declined by 5k to 36k in January, though the level of announced layoffs remains moderately above the October lows.

  *  *  *

  We believe that the unemployment rate is likely to fall one-tenth to 4.6% (from 4.716% unrounded) – which would mark a return to the cycle low – driven by reduced year-end retail layoffs and our expectation of broader labor market improvement in January. We forecast average hourly earnings to rise 0.3% month over month and 2.8% year over year, reflecting firming labor markets and state-level minimum wage hikes. Our estimate incorporates a boost of 10 basis points from minimum wage hikes, which affected 19 states and increased the effective national minimum wage by about $0.25 (to $8.50 per hour).

  Tomorrow’s employment report will be accompanied by the annual benchmark revision to the establishment survey as well as the annual introduction of new population controls in the household survey. In September, the BLS released a preliminary estimate of the establishment survey revision, which suggested a downward adjustment of 150k to the level of March 2016 employment (or -12.5k per month from April 2015 to March 2016). This preliminary estimate appears broadly consistent with the trends in the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, from which the benchmark revision is primarily derived. We would note that the composition of September’s preliminary estimates was somewhat unfavorable, with a larger downward revision expected in private payrolls (-224k) – concentrated in professional services (-133k) and retail trade (-120k) – offset by an expected upward revision to the level of government employment (+74k).

  As a reminder the entire world is long stocks, short vol, and short bonds, so any surprise tomorrow that would upset The Fed's carefully choreographed 3-rate-hikes plan could spook a very one-sided ship.

  But if that fails Buy The Fucking Payrolls Dip no matter what…

  

  

  

• Will "Big Data" Make A Centrally Planned Economy Possible?

  Submitted by Xiong Yue via The Mises Institute,

  Many of us were once convinced that idea of the centrally-planned economy, both in theory and in practice, had been completely buried. Most economists today would argue that the planned economy doesn't work, and in the last two decades of the twentieth century, almost all the planned economies shifted toward market economics.

  However, with the development of new technologies such as cloud computing, big data, and artificial intelligence, some people are starting to believe that – with the help of powerful new technologies – we can finally achieve a planned economy.

  In a recent speech, Jack Ma, one of China's most famous entrepreneurs and Founder and Chairman of Board of Alibaba Group, has expressed his optimism for the future recovery of the planned economy. He declares:

  Over the past 100 years, we have always felt that the market economy is excellent, but in my opinion, in the next three decades will be a significant change, the planned economy will become increasingly large. Because we have access to all kinds of data, we may be able to find the invisible hand of the market. … [I]n the age of data, it is like we have an X-ray machine and a CT machine for the world economy, so 30 years later there will be a new theory [on planned economy] out.

  Well, as a grand, romantic dream of the humankind — although the planned economy has failed several times in its operation in the real world — I am not surprised to know that it is still quite attractive to social elites such as Jack Ma.

  It is true, to some extent, that with the development of technologies, central planners now can obtain more data and information, and their ability to analyze these data and the information is greatly enhanced as well. Moreover, in the foreseeable future, those skills will be further enhanced. Ma believes a planned economy can be achieved in the future precisely because of his companies, Taobao and Alipay, are ubiquitous in the areas of e-commerce and payment in China and therefore can collect an enormous amount of consumption data. To Jack Ma himself and other "technical socialists," such data could be the cornerstone of the operation of the planned economy.

  However, if we look at this more closely, we realize these data are mere:

  (1) data based on real deals of the past, which can not be used to predict the consumer preferences in the future; or

   

  (2) data obtained using questionnaires, which can not reflect the real demonstrated preferences of customers.

  In either case, with the dazzling new technologies, what central planners can get is still a guess of the real world, a beautiful mirage.

  Besides, those who consider the problem of socialism as merely a problem of information failed to understand that the core problem of socialism lies in the absence of prices in a centrally-planned economy. The role of prices in the market economy is unique because money prices offer an indispensable tool in economic calculation. As Mises writes in Human Action,

  One cannot add up values or valuations. One can add up prices expressed in terms of money, but not scales of preference.

  With prices as a guide, entrepreneurs can potentially pursue profits by examining differences in the market prices of production factors and the expected prices of the final products. He or she can then organize production accordingly.

  Therefore, even if we have some excellent data already, without this market-price mechanism, neither the economic calculation nor the efficient allocation of resources is possible; the planned economy is therefore not feasible. Because rationally planning or resource allocation requires the ability to calculate economically, such calculations need the prices which can be determined only in the market by the real-world exchange of owners of private property in the first place. Since the planned economy requires state and collective control of resources — and thus no tallow for these necessary voluntary exchanges between owners — it cannot rationally plan the operation of the modern economic system.

  As a result, it's theoretically impossible for a planned economy to determine the prices needed for economic calculation. The cutting-edge technologies may help Jack Ma to optimize his strategies in his private enterprises in a relatively capitalist society. However, for a modern economy, as long as there are no prices available on which to base economic calculation, the failure of a planned economy is inevitable. As Joseph Salerno writes in his postscript to “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth”:

  [I]n the absence of competitively determined money prices for the factors of production, possession of literally all the knowledge in the world would not enable an individual to allocate productive resources economically within the social division of labor.

   

  

  

• Spot The Intervention (Bank Of Japan Edition)

  We warned earlier “the market would test the BoJ,” and sure enough Kuroda and his ‘lost boys’ answered the market’s question by intervening aggressively (offering to buy an unlimited amount of bonds) to rescue what was a rapidly escalating collapse in Japanese government bonds.

  As Bloomberg reports, The Bank of Japan offered to buy an unlimited amount of bonds at a fixed rate in an unscheduled operation to reassert control over surging yields. The yen and yield for 10-year debt fell.

  The central bank will buy five-to-10 year securities from the secondary market, it said in a statement Friday. It’s offering to buy the benchmark 10-year notes at 0.110 percent, it said.

   

  The move comes after an earlier attempt Friday morning to cap yields by expanding bond purchases in a regular operation failed. 

   

  Governor Haruhiko Kuroda on Tuesday recommitted to his strategy to hold 10-year debt yield at around zero percent even as accelerating inflation and an improving outlook for some of the world’s biggest economies push up bond yields globally.

  The reaction is self-evident…

  

   

  And USDJPY spiked…

  

   

  It would appear Governor Kuroda has shown his hand one too many times (after November’s first operation – which failed to garner any bids).

  

  

• Canadian Mint Worker Sentenced To 30 Months For Smuggling $140,000 Of Gold In His Rectum

  In September we reported that an employee of the Royal Canadian Mint smuggled C$180,000 (USD $140,000) in gold from the fortress-like facility, evading multiple levels of detection with a time-honoured prison trick: hiding the precious metal up his butt.

  

  Having been found guilty in November ("wait, what gold coins, where?"), 35-year-old Leston Lawrence was sentenced to 30 months in prison today, by a judge whose name was 'Doody'.

  

  As we detailed previously, a suspicious bank teller raised the alarm in 2015. Lawrence sold 18 gold pucks — each a circular 7.4-ounce nugget worth about $6,800 — to an Ottawa Gold Buyers store between Nov. 27, 2014, and March 12, 2015, according to court records obtained by the Toronto Sun. Three observations tipped off the bank teller: Lawrence was a mint employee, he had an unusual number of deposits and he frequently requested overseas transactions.

  Furthermore, as the OC reports, the case is "an illuminating look at security measures inside the Mint, the building on Sussex Drive that produces hundreds of millions of gold coins annually for the federal Crown corporation." Or rather lack thereof.

   

  The defense was not happy: “Appalling,” was the conclusion of defence lawyer Gary Barnes, who described the Crown’s case as an underwhelming collection of circumstantial evidence. “This is the Royal Canadian Mint, your Honour, and one would think they should have the highest security measures imaginable,” Barnes said in his closing submission. “And here the gold is left sitting around in open buckets.”

   

  He is right, and perhaps anyone who keeps their gold at the mint may want to reconsider the venue of storage.

   

  Court was further told that, on multiple occasions, Lawrence took small circular chunks of gold – or “pucks” – to Ottawa Gold Buyers in the Westgate Shopping Centre on Carling Avenue. Typically, the pucks weighed about 210 grams, or 7.4 ounces, for which he was given cheques in the $6,800 range, depending on fluctuating gold prices, court heard. He then deposited the cheques at the Royal Bank in the same mall.

   

  One day a teller became suspicious at the size and number of Ottawa Gold Buyers cheques being deposited and Lawrence’s request to wire money out of the country. She then noticed on his account profile that he worked at the Mint. The first red flag was up. Bank security was alerted, then the RCMP, which began to investigate. Eventually, a search warrant was obtained and four Mint-style pucks were found in Lawrence’s safety deposit box, court heard.

   

  Records revealed 18 pucks had been sold between Nov. 27, 2014 and March 12, 2015. Together with dozens of gold coins that were redeemed, the total value of the suspected theft was conservatively estimated at C$179,015.

   

  That said, the defence countered with a couple of important points. The Crown was not able to prove conclusively that the gold in Lawrence’s possession actually came from inside the Mint. It had no markings nor, apparently, had any gold been reported missing internally. The Crown was able to show the pucks precisely fit the Mint’s custom “dipping spoon” made in-house — not available commercially — that is used to scoop molten gold during the production process.

   

  Still, one question remained unanswered at the trial: how did the gold get out of the Mint?

   

  The court was told Lawrence set off the metal detector at an exit from the “secure area” with more frequency than any other employee — save those with metal medical implants. When that happened, the procedure was to do a manual search with a hand-held wand, a search that he always passed. (It was not uncommon for employees to set off the detector, court heard.)

   

   

  Investigators also found a container of vaseline in his locker and the trial was presented with the prospect that a puck could be concealed in an anal cavity and not be detected by the wand. In preparation for these proceedings, in fact, a security employee actually tested the idea, Barnes said.

   

  As a result, prosecutors alleged that Lawrence smuggled out gold nuggets inside his rectum.

  And now, almost 2 years later, as AP reports, the former Royal Canadian Mint employee who stole 22 cookie-sized pieces of refined gold by hiding them in his rectum has been sentenced to 30 months in prison.

  

   

  Thirty-five-year-old Leston Lawrence was found guilty last November of stealing the pieces from the mint and selling 17 of them through Ottawa Gold Buyers.

   

  Ontario Court judge Peter Doody on Thursday sentenced Lawrence and ordered him to pay a fine of US$145,900 (CA$190,000).

   

  Doody says the stolen gold was worth US$127,116.11 (CA$165,451.14) which Lawrence sent abroad to build a house in Jamaica and buy a boat in Florida, among other transactions.

   

  Court testimony indicated that Lawrence was involved in purifying recently procured gold and sometimes worked alone, out of sight of security cameras.

  The Royal Canadian Mint has announced intentions to improve their security in the wake of the crime:

  "upgrades to our facility's security checkpoint and screening process; upgrades to our camera system to high definition which provides real-time monitoring capability in all areas of the mint; and working closely with CATSA [Canadian Air Transport Security Authority] to establish more robust scanning training of our employees."

   

  "The mint is one of the most secure facilities in Canada and we are confident that we have the right security measures in place to effectively operate our business,"

  The mint did not comment as to whether or not employees will now face rectal-cavity searches.

  Maybe those cryptocurrency types are right – hording gold is a pain in the ass.

  

  

• #GrabYourWallet Wins! Nordstrom Cuts Ties with Ivanka Trump's Clothing Line

  Because they believe Trump to be the second or third coming of Hitler (if you recall, Bush was Hitler too), the folks over at Grab Your Wallet have pursued anyone who did business with the Trump family — as a form of political persecution to punish those even remotely affiliated with the Trump brand. Look, they even went through the trouble of slapping a rudimentary spreadsheet together, so that fellow minded snowflakes might protest with their, err, wallets.

  To that end, it appears they’re activism worked. Nordstrom has announced they’re officially cutting ties with the Ivanka brand — citing poor sales as the reason for the ‘de-stocking.’
   

  “Each year we cut about 10% [of brands carried] and refresh our assortment with about the same amount,” a Nordstrom spokesperson told Business Insider. “In this case, based on the brand’s performance we’ve decided not to buy it for this season.”

   
  The founders of Grab Your Wallet, Shannon Coulter and Sue Atencio (they met on Twitter), are quite pleased with this news. Coulter said, “I am absolutely thrilled, and I know the vast majority of Grab Your Wallet participants will be as well.”

  Indeed.

  The cucked Coulter has bee meticulously tracking the availability of Ivanka’s brand, wherever it’s sold. The fashion website ‘Racked‘ chronicled Coulter’s journey in an article published this evening — to celebrate the apex of Coulter’s success — the rueful malevolence towards another human being for the sole purpose of making another person suffer.

  This could very well be some lag time before its spring inventory. But Coulter has been keeping track of the number of Ivanka Trump items the 116-year-old Seattle-based retailer is selling on its site, and the merchandise has been on a decline: From December 2 to December 27th, the number dropped from 71 products to 48. As of January 11th, Nordstrom was selling 43 products, but by January 29th, it was down to 26, according to Coulter’s calculation. (The Macy’s site, on the other hand, has 90 items listed, all with deep discounts.)
   
  As of today, February 2nd, Nordstrom is down to four items. On the Ivanka Trump website, the items from outfits posted four days ago that link out to Nordstrom are no longer available on the site.
   
  That said, stores are still selling the label; a Racked editor who visited a Nordstrom location in White Plains, New York, last Sunday confirms there were plenty of Ivanka Trump shoes in store.
   
  The #GrabYourWallet was started by Coulter and Sue Atencio, a woman she met on Twitter. The duo felt hesitant to shop at retailers that carried Trump family-related products, and when they spoke about it on Twitter, they were met with tons of similar feelings. They started a Google spreadsheet, and the list has since been moved to its own website, GrabYourWallet.org.
   
  The boycott list now includes many major department stores, including Macy’s, Neiman Marcus, Bloomingdale’s, and Lord & Taylor, as well as HSN, Century 21, Overstock.com, and DSW. Each retailer is listed with an explanation as to why it’s being boycotted.
   
  “What this boycott means to me is that companies that I love, like Nordstrom and Amazon, are making money from the Donald Trump campaign, which to me is synonymous with hate and divisiveness so I can’t, in good faith, shop there anymore,” Coulter told Racked back in November. “People aren’t boycotting them to punish them or ruin any businesses. They want to support these companies but can’t do so in good conscience.”
   
  The Ivanka Trump line was included in the boycott, Coulter added, because “she made her father palatable to many young female voters, and her being on the campaign trail, and returning to campaign with him after the Trump tapes, has as much to do with her ambitions as it has to do with her father’s.” (Ivanka formally left her namesake label earlier last month, after her husband, Jared Kushner, took the position of senior White House adviser.)
   
  If Nordstrom is, indeed, dropping the Ivanka Trump label, it won’t be the only retailer to heed to the boycott. In November, Shoes.com told Coulter via Twitter it was dropping the line. There will likely be backlash-to-the-backlash, as evident when L.L. Bean was boycotted by anti-Trump shoppers, then Trump encouraged his fans to buy L.L. Bean as a result.
   
  But this would be a big win for #GrabYourWallet. Coulter says that on January 21st, participants voted that Nordstrom was the most boycott-able company on the list; based off a poll that had 249 participants, Nordstrom was ranked number one, Coulter says, because “that’s the store they’d most like to be able to shop again.”

  The tolerant left.
   
  All is not doom and gloom for Ivanka, however.  According to G3’s 2016 annual statement,  ticker $GIII,  the manufacturer and distributor of Ivanka’s clothing line, the brand is doing quite well — enjoying a $29.4m bump in sales to $100m.
   

  “Initially, when her father started to run for President, I wondered if there’d be a negative or positive effect,” said Sammy Aaron, vice chairman of G-iii, who oversees the Ivanka Trump brand at the company as well as being CEO of its Calvin Klein division. “We’ve really seen very little effect.”
   

  Source: Forbes
  That it’s already seeing revenues of $100 million a year is impressive. “You have designers who do less than that,” Stone said. By way of comparison, sales of Mary-Kate Olsen and Ashley Olsen’s high-end line The Row are reportedly closer to $50 million — itself a high estimate, per an insider. And while some celebrities have little involvement in their licensed brand beyond the approval process, Ivanka Trump is hands-on.
   
  Ivanka is “very involved on a weekly basis” in all stages of the design process, said Aaron, who described her as “one of the most impressive young women” he’s ever met.
   
  “She’s super sensitive to things with her name on it,” he said. “She’s not one of these names just looking for revenues. She’s an assertive person who has definitive taste and a definitive opinion.”

   
  It sounds like Ivanka will survive the scourge of the Twitterati army of Grab Your Wallet miscreants.

   

  Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com

  

• What Google Trends Reveal About The State Of America's Torn Society

  By Nicholas Colas of Convergex

  E Pluribus Google (Trends)

  If you want to know what’s really on the minds of the American population since the Election, just look at Google search trends.  For example, did the Dow hitting 20,000 last week spark a lot of interest in the stock market or that venerable measure?  Not really – searches for “Stock market” and “Dow Jones” are the same now as last year at this time.  What DID force public attention on those terms was (you guessed it) the US Election. That event increased searches by +400%, as investors wondered about the effects of President Trump’s surprise win on capital markets.  Equities have, if course, done well since then.  But… won’t all the protests against the new President serve to dampen his effectiveness?  Maybe not.  Google searches for “Protest Trump” are already a running at a fraction of their volumes immediately post-Election, although searches for general “Protest” are still equal to levels from the week of November 7th.  Also in this note: Google search trends related to the US labor market, asking for a raise (the right way), and how to move to Canada.

  * * *

  “If Donald Trump wins, I will move to Canada!”  That was a popular refrain in some circles just before the US Election last November.  Searches on Google for “Move to Canada” were up 20-fold over the week of November 7th, supporting the notion that some citizens were exploring the possibility leaving the US.  A deeper look at the data, courtesy of Google Trends (www.google.com/trends) gives us some more information about this topic:

  • The “Move to Canada” trend was short lived. By late November 2016, searches for that phrase had returned to their typical pre-election run rate.
  • Interest among Americans in moving north tends to run along Presidential election cycles, with bumps in November 2004, 2008, 2012. This cycle was, however, the largest surge of interest in the last 12 years (essentially Google Trend’s entire historical record).
  • The US citizens typically (i.e. not just around elections) most interested in moving to Canada are not left leaning bi-coastal hipsters; rather, they are simply people who live in US states that border Canada. Currently, the people of Montana, Idaho, Alaska and Washington punch “Move to Canada” into Google more than all other US states.
  • As an aside, “Move to Mexico” is nowhere near as popular among American Google users as “Move to Canada”. Over the past year, for example, searches for the latter outnumber the former by three or four to one.

  So have those Americans who searched for new homes in Canada decided to stay and protest the new administration as members of the loyal opposition?  Perhaps…  Here is some Google Trend data on that topic:

  • Google searches for “Protest Trump” spiked around the Election, as one would expect. To give some sense of scale, however, search volumes on Google for “Starbucks” were 3x higher than “Protest Trump” and those for ‘iPhone” were 10x higher during the week of 11/7/2016. That’s not to minimize the scale of social discontent, but merely to put it in context with some common searches.
  • “Protest Trump” searches had another peak around the Inauguration, but volumes there were less than half those from Election week.  For the most recent week, searches for that term are only 32% of those from November.
  • The 5 states that most commonly search for “Protest Trump”: Washington, Vermont, DC, New York, and Rhode Island.  As far as cities go, the top 5 are Portland (OR), Seattle, New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles.
  • Make the search term more generic – just “Protest” – and a different story emerges. Here, search volumes peaked just last week.  There was a bump around the Election, of course, Google users are looking to “Protest” now just as much as last November.

  • The states with the largest interest in “Protest” are: North Dakota (likely pipeline related), Washington, Vermont, DC and South Dakota (also pipeline).  By city, Oakland, Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis and San Francisco make up the top 5.
  • Why worry about protests?  It is all part of our “Trump on, Trump off” market construct.  As long as equity markets believe President Trump will be able to execute on his plans for lower business/individual taxes, infrastructure spending and regulatory reform, we have a good chance of seeing higher equity prices.  But if large public protests develop, perhaps capital markets will lose some of that conviction.  We don’t have enough experience with a President Trump to know how that dynamic plays out over time, but it is worth watching now.

  How about the recent news that the Dow had finally hit 20,000?  Did that spark broad interest in the stock market or the Dow Jones Industrial Average?  The answer:

  • American public interest in searches for the “Stock market” and “Dow Jones” has picked up since 2015 by almost 30% as compared to 2012-2014. A piece of this is the incremental interest when market volatility hits (August 2015 and November 2016 are the best examples).
  • That said, breaching the 20,000 mark did nothing for Google search volumes for either term. This may not be “The most hated rally of all time”, as much of the 2009-2016 move was called, but it may well be “the most ignored rally of all time”.

  You can also use Google Trends to analyze the US labor market.  Five points on that topic:

  • Don’t worry too much about wage inflation. Google users are no more likely to be researching how to ask their boss for more money now versus a year ago.  We used “Ask for a raise” and “get a raise” search phrases to assess levels of general popular interest.
  • And even if they do ask, related Google searches tell us they may not be going about it correctly. Consider that “How to ask for a raise email” and “via email” are popular variants of “ask for a raise”.
  • When you look to see which US states have an above-average number of Google users intent on negotiating for more money at work, the answer is not surprising: New York, California, Illinois and Texas. The only city that shows up on the Google data as statistically significant: New York.  Bottom line: wages may see pressure where large urban areas with predominately college-educated workers dominate the local economy, but not for the country as a whole.
  • Getting a new job is a common New Year’s resolution, and this January saw a record number of Google users actually search for “New job” the week of January 1. This could lead to more changes in the US labor force this year if workers actually follow through on their goal of landing a new position.
  • Searches for “Find a job” and “get a job” are lower in 2016 than 2012, but largely similar to 2015. That’s surprising, given that the official government data shows a decline in unemployment from 6.3% in Q1 2015 to just 4.7% in Q4 2016. After all, if there are fewer people unemployed, why wouldn’t search counts decline modestly as well?

  To sum up: Google Trends tell us that there isn’t enough attention focused on the US stock market to be worried that we are in a “Bubble”.   That’s the good news.  On the other side of the coin, there’s a lot of attention sloshing around elsewhere.  As long as markets stay focused on the potential upsides of a Trump administration, the stealth rally can continue.  Inevitably, however, there will be some lapses.  We haven’t seen one yet; I am sure we will.

  

  

• Reddit Bans Three Alt-Right Forums As Users Blast "Leftist Intolerance"

  In what will undoubtedly be viewed as just another attempt to censor dissenting, conservative political views, Reddit has banned three major ‘alt-right’ subreddits, /r/altright, /r/rightyfriends and /r/alternativeright, this evening for allegedly breaching the company’s content policy restricting the sharing of personal, private information.  The so-called ‘Alt-right’ group had roughly 16,000 followers and grew in popularity last summer along with the rise of Donald Trump’s political campaign.

  While Reddit hasn’t yet issued a formal statement on the ban, the following comments were offered up to The Daily Beast:

  “Reddit is the proud home to some of the most authentic conversations online,” a statement provided to The Daily Beast by the company read. “We strive to be a welcoming, open platform for all by trusting our users to maintain an environment that cultivates genuine conversation and adheres to our content policy.”

   

  “We are very clear in our site terms of service that posting of personal information can get users banned from Reddit and we ask our communities not to post content that harasses or invites harassment. We have banned r/altright due to repeated violations of the terms of our content policy. There is no single solution to these issues and we are actively engaging with the Reddit community to improve everyone’s experience.”

  

   

  A senior moderator of the atlright subreddit, who referred to himself as Bill Simpson, told The Daily Beast that the forum was “banned without notification or justification” and insisted that moderators “enforced stricter standards of behavior than reddit requires.”

  “So much for leftist tolerance. Our moderator team enforced stricter standards of behavior than reddit requires, and our users were very prompt at reporting violations so we could ban violators and delete posts and comments that broke the rules,” he added.

   

  Additionally, Simpson claimed that the subreddit was banned because of its recent “record monthly traffic.”

   

  “It’s clear that Reddit banned us because we were becoming very popular and spreading inconvenient truths about who’s ruining our country and robbing our children of a future,” Simpson said.

  The announcement of the ban came just days after Reddit founder Alexis Ohanian penned an open letter trashing Trump’s immigration ban, calling it “not only potentially unconstitutional, but deeply un-American.”

  After two weeks abroad, I was looking forward to returning to the U.S. this weekend, but as I got off the plane at LAX on Sunday, I wasn’t sure what country I was coming back to.

   

  President Trump’s recent executive order is not only potentially unconstitutional, but deeply un-American. We are a nation of immigrants, after all. In the tech world, we often talk about a startup’s “unfair advantage” that allows it to beat competitors. Welcoming immigrants and refugees has been our country’s unfair advantage, and coming from an immigrant family has been mine as an entrepreneur.

  Of course, all of this comes after Reddit CEO, Steve Huffman, admitted two months ago to editing individual posts made by Trump supporters that were critical of him.  Per the apology below, Huffman edited posts to redirect criticism away from him and onto the moderators of the “r/the_donald” thread.  

  

   

  Free speech is a wonderful thing, provided it conforms to the prevailing political views of Silicon Valley’s elitist tech billionaires.

  

  

• The Uncanny Similarities Between President Trump And FDR

  Submitted by Jeff Brown via The Saker,

  Trump and Roosevelt: two peas in a pod?

  

  For the record, I voted for Donald Trump. Not that I was in love with the guy. It was really a matter of default. On the Oklahoma state ballot, I had the choice of Hillary “Crimes Against Humanity + Here Comes World War III” Clinton, the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson and Mr. Trump. I chose Trump, a populist, sometimes demagogue and buffoon, but a real outsider who might shake the establishment up.

  It is still early, but no one can say that the first two weeks of Trump’s administration have been boring or predictable. He loudly called the outgoing CIA director, John Brennan, a liar and said that the agency’s Russia dossier was all fake news. John F. Kennedy said just as much in private and paid the ultimate price for his honesty. Trump has apparently kept on his own private security services, since getting elected, to avoid the same fate as JFK.

  President Trump canceled the Transpacific Partnership (TPP), which was bad for everybody involved, except the transnational corporations who bribed, extorted and blackmailed some Pac Rim countries into signing on. But even America’s corporate owned Senate and Congress were resisting. Why? Because a signatory country gives up its national sovereignty to a corporate picked “international arbitration commission”.

  Under the TPP, any company can take any country’s laws to this “unbiased” group of corporate jocks and claim that they are an “infringement on trade”. Think GMOs, agricultural chemicals, cultural and religious laws, subsidies to promote national industries and infrastructure; media and internet regulations; medicine and social security; environmental, worker and civilian safety laws, taxation, and on and on. Once this unelected, corporate board rules against any and all national laws, then the signatory country’s legislature is required to abolish those law and regulations, in the name of “free trade”.

  So, Mr. Trump, thank you cancelling this Orwellian, plutocratic, corporatocracy. I can assure you, Baba Beijing wants nothing to do with it. China’s leaders want to govern and help their people, not be tyrannized and humiliated by faceless transnational corporations.

  I watched Trump’s inauguration day speech. I also watched Trump’s press conference, with small and medium sized business owners, and in both cases, I was amazed at the similarities between him and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-1945).

  The first observation that really struck me is how much Trump genuinely cares about “the little guy”. It’s not phony. He really does want to help the people in America who have been disenfranchised from having a voice in their destiny, something that has been building up for quite a long time. FDR was just as sincere about helping all the millions of hungry, homeless and jobless Americans, during the Great Depression. The US had to wait eight years after the Great Financial Crash of 2008, also known as the Great Middle Class Gang Bang, for populist Trump to ride to the rescue.

  Both presidents came from wealthy backgrounds, with the proverbial silver spoon in their mouths. FDR’s family made its fortune via the organized crime opium cartel in China, 1839-1949. Trump’s father was a big construction, slum lord and real estate tycoon in New York City. He was investigated on numerous occasions for illegal business practices. You don’t succeed in these Big Apple business sectors and not be in the good graces of the Mafia.

  Using his patrician family’s name, FDR worked his way up to the top of the American political system, to eventually become president. Donald Trump used his father’s wealth and connections to work his way up the corporate and media ladder, to eventually occupy the White House.

  Both men are “rich, fat and happy”, to use the expression, and do not have to make all the sacrifices and take all the risks to run the United States, but both have their principles, ideas and visions for the future (For simplicity, I will use the present tense to compare both presidents, even though they lived generations apart).

  Both men want to put Americans back to work again and reignite the country’s industrial potential.

  Both men are disgusted with the usurious, rapacious, private Federal Reserve banking system. FDR complained bitterly about the Fed in his private writings and only obliquely so, in public. Trump is more vocal and seems less intimidated by the elite banking families, Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Carnegie & Co., the real owners of the United States and Europe. JFK was circumventing the Fed, by having the Treasury Department mint “silver certificate” bills outside the purvey of the Fed banks, another reason he lived a very short life. With his purported private security forces keeping him safe from the CIA, maybe Trump feels just as safe from the agency’s historical deep state partners, the aforementioned oil bankers.

  Both men have a strong vision for what ails the country. For FDR, it was the New Deal. For Trump, it is “Put Americans First”.

  Both men are despised by the elites. Both men are proud of it too. FDR famously said he welcomed the hatred of Wall Street. Trump has repeatedly threatened and is starting to act on his promise to “drain the swamp in Washington”.

  Both men take the choice of Supreme Court justices very seriously and both have a chance to really change the political leanings on the bench. For FDR, it was to make the Supreme Court more liberal. For Trump, it will be to make it more socially conservative. Both believe their choices will be for the betterment of the citizens.

  Both men know how relate to their constituencies, the man and woman on the street, the little guy and gal, Joe and Jane Sixpack. FDR ruled the radio waves with his famous “fireside chats”, bucking up the populace to work hard, stay positive and look forward to better times. Trump is a brilliant manager of the media and does not hesitate to take his populist message to his base, via social media, such as Twitter and Facebook. As a result, both presidents’ voters love them and are not hesitant to let everybody know this fact.

  Conversely, both presidents have a big chunk of the electorate who despise them. For Trump, it is the wealthy elites and liberals. For FDR, it was these same elites, but the other group was middle America’s conservative and Christian block. So in essence, FDR and Trump have kept the wrath and indignation of the ruling Princes of Power, but have switched sides on Main Street, making a very interesting dynamic, for sure.

  Both men talk about keeping America safe from external enemies. FDR ended up getting the US into World War II, ostensibly to do just that. The jury is still out on how aggressive Trump will be in dropping bombs and drones on thousands of innocent Muslims across the planet, in the name of fighting “Islamic terrorism”.

  As a result of getting into World War II, FDR greatly increased the size and technology of the US military. Trump says he too, wants to greatly expand the military budget, and make it “unbeatable”.

  Both presidents believe in Keynesian deficit spending, to boost the economy. FDR greatly expanded government programs to help the downtrodden, as well as turn the US into a war economy, with World War II. Trump wants to spend lavishly on the military and dramatically lower business taxes, just like a country at war, while going into even deeper debt than the already official $20 trillion void Americans are on the hook for.

  Both FDR and Trump want to work with Russia. Roosevelt and Soviet leader Josef Stalin had a good working relationship together. Trump is signaling his desire to work on the positive side of the ledger, with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

  In part due to his family’s historical role of “working” in China (in fact, selling illegal drugs), FDR had a fancy for this country. In his own way, he strived to make China a part of the postwar Western world order, but with all the historical colonialist, imperialist baggage in tow, he was doomed to fail. This is why a guy by the name of Mao Zedong came along with a better idea for his people. Trump has been all over the place with China, saying he wants to “cut a deal” with President Xi Jinping, while raising tariffs 45% across the board, but mixing in Taiwan and threatening to upturn the “One China Policy”, which if pushed to the extreme, could cause World War III. Here’s to hoping that Trump takes a fancy to the People’s Republic, like Roosevelt, but without all the “Great Game” imperial megalomania and cupidity.

  These amazing corollaries between Presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Donald Trump will surely grow, as Trump’s presidency takes root. It’s going to be an interesting next four to eight years, indeed. And dare I say, like my grandparents did during the 1930s, that it’s a time for hope?

  

  Soul brothers in a parallel universe…

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Is Trump Being Sabotaged By The Pentagon?

  Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

  President Trump says he wants the US to have better relations with Russia and to halt military operations against Muslim countries. But he is being undermined by the Pentagon.

  The commander of US forces in Europe, General Ben Hodges, has lined up tanks on Poland’s border with Russia and fired salvos that the general says are a message to Russia, not a training exercise.

  How is Trump going to normalize relations with Russia when the commander of US forces in Europe is threatening Russia with words and deeds?

  The Pentagon has also sent armored vehicles to “moderate rebels” in Syria, according to Penagon spokesman Col. John Dorrian. Unable to prevent Russia and Syria from winning the war against ISIS, the Pentagon is busy at work derailing the peace negotiations.

  The military/security complex is using its puppets-on-a-string in the House and Senate to generate renewed conflict with Iran and to continue threats against China.

  Clearly, Trump is not in control of the most important part of his agenda—peace with the thermo-nuclear powers and cessation of interference in the affairs of other countries.

  Trump cannot simultaneously make peace with Russia and make war on Iran and China. The Russian government is not stupid. It will not sell out China and Iran for a deal with the West. Iran is a buffer against jihadism spilling into Muslim populations in the Russian Federation. China is Russia’s most important military and economic strategic ally against a renewal of US hostility toward Russia by Trump’s successor, assuming Trump succeeds in reducing US/Russian tensions. The neoconservatives with their agenda of US world hegemony and their alliance with the military-security complex will outlast the Trump administration.

  Moreover, China is rising, while the corrupt and dehumanized West is failing. A deal with the West is worth nothing. Countries that make deals with the West are exposed to financial and political exploitation. They become vassals. There are no exceptions.

  Russia’s desire to be part of the West is perplexing. Russia should build its security on relations with China and Asia, and let the West, desirous of participating in this success, come to Russia to ask for a deal.

  Why be a supplicant when you can be the decider?

  

  

• Here Are The Countries Where Millennials Will Struggle The Most To Support Retirees

  The United States is a demographic time bomb, plain and simple.  Over the next 30 years, the U.S. economy will face an unrelenting demographic transition as ~75 million baby boomers exit the highest wage earning years of their life and start to draw down what little retirement savings they’ve managed to tuck away while wreaking havoc on the public “safety net” ponzi schemes, like Social Security, that will almost certainly be insolvent in a decade.

  Per the U.S. Census Bureau, over the next 30 years, the number of people in the U.S. over the age of 65 is expected to double while those 85 and up will triple.  Needless to say, the overall population growth of the United States is a fraction of that which means that millennials are about to get crushed by their parents….so it’s probably a good thing they already live in mom and dad’s basement.

  

   

  But, since misery loves company, we figured we would take this opportunity to highlight Bloomberg’s “Sunset Index” which tracks the number of working age people per retiree, by country and confirms that the United States is far from alone in their pending demographic crisis. 

  

  
  

  While France and Singapore are currently the worst off with only 2.2 workers per retiree, the map below highlights just how pervasive the aging population crisis is around the globe. 

  The world’s working-age population is shrinking faster than expected, leaving fewer people to support a growing number of seniors, according to the Bloomberg Sunset Index.

   

  As seniors increasingly outnumber people still in the workforce, pressures rise on investment pools, medical systems and funds to build economies for future generations.

   

  “The demographics cannot be ignored, but there are solutions,” said Suzanne Kunkel, director of the Scripps Gerontology Center at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. “Those solutions need to be cultural, political, economic. There is no magic answer. The reality is China will deal with it differently than Italy.”

   

  Asia could be facing the toughest choices in allocating resources. The Asia Pacific Risk Center estimates the region’s elderly population will rise 71 percent by 2030, compared with 55 percent in North America and 31 percent in Europe.

  

   

  Of course, the financial burdens placed on young people around the world as a result of aging populations is highly dependent upon the extent of social services that have been promised and just how poorly funded those ponzi schemes are..which doesn’t bode well for the United States.

  “There are other-than-alarmist views about population aging,” said David Ekerdt, director of the Gerontology Center at the University of Kansas. “Advanced economies face rather different challenges depending on the social provisions they have promised and the declines in fertility that have occurred in these nations.”

   

  The U.S., for example, has “very high health-care costs for all citizens,” he said. “I would also say, politically, that it’s a large leap to assume that social spending, if reduced for one group, would be applied to another group.”
  

  

  
  

  But, not to worry, we’re sure that markets are adequately discounting these long-term demographic risks that are almost certain to lay waste to the global economy over the next two decades.
  

  
  

  

  

• Chicago Violence "Totally Out Of Control" In January; City On Pace For Most Homicides In 2 Decades

  Submitted by Joseph Jankowski via Planet Free Will

  Chicago is starting the year 2017 much like it did 2016: plagued with violence.

  The number of shootings in the month of January nearly duplicated the tally from the start of last year, which was the bloodiest year in Chicago in more than two decades.

  According to Chicago police, January ended with 51 murders, one more than last year.  Per HeyJackAss!, here is how the daily murder totals trended over the past month:
  

  

  From ABC 7 Chicago:

  Police recorded 51 murders across the city last month, one more than January 2016, the department said. Although, the department said in a release last year that 51 people were murdered in Chicago in January 2016

   

  Three police districts on the city’s South and West sides – the Englewood, Harrison and Austin districts – accounted for about half of the city’s murders last month.

   

  Police counted 234 shooting incidents – eight fewer than in January 2016 – with 299 victims, an increase of eight compared to the same period last year.

   

  The Deering District, which was one of the city’s top three districts for murders in 2016, saw a 50 percent reduction in murders last month compared to January 2016, police said. The department said 59 of the city’s 77 neighborhoods either remained flat or saw a reduction in murders last month compared to last January.

   

  Officers recovered more than 600 guns last month, an increase of more than 60 percent over January 2016, police said. The department also noted that gun arrests overall have more than doubled compared to January 2016.

   

  

   

  At a meeting with members of the African American community on Wednesday, President Donald Trump said that if Chicago officials don’t take steps to curb the violence, “we’re going to solve the problem for them.”

  “Because we’re going to have to do something… What’s happening in Chicago should not be happening in this country,” Trump said.

  Trump called the violence in Chicago “totally out of control.”

  Darrell Scott, an Ohio pastor who campaigned for Trump and who was present at the Wednesday meeting, said that he was talking to members of “top gangs” in Chicago who wanted to sit down and discuss how to lower the body count inside the city.  Per CBS Chicago 2:
  

  “They reached out to me, because they’re associating me with you. They respect you. They believe in what you’re doing, and they want to have a sit-down about lowering that body count. So in a couple weeks, I’m going into Chicago,” Scott said. “I said we’ve got to lower that body count. We don’t want to talk about anything else; get that body count down, and they agreed that the principals that can do it – these are guys straight from the streets, no politicians, straight street guys – but they’re going to commit that if they lower that body count, we’ll come in and we’ll do some social programs.”
  

  “It’s a great idea,” Trump said about a possible meeting involving gang leaders and social programs.

   

  On January 24, President Trump tweeted that if Chicago is unable to stop the “horrible carnage” going on, he would be willing to “send in the feds.”

  If Chicago doesn’t fix the horrible “carnage” going on, 228 shootings in 2017 with 42 killings (up 24% from 2016), I will send in the Feds!

  — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 25, 2017

   

  Chicago saw a huge surge in violence in 2016: 762 murders, 3,550 shooting incidents, and 4,331 shooting victims, according to police.

  

  

  

• In Other (Disturbing) News…

  Shock… horror…

   

  

  Source: MichalePRamirez.com

  

  

• A Time For Caution

  Submitted by Paul Brodsky via Macro-Allocation.com,

  In Contrarianism in 2017 we cited the following macro dynamics that keep us cautious on equities, bullish on Treasuries and gold, and negative on credit:

  • already steamy global equity market valuations
  • already over-leveraged global balance sheets
  • already old and aging global demographics
  • already nervous US trade partners with alternative options for trade
  • already hostile reactions from potentially belligerent foreign trade partners seeking to replace US global market share

  Below, we explore each of these dynamics in depth.

  Equity Valuations

  Given the current macroeconomic and geopolitical setup (discussed below), the highest nominal and risk-adjusted returns in 2017 and into the foreseeable future will be captured through value investing.

  

  The maps above and below, calculated by StarCapital, show the respective ranges of non-cyclically-adjusted and cyclically-adjusted P/E multiples across equity markets at the end of 2016.

  

  Generally, the largest and most mature equity markets have the most extended P/Es (Graph 1). When those P/Es are cyclically adjusted (Graph 2), fewer equity markets appear to have steamy valuations. (CAPE valuations shown in Graph 2 are P/Es adjusted for the moving average of ten years of inflation-adjusted earnings.) Nominal P/Es strip out past economic trends, such as output growth and inflation, while Cyclically-Adjusted Price Earnings assumes future economic growth will look much like the past.

  When CAPEs are significantly higher than P/Es it implies to us that businesses need faster economic growth than is available now to support equity prices. Notably, this is the case in the US and Japan. The performance of equity markets in economies where past output growth and inflation have been higher than they are today, such as Brazil and Australia, tend to look more reasonable when cyclically-adjusted. China appears relatively cheap in nominal terms and less-cheap in CAPE terms. Comparing these metrics is important because it highlights the need to have a strong macro and geopolitical opinion prior to allocating capital.

  What if the future does not look like the past, specifically what if global GDP is lower and global inflation is higher? In such a scenario, we think the soundness of balance sheets – not revenues and earnings – would determine the relative performance of equity markets and the winners within them. The map below shows Price-to-Book ratios of global equity markets.

  

  Using this metric, markets such as Russia, China and Brazil seem to be priced most reasonably. All things equal, the implication is that equity markets in some large emerging economies (and Japan) are priced best for a slowing global economy, all things equal.

  Of course, all things are not equal. Geopolitics and FX exchange rates will play a significant role in equity performance given changes in global output and inflation. Since output and inflation are the primary drivers of geopolitics and exchange rates, developing a macroeconomic view of the world prior to allocating to world equity markets is critical.

  It is also interesting to review valuation metrics across industries on a worldwide basis. We developed the table below from valuation data gathered by StarCapital:

  

  A snapshot of valuations tells us little about the prospects for and industry, and different valuation metrics are more relevant than others depending on the industry. However, the good work provided by StarCapital not only shows that equities are fully valued on a worldwide basis, but also sets a baseline to compare specific geographies and businesses to global valuations. This should come in handy when macro and geopolitical events do not go according to consensus expectations.

  Global Leverage

  Monetary leverage is technically the quantity of bank assets in relation to the quantity of base money.1 Central banks are only obligated to create enough base money (through QE) to reserve bank assets. Since bank assets are technically created through the bank loan process, the majority of bank assets, which include deposits (i.e., money), is effectively credit extended by central banks.

  

  Graph 4 shows the history of US dollar leverage. (Were the graph to go back to 1970, there would be virtually no leverage, as bank assets were effectively backed by gold.) As we can see, the Fed’s bank reserve creation beginning with QE in 2009 began to de-leverage the US banking, which stands at about a 4:1 ratio presently. We can assume that the onset of another recession would be treated by the Fed in the same way – a reversion to QE that further de-leverages the banking system. The limit of Fed QE that creates bank reserves is another $12 trillion. Reliable monetary leverage data across the world is difficult to come by, but we believe US dollars are among the least levered of all major currencies.

  It is critical to understand that central bank responses to economic adversity – adversity that threatens the value of collateral supporting bank asset values – are devoted to saving its primary constituency, the banking system. There is no formal obligation to support the value of non-bank credit.

  Economic leverage includes bank assets plus credit extended outright by bondholders and other, less formal creditors. The great majority of economic leverage is not technically the obligation of central banks because it is credit extended and debt held outside the banking system. This includes sovereign and provincial debt, household consumer, mortgage and school loan debt, and corporate debt.

  US dollar leverage, when calculated by formal debt obligations versus base money, stands at over 15:1. (Even if we were to use formal debt obligations over deposits, leverage would still be about 5:1.) This leverage level gets closer to capturing the practical burden of outstanding debt. The burden comes in the form of debt service and eventual repayment.

  

  To be clear, there is no need to repay debt as long as central banks have unlimited balance sheets; they can legally purchase all outstanding debt denominated in the currency they issue. In fact, throughout this long leveraging phase of the current super-leveraging cycle, aggregate debt has never been reduced, and indeed is growing at a parabolic pace as the cycle ages. To make matters even more threatening, there are obligations that are not captured in Graph 5 – off-balance sheet obligations such as unfunded entitlement obligations that analysts suggest place total dollar-denominated debt at well over $100 trillion (current dollars). This would bring the total US economic leverage ratio to over 25:1.

  Finally, as it relates to defining the level of systemic leverage, debt is almost always issued at interest, meaning that for every dollar of debt issued it takes more money to repay it, depending upon its duration and the interest rate attached to it. The magnitude of all this dollar-denominated debt is not out of context with debt denominated in other currencies. As the graphs clearly illustrate, there is nowhere near enough money – formal or otherwise – to cover leverage levels across bank and non-bank balance sheets.

  The bottom line is that credit – which is ultimately a claim on base money (not assets that collateralize debt) – is the mother of all bubbles, perhaps the biggest worldwide bubble ever. This is truly not hyperbole. The 17th century tulip craze in Holland, for example, in which 12 acres of land was exchanged for one Semper Augustus bulb, ultimately led to a crash in the price of assets and a debasement of guilders. Other currencies, however, were not nearly as affected. Today, all currencies are leveraged and ultimately tied only to the US dollar, the hegemonic global currency. As with all bubbles, the current currency bubble can only be remedied by either debt deflation, currency inflation, or both.

  So then what should investors expect? Does there have to be an event that triggers a decline in confidence of global currencies or the dollar? We do not think so. At some point, money needed to service and repay debt should crowd out money available to pay for needs and wants. Where is that point?

  There is no way to know for sure, however, the graph below shows worldwide credit in relation to private sector output through 2015. The continually rising ratio broke downward in 2000 when it exceeded 130% and again in 2006 and 2009 when it approached 130%. We assume the ratio is above that level now, especially since private sectors in the US, China, Europe and other economies continue to add debt amid slowing output growth rates. The idea that debt-funded government spending will support overall output growth is the latest hope among the growth-at-all-costs crowd. As it relates to this discussion, such a pursuit would be pointless if it does not extinguish private sector debt.

  

  Finally, the graph below shows “what’s different this time”. In 1971, banks were able to begin expanding their balance sheets in relation to their economies once the global monetary system went off a fixed-rate of exchange to gold and political economists setting central bank credit policies were able to keep a perpetually accommodative lending environment.

  

  The bottom line is that in the current global monetary regime money is a political concept without boundaries. (What could possibly go wrong…?)

  Aging Demographics

  In 1981, when the global economy was just about to embark on the leveraging phase of the super-leverage cycle, the average baby boomer in the US was 27 years-old. Today, the average baby boomer is 60. The same demographic shift holds true, more or less, across the largest advanced and advancing economies. In 1981, household debt levels were also much lower, and so household balance sheet were leverage-able. Interest rates off which bank loans and mortgages are priced were around 15%. Total mortgage debt was less than $1 trillion in the US.

  As interest rates began to decline in 1982, young, aspirational baby boomers began to borrow to buy homes (which also allowed them to invest in risk assets). The technology-led growth in the mortgage backed securities market and the secular decline in interest rates further allowed them to continually refinance their debt and upsize their homes. Home mortgages in the US peaked at about $10.7 trillion in 2008, and has since declined by about a $1 trillion over the last eight years (see Graph 8 below).

  

  The demand for risk assets at current prices, including homes and equity, is declining rapidly among the largest holders of them. This trend should accelerate in the coming years as baby boomers across all large economies get older, re-imagine their aspirations, and reduce consumption. The critical point is that while it is possible that past and current consumption of older populations will be replaced by their children, it is not possible for parents to pass down their assets at current values. Why? Because those assets are encumbered with debt that must be either extinguished or assigned (and taxed) upon death. There will be a growing supply of risk assets relative to new borrowings that would fund purchases of them.

  

  Finally, it is well-known that 2.1 children per woman is the neutral fertility rate at which the global population neither grows nor contracts. As Graph 9 shows, world fertility rates are right at this level and fertility rates of women in high income economies are currently below it. So, it seems unlikely that consumer demand for goods and services can be sustained at current prices. Asset values that depend on demand and output growth derived from population growth should become stressed.

  Trade

  World trade rose significantly following the opening of China and the Russian bloc. Trade began to moderate as infrastructure and costs of production in emerging economies began to mature. Trade is once again more economic, more a function of debt-driven supply feeding debt-driven demand.

  

  Meanwhile, consumers in importing economies ran up debts and became less able to provide sufficient demand for exporters. The net effect has been declining trade volumes, which used to grow at double the rate of GDP growth. Now, global trade struggles to grow at all.

  

  Trade data released for November 2016 popped higher unexpectedly. (Graph 13 above only runs through October 2016.) This suggests that the reversal of the significant decline in the price of oil from mid-2014 through 2015 might now be pushing trade volume higher. If so, increasing trade volume from more oil exports should not be considered beneficial, as higher oil prices provides a further economic headwind.
  

  As trade channels matured, exporters managed the exchange value of their currencies lower to make their goods and services cheaper to consumers in importing economies. This made the dollar appear stronger.

  

  A very long term graph of the dollar (below) puts everything in perspective and implies much, in our view. The story it tells is a global economy struggling to grow organically and a monetary exchange system struggling to survive.

  

  The graph begins in 1973 when the current flexible exchange rate monetary system officially began. The new regime centered on the US dollar as the global hegemonic currency rather than the dollar’s convertibility to gold at a fixed exchange rate, which had been the Bretton Woods model since 1945. The dollar’s exchange rate vis-à-vis other global currencies fell from 1973 through 1978, most likely due to the need to increase the supply of dollars to satisfy global trade. The dollar then began a long march higher, not peaking until 1985. This dollar strength fed on itself, and was likely due in large part to high interest rates and increasing demand for US Treasuries, which had risen meaningfully in 1980, and US equities, which had begun what would become a thirty year bull market.

  The early 1980s experience showed that managing economies and trade in a flexible exchange rate system could work. US policy makers would maintain the exchange value of the dollar in a reasonably narrow range vs. the currencies of its trade partners, and in return it would be able to greatly influence global pricing of goods and services and offer its enormous consumer base for world consumption. The US economy, meanwhile, would benefit from importing capital to its financial markets.

  The dollar declined from 1985 to 1995, but not so much as to threaten the viability of the regime. During this period, the US ran up significant budget deficits, which reduced the dollar’s relative attractiveness. This deficit spending coincided with lower income taxes and domestic incentives to invest. Significant capital was formed in the US and around the free world. US and NATO armaments were expanded and stockpiled. The flexible exchange rate monetary system had been used to outspend and open formerly closed and belligerent cold war economies that were not part of the regime, like China and Russia.

  The dollar then strengthened from 1995 through early 2002, peaking near its long-term mid-range. No doubt dollar strength was influenced greatly by the substantial increase in equity prices that attracted global capital. The dollar again began to decline as the US and its allies went to war.

  The war on terror remains a very difficult thing to analyze, perhaps because it is ostensibly not driven by economics. Anything contrary to the narrative centering on religious zealotry is considered a conspiracy theory. We accept that, but will argue the source of radical Islamic terror is economic just the same. There are two simple reasons for our skepticism.

  First, economically content societies do not tend to produce broad religious fundamentalism that includes a culture of suicide. Second, an outright revolt from OPEC in the 1970s helped define the current finance-based monetary system. The system gave crude exporters the ability to exchange their natural resources for value in the form of a stable dollar and dollar- sterling- and then euro-denominated financial assets. Islamic societies abiding by Sharia law without natural resources to exchange were left out in the cold. The finance/leverage/inflation-based post-Bretton Woods monetary system impoverished them.

  The dollar declined from 2002 to 2011 as America extended its deficit spending and the euro, sterling and gold provided reasonable alternative stores of value. It again found strength in 2011, and continues strong today. Why is the dollar’s exchange value vis-à-vis other currencies gaining now? We think it is more a function of other economies’ and currencies’ relative weakness. Simply, the prospects are dimmer for maintaining further balance sheet leveraging and economic growth in Europe, China, Japan, the UK and other major economies than they are in America. As Graph 16 shows, the US dollar index is experiencing lower highs and lower lows. This suggests a system in decline.

  We have argued the current monetary regime is in its evanescence, and that the Fed is trying to raise rates to attract global wealth to dollars and dollar-denominated assets as global leverage, demand and output growth declines. If we are right, then we should not expect other economies to sit by idly.

  Global Reaction

  The final macro dynamic we discuss is the geopolitical challenge to US dominance over the post-Bretton Woods monetary system, NATO, and global trade. This is comprised of a complex range of issues that we cannot (and are not qualified to) fully explore; however we will touch on a few major issues that may be interesting to investors.

  We begin with Donald Trump. His victory implies a near-majority of Americans recognized the domestic economy was not serving them. They were angry and sentimental and to them it was a desperate act.

  Donald Duck would have defeated Hillary Clinton if he squawked about overturning globalization, which she helped create. It was inevitable that the effects of globalization would lead to revolt within the empire. Mr. Trump’s ultimate message was to scorch the power structure – Washington and media – and to replace it with something that better served, respected and reflected Americans. He is unlikely to satisfy his backers sufficiently for reasons discussed above.

  Mr. Trump can have an economic impact on the margin. Better trade deals enforced by a stronger military and tougher immigration laws passed on the back of insensitive rhetoric have one thing in common: they evoke the promise of less economic efficiency, which in turn promises to benefit low wage American workers. It is unlikely to work. The World Wide Web, cheap labor, super-ag businesses, cheap energy and real time logistics are here to stay and available to all across the world…unless the political dimension erects barriers.

  The natural tendency of economies is price deflation, and so it has become the tacit mission of politicians in advanced, highly leveraged economies to somehow create inflation that supports domestic debt service. This has to be executed through their central banks, which is tricky in Europe. Reviving comparatively high cost labor in advanced economies is even trickier. Protectionist trade policies, flipping off the Internet or starting a war with a major global trader could work in varying degrees, but only temporarily. Pesky economic incentives always win in the end, unless the war brings new resources, which seems highly unlikely in today’s world where resources are shared at the right price.

  We believe foreign policy under Trump will be mostly practical and reactive.

  Europe is where we see the greatest chance for political upset. The growing sense of aimlessness among indebted and increasingly superfluous labor does not seem to be an American phenomenon. It may explain Brexit and the rising popularity of truly far right politicians in Western Europe like Geert Wilders in Holland and Marine Le Pen in France. A win by one or both would further threaten the euro.

  Should an irritated Recep Tayyit Erdo?an open Turkey’s borders and resume the diaspora of hundreds of thousands of Middle East emigrants (more unnecessary labor), Western Europe could take a right turn. Such an unlikely scenario a few months ago is becoming more likely, as Le Pen’s opposition is becoming embroiled in scandal and Great Britain is not releasing funds promised to Erdo?an.

  A semi-reasonable scenario that gives Turkey so much power to alter Western European politics is a decent segue to Russia. Former Soviet bloc Eastern European countries may be annexed by Russia in the coming years. Encroaching on a NATO member without a military response, as Russia did in Ukraine, opens the door for an expansion of Russia’s borders. The Trump administration is signaling that deal making takes precedence over hard lines in the sand. We look for Putin and Trump to reach an understanding, potentially giving a pass to Russia to expand its western front in return for help in Syria and other parts of the Middle East.

  We see Russia’s geopolitical role in the world as modified cold war realpolitik, which is to say not much different from America’s under Donald Trump. We expect a gradual thaw between Russia and the West made possible by a less hysterical reaction function among western policy makers and media.

  Geopolitically, we do not see China playing a major disruptive role. It should continue to expand its influence in areas where there is no international push-back, like mineral rich Africa. The one exception will be the South China Sea, where it will continue to build outposts. It should also continue to let North Korea build and show-off its nuclear arsenal, keeping that card in the hole to be brought out only when it has a big “ask” (e.g., “let us control all shipping lanes in the South China Sea and we will annex and de-militarize North Korea”). A dealmaker in the White House with a penchant for greatness would give way.

  China has shown great dexterity over the last twenty years adapting politically to the post-Bretton Woods global monetary system. After all, it is a socialized system perpetuated and overseen by the state. Its cornerstone is fiat money, which is money proclaimed to have value by governments and in which taxes may be exclusively paid. China has benefitted greatly by embracing the idea of boundless credit, running up debts to expand its infrastructure and fund current output growth.

  The Peoples Bank of China stands ready – like the Fed and the ECB – to expand its opaque balance sheet to purchase public and private sector debt without recrimination or audit. We do not think China will be labeled a “currency manipulator” in a Trump administration. It is a hollow threat from the West, especially in times when the yuan would otherwise cheapen in FX markets. Branding China a manipulator would open up a Pandora’s Box that would not serve the geopolitical interests of established monetary boards. Beyond tough talk, we expect the Trump administration to accept the slow broadening of the band China uses to fix exchange rates.

  

  

• Fascists Shut Down Milo Event at Berkeley

  Breitbart columnist, Milo Yiannopoulos, was supposed to give a speech at ultra left wing University at California Berkley — but was shut down by the AntiFA (anti-fascist) weirdos — who, rather ironically, act exactly like fascists by shutting down free speech of anyone they disagree with. It’s worth noting, AntiFA has been at the vanguard of the anti-Trump protests, making them — literally — anti-democratic.

  Milo just released this statement, letting people know he was evacuated and that he was safe.
  

  Stay safe everybody. pic.twitter.com/dLeL9BP382

  — Stefan Molyneux (@StefanMolyneux) February 2, 2017

  Here are some of the domestic terrorists at Berkeley.

  I was going to attend Milo’s talk at UC Berkeley, but we heard some “booms”, fire alarms went off & were immediately escorted out #miloatcal pic.twitter.com/j3Ewk8NtPn

  — Cassie Jaye (@Cassie_Jaye) February 2, 2017

  Didn’t see what happened but a man is on the ground. Looks like he got hit. #Milo pic.twitter.com/AU2Hda4aKp

  — Michael Bodley (@michael_bodley) February 2, 2017

  RT juliacarriew: A group of antifa are shooting fireworks at the building where Milo is set to speak at Berkeley pic.twitter.com/gFBLhkrPed #…

  — Antifa-GB (@Antifa_GB_1) February 2, 2017

  #BREAKING?: University of California in Berkeley after protest against Milo Yiannopoulos turns violent ?? pic.twitter.com/teNDCtw7m3

  — NIRP Umbrella (@NIRPUmbrella) February 2, 2017

  “Milo first, Trump next.” pic.twitter.com/QnDtMTTrHR

  — Jenny Luna (@J2theLuna) February 2, 2017

  Celebration after Milo at Berkeley was canceled pic.twitter.com/7tW2ka8qcZ

  — Julia Carrie Wong (@juliacarriew) February 2, 2017

   

   

   

   

  Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com

  

• Global Bond Markets – Skydiving Without a Parachute

   

  After almost 10 years of unprecedented accommodative
  monetary policy both in the US and abroad, the fixed-income markets are trading
  at lofty levels never before seen in history. 
  Let that sink in for a moment.  Never
  before.  Not during world wars, not
  during global depressions, never.

   

  If you think this is a case of scare mongering or me doing
  my best Chicken Little imitation, it’s not.  One third of global fixed-income bonds were recently trading
  at a negative yields!  The global bond
  market has never been in a more perilous position, and I am surprised that
  there are so few publications ringing the alarm bells.  We are reminded on a daily basis of such
  trivial risks that have no bearing on our everyday.  But it’s tough to understand why there is such
  limited press highlighting such glaring risks.  This is especially alarming since we lived
  through a fixed-income debacle in 2008 and know how devastating it was for
  those unprepared.

   

  The world is fully invested and on the same side of this one-trick
  global bond market trade.  The hysterical
  purchases that drove bond yields so low by governments, sovereign wealth funds,
  banks, insurance companies and hedge funds seem to have abated and sales have just
  begun.  Who becomes the marginal buyer of
  global bonds at these inflated prices?  The
  world has become accustomed to bond selloffs getting backstopped by global
  central banks.  This parachute of low
  funding and outright government bond purchases that investors had relied upon as
  protection from losses is largely behind us.

   

  The Fed has begun a rate rise cycle which will include
  allowing purchased bonds to roll off and not be replaced as they mature.  It appears other central banks are planning on
  winding down their quantitative easing programs as well.  Banks have largely finished hundreds of
  billions in regulatory mandated bond purchases.  Sovereign wealth funds and pension funds are
  selling bonds to dip into needed cash for spending.  Governments that have amassed trillions in
  bond portfolios as a result of managed currency programs are shrinking these
  portfolios as well. And hedge funds that have recently grown assets into the
  hundreds of billions, investing in these overvalued bonds, trying to convert 1%
  yields into 7% plus returns with the use of leverage, are starting to see
  redemptions.  One could always hope for a
  negative shock such as a recession to bring out the marginal buyers at these
  prices.  But there are no signs of a
  recession on the horizon nor would that be a guarantee of buyers entering the
  market at these levels.

   

  Limited global bond buyers outnumbered by new issue bond
  sellers should lead to higher bond yields going forward.  If there was a trigger that encouraged the over
  100 trillion bond market to start selling, prices could adjust lower
  rapidly.  And there are many triggers on
  the horizon. With housing prices increasing over 5% annually, health care
  prices expected to rise steeply, global food costs rising at the fastest pace
  in years and wage pressures just beginning to percolate, inflation is poised to
  surprise to the upside. Fiscal spending (or at least promises of such from our
  Presidential candidates) is expected to increase, leading to higher growth
  rates and reducing the allure of bonds.  And
  recently announced redemptions from large hedge funds who are typically
  leveraged and long the bond market will lead to pressure on bond prices.  We will see if these hedge funds’
  outperformance was the result of those magical algorithms or just good old-fashioned
  leverage in a market that was trending straight up.  Most importantly, removal of accommodation
  from monetary policy will deflate assets that are greatly inflated.

   

  But how overvalued could bonds possibly be?  It’s been years since bonds have had any
  losses and most traders and portfolio managers have never experienced a bear
  market in bonds.  When any market moves
  in only one direction for almost a decade to such lofty levels, there is not
  much preparation for a market reversal.  Anyone
  positioned for a market reversal over the past 10 years has long since been
  blown out of their trades, fired or worse.  There is a reason why betting on normalized yields
  in the bond market has been called the “widow maker” trade.  Today’s perception that bonds are a safe
  investment is a mirage.  The bond market
  has roughly doubled in size in the last 10 years and any selling could be
  catastrophic.  Bond yields are much lower
  and prices higher than during the onset of the 2008 bond market debacle.  This is a benchmark for overvalued bond prices
  and what to expect from a resulting market correction.  If that’s not enough to get you to take pause,
  let’s look at a real life example.  Longer
  dated bond yields historically average around 2% to 3% above inflation.  Given today’s level of inflation, longer dated
  bonds should yield closer to 5% instead of the current 2%.  If long bonds normalize up to that 5% yield
  level any time soon, the resulting price drop would equate to market losses of
  40% or more!

   

  Now you know bond prices are in the outer stratosphere.  You’ve been warned of the risks if you have
  been counting on a monetary policy parachute to give you a safe landing.  The central banks have started to take the
  parachutes out of the planes.  Beware if
  you plan on skydiving.

   

   

  Michael Carino is the CEO of Greenwich Endeavors, a
  financial service firm, and has been a fixed-income fund manager and owner for
  more than 20 years.

  

  

• Dollar Dumps Most In 30 Years As Trump Raises Doubt Over "Strong Dollar Policy"

  The US dollar is having its worst start to a year in decades…

   

  

  As the Trump Administration is breaking from a long-standing, bipartisan policy of supporting a strong dollar, the greenback has fallen against its peers by 2.7%, the worst start to a year since 1987, after Ronald Reagan engineered a decline in the dollar to combat a flood of Japanese imports.

  Finally, remember, nothing lasts forever…

  

  Source: The Burning Platform

  As we noted previously, history did not end with the Cold War and, as Mark Twain put it, whilst history doesn’t repeat it often rhymes. As Alexander, Rome and Britain fell from their positions of absolute global dominance, so too has the US begun to slip. America’s global economic dominance has been declining since 1998, well before the Global Financial Crisis. A large part of this decline has actually had little to do with the actions of the US but rather with the unraveling of a century’s long economic anomaly. China has begun to return to the position in the global economy it occupied for millenia before the industrial revolution. Just as the dollar emerged to global reserve currency status as its economic might grew, so the chart below suggests the increasing push for de-dollarization across the 'rest of the isolated world' may be a smart bet…

  

   

  The World Bank's former chief economist wants to replace the US dollar with a single global super-currency, saying it will create a more stable global financial system.

  "The dominance of the greenback is the root cause of global financial and economic crises," Justin Yifu Lin told Bruegel, a Brussels-based policy-research think tank. "The solution to this is to replace the national currency with a global currency."

  

  

• 'Unrest' Is The Only Growth Industry Left

  Submitted by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

  Benoît Hamon won the run-off for the presidential nomination of the Socialist party in France last weekend. The party that still, lest we forget, runs the country; current president François Hollande is a Socialist, even if only in name, but he did win the previous election. Hamon ran on a platform of shortening the workweek from 35 to 32 hours, legalizing cannabis and ‘easing’ the country into a universal basic income of €750/month per capita. He’s way left of Hollande, who has a hilariously low approval rating of 4%.

  Hamon doesn’t appear to have much chance of winning the presidency in the two voting rounds taking place on April 23 and May 7, but we all know how reliable election predictions are these days, and in that regard France is as volatile as the next country. With conservative runaway favorite François Fillon accused of having paid his wife $1 million for doing nothing and Marine Le Pen, already desperately short on funds, targeted by the EU over money, who knows what and who will decide the election? Hamon may simply be the only one left standing on the day after the vote.

  I bring up Hamon, about whom I know very little, not least because he was more or less a late minute addition to the field that was supposed to have been an easy win for his former boss Manuel Valls, I bring up Hamon because he confirms something I’ve been talking about for a while. That is, the fact that ‘leftist France’ chooses to go even more left than expected, goes a way towards proving my ‘theory’ that voters in many if not most western countries will move away from their respective political centers, and towards extremes.

  This is an inevitable consequence of traditional, less extreme, politicians and parties having all become clustered together in shapeless and colorless blobs in the center, both in the US and in most European countries, combined with the fact that all of their policies -especially economic ones- have spectacularly failed vast amounts of people (or voters, if you will).

  The failure of their policies has been hidden from sight by interest rates squashed like bugs, ballooning central bank balance sheets, real estate bubbles, fabricated economic data, and fantasy stories in their media that seem(ed) to affirm the ‘recovery’ tales, but they all ‘forgot’ to -eventually- line up reality with the fantasies. They never made 99% of people actually more comfortable. The entire politics-economics-media deus ex machina has failed because it was/is based on lies and fake news, meant to hide economic reality (i.e. negative growth), and this will have grave consequences.

  People have started noticing this despite the official and media-promoted data. And they’re not going to “un-notice”. Not only don’t people -once they find out- like having been lied to for years, they dislike worsening living conditions even more. And that’s all they get; the only people who get it better are the rich, because without that the machinery can’t continue pumping up the ‘official’ numbers.

  And what do you get? People complain about Trump. And they focus on one of his -seemingly- crazy ideas: temporarily closing US borders to refugees from nations with large Muslim populations. Which is a fine thing to resist, because yes, it’s a pretty silly idea, but why haven’t they paid similar attention to how they’ve been lied to for years on both the economy and on Syria, on how Obama became the Drone King and how many innocent people lost their lives because of that?!

  To how favorite all-American gal Hillary screwed up Northern Africa when she declared We Came We Saw He Died and the death of Libya’s Gaddafi, who gave his country the highest living standards in the region, free education and free health care, but was murdered by Hillary’s US troops, co-created the chaos that led to so many people wanting to flee their homelands in the first place?

  Why is that? Why are there protests when people are halted at an American border crossing but not when American and British and French and Australian forces blow the very same people’s homes to smithereens? Could that have something to do with where the protesters get their information? With how much they know about what’s happening in the world before it reaches their doorsteps?

  Yes, people are suffering, and it’s very unfair what’s happening to many caught in the Trump Ban, but does anyone really believe that that’s where it started, that this is the first time (or even a unique time) that protest is warranted, or more so? And if not, why is it happening? Because people only notice stuff when it hits them in the face, I would presume, but who among the protesters would volunteer to agree they live their lives with blinders on? Not many, I would venture. So why do we see what we do? Where were you when Obama ordered yet another child, a family, which hadn’t yet made it to a US airport but might as well have, to be collateral damage?

  I get why you’re protesting the Trump ban, but I don’t get why that’s your prime focus. I am guessing that most of the protesters would not have voted Trump in the first place, and would have been much happier -to put it mildly- for Hillary to be president right now. But if you would have paid attention in history class, you would know that it was Hillary who brought the refugees to your welcome mats to begin with.

  Take it a step further, like to the January 21 women’s march, and you would realize that the vast majority of the refugees would have much preferred to stay where they grew up, where the women in their families, their sisters and aunts and daughters used to live. Most of whom are gone now, they’re either dead or diaspora-ed to Jordan, Turkey, Alberta, Sweden, Greece. All on account of Obama and his crew. Who of course blamed it on Assad and Putin. “I killed 1000 children, but I had to because those guys are so dangerous….”

  This generation of refugees, of the huddled masses that the Statue of Liberty is supposed to teach you about, didn’t come to America because it’s the promised land; they came because America turned their homeland into a giant pile of rubble surrounded by garbage heaps and minefields. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen pictures of Aleppo before it was destroyed, but I dare you to tell me there is even one existing American city today that’s more beautiful than Aleppo was before Americans and their allies reduced it to dust. Here you go. This is Aleppo before America got involved in Syria:

  

  There’s very little left of that beautiful city, with its highly educated people and their lovely happy children. And none of that has anything at all to do with Donald Trump! I don’t want to give you pics of what Aleppo looks like now. I want you to remember how lovely it was before ‘we’ moved in, years go. Sure, what you hear and see in the west is that Assad and Putin are the bad guys in this story. But now that the US/EU supported ‘rebels’ are gone, dozens of schools are reopening, and medical centers, hospitals. Who are the bad guys now?

  And yeah, Trump is an elephant, and elephants are always awkward and they’re messy and they tend to kick things over and when they make mistakes those tend to be huge, but how much valuable china does the US really have left anyway? Isn’t it all perhaps just a sliver off target, the demos, the outrage and indignation? Is the idea that your army can destroy people’s living environments with impunity without you protesting in anything approaching a serious way, and that then you get to demand, through protest, that those same people are allowed entry into your country? That’s way too late to do the right thing.

  I started out making the point that as our politico-economic systems are failing, voters will move away from the center that devised and promoted those systems, and that this will happen in many countries. The US could have had Bernie Sanders as president, but the remaining powers in the center made that impossible. Likewise, many European countries will see a move towards either further left or further right.

  Since the former is mostly dormant at best, while the latter has long been preparing for just such a moment, many nations will follow the American example and elect a right wing figurehead. This will cause a lot of chaos, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. People need to wake up and become active. The recent US demonstrations may be a first sign of that, even though they look largely out of focus. More than anything else, people need a mirror, they need to acknowledge that because they’ve been in a state of mindless self-centered slumber for so long, they have work to do now.

  And that work needs to consist of more than yelling at the top of your lungs that Trump and Le Pen and Wilders are such terribly bad people. For one thing because that will only help them, for another because they were not the people who put you to sleep or were supporting mindless slaughter in faraway nations or were making up ‘official’ numbers as your economies were dumped into handbaskets on their way to hell. So ask yourselves, why did you believe what Obama was saying, or Merkel, or Cameron, Sarkozy, Rutte, you name them, while you could have known they were just making it all up, if only you had paid attention?

  Why? What happened? Why did the term ‘fake news’ only recently become a hot potato, even though you’ve been bombarded with fake and false news for years? Is it because you were/are so eager to believe that your economy is recovering that any evidence to the contrary didn’t stand a chance? If so, do realize that for many people that was not true; it’s why they voted for the people you now so despise. Is it perhaps also because you’re so eager to believe your ‘leaders’ do the right thing that you completely miss out on the fact that they’re not? And whose fault is that?

  In yet another angle, people claim that the planet’s in great peril because Trump doesn’t ‘believe’ in climate change. But it’s not Trump’s who’s the danger when it comes to climate change, you are, because you’re foolish enough to believe that things like last year’s infinitely bally-hood Paris Agreement (CON21) will actually ‘save’ something. That belief is more dangerous than a flat-out denial, because it lulls people into sleep, while denial keeps them awake.

  It’s the idea that there’s still time to rescue the planet that’s dangerous, because it’s the perfect excuse to keep on doing what you were doing without having to feel too much guilt or remorse. You’re not going to save a single species with your electric car or whatever next green fad there is, the only way to do that is through drastic changes to your society and your own behavior.

  That’s not only true with respect to the climate, it’s just as valid with respect to the refugees on your doorstep. If you want to rescue them, and those who will come after them, the only thing that makes any difference is making sure the bombing stops, that the US and European war machines are silenced. If you don’t do that, none of these protests are of any use. So sure, yeah, by all means, protest, but make sure you protest the real issues, not just a symptom.

  That doesn’t mean you should shut the door in the face of these frail forms fainting at the door, that’s just insane, but it does mean that after welcoming your guests, you will also have to make sure what brought them there must stop. If you stop killing and maiming these people, and help rebuild Aleppo and a thousand other places, they won’t need to come to your door anymore.

  As for the political field, unrest will continue and grow because the end of economic growth means the end of centralization, and our entire world, politically, economically, what have you, is based on these two things. Today, unrest is the only growth industry left. And it’s not going away anytime soon. It’s a new day, a new dawn, it’s just that unfortunately this is not going to be a pretty one.

  Still, none of it is unexpected. The Automatic Earth has been saying for years, and with us quite a few others, that this was and is inevitable. Of course there are those who say that we cried wolf, but we’ll take that risk any day. Saw a nice very short video of Mike Maloney saying in 2011 that Obama would have to double US debt between 2008 and 2016 just to keep the entire system from starting to collapse, running to stand still, Alice, Red Queen and all. And guess what?

  

  There’s the recovery as it’s been sold to you. It’s all been borrowed, to the last penny. Will Donald Trump double US debt once again? Will the EU countries do the same? How about Japan and China? And to think that federal debt isn’t even the worst threat, personal debt is, and so many of us carry so much of that, and try to pass off our mortgaged homes as assets, not debt. An increasingly desperate game on all fronts.

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Rule By Brute Force: The True Nature Of Government

  Submitted by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

  “We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.”

   

  -Ayn Rand

  The torch has been passed to a new president.

  All of the imperial powers amassed by Barack Obama and George W. Bush – to kill American citizens without due process, to detain suspects indefinitely, to strip Americans of their citizenship rights, to carry out mass surveillance on Americans without probable cause, to suspend laws during wartime, to disregard laws with which he might disagree, to conduct secret wars and convene secret courts, to sanction torture, to sidestep the legislatures and courts with executive orders and signing statements, to direct the military to operate beyond the reach of the law, to act as a dictator and a tyrant, above the law and beyond any real accountability – have been inherited by Donald Trump.

  Whatever kind of president Trump chooses to be, he now has the power to completely alter the landscape of this country for good or for ill.

  He has this power because every successive occupant of the Oval Office has been allowed to expand the reach and power of the presidency through the use of executive orders, decrees, memorandums, proclamations, national security directives and legislative signing statements that can be activated by any sitting president.

  Those of us who saw this eventuality coming have been warning for years about the growing danger of the Executive Branch with its presidential toolbox of terror that could be used—and abused—by future presidents.

  The groundwork, we warned, was being laid for a new kind of government where it won’t matter if you’re innocent or guilty, whether you’re a threat to the nation or even if you’re a citizen. What will matter is what the president—or whoever happens to be occupying the Oval Office at the time—thinks. And if he or she thinks you’re a threat to the nation and should be locked up, then you’ll be locked up with no access to the protections our Constitution provides. In effect, you will disappear.

  Our warnings went largely unheeded.

  First, we sounded the alarm over George W. Bush’s attempts to gut the Constitution, suspend habeas corpus, carry out warrantless surveillance on Americans, and generally undermine the Fourth Amendment, but the Republicans didn’t want to listen because Bush was a Republican.

  Then we sounded the alarm over Barack Obama’s prosecution of whistleblowers, targeted drone killings, assassinations of American citizens, mass surveillance, and militarization of the police, but the Democrats didn’t want to listen because Obama was a Democrat and he talked a really good game.

  It well may be that by the time Americans­—Republicans and Democrats alike—stop playing partisan games and start putting some safeguards in place, it will be too late.

  Already, Donald Trump has indicated that he will pick up where his predecessors left off: he will continue to wage war, he will continue to federalize the police, and he will operate as if the Constitution does not apply to him.

  Still, as tempting as it may be, don’t blame Donald Trump for what is to come.

  If this nation eventually locks down… If Americans are rounded up and detained based on the color of their skin, their religious beliefs, or their political views… If law-and-order takes precedence over constitutional principles…

  If martial law is eventually declared… If we find that there really is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide from the surveillance state’s prying eyes and ears… And if our constitutional republic finally plunges headlong over the cliff and leaves us in the iron grip of totalitarianism…

  Please, resist the urge to lay all the blame at Trump’s feet.

  After all, President Trump didn’t create the police state.

  He merely inherited it.

  Frankly, there’s more than enough blame to go around.

  So blame Obama. Blame Bush. Blame Bill Clinton.

  Blame the Republicans and Democrats who justified every power grab, every expansion of presidential powers, and every attack on the Constitution as long as it was a member of their own party leading the charge.

  Blame Congress for being a weak, inept body that spends more time running for office and pandering to the interests of the monied elite than representing the citizenry.

  Blame the courts for caring more about order than justice, and for failing to hold government officials accountable to the rule of law.

  Blame Corporate America for taking control of the government and calling the shots behind the scenes.

  Most of all, blame the American people for not having objected louder, sooner and more vehemently when Barack Obama, George W. Bush and their predecessors laid the groundwork for this state of tyranny.

  But wait, you say.

  Americans are mobilizing. They are engaged. They are actively expressing their discontent with the government. They are demanding change. They are marching in the streets, picketing, protesting and engaging in acts of civil disobedience.

  This is a good development, right? Isn’t this what we’ve been calling on Americans to do for so long: stand up and push back and say “enough is enough”?

  Perhaps you’re right.

  Perhaps Americans have finally had enough. At least, some Americans have finally had enough.

  That is to say, some Americans have finally had enough of certain government practices that are illegal, immoral and inhumane.

  Although, to be quite fair, it might be more accurate to state that some Americans have finally had enough of certain government practices that are illegal, immoral and inhumane provided that the ruling political party responsible for those actions is not their own.

  Yes, that sounds about right. Except that it’s all wrong.

  We still haven’t learned a thing.

  Imagine: after more than eight years in which Americans remained largely silent while the United States military (directed by the Obama Administration) bombed parts of the Middle East to smithereens—dropping nearly three bombs an hour, and left a trail of innocent civilian deaths in its wake—suddenly, Americans are outraged by programs introduced by the Trump Administration that could discriminate against Muslim refugees. Never mind that we’ve been killing those same refugees for close to a decade.

  Certainly, there was little outcry when the U.S. military under Obama carried out an air strike against a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan. Doctors, patients—including children—and staff members were killed or wounded. There were also no protests when the Obama Administration targeted Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen in Yemen, for assassination by drone strike. The man was killed without ever having been charged with a crime. Two weeks later, Obama—the recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize—authorized another drone strike that killed al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, also an American citizen.

  Most recently, picking up where President Obama left off, President Trump personally authorized a commando raid on a compound in Yemen suspected of harboring Al Qaeda officials. Among those killed were “at least eight women and seven children, ages 3 to 13,” including Nora, the 8-year-old sister of the teenager killed by Obama years before.

  Likewise, while most Americans failed to show much opposition to the government’s disregard for Americans’ bodily integrity, shrugging their collective shoulders dismissively over reports of their fellow citizens being subjected Americans to roadside strip searches, virtual strip searches, cavity searches and other equally denigrating acts, hundreds of thousands mobilized to protest policies that could be advanced by the Trump administration that might demean or deny equal rights to individuals based on their gender or orientation or take away their reproductive planning choices. Similarly, while tens of thousands have gathered annually for a March for Life to oppose abortion, many of those same marchers seem to have no qualms about the government’s practice of shooting unarmed citizens and executing innocent ones.

  This begs the question: what are Americans really protesting? Is it politics or principle?

  Or is it just Trump?

  For instance, in the midst of the uproar over Trump’s appointment of Steven Bannon to the National Security Council, his detractors have accused Bannon of being a propagandist  nationalist, and a white supremacist. Yet not one objection has been raised about the fact that the National Security Council authorizes secret, legal, targeted killings of American citizens (and others) without due process, a practice frequently employed by Obama.

  The message coming across loud and clear: it’s fine for the government to carry out secret, targeted assassinations of American citizens without due process as long as the individuals advising the president aren’t Neo-Nazis.

  Of course, this national hypocrisy goes both ways.

  Conveniently, many of the same individuals who raised concerns over Obama’s “lawless” use of executive orders to sidestep Congress have defended Trump’s executive orders as “taking us back to the Constitution.” And those who sounded the alarm over the dangers of the American police state have gone curiously silent in the face of Trump’s pledge to put an end to “the dangerous anti-police atmosphere in America.”

  We can’t have it both ways.

  As long as we continue to put our politics ahead of our principles—moral, legal and constitutional—“we the people” will lose.

  And you know who will keep winning by playing on our prejudices, capitalizing on our fears, deepening our distrust of our fellow citizens, and dividing us into polarized, warring camps incapable of finding consensus on the one true menace that is an immediate threat to all of our freedoms? The U.S. government.

  In her essay on “The Nature of Government,” Ayn Rand explains that the only “proper” purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights. She continues: “The source of the government’s authority is ‘the consent of the governed.’ This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.”

  When we lose sight of this true purpose of government—to protect our rights—and fail to keep the government in its place as our servant, we allow the government to overstep its bounds and become a tyrant that rules by brute force.

  As Rand explains:

  Instead of being a protector of man’s rights, the government is becoming their most dangerous violator; instead of guarding freedom, the government is establishing slavery; instead of protecting men from the initiators of physical force, the government is initiating physical force and coercion in any manner and issue it pleases; instead of serving as the instrument of objectivity in human relationships, the government is creating a deadly, subterranean reign of uncertainty and fear, by means of nonobjective laws whose interpretation is left to the arbitrary decisions of random bureaucrats; instead of protecting men from injury by whim, the government is arrogating to itself the power of unlimited whim—so that we are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.

  Rule by brute force.

  That’s about as good a description as you’ll find for the sorry state of our republic.

  SWAT teams crashing through doors. Militarized police shooting unarmed citizens. Traffic cops tasering old men and pregnant women for not complying fast enough with an order. Resource officers shackling children for acting like children. Citizens being jailed for growing vegetable gardens in their front yards and holding prayer services in their backyards. Drivers having their cash seized under the pretext that they might have done something wrong.

  The list of abuses being perpetrated against the American people by their government is growing rapidly.

  We are approaching critical mass.

  As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, it may already be too late to save our republic. We have passed the point of easy fixes. When the government and its agents no longer respect the rule of law—the Constitution—or believe that it applies to them, then the very contract on which this relationship is based becomes invalid.

  So what is the answer?

  Look to the past if you want to understand the future.

  Too often, we look to the past to understand how tyrants come to power: the rise and fall of the Roman Empire; Hitler’s transformation of Germany into a Nazi state; the witch hunt tactics of the McCarthy Era.

  Yet the past—especially our own American history—also teaches us valuable lessons about the quest for freedom. Here’s Rand again:

  A free society—like any other human product—cannot be achieved by random means, by mere wishing or by the leaders’ “good intentions.” A complex legal system, based on objectively valid principles, is required to make a society free and to keep it free-a system that does not depend on the motives, the moral character or the intentions of any given official, a system that leaves no opportunity, no legal loophole for the development of tyranny. The American system of checks and balances was just such an achievement. And although certain contradictions in the Constitution did leave a loophole for the growth of statism, the incomparable achievement was the concept of a constitution as a means of limiting and restricting the power of the government. Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals—that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government—that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizens’ protection against the government.

  You want to save America? Then stop thinking like Republicans and Democrats and start acting like Americans.

  The only thing that will save us now is a concerted, collective commitment to the Constitution’s principles of limited government, a system of checks and balances, and a recognition that they—the president, Congress, the courts, the military, the police, the technocrats and plutocrats and bureaucrats—work for us.

  

  

• The History Of Money (In One Simple Infographic)

  Today’s infographic from Mint.com highlights the history of money, including the many monetary experiments that have taken place since ancient times…

   

  

  Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

  As VisualCapitalist's Jeff Desjardins notes, some innovations have stood the test of time – precious metals, for example, have been used for thousands of years. Paper money and banknotes are also widespread in use, after first being turned to in China in 806 after a copper shortage prevented the minting of new coins.

  Other experiments didn’t have much staying power. The adoption of strange currencies such as squirrel pelts, cowry shells, or parmesan cheese are only remembered for their peculiarity.

  Further, other attempts to stabilize the monetary system were abandoned early as well. The original U.S. gold standard lasted just 54 years, after FDR ditched it during the Great Depression. The Bretton Woods version (gold-exchange standard) lasted even shorter, abandoned after being in place for 26 years when Nixon ended all convertibility between the U.S. dollar and gold in 1971.

  THE NEWEST CHAPTER IN OUR MONETARY HISTORY

  Although the infographic ends with the introduction of cryptocurrency in 2009, it should be noted that the newest chapter in the history of money is taking place right before our eyes.

  The “War on Cash” has been accelerating in recent years, as governments and central banks have called for the elimination of high denomination banknotes. While these anti-cash motions have also been made in many Western countries, the most vivid example of the demonetization is currently happening in India.

  In November 2016, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi demonetized 500 and 1000 rupee notes, eliminating 86% of the country’s notes overnight. While Indians could theoretically exchange 500 and 1,000 rupee notes for higher denominations, it was only up to a limit of 4,000 rupees per person. Sums above that had to be routed through a bank account in a country where only 50% of Indians have such access.

  There have been at least 112 reported deaths associated with this demonetization – including suicides and the passing of elderly people waiting in bank queues for days to exchange money. India’s largest organization of manufacturers, the All India Manufacturers Organization, also estimates in a report that micro-small scale industries suffered 35% jobs losses and a 50% dip in revenue in the first 34 days since demonetization.

  While demonetization in India is off to a rough start, some believe it can still be ultimately successful in the long-term. Regardless, the “War on Cash” still has incredible global momentum – and the end result – however it turns out – will likely form another important chapter in the history of money.

  

  

• FATCA Needs To Go, But Unfortunately, The FATCA "Refugees" Are Never Coming Back

  Submitted by Duane via Free Market Shooter blog,

  

  GotNews posted an article yesterday about a “refugee problem” America has, referring to approximately 20,000 Americans who have renounced their citizenship under Obama’s leadership, and suggesting America “repatriate” said citizens:

  America has a refugee problem. Not the Syrian refugees. No, not the Afghan ones. No, not even the Cuban refugees. I’m talking about the born-and-raised American citizens who got fed up, gave up their U.S. citizenship, and escaped Obama’s America while they still could.

   

  Yes, that’s right: nearly 20,000 American citizens left Obama’s America and forfeited their American citizenship while Obama was President.

   

  Nearly 20,000 U.S. citizens voluntarily gave up their rights to vote, run for office, and the freedom to pursue “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, while Obama was in office.

   

  We shouldn’t be allowing anyone from the violent and dangerous Middle East, including so-called “refugees”, into the United States right now. The only refugees who should be entering the United States are the American refugees who fled Obama’s America. Not only do we have that duty to our fellow Americans, but they pose no threat to us like Middle Eastern “refugees” do.

  What was missing from the article?  Discussion of the Obama-sponsored law that caused many citizens (mostly expats) to renounce their citizenship: FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act).

  FATCA has been beaten to death by other sources, but surprisingly, very few people are aware of what it does.  The whole purpose of the law was to “crack down” on overseas tax evasion.  Simon Black of Sovereign Man did an excellent job of summarizing the net effect:

  Deep within its bowels fell the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or FATCA for short. It was a sort of ‘law within a law’, and one of the dumbest in US history.

   

  FATCA effectively commanded every single bank on the planet to enter into an information-sharing agreement with the IRS.

   

  (Well, not so much ‘information sharing’. More like ‘information giving’. Because the US government doesn’t share anything with anyone.)

   

  It all started based on a phony assumption that millions of Americans were hiding trillions of dollars in secret offshore accounts. And given how broke the US government is, they wanted every penny they were entitled to.

   

  So the plan was to turn every bank in the world into a global spy network.

   

  Any bank that didn’t comply was threatened with a crippling 30% withholding tax on every dollar that went in, out, and through the Land of the Free.

  In a nutshell, if you are an American expat living abroad, you just had to jump through thousands of hurdles to prove to the IRS that you aren’t evading any taxes, report all this information correctly, and within a confusing legal framework that leaves even the best accountants stumped, often triggering audits for “violation” of FATCA, even if it was not violated at all.

  Unsurprisingly, since the law was enacted, the amount of expatriates who renounce their citizenship has risen exponentially:

  

  FATCA forces any American opening a bank account overseas to be in compliance with the law, by having the IRS punish foreign nations that do not comply.  Because of FATCA, the majority of foreign banks quickly turned to outright refusal of US clients.  Good luck finding one that doesn’t charge a ridiculous litany of fees.

  Obviously, you need to live abroad to renounce your citizenship.  But who is doing the renouncing?  For the most part, permanent expats who have no intention of ever moving back.  Eduardo Saverin, the Facebook co-founder whose story was on full display in the movie The Social Network, is the biggest name of the group.  However, billionaires like Saverin aren’t most people.  A more pertinent real-world example is Rachel Heller:

  This state of affairs comes about because the US bases its taxation system on citizenship, unlike the rest of the world, where taxation is residence-based. In other words, while I live in the Netherlands, pay taxes in the Netherlands, and receive services in return for my taxes from the Netherlands, I was also expected to pay in the US, despite the fact that I received no services for my tax dollars.

   

  The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), passed in 2010 and in effect since 2014, was intended to catch “tax cheats”: billionaires living in the US who send their money abroad to hide it from the IRS. The problem is that people like me, who have moved abroad for jobs or for love, are persecuted as a consequence of that effort.

   

  This does not mean that I was trying to avoid paying my “fair share,” the misleading phrase often used by politicians and repeated by the press. Because of a treaty between the US and the Netherlands (and many other countries), I only had to pay US taxes if my income was higher than about $100,000, which, as a teacher, it will never be. Instead, I pay where I live. I am in the 42 percent tax bracket here in the Netherlands, and my husband’s income puts him in the 52 percent bracket. That is much higher than it would be in the US, so I cannot be accused of avoiding taxes. If I wanted to do that, the Netherlands would be the last place I would live.

   

  Nevertheless, I had to fill out US tax forms every year, plus extra forms to claim my foreign tax exemption, all to prove that I in fact do not owe any US taxes.

   

  I repeat: I love the US. But I had to fill out lengthy forms (or rather, I spent almost a thousand euros a year to pay an accountant to do them for me), exposing my and my husband’s accounts to US government scrutiny, and I risked losing the ability to do the sort of banking that any middle-class American would normally take for granted.

  Yes, it is true, the majority of US expats are willing to give up their citizenship.  It’s not because they aren’t American.  It’s because by not living in America, FATCA has effectively rendered them second-class citizens. 

  The USA is one of only two countries in the world that has this system of taxation.  The other is Eritrea, which levies a simple 2% flat tax on its citizens who live abroad.  And still, the media, and even the UN have weighed on Eritrea’s simple regime, calling it “authoritarian”:

  Nearly every country in the world bases its tax system on residency rather than citizenship. If you’re an Italian citizen, and you leave Italy to live and work in Dubai, you don’t have to pay taxes on the income you earn abroad to the Italian government.

   

  But Eritrea levies a 2% flat tax on its citizens who live abroad. If you’re an Eritrean citizen, you have to pay taxes to the Eritrean government, no matter where you live and work.

   

  The media has condemned this as “extortion” and a “repressive” measure by an “authoritarian” government.

   

  The UN has even weighed in. In Resolution 2023, the UN Security Council condemned Eritrea for “using extortion, threats of violence, fraud and other illicit means to collect taxes outside of Eritrea from its nationals.”

  FATCA is far more onerous, costly, and authoritarian than anything Eritrea does.  But don’t hold your breath expecting the UN to condemn what the USA is doing to its own citizens.

  Rachel Heller went into detail on how difficult the renunciation process is in her above linked article, but even after months and months of interviews, the USA piles on a $2,350 “renunciation fee” and an exit tax on your net worth, in addition to a “doxxing” of your name and personal details in a Federal register, done to “name and shame” you for renouncing your citizenship.

  It is sad that Americans have been forced to renounce their citizenship to comply with the onerous restrictions on their rights as a result of the Obama administration’s FATCA law.  But they didn’t give up their citizenship because they all of a sudden became un-American; no, they did it because of a law that has turned living and/or working abroad into an expensive, onerous, bureaucratic nightmare for the ordinary American citizen.  Repealing FATCA should be almost as high on Trump’s list as repealing Obamacare, but unfortunately for the citizens living abroad, a repeal of this law is not likely anytime soon, as Trump seems quite preoccupied with other affairs at the moment.

  What is even more sad, however, is that these citizens who have renounced will not be coming back, or re-applying for citizenship anytime soon.  Most were already living abroad permanently, and had no interest in ever moving back.  Because of FATCA and the IRS, and nothing else, they will no longer enjoy the protections of afforded to them when they were born.  FATCA and its ridiculous system has ensnared law-abiding American expats into a constant battle with the IRS, all over the day-to-day activities all citizens engage in.

  

  Regrettably, no new legislation can change that fact, undo all of the damage FATCA has already caused, or magically bring back the citizenship rights of those who have chosen to give it up, solely to avoid FATCA’s unjust burden.

  

  

• This Won't End Well – China Skyscraper Edition

  China has been on a skyscraper-building boom for years, but, we suspect, 2016 may have seen the mal-investment boom jump the shark.

  As Goldman Sachs illustrates in the following chart, China was head, shoulders, knees, and toes above the aggregate of the rest of the world in terms of skyscraper completions in 2016…

  

  Could record-setting skyscrapers signal economic over-expansion and a misallocation of capital?

  EWN Interactive, a subscription service focused on technical analysis, thinks so. The following infographic follows the “Skyscraper Curse” through six different market tops and subsequent crashes over the past century.

  It is gigantic in size, so please click here or the below image to access the legible version:

  

  Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

  EWM Interactive sums up the infographic with these words:

  In the market, extreme optimism results in price bubbles. One of the real-life manifestations of extremely positive social mood is the construction of enormous buildings. Market tops and skyscrapers often seem to emerge simultaneously, because both phenomena are the result of the illusion of infinite prosperity.

   

  But extreme psychological conditions do not last very long. That is the reason why record-breaking buildings, whose construction starts during a market bubble, are often completed after the bubble’s collapse.

  *  *  *

  In January we noted a perfect example of the smoke-and-mirror-ness of China's credit-fueled expansion, as a 27-storey high-rise building which was completed on November 15th 2015 was just demolished, "having been left unused for too long."

  

  And just this week, another illustration of Keynesian perfection as China created, then destroyed 19 massive structures, to make room for an even bigger skyscraper. The epic explosion that took place in Wuhan, the capital city of Hubei province, leveled 19 seven to 12-story structures in a controlled demolition, the South China Morning Post newspaper reported, citing local media. The city authorities are planning to demolish at least 32 buildings to make way for a new business center that will reportedly feature a 707-meter tall skyscraper, which is to be one of the tallest buildings in the world.

  *  *  *

  The silver-lining – now workers can clean up the mess, dig a bigger hole… and fill that in – all in the name of Keynesian "growth."

  

  

• The Other 'Ban' That Was Quietly Announced Last Week

  Submitted by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

  Most of the world is in an uproar right now over the travel ban that Donald Trump hastily imposed late last week on citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries.

  But there was another ban that was quietly proposed last week, and this one has far wider implications: a ban on cash.

  The European Union’s primary executive authority, known as the European Commission, issued a “Road Map” last week to initiate continent-wide legislation against cash.

  There are already a number of anti-cash legislative measures that have been passed in individual European member states.

  In France, for example, it’s illegal to make purchases of more than 1,000 euros in cash.

  And any cash deposit or withdrawal to/from a French bank account exceeding 10,000 euros within a single month must be reported to the authorities.

  Italy banned cash payments above 1,000 euros back in 2011; Spain has banned cash payments in excess of 2,500 euros.

  And the European Central Bank announced last year that it would stop production of 500-euro notes, which will eventually phase them out altogether.

  But apparently these disparate rules don’t go far enough.

  According to the Commission, the presence of cash controls in some EU countries, coupled with the lack of cash controls in other EU countries, creates loopholes for criminals and terrorists.

  So that’s why the European Commission is now working to standardize a ban on cash, or at least implement severe restrictions and reporting, across the entire EU.

  The Commission’s roadmap indicates that forthcoming legislation, likely to be enacted next year.

  This is happening. And it may serve as the perfect case study for the rest of the world.

  A growing bandwagon of academics and policy makers in other countries, including the United States, UK, Australia, etc. has been calling for prohibitions against cash.

  It’s always the same song: cash is a tool for criminals and terrorists.

  Harvard economist Ken Rogoff is a leading voice in the War on Cash; his new book The Curse of Cash claims that physical currency makes the world less safe.

  Rogoff further states “all that cash” is being used for “tax evasion, corruption, terrorism, the drug trade, human trafficking. . .”

  Wow. Sounds pretty grim.

  Apparently pulling out a $5 bill to tip your valet makes you a member of ISIS now.

  Of course, this is total nonsense.

  A recent Gallup poll from last year shows that a healthy 24% of Americans still use cash to make all or most of their purchases, compared to the other options like debit cards, credit cards, checks, bank transfers, PayPal, etc.

  And the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco released a ton of data late last year showing that:

  • 52% of grocery purchases, along with personal care products, are made in cash
  • 62% of purchases up to $10 are made in cash
  • But even at much higher amounts over $100, nearly 1 in 5 purchases are still made using physical cash

  This doesn’t sound life nefarious criminal activity to me.

  It seems that perfectly normal, law-abiding citizens still use cash on a regular basis.

  But that doesn’t seem to matter.

  A bunch of university professors who have probably never been within 1,000 miles of ISIS think that a ban on cash would make us all safer from terrorists.

  You probably recall the horrible Christmas attack in Berlin last month in which a Tunisian man drove a truck through a crowded pedestrian mall, killing 12 people.

  Well, the attacker was found with 1,000 euros in cash.

  The logic, therefore, is to ban cash.

  I’m sure he was also found wearing pants. Perhaps we should ban those too.

  This idea that criminals and terrorists only deal in bricks of cash is a pathetic fantasy regurgitated by the serially uninformed.

  I learned this first hand, years ago, when I was an intelligence officer in the Middle East: criminals and terrorists don’t need to rely on cash.

  The 9/11 attackers spent months living in the United States, and they routinely used bank accounts, credit cards, and traveler’s checks to finance themselves.

  And both criminal organizations and terrorist networks have access to a multitude of funding options from legitimate businesses and charities, along with access to a highly developed internal system of credit.

  A cash ban wouldn’t have prevented 9/11, nor would it have prevented the Berlin Christmas attack.

  What cash controls do affect, however, are the financial options of law-abiding people.

  These policymakers and academics acknowledge that banning cash would reduce consumers’ financial privacy. And that’s true.

  But they’re totally missing the point. Cash isn’t about privacy.

  It’s one of the only remaining options in a financial system that has gone totally crazy.

  Especially in Europe, where interest rates are negative and many banks are on the verge of collapse, cash is a protective shelter in a storm of chaos.

  Think about it: every time you make a deposit at your bank, that savings no longer belongs to you. It’s now the bank’s money. It’s their asset, not yours.

  You become an unsecured creditor of the bank with nothing more than a claim on their balance sheet, beholden to all the stupidity and shenanigans that they have a history of perpetrating.

  Banks never miss an opportunity to prove to the rest of the world that they do not deserve the trust that we place in them.

  And for now, anyone who wishes to divorce themselves from these consequences can simply withdraw a portion of their savings and hold cash.

  Cash means there is no middleman standing between you and your savings.

  Banning it, for any reason, destroys this option and subjects every consumer to the whims of a financial system that is stacked against us.

  Do you have a Plan B?

  

  

• Can Trump Deliver?

  Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

  My view of Trump is conditional and awaits evidence. I am encouraged by the One Percent’s opposition to Trump, or we have just experienced the greatest ruse in history. Indeed, a pointless ruse, as the Establishment had its candidate in Hillary.

  Trump’s executive orders don’t support the argument that he is acting for the One Percent. Trump nixed the global corporations’ beloved TPP. He is trying to close down the mass immigration that the corporations use to suppress domestic wage rates. He is committed to normalizing relations with Russia, much to the discomfort of the neoconservatives and the military/security complex.

  As for Mnuchin, he left Goldman Sachs in 2002, the same year that Nomi Prins left Goldman Sachs. That was 14 years ago. We know for a fact that Nomi, a former managing director, is not an operative for Goldman Sachs, so my position is to wait and see what Mnuchin does before we declare him to be a Goldman Sachs agent. For a different view see Nomi Prins in the Guest section of this website.

  Think about it this way: If Trump is sincere, and the Ruling Establishment seems to think that he is, about cleaning out a nest of outlaws, what better help could he have than one of the outlaws?

  Change from the top requires tough mean people. Anyone else would be run over.

  My position is to wait for the evidence. For years my readers have said that they need some hope. Trump’s attack on the Ruling Establishment gives them hope. Why take this hope away prematurely?

  From the beginning my concern has been that Trump has no experience in the economic and foreign policy debates. He doesn’t know the issues or the players. But he knows two big things: the middle and working class are hurting, and conflict with Russia could result in thermo-nuclear war. My view is support him on these two most important of all issues.

  My worry is that Trump has already gone off course on better relations with Russia. Trump had the sense to speak during his first week in office with Russia’s President Putin. Reports are that the one hour conversation went well. However, the report from the Trump administration is that the sanctions were not mentioned and that Trump is considering connecting the removal of the sanctions with a reduction in nuclear arms.

  Clearly, Trump needs more astute advisors than he has. Confronted with 28 NATO countries, Russia, the population of which is dwarfed by this collection of countries and armaments, relies on its nuclear weapons to deal with the potential threat. During the Obama regime, the threat to Russia must have seemed to be very real, as the demonization of Russia and its President were based entirely on obvious lies and reached levels of provocation seldom seem in history without leading to war.

  If I had been Trump’s advisor, I would have insisted that the first thing that Trump tell Putin is that “the sanctions are history and I apologize for the insult based on the fabricated lies of my predecessor.”

  This is what was needed. Once trust is restored, then the matter of reduction in nuclear arms can be raised without making the Russian government concerned that the duplicitous Americans are setting them up for attack.

  If you were a Russian, if you were a member of the Russian government, if you were president of Russia, if you had experienced an American coup that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine, a province that was part of Russia for 300 years, if you had experienced an American inspired attack on the Russian residents and Russian peace-keeping forces in South Ossetia, long a province of Russia, that caused the intervention of the Russian armed forces, an intervention blamed by the US government on “Russian aggression,” would you trust the United States? Only if you are a complete fool.

  Trump needs advisors sufficiently knowledgable to tell him about the situation that he has committed himself to improve.

  Who are these advisors?

  Consider now the “Muslim ban.” Muslim refugees are a problem for the US and Europe because the US and its NATO puppets have bombed a large number of Muslim countries entirely on the basis of lies. One might have thought, that with all its experience of war, the Western countries would be aware that wars produce refugees. But apparently not.

  The easiest and most certain way to deal with the problem of Muslim refugees is to stop the bombings that produce refugees.

  Apparently, this solution is beyond the grasp of the Trump administration. According to news reports—and considering the presstitute status of news organizations one never knows—the new Trump administration authorized a SEAL team attack in Yemen that murdered an 8 year old girl along with a number of women and children on January 29. As far as I can ascertain, no women are marching in opposition to the Trump administration’s continuation of the policy of the Bush/Obama regime of murdering Muslims in the name of a hoax “war on terror.”

  Trump’s Archilles’ heel is his belief in the “Muslim threat,” an orchestrated threat cooked up by the neoconservatives. If Trump wants to defeat ISIS, all he needs to do is to stop the US government and CIA from funding ISIS. ISIS is Washington’s creation, used to overthrow Libya and sent to Syria to overthrow Assad until the Russians intervened.

  Someone needs to have enough geo-political knowledge to tell Trump that he cannot simultaneously mend relations with Russia and revive the conflict with Iran and threaten China.

  As I feared, Trump has no idea who to appoint in order to achieve his agenda.

  Now let’s turn to Trump’s critics: Identity Politics, that is, the explanation of Western history as the victimization of everyone by white heterosexual males. The attacks on Trump lack legitimacy, and everyone except those immersed in victim politics sees that. The same people who march against Trump and condemn his Muslim ban do not march against the wars that produce the Muslim refugees and immigrants. Trump’s opponents are in the illogical position of supporting the “war on terror” and the 9/11 story on which the war is based, but objecting to the ban on entry of “Muslim terrorists” into the US. If Muslims are terrorists as the Bush/Obama narative claims, it is totally irresponsible to admit into the US Muslims harmed by Washington’s attacks on their countries who might have thoughts of revenge.

  The liberal/progressive/left long ago abandoned the working class. The consequence of their illegitimate complaints will be to lump all dissent into their illegitimate category. Thus truth-tellers along with fiction-tellers will be shut down. The public will not be able to differenate between the orchestrated attacks on Trump and those telling the truth.

  My conclusion is that the stupidity of Identity Politics by discrediting dissent will empower the worst elements of the right-wing. If Goldman Sachs is also operating against us, as Nomi Prins believes, then the US is history.

  

  

• California Considering Legislation To Become First Ever Sanctuary State

  We’ve written frequently in recent weeks/months about the brewing battle between the Trump administration and so-called “sanctuary cities” where local police officers are specifically instructed to ignore federal immigration laws.  Now, the leftist state of California is considering a new senate bill that would have the entire state become America’s first “sanctuary state.”

  According to CBS Los Angeles, Senate Bill 54, written by Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon of Los Angeles, will come to the floor for it’s first public hearing today.  While Democrat-controlled cities like Los Angeles, San
  Francisco and Sacramento are already considered sanctuary cities, SB54
  would enforce the same protections for illegal immigrants on more
  conservative California cities in the San Joaquin Valley and elsewhere.

  As if that weren’t enough, CBS points out that the bill will also consider providing taxpayer dollars to fund lawyers for illegal immigrants facing deportation. 

  California may prohibit local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities, creating a border-to-border sanctuary in the nation’s largest state as legislative Democrats ramp up their efforts to battle President Donald Trump’s migration policies.

   

  The legislation is scheduled for its first public hearing Tuesday as the Senate rushes to enact measures that Democratic lawmakers say would protect immigrants from the crackdown that the Republican president has promised.

   

  While many of California’s largest cities — including Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sacramento — have so-called sanctuary policies that prohibit police from cooperating with immigration authorities, much of the state does not.

   

  The Democratic legislation, written by Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon of Los Angeles, comes up for debate less than a week after Trump signed an order threatening to withdraw some federal grants from jurisdictions that bar officials from communicating with federal authorities about someone’s immigration status.

   

  The Senate Public Safety Committee considers SB54 Tuesday morning. The Judiciary Committee will also consider fast-tracked legislation that would spend state money, in an amount that has not been disclosed, to provide lawyers for people facing deportation.

  Of course, this new California bill comes just as Trump signed an executive order to make good on his campaign pledge to block federal funding
  to states and cities where local law enforcement refuse to report
  undocumented immigrants they encounter to federal authorities.  Here are recent comments from White
  House press secretary Sean Spicer:

  “The American people are no longer going to have to be forced to subsidize this disregard for our laws,” Spicer said.

  Spicer said an executive order signed by Trump on Wednesday directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to look at federal funding to cities to figure out “how we can defund those streams.”

  The move by the Trump administration threatens $2.3 billion in annual funding to the nation’s 10 largest cities.

  

   

   

  As we noted a few days ago, California has already threatened counter measures to withhold tax payments to the U.S. Treasury to the extent Trump makes good on his promise to block federal grants to the rogue state.

  KPIX5 reports that officials are looking for money that flows through Sacramento to the federal government that could be used to offset the potential loss of billions of dollars’ worth of federal funds if President Trump makes good on his threat to punish cities and states that don’t cooperate with federal agents’ requests to turn over undocumented immigrants, a senior government source in Sacramento said.

   

  It almost feels like this showdown between Trump and California Governor Jerry Brown should be a Pay-Per-View event.

  And here is the full text of California Senate Bill 54, for your reading pleasure:

  

  

• Sizing Up The Bubble – A Major Inflection Point Is Coming

  Submitted by John Rubino via DollarCollapse.com,

  Fund manager John Hussman is always good for dramatic charts. Here’s a recent one:

  

  This ratio is even scarier than it looks, says Hussman:

  Historically-reliable valuation measures now approach those observed at the 2000 bubble peak. Yet even this comparison overlooks the fact that in 2000, the overvaluation featured a subset of very large-capitalization stocks that were breathtakingly overvalued, while most stocks were more reasonably valued (see Sizing Up the Bubble for details). In many ways, the current speculative episode is worse, because it has extended to virtually all risk-assets.

   

  To offer some idea of the precipice the market has reached, this chart shows the median price/revenue ratio of individual S&P 500 component stocks. This median now stands just over 2.45, easily the highest level in history. The longer-term norm for the S&P 500 price/revenue ratio is less than 1.0. Even a retreat to 1.3, which we’ve observed at many points even in recent cycles, would take the stock market to nearly half of present levels.

  One of the reasons share prices have risen so dramatically relative to revenues is that corporations are earning a lot more on each dollar of sales these days. How are they doing that? By squeezing their workers.

  The following chart, from the Economic Policy Institute shows labor’s share of corporate income plunging recently.

  

  The next chart illustrates the same point from a different angle. Workers, it seems, have been producing more per hour but their pay hasn’t kept up as their bosses held onto more of the resulting profit.

  

  A big part of this has been due to offshoring. If you close a factory where the workers make $30 an hour and set up in a place where your new workers make $5, then the $25 difference flows to the bottom line. Other contributors are automation, which is both inexorable and hugely favorable for the guys who own the robots, and the fact that the minimum wage in many states has kept up with neither the true inflation rate nor the increase in free-trade driven corporate earnings.

  As EPI’s Josh Bivens puts it:

  This 6.8 percentage-point decline in labor’s share of corporate income might not seem like a lot, but if labor’s share had not fallen, employees in the corporate sector would have $535 billion more in their paychecks today. If this amount was spread over the entire labor force (not just corporate sector employees) this would translate into a $3,770 raise for each worker.

  For stock market investors, the scary thing about this imbalance between capital and labor is that it’s only temporary. As the details and magnitude of the scam have been exposed, the political tide has shifted. At the national level, fed-up US workers have installed an anti-free trade administration that is already tilting the playing field towards domestic workers. At the state and local level, calls for a higher minimum wage are being heard and acted upon. A major French party has even nominated a presidential candidate who wants to tax robots.

  So it’s safe to assume that the above charts will develop serious inflection points going forward, as a rising share of profits flow to the nether regions of the org chart and investors respond by lowering the value they place on a given dollar of corporate revenues.

  As Hussman notes, just a return to 1990s valuation levels would cut the average US stock in half.

  

  

• Meet America's Newest Supreme Court Justice: Judge Neil Gorsuch

  Confirming a choice that many had already pegged as a front-runner to fill Antonin Scalia’s vacant seat, President Trump officially announced Judge Neil Gorsuch as his nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States. Gorsuch, 49, the youngest supreme court nominee in 25 years, was among a group of federal judges reported in recent weeks to be on Trump’s shortlist. A strict adherent of judicial restraint known for sharply-written opinions and bedrock conservative views, Gorsuch, a Colorado native, is popular among his peers and is seen as having strong backing among Republicans generally.

  A fly-fishing enthusiast and skier who lives outside Boulder, Colorado, Gorsuch lived in Washington DC as a boy, after his mother Anne Gorsuch Burford was appointed by Reagan to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. After graduating from Columbia University, Gorsuch, who is said to have “an inexhaustible store of Winston Churchill quotes”, went on to Harvard Law school and attended Oxford University on a Marshall scholarship. He worked as a corporate lawyer in Washington for a decade before his appointment to the circuit court by George W Bush in 2006, a post to which the Senate confirmed him by voice vote.

  Per Politico, Gorsuch has the typical pedigree of a Supreme Court Justice with degrees from Columbia, Harvard and Oxford.  Moreover, Gorsuch’s professional background includes time at a Washington law firm, the Department of Justice and clerkships with Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy, and some conservative analysts theorize that he could assert a rightward influence on the centrist Ronald Reagan nominee.

  Gorsuch has the typical pedigree of a high court justice. He graduated from Columbia, Harvard and Oxford, clerked for two Supreme Court justices and did a stint at the Department of Justice.  He attended Harvard Law with former President Barack Obama.

   

  His work background includes time as a partner with the Washington law firm Kellogg Huber Hansen Todd Evans & Figel, a stint with the U.S. Department of Justice and clerkships with Supreme Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy.

   

  Since 2006, he has served on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, in Colorado. His supporters note that he is an outdoorsman who fishes, hunts and skies. On the court, conservatives hope he could become the intellectual heir to Scalia, long the outspoken leader of the conservative bloc.

  

  For conservatives, Gorsuch meets conservative standards as an originalist and a textualist — someone who interprets the Constitution and statutes as they were originally written. His family has ties to the Republican party locally and in Washington, and at the age of 49, he could sit on the high court for decades — a big plus for conservative supporters.  Per The Denver Post:

  Gorsuch is best known nationally for taking the side of religious organizations that opposed parts of the Affordable Care Act that compelled coverage of contraceptives. In one of those cases, Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby Stores, he wrote of the need for U.S. courts to give broad latitude to religious beliefs.

   

  “It is not for secular courts to rewrite the religious complaint of a faithful adherent, or to decide whether a religious teaching about complicity imposes ‘too much’ moral disapproval on those only ‘indirectly’ assisting wrongful conduct,” he noted in a concurring opinion.

   

  The Supreme Court later ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, which now is not required to subsidize birth control that it finds objectionable.

   

  Gorsuch also has written against euthanasia and assisted suicide, the latter of which Colorado legalized last November. “All human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong,” he wrote in his 2006 book “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia.”

  Of course, while his conservative record will no doubt be enticing to Republican Senators, Gorsuch’s past support of term limits may draw criticism from both sides of the aisle, as can’t have anyone disrupting the power structure of Washington D.C. now can we.

  One position that might give pause to the lawmakers voting on his nomination is his past advocacy on behalf of term limits. In 1992 he co-wrote a paper for the Cato Institute that argued term limits are “constitutionally permissible.”

   

  “Recognizing that men are not angels, the Framers of the Constitution put in place a number of institutional checks designed to prevent abuse of the enormous powers they had vested in the legislative branch,” he wrote. “A term limit, we suggest, is simply an analogous procedure designed to advance much the same substantive end.”

  As the Guardian notes, Trump’s nominee has the potential to tip the court one way or the other on those questions. If confirmed, Gorsuch would return the court to nine justices, filling a seat left vacant since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016.  Working for the last year with an even number of justices, the court issued split 4-4 decisions on high-stakes questions such as the protection of undocumented immigrants and the health of public unions, leaving lower court rulings in place.

  The next justice to be confirmed may break such ties, giving new strength to the court’s conservative bloc, which could be further buttressed by future Trump nominations in the case of the retirement or death of a justice. One of the four liberal-leaning justices on the court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, turns 84 in March. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a centrist on the court who has sometimes split tie votes for the progressive wing, is 80 years old.

  Gorsuch’s track record as a judge on the US court of appeals for the 10th circuit does not shed obvious light on how he might rule as a supreme court justice on hot-button topics such as abortion and marriage equality. He is the author of a book about euthanasia in which he writes, “to act intentionally against life is to suggest that its value rests only on its transient instrumental usefulness for other ends.”

  Ideological strands running through Gorsuch’s appeals court rulings would seem likely to endear him to congressional Republicans and Trump’s conservative base. He has shown himself to be solicitous to claims of religious exemptions from the law, to gun rights claims and to the prosecution of death penalty cases.

  During Trump’s announcement, Gorsuch addressed the crowd briefly, declaring himself “honored and humbled” and promising to be a “faithful servant to the constitution and laws of this great country” and paying tribute to the principles of partiality, independence, collegiality and courage.

  For a lawyer’s view on Gorsuch, read this SCOTUSblog profile on Gorsuch. Some of his key legal positions are below

  • Second Amendment: He wrote in United States v. Games-Perez these rights “may not be infringed lightly.”
  • Roe v. Wade: Gorsuch has never had the opportunity to write on Roe v. Wade. But, for any indication on how he would vote on abortions, the “right to privacy” defense from the dormant commerce clause is relevant, and he isn’t buying it. This clause, known as “dormant” since it is not explicitly written out in the Constitution, indicates that since Congress regulates interstate commerce, states cannot pass legislation that unduly burdens or discriminates against other states and interstate commerce.
     
  • Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius: He distrusts efforts to remove religious expression from public spaces generally, but watch out for cases citing RFRA and RLUIPA — he ruled in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius that the contraception mandate in Obamacare placed an undue burden on the company’s religious exercise and violated RFRA.
  • Capital punishment: Gorsuch is not friendly to requests for relief from death sentences through federal habeas corpus.
  • Criminal law: Gorsuch believes there is an overwhelming amount of legislation about criminal law, and believes that cases can be interpreted in favor of defendants even if it hurts the government. On mens rea — which means “guilty mind,” or essentially the intent to commit a crime — Gorsuch is willing to read narrowly even if it means it doesn’t favor the prosecution.
  • Checks and balances: Gorsuch does not like deferring to federal agencies when they interpret laws, so watch out for use of the Chevron rule, which allows federal agents to enforce laws in any way that is not expressly prohibited. Gorsuch may push back.

  As a side note, per the The Denver Post, Gorsuch comes from a well known Republican family whose mother served in the Reagan Administration before being forced to resign in 1983, facing a criminal investigation and a House contempt of Congress citation over records related to alleged political favoritism in toxic-waste cleanups. 

  Gorsuch comes from a well-known Colorado Republican family. His mother, the late Anne Gorsuch Burford, was Environmental Protection Agency director for the Reagan administration for 22 months. She slashed the agency’s budget and resigned under fire in 1983 during a scandal over mismanagement of a $1.6 billion program to clean up hazardous waste dumps.

  With that, let the Senate confirmation theatrics commence.

  Under current Senate rules, which require 60 votes for a supreme court confirmation, Gorsuch would need to win the support of multiple Democrats, who count 48 Senate caucus members to the Republicans’ 52.

  If the Democrats follow through with a filibuster, however, those rules could change. The previous Democratic leadership of the Senate changed the rules to require fewer votes for the confirmation of most executive nominees, and the current Republican leadership could make an additional change to the rules. McConnell earlier had vowed to confirm Trump’s nominee. White House press secretary Sean Spicer downplayed the looming threat of an all-consuming political brawl over Trump’s nominee, telling reporters on Tuesday that he believed the Senate would reach the 60-vote threshold required to confirm supreme court appointees.

  Interest groups across the political spectrum will spend millions on a public campaign to legitimize or tear down a supreme court nominee. Already, conservative groups are running ads to pressure Senate Democrats in red states into siding with Republicans over the nominee.

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Say Hello To China's ICBMs

  Authored by Pepe Escobar via SputnikNews.com,

  China's alleged deployment of a DF-41 strategic ballistic missile brigade to Heilongjiang province, bordering Russia, triggered a fascinating spectacle; how to spin – or not to spin – what necessarily represents a milestone in Russia-China's strategic partnership.

  

  The Global Times stressed Hong Kong and Taiwan media interpreted pictures of the DF-41 were taken in Heilongjiang, admitting there was no official confirmation from Beijing while hoping the "strategic edge" would soon be confirmed.

  Russian media was way more explicit, with military analyst Konstantin Sivkov stressing that the DF-41, as positioned, would not be able to target Russia's Far East and most of Eastern Siberia; and Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov noting that "if the reports prove correct, the military build-up in China is not perceived as a threat to our country."

  Of course not. The Russia-China strategic partnership, which, as I argued, needs to be broken according to Trump's shadow foreign policy adviser Henry Kissinger's strategy, is a very serious business. If there were indeed a deployment, Russian intelligence would have been fully aware. Peskov's response also pre-empted the notion this might represent a Chinese response to potential US-Russia negotiations over nuclear disarmament.

  Still, all of the above did not prevent the Chinese Foreign Ministry to issue an attempt at a non-denial denial, describing the alleged deployment as "speculation and crude guesses".

  Go West, young missile

  The timing of the alleged deployment, with Team Trump doubling down on anti-Chinese rhetoric on their war of positioning geared to extract further trade concessions, may indeed betray a very graphic Beijing message.

  The DF-41, a three-stage solid-propellant missile, with a range of up to 15,000 km and capable of delivering up to 10 MIRVed nuclear warheads, is one of the most sophisticated – and secret — ICBMS on earth. Virtually everything about it is classified. Positioning in Heilongjiang, near the city of Daqing, close to the Russian border, implies a huge "dead zone" around it. So call it a mix of nuclear deterrence and a "message" to the ultimate target — the West Coast of the United States.

  This propels the matter to an even more serious sphere than a possible upcoming crisis in the South China Sea, where the Pentagon, under the pretext of "freedom of navigation", is obsessed in maintaining "access", Trump or no Trump.

  If there ever were an attempted American blockade in the South China Sea, it would be easy to take out the Chinese-developed islands/islets/rocks/shoals. But far from easy to grapple with the Chinese response; submarines with "carrier killer" missiles able to take out anything the US Navy may come up with.

  Islands/islets/rocks/shoals in the South China Sea have no inherent strategic significance for the US. What their upgrading – the Beltway would say "militarization" — does represent is China's progressive attempt to eventually deny access to the US Navy.

  Enter the "messenger" DF-41. The technical reasons why Russia does not see the DF-41 as a threat are simple – and may unveil the rationale behind the alleged deployment.

  Beijing has been able to deploy its predecessor, the DF-31 – which is able to target Russia — for more than a decade now. And a simple analysis of distance and trajectory reveals that Heilongjiang province is the optimum location for the DF-41 to target the whole of the continental US.

  It's virtually guaranteed that an official Chinese confirmation of the DF-41 deployment will accelerate a nuclear arms race, involving all players from Russia, China and the US to India and Pakistan and even North Korea.

  But more than this, it will be yet another lethal blow to the Beltway's master strategy – first deployed by Dr. Zbig "Grand Chessboard" Brzezinski – of trying to prevent the emergence of any peer competitor, or worse, an alliance of peer competitors such as Russia-China.

  Just at the start of the Trump era, the new reality could not be more striking. Not long ago, it was "say hello to Russia-China". Now it's "say hello to China's ICBMs."

  

  

• FaKe TeaRS…

  

  

• Dallas Fed Gives The Best Forecast Of What The Trump Economy Will Look Like

  One of the least convoluted, most insightful and thus best forecasts of what the first few months of the Trump administration will look like, came from one of the respondents of today’s Dallas Fed manufacturing survey. This is what the respondent said:

  President Trump looks to do things that will be favorable for business, which would improve employment and growth if successful. However, protesters are all over the place, so I tend to think that will cause trouble for the country and for business.

  Those 42 words, with a sufficient margin of error on either side, pretty much summarize everything that will happen in the next 6-12 months: a push to improve the economic growth (perhaps leading to overstimulation and a Fed that is far behind the inflationary curve, resulting in a sharp move higher in rates), offset by protesters who are “all over the place.”

  In addition to the above snippet, the Dallas Fed respondents, among the most outspoken of all regional Feds, had several other notable comments on the state of the US economy. Here are some highlights, first regarding the Trump administration:

  • We feel if the news of the new administration holds, we should be on an uptrend throughout the Trump presidency.
  • One of our manufacturing facilities is in Mexico. There is some uncertainty around potential impacts related to NAFTA and other policy changes from the Trump administration. Several large chain customers are asking for backup plans should there be any supply chain disruption.
  • We expect President Trump’s policies towards NAFTA and Mexico will have a negative impact in the borderland in the next six months.
  • We are expecting President Trump to have a very positive impact on the business environment. We need less regulation, less red tape, better trade deals and lower taxes.
  • We are waiting to see whether the new administration in Washington follows through on the threats to place additional tariffs on parts imported from Mexico and Asian countries. That could cause the price of our finished products to increase.
  • Generally, since the election, all activity has increased and quote activity for projects down the road has increased.

  And then, on various other secular trends within the US, and global, economy:

  • The global economies and U.S. economy are very weak and uncertain.
  • We have seen an improvement since the election.
  • Imports coming from Asia continue to plague the drilling equipment market. Foreign-governmental subsidized products are being brought over and sold at unprecedented low prices (prices not seen in the last 35 years).
  • The printing industry has been hurting for a long time and continues to decline. At the end of December we purchased a small print shop in order to increase sales, but we also increased overhead. Our lost sales have been a result of mergers and companies selling off divisions that are not profitable. We are still hopeful that a change in the economy will help increase sales.
  • Equipment purchases remain sluggish with a “wait and see” approach being taken by the refinery operators regarding crack spreads and available cash flow.
  • An unchanged outlook means it is still not good. I still seem to be in a secular 2–3 percent decline in sales. We are working to diversify, and while such efforts have been successful, they aren’t big enough yet to move the needle.
  • Order and shipment volumes have increased from low fourth-quarter levels across most industry sectors. We are experiencing some material price pressure.
  • Maybe it’s because we have hit the January doldrums that can occur for us this time of year, but it seems way slower with much less activity both in order entering and in quoting. It’s as if our customers are still out on vacation or taking a wait and see to the new president this Friday.

  But perhaps the best recent Dallas Fed response had nothing to do with either Trump, or the economy, but instead was in response to a special question from last month’s survey, dealing with “transactions in the Permian Basin”, which had received significant attention in the second half of the year, with some reports of acreage being overvalued, according to the Dallas Fed. The following comment expressing concern over acreage prices stood out for obvious reasons:

  “The Permian transactions are approaching price multiples associated with a bubble or a Ponzi scheme. Multiple private equity (PE)-backed buyers are simply trading assets from one to the other—very similar to transactions we witnessed in the early ‘80s real estate bubble, the tech bubble of ‘98–‘01 when venture capital firms co-invested with each other to drive up paper gains, and the oil transactions prior to 2014 when every PE fund, pension and endowment manager needed shale in their portfolios.”

  Let’s hope that this time it’s different.

  

  

• The Left Is Self-Destructing: Paul Craig Roberts Rages "The Mindlessness Is Unbearable"

  Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

  The mindlessness is unbearable.

  Amnesty International tells us that we must “fight the Muslim ban” because Trump’s bigotry is wrecking lives.

   

  Anthony Dimaggio at CounterPunch says Trump should be impeached because his Islamophobia is a threat to the Constitution.

  This is not to single out these two as the mindlessness is everywhere among those whose worldview is defined by Identity Politics.

  One might think that Amnesty International should be fighting against the Bush/Cheney/Obama regime wars that have produced the refugees by killing and displacing millions of Muslims. For example, the ongoing war that Obama inflicted on Yemen results in the death of one Yemeni child every 10 minutes, according to UNICEF. Where is Amnesty International?

  Clearly America’s wars on Muslims wreck far more lives than Trump’s ban on immigrants. Why the focus on an immigration ban and not on wars that produce refugees? Is it because Obama is responsible for war and Trump for the ban? Is the liberal/progressive/left projecting Obama’s monstrous crimes onto Trump? Is it that we must hate Trump and not Obama?

  Immigration is not a right protected by the US Constitution. Where was Dimaggio when in the name of “the war on terror” the Bush/Obama regime destroyed the civil liberties guaranteed by the US Constitution? If Dimaggio is an American citizen, he should try immigrating to the UK, Germany, or France and see how far he gets.

  The easiest and surest way for the Trump administration to stop the refugee problem, not only for the US but also for Europe and the West in general, is to stop the wars against Muslim countries that his predecessors started. The enormous sums of money squandered on gratuitous wars could instead be given to the countries that the US and NATO have destroyed. The simplest way to end the refugee problem is to stop producing refugees. This should be the focus of Trump, Amnesty, and Dimaggio.

  Is everyone too busy hating to do anything sensible?

  It is very disturbing that the liberal/progressive/left prefers to oppose Trump than to oppose war. Indeed, they want a war on Trump. How does this differ from the Bush/Obama war on Muslims?

  The liberal/progressive/left is demonstrating a mindless hatred of the American people and the President that the people chose. This mindless hatred can achieve nothing but the discrediting of an alternative voice and the opening of the future to the least attractive elements of the right-wing.

  The liberal/progressive/left will end up discrediting all critics, thereby empowering those to whom the liberal/progressive/left are most opposed.

  

  

  

• Koch Brothers Hint Support For Trump's SCOTUS Pick While Blasting Border Tax And Immigration Ban

  The Koch Brothers and their political advocacy group, Americans for Prosperity, held a meeting this weekend in Indian Wells, California for their army of $100,000+ donors that collectively support several conservative groups backed by the brothers.  Among other topics, the Koch donor network, helmed by billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, discussed plans to rally support for Trump’s SCOTUS pick.  According to Axios, top Koch officials said they’re waiting for the nominee’s identity to be revealed, but they liked the initial list of names Trump released. 

  The comments came just as Trump has confirmed his intention to reveal his pick for the Supreme Court tomorrow at 8pm EST.

  I have made my decision on who I will nominate for The United States Supreme Court. It will be announced live on Tuesday at 8:00 P.M. (W.H.)

  — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 30, 2017

   

  Meanwhile, as we’ve noted before, Trump’s pick is expected to come amid vows from Democrats to block any nominee put forward by his administration.  Appearing on Rachel Maddow last week, Schumer said the open SCOTUS seat was ‘stolen’ by Republicans and that “it’s hard to imagine a nominee that Donald Trump would choose, that would get Republican support, that we could support.”
  

   

  Under current rules, Republicans will need at least eight Democrats to support Trump’s nominee to overcome the 60-vote filibuster hurdle.  That said, Ted Cruz, among other Republicans, has already started lobbying for the “nuclear option” that would lower the confirmation vote threshold to a simple majority and pave the way for Republicans to confirm any Justice put forward, without Democrat support.  Per The Hill:

  Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) said Republicans should fight to get President Trump’s coming Supreme Court nominee confirmed by any means necessary.

   

  Trump has said he will be announcing his choice to fill the late Antonin Scalia’s seat on the bench next week.

   

  Republicans will need at least eight Democrats to support Trump’s nominee to overcome the 60-vote filibuster hurdle. But Cruz suggested the GOP shouldn’t rule out the so-called “nuclear option” to reduce the threshold to a majority. The move would be a gamble, setting a precedent that could weaken the GOP’s position if Democrats come back into power.

   

  “I think we should do whatever it takes to get him confirmed,” the former presidential candidate said on Fox News’ “Hannity” Tuesday night.

   

  When pressed about whether Republicans would employ the nuclear option this week, McConnell simply said: “The nominee will be confirmed.”

  But while the billionaire brothers may be aligned with Trump on his conservative SCOTUS picks, they have made no qualms about publicly opposing the new administration’s stance on the proposed “border tax” and immigration ban.  Per Fortune:

  AFP Chief Executive Officer Luke Hilgemann, in an interview, called the measure “a massive tax increase” on U.S. consumers, who would pay more for foreign goods. He urged Ryan to “go back to the drawing board.”

   

  AFP and its offshoot organizations have become a powerful force in U.S. politics, bolstering candidates and issues on federal and state levels.

   

  Besides defying Republican leaders on the border tax, the Koch-led organization on Sunday challenged Trump on a policy he implemented on Friday to stop the movement of people from countries with large Muslim populations from traveling to the United States.

   

  “The travel ban is the wrong approach and will likely be counterproductive,” said an official of the Koch network.

  Finally, the brothers also vowed to increase their spending in the 2018 election cycle to $300-$400 million, up from $250 million in 2016…apparently they didn’t waste enough money opposing Trump last year…but we’re sure another $150 million should definitely guarantee success.

  

  

• Tucker Carlson Challenges Head of Refugee Placement Agency (HIAS) to Explain American Values

  HIAS (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society) head, Mark Hetfield, debated Tucker Carlson this evening on the merits of accepting refugees into the country — declaring it was the responsibility of the United States to accept anyone in need — citing the plight of jews in 1921 and how we, as a nation, horribly failed them — which contributed to the death toll during World War 2.
   
  Tucker called him out for applying a straw man, revisionist, argument — asking Mark to explain what are ‘American values’ and how many refugees are we supposed to take in, considering there are upwards of 60 million, globally.
   
  I am sure you could imagine where this went.
   
  
   
  It’s important to note that organizations like HIAS make a living off admittance of refugees into the country. They aren’t honest brokers on the subject matter, since their livelihoods are dependent on government funds quantified off a number of refugees entering the country. In recent years, they’ve enjoyed solid growth, with revenues surging from $25m in 2012 to $40m in 2015, according to their 990 form filed with the IRS.
   
  More to that end, the directors of HIAS have enjoyed a prosperous living off the recent influx of refugees, allocating upwards of $17m (~50%) of revenues towards salaries and compensation.
   
  
   
  At the end of the day, they’re crony capitalists, sucking off the tit of government handouts — fueled by idealogues.
   

   

  Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com

  

• Trump On A Roll, Fires Director Of Immigration And Customs Enforcement

  Having said the infamous words “you’re fired” once already this evening, when President Trump relieved acting AG Sally Yates of her duties just after 9pm Eastern, and perhaps realizing just how much he missed the sound, moments ago Trump also relieved acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director Daniel Ragsdale, who was replaced with Thomas Homan, who previously led ICE’s “efforts to identify, arrest, detain, and remove illegal aliens, including those who present a danger to national security or are a risk to public safety, as well as those who enter the United States illegally or otherwise undermine the integrity of our immigration laws and our border control efforts.”

  There was no immediate reason given for Ragsdale’s dismissal.

  The full statement from DHS Secretary Kelly announcing Homan taking over as ICE Director is below.

  STATEMENT FROM SECRETARY KELLY ON THE PRESIDENT’S  APPOINTMENT OF THOMAS D. HOMAN AS ACTING ICE  DIRECTOR

   

  WASHINGTON — Today, the president appointed Thomas D. Homan acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

   

  Since 2013 Homan has served as the executive associate director of ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO). In this capacity, he led ICE’s efforts to identify, arrest, detain, and remove illegal aliens, including those who present a danger to national security or are a risk to public safety, as well as those who enter the United States illegally or otherwise undermine the integrity of our immigration laws and our border control efforts.

   

  Homan is a 33-year veteran of law enforcement and has nearly 30 years of immigration enforcement experience. He has served as a police officer in New York; a U.S. Border Patrol agent: a special agent with the former U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service; as well as supervisory special agent and deputy assistant director for investigations at ICE. In 1999, Mr. Homan became the assistant district director for investigations (ADDI) in San Antonio, Texas, and three years later transferred to the ADDI position in Dallas, Texas.

   

  Upon the creation of ICE Homan was named as the assistant agent in charge in Dallas. In March 2009, Homan accepted the position of assistant director for enforcement within ERO at ICE headquarters and was subsequently promoted to deputy executive associate director of ERO.

   

  Mr. Homan holds a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice and received the Presidential Rank Award in 2015 for his exemplary leadership and extensive accomplishments in the area of immigration enforcement.

   

  I am confident that he will continue to serve as a strong, effective leader for the men and women of ICE. I look forward to working alongside him to ensure that we enforce our immigration laws in the interior of the United States consistent with the national interest.

  Can Trump make it a Monday termination trifecta? We will find out soon enough.

  

  

• Hated By Those Who Hate Russia

  Authored by Iben Thranholm, originally posted at The Saker,

  Recently Marie Krarup, a member of the Danish Parliament for the Danish People’s Party – contacted me to say that the EU task force East Stratcom has placed me on a list branding me as a pro-Russian propagandist and is accusing me of spreading Russian disinformation.

  This organisation was set up in March 2015 by the European Council to implement an action plan on strategic communication to address what it labels ”Russia’s on-going disinformation campaigns”, allegedly aiming to destabilize European democracy. To this end, East StratCom ”publishes two public weekly newsletters to stay up to date with the latest disinformation stores and narratives”. Have a look at EastStratcoms website.

  This was shocking news to me. Marie Krarup requested a consultation with Danish Minister for Foreign Affairs Anders Samuelsen. She found that the task force accusation violated my constitutional rights under Danish law to exercise freedom of speech, and found this to be stark evidence of the EU usurping undemocratic and totalitarian privilege to list commentators, pundits and journalists that criticize EU policies and EU leaders.

  The minister disagreed. He stated that Iben Thranholm deserved her listing as a pro-Russian agent and should remain so listed. He indicated that I was hired by the Kremlin to destabilize Europe. Despite the consultation, this remains his position. No action has been taken to amend the list. No further comment has been offered on the case in the media.

  The consequences may be dire. If the conflict with Russia escalates, the state will have the right to imprison me as an enemy of the state. Already now I have been branded a traitor and unpatriotic. Many opinion leaders and colleagues have composed and published an open letter criticizing the ministry. Social media have been brimming with support, but my government remains stubborn in its accusation that I am a Russian agent. This means that I am no longer protected by the state of which I am a national.

  For the last couple of years, I have used Russian English-language media like RT op-ed section and Russia Insider for publishing my thoughts on the way the Western elites’ hatred of Christianity weakens and undermines Western culture.

  My choice of non-Western media like RT as a platform is certainly not motivated by any payment from Putin. No, it is rooted in the fact that as a conservative Christian Catholic, my thoughts and views are simply increasingly difficult to get published in Europe.

  For years now I have had to work as an independent journalist. No editor will take on the risk of employing a person who is open and outspoken about his or her Christian faith, let alone Catholic faith, the way I am. Christians are socially marginalized, derided, and viewed with suspicion if not actually as mentally disturbed. The few Christians left are either secularized – gone native by agreeing with the establishment – or have taken a vow of silence for fear of the political correctness storm troopers. They have no impact on European culture. Their salt has lost its power to keep society from putrefaction.

  The article that landed me on the East Stratcom list dealt precisely with the way the elite abused arguments of Christian charity to abandon registration of the identity of who entered which country and for adopting a blanket open-border policy when the tsunami of refugees and immigrants flooded across Europe’s borders in 2015. Their hatred of Christianity certainly does not keep them from abusing arguments of Christian charity divorced from its context when it suits their own agenda.

  Allow me to quote some passages from the article, entitled “Misguided Compassion Threatens to Become the Downfall of Europe”

  “Europe is like Judas, betraying its Christian tradition with the traitorous kiss of false compassion in order to obliterate the last vestige of Christian civilization in Europe. True charity always springs from a higher moral absolute, a clear distinction between right and wrong, good and evil. False charity offers compassion for the criminal and not the victim. No charity for the woman who is victimized by rape but pity for the perpetrator, the rapist. Such pity is a gross perversion.”

   

  “In spite of their use – or rather abuse – of “loving one’s neighbor”, politicians are devoid of the Christian basis for distinguishing good from evil. Our politicians promote the forces of evil and utterly abandon their victims. This is merely an extension of the policies of the West in the Middle East since the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Western politicians consistently identify evil as good, and good as evil. They unleash destructive forces to rampage unimpeded and oppress good wherever the West enters the scene with its military or economic warfare.”

   

  “The fierce hatred of the Western political elite for Christianity has robbed Europe of its moral compass. Using Christian arguments for waging war on Christianity and Christian culture is a vile demonic parody. From a spiritual perspective, it is clear that Europe has made an unholy alliance with islamism in order to annihilate its Christian civilisation. This diabolical scam wears a cloak of goodness and humanitarianism, but it is really a manifestation of moral decay and false altruism that threatens to bring about Die Untergang des Abendlandes, the end of Christian Europe”.

  At the consultation in the parliamentary committee meeting, the minister alleged that my article contained lies and myths that fitted into a Kremlin narrative of the decline of the West, and that my arguments bore no relation to reality.

  One may agree or disagree with this interpretation. The question is whether this makes me a Russian agent or an enemy of the state. The task force offers no proof of an agreement between the Kremlin and me. For the good reason that no such contract exists. It is an allegation, pure and simple. At the consultation, the minister refuses to take a position on the matter of principle involved in placing participants in the social debate on the list. He merely dismisses my statements as lies.

  It is highly revealing that the task force pounces on this article on this subject, because it deals precisely with distinguishing between the truth and lies, and points out that the political elite has entirely lost its ability to distinguish between the truth and lies. This abandonment of truth is far and away the greatest threat to world peace in this day. Russia is not.

  Today’s politics are entirely beyond the irrelevant left/right and red/blue paradigm.The real issue is truth v lies, good v evil, right v wrong.

  The American election campaign blew this truth wide open. There was hardly any real policy debate, but reams of lies were revealed as masquerading as truth. In its wake, the unspeak designers launched the phenomenon of “fake news” in order to regain control of the narrative. The EU task force has also been set up for achieving a monopoly for the EU version of acceptable reality. The war on truth rages on after President Trump’s inauguration, and the presstitute media now intensify their campaign to brand Trump as a liar.

  What irony that a very long epoch of relativism of values, during which the political elite and intellectuals decided that there is no truth, has now ended abruptly with a frenzied claim that truth is all that matters. What immense irony that those who taught young people that there is no truth now exalt themselves as truth tellers, and then hurls accusations of lying against any who does not toe the line of their pragmatic version of truth. The pinnacle of sad irony is that generations reared on the absence of truth from reality now clamor for truth. They have lost faith in the assumption that the media they trusted blindly are telling them the truth.

  The media have been roundly exposed as liars. Yet the media claim that the exposure of their lies is a lie and that people who want the truth are lying. Those who tell the truth are blamed as liars, while the media adamantly maintain that they are the truth tellers. Confused? The world has moved from the usual conflicts in the realm of geopolitics and economics to moral and spiritual warfare. The world now witnesses an epic confrontation between the truth and lies, light and darkness, that was kept invisible for so long.  A spiritual war is raging between those who choose good and those who choose to call good what is evil.

  Yet who is prepared and equipped for this epic battle of our day? Relativism of values has rendered many, if not most, completely without solid ground and the first idea of what is good and what is evil, utterly unable to recognize truth and defend themselves against lies. They have learned no rudiments on discerning because they have grown up with no spiritual foundation and no inkling of Christian truth. This is a big problem, as it is impossible to understand the world today if one has no spiritual eyes with which to see.

  No one can fight for truth, which is spiritual without the ability to recognize truth and distinguish it from the lie. Without the spiritual understanding, no one has the weapons to fight against evil and lies. The chaotic struggle raging in journalism and social media today is a visible expression of this spiritual war.

  Alexander Solzhenitsyn said that “godlessness is the first step to the Gulag”. When EU politicians adopt unconstitutional methods for listing political opponents or people who publish moral truth, they declare their godlessness before God and man, and wage war against Christianity and Christian culture. When the state and its ideology place themselves in God’s seat, all hell breaks loose. Democracy offers no guarantee: collectivism can exercise totalitarianism under democracy’s banner. The freedom of speech is now violated in Europe and there is now no freedom for journalists to speak the truth as they see it.

  In the 1940s, George Orwell wrote “during times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” This is our precise position today. Journalists must therefore accept it as a badge of honor and courage when the establishment brands them as liars and pro-Russian propagandists, for this is the highest evidence that they are speaking the truth. They must see themselves as freedom fighters and find comfort and strength in the words of Christ in the Gospel: “truth will set you free.”

  

  

• The United States Is On The Precipice Of Widespread Civil Unrest

  Submitted by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

  

  It doesn’t take much of a trigger to push extremely large crowds of very angry protesters into committing acts of rioting and violence.  And rioting and violence can ultimately lead to widespread civil unrest and calls for “revolution”.  The election of Donald Trump was perhaps the single most galvanizing moment for the radical left in modern American history, and we have already seen that a single move by Trump can literally cause protests to erupt from coast to coast within 48 hours.  On Friday, Trump signed an executive order that banned refugees from Syria indefinitely and that placed a 90 day ban on travel to the United States for citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.  Within hours, protesters began to storm major airports, and by Sunday very large crowds were taking to the streets all over the country…

  From Seattle to Newark, Houston to Boston, hundreds jammed airport terminals — lawyers, immigration advocates, ordinary citizens compelled to the front lines, many refusing to leave until those who had been detained by U.S. Customs had been freed or had obtained legal counsel.

   

  On Sunday, the movement caught fire and demonstrations and rallies erupted in communities across the U.S. from city halls to airports to parks. In the nation’s capital, the site of the march that drew a crushing 500,000 people Jan. 21, Pennsylvania Avenue was shut down Sunday as thousands trekked from the White House to the U.S. Capitol. An energized crowd stopped outside Trump’s showcase hotel along the avenue to shake fists and chant “shame.”

  You can see some really good pictures of the protests going on around the nation right here.

  As I was going through articles about these protests today, I remember one woman holding up a sign that said “Remove Trump By Any Means Necessary”.

  It doesn’t take much imagination to figure out what she was suggesting.

  Visions of violence are dancing in the heads of these very frustrated people, and they are being egged on by top members of Congress such as Chuck Schumer…

  ‘These orders go against what America has always been about,’ Schumer told the crowd in Battery Park according to the New York Daily News. ‘The orders make us less humanitarian, less safe, less American and when it comes to making us less safe people forget this, that’s why so many of our military, intelligence, security, and law enforcement leaders are opposed to this order and all those like it.’

   

  Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of Trump’s presidential rival, Hillary, tweeted a picture from the rally. It was captioned: ‘Yes. We will keep standing up for a country that matches our values and ideals for all. #NewYork #NoBanNoWall.’

  On Sunday, President Trump attempted to clarify what his executive order was really about and make it clear that it was not a ban on all Muslims.  The following comes from CNN…

  President Donald Trump insisted Sunday his travel ban on certain Muslim-majority nations would protect the United States from terrorists, after a weekend of outrage and confusion over the move.

   

  In an afternoon statement, Trump wrote the country would continue showing “compassion to those fleeing oppression.”

  Unfortunately, polls show that somewhere around a third of the country greatly dislikes Trump, and those people are more than ready to believe that Trump is a racist bigot that hates all Muslims.

  But the truth is that Trump does not hate any group of people.  His target is simply Islamic terror, and he is actually pro-immigration as long as it is legal immigration.

  Let us not forget that his wife is a legal immigrant.

  I know that Trump is quite eager to get things done, but putting out this executive order at this particular moment was definitely a case of poor timing.

  We are a nation that is deeply, deeply divided, and now this latest controversy threatens to divide us even further.

  When I was out earlier today, I saw a pro-Trump billboard that some business owner had put up that was urging liberals to quit their whining.

  On the surface that may sound funny, but it definitely doesn’t do anything to bring us together.

  If you give anger enough fuel, eventually it leads to violence.  I am certainly not suggesting that we should ever compromise on what we believe, but what I am suggesting is that there is a wise way to handle things and an unwise way to handle things.

  Someday, widespread civil unrest is going to sweep across the United States and major American cities will burn.

  My hope is that we can put this off for as long as possible.

  In fact, I sincerely hope that this will not happen at all during the Trump/Pence era.

  But you would have to be blind not to see the hate, anger and frustration that are all growing like cancer in the hearts of our young people.

  This is a time for the peacemakers.  If there are any left in Washington, we need them to rise up now and try to bring healing before it is too late.

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Despite Attackers Yelling "Allahu Akbar", Politicians Blame "Years Of Demonizing Muslims" For "Barbaric, Terrorist Act" In Quebec City Mosque

  Update: One day after the prime minister welcome Muslims into the country, it appears Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard calls mosque shooting a "terrorist act", and Greg Fergus, an MP in Quebec blamed "years of demonising Muslims" for the massacre…

  Quebec MP says deadly shooting at mosque is "a terrorist act that is…the result of years of demonising Muslims" https://t.co/H9PEImfv7Z pic.twitter.com/mBhzq0I3CR

  — Al Jazeera News (@AJENews) January 30, 2017

  Quebec police confirm: "The premises are secure and the occupants have been evacuated. The investigation continues," the SPVQ wrote on Twitter.

  A witness, who asked to remain anonymous, told CBC's French-language service Radio-Canada that two masked individuals entered the mosque.

  "It seemed to me that they had a Quebecois accent. They started to fire, and as they shot they yelled, 'Allahu akbar!' The bullets hit people that were praying. People who were praying lost their lives. A bullet passed right over my head," said the witness.

  Additionally, NYPD is steeping up patrol at all mosque/house-of-worship locations citywide, due to the shooting at a mosque in Quebec.

  *  *  *

  As we detailed earlier, five people were killed after gunmen opened fire in a Quebec City mosque during evening prayers, the mosque's president told reporters on Sunday Reuters reported. Police confirmed the shooting at a Quebec mosque in a tweet, confirming numerous fatalities.

  "There are many victims … there are deaths," a Quebec police‎ spokesman told reporters.

  Quebec City Constable Étienne Doyon told reporters that police received a call around 7:55 p.m. on Sunday, stating that shots had been heard at the Centre Culturel Islamique de Québec on Sainte-Foy St.

  "Why is this happening here? This is barbaric,” said the mosque's president, Mohamed Yangui. In June 2016, a pig’s head was left on the doorstep of the cultural centre, Reuters added. Yangui, who luckily was not inside the mosque during the shooting, said he received frantic calls from people at evening prayers. He said the injured had been taken to different hospitals across Quebec City.

  Horrible news of a shooting at a mosque in Quebec. Details still being sorted out. https://t.co/dSxBYtyvyi

  — Catherine Griwkowsky (@CGriwkowsky) January 30, 2017

  Gigantesque déploiement policier devant la Grande mosquée de Québec sur le chemin Saint-Foy. Ambulance vient quitter. #rcqc #mosqueequebec pic.twitter.com/ilD3A7DSnE

  — Alexandre Duval (@alexduval88) January 30, 2017

  Fusillade à une mosquée de Québechttps://t.co/JfsrjoQS50 pic.twitter.com/e7tepIYDu0

  — P.C. (@samyoscar) January 30, 2017

  According to local authorities, one of the shooters at the mosque used an AK-47.

  One of the shooters at the Quebec City mosque used an AK-47, authorities say. https://t.co/GlLz7MibId pic.twitter.com/B2d2k2UHNu

  — Steve Herman (@W7VOA) January 30, 2017

  Police launched an investigation last June after the severed head of a pig was left in front of one of the doors of the mosque, wrapped in cellophane with bows, ribbon and a card that read, “bonne appétit.” The incident took place during Ramadan, a month-long celebration during which Muslims fast between sunrise and sunset. Muslim dietary laws forbid eating pork at any time. Three weeks later, an Islamophobic letter entitled “What is the most serious: a pig’s head or a genocide” was distributed in the vicinity.

  In the neighboring province of Ontario, a mosque was set on fire in 2015, a day after an attack by gunmen and suicide bombers in Paris.

  As a reminder, just yesterday Canada's PM defied Trump's immigration order, and openly welcomed all those "fleeing prosecution" to Canada.

  To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada

  — Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) January 28, 2017

  As Canada's CBC reports, two suspects have been arre sted, but so far there are scant details about the identity of the shooters.

  

  

• First Big Shock For Wall Street: Republicans Warn No Trump Tax Reform Until Spring 2018

  When it comes to Wall Street, Trump can launch martial law, suspend habeas corpus and/or use the Constitution for kindling and the market could care less as stocks will still go up. However, threaten some of Trump’s core economic stimulus projects like infrastructure spending (i.e., more public debt to fund corporate bottom lines) or tax reform (even more public debt flowing through to EPS), and suddenly stocks will pay very close attention.

  It now appears that this particular “worst case” for stocks may be playing out. As we cautioned in our previous post looking at the impact of Trump tax reform on corporate earnings, the biggest risk for the controversial president is that “at this rate Trump may spend much of his first year dealing with immigration reform and Obamacare.”

  However, as Paul Ryan warned last week during the Republicans’ outing in Philadelphia, Trump’s “#1 priority”, repealing and replacing Obamacare may not take place for several months. To wit:

  House Speaker Paul Ryan told House and Senate Republicans that lawmakers likely won’t repeal and replace Obamacare until March or April. Speaking in the first major session of GOP lawmakers’ joint retreat in the City of Brotherly Love, Ryan said Wednesday that the health care law wouldn’t be repealed and subsequently replaced until spring.

   

  “What we heard today was Obamacare is front and center,” Rep. Chris Collins, R-N.Y., told reporters, referring to the first session of the retreat, which outlined President Donald Trump’s first 200 days in office, or the “200 Day Plan.”  “Repeal and replace,” Collins added. “The word was by the springtime.”

  And so the topic of eliminating Obamacare, which we explicitly warned could take up to two years to be replaced, is starting to drift off into the future.

  Ok fine, repealing and replacing Obamacare may be on hiatus, but at least Trump’s massive infrastructure project is still on track, and will be executed shortly. Guess again. According to Politico, the great bipartisan hope of 2017 – a massive public works initiative that would allow Donald Trump and Democrats to show they’re serious about putting blue-collar workers back to work – “may be in trouble before negotiations even begin.”

  Trump will almost certainly need Senate Democrats to get any infrastructure legislation through Congress, and this week they laid out a $1 trillion proposal this week that neatly matches the price tag of Trump’s own plan. But the similarities end there: If anything, Democrats set a mark that will be nearly impossible for the White House to meet. 

   

  The gaping disparity between the two approaches, and huge unanswered questions about where the money would come from, are serious warning signs for one of Trump’s top priorities. The biggest difference: Senate Democrats want to build on existing government programs and consider adding to the deficit, while Trump has emphasized tax credits that his advisers argue would pay for themselves.

   

  The politics of a bipartisan infrastructure deal were already rough for Trump, with GOP leaders wary of any new spending and more interested in tackling health care and tax reform. So this week’s Democratic infrastructure proposal, billed as a “challenge” to the new president, is a troubling sign as Trump pushes to make good on his frequent vow to be “the greatest jobs producer that God ever created.”

  Considering that a massive infrastructure spending stimulus has been one of the main drivers behind the recent surge in stocks, and especially behind industrial and material stocks, the encroachment of reality over “hope” may leave a sour taste in the mouths of a big subset of stock market bulls.

  But the worst news for Trump’s Wall Street supporters is neither the Obamacare delay, nor infrastructure spending hiatus, but his tax reform, arguably the single biggest driver behind the powerful market rally. Alas, as Reuters reports, things here too may be about to get indefinitely delayed into the future, to the point where the market may finally start asking itself if it has gone up too high, too fast.

  The reason for this was revealed last week in Philadelphia, when the reality of Trump’s aggressive fiscal spending agenda hit the brick wall of Congressional Republicans. According to Reuters, “as congressional Republicans gathered for an annual policy retreat in Philadelphia on Wednesday, the 100-day goal morphed into 200 days. As the week wore on, leaders were saying it could take until the end of 2017 – or possibly longer – for passage of final legislation.“

  And while Trump had a different idea when he spoke to lawmakers in Philadelphia, “telling them: Enough talk. Time to deliver”, he may have no recourse when dealing with the bitterly polarized and fragmented House of representatives:

  barely visible in Philadelphia, there are potential flashpoints of disagreement within the Republican rank-and-file in Congress as well as between Republican lawmakers and the unorthodox new president.

   

  These include how and when to replace Obamacare if Republicans succeed in their quest to repeal it; how to revamp the multi-layered tax code, whether to build a wall on the U.S. border with Mexico and the nature of the U.S. relationship with Russia.

  But the most troubling revelations was the following: “When it comes to tax reform, senior congressional aides said the spring of 2018 might be a more likely time than this year for the passage of legislation.“

  For thousands of financial professionals, the shattered illusion that Trump would somehow be able to channel through trillions in spending with little to no delay, may end up costing them dearly. Furthermore, now that Trump has managed to infuriate even more politicians, including at least 11 GOP members, with his recent flurry of executive orders, it is likely that the “due date” on tax reform was pushed even further back.

  Ultimately, the reason for the delay is the same one we warned about just days after Trump’s election: a republican party that is simply unprepared to authorize the kind of spending demanded by the president: “some also voiced fears that his big agenda would drive up deficits and said they were still searching for details on his plans.”

  Several Republican lawmakers and aides said they were wary of the cost of his plan to build a wall on the border with Mexico. Republican leaders have said the wall proposal under discussion would cost $12 billion to $15 billion cost but some congressional aides say it could end up easily topping $20 billion.

   

  Republican Representative Will Hurd, whose Texas district partially borders Mexico, went a step further, calling the wall an ineffective tool for stopping illegal immigration.

   

  Others warned a border adjustment tax on foreign goods to pay for that wall could hurt U.S. companies’ profits, raise costs for American consumers and spark retaliation by foreign trading partners.

  Not just others, but the billionaire Koch brothers, who as reported previously have emerged as the bigest opnnents of the proposed Border Tax due to concerns about the profitability of their various business operations.

  But before Trump even gets to tax reform, which he can not “fix” with an executive order, he has to figure out what to do with Obamacare, and even here things are slowly grinding to a halt.

  Some lawmakers also worry that some of their constituents could be at risk of losing healthcare coverage if the push to repeal Obamacare moves too quickly.

   

  “You don’t want to be the reason why we weren’t successful in getting these things done,” he said. Still, Cole said Republicans are taking stock of the potential cost of the biggest items on Trump’s agenda such as the wall, infrastructure projects, tax cuts and beefing up military spending. “I think they worry about it,” Cole said.

   

  Following Trump’s speech to the lawmakers on Thursday, Senator James Risch said that no decisions had been made on the replacement of Obamacare, a complex law that has expanded healthcare insurance to millions of Americans. “It’s going to take a while to resolve it,” Risch said. Asked by reporters whether Republicans had a clear idea of what Trump would like to replace Obamacare with, Risch responded, “In detail, no.”

  The problem for Trump, especially now that he has embraced the market as an indicator of his job success, is that with every passing day, the ‘detail’ will be demanded by those would buy stocks. And in its absence, instead of buying, we may finally see a period of aggressive stock selling to remind the president just what his promises to Wall Street were.

  

  

• "I'm A Woman Who Went To The Women's March And The March For Life. The Differences Were Stunning"

  Submitted by Antonia Okafor via Independent Journal Review,

  A week after the Inauguration of Donald Trump, politically active women across America could choose to make themselves heard at two major rallies revolving around women's issues. They could attend a pro-choice, feminist march known as the Women's March or they could wait one week and attend the 44th annual pro-life, March for Life.

  Some lucky few, such as myself, were able to attend both.

  

  The marches had their similarities. Both marches were held in D.C. Both marches were heavily attended by women. And both marches attracted people from all over the country to participate. But each march was not made equal.

  Being physically at the marches, it is easy to recognize differences between the two. In fact, some of the differences were downright stunning. Take a look for yourself, perhaps you will agree.

  Young Adults at the March for Life

  

  Image Credit: Drew Angerer/Getty Images

   

  Young Adults at the Women's March

  

  Image credit: Joshua Lott/AFP/Getty Images

   

  Examples of inclusion at The March for Life

  

  Image Credit: Destiny Herndon-de La Rosa/New Wave Feminists, used with permission

   

  Examples of “inclusion” at the Women's March

   

  Horrified that the @womensmarch has partnered w/an anti-choice org. Plse reconsider – inclusivity is not about bolstering those who harm us.

  — Jessica Valenti (@JessicaValenti) January 16, 2017

   

   

  Signs at the March for Life

  

  Image credit: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images

   

  

  Image Credit: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images

   

  

  Image Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

   

  Signs at the Women's March

  

  Image Credit: Ebet Roberts/Getty Images

   

  

  Image Credit: Cynthia Edorh/Getty Images

   

  

  Image Credit: Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images

   

  Attire at The March for Life

  

  Image Credit: ZACH GIBSON/AFP/Getty Images

   

  

  Image Credit:TASOS KATOPODIS/AFP/Getty Images

  Attire at the Women's March

  

  Image Credit:Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

   

  

  Image Credit: Emma McIntyre/Getty Images

   

  Speakers at the March for Life

  

  Image Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

   

  

  Image Credit: Tasos Katopodis/AFP/Getty Images

   

  

  Image Credit: Somodevilla/Getty Images

   

  Speakers at the Women's March

  

  Image Credit: by Araya Diaz/Getty Images

   

  

  Image Credit: Theo Wargo/Getty Images

   

  Men at the March for Life

  

  Image Credit: ZACH GIBSON/AFP/Getty Images

   

  

  Image Credit: Drew Angerer/Getty Images

   

  Men at the Women's March

  

  Image Credit: Ebet Roberts/Archive Photos/Getty Images

   

  

  Image Credit: JASON CONNOLLY/AFP/Getty Images

   

  The main reason for the 1st Annual Women's March.

  

  Image Credit: Cynthia Edorh/Getty Images

   

  The main reason for the 44th Annual March for Life.

  

  Image credit: ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP/Getty Images

  Only one march persuaded me to attend again.

   

  

  

• Trump Administration takes a step back on executive order, Dept of Homeland Security states entry of LPRs allowed

  Legal residents holding green cards will now be allowed legal entry into the United States. In an apparent attempt to reach a realistic compromise on President Trump’s executive orders concerning immigration from countries compromised by terrorism, Secretary John Kelly from the Department of Homeland Security issued the following statement:

  In applying the provisions of the president’s executive order, I hereby deem the entry of lawful permanent residents to be in the national interest.

  Accordingly, absent the receipt of significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare, lawful permanent resident status will be a dispositive factor in our case-by-case determinations.

  

  This statement came at around 4:30pm EST and shortly followed another statement by Secretary John Kelly which affirmed the departments intentions on complying with both the President’s executive orders as well as court orders. The second DHS statement ended with the following affirmation:

  We are and will remain in compliance with judicial orders. We are and will continue to enforce President Trump’s executive order humanely and with professionalism. DHS will continue to protect the homeland.

  The clarification comes after widespread concern that lawful permanent residents might be denied entry to the United States under the new ban.

  This article was originally posted at www.disobedientmedia.com

  

  

• Remember The Time Bill Clinton Got A Standing Ovation For "Cracking Down On Illegal Aliens"

  Before Trump, there was President Obama's Iraqi refugee ban and seven nations of terror proclamation.

  But before Obama there was Bill Clinton who received a standing ovation for demanding stronger border defenses, and deporting criminal illegal immigrants.

  "We are a nation of immigrants.. but we are a nation of laws"

   

  "Our nation is rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country…

   

  Illegal immigrants take jobs from citizens or legal immigrants, they impose burdens on our taxpayers…

   

  That is why we are doubling the number of border guards, deporting more illegal immigrants than ever before, cracking down on illegal hiring, barring benefits to illegal aliens, and we will do more to speed the deportation of illegal immigrants arrest for crimes…

   

  It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws that has occurred in the last few years.. and we must do more to stop it."

   

  [Standing Ovation]

  It's starting to get a little awkward for the identity politics of the left to defend their own history while denigrating Trump's actions.

  

  

• NYC Plans New Facial Recognition Cameras At Bridges, Tunnels (& Here's How To Dodge Them)

  The state of New York has privately asked surveillance companies to pitch a vast camera system that would scan and identify people who drive in and out of New York City, according to a December memo obtained by Vocativ. As big brother tactics continue to creep quietly into Americans' everyday lives, here are six ways to dodge biometric verification…

  

  As Vocativ.com reports, the call for private companies to submit plans is part of Governor Andrew Cuomo’s major infrastructure package, which he introduced in October.

  Though much of the related proposals would be indisputably welcome to most New Yorkers — renovating airports and improving public transportation — a little-noticed detail included installing cameras to “test emerging facial recognition software and equipment.”

   

  “This is a highly advanced system they’re asking for,” said Clare Garvie, an associate at Georgetown University’s Center for Privacy and Technology, and who specializes in police use of face recognition technologies. “This is going to be terabytes — if not petabytes — of data, and multiple cameras running 24 hours a day. In order to be face recognition compliant they probably have to be pretty high definition.”

   

  Cuomo’s office didn’t respond to multiple requests for clarification in the ensuing weeks after his announcement. But a memo from the Metropolitan Transit Authority’s Bridges and Tunnels division, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, shows that on December 12, the MTA put out a call to an unknown group of private vendors of surveillance equipment. The proposed system would both scan drivers as they approached or crossed most of the city’s bridges and tunnels at high speeds, and would also capture and pair those photos with the license plates of their cars.

   

  “The biggest risk that comes with a system like this is its ability to track people, by location, by their face,” Garvie said. “So what needs to be put in place is a prohibition on the use of these cameras and the technology as a location tracking tool.”

   

  The proposed system would be massive, the memo reads:

   

  The Authority is interested in implementing a Facial Detection System, in a free-flow highway environment, where vehicle movement is unimpeded at highway speeds as well as bumper-to-bumper traffic, and license plate images are taken and matched to occupants of the vehicles (via license plate number) with Facial Detection and Recognition methods from a gantry-based or road-side monitoring location.

   

  All seven of the MTA’s bridges and both its tunnels are named in the proposal.

  New York City wouldn’t be the first in the U.S. to have a network of facial recognition cameras for law enforcement. In 2013, for instance, the Los Angeles Police Department admitted it had deployed 16 cameras equipped with face recognition software, designed to search for particular suspects.

  If all of this big brotherly love is too much for you, Jeremiah Johnson (nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces) explains, via ReadyNutrition.com, how you can dodge facial recognition software…

  

  Helen of Troy, according to the Odyssey, was “the face that launched a thousand ships,” prior to the Greek invasion of Troy.  You and I, on the other hand, are the faces that launch an army of CCTV cameras ready to capture our images when we walk past them.  ReadyNutrition Readers, we just covered winter camouflage tips and techniques.  Camouflage is an important part of your prepping, in terms of being able to effectively hide yourself and your supplies from prying eyes.

  One of the biggest problems that we encounter is not blending in with the terrain in a wilderness environment, however, but what we face in an urban and suburban environment.  As mentioned in previous articles, you have to camouflage in accordance with the environment you find yourself within.  It would not be intelligent to stroll down the sidewalk of Hollywood Boulevard dressed up in Realtree-patterned garb with a holstered sidearm and a hunting knife.  You would undoubtedly be “noticed,” and probably take a ride in a black and white, courtesy of the police department.

  There’s an article that gives some very stark details about the 250 million security cameras in existence throughout the world.  The article entitled “Opinion: Facial recognition will soon end your anonymity,” written by Tarun Wadwha on 6/4/2016 explains this in detail and how new developments in software and the ever-growing number of cameras everywhere are reducing your chances to remain anonymous.  Chances are that your face has already been scanned and entered into a database without your knowledge. Knowing these things, there are a few measures that we can take…and these are directed toward urban and suburban dwellers to give them an edge.

  What these Statists are trying to do is to create a “map” of where you are and what you’re doing, along with the times and dates of your activities.  Go and see (or rent out) the latest “Jason Bourne” movie to really get a feel for the intricacies of how these Law Enforcement agencies, the government, and other interests utilize the public domains to tie into their surveillance of you and your family.

  6 Ways to Dodge Biometric Verification

  Here are some things you can do, and keep in mind to help lower your signature:

  1. Wear sunglasses during the daylight hours…breaking up the potential to photograph your eyes, the way they are set into your face, and any eye movements that might give away what you are doing (what you’re getting ready to do).
  2. Wear a hat, especially one that covers up the ears. Baseball caps are fine, but they really focus on the ears – their shape and proximity to the side of your head – for identification purposes.  The caps also bust up the curvature of your head and also hide the hair and hair patterns.
  3. Wear scarves, turtlenecks, and other clothing such as balaclavas to break up the outline of the neck.
  4. Gloves: hide the hands, your marital status, and scars, fingernails, or other prominent features…even the fingerprints can be photographed.
  5. Layered clothing: yes, this is great to protect from the cold, but I’ll give you another reason to wear it. The Doctrine of Contrasting Colors.  For a “real-time” view of this look no further than the movie “The Recruit” with Colin Farrell and Al Pacino.  Farrell escaped from his pursuers by shedding the outer layer of his clothing and reversing the jacket.  You can do the same.  Make the green sweatshirt disappear when the need arises with a change to a tan polypro top with a zippered neck.
  6. Rule of Thumb: “When the Need Arises.”  Yes, you can pack yourself a small “kit” with darker-toned makeup/lighter-toned makeup such as skin cream, and also hats of various types different from the ones you normally use.  A wig may be a quick fix to turn your hair from brown to blonde.  There are also movie supply sites you can visit that will sell you real mustaches actually made from human hair.  Sound stupid?  It won’t if you use it and it keeps you out of a cell.  This measure is for when it’s really hitting the fan…not for “day to day” activities.

  Another big problem to overcome with all of this surveillance is the fact that most people have their constantly clicking and snapping little phone-cameras to take pictures of every single thing on the planet within their “biome,” and it’s these individuals who serve as “silent witnesses” to help the surveillance state gather as much info as they can.  In addition, let’s not forget that every photo you post, twitter, place on Facebook, or download in any capacity does indeed become “scarfed up” by the government.  That $50-billion-dollar facility in Utah wasn’t built to help out Olan Mills with their photography work.

  Be aware, and not just of others but of yourself.  Reduce the “footprint” you put out by learning where the cameras are where you work and on your trips back and forth to your house.  Disable the little camera-dot on the top edge of your laptop with 2 layers of aluminum HVAC duct tape pieces.  Disable the microphone within it as well.  Bottom line: you have to pull security for yourself and on yourself to reduce the chances of them cataloguing your every move.  Don’t give them what they need to build up their files.

  We are entering into a phase in our country with a moment of decision to come with the U.S. elections.  Martial law is always just around the corner, waiting to be inflicted on us.  These are techniques you’ll have to incorporate into your daily routine and they’ll take some practice.  Awareness and the ability to act on what is happening around you are the keys you’ll need to be able to make it all work.  We’d like to hear any suggestions you have on the matter that may work for others.  Keep fighting that good fight, and stay away from those cameras!

  

  

• Delta Lifts Stop Grounding All Domestic Flights For Over Two Hours Due To Computer Glitch

  Update: as of 9:30pm ET, Delta said in an advisory that the ground stop has been lifted.

  * * *

  One week after United Continental was forced to ground its flights for nearly three hours due to a computer failure, on Sunday around 7pm Eastern, Delta Air Lines – the second-largest US airline  – halted all U.S. flights because of another technology glitch.

  Can confirm. Stuck on the tarmac at MSP ???? https://t.co/xSOvNIql6U

  — Thrifty Traveler (@thriftytraveler) January 30, 2017

  Still no real info from @delta as we are counting down over two hours since the screeching ground halt. #infosec pic.twitter.com/JOzvIw8tu8

  — Michael J Daugherty (@DaughertyMJ) January 30, 2017

  #BREAKINGNEWS #Delta update. Ground stop in effect until at least 8:30p EST Captain added this could be an extensive #deltaoutage pic.twitter.com/G94a4uKrcK

  — Craig Lucie (@CraigLucie) January 30, 2017

  “Our systems are down,” Delta tweeted, adding “the IT department is working to rectify the situation as soon as possible,” said Atlanta-based Delta.

  Delta teams are working to fix a systems outage that has resulted in departure delays. Flights in the air remain unaffected.

  — Delta (@Delta) January 30, 2017

  Delta apologizes to customers for the inconvenience and will provide updates as they become available on https://t.co/QS4ugj8hOa.

  — Delta (@Delta) January 30, 2017

  The company’s international flights are exempt from the grounding, which was caused by “automation issues,” the Federal Aviation Administration said in a statement.

  

  The second consecutive froced grounding at Delta struck as airlines struggled to comply with new travel restrictions following President Trump’s executive order blocking travelers from seven predominantly Muslim nations. As Bloomberg adds, last year, a rash of computer failures disrupted flight operations at U.S. airlines. Thousands of passengers were stranded as carriers struggled to keep older information systems working. 

  Delta took a $100 million hit to sales after a power-control module at the company’s Atlanta command center caught fire in August, cutting power to computers. Southwest Airlines Co. had to halt flights the month before that because of issues with “multiple technology systems.”

   

  Ground stops, as the FAA calls them, are relatively common reactions to thunderstorms and other disruptions in the U.S. aviation system. They are typically short-lived and narrowly drawn, such as halting departures to a congested airport for an hour or two.

  Nearly two hours after the FAA first notified about the ground halt, Delta still has to resolve the system outage.

  

  

• Visualizing The Global Weapons Trade

  The following visualization sums up the global weapons trade during the Obama era. It was created by data scientist Hai Nguyen Mau, and each relationship plots the value of the weapons trade between two countries based on data from SIPRI.

  As VisualCapitalist's Jeff Desjardins points out, it’s important to note that while this data includes major weaponry transfers such as tanks, jets, missiles, and ships, it excludes guns and ammunition or military aid. Lastly, the thickness of each line represents the total value of each trade relationship, while the proximity of two linked countries shows how close each relationship is. (i.e. if a country only imports from Russia, they will be much closer to Russia than the U.S.)

  

  The above visualization sums up the global weapons trade during the Obama era, minus data from 2016. It was created by data scientist Hai Nguyen Mau, and each relationship plots the value of the weapons trade between two countries based on data from SIPRI.

  To see the full version of this visualization click here.

  A LONGTAIL DISTRIBUTION

  The global weapons trade is dominated by a few major exporters, such as United States, EU, and Russia:

  

  Together, the United States, European Union, and Russia combine for over 80% of weapons exports, while the rest of the world fills out the “longtail” of the exporter distribution.

  From the perspective of imports, the field is much more equal because almost every country aims to spend at least some money on defense. India is the largest importer of weapons in the world with a 14% share of the market.

  TWO DISTINCT BLOCS

  The picture behind the global weapons trade gets much more interesting as it is broken up into relationships. It’s easy to see that there are two distinct blocs of trade:

  • The West: United States, United Kingdom, Canada, most of the EU, and other countries
  • The East: Russia, China, India, Nigeria, and other countries

  As an example, Singapore imports 71% of its weapons from the United States along with significant amounts from Germany (10%) and Sweden (6%). As such, it is very close to the United States in these visualizations.

  Meanwhile, India imports 70% of its arms from Russia, with the U.S. (12%) and Israel (7%) as other major partners.

  Here’s another look from Hai Nguyen Mau that just focuses on U.S. and Russian relationships:

  

  An oversimplication, to be sure – but these visualizations hint at the broader tensions that have recently surfaced to the forefront of geopolitical discourse.

  

  

• Here Are The Latest Updates On Trump's Refugee Ban

  Less than 48 hours after announcing his executive order on refugees, global opposition to Trump intensified on Sunday as world leaders, US (mostly tech) companies and civil rights groups condemned the move to temporarily limit entry from predominantly Muslim countries.

  Here are the latest updates in the ongoing saga as of noon on Sunday:

  • Global government lash out at order. Governments from London and Berlin to Jakarta and Tehran spoke out against Trump’s order. A spokesman for the U.K.’s Theresa May, who visited Trump on Friday and hadn’t commented during the day yesterday, told the AP May does “not agree” with the order. Canada PM Trudeau, in a tweet, said on Saturday Canada would welcome those fleeing “persecution, terror and war. Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith.” Scotland’s Nicola Sturgeon endorsed Trudea’s tweet. A similar message was sent by Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, who said refugees deserve a safe haven regardless of their background or religion. Danish Foreign Minister Anders Samuelsen said the decision was unfair.  Germany pledged to play a bigger role on the international stage.
  • US tech companies “do not support:” Netflix Inc.’s chief executive officer said the changes were “un-American”; Alphabet Inc.’s Google advised staff who may be impacted by the order to return to the U.S. immediately; commeting on the order, Apple’s Tim Cook said “It is not a policy we support”
  • Lyft donates $1 million to ACLU. In an email from Lyft to users, the company noted that the executive order is “antithetical to both Lyft’s and our nation’s core values. We stand firmly against these actions, and will not be silent on issues that threaten the values of our community.” The release went on to note that the company pledged to donate “$1,000,000 over the next four years to the ACLU to defend our constitution.”
  • Uber slammed. Lyft’s response to the protests contrasted to that of its rival, Uber. While Uber’s CEO Travis Kalanick pledged to compensate drivers stranded overseas due to the executive order, he did not specifically condemn the executive order.  The company was criticized for the tone-deaf response from its CEO, prompting a new hashtag on Twitter: #DeleteUber.
  • Trump refuses to relent. Despite the global criticism, Trump was steadfast as of Sunday morning, tweeting twice on the topic, first saying that “our country needs strong borders and extreme vetting, NOW. Look what is happening all over Europe and, indeed, the world – a horrible mess!”  following it up with “Christians in the Middle-East have been executed in large numbers. We cannot allow this horror to continue!”

  Our country needs strong borders and extreme vetting, NOW. Look what is happening all over Europe and, indeed, the world – a horrible mess!

  — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 29, 2017

  Christians in the Middle-East have been executed in large numbers. We cannot allow this horror to continue!

  — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 29, 2017

  • Federal Judge issues nationwide stay, partially blocking the Trump immigration order. A Brooklyn judge temporarily blocked Trump’s administration late Saturday from enforcing portions of his order, however neither ruling strikes down the executive order, which will now be subject to court hearings.
  • Another ruling: A Boston judge ruled to release two Iranian professors from Logan International Airport, according to the Boston Globe. The decision also stated that travelers could not be removed OR detained for 7 days.
  • White House comments on judge’s ruling: “Nothing in the Brooklyn judge’s order in anyway impedes or prevents the implementation of the president’s executive order which remains in full, complete and total effect,” White House adviser Stephen Miller told reporters.
  • White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus “we apologize for nothing”: Priebus told “Meet the Press” the situation yesterday “wasn’t chaos.” He appeared to contradict an official clarification by the White House, when he said on Sunday green-card holders won’t be impacted by the order going forward, but could face additional screening at CBP “discretion.” Other countries could be added to order.
  • DHS continues to enforce the travel ban. Despite the ruling, the DHS vowed early on Sunday to continue implementing the order, stating it will “enforce all of the president’s executive orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people.” It added that “President Trump’s Executive Orders remain in place — prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety.”
  • The initial statistics: A DHS official told CNN that there were 109 travelers barred from entry to the U.S. when Trump signed the order. It was unclear how many were deported vs. detained.
  • Opening for democrats: As Axios points out, after spending nearly two months back on their heels. Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey showed up at Dulles airport, then tweeted last night: “I am driving North now from Virginia. I will check in on things at Newark airport tomorrow.” Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe held a press conference on a concourse at Dulles, calling the order “antithetical to the values that make America great. It will not make our country safer.” @HillaryClinton tweeted: “I stand with the people gathered across the country tonight defending our values & our Constitution. This is not who we are.”
  • Republicans revolt: As Axios also notes so far 10 GOPers have announced opposition to or questioned Trump’s executive order. These include Sen. John McCain; Rep. Carlos Curbelo; Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; Rep. Charlie Dent; Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick; Rep. Justin Amash; Rep. Barbara Comstock; Sen. Susan Collins; Sen. Jeff Flake; Sen. Ben Sasse.
  • Protests continue. Demonstrations against the ban continued for a second day across the US including Atlanta, Philadelphia, New York, Boston, Chicago, Phoenix, according to ThinkProgress. Here’s the scene at the White House:
    

  We’re only just getting started and the crowd is overflowing in front of the White House. No #MuslimBan #NoBanNoWall #StopPresidentBannon pic.twitter.com/4h9bIQFPIx

  — Nicole Ghio (@nicoleghio) January 29, 2017

  • “This Is Not A Muslim Ban.” On Sunday afternoon, seeking to “explain” his Executive Orders, Trump issued a statement denying once again he has implemented a Muslim ban, and instead said that “my policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months.” He added that “America has always been the land of the free and home of the brave. We will keep it free and keep it safe, as the media knows, but refuses to say.”
  • Green card holders welcome. DHS Secretary John Kelly issued a statement that lawful permanent residents from 7 banned countries are now allowed into the U.S., overturning a part of the previous ban which prohibited entry into the US by permanent residents from the 7 mostly-Muslim nations.

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Paul Craig Roberts: "Bannon Is 100% Right – The Media Is Now The Opposition"

  Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

  Bannon is correct that the US media – indeed, the entire Western print and TV media – is nothing but a propaganda machine for the ruling elite. The presstitutes are devoid of integrity, moral conscience, and respect for truth.

  @TheLeadCNN @jaketapper

  You're not the press, you're fake news!!! pic.twitter.com/ei0rEfRpyF

  — ira (@idesignwis) January 26, 2017

   

  Who else but the despicable Western media justified the enormous war crimes committed against millions of peoples by the Clinton, Bush, and Obama regimes in nine countries—Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Palestine, and the Russian areas of Ukraine?

  Who else but the despicable Western media justified the domestic police states that have been erected in the Western world in the name of the “war on terror”?

  Along with the war criminals that comprised the Clinton, Bush, and Obama regimes, the Western media should be tried for their complicity in the massive crimes against humanity.

  The Western media’s effort to sustain the high level of tension between the West and Russia is a danger to all mankind, a direct threat to life on earth. Gorbachev’s warnings are correct…

  The world today is overwhelmed with problems. Policymakers seem to be confused and at a loss.

   

  But no problem is more urgent today than the militarization of politics and the new arms race. Stopping and reversing this ruinous race must be our top priority.

   

  The current situation is too dangerous.

   

  …Politicians and military leaders sound increasingly belligerent and defense doctrines more dangerous. Commentators and TV personalities are joining the bellicose chorus. It all looks as if the world is preparing for war.

  Yet presstitutes declare that if Trump lifts the sanctions it proves that Trump is a Russian agent. It is paradoxical that the Democrats and the liberal-progressive-left are mobilizing the anti-war movement to oppose Trump’s anti-war policy!

  

  By refusing to acknowledge and to apologize for its lies, euphemistically called “fake news,” the Western media has failed humanity in a number of other ways. For example, by consciously telling lies, the media has legitimized the suborning of perjury and false testimony used to convict innocent defendants (such as Walter McMillian in Bryan Stevenson’s Just Mercy) in America’s “justice” system, which has about the same relation to justice as genocide has to mercy. If the media can lie about world events, police and prosecutors can lie about crimes.

  

  By taking the role of the political opposition to Trump, the media has discredited itself as an honest critic on topics where Trump needs criticism, such as the environment and his tolerance of oppressive methods used by police. The presstitutes have ended all chance of improving Trump’s performance with reports and criticism.

  Trump needs moderating on the environment, on the police, and on the war on terror. Trump needs to understand that “the Muslim threat” is a hoax created by the neoconservatives and the military/security complex with the complicity of the presstitutes to serve the hegemony agenda and the budget and power of the CIA, Pentagon, and military industries. If the US stops bombing and slaughtering Muslims and training and equiping forces to overthrow non-compliant Muslim governments such as Syria, Iraq, and Libya, “the Muslim threat” will disappear.

  Maybe Trump will add to his agenda breaking into hundreds of pieces the six mega-media companies that own 90% of the US media and selling the pieces to seperate independent owners who have no connection to the ruling elites. Then America would again have a media that can constrain the government with truth rather than use lies to act for or against the government.

  

  

  

• Why Unwinding The Fed's Balance Sheet Could Get Messy

  With former Fed chair Ben Bernanke becoming the latest academic to opine on the potential unwind of the Fed’s balance sheet last week (naturally, he was against it realizing the potentially dire implications such a move could have on asset prices), here is the same topic as viewed from the perspective of an actual trader, in this case FX strategist (who writes for Bloomberg) Vincent Cignarella, and who believes that “unwinding the Fed’s balance sheet could get messy.”

  

  Cignarella explains why the Fed better beware what it wishes for in his analysis below.

  The Federal Reserve should watch what it says about its $4.5t balance sheet. With so much uncertainty in the market about how it will be reduced, a few mistimed words could roil markets faster than you can mouth “taper tantrum.”

   

  The topic is hot. The Fed’s Bullard and Rosengren have recently said the central bank could use the balance sheet to help tighten policy and other bank presidents have also talked about tapering.  Ex-Chairman Bernanke just blogged about it, arguing there’s no need to rush.

   

  Hopefully they’re trying to avoid the past. Bernanke surprised the markets in mid-2013 when he said the Fed might cut back on monthly bond and mortgage-backed securities purchases by $10b. The result, traders panicked and pushed the 10-year yield to nearly 3% from below 2% in four months, sparking a crisis in emerging markets.

   

  If they mess it up this time, it could be worse. The Fed may announce a taper while they are increasing rates and in a bearish bond market, which could exacerbate any move because there are fewer buyers to absorb supply. Tapering a balance sheet of this size has never been done.

   

  The Fed will also be tightening for the first time in more than a decade — raising the Fed Funds rate without draining reserves is repricing the curve, it isn’t tightening. Increasing rates changes the price of money in circulation, tapering reduces it.

   

  The Fed’s Williams said last week the central bank “won’t be disruptive at all” when it starts to let the balance sheet roll off because it will cause rates to go up, which is “desirable.” How much is desirable?

   

  But if markets don’t get the message or a gradual message isn’t gradual enough, traders won’t wait. They will want to get ahead of the curve and that could lead to a surge in yields.

   

  Some analysts predict yields will rise 15 to 20 basis points, but a fixed-income trader I spoke with said that may just be the reaction on the first day.

   

  As traders will tell you, getting into a long position is easier than getting out.

  * * *

  We hope that this time the Fed invites the opinions of more actual traders in advance of what could be the most momentuous decision in Fed history, instead of just relying on academics and economists, especially since this could be the one event that leads to immense rewards for those bears who managed to survive the past 8 years of activist central banks pushing the stock market higher at all costs.
  

  

  

• Federal Judge Grants Partial Block Of Trump Immigration Order

  Symbolic war broke out between the Judicial and Executive branches shortly before 9pm on Saturday evening, when federal judge Ann Donnelly in the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn issued an emergency stay halting Trump’s executive order banning immigrants from seven mostly Muslim nations entering the US, and temporarily letting people who landed in U.S. with valid visa to remain on US territory, saying removing the refugees could cause “irreparable harm”.

  Stay of ban removals pic.twitter.com/jZjtidm2IF

  — Omar C. Jadwat (@OmarJadwat) January 29, 2017

  Here is copy of the federal court order granting nationwide stay of removal. #MuslimBan @ACLU pic.twitter.com/7rWe5bJ4Yi

  — Jamil Dakwar (@jdakwar) January 29, 2017

  The court’s ruling was in response to a petition filed on Saturday morning by the ACLU on behalf of the two Iraqi men who were initially detained at JFK International Airport on Friday night after Trump’s ban, and were subsequently granted entry into the US.

  Nationwide injunction – no one can be removed – govt must provide list of names of ppl affected

  — Dale Ho (@dale_e_ho) January 29, 2017

  WATCH: ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero coming out of the court where the ACLU just argued and won block of Trump’s Muslim ban. pic.twitter.com/kvWDgWiUIn

  — ACLU National (@ACLU) January 29, 2017

  The ACLU issued the following statement following the court ruling:

  A federal judge tonight granted the American Civil Liberties Union’s request for a nationwide temporary injunction that will block the deportation of all people stranded in U.S. airports under President Trump’s new Muslim ban. The ACLU and other legal organizations filed a lawsuit on behalf of individuals subject to President Trump’s Muslim ban. The lead plaintiffs have been detained by the U.S. government and threatened with deportation even though they have valid visas to enter the United States.

   

  Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project who argued the case, said:

   

  “This ruling preserves the status quo and ensures that people who have been granted permission to be in this country are not illegally removed off U.S. soil.”

   

  ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero, had this reaction to the ruling:

   

  “Clearly the judge understood the possibility for irreparable harm to hundreds of immigrants and lawful visitors to this country. Our courts today worked as they should as bulwarks against government abuse or unconstitutional policies and orders. On week one, Donald Trump suffered his first loss in court.

  However, while some media reports present the court ruling as a wholesale victory over Trump’s order, the stay only covers the airport detainees and those currently in transit, and it does not change the ban going forward.

  Clarification:Stay covers the airport detainees and those currently in transit. Doesn’t change ban going forward. Prev unclear tweet deleted

  — Jessica Huseman (@JessicaHuseman) January 29, 2017

  In summary, the state of affairs as of this moment is that the executive order is now frozen for the next few days, until the case can be briefed. The court has ruled that no one who is currently being held can be sent back to their country of origin, but it remains unclear if they will be released is unclear.

  Judge Donnelly has ordered the federal government to provide a list of all people currently held in detention. Where the stay falls short is that according to the ACLU’s lawyer, there still can be no new arrivals from countries under the ban, but the ACLU and other organizations are working to file additional suits to roll back other portions of the order.

  * * *

  A detailed read of Judge Donnelly’s ruling, per Josh Blackman, reveals that the order states that petitioners have shown a “strong likelihood of success” and that their removal would violate the Due Process and Equal Protection clause, and cause irreparable injury. (Note, this order only applies to those already in the country, and thus protected by the Constitution; the same analysis does not apply to those outside the United States).

  As a result, the court issues what is effectively a nationwide stay, enjoining all of the named respondents, including President Trump, Secretary Kelly, and the acting director of the CBP, from the “commission of further acts and misconduct  in violation of the Constitution as described in the Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal.”

  The key part is what they are enjoined from doing:

  ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from, in any manner or by any means, removing individuals with refugee applications approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as part of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, holders of valid immigrant and non-immigrant visas, and other individuals from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen, legally authorized to enter the United States.

  Further, the court orders the Marshal for the Eastern District of New York to “take those actions deemed necessary to enforce the provisions and prohibitions set forth in this Order.”

  What will disappoint civil rights advocates, is that this opinion only affects the small number of people who were in-transit when the order was issued, and arrived after it went into effect. The Constitution attaches to their status, and they cannot be held in violation of the Due Process Clause. The same analysis does not apply to aliens outside the United States.

  * * *

  We now look forward to Trump’s reaction to this act of defiance by a US Court which has partially – and painfully – voided his most controversial executive order to date, and whether the Supreme Court will be forced to opine on this most divisive of topics in the coming days. If anything, the risk to the latter may accelerate the prompt appointment of a conservative SCOTUS judge to fill the vacant Scalia spot.

  

  

• The Trump Doctrine

  Submitted by Matthew Jamison via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

  The Inauguration of the billionaire property developer and businessman Donald J. Trump as the 45th President of the United States has ushered in a new era in American politics and international standing. It was a surreal moment due to the fact so many believed it would never happen. Mr. Trump must be credited with the fact he possess unique political and charismatic skills that a man with zero experience of running a political campaign, running for political office or having ever served in government, could have got himself elected President at the outset of his very first political campaign, is quite remarkable.

  What is more remarkable is that Mr. Trump largely drove his campaign and success with the capturing of the Republican nomination and subsequently the White House, largely through the sheer force and theatrical, flamboyant personality of his character, a deep understanding of his audience/market and an uncanny ability to utilise and harness mass media to attract attention to himself and his campaign. He did all this in the face of stiff resistance from many within his own party and the Establishment and mainstream media. As a performer he is extremely captivating and this in many ways fuelled his rise to the Presidency. 

  President Trump's inaugural address was quite unlike any in recent American Presidential history. He returned to the dark and pessimistic vision of America and the world originally outlined with vigour at the Republican National Convention. President Trump dubbed the state of America in graphic terms as an «American carnage», in which the nations elite Establishment in Washington DC had allowed the country to rot as they themselves flourished. It was a full scale onslaught against the members of the DC political Establishment both Republican and Democrat and the ushering in of a so-called new way of getting the best for the American people from their political institutions.

  What was must striking in policy and political terms was the overtly nationalist doctrine that President Trump enunciated in his Inaugural Address. It would seem for the first time in decades an American administration will be openly and philosophically Protectionist in its actions, policies, rhetoric and thinking advocating for «smart trade» not «free trade» and moving away from free trade type agreements such as NAFTA or the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership. The nationalism is striking for its isolationism. 

  There is no place in the Trump Doctrine for George W. Bush style messianic, neoconservative interventionism in the name of democratic nation building around the world. The Trump Doctrine is neither liberal internationalist nor American exceptionalism or neoconservative hawkishness rather a traditional form of nationalist isolationism redolent of the 1930s Republican Party of Wendell Willkie who opposed US involvement in the European World War II.

  The Trump Doctrine emphasizes American greatness through a heavy focus on nationalism to express the pride in national power and is hostile towards attempts at or achieved restrictions upon national sovereignty to act as an independent nation state rather than in a collective, multi-lateral fashion through organisations such as NATO, United Nations, the Paris Climate Agreement, the Iran Nuclear Agreement etc.

  This nationalist isolationism is most starkly revealed and will have the most radical impact in terms of international trade policy. It will be fascinating to see just how far under the Trump administration America moves away from Free Trade in the international economic architecture of the Western IMF/World Bank system and embraces protectionism with the possibility of trade wars and an undermining of organisations such as the World Trade Organisation and the globalized framework of manufacturing. In terms of Great Power Superpower politics the Trump Doctrine will position American global leadership as more of a Chairman of the Board style of leadership rather than the activist World Policeman CEO figure of past administrations post-World War II. Trump wants America to remain dominant and number one but refuses to follow a set of international policies which could bankrupt America for paying for Global hegemony of the Kennedy/Reagan/Clinton/Bush administrations. 

  At home a brand of patriotism will be used to attempt to create greater internal cohesion and unity despite the profound divisions within the country and large opposition to the Trump victory. Be prepared to see a wave of America First hyperbole and hyper-nationalism unleashed in an attempt to quell dissent and wrap the Trump Presidency in the American flag in a powerfully emotional appeal to the countries most sensitive sensibilities. This will in all likelihood be abused for political purposes of the Trump administration to silence critics and dilute opposition and it is likely to widen the gulf between small town middle America and the coastal big city liberal metropolises stoking even greater social tensions.

  The Inaugural Speech was a tour de force in raw emotion powered by a fiery and telegenic, charismatic and motivational, persuasive though hyperbolic public personality and speaker. It was a master class act in mass manipulation and it remains to be seen whether a policy platform for Government fashioned out of this individual driven political insurrection will indeed cure some of the problems facing the United States or whether they will in fact create even bigger problems both for Americans and the rest of the world.

  

  

• The Trap Is Set: "Both Sides Are Utterly Unprepared For What's Coming"

  Submitted by Mac Slavo via SHTFPlan.com,

  If there’s one thing that should be absolutely clear in the current political environment in America, it’s that  there exists a deep division between the people of this nation. Both of sides of the aisle argue vehemently about what’s best going forward, sometimes to the point of physical violence. And though the election of President Donald Trump speaks volumes about the sentiment of Americans, the following video report from Storm Clouds Gathering warns that both sides are utterly unprepared for what’s coming.

  Is Trump going to usher in a new era of prosperity and innovation?

   

  Or is he going to be the one standing in the center ring when the circus tent comes down?

   

  …

   

  Some voted for Trump as a political Molotov cocktail… Trump is a business man, you say… He’s going to make things happen… cut taxes…cut regulation… invest a trillion dollar in infrastructure… punish companies that move factories overseas… rebuild the military… restore relations with Russia… start a trade war with China… and a new arms race would create jobs… there’s a lot to unpack there… and those debates are worth having.

   

  However, much of this hinges on a variable that Trump doesn’t control… The Federal Reserve.

   

  …Word is, the Fed is leaning towards increasing interest rates aggressively in 2017 and may engage in anti-inflationary measures to offset Trump’s infrastructure plans… that means the flow of money and credit is about to be tightened…

   

  It also means the Fed is setting itself up for a showdown.

  Watch the full video:

  

  

• The One Chart That America's Corporate Elite Don't Want You To See

  The message from America's ruling elite is, as always – "do as I say, not as I do" – and nowhere is that more evident in the following chart. Simply put, follow the money!

  As we detailed last week, as US financial stocks have soared in the post-election Trumphoria, so bankers have been dumping over $100 million in personal stock holdings…

  

  

  

   

  But, as Barron's details, it's not just the bankers that are bailing out of US stocks (just as the corporate elite and their mainstream media lackeys cajole you and your hard-earned retirement funds back into the most-expensive market ever), it's everyone!!

  

   

  The massive spike in insider-selling (relative to buying) is broad-based…

  

   

  Still – listen to CNBC, buy some more NFLX or TSLA or the latest Biotech stock, we have reached a new permanantly high plateau…

  

  

  

• "Refugees In, Racists Out" Protestors Storm JFK, O'Hare Airports After Trump's 'Muslim Ban' – Live Feed

  With banners and chants proclaiming "build a wall… we'll tear it down", "let them in", "hey, hey, JFK, no more fascists USA", and "refugees in, racists out", hundreds of protestors are assembled at JFK airport (and Chicago O'Hare) following President Trump's 'Muslim' ban.

   

  The view from above. JFK Terminal 4 Arrivals. pic.twitter.com/bUMh6HZQOH

  — Melissa Gira Grant (@melissagira) January 28, 2017

   

  As NBC4New York reports,

  With chants of "No hate, no fear, refugees are welcome here," protesters gathered at John F. Kennedy Airport where 12 refugees were detained Saturday under President Donald Trump's executive order to ban refugees from entering the United States for four months.

   

  More than 300 demonstrators held homemade signs that read "No ban, no wall" and "Refugees welcome" in front of Terminal 4's international arrivals area. One sign called for President Trump's impeachment and the deportation of the first lady.

   

  "We're here to tell Trump that we are not going anywhere," said lawyer and refugee advocate Jacki Esposito, who helped organize the protest. "Today is the beginning of a long opposition from us, and our neighbors all over the country."

  The crowds are growing.

  This is JFK airport right now pic.twitter.com/N6SEiJXg8f

  — Roxanne Emadi (@roxanneemadi) January 28, 2017

  Additionally, the NYC Taxi Workers just called for a work stoppage, starting at 6 pm. No pick ups or drop offs to JFK.

  From 6 to 7 p.m., drivers are not picking up passengers at Terminal 4.

   

  "As an organization whose membership is largely Muslim, a workforce that's almost universally immigrant, and a working-class movement that is rooted in the defense of the oppressed, we say no to this inhumane and unconstitutional ban," the NYTWA said in a statement. There are approximately 19,000 drivers in the union including yellow cab drivers, green car and black car drivers. The union also represents Uber and Lyft drivers.
   

  The protests will be coming to other airports…

  Protest #MuslimBan: JFK: 6pm
  EWR: 6pm
  Dulles: 5pm
  SFO: 3pm
  ATL: Tomorrow
  PHL: Sunday 2pm
  CHI: 6pm
  LAX: 5pm
  SEA: 5pm
  BOS: 7pm
  DEN: 5pm

  — Udi Ofer (@UdiACLU) January 28, 2017

  Protestors have arrived at Chicago's O'Hare airport…

  Outside Ohare terminal 5 #refusefascism pic.twitter.com/b5EfovrV5z

  — Mrwx0 (@MrWx0) January 28, 2017

  …

  Protest growing so much that JFK parking garage is packed with protesters pic.twitter.com/r4zYZ9zmcm

  — Elizabeth Plank (@feministabulous) January 28, 2017

  Additional protestors coming into protest as they all chant "let them in" pic.twitter.com/zP34zsxudZ

  — Elizabeth Plank (@feministabulous) January 28, 2017

  

  

  Live Feed:

  Alternate Live Feed:

  

  

• Homeland Confirms Trump Immigration Ban Will Include Green-Card Holders & Dual-Nationalities

  With the world (apart from Israel) in uproar over President Trump’s decision to ban immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries, Department of Homeland Security official Gillian Christensen just confirmed “[the order] will bar green card holders” and those who hold dual nationality also will be barred.

  Green cards serve as proof of an individual’s permanent legal residence in the U.S.

  

  In a statement that the State Department is due to release, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, the 90-day visa moratorium extends beyond just citizens of Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Libya and Yemen.

  It also applies to people who originally hail from those countries but are traveling on a passport issued by any other nation, the statement notes. That means Iraqis seeking to enter the U.S. on a British passport, for instance, will be barred, according to a U.S. official. British citizens don’t normally require a visa to enter the U.S.

   

  “Travelers who have nationality or dual nationality of one of these countries will not be permitted for 90 days to enter the United States or be issued an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa,” the statement said. “Those nationals or dual nationals holding valid immigrant or nonimmigrant visas will not be permitted to enter the United States during this period.  Visa interviews will generally not be scheduled for nationals of these countries during this period.”

   

  The dual-citizenship ban doesn’t apply to U.S. citizens who are also citizens of the seven nations singled out by Mr. Trump.

  In a briefing with reporters, officials defended the scope and execution of the new executive order signed by President Donald Trump on Friday. Asked about lawsuits filed against the order, the officials declined specific comment, but said foreigners do not have a right to enter into the united States, and dismissed as “ludicrous” the notion that the move amounted to a “Muslim ban.”

  As The Hill reports, Trump signed an executive action Friday halting the country’s Syrian refugee resettlement program for 120 days and barring people from certain Muslim-majority countries from traveling to the U.S. The administration says the halt in the resettlement program is designed to give it time to tighten the vetting process for refugees. The order also gives Christian refugees priority in the resettlement process.

  “If you were a Muslim you could come in, but if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible and the reason that was so unfair, everybody was persecuted in all fairness, but they were chopping off the heads of everybody but more so the Christians,” Trump said in an interview with Christian Broadcasting Network on Friday.

   

  “And I thought it was very, very unfair,” he continued. “So we are going to help them.”

  While most of the world is in uproar over Trump’s decisions to “build the wall” and “ban muslims” – Iran’s government proclaimed “Trump’s visa ban is an insult to all Muslims” –  Israel’s Prime Minister was supportive…

  President Trump is right. I built a wall along Israel’s southern border. It stopped all illegal immigration. Great success. Great idea ????????????????

  — Benjamin Netanyahu (@netanyahu) January 28, 2017

  Finally of the seven countries that are on the banned list, we note that the United States is actvely bombing five of them.

   

  

  

• Why Did The Media Fail So Badly In Its Efforts To Elect Hillary?

  Submitted by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

  Yesterday in Taki's Magazine, David Cole suggested that maybe, just maybe, Hollywood isn't as powerful in swaying public opinion as many people assume it is. 

  This belief is shared not only by the "stars" of Hollywood itself — who naturally fancy themselves as great "thought leaders" — but also by conservatives themselves, including the late Andrew Breitbart. Breitbart, as Cole points out, was even rather obsessed with the issue, and harped on the need to create a right wing rival to Hollywood. 

  Cole, however, wonders if this all is really based on an accurate appraisal of the situation. After all, if Hollywood is so good at convincing people of its own point of view, why is it that Republicans keep winning so many elections? Cole notes: 

  But wait…even with all that Hollywood “interference,” didn’t we just win the last presidential election? Don’t we have the House and Senate, too? Haven’t we also won an unprecedented number of statewide legislative seats and governorships?

  This doesn't prove Hollywood has no effect on behavior and ideology, of course. But, it is entirely plausible that its power is not nearly as great as assumed. 

  Indeed, when it comes to discussing the effects of marketing, messaging, advertising, and propaganda, "assumed" is certainly a key word. There are a great many assumptions being made, but precious little evidence to back these assumptions up. 

  This appears to apply well beyond the field of mere Hollywood-created propaganda, as well. Both the legacy media and Hollywood gave full-throated endorsements to Hillary Clinton in 2016, and yet, the best Clinton managed was what can, at best, be called a tie with Donald Trump. 

  It seems the media's power may not be any more far-reaching than Hollywood's. Moreover, given than both the media and Hollywood portray media journalists in only the best possible light over and over and over again, why is it that only 32 percent of Americans report that they trust the media? If the media wants to be trusted, shouldn't they need do nothing more than simply tell us they're trustworthy. After all, it must be true if we see it on TV. 

  All it takes a slick ad campaign, we are told, and people will believe whatever you tell them to believe. 

  The problem is that this has never been shown to be true.

  There is growing evidence, it seems, that suggests the under-thirty demographic simply doesn't respond to advertisements, and that brand loyalty is becoming virtually non-existent in an age when consumers rely more and more on third-party evaluators such as Yelp and Amazon to provide insight into whether or not a product is worth one's time and money.

  Many of these discussions about how ads don't work anymore, however, continue to rely on what is probably an incorrect assumption — namely that advertisements have worked perfectly well in the past.

  Indeed, the evidence has always been rather sketchy as to how much advertisers can actually influence the public's thoughts about goods and services, and consumers have never been at the mercy of advertisers as many seem to think.

   

  Do Tobacco Companies Trick Us Into Smoking? 

  Nevertheless, our faith in the power of propaganda — and it's non-political form, known as " advertising" — has long been nearly unshakable.

  An often repeated anecdote used to support this view is the one in which we are told that the whole world opposed female use of cigarettes until some advertising campaigns convinced everyone to abandon their long-held social views and embrace tobacco for all. This story usually claims that Edward Bernays, the "father of public relations" devised ingenious advertising methods that manipulated people into abandoning their own existing value systems in favor of whatever advertisers put forward. 

  But, as Bill Wirtz recently demonstrated, the rise of female smoking also accompanied enormous social changes brought on by the Great War and new physical and economic conditions imposed on women. Rather than revolutionizing social thought, as is often assumed to be the case with Bernays and the tobacco ads, it is also entirely plausible that Bernays simply rode the wave of social change. 

  Indeed, Ludwig von Mises was certainly skeptical of the idea that advertisers are able to manipulate people into doing whatever the advertisers want. Mises writes: 

  It is a widespread fallacy that skillful advertising can talk the consumers into buying everything that the advertiser wants them to buy. The consumer is, according to this legend, simply defenseless against "high-pressure" advertising. If this were true, success or failure in business would depend on the mode of advertising only.

   

  However, nobody believes that any kind of advertising would have succeeded in making the candle makers hold the field against the electric bulb, the horse drivers against the motorcars, the goose quill against the steel pen and later against the fountain pen. But whoever admits this implies that the quality of the commodity advertised is instrumental in bringing about the success of an advertising campaign. Then there is no reason to maintain that advertising is a method of cheating the gullible public.

  In other words, real-world conditions are a key factor in forming people's ideas and attitudes, and simply telling them things isn't enough. 

  But what about when those tricky advertisers use more subtle methods such as subliminal messaging? Bernays himself was said to use these, and the issue of control-through-subliminal messages has long been popular, and perhaps peaked in conspiracy-themed popular culture of the 1960s and 70 — as with The Manchurian Candidate and The Parallax View — when characters were controlled by implanted thoughts and subliminal messages. On the other hand, according to Randall Rothenberg: 

  [T]here was — and still is — little proof that these efforts to engineer action through manipulation of the unconscious led to any behavioral changes favorable to specific marketers. As for James Vicary's experiment in subliminal advertising — it was a hoax: Vicary later admitted that he hadn't done what he'd claimed. Several subsequent studies of the effectiveness of embedded messages have shown it to be virtually impossible to use them to produce specific, predictable responses. Still, faith in the power of the media to induce millions of people to act contrary to their better judgment or conscious desires remains profound.

  Indeed, even outside the realm of ultra-subtle messaging, the evidence has been contradictory. Rothenberg continues: 

  Time and again researchers have found it difficult to correlate the content of advertising campaigns with long-term economic effects. Some advertising content, notably price and product information, undeniably moves consumers, but only temporarily and in limited numbers. The ability of advertising to persuade large masses of people to change their attitudes and induce action that permanently alters a company's fortunes — no one really knows how that works. In the conclusion to his 1942 study The Economic Effects of Advertising the Harvard professor Neil Borden reached a series of judgments that must have unsettled his industry sponsors. "Does advertising increase demand for individual concerns?" he asked. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Does it affect production or distribution costs? "Indeterminate." Does it lead to a concentration of supply and anti-competitive pricing? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. 

  This isn't to say that advertising has no effect. It is fairly clear that it has an effect of some kind. But, those effects are often not what the crafters of the messages intended. Moreover, consumer behavior appears to correlate at least as much with real-world changes in physical and economic conditions as with the efforts of marketing executives. The Institute for Economic affairs reports:

  [A]nother study confirmed what economists have always known. Looking at sales of alcoholic beverages in the US over 40 years, it found ‘changes significantly correlated to fluctuations in demography, taxation and income levels – not advertising. Despite other macro-level studies with consistent findings, the perception that advertising increases consumption exists. The findings here indicate that there is either no relationship or a weak one between advertising and aggregate category sales. 

  So, did Bernays convince women to go against their own beliefs and start smoking? There's no more reason to look to Bernays's alleged marketing "genius" than to changes in income levels and urbanization rates among women in the 1920s. 

  Now, some readers at this point may say, "well, McMaken, look at how successful Nazi propaganda was."

  In this line of thinking, the advocate often trots out the often-used line of Hermann Göring: "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

  Of course, if it were really as simple as Göring says it is, then Lyndon Johnson could have easily made himself and the Vietnam War both immensely popular just in time for re-election in 1968 by simply telling the American population that the Americans were in danger of being attacked by Communists. 

  Now, there is no doubt that this line was used, and was believed by some in the population. But, the fact remains that many concluded that the real-world realities simply didn't match up with what they were being told by government and media propagandists. 

  Similarly, when the Obama Administration was advocating for more military action in Syria, why did the White House not just tell the population that the Syrian state was coming to get it, and that immediate action — including carpet bombing of the entire country — was necessary. In fact, the Adminstration hinted at this very thing, and failed to convince.

  Maybe Göring 's tactics do work on an impoverished population ravaged by the Great War and hyper inflation, and poisoned with generations of Prussian militaristic ideology. But clearly, Göring's methods to not work "the same way in every country" nor do they likely work even in the same country during different time periods.  

  The weakness of elite propaganda was hard to ignore in 2016 when millions of voters chose to ignore the messages of Hollywood and the media and chose to not vote for Hillary — even though they were being told that the very existence of human decency and civilization were riding on their support for Clinton. 

  We're Not All Helpless in the Face of Propaganda 

  A more balanced view of advertising and propaganda remains important today for two reasons. 

  First of all, keeping a more sophisticated view of how opinion is shaped is important because it belies the often parroted line by anti-capitalists that consumers are mere putty in the hands of advertisers, and that wicked capitalists can convince consumers to do whatever the advertisers say. 

  We are told by the anti-capitalists that everyone feels they must spend every last dime on consumer good such as expensive cars and oversized houses. The "defenseless " consumer — to use Mises's term — simply must spend endlessly because some Madison Avenue firm told him to. What's more, that same consumer is even tricked into buying an inferior or damaging product against his own better judgment. The only solution, we are told, is to impose government regulations protecting us from the diabolical corporations who manipulate us.  

  As so much evidence shows, this view of advertising has never been true, but it is all the more untrue in the age of social media and an endless array of third-party reviewers of products and services. There is mounting evidence that advertisers are only becoming weaker and weaker, and the more evidence we collect, the more it appears that the variables that act upon a person's choices are far more complex and unknown that we suspect. 

  But what of government propaganda? 

  Again, in this case, the power of state propaganda appears to be less powerful that we might suppose it to be. Perhaps far more important is the simple fact that governments have police and military powers that impose a high cost on refusing to go along. 

  Do people consider the state to be as valuable as many assume they do? There is no doubt that many do, but it is also entirely plausible that many simply opt to not oppose states because states can impose a high cost on those who disobey. 

  In fact, if the propaganda churned out daily by government schools and media arms were as successful as we assume it to be, then why are there so many dissidents, tax evaders, and prisoners? If propaganda can be successfully executed to force compliance so effortlessly as we're told, should not the prisons be empty and the tax payments always be honestly paid? 

  It could be there are other forces at work, and it may be that saying things on TV isn't quite the panacea many assume it to be.

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• How To Defeat The Globalist System

  Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

  In my last two articles, 'How Globalists Predict Your Behavior' and 'How To Predict The Behavior Of Globalists', I explained the base fundamentals behind a concept with which most people are unfamiliar. They are so unfamiliar with it, in fact, that I didn’t bother to name it. In this article I hope to explain it, but I highly recommend people read the previous articles in this series before moving forward.

  What I outlined, essentially, was a beginners course on 4^th Generation Warfare. This methodology is difficult to summarize, but here I will list what I believe are some of its core tenets.

  Fourth Gen warfare is based on a primary lesson within Sun Tzu’s The Art Of War. Sun Tzu argues in the classical military tome that the greatest strategists win wars by NOT fighting, or at least, by not fighting their opponents openly and directly. That is to say, they win by convincing their opponents that fighting back is futile and that surrender is preferable, or, they convince their opponents to destroy themselves through internal conflict and psychological sabotage. Sun Tzu felt this method was far superior to engaging in direct combat in a real world battle space.

  While this might sound bizarre to some, it is becoming more and more apparent (in my view) that 4^th Gen warfare is now the go-to weapon for globalists. Defeating the system established by the globalists, a system prevalent for decades, is an impossible task unless 4^th Gen warfare is understood.

  A classic example of a tried and true form of 4^th Gen attack is to initiate a civil war within a target population, and in most cases, control the leadership on both sides of that conflict. Another method is to conjure an enemy, an outside threat which may be legitimate or entirely fabricated, and use that enemy to push a target population to unify under a particular banner that benefits the globalist cabal in the long run. Fourth Gen requires patience above all else.

  In fact, I would say 4^th Gen is the weaponization of patience.

  A 4^th Gen attack is not carried out over days, or months, but years. To find a comparable experience is difficult, but I would suggest people who have the tenacity set out to learn how military snipers operate. Can you train for years mastering long distance marksmanship, crawl for hours from an insertion point to an observation point, then sit in a hole in the ground (if you are lucky enough to have a hole in the ground) for days waiting to take just one shot, perhaps the only important shot you will ever take in combat, at a vital target, and do it with certainty that you will not miss?

  The amount of planning, intense precision and foresight that goes into a sniper operation is much like the kind of effort and calm needed to complete a 4^th Gen psy-ops mission. This kind of warfare is dominated by the “think tanks”, and anyone hoping to counter such tactics look into the history of one particular think tank — RAND Corporation, and their premier psy-ops tool — rational choice theory.

  Whenever I hear someone argue that a conspiracy of globalists could not exist because “such plans would be too elaborate and require too much power to carry out in real life,” I have to laugh and bring up RAND, which has had almost limitless funding from globalist foundations like the Ford Foundation and was built specifically to develop not only next gen weapons, but 4^th Gen psychological warfare schemes. RAND's influence is everywhere, from politics, to the social sciences, to military applications and even in Hollywood. After studying their efforts for many years now I can say that these people are indeed smart. Some of them may not be aware of the greater consequences as they war game ideas for dominating the public, and some of them are undoubtedly morally bankrupt, but they are still smart, and should not be underestimated.

  Another reference point I would suggest to researchers would be a document called From Psyop To Mindwar: The Psychology Of Victory written by Michael Aquino and Paul Vallely for the Pentagon. In it, they make it clear that the methods of 4^th Generation warfare are not limited to foreign enemies. In fact, they are recommended for use by governments against their own populations. Again, the thrust of the methodology was to manipulate a target population into subduing itself, so that force was not necessary. Aquino and Vallely note that this would be a better outcome for everyone involved, because it would help to avoid the bloodshed of insurgency and counterinsurgency.

  I am skeptical that these people care at all about bloodshed or collateral damage, but I do think they would very much like the process of totalitarian centralization to be less tedious. The elites hope to streamline tyranny by convincing the public that globalization must be embraced for “the greater good of the greater number.” But, in order to accomplish this vast change in society and the collective unconscious, they need crisis and calamity. They see themselves as creators, but for them, creation is about destruction. In other words, the old world must be destroyed so that they can use the leftover building blocks to make something new.

  If we do not embrace their solution of global centralization rising from the ashes, they believe they have a response for that problem too. Read my article 'When Elites Wage War On America, This Is How They Will Do It'; more specifically, the section on Max Boot from the Council On Foreign Relations. Boot is the CFR’s resident “insurgency expert,” and while I question his ability to apply academic models to real word conflicts as if theory is akin to practice in war, it is enough to know the mindset of these elitists.

  Boot’s work focuses on a particular model of quarantining insurgencies from the non-combative population, based on the methods the British used against communist guerrillas in Malaysia. In fact, Max seems to revel in the British efforts to catalog Malaysian citizens and relocate them into large cities that amounted to concentration camps. This made recruitment difficult for the insurgents and stopped them from hiding among civilian centers. It also focused food production into highly managed areas and gave the British leverage over the population. With this separation, it was much easier for the authorities to “educate” the locals on the threats of the insurgency and gain their support.

  So, the question is, if this array of tactics is going to be aimed at liberty proponents and free peoples within the U.S. in particular, with an increasing potential for things to become far worse in the near term, how do we fight back?

  Firstly, I need to point out a disturbing trend within the liberty movement, which is the propensity for activists to show far more interest talking about the problem than talking about solutions. Over the years I have noticed a consistent lower readership on articles having to do with specific solutions and strategies; not just my own articles, but many other analysts as well. It is much more popular to write on the reality of looming crisis rather than to write about what individuals can do to blunt the edge of the event. I would not be surprised if this article receives only half of the readership my other articles receive.

  The first step in fighting back in a 4^th Gen war is to acknowledge that there is no easy way out. There is no way to change the corrupt system from within. There is no way to use politics and government to our advantage. Despite all the hopes activists have, Trump is not going to save you, or America. The Republican controlled House and Senate is not going to save us. There is nothing they could do even if they wanted to.

  I will write in more detail on this in my next article, but actions such as shutting down the Fed alone are half measures that will actually exacerbate a crisis in the short term, rather than defuse one. A debt jubilee (another commonly mentioned false solution) is meaningless when the value of your world reserve currency on the global market is still destroyed in the process and your treasury bonds are no longer desirable.  Pushing corporations to create a few thousand manufacturing jobs here and there is a drop in the bucket when considering the 95 million people no longer counted in the U.S. labor force on top of the millions still officially considered unemployed. There is no stopping the ongoing economic collapse from running its course.  We will be required to take our medicine eventually, and this will happen sooner rather than later.

  Here is what can be done, though, to mitigate the damage and fight back against the establishment…

  Separation From The System

  People are always looking for grand and cinematic solutions to fighting the globalists, but the real solutions are far less romantic. Defeating the “new world order” requires individuals to take smaller actions in their day-to-day lives. Becoming more self sufficient, the ability to provide one’s own necessities, the ability to defend one’s self and family, the move away from grid dependence, homeschooling your children, a healthy skepticism of web tied technologies and the “internet of things,” etc.

  This does not mean you have to go build a cabin in the woods and start typing up a manifesto, but it does mean that you will have to sacrifice certain modern comforts and amenities and manage your life in a way that might feel strange at first. To put it simply, it means you will have to learn to start doing most things for yourself and perhaps learn to live with less “things” and less mainstream stimulation.

  I know many people that have undertaken this effort while still living what you might call “normal lives.” The bottom line is, if you are dependent on the system, you will never be able to fight the system.

  Separation From Invasive Technologies

  Remove active surveillance from your life. Stop carrying a cell phone around with you everywhere you go, or at least pull the battery until you need it. Cover or remove computer cameras. Deactivate microphones when not in use. Refuse to purchase appliances with built-in web connectivity. Refuse to participate in smart grid programs. Remove GPS modules from your vehicles. Stop posting photos constantly to Facebook and sharing your entire life on social media. Give the enemy less information to work with.

  Build Real Community

  Stop trying to build hollow friendships with people on the other side of the country through a cold medium like the internet and start building relationships with the people that live right in your own neighborhood or town. The one thing the elites fear more than anything else is people organizing groups that are outside of their influence. The more community groups there are, big and small, the more effort, money and resources are required to keep tabs on them all. With localized groups populated by members that know each other and have lived in one place for a long time, infiltration is a strenuous prospect and co-option is nearly impossible.

  Establish Alternative Communications

  Make sure your group or community has at least one ham radio expert. Resistance to tyranny requires independent communications. Without this ability you will have no access to information in the event of a crisis and thus, you will have nothing. Ham radio can be used to spread information across the country and can even reach out to other parts of the world. In the event of a breakdown in civility, ham can be used to send digital mail and files, and these files can be encrypted.

  The founding fathers had the midnight ride, we have ham radio.

  Refuse To Participate In Resource Management

  In the event of a greater collapse, resource management will be the name of the game. For the elites to gain a stranglehold on a population, they need to isolate the insurgency (freedom loving people) from the regular (subdued) citizenry, and then they need to confiscate as many resources as possible to supply “loyalists” while starving out undesirables.

  I believe a successful rebellion would require rural communities to maintain complete control over their resources and refuse to allow government to dictate how these resources are dispersed. Ultimately, in order to break an establishment stranglehold over the population through Max Boot’s method of “friendly” concentration camps, the tactic would have to be reversed. Resources may need to be cut off to these places entirely. This would remove the leverage governments would have in terms of necessities, leaving no reason for anyone to want to stay in these sorts of green zones again.

  Vigilante Justice

  I am not condoning OR criticizing this kind of development, but I am pointing out that it is inevitable. If top globalists continue to engage in the use of economics as a nuclear option against the public, along with their many other crimes, then individuals with the right skill-sets will likely seek them out with the intention of ventilating them. I think the danger of lone-wolf vigilantes acting without group contact and without warning is terrifying to the globalists.

  They are used to being able to co-opt enemy groups or exploit informants to infiltrate and relay information. With a lone wolf, there is no trail to follow and individuals are decidedly harder to predict in their behavior and plans than groups are. I would not be surprised to see prominent globalists living in the U.S. suddenly leave the country en masse just as social unrest becomes heightened.  And, I would not be surprised to see some globalists killed anyway by fed up citizens who suddenly snap and take matters into their own hands.

  Our Window Of Time Is Short

  Keep in mind that the millennial generation is about 10 years away from becoming the dominant cultural force in this country, and those precious snowflakes are like another species. The majority of them long for collectivism, and they work diligently to stifle dissent in colleges and public schools. The great danger is that in ten to fifteen years many of the people within conservative movements might be too old to effectively fight back, and while we deal with economic disaster it will be millennials steeped in cultural Marxism that are elevated as part of the globalist solution.

  Whatever we end up doing, I believe we have about 10 years before hitting the point of no return (with ample crisis and struggle from now until then). After this, we will either have the globalists in prison or in the ground, or, we will have a massive economic reset and a new world order. The choice is up to us, even though some people don’t want to accept it.

  

  

• Retail Sector – Doomed as Doomed Can Be

  From the Slope of Hope: Being an equity bear has been brutal for, oh, nearly eight years now. With the S&P up about 250% since bottoming in March 2009, equities have been, on the whole, raging higher, with some sectors in particular benefiting tremendously from the Trumpgasm. One area, though, seems to be recognizing a bitterly cold chill of reality, and that is retail.

  Not everything retail is weak, of course, Amazon has had an astonishing run (and we’ll see if it holds together when they report next week), and some stocks such as Autozone (AZO) and O’Reilly Auto Parts (ORLY) have cranked out multi-hundred percent gains for years now. But many retail companies, particularly those having to do with clothing, have been getting whacked. Take, for instance, Abercrombie & Fitch, which I’ve picked on endlessly: it is actually lower than it was at the greatest depths of the financial crisis. For how many stocks could you make that statement?

  

  Bed Bath & Beyond has a quite well-formed head and shoulders pattern (whose neckline is shown with a red horizontal below) that suggests much lower prices to come.

  

  Be careful not to confuse this with a very similar symbol, however – Best Buy – which, competition from Amazon be damned, is defying gravity and broke above resistance this year.

  

  Let’s get back to the bearish charts, though: Shoe retailer Finish Line has been trending lower for months, and the analog is going beautifully:

  

  Another storefront at your local luxury mall is Kate Spade. It found strength off and on recently due to buyout chatter (they are desperately trying to sell themselves), but the pattern is bearish, and just so you are clear, just because a company is for sale doesn’t mean there will be any buyers. Just ask Twitter.

  

  Speaking of analogs, take a look at Macy’s. Even though the stock has lost over half its value, if history is any guide, there are doomed as doomed can be (this is more impressive if you say it in an Ed Grimley voice).

  

  Hold on there……..it’s another analog……and from another company I pick on a lot: Pier One, purveyor of scented candles, throw pillows, and monkeys carved from coconuts. This is another fine example of how just because a stock has already suffered a momentous collapse (about 65% so far) doesn’t mean it isn’t just going to keep collapsing. Firm support exists at $0.00.

  

  Overpriced seller of kitchenware, Williams Sonoma, is setting itself up for a big fall. It has found support for years in the mid 40s, but don’t count on that surviving the year intact.

  

  I will say, however, that some retailers are so far gone, the opportunity has already passed by. Stage Stores is a good example of a ship that’s already sailed.

  

  On the other hand, Deckers Outdoor (makers of the UGG shoe line, among others) has plenty of juice left to squeeze.

  

  Dillard’s is another stock which has lost about 60% of its value already but doesn’t look anywhere close to being done falling.

  

  What got me thinking about all this was my best-performing short position, CBL Associates. I wasn’t sure what they did, but it turns out they are a big player in retail real estate – – hence their stock is also in a terrific analog and appears to be screwed and tattooed.

  

  If anyone is looking for rumblings to signal the kind of break in 2006/2007 that preceded the financial crisis, look no further than the charts above.

  

• Ohio State Offers Class On How To Detect Microaggressions And Be "Self-Aware Of White Privilege"

  This spring, Ohio State University will launch a new course entitled “Crossing Identity Boundaries” which will empower America’s precious snowflakes with all of the tools they need to detect microaggressions and become “self-aware” of their inherent “white privilege.”  Unfortunately, this isn’t a joke.

  According to the class homepage, at the end of the course, students should be able to “identify micro-aggressions within their daily lives and within society as a whole” and “identify ways in which they can challenge or address systems of power and privilege.”

  Moreover, although it seems a little off topic for this particular course, students will also apparently be taught whether or not it’s appropriate for guys to always pay on a date.  And even though it’s not explicitly addressed on the course syllabus, we presume it’s a given that such a question would only be asked after determining one’s preferred pronoun because otherwise we’re just not sure how young people would go about confirming they’re actually on a date with a “guy.”  It’s also very unclear whether the mere discussion of stereotypical gender roles, like who should pay for a date, might be a “micro-aggression” in and of itself…dicey territory for sure.

  

   

  For those of you who may want to do some personal, private study, here is a list of a couple of books/articles from the course’s required reading list:

  • Waking up White: What it means to accept your legacy, for better and worse
  • White privilege: unpacking the invisible knapsack
  • Here’s the perfect explanation for why White people need to stop saying #AllLivesMatter
  • 3 examples of everyday cissexism
  • The science behind why people fear refugees
  • Creating identity-safe spaces on college campuses for Muslim students
  • Christian privilege: Breaking a sacred taboo

  Meanwhile, per College Fix, homework assignments include, among other things, taking two “implicit bias tests” and finding at least 12 example of micro-aggressions on social media.

  Taking the course, offered through the Department of Educational Studies, is one way students can fulfill the university’s mandatory diversity requirement, and many sections are offered throughout the school year.

   

  Part of the homework includes taking two “implicit bias tests,” and writing journals on prompts such as “power/privilege in your life” or calling on Christians to write about what it might feel like to be Muslim, or males on what it’s like to be female, and “reflecting on how this new identity would have impacted your day.”

   

  One big part of the class is a microaggressions group presentation and reflective paper.

   

  The assignment, according to a syllabus, calls on students to “find at least 12 examples of microaggressions using at least 3 different types of social media (e.g., Yik Yak, Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest). Explain who the target of the microaggression is and why your group believes it is an example of a negative remark. Provide an example of how you might respond to such a comment.”

   

  The assignment’s goal is for students to “evaluate the impact that power and privilege have within social media,” a syllabus states. Students are graded on the “quality of microaggresion chosen (do they clearly articulate why they are microaggressions and which group is targeted” and “quality of response (did they address the microaggression in an appropriate and meaningful way?)”

  Amazingly, American parents can get all of this for the bargain basement price of just $44,784 per year.  Just an amazing value.

  

  

• Trump Can't Do It All Alone – Six Things Americans Must Do To Make Real Change Happen

  Submitted by Jeremish Johnson (nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces ) via SHTFPlan.com,

  

  One of the best things is the fact that we can now say “President Trump.”  Fawning media pundits and those armies of liberals who worship propriety will use the term “president” to address his predecessor; however, he is just “Obama,” plain and simple.  It’s good to be rid of him.  Now the real work can be done.

  The primary focus of the American people from a perspective of priorities should be to convince the president to rally the Congress on one hand, and to use executive orders on the other to reverse the damage done by Obama over the past eight years.  This is where it will take the American citizens to get the ball rolling on this.  For those who may think it cannot be done, look at Prohibition.  That heinous law was repealed, and in this light so can the evils pushed through Congress when the Democrats controlled it and the bureaucratic and executive fiats ramrodded upon us also may be negated.

  Such actions as repealing all the hideous quackeries and Draconian edicts follow a logical series of steps to complete.  The President has enough time, however, he and Congress need to work swiftly.  Here’s how it can proceed:

  1. The most pressing issues (such as Obamacare, the border fence for the illegal aliens, etc.) must be brought toward both the Congress and the President…in a listed format…a petition
  2. This petitioning must also be supplemented by letters, e-mails, and telephone calls to each and every Congressman and Senator regarding these issues.
  3. Organizations that are nationwide must carry out these “campaigns” of changing the existing legislation and heinous pieces of bureaucratic rules and statutes…in the manner they campaigned for the President before the election. With the unity of different groups (such as voting groups, veterans’ organizations, and political party associations), the attention of Congress and the President can be obtained
  4. The petitions and letters must be sent to the President in duplicate, so that he will be aware of these issues that need to be changed, and that Congress (Representatives and Senators) is requested to act upon these matters
  5. Legislation can be initiated, and action can proceed, on repealing Obamacare, for example.
  6. If it should hit a stall in some way, the President can influence it, and possibly take those same Executive Actions that Obama brandished for almost a decade with impunity.

  The bottom line is that the President promised to repeal existing legislation and initiate the changes himself, but he is not solely responsible for this: the American people (who hold him accountable at the booths) must not forget it is their job to monitor his progress and to help it along.

  Here’s the deal.  Around November, the Congressmen and Senators will begin to campaign.  They will be a year out, and in order to keep their seats in the midterm election in November of 2018, there will have to be a good track record for the next year, with visible results within 6 to 8 months.  There is also no excuse, now.  The Republican party holds the House and the Senate.  There is nothing from a legislative perspective that the President cannot accomplish, at least for the next year and nine months.

  Of course, this will take solidarity within the Republican Party, and the Republicans have not had a very good track record in this department…with Speaker of the House Paul Ryan being the prime example.  Ryan refused to back the President before the elections when Hillary Clinton was conducting the “smear” campaign with the closet conga line of “damsels in distress” videos and “boo-hoo” interviews.  Then when the President won, Ryan did a complete-180.

  That solidarity may not be able to be coaxed, but it can be coerced, by the people with the power of their votes.  This will take action: by individuals writing and phoning en masse, and by groups (as mentioned earlier) and organizations.

  When these Representatives and Senators realize their jobs are on the line, they’ll act: not for the good of the issue, but to keep their job.

  So, the President is off to a good start.  We need to wish him as much success as possible.  We also need to help him out.  How?  By being proactive with the Congressmen and Senators of our States to bring matters to their attention.  The election is over, and Donald Trump is now the President, but the real work is just beginning.  If the people do not push these politicos with correspondence backed with the power of the vote, then the politicos will take a Merovingian stance and sit around idly.  We the people have a chance to make a change, and it’s in our hands.  The president is off and running, but even a champion racehorse needs a jockey for direction, and the jockey in this case is an informed and active public that keep him on the right course: the one to reflect the will of the people.

  

  

• CRA: The "Regulatory Game Changer" That Could Wipe Out 8 Years Of Obama Regs In An Hour

  After a pompous, liberal agenda was crammed down the throats of the American people during his first two years in office, President Obama suffered staggering losses in Congress for the next six years that cost Democrats control of both houses.  But, heavy Democrat losses, courtesy of an electorate that vehemently rejected a far-left agenda, didn’t stop Obama from continuing to push through countless new rules and regulations from the White House all while pushing his authority to the brink of every Constitutional boundary known to man. 

  Of course, the problem with “legislating from the White House” is that all those rules and regulations can be undone by the next administration.  And, as Kimberley Strassel points out in a Wall Street Journal Opinion piece today, a little know tool within the Congressional Review Act could allow Republicans to wipe out 8 full years of Obama’s liberal agenda, with a simple majority vote, all while preventing similar rules from every being recreated by future administrations.

  Todd Gaziano on Wednesday stepped into a meeting of free-market attorneys, think tankers and Republican congressional staff to unveil a big idea. By the time he stepped out, he had reset Washington’s regulatory battle lines.

   

  These days Mr. Gaziano is a senior fellow in constitutional law at the Pacific Legal Foundation. But in 1996 he was counsel to then-Republican Rep. David McIntosh. He was intimately involved in drafting and passing a bill Mr. McIntosh sponsored: the Congressional Review Act. No one knows the law better.

   

  Everyone right now is talking about the CRA, which gives Congress the ability, with simple majorities, to overrule regulations from the executive branch. Republicans are eager to use the law, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy this week unveiled the first five Obama rules that his chamber intends to nix.

  

   

  So, here’s how it works:

  But what Mr. Gaziano told Republicans on Wednesday was that the CRA grants them far greater powers, including the extraordinary ability to overrule regulations even back to the start of the Obama administration. The CRA also would allow the GOP to dismantle these regulations quickly, and to ensure those rules can’t come back, even under a future Democratic president. No kidding.

   

  Here’s how it works: It turns out that the first line of the CRA requires any federal agency promulgating a rule to submit a “report” on it to the House and Senate. The 60-day clock starts either when the rule is published or when Congress receives the report—whichever comes later.

   

  “There was always intended to be consequences if agencies didn’t deliver these reports,” Mr. Gaziano tells me. “And while some Obama agencies may have been better at sending reports, others, through incompetence or spite, likely didn’t.” Bottom line: There are rules for which there are no reports. And if the Trump administration were now to submit those reports—for rules implemented long ago—Congress would be free to vote the regulations down.

  But, it gets even better:

  There’s more. It turns out the CRA has a expansive definition of what counts as a “rule”—and it isn’t limited to those published in the Federal Register. The CRA also applies to “guidance” that agencies issue. Think the Obama administration’s controversial guidance on transgender bathrooms in schools or on Title IX and campus sexual assault. It is highly unlikely agencies submitted reports to lawmakers on these actions.

   

  “If they haven’t reported it to Congress, it can now be challenged,” says Paul Larkin, a senior legal research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Mr. Larkin, also at Wednesday’s meeting, told me challenges could be leveled against any rule or guidance back to 1996, when the CRA was passed.

   

  The best part? Once Congress overrides a rule, agencies cannot reissue it in “substantially the same form” unless specifically authorized by future legislation. The CRA can keep bad regs and guidance off the books even in future Democratic administrations—a far safer approach than if the Mr. Trump simply rescinded them.

  As Strassel points out: “The entire point of the CRA was to help legislators rein in administrations that ignored statutes and the will of Congress. Few White House occupants ever showed more contempt for the law and lawmakers than Mr. Obama. Republicans if anything should take pride in using a duly passed statue to dispose of his wayward regulatory regime. It’d be a fitting and just end to Mr. Obama’s abuse of authority—and one of the better investments of time this Congress could ever make.”

  

  

  

• War Gaming – Part 2: Cyberwarfare & Disinformation

  Submitted by Bill O'Grady via Confluence Investment Management,

  Yesterday, we began this two-part report by examining America’s geographic situation and how it is conducive to superpower status. This condition is problematic for foreign powers because it can be almost impossible to significantly damage America’s industrial base in a conventional war with the U.S. In addition, it would be very difficult to launch a conventional attack against the U.S. (a) with any element of surprise, and (b) without significant logistical challenges. The premise of this report is a “thought experiment” of sorts that examines the unconventional options foreign nations have to attack the U.S. Although these may not lead to regime change in America, such attacks may distract U.S. policymakers enough that foreign powers could engage in regional hegemonic actions that would otherwise be opposed by the U.S.

  In Part I of this report, we discussed two potential tactics to attack the U.S., a nuclear strike and a terrorist attack. Today, we will examine cyberwarfare and disinformation. We will conclude with market effects.

  #3: Cyberwarfare

  Cyberwarfare is a broad tactical category, ranging from the use of computer technology in conventional warfare to hacking enemies’ industrial, financial, media, utility and social networks to gain information, monitor behavior, spread disinformation and disrupt operations of these networks. Both state and non-state actors are active in cyber activities. There is a significant criminal element as well.

  The best known cyberattack was allegedly jointly created by Israel and the U.S. Dubbed “Stuxnet,” it was a computer virus which took control of systems that monitored Iran’s nuclear centrifuges. The virus returned information to its handlers and eventually was able to adversely affect the operation of the machinery itself, causing some of the centrifuges to spin out of control. Although Iran’s nuclear facilities were not directly connected to the internet, the bug was apparently introduced through a flash drive. This means that either a spy plugged a drive into Iran’s system or an innocent Iranian did it by mistake.

  Initially, as reports from Iran began emerging about problems in its nuclear facilities, it was generally assumed that the Persians simply didn’t know what they were doing or had purchased faulty equipment. Eventually, Stuxnet ruined about 20% of Iran’s nuclear centrifuges. The virus turned out to be rather pervasive, spreading to Indonesia, India, Azerbaijan and Pakistan, and, interestingly enough, also infecting about 1.6% of American computers.

  There are numerous other examples of cyberwarfare. The U.S. hacked insurgents’ cell phones in Iraq, allowing the American military to track their movements and even send them texts with false orders that may have led to their capture or demise. China has become notorious in its hacking of U.S. government and defense sites. Criminals routinely use “phishing” emails to gain control of individual and business computers, sometimes to “kidnap” their data (ransomware) or to simply gain their information.

  Cyberwarfare carries numerous risks. As seen with Stuxnet, once released, a virus can become uncontrollable, harming friends and foes alike. It is relatively easy to conceal as it can be difficult to determine where an attack originated. In other words, a state actor could make it appear that a criminal group was responsible for the hack. Or, the criminal group could act as a mercenary for a state, giving the government plausible deniability. Governments have an incentive to co-opt and coerce technology firms to build in “back doors” that allow them to monitor information from citizens. This deliberate defect makes the product less attractive to consumers. On the other hand, an impregnable information system would be a very attractive tool for terrorists and criminals. Essentially, personal privacy is always at risk in a world where cyberattacks are possible.

  Technology, for the most part, improves efficiency. Recently, my family traveled to the Caribbean which required a tour through U.S. Customs upon our return. We were checked into the country using an automated kiosk that scanned our passports, took a picture and sent us to a border agent. The following day the system crashed and what took us about 45 minutes to navigate took others up to six hours to clear. Payment systems have become increasingly electronic. This allows households to carry less cash and lets banks and other financial institutions move funds more easily through the economy. However, it also makes the system vulnerable to hackers. Banks are constantly facing threats from criminals trying to gain access to accounts.

  Fraudulent purchases on credit cards are common. These acts are more easily facilitated due to technology.

  In financial services, technology has changed how orders are handled. Trade execution is nearly instantaneous. The futures pits used to be populated with wildly waving traders in colorful jackets; now, these trades are executed via terminals and, in many cases, ordered by algorithm. Although this has lowered execution costs, it also makes financial markets susceptible to “flash crashes” that occasionally roil the markets.

  Essentially, technology has been eliminating the number of people directly involved in processing transactions, everything from financial markets to retailing and government services. Although this makes the economy more efficient, it also makes it more fragile. If a system crashes, it can cause widespread disruptions and close firms, government agencies and markets. The U.S. economy, due to its technological advances, may be more vulnerable to cyberattacks than other nations.

  Although cyberattacks won’t likely cause regime change in the U.S., it could seriously disrupt the American economy, giving a foreign power time to use conventional military means to establish regional hegemony. Thus, if China wanted to capture Taiwan or if Russia wanted to invade the Baltics, a major cyberattack, such as bringing down the electrical grid, causing dams to malfunction or disrupting air traffic control, may be enough to shift security and other officials’ attention in order to improve the odds of a successful attack.

  Cyberwarfare is a significant threat to U.S. security and has very attractive characteristics. It is stealthy; the origin of the attack can be disguised and it can cause significant damage to an economy. Although the U.S. may be vulnerable to such an attack, it should be noted that American intelligence agencies and the military have significant firepower in this area as well. The difference is that disrupting the Russian economy might not matter all that much because it’s already in poor shape. But, in the U.S., shutting down the electrical grid for several days would be considered catastrophic; in fact, simply bringing down the internet might be just as bad. The U.S. faces a constant threat from cyberattacks. The key concern is what a foreign power would do with a disruption. China has already captured defense plans and personal information. So far, it has used this information to improve its own defense materials and to create countermeasures to U.S. defense goods. But the threat of a cyberattack as cover for a regional military operation is perhaps the greatest threat the U.S. currently faces.

  #4: Disinformation

  Disinformation is nothing new. From time immemorial, governments have tried to fool their adversaries. From America’s perspective, Radio Free Europe was broadcasting the truth to those behind the Iron Curtain. To the communists, it was pure propaganda.

  There are two changes that make disinformation more dangerous. First, the technology behind news flow has changed dramatically. During the era of print media, disseminating news was rather expensive. Printing needed to occur. Journalists needed to be hired. The journalists were usually trained and there were standards of conduct that acted as a screen for reports. Although there was a “yellow press” in American history, the Cold War period was probably the golden age of journalism.

  By the 1980s, cable news became an alternative to the major networks. The cable news companies discovered that they were able to capture a more reliable viewership by taking a definite slant toward the news. AM radio, as an older technology and because of its low cost, became an avenue of more extreme views. But the real change agent was the internet and social media. The internet allowed for news to be disseminated almost instantly. Social media allows common citizens to post items and videos for all to see. Regular media companies suddenly found themselves competing with citizens and their cell phones. From 1981 to 2014, the number of daily newspapers declined by 25.3%. Social media and news aggregators have the ability to screen news flow based on the viewing habits of the reader. Essentially, if one reads off the internet uncritically, they can live in a virtual news echo chamber. Thus, news, “facts” and viewpoints become hardened.

  The changes in news dissemination dovetailed with changes in political polarization.

  

  This chart is a measure of party polarization; essentially, it measures partisanship. The higher the reading on the chart, the more the political structure is partisan and polarized. Before the U.S. emerged on the world stage, there were strong disagreements on policy. There was less polarization by WWI, and during the Cold War the degree of polarization reached historical lows. In other words, regardless of political party, there was a high degree of bipartisanship.

  When the Cold War ended, bipartisanship also deteriorated. Currently, the country is probably the most polarized it has been since the Civil War. Unfortunately, this degree of disunity is dangerous for a superpower because it creates conditions that can distract policymakers from global concerns.

  Perhaps the greatest risk to the evolution of American hegemony was the Civil War. Although the British were the undisputed global superpower at the time, the leadership of that nation was watching the explosive economic growth in the U.S. warily. The British probably made a strategic mistake in not supporting the Confederacy because if it had survived the U.S. would have been divided and would never have achieved the same degree of power. According to historians, the political elites favored supporting the South but the public opposed it because of slavery. In addition, Queen Victoria also supported abolition and opposed the Confederacy. The British did offer some support but never enough to turn the tide.

  An America divided is susceptible to disinformation. We are living in an era where “false news” is routinely disseminated. In addition, facts have become increasingly tied to social and political positions; in other words, no fact seems to exist outside a social and political context. During the Cold War, the losing political party in an election was in opposition but did work with the winner; in the current environment, the losing party believes catastrophic events are likely and the only way to ensure a better future is to resist the policy goals of the other party.

  This environment allows foreign powers to influence social and political beliefs. It is clear the Russians tried to influence the U.S. presidential election. This should not come as a shock to anyone. The U.S. has done this for years; what Americans see as supporting democracy-loving activists in foreign nations looks much like meddling to foreign governments. In addition, it is routine for other nations to have lobbying efforts in the U.S., ostensibly to affect American policy.

  What is surprising is that the Russians seem to have had some success, although we would argue that it probably wasn’t as significant as the media is suggesting. We believe the reason the Russians were able to find some traction with the leaks and its behavior is that the political environment allowed it to occur. A political environment in which the other party isn’t seen as merely an American with a different political position but one that is perhaps evil allows leaks and disinformation to have power.

  Essentially, it appears that our current highly partisan climate has created an environment where disinformation is more likely to be accepted. If this process makes America more divided, it will reduce our ability to project power and exercise hegemony. Although disinformation probably won’t bring regime change, it can create conditions under which an aspiring regional hegemon can try to influence American public opinion in a fashion that will reduce the likelihood that the U.S. responds negatively to the aspiring regional hegemon’s encroachment. In other words, if Russia wanted to take the Baltics, it may try to use false news and internet dissemination to sway Americans to oppose U.S. and NATO intervention.

  Ramifications

  This report is something of a thought experiment about how foreign nations can attack a hegemon with extraordinarily favorable geographic conditions. We identified four primary methods—a nuclear strike, terrorism, cyberattack and disinformation. These are not the only methods, but we suspect these are the most likely. Two others that deserve mention are biological/chemical warfare and space. The reason we didn’t explore the former is that it is probably similar to a nuclear attack if done in scale; we would know who did it and we would not be surprised to see a state-sponsored biological attack met with a nuclear strike or a massive conventional attack. Of course, a terrorist attack using these methods could be effective but these weapons are notoriously difficult to deploy effectively. And, the U.S. has an advanced medical sector that would probably be able to cope with a small biological attack. A space attack, which could range from attacking satellites to launching weapons, is possible. However, the U.S. is probably as well prepared as any nation for such conflicts and so a pre-emptive strike would probably be met in kind. Thus, for considerations of length, we didn’t explore either of these methods in detail.

  We are not likely to face a nuclear attack but the other three are quite likely and, in fact, have occurred and will likely continue to occur. Of the remaining three, we are most worried about the two discussed this week. Computer hacking by China and Russia is common; although it hasn’t led to anything that threatens civil order, the potential does exist that it could at some point.

  Disinformation is another rising concern. Although this method has existed for centuries, the internet allows dissemination without filters. Thus, the ability to affect the unity of the nation and America’s capacity to mobilize against enemies to support allies could be compromised.

  As noted, we believe a conventional military attack on the continental U.S. is highly unlikely. However, that doesn’t mean that aspiring regional hegemons won’t use the last three methods to improve their odds of success in local actions. The Russian concept of “hybrid war” uses the last three in combination to undermine nations in its near abroad and weaken any opposition to Russian goals of regional domination. The U.S. may become a more likely target of similar actions in order to distract America from opposing the aims of aspiring regional hegemons to expand their areas of control.

  The market ramifications are complicated. Technology security firms should find steady business from the private and public sector. Media companies may face additional burdens of screening news for potential “false news” stories. Overall, though, the biggest impact may be that these factors are part of a trend where the U.S. continues to move away from the superpower role it has played since the end of WWII. We have documented and discussed these issues at length. The bottom line is that a G-0 world is one that is negative for foreign investment but probably bullish for commodities. The dollar and U.S. financial assets will likely benefit relative to foreign assets.
   

  

  

• Protesters Plot "Border Wall" Rally For Tomorrow…At Zuckerberg's Sprawling $100mm Hawaiian Estate

  Back in 2014 Mark Zuckerberg paid $100 million to purchase 700 acres of beachfront property on the North Shore of Kauai.  The estate includes 1,000’s of feet of pristine shoreline providing the perfect “safe space” for the 30-year-old Silicon Valley Billionaire and his family.

  

   

  Unfortunately, there was just one little problem with the purchase…technically the sellers didn’t own the title to all of that land due to the so-called Kuleana Act, a Hawaiian law established in 1850 that for the first time gave natives the right to own the land that they lived on. 

  So now, according to the Honolulu Star Advertiser, the Facebook billionaire sued a few hundred Hawaiians who still have legal-ownership claims to parts of his vacation estate through their ancestors.  Per Yahoo Finance:

  Three holding companies controlled by Zuckerberg filed eight lawsuits in local court on December 30 against families who collectively inherited 14 parcels of land through the Kuleana Act, a Hawaiian law established in 1850 that for the first time gave natives the right to own the land that they lived on.

   

  The 14 parcels total just 8.04 of the 700 acres Zuckerberg owns, but the law gives any direct family member of a parcel’s original owner the right to enter the otherwise private compound.

  And while Zuckerberg’s lawyer attempted to downplay the lawsuits as a common practice in Hawaii, we suspect the idea of defending your private property rights against one of the top 10 richest people in the world is somewhat intimidating and slightly less than “normal.”

  The quiet-title suits filed are designed to identify all property owners and give them the ability to sell their ownership stakes at auction, according to Keoni Shultz, an attorney representing Zuckerberg. Because the ownership stakes are passed down and divided among family descendants by the state, many people don’t realize they have a claim until action is taken against them in court.

   

  “It is common in Hawaii to have small parcels of land within the boundaries of a larger tract, and for the title to these smaller parcels to have become broken or clouded over time,” Shultz told Business Insider in a statement. “In some cases, co-owners may not even be aware of their interests. Quiet title actions are the standard and prescribed process to identify all potential co-owners, determine ownership, and ensure that, if there are other co-owners, each receives appropriate value for their ownership share.”

  Of course, the pompous dismissal of property rights isn’t the only thing riling up Hawaiian natives regarding Zuckerberg’s estate.  As The Garden Island pointed out, residents are also slightly less than ecstatic about a massive, 6 foot rock wall erected around the estate and blocking the “view that’s been available and appreciative by the community here for years.”

  “The feeling of it is really oppressive. It’s immense,” Hall said. “It’s really sad that somebody would come in, and buy a huge piece of land and the first thing they do is cut off this view that’s been available and appreciative by the community here for years.”

   

  “It’s hot behind that wall. Because it’s up on a berm, there’s not a breath of air on this side from the ocean,” Chantara said. “You take a solid wall that’s 10 or more feet above the road level; the breeze can’t go through.”

   

  Another Kilauea resident, Donna Mcmillen, calls the wall a “monstrosity.”

   

  “I’m super unhappy about that. I know that land belongs to Zuckerberg. Money is no option for him. I’m 5’8” and when I’m walking, I see nothing but wall,” Mcmillen said. “It just doesn’t fit in with the natural beauty that we have here. There are people on the island who money can pay for anything. These kind of things that they do take away what Kauai is all about.”

   

  

   

  Over the past couple of weeks, intense public backlash over the lawsuit and “immense, oppressive” wall has caused Zuckerberg to backtrack on his plans. Earlier today he published a note to residents in The Garden Island announcing his intentions to drop his litigation saying that “upon reflection, it’s clear we made a mistake.”

  We’ve heard from many in the community and learned more about the cultural and historical significance of this land. Over the past week, we’ve spoken with community leaders and shared that our intention is to achieve an outcome that preserves the environment, respects local traditions, and is fair to those with kuleana lands.

   

  To find a better path forward, we are dropping our quiet title actions and will work together with the community on a new approach. We understand that for native Hawaiians, kuleana are sacred and the quiet title process can be difficult. We want to make this right, talk with the community, and find a better approach.

   

  Upon reflection, I regret that I did not take the time to fully understand the quiet title process and its history before we moved ahead. Now that I understand the issues better, it’s clear we made a mistake.

   

  The right path is to sit down and discuss how to best move forward. We will continue to speak with community leaders that represent different groups, including native Hawaiians and environmentalists, to find the best path.

   

  Beyond this process, we are also looking for more ways to support the community as neighbors. We have contributed to community organizations and will continue to do so. We work with wildlife experts to preserve endangered species. We hope to do much more in the future.

   

  We love Kaua`i and we want to be good members of the community for the long term. Thank you for welcoming our family into your community.

  But, a local farmer, Joe Hart says that Zuckerberg’s retreat isn’t sufficient and, as of now, vows that the mass protest planned for tomorrow will move forward as “people are furious down here with him.”  Per McClatchey:

  “People are furious down here with him,” Hart, a local farmer told Business Insider. “We just want to bring this issue to light. He’s made his money stealing everyone’s information, which we’ve let him do, but to come down here and start suing everyone, that’s not going to fly down here.”

  Alas, in the end we’re sure Zuckerberg will have his way.  After all, what fun is billions of dollars if you can’t buy expansive swaths of entire states and trample on the private property rights of some little people?

  

  

• US Auto Industry In Crisis Amid "Inventory Bubble"

  Despite record U.S. auto sales last year, the number of vehicles on car-dealer lots remains near record highs, and, as J.D.Power analyst Thomas King warned this week, 2016 ended with an inventory "bubble" that will require less production or more incentives to clear.

  With near record high inventories of 3.9 million vehicles…

  

   

  U.S. auto inventory finished 2016 at about 66 days supply, up from 60 days a year earlier. Inventory would last 2.23 months at the November sales pace, according to the latest available data from the Census Bureau. The stock-to-sales ratio in 2016 is extremely elevated compared to historical norms…

  

  More problematically, King warns, about one-third of inventory were older model-year vehicles, rather than more typical level of less than a quarter.

  Of course this massive stockpile hits just as President Trump pressures the auto-industry to onshore more jobs and more production…

  But as the industry automates, factories don’t create jobs like they used to, said Marina Whitman, a professor of business administration and public policy at the University of Michigan.

   

  “The American auto industry last year produced more cars than it ever had before, but they did it with somewhere between one-third and one-half the number of workers that they had decades ago,” said Whitman, who was an adviser to President Richard Nixon and GM’s chief economist from 1978 to 1992.

   

  “The last thing the auto industry needs is more capacity.” she said.

  So – produce more to employ more people and please President Trump (only to dramatically worsen the inevitable collapse), or cut workforces and productin further (as we have already seen) and face the wrath of Trump's tweets?

  

  

• Are Sanctuary Cities More Violent?

  Submitted by Salil Mehta via Statistical Ideas blog,

  With the battle growing in sanctuary cities to deviate from President Trump’s strategy on immigration law, it is worth seeing another topic that we have been following closely: violent crime rate across major U.S. cities.  This of course comes as President Trump menacingly engages with Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel, in a twitter exchange that reiterates the use of the term “carnage” to suggest the warfare-style chaos that is occurring there.

  If Chicago doesn't fix the horrible "carnage" going on, 228 shootings in 2017 with 42 killings (up 24% from 2016), I will send in the Feds!

  — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 25, 2017

  By definition sanctuary cities are generally liberal (Democratic) cities or regions that oppose the current conservative policies to oppress most immigrants.  The 14 most-populated U.S. cities represent 30 million Americans (or 9% of the 319 million U.S. population).  Of these 14 cities, 9 are sanctuary cities (64%) and 5 are non-sanctuary cities (36%).  As we prove below, one is significantly safer from violent crimes in sanctuary cities, but for a couple notable exceptions (i.e., Chicago, Philadelphia). Below we’ll distinguish between these two types of cities:

  • Nearly 2 thousand murders occur annually in these sanctuary cities (>70%), while less than a thousand murders occur in the non-sanctuary cities (<30%).
  • While each taken life is too many, mortality statistics drive these large death numbers into probability context.  So with the much larger population from the sanctuary cities (collectively or on average), the homicide rate (per 100k) there is “just” 5, while it is 9 in non-sanctuary cities!
  • It is true that the murder rates have come in most cities across the U.S., but again these rates are unacceptably high, particularly as some cities are many times more ferocious versus their peers!
  • The blended murder rate from the 14 large cities meanwhile is in-between at 8, and this is also just less than twice the national average is 4.

  Now we can see a chart of these 14 cities on this map below, where the size of the circular-marker is related to the population of the city, and the text color of the murder rate is blue for sanctuary cities; red for non-sanctuary cities.  The blue on the map regions represents areas who mostly voted for Hillary Clinton (as noted above this was mostly limited to mega-cities), while red indicates the rest of the country where Donald Trump completely dominated the popular vote.

  

  Using a mathematical practice similar to boot-strapping, we show further below, the population-weighted murder rate distribution for the 14 cities.  Also 4 of the 9 (44%) sanctuary cities have had an above-average murder rate among the large cities, while 2 of the 5 (40%) of the non-sanctuary cities had an above-average murder rate.  Though this difference -skewing towards sanctuary cities- is not statistically significant (less than ½ standard deviation, or ?).

  Meanwhile the murder rate difference of 4 (9 v 5), between non-sanctuary cities and sanctuary cities, is highly statistically significant, given the population in millions discussed early in this article.  But the chance any given non-sanctuary city is more murderous versus a sanctuary city is not statistically significant (less than 1 ?). Predominantly with such benign jumbo-metropolises, such as New York with their “low” murder rate of 4 (despite sky-high homelessness), versus Houston (the county’s largest non-sanctuary city) with their murder rate of 11.

  

  The bottom line is there is a minor bias towards more violence in non-sanctuary cities, areas generally aligned to conservative policies and gun-friendly.  This is where Americans will typically have a higher probability of being slain (expressly young Black males in the inner-cities who are gunned down by others in the same community, as opposed to the police – many directors of which nationally follow this site).  Though the large cities are not easily separable into such mass generalizations, this is also why it happens to be easy for President Donald Trump to censure the worst areas of the country.  Since there we have heterogeneously diverse characteristics of violence, from our large sanctuary cities.

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest