• The Mainstream Is Circling The Wagons: "They're Coming For All Of Us…It's An Orchestrated Attack Against Truth"

  Via Mac Slavo of SHTFPlan.com,

  Within hours of the election of Donald Trump the mainstream media, their politico counterparts and social media operatives began spreading the narrative that the President was only elected as a result of the dissemination of fake news. The term itself became a rallying cry for everyone from major search engines to massive social media websites who said they would create fact checking teams within their organizations to ensure only legitimate news and information would be listed on their respective platforms. Soon, the leftist media began spreading lists, none of which were backed with any actual evidence, of supposed “fake news” purveyors and Russian propaganda websites. The lists included some of the most highly trafficked non-mainstream websites and aggregators around the world. As these Silicon Valley behemoths and popular news organizations mobilized, so too did mainstream advertising agencies, one of which quickly pulled advertising from the purported king of fake news, conservative leaning news organization Breitbart.com.

  The battle was clearly on. And to this day, it continues in earnest. Legitimate news is being buried in feeds and search engine pages, while the effort to directly attack the revenue of alternative media websites continues to expand.

  Several weeks ago Mike Adams of NaturalNews.com penned an alert in which he reported that a shadow organization had contacted him with an offer to either help them take down Infowars founder Alex Jones, or be destroyed. Adams, being a long-time proponent of free speech and liberty, took to the internet to expose them instead. Naturally, the skeptics laughed it all off as another conspiracy theory.

  Except just days after Natural News posted the warning, Infowars was suddenly dropped by one of the world’s largest online advertising agencies, reportedly costing the network some $3 million in revenue. And within a week of that attack, the largest search engine in the world delisted some 140,000 NaturalNews.com pages from their search results.

  While this may seem like no big deal for the average reader today, what these recent actions demonstrate is that a conglomerate of traditional news media, big business and political operatives are actively working to suppress the reporting of information that runs counter to the mainstream agenda.

  First they come for the purveyors of truth and information that has remained hidden from the masses for decades. Next they will come for those who publicly discuss their views and and ideas on social media and other forums. And while you may not fall into any of these two categories, make no mistake, as SGT Report warns in the following must-watch report, one day they will come for you, too. 

  They’ll be coming for all of us… Because this is an orchestrated attack against truth… I cannot imagine living in a time in the United States of America where this is allowed to stand…

  As of this morning Google has reinstated NaturalNews.com, though the original reasons provided by Google, which claimed this was a technical issue involving a small number of outdated pages on the website, were unable to be duplicated by numerous well known SEO websites and cyber sleuths. Curiously, as Health Ranger Mike Adams notes in his statement on the censroship, the very same technical issues actively exist on mainstream websites like CNN and Huffington Post, though their pages have yet to be delisted in the same manner as Natural News.

  Based on the evidence, we are hard pressed to find any legitimate reason for why Mike Adams’ 140,000 pages would have been delisted, save for the fact that this was a direct attack against his alternative viewpoints on health, politics and a number of other issues. And though Google as an organization may not have been fully aware of the reasons behind the delisting, someone had to push the button. That the button push came just days after the aforementioned warning Mike received to either play ball or be destroyed is highly suspicious.

  There is a concerted effort to shut down views and ideas that run counter to the status quo. Today it has come in the form of silencing the most vocal critics. Tomorrow, they may try to silence you.

  Mike Adams discusses the delisting and reinstatement of his website on The Common Sense Show:

  

  

• NEW UNCOVERED INFORMATION: Why Central Banks Were Forced To Rig The Gold Market

  

  By the SRSrocco Report,

  According to newly uncovered information in the gold market, it provides additional evidence of why the Fed, Central Banks and the IMF were forced to RIG the gold market.  Not only was the dropping of the Gold-Dollar peg going to release a great deal of pressure on the manipulated gold price, but forecasts of a massive increase in gold demand was going to totally overwhelm supply.

  Thus, this new information provides clear evidence that the gold market was being assaulted on “two fronts.”  Not only was the gold market suffering from a decades of price suppression schemes via the Fed and Central Banks, but also that surging gold demand in the jewelry and industrial sectors was going to lead to severe shortages in the gold market.

  Which means, the gold market was experiencing a great deal more stress than complications stemming from the debasement of the U.S. Dollar due to massive money printing.  Actually, looking at this new information, I had no idea of the amount of Fed, Central Bank and IMF gold market intervention until I put all the pieces together.

  Now, when I say “new information”, it pertains to new information and data that I dug up from older official documents.  While most of the folks in the precious metals community realize that the Fed and Central Banks have sold gold into the market to depress the price, this new evidence puts the gold market it in an entirely DIFFERENT LIGHT.

   —————————————————————-

  PRECIOUS METALS INVESTORS…. if you think your getting the “BEST PRICE” for purchasing gold and silver, or you are receiving the best “FEE” for storing your metals, than you need not look any further.  However, if you haven’t checked out our new PRECIOUS METALS INVESTING section or our new LOWEST COST PRECIOUS METALS STORAGE page, I highly recommend you do.

  —————————————————————-

  Furthermore, additional data points to a “Gold Supply & Demand” situation that would have gone completely out of control, if the Fed, Central Banks and IMF did not step in.

  To preface this subject matter, the Central Banks dumped a lot of gold into the market during the 1960’s to maintain (suppress) the official gold price.  This was known as the “London Gold Pool” where an estimated 78 million oz (Moz) of gold were dumped into the market between 1961 and 1968.  I explained this in my THE GOLD REPORT- Investment Flows.

  However, when Nixon dropped the Dollar-Gold Peg on August 15, 1971, the problems with the global monetary system were just beginning.  In a report published in November, 1972, by the U.S. Congress and Subcommittee on International Payments of the Joint Economic Committee for the purpose of “De-emphasizing gold as a reserve asset”,it stated the following:

  

   

  Not only did the committee suggest and permit the “voluntary” sale of official gold into the market, but also to “prohibit” against Central bank purchases.  Which meant the committee was proposing a plan to only allow the DUMPING of gold into the market, but forbid any OFFICIAL BUYING.  This of course was supporting the “FREE MARKET” fundamentals for proper gold price discovery…. LOL.

  At the bottom of that quote, the committee went on to state that when the international monetary reform had been achieved (to an IMF SDR basket), all prohibitions of gold (investment) purchases by American citizens would be promptly abolished.

  So, the wonderful folks up in government had an ingenious method to their madness.  According to their assessment, it would have not been prudent to allow Americans to start purchasing and hoarding gold until the completion of the new fiat monetary system was achieved.

  Again, most of us in the precious metals community understand that the Central banks dumped a lot of gold into the market during the 1960’s London Gold Pool to maintain the official gold price.  However, new uncovered gold supply and demand data suggests there was another FACTOR that forced even more dumping of official gold during the 1970’s.

  Forecast Of Massive Gold Supply & Demand Imbalance

  The reason that Nixon dropped the Gold-Dollar Peg in August 1971 was to keep U.S. gold from flowing overseas as the U.S. Government had been printing a great deal of paper money.  Thus, countries such as France were exchanging Dollars for real gold.  This forced Nixon to drop the convertibility of Dollars into gold so the United States could hold onto its remaining gold reserves.

  But, and here is a BIG BUT… converting Dollars into physical gold was only one part of the monumental problem facing the gold market and industry.  Up until now, this was the only real problem that I was aware of as it pertained to the gold market in the 1970’s.  However, forecasts of future Gold Supply & Demand factors were going to totally disrupt the market unless the Fed and Central banks stepped in.

  This next quote comes from the USGS 1971 Gold Yearbook.  The highlighted area shows just how bad the gold supply and demand situation was going to be at the end of the decade:

  According to a gold expert at Consolidated Gold Fields Ltd., global gold demand was forecasted to reach 63 million oz (Moz) by 1980, up from 42.5-45 Moz in 1972.  You see… this was a BIG PROBLEM.  Why?  Because gold mine supply was also forecasted to decline to 38-41 Moz in 1980.  This would have resulted in a huge net deficit.

  So, how well did the Consolidated Gold Fields Ltd., forecast turn out?  Let’s look at the chart below:

  

  Actually, it turned out pretty darn accurate.  Global gold production declined from its peak of 46.5 Moz in 1970, to 38.8 Moz in 1980.  This was mainly due to the peak and decline of South African gold production.  I would imagine very few individuals in the precious metals community realize just how much gold South Africa produced.

  No other country has come anywhere near the record annual gold production achieved by South Africa at its peak in 1970:

  

  South Africa produced an amazing 1,000 metric tons of gold in 1970… 32 Moz.  Here are the annual peak production figures from three leading gold producing countries:

  1) China = 478 mt (15.4 Moz) 2014

  2) USA = 366 mt (11.8 Moz) 1998

  3) Australia = 276 mt (8.9 Moz) 2015

  China holds the second highest annual gold production record at 478 mt (15.4 Moz) set in 2014.  However, this is still less than half of the 1,000 mt that South Africa produced in 1970.  According to GFMS 2016 Gold Survey, South Africa’s gold production was 151 mt (4.8 Moz) in 2015.   The once mighty South African gold production has declined 85% from its peak in 1970.

  Now, taking the 1980 forecasted supply and demand data by Consolidated Gold Fields Ltd. above, here is the result:

  

  If the forecast of a 63 Moz gold demand figure was true, then the market would have suffered a 25 Moz deficit in 1980.  So, not only did U.S. President Nixon stop the bleeding of gold flows out of the U.S. Treasury, but in addition, public demand for gold that decade was going to explode.

  This just could not fly.  Which is why the Congress and the Subcommittee on International Exchange and Payments (listed above) were highly motivated to promote “Official Gold Sales” while prohibiting “Official Gold Buying.”  This was a “ONE-WAY PLAN” for gold… and that was the dumping of a massive amount of the yellow metal into the market.

  The Fed, IMF and Official Government Gold Sales During the 1970’s

  It’s hard to tell how much gold was dumped into the gold market during the 1970’s decade.  I have plans on putting together a more comprehensive report on the details of what took place in the gold market from the 1960’s to present.  This will include more detailed data on Official gold sales.

  However, we have some clues in the text from different USGS Gold Yearbooks.  First, we have foreign gold at the Federal Reserve sold into the market in 1973 and 1974:

  

  As we can see, 2.14 Moz of foreign held gold at the Fed were dumped into the market in 1974 and 1.69 Moz in 1973.  Unfortunately, official sales of gold into the market did not deter the rising gold price.  The gold price jumped from an average $65 in January 1973 to a high of $200 at the end of 1974.

  Well, the Central banks could not let this exploding gold price to continue.  Which is why the IMF made this official statement in August, 1975:

  

  The IMF – International Monetary Fund, announced in August, 1975 to sell one-sixth of its gold stocks.  At the time, the IMF held 153.4 Moz of gold.  Thus, it planned to sell 25.5 Moz over the next several years to supposedly provide capital for low-interest loans to developing countries.  I wonder why the IMF did not make this statement back in 1973 or 1974?  And why would the IMF have to sell gold to provide capital for developing countries??  Wasn’t there a new FIAT MONETARY REGIME??

  Wasn’t gold now a “Barbarous Relic?”

  With the IMF “strategic”announcement that it would sell 25.5 Moz of gold into the market, it had a profound impact on the gold price in 1975:

  

  After the IMF gold sale announcement, the gold price plummeted 21% in just one month from $165, down to a low of $130.  Before I came across this information, I just believed that the gold price was due for a correction…. stated by several websites, such as by analysts on King World News.  However, this wasn’t a typical market correction.  Rather… this was a MARKET INTERVENTION FORCED CORRECTION.  Big difference.

  So, why the IMF gold sale announcement?  Was it due to a response to the rapidly rising price.. or did rising demand play a part.  If we look at this next quote taken from the USGS 1974 Gold Yearbook, we find our answer:

  

  According to the data, private gold holdings and investment surged 5-fold in 1974 to 27.3 Moz.  The report also stated that total gold jewelry and industrial demand was 23 Moz in 1974.  Thus, total gold demand exceeded 50 Moz in 1974.

  I would imagine if private gold investment didn’t jump 5-fold from the previous year, the IMF would have not considered it necessary to announce the sale of 25.5 Moz of its gold reserves in 1975.

  In order to make good on its promise, the IMF did sell 3.9 Moz of gold in 1976 and another 6 Moz in 1977 into the market:

  

  

  In just the first two years after its proposed 25.5 Moz gold sale in August 1975, the IMF sold 9.9 Moz, or nearly 40% of its planned amount.  If we read the first quoted text above (1976), the gold price reached a low in August 1976 after the second IMF gold sale.

  Oh, did I forget to mention that another 2.14 Moz of foreign held gold at the Federal Reserve was dumped into the market in 1976??  So, between these two official institutions, over 6 Moz of gold were sold into the market in 1976 alone to guarantee there was a FREE MARKET PRICING mechanism for gold.

  I have to make a comment here.  I spend a lot of time at energy and precious metals blogs.  I am completely surprised at the lack of intelligence by individuals who are supposedly very “BRIGHT” in their respective industries.  When I hear comments that gold is nothing more than a “13th Century Middle Ages Relic”, and that digit currency is the new monetary system… the Good Lord Almighty must be enjoying one hell of a BELLY-ACHING LAUGH.

  These folks who seem to understand the ramifications of falling cheap energy production upon the global markets still cling to a FIAT MONETARY SYSTEM that needs an ever-increasing supply of cheap oil to survive.  How on earth are they unable to CONNECT THE FRICKEN DOTS is beyond me.

  Regardless, the Fed, Central banks and IMF have been rigging the gold market for quite some time… and continue to do so.

  During the 1960’s Gold Pool it was more a physical market intervention as they dumped 78 Moz of gold to maintain the official gold price of $35 an ounce.  Then when Nixon dropped the Gold-Dollar Peg in 1971, these official institutions combined “Physical gold dumping” along with the “Creation of a Paper Gold Futures Market in 1975” to rig the gold market during the wild 1970 decade.

  I don’t have a lot of data on the paper futures market in this article (will be in future Paid Report), but here is a tidbit on some of the trading volume:

  Global Paper GOLD EXCHANGE Annual Trading Volume:

  1975 = 84 Moz

  1977 = 190 Moz

  1979 = 1,027 Moz

  From the beginning of paper gold trading on the Global Exchanges, it increased from 84 Moz in 1975 to an astonishing 1,027 Moz (1.03 billion oz) in 1979.  The tremendous trading of paper gold contracts (later on including options) sucked in a massive amount of funds.  Thus, paper gold trading funneled a great deal of money away from physical gold and into worthless paper gold.

  As I mentioned, I don’t have a full reporting of all the official gold that was dumped into the market from 1971-1980.  That will be included in an upcoming report.  However, it was stated in the USGS 1980 Gold Yearbook, that the IMF did complete its final gold auction in May 1980.  This was their final gold sale that equaled a total of 25.5 Moz from 1976 to 1980.

  If we include this amount with the sales of foreign gold at the Federal Reserve and other official gold sales, the amount of gold sold during the 1970 decade was quite an impressive amount… probably something north of 50 Moz.

  Again, this was all done to guarantee a FREE MARKET price discovery for gold.  Today, most Americans and citizens around the world have no idea just how undervalued gold is.  No idea whatsoever.

  Since the peak of the gold price in 1980, the Fed and Central Banks continued to dump physical gold into the markets at various times up until 2009.  However, “Official gold sales” turned into net “Official purchases” in 2010.  This put a severe KINK in the Western Central Bank plan of gold market rigging.  Just seems like those problematic Chinese and Russians have a much different idea about REAL MONEY than the West.

  

   

  To continue rigging the gold market in the 1990’s and onwards, the West had to introduce “Gold Leasing” and more exotic “Gold Derivatives” to keep the gold price from going completely BONKERS.  Again, this has been done while the public remains completely in the dark.

  In conclusion, the Fed and Central banks were in serious trouble in 1971.  Not only was the dropping of the Gold-Dollar Peg in 1971 a sign that things were about to get very interesting with the gold price, but the forecast of exploding gold demand would have resulted in a 25 Moz deficit by 1980.  This forced the Fed, IMF and Central banks to dump a massive amount of gold into the market to meet the insatiable demand.

  Which means, gold became too valuable to be used as money in the U.S. and Global economy.  Yes, that sounds strange… but that is the truth.  I mentioned this in a previous article on why silver was removed from U.S. coinage.  It was due to the same reason.

  When I say, “too valuable to be used as money”, I mean it in the way that money has degraded to.  There are no real banks in the world.  A bank should hold stored “ECONOMIC ENERGY” as stated by Mike Maloney.  When someone deposits gold at a bank, that is REAL MONEY.  A bank is supposed to store real money.  Instead, banks store DIGITAL IOU balances, or worse yet, highly leveraged loans.

  Since Nixon dropped the Dollar-Gold Peg in 1971, the amount of debt in the world has skyrocketed.  The Central Banks designed a two-tiered system to remove gold as a reserve asset:

  1. Dump physical gold into the market to suppress or maintain price.  Then add a Paper Futures Market to funnel funds away from a limited supply of physical gold and into an unlimited supply of paper gold contracts.
  2. Increase world debt to such massive levels, that interest rates had to fall towards zero.. or negative.  Thus creating a 30+ year artificial Bond Market Rally.  If interest rates rise… the entire system BLOWS UP.

  While the ultimate revaluation of gold and silver has taken more time than most of us in the precious metals community anticipated, THAT DAY IS COMING.

  As I have mentioned in several articles and interviews, the timing of this event will be known by what takes place in the energy markets as they are the drivers of our economy… and the highly leverage Fiat Monetary System.

  Investors should not try to time the markets by selling Stocks, Bonds or Real Estate before the crash comes and then move into physical gold and silver.  Rather, that should be done on an ongoing basis as the TIMING of the event is impossible to predict.

  However, it is much wiser to do be in the metals a DAY EARLY than a DAY LATE.

  Lastly, if you haven’t checked out our new PRECIOUS METALS INVESTING section or our new LOWEST COST PRECIOUS METALS STORAGE page, I highly recommend you do.

  Check back for new articles and updates at the SRSrocco Report.

  

• Austria To Stop Giving Food, Shelter To Rejected Asylum Seekers

  In a bill aimed at encouraging asylum seekers to leave voluntarily, Austrian lawmakers are considering halting the provision of food and accommodation to migrants who are denied asylum and refuse to leave the country.

  

  Austria took in roughly 90,000 asylum seekers in 2015, more than 1 percent of its population, as it was swept up in Europe's migration crisis when hundreds of thousands of people crossed its borders, most on their way to Germany. As Reuters notes, it has since tightened immigration restrictions and helped shut down the route through the Balkans by which almost all those people – many of them fleeing war and poverty in the Middle East and elsewhere – arrived. Asylum applications fell by more than half last year.

  Asylum seekers in Austria get so-called basic services, including free accommodation, food, access to medical treatment and 40 euros ($42.41) pocket money a month.

  But now, Austria's centrist coalition government on Tuesday agreed on a draft law which would allow authorities to stop providing accommodation and food to rejected asylum seekers who refuse to leave the country.

  “The first thing is basically that they don’t get anything from the Austrian state if they don’t have the right to stay here. Is that so hard to understand?”

  As Politico reports, Interior Minister Wolfgang Sobotka said, said the law, which will need approval by parliament, was designed to encourage rejected asylum seekers to leave voluntarily.

  

  According to the minister, some 4,000 people receive basic services but should have left the country. Of those, around half could be affected if the law is passed because they are deemed healthy enough to travel to their home countries.

  Most rejected asylum seekers in Austria in 2016 were from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Nigeria. Asylum applicants who lie about their identities face a €5,000 fine or three weeks in jail.

  The Austrian office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) said the bill was "highly questionable" and urged lawmakers to think hard about agreeing to it.

  

  

• "What Is To Be Done?"

  Via Paul Craig Roberts,

  The question in the title is V.I. Lenin’s question. His answer was to create a revolutionary “vanguard” to spread revolutionary ideas among the workers, the economic class that Karl Marx had declared to be the class rising to the ascendency of political power. Finally, democracy, frustrated by upper class interests in its earlier manifestations, would become reality. The workers would rule.

  Given the presence of evil and human failing, it did not work out in that way. But Lenin’s question remains a valid one. Americans whose economic life and prospects for their children have been destroyed by the offshoring of American manufacturing and tradable professional skills jobs, such as software engineering, answered the question by electing Donald Trump.

  The Americans, dispossessed by the offshoring corporations, elected Trump, because Trump was the only American running for a political office who called attention to the problem and declared his intention to fix it.

  By standing up for Americans, Trump alienated the global corporations, their executives and shareholders, all of whom benefit from stealing the economic life of Americans and producing abroad where labor and regulatory costs are lower. Neoliberal junk economists describe this labor arbitrage, which reduces the real incomes of the American labor force, as the beneficial working of free trade.

  These offshoring firms not only have destroyed the economic prospects of millions of Americans, but also have destroyed the payroll tax base of Social Security and Medicare, and the tax base of local and state governments, with the consequence that numerous pension systems are on the verge of failure. The New York Teamsters Road Carriers Local 707 Pension Fund has just failed. This failure, experts predict, is the beginning of a tsunami that will spread into municipal and state pension systems.

  When you add up the external costs of jobs offshoring that are imposed on Americans, the costs far exceed the value of the profits that flow to the One Percent. Clearly, this is an intolerable situation.

  Dispossessed Americans rose up. They ignored the presstitute media, or perhaps were driven to support Trump by the hostility of the media. Trump was elected by dispossessed America, by the working class.

  The working class is out of favor with the elite liberal/progressive/left which abhors the working class as racist, misogynist, homophobic, gun nuts who oppose transgendered toilet facilities. Thus, the working class, and their chosen representative, Donald Trump, are under full assault by the presstitutes. “Trump Must Go” is their slogan.

  And well he might. Trump, in a fit of stupidity, dismissed his National Security Advisor, Gen. Flynn, because Flynn did what he should have done and spoke with the Russian ambassador in order to avoid a Russian response to Obama’s provocation of expelling Russian diplomats at Christmas.

  Russians have been demonized and ascribed demonic powers. If you speak to a Russian, you fall under suspicion and become a traitor to your country. This is the story according to the CIA, the Democratic Party, the military/security complex, and the presstitute media.

  Once Trump put Flynn’s blood in the water, he set the situation for the sacrifice of other of his appointees, ending with himself. At the present time, “the Russian connection” black mark is operating against Trump’s Attorney General, Jeff Sessions. If Sessions falls, Trump is next.

  Let’s be clear. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sessions met with the Russian ambassador, just as he met with a number of other countries’ ambassadors. There is nothing unusual or surprising about a US senator meeting with foreign diplomatic representatives.

  Those who accuse Sessions of lying are misrepresenting the facts. Sessions met with ambassadors in his capacity as a US Senator, not in his capacity as a Trump representative. As a former US Senate staffer, I can attest that it is perfectly normal for US Senators to meet with diplomats. John McCain and Lindsey Graham even fly to the Middle East to meet with terrorists.

  Despite the facts, the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN and all the rest of the CIA’s media whores are consciously and intentionally misrepresenting the facts. Americans do not need any more evidence that the entirety of the American media is totally devoid of integrity and respect for truth. The American media is a collection of whores who lie for a living. The presstitutes are despicable, the scum of the earth.

  The real question is how has contact with Russian government officials become criminalized, grounds for removing a National Security Adviser, an Attorney General, and impeaching a President himself. President John F. Kennedy had ongoing contact with Khrushchev, the head of the Soviet government, in order to resolve the Cuban/Turkish missile crisis without nuclear war. President Nixon had ongoing contact with the Russians in order to achieve SALT I and the anti-ballistic missile treaty. President Carter had ongoing contact with Russians in order to achieve SALT II. President Reagan worked with the Russian leader in order to end the Cold War. I know. I was there.

  But if President Trump wants to defuse the extremely dangerous tensions that the reckless Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes have resurrected with a powerful thermo-nuclear state that only wants peace with the US, President Trump and any of his appointees who spoke to a Russian are unfit for office! This madness is the position of the idiot liberal/progressive/left, the CIA, the Democratic Party, the right-wing morons of the Republican Party such as Lindsey Graham and John McCain, and the two-bit whores that comprise the Western media.

  Dear reader, ask yourself, how did communications with Russians in the interest of peace and the reduction of tensions become a criminal act? Have laws been passed that it is forbidden for US officials to speak with Russian officials? Are you so utterly stupid that a presstitute media that has never in your entire life told you anything that was truthful can convince you that those who seek to avoid a conflict between thermo-nuclear powers are “Russian agents”?

  I have no doubt that the vast bulk of Western populations are insouciant. But if there is no intelligence and awareness left anywhere in the population, and most certainly there is none whatsoever in the governments of the West or in the Western media or the Identity Politics of the liberal/progressive/left, then don’t expect to be alive much longer.

  The entirety of the world has been put on the knife edge of existence by the arrogance, stupidity, and hubris of the neoconservative pursuit of American world hegemony. The neoconservative ideology is perfect cover for the material interest of the military/security Deep State that is driving the world to destruction.

  

  

• Bacon Boom Busts

  Great news America – After soaring to the highest price in three years, wholesale prices for pork bellies, the cut used for making bacon, are heading for a 25% loss over two weeks.

  As Bloomberg notes, increased demand had more than doubled prices since August, but now bellies are so expensive that the high costs are stemming demand, according to David Kruse, president of Commstock Investments Inc.

  

   

  And while the average joe may see his so-called pocketbook better off as pork prices plunge (or will obviously purchase more bacon), the above-average-joes (who drive their Beamers and Benz's) are facing an ever increasing cost for their luxury lifestyles…

  

  The premium gasoline that fuels luxury cars made by Mercedes-Benz to Audi has always been more expensive than regular, but the difference keeps getting bigger.

  As Bloomberg points out, premium costs almost 50 cents a gallon extra, nearly doubling in the past four years. And don’t expect the trend to change — environmental rules limiting sulfur that kicked in this year could make the higher-octane fuel scarcer and even more costly in the future.

  So, it seems very clear that consumer confidence is soaring because bacon prices are plunging, not Trumptopian hope…

  

  Never mind the collapse in real wages.

  

  

• The West Submits To Blasphemy Laws

  Via Judith Bergmann of The Gatestone Institute,

  • "Now that Islamophobia has been condemned, this is not the end, but rather the beginning…" — Muslim Brotherhood affiliate Samer Majzoub, Canadian Muslim Forum.
  • The motion still does not offer any definition or any statistics to support its claim that "Islamophobia" is a problem in Canada.
  • However, it should hardly shock anyone that the first motion condemning Islamophobia has so swiftly been followed up by a new motion demanding concrete government measures.

  The West is submitting to blasphemy laws. Denmark, for example, has apparently decided that now is the time to invoke a dusty, old blasphemy provision. Denmark still has a provision in the penal code against blasphemy, but until now, it has only been used three times. The last time was nearly half a century ago, in 1971. Denmark's Attorney General has nevertheless just charged a man for burning a Quran.

  In the West, blasphemy as a criminal offence has for centuries generally been considered a relic of the past. In a largely godless society, few people take offense to blasphemous comments or acts. Christians do not descend upon alleged blasphemers with guns and knives, and publishers do not worry about "offending" Christians.

  In 1997, Danish public service radio financed an artist burning a Bible and broadcast it on national television. No one was charged, even though there were complaints and the state prosecutor investigated the case.

  Yet, a Danish man will be prosecuted. He burned his own Quran in his own garden and then posted the video in a public Facebook group, "Yes to freedom, No to Islam," with the accompanying text, "Consider your neighbor, it stinks when it burns". Attorney General Jan Reckendorff stated:

  "It is the prosecution's view that the circumstances of the burning of holy books such as the Bible and the Qur'an implies that in some cases it may be a violation of the blasphemy provision, which deals with public mockery or scorn against a religion. It is our opinion that the circumstances of this case require that it should be prosecuted in order for the courts to have the opportunity to take a position on the matter."

  The Attorney General may have been mentioning the Bible only out of politeness. After all, no one has been prosecuted for burning the Bible in Denmark, as not even burning it on national television was considered sufficiently offensive. The Quran is clearly a very different matter.

  The decision has caused renewed debate about abolishing the blasphemy provision in Denmark — an issue that regularly pops up.

  In Norway, the provision against blasphemy was abolished in 2005. A poll conducted in January showed that 41% of Norwegian Muslims believe that blasphemy should be punished, and 7% believe that the penalty for blasphemy anywhere should be capital punishment.

  In Britain, at least one man has been prosecuted and sentenced for burning the Quran (in 2011) and several arrested in 2010 and 2014 .

  The enforcement of blasphemy provisions, so out of place in a largely post-Christian Europe, brings back the Middle Ages, when blasphemy was ferociously prosecuted by the Church. Is that really an era for modern European society to be aspiring to after centuries of fighting for freedom of speech?

  In Canada, meanwhile, anti-Islamophobia motions, aiming gradually to prohibit all criticism of Islam — and part of Muslim blasphemy laws — are being passed. The Ontario Provincial Parliament unanimously passed an anti-Islamophobia motion in February. The motion called on the legislature to "stand against all forms of hatred, hostility, prejudice, racism and intolerance; rebuke the… growing tide of anti-Muslim rhetoric and sentiments" and "condemn all forms of Islamophobia." Needless to say, no such motions were introduced to protect Judaism or Christianity.

  In October 2016, Canada's national Parliament unanimously passed an anti-Islamophobia motion, which was the result of a petition initiated by Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Samer Majzoub, president of the Canadian Muslim Forum. At the time, no one knew what they were condemning: Criticism of Islam? Criticism of Muslims? Discussing whether ISIS is a true manifestation of Islam? No one knew, as no one had bothered to define it.

  

  The lack of definition, however, has not stopped Iqra Khalid, a Member of Parliament from the governing Liberal Party, from introducing a new motion on the back of the previous one, Motion M-103, in the Canadian parliament. The motion demands that "Islamophobia" not only be condemned, but that the government develop a comprehensive approach to reducing or eliminating Islamophobia. The motion still does not offer any definition, or any statistics to support its claim that "Islamophobia" is a problem in Canada. However, it should hardly shock anyone that the first motion condemning Islamophobia has so swiftly been followed up by a new motion demanding concrete government measures. After the first motion was unanimously passed, the man who initiated the original petition, Samer Majzoub, had this to say in an interview with the Canadian Muslim Forum:

  "Now that Islamophobia has been condemned, this is not the end, but rather the beginning… We need to continue working politically and socially and with the press. They used to doubt the existence of Islamophobia, but now we do not have to worry about that; all blocs and political figures, represented by Canada's supreme legislative authority, have spoken of that existence. In the offing, we need to get policy makers to do something, especially when it comes to the Liberals, who have shown distinct openness regarding Muslims and all ethnicities… All of us must work hard to maintain our peaceful, social and humanitarian struggle so that condemnation is followed by comprehensive policies."

  Does the West really want to go charging quixotically off to the Inquisitions of the Middle Ages again?

  

  

• TSA Launches "Invasive" Pat-Downs With "More Intimate Contact Than Before"

  As a result of a study, which found that weapons routinely make it past airport security, the TSA is introducing “more rigorous” and “comprehensive” physical inspections at airports around the country, according to Bloomberg. The security agency, which until now had the option of using five different types of physical pat-downs in the screening line, is eliminating the “options” and replacing them with a single, universal method which would involve heavier groping.

  The Transportation Security Administration made the announcement to its agents this week, and in the case of Denver International Airport employees, advised employees and flight crews on Thursday that the “more rigorous” searches “will be more thorough and may involve an officer making more intimate contact than before.”

  

  In an ominous warning, TSA spokesman Bruce Anderson told Bloomberg that “people who in the past would have gotten a pat-down that wasn’t involved will notice that the [new] pat-down is more involved.” The shift from the previous, risk-based assessment on which pat-down procedure an officer should apply was phased in over the past two weeks after tests at smaller airports. In their notice, Denver airport officials said employees are subject to search at random locations: “If a pat down is required as part of the operation, badged employees will be required to comply with a TSA officer’s request to conduct a full body pat down.”

  The new policy will also apply to pilots and flight attendants, classified as “known crewmembers” who generally receive less scrutiny at checkpoints. The TSA conducts occasional random searches of these employees, and airlines this week inquired as to whether their employees would be subject to more frequent pat-downs. The number of random searches for airline crews isn’t changing and will remain a “very small percentage” of the total, Anderson said. But airport employees may face more random checks.

  Anyone who declines use of the TSA’s existing conventional scanner screen will be subject to the new pat-down. The TSA currently screens about 2 million people daily at U.S. airports. The agency doesn’t track how many passengers are subject to pat-down searches after they pass through an imaging scanner.

  The TSA has been criticized in recent years for its overall screening techniques after an internal investigation by Homeland Security in 2015 found that the TSA failed an unbelievable 95 percent of airport security tests, allowing undercover agents to successfully and repeatedly smuggle mock explosives and banned weapons through checkpoints in the country’s busiest airports. As a result, the TSA has been in desperate need of change and the physical inspection would be a good place to start.

  That said, the agency has been ridiculed for years for causing delays at airports and being largely ineffective at detecting contraband. The good news is that while passengers may find the new patdown more intrusive, Anderson promised that the new screening procedure isn’t expected to increase overall airport security delays. However, “for the person who gets the pat down, it will slow them down.”

  As Bloomberg adds, in December, a CNN political commentator, Angela Rye, posted an article online describing her “humiliation” during a TSA agent’s search. Rye wrote in graphic detail about the pat down of her genitals during a search at the Detroit Airport before a flight to New York.

  TSA officials didn’t immediately address whether the new universal pat-down protocol will mandate touching of passenger genitals.

  While the physical screening process has been a stress point for the TSA practically since its inception, the agency has tried to make travelers more comfortable by pairing them up with people of the same gender for pat-downs and also giving people the option of being inspected in a private room, however at the cost of substantial travel delays. However, as some have mused out, it still doesn’t answer one of the most confounding questions about the TSA: “Is America really any safer because some underpaid worker grabbed a pussy at the airport?”

  

  

  

• Auto Lending Update – Someone Please Explain How This Is Not A Bubble

  Experian recently released their Q4 2016 Automotive Finance Market update which includes a lot of statistics that seem to confirm our frequently documented concerns about the sustainability of the current level of annual auto sales (see here, here and here for our recent notes on the topic).

  First, there is the staggering growth of auto loans outstanding.  It should be readily apparent to almost anyone that a 21% expansion in credit issuance over the course of just two years likely implies there has been at least some degradation in underwriting standards.

  

   

  But you don’t have to speculate as Experian lays out the facts…and, sure enough, the outstanding loan balances of “Deep Subprime” borrowers have increased by double the amount of any other bucket, other than the plain “Subprime” folks, of course.

  

   

  Of course, an impaired credit profile has, in no way, hampered America’s entitled consumers’ demand for driving around in style as average subprime loan balances actually exceed “Super Prime.”

  

   

  But don’t worry, those subprime borrowers can “afford” those loans because they simply offset higher interest costs with stretched out terms…

  

   

  …which keeps there average monthly payments low.

  

   

  But, despite all the financial engineering, a look at 60-day auto delinquencies around the country may imply that the auto party is slowly coming to an end.

  

   

  But sure, auto sales should be perfectly sustainable around 18mm per year…

  

  

• Middlebury Professor Assaulted, Injured While Escorting Conservative Speaker

  In the latest literal assault on free speech at an allegedly tolerant educational institution, a Middlebury College professor was injured by protesters on Thursday evening as she was escorting a controversial speaker from campus. She was treated at Porter Hospital and released, the Addison County Independent reported.

  The night’s event unfolded in two parts.

  At first, Middlebury students forced conservative American Enterprise Institute scholar Charles Murray –  a political scientist who has been criticized for his views on race and intelligence – to stop his address before a campus audience Thursday night.

  
  Charles Murray looking at an audience of students who had turned their backs on him

  Murray was invited to speak on campus by a student group, and was set to talk about his 2012 book, “Coming Apart,” and how its analysis of the white-working class explains politics in the age of President Donald Trump. But most of the controversy over the scholar’s appearance at the Vermont-based school related to his 1994 book, “The Bell Curve,” which connected genetics with socioeconomic outcomes and has long been criticized by the Left as “racist.”  The Southern Poverty Law Center has called Murray a “white nationalist” who has used “racist pseudoscience.”

  According to the Burlington Free-Press, and as seen on the video below, student protesters in the audience refused to give Murray a chance to speak as they turned their backs to him, and chanted and shouted for several minutes before faculty members moved the scheduled speaker to a private room to deliver his address via livestream video without a live audience.

  Has to be ten minutes now Murray stands. student chant. #middlebury pic.twitter.com/61j1n4C94c

  — Nicole H DeSmet (@NicoleHDeSmet) March 2, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Despite attempts by faculty and more tolerant students to restore normalcy, the protesters refused to compromise. “We need to foster a climate where we can listen and respect differences,” Middlebury’s dean of students Baishakhi Taylor said in an attempt to calm down the student protesters, according to the Burlington Free Press. “We don’t have to agree with everything. How do we engage in civil discourse?”

  Not even appeals to the anti-Trump sentiment would sway the crowd: Alexander Khan, a leader of the American Enterprise Institute Club which invited Murray to speak, tried to appeal to the crowd by citing the scholar’s criticism of Trump. Demonstrators jeered that that doesn’t matter because Murray is “still a racist.”

  However, it was what happened next that was more troubling.

  As noted above, after the initial chaos, college officials led Murray to another location and a closed circuit broadcast showed him being interviewed by Stanger, the Russell J. Leng ’60 Professor of International Politics and Economics. As Stanger, Murray and a college administrator left McCullough Student Center last evening following the event, they were “physically and violently confronted by a group of protestors,” according to Bill Burger, the college’s vice president for communications and marketing.

  

  Burger said college public safety officers managed to get Stanger and Murray into the administrator’s car.

  “The protestors then violently set upon the car, rocking it, pounding on it, jumping on and try to prevent it from leaving campus,” he said. “At one point a large traffic sign was thrown in front of the car. Public Safety officers were able, finally, to clear the way to allow the vehicle to leave campus.”

  “During this confrontation outside McCullough, one of the demonstrators pulled Prof. Stanger’s hair and twisted her neck,” Burger continued. “She was attended to at Porter Hospital later and (on Friday) is wearing a neck brace.”

  Murray, who apparently was unhurt in the incident, is best known for his 1994 book, “The Bell Curve,” for which he was criticized for an assertion that people of different races have different economic outcomes because of their inherent difference in intelligence.

  The incident was so shocking it prompted even well-known neocon Bill Kristol to tweet:

  “What happened at Middlebury to Charles Murray threatens not just campus free speech, but free speech–indeed freedom in America–generally.”

  What happened at Middlebury to Charles Murray threatens not just campus free speech, but free speech–indeed freedom in America–generally.

  — Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) March 3, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  He then said: “I may have missed them, but in light of Middlebury where are the statements by college presidents, scholars & writers defending free speech?”

  I may have missed them, but in light of Middlebury where are the statements by college presidents, scholars & writers defending free speech?

  — Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) March 3, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  In this particular case, Kristol is actually right, and one wonders if the tables were reversed and if a liberal speaker had been abused in similar fashion at one of America’s top liberal colleges, just what would the media’s reaction – which has largely ignored this incident – have been.

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• How To Counter Leftist Violence While Maintaining The Moral High Ground

  Via Brandon Smith of Alt-Market.com,

  

  Social division is an undeniable reality of human existence; it is also not necessarily a negative aspect of human existence. The moment a society is forced or manipulated into blindly agreeing on everything is the moment that society begins to die and the future of mankind in general becomes rather bleak. Ideas need to be tested, they need to be scrutinized and they need to be verified, perpetually. That said, there are right ways and wrong ways of doing this.

  Diving into a culture of zealotry is certainly the WRONG way. Zealotry requires a religious-like idolization of a particular idea or philosophy; it requires unverified faith and an unwavering devotion. Once people become zealots, they cannot be reasoned with, they cannot be debated, they cannot be dissuaded. They are, for all intents and purposes, automatons with only one mission — to spread their beliefs by any means necessary.  They do not care about being right, they only care about “winning.”  Because, in their minds, their position is unassailable.  They are righteous, and thus, the ends will always justify the means.

  The culture of the Left in the U.S. is beginning to embrace zealotry and the path can only get more ugly from here. This is evident not only in the violent behavior of more vocal groups like Antifa, but also in the lack of self criticism by many on the left that would consider themselves more moderate. There are very few voices among liberals and “progressives” today that are openly admonishing the counterproductive and thuggish actions of their more extreme members (this includes not only Antifa, but other groups like Black Lives Matter).  In many cases, “moderate” leftists even cheer such actions.

  There is this notion among some in the Liberty Movement that to even point out this dynamic is irresponsible because it only reinforces the concept of the false left/right paradigm. Most of these people I find are very new (newbies) to the Liberty Movement and don’t really understand what the false left/right paradigm is. When we talk about the Left and the Right as an illusion, we are talking about the elites who sit at the TOP of the sociopolitical sphere. Meaning, the elites have no loyalties to concepts on either the left or the right in politics. In fact, they often switch back and forth like chameleons depending on what they want from the public at the time. They have their own agenda which does not include the rest of us.

  To be clear, I was just as much against the fake conservatism of George W. Bush as I was against the fake liberalism of Barack Obama.

  This false paradigm does not, however, apply to regular citizens. The further away you get from the top of the pyramid, the more people tend to legitimately associate closer to one philosophy or the other. In times of crisis and uncertainty, these divisions become more pronounced. This is reality. Anyone who argues that there is no left/right paradigm when it comes to the average citizen has no idea what they are talking about.

  So, now that we have acknowledged that the problem exists, lets examine it more in depth…

  The Problem

  All one needs to do is observe the attitudes, insane demands and criminality of hardcore leftists in the past year to see that at least one side of the paradigm cannot be salvaged. They are a lost cause.

   

  This is a prime example of how it is impossible to win an argument when your position is fundamentally illogical. In most cases, these protesters can’t even specify their reasons for protesting, and they don’t really care to examine why they do what they do. They only know that their ideology is not being represented in totality.  They are unsuccessful at debating their ideas coherently and don’t have the intelligence to convince others that they are correct. They aren’t going to give up simply because they are wrong, so, their only other option is to slander the character of those who disagree, attack them physically and disrupt their ability to speak freely.

  Keep in mind, there is no moral conundrum for zealots. They believe they are completely justified in what they do because the other side represents a “greater evil.” Labeling their opponents as “fascists” is a get-out-of-conscience-free card for them.

  It is important to note that we are not quite at the moment of crisis yet, but I would consider 2017 a turning point. This is where our (conservatives and sovereignty champions) decisions now could affect the future for decades to come. I suspect that as we move closer to summer and warmer weather, riots designed to cancel conservative speaking events (and random riots with no specific purpose) will expand tenfold. Leftists seem to be more active in warmer weather (there is a reason most of them live near the coasts).

  All American citizens, regardless of their political leanings or personal ideals, have a right to speak and the right to listen to those speaking. All American citizens also have a right to redress grievances. This includes leftists. That said, it is important to make a distinction here — NO ONE has the right to silence speech in public spaces in the name of “activism,” and this is where the Left has gone off the rails. My right to speak and be heard is protected; their “right” to silence me is not protected.

  There is a line here that cannot be crossed. Conservatives must be allowed free speech in public places, and leftists must be allowed to protest in public places as long as that protest is PEACEFUL. Once an individual or group uses force to silence speech, they have given up the moral high ground.

  I recognize that there are paid provocateurs operating among liberal protesters and that this likely contributes to higher chances of violence and the madness of mobs. The presence of elitist money among leftist groups has been exposed on numerous occasions in reference to George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, which admitted to injecting $33 million dollars into the Ferguson protests (riots). WashingtonCAN! (another Soros-funded group) put out a Craigslist ad in Seattle offering to pay people $15-$20 an hour to “organize” anti-Trump rallies. WashingtonCAN claims this was merely an ad to hire “phone solicitors,” but they do in fact help organize protests, and nowhere in the ad is phone solicitation mentioned.  I do not think it is a stretch to suggest that these paid "organizers" are present at protests, nor do I think it is a stretch to suggest that they are contributing to the mob mentality.

  This should be taken into account as well. There are moments in any high-tension protest where the mob can be swayed to remain peaceful or to break out into thuggery. Usually, if the mob sees a few people getting away with violent attacks, this gives them license to unhinge as well.

  Is the proper response to crush all leftist protests simply because of the violence of a handful? No. The key is to disrupt individual provocateurs before they can entice the mob to forget themselves. Normally, this would be the job of police on the scene, but as I’m sure many of you have noticed recently (Berkeley being a prime example), the police have been reticent to intervene in a tactically intelligent manner, depending on what municipality they are operating. It seems that when it comes to state and local law enforcement there are only two modes of response, either they are mostly hands off, or, they go full crackdown.

  The issue that needs to be considered is when police or the federal government do initiate a full crackdown on all protests. Will conservatives cheer the measure?

  As I have noted in past articles including 'Globalists Want To Destroy Conservative Principles – But They Need Our Help', I believe the greatest danger today is not crazed leftists, but how we RESPOND to crazed leftists.

  To give some historical perspective, the Antifa movement, for example, is nothing new. It is an odd plagiarism of the “Anti-Facist” movements in Europe during the 1920s. Antifa was essentially an offshoot of communist movements in Italy opposed to the rise of Benito Mussolini, but it then spread to other European nations. It was in fact the belligerence of communist groups that actually inspired public support for fascist leaders like Mussolini and Hitler. As common people grew fearful of a monstrous Bolshevik-style revolution, the only other option offered to them was fascism, which at the time appeared to many to be a saving grace.

  Of course, it was not, and totalitarianism in the name of defeating the communists only led to atrocities equal to communist dictatorships. This is what I call a “morally relativistic choice;” a catch-22 that is usually engineered, forcing the populace to pick between the “lesser of two evils.”

  There are those who might argue that there is little chance of a similar development in America today, but consider this — conservatives movements were prodded and harassed for eight years by a constitution-trampling president who originally claimed he was going to undo the trespasses of the constitution-trampling president before him. This took place while leftist organizations imposed thought control and political correctness on us with relative glee. Conservatives have been organizing, training and arming themselves for nearly a decade in the event that globalist and Marxist ideologies take one more inch of rope, the expectation being that Hillary Clinton would attempt to take a mile.

  Now, with Trump in office, we are a hammer looking for a nail.

  This is what the left simply does not grasp. We are certainly not fascists now, but with continued violence from the left something in the collective conservative mind will eventually snap. My suspicion is that this is exactly what elites like George Soros want. They are using the left as sacrificial pawns in order to goad conservatives into going nuclear.

  There are millions of conservatives coming home from work right now, sitting with their families, and seeing news each day filled with leftist protesters trampling all over conservative events and in many cases getting away with it. These conservatives are becoming more and more angry; more and more willing to embrace an ends justify the means reaction. Ultimately, they may very well support a full spectrum government stranglehold on protests and the speech of those we disagree with. This will make us the villains of our little period in history, and this is something I would like to avoid.

  So, the question is, how do we counter violent leftists like those in Antifa without abandoning our constitutional principles?  Lets talk about solutions…

  The Solution

  There is a school of thought that suggests we should stand back, let the mobs tire themselves out and in this way we avoid “escalation.” I would point out that the Left has been escalating matters quite expertly without our intervention. When you have elitist funded organizations generating momentum at a constant pace, it is hard for me to back the notion of complete pacifism. On the other hand, moderation and an even hand rule the day.

  Countering leftist mobs requires a scalpel, not a bulldozer, metaphorically speaking.

  Conservatives are less likely to support police state intervention if they see that leftist attacks are already being countered in a rational way.  I would argue that this could be done by limited groups of civilian volunteers (around 50-100 men strong), without any government involvement, acting as security for speakers and the attendees of events.

  These people would have to be highly vetted — no criminal background, no background of mental instability or psychotropic usage, a professional demeanor, absolutely no ties to federal agencies, no propensity to be ruled by emotion, no stolen valor, etc. etc.  They would also have to be physically capable.

  Members would need previous training as well as updated training in self-defense and riot response, as well as defusing confrontation.  They would have to be invited by the event organizers in question and their goal would be to defend attendees from violence in a non-lethal manner.  Their purpose cannot be to stop a protest from happening, only ensuring that protesters do not overstep their bounds and harm others.

  Of course, the immediate accusation that will be used is that this kind of organizing is simply the formation of “brownshirts” for Trump.  This is why a security group of this caliber would have to also be willing to offer their services to ANY speaker or event, regardless of political affiliation.  It cannot be exclusively about Trump. If a mob of conservatives were threatening to use violence to shut down a liberal speaker, then the group would have to be willing to protect those people as well. I don’t see any examples of this happening anywhere, but again, the group’s concerns must focus on free speech and those that are trying to squash it, regardless of who they are.

  This civilian security organization would require funding at a grassroots level through donations from regular people. Large sums of cash from major political donors or non-profit foundations could not be accepted.  The group would have to be beholden to no one.  It would also need to be separate from any already existing organization and function as its own animal in order to prevent conflicting goals.

  Donations would be needed to fund travel and food expenses for volunteers, as well as some protective gear, the cost of initial training, the expense of background checks as well as legal defense. This organization would have to be limited in size to prevent confusion and a lack of structural discipline.  I suspect that such a venture would start small, and truly qualified people would be limited in the beginning anyway.

  I am willing to coordinate this effort with others depending on the level of enthusiasm that is generated and if donations are adequate. I am ready to help provide training for those who pass the vetting process.  Interested parties can contact me at: brandon@alt-market.com

  I am also willing to be present and in harms way at every single event that requires a security response.

  I have looked into money raising avenues like Kickstarter, but I believe strongly that these websites will not allow crowdfunding for this venture for political reasons. If there is a strong response to this idea, I will post regular updates to Alt-Market.com on money raised as well as progress made.

  It is entirely possible that I will not be able to find the support needed to make this volunteer venture happen. I can only present the concept and hope that people agree with it. Make no mistake though, if I do not do it, someone else eventually will. It is vitally important that these people are found trustworthy and have a track record of supporting Constitutional principles as well as a track record of competence.  Anyone that arrives on the scene from nowhere should not be trusted.  Anyone looking merely for notoriety and celebrity should not be taken seriously. Anyone looking to start a confrontation rather than prevent one should be dismissed.  We cannot allow ourselves to become what the left accuses us of being.  This is a time for extreme caution, and quiet professionalism.

  

  

• Navy Punishes "Special Warfare Unit" For Flying Trump Flag In Military Convoy

  About a month ago the Naval Special Warfare Group 2 of Virginia Beach set the Twittersphere ablaze after video surfaced of their military convoy flying a Trump flag on their lead vehicle.

  Photos and videos of the ‘event’ quickly spread around the internet and prompted a full Navy investigation into the incident.  Here’s a photo of the convoy:

  

   

  And here is the original video that made the rounds, complete with the full commentary of an obviously emotionally scarred Hillary voter.

  Navy SEAL convoy flies Commander-in-Chief Trump flag.. #USA #quote #socialmedia #fb #nfl #nba #tcot #breaking #newspic.twitter.com/CrEOpjz1Au

  — People’s Digest (@dinrout) February 3, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

   

  Now, fast forward a month and Lt. Jacqui Maxwell has just announced that the world can go on spinning again because some of America’s finest soldiers have been appropriately disciplined for their ‘heinous’ crime.  Per the Washington Post:

  Lt. Jacqui Maxwell, a spokeswoman for Naval Special Warfare Group 2, said in a statement to The Washington Post that punitive actions were taken but declined to comment on the precise nature of the punishment or how many individuals were affected.

   

  “The inquiry was completed between the unit’s commanders and service members,” Maxwell’s statement said. “It has been determined that those service members have violated the spirit and intent of applicable DoD regulations concerning the flying of flags and the apparent endorsement of political activities. Administrative corrective measures were taken with each individual based on their respective responsibility.”

   

  “Department of Defense and Navy regulations prescribe flags and pennants that may be displayed as well as the manner of display,” Maxwell said last month.

   

  “Naval Special Warfare strives to maintain the highest level of readiness, effectiveness, discipline, efficiency, integrity, and public confidence,” her statement continued. “To this end, Naval Special Warfare leaders are committed to thoroughly and impartially investigating all non-frivolous allegations of misconduct. Where misconduct is present, the Naval Special Warfare commander responsible for ensuring good order and discipline within his unit will make a disposition decision as to the appropriate administrative and/or disciplinary action, if any.”

  We don’t know about you but we’re ever so thankful for this special snowflake who helped to expose the hateful and insensitive actions of these soldiers.  Imagine if they behaved this way during a deployment…they might offend some terrorists and start an international crisis.

  

  

• Paul Craig Roberts Fears "The Resurrection Of Armageddon"

  Via Paul Craig Roberts,

  “The U.S. intelligence community’s extraordinary campaign of leaks claiming improper ties between President Trump’s team and Russia seeks to ensure a lucrative New Cold War by blocking detente.” — Gareth Porter

  It only required 24 days for the Deep State to castrate President Donald Trump and terminate the promise that the high tensions with Russia created during the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes would be terminated by Trump’s presidency.

  As Gareth Porter shows conclusively, the case against General Flynn, Trump’s 24-day National Security Adviser, and by implication against Trump himself, is a fake news creation.

  Obama’s CIA director, John Brennan, planted fake reports, none of which contained any evidence whatsoever, on the CIA-compliant media whores known as “presstitutes.” The CIA’s media whores knew that the reports were a CIA response to the threat to the $1,000 billion annual budget of the military/security complex that desperately needs “the Russian threat” for its justification. But the media whores—-principally the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC—-and all the rest as well are more dedicated to serving their CIA master than they are to serving peace between nuclear powers. Interesting, isn’t it, that the US and Western media are more committed to conflict with Russia than they are to peace, despite the brutal fact that 10 percent of the nuclear arsenal of either the US or Russia is sufficient to terminate all life on earth.

  As Patrick Lawrence says: “The lights upon us are dimming. We have been more or less abandoned by a press that proves incapable of informing us in anything approaching a disinterested fashion. As suggested, either the media are Clintonian liberals before they are newspapers and broadcasters, or they are servants of power before they serve us.” 

  All we have left, says Lawrence, is the alternative media. “To put this simply and briefly, they and we must learn that they are not ‘alternative’ to anything. In the end there is no such thing as ‘alternative media,’ as I often argue. There are only media, and most of ours have turned irretrievably bad.”

  The alternative media is the Internet media, websites such as this one, RT, the Intercept, USAWatchdog, Alex Jones, Information Clearing House, Global Research, Unz Review, etc. These independent news sites are under attack. Remember the list of 200 “Russian agents/dupes”? Every source of information that does not subscribe to the Deep States’ Matrix creation of “the Russian Threat,” which is the Deep State’s replacement for the orchestrated “Soviet Threat,” has been selected for shutdown. Apparently, Alex Jones is already having problems with Google. Several websites managed to get off the 200 List, and those that have seem to have collapsed as members of the opposition.

  As the Nazis said, all it takes is fear, and the people collapse.

  Trump’s presidency is effectively over. Even if he is permitted to remain in office, he will be a figurehead for the Deep State’s presidency. President Trump has already fallen into line with the military/security complex. He has said Russia has to return Crimea to Ukraine, whereas in fact Crimea returned itself to Russia. He has rejected a new strategic arms limitations treaty (START) with Russia, stating that he wants supremacy in nuclear armaments, not equality. Obama’s one trillion dollar upgrade of the US nuclear arsenal is likely to get a boost from Trump.

  After one month in office the goal has changed from reduced tensions with Russia to greater tensions. Greater tensions might soon be upon us. There are plans to occupy part of Syria with US troops in order to prevent Syria with Russia’s help from reuniting the country. http://www.globalresearch.ca/rand-corporations-plan-for-dicing-up-syria/5577009 Part of Syria is to go to Turkey, part to the Kurds, and Washington will keep a chunk. This way Washington can keep the turmoil going forever. The Russians brought this problem on themselves. Ever hopeful for Washington’s cooperation against ISIS, Russia dallied in cleaning out ISIS. The prospect that Trump would work with Russia as part of better relations assumed that Trump would actually be in charge, which has turned out to be delusional.

  It is difficult to know if the new Trump regime is more Iranophobic than Russophobic. The Trump regime’s inclination to jettison the Iran agreement and reopen the conflict means more conflict with Russia. Washington’s continued provocations of both Russia and China will dispel any lingering Russian expectations of better relations with Washington.

  It is bizarre to see the liberal-progressive-left allied with the warmongers against Trump. As the neoconservatives pull nuclear Armageddon out of the grave that Reagan and Gorbachev put it in, the American left demands the impeachment of the president whose goal was better relations with Russia. Once the champion of the working class, the left now champions Identity Politics. Trump’s goal of jobs for the working class leaves the leftwing cold. The left wants to destroy the “Trump deplorables,” which the left describes as “racist, misogynist, homophobic, gun nuts.” In Identity Politics, every identity is a victim except the oppressor identity—white heterosexual males.

  Where then is the opposition to the neoconservative ideology that is driving US foreign policy toward world hegemony? There are a few of us, but we are being cast as “Putin agents.” In other words, those who have sufficient intelligence to understand that Washington is not going to achieve hegemony over Russia and China or even Iran, but is likely to provoke nuclear war by trying, are relegated to the traitor class.

  The reason that there is still life on earth after more than a half century of nuclear weapons is that American presidents and Soviet leaders worked together to reduce tensions. During these decades, there were numerous false alarms of incoming ICBMs. However, because the leadership of both countries were working together to avoid nuclear conflict, the warnings were disbelieved both by the Soviets and Americans.

  Today the situation is vastly different. The last three US presidents, and now apparently Trump also, worked overtime to increase tensions between the two nuclear powers. Moreover, it was done in ways that convinced the Russian government that Washington is completely untrustworthy. The ongoing vicious lies about the Russian connections of Trump and his associates are so obviously false as to be laughable, but the Russians are seeing that the falsity of the charges notwithstanding, Trump’s National Security Adviser has fallen and Trump himself might be next.

  In other words, the Russians are observing that in America facts are not relevant to outcomes. The Russians have already experienced this with regard to themselves with the lies about Putin, the Ukraine, Georgia, and Russian intentions toward Europe. Putin is routinely called a “thug,” “murderer,” “the new Hitler” by US politicians, presstitutes, and the Democratic Party’s candidate in the recent presidential election. Ranking US generals describe Russia as the “principal threat to the US.” NATO commanders assert that the Russian Army could occupy the Baltics and/or Poland at any moment. These nonsensical accusations and predictions suggest to the Russians that the West is preparing its populations for an attack on Russia.

  In such a tense state of affairs, how will false alarms be interpreted? Will Americans convinced that Putin and Russia are evil incarnate believe the false alarms this time? Will Russians convinced that they have been set up for attack believe them this time?

  This is the extreme risk to which the insane neoconservatives, the idiot liberal-progressive-left, the greedy military/security complex, and the aggressive generals have exposed life on earth.

  And the few voices warning of the risk are dismissed as “Russian agents.”

  

  

• Tesla Admits It Still Hasn't Completed A Model 3 Beta Prototype

  With Tesla stock price down 15% in the last few weeks, amid a roaring market, it appears doubts about Elon Musk's omnipotence are creeping in once again… and rightly so. Despite the hype surrounding hundreds of thousands of pre-orders due to start production in H2 2017, buried deep within the company's most recent 10-K filing is an admission that there is still no Model 3 beta prototype.

  

  The fanfare surrounding the pre-order-fest for the Tesla Model 3 continues to support the stock in many analyst's (and investor's minds). However, with production due to begin in H2 2017 (just 4 months away) and delivery in 2018, doubts are starting to appear, judging by the stock's demise since earnings…

  

   

  And Car and Driver's Anton Wahlman – who appears to be one of the few who actualy read Tesla's 10-K filing – may have found the reason for the doubts…

  From the filing:

   

  “We expect that the next performance milestone to be achieved will be the successful completion of the Model 3 Beta Prototype, which would be achieved upon the determination by our Board of Directors that an eligible prototype has been completed. Candidates for such prototype are among the vehicles that we are currently building as part of our ongoing testing of our Model 3 vehicle design and manufacturing processes.”

  In other words, Wahlman points out, Tesla has not “completed” a Model 3 “beta prototype” as of, well, either of these two dates: December 31, 2016 (the period that the SEC filing covers), or March 1, 2017 (the date on which the document was filed). Pick your poison.

  We know that around mid-February 2017, Tesla is said to have started building the next stage of Model 3 prototypes. It is from this batch that they appear to be creating the first “beta prototype.”

  What does this mean for production? In theory, there is nothing that prevents Tesla from delivering what a normal car company would call a prototype test vehicle of some sort and simply declare victory on its original timeline. This is what Tesla did for the Model S in June 2012 and for the Model X in September 2015. After those events, it took at least another approximately three months—arguably a fair bit more—for proper volume production to take root.

  That is to say that, no matter how immature, Tesla could indeed deliver a Model 3 in July 2017 and declare victory. However, that is not to be confused with what a normal car company would call its start of sales to the general public.

  Basically, Car and Driver's Wahlman says, it comes down this:

  If it’s prudent to start production of an all-new car three to six months after the advent of a “beta prototype,” then why don’t all automakers do this? Why do they take approximately two years for the preproduction testing stages, if only three to six months are necessary?

  We will find out in the second half of this year.

  More smoke and solar panel mirrors?

  Still withcash burn at a billion dollars, there's probably nothing to worry about…

  

  

  

• Islam Will Surpass Christianity To Become The World's Largest Religion, New Report Says

  Via Michael Snyder of The End of The American Dream blog,

  

  If current trends continue, Islam is on track to become the largest religion in the entire world by the end of this century according a stunning new report that was just released by the Pew Research Center.

  

  While it is true that Christianity is still growing on a global basis, it is not growing nearly as rapidly as Islam. So unless something changes, Christianity will only be the second largest faith in the world by the year 2070. According to this newly released report, Islam is the only major religion that is growing faster than the global population overall, and it is being projected that the number of Muslims on the planet will rise by a staggering 73 percent between 2010 and 2050…

  Islam is the only religion growing faster than the world’s population, and it will be the largest in the world by 2070, research has found.

   

  US-based Pew Research Center analyzed demographic change among the world’s major religions and found that the world’s population of Muslims will grow by 73 percent between 2010 and 2050, compared to 35 percent for Christians, the next fastest-growing faith.

   

  The world’s population will grow by 37 percent over the same period. If those rates of growth continue past 2050, Muslims will outnumber Christians by 2070, the report found.

  

  Of course there are religious groups that are growing even faster than Islam, but they were not part of this study.

  For example, I have previously written about how witchcraft is the fastest growing faith in America, and yesterday I wrote about how membership in the Satanic Temple in the United States has been absolutely exploding since Donald Trump was elected.

  So it isn’t just Islam that is gaining ground.

  But without a doubt, Islam is now the dominant worldview on much of the planet. Many in the western world tend to think of it as a Middle Eastern religion, but the truth is that most Muslims actually live in the Asia-Pacific region…

  Some 62 percent of Muslims live in the Asia-Pacific region with large populations in Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran and Turkey, Pew researchers said.

   

  In 2050, India is set to take over from Indonesia as the country with the world’s largest Muslim population, according to the study.

  In India, there truly is a battle going on for the spiritual future of that nation right now. Christianity and Islam are both making a tremendous amount of progress, and this has greatly upset a lot of traditional Hindu groups.

  Islam is making a lot of progress in Europe as well. A tremendous amount of immigration has caused the number of European Muslims to surge in recent years, and this new report is projecting that 10 percent of all Europeans will belong to Islam by the year 2050.

  Here in the United States, Muslims still only make up a very small percentage of the population, but that percentage is growing too. The following comes directly out of the new Pew Research Center report…

  In 2015, according to our best estimate, there were 3.3 million Muslims of all ages in the U.S., or about 1% of the U.S. population. Pew Research Center’s 2014 Religious Landscape Study (conducted in English and Spanish) found that 0.9% of U.S. adults identify as Muslims. A 2011 survey of Muslim Americans, which was conducted in English as well as Arabic, Farsi and Urdu, estimated that there were 1.8 million Muslim adults (and 2.75 million Muslims of all ages) in the country. That survey also found that a majority of U.S. Muslims (63%) are immigrants.

   

  Our demographic projections estimate that Muslims will make up 2.1% of the U.S. population by the year 2050, surpassing people who identify as Jewish on the basis of religion as the second-largest faith group in the country (not including people who say they have no religion).

  Once the number of Muslims in the United States surpasses the number of Jewish people, what impact will that have on U.S. politics?

  That is something to think about.

  The report indicated that there are a couple of primary reasons why Islam is growing so rapidly around the world.

  First of all, Muslims tend to have larger families than everyone else. The report said that the average Muslim woman has 3.1 children during her lifetime, while all other groups only have 2.3 children per woman.

  So in the end, Islam could end up dominating the world just by simply making more babies than everyone else.

  Muslims are also younger on average than other religious groups. According to the report, on a global basis Muslims are “seven years younger than the median age of non-Muslims”.

  Unfortunately, when Muslims become dominant in a society they often want to impose their systems of government, law, economics, etc. on everyone else. That is why “sharia law” is such a sensitive issue, and the report found that in some Islamic countries an overwhelming majority of Muslims want to impose sharia law on everyone else…

  For instance, a Pew Research Center survey of Muslims in 39 countries asked Muslims whether they want sharia law, a legal code based on the Quran and other Islamic scripture, to be the official law of the land in their country. Responses on this question vary widely. Nearly all Muslims in Afghanistan (99%) and most in Iraq (91%) and Pakistan (84%) support sharia law as official law. But in some other countries, especially in Eastern Europe and Central Asia – including Turkey (12%), Kazakhstan (10%) and Azerbaijan (8%) – relatively few favor the implementation of sharia law.

  Nobody can deny that Islam is one of the most dominant forces on the entire planet in 2017, and it looks like it is going to become even more dominant in the years ahead.

  And that is troubling news for Christians and those of other faiths, because all you have to do is to look at countries such as Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Iran to see what happens to other faiths once Islam takes total control of a nation.

  In a truly Islamic state, there is no room for religious freedom, and so the growth of Islam is likely to be one of the greatest global threats to the free exercise of religion for the foreseeable future.

  

  

• Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman to CNN: 'Stop Spreading Lies and Fake News'

  Russia’s outspoken foreign ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, had some choice words for CNN — after being confronted by their reporters over the AG Sessions’ hysteria. In a prepared statement, she called the event ‘media vandalism’ and a ‘disgrace’ — suggesting the US media is down in the depths of depravity and deceit.

  She stated the American media had “cross(ed) the line far beyond the professional ethics and their competence. They accuse and judge by simply fabricating false information.”

  “I have a question: is it rock bottom, which the US media has reached, or is there an even greater depth for them to dive?” Zakharova said.
   
  “The things that the US media affords itself to report are just an attempt at… a total disinformation of the public in America and worldwide,” Zakharova explained, adding the US audience is, of course, the main target.

   
  During the exchange, which was caught on camera and posted below, she laid into CNN — asking them to ‘stop spreading lies and fake news.’
  
  ‘Stop spreading fake news’, cuckburgers.

  Watch.

  Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com

   

  

• Minimum Wage Hikes Don't Benefit Low-Income Families But Do Raise Youth Unemployment Rates

  As written by Jack Salmon and first appearing on The Hill

  With 19 states raising the minimum wage at the beginning of 2017, it seems that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) “Fight for 15” campaign is becoming a reality.

  While Democrats have been wholeheartedly behind the movement to increase the minimum wage, now Republican lawmakers are increasingly leaving the door open to minimum wage increases. The prevailing argument in favor of raising the minimum wage is that a higher minimum wage would reduce poverty and alleviate income inequality.

  So, what does the empirical research reveal about the effectiveness of the minimum wage to reduce poverty?

  From a lawmaker’s perspective, setting a higher minimum wage seems to be a viable remedy for lifting families out of poverty. However, it is important to note that the minimum wage targets individual low-wage workers, not low-income families. The merits of using minimum wage as a tool to combat poverty depend on the level at which poor families benefit from such policy changes.

  The statistics show that the relationship between being a low-wage worker and a low-income family is very weak. In fact, data from CPS suggests that the majority of poor families with heads of household of prime working age simply don’t work, so a minimum wage has no impact on these families.

  What’s more, a sizable proportion of low-wage workers are new entrants to the labor force, such as teenagers, who are not necessarily in low-wage families. Taking these facts into consideration, basic calculations indicate that a sizable share of benefits derived from a minimum wage increase does not go to impoverished families.

  In fact, if the federal minimum wage was hiked from $7.25 to $10.10, only 18 percent of resultant increases in income would go to poor families (based on 2010-2014 data), meanwhile 32 percent would go to families with incomes more than three times the poverty line. With a $15 minimum wage the corresponding figures would be 12 percent and 38 percent, respectively.

   

  Several studies have analyzed changes in the poverty rate between states that increase the minimum wage versus those that don’t. The conclusion these studies reveal is that there is no statistically significant relationship between raising the minimum wage and reducing poverty.

  What becomes increasingly clear from several studies on the targeted effects of minimum wage increases is that minimum wage is a very imprecise way to raise the relative incomes of the poorest families and may actually marginally benefit wealthier families.

  We know who wins, but who loses?

  The debate surrounding the negative effects of minimum wage increases on employment levels continues to take center stage. Some recent studies have even gone as far as suggesting that there is no negative impact on employment levels derived from an increase in the minimum wage.

  The opinions of a majority of labor economists, however, paint a very different picture. A national survey conducted by the University of New Hampshire found that over 73 percent of American Economic Association (AEA) labor economists believe significant increases in the minimum wage will lead to employment losses and 68 percent believe employers will be deterred from hiring low-skilled workers.

  A consensus on minimum wage studies conducted in the 1980’s finds that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, employment of young and unskilled workers declines by 1-2 percent.

  With over half of minimum wage workers being aged 16-24, continuously raising the minimum wage simply guarantees that those young people, whose skills are not sufficient to justify that kind of wage, will instead remain unemployed.

  It’s clear that the minimum wage is an ineffective tool at reducing poverty and alleviating income inequality. The benefits of increases in the minimum wage are not targeted toward impoverished families and the costs of minimum wage increases deny youth the skills and experience they need to launch their careers.

  The basis of poverty is not low-paid workers, but those who are not in work altogether. Perhaps policymakers would be wise to consider reforms that will grow the economy, generate jobs and create the incentives to choose work over welfare.

  Jack Salmon is a Washington, D.C.-based researcher focused on federal fiscal policy. Salmon holds an M.A. in political economy with specializations in macroeconomics and comparative economic analysis from King’s College London.

  

  

• Mike Krieger Warns "America Is In Big Trouble"

  Via Mike Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

  I hate to break it to you, but Donald Trump isn’t going to make America great again. He doesn’t have the insight or courage to stand up to the financial elite, and he’s insufferably authoritarian. This is not a recipe for greatness.

  Democrats are even worse. At the most ideal moment possible, the party was gifted an energetic populist movement primed for activism thanks to a non-Democrat who unified tens of millions of Americans sick of the ways thing were going, but couldn’t get behind Trump. How did the party respond? By rigging its primary and forcing down our collective throats one of the most corrupt, unethical, political monsters in American history. Afterwards, how did the party respond following her loss to Donald Trump? By making zero meaningful changes in party leadership, by endlessly propagating CIA-fueled Russia conspiracy theories and by very publicly rejecting Bernie Sanders and his supporters by choosing Tom Perez to run the DNC (for more read this excellent article).

  As demented as many of Trump’s views are, at least he’s talking about shaking up the system. The only things Democrats have done since the election is attempt to co-opt Bernie Sanders, dress in all white and hyperventilate about Russia. The party is so worthless, it doesn’t even deserve to exist anymore. Then there’s the corporate media. The elitist propaganda mouthpieces that are even more destructive than our two deranged political parties, and that’s saying a lot. We are in big trouble as a people.

  The past 36 hours have been really telling. The reaction to two events have demonstrated to me just how much trouble this country is in. The first event revolves around Trump’s speech to Congress. I watched the speech, and was thoroughly unimpressed. Like his critics, who falsely claim Trump is the root of all evil as opposed to a symptom of an evil system, Trump appears more interested in targeting symptoms as opposed to the core problems. While “draining the swamp” is a great slogan, he shows no intention of actually doing it. Rather, he’s filled his economic advisor positions with a cadre of particularly gross parasitic Wall Street cretins. This wasn’t the surprising part of Trump’s speech, however. The truly surprising, and disturbing part, was the tremendous praise heaped upon him by the corporate media afterwards, further proving the point that corporate media is worthless.

  Why did the corporate media like the speech so much? Mainly it had to do with the moment Trump honored Carryn Owens, the widow of slain Navy SEAL William “Ryan” Owens. Will this standing ovation do anything to improve the lives of struggling Americans? Does it tell us anything at all about how Trump will handle foreign policy and out of control militarism in order to prevent deaths like this going forward? Of course not. What it tells you is that all the corporate media cares about is pomp and circumstance. Corporate media is obsessed with the show, the red carpet, with superficiality. Even if you loved the speech, it was a freakin’ speech. I’m not comparing Trump to such men, but most of the most heinous thugs in human history were great at giving speeches. Actions, not words are what matter, as we should have learned from eight years of Obama.

  Moving along, the second event that solidified to me the amount of trouble we’re in as a nation relates to Jeff Sessions. As all of you already know based on my recent posts, I think Jeff Sessions is a dangerous, disconnected, goon. A fossil from another era, a hypocrite, and a terrible choice for Attorney General. That said, I think the controversy about what he told Congress related to his meetings with Russia is being blown grossly out of proportion. Here’s the clip in case you haven’t seen it:

  What’s the big deal here? From what we know, he was simply a Senator who met with the Russian Ambassador publicly. These meetings consisted of one at a Heritage Foundation event in July 2016, where other ambassadors were present. The other was in Sessions’ Senate office in September.

  As The Washington Post reported:

  Two months before the September meeting, Sessions attended a Heritage Foundation event in July on the sidelines of the Republican National Convention that was attended by about 50 ambassadors. When the event was over, a small group of ambassadors approached Sessions as he was leaving the podium, and Kislyak was among them, the Justice Department official said.

  These encounters seem pretty transparent, it’s not as if they were slinking around back allies handing-off envelopes filled with cash. It seems obvious to me that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lying to Congress about unconstitutional government spying on American citizens was far worse, and he wasn’t forced to resign.

  Of all the terrible things about Jeff Sessions, this is the least of my concerns. Naturally, it’s being portrayed as one of the greatest scandals in U.S. history by the corporate media as well as establishment Democrats (to understand why, see: How the Corporate Media Continues to Use the Russia Scapegoat as a Distraction from Status Quo Failure).

  Proving once again that the only thing Democrats can really get passionate about is anti-Russia hysteria. A hysteria which the corporate media is likewise obsessed with, despite countless really significant domestic issues which remain unaddressed.

  For example, take a look at the following images recently published by New York Magazine and The New Yorker.

  

  

  Do these publications realize how utterly ridiculous they look to anyone capable of critical thought?

  So what have we learned from all this? For starters, it should be abundantly clear by now that no one is coming to save us, and no one will be making America great again for us. We need to focus on making ourselves great. Once we do that, we will be able to surmount all obstacles and make this world a better place, but don’t think the path will be easy. I think we are in for an extraordinarily bumpy ride, and the only thing we’ll be able to depend on is the decency and goodwill of our fellow citizens. The government isn’t going to save us, we need to save ourselves.

  

  

• "Hillary For Mayor" Posters Popping Up All Around New York City

  Like a nagging case of “pneumonia” that brings with it random, yet inevitable, bouts of full-body paralysis, the rumors/threats of Hillary tossing her hat in the ring for the New York City Mayoral race simply won’t go away.

  Now, per a report from The American Mirror, it seems that a group of disaffected Hillary supporters in New York City are following in the footsteps of a recent movement in Paris to elect Obama as the next French President…when you can’t convince your chosen candidate to run for elected office we guess plastering a bunch of posters in public spaces and hoping for the best is the next most logical option.

  “Hillary for Mayor” signs popping up in NYC. pic.twitter.com/jozK9pySld

  — Michael Arria (@michaelarria) February 28, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

   

  Ironically, just last night we jokingly noted that “We sense an opening for you, Hillary” after incumbent Mayor Bill de Blasio faced public backlash, even from members of his own party, over his inability to control the homelessness crisis which is spiraling out of control in NYC.

  Unfortunately, particularly for a man seeking re-election later this year, the following stats on NYC homelessness are fairly damning.

   

  

   

  Meanwhile, as we pointed out in January, in a hypothetical matchup a Quinnipiac poll found that Hillary would crush de Blasio by 20 points.

  The latest example comes from a Quinnipiac University Poll which analyzed a hypothetical head-to-head match-up between Clinton and New York’s current mayor, Bill de Blasio.  Unfortunately for de Blasio, the poll found that, while he would beat almost everyone else whose name has been mentioned as potential contender, he would almost certainly be crushed by Hillary. 

  In a very hypothetical race for New York City Mayor, Hillary Clinton, running as an independent, tops incumbent Bill de Blasio, running as a Democrat, 49 – 30 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

   

  “New Yorkers aren’t in love with Mayor Bill de Blasio, but they seem to like him better than other possible choices – except Hillary Clinton, who probably is an impossible choice,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

   

  “None of the possible contenders has made any real noise or spent any money, so this race still could get interesting.”

   

  In the Clinton – de Blasio matchup, Clinton leads 61 – 29 percent among Democrats and 45 – 31 percent among independent voters. Republicans back de Blasio 28 – 18 percent. She leads among men and women and black, white and Hispanic voters. She also leads in every borough except Staten Island, which goes to de Blasio 28 – 22 percent.

  

   

  Certainly this guy seems pretty stoked about the possibility.

  

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Ihre Papiere, Bitte!: Are We Being Set Up For A National ID System?

  Via John Whitehead of The Rutherford Institute,

  

  You can’t have it both ways.

  You can’t live in a constitutional republic if you allow the government to act like a police state.

  You can’t claim to value freedom if you allow the government to operate like a dictatorship.

  You can’t expect to have your rights respected if you allow the government to treat whomever it pleases with disrespect and an utter disregard for the rule of law.

  If you’re inclined to advance this double standard because you believe you have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide, beware: there’s always a boomerang effect.

  Whatever dangerous practices you allow the government to carry out now – whether it’s in the name of national security or protecting America’s borders or making America great again – rest assured, these same practices can and will be used against you when the government decides to set its sights on you.

  Nothing is ever as simple as the government claims it is.

  The war on drugs turned out to be a war on the American people, waged with SWAT teams and militarized police.

  The war on terror turned out to be a war on the American people, waged with warrantless surveillance and indefinite detention.

  The war on immigration will be yet another war on the American people, waged with roving government agents demanding “papers, please.”

  So you see, when you talk about empowering government agents to demand identification from anyone they suspect might be an illegal immigrant—the current scheme being entertained by the Trump administration to ferret out and cleanse the country of illegal immigrants—what you’re really talking about is creating a society in which you are required to identify yourself to any government worker who demands it.

  Just recently, in fact, passengers arriving in New York’s JFK Airport on a domestic flight from San Francisco were ordered to show their “documents” to border patrol agents in order to get off the plane.

  This is how you pave the way for a national identification system.

  Americans have always resisted adopting a national ID card for good reason: it gives the government and its agents the ultimate power to target, track and terrorize the populace according to the government’s own nefarious purposes.

  National ID card systems have been used before by oppressive governments—in Nazi Germany against the Jews, in South Africa against black citizens, in Rwanda against the Tutsis—in the name of national security, invariably with horrifying results.

  In the United States, post-9/11, more than 750 Muslim men were rounded up on the basis of their religion and ethnicity and detained for up to eight months. Their experiences echo those of 120,000 Japanese-Americans who were similarly detained 75 years ago following the attack on Pearl Harbor, a practice the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to declare illegal.

  Fast forward to the Trump administration’s war on illegal immigration, and you have the perfect storm necessary for the adoption of a national ID card, the ultimate human tracking device, which would make the police state’s task of monitoring, tracking and singling out individual suspects—citizen and noncitizen alike—far simpler.

  A federalized, computerized, cross-referenced, databased system of identification policed by government agents would be the final nail in the coffin for privacy.

  Granted, in the absence of a national ID system, “we the people” are already tracked in a myriad of ways. This informational glut—used to great advantage by both the government and corporate sectors—is converging into a mandate for “an internal passport,” a.k.a., a national ID card that would store information as basic as a person’s name, birth date and place of birth, as well as private information, including a Social Security number, fingerprint, retina scan and personal, criminal and financial records.

  The Real ID Act, which imposes federal standards on identity documents such as state drivers’ licenses, is the prelude to this national identification system.

  At some point, however, it will not matter whether your skin is black or yellow or brown or white. It will not matter whether you’re an immigrant or a citizen. It will not matter whether you’re rich or poor. It won’t even matter whether you’re driving, flying or walking.

  Eventually, all that will matter is whether some government agent—poorly trained, utterly ignorant of the Constitution, way too hyped up on the power of their badges, and authorized to detain, search, interrogate, threaten and generally harass anyone they see fit—chooses to single you out for special treatment.

  You see, the police state does not discriminate.

  It’s a short hop, skip and a jump from allowing government agents to stop and demand identification from someone suspected of being an illegal immigrant to empowering government agents to subject anyone—citizen and noncitizen alike—to increasingly intrusive demands that they prove not only that they are legally in the country, but that they are also lawful, in compliance with every statute and regulation on the books, and not suspected of having committed some crime or other.

  It’s no longer a matter of if, but when.

  In the case of a national identification system, it might start off as a means of curtailing illegal immigration, but it will end up as a means of controlling the American people.

  We have been down this road before.

  Reporting on the trial of Nazi bureaucrat Adolf Eichmann for the New Yorker in 1963, Hannah Arendt describes the “submissive meekness with which Jews went to their death”:

  …arriving on time at the transportation points, walking under their own power to the places of execution, digging their own graves, undressing and making neat piles of their clothing, and lying down side by side to be shot—seemed a telling point, and the prosecutor, asking witness after witness, “Why did you not protest?,” “Why did you board the train?,”

   

  “Fifteen thousand people were standing there and hundreds of guards facing you—why didn’t you revolt and charge and attack these guards?,” harped on it for all it was worth. But the sad truth of the matter is that the point was ill taken, for no non-Jewish group or non-Jewish people had behaved differently.

  The lessons of history are clear: chained, shackled and imprisoned in a detention camp, there is little chance of resistance. The time to act is now, before it¹s too late. Indeed, there is power in numbers, but if those numbers will not unite and rise up against their oppressors, there can be no resistance.

  As Arendt concludes, “under conditions of terror most people will comply but some people will not, just as the lesson of the countries to which the Final Solution was proposed is that ‘it could happen’ in most places but it did not happen everywhere.”

  It does not have to happen here.

  As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we do not have to condemn ourselves to life under an oppressive, authoritarian regime.

  We do not have to become our own jailers.

  We do not have to dig our own graves.

  We do not have to submit.

  

  

• De Blasio Vows To Spend $300mm On NYC Shelters As Homeless Crisis Spirals Out Of Control

  It’s fairly safe to say that Mayor Bill de Blasio has fallen ‘slightly’ short of his original campaign goal to remedy the homelessness crisis in New York City.  In fact, The New York Post summed up the current situation in NYC fairly succinctly back in July 2015:

  

   

  Unfortunately, particularly for a man seeking re-election later this year, the following stats on NYC homelessness are fairly damning.

  

   

  So what do you do when you’re up for re-election in about 8 months and realize that you oversaw a massive expansion of a problem you previously vowed to eradicate?  Well, you throw as much taxpayer money as necessary at that problem to make it go way, of course.  Per the New York Daily News:

  Mayor de Blasio unveiled an ambitious new plan Tuesday to address the vexing challenge of housing the homeless, vowing to build dozens more shelters but saying little about where he’d put them and acknowledging it won’t solve the crisis.

   

  In a speech in lower Manhattan, the mayor promised to stop using the expensive hotels and the private apartments in “cluster sites” that the city has been reluctantly utilizing to house a homeless population that grows each year.

   

  Instead, the mayor said he would move the homeless now staying in these places — many of which are plagued by decrepit conditions — into 90 new, traditional city shelters across the city.

   

  Although the mayor said nothing about funding during his hour-long speech, his aides said later the city will spend $300 million over five years to build the shelters.

  

   

  Meanwhile, even members of De Blasio’s own party blasted his lack of details and obvious attempt to just throw money at the the problem it hopes that it simple goes away.

  Assemblyman Erik Dilan, a Brooklyn Democrat who as a city councilman was chairman of the Housing Committee, raised concerns about the high number of shelters.

   

  “It’s going to be very difficult,” Dilan said. “There’s going to be an uproar in neighborhoods because they’d rather see people in permanent housing.”

   

  “I am disheartened. I see more aspiration than reality,” said Councilman Ritchie Torres (D-Bronx), whose district has the highest concentration of cluster sites in the city.

   

  “The city has been throwing the kitchen sink at the crisis, expending hundreds of millions of dollars, and none of it seems to be working,” he said.

   

  “Our community wants to be respected,” he said. “We’ve sort of heard this story before, so the proof will be in the pudding.”

  We sense an opening for you, Hillary.

  

  

• The Fed's Dependence On The Consumer Will Backfire

  Via C.Jay Engel of The Mises Institute,

  The story is that it is consumers that are going "to push the economy to grow more than 2 percent this year." That's Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan's recently expressed view. It's the old fallacy of spending — rather than saving — our way into growth.

  It's remarkable that no one talks about the fact that the economy since 2008 was built on little but cheap debt, and therefore depends on the continued flow of such debt.

  

  To raise interest rates in that environment, will lead to the very conditions that the Fed fears the most. Of course, Austrians would praise such a blessed blow to the artificial boom. However, since the Fed, operating through a Keynesian lens, sees no inherent instability in such an economic environment. They don't see how much this would severely undermine the alleged stability they think they've achieved.

  Kaplan and the rest of them are depending on indebted consumers, exhausted by their credit levels, to push the economy all the way up to 2 percent growth. That it's come down to this speaks volumes about the Fed's alleged success over the years. Aside from the terrible labor participation rate is the fact that we are now supposed to be impressed by a GDP growth print above 2 percent. And even worse, the economy is so bad that in order to hit this 2 percent mark, we have to rely on the consumer. 

  Beyond this, we just got the 2016 fourth quarter GDP numbers and guess what: it came in at a seriously lousy 1.9 percent. The "expectations" were in the 2.1 percent range. It gets even better: this low number was in spite of a 3 percent increase in consumer spending. This of course means that the spending isn't helping. And without it, where would economic growth be then?

  If the Fed raises rates, where will the "recovery" go? Or more accurately, where will the facade of a recovery go?

  

  

  

• House Democrats Delayed Dismissal Of IT Staff 'Hackers' Because They Were Muslim American

  A month ago, three Muslim American brothers who managed office IT were barred from congressional computers (on suspicion that they accessed computers without permission). While many congressmen immediately relieved them of their duties, two House Democrats decided to delay the firing (until today) because their Muslim background, some with ties to Pakistan, could make them easy targets for false charges.

  Imran Awan seen below with Bill Clinton

  

  As we previously reported, the three brothers (Abid, Imran, and Jamal Awan) who managed office IT for members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and other lawmakers  were barred from computer networks at the House of Representatives Thursday, The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group has learned.

  Three members of the intelligence panel and five members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs were among the dozens of members who employed the suspects on a shared basis. The two committees deal with many of the nation’s most sensitive issues, information and documents, including those related to the war on terrorism.

   

  The brothers are suspected of serious violations, including accessing members’ computer networks without their knowledge and stealing equipment from Congress.

  The three men are “shared employees,” meaning they are hired by multiple offices, which split their salaries and use them as needed for IT services. It is up to each member to fire them from working…

  While many congressmen did fire them immediately (and barred them from congressional systems), Politico reports that, one month after being barred from congressional systems, Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio) have finally fired the IT staff…

  Meeks said he isn’t convinced Alvi and Imran Awan, both of whom worked in his office at different times, are involved in the alleged procurement scam but that Alvi was dismissed because the investigation was interrupting the day-to-day functions of his office.

   

  “As of right now, I don’t see a smoking gun,” Meeks said. “I have seen no evidence that they were doing anything that was nefarious.”

  

  Meeks said he was hesitant to believe the accusations against Alvi, Imran Awan and the three other staffers, saying their background as Muslim Americans, some with ties to Pakistan, could make them easy targets for false charges.

  “I wanted to be sure individuals are not being singled out because of their nationalities or their religion. We want to make sure everybody is entitled to due process,” Meeks said.

   

  “They had provided great service for me. And there were certain times in which they had permission by me, if it was Hina or someone else, to access some of my data.”

   

  Fudge told Politico on Tuesday she would employ Imran Awan until he received “due process.”

   

  “He needs to have a hearing. Due process is very simple. You don’t fire someone until you talk to them,” Fudge said.

   

  On Wednesday, Lauren Williams, a spokeswoman for Fudge, wouldn’t provide details about Imran Awan’s firing but did confirm he was still employed in Fudge’s office as of Tuesday afternoon.

  The bottom line is simple – these House Democrats decided it was better to be at risk of hacking and extortion than to be accused of racism.

  And just for good measure, Politico reports that Awan has long-standing relationships with Meeks, Wasserman Schultz and Fudge. Meeks was one of the first lawmakers Awan worked for after coming to Capitol Hill in 2004. He joined Wasserman Schultz’s office in 2005 and started working for Fudge in 2008. In addition, Meeks and, to a larger extent, Wasserman Schultz, are said to have a friendly personal relationship with Awan and his wife, according to multiple sources. Awan made nearly $2 million since starting as an IT support staffer for House Democrats in 2004, according to public salary data. Alvi, who worked for House Democrats beginning in 2007, earned more than $1.3 million as an IT staffer during that time.

  

  

• Van Jones Crushes College Safe Space Crusaders

  Via Mike Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

  Nothing that Van Jones states in the clip below is novel. Many of us have making the exact same point for many years. Nevertheless, he delivers the argument in such a passionate and eloquent way, it is indeed worth applauding and sharing.

  This clip got me thinking about why those who oppose Trump seem so incapable of offering thoughtful, empowering resistance other than to quote George W. Bush or engage in CIA worship. I think part of the problem goes back to the fact that we’ve been telling young people that they’re victims for pretty much their whole lives. If you convince everyone that they’re a victim, they’ll start acting like victims.

  Victims are the last thing this society needs. We need strong, ethical, courageous men and women who are willing to step up the plate, challenge authority and make this world a better place. College safe spaces are simply assembly lines for creating future victims, and we’ve got more than enough of those.

  *  *  *

  Finally, as we have noted previously, and hope it is slowly being drummed into the small closed minds of millennials…

  The Only Safe Space Is Your Home

  

  No matter where you go in life, someone will be there to offend you. Maybe it’s a joke you overheard on vacation, a spat at the office, or a difference of opinion with someone in line at the grocery store. Inevitably, someone will offend you and your values. If you cannot handle that without losing control of your emotions and reverting back to your “safe space” away from the harmful words of others, then you’re best to just stay put at home. Remember, though: if people in the outside world scare you, people on the internet will downright terrify you. It’s probably best to just accept these harsh realities of life and go out into the world prepared to confront them wherever they may be waiting.

  

  

• Stockman: "Trump Will Create A Debt Crisis Like Never Before"

  Having warned that "everything will grind to a halt on March 5th" due to the under-appreciated debt-ceiling debacle that looms over Washington, and exclaiming that "what is going on today is complete insanity," former Reagan Budget Director David Stockman is rapidly losing faith that anything can be done… 

  "I've thrown in the towel because he’s not paying attention and he’s not learning anything and he’s making ridiculous statements."

  Reflecting on Trump's address to Congress, and what we know of The White House agenda, Stockman told Fox Business' Neil Cavuto:

  "We don’t need a $54 billion increase in defense when the budget already is ten times bigger than that of Russia. We don’t need $6 trillion of defense spending over the next decade because China is going nowhere except trying to keep their Ponzi scheme together."

  Stockman rejected Trump's dynamic scoring hope…

  "Trump is so deep in fiscal la-la-land, he won't even find the wrong envelope… he is saying crazy things."

  And wasn’t sold on Speaker Ryan’s Obamacare plan.

  “If you look at the Ryan draft that came out over the weekend, it’s basically Obamacare-like. It’s not really repealing anything,” he said.

   

  “It’s basically reneging and turning the Medicaid expansion into a block grant, turning the exchanges into tax credits [and] it’s still going to cost trillions of dollars.”

  Last week, Trump’s Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, told FOX Business the administration is “focused on an aggressive timeline” to produce a tax reform plan by August Opens a New Window. , but in Stockman’s opinion, tax reform won’t happen this year.

  http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/embed.js?id=5341550706001&w=466&h=263

  Watch the latest video at video.foxbusiness.com

  He also warned that the administration’s run up against the debt ceiling this summer could lead to a debt crisis.

  “I don’t think we will see the tax cuts this year at all,” he said.

   

  “There is going to be a debt ceiling crisis like never before this summer and that’s what people don’t realize. They’ve burned up all the cash that Obama left on the balance sheet for whatever reason.”

  Stockman added that "…by the time we get to June or July, we are going to see a debt ceiling crisis like never before."

  

  As a reminder, Stockman warned last week: 

  “I think what people are missing is this date, March 15^th 2017.  That’s the day that this debt ceiling holiday that Obama and Boehner put together right before the last election in October of 2015.  That holiday expires.  The debt ceiling will freeze in at $20 trillion.  It will then be law.  It will be a hard stop.  The Treasury will have roughly $200 billion in cash.  We are burning cash at a $75 billion a month rate.  By summer, they will be out of cash.  Then we will be in the mother of all debt ceiling crises.  Everything will grind to a halt.  I think we will have a government shutdown.  There will not be Obama Care repeal and replace.  There will be no tax cut.  There will be no infrastructure stimulus.  There will be just one giant fiscal bloodbath over a debt ceiling that has to be increased and no one wants to vote for.”

  Stockman also predicts very positive price moves for gold and silver as a result of the coming budget calamity.

  

  

• AG Sessions Accused Of Lying To Congress Over Contact With Russian Ambassador

  Just when you thought the 'Russians-did-it' meme was fading, WaPo reporters manage to find DoJ officials who say then-Senator Jeff Sessions spoke twice last year with Russia’s ambassador to the United States – encounters he did not disclose when asked about possible contacts with Moscow during his confirmation hearing to become attorney general.

  //www.washingtonpost.com/video/c/embed/5350986c-fed4-11e6-9b78-824ccab94435

  At his Jan. 10 Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, Sessions was asked by Sen. Al Franken, a Minnesota Democrat, what he would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign.

  “I’m not aware of any of those activities,” he responded.

   

  He added: “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”

  And now, as The Hill reports that according to The Washington Post report, President Trump's attorney general, Jeff Sessions, spoke twice with Russia's ambassador to the United States while Trump was on the campaign trail.

  Justice Department officials said one of the meetings was a private conversation between Sessions and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in Sessions's office. The private meeting reportedly took place during the same time intelligence officials have said Russia was interfering with the U.S. presidential election through a hacking campaign.

  Officials said Sessions did not consider the conversations relevant to the lawmakers’ questions and did not remember in detail what he discussed with Kislyak.

  “There was absolutely nothing misleading about his answer,” said Sarah Isgur Flores, Sessions’s spokeswoman.

  A Sessions spokeswoman said Sessions was acting as a member of the Armed Services Committee, not as a Trump surrogate, when he spoke with the ambassador, and was not trying to mislead senators when he said during his confirmation hearing that he had not had contacts with Moscow. She added that Sessions last year had more than 25 conversations with foreign ambassadors as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, including the British, Korean, Japanese, Polish, Indian, Chinese, Canadian, Australian and German ambassadors, in addition to Kislyak.

  When asked to comment on Sessions’s contacts with Kislyak, Franken said in a statement to The Washington Post on Wednesday:

  “If it’s true that Attorney General Sessions met with the Russian ambassador in the midst of the campaign, then I am very troubled that his response to my questioning during his confirmation hearing was, at best, misleading.

   

  Franken added: “It is now clearer than ever that the attorney general cannot, in good faith, oversee an investigation at the Department of Justice and the FBI of the Trump-Russia connection, and he must recuse himself immediately.”

  And just like that, the "russians-did-it" meme is back on top of the news cycle into the weekend.

  We leave it to WaPo to conclude (with the narrative of choice)…

  The previously undisclosed discussions could fuel new congressional calls for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate Russia’s alleged role in the 2016 presidential election. As attorney general, Sessions oversees the Justice Department and the FBI, which have been leading investigations into Russian meddling and any links to Trump’s associates. He has so far resisted calls to recuse himself.

  We suspect Trump will tweet-splode again soon on the back of this – so much for the conciliatory "end the small-thinking" tone he called for in his congressional address.

  

  

• McDonald's Cunning Plan To Recover Millions In Lost Customers: Home Delivery

  Earlier today, the world’s biggest fast food retailer spooked its investors when it briefly halted trading in its stock ahead of its annual investor day. However, instead of some dramatic M&A deal revelation, McDonalds had a far less exciting announcement: it had decided to go back to basis in an attempt to recover some 500 million U.S. orders it had lost over the past five years to competition as a result of failed attempts to widen its customer base. So, after some deep soul-searching, the fast-food chain said it would finally embrace its identity as an affordable fast-food chain instead of a fancy coffee store or an all day diner, and stop chasing after people who will rarely eat there.

  In recent years, critics slammed the fast food chain to focus on its core customers, at a time when McDonald’s added more salads, snack wraps and oatmeal to its menu to attract health-conscious customers. Such gimmicks worked for a while then failed, resulting in an even bigger drop in the core client base. In recent months the chain pulled many of those slow-selling products. It also had experimented with higher-priced burgers that failed.

  During the investor day, CEO Steve Easterbrook said the company is more focused now on its core customers. “We’re not the same McDonald’s we were two years ago or even six months ago,” said Mr. Easterbrook, who marked his two-year anniversary as CEO on Wednesday.

  McDonald’s is not the only one scratching its head over how to stop its declining market share: chasing new customers is a pitfall that’s hurt other fast-food restaurants such as top competitor, Burger King, which after efforts to appeal to a broader, more health-conscious customer base failed, decided in recent years to return to its fast-food roots.

  The fast food chain’s decision to stop faking came after it conducted its largest-ever customer survey last year to understand “why it was losing customers.” The study showed that it was losing customers to other fast-food chains, not to fast-casual restaurants serving healthier fare. Chief Executive Steve Easterbrook said the company is more focused now on its core customers. “We’re not the same McDonald’s we were two years ago or even six months ago,” said Mr. Easterbrook, who marked his two-year anniversary as CEO on Wednesday.

  So what are the core pillars of McDonald’s restructuring? 

  • First, it would focus on improving the quality of its food to retain existing customers and regain lapsed ones according to the WSJ. One of its biggest challenges has been getting its burger offerings to resonate with people who have grown accustomed to better burgers from rivals, i.e., the food sucks. Alas, MCD didn’t share specific plans for making a better burger or provide a timeline but said it is testing new cooking methods to improve the texture and taste of its classic Big Macs and Quarter Pounders. The chain is also testing burgers made from fresh, rather than frozen beef, in Texas and Oklahoma.
  • Second, it will try to make coffee a top priority globally to take advantage of customers’ snacking habits. It plans to improve how its coffee is served and presented and to upgrade the pastries at its McCafe coffee stations within restaurants. Many would likely say that its time would be far better spent on the first point above.
  • Third, McDonald is planning to roll out mobile ordering and payment in 20,000 restaurants in some of its largest markets, including the U.S., by the end of the year. The chain also is testing curbside pickup in the U.S.
  • Fourth, the company said it would spend about $1.1 billion to renovate existing locations, including about 650 in the U.S. About 2,500 U.S. restaurants in all will be “Experience of the Future” restaurants that include self-order kiosks and table service by year-end. In other words, robot servers and virtually no (minimum wage) staff.

  Finally, and perhaps most amusing, McDonald’s will soon provide in-home delivery. McDonald’s, which has been offering delivery for many years in Asia and the Middle East, is now testing delivery in the U.S. and Europe and more Asian markets. In Florida, it has partnered with ride-sharing service Uber to deliver food. McDonald’s said that 75% of the population in its top five markets live within 3 miles of a McDonald’s and that more than one billion people globally live within five to 10 minutes of a McDonald’s.

  “Delivery is the most significant disruption in the restaurant industry in our lifetime,” Ms. Brady said.

  And so, as McDonald’s prepares to spend millions to “return to its roots”, supposedly by imitating a pizza delivery company, millions of Americans will get even fatter as the only effort required to get to that Big Mac will be to dial the nearest McDonald’s restaurant. And yet in a decade or two, there will still be many confused economists asking why America’s largest “GDP component” and government outlay is healthcare spending.

  Finally, it is fascinating how nobody has yet made the simplest connection: perhaps the reason why increasingly more lower income Americans are no longer frequenting even such a low-cost retailerlike McDonalds, is that those same “lost clients” simply don’t have the disposable income.

  

  

• "Dear President Trump: If You Want To Cut Healthcare Costs & Stem The Opiate Death Spiral, Legalize Marijuana"

  Via Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

  You say you want bold solutions that unite us: start by fully legalizing marijuana.

  If there is anything the left and right, progressives and conservatives, and everyone in between can agree on, it's ending the counter-productive, destructive "war on drugs" that has generated crime and violence, a "we're number one in Gulags" prison complex and pushed people into harder, far more dangerous drugs (see chart of "legal" opioid deaths below).

  Dear President Trump: if you're truly serious about lowering healthcare costs and stemming the rising tide of opioid addictions and death, then fully legalize marijuana via executive order now.

  The usual justifications for continuing the criminalization of marijuana have moved from threadbare to completely disconnected from reality. We're told that marijuana is surrounded by violence–well duh–the violence is the direct consequence of Prohibition.

  What happened when alcohol was prohibited? Crime and violence exploded around the production and distribution of the outlawed drug. What was peaceful when legal becomes violent when outlawed. This is so obvious, yet we have "leaders" who are blind to the dynamic.

  By outlawing medical marijuana, we have pushed everyone with chronic pain into extremely addictive and increasingly deadly "legal" opiates. This is the height of insanity: outlaw natural substances with pain management potential while legalizing highly addictive and often deadly synthetic opiates.

  

  Legalizing marijuana would eliminate the violence, lower the costs of operating the Drug War Gulag and lower healthcare costs by reducing the dependence on addictive opiates for pain management. Yes, there are circumstances that require opiates–but does it make sense to make opiates the next step above over-the-counter pain relievers?

  The social, human and financial costs of the opiate pandemic are skyrocketing. Adding marijuana products to the spectrum of choices would reduce these costs and the death toll. Regardless of whatever critics may claim about the negative effects of marijuana, the truth is death by marijuana overdose is essentially non-existent.

  Compare that to the tens of thousands of deaths caused by "legal" opiates and the millions of lives destroyed by the "war on drugs" and its American Gulag. While those benefiting from operating the "war on drugs" and the American Gulag propagandize a completely false pathway from marijuana to opiates, the reality is grandmothers are benefiting from medical marijuana and it is the sick-care/Big Pharma cartels that are the pathway to opiate addiction and death.

  Dear President Trump: you say you want bold solutions that unite us: start by fully legalizing marijuana. Listen to your young advisors and those in law enforcement who see the counterproductive insanity of the "war on marijuana" first-hand. Listen to the elderly who are benefiting from medical marijuana.

  Do the right thing and fully legalize marijuana. It's time to move beyond addled fictions and deal with the ugly realities of a system that actively promotes "legal" opiate addiction and death while outlawing marijuana.
   

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• US Mint Releases New Fort Knox "Audit Documentation": First Critical Observations

  Submitted by Koos Jansen of BullionStar

  

   

  US Mint Releases New Fort Knox “Audit Documentation”: First Critical Observations

  In response to a FOIA request the US Mint has finally released reports drafted from 1993 through 2008 related to the physical audits of the US official gold reserves. However, the documents released are incomplete and reveal the audit procedures have not been executed proficiently. Moreover, because the Mint could not honor its promises in full the costs ($3,144.96 US dollars) of the FOIA request have been refunded.

  Thanks to my readers that donated to the crowdfunding campaign I’ve been able to force the US Mint through a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request to hand over documents related to the physical audits of the US official gold reserves stored at the Mint; also referred to as Deep Storage gold. Although the PDF-package digitally sent to me is redacted, incomplete, includes pages copied twice and materials I didn’t ask for, it’s the closest thing that I’ve ever seen to physical audit documentation of gold at Fort Knox and the other Mint depositories drafted in between 1993 and 2008.

  What is worrying is that the reports now in my possession reveal the audit procedures have not competently been executed. Combine that with the fact the documents are incomplete and redacted, and the result is suspicion of fraud. In this blog post we’ll have a first critical look at the reports and the problems to be found within.

  This post is a sequel to A First Glance At US Official Gold Reserves Audits, Second Thoughts On US Official Gold Reserves Audits, US Government Lost 7 Fort Knox Gold Audit Reports, The Power Of The Gold Community: Crowdfunding For FOIA Request Fort Knox Audit Documents Completes Within 24 Hours, Dear US Mint, We Gave You The FOIA Funds, Now Give Us The Fort Knox Audit Documents! Also related are Where Did The Gold In Fort Knox Come From? and Former US Mint Director Clueless On Gold In Fort Knox.

  US Government Tight-Lipped About Fort Knox Audits

  For starters, allow me to expand on what I think happened at the Mint’s headquarter on the 8^th floor at 801 9^th Street NW Washington DC, before these documents were sent to me.

  It should be clear that the US Treasury (owner of the gold), US Mint (main custodian), Federal Reserve Bank Of New York (second custodian), and the Office Inspector General of the US Treasury (head auditor), are reluctant to disclose information about the audits of the gold at the four largest depositories that store over 8,000 fine metric tonnes. Consider that the most seasoned gold analysts aren’t even aware this gold is audited.

  About a year ago we read in the introduction of an interview with world-renowned gold commentators Jim Rickards, “unlike many today, Jim Rickards believes the gold is indeed in Fort Knox but has not been audited to avoid drawing attention to it and to downplay its role”. More recently, on 11 February 2017 the Financial Times wrote, “much of the world’s excavated gold is thought to be in Fort Knox, but nobody can be sure, since the US government will not allow the auditors in”.  No, auditing Fort Knox is not a topic only the mainstream media are confused about. Gold advocates are in the dark as well.

  

  What nobody knows is that according the US government 100 per cent of the Deep Storage gold has been audited in between 1974 and 2008 (page 4). This period can be divided in two chapters: the first runs from 1974 until 1986 when the Committee for Continuing Audit of the U.S. Government-owned Gold verified the majority of the Deep Storage metal. The second chapter covers 1993 until 2008 when the residual was examined under the supervision of the Office Inspector General of the US Treasury. In my previous posts on this subject we focused on the first chapter, what is written below skims the surface of the second. As promised, eventually I will publish a full in-depth analysis of all chapters (there are additional chapters in the fifties, from 1986-1993, in 2009, 2010 and 2011).

  Over the years my inquiries at the US government though regular channels have produced little intelligence about the physical audits of the Deep Storage gold. Some departments cooperated at first, but eventually they stopped replying emails or just hang up the phone while I was talking. The second layer of defense was raised when I started submitting FOIAs. Instead of honoring my requests they tried to delay and dodge most appeals. Clearly, the US government prefers not to answer my questions than to flaunt with the audit results.

  However, in 2016 I embraced the motivation to push through and find out how many gold bars were counted, weighed and assayed in between 1993 and 2008, when allegedly the last series of physical audits was conducted. Not surprisingly, zero US government departments could provide me the information I was looking for, but through certain FOIAs I obtained leads to submit new FOIAs, and so on 12 Augustus 2016 I demanded, inter alia, the “memoranda submitted by the US Mint Director’s representative regarding audits of the Mint Schedule of Custodial Gold and Silver Reserves to the Chief Financial Officer drafted from 1993 through 2008”. The Mint replied this request would costs me $3,144.96 dollars because it would take 40 hours to search the respective documents, 8 hours for review, and additional costs would be incurred to duplicate 1,200 pages. I thought this was hogwash – 1,200 pages seemed out of proportion for such memoranda, how hard can it be to find a few pages and how did they know it were going to be 1,200 pages if they had to search 40 hours for it – but decided to start a crowdfunding campaign to collect the money.

  Within 24 hours the campaign was completed and late August 2016 I sent the Mint a check, in the hopes to receive the documents a.s.a.p.. After the Mint pretended the check was missing for a few weeks, they communicated on 28 September 2016 the funds had arrived and they were working to get the requested documents out to me (exhibit 1).

  

  Months past but nothing happened. I sent several emails and called the Mint three times, but time and time again I was maintained with false excuses. Then, finally, on 23 December 2016 the Mint delivered the documents I paid for. Sort of. Instead of 1,200 pages I received 223 redacted pages that contained 68 pages of reports I didn’t ask for and 21 pages that were copied twice. Effectively, I got 134 pages related to my FOIA request.

  When I confronted the Mint I paid $3,144.96 dollars for a meager 134 pages they agreed the costs had been estimated to high and a refund was reasonable. Actually, they told me they never cashed the check. So, quickly I told my bank to cancel the check and ordered my crowdfunding platform to refund all my donors.

  As of now all donors to my crowdfunding campaign should have received their money back (if not, please write me an email, see below for my address). From the bottom of my heart I would like to thank everyone for the loan that made this operation possible¹!

  For me a slight doubt remained if the Mint had tried to fend me off by asking a disproportionate amount of money for a few pages that I assume are alphabetically archived, or that they handled my case in all honesty. A skeptical mind would think the former. To find out I read the internal emails of the Mint employees that handled my FOIA. Those are not directly publicly available, but I was told a trick by more experienced FOIA scholars that reached out to me after I published my previous blog posts on this subject, to ask the Mint for internal emails through, what else, a Freedom Of Information Act request (exhibit 2).

  

  And it worked! On 10 January 2017 I received all (I hope) emails from the Mint I was looking for. Including one wherein Audit Liaison at the United States Mint Tom Noziglia makes an estimate for the costs of my FOIA request of 12 August 2016. Read below (exhibit 3).

  

  At first sight it seems Noziglia and his office stick to prudent protocols. But possibly this email is a veil, meant to deceive me if I would ever read it. Actually, yes, I think it’s a cloak and I’ll share my theory.

  Let’s study Noziglia’s LinkedIn page:

  

  We can read from Noziglia, “as Audit Liaison at the US Mint, I [Noziglia] am responsible for the coordination of all external audit initiatives … I have extensive experience in precious metal inventory, … I … coordinate the execution of the annual OIG [Office Inspector General] Joint Seal Inspection of the Custodial Gold at the US Mint”. This page tells us Noziglia is one of the auditors of the US official gold reserves. So, the email above (exhibit 3) was written by the auditor who was involved in the procedures of which I requested the documentation. Noziglia must have known my inquiry could be simply honored by sending just a few pages of documentation, as he was a co-author of the documents in question.

  Firstly, with the benefit of hindsight we know Noziglia was lying in his email because by now I have the documents that count only 134 pages, and he was the coordinator of the annual inspections of custodial gold at the Mint. He must have known there were no “1,200 pages in 80 boxes” and so his $2640.00 dollar estimate is a hoax. I think Noziglia wrote the email expecting I would NOT pay the ludicrous amount of dollars, but possibly DID submit a new FOIA to view the Mint’s internal emails. Chances are slim someone could pay $3,144.96 dollars right? But I’m not the first who submits an additional FOIA to obtain internal emails. Hundreds of people went before me, this is a well-known trick for FOIA pundits, and many public servants in the US must be aware of this hazard. Hence I reckon public servants consciously write emails to colleagues, as if these will be publicly released some day. I’ve come to understand submitting and answering FOIAs is nothing but a cat and mouse game.

  Second, the Mint never cashed the check. If they really thought they would have to search 40 hours, why not cash the check immediately and get busy? I guess they knew very well there was no searching required.

  Third, in case Noziglia had never seen a “memoranda submitted by the US Mint Director’s representative regarding audits of the Mint Schedule of Custodial Gold and Silver Reserves to the Chief Financial Officer”, which is not likely but let’s give him the benefit of the doubt, he could have viewed the most recent version at his office that wasn’t sent to the National Archives (NARA) yet. By doing so he would have learned very effectively these annual memoranda count only a few pages.

  Fourth, Noziglia states in his email (exhibit 3) he’s not sure if he will find the documents at all. But this is impossible because he’s a dedicated Mint auditor so he must know what documents the Mint sends to NARA every year. In addition, there was no need for Noziglia to “order off site” boxes, because he simply could have commanded NARA staff to deliver specific documents – this is common practice.

  Fifth, in the CC of Noziglia’s email is Kenyatta Fletcher, who is the Chief of the Accounting Division of the Mint. If, which is a big if, Noziglia didn’t know what I was looking for, Fletcher would’ve known these documents wouldn’t count 1,200 pages. But still I was charged a laughable $3,144.96 dollars.

  Sixth, Noziglia’s estimate is $2.640.00 dollars, but I have no emails that clarify why $504.96 dollars were added for a total of $3,144.96 dollars I was charged. This indicates, Mint staff communicated in person or through phone calls to finalize my request, and so could have done likewise to handle it in general. Concluding, Noziglia’s email doesn’t paint the full picture of the internel communication.

  Seventh, please read what Noziglia’s colleague Grimsby replied to him after 4 minutes.

  

  “Great email”? Why would Grimsby praise Noziglia for his email? If Grimsby would have written,“I agree”, I can understand. But, “great email”? Perhaps Grimsby meant to write, “great calculation that makes no sense, but is likely deceive an ignorant FOIA requester if he would ever read it!”? It sure looks like it.

  My guess is that Noziglia, Grimsby and Saunders-Mitchell met in the hallway in the afternoon of 15 August 2016 and agreed for Noziglia to write a phony email that arrives at an amount of dollars aimed to scare me off. In the email below you can read Noziglia suggested to Grimsby to discuss in person in the afternoon of 15 August 2016 the estimate for the costs.

  

  So far we’re confirmed, again, that the US gold is held in secrecy. No surprises there. Moving on to the content of the documents.

  Audit Documents Released Are Incomplete    

  When one walks into a US Mint repository the main barrier will be the door to the vault room. In the case of Fort Knox this a 20-tonne door of which no one person is entrusted with the combination. Once inside the vault room the gold is stored in segregated compartments that are sealed since at least the fifties.

  The official narrative is that by 2008 the load of all 42 compartments had been physically audited. Every compartment had been opened, the gold inside counted, weighed and assayed, after which the gold was stacked in an adjacent compartment in the vault room (in several documents it’s described this is the way the gold is physically audited). Subsequently the target compartment door was closed and placed under Official Joint Seal, if during the verification no discrepancies had been found with the Mint’s bullion ledger. In most years until 2008 one or two compartments were opened for a physical bar examination, while the other compartments were merely inspected for any tampering of the Official Joint Seal (OJS). The purpose of joint seals is to avoid the necessity of verifying all assets in each annual audit.

  

  Thus the audits of the Deep Storage gold consist of two conventions gold verifications, which are the physical audits of gold bars inside the compartments. And OJS inspections, which are checks of the seals placed on the compartment doors. The superintendent in the audit procedures is the Office Inspector General of the US Treasury, in short, the OIG.

  When reading the audit documents delivered to me (the Memoranda hereafter) the distinction between gold verifications and OJS inspections is clear. Let me show you an example of Fort Knox. The first screen shots below are from a gold verification at Fort Knox in March 1998.

  

  Exhibit 7.1. Gold verification at Fort Knox March 1998, page 1.

  

  Exhibit 7.2. Gold verification at Fort Knox March 1998, page 2.

  

  Exhibit 7.3. Gold verification at Fort Knox March 1998, page 3.

  

  Exhibit 8.1. OJS inspection at Fort Knox June 1998, page 1.

  

  Exhibit 8.2. OJS inspection at Fort Knox June 1998, page 2.

  

  Exhibit 8.3. OJS inspection at Fort Knox June 1998, page 3.

  

  Exhibit 8.4. OJS inspection at Fort Knox June 1998, page 4.

  Click here and here to download all Memoranda sent to me by the US Mint.

  After I had organized the documents and imported all data in spreadsheets I noted the 134 pages exclude 27 OJS inspection reports and at least 3 gold verification reports. I’ve asked the Mint to deliver the missing Memoranda, although I’m not expecting them to ever comply.

  The fact 30 Memoranda are missing is of course highly problematic. Bear in mind, I offered the Mint $3,144.96 dollars to produce these documents.

  

  In case you’re wondering how I know what gold verifications reports I’m missing, this is because references are made to these physical audits in succeeding gold verification reports. Fort OJS inspection reports, those should be done every year.

  Below is an example of an Official Joint Seal. I obtained nearly all OJS copies from a separated FOIA request at the OIG.

  

  Exhibit 10. OJS Fort Knox compartment 29.

  Submitted a whole bunch of FOIA request at US government departments regarding Fort Knox today. #gold

  — BullionStar (@KoosJansen) July 30, 2016

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Fort Knox Compartment 31 Was Opened In 1996 For Dubious Reasons

  There are a couple of disturbing lines written in the Fort Knox OJS inspection report of 1996. Although for an OJS inspection seals should only be examined for tampering, on 12 August 1996 at the Fort Knox OJS inspection two representatives of the General Accounting Office (GAO) showed up in the vault room and decided to select “a single joint sealed compartment for opening and inspection”.

  

  Unfortunately the report doesn’t say what was in the vault compartment; how many bars and fine troy ounces (FTO) it contained. Based purely on this document it would impossible to decipher what the GAO exactly did. However, by combining the info in the 1996 OJS inspection report with documentation obtained through a FOIA requests at the OIG, we do know what happened.

  Have another look at exhibit 10. We can read Fort Knox compartment 29 was sealed in 1998. But the content, 19,800 gold bars weighing 6,470,624.049 FTOs before assays samples were taken, was sourced from compartment 31 that was sealed on 12 August 1996. Was compartment 31 the one opened by the GAO in 1996? Yes, without a doubt.

  By examining all OJS copies – such as demonstrated in exhibit 10 – it shows there was no other vault segment freshly sealed on 12 August 1996 other than compartment 31. Moreover, the 1996 OJS inspection report mentions only one joint sealed compartment was breached. Therefore we know the GAO representatives opened Fort Knox compartment 31 comprising 19,800 gold bars weighing 6,470,624.049 FTOs on 12 August 1996.

  Furthermore, in the 1995 OJS inspection report we read there was one compartment – the number is redacted – that contained 19,800 gold bars weighing 6,470,624.049 FTOs. And in 1995, 1996 and 1997 there were no gold verifications at Fort Knox as far as I know, other than the GAO incident. Have a look below at a screenshot from the 1995 Fort Knox OJS inspection report.

  

  What happened is that on 12 August 1996 compartment 31 was opened by the GAO to “check a few bars”, but then two years later in 1998 the same gold was verified by the OIG; all the gold inside taken out of compartment 31, counted, weighed and assayed, to be stored across the hall in compartment 29. This is suspicious. I quote, “the purpose of joint seals is to avoid the necessity of verifying all assets in each annual audit”.

  I do not possess the official rules for US Mint OJS inspection and gold verification for the year 1996 (“MD 8H-1”), but based on the rules that prevailed in 1975, what the GAO did on 12 August 1996 was not done. Read with me.

  

  Exhibit 12. Source.

  My interpretation of the quote above is that if a compartment was opened all assets within should have been verified by the auditors, not just a few bars. If these rules still applied in 1996, what happened in Fort Knox compartment 31 was fraud. Unfortunately, but perhaps no coincidence, the GAO is exempt from FOIAs. On their website we read, “the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act”. (In July 7, 2004, the US GAO’s legal name was changed from the General Accounting Office to the Government Accountability Office.) I’ve submitted a FOIA at the Mint to obtain MD 8H-3 but it bounced. Currently I’m trying the OIG to provide these rules.

  How come the GAO could open a compartment? The OIG stated under oath in 2011, “since 1993, when we assumed responsibility for the audit, my office has continued to directly observe the inventory and test the gold” (page 4). If the OIG is responsible how come the GAO could break a seal?

  Let’s contemplate this: if the “random checks” the GAO performed in 1996 in compartment 31 formed an adequate gold verification, why did the OIG re-audit the exact same gold in 1998? And what was the intention of the GAO in 1996? The GAO couldn’t fully audit compartment 31, because they were present at Fort Knox only for one day (12 August), and no single person or flock of auditors can verify 19,800 large gold bars in one day. The fact these 19,800 gold bars were re-audited in 1998 underlines what the GAO did in 1996 was inappropriate at best.

  One theory is that the gold in compartment 31 was prepared in 1996 to be physically audited down the road. Remember what the Fort Knox gold verification report of 1998 stated (exhibit 7.2)? In 1998 the OIG, “selected predetermined individual bars to be drilled for assay”. Possibly, the OIG selected the exact bars in 1998 that were put in in 1996. If this is true the names and autographs of the perpetrators of this crime are on the seal of compartment 29 (exhibit 10).

  My succeeding post on this subject will expose that many other Deep Storage compartments at the Mint have been opened for dubious reasons as well. Which could be the reason the Mint didn’t provide us ALL the OJS inspection reports from Denver and West Point from 1993 through 2003 (exhibit 9).

  Weighing Sample Size Remarkably Low

  We need to discuss the sample size of the gold verifications. In 1998 at Fort Knox 19,800 gold bars were inspected but only 105 of them were weighed and assayed (exhibit 7.2). That’s not much in my humble opinion. In any case, I expected a higher sample size.

  In the 1953 audit at Fort Knox (download report here) in total 88,000 bars weighing 48,506,985 FTOs were counted for verification. About 10 % of those were weighed.

  During the Continuing Audits from 1974 through 1986 it seems 2 % of the gold counted was weighed. A huge decline from 1953.

  

  Exhibit 13. Audit report Fort Knox 1981.

  Although gold bars tested to be out of tolerance during a Fort Knox audit in 1977 at a sample size of 2 %, by 1998 the sample size had been further debased to 0.53 %. I’m not a professional auditor (if you are one please contact me), but common sense suggests that when irregularities are found the sample size should be increased, not decreased.

  To make matters worse, in 1999 at West Point the sample size was 0.52 %, and again, a melt appeared to be out of tolerance.

  

  Was the sample size increased after 1999? Not really. At Fort Knox in July 2000 the samples size was 0.65 % (93 bars weighed of 14,262 bars counted). But wait until I show you what numbnuts were entrusted handling the scale for the audits of the world’s greatest gold hoard. 

  Scale Didn’t Work, Repeatedly

  Let’s study the 2004 physical audit at West Point. Please read:

  

  Exhibit 15.1. Gold verification report West Point 2004.

  

  Exhibit 15.2. Gold verification report West Point 2004.

  When all parties tried to reconcile the weight of samples on 22 and 23 July 2004, they found out, “the scale was reading at ounces rather than fine troy ounces”, because, “a setting on the scale had not been properly changed”. Allegedly this is what caused alternative readings in the books of the Director of the Mint’s Representative and the OIG’s Representative. And presumably because nobody could figure out how to use the scale correctly they decided to postpone re-weighing the samples until 24 August 2004. This failure of how to use a scale is a colossal disaster for the credibility of the Deep Storage audit procedures.

  In 2004 a mere 71 bars were weighed and assayed, but it appeared that none of the auditors present knew how to rightly use the scale. The Memoranda mentions they found out the scale wasn’t properly functioning when weighing the assay samples, but what about the weighing of the actual bars? What about the weighing of every Deep Storage gold bar under the supervision of the OIG from 1993 until 2008? We have no guarantee this has ever been executed competently.

  To repeat, the official explanation for this blunder reads, “the scale was reading at ounces rather than fine troy ounces”, because, “a setting on the scale had not been properly changed”.

  First, in my mind there can be no imaginable circumstances in which setting of the scale should have been changed. The scale should read troy ounces to as many decimals all day long. That’s it. Why change the settings?

  Second, they say, “the scale was reading at ounces rather than fine troy ounces”, but scales don’t read fine troy ounces so this statement is fake. A scale reads troy ounces, or digital ones can be set to reading grams; it cannot smell what is the purity of the gold and thus display fine troy ounces. That’s what the assay test is for.

  In 2008 at West Point a similar disaster happened. Read with me:

  

  Exhibit 16.1. Gold verification report West Point 2008.

  

  Exhibit 16.2. Gold verification report West Point 2008.

  The auditors couldn’t clearly read the decimal point. After assay samples were drilled to be taken out, the auditors weighed the same amount of gold granules to replace the samples, in order for the Deep Storage FTOs to remain flat in 2008. But the assay lab, White Sands Missile Range, which is a division of the US Army, found out from the paper work that the weight of the assay samples didn’t match the weight of the granules. And so West Point compartment 10-H had to be re-opened on 22 September 2008 to put an exact 10.346 ounces of gold in, instead of 1.0346 ounces.

  What a catastrophe! Be aware that before weighing the granules the auditors weighed 86 gold bars and the assay samples. How do we know they properly weighed the assay samples and the totals of the 86 bars? The short answer is, we don’t.

  Thereby, anybody with a sense for gold can see the difference between 10 ounces and 1 ounce of yellow metal.

  Conclusion

  From the examples above it should be clear that the Deep Storage gold has not been audited by professionals, but the precious metals have been verified by imbeciles. Clearly the scale was repeatedly handled by amateurs, which throws a wrench at the integrity of the entire US official gold reserves auditing project. I’m not at all surprised the US Mint has tried everything to keep the records of the auditors out from the pubic domain. Fortunately most of it will be out in the open eventually. The citizenry of the world deserves to know everything there is about the Deep Storage gold.

  Let’s finish with one more comment from the West Point 2006 audit report.

  

  Exhibit 17.1. Gold verification report West Point 2006.

  The auditors couldn’t figure how to use the drill to take assay samples (how about pointing the tip to a bar and press the button). They also were oblivious how to calculate fine troy ounces. We must wonder if these people would be capable of tying their own shoelaces. In any case, the fact the US government chose to assign very inexperienced people widely opens the possibility that the audits are a complete hoax.

  

  

• Mapping America's Friends, Foes, & Frenemies

  Subject to change…

  

  Map created by reddit user ShilohShay

  Via BrilliantMaps.com,

  The map above shows which countries Americans consider their allies and friends and those they consider unfriendly or even their enemy.

  The data is based off a YouGov poll conducted between January 28 – February 1, 2017, which asked 7,150 adults living in the United States the question:

  “Do you consider the countries listed below to be a friend or an enemy of the United States?”

   

  Reddit user ShilohShay explains that:

  For the purpose of extrapolating more interesting data from the poll, I only added a country to “Don’t Know” in this map if 50% or more of Americans picked that option. Otherwise I went with the plurality opinion.

  Top 10 US Allies were:

  1. Canada
  2. Australia
  3. UK
  4. France
  5. Italy
  6. Ireland
  7. Israel
  8. Norway
  9. Sweden
  10. Germany

  Top 10 US Enemies were:

  1. North Korea
  2. Iran
  3. Syria
  4. Iraq
  5. Afghanistan
  6. Russia
  7. Libya
  8. Somalia
  9. Pakistan
  10. Palestine

  While many of the enemies are the ones you’d expect, only 11% of Americans consider China their enemy and just 9% consider Cuba their enemy.

  

  

• "'There Are No Moderate Rebels' – Tulsi Gabbard Destroys The Deep State's Syria Narrative

  Via Mike Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

  Tulsi Gabbard has continued to impress ever since she came on the national scene last year with her courageous and very public support for Bernie Sanders in the rigged Democratic primary.

  Most recently, she continued to demonstrate her knowledge of geopolitics and willingness to stand up to America’s unelected government, aka the Deep State, in a recent interview with CNN’s Jake Taper.

  Note, the clip is about a month old, but important to watch if you haven’t. 

  If the Democrats have any hope of becoming a decent opposition party which not only resists the worst of Trump, but also rejects the perverted neoliberal/Deep State ideology currently embraced by establishment Dems, Tulsi Gabbard will have to play a key role.

  As I highlighted in last February’s post, It’s Not Just the GOP – The Democratic Party is Also Imploding:

  A rising star within the Democratic ranks, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, cut herself off from the party’s establishment by resigning from her post as vice-chairman of the Democratic National Committee and endorsing Bernie Sanders for president.

   

  Her position with the DNC required her to stay neutral in the primaries, but she said that “the stakes are too high.” She announced her decision on Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” and made a video where she explained her reasoning.

   

  Gabbard, an Iraq war veteran, said she knows the cost of war firsthand. “I know how important it is that our commander-in-chief has the sound judgment required to know when to use America’s military power—and when not to use that power.”

  The importance of this move cannot be understated. In no uncertain terms, this gesture publicly exposes the weakness of the “Clinton brand.” She clearly isn’t afraid of Hillary or of any repercussions from the Democratic Party elite, a fact that is underscored by the fact she came out with her endorsement after he got pummeled in South Carolina.

  But let’s take a step back and think about this in the even bigger picture. You don’t get to Congress by being a political imbecile. On the surface, this move looks like career suicide, particularly since Hillary is probably about to clinch the nomination. Recall, Rep. Gabbard didn’t merely endorse Sanders after a bruising loss in South Carolina, she stepped down from her official position with the DNC to do so. This isn’t merely a statement, it’s the equivalent of dropping a neutron bomb on the Democratic establishment. So why did she do it?

  While I think she genuinely agrees with Sanders on key issues, the reason she came out so aggressively is because she sees the writing on the wall. She’s playing the long game, and in the long game, Hillary Clinton represents a discredited and failed status quo, while Bernie Sanders represents a push toward the paradigm level change that will define the future.

  When it comes to the Democrats, we need to see a lot less Pelosi and Schumer, and a lot more Gabbard.

  

  

• NY Teamsters Pension Becomes First To Run Out Of Money As Expert Warns "Pension Tsunami" Is Coming

  The New York Teamsters Road Carriers Local 707 Pension Fund has won the unfortunate award for “First Pension to Officially Run Out of Money.”  According to the New York Daily News, and a host of angry former truck drivers who’ve had their pension benefits slashed, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (PBGC) has officially been forced to step in and take over payments to retirees of the Local 707, albeit at a much lower rate.

  Teamsters Local 707’s pension fund is the first to officially bottom out financially — which happened this month.

   

  “I had a union job for 30 years,” Chmil said. “We had collectively bargained contracts that promised us a pension. I paid into it with every paycheck. Everyone told us, ‘Don’t worry, you have a union job, your pension is guaranteed.’ Well, so much for that.”

   

  “It’s a nightmare, it has just devastated all of our lives. I’ve gone from having $48,000 a year to less than half that,” said Chmil, one of five Local 707 retirees who agreed to share their stories with the Daily News last week.

   

  “I don’t want other people to have to go through this. We need everyone to wake up and do something; that’s why we’re talking,” said Ray Narvaez.

  Of course, the Teamsters 707 and other Teamster pension boards attempted to submit plans that would have cut benefits in order to prolong payments to retirees but those plans were universally rejected by the Obama administration…better that the pensions just run out of cash completely.  Per Pensions & Investments:

  The Obama administration is in denial about the necessity of cutting pension benefits under the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 to try to put distressed multiemployer plans on sounder financial footings and make them more sustainable. It must face reality and order the Treasury Department to stop blocking action.

   

  So far the department, required under the act to approve proposed reductions, has rejected proposals by the Teamsters Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Plan and the Road Carriers Local 707 Pension Fund.

   

  Ten plans total have applied for cuts, including the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund, Syracuse, whose Aug. 31 application is too new to be listed on the Treasury’s website.

   

  The Road Carriers 707 application stated that the plan projects it will become insolvent in February — only about five months away — absent suspension of benefits.

   

  As desperate as the plan’s financial situation appears to be, the Treasury denied the application.

  And while the Local 707 pension was the first to dry up, it certainly won’t be the last…

  Also on the brink of drying up are the pensions for two Teamster locals — 641 and 560 — in New Jersey, union officials said. Plus 35,000 Teamster members upstate who are part of the money-hemorrhaging New York State Teamsters Pension Fund.

   

  Bigger than all of New York’s Teamster locals combined is the Central States Pension Fund — another looming financial disaster that could leave 407,000 retirees without pensions across the Midwest and South.

  

   

  Meanwhile, under the maximum benefits provided by the PBGC, many former Teamsters, like Ray Narvaez, said their monthly retirement checks have been slashed by two-thirds.

  Then Narvaez, like 4,000 other retired Teamster truckers, got a letter from Local 707 in February of last year.

   

  It said monthly pensions had to be slashed by more than a third. It was an emergency move to try to keep the dying fund solvent. That dropped Narvaez from nearly $3,500 to about $2,000.

   

  “They said they were running out of money, that there could be no more in the pension fund, so we had to take the cut,” said Narvaez, whose wife was recently diagnosed with cancer.

   

  The stopgap measure didn’t work — and after years of dangling over the precipice, Local 707’s pension fund fell off the financial cliff this month. With no money left, it turned to Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., a government insurance company that covers pension.

   

  Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. picked up Local 707’s retiree payouts — but the maximum benefit it gives a year is roughly $12,000, for workers who racked up at least 30 years. For those with less time on the job, the payouts are smaller.

   

  Narvaez now gets $1,170 a month — before taxes.

  Of course, as the Central States Pension General Counsel notes, the real “pension tsunami” will come when the massive “municipal and state plans go down next.”

  The same crisis now hitting Local 707 has been stewing among numerous Teamster locals around the country for the past decade, he said, and that includes in upstate New York.

   

  The trucking industry — almost uniformly organized by Teamsters — has suffered enormous financial losses in its pension and welfare funds due to a crippling combination of deregulation and stock market crashes, Nyhan said.

   

  “This is a quiet crisis, but it’s very real. There are currently 200 other plans on track for insolvency — that’s going to affect anywhere from 1.5 to 2 million people,” said Nyhan. “The prognosis is bleak minus some new legislative help.”

   

  And it’s not just private-sector industries that are suffering, he added.

   

  “Municipal and state plans are the next to go down — that’s a pension tsunami that’s coming,” he said. “In many states, those defined benefit plans are seriously underfunded — and at the end of the day, math trumps the statutes.”

  We’re looking at you Illinois…

  

  

• Trump Speech Post-Mortem – From Rebellion To Pouting Pelosi: "We Bleed The Same Blood"

  Just under 70 minutes, 4,825 words, and the message was clear – the speech was about "will" and "Americans"

  

  Additionally "Obamacare" was mentioned 5 times, "Historic" was mentioned 3 times, and "massive" twice.

  ..

  I am here tonight to deliver a message of unity and strength, and it is a message deeply delivered from my heart. #JointAddress

  — President Trump (@POTUS) March 1, 2017

  President Trump got a warm welcome…

  An extended standing ovation for the president as he takes his place on the rostrum. pic.twitter.com/lxGDA2m3wK

  — Mark Knoller (@markknoller) March 1, 2017

  To start with, for some reason Nancy Pelosi thought that Democratic women wearing white would make a statement…

  Tonight, our Democratic #WomenWearWhite in support of women's rights — in spite of a @POTUS who doesn't! pic.twitter.com/kKJpfV5iUE

  — Nancy Pelosi (@NancyPelosi) February 28, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  President Trump did not wear a red tie!!!

  THE TIE PIVOT HAS ARRIVED!#JointSession pic.twitter.com/2UqLdLyWLo

  — The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) March 1, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

   

  .@POTUS: "A new chapter of American Greatness is now beginning. A new national pride is sweeping across our Nation." https://t.co/dAlG7hq9Sd pic.twitter.com/oEN3rESfts

  — Fox News (@FoxNews) March 1, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Trump began by referring to his election as a "rebellion" against "mistakes of recent decades"…

  Then, in 2016, the earth shifted beneath our feet. The rebellion started as a quiet protest, spoken by families of all colors and creeds -– families who just wanted a fair shot for their children, and a fair hearing for their concerns.

   

  But then the quiet voices became a loud chorus — as thousands of citizens now spoke out together, from cities small and large, all across our country.

   

  Finally, the chorus became an earthquake – and the people turned out by the tens of millions, and they were all united by one very simple, but crucial demand, that America must put its own citizens first … because only then, can we truly MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.

  Trump then reminded Congress of his market gains…

  Since my election, Ford, Fiat-Chrysler, General Motors, Sprint, Softbank, Lockheed, Intel, Walmart, and many others, have announced that they will invest billions of dollars in the United States and will create tens of thousands of new American jobs.

  The stock market has gained almost three trillion dollars in value since the election on November 8th, a record. We’ve saved taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars by bringing down the price of the fantastic new F-35 jet fighter, and will be saving billions more dollars on contracts all across our government.

  We have placed a hiring freeze on non-military and non-essential federal workers.

  Which Nancy Pelosi did not appreciate…

  "Draining the swamp" got a somewhat subdued rund of applause…

  We have begun to drain the swamp of government corruption by imposing a five year ban on lobbying by executive branch officials –- and a lifetime ban on becoming lobbyists for a foreign government.

  Nancy Pelosi was not impressed…

  This reaction by @NancyPelosi is EVERYTHING #SOTU @Shareblue pic.twitter.com/nW9Qf8tSZS

  — Tommy Christopher (@tommyxtopher) March 1, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  As Trump turned to immigration…

  Trump will not allow "terrorism to form inside America. We cannot allow our nation to become a sanctuary of extremists." #JointAddress pic.twitter.com/eNslYVTIqu

  — New York Times Video (@nytvideo) March 1, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

   

  It is not compassionate, but reckless, to allow uncontrolled entry from places where proper vetting cannot occur. Those given the high honor of admission to the United States should support this country and love its people and its values.

   

  We cannot allow a beachhead of terrorism to form inside America — we cannot allow our Nation to become a sanctuary for extremists.

   

  I believe that real and positive immigration reform is possible, as long as we focus on the following goals: to improve jobs and wages for Americans, to strengthen our nation’s security, and to restore respect for our laws.

   

  If we are guided by the well-being of American citizens then I believe Republicans and Democrats can work together to achieve an outcome that has eluded our country for decades.

  And free trade, quoting Lincoln…

  “The first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, warned that the “abandonment of the protective policy by the American Government [will] produce want and ruin among our people,” he says.

   

  Lincoln was right — and it is time we heeded his words. I am not going to let America and its great companies and workers, be taken advantage of anymore.

   

  I am going to bring back millions of jobs. Protecting our workers also means reforming our system of legal immigration. The current, outdated system depresses wages for our poorest workers, and puts great pressure on taxpayers.

  Obamacare was up next…The Republican side of the chamber jumps to their feet and cheers.

  Check out Nancy Pelosi's reaction to Trump calling Obamacare a "disaster" pic.twitter.com/h4r0T7kabf

  — Axios (@axios) March 1, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  The Democrats all remain seated, with some female politicians in white suits seen giving the thumbs down to Trump’s comments.

  Big applause from Republicans on "repeal and replace Obamacare." Some Dems signal thumbs down https://t.co/5iBV2jtl98 pic.twitter.com/ZTWDBrKNtS

  — Bloomberg (@business) March 1, 2017

   

  Mandating every American to buy government-approved health insurance was never the right solution for America. The way to make health insurance available to everyone is to lower the cost of health insurance, and that is what we will do.

  Trump offers some details on this…

  First, we should ensure that Americans with pre-existing conditions have access to coverage, and that we have a stable transition for Americans currently enrolled in the healthcare exchanges.

   

  Secondly, we should help Americans purchase their own coverage, through the use of tax credits and expanded Health Savings Accounts –- but it must be the plan they want, not the plan forced on them by the Government.

   

  Thirdly, we should give our great State Governors the resources and flexibility they need with Medicaid to make sure no one is left out.

   

  Fourthly, we should implement legal reforms that protect patients and doctors from unnecessary costs that drive up the price of insurance – and work to bring down the artificially high price of drugs and bring them down immediately.

   

  Finally, the time has come to give Americans the freedom to purchase health insurance across State lines –- creating a truly competitive national marketplace that will bring cost way down and provide far better care.

  Trump then discusses education, positioning it as a race issue.

  Education is the civil rights issue of our time.

   

  I am calling upon members of both parties to pass an education bill that funds school choice for disadvantaged youth, including millions of African-American and Latino children. These families should be free to choose the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school that is right for them.

  Ron Paul had some things to say on that…

  If you really want to reduce the violence in our cities…get rid of the drug war!

  — Ron Paul (@RonPaul) March 1, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Trump then turned to Military and veterans:

  “I am sending the Congress a budget that rebuilds the military, eliminates the Defense sequester, and calls for one of the largest increases in national defense spending in American history,” says Trump.

   

  “My budget will also increase funding for our veterans.

   

  “Our veterans have delivered for this Nation –- and now we must deliver for them.”

  Carryn Owens, the widow of a US Navy Special Operator, Senior Chief William “Ryan” Owens, who died in a raid in Yemen in January, shortly after Trump’s inauguration, was in attendance and received a very length standing ovation as Trump paid him (and her) tribute…

  Widow of Ryan Owens, Navy SEAL slain in Yemen raid, acknowledged by Pres. Trump at #JointAddress https://t.co/abn2wubjTr pic.twitter.com/ysEatnaXyr

  — CBS News (@CBSNews) March 1, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  But Ron Paul once again made a noteworthy point…

  Warmongering is alive and well. Tragically. Focus on the widow. What a terrible use of tragedy for political purposes.

  — Ron Paul (@RonPaul) March 1, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Trump ended on a much more upbeat optimistic tone (especialy compared to his inaugural address)

  "My job is not to represent the world. My job is to represent the United States of America."

  "Everything that is broken in our country can be fixed"

  .@POTUS: "Everything that is broken in our country can be fixed" https://t.co/4ddqDrFK9s pic.twitter.com/fjfDJ6AhV4

  — POLITICO (@politico) March 1, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    

   

   

  .@POTUS: "We all bleed the same blood. We all salute the same flag. And we are all made by the same God." https://t.co/OJYBoBsiIM pic.twitter.com/l6TJ3oGut9

  — FOX Business (@FoxBusiness) March 1, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

   

  *  *  *

  Read the full Transcript here: President Donald Trump's address to Congress Tuesday as prepared for delivery.

  The former president of Mexico could not resist but comment…

  .@realDonaldTrump this is the wall I would pay to get it done as fast as possible. #FuckingWall #JointSession pic.twitter.com/rcnlaCyP9c

  — Vicente Fox Quesada (@VicenteFoxQue) March 1, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

   

  New DNC Chair Perez was unimpressed…

  When asked about the speech DNC Chair Perez sarcastically clapped: "oh, he read a TelePrompTer!! It's like my kid ate and didn't spill!"

  — Michael LaRosa (@MichaelLaRosaDC) March 1, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

   

  Twitter reports that…Trump Speech Was Most Tweeted SOTU, Joint Session Ever

  With 3M tweets, tonight's @potus speech most tweeted #sotu #jointsession on record (surpassing prior 2.6M). Also highlights from tonight: pic.twitter.com/R1Kf1MvCVU

  — Sally Shin ???? (@sallyshin) March 1, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  We leave it to Ron Paul – who has been very vocal tonight – to sum it up:

  Now the grades: His vision for the US at its 250th anniversary: A-
  His methods to achieve it? He gets: F.

  — Ron Paul (@RonPaul) March 1, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Final grade on libertarian scale: Plans/strategy: F
  Overall: D-

  — Ron Paul (@RonPaul) March 1, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  

  

• This Chart Signals China's Housing Bubble May Burst Soon

  Via MauldinEconomics.com,

  The probability that a real estate bubble may burst in China is rising. The financial sector heavily depends on real estate, which in turn exposes the entire Chinese economy to systemic risk.

  This link means that a downturn in real estate could soon spread to other areas of the Chinese economy if banks face liquidity shortfalls.

  Also, falling housing prices could result in more non-performing loans (NPLs). While NPLs officially account for only 1.75 percent of all Chinese loans, the government is likely understating the figure. BMI Research, a financial consulting firm, estimated in a 2016 report that NPLs could be close to 20 percent of loans.

  

  As banks gave more credit to real estate developers and buyers, their profitability stalled. In theory, China’s economy is not based on capitalism and thus doesn’t revolve around profitability; but in practice, money needs to come from somewhere. A company that doesn’t make a profit can’t survive in the long run. The Chinese government can’t afford to let banks fail since it would threaten both the financial system’s health and the key lifeline to state-owned enterprises that provide jobs.

  This surge in China’s real estate prices, fueled by ongoing credit expansion, are forcing the government to choose between deflating the housing market and slowing growth.

  *  *  *

  Subscribe to George Friedman’s This Week in Geopolitics – Economic trends, social upheaval, stock market cycles, and more are all connected to powerful geopolitical currents that most of us aren’t even aware exist. Global-intelligence guru George Friedman gives you an in-depth view of these hidden forces in This Week in Geopolitics. Get it free in your inbox every Monday.

  

  

• Dallas Police Pension 'Wins' $2mm Settlement From Real Estate Fund That Lost Them Roughly $320mm

  In the first bit of good news to surface for the Dallas Police and Fire Pension (DPFP) in quite some time, the Dallas News is reporting the pension board has “won” a $2 million settlement against their former real estate fund advisor, CDK Realty Advisors.  Of course, the settlement falls slightly short of the $320mm in losses allegedly caused by CDK, but a win’s a win, right?

  Meanwhile, city officials who complain they had little control over the fund’s activities but are now being forced to find a way to bail it out, had mixed reactions to the settlement.

  “We need every dime possible coming into the fund, especially from those that played a role in its downfall,” Mayor Mike Rawlings said in a statement. “This settlement appears to be a small step in the right direction, though I still hope to see more transparency and details about the scope of the alleged wrongdoing by CDK.”

   

  Lee Kleinman, a City Council member and former member of the fund’s board, said he was “shocked CDK got off the hook for a mere $2 million considering the amount of fees they bilked out of the system over the past decade.”

   

  But others highlighted the importance of getting CDK’s cooperation. “We could have hammered these guys a lot harder perhaps” by taking the matter to trial, said Philip Kingston, another city councilman who serves on the fund’s board. “But getting their cooperation to chase down other potential sources of recovery I think was really important.”

  For those who missed it, here is some background on how CDK Realty same to find themselves to be the target of an FBI raid in April 2016 related to their management of real estate investments on behalf of the DPFP…turns out they may have had some issues marking their real estate portfolio to market (see “Dallas Cops’ Pension Fund Nears Insolvency In Wake Of Shady Real Estate Deals, FBI Raid“).

  To provide a little background, per the Dallas Morning News, Richard Tettamant served as the DPFP’s administrator for a couple of decades right up until he was forced out in June 2014.  Starting in 2005, Tettamant oversaw a plan to “diversify” the pension into “hard assets” and away from the “risky” stock market…because there’s no risk if you don’t have to mark your book every day.  By the time the “diversification” was complete, Tettamant had invested half of the DPFP’s assets in, effectively, the housing bubble.  Investments included a $200mm luxury apartment building in Dallas, luxury Hawaiian homes, a tract of undeveloped land in the Arizona desert, Uruguayan timber, the American Idol production company and a resort in Napa. 

  Despite huge exposure to bubbly 2005/2006 vintage real estate investments, DPFP assets “performed” remarkably well throughout the “great recession.”  But as it turns out, Tettamant’s “performance” was only as good as the illiquidity of his investments.  We guess returns are easier to come by when you invest your whole book in illiquid, private assets and have “discretion” over how they’re valued. 

  In 2015, after Tettamant’s ouster, $600mm of DPFP real estate assets were transferred to new managers away from the fund’s prior real estate manager, CDK Realty Advisors.  Turns out the new managers were not “comfortable” with CDK’s asset valuations and the mark downs started.  According to the Dallas Morning News, one such questionable real estate investment involved a piece of undeveloped land in the Arizona desert near Tucson which was purchased for $27mm in 2006 and subsequently sold in 2014 for $7.5mm.  Per the DPFP 2015 Annual Report:

  In August 2014, the Board initiated a real estate portfolio reallocation process with goals of more broadly diversifying the investment manager base and adding third party fiduciary management of separate account and direct investment real estate assets where an investment manager was previously not in place. The reallocation process resulted in the transfer of approximately $600 million in DPFP real estate investments to four new investment managers during 2015. The newly appointed managers conducted detailed asset-level reviews of their takeover portfolios and reported their findings and strategic recommendations to the Board over the course of 2015 and into 2016. A significant portion of the real estate losses in 2015 were a direct result of the new managers’ evaluations of the assets.

  Then the plot thickened when, in April 2016, according the Dallas Morning News, FBI raided the offices of the pension’s former investment manager, CDK Realty Advisors.  There has been little disclosure on the reason for the FBI raid but one could speculate that it might have something to do with all the markdowns the pension was forced to take in 2015 on its real estate book.  At it’s peak, CDK managed $750mm if assets for the DPFP.

  And for those curious what an actual FBI raid looks like…here you go…though it’s slightly less exciting than you might think.

   

  Of course, as you might expect, CDK has denied any wrong doing…

  A lawyer for CDK stressed Monday that the settlement is not an “admission of any wrongdoing or liability for any claims.”

   

  “CDK Realty Advisors was one of several commercial real estate managers hired by the Pension System,” Steven A. Schneider said in a statement. “CDK was not involved in or responsible for the design and construction” of the controversial  Museum Tower in the city’s Arts District. He said the firm was also not involved in the fund’s high-profile investments in luxury homes in Hawaii and a resort and vineyard in Napa County, Calif.

   

  The firm has contended in a court filing that the real-estate investments it recommended were profitable for the fund.

  …and it’s previous managers were able to quickly launch a new firm called “Harvest Interests” which is actively pitching the Lubbock Fire Pension Fund for new capital.

  CDK’s principals started a new firm last year called Harvest Interests. Cooley spoke to the Lubbock Fire Pension Fund in November about moving forward with real estate investments, according to meeting minutes.

   

  Cooley said “they had settled with Dallas Police and Fire, but the paperwork was still being worked through,” according to the minutes. Cooley told the Lubbock fund that CDK will become defunct at some point in the future after investments it manages are sold, the minutes say.

  What more is there to say really?

  

  

• President Trump's Address To Congress: Key Highlights And Full Text

  

  While the full Trump speech transcript is below, for those curious only in the key economic/trade excerpt, it is laid out below:

  My economic team is developing historic tax reform that will reduce the tax rate on our companies so they can compete and thrive anywhere and with anyone. At the same time, we will provide massive tax relief for the middle class. We must create a level playing field for American companies and workers.

   

  Currently, when we ship products out of America, many other countries make us pay very high tariffs and taxes — but when foreign companies ship their products into America, we charge them almost nothing. I just met with officials and workers from a great American company, Harley-Davidson. In fact, they proudly displayed five of their magnificent motorcycles, made in the USA, on the front lawn of the White House.

   

  At our meeting, I asked them, how are you doing, how is business? They said that it’s good. I asked them further how they are doing with other countries, mainly international sales. They told me — without even complaining because they have been mistreated for so long that they have become used to it — that it is very hard to do business with other countries because they tax our goods at such a high rate. They said that in one case another country taxed their motorcycles at 100 percent.

   

  They weren’t even asking for change. But I am. I believe strongly in free trade but it also has to be FAIR TRADE.

  While this is not an explicit mention of BAT, some read into the excerpt above as validation of border adjustability.

  Next, here is Trump on Obamacare:

  Obamacare is collapsing –- and we must act decisively to protect all Americans. Action is not a choice –- it is a necessity. So I am calling on all Democrats and Republicans in the Congress to work with us to save Americans from this imploding Obamacare disaster.

   

  Here are the principles that should guide the Congress as we move to create a better healthcare system for all Americans:

   

  First, we should ensure that Americans with pre-existing conditions have access to coverage, and that we have a stable transition for Americans currently enrolled in the healthcare exchanges.

   

  Secondly, we should help Americans purchase their own coverage, through the use of tax credits and expanded Health Savings Accounts –- but it must be the plan they want, not the plan forced on them by the Government.

   

  Thirdly, we should give our great State Governors the resources and flexibility they need with Medicaid to make sure no one is left out.

   

  Fourthly, we should implement legal reforms that protect patients and doctors from unnecessary costs that drive up the price of insurance – and work to bring down the artificially high price of drugs and bring them down immediately.

   

  Finally, the time has come to give Americans the freedom to purchase health insurance across State lines –- creating a truly competitive national marketplace that will bring cost way down and provide far better care.

  * * *

  The full Trump transcript is below:

  President Donald Trump’s address to Congress Tuesday as prepared for delivery.

  Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, the First Lady of the United States, and Citizens of America:

  Tonight, as we mark the conclusion of our celebration of Black History Month, we are reminded of our Nation’s path toward civil rights and the work that still remains.

  Recent threats targeting Jewish Community Centers and vandalism of Jewish cemeteries, as well as last week’s shooting in Kansas City, remind us that while we may be a Nation divided on policies, we are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all its forms.

  Each American generation passes the torch of truth, liberty and justice –- in an unbroken chain all the way down to the present.

  That torch is now in our hands. And we will use it to light up the world. I am here tonight to deliver a message of unity and strength, and it is a message deeply delivered from my heart.

  A new chapter of American Greatness is now beginning.

  A new national pride is sweeping across our Nation.

  And a new surge of optimism is placing impossible dreams firmly within our grasp.

  What we are witnessing today is the Renewal of the American Spirit.

  Our allies will find that America is once again ready to lead.

  All the nations of the world — friend or foe — will find that America is strong, America is proud, and America is free.

  In 9 years, the United States will celebrate the 250th anniversary of our founding — 250 years since the day we declared our Independence.

  It will be one of the great milestones in the history of the world.

  But what will America look like as we reach our 250th year? What kind of country will we leave for our children?

  I will not allow the mistakes of recent decades past to define the course of our future.

  For too long, we’ve watched our middle class shrink as we’ve exported our jobs and wealth to foreign countries.

  We’ve financed and built one global project after another, but ignored the fates of our children in the inner cities of Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit — and so many other places throughout our land.

  We’ve defended the borders of other nations, while leaving our own borders wide open, for anyone to cross — and for drugs to pour in at a now unprecedented rate.

  And we’ve spent trillions of dollars overseas, while our infrastructure at home has so badly crumbled.

  Then, in 2016, the earth shifted beneath our feet. The rebellion started as a quiet protest, spoken by families of all colors and creeds -– families who just wanted a fair
  shot for their children, and a fair hearing for their concerns.

  But then the quiet voices became a loud chorus — as thousands of citizens now spoke out together, from cities small and large, all across our country.

  Finally, the chorus became an earthquake – and the people turned out by the tens of millions, and they were all united by one very simple, but crucial demand, that America must put its own citizens first … because only then, can we truly MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.

  Dying industries will come roaring back to life. Heroic veterans will get the care they so desperately need.

  Our military will be given the resources its brave warriors so richly deserve.

  Crumbling infrastructure will be replaced with new roads, bridges, tunnels, airports and railways gleaming across our beautiful land.

  Our terrible drug epidemic will slow down and ultimately, stop.

  And our neglected inner cities will see a rebirth of hope, safety, and opportunity.

  Above all else, we will keep our promises to the American people.

  It’s been a little over a month since my inauguration, and I want to take this moment to update the Nation on the progress I’ve made in keeping those promises.

  Since my election, Ford, Fiat-Chrysler, General Motors, Sprint, Softbank, Lockheed, Intel, Walmart, and many others, have announced that they will invest billions of dollars in the United States and will create tens of thousands of new American jobs.

  The stock market has gained almost three trillion dollars in value since the election on November 8th, a record. We’ve saved taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars by bringing down the price of the fantastic new F-35 jet fighter, and will be saving billions more dollars on contracts all across our Government. We have placed a hiring freeze on non-military and non-essential Federal workers.

  We have begun to drain the swamp of government corruption by imposing a 5 year ban on lobbying by executive branch officials –- and a lifetime ban on becoming lobbyists for a foreign government.

  We have undertaken a historic effort to massively reduce job?crushing regulations, creating a deregulation task force inside of every Government agency; imposing a new rule which mandates that for every 1 new regulation, 2 old regulations must be eliminated; and stopping a regulation that threatens the future and livelihoods of our great coal miners.

  We have cleared the way for the construction of the Keystone and Dakota Access Pipelines — thereby creating tens of thousands of jobs — and I’ve issued a new directive that new American pipelines be made with American steel.

  We have withdrawn the United States from the job-killing Trans-Pacific Partnership.

  With the help of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, we have formed a Council with our neighbors in Canada to help ensure that women entrepreneurs have access to the networks, markets and capital they need to start a business and live out their financial dreams.

  To protect our citizens, I have directed the Department of Justice to form a Task Force on Reducing Violent Crime.

  I have further ordered the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice, along with the Department of State and the Director of National Intelligence, to coordinate an aggressive strategy to dismantle the criminal cartels that have spread across our Nation.

  We will stop the drugs from pouring into our country and poisoning our youth — and we will expand treatment for those who have become so badly addicted.

  At the same time, my Administration has answered the pleas of the American people for immigration enforcement and border security. By finally enforcing our immigration laws, we will raise wages, help the unemployed, save billions of dollars, and make our communities safer for everyone. We want all Americans to succeed –- but that can’t happen in an environment of lawless chaos. We must restore integrity and the rule of law to our borders.

  For that reason, we will soon begin the construction of a great wall along our southern border. It will be started ahead of schedule and, when finished, it will be a very effective weapon against drugs and crime.

  As we speak, we are removing gang members, drug dealers and criminals that threaten our communities and prey on our citizens. Bad ones are going out as I speak tonight and as I have promised.

  To any in Congress who do not believe we should enforce our laws, I would ask you this question: what would you say to the American family that loses their jobs, their income, or a loved one, because America refused to uphold its laws and defend its borders?

  Our obligation is to serve, protect, and defend the citizens of the United States. We are also taking strong measures to protect our Nation from Radical Islamic Terrorism.

  According to data provided by the Department of Justice, the vast majority of individuals convicted for terrorism-related offenses since 9/11 came here from outside of our country. We have seen the attacks at home -– from Boston to San Bernardino to the Pentagon and yes, even the World Trade Center.

  We have seen the attacks in France, in Belgium, in Germany and all over the world.

  It is not compassionate, but reckless, to allow uncontrolled entry from places where proper vetting cannot occur. Those given the high honor of admission to the United States should support this country and love its people and its values.

  We cannot allow a beachhead of terrorism to form inside America — we cannot allow our Nation to become a sanctuary for extremists.

  That is why my Administration has been working on improved vetting procedures, and we will shortly take new steps to keep our Nation safe — and to keep out those who would do us harm.

  As promised, I directed the Department of Defense to develop a plan to demolish and destroy ISIS — a network of lawless savages that have slaughtered Muslims and Christians, and men, women, and children of all faiths and beliefs. We will work with our allies, including our friends and allies in the Muslim world, to extinguish this vile enemy from our planet.

  I have also imposed new sanctions on entities and individuals who support Iran’s ballistic missile program, and reaffirmed our unbreakable alliance with the State of Israel.

  Finally, I have kept my promise to appoint a Justice to the United States Supreme Court — from my list of 20 judges — who will defend our Constitution. I am honored to have Maureen Scalia with us in the gallery tonight. Her late, great husband, Antonin Scalia, will forever be a symbol of American justice. To fill his seat, we have chosen Judge Neil Gorsuch, a man of incredible skill, and deep devotion to the law. He was confirmed unanimously to the Court of Appeals, and I am asking the Senate to swiftly approve his nomination.

  Tonight, as I outline the next steps we must take as a country, we must honestly acknowledge the circumstances we inherited.

  Ninety-four million Americans are out of the labor force.

  Over 43 million people are now living in poverty, and over 43 million Americans are on food stamps.

  More than 1 in 5 people in their prime working years are not working.

  We have the worst financial recovery in 65 years.

  In the last 8 years, the past Administration has put on more new debt than nearly all other Presidents combined.

  We’ve lost more than one-fourth of our manufacturing jobs since NAFTA was approved, and we’ve lost 60,000 factories since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001.

  Our trade deficit in goods with the world last year was nearly $800 billion dollars.

  And overseas, we have inherited a series of tragic foreign policy disasters.

  Solving these, and so many other pressing problems, will require us to work past the differences of party. It will require us to tap into the American spirit that has overcome every challenge throughout our long and storied history.

  But to accomplish our goals at home and abroad, we must restart the engine of the American economy — making it easier for companies to do business in the United States, and much harder for companies to leave.

  Right now, American companies are taxed at one of the highest rates anywhere in the world.

  My economic team is developing historic tax reform that will reduce the tax rate on our companies so they can compete and thrive anywhere and with anyone. At the same time, we will provide massive tax relief for the middle class.

  We must create a level playing field for American companies and workers.

  Currently, when we ship products out of America, many other countries make us pay very high tariffs and taxes — but when foreign companies ship their products into America, we charge them almost nothing.

  I just met with officials and workers from a great American company, Harley-Davidson. In fact, they proudly displayed five of their magnificent motorcycles, made in the USA, on the front lawn of the White House.

  At our meeting, I asked them, how are you doing, how is business? They said that it’s good. I asked them further how they are doing with other countries, mainly international sales. They told me — without even complaining because they have been mistreated for so long that they have become used to it — that it is very hard to do business with other countries because they tax our goods at such a high rate. They said that in one case another country taxed their motorcycles at 100 percent.

  They weren’t even asking for change. But I am.

  I believe strongly in free trade but it also has to be FAIR TRADE.

  The first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, warned that the “abandonment of the protective policy by the American Government [will] produce want and ruin among our people.”

  Lincoln was right — and it is time we heeded his words. I am not going to let America and its great companies and workers, be taken advantage of anymore.

  I am going to bring back millions of jobs. Protecting our workers also means reforming our system of legal immigration. The current, outdated system depresses wages for our poorest workers, and puts great pressure on taxpayers.

  Nations around the world, like Canada, Australia and many others –- have a merit-based immigration system. It is a basic principle that those seeking to enter a country ought to be able to support themselves financially. Yet, in America, we do not enforce this rule, straining the very public resources that our poorest citizens rely upon. According to the National Academy of Sciences, our current immigration system costs America’s taxpayers many billions of dollars a year.

  Switching away from this current system of lower-skilled immigration, and instead adopting a merit-based system, will have many benefits: it will save countless dollars, raise workers’ wages, and help struggling families –- including immigrant families –- enter the middle class.

  I believe that real and positive immigration reform is possible, as long as we focus on the following goals: to improve jobs and wages for Americans, to strengthen our nation’s security, and to restore respect for our laws.

  If we are guided by the well-being of American citizens then I believe Republicans and Democrats can work together to achieve an outcome that has eluded our country for decades.

  Another Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, initiated the last truly great national infrastructure program –- the building of the interstate highway system. The time has come for a new program of national rebuilding.

  America has spent approximately six trillion dollars in the Middle East, all this while our infrastructure at home is crumbling. With this six trillion dollars we could have rebuilt our country –- twice. And maybe even three times if we had people who had the ability to negotiate.

  To launch our national rebuilding, I will be asking the Congress to approve legislation that produces a $1 trillion investment in the infrastructure of the United States — financed through both public and private capital –- creating millions of new jobs.

  This effort will be guided by two core principles: Buy American, and Hire American.

  Tonight, I am also calling on this Congress to repeal and replace Obamacare with reforms that expand choice, increase access, lower costs, and at the same time, provide better Healthcare.

  Mandating every American to buy government-approved health insurance was never the right solution for America. The way to make health insurance available to everyone is to lower the cost of health insurance, and that is what we will do.

  Obamacare premiums nationwide have increased by double and triple digits. As an example, Arizona went up 116 percent last year alone. Governor Matt Bevin of Kentucky just said Obamacare is failing in his State — it is unsustainable and collapsing.

  One third of counties have only one insurer on the exchanges –- leaving many Americans with no choice at all.

  Remember when you were told that you could keep your doctor, and keep your plan?

  We now know that all of those promises have been broken.

  Obamacare is collapsing –- and we must act decisively to protect all Americans. Action is not a choice –- it is a necessity.

  So I am calling on all Democrats and Republicans in the Congress to work with us to save Americans from this imploding Obamacare disaster.

  Here are the principles that should guide the Congress as we move to create a better healthcare system for all Americans:

  First, we should ensure that Americans with pre-existing conditions have access to coverage, and that we have a stable transition for Americans currently enrolled in the healthcare exchanges.

  Secondly, we should help Americans purchase their own coverage, through the use of tax credits and expanded Health Savings Accounts –- but it must be the plan they want, not the plan forced on them by the Government.

  Thirdly, we should give our great State Governors the resources and flexibility they need with Medicaid to make sure no one is left out.

  Fourthly, we should implement legal reforms that protect patients and doctors from unnecessary costs that drive up the price of insurance – and work to bring down the artificially high price of drugs and bring them down immediately.

  Finally, the time has come to give Americans the freedom to purchase health insurance across State lines –- creating a truly competitive national marketplace that will bring cost way down and provide far better care.

  Everything that is broken in our country can be fixed. Every problem can be solved. And every hurting family can find healing, and hope.

  Our citizens deserve this, and so much more –- so why not join forces to finally get it done? On this and so many other things, Democrats and Republicans should get together and unite for the good of our country, and for the good of the American people.

  My administration wants to work with members in both parties to make childcare accessible and affordable, to help ensure new parents have paid family leave, to invest in women’s health, and to promote clean air and clear water, and to rebuild our military and our infrastructure.

  True love for our people requires us to find common ground, to advance the common good, and to cooperate on behalf of every American child who deserves a brighter future.

  An incredible young woman is with us this evening who should serve as an inspiration to us all.

  Today is Rare Disease day, and joining us in the gallery is a Rare Disease Survivor, Megan Crowley. Megan was diagnosed with Pompe Disease, a rare and serious illness, when she was 15 months old. She was not expected to live past 5.

  On receiving this news, Megan’s dad, John, fought with everything he had to save the life of his precious child. He founded a company to look for a cure, and helped develop the drug that saved Megan’s life. Today she is 20 years old — and a sophomore at Notre Dame.

  Megan’s story is about the unbounded power of a father’s love for a daughter.

  But our slow and burdensome approval process at the Food and Drug Administration keeps too many advances, like the one that saved Megan’s life, from reaching those in need.

  If we slash the restraints, not just at the FDA but across our Government, then we will be blessed with far more miracles like Megan.

  In fact, our children will grow up in a Nation of miracles.

  But to achieve this future, we must enrich the mind –- and the souls –- of every American child.

  Education is the civil rights issue of our time.

  I am calling upon Members of both parties to pass an education bill that funds school choice for disadvantaged youth, including millions of African-American and Latino children. These families should be free to choose the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school that is right for them.

  Joining us tonight in the gallery is a remarkable woman, Denisha Merriweather. As a young girl, Denisha struggled in school and failed third grade twice. But then she was able to enroll in a private center for learning, with the help of a tax credit scholarship program. Today, she is the first in her family to graduate, not just from high school, but from college. Later this year she will get her masters degree in social work.

  We want all children to be able to break the cycle of poverty just like Denisha.

  But to break the cycle of poverty, we must also break the cycle of violence.

  The murder rate in 2015 experienced its largest single-year increase in nearly half a century.

  In Chicago, more than 4,000 people were shot last year alone –- and the murder rate so far this year has been even higher.

  This is not acceptable in our society.

  Every American child should be able to grow up in a safe community, to attend a great school, and to have access to a high-paying job.

  But to create this future, we must work with –- not against -– the men and women of law enforcement.

  We must build bridges of cooperation and trust –- not drive the wedge of disunity and division.

  Police and sheriffs are members of our community. They are friends and neighbors, they are mothers and fathers, sons and daughters – and they leave behind loved ones every day who worry whether or not they’ll come home safe and sound.

  We must support the incredible men and women of law enforcement.

  And we must support the victims of crime.

  I have ordered the Department of Homeland Security to create an office to serve American Victims. The office is called VOICE –- Victims Of Immigration Crime Engagement. We are providing a voice to those who have been ignored by our media, and silenced by special interests.

  Joining us in the audience tonight are four very brave Americans whose government failed them.

  Their names are Jamiel Shaw, Susan Oliver, Jenna Oliver, and Jessica Davis.
  Jamiel’s 17-year-old son was viciously murdered by an illegal immigrant gang member, who had just been released from prison. Jamiel Shaw Jr. was an incredible young man, with unlimited potential who was getting ready to go to college where he would have excelled as a great quarterback. But he never got the chance. His father, who is in the audience tonight, has become a good friend of mine.

  Also with us are Susan Oliver and Jessica Davis. Their husbands –- Deputy Sheriff Danny Oliver and Detective Michael Davis –- were slain in the line of duty in California. They were pillars of their community. These brave men were viciously gunned down by an illegal immigrant with a criminal record and two prior deportations.
  Sitting with Susan is her daughter, Jenna. Jenna: I want you to know that your father was a hero, and that tonight you have the love of an entire country supporting you and praying for you.

  To Jamiel, Jenna, Susan and Jessica: I want you to know –- we will never stop fighting for justice. Your loved ones will never be forgotten, we will always honor their memory.

  Finally, to keep America Safe we must provide the men and women of the United States military with the tools they need to prevent war and –- if they must –- to fight and to win.

  I am sending the Congress a budget that rebuilds the military, eliminates the Defense sequester, and calls for one of the largest increases in national defense spending in American history.

  My budget will also increase funding for our veterans.

  Our veterans have delivered for this Nation –- and now we must deliver for them.

  The challenges we face as a Nation are great. But our people are even greater.

  And none are greater or braver than those who fight for America in uniform.

  We are blessed to be joined tonight by Carryn Owens, the widow of a U.S. Navy Special Operator, Senior Chief William “Ryan” Owens. Ryan died as he lived: a warrior, and a hero –- battling against terrorism and securing our Nation.

  I just spoke to General Mattis, who reconfirmed that, and I quote, “Ryan was a part of a highly successful raid that generated large amounts of vital intelligence that will lead to many more victories in the future against our enemies.” Ryan’s legacy is etched into eternity. For as the Bible teaches us, there is no greater act of love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. Ryan laid down his life for his friends, for his country, and for our freedom –- we will never forget him.

  To those allies who wonder what kind of friend America will be, look no further than the heroes who wear our uniform.

  Our foreign policy calls for a direct, robust and meaningful engagement with the world. It is American leadership based on vital security interests that we share with our allies across the globe.

  We strongly support NATO, an alliance forged through the bonds of two World Wars that dethroned fascism, and a Cold War that defeated communism.

  But our partners must meet their financial obligations.

  And now, based on our very strong and frank discussions, they are beginning to do just that.

  We expect our partners, whether in NATO, in the Middle East, or the Pacific –- to take a direct and meaningful role in both strategic and military operations, and pay their fair share of the cost.

  We will respect historic institutions, but we will also respect the sovereign rights of nations.

  Free nations are the best vehicle for expressing the will of the people –- and America respects the right of all nations to chart their own path. My job is not to represent the world. My job is to represent the United States of America. But we know that America is better off, when there is less conflict — not more.

  We must learn from the mistakes of the past –- we have seen the war and destruction that have raged across our world.

  The only long-term solution for these humanitarian disasters is to create the conditions where displaced persons can safely return home and begin the long process of rebuilding.

  America is willing to find new friends, and to forge new partnerships, where shared interests align. We want harmony and stability, not war and conflict.

  We want peace, wherever peace can be found. America is friends today with former enemies. Some of our closest allies, decades ago, fought on the opposite side of these World Wars. This history should give us all faith in the possibilities for a better world.

  Hopefully, the 250th year for America will see a world that is more peaceful, more just and more free.

  On our 100th anniversary, in 1876, citizens from across our Nation came to Philadelphia to celebrate America’s centennial. At that celebration, the country’s builders and artists and inventors showed off their creations.

  Alexander Graham Bell displayed his telephone for the first time.

  Remington unveiled the first typewriter. An early attempt was made at electric light.

  Thomas Edison showed an automatic telegraph and an electric pen.

  Imagine the wonders our country could know in America’s 250th year.

  Think of the marvels we can achieve if we simply set free the dreams of our people.

  Cures to illnesses that have always plagued us are not too much to hope.

  American footprints on distant worlds are not too big a dream.

  Millions lifted from welfare to work is not too much to expect.

  And streets where mothers are safe from fear — schools where children learn in peace — and jobs where Americans prosper and grow — are not too much to ask.

  When we have all of this, we will have made America greater than ever before. For all Americans.

  This is our vision. This is our mission.

  But we can only get there together.

  We are one people, with one destiny.

  We all bleed the same blood.

  We all salute the same flag.

  And we are all made by the same God.

  And when we fulfill this vision; when we celebrate our 250 years of glorious freedom, we will look back on tonight as when this new chapter of American Greatness began.

  The time for small thinking is over. The time for trivial fights is behind us.

  We just need the courage to share the dreams that fill our hearts.

  The bravery to express the hopes that stir our souls.

  And the confidence to turn those hopes and dreams to action.

  From now on, America will be empowered by our aspirations, not burdened by our fears –- inspired by the future, not bound by the failures of the past –- and guided by our vision, not blinded by our doubts.

  I am asking all citizens to embrace this Renewal of the American Spirit. I am asking all members of Congress to join me in dreaming big, and bold and daring things for our country. And I am asking everyone watching tonight to seize this moment and —

  Believe in yourselves.

  Believe in your future.

  And believe, once more, in America.

  Thank you, God bless you, and God Bless these United States.

  

  

• "Time For Small-Thinking Is Over": President Trump's First Address To Congress – Live Feed

  "It's T-Day" as one trader put it this morning. President Trump will address a joint session of Congress tonight for the first time as president in a much anticipated speech in which he will tell lawmakers the “time for small thinking is over,” and “the time for trivial fights is behind us,” as he lays out his policy agenda.

  The Guardian reports that in a contrast to Trump’s gloomy inauguration day “American carnage” speech, the mood this evening is expected to be lighter.

  “My speech will be a message of optimism, hope, and love for the greatest country in history. I will lay out our agenda for a stronger, freer, and more prosperous America,” Trump said in an email to supporters this afternoon, calling on donations for his re-election.

   

  But while the administration is touting it as optimistic, advisor Steve Bannon, seen as Trump’s most influential advisor, spoke this week at CPAC about the three “verticals” the Trump administration will focus on, and it’s a less positive affair: national security and sovereignty; economic nationalism; and “deconstruction of the administrative state”.

  Bloomberg notes:

  • Trump to outline what he’ll pitch as benefits of more stringent immigration enforcement – it will “save billions of dollars and make our community safer for everyone”
  • Will pitch what he’ll call a “historic tax reform” plan in development; promising “massive tax relief for the middle class”
  • Trump to say U.S. needs to learn lessons of the past on foreign policy and conflict; adding “only long-term solution for these humanitarian disasters is to create the conditions where displaced persons can safely return home and begin the long process of rebuilding”
  • In possible nod to Russia, which he has said U.S. should have friendlier ties with: “America is willing to find new friends and to forge new partnerships were shared interests align”
  • On Islamic State, to say will work with allies incl. in Muslim world to “extinguish” ISIS

  Some key excerpts have been released (h/t @BradJaffy):

  Excerpt 1:

   

  The time for small thinking is over.

   

  The time for trivial fights is behind us.

   

  We just need the courage to share the dreams that fill our hearts.

   

  Excerpt 2:

   

  Think of the marvels we can achieve if we simply set free the dreams of our people, cures to illnesses that have always plagued us are not too much to hope.

   

  Excerpt 3:

   

  My budget will also increase funding for our veterans.

   

  Our veterans have delivered for this nation and now we must deliver for them.

   

  The challenges we face as a nation are great, but our people are  even greater and none are greater or braver than those who fight  for America in uniform.

  Live Feed (the president is due to speak at 9pmET)…

  *  *  *

  As The Hill notes, the speech isn’t an official State of the Union – that will come next year – but it’s a chance for Trump to set out his legislative priorities after a tumultuous first month that has at times rattled congressional Republicans.

  

  Here are five things to watch for in Trump’s speech…

  Will Trump stay dark or go light?

  The president’s first major address to the American people offered a grim view of the country he was elected to lead. At his inauguration, Trump painted a picture of a nation in decline, marked by “American carnage” such as “rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape” and marauding criminal gangs plaguing major cities. Stephen Miller, the influential White House aide who wrote that speech, has been tasked with authoring this one, too. But White House officials say the address to Congress will present “an optimistic vision” aimed at how his administration will help Americans of all races, parties and economic status. He will also stress how his early actions, while controversial, have fulfilled campaign promises. Offering a positive message that appeals to people outside his base could help bring together a country that remains deeply divided over a presidential election in which Trump lost the popular vote. It would also break with the style that got Trump elected. And previous “pivots” telegraphed by his team have not panned out. Before the inaugural address, White House press secretary Sean Spicer, then a spokesman for the Trump transition effort, told reporters it would focus on “areas where he can unite the country.”

  Will there be specifics?

  After spending his first month handing down a flurry of executive orders, Trump looks ready to get down to business with Congress. Trump is not a policy wonk, and the White House says he’ll reaffirm his desire to work on broad goals such as tax reform and repealing and replacing ­ObamaCare .  But Trump will eventually need to take a side in specific policy debates if he wants to get his agenda passed. For example, he’s been grappling with what to do about Medicaid if the Affordable Care Act is repealed. Millions of Americans gained coverage under the healthcare law’s Medicaid expansion. Figuring out if or how to provide coverage to those people if federal funds supporting the expansion are eliminated is a difficult question for the GOP. The White House has largely left the specifics to congressional Republicans. “Nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated,” Trump said during a meeting Monday with a group of governors.

  Will Trump challenge the congressional GOP?

  Trump’s relationship with the Republican Congress has been far from perfect, from the rocky rollout of his travel ban to simmering disagreements over tax policy, infrastructure and trade. Lawmakers have publicly and privately complained about Trump’s bombastic style and penchant to go it alone. And members are taking some heat themselves from the right. “Republican party should be sued for fraud,” Matt Drudge, founder of the conservative Drudge Report, tweeted earlier this month. “NO discussion of tax cuts now. Just lots of crazy. Back to basics, guys!” It’s unlikely that Trump will voice those same frustrations with the lawmakers he needs to pass his agenda. But they might not like what the president has to say on some issues. For example, Trump has been reluctant to throw his support behind the border-adjustment tax that’s at the center of Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) tax reform plan. Trump also hinted Monday that he would make a “big” announcement on infrastructure spending during his speech, something that could give heartburn to fiscal conservatives. Separately, GOP defense hawks said Trump’s plan to boost military spending in his 2018 budget didn’t go far enough. Despite those disagreements, GOP leaders emerged from a meeting with Trump Monday afternoon insisting they are on the same page. “We’re looking forward to a positive, upbeat presentation tomorrow night and then proceeding with our agenda, which is exactly the same as the Trump agenda,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters.

  Will Trump break with protocol?

  Trump has shown a penchant for shaking up staid Washington traditions, but it’s unclear whether he will veer from the usual format for State of the Union-style speeches. The joint-address format has remained relatively unchanged for years. The president makes a dramatic entrance into the House chamber and then delivers his speech from the Speaker’s rostrum to members of both chambers, Supreme Court justices, military brass and handpicked guests, with tens of millions of people watching live on television. Some past presidents have tinkered around the edges. Former President Obama released the entire text of his 2015 State of the Union on the online publishing platform Medium ahead of its delivery. The White House has not yet indicated what, if any, changes it will make, but it wouldn’t be a surprise if the former reality television star did something different. “The Trump address won’t be boring, because Donald Trump’s not boring,” counselor Kellyanne Conway said last week on Fox News.

  How will Democrats react?

  Democrats have vocally opposed nearly everything Trump has done in his first weeks as president. And the president has responded in kind by lobbing personal insults at top Senate Democrats. Many are wondering whether that feud will boil over in his Tuesday night address. If it does, it would certainly break with the typically civil tone during presidential joint addresses. Some Democrats are planning quiet forms of protests by filling the gallery with immigrants, ethnic minorities and LGBT individuals. In 2009, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouted “You lie!” at Obama during an address on healthcare reform, a shocking moment at the time that earned him an official admonishment from the House. Trump has shown no qualms about verbally confronting critics and protesters at his campaign rallies, so such a disruption could cause him to break from his prepared remarks and respond. A typical speech to a joint session includes passages that win standing ovations from both parties, but it seems possible that some Democrats will sit for the entirety of Trump’s speech. “I hope a very robust and applause-filled reception,” Spicer said Monday when asked how Trump hopes he will be received by Democrats.

  We suspect it will look a little more like this…

  

  Axios reports some chatter of possible compromises on Obamacare and Immigration, but warns don't get too excited about the idea that President Trump is having a last-minute conversion to Jeb Bush-style immigration reform. We've been talking with conservatives in his orbit, and here's what you need to understand about how Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions view the issue:

  1. The people who are in this country illegally who haven't committed crimes have always been viewed as points of leverage in a negotiation over immigration, whether that's border security or any other deal that can be struck with Congress. As we've seen in the opening weeks of his administration, Trump is also willing to use existing law to get started on deportations without Congress.
  2. But that bargaining chip is down the road, and Trumpworld is wary about the example of Ronald Reagan, who is remembered by populist conservatives for allowing an amnesty before locking down better immigration enforcement.
  3. When Trump talks about comprehensive immigration reform, it's not on the terms of the Gang of 8. His orbit believes any deal will include extreme vetting and border security.
  4. Remember Trump's trip to Mexico, where Trump said nice things to President Nieto and then went to Arizona and delivered one of the most red meat speeches of his campaign.

  Remember: People will hear what they want to hear from Trump tonight, particularly on immigration. Some can take away that he's converting to Marco Rubio or Lindsey Graham-style conservatism, but his people still believe any immigration deal will be on the terms he set on the campaign.

  *  *  *

  

  U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg always hugged President Barack Obama before his speeches to Congress; but sadly for President Trump, as Bloomberg reports, she doesn’t even plan to attend his first one.

  Ginsburg, who called Trump a "faker" during his campaign, intends to skip Tuesday night’s speech, leaving it to five of her colleagues to represent the court.

   

  Chief Justice John Roberts will join Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in attendance, court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg confirmed. All are regulars at the annual event. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito aren’t planning to attend, continuing their past practice.

   

  Alito hasn’t gone to a speech since 2010, the year Obama criticized the justices’ just-issued Citizens United campaign-finance ruling. Obama accused the court of ignoring a century of precedent, a claim that prompted Alito to shake his head and mouth "not true" as Democratic lawmakers directly behind the justices rose to cheer.

   

  Thomas has gone sporadically over the years and hasn’t attended since Obama’s first speech in 2009. He said in 2010 the event had become so partisan that "it’s very uncomfortable for a judge to sit there."

   

  Roberts later likened the presidential addresses to a “political pep rally” and questioned whether justices should continue to attend. Even so, the chief justice hasn’t missed a speech.

   

  Ginsburg, a 1993 appointee of Democrat Bill Clinton, also skipped Republican President George W. Bush’s speeches. She attended all eight of Obama’s.

   

  Her attendance Tuesday night could have created an awkward moment given that the president typically greets members of the court before the speech. Trump called on Ginsburg to resign after she made the “faker” comment during the campaign.

  *  *  *

  The bond market is beginning to lose faith, will stocks?

  

  *  *  *

  For those who want to play along, here is the "President Trump Addresses Congress Official Bingo Game"

  

   

  And finally, thanks to Geoffrey Dickens at NewBusters, here is your reminder of the media gushing all over President Obama's first address to congress in 2009…

  "He took us to the mountain tops.”

   

  “Big and bold.”   

   

  “He wowed us!”

   

  No, these aren’t movie critic blurbs on a movie poster praising a star actor’s performance, these were the immediate reactions from the liberal media to President Barack Obama’s first address to Congress. Will Donald Trump’s speech tonight receive similar accolades? Given the press’s hostility to the new president, it seems unlikely.    

   

  But back in 2009, the first takes on Obama’s speech were effusive. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews gushed “He wowed us!” CNN’s Jack Cafferty proclaimed “He’s got what it takes to lead this country back into the sunlight.”ABC’s George Stephanopoulos cheered that Obama “began on hope” and “ended on hope.”

   

  Stephanopoulos’s colleague Terry Moran called the speech “big and bold” but never called it liberal, even though it was a wish list of leftist policies. On the other hand, Governor Bobby Jindal, who delivered the GOP response that night, was called a “Debbie Downer” by CBS’s Maggie Rodriguez. 

  The following is just a sampling of the most enthusiastic responses to Obama’s first address to Congress from the MRC archives:

  “He Wowed Us!”

  http://www.mrctv.org/embed/200736

  “It was his debut and he wowed us. That’s the running headline from last night’s presidential address to the Congress.”
  — MSNBC’s Chris Matthews opening Hardball, February 25, 2009.

  Applauding Obama’s “Start at Inspiring Hope”

  http://www.mrctv.org/embed/200936

  “[President Obama] came right out of the box and said, ‘make no mistake about it, we are going to recover.’ That’s the most important thing he wanted the country to hear last night. He began on hope. He ended on hope. Now, in between, there’s an awful lot of hard things to be done….But I think he made a start at inspiring hope out in the country.”
  — ABC's George Stephanopoulos on Good Morning America, February 25, 2009.

  Obama the “Excellent” Centrist

  http://www.mrctv.org/embed/201051

  MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann: “What can the Republican response be?…How do you come out against recovering the nation’s sense of self and its optimism? How do you come out against words like ‘boldly,’ ‘wisely,’ ‘swiftly,’ and ‘aggressively?’”

  Co-anchor Chris Matthews: “[Bobby Jindal]….is running for the outside rail of the Republican Party, the right-wing rail….That’s all the room that’s left on that side because Barack has grabbed the center with the charm he showed tonight in his excellent rhetoric.”
  — MSNBC’s live coverage following Obama’s speech to Congress, February 24, 2009.

  “Serene” Obama Will Lead Country “Back Into the Sunlight”

  http://www.mrctv.org/embed/201181

  “But our president seems remarkably unruffled by all of this, serene in an inner confidence that he’s got what it takes to lead this country back into the sunlight….It was quite a performance….It occurred to me watching the president last night, Wolf, that he was born to do exactly what he was doing. He had that place in the palm of his hand for the entire time he was in that room, and that can be a tough audience, a tough room to work.”
  — Host Jack Cafferty on CNN’s The Situation Room, February 25, 2009.

  Obama “Took Us Up to The Mountaintops”

  “A rousing speech, took us up to the mountaintops.”
  — Senior political analyst David Gergen on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, February 25, 2009.

  “Big and Bold” Obama

  “It was a big and bold speech by a new President facing deep challenges and huge expectations, delivered at a crucial moment when the country has been battered by talk of bailouts and the reality, the harsh reality of recession. And while President Barack Obama didn’t sugarcoat it —  he found bad guys on Wall Street and in Washington —  he did try to strike an optimistic tone and a hopeful note that with patience and personal responsibility and by working together, the country can prevail and thrive.”
  — ABC’s Terry Moran on Nightline, February 24, 2009. Moran offered no “liberal” label of Obama’s agenda.

  We Have a President Again

  http://www.mrctv.org/embed/200921

  “It made me feel pretty good. I mean, I thought it was a great speech….You know, a friend of mine said, ‘Oh my God, we have a President again!’ Now, in some ways, that’s not fair to Bush, but that’s the way you felt. You felt this was a guy who was totally in charge.”
  — NPR’s Nina Totenberg discussing President Obama’s address to Congress, February 27, 2009 Inside Washington.  

  Adoring “Ambitious” Obama’s Liberal Agenda

  “This was the most ambitious President we’ve heard in this chamber in decades. The first half of the speech was FDR, fighting for the New Deal. The second half was Lyndon Johnson fighting for the Great Society, and we’ve never seen those two presidents rolled together in quite this way before….’ I think we’re watching one of the greatest political dramas of our time.”
  — Senior political analyst David Gergen on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, February 24, 2009.

  Obama’s  FDR-Like Fireside Chat

  “This was actually a fireside chat. This is what I found so fascinating. From the very first sentence he basically said to the Congress ‘I’m not talking to you, I’m talking to the people who sent us here.’ And it reminded me, in some sense, of the radio speeches FDR gave where he talked about complicated issues in simple ways. Obama tried to explain how he got into this mess, why will my program make it better. Very intensely personal in the sense of talking to people at home watching one or two at a time in front of their TVs.”
  — Correspondent Jeff Greenfield during CBS’s live coverage of Obama speech, February 24, 2009.

  Public Loved Obama, Jindal Was “Debbie Downer”

  “And Americans loved it. The polls show that they’re very optimistic, and then out comes Bobby Jindal, Debbie Downer, saying ‘hated it, it’s not going to work.’” 
  — Co-host Maggie Rodriguez on CBS’s Early Show, February 25, 2009.

  We suspect the media's response – no matter what Trump says or does – will not be any of the above.

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Demographic Panic: China Considering 'Birth Rewards' to Encourage Citizens to Have More Babies

  This will be the biggest challenge for developed nations over the next hundred years: depopulation.

  Expect strange things to happen in the western world and developed nations in Asia over the next fifty years —  marked by unusual foreign policy moves —  and a craven, almost desperate clamoring for middle eastern, south american and african migrants to replace their withering and decadent societies.

  Why?

  Credit expansion, or at a minimum, stasis.

  Due to one of the lowest birth rates in the world (1.5p per family), thanks to the one child policy, China is now considering offering incentives to its citizens to get out there and ‘screw for China’, a la Denmark.

  Source: Reuters

  The potential move was revealed by Wang Peian, vice-minister of the National Health and Family Planning Commission at a social welfare conference on Saturday, the newspaper said on Tuesday.
   
  Birth rates rose to 17.86 million in 2016, the highest level since 2000, after the country issued new guidelines in late 2015 allowing all parents to have two children amid growing concerns over the costs of supporting an aging population.
   
  “That fully met the expectations, but barriers still exist and must be addressed,” Wang was quoted as saying.
   
  “To have a second child is the right of each family in China but affordability has become a bottleneck that undermines the decision.”
   
  A poll conducted by the commission in 2015 found that 60 percent of families surveyed were reluctant to have a second baby largely due to financial constraints.
   
  China’s birth rate, one of the world’s lowest, is fast becoming a worry for authorities, rather than the achievement it was considered at a time when the government feared over-population.
   
  China began implementing its controversial “one-child policy” in the 1970s in order to limit population growth, but authorities are now concerned that the country’s dwindling workforce will not be able to support an increasingly aging population.

   
  Elon Musk has been an outspoken advocate about depopulation and ‘population implosion’.

  Watch:

  

  By 2050, India will surpass China in population — essentially leveling China’s population flat for the next 33 years.

  

  

   

  The deleterious effect upon China’s demographic trends was predicted by Brookings Institute in 2010 — saying its ‘dividend growth rate’ would erode to the point that by 2013 it would hamper economic growth. This is not only a Chinese problem, mind you, but a developed world problem. Both Japan and Italy is expected to lose half its population over the next 40 years — based on current trends. If this persists, what do you think this will do to global GDP?
   
  
   
  Looks legit to me.
   
  Source: Brookings Institute (2010)

  By 2013 China’s demographic dividend growth rate will turn negative: That is, the growth rate of net consumers will exceed the growth rate of net producers. Starting in 2013, such a negative growth rate will reduce the country’s economic growth rate by at least half a percentage point per year. Between 2013 and 2050, China will not fare demographically much better than Japan or Taiwan, and will fare much worse than the United States and France.
   
  As a result of China’s very low fertility over the past two decades, the abundance of young, inexpensive labor is soon to be history. The number of workers aged 20 to 29 will stay about the same for the next few years, but a precipitous drop will begin in the middle of the coming decade. Over a 10-year period, between 2016 and 2026, the size of the population in this age range will be reduced by about one-quarter, to 150 million from 200 million. For Chinese aged 20 to 24, that decline will come sooner and will be more drastic: Over the next decade, their number will be reduced by nearly 50 percent, to 68 million from 125 million.
   
  Such a drastic decline in the young labor force will usher in, for the first time in recent Chinese history, successive shrinking cohorts of labor force entrants. It will also have profound consequences for labor productivity, since the youngest workers are the most recently educated and the most innovative.
   
  As the young population declines, domestic demand for consumption may weaken as well, since young people are also the most active consumers of everything from wedding banquets to new cars and housing units. And because China is a major player in the global economy, the impact of the country’s demographic changes will not be limited by its borders.
   
  Fragile families, fragile society
   
  So far, observers of China’s demographic changes have focused most of their attention on consequences at the aggregate or societal level: the size of the labor force, of the elderly population, and of the number of men who will not be able to marry. Worries at this level of analysis generally relate to the country’s future economic growth and social stability. But the challenges that China will face as a result of its changing demographics go far beyond economic growth and other aggregate concerns.
   
  China’s unprecedented population control policy, the one-child policy, turned 30 this year. It has forcefully altered the family and kin structure of hundreds of millions of Chinese families. And families, in addition to their other functions, are first and foremost the primary source of support for dependents, the young and the elderly.
   
  Although the full extent of the one-child policy’s societal consequences will not be known until later, it is safe to predict that the social costs that China will need to pay, especially in terms of family support for aging parents, will be exceedingly high. In no small part due to implementation of the one-child policy, China by 2005 had accumulated nearly 160 million only children aged 0 to 30. That number has further grown in the past five years. These figures imply that over 40 percent of Chinese households have only one child.
   
  More generally, ever more Chinese parents in the future will not be able to count on their children in their old age. And many parents will face a most unfortunate reality: outliving their children and therefore dying alone. Given the current mortality schedule, the likelihood that an 80-year-old Chinese man will see his 55-year-old son die before he does is 6 percent. Because women live longer, the likelihood that an 80-year-old woman will outlive her 55-year-old son is 17 percent.
   
  Because of China’s continued mortality decline, and especially its sustained fertility decline to below replacement levels, the country has effectively entered an era of population decline.China’s current TFR of 1.5 implies that, in the long run, each future generation will be 25 percent smaller than the one preceding it. China’s population is still growing, albeit very slowly, because the country still has a relatively young age structure, which produces more births than deaths, even though on average each couple has fewer than two children. Had it not been for China’s relatively young age structure, the population would have begun declining in the early 1990s, almost two decades ago. The current growth, in other words, is a result of population momentum.
   
  The same force of momentum will work in the opposite direction soon. Given current mortality and fertility rates, and with a population age structure that is growing increasingly older, the number of deaths will soon exceed the number of births. China’s population is likely to peak less than 15 years from now, below a maximum of 1.4 billion. After that will come a prolonged, even indefinite, population decline and a period of accelerated aging.
   
  Even if China can restore fertility to replacement level within 10 years after the country reaches its population peak, population will still exhibit a decline nearly half a century long, with a net population loss of over 200 million, if not more. The median age of the Chinese population, at its peak, could be as high as 50 years.
   
  China is by no means unique in experiencing below-replacement fertility. In the past decade, below-replacement fertility has become a new global reality. Whereas in some parts of the world high fertility rates continue to pose severe challenges to women and children’s health, for more than half of the world’s population, below replacement fertility is now the norm.
   
  In Europe, North America, and East Asia, prolonged below-replacement fertility has already set in motion a negative population growth momentum.In the most extreme cases, such as Italy and Japan, population could be reduced by half in as few as 40 years or so if current rates of reproduction persist. A gradual but substantial reduction in population, especially with a concomitant aging of populations in the world’s richest countries, constitutes an unprecedented shift that is redefining the global demographic, economic, and political landscape.
   
  What makes China unique, however, is that it still has a state policy, unique in human history, that restricts the majority of Chinese families to one child per couple. At the time the policy was announced 30 years ago, it provoked great controversy both within and outside China; over the years it has extracted great sacrifices from Chinese families and individuals, especially from women. And although the policy was designed as an emergency measure to slow down China’s population growth, and was intended to last for only one generation, the government has not yet shown the willingness, or courage, to phase it out.
   
  China’s slow recognition and inaction in the face of its impending demographic crisis—inaction that persists despite appeals by almost all the country’s population experts to phase out the one child policy quickly—reflect policy makers’ lack of understanding of the changing demographic reality. Inertia also results from the resistance of the country’s birth-control bureaucracy, which formally employs half a million people.
   
  This exemplifies a characteristic feature of China’s regime—relegating difficult, long-term, structural challenges to the back burner, while giving priority to short-term crisis management and concerns about stability. The looming demographic crisis will largely define China in the twenty-first century. Given that demographic changes take time to develop, and that their ramifications are not only massive but also long-lasting, China’s inaction has already proved costly—and will only grow more so the longer it persists.

   
  In the words of the immortal Bill the Butcher, ‘this is a kill.’
   
  Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com

   

  

• Here's How The Deep State Is Trying To Lead Trump Into A Nuclear War

  Via Daniel Lang of SHTFplan.com,

  Before Donald trump took office, he promised to rebuild the US military by diverting a lot more funding into the armed forces. And when he made that promise, he wasn’t just talking about our conventional forces. He also proposed expanding America’s nuclear capability; a position he recently reiterated in an interview with Reuters. He stated that “It would be wonderful, a dream would be that no country would have nukes, but if countries are going to have nukes, we’re going to be at the top of the pack.”

  If Trump is really going to reinvigorate our nuclear program (a decision that many experts fear could spark another arms race), then he needs to be very careful about who he listens to. That’s because some of the high ranking officials in our government have some certifiably insane ideas on what a nuclear arsenal should look like. Recently a Pentagon panel known as The Defense Science Board, told the Trump administration that they need to remake our nuclear arsenal into a force that is capable of engaging in a “limited” nuclear war.

  According to the report, “The Defense Science Board … urges the president to consider altering existing and planned U.S. armaments to achieve a greater number of lower-yield weapons that could provide a ‘tailored nuclear option for limited use.’”

   

  The strategy behind limited nuclear use sounds deceptively simple. You need to escalate a conflict just enough to end it.

   

  As the theory goes, using low-yield nuclear weapons against an adversary’s conventional forces will demonstrate that you mean serious business and might be crazy enough to launch an all out nuclear attack. This will cause the enemy to “blink” and ultimately back down, rather than risk global thermonuclear war or continue conventional hostilities.

  There’s only one problem with the idea of engaging in a limited nuclear war. It simply can’t be done. Any limited nuclear war would eventually lead to a full scale nuclear war.

  

  The lynchpin of a limited nuclear war is the tactical nuke. These are nuclear weapons that have a much smaller yield than a strategic nuke. Whereas a strategic nuke might have a yield of half a megaton or more, a tactical nuke is usually somewhere in the ballpark with the atomic weapons that we used on Japan, but usually smaller than that. They’re for use on the battlefield, possibly within close proximity to friendly forces. And there’s a reason why our government has been slowly phasing them out for decades. Just because they make a smaller crater, doesn’t mean they make a smaller impact.

  When you use a tactical nuke, you’re still using a nuke. It doesn’t matter that it’s not large enough to destroy an entire city (though some of them can). By using them, you’re telling the enemy that you’re willing to use nukes. You’re saying that you’re willing to rain radioactive fallout on their territory. You’re willing to engage in total war.

  The only appropriate response to that is escalation. The enemy has to show you that they can do the same thing. In war, both parties aren’t thinking “gee, how the heck do I get out of this?” They’re thinking, “how do I win” and “how do I get back at the other guy” and “how do I teach my enemy a lesson he won’t forget.” Limited nuclear war doctrine doesn’t burn the bridge between conventional war and full on nuclear holocaust. It builds that bridge.

  This should be common sense. All you have to do is imagine what would happen if Russia dropped a relatively small, 10 kiloton nuke on an American military base in Europe. Would the US government respond with capitulation? Nobody in their right mind believes that.

  And let’s pretend for a moment that a limited nuclear war is possible. What would that do? It would normalize nuclear warfare. It would make nukes a viable option in every single war. Every conflict would leave behind a trail of radioactive fallout and mass civilian casualties.

  Hopefully brighter minds will prevail, because whoever is proposing this notion of limited nuclear conflict, needs to change out their dress uniform for a freaking straight jacket.

  

  

• Dr. Doom's Back: Marc Faber Warns Markets Will Fall "Like An Avalanche… Trump Can't Stop It"

  "One man alone cannot make 'America great again'. That you have to realize," warns Marc Faber, the editor of "The Gloom, Boom, & Doom Report," reminding the world that the US stock market is vulnerable to a seismic sell-off that won't be caused by any single catalyst. His argument: Stocks are very overbought and sentiment is way too bullish for the so-called Trump rally to continue.

  http://player.cnbc.com/p/gZWlPC/cnbc_global?playertype=synd&byGuid=3000596118&size=530_298

  "Very simply, the market starts to go down. As it goes down, it will start triggering selling, and then it will be like an avalanche," said Faber recently on CNBC's Futures Now. "I would underweight U.S. stocks."

  Faber, a supporter of President Donald Trump, isn't blaming the new administration for his bearish forecast:

  "Trump, unlike Mr. Reagan, is facing huge, huge headwinds — including a debt to GDP that is gigantic, as it is in other countries."

  Faber lists rising interest rates and record earnings and margins as additional risks to the historic rally.

  The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at a record level for a twelfth consecutive session today with the S&P 500 to see the fewest declines in February than in any month since May 1990.

  

  The investor said that markets in Mexico, Brazil, and Asia also have been picking up significant gains so far this year. However, Faber doesn’t expect the worst-case scenario for all countries that have been benefiting from a strong run.

  “China looks quite attractive. For the next three months, money can flow into China. The economy, surprisingly, has begun to do quite well. We see that in retail in Hong Kong. We see that in the hotel industry, and we see that in demand for commodities,” he said.

  Faber says that resource commodities such as copper and gold would probably bring the traders solid profits this year.

  “When you look at Trump and his administration, and the way the budget is, I think further money printing down the line is inevitable,” he said, stressing that such a policy could push commodities even higher.

  

  

• 50% Of College Students Believe Their Student Loans Will Be Forgiven By Federal Government

  LendEDU, a private firm that connects students and their families with student loans and loan refinancing, has finally revealed a clue that helps us better understand the mystery of why so many college students across the country have become so comfortable haphazardly taking out $100s of thousands of dollars in student loans to  fund their degrees in anthropology.  According to a survey of 500 current college students conducted by LendEDU, apparently 49.8% of America’s entitled youth is convinced that the federal government will simply forgive their student loans upon graduation…call it a nice little taxpayer funded graduation gift.

  Of course, as the US Department of Education points out, only a select few students who actually enter into public service jobs, teach in underserved areas or attend schools that shutdown within 120 days of their graduation actually qualify for federal loan forgiveness.

  The US Department of Education says that federal direct student loan borrowers can get off the hook if they enter public service jobs for a specified period of time, agree to teach in an underserved area, die or become permanently disabled, or if the school they attended shuts down while they are enrolled or within 120 days after they leave.

   

  “The biggest exemption is the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, and very few students go into public service,“ said Nate Matherson, who co-founded LendEDU in 2014.

   

  “With maybe 14 percent of the American workforce in a public service job, the actual numbers of those who may qualify for student loan forgiveness or discharge is maybe below 10 percent.

   

  “The fact that many students do not understand this means that they may be significantly underestimating the cost of financing a college education,” he added.

  

   

  Of course, maybe these students are just planning on never getting a job after college and thus relying on Obama’s executive actions on “income-driven repayment” (IDR) plans that would repay a portion of their loans if they fail to hit certain income thresholds (see report entitled “Federal Student Loans:  Education Needs to Improve Its Income Driven Repayment Plan Budget Estimates” from the Government Accountability Office).  In this scenario, the student loans of these 50% of college students would, in fact, fall into the $137 billion bucket that the GAO figures Obama saddled on the backs of taxpayers through his unilateral executive action.   

  For the fiscal year 2017 budget, the U.S. Department of Education (Education) estimates that all federally issued Direct Loans in Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plans will have government costs of $74 billion, higher than previous budget estimates. IDR plans are designed to help ease student debt burden by setting loan payments as a percentage of borrower income, extending repayment periods from the standard 10 years to up to 25 years, and forgiving remaining balances at the end of that period. While actual costs cannot be known until borrowers repay their loans, GAO found that current IDR plan budget estimates are more than double what was originally expected for loans made in fiscal years 2009 through 2016 (the only years for which original estimates are available). This growth is largely due to the rising volume of loans in IDR plans.

   

  Education’s approach to estimating IDR plan costs and quality control practices do not ensure reliable budget estimates. Weaknesses in this approach may cause costs to be over- or understated by billions of dollars.

  

   

  Of course, we still kind of like this guy’s idea for repaying student debt…it’s a novel approach whereby borrowers are encouraged to stop playing video games in their parents’ basements and get a job…it just might be crazy enough to work.

  ???????? ???? ???? ???????? “It’s Horrible!!! You don’t understand!!! America is doomed!!! Trump is the &§$@#* President!!! pic.twitter.com/CWfQgg3EOW

  — tom alex (@rejialex7) November 29, 2016

  

  

• The Cultural Purge Will Not Be Televised

  Via Mark Jeftovic of EasyDNS.com,

  “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, and our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of…. It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind.”

  – Edward Bernays, Public Relations

  

  I’ve been trying not to write this post, because really, who needs a bunch of shrill, hysterical snowflakes calling you a racist nazi for committing the egregious sin of pointing out the many contradictions in the #deleteshopify boycott and the wider witch hunt mentality that pervades social discourse these days?

  The main factor holding me back is not cynicism but actually fear. For the first time in my life I’m afraid to speak my mind. The possible ramifications of exercising my inalienable right to free speech frighten the crap out of me. So much so that I really don’t want to do it. I’ve become known as the type of person who speaks candidly and frankly about some tough issues and I’ve never had a problem doing that in the past. I’ve gone up against some pretty intimidating forces such as the City of London IPCU and the US FDA, but I’ve never been as scared as I am now to speak out.  For that reason I’m just going to have to suck it up and do it.

  There is a cultural purge in progress.

  It is directed against not only those who are perceived as “pro-Trump” (which as a card carrying Libertarian I am not. I think that he’s no friend to free speech, privacy or the internet), but targeting even those who are not “anti-Trump enough”.

  This cultural purge has a two-pronged approach, from one side, from elements within the corridors of power (or those recently ejected from it) who have successfully floated the concept that free speech is not inviolable and that it would be a good thing for “truth” to be curated by “somebody” who knows better:

  “We are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to… There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard, because they just don’t have any basis in anything that’s actually happening in the world…That is hard to do, but I think it’s going to be necessary, it’s going to be possible,”

  — Barack Obama in speech at Frontiers Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, Oct 13, 2016 (emphasis added)

  The other half comes from the trenches, comprised of manic flashmobs directing enmity against, literally, anything remotely connected to those deemed responsible for the greatest political upset of our time.

  The mainstream media, outlets like Washington Post and the New York Times, among others, are complicit, providing the glue or the lubricant between this pincer movement and its chilling effects. The combination gels into an echo chamber drowning out all rationality and renders differing philosophies and legitimate dissent as blasphemous.

  Let me explain my choice of title for this post and how it captures what I see going on here:

  This post title is obviously a riff on Gil Scott-Heron’s song ‘The Revolution Will Not Be Televised’, and the backstory behind this song is quite instructive to times like these:

  Gil Scott-Heron saw first hand how altruistically motivated social activism can turn ugly when a campus protest action he initiated went horribly overboard. After the death of one of Gil-Heron’s schoolmates, he started a grass roots movement with the goal of improving the medial conditions on his campus, including making the college infirmary operate 24×7, something he felt would have saved his friend’s life.

  The laudable aim of improving conditions on campus with the possibility of saving future lives derailed into a menacing fracas. A mob congregated on the front lawn of the infirmary’s doctor’s home where they proceeded to burn him in effigy:

  “The protest grew angry, culminating with some students hanging the doctor in effigy from a tree in his front yard and setting it on fire. The doctor came out of his house and swore that he wasn’t responsible for the deaths. As he proclaimed his innocence, he had tears in his eyes.

   

  When Gil arrived at the protest, he stood between the students and the doctor, looking at the doctor’s children staring out the window in fear. ‘A cold flash scampered across the back of my neck, ‘ wrote Gil later to describe his sudden fear that events could spiral out of control into violence, a fear which was allayed only when the students went back to their dorms.

   

  The realization that radical action sometimes leads to unintended consequences and violent overreactions haunted Gil, and that image of a distraught Dr. Davies lingered in his mind for months to come. The experience reinforced Gil’s instinct to avoid violence and militant action in the struggle for social change.”

  One should easily concede that today there are many reasons to petition for change. Our governments still have us all under wholesale surveillance, we are still involved in numerous unsanctioned wars, continue to provoke toward new ones, and the government continues to methodically destroy the economy via financial repression.

  But we should all take Gil Scott-Heron’s lesson to heart and try to keep in mind that we are all human beings. We all have rights, we should all be secure in our ability to speak and associate freely.

  But that isn’t what’s happening.

  Today, the mainstream media, rather than objectively and rationally report on facts, are instead complicit in a sustained, wide-ranging campaign of demonization of “all things non-Democrat”. There is blanket categorical denial of any valid basis for why the citizenry worldwide are rejecting what they increasingly see as an “Establishment Elite” agenda.

  Greece, Brexit, Trump and quite possibly soon, Marine Le Pen in France are all continuations of a theme. These events are referendums unto themselves and those “Global Elites” are on a losing streak. Instead of trying to understand the basis of these rejections (that the populace are sick and tired of having a two-tiered society in which their civil rights are eroded and they get saddled with all the debt, while the elites get to operate under a different set of rules and gobble up all the assets); they have mounted a concerted campaign of outright propaganda and mind-numbingly nonsensical narratives to dismiss away these acts of “defiance”.

  As alt-market.com’s Brandon Smith commentary  observes:

  “One of the most favored propaganda tactics of establishment elites and [those] they employ … is to relabel or redefine an opponent before they can solidly define themselves. In other words, elites [and their media] will seek to “brand” you (just as corporations use branding) in the minds of the masses so that they can take away your ability to define yourself as anything else.” (emphasis added)

  And this is exactly what’s happening. For example, when you say “Breitbart”, your average person is so inculcated from the repetition of the words “white supremacist”, “racist”, and “ nazi” that people just assume that’s what it is. From there people think that it’s ok to #boycottshopify simply for supplying basic online ecommerce services to them (where does it stop? Btw, Breitbart derives 100% of it’s revenues from the internet, perhaps everybody in a twist about it should do us all a favour and boycott that too).

  Is Breitbart really white supremacist, racist nazi hate site? Actually, no it isn’t. Most people think it is however, because they’ve been conditioned to believe it, and they’ve never actually gone there to see for themselves.

  How do I know that Breitbart isn’t really the white supremacist, neo-nazi hate-site that we are incessantly brainwashed  to believe it is? Well for one thing, I’ve seen the real deal. They look like this:

  

  This place is called “Shitskin Plantation”. They wound up on easyDNS (my company’s system ) for about a week by the time we kicked them. The fact that we did eject a real honest to god racist, neo-nazi hate site doesn’t bolster the #boycottshopify movement for three reasons:

  #1) Shitskin is clearly racist and contains actual language condoning violence toward an identifiable group. It was right there for anybody to see. Here in Canada such material is codified into law as “hate speech” under the Criminal Code.

   

  #2) We chose. We assessed our AUP, found them in violation and kicked them. Specifically we found them in violation of “the Non-Aggression Principle” in our plain english Terms of Service. The NAP has grey areas and subjective rabbit holes. Libertarians debate it relentlessly. But the important thing is that nobody else forced us to do it in the absence of due process. We made our own determination, and that’s important. Sacrosanct, in fact.

   

  And #3) Breitbart is an ultra-conservative, hard-right political opinion site. That’s all. They seem also have a penchant for inflammatory, click-bait headlines (who doesn’t these days?) You may not like it, I may not like it, but they absolutely have the right to be online and to publish.

  That anybody who has even the most tenuous affiliation with them is fair game for having their rights curtailed, their livelihood sanctioned or sabotaged is indefensible. The only legitimate mechanism for these people to suffer in their fortunes is through the failure of their ideas in the marketplace of thought. By being rejected, not through being repressed (see below).

  It is entirely reasonable for Shopify, or  any other vendor to keep supplying services to Breitbart (at present they have no services with easyDNS)

  It is also reasonable for any of those vendors to choose not to supply services to them of their own volition (you can’t have it both ways folks, you can’t force Shopify to dump Breitbart and simultaneously force some Bible-thumping redneck to bake a cake for a gay wedding).

  What isn’t reasonable is to coerce or compel anybody else to take any action they would not themselves take under their own judgement. It’s truly frightening that there is a growing sentiment that this is acceptable behaviour.

  Do you really want to live in a world where people sever business and personal relationships because a literal flash mob demands it? Where mobs get to pick and choose who you are allowed to associate with?

  Shopify has over 300,000 customers. You honestly expect them to sort through those and kick out the ones that you think are morally objectionable?

  In 2010, when easyDNS was itself embroiled in the Wikileaks debacle I was absolutely appalled when ranking politicians applauded the vendors for severing ties with them. Senator Lieberman congratulated Amazon and Paypal by name for “breaking their contracts”, he literally used those words. A ranking politician applauding behaviour that should rightly get you sued. The public backlash then was huge and pro-Wikileaks. In our own small way, we stood up for Wikileaks then, we maintain a congruent position now. I applaud Shopify for standing firm and refusing to sever their ties for the same reason.

  The “Right Side” of History

  Whenever I hear a lot of activists whining about the current situation I frequently hear references to being “on the right side of history”. Nobody wants to be on the wrong side of that. Actually that’s a nonsensical statement since history is amoral, or as Winston Churchill famously observed, “One damned thing after another”.

  However there is one rule of thumb I’ve formulated over the years which I think can keep one onside of the grand currents sweeping through time and society and helped me understand my sympathy with Libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism. That is to know the fine line between rejecting an idea that one finds immoral, unethical, obsolete or otherwise objectionable and repressing it.

  Morality is largely subjective. Very few people act in a way they themselves consider immoral. Almost everybody thinks that whatever they’re doing, they’re on the side of the angels. The tiny sliver of participants who are fully cognizant of their own immoral action and proceed anyway are criminals and sociopaths (the majority of them gravitate into politics).

  When enough people’s ethical compasses align you get a cultural or societal norm. One of the cultural norms that we fought hard for over the ages was that people have a right to free speech and free association. You can disagree with what I have to say but respect my right to say it.

  These rights were so hard won that they were codified into universal laws and into the very Constitutions that govern most civilized nations. I believe one of the more well-known words for it was “inalienable”.

  Until now. Now people are putting conditions around “free speech” and “free association”.

  The idea that free speech has its limits somewhere around the point where it hurts somebody’s feelings is beyond idiotic and dangerous.

  

  Tweet of person exercising her free speech to encourage economic harm to others…

  The world is not one big foam insulated, bubble wrapped safe space. This may come as a shock to you but there is a widespread sentiment, a backlash dare I say, against the idea that a Saviour State should watch over everything and smooth out all the world’s sharp edges.

  Besides…

  Boycotts usually backfire.

  Back in the mid-90’s, Bob Rae was the Premiere of Ontario and I was in a failed metal band out of London, Ontario. Mr. Rae wrote a nice song about multiculturalism called “Same Boat Now” and submitted it to various record labels who promptly rejected it and told him not to quit his day job. My band recorded a power-pop version of his song and released it on 7” vinyl. Our label  put an open letter to Mr. Rae on the back sleeve that was highly critical of his socialist political platform (albeit quite tame by today’s standards). I was mortified, fearing a media backlash but felt trapped. I called Jack Richardson, my former college prof from Fanshawe College’s Music Industry Arts program and widely credited with having single-handedly created the Canadian music industry and asked his advice.

  Before I finished relaying the details he was laughing. “Mark”, he said, “The only thing that truly matters is that they spell ‘Landslide’ right. That’s it”.

  This has been bourne out countless times since that event. I could list them here but the point is, boycotts usually invoke The Streisand Effect and actually bolster the target of the boycott. We can cite a couple brief examples:

  • During the Bob Parsons era of Godaddy, when he shot the elephant, or when he aired some super-sexist Super Bowl commercial, Godaddy numbers, in terms of net-new domains-in or registered usually  went up not down, in the face of consumer outrage and boycotts.

  • Wikileaks, again – when we did help their mirror sites get back online there was a counter-reaction against that. Every once in awhile I check the emails from the customers who sent me extremely hostile emails telling me they were leaving, and almost all of them remained (and some still do) customers to this day.

  • Shopify itself, who is publicly traded, has been on a tear in share price for most of the year, and it’s continued unabated since  #deleteShopify began.

  

  So what can you do?

  You can only govern yourself. Your only recourse is whether to associate or disassociate with somebody. Yes, you are perfectly within your rights to #boycottshopify but as I’ve outlined, you’re being naive doing so and will likely have the exact opposite effect if you’re enough of a loudmouth about it .

  But if this Cultural Purge proceeds we will actually, for real, lose what used to be inalienable rights. Our right to free speech, our right to free association and our rights to our own minds. If something you say is considered “hurtful” (which will more closely resemble dissent or criticism of the Official Narrative than anything else) you will be sanctioned. You will tow the line or you will be penalized – contracts severed, vendors disassociate themselves, boycotts ensue. Whatever you do, just don’t say or think the wrong thing, because not going along with the crowd will make you a pariah.

  If you want to prevent that:

  1) you have the duty to look at the issue first hand and decide for yourself if it has any merit. Don’t ever come to me and tell me “XYZ is white supremacist, neo-nazi hate speech” unless you can show me an article that has the hate speech in it. Show me the white supremacist rhetoric. If you tell me you believe it simply because that’s what Wapo told you then you are a fool. You are Wapo’s useful idiot. A Wapobot.

  2) you have to be prepared to call b/s whenever some whining snowflake demands safety from any contrary opinion, whenever some pundit robotically repeats the “white supremacist, hate speech, homophobe, Russian hackers” mantra, and whenever you’re asked to jump on some witchunt bandwagon against someone who dares to dispute the Official Narrative.

  3) you have to be able to take the heat. Guess what? You’ll be next. Speak out against this nonsense and you’ll be subjected to hysterionics, character assassination, guilt by the most tenuous of associations, distortions of fact and a co-ordinated piling on by mobs of unquestioning ideological berserkers.

  • You’ll be Peter Thiel (there was a popular outcry to remove him from Facebook’s board, why? Because he endorsed Trump.)

  • You’ll be Scott Adams (his crime? Correctly predicting that Trump was going to win)

  • You’ll be Ivanka Trump (facing a co-ordinated attack on her livelihood for her transgression of being born a Trump).

  That is a cultural purge.

  Hell, I’m probably next just for writing this piece. So be it. My credibility as a non-racist, free-speech Libertarian are unassailable and am categorically unaffiliated with Russian intelligence. My duty is to speak out precisely because it is becoming more dangerous to speak out.

  “In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act”. — Unknown

  

  

• BofAML Explains Why The Ag Economy Isn't Likely To Get Much Better In 2017

  The fact that farm incomes have come under increasing pressure over the past couple of years should come as little surprise to our readers (for those who missed our latest update, see: “Midwest Farm Bubble Continues Collapse As Farm Incomes Expected To Crash In 2017“).  Unfortunately, at least according to Bank of America’s Global Ag Chemical team led by Steve Byrne, farmers shouldn’t expect a reprieve any time in the near future.

  As BAML points out, the grain commodity farmers of the U.S. are locked in a vicious cycle, the result of which is a perpetually oversupplied market.  To summarize the key takeaways, farmers continue to plant so long as cash profits are positive (because depreciation isn’t a real cost and who cares about returns on capital anyway…silly finance people) while yield growth continues to outpace demand growth which leaves markets perpetually oversupplied and commodity prices well below what would be required to provide a normalized profit level for farmers.  Meanwhile, since farmers seem to be incapable of unilaterally reducing supply, an external supply shock (e.g. a weather-related event) seems to be the only hope of the industry ever normalizing again.

  With that, here is a little more detail on the vicious ag cycle per BAML…

  Yield growth per acre continues to average 1-2% per annum…

  Yields continue to improve with no sign of abatement as seed technology improves and farmers utilize better information technology (precision ag) to gain better understanding of acreage and maximize yield potential. While weather can disrupt yields year-to-year, directionally yields have improved at a 1-2% CAGR for corn, soy and wheat since 2000. In our view, this will continue to place deflationary pressure on crop prices longer-term, particularly given the extent to which global yields trail yields in more developed ag economies.

  

   

  …which continues to drive new record highs in production despite an already weak pricing environment.

  Global corn production is similarly heading for a new record high in 2016/17, up 7% YoY and driven mostly by an almost equally big rise in yields. The US 2016/17 crop that was just harvested looks especially strong. Concerns over whether ear filling was impeded by the hot and dry summer weather are now fading as the harvest is done and the USDA revised up its yield estimate by 1% to 11.01mt/ha in November. Meanwhile, in LatAm farmers are currently planting for the 2016/17 harvest and production looks even stronger, up 26% on presumed yield normalization and exacerbated by a 7% increase in acreage.

  

   

  Meanwhile, global corn demand is expected to recover somewhat in 2016/2017 but no where near the expected 7% supply increase.

  Global corn demand growth slowed to just 2% per annum in the past two years, due to a drop in global pork production. Corn is the staple diet of the word’s more than 1bn pigs. The decline in pork production was mainly caused by an environmental crackdown in the Chinese farming sector, and the country’s pork production fell by 3% in 2015 and another 5% likely in 2016.

   

  Then in March 2016, China ended its domestic corn price floor, giving relief to pig farmers, and corn demand started picking up again. Corn demand from pig production will continue to rise structurally in the years to come on the ramp-up of new modern mega farms in Northern China. Overall global corn demand can recover to 3% growth this market year (2016/17) and hold up at 2-3% growth annually in the years to come, in our view. However, we have started to see signs of slowing feed demand as elevated corn prices have led to substitution to other feeds, in some instances. Global feed demand levels will be key in determining the aggregate corn demand picture.

  

   

  All of which is expected to keep global grain stocks at all time highs for the foreseeable future…

  World carryout corn stocks are likely to finish 2016/17 at a record high, with stock-to-use ratios up marginally from the year prior. There is debate over the level of Chinese stocks, with estimates ranging from China’s corn reserve estimate of 270Mmt vs USDA estimate of ~110mn mt. The USDA expects Chinese corn production to decline by ~3% in 2016/17, and inventory levels to decline by ~8% in 2016/17 after swelling from 81mn mt in 2013/14 to 110mn mt in 2015/16. Recent policy aimed at reducing production out of lower-yielding regions could also help alleviate China’s elevated inventory position. Media reports have also indicated more than 900 companies have applied for import quotas for 2017, which could be supportive of global prices. USDA data suggests soybean inventories in China remain elevated as well and account for over 20% of global stocks (Chinese stocks to use ration remains well over 100%). China accounts for over 60% of global soybean imports, and thus inventory levels in China are a key factor in gauging global demand expectations. A clear indication of a drawdown in Chinese soybean stocks could provide price support, in our view. Nonetheless, China’s inventory levels, trade data and policy direction will remain key components of corn and soybean prices in the coming year.

  

  

   

  And, of course, as long as cash margins remain positive then farmers keep planting…which doesn’t do much for that weak pricing environment.

  Farm income, planted acres of row crops, and commodity prices all peaked in 2012 following the prior decade long super-cycle. Prior periods of ag credit cycle downturns lasted 5 years (68-72) and 9 years (83-91) while ag business cycle downturns have averaged 2 years since 1960. Inflation adjusted crop prices have been declining for over 100 years as gains in productivity (+1-2%) and acreage expansion (0-1%) outpace gains in demand (1-2%). New technologies such as precision agriculture and gene editing could accelerate productivity gains in the medium term. Cyclical upside could occur from increased demand for protein, reduced supply from marginal acres, or a weather event.

   

  We expect cash margins for corn, soybeans and wheat to collectively be slightly higher than the prior year, but well below the ~2007-2014 profitability boom amidst elevated prices. We expect crop commodity prices for each to remain low amid elevated global stocks. Profitability will also likely remain a challenge and at similar levels to prior year levels exacerbated by elevated leverage, with US farm debt to net cash income at its highest level since 1984.

   

  In our view, cash margins may have room to fall before seeing a rational supply response. Margins are still above breakeven levels that occurred 15 years ago (1999-2003) and not at levels that could drive meaningful changes in farmer behavior, such as walking away from land rent or simply not planting acres in a given year.

  

   

  But, at least farmers have that whole trade war with Mexico to look forward to…luckily Mexico is just our second largest corn importer…

  In our view, the risk of a trade war with key importers of US crops remains a key risk for the US ag economy. Trade with China (14.8%) and Mexico (13.6%) represent top destinations for US ag export demand. Additionally, a potential border adjustment tax could significantly inflate fertilizer prices and together with lower grain prices could further impair farmer margins. Potential reform to the Renewable Fuel Standard is also a downside risk for US growers given 40% of domestic corn demand is derived from ethanol. A stronger USD resulting from proposed policies would also be a headwind for US growers. Washington will remain critical for agriculture with upside risks being the status quo and downside risks being more meaningful.

  

  

   

  It’s pretty rough when your only hope of making money in your chosen profession will come only after a devastating weather event that may or may not force you into bankruptcy.

  

  

• Boston Dynamics Unveils Its Latest "Nightmare-Inducing" Robot

  One year ago, when we showed readers the SkyNet-like robots produced by Boston Dynamics, a company acquired by Google in 2013 (which then tried to flip it to Toyota last year but reportedly failed)  we called the robotic creations “terrifying.” Little did we know that compared to Boston Dynamics’ next spawn, that particular batch was downright Johnny 5-friendly by comparison. Because after being briefly shown off at an event early this month, the robotic designed has officially revealed its latest creation, “Handle,” which the company’s founder previously described as “nightmare-inducing.”

  Four weeks ago, Boston Dynamics – which is best known for its bipedal and quadrupedal robots – revealed it had been experimenting with some radical new tech: the wheel. The company named its new wheeled, upright robot is named Handle (“because it’s supposed to handle objects”) and looks like a cross between a Segway and the two-legged Atlas bot according to the Verge. Handle, which had not been officially unviled yet, was shown off by company founder Marc Raibert in a presentation to investors. Footage of the presentation was uploaded to YouTube by venture capitalist Steve Jurvetson.

  Creating a more efficient robot that can, pardon the pun, handle basic tasks like moving objects around a warehouse would certainly be of benefit for Boston Dynamics. Although the company has consistently wowed the public with its robots, it’s struggled to produce a commercial product that’s ready for the real world. That may soon change.

  Raibert described Handle as an “experiment in combining wheels with legs, with a very dynamic system that is balancing itself all the time and has a lot of knowledge of how to throw its weight around.” He added that using wheels is more efficient than legs, although there’s obviously a trade-off in terms of maneuvering over uneven ground.

  “This is the debut presentation of what I think will be a nightmare-inducing robot,” said Raibert.

  He wasn’t kidding: as the video below reveals, Handle is officially about 6 foot 5, weights about 100lbs, and can roll around at around 9 mph, while preserving perfect balance and even engaging in complex aerial acrobatics: Handle can keep its balance over rough terrain, and can even jump 4 feet in the air, as well as going down stairs without an issue.

  While we are confident Amazon will promptly order a few thousands of these to bring even more streamline automation and efficiency to its behemoth warehouses while putting countless part-time workers out of work, we don’t know if to dread or yearn for the moment when RoboHandle emerges in a quiet patrol of your neighborhood street, armed and ready to use lethal force, and gradually replacing the local police force around the country.

  

  

• Up-Ending The Fed – Can Trump Reshape The Most Powerful Central Bank In The World?

  Via Danielle DiMartino Booth of DiMartinoBooth.com,

  

  “Remember Red, hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies.”

  Wiser words were never spoken on the big screen than those of The Shawshank Redemption’s main character Andy Dufrense. We are none of us beyond redemption, so we are taught by this banker from Maine, even when we are punished for crimes we did not commit. In briefly researching the movie, one comes to learn that it is based on Stephen King’s 1982 novella Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption. No doubt, Hayworth’s role in the movie stands out in all our minds, which is saying something as the superstar was no longer with us.

  Dig deeper and you learn that King’s longer than a short story, but shorter than a novel, was part of a series called, Different Seasons, subtitled Hope Springs Eternal. How reassuring if enigmatic. More perplexing still is this master of the horror genre’s inspiration — Leo Tolstoy’s God Sees the Truth, But Waits. It would seem that Carrie has met Anna Karenina.

  Clearly, it’s easier to judge those who write books by their most famous covers. But why not set such preconceived notions aside. You too can bask in King’s gorgeous prose from Shawshank and even Tolstoy’s beautiful words of inspiration: “If you want to be happy, be.” And redemption: “Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.”

  These words resonate so against the backdrop of a country that remains intent on fomenting division, on splitting itself at the seams, bent on self-destruction. Perhaps it will have to come down to one man and his ability to change himself, to draw in more than his avid followers but his doubters as well.

  For yours truly, it has thus been curious, nay fascinating that on matters of the Federal Reserve one Donald J. Trump has been silent as a mouse whose paws cannot bang out 140-character rants. Perhaps, just maybe, he is busy doing late night reading on the foundations of this venerable institution. If that’s the case, maybe he came across this little gem that was passed along recently:

  “In selecting the members of the Board, not more than one of whom shall be selected from any one Federal Reserve district, the President shall have due regard to a fair representation of the financial, agricultural, industrial, and commercial interests, and geographical divisions of the country.”

  Maybe that’s why the media has begun to dispense with the labels “hawk” and “dove” and is beginning to replace the aviary with simple human beings who have been there and done that, who have been on the receiving end of Fed policy for their entire careers. Take this from Kate Davidson at the Wall Street Journal:

  “After his campaign criticism of the central bank’s low-interest-rate policies, many observers speculated he would seek more “hawkish” candidates who would favor higher borrowing costs. But his choices may be driven less by these issues and more by their practical experience, judging from his early picks for other top economic policy posts in the administration—drawn from investment banking, private equity and business—and the pool of early contenders for the Fed jobs.” 

  Meanwhile, the Financial Times’ Gavyn Davies had this to say:

  “The last four Fed Chairs have all been clearly on the economist side of the line, and because they have all bought into the Fed’s economic orthodoxy, their actions have been considered somewhat predictable by the markets. A business person or banker might be less predictable, at least initially, and more prone to shake up the Fed’s orthodoxies, for good or ill.”

  With deference to Mr. Davies, there can be no ‘for ill’ in shaking up the Fed’s orthodoxies, if you can call them that. Orthodoxy, from the Greek word orthodoxia, implies officials are cleaving to a correct creed. But what if policymaking has devolved from correct to simply accepted?

  That would imply a good dose of heterodoxy, also Greek from heterodoxos, was in order, as in a departure from the official position. To be crystal clear, heterodoxy does not equate to heretical, from the Greek hairetikos, (pardon the digression but who gave the Greeks a monopoly on multisyllabic, cool words?). Even so, a bit of heresy would also do the Fed a world of wonders. The literal Greek translation means ‘able to choose.’

  A recent study determined the study of economics in academia had itself become incestuous with a great preponderance of students being trained in the same school of thought. This determination was not only disturbing and dangerous, it demands politicians introduce a bit of heresy into our nation’s central bank.

  Perhaps President Trump, his administration and all members of Congress should sit down for a tutorial on Heterodox Economics (nope, not making that one up), which refers to schools of economic thought which fall outside of mainstream — read Keynesian – economics, which is predictably referred to as orthodox economics. Maybe, just maybe, it’s high time a variety of schools are incorporated, as in the post-Keynesian, Georgist, social, behavioral and dare say, Austrian approaches.

  That last one, the Von Mises-inspired Austrian school of economics is apparently public enemy number one. The FT’s Davies goes on to warn that some candidates up for those open and opening positions on the Fed’s Board of Governors are ‘Austrian’ economists, “a school that has apparently influenced Vice President Pence. An “Austrian” candidate would certainly alarm the markets.”

  Davies has apparently done his homework. Back in 2010, one Mike Pence was serving in Congress as a representative of Indiana. In response to the Fed’s insistence on launching a second round of asset purchases, which the markets adoringly embraced as QE2, he blasted back that, “Printing money is no substitute for pro-growth fiscal policy.”

  Pence’s words certainly ring Austrian, as the school considers malinvestment to be a menace, as well any rational person would. Malinvestment (we can finally score one for the Latins!) is defined as a mistaken investment in wrong lines of production, which inevitably lead to wasted capital and economic losses, subsequently requiring the reallocation of resources to more productive uses.

  And we wonder why we’ve had such a long run of jobless recoveries that happens to coincide with the post-Greenspan era. Why would the markets abhor an Austrian? Clearly, we would not have starved productivity by overbuilding residential real estate in the years prior to the crisis. Nor would companies have gorged on record share buybacks in the years that followed. Agreed, these phenomena juiced returns. But to what end aside from protecting the legacy of the mythological ‘wealth effect’?

  As my dear friend Peter Boockvar wrote of the wealth effect in response to the Fed’s meeting minutes from its January meeting: “The concept, invented by Alan Greenspan, and carried on by Mr. Bernanke and Mrs. Yellen, is the unspoken third?mandate of the Fed. Well Fed, you certainly got what you wanted in terms of a dramatic rise in asset prices over the past 8 years (just look at the value of equities relative to the underlying US economy) but a wealth effect did not happen if the pace of personal spending in this expansion is any indication. For many, it’s the wages they earn and the savings they keep that drive spending decisions, not the value of their stock portfolios.”

  For taxpayers’ money, because they will pay in the end, it would seem we need Peter to fill one of those vacancies on the Fed’s Board. Just sayin’. Would the man who coined the term, ‘monetary constipation’ to describe the, “constant hemming and hawing over a rate hike…even in the face of a world that clearly changed on November 8th? and as we approach the 8th ?year of this expansion.”

  President Trump, can you hear Peter?? This is not the time to be obtuse. This is the time to bring back the good things in life, beginning with the best – hope. Dig as deep as you can and ask yourself some probing questions. Can you stand up to the orthodoxy that’s robbed the business cycle of its very cyclicality? Are you man enough to populate the Fed with leaders who are so strong there’s no need to audit the out-of-control institution? Pray God, does Mike Pence have your ear? You may be a debt kind of a guy, you’ve said so yourself. But you’re also beholden to no one and have a once-in-a-century opportunity to reshape the world’s most powerful central bank and in doing so safeguard the sanctity of the U.S. dollar.

  As Andy Dufrense explained to us all, “I guess it comes down to a simple choice, really. Get busy living or get busy dying.” It’s time we got back to the business of living in this country, every single one of us. Who are we to question if it takes a heretic to get us back to where we need to be?

  

  

• Gas Taxes Set To Surge In Roughly A Dozen States

  Nearly 20 states have raised gas taxes or recalculated gas-tax formulas in recent years to generate additional revenues.  Which, of course, is an extremely politically expedient way to raise taxes on the unsuspecting masses since when gas prices soar later those price increases can simply be blamed on those evil oil corporations.

  As the Wall Street Journal points out, the ease with which higher gas taxes have been passed through state governments over the past two years have emboldened at least a dozen more states, all of which are now actively considering additional gas taxes.

  Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam is putting his fellow Republican lawmakers to the test, with a plan to raise the state’s gas taxes for the first time in nearly three decades.

   

  In Alaska, Gov. Bill Walker, an independent, proposed tripling the state’s gas tax to 24 cents a gallon by 2018. The state has the lowest gas tax in the country and hasn’t raised it since 1970. In his recent state of the state address, Mr. Walker said he is trying to deal with a $3 billion fiscal gap, after state revenues collapsed by more than 80% from four years ago due in large part to the drop in oil and natural-gas prices.

   

  New Jersey’s Republican Gov. Chris Christie raised the state’s gasoline tax last year by 23 cents a gallon, his first tax hike in two terms as governor, which he offset with some other tax reductions.

   

  On Thursday, the Republican-dominated Indiana House voted 61 to 36 in favor of increasing the state gas tax from 18 cents a gallon to 28 cents with annual adjustment increases possible through 2024. The bill now goes to the state Senate.

  In yet another map that looks eerily similar to the 2016 electoral college map, here is where states currently stand on gas taxes.  Of course, the irony here is that the ultra-liberal states of the Northeast and West coast have the highest gas taxes…and while that might play well with their global warming narrative, gas taxes are among the most regressive forms of tax as they disproportionately impact lower-income families.  And unfortunately, unlike the cost of other goods and services that are driven to artificially high levels by misinformed government policies (did someone say Obamacare?), we suspect you’ll never see the leftist states of America subsidizing gasoline for poor people.

  

   

  Despite serving as an easy scapegoat, as the U.S. Energy Information Administration notes, only 48% of the price that Americans pay at the pump actually goes to the evil oil companies for crude production.  Meanwhile, on average, nearly 20% of gas costs get sent to various federal, state and local government entities with the highest taxed states like PA, WA, NY and CA collecting even more.

  

   

  But, higher gas problems aren’t a significant long-term threat because everyone will just buy an $80,000 Tesla, right?  And, for those reading this post from the state of California please continue to ignore the fact that your Tesla is fueled by coal…

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Curious Gold-Silver Ratio That Did Not Fall, Report 26 Feb, 2017

  This holiday-shortened week (Monday was President’s Day in the US), the price of the dollar fell. In gold, it fell almost half a milligram to 24.75mg, and prices in silver it dropped 30mg, to 1.7 grams of the white monetary metal. Flipped upside down, gold went up 23 notes from the Federal Reserve, and silver appears to go up by 41 cents.

  Below, we will show the only true picture of the gold and silver supply and demand fundamentals. But first, the price and ratio charts.

  The Prices of Gold and Silver
  

  Next, this is a graph of the gold price measured in silver, otherwise known as the gold to silver ratio. It moved sideways again this week, which would normally be odd for a time when the prices of the metals are rising.

  The Ratio of the Gold Price to the Silver Price
  

  For each metal, we will look at a graph of the basis and cobasis overlaid with the price of the dollar in terms of the respective metal. It will make it easier to provide brief commentary. The dollar will be represented in green, the basis in blue and cobasis in red.

  Here is the gold graph.

  The Gold Basis and Cobasis and the Dollar Price
  

  For a very long time, we would post graphs that looked almost the same. Oh, the specifics of month, price, and basis would be different. But they had a certain sameness. The price of the dollar (i.e. inverse of the price of gold, in dollar terms) would move along with the cobasis (i.e. scarcity of gold). So as the dollar would rise (i.e. the price of gold would fall), the scarcity would rise. And vice versa. This means changes in price were due to changes in behavior by speculators.

  And now we have a clear picture of … the opposite. The dollar has been falling since mid-December. And for that same time, the cobasis (scarcity of gold) has been rising.

  Yes, gold has been getting scarcer as it becomes pricier.

  How could this be possible? Doesn’t the law of supply and demand work for gold? You know, the standard “X” graph from Econ. 101?

  Gold has several unique properties. One is that it is not purchased for consumption, but for monetary reserves or jewelry (which in most of the world is monetary reserves). Contrast that to copper which is purchased by plumbing manufacturers to make pipe. It’s a competitive market, and if the price of copper plumbing goes up too much then home builders will switch to plastic. Demand drops as price rises. Also, the marginal copper mine will increase production. Supply rises as price rises. It is self-correcting.

  Gold, not being bought to consume, does not have a limit to demand as price rises. If anything a rising price (i.e. a falling currency) signals to people that holding gold is a good thing. They were wise to get out of their falling paper currency, and should consider buying more gold.

  Also, virtually all of the gold ever mined in human history is still in human hands. All of this gold is potential supply, at the right price and under the right conditions. Even if gold mining worked like copper mining, and miners could just produce more, changes in mine production at the margin are not material to the overall gold supply. By official estimates, the total inventory of gold would take over 70 years to be produced at current mine production rates (and we believe this is a low estimate).

  Readers may object that this question is a bit unfair, as any commodity can experience rising tightness and that will accompany its rising price for a while until the market can correct itself. That is true, but what we are looking at in gold is not that at all. When the market corrects itself—which we think is very likely, we do not see Armageddon just yet—it will not be because gold miners have cranked up their outputs, nor because gold users have substituted another metal. There is no substitute for monetary reservation, particularly as paper currencies are in the terminal stages of failure.

  Our calculated fundamental price is now up to almost $1,400.

  Now let’s look at silver.

  The Silver Basis and Cobasis and the Dollar Price
  

  The trend of falling dollar (i.e. rising price of silver) and rising cobasis (scarcity) is here in silver, too, but it’s weaker.

  Silver does not quite have the same stocks to flows ratio as gold, but it has far and away a higher ratio than copper or any ordinary commodity. That is why silver is the other monetary metal.

  The fundamental price of silver is now up to about $18.70. While this is over the market price of the metal, it’s not nearly so much above as gold.

  This is why we calculate a fundamental on the gold-silver ratio over 74.

  © 2017 Monetary Metals

  

• New Declassified CIA Memo Presents Blueprint for Syrian Regime Collapse

  Submitted by Brad Hoff via The Libertarian Institute,

  

  A newly declassified CIA document explored multiple scenarios of Syrian regime collapse at a time when Hafez al-Assad’s government was embroiled in a covert “dirty war” with Israel and the West, and in the midst of a diplomatic crisis which marked an unprecedented level of isolation for Syria.

  The 24-page formerly classified memo entitled Syria: Scenarios of Dramatic Political Change was produced in July 1986, and had high level distribution within the Reagan administration and to agency directors, including presidential advisers, the National Security Council, and the US ambassador to Syria. The memo appears in the CIA’s latest CREST release (CIA Records Search Tool) of over 900,000 recently declassified documents.

  A “severely restricted” report

  The memo’s cover letter, drafted by the CIA’s Director of Global Issues (the report itself was prepared by the division’s Foreign Subversion and Instability Center), introduces the purpose of presenting “a number of possible scenarios that could lead to the ouster of President Assad or other dramatic change in Syria.”

  It further curiously warns that, “Because the analysis out of context is susceptible to misunderstanding, external distribution has been severely restricted.” The report’s narrowed distribution list (sent to specific named national security heads, not entire agencies) indicates that it was considered at the highest levels of the Reagan administration.

  The coming sectarian war for Syria

  The intelligence report’s contents contain some striking passages which seem remarkably consistent with events as they unfolded decades later at the start of the Syrian war in 2011:

  Although we judge that fear of reprisals and organizational problems make a second Sunni challenge unlikely, an excessive government reaction to minor outbreaks of Sunni dissidence might trigger large-scale unrest. In most instances the regime would have the resources to crush a Sunni opposition movement, but we believe widespread violence among the populace could stimulate large numbers of Sunni officers and conscripts to desert or munity, setting the stage for civil war. [pg.2]

  The “second Sunni challenge” is a reference to the Syrian government’s prior long running war against a Muslim Brotherhood insurgency which culminated in the 1982 Hama Massacre. While downplaying the nationalist and pluralistic composition of the ruling Ba’ath party, the report envisions a renewal and exploitation of sectarian fault lines pitting Syria’s Sunni population against its Alawite leadership:

  Sunnis make up 60 percent of the Syrian officer corps but are concentrated in junior officer ranks; enlisted men are predominantly Sunni conscripts. We believe that a renewal of communal violence between Alawis and Sunnis could inspire Sunnis in the military to turn against the regime. [pg.12]

  Regime change and the Muslim Brotherhood

  The possibility of the Muslim Brotherhood spearheading another future armed insurgency leading to regime change is given extensive focus. While the document’s tone suggests this as a long term future scenario (especially considering the Brotherhood suffered overwhelming defeat and went completely underground in Syria by the mid-1980’s), it is considered one of the top three “most likely” drivers of regime change (the other scenarios include “Succession Power Struggle” and “Military Reverses Spark a Coup”).

  The potential for revival of the Muslim Brotherhood’s “militant faction” is introduced in the following:

  Although the Muslim Brotherhood’s suppression drastically reduced armed dissidence, we judge a significant potential still exists for another Sunni opposition movement. In part the Brotherhood’s role was to exploit and orchestrate opposition activity by other organized groups… These groups still exist, and under proper leadership they could coalesce into a large movement… …young professionals who formed the base of support for the militant faction of the Muslim Brotherhood; and remnants of the Brotherhood itself who could become leaders in a new Sunni opposition movement… [pp.13-14]

  The Brotherhood’s role is seen as escalating the potential for initially small Sunni protest movements to morph into violent sectarian civil war:

  Sunni dissidence has been minimal since Assad crushed the Muslim Brotherhood in the early 1980s, but deep-seated tensions remain–keeping alive the potential for minor incidents to grow into major flareups of communal violence… Excessive government force in quelling such disturbances might be seen by Sunnis as evidence of a government vendetta against all Sunnis, precipitating even larger protests by other Sunni groups…

   

  Mistaking the new protests as a resurgence of the Muslim Brotherhood, the government would step up its use of force and launch violent attacks on a broad spectrum of Sunni community leaders as well as on those engaged in protests. Regime efforts to restore order would founder if government violence against protestors inspired broad-based communal violence between Alawis and Sunnis. [pp.19-20]

  The CIA report describes the final phase of an evolving sectarian war which witnesses the influx of fighters and weapons from neighboring countries. Consistent with a 1983 secret report that called for a US covert operation to utilize then US-allied Iraq as a base of attack on Syria, the 1986 analysis says, “Iraq might supply them with sufficient weapons to launch a civil war”:

  A general campaign of Alawi violence against Sunnis might push even moderate Sunnis to join the opposition. Remnants of the Muslim Brotherhood–some returning from exile in Iraq–could provide a core of leadership for the movement. Although the regime has the resources to crush such a venture, we believe brutal attacks on Sunni civilians might prompt large numbers of Sunni officers and conscripts to desert or stage mutinies in support of dissidents, and Iraq might supply them with sufficient weapons to launch a civil war. [pp.20-21]

  A Sunni regime serving Western economic interests

  While the document is primarily a theoretical exploration projecting scenarios of Syrian regime weakening and collapse (its purpose is analysis and not necessarily policy), the authors admit of its “purposefully provocative” nature (see PREFACE) and closes with a list desired outcomes. One provocative outcome describes a pliant “Sunni regime” serving US economic interests:

  In our view, US interests would be best served by a Sunni regime controlled by business-oriented moderates. Business moderates would see a strong need for Western aid and investment to build Syria’s private economy, thus opening the way for stronger ties to Western governments. [pg. 24]

  Ironically, the Syrian government would accuse the United States and its allies of covert subversion within Syria after a string of domestic bombings created diplomatic tensions during the mid-1980’s.

  Dirty tricks and diplomacy in the 1980’s

  According to Patrick Seale’s landmark book, Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East, 1986 was a year that marked Syria’s greatest isolation among world powers as multiple diplomatic crises and terror events put Syria more and more out in the cold.

  The year included “the Hindawi affair”—a Syrian intelligence sponsored attempt to hijack and bomb an El Al flight to Tel Aviv—and may or may not have involved Nezar Hindawi working as a double agent on behalf of Israel. The foiled plot brought down international condemnation on Syria and lives on as one of the more famous and bizarre terror conspiracies in history. Not only were Syria and Israel once again generally on the brink of war in 1986, but a string of “dirty tricks” tactics were being utilized by Syria and its regional enemies to shape diplomatic outcomes primarily in Lebanon and Jordan.

  In March and April of 1986 (months prior to the distribution of the CIA memo), a string of still largely unexplained car bombs rocked Damascus and at least 5 towns throughout Syria, leaving over 200 civilians dead in the most significant wave of attacks since the earlier ’79-’82 war with the Muslim Brotherhood (also see BBC News recount the attacks).

  Patrick Seale’s book speculates of the bombings that, “It may not have been unconnected that in late 1985 the NSC’s Colonel Oliver North and Amiram Nir, Peres’s counter-terrorism expert, set up a dirty tricks outfit to strike back at the alleged sponsors of Middle East terrorism.”

  Consistency with future WikiLeaks files

  The casual reader of Syria: Scenarios of Dramatic Political Change will immediately recognize a strategic thinking on Syria that looks much the same as what is revealed in national security memos produced decades later in the run up to the current war in Syria.

  When US cables or intelligence papers talk regime change in Syria they usually strategize in terms of exploiting sectarian fault lines. In a sense, this is the US national security bureaucracy’s fall-back approach to Syria.

  One well-known example is contained in a December 2006 State Dept. cable sent from the US embassy in Syria (subsequently released by WikiLeaks). The cable’s stated purpose is to explore Syrian regime vulnerabilities and weaknesses to exploit (in similar fashion to the 1986 CIA memo):

  PLAY ON SUNNI FEARS OF IRANIAN INFLUENCE: There are fears in Syria that the Iranians are active in both Shia proselytizing and conversion of, mostly poor, Sunnis. Though often exaggerated, such fears reflect an element of the Sunni community in Syria that is increasingly upset by and focused on the spread of Iranian influence in their country through activities ranging from mosque construction to business.

  Another section of the 2006 cable explains precisely the same scenario laid out in the 1986 memo in describing the increased “possibility of a self-defeating over-reaction” on the part of the regime.:

  ENCOURAGE RUMORS AND SIGNALS OF EXTERNAL PLOTTING: The regime is intensely sensitive to rumors about coup-plotting and restlessness in the security services and military. Regional allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia should be encouraged to meet with figures like [former Vice President Abdul Halim] Khaddam and [younger brother of Hafez] Rif’at Asad as a way of sending such signals, with appropriate leaking of the meetings afterwards. This again touches on this insular regime’s paranoia and increases the possibility of a self-defeating over-reaction.

  And ironically, Rif’at Asad and Khaddam are both mentioned extensively in the 1986 memo as key players during a speculative future “Succession Power Struggle.” [p.15]

  An Islamic State in Damascus?

  While the 1986 CIA report makes a case in its concluding paragraph for “a Sunni regime controlled by business-oriented moderates” in Syria, the authors acknowledge that the collapse of the Ba’ath state could actually usher in the worst of all possible outcomes for Washington and the region: “religious zealots” might seek to establish “an Islamic Republic”. The words take on a new and special importance now, after the rise of ISIS:

  Although Syria’s secular traditions would make it extremely difficult for religious zealots to establish an Islamic Republic, should they succeed they would likely deepen hostilities with Israel and provide support and sanctuary to terrorists groups. [pg.24]

  What continues to unfold in Syria has apparently surpassed even the worst case scenarios of intelligence planners in the 1980’s. Tinkering with regime change has proven itself to be the most dangerous of all games.

  

  

• Maine Drops 9,000 From Food Stamps After Refusal To Comply With Work Requirements

  Republican Governor Paul LePage dared to begin enforcing Maine's volunteer and work requirements for food stamp (SNAP) recipients to keep their benefits. The end result was more than 9,000 non-disabled adults getting dropped from the program.

   

  

  As CNS News' Eric Schiener reports, a Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) spokesman tells the Associated Press that 12,000 non-disabled adults were in Maine’s SNAP program before Jan. 1 – a number that dropped to 2,680 by the end of March…

  The rules prevent adults, who are not disabled and do not have dependents, from receiving food stamps for more than three months unless they work at least 20 hours a week, participate in a work-training program, or meet volunteer guidelines for 24 hours out of the month.

   

  Any one of those three minimums getting met will result in an individual to retain their SNAP food benefits.

   

  DHHS Commissioner Mary Mayhew said the goal of the requirements is to encourage people to find work.

   

  "If you're on these programs it means you are living in poverty and so the more that we can help incentive people on that pathway to employment and self-sufficiency the better off they're going to be," Mayhew told the Associated Press.

  In Maine, once someone loses their benefits, they cannot regain assistance for three years.

  Patriot Chronicle points out, in Maine, 9,000 able-bodied people who are supposedly too poor to feed themselves couldn’t seem to handle that. In addition, those who lose their benefits in such a manner can’t reapply for assistance for three years.

  Liberals have sold government dependence so deliberately well, that even doing 24 hours of approved volunteer work a month for a capable adult became too much for more than 9,000 people.

   

  Either the Liberals have truly brain washed the voting masses into droning zombies, or they’re really not that needy for food.

   

  Either way, the taxpayers who work hard for their paychecks, can feel some satisfaction at knowing they won’t have to support as much mediocrity as they used to.

  As we noted previoulsy, thanks to many years of accelerated growth in the program under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, 1 in 7 Americans now participate in the food stamp program.  There are, however, very large differences from state to state in how much the food stamp program has expanded. If we look at growth in the program from the year 2000 to 2015, we find growth varying from 641 percent growth in Nevada, to 54 percent growth in Wyoming:

  

  Regionally, the areas of the country with the most growth are the South and West:

  

   

  

  

• Citizen Militia Experiences Explosive Growth Following The Last Election

  Submitted by Daniel Lang via SHTFPlan.com,

  

  Until the 1990’s, civilian run volunteer militias weren’t all that common in the United States. They were the fringe of the fringe in our culture. But after Waco and Ruby Ridge, their ranks swelled and they became a common subject in the news and in pop culture.

  Their numbers fell again under President Bush, and then grew to new heights under President Obama.

  It’s an obvious pattern. Conservative militias multiply like crazy under Democratic presidents, and for good reason. When Democrats take the reigns of government, they always threaten to restrict gun ownership. They then decline under Republican administrations, when conservatives don’t feel as threatened.

  However, there may be a new trend emerging. CBS Atlanta recently did a piece on a militia called the Three Percenter Security Force (which obviously showed them in slightly negative light, given the source).

  http://WGCL.images.worldnow.com/interface/js/WNVideo.js?rnd=368994077;hostDomain=www.cbs46.com;playerWidth=630;playerHeight=355;isShowIcon=true;clipId=13125889;flvUri=;partnerclipid=;adTag=News;advertisingZone=;enableAds=true;landingPage=;islandingPageoverride=;playerType=STANDARD_EMBEDDEDscript;controlsType=fixed

  CBS46 News

  The organization is run by Marine Corps veteran Chris Hill, who says that their membership has grown from a few dozen, to roughly 400 members since November.

  The Marine told CBS that the militia would protect the Second Amendment under any administration, and that “The government or law enforcement agencies, disarming people, it’s a constant threat.”

  That doesn’t sound very different from the stated objectives of any conservative militia that has emerged since the 90s. So why is this militia’s membership growing so drastically during the early stages of a Republican administration? What’s different this time? The answer may lie in how the Left has responded to Trump being elected. According to Hill:

  “The level of violence I see coming from these protests is alarming, I think that creates more of a need for people like us to be there,” Hill said.

   

  Hill says, just as anti-Trump supporters have a right to organize and protest, his group wants to show their presence.

   

  “We have a duty to protect, our freedom, our liberty, our constitutional Republic.” Hill said. “That responsibility can’t be deferred to you know Congress.”

  So radical leftists and conservative militias are experiencing explosive growth at the same time, and neither of them are afraid to present themselves in the streets of America. While I do support the rights of militias, I have to say that this probably won’t end well.

  

  

• America's Border Patrol Budget: Spot The Obama Difference

  President Trump's crackdown in illegal immigration means more wall-building, more ICE agents, and a notably bigger budget for the border patrol program. As the following chart shows, that would be an extreme departure from the stagnant spending on our nation's borders by President Obama.

  As Statista's Dyfed Loesche notes, the overall enacted budget for the U.S. Border Patrol program has risen steadily since the 1990s… until 2011 – when President Obama appeared to kill any further spending…

  

  You will find more statistics at Statista

  Of course this budget entails spending for patrolling on all national borders. But it is perhaps noteworthy that the number of deportations plunged under president Obama…Under President Obama, the peak was reached in 2012 when almost 410,000 illegal immigrants were deported but it dipped in 2013, falling to 368,644.

  

  You will find more statistics at Statista

   

  Despite a surge in the number of immigrants during the same period of border patrol budget constraint…

  

  You will find more statistics at Statista

  Probably just a coincidence… or was that the plan all along?

  

  

• Welcome Aboard… But First US Marshals Will Scan Your Retina

  Submitted by Jeffrey Tucker via The Foundation for Economic Education,

  For some 15 years, airport security has become steadily more invasive. There are ever more checkpoints, ever more requests for documents as you make your way from the airport entrance to the airplane. Passengers adapt to the new changes as they come. But my latest flight to Mexico, originating in Atlanta, presented all passengers with something I had never seen before.

  We had already been through boarding pass checks, passport checks, scanners, and pat downs. At the gate, each passenger had already had their tickets scanned and we were all walking on the jet bridge to board. It’s at this point that most people assume that it is all done: finally we can enjoy some sense of normalcy.

  This time was different. Halfway down the jetbridge, there was a new layer of security. Two US Marshals, heavily armed and dressed in dystopian-style black regalia, stood next to an upright machine with a glowing green eye. Every passenger, one by one, was told to step on a mat and look into the green scanner. It was scanning our eyes and matching that scan with the passport, which was also scanned (yet again).

  Like everyone else, I complied. What was my choice? I guess I could have turned back at the point, decline to take the flight I had paid for, but it would be unclear what would then happen. After standing there for perhaps 8 seconds, the machine gave the go signal and I boarded.

  I talked to a few passengers about this and others were just as shaken by the experience. They were reticent even to talk about it, as people tend to be when confronted with something like this.

  I couldn’t find anyone who had ever seen something like this before. I wrote friends who travel internationally and none said they had ever seen anything like this.

  I will tell you how it made me feel: like a prisoner in my own country. It’s one thing to control who comes into a country. But surveilling and permissioning American citizens as they leave their own country, even as they are about to board, is something else.

  Where is the toggle switch that would have told the machine not to let me board, and who controls it? How prone is it to bureaucratic error? What happens to my scan now and who has access to it?

  The scene reminded me of movies I’ve seen, like Hunger Games or 1984. It’s chilling and strange, even deeply alarming to anyone who has ever dreamed of what freedom might be like. It doesn’t look like this.

  Why Now?

  I’ve searched the web for some evidence that this new practice has been going on for a while and I just didn’t notice. I find nothing about it. I’ve looked to find some new order, maybe leftover from the Obama administration, that is just now being implemented. But I find nothing.

  Update: a reader has pointed me to this page at Homeland Security:

  As part of U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) border security mission, the agency is deploying new technologies to verify travelers’ identities – both when they arrive and when they leave the United States – by matching a traveler to the document they are presenting. CBP’s goal is to enhance national security and protect a traveler’s identity against theft through the use of biometrics.

   

  Biometric information (such as finger, face, or iris) measures a person’s unique physical characteristics. CBP incorporated fingerprints for biometric identification and verification in 2004, and is now testing facial and iris imaging capabilities to help improve travelers’ identity protection, the integrity of our immigration system, and our national security.

  I happened to be on the "one daily flight" that gets exit scanned.

  Another change has to do with new rules for Homeland Security just imposed by the Trump administration. They make deportation vastly easier for the government. I have no idea if these rules are the culprit for intensified emigration checks.

  What people don’t often consider is that every rule that pertains to immigration ultimately applies to emigration as well. Every rule that government has to treat immigrants a certain way also necessarily applies to citizens as well.

  Chandran Kukathas is right when he says that “controlling immigration means controlling everyone.”

  Regulating immigration is not just about how people arrive, but about what they do once they have entered a country. It is about controlling how long people stay, where they travel, and what they do. Most of all, it means controlling whether or not and for whom they work (paid or unpaid), what they accept in financial remuneration, and what they must do to remain in employment, for as long as that is permitted. Yet this is not possible without controlling citizens and existing residents, who must be regulated, monitored and policed to make sure that they comply with immigration laws.

  To be sure, there might have been some tip off that security officials received that triggered these special measures for this flight only. Maybe they were looking for something, someone, in particular. Maybe this was a one-time thing and will not become routine.

  The point is that it happened without any change in the laws or regulations. Whatever the reason, it was some decision made by security. It can happen on any flight for any reason. And who is in charge of making that decision?

  On the plane, finally, my mind raced through the deeper history here. Passports as we know them are only a little over a century old. In the late 19th century, the apotheosis of the liberal age, there were no passports. You could travel anywhere in the world through whatever means you could find. Nationalism unleashed by World War I ended that.

  And here we are today, with ever more controls, seeming to follow Orwell’s blueprint for how to end whatever practical freedoms we have left. And we are going this way despite the absence of any real crisis, any imminent threat? The driving force seems to be this: our own government’s desire to control every aspect of our lives.

  Think of it: there might be no getting out of the country without subjecting yourself to this process. It's a digital Berlin Wall. This is what it means to put “security” ahead of freedom: you get neither.

  

  

• Truth… Hurts

  What a difference one word can make…

   

  

  Source: Townhall.com

  

  

• Intellectual Intolerance – Stunning Speech From Stanford University Provost Exposes "The Threat From Within"

  In a remarkable – for its honesty and frankness – statement on the intellectual rot within America's Ivory Towers, Stanford University Provost John Etchemendy lay bare the challenges that higher education face in the coming, increasingly divisive, years.

  The Threat From Within

  Universities are a fundamental force of good in the world. At their best, they mine knowledge and understanding, wisdom and insight, and then freely distribute these treasures to society at large. Theirs is not a monopoly on this undertaking, but in the concentration of effort and single-mindedness of purpose, they are truly unique institutions. If Aristotle is right that what defines a human is rationality, then they are the most distinctive, perhaps the pinnacle, of human endeavors.

   

  I share this thought to remind us all why we do what we do – why we care so much about Stanford and what it represents. But I also say it to voice a concern. Universities are under attack, both from outside and from within.

   

  The threat from outside is apparent. Potential cuts in federal funding would diminish our research enterprise and our ability to fund graduate education. Taxing endowments would limit the support we can give to faculty and the services we can provide our students. Indiscriminate travel restrictions would impede the free exchange of ideas and scholars. All of these threats have intensified in recent years – and recent months have given them a reality that is hard to ignore.

   

  But I’m actually more worried about the threat from within. Over the years, I have watched a growing intolerance at universities in this country – not intolerance along racial or ethnic or gender lines – there, we have made laudable progress. Rather, a kind of intellectual intolerance, a political one-sidedness, that is the antithesis of what universities should stand for. It manifests itself in many ways: in the intellectual monocultures that have taken over certain disciplines; in the demands to disinvite speakers and outlaw groups whose views we find offensive; in constant calls for the university itself to take political stands. We decry certain news outlets as echo chambers, while we fail to notice the echo chamber we’ve built around ourselves.

   

  This results in a kind of intellectual blindness that will, in the long run, be more damaging to universities than cuts in federal funding or ill-conceived constraints on immigration. It will be more damaging because we won’t even see it: We will write off those with opposing views as evil or ignorant or stupid, rather than as interlocutors worthy of consideration. We succumb to the all-purpose ad hominem because it is easier and more comforting than rational argument. But when we do, we abandon what is great about this institution we serve.

   

  It will not be easy to resist this current. As an institution, we are continually pressed by faculty and students to take political stands, and any failure to do so is perceived as a lack of courage. But at universities today, the easiest thing to do is to succumb to that pressure. What requires real courage is to resist it. Yet when those making the demands can only imagine ignorance and stupidity on the other side, any resistance will be similarly impugned.

   

  The university is not a megaphone to amplify this or that political view, and when it does it violates a core mission. Universities must remain open forums for contentious debate, and they cannot do so while officially espousing one side of that debate.

   

  But we must do more. We need to encourage real diversity of thought in the professoriate, and that will be even harder to achieve. It is hard for anyone to acknowledge high-quality work when that work is at odds, perhaps opposed, to one’s own deeply held beliefs. But we all need worthy opponents to challenge us in our search for truth. It is absolutely essential to the quality of our enterprise.

   

  I fear that the next few years will be difficult to navigate. We need to resist the external threats to our mission, but in this, we have many friends outside the university willing and able to help. But to stem or dial back our academic parochialism, we are pretty much on our own. The first step is to remind our students and colleagues that those who hold views contrary to one’s own are rarely evil or stupid, and may know or understand things that we do not. It is only when we start with this assumption that rational discourse can begin, and that the winds of freedom can blow.

  We wish John well in his future endeavors as we are sure there will be a groundswell of hurt feelings demanding his resignation for dropping another truth bomb on their safe space.

  

  

  

• White House Launches Surprise Phone Checks On Staffers To Find "Leaker"

  In yet another ironic twist, the process (including random phone checks overseen by White House lawyers) by which Sean Spicer is cracking down on leaks from The White House has been leaked to Politico.

  

  The push to snuff out leaks to the press comes after a week in which President Donald Trump expressed growing frustration with the media and the unauthorized sharing of information by individuals in his administration, and as was leaked to Politico…

  Last week, after Spicer became aware that information had leaked out of a planning meeting with about a dozen of his communications staffers, he reconvened the group in his office to express his frustration over the number of private conversations and meetings that were showing up in unflattering news stories, according to sources in the room.

   

  Upon entering Spicer’s second floor office, staffers were told to dump their phones on a table for a “phone check," to prove they had nothing to hide.

   

  The phone checks included whatever electronics staffers were carrying when they were summoned to the unexpected follow-up meeting, including government-issued and personal cell phones.

   

  Notably, Spicer explicitly warned staffers that using texting apps like Confide – an encrypted and screenshot-protected messaging app that automatically deletes texts after they are sent – and Signal, another encrypted messaging system; was a violation of the Federal Records Act, according to multiple sources in the room.

  Spicer also warned the group of more problems if news of the phone checks and the meeting about leaks was leaked to the media – so much for that.

  It's not the first time that warnings about leaks have promptly leaked. The State Department's legal office issued a four-page memo warning of the dangers of leaks — that memo was immediately posted by the Washington Post.

   

  

  
  As a reminder, the costs of being caught are severe…

  First, there’s the prohibition against disclosure of classified information. This is the obvious one, since any publication of classified material to an unauthorized party is illegal. Under the Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. § 798, a person guilty of this can end up in prison for 10 years and face a fine. If the leaks involved classified information that was sent to members of the press, the source could end up behind bars if they’re caught. Opponents of Hillary Clinton argued that she violated this with her handling of emails on a private server, but the FBI determined they did not have a strong enough case to prosecute. As LawNewz.com contributor Philip Holloway wrote, the information regarding Flynn’s wiretapped phone calls is Signals Intelligence (SIGINT), which is highly classified, so if one of the “current and former U.S. officials” is identified, they could be in trouble.

  The form of the leaks could also determine whether additional charges appropriate. If information was merely spoken to a reporter, that’s one thing, but if actual files or physical materials were transferred, then 18 U.S.C. § 641 could kick in. That law says that anyone who steals or provides for another person’s use “any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency” is guilty of a crime. If a source of a government leak turned over a physical record, they could face 10 years in prison and a fine for it.

  In addition to laws against revealing certain information, if the President discovers a source behind a leak, they could face additional charges if they lie about it. Besides perjury, which applies to anyone who lies under oath, false statements or covering up material facts in a federal investigation, either by the Department of Justice of Congress, can lead to five years in prison.

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Hillary Clinton Calls For 'Resistance': "We Need To Stay Engaged… I'll Be With You Every Step Of The Way"

  Submitted by Mac Slavo via SHTFPlan.com,

  Last month we noted that Hillary Clinton is looking to start her own “fabulous” TV show in an effort to remain relevant following a disastrous Presidential election loss in 2016. The show, according to an insider, would be “completely controlled” and will likely focus on undermining the efforts of President Donald Trump, while whipping her supporters into a frenzy.

  Now, in a three minute video address to fellow Democrats, the former Secretary of State says she is going to keep the fight going with the help of former President Barrack Obama and his wife Michelle, who incidentally, recently started their own organization aimed at marginalizing the new Trump administration.

  The challenges we face as a party and a country are real. So, now more than ever, we need to stay engaged in the field and online, reaching out to new voters, young people and everyone who wants a better, stronger and fairer America.

   

  We as Democrats must move forward with courage, confidence and activism, and stay focused on the elections we must win this year and next.

   

  Let resistance plus persistence equal progress for our party and our country.

   

  …Keep fighting and keep the faith… and I’ll be right there with you every step of the way.

  As we reported earlier this week, tens of millions of dollars are actively being funneled into so called non-profit organizations who are involved in a variety of activities that include direct attacks on the alternative media which tanked Hillary’s Presidential run, infiltration of the Trump White House, and instigation of purported “grass roots” movements through the use of paid agitators like the anonymous provocateurs we recently saw at protests in Berkeley, California.

  Make no mistake, Hillary Clinton is running for President in 2020 and the video you just watched is the opening salvo in a conflict that is designed to divide and conquer the American people.

  

  

• America's Fentanyl Crisis "Is Surging, With No End In Sight"

  Having surpassed gun homicides for the first time in 2015, the epidemic of heroin and opioid related deaths in the US continues to grow. Amid the dismal failure of the 'war on drugs', it seems US lawmakers are finally waking up to reality, and are pressing the nation’s drug czar for more data on the dangerous synthetic opioid fentanyl, including how it is trafficked and how many people it has killed, in the latest effort to thwart a spiraling drug crisis.

  

  A recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report shows that nearly 5,000 more people died from opioids in 2015 than in 2014. Both heroin and opioid use have exploded in the US, after decades of doctors over-prescribing painkillers in the 1990s and 2000s. A report from the CDC released Thursday found that the drug problem has become so deadly that heroin deaths outnumbered gun fatalities last year for the first time in US history. Until 2007, gun deaths outnumbered heroin deaths five to one, according to the Washington Post. But 2015 saw 12,989 people die from heroin and 12,979 die from gun homicides.

  And now, as The Wall Street Journal reports, America's politicians are finally spotting a problem with this trend. Last week, a bipartisan group of U.S. senators filed a measure, the Synthetics Trafficking and Overdose Prevention Act, that seeks to curb shipments of synthetic drugs such as fentanyl by tightening U.S. postal system requirements for packages coming from other countries.

  “The national opioid crisis is being compounded by the re-emergence of illicit fentanyl and its analogues, which are synthetic opioids far more potent than morphine or heroin,” said Mario Moreno Zepeda, a spokesman for the Office of National Drug Control Policy. “Given the urgency of the opioid overdose epidemic, we will reply to the Committee’s inquiries promptly.”

   

  The four-page letter from the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, signed by bipartisan committee leaders and reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, calls the fentanyl crisis a top oversight priority. Addressed to Kemp Chester, acting director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy and sent Thursday, the letter includes 15 questions such as how much fentanyl comes into the U.S. through the mail and how many counterfeit fentanyl pills authorities have seized.

   

  “On top of opioid overprescribing and heroin overdoses, we believe the United States is now facing another deadly wave: fentanyl,” said Tim Murphy, (R, Penn.) and Diana DeGette (D., Colo), chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee on oversight and investigations, in a statement. “We are urgently seeking answers to determine whether the federal government recognizes the unique threat of fentanyl.”

  

  Fentanyl has emerged as the chief drug threat in many parts of the country. Authorities believe it is pouring into the U.S. from China, sometimes with a stop in Mexico. The drug appeals to traffickers because it is made only with chemicals, and not the poppy plants needed for heroin, making it cheap and easy to produce.

   

  The synthetic narcotic is also extremely potent, potentially 50 times the strength of heroin, ratcheting up the risks for users. Some take it unexpectedly because dealers may mix it into the heroin supply, or press it into fake versions of prescription pain pills that are supposed to contain a much less powerful narcotic.

   

  Fentanyl played a major role in driving opioid deaths in the U.S. up nearly 16% to 33,091 in 2015, according to the most recent federal data, and hard-hit states have reported even more grim statistics for 2016.

  An Energy and Commerce aide said the fentanyl crisis “is surging, with no end in sight,” and that it is more than a footnote to the nation’s heroin problem.

  

  

• Vehicle Plows Into New Orleans Mardi Gras Parade, Injuring 28; Driver In Custody

  At least 28 people were injured on Saturday evening after a pickup plowed into a crowd during a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans, police said according to WDSU.  New Orleans Police Department spokeswoman Ambria Washington said that “initial reports show so far that about a dozen people are in critical condition.” She added that the number could increase as the investigation continues.

  #mardigras Video Of Aftermath 21 people injured (several in critical condition) after car crashed into people during Endymion parade. pic.twitter.com/pTppanyYFv

  — Brandi Saari (@brandilmelb) February 26, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  #mardigras MAN ARRESTED! for after car ploughs into crowd at Mardi Gras In New Orleans.Has Not been confirm yet Put Man might Been Drunk. pic.twitter.com/5xVZEI6tps

  — Brandi Saari (@brandilmelb) February 26, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  #mardigras Update News On car ploughs into crowd at Mardi Gras In New Orleans 21People Have been injured pic.twitter.com/SRgqM9NiFH

  — Brandi Saari (@brandilmelb) February 26, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  #mardigras Update News On car ploughs into crowd at Mardi Gras In New Orleans pic.twitter.com/vLmxBqNiOL

  — Brandi Saari (@brandilmelb) February 26, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  #mardigras Police say 21 injured after vehicle drives into crowd during New Orleans Mardi Gras celebrations pic.twitter.com/WkQwqLELij

  — Brandi Saari (@brandilmelb) February 26, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  New Orleans police said the crash happened around 7 p.m. at Orleans and Carrollton avenues, where the Krewe of Endymion parade rolled through. According to CNN the driver is in police custody.

  Police Chief Michael Harrison said it appeared the suspect, who was driving a pickup truck that hit two cars before running into the crowd, was likely highly intoxicated. None of the injuries was life-threatening and there were no known fatalities, a source with direct knowledge of the incident told CNN.

  The CNN source said, “It appears to be a drunk driver,” and added there were no preliminary indications that it was a terrorism-related incident.

  One woman at the scene told The New Orleans Advocate that a silver truck whisked by her just feet away as she was walking through the intersection. Carrie Kinsella said, “I felt a rush it was so fast.”

  Twenty-year-old Kourtney McKinnis told the Advocate that the driver of the truck seemed almost unaware of what he had just done. “He was just kind of out of it,” she said.

  The incident occurred near the intersection of Orleans and Carrollton Avenues where the Krewe of Endymion parade was underway.

  Video from CNN affiliate WDSU showed a gray pickup truck that had run into a dump truck near the intersection.

  Photo of scene at #neworleans #MardiGras #breaking. Via https://t.co/7mZX0FK9FI pic.twitter.com/xoyNOTOf5N

  — Breaking Norfolk (@breakingnorfolk) February 26, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Witnesses told the station that the pickup came down one of the streets and struck several cars before hitting people in the crowd watching the parade.

  “I saw the gray truck flying down Carrollton Avenue,” a female witness told WDSU. “He sped up and he lost control and you could see was getting ready to turn and I knew he was going to run into all those people.”

  

  

• What First Amendment? Arizona Wants Power To Seize The Assets Of Protesters

  Submitted by James Holbrooks via TheAntiMedia.org,

  

  If Republicans in Arizona’s senate have their way, police in that state could soon have the power to seize assets and property from protesters, the Arizona Capitol Times reports.

  From a February 22 article:

  “Claiming people are being paid to riot, Republican state senators voted Wednesday to give police new power to arrest anyone who is involved in a peaceful demonstration that may turn bad — even before anything actually happened.

   

  “SB1142 expands the state’s racketeering laws, now aimed at organized crime, to also include rioting. And it redefines what constitutes rioting to include actions that result in damage to the property of others.

   

  “But the real heart of the legislation is what Democrats say is the guilt by association — and giving the government the right to criminally prosecute and seize the assets of everyone who planned a protest and everyone who participated.”

  Essentially, under this bill cops could arrest anyone at a demonstration that suddenly turns violent, however peaceful it might’ve started. They would even be able to target people who had nothing to do the property damage.

  Stephen Lemons, writing for the Phoenix New Times, covered a hearing on S.B. 1142 by Arizona’s Senate Judiciary Committee last week.

  Highlighting that certain senate Democrats “noted the obvious: that public protests often involve different groups with varying tactics,” he pointed out that, hypothetically, peaceful protesters could be held responsible “for the violent actions of a different faction or of individuals who act out while others remain calm.”

  But it gets even worse than that, as the Arizona Capitol Times pointed out Wednesday: “By including rioting in racketeering laws, it actually permits police to arrest those who are planning events.”

  Planning events. Meaning cops will have the authority to investigate activists before the demonstrations even take place.

  This is what Republican state senator Sonny Borrelli, the author of S.B. 1142, called targeting “the money source” in his defense of the bill before the committee meeting last week.

  Citing the conservative notion that a legion of privately funded progressive protesters is clogging up governmental works all over the country, Borrelli said the law would go after those “paid to go out and create this damage.”

  And if it takes cops infiltrating political groups on the taxpayers’ dime — on the razor-thin pretext of maybe preventing a potentially violent demonstration down the road — so be it, at least according to Republican attitudes in Arizona.

  “I should certainly hope that our law enforcement people have some undercover people there,” state senator John Kavanagh said, referring to police authority under S.B. 1142 to investigate political demonstrations while in the planning stages.

   

  “Wouldn’t you rather stop a riot before it starts?” he also said.

  Again, potential riot.

  The bigger issue at play, as noted by the Arizona Capitol Times, is the chilling effect such legislation would have on free speech. After all, if a person could get arrested for simply participating in a political demonstration — regardless of their own peaceful motives and actions — that person might decline to get involved.

  S.B. 1142 would actively enforce the notion of guilt by association. If would punish the innocent who are wishing only to exercise their right of free expression, all because of the actions of criminals.

  Such legislation would further complicate an environment of political unrest, made of both positive and negative forces, as State Senator Martin Quezada, Democrat out of Phoenix, highlighted Wednesday:

  “When people want to express themselves as a group during a time of turmoil, during a time of controversy, during a time of high emotions, that’s exactly when people gather as a community. Sometimes they yell, sometimes they scream, sometimes they go too far.”

  

  

• Gold, 10-Year Bond, Dollar Into FOMC (Video)

  By EconMatters

  
  

  

  We discuss the Gold Market, the 10-Year Bond Market, and the US Dollar Index in this market video going into the FOMC Meeting in three weeks. Is March a Live FOMC Meeting?

  © EconMatters All Rights Reserved | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Email Digest | Kindle   

  

• Trumpocalypse: Liberal Ivory Tower of Academia collapsing

  Universities in America have typically been dominated by a liberal
  bias.  Why is that?  Because, working for a University is sort of
  like working for the Government.  There is reason for the expression,
  those who can’t do – teach.  Grow a 2nd brain – understand why by reading THIS BOOK. 

  The mindset of employees at such insitutions is quite different
  than one might think.  We’re not going to name any names in this essay; this
  isn’t about a person or individual University.  It’s about the
  intellectual class, really the only public intellectual class in America with
  any respect; the Ivory Tower.  If you haven’t heard this expression
  before, it refers to the high brow raised lip attitude class of University
  Professors and their associates.  They have influence on every aspect of
  society.  They are like Adam Smith’s hidden hand – the subtle advisors who
  are secretly directing politics, big business, technology, and culture.
   Fortunately however, they don’t have any power, and don’t really control
  society, like the Illuminati do.  Their influence however should be noted;
  they’ve influenced Presidents of the United States, Bankers, the Media (most
  notably) and literally every aspect of human life in America.  I mean, who
  doesn’t trust and respect a University Professor?  They know what they’re
  doing – right?

  From Google:

  a state of privileged seclusion or separation from the facts and
  practicalities of the real world.

  “the ivory tower of academia”

  Now to be fair, not all University Professors are alike, we shant
  ‘profile’ them, as they profile individuals who have ideas they don’t like.
   There’s do-ers out there, especially around Silicon Valley where many
  have left their Ivory Tower positions to join startups or start them
  themselves.  But the Ivory Tower class remains; and it remained until the
  Trump victory in November – a major influence on society and hallmark of
  American culture.  But all that’s been shattered.  Their hidden
  influence on the media, should be noted by readers of Zero Hedge and other
  sites, people ‘in the know’.  Because they shape public opinion, possibly
  more than the CIA with all of it’s domestic mind-control operations.
   Venues like “NPR” and even “The Simpsons” are
  carefully crafted with leftist messages, agendas for open expansion of foreign
  affairs, expansion of government, anti-male value systems, and other
  ‘progressive’ ideas are implanted like seeds, waiting to grow like weeds when
  the next rain comes.  

  Here’s one example, how Academia helped the Media with their war
  against Trump.  Have you been hearing recently “Studies show
  that..” .. “Obamacare is more popular after the election“
   or some such nonsense.  Who are they polling?  They claim their
  polls aren’t biased, they are scientific.  But these are the polls and methods that had
  Trump losing by a landslide!

  What does this all mean?  We’re experiencing a
  major paradigm shift, (this is an Ivory Tower word, from Thomas Kuhn’s “The
  Structure of Scientific Revolutions – a must read for investors).

  As a bright example take
  a look at what Brian Nosek is doing to crack the glass bubble surrounding the Ivory Tower:

  Sometimes it seems surprising that science functions at all. In
  2005, medical science was shaken by a paper with the provocative title “Why most published research findings are false.” Written by John Ioannidis, a professor of medicine at Stanford
  University, it didn’t actually show that any particular result was wrong.
  Instead, it showed that the statistics of reported positive
  findings was not consistent with how often one should expect to find them. As Ioannidis concluded more recently, “many published research findings are false or exaggerated, and an
  estimated 85 percent of research resources are wasted.”  It’s likely that
  some researchers are consciously cherry-picking data to get their work
  published. And some of the problems surely lie with journal publication
  policies. But the problems of false findings often begin with researchers
  unwittingly fooling themselves: they fall prey to cognitive biases, common
  modes of thinking that lure us toward wrong but convenient or attractive
  conclusions. “Seeing the reproducibility rates in psychology and other
  empirical science, we can safely say that something is not working out the way
  it should,” says Susann Fiedler, a behavioral economist at the Max Planck
  Institute for Research on Collective Goods in Bonn, Germany. “Cognitive biases
  might be one reason for that.”  Psychologist
  Brian Nosek of the University of Virginia says that the most common and
  problematic bias in science is “motivated reasoning”: We interpret observations
  to fit a particular idea. Psychologists have shown that “most of our reasoning
  is in fact rationalization,” he says. In other words, we have already made the
  decision about what to do or to think, and our “explanation” of our reasoning
  is really a justification for doing what we wanted to do—or to believe—anyway.
  Science is of course meant to be more objective and skeptical than everyday
  thought—but how much is it, really?  I
  was aware of biases in humans at large, but when I first “learned” that they
  also apply to scientists, I was somewhat amazed, even though it is so obvious.  Whereas the falsification model of the
  scientific method championed by philosopher Karl Popper posits that the
  scientist looks for ways to test and falsify her theories—to ask “How am I
  wrong?”—Nosek says that scientists usually ask instead “How am I right?” (or
  equally, to ask “How are you wrong?”). When facts come up that suggest we
  might, in fact, not be right after all, we are inclined to dismiss them as
  irrelevant, if not indeed mistaken. The now infamous “cold fusion” episode in
  the late 1980s, instigated by the electrochemists Martin Fleischmann and
  Stanley Pons, was full of such ad hoc brush-offs. For example, when it was
  pointed out to Fleischmann and Pons that their energy spectrum of the gamma
  rays from their claimed fusion reaction had its spike at the wrong energy, they
  simply moved it, muttering something ambiguous about calibration.

  The implications for politics and the broader economy are huge.
   Studies, focus groups, corporate funded research retreats, are one of the
  Establishment’s, and the Ivory Tower’s biggest tools.  The election was a
  crack in the dam – it’s a proof that you can’t manipulate public opinion to fit
  your own.  But it’s far from the only crack, just the most obvious one.  What’s
  happening is a major system-wide Ivory Tower Psychosis, the most basic form of
  mental illness – but it’s happening at a class level, as a group.
   Emotionally injured leftists are fleeing to Canada, or promoting
  secession for California (which is really a good idea by itself, who needs a
  Federal government).  Reality is crashing down on them, as it doesn’t fit
  with ‘their reality’ – but ‘their reality’ was artificially created for
  decades, depending on how you calculate.. For decades, Establishment leaders like
  George Bush created their own reality with their power, and even called it the “Reality Based Community” that is, people who live in
  the bubble of the Ivory Tower:

  The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the
  reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe
  that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.”
  … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he
  continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own
  reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll
  act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s
  how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be
  left to just study what we do.”

  It’s like the Media’s recent admission that it’s the media’s job
  to control what people think.  Well, not exactly.

  The Ivory Tower Bubble has popped; and we’re seeing the casualties
  on a daily basis.  It’s certainly not the last establishment-class that
  we’re going to see crack from the pressure of reality.

  To
  learn how the Elite manipulate the news which in turn manipulates markets,
  checkout Splitting Pennies – Understanding Forex for only $6.11 on Amazon, also
  now available on your iPhone via Smashwords.

   

  Zero Hedge readers get 35% off Fortress Capital Trading Academy type
  coupon code spring17 when checking out, at www.fctradingacademy.com learn how
  the ‘real’ world works.

  

• Most Illegal Immigrants Live In America's Metropolitan Areas

  Having exposed $27 Billion reasons why a number of America's city officials are up in arms over President Trump's sanctuary city defunding decision, we thought it worth investigating just where the most illegal (or undocumented or unauthorized – pick your politically correct term) immigrants reside in America.

  Across America, there are over 300 governmental jurisdictions claiming "sanctuary status." Of those governments, there are 106 cities, while the rest are states, counties or other units of government.

  The new U.S. administration wants to overhaul America’s migration system, cracking down on undocumented migrants. As Statista's Dyfed Loeche reports, in total there are an estimated 11.1 million unauthorized migrants in the U.S. of which some 6.75 million took refuge in the big metropolitan areas, according to data collected by the Pew Research Center. Some of these metro areas have so-called sanctuary cities at their center.

  

  You will find more statistics at Statista

  Under Trump’s order, mayors defending their sanctuary city status are essentially imposing a defiance tax on local residents. On average, this tax amounts to $500 per man, woman and child. Major cities like Washington, D.C., New York and Chicago have the most to lose, and nearly $27 billion is at stake across the country.

  The threat of losing nearly $27 billion in federal funding seems to be having an effect on some cities. In fact, Miami already reversed their sanctuary city policy.

  

  

• Oscars Preview

  While uncertainty reigns over how many black or female actors will win tomorrow; there is one thing guaranteed – some self-righteous political preaching…

   

  

  Source: MichaelPRamirez.com

  

  

• A Two-State Solution… For The West?

  Submitted by Erico Matias Tavares via Sinclair & Co.,

  There's a cold war raging.

  No, not the one between the US and Russia. That’s old news.

  We're talking about the NEW cold war: the one for the soul of the West.

  On one corner we have the globalists, basically political and financial elites who after the disasters of World War II decided that eliminating borders was the way to ensure a peaceful future. Increasingly diverse (multicultural) societies would now be governed by supranational institutions, the only way to confront problems that are global in nature: environmentalism, terrorism, epidemics, consumerism and so forth. And much of this has become mainstream, with the powerful backing of the liberal media, the entertainment industry, much of academia and influential think tanks.

  

  While people from all political persuasions support this ideology, it appears to be more closely associated with the political left, sometimes from the hard left even, as shown by the picture above taken in a very progressive US neighborhood.

  On the other corner we have the nationalists (also known as patriots, populists, and deplorables). They took a good look at the downsides of that brave new (open) world and said to heck with its ongoing destruction of national identities, borders, traditional cultures and religion, and constant foreign military interventions especially when they are incapable of protecting their own borders from mass immigration.

  There is no question that 2016 was a pivotal year in this struggle, which is now playing out in the open.

  First the British voted to pull out of the European Union, against all odds. Then the Americans elected a brash Republican outsider for President, also against ‎all odds.

  After ceding cultural and political terrain for decades, the nationalists seem to be making a comeback. And now the cracks within Western countries are visible for anyone to see.

  Take the United States, the leader of the Free World. Here is a recent survey of the approval ratings of that outsider, President Donald Trump:

  

  Source: The Washington Post, ZeroHedge

  Notice the huge disparity between Republicans and Democrats. It could not be any more striking than this – and just a few weeks after Trump’s inauguration.

  This reflects of what is going on across much of the US, down to family and friends. It is clearly not confined to just “millennial snowflakes”, although these tend to be the loudest. Try walking in that very progressive US neighborhood wearing a 'Make America Great Again' cap and see how that cold war can turn ‎hot very quickly.

  The two sides no longer seem to agree on what a country is: if it should have borders, who has the rights and obligations in their societies and what it should stand for. Those are pretty basic – and fundamental – differences that look more and more irreconcilable by the day. Heck, there isn’t even an agreement on who is a woman and who is a man.

  So what can be done about this?

  Well, since everyone seems so keen in implementing a two-state ‎solution in the Israel-Palestine conflict, why not do the same across the West?

  With one key difference: these two “states” would remain formally linked through a very limited federal/national government. Mainland Chinese public officials even have a name for it: one country, two systems.

  If people in New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, Oregon and California want to become openly multicultural and consistently vote accordingly, why stop them? Let them welcome anybody they want and implement whatever education system, gender identifications and values they desire. Good for them. Provided of course that all this should be funded strictly by their own state and local taxes, which is only fair (no doubt very rich globalists like George Soros, Bill Gates and Richard Branson will gladly pitch in).

  On the other hand, if Texas and all others in flyover country believe they are entitled to bear arms, speak however they like in one language only, promote their values and culture and fully decide on who can live in their communities, what’s wrong with that? If you long to hear church bells on Sunday morning, sing the national anthem and use gender-segregated bathrooms you can always visit or move to those communities.

  

  Source: Prof. Mark Newman, Department of Physics and Center for the Study of Complex Systems, University of Michigan

  And that arrangement can be fined tuned further by going down to the county level, such that the views of local communities would be more accurately represented. In that case the map shown above provides an indication of how a two-state US could look like, with red being a proxy for the nationalist counties (i.e. majority Republican voters in the 2016 Presidential election).

  Similarly, the same concept could be implemented across the European Union. If Germans, Swedes, French and the Dutch want their countries or municipalities to go full multicultural, good for them. What they shouldn't do is impose their vision of the world through the supranational mechanisms of the European Union on the Poles, Hungarians, Finns and many others who do vigorously want to retain their culture and identities.

  And that’s what we have in every election cycle, with one party seeking to push its values onto the rest of society, which is increasingly divided and at odds with each other. So the pushback from either side is predictable. New “populist” movements across Europe already threaten the very existence of that federal government (except that in Europe’s case it is anything but limited), and they will not go away any time soon.

  This two-state system might be a seemingly fair way to achieve the best of both worlds, allowing both ideologies to coexist within a common governmental framework. A large scale version of Belgium if you like. But the reality is not so simple (just look at Belgium!)

  First, Western nations for the most have accumulated debts at the supra-regional level so large that apportioning them ‎between the two “states” is likely to be extremely contentious. With their sustainability already dubious in many cases, and without even considering all the crushing healthcare and retirement contingent liabilities, any division would be really problematic. As such the federal/national government would likely continue to be much larger than what would be desirable to disentangle differing political views.

   

  Second, transitioning into a multicultural society can be very problematic, as evidenced by the debate on Sweden’s immigration policies that has now gone viral, at least until a consensual set of rules and behaviors can be forged. The inherent security risks could force some parts of the other “states” to curtail the free flow of people. This is already happening in many parts of Europe as a result of the recent refugee crisis.

   

  Third, Western alliances would likely have to be redrawn along this split in Western aspirations. Donald Trump has more in common with Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán than Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, who will likely never welcome him in his city despite the special relationship between his country and the US.

   

  Indeed, Trump proposes core nationalistic values not too dissimilar from his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin (a key reason why the globalist media and intelligence are so keen to demonstrate a formal connection between the two). On the other hand, German Chancellor Angela Merkel – a hardcore globalist – could not be farther apart from either one.

   

  Fourth, how can each “state” coordinate on international commercial policies with the other one, as many companies have extensive operations across the two? This cold war is now spreading to the corporate sector, with some employees feeling alienated and consumers on each side threatening boycotts and sanctions. It has come to that.

   

  And finally, a divided West is a weak West. China is not worried about any of these existential social issues. Neither is Russia, Turkey or Iran‎. There aren’t any mainstream cultural hesitations in any of these countries (although each has its own fairly large share of dissidents, with good reason). As such, this split is a sure way to accelerate the erosion of the West's standing in global affairs, although the current state of affairs is not exactly helpful in that regard either.

  Let's have no illusions: this is a deep division and it's unlikely that we will ever return to a level of unity and understanding in Western societies like we had in the recent past. We're at a major crossroads in History.

  Will we be able to live together even if our backs are turned against each other, or will one side try to impose its will on the other with backlashes turning more violent each time? This will not be solved with simple calls for unity since the two sides are so far apart at this point.

  More importantly, which “state” will YOU choose?

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Retired Green Beret Warns "There Are Destabilizing Forces At Work Here"

  Submitted by Jeremiah Johnson (nom de plume of retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces) via SHTFPlan.com,

  

  As of this writing a tremendous number of things are happening in North Korea and Russia.  Although these are not events that seem momentous, they are quite profound when taken into consideration with the grand scheme: the worldwide plot to form a state of global governance.  These behind-the-scenes maneuverings are not in the forefront of the news; however, they are having effects within the nations mentioned and influencing their current actions.

  Almost a month ago, it was reported that one of the foremost militia commanders in the separatist-controlled Donbass area of Eastern Ukraine was assassinated via car bomb.  Then almost immediately afterward, just a few weeks later, the Chief of Staff of the Ukrainian Army of the Kiev government mysteriously died on duty of a “heart condition” although he was in his early fifties.  These “tit for tat” actions stimulated a new wave of fighting in the Eastern Provinces.

  The truce between the separatists and Kiev government has been violated without ceasing, primarily by the Ukrainian military under the direction of the US-sponsored president of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko.  At this time, there is an uneasy “stalemate” between the U.S. and Russia in a proxy war between the U.S-backed Kiev government and the Eastern Ukrainian separatists supported by Russia.

  Next, we have North Korea, where Kim Jong Un is ramping up the bellicose rhetoric against the U.S.  Yes, we have heard it before, but this time it is a little different.  On Monday, 45-year-old Kim Jong Nam, the half-brother of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il was assassinated in Malaysia.  Here is an excerpt of a report on it:

  “North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un’s half-brother was assassinated Monday in Malaysia, South Korean news agency Yonhap reported early Tuesday, citing a government source.  Kim Jong Nam was attacked by two unidentified women who stabbed him with “poisoned needles” at a Malaysian airport before fleeing, according to cable TV broadcaster TV Chosun.”

   

  Fox News World, 2/14/17

  Sounds “cut and dry” but examine the simplicity of the method of assassination (overly simplistic), and it yet becomes more complicated, as reported in another article:

  “The two female and four male suspects in the killing of Kim Jong-nam are hired assassins who did not know each other before they were brought together for the murder plot, a Malaysian security source has told the Telegraph.  The six suspects, most of whom are thought to be sleeper agents, were all living in Kuala Lumpur and were recruited and briefed for the hit by a secret agent point man or woman, the source, who did not want to be named, said.  Lawmakers in South Korea earlier cited their spy agency as saying it suspected two female North Korean agents had murdered Mr Kim. US government sources also said they believed North Korean assassins were responsible.”

   

  www.telegraph.co.uk  2/16/17

  A very complex plot for North Korean agents, wouldn’t you say?  It sounds pretty much “par for the course” for a Western intelligence agency, such as MI6 or the CIA.  The bio of the half-brother does not leave room for any “intentions” as reported by the US and South Koreans for the half-brother to try and displace Kim Jung Un.  The narrative is being “crafted” little by little in Western News Media sources, and take note of this excerpted report.  The article Navy fleet commanders: The next conflict hotspot is going to be in Korea, was released by Business Insider regarding developments with North Korea:

  “SAN DIEGO, Calif. — Two top Navy fleet commanders said Tuesday that the next potential conflict hotspot would likely be in Korea. “If there’s a fight tonight, it’s probably going to happen on the Korean peninsula,” said Vice Adm. Joseph Aucoin, commander of 7th Fleet, in a panel discussion at the AFCEA West 2017 conference.” 

  As the anti-ICBM missile systems are emplaced in South Korea and possibly Japan, the North Koreans have been test firing more submarine-launched ballistic missiles and have increased the war-rhetoric.  We view it from a “North Korea BS” perspective; however, it is a hotspot that is fostered by the globalists toward their own ends: a small piece in the puzzle but a potential flashpoint to trigger a world war.  North Korea may very well be the vehicle they use to initiate hostilities that ends the map of the world as it is now and places the ball in their court for global rule.

  Finally, we have what has been occurring with Russian diplomats.  There is an excellent report by Stefan Stanford at All News Pipeline released on entitled Are Russian Diplomats Being Assassinated? Globalists Continue March Towards World War 3 As Russian Ambassador To The UN Mysteriously Dies In New York.

  This report summarizes everything in astounding detail concerning the astonishing number of Russian Diplomats “buying the farm” since December of 2016.  There are no coincidences in “statecraft,” specifically the business of assassinations and counter-intelligence operations that “mutate” into those lines…specifically referring to those sponsored by governments.  These deaths do not even include other “accidents,” such as the death of Vladimir Putin’s chauffer last year who many believe was killed as a warning to Putin by Obama.

  As I have mentioned in previous articles, Sen. John McCain (R, AZ) is a major contributing factor to the chaos we’re seeing in Ukraine and Russia.  Cool heads are prevailing right now, and we have a President who is determined to make inroads with Russia and reset the relations with all of the nations that the State Department has left in shambles.  Still, there are forces at work here whose destabilizing efforts may lead to a different reaction than hoped for.  As long as globalist oligarchs such as Soros and the Rothschilds are operating, we can bank on continued destabilization and the creation of hot spots in addition to the three outlined in this article.

  

  

• Size Matters: Visualizing The Tallest Building In Each State

  The United States has some of the world’s tallest skyscrapers, but their distribution is extremely uneven. Today’s infographic comes from Highrises.com, and it covers the tallest building in each state.

  As Visual Capitalist's Jeff Desjardins explains, New York City alone has 6,229 highrises – more than the next nine cities combined, including Chicago, Los Angeles, Honolulu, San Francisco, Houston, Philadelphia, Washington D.C., Miami, and Dallas.

  Surprisingly, multiple states don’t have a single building over 200 feet (61 m) tall. The tallest building in Vermont is an 11-story apartment building called Decker Towers. South Dakota is nearly as quaint – the CenturyLink Tower in Sioux Falls is the tallest building in the state, but it’s also only 11 stories tall.

  TOP TEN LIST: THE TALLEST STATES

  Here is the building that tips the scale for each of the ten “tallest” states:

  

  TOP TEN LIST: THE SHORTEST STATES

  Here is what ranks as the tallest building for the “shortest” ten states (also includes D.C.):

  

  WHAT IS THE TALLEST BUILDING IN EACH STATE?

  

  Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

  Not surprisingly, about 76% of these highrises are office buildings, with one of every three named after a bank. However, the tallest buildings in some of states have pretty unique purposes. The tallest habitable building in D.C., for example, is the lengthily-named Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, which is also the largest Roman Catholic church in North America.

  The tallest building in Nevada is The Palazzo Resort Hotel Casino in Las Vegas. Meanwhile, the respective State Capitol buildings of North Dakota and West Virginia tower above any other skylines in those states.

  

  

• As Bitcoin Surges To Record High, China Prepares Its Own Digital Currency

  Submitted by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

  Bitcoin hit an all-time high over $1200 today.

  Traders are happy because the SEC is expected to rule on a Bitcoin ETF by March 11.

  Meanwhile, Bloomberg reports China Is Developing its Own Digital Currency.
   

  https://www.bloomberg.com/api/embed/iframe?id=fd7ef38e-47f1-446c-b2c4-1cf2875e2f85

  After assembling a research team in 2014, the People’s Bank of China has done trial runs of its prototype cryptocurrency. That’s taking it a step closer to becoming one of the first major central banks to issue digital money that can be used for anything from buying noodles to purchasing a car.

   

  At the same time as it builds up its own capabilities, the PBOC is increasing scrutiny of bitcoin and other private digital tenders. It doesn’t want a bitcoin bubble to blow up. And since currencies have historically been issued by the state, not private players, it doesn’t want to cede the cryptocurrency space to companies it has no control over.

   

  Chinese people have embraced online payments for just about everything. To buy a can of Coke, thirsty commuters scan QR codes on their smartphones rather than feed coins into a vending machine. At Lunar New Year gatherings, money is exchanged via a few presses on a smartphone instead of crisp notes handed over in red envelopes.

   

  All of that poses a challenge to the PBOC’s status as the central bank of both the digital and physical realms. So if you can’t beat them, join them.

   

  “Getting to know more precisely how much banks lend, where the money goes and the pace of credit creation is key to curbing money laundering and making monetary policy more effective,” said Duan Xinxing, vice president of Beijing-based OKCoin Co., one of the country’s biggest bitcoin exchanges. Issuing digital currency will make it easier for the PBOC to monitor risk in the financial system and track transactions economy-wide, he said.

   

  OKCoin is among cryptocurrency exchanges that has recently taken steps to halt bitcoin withdrawals amid efforts to clamp down on capital outflows.

   

  In January 2016, the PBOC said it will have its own cryptocurrency “soon,” but there has still been no formal start date announced. In the meantime, there’s been strong advocacy from senior officials, including Fan Yifei, one of the PBOC’s deputy governors.

   

  “Cutting costs is an obvious benefit, but the impact of shifting to blockchain-based digital money from the current payment structure goes beyond that,” said Larry Cao, director of content at the CFA Institute in Hong Kong. “There’s a potential you can pay anybody in the system, any bank, and any merchant directly. Blockchain will change the whole infrastructure. This is revolutionary.”

   

  Real-time data

  For the PBOC, using blockchain, the technology that underpins the digital currency bitcoin, will allow it to trace transactions and collect “real-time, complete and authentic” data to compile precise monetary indicators such as money supply growth, OKCoin’s Duan said.

   

  “The transparency of economic activities in every corner in the country will significantly improve,” Duan said. “The central bank will have unprecedented knowledge of how the economy runs.”

   

  So instead of relying on monthly surveys of businesses, or collations of spending from the statistics authority, the PBOC and therefore the government would have real-time readings on the pulse of consumers. Policies could then be fine tuned on a day-to-day, even hour-to-hour basis, giving an unprecedented level of precision to monetary management.

  Capital Flight

  Bitcoin is a primary means of capital flight out of China. How long will that last?

  Here’s one key thought on bitcoin from the article: “OKCoin is among cryptocurrency exchanges that has recently taken steps to halt bitcoin withdrawals amid efforts to clamp down on capital outflows.”

  When China launches its own cryptocurrency, will it ban Bitcoin transactions?

  If so, what happens to the price of Bitcoin?

  Contrary Indicators

  The launch of a Bitcoin ETF reminds me of those waiting for the launch of JDSU Leap Options in 2000 so they could “load the boat”.

  During the 1990s, JDS Uniphase stock was a high-flyer tech stock investor favorite. Its stock price doubled three times and three stock splits of 2:1 occurred roughly every 90 days during the last half of 1999 through early 2000, making millionaires of many employees who were stock option holders, and further enabling JDS Uniphase to go on an acquisition and merger binge. After the telecom downturn, JDS Uniphase announced in late July 2001 the largest (up to then) write-down of goodwill. Employment soon dropped as part of the Global Realignment Program from nearly 29,000 to approximately 5,300, many of its factories and facilities were closed around the world, and the stock price dropped from $153 per share to less than $2 per share.

  Blockchain Technology

  I like the blockchain technology behind digital currencies like Bitcoin. Blockchain is perfectly suited for recording mortgages, deeds, autos, etc.

  Title insurance companies will cease to exist, at least as stand alone title companies.

  Scalability  

  Every transaction is recorded on the blockchain so the requirement of resources to process and store the information continually grows.

  This poses a scalability issue for high volume transactions. Recording every payment would certainly constitute high volume.

  Scalability Articles

  1. The Real Blockchain Scalability Challenge
  2. Waves Platform Implements New Blockchain Scalability Approaches
  3. Blockchain scalability

  If blockchain can scale to the point where governments can ban cash and record every transaction, expect instant tax collection and loss of privacy.

  Digital Downside 

  1. The government will know where every penny is at every second.
  2. The government will know every monetary transaction real time.
  3. You will no longer be able to give the babysitter, gardener, bartender, a friend, or anyone else an extra penny without the government knowing.
  4. Sales tax collection and VAT tax collection will be instantaneous.
  5. Governments can impose negative interest rates and other confiscation schemes at will.

  If cash is banned, the blockchain will record every penny you spend, and who you gave it to.

  Money laundering will become much more difficult, but the cost will be a loss of privacy, threats of negative interest rates, and other cash confiscation schemes.

  

  

• 78 Seconds Of Farage "Red-Pilling"

  Warning – feelings will get hurt as Nigel Farage exposes the "liberal left's hijacking" of the education process…

  They have "indoctrinated an entire generation that any 'other' point of view is detestable and should be banned…"

  Bonus Clip: Nigel Farage spoke at today's CPAC Conference…

  h/t The Burning Platform

  As we noted previously…

  Your Feelings Are Largely Irrelevant

  

  Seriously, nobody who has already graduated college cares about your feelings. That means that when you complain to your boss because your co-worker mis-gendered you, he’s probably not going to bend over backwards to bandage your wounds. Given feelings are entirely subjective in nature, it’s completely unreasonable to demand everyone tip-toe around you to prevent yours from being hurt. The reality is that people will offend you and hurt your feelings, and they won’t stop to mop up your tears because they shouldn’t have to. Learning to accept criticism, alternative viewpoints, and even outright insults will make you happier in the long run than routinely playing the victim card.

  You DO Have The Right To Live As You Please — But Not To Demand People Accept It

  

  By contrast, you do have the right to live however you please, so long as it’s within the confines of the law. If you want to cross-dress, smoke marijuana, drink lots of alcohol, have lots of sex, and, yes, even go to school for gender studies, then by all means, go for it. Government should not be allowed to legislate people’s behavior as long as it doesn’t infringe upon someone else’s rights, but that doesn’t mean society isn’t allowed to have an opinion. You don’t have the right to demand people keep their opinions about your lifestyle to themselves, especially if you’re open and public about it. I have as much of a right to comment on the way you live your life as you do to actually live it. Your feelings are not a protected right, but my speech is.

  The Only Safe Space Is Your Home

  

  No matter where you go in life, someone will be there to offend you. Maybe it’s a joke you overheard on vacation, a spat at the office, or a difference of opinion with someone in line at the grocery store. Inevitably, someone will offend you and your values. If you cannot handle that without losing control of your emotions and reverting back to your “safe space” away from the harmful words of others, then you’re best to just stay put at home. Remember, though: if people in the outside world scare you, people on the internet will downright terrify you. It’s probably best to just accept these harsh realities of life and go out into the world prepared to confront them wherever they may be waiting.

  

  

• White House Bars CNN, NYT, Others From Media Briefing

  Just a few hours after Trump warned during his CPAC speech that “we’re gonna do something about the media”, he did just that after the White House barred a number of news outlets from covering Sean Spicer’s Q&A session on Friday afternoon.  Spicer decided to hold an off-camera “gaggle” with reporters inside his West Wing office instead of the traditional on-camera briefing in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room according to press reports. 

  Among the outlets not permitted to cover the gaggle were various news organizations that Trump has singled out in the past including CNN, The NYT, The Hill, Politico, BuzzFeed, the Daily Mail, BBC, the Los Angeles Times and the New York Daily News.

  Several non mainstream outlets were allowed into Spicer’s office, including Breitbart, the Washington Times and One America News Network.  Several other major news organizations were also let in to cover the gaggle. That group included ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, Reuters and Bloomberg, however AP and Time have boycotted the event.

  The White House Correspondents’ Association sharply criticized the decision.

  “The WHCA board is protesting strongly against how today’s gaggle is being handled by the White House,” Jeff Mason, the association’s president, said in a statement.  “We encourage the organizations that were allowed in to share the material with others in the press corps who were not,” he added. “The board will be discussing this further with White House staff.”

  The New York Times’ Peter Bakersaid he “can’t remember any press secretary from Clinton, Bush or Obama canceling briefing and handpicking small group for gaggle.”

  A White House spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.

  CNN’s political reporter Sara Murray confirmed that CNN has been blocked from attending a White House press briefing this morning. 

  Today the White House is handpicking the news outlets they’re allowing into the gaggle with @PressSec. CNN was blocked from attending.

  — Sara Murray (@SaraMurray) February 24, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  CNN, New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Politico shut out of White House gaggle with Sean Spicer today. WHCA protesting

  — Ram Ramgopal (@RamCNN) February 24, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Looks like @BrianStelter was right when he pointed out Trump’s comments today “we’re gonna do something about the media” — CNN just blocked

  — Jason Morrell (@CNNJason) February 24, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

   

  Some boycotted the event due to CNN’s treatment.

  AP and Time boycotted the gaggle today because of the way it was handled.

  — Adrian Carrasquillo (@Carrasquillo) February 24, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

   

  While some – including recently accredited – Breitbart were allowed in…

  ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX were all allowed in. https://t.co/joYrhveGXQ

  — Sara Murray (@SaraMurray) February 24, 2017

  Breitbart, Washington Times, One America Network got into the gaggle.

  — Adrian Carrasquillo (@Carrasquillo) February 24, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

   

  This follows President Trump’s earlier remarks At CPAC against fake news.

  Trump at CPAC: “I wouldn’t miss a chance to talk to my friends.”

  Trump literally skipped last year’s conference: https://t.co/MHbptPcM2K pic.twitter.com/IXQg1sUqyl

  — Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) February 24, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

   

  Here is Sean Spicer saying “You don’t get to just yell out questions. We’re going to raise our hands like big boys and girls.”

  This really just happened.

  Spicer: “You don’t get to just yell out questions. We’re going to raise our hands like big boys and girls.” pic.twitter.com/OAuf4y7pNp

  — Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) February 23, 2017

  * * *

  This move by The White House is in sharp contrast to what Spicer said in December (via HuffPo):

  Sean Spicer, the senior communications advisor for Donald Trump’s presidential transition team and a leading candidate to become White House press secretary, said Thursday night that the incoming president would “absolutely not” kick out news organizations in response to critical coverage.  This is an understandable fear given how the Trump campaign blacklisted nearly a dozen outlets through much of the election. In addition to denying some news organizations press credentials, the campaign sometimes placed unusual restrictions on journalists once inside.  During an interview with Fox News host Megyn Kelly, Spicer said Trump would not “bounce” reporters from the briefing room and “has a healthy belief in the First Amendment.”

   

  …

   

  “So if the New York Times does a scathing editorial on President Trump, they’re still going to let the New York Times reporters in the press briefing room and have access just the same as all the other news organizations,” Kelly asked.

   

  “They’re in the [press] pool right now and they still have scathing editorials and pretty poor reporting,” Spicer responded.

   

  “So yes, the answer to my question is yes?” she continued.

   

  “Yes,” Spicer said. “Absolutely.”

  We now expect most if not all of the presidential press corps to boycott all future White House media events, as the war between Trump and the media goes nuclear.

  

  

• The Revenge Of Comet Pizza

  Submitted by Howard Kunstler via Kunstler.com,

  Remember that one? It was about as weird as it gets. A meme generated out of the voluminous hacked John Podesta emails that some conspiracy connoisseurs cooked up into a tale of satanic child abuse revolving around a certain chi-chi Washington DC pizza joint. I never signed on with the story, but it was an interesting indication of how far the boundaries of mass psychology could be pushed in the mind wars of politics.

  Sex, of course, is fraught. Sex and the feelings it conjures beat a path straight to the limbic system where the most primitive thoughts become the father of the most primitive deeds. In our American world, this realm of thought and deed has turned into a political football with the Left and the Right scrimmaging ferociously for field position — while the real political agenda of everything important other than sex lies outside the stadium.

  The Comet Pizza story was understandably upsetting to Democrats who didn’t like being painted as child molesters. Unfortunately for them, it coincided with the bust of one Anthony Weiner — and his infamous laptop — disgraced former “sexting” congressman, husband of Hillary’s top aide and BFF, Huma Abedin. The laptop allegedly contained a lot of child porn.

  That garbage barge of sexual allegation and innuendo couldn’t have helped the Hillary campaign, along with all the Clinton Foundation stuff, in the march to electoral loserdom. I suspect the chthonic darkness of it all generated the “Russia-did-it” hysteria that cluttered up the news-cloud during the first month of Trumptopia. The collective superego of America is reeling with shame and rage.

  On the Right side spectrum stood the curious figure of Milo Yiannopoulos, the self-styled “Dangerous Faggot,” who has made a sensational career lately as an ideological provocateur, especially on the campus scene were he got so into the indignant faces of the Maoist snowflakes with his special brand of boundary-pushing that they resorted to disrupting his events, dis-inviting him at the last moment, or finally rioting, as in the case at UC Berkeley a few weeks ago.

  Milo’s battles on campus were particularly ripe because his opponents on the far Left were themselves so adamant about their own brand of boundary-pushing along the frontier of the LGBTQ agenda. The last couple of years, you would’ve thought that half the student population fell into one of those “non-binary” sex categories, and it became the most urgent mission of the Left to secure bathroom rights and enforce new personal pronouns of address for the sexually ambiguous.

  But then Milo made a tactical error. Despite all the mutual boundary-pushing on each side, he pushed a boundary too far and entered the final dark circle of taboo: child molesting. That was the point were the closet Puritan hysterics went in for the kill. This is what he said on a Web  talk radio show:

       What normally happens in schools, very often, is you have an older woman with a younger boy, and the boy is the predator in that situation. The boy is like, let’s see if I can fuck the gym teacher, or let’s see if I can fuck the hot math teacher, and he does. The women fall in love with these nubile young boys, these athletic young boys in their prime. We get hung up on the child abuse stuff to the point where we’re heavily policing consenting adults, grad students and their professors, this arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent, which totally destroys the understanding many of us have about the complexities, subtleties, and complicated nature of many relationships. In the homosexual world particularly, some of the relationships between younger boys and older men, the sort of coming-of-age relationships in which these older men help those young boys discover who they are, and give them security and provide them with love…. [Milo is shouted down by his podcast hosts]

  So that was the final straw. Milo got bounced by his platform, Breitbart News, and went through the now-routine, mandatory, abject ceremonial of the televised apology required by over-stepping celebrities — though he claimed, with some justification I think, that his remarks were misconstrued. Anyway, I’m sure he’ll rebound on his own signature website platform and he’ll be back in action before long.

  His remarks about the “coming-of-age” phase of life prompted me to wonder about the boundary-pushers on the Left, on the college campuses in particular, who are encouraging young people to go through drastic sex-change surgeries, at an age before the development of that portion of their frontal lobes controlling judgment is complete. Who are these diversity deans and LGBTQ counselors who lead confused adolescents to self-mutilation in search of some hypothesized “identity?” Whoever they are, this dynamic seems pretty reckless and probably tragic to me. There ought to be reasonable doubt that an irreversible “sexual reassignment” surgery may not lead to personal happiness some years down the line — when, for instance, that person’s frontal lobes have developed, and they begin to experience profound and complicated emotions such as remorse.

  Our sexual hysteria has many more curious angles to it. We live in a culture where pornography, up to the last limits of freakishness and depravity, are available to young unformed personalities at a click. We stopped protecting adolescents against this years ago, so why should we be surprised when they venture into ever-darker frontiers of sexuality? It was the Left that sought to abolish boundaries in sex and many other areas of American life. And yet they still affect to be shocked by someone like Milo.

  I maintain that there is a dynamic relationship between our inability to act on the truly pressing issues of the day — energy, economy, and geo-politics — and our neurotic preoccupation with sexual identity.

  The epic amount of collective psychic energy being diverted from what’s important into sexual fantasy, titillation, confusion, and litigation leaves us pathetically unprepared to face the much more serious crisis of civilization gathering before us.

  

  

• Meet China's Biggest Oil Trader: At 39, He Generated $38 Billion In Revenue

  Ye Jianming isn’t a name that rings many bells… yet. But, according to SCMP, it will, considering what he’s achieved so far in a country where the state firms take all. As Fortune recently wrote, when it ranked Ye #2 in its “40 Under 40” list, he runs a $42-billion-a-year oil business in China, (No. 229 on the Fortune Global 500), yet few in China know anything about the mysterious tycoon or the firm he created, CEFC.

  Ye bought a collection of oil ­assets in his twenties and ­secured loans from state-owned banks to expand abroad, a privilege for a private company. CEFC has oil agreements in Kazakhstan, Qatar, Abu Dhabi, and Chad and has gone into ventures with state-owned giants to transport oil to China, making him a rare powerful private player aligned with the Chinese government.

  Little else is known about Ye: as of this moment, he is the sole private entrepreneur to win a stake in an Abu Dhabi onshore oil concession (whose lifespan is 40 years) with 4%. British Petroleum and China National Petroleum Corp got 10% and 8% respectively.

  Why would state giants like CNOOC and Sinopec Group tolerate that? Simple: Ye holds a “full” licence in China’s financial industry – covering insurance, brokerage, banking, trusts, commodities and asset management, alongside state-owned Citic Group and China Everbright Holdings. Yet what’s so different here from the hundreds of firms that are queuing up for an insurance license?

  Well, the money helps: his empire, CEFC China Energy, has seen its revenue double to 263 billion yuan (US$38.3 billion) between 2012 and 2015, becoming the largest oil trader in China. That was before the company won a lucrative permit to import oil.

  But most important and puzzling of all – according to SCMP – Ye is only 39 years old.

  Ye is now venturing into Hong Kong. Last week, he announced the HK$600 million acquisition of listed Runway Global with the intention to make it a financial conglomerate. In October 2016, he paid HK$1.4 billion (US$180 million) for three floors at the Convention & Exhibition Centre in Wanchai. Before putting a price tag on Ye and Runway, one question needs to be satisfied. How did he manage all this? Or rather, who is he?

  It’s a mystery.

  
  Ye Jiangming, the 39-year-old CEO of CEFC China Energy

  He calls himself Ye Jianming. Mainland media found a different name. He said he started as a forest police officer in a tiny town in Fujian. Local journalists said he was a carpenter. He told Fortune Magazine his business took off in 2006 after buying oil trader Xiamen Huahang at auction, which was once owned by smuggling king Lai Changxing. He was then only 27. He said he was funded by investors in Hong Kong and Fujian.

  Domestic newspapers questioned how Xiamen Huahang, which is owned by the Fujian government, was linked to Lai’s circle and ended up in auction. It’s the same dark cloud surrounding almost every high-flying private player from China.

  Yet what makes Ye different is the structure of his company; it’s that of a state firm.  The company has a Communist Party Committee, a Disciplinary Committee and a Youth League. It boasts a middle management that largely consists of party members. It set up two think tanks in Hong Kong – China Energy Fund Committee that sponsors events and research advocating China’s territorial claims, and the China Institute of Culture, that pledges its support for Taiwan’s reunification with mainland China.

  Add to this a Czech news report that Ye was a deputy secretary general with close associations to the People’s Liberation Army, and speculation runs wild: CEFC is a shadow state firm set up to win deals in sensitive areas; CEFC is a business of the People’s Liberation Army; or Ye is the grandson of revered Marshall Ye Jianying. Ye denied any army links.

  No less puzzling is its financing, that doesn’t quite seem to match its fame and connections.

  On December 15, its Hong Kong subsidiary borrowed HK$600 million from state-owned Huarong International Financial Holdings to pay for the Convention Centre office. It’s paying 7.5% interest – triple what other commercial banks charge.

  On February 18, Huarong said it loaned US$45 million (HK$349 million) to CEFC to fund its US$880 million investment in the Abu Dubai oil concession. That is conditional on CEFC signing a letter of intent with the Hainan branch of the State Development Bank for a loan to pay off the difference. Huarong is charging 8% interest – plus 1% transaction fee – rising to 12% in case of extension beyond six months. That’s almost double the prevailing bank rate.

  Ye is also borrowing to acquire Runway. Guotai Junan will provide HK$320 million, or 53% of the acquisition cost. There is no information on whether Ye will pledge his controlling stake in Runway for that loan.

  None of these amounts are Big Money. A better question is why a company as “strong” as CEFC, has to rely on loans, which charge far greater than market interest rates, rather than choose cheaper, prevailing market rates at commercial banks.

  * * *

  While the question swirl, perhaps some answers can emerge in his background.

  In a recent piece, Fortune profiled how over the course of just one week last fall, CEFC China Energy became Prague’s hottest investor, buying the Czech Republic’s top soccer club, Slavia Prague; a Czech publishing house; a couple of Renaissance-era historic buildings; one of the country’s oldest breweries; and biggest of all, a controlling interest in Prague’s J&T Finance Group, making CEFC the first private Chinese company to own a European bank. The company’s spending totaled $1.5 billion when all was said and done.

  The shopping spree played out against a noteworthy political backdrop. The Czech Republic’s leftist government was encouraging Chinese investment. And China was launching diplomatic efforts to expand its world influence by reviving the old Silk Road trading route through Central Asia into Europe.

  CEFC may be privately owned, but in Prague it was a cog in the Chinese government’s plan, and happy to be. In fact, aligning itself with the government has been central to the company’s strategy to become China’s newest oil power. CEFC ranks #229 on the Global Fortune 500 list, with $42 billion in revenue in 2015, double its 2012 total.

  Its global reach has continued to grow: CEFC now owns a couple thousand European gas stations, many bought from Kazakhstan’s state oil company, along with a one-million-ton oil storage system in Spain and France that expands China’s connections with the world oil supply.

  Behind the strategy is CEFC’s founder, Ye Jianming, who ranks at No. 2 on the Fortune 40 Under 40 list this year, thanks largely to his company’s remarkable recent rise. “We closely follow the national strategies. So we‘ll map out our corporate strategy according to the national ones,” Ye told Fortune this September, in his first interview with a Western media outlet. He speaks matter-of-factly, describing CEFC’s plans the way an American CEO might on a roadshow with investors.

  * * *

  The 39-year-old Ye stands out as much for the intrigue around him as for his success. He bought oil assets in China while only in his twenties, rarely makes public appearances, and avoids the typical lubricants of Chinese business, alcohol and smoking. Reporters and researchers have also raised questions about about ties between Ye and CEFC and nationalistic elements of China’s People’s Liberation Army — connections that can confer power and prestige in China, but can make for awkward optics in the eyes of potential partners overseas.

  Ye’s rise illustrates in vivid terms how tightly aligned China’s government and private companies continue to be, especially when doing business offshore, and also how similar the country’s private companies can look to their state-backed competition.

  Ye doesn’t seek publicity for that, he says. He feels more comfortable staying home studying Confucius or Buddhism than attending business dinners, which he avoids by sending lieutenants in his place. He has black eyes, a strong rectangular face free of wrinkles, and swept-back black hair. He speaks quietly and punctuates the end of sentences with a brief silence before a concluding, Ahh.

  Ye founded CEFC in his twenties. After a brief stint with the forest police in his home southern province, Fujian, he says he bought oil assets from auction once owned by a businessman named Lai Changxing, who fled to Vancouver in 1999 to avoid arrest after authorities discovered that he ran a large smuggling ring. (Lai was eventually convicted and sentenced in China for smuggling and bribery.) Ye got the funds for the purchase from wealthy investors in Hong Kong and Fujian, a province with a reputation for producing astute businesspeople. Ye pitched to those investors an oil business that would operate alongside China’s state oil companies, in the gaps those companies left open.

  At the time, China was hungry for crude, but its state-backed companies were having difficulty closing some deals abroad. The optics of China’s state-backed giants marching into a country to buy and extract oil weren’t great for central Asian politicians. This paved the way for private, under-the-radar firms like Ye’s, which can strike oil deals in Europe and the Middle East where SOEs would bring political liabilities.

  CEFC has signed agreements for oil rights or done deals in Kazakhstan, Qatar, Russia, Chad, Angola, and Abu Dhabi, and gone into ventures with China’s state-owned giants to transport oil and gas back to China. CEFC doesn’t have the right to sell directly in China, so it either stores the oil or sells it to the market through one of China’s SOEs.

  After several years of economic malaise in Europe following the 2008 global banking crisis, European energy assets started coming up for sale. “They decided to sell their refineries and gas stations,” Ye says. “This wouldn’t happen in China. In China, oil exploration, refining and sales are all monopolized by the SOEs.” CEFC is building an energy storage and logistics system in Europe from its second headquarters in the Czech Republic to create an exchange between China, Europe and the Middle East. That, in turn, serves China’s ambitions to have overseas storage locations connected with world markets. The alignment with Beijing has paid off. CEFC’s won a license to import crude into China in the last year, a potentially lucrative venture. China is the world’s second-largest consumer of crude behind the U.S., but declining profits and margins at the country’s oil SOEs are increasing the pressure for reform.

  * * *

  CEFC says almost two thirds of its $42 billion in revenues last year came either from the agreements it has with foreign governments to oil rights, the oil and gas transportation networks it runs, or its oil storage business. Its Singapore-based oil-trading desk is also one of the biggest affiliated with a Chinese company. “The Chinese government now wants to reform, and they are inviting independent companies to play a bigger role in the industry,” says Oceana Zhou, a writer at commodities research firm Platts.

  Ye’s seldom-used office in Shanghai includes traditional and modern Chinese touches: a three-foot lounging Buddha statue on his desk; an expressionist Mao painting; President Xi Jinping’s framed calligraphy from his time leading Ye’s home Fujian province 15 years ago. The office also has three separate desk phones, including a clunky red phone that appears similar to a “red machine,” an encrypted phone service used by the country’s largest state-owned companies to keep their conversations secure from prying foreign intelligence agencies. (The company says this phone is actually tied to CEFC’s internal executive line.)

  And then there are the military connections.

  CEFC’s culture emphasizes military-style regimentation and promotion. In the past, it hired former military officers as consultants and managers. CEFC’s hiring of former military brass and its Communist Party influences can be interpreted a couple different ways. In one, CEFC is a de facto tool for the state to cut deals around the world, which would make it one of many Chinese private companies expanding abroad with the help of unclear government relationships. In the second, CEFC really is a private player, but casts itself as close to the government because it’s good for business.

  The second explanation appears more probable, though conversations with Ye don’t do much to clarify the blurry lines. Ye says CEFC may not even be an oil company in the future, and might instead focus on its fledgling investment bank division, which already has investments in the energy sector. Such a strategy would explain CEFC’s Czech investments. But those same investments were also in tandem with the government’s $4 trillion One Belt One Road foreign investment program.

  “We have to look at geopolitics,” Ye says. “If one day the Czech Republic goes against China, we need to pull back our investments to rethink our strategies there.”

  In late 2016, Ye also opined on the outcome of the US election: “Once Madame Hillary steps into her office, because she is anti-Russia … oil prices will be coming down,” he says. “Because Mr. Trump is pro-Russia … if he’s elected the oil price will go up.”

  So far, the latter has failed to materialize.

  At times, having close links to the government has created tensions for Ye. CEFC runs a think tank called China Energy Fund Committee. One of its analysts was Dai Xu, a former senior air force colonel. Writing under the pen name Long Tao in 2011, Dai advocated using force in the South China Sea, a hot-button issue in those contested international waters, where half a dozen countries claim territorial rights.

  But it is Ye’s own potential military ties that have generated the most intrigue. After CEFC’s weeklong investing spree in the Czech Republic, Czech news organizations reported finding an old biography listing Ye as deputy secretary general of an association close to the People’s Liberation Army. That group, the China Association for International Friendly Contact (CAIFC), bills itself as a forum to connect high-level military and political figures in China with those abroad. But it is essentially an influence and propaganda platform, writes Washington, D.C.-based researcher Mark Stokes of the Project 2049 Institute. Stokes says that related departments engage in political warfare, including spreading propaganda and recruiting potential intelligence sources, to serve goals including China’s ultimate aim of reunifying China and Taiwan.

  A connection to this group would cast a shadow over the perception of Ye and CEFC in some countries where the company operates. But in conversation with Fortune, Ye denies having such ties. He says he was invited to become a director on CAIFC, but declined. He believes CEFC’s smaller partners in China have tried to inflate his role with the government for their own benefit, which is why his name appeared in the old biographies.

  “Actually,” he says, “I’ve received invitations from the People’s Congress, the People’s Political Consultative Conference, associations related to foreign affairs, the institute of international relations in China….all to undertake some role or duty in their organization.” He says he declined all the invitations.Even without such ties, CEFC’s close alliance with the government is likely to continue to generate concern as the company grows. China’s desire to hoard crude oil for its strategic purposes is no secret. And the fresh-faced Ye has positioned himself in the middle of China’s economic and political desires — the exact place he wants to be.

  With China set to dominate the global oil market, having surpassed the US as the world’s biggest importer of oil, not to mention Ye’s grand ambitions to gradually roll up the financial world with Beijing’s backing, keep a close eye on the low-profile 39-year old who is quietly becoming one of China’s most important people.

  

  

• California, Nestle, And Decentralization

  Authored by Antonius Aquinas, annotated by Acting-Man's Pater Tenebrarum,

  Goodbye, Socialist Paradise

  Nestle USA has announced that it will move its headquarters from Glendale, California, to Rosslyn, Virginia, taking with it about 1200 jobs.

  The once Golden State has lost some 1690 businesses since 2008 and a net outflow of a million of mostly middle-class people from the state from 2004 to 2013 due to its onerous tax rates, the oppressive regulatory burden, and the genuine kookiness which pervades among its ruling elites.

   

  

  There has been a remarkable reversal of flow of people and businesses – but California’s ruling elite seemingly remains utterly clueless as to why this is happening and/or doesn’t seem to care. When people and businesses flee from such a well-developed region with such a favorable climate, one should realize that something is probably very wrong. Here is a link to a comprehensive study of the flight of businesses and a million middle class people (net) since 2008 (PDF).

   

  A clueless Glendale official is apparently unconcerned about the financial repercussions of Nestle’s departure saying that it was “no big deal” and saw it as an “opportunity,” whatever that means!

  The stampede of businesses out of what was once the most productive and attractive region in all of North America demonstrates again that prosperity and individual freedom are best served in a political environment of decentralization.

  That the individual states of America have retained some sovereignty, despite the highly centralized “federal” system of government of which they are a part, has enabled individuals and entrepreneurs living in jurisdictions that have become too tyrannical to “escape” to political environments which are less oppressive.

   

  

  The routes people aspiring to become small businessmen in California can take….

   

  This, among other reasons (mainly air conditioning), led to the rise of the Sun Belt as people sought to escape the high taxes and regulations of the Northeast to less burdensome (and warmer!) southern destinations.

  This can also be seen on a worldwide scale.  The US, for a long time, had been a haven of laissez-faire economic philosophy, which, not surprisingly, became a magnet for those seeking opportunity and a higher standard of living.

  No longer is this the case as increasing numbers of companies and individuals are seeking to avoid American confiscatory tax and regulatory burdens and move “offshore” or expatriate to more favorable economic climates.

   

  

  2016 state income taxes – to this one must add a more than 8% sales tax in California, all of which comes on top of federal taxes, plus onerous regulations and extremely litigation-happy “activists”. The only area in which California’s citizens got lucky (via referendum) are property taxes. On the other hand, the state has become extremely real estate bubble-prone, and low property taxes are probably not offsetting the drawbacks of the enormous, malignant housing boom-bust cycles the population centers are experiencing – click to enlarge.

   

  Decentralization – the Key to Liberty and Progress

  The idea of political decentralization as a catalyst for economic growth has become a part of a “school of thought” in the interpretation of how Europe became so prosperous compared to other civilizations.

  After the fall of the Roman Empire, Europe for centuries was divided politically among numerous jurisdictions and ruling authorities with no dominant central state on the Continent.

  The multitude of governing bodies kept in check, to a large degree, the level of taxation and regulation.  If one state became too draconian, it would lose population to less oppressive regimes.

  Just as important, Europe’s governing system was aristocratic and monarchical which has proven to be far more conducive for economic growth than democracies.

   

  

  Germany shortly before its unification in 1871 –  a patchwork of competing small states. Note that this was well after an initial wave of consolidation and centralization – a century earlier, Germany actually consisted of more than 370 independent territories! We previously discussed why highly decentralized polities are the best possible political dispensation for the common man and how extremely conducive they are to liberty and the progress of civilization in this brief missive on secession.

  Map via genealogy.net

   

  While the economic oppressed can escape among the various states, there is no avoidance from the wrath of the federal government unless through expatriation and that option has become less viable with those leaving still subject to tax obligations.  This, fundamentally, is the crux of the problem and has been since the ratification of the US Constitution in 1789.

  The chance that a totalitarian state such as California or the Leviathan on the Potomac would actually reform themselves or relinquish power through legislative means is a mirage.  Nor will revolution work as revolutionaries while appearing altruistic, typically get a hold of the machinery of government to plunder society for their own self interest on a far grander scale than the supposed despots which they replaced!

  The only viable option for the productive members of society to seek redress of state oppression is to argue, work, and eventually fight for political secession and the fragmentation of states as much as possible.

  Decentralization is the only hope for those opposed to the modern, omnipotent nation state.  Moreover, any notion or effort to salvage the current centralized political system must be abandoned.

   

  

  After Donald Trump’s election, many on the political left in California have begun to talk about secession – normally an idea libertarians (and some conservatives) are more likely to be sympathetic to. One thing the presidential election showed quite clearly was that regardless of the winner, about half of the US population was always going to be deeply unhappy about the outcome. In a patchwork of numerous completely independent territories, people would be free to move to whatever area had the political dispensation they preferred. We confidently predict that socialist experiments would be few and far between if they had to depend entirely on voluntary participants. It should be no surprise that Europe’s socialists are all in favor of centralization and “harmonization” (the latter is new-speak for “let’s introduce the most onerous taxes and regulations everywhere, then no-one can escape our clutches”).

   

  Conclusion – The Ideological Battle Comes First

  Naturally, before the breakup of the nation state can become a reality, the ideological case for political decentralization must be made.  Public opinion must be convinced of the superiority of a world consisting of many states.  Such a cause, however, will be considerably difficult after generations have been raised and made dependent upon social democracy.

  When Nestle and other oppressed businesses and individuals can easily escape the clutches of totalitarian entities like California and, more importantly, the most dangerous government on the face of the earth for freer destinations, then will individual liberty and economic growth be assured.

  

  

• Baffled WaPo Still Arguing That Only Dumb, White Men 'Approve' Of Trump

  The Washington Post, still supremely perplexed by how President Trump managed to win the White House, is apparently even more confused now as to why his approval ratings stubbornly refuse to drop into the teens. Nevertheless, the disaffected mainstreamers at WaPo seem to derive some comfort from a handful of recent polls which all peg Trump’s “approval rating” at under 50%, a statistic they victoriously used to declare the following:

  “Most Americans don’t think that President Trump is doing a good job.”

  Of course, as Gallup pointed out last month, half of the Presidents that have held the White House since World War II failed to win the approval of a majority of Americans over the course of their terms, including WaPo’s beloved President Obama who averaged just 47.9%…but we digress.

  

   

  Still, dissatisfied with an approval rating anywhere north of 0%, the ever-skeptical WaPo figured there must be some nefarious explanation for why such a vile person like Trump could possibly avoid impeachment after a full month in the White House, nonetheless enjoy the ‘approval’ of 48% of the electorate (at least according to the Fox News poll).

  So they set out on a mission to scour polling methodologies and demographics of respondents for a clue to the Trump approval enigma.  Fortunately they were able to quickly focus in on a pleasant “narrative” that Trump’s sole support emanated from a consolidated group of white (a.k.a. “racist”), male (a.k.a. “sexist”) voters without a college degree (a.k.a. “dumb”).

  

   

  Meanwhile, knowing that their efforts to diminish the President’s approval rating would be harshly received by roughly half of the population, they decided to preemptively mock all you dumb, racist, sexist people out there.

  I know, I know: You and your friends think he’s doing a great job, and this is more fake news. Or maybe: No one you know likes Trump at all. Or the classic: LOL all the polls were wrong last year, who cares what polls say. To which I’d quickly reply, in order: (1) That’s your bubble, (2) that’s your bubble and (3) actually, national polls were pretty accurate.

  And, of course, these same dumb, racist, sexist people who are propping Trump’s approval ratings today are the same ones that voted him into the White House in November.

  Those of you who were paying close attention during the general election will recognize whites without college degrees as having always made up the core of Trump’s base of support. (We even wrote about it!) According to exit polling, about half of those who voted for Trump fell into the whites-without-a-college-degree category.

   

  So far, it seems as though Trump’s strict adherence to the campaign promises he outlined for that group in the primary has not been successful at wooing many other people to his side. (Contrary to what White House chief of staff Reince Priebus might think, most people generally disapprove of what Trump’s done.) Trump won the primary with that core, powered through the general on the strength of that core of support and now enjoys it as one of the only groups to think he’s doing a good job.

   

  That should be easy for anyone to accept — regardless of their bubble.

  

   

  But, we’re sure you’re right WaPo…the national polls were spot on in November and dumb, sexist, racist people have suddenly overtaken the American electorate.  In fact, we suspect that if you keep pushing hard on this narrative you’ll be right again in about 4 years.

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Tucker Carlson Takes on DNC Advisor Who Doesn't Know How to Identify a Gender

  So why does ‘the party of science’, the enlightened ones, the people with thousands of scientists from accredited colleges throughout the country who tell us about dangers of global warming, carbon emissions, and how many vegetables to eat on a daily basis — cling to the inane subject of ‘gender identity’? You’d think that these men of letters would eschew rudimentary ‘feelings’ and only accept the biology of one’s gender when determining which bathroom he/she could use. But this isn’t about science, in spite of what they tell you.

  Thousands of years ago, when the Romans would conquer territories that were hostile, they’d enter villages and take the men as slaves and order the women to raise her children loyal to the Roman standard. To make an example, often times they’d kill one of her children, so she knew they meant business. After a generation of destroying families, these territories were docile and soft — loyal to the Roman power structure.

  Today we have a corrupt establishment on its last legs, fighting desperately to keep its citizens in line. After decades of permitting drugs to ravage through minority communities, passing harsh drug laws designed to break up and destroy the black family structure, the nuclear black family is on its last legs. In 1965, just before the onset of the drug epidemic, 76.4% of black children were born into married households. Today, 77% of first black births are born into pre-marital households.

  So what the fuck happened?

  The men were carted off to jail, while the women were left tending to her children, as wards of the state.

  Sound familiar?

  Now the target is everyone else. While oxycontin and meth have done a number on white neighborhoods throughout the country, it wasn’t working fast enough to truly break the family structure — especially in well-heeled families.

  Enter the gender identity crisis. What better way to disrupt the family structure and create a generation of mentally challenged morons than to have them question the very essence of life and purpose: identity and procreation? Schools are pushing this hard on children, creating safe zones and sexualizing institutions that were never designed to do that. In other words, the state is attempting to take control of your children’s’ minds by blurring the lines of gender, confusing them and galvanizing a generation of potential social justice warriors who will fight the good fight for ‘human rights’, aka become WARDS OF THE STATE.

  Rant over.

  Here is Tucker Carlson, proving, once and for all, the DNC is run by complete morons, unable to answer a simple question: what makes a person a man?

  The correct answer should’ve been, ‘your balls.’

  Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com

  

• In A Battle Between Trump And The Federal Reserve, Who Really Wins?

  Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

  

  As a part of the increasingly obvious set-up of conservative movements by international banking interests and globalist think-tanks, I have noticed an expanding disinformation campaign which appears to be designed to wash the Federal Reserve of culpability for the crash of 2008 that has continued to fester to this day despite the many claims of economic “recovery.”  I believe this program is meant to set the stage for a coming conflict between the Trump Administration and the Fed, but what would be the ultimate consequences of such an event?

  In my article 'The False Economic Recovery Narrative Will Die In 2017', I outlined the propaganda trap being established by globalist owned and operated media outlets like Bloomberg, in which they consistently claim that Donald Trump has “inherited” an economy in recovery and ascendancy from the Obama administration.  I thoroughly debunked their positions and “evidence” by showing how each of their fundamental indicators has actually been in steady decline since 2008, even in the face of massive monetary intervention and fiat printing by the Fed.

  My greatest concern leading up to the 2016 election was that Trump would be allowed to win because he represents the perfect scapegoat for an economic crisis that central banks have been brewing for years. Whether or not Trump is aware of this plan cannot yet be proven, but as I have mentioned in the past, his cabinet of Goldman Sachs alumni and neo-con veterans hardly gives me confidence.  In the best case scenario, Trump is surrounded by enemies; in the worst case scenario, he is surrounded by friends.

  Trump’s loyalties, though, are a secondary issue for now.  The primary focus of this article is to discern whether or not a battle between Trump and the Fed will result in a net positive or a net negative for the public.  My position is that any action against the Fed should have happened years ago, and that today, the Fed is nothing more than a sacrificial appendage of a greater globalist agenda.  Meaning, conservative groups should be aware that a victory over the Fed is not actually a victory over the globalists.  In fact, the globalists may very well WANT a war between the Fed and the White House at this time.

  First, some facts need to be established to counter the propaganda claims that the Fed is some kind of  innocent victim of a rampaging President Trump or “misguided” conservative rhetoric.

  The Scapegoat Setup Continues

  The latest extension of the Fed’s propaganda has been initiated, of course, by the mainstream media and liberals in general; you know, the same people that were applauding the (in some cases misguided) efforts of the Occupy Wall Street movement.  With Trump’s negation of the Dodd-Frank Act, the media has been looking for any opportunity to assert that Trump is either acting to enrich his corporate friends or that he is an idiot man-child when it comes to matters of business and economics.

  This led to some sniping by Elizabeth Warren and Federal Reserve Board Chair Janet Yellen‘s testimony before congress last week.  The argument?  That Trump was wrong or “lying” when he said that Dodd-Frank had frozen loans from major banks.  You can see the glee in media outlets over the stab; a recent article by Vanity Fair, which seemed to focus more on snide ankle biting of Trump than concrete evidence, is a perfect example.

  Now, in Trump’s defense (or at least, in defense of his position), Yellen is actually the one lying, here.  While it is true that commercial lending has expanded, her claim that small business loans have improved is simply false.  Even Bloomberg begrudgingly acknowledges that small business loans have fallen by at least 6% since the passage of Dodd-Frank.  In Obama’s favorite liberal home-base, Chicago, loans to small neighborhood businesses declined by 49% between 2008 and 2014.

  In 2015, Yellen herself argued that small business loans were in decline because small business owners “don’t want loans anymore.”   This is a bit like the Bureau of Labor Statistics arguing that over 95 million unemployed working age Americans should not be counted as unemployed in their stats because they really “don’t want a job.”  It is an attempt to muddy the waters on the greater issue, which is that the U.S. economy is in considerable danger.

  You see, I don’t think Trump was debating that major corporations and banks were not receiving ample loans, I think he was primarily pointing out the disparity in small business loans and personal loans.  Yellen and the mainstream media attempted to use one data point — commercial loans, to dismiss the entire debate over loan stagnation.

  The Fed Is Culpable For Our Bubble Economy And Trying To Shift Blame Before A Collapse

  The fact is, we all KNOW that major corporations and banks have been flooded with ample loans, and much of this capital was conjured out of thin air by the Fed itself through fiat creation and near zero interest rates.  We know this because of the $16 trillion in loans made to companies around the world exposed by the revealing (but limited) TARP audit.  We also know this because much of these loans have been used to inflate the stock market bubble for the past few years through endless stock buybacks that most companies never would have been able to afford otherwise. We also know that the mainstream investment world is aware of the importance of these loans because they started to panic as the Fed announced its ongoing program of interest rate hikes.

  Beyond that, we know that the Fed’s low interest loans and culture of circular inbred lending between corporations and banks have been instrumental in keeping stocks hyperinflated, because Fed officials have OPENLY ADMITTED that this is the case.  As Richard Fisher of the Dallas Fed stated in an interview with CNBC:

  “What the Fed did — and I was part of that group — is we front-loaded a tremendous market rally, starting in 2009.It’s sort of what I call the “reverse Whimpy factor” — give me two hamburgers today for one tomorrow. I’m not surprised that almost every index you can look at … was down significantly.” [Referring to the results in the stock market after the Fed raised rates in December 2015.]

   

  “…I was warning my colleagues, “Don’t go wobbly if we have a 10-20 percent correction at some point. … Everybody you talk to … has been warning that these markets are heavily priced.”

  So, again, the issue is not whether or not banks are lending, we know they are lending, they just aren’t lending to the people that need it most.

  I think Fisher was dishonest in his evaluation of the extent of the consequences of the Fed bubble and that a 10% to 20% drop in equities is an absurd underestimation.  But setting aside the "little white lies", it is at least widely available knowledge that the Federal Reserve initiated a corporate loan free-for-all, knowing that the supposed benefits were limited in scope as well as in duration.  They know that a crash is coming, and they have been stalling until they can find the right scapegoat to divert blame.  That scapegoat is Trump, and by association, all conservatives.

  As far as Dodd-Frank is concerned, the act was supposed to be a primer for stopping destructive behavior in the financial sector, more specifically in derivatives.  Yet, in spite of Dodd-Frank, banks like Citigroup are STILL bloated with derivatives after receiving at least $476 billion in taxpayer funds to stop them from going bankrupt for the very same irresponsibility.

  Dodd-Frank accomplished absolutely nothing in terms of what it was mandated to do.  I believe the only true purpose of Dodd-Frank was to distract everyone from Ron Paul’s Fed audit bill, which was gaining major traction at the time.

  Liberals And The Fed Become Bedfellows?

  So, why does Trump’s undercutting of Dodd-Frank even matter?  As outlined above, it is a propaganda point for the establishment to perpetuate the narrative that Trump is incompetent, that the people who support him are incompetent, and that when the economy does shift into greater crisis it will be his fault and the fault of conservatives.  It is also a springboard for the Federal Reserve to “attack” Trump, as shown in Yellen’s congressional testimony.

  I also find it interesting that through the Dodd-Frank issue as well as others, leftists are being galvanized in support around the Federal Reserve, something that they probably would not have done a couple of years ago.  This is all culminating in what I believe will become a titanic battle not only between Trump and Leftists, but also between Donald Trump and the Fed.  But why would the establishment want to incite a conflict between the president and the central bank?

  This is something conservatives and liberty activists have wanted for decades — a president that would be willing to take on the Federal Reserve and expose its innards.  The problem is, the time for the effectiveness of such an action is long gone.  Auditing the Fed under Obama (an openly pro-globalist president) would have been a disaster for the powers that be.  It would have thrown their entire agenda into disarray and killed any chance that they could complete what they call the “great global economic reset.”  Auditing or shutting down the Fed under Trump is another matter.

  As I examined in detail with evidence in my article 'The Economic End Game Explained', the Federal Reserve has a shelf life.  It has already served its purpose, which was to undermine the American economy and our currency system.  The Fed will now begin deflating the bubbles it has engineered in stocks, Treasuries and the dollar through continued interest rate hikes and rolling out the over $4 trillion (official amount) on its balance sheet.  The goal?  Sinking America and reducing it to third world status over the course of the next several years to make way for total global centralization of economic administration, eventually leading to global fiscal management under the IMF and perhaps the BIS, and a global currency system; all while making conservative movements look like the monster behind the crisis.

  To summarize, the U.S. economy and the dollar are slated for a controlled demolition.  The Fed will do everything in its power to prod Trump and conservatives into war with the central bank, because the Fed is now ready to sacrifice itself and the dollar’s world reserve status in order to clear a path for a new global system and ideology. The Federal Reserve is a suicide bomber.

  If this takes place as I predict then the international banks and the establishment elites will be able to lay the blame for the death of king dollar squarely at the feet of Trump and conservatives, and at least a third of the country (leftists) will buy into the narrative lock, stock and barrel because they desperately WANT to believe it.  Remember, the tale being scripted here is that Trump is a rampaging maniac that does not know what he is doing.

  To be clear, I am not supporting the continuing dominance of the Fed, or the existence of the fiat dollar.  What I am saying is that conservatives may just get what we have been wishing for all these years but not in the manner we had hoped.

  To counter this threat our list of targets must expand to meet reality.  The delusion that the core problem is the Federal Reserve must stop.  The Fed is a box store, a franchise in a chain of franchises, nothing more.  If we do not also turn our scrutiny and aggression towards root globalist institutions like the IMF and the BIS as well as international banks, then our efforts will only serve to bolster the enemy we are trying to fight.

  In a battle limited to Trump versus the Fed, only the bankers will win.

  

  

• The $74 Trillion Global Economy In One Chart

  The latest GDP numbers from the World Bank were released earlier this month, and today’s visualization from HowMuch.net breaks them down to show the relative share of the global economy for each country.

  As Visual Capitalist's Jeff Desjardins explains, the full circle, known as a Voronoi Diagram, represents the entirety of the $74 trillion global economy in nominal terms. Meanwhile, each country’s segment is sized accordingly to their percentage of global GDP output. Continents are also grouped together and sorted by color.

  

  Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

   

  Here is the data for the Top 20 Countries in table form:

  

  

  

• Calexit – Beat The Crowd

  Submitted by Dennis Miller via MillerOnTheMoney.com,

  

  Our country has become bitterly divided. No matter who won the election, I predicted we would soon be reading about states wanting to secede from the union.

  Even before President Trump was sworn in, the California movement, known as Calexit, began. The first step is to ask voters to adopt a state Constitutional Amendment revoking the U. S. Constitution as the supreme law.

  YesCalifornia.org makes this appeal:

  “As the sixth largest economy in the world, California is more economically powerful than France and has a population larger than Poland. Point by point, California compares and competes with countries, not just the 49 other states.

  Since 1987, California has been subsidizing the other states at a loss of tens and sometimes hundreds of billions of dollars in a single fiscal year.

  …In our view, the United States of America represents so many things that conflict with Californian values, and our continued statehood means California will continue subsidizing the other states to our own detriment, and to the detriment of our children.”

  They outline reasons why citizens should vote for secession. Point 9 is a bit different, “California has some of the best universities but in various ways, our schools are among the worst in the country.”

  I’m unable to determine if the claim “hundreds of billions of dollars” is accurate. How is it calculated? Is a post office or military base returning money back to the state? Creditloan.com indicates California receives $.78 back for every $1.00 is sends to the federal government. Maybe they have a point.

  Different values causes divorce

  Our founding fathers felt the values of the King of England conflicted with the values of the colonies. Many Americans cheered the British on when they opted out of the European Union. For both situations, oppressive taxation, different values and cost and control of the central government was a motivating factor.

  Be careful what you wish for

  Things are not all sunny in the land of milk and honey. Currently the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) is woefully underfunded. The Mercury News editorial, “CalPERS again falls short of addressing deficit” reports the fund has lowered the projected earnings estimates from 7.5% down to 7% in 2019. They add one inconvenient truth:

  “To understand how far short this move falls, consider that CalPERS announced Wednesday that it hadn’t hit a 7 percent average over the last 20 years and, going forward, it estimates that there’s only roughly a 1-in-4 chance that it will meet that target.

  … CalPERS consultant warns that the pension system should anticipate only an average 6.2 percent in each of the next 10 years.

  … That places the system’s shortfall at about $170 billion, which averages more than $13,000 of debt for each California household.”

  The optimistic vision of the secessionist movement overlook a major factor. The California political class is predominantly socialists, redistributing wealth through progressive taxation and free programs to voters to maintain their power. If secession brings an economic windfall it would quickly be spent. As Margaret Thatcher warned, “The problem with socialism is you run out of other people’s money.”

  Beat the Crowd

  George Bernard Shaw said, “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.” In many cases Peter quietly moved away and took his money with him.

  Remember when top professional golfer, Phil Michelson created quite a stir complaining about California taxes, while putting his home up for sale? He would have been better off staying quiet about his reasons. California Political Review reports:

  “Tiger Woods moved from Orange County, California to Orange County, Florida. In the first year of that move, he saved $13 million in taxes. Is it worth $13 million a year taken by government to live in California? Woods said no. Now it looks like Phil Michelson is about to make the same decision. He earns $60 million a year-he would save north of $5 million a year to move to a free State, like Florida or Texas.”

  The New York Post reports:

  “Billionaire David Tepper has moved from New Jersey to Florida, and the loss of his income tax could leave a $140 million hole. … Forty percent of the state’s revenue comes from personal-income tax – a third of which is collected from less than 1 percent of taxpayers. Tepper was New Jersey’s wealthiest resident.”

  It’s not just the heavy hitters

  When we moved to Phoenix we joined a local club in order to meet people. Each month new members stand up and introduce themselves. We noticed a large number of Californians. While my survey is unscientific, I’ve asked many why they moved. Every one mentioned how expensive California is to live. One former Californian remarked, “There are a lot of California refugees in Arizona and Nevada.”

  We lived in Georgia when they passed a state income tax. While it’s progressive, the top rate (6%) kicks in at $7,000. At the time I was in my peak earning years and could live anywhere.

  I was an early immigrant. The first time I paid GA income tax, I realized our other taxes did not go down. What did I get back from the government for confiscating an additional 6% of my earnings? We quickly moved to Florida, with no state income taxes. Florida is full of refugees fleeing other high tax states.

  The migration continues. In 2013 the Tax Foundation published a State Migration Calculator and great graphic:

  

  The high tax socialist states are losing billions in adjusted gross income, while states like Texas and Florida are growing. The Washington Examiner reports the trend is continuing and concludes, “The growth in no-income-tax and right-to-work states was fueled largely by net domestic migration rather than international migration (Emphasis mine), according to the 2016 Census estimates.”

  The landscape is changing

  The election of President Trump sent shock waves through much of the political class. Many public union pensions are woefully underfunded. They donated millions to Hillary Clinton’s election campaign and expected federal bailouts. They knew they could count on Mrs. Clinton; she has a great track record of rewarding her political donors. Today no one knows what the new administration will do.

  In the meantime, the scramble is on. The politicians in states that have been heavily supporting Paul have a huge base, not because they have won over the hearts and minds of Peter; but rather because the working class got tired of being fleeced and left. The politicos have to find ways to make good on all their free programs. Cutting benefits will cause citizens to storm the palace. They must find ways to generate more revenue.

  Brian Daniels warns us, The Growing Specter of State “Exit Taxes” as Residents Abandon High-Tax States:

  “To be clear, it is not legal for states to charge a true exit tax on citizens changing their residency from one state to another (this is not the case for the federal government, which does charge a large exit tax).

  So what do high-tax states do to try and prevent their residents from moving their legal residence to low- or no-tax states? In a word, they audit them.”

  When a taxpayer is audited, the agency issues an assessment for unpaid taxes. It’s not “innocent until proven guilty.” You must prove they are wrong or the assessment stands.

  Once you intend to leave you are of no value to the politicos. Most people do not have the means to go to court. For some, it becomes a government shakedown to extract as much wealth as they can on your way out the door.

  What about Calexit?

  With the mindset of California voters, who knows what will happen?

  I don’t recommend holding any California government debt, including holdings in bond funds. While the probability of secession may be small, might they establish their own currency and try to renegotiate their debt? Holding California debt is an unnecessary risk to take with retirement money.

  Should they vote to secede, Californians would face a choice of leaving or staying. If you choose to leave, expect a hefty exit tax. If you are thinking about leaving, why wait? Walk quietly and beat the rush!

  

  

• Banned HuffPo Contributor: Trump "Must Go Through Hell Every Day If This Is How The Press Is Behaving"

  

  What happens when a prolific progressive Huffington Post contributor deviates from the narrative and publishes an article admitting Donald Trump was correct about something?

  HuffPo deletes the article and bans the guy, of course!

  Norwegian journalist, author, and world traveler René Zografos had the audacity to suggest that Donald Trump was telling the truth about Sweden’s ongoing nightmare related to the violent tidal wave of predominantly North African refugees. Zografos wrote:

  It’s well known for Scandinavians and other Europeans that liberal immigration comes with drugs, rapes, gang wars, robbery and violence. Additional to that we see the respective nations cultures fading away, for good and for bad.

  Hours after publication, the article was gone – and Zografos’ access to the Huffington Post was revoked:

  When a @HuffingtonPost contributor tells the truth about Trump: Now you see it, now you don’t! pic.twitter.com/VUZiKEvb0E

  — ZeroPointNow (@ZeroPointNow) February 24, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

   

  When reached for comment, Zografos’ told iBankCoin:

  I just think this it’s a silly behavior, and actually a bit scary, because free press is crucial in our world. I don’t always agree with Trump, but he must go through hell everyday if this is how the press is behaving.

  For the liberal media to actively ignore, suppress, and lie about what’s going on in Sweden (which now has a grenade problem of all things, which did not exist prior to 2012) is beyond the pale. Between no-go zones, riots, news crews being assaulted, and a recently earned reputation as the “rape capital of Europe” – all of which have been vehemently denied by the MSM and the hypocritical Swedish government, the level of propaganda and cover-up is astounding.

  @CachDPT @HuffingtonPost have asked them, but I’m still waiting for answer. I have given them a lot of sources so it shouldn’t be that

  — René Zografos (@zokrates) February 23, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  @DrJhopheon Well, where I come from we try to tell the truth, I also hope Huff thinks that a good thing, let’s see if it comes back. 😉

  — René Zografos (@zokrates) February 23, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  @zokrates https://t.co/A0dP4Pafwf

  — René Zografos (@zokrates) February 23, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  In the meantime, Mr. Zografos granted iBankCoin permission to republish his now-deleted article in it’s entirety:

  —————-

  Sweden has huge problems because of liberal immigration policy

  Many journalists around the world are eager to condemn Donald Trump no matter what. When he tweeted about immigration in Sweden few days ago, the social media exploded. Most of the opponent said that Trump had made up the immigration problem Sweden are having. They are wrong.

  Only hours later there was a riot of violence and destructions by immigrants in the capitol of Sweden, Stockholm. The police was forced to shoot with ammunition to put and end to it. In Malmö, another city south in Sweden they have struggle with gang violence and lawlessness for years. So when Trump talk about that Sweden have an immigration problem he is actually spot on.

  It’s well known for Scandinavians and other Europeans that liberal immigration comes with drugs, rapes, gang wars, robbery and violence. Additional to that we see the respective nations cultures fading away, for good and for bad.

  But the immigration problem is not only a Swedish predicament. The truth is, that several European cities have huge immigration problems where even the police force is afraid to interfere in some locations in these cities. UK, France and several other European countries are changing rapidly with extreme quantity of immigration. I’m not saying immigration is only bad, but a lot of problems come with poor immigration policy, as consequences we get violence, terror and gangs. The fact is that the press here in Europe hasn’t doing their job properly. There is this fear for journalists to not report the basic truth – which is that Europe has enormous problems that comes from liberal immigration politics, and as we also now can see in Sweden, but also here in Norway. But it’s not political correct for journalists to say or write that immigration in Europe is unsuccessful. When that said, most of the people that come from other countries are behaving flawless and are a gift to our society, but then again to report that everything is all good is simply wrong and these journalists should find another job, because they do not have enough integrity that requires to be decent journalist.

  –renezografos.com

   

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

  

• Meanwhile, In Every News Editor's Office Across America

  Speaking the unspeakable…

   

  

  Source: Townhall.com

  

  

• 7 Murders In Chicago's Deadliest Day Of 2017 As Trump Tweets "Totally Out Of Control"

  Yesterday marked the most violent day of 2017 for folks living in Chicago as the city recorded at least 13 shootings and 7 homicides.  According to the Chicago Tribune, five of the victims were killed over just a two hour period, including a woman who was eight months pregnant.  Meanwhile, the violent Wednesday night brought total shootings for the year to 495 with 99 homicides.

  Of course, Trump has been persistent in his threats to “send in the feds” if Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanual fails to “fix the horrible ‘carnage’ going on” in his streets.  Earlier this evening Trump commented on the latest spike of violence, saying:

  “Seven people shot and killed yesterday in Chicago. What is going on there – totally out of control. Chicago needs help!”

  Seven people shot and killed yesterday in Chicago. What is going on there – totally out of control. Chicago needs help!

  — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 24, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

   

  Of course, this latest Trump tweet mimics similar messages sent last month:

  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

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Chicago murder rate is record setting – 4,331 shooting victims with 762 murders in 2016. If Mayor can’t do it he must ask for Federal help!

  — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 2, 2017

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

   

  Per data from HeyJackAss!, Wednesday marked the deadliest day in Chicago since Christmas Day last year when the city recorded 8 homicides.

  

   

  And, for the first time in 2017, YTD homicides have officially exceeded the violent 2016 pace and looks set to surpass 100 for just the first two months of the year. 

  

   

  Finally, just like 2016, the violence continues to be heavily concentrated in just a handful of neighborhoods on Chicago’s South and West Side.

  Like last year, the Harrison police district on the West Side has seen the most homicides: 16 this year compared to 12 this time last year, according to Tribune data.

   

  The Austin district, also on the West Side, is close behind with 11 homicides.  Last year, it wasn’t even among the top five at this time, Tribune data shows.

   

  The next three districts are Ogden on the Near West Side, 10, Englewood on the South Side, 9, and Calumet on the South Side, 6.  The Near North district had no homicides this time last year but has recorded two this year, according to Tribune data.

  

  

  

• "Mystery Poison" Used To Murder Kim Jong Nam Revealed As VX Nerve Agent

  What was until recently was a real-life reincarnation of the move “The International”, just got a double dose of “The Rock” thrown in for good measure.

  When yesterday we shared the most recent update in the bizarre assassination of Kim Jong Nam, the half brother of North Korea’s ruler, who was murdered in broad daylight inside Kuala Lumpur’s budget airline terminal, we reported that while the two women suspected in the fatal poisoning attack had coated their hands with “mystery” toxic chemicals which they then wiped on Nam’s face, a key question remained unanswered, namely what was the poison used to by the woman with the “LOL” shirt used to murder the North Korean scion.

  

  As CBS reported previously, experts routinely tasked with finding answers in poisoning cases were stumped: what substance could have been used to kill the victim so quickly without sickening the women who apparently deployed it, along with anyone else nearby? Difficult, they said, but doable.

  “It’s not an agent that could be cooked up in a hotel room. It’s going to take a lot of knowledge regarding the chemical in order to facilitate an attack like this,” said Bruce Goldberger, a leading toxicologist who heads the forensic medicine division at the University of Florida. He said a nerve gas or ricin, a deadly substance found in castor beans, could be possible. A strong opioid compound could also have been used, though that would likely have incapacitated the victim immediately.

  “It would have to be cleverly designed in order to be applied in this fashion without hurting anyone else,” Goldberger said.

  “The more unusual, the more potent, the more volatile a poison is, the less likely it is to be detected,” said Olif Drummer, a toxicologist at Australia’s Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine who has spent 40 years in the field. Khalid said the women knew they were handling poisonous materials and “were warned to take precautions.” Surveillance footage showed both keeping their hands away from their bodies after the attack, he said, then going to restrooms to wash. Such details are unclear in video footage that has been released to media.

  Well, moments ago the Malaysian police provided the answer, when it reported that the chemical substance used to kill Kim Jong Nam last week was the nerve agent right out of the movei “The Rock” called VX, which happens to be listed as a weapon of mass destruction by the United Nations.

  

  Khalid Abu Bakar, Malaysia’s inspector general of police, said Friday in a statement that identification of the substance came from a preliminary report. He said swabs were taken from the eye and face of the victim.

  

  VX is described by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as “the most potent of all nerve agents”, with a large dose leading to loss of consciousness, paralysis and respiratory failure. Its only known use is as a chemical warfare agent. 

  VX is banned under the UN Chemical Weapons Convention, to which North Korea is not a party.

  The nerve agent, also known as ethyl N-2-Diisopropylaminoethyl Methylphosphonothiolate, was developed in the UK in the 1950s.

  

  As the FT further adds, Malaysian police are seeking at least four North Korean suspects in connection with the murder, who are now believed to be back in Pyongyang. Two other North Korean nationals, including a diplomat in Malaysia, are wanted for questioning.

  Police have detained a Vietnamese woman, an Indonesian woman and a North Korean man in connection with Kim’s death.

  The murder has frayed relations between North Korea and Malaysia, which this week recalled its ambassador from Pyongyang.

  In the aftermath of the fallout from North Korea’s ballistic missile launch and alleged orchestration of Kim Jong Nam’s murder, we reported earlier today that China, which last weekend announced it would ban all coal imports from North Korea, was preparing for “regime collapse” in North Korea, and would “take the necessary measures to safeguard national security in the event of the collapse of the neighbouring North Korean regime”, a defence official said on Thursday. 

  

  

• The Road To Hell Was Paved With Obama Cronyism

  Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

  

  President Donald Trump’s naïve (or willfully blind) notion that Wall Street will work better at raising capital if it is unleashed from strident Federal regulation is unhinged from the facts on the ground. Those facts, as illustrated above, are that the Boards of two of the largest banks in the U.S. are utterly spineless when it comes to holding their CEOs and employees accountable in the face of a tsunami of crimes.

   

  – From the Wall Street on Parade article: What JPMorgan and Citigroup Have in Common When It Comes to Crime

  Opposition to Trump is extremely important, particularly when it comes to someone like me who sees his Wall Street love affair and disregard for civil liberties as serious threats to the nation. That said, it is absolutely imperative to see Trump as a symptom of a sick and broken system as opposed to the root cause of anything. The corporate media and legions of mourning Hillary cultists continue to present the Trump threat in extraordinarily simplistic and unhelpful terms. They act as if he’s the head of some evil snake, and that disposing of him as an individual will get America back on track. This couldn’t be more wrong.

  I spent most of the Obama years warning about the dangers of his policies. I didn’t do this for kicks, or because I thought he would try to stay in power forever, but because I knew his monumental cronyism would only pave the way for major problems down the road. Well the backlash to Obama came quick, and we the people won’t do the country any good if we focus on Trump the man, as opposed to the entirely corrupt, billionaire/special interest-controlled cesspool of a society we inhabit. We need to focus on Trump’s policies, not Trump the man.

  We also need to be under no illusions when it comes to the disaster that was the Obama administration, and the key role his failures played in providing the fertile ground for Trump to believe he can do whatever he wants — because Obama largely did.

  As such, today’s article by Trevor Timm at the Freedom of the Press Foundation is extremely important. It provides new documentation demonstrating how the Obama administration worked tirelessly behind the scenes to prevent Congress from expanding government transparency. 

  Here are a few excerpts from the article, New Documents Show the Obama Admin Aggressively Lobbied to Kill Transparency Reform in Congress”:

  New documents obtained through Freedom of the Press Foundation’s lawsuit against the Justice Department reveal that the Obama administration – the self described “most transparent administration ever” – aggressively lobbied behind the scenes in 2014 to kill modest Freedom of Information Act reform that had virtually unanimous support in Congress.

   

  Three months ago, we sued the Justice Department (DOJ) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for communications between the DOJ and Congress, since there were vague reports that the DOJ may have opposed the bill – despite much of it being based word-for-word based on the Justice Department’s own policies.

   

  Today, we are publishing a detailed memo authored by the Justice Department that strongly objected to almost every aspect of FOIA reform put forth by the House of Representatives at the time.

   

  The bill in question – known as the FOIA Act – was unanimously passed by the House in early 2014. The Senate passed a similar bill – known as the FOIA Improvement Act – in December of 2014, but a final vote in the House to merge the two bills was held up at the last minute by then-Speaker of the House John Boehner and the session of Congress ended before it could become law. It was unclear at the time why the bill did not come up for a final vote, but the Washington Post later reported that a few federal agencies—including the Justice Department—had “warned” lawmakers about some provisions in the bill.

   

  But these new documents show it went well beyond that: the Justice Department vehemently objected to both House and Senate members on nearly all aspects of the bill from the very start, and made clear: “The Administration strongly opposes passage of [the FOIA Act].”Notably, the Justice Department indicates that this policy memo (published in full below) is not just the agency’s individual opinion, but that it is speaking for the entire Obama administration.

   

  The Obama administration’s specious objections to FOIA reform were manifold. They were against codifying the Obama administration’s “presumption of openness” policy that Obama declared upon his first month in office, they were against Congress mandating that the federal government create a unified online portal to process FOIA requests, they were against mandating discipline for FOIA redactors who break any of rules or regulations for processing FOIA requests, and they were against providing more reporting and oversight to Congress to make sure FOIA was being complied with.

   

  The administration tried to couch some of its opposition in concern that the bill would “cause delays” in the FOIA process, despite the fact that many of the provisions were written to speed up the process, modernize the system with an online portal, and encourage proactive disclosure by making more information available to the public without even having to file a request. Concerning other provisions, the DOJ claimed the administration is not opposed in principle, but its is against seeing them codified into law — which allows the Executive Branch to delay implementation indefinitely and gives the next administration carte blanche power to rescind any good policies the Obama administration did put in place.

   

  While the Freedom of Information Act remains a valuable tool (this lawsuit can attest to that), any reporter who has filed a FOIA request can corroborate the fact that the law is badly broken. Multiple investigations have shown that the Obama administration has been the most secretive ever when it comes to FOIA. Requests can often take years to be fulfilled if at all, and the only way to get results is to sue, like we were forced to. (We did not receive any documents for over a year from our first requests, and only received these documents after filing a lawsuit).

   

  This summer is the 50th anniversary of the Freedom of Information Act, and Congress is yet again debating a FOIA reform bill, this time with even more holes in it than last time. We hope that Congress will amend the proposed reform in the strongest possible way and send it to the president’s desk with the same message they did fifty years ago when the Johnson administration opposed it, yet was forced to sign it anyways: transparency is vital to democracy.

  If I had to pick the most pernicious aspect of Obama’s entire presidency, it unquestionably would be the Department of Justice. By failing to prosecute a single bank executive, the DOJ made it clear to anyone paying attention that crime pays if you’re wealthy and powerful. With that incentive structure in place, financial crime flourished during the Obama administration, as was perfectly described in today’s article in Wall Street on Parade, What JPMorgan and Citigroup Have in Common When It Comes to Crime.

  Here’s some of what we learned:

  Jamie Dimon became the CEO of JPMorgan Chase on January 1, 2006. At that point, the bank was more than a century old and had never been charged with a criminal felony. In 2014, the Justice Department charged JPMorgan Chase with two felony counts in connection with their role in facilitating the Madoff Ponzi scheme. The bank was given a two-year deferred prosecution agreement.

   

  The very next year, in May 2015, JPMorgan Chase was hit with a new felony count for its role in rigging foreign currency markets as part of a banking cartel. That’s three felony counts in two years and yet Jamie Dimon kept his job. Before the felony counts there was a $13 billion settlement with the Justice Department and Federal and State regulators in 2013 for JPMorgan Chase’s role in selling toxic mortgage investments to investors as worthwhile products when the bank had good reason to believe they would blow up.

   

  Senator Carl Levin, Chair of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations at the time, said that the bank “piled on risk, hid losses, disregarded risk limits, manipulated risk models, dodged oversight, and misinformed the public.”  And, unbelievably, Jamie Dimon continued his tenure as Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase.

   

  The crime spree at JPMorgan Chase became so surreal that two trial lawyers, Helen Davis Chaitman and Lance Gotthoffer, published a breathtaking book on the subject, comparing the bank to the Gambino crime family. In addition to the settlements noted above, the authors add more details as to what has occurred on Dimon’s watch, such as:

   

  “In April 2011, JPMC agreed to pay $35 million to settle claims that it overcharged members of the military service on their mortgages in violation of the Service Members Civil Relief Act and the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.

   

  “In March 2012, JPMC paid the government $659 million to settle charges that it charged veterans hidden fees in mortgage refinancing transactions.

   

  “In October 2012, JPMC paid $1.2 billion to settle claims that it, along with other banks, conspired to set the price of credit and debit card interchange fees.

   

  “On January 7, 2013, JPMC announced that it had agreed to a settlement with the Office of the Controller of the Currency (‘OCC’) and the Federal Reserve Bank of charges that it had engaged in improper foreclosure practices.

   

  “In September 2013, JPMC agreed to pay $80 million in fines and $309 million in refunds to customers whom the bank billed for credit monitoring services that the bank never provided.

   

  “On December 13, 2013, JPMC agreed to pay 79.9 million Euros to settle claims of the European Commission relating to illegal rigging of benchmark interest rates.

   

  “In February 2012, JPMC agreed to pay $110 million to settle claims that it overcharged customers for overdraft fees.

   

  “In November 2012, JPMC paid $296,900,000 to the SEC to settle claims that it misstated information about the delinquency status of its mortgage portfolio.

   

  “In July 2013, JPMC paid $410 million to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to settle claims of bidding manipulation of California and Midwest electricity makets.

   

  “In December 2013, JPMC paid $22.1 million to settle claims that the bank imposed expensive and unnecessary flood insurance on homeowners whose mortgages the bank serviced.”

  Interesting how Jamie Dimon seemed to think being crowned “Obama’s favorite banker” entitled him to a multi-year crime spree.

  Let’s now turn to Citigroup.

  Michael Corbat has been CEO of Citigroup since October 2012. Below is just a sampling of the regulatory charges against the bank under Corbat’s reign, including a guilty plea to a felony count in May 2015 which covered conduct that continued after Corbat took the helm.

   

  July 1, 2013: Citigroup agrees to pay Fannie Mae $968 million for selling it toxic mortgage loans.

   

  September 25, 2013: Citigroup agrees to pay Freddie Mac $395 million to settle claims it sold it toxic mortgages.

   

  December 4, 2013: Citigroup admits to participating in the Yen Libor financial derivatives cartel to the European Commission and accepts a fine of $95 million.

   

  July 14, 2014: The U.S. Department of Justice announces a $7 billion settlement with Citigroup for selling toxic mortgages to investors. Attorney General Eric Holder called the bank’s conduct “egregious,” adding, “As a result of their assurances that toxic financial products were sound, Citigroup was able to expand its market share and increase profits.”

   

  November 2014: Citigroup pays more than $1 billion to settle civil allegations with regulators that it manipulated foreign currency markets. Other global banks settled at the same time.

   

  May 20, 2015: Citicorp, a unit of Citigroup becomes an admitted felon by pleading guilty to a felony charge in the matter of rigging foreign currency trading, paying a fine of $925 million to the Justice Department and $342 million to the Federal Reserve for a total of $1.267 billion.

   

  May 25, 2016: Citigroup agrees to pay $425 million to resolve claims brought by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that it had rigged interest-rate benchmarks, including ISDAfix, from 2007 to 2012.

   

  July 12, 2016: The Securities and Exchange Commission fined Citigroup Global Markets Inc. $7 million for failure to provide accurate trading records over a period of 15 years.

   

  President Donald Trump’s naïve (or willfully blind) notion that Wall Street will work better at raising capital if it is unleashed from strident Federal regulation is unhinged from the facts on the ground. Those facts, as illustrated above, are that the Boards of two of the largest banks in the U.S. are utterly spineless when it comes to holding their CEOs and employees accountable in the face of a tsunami of crimes.

  While it’s unquestionably true that Donald Trump is a gigantic Wall Street-coddler, so was Obama. When it comes to the real power running this country, no one dares take on the financial criminals. Not even Trump, despite all his big talk.

   

   

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Orgy Enthusiast Bill Maher Defends Statutory Rape On Several Occasions – "The Crime Is That We Didn't Get It On Videotape"

  What an interesting turn of events. Days after outspoken Trump-supporter Milo Yiannopoulos appeared on Bill Maher’s panel of idiots where he was subject to a liberal hit-job, the left decided to execute operation McMuffin; a collaboration between liberals and former CIA “never-Trumper” Evan McMullin to strategically release dredged up flippant remarks Milo made about homosexual grooming – which led to a canceled book deal and his resignation as tech editor for Breitbart. With over 1500 sex trafficking and child exploitation arrests in the first month of Trump’s presidency, this was clearly the left’s desperate attempt to try and insinuate some sort of hypocrisy on the right concerning pedophilia. Weak.

  The MSM, predictably, wasted no time attacking Milo – a strategy which surely couldn’t backfire:

  

  Salon.com even deleted a pro-pedophilia article so they wouldn’t look like total hypocrites when they ran an story quoting Bill Maher, who took credit for kicking off the Milo smear campaign:

  

  

  Hours later, thanks to 4chan and Reddit – the tides are turning, and Bill Maher’s about to get blown the fuck out…

  Turns out the 61 year old host of HBO’s Real Time With Bill Maher, who attends a $75K / year elite Los Angeles sex club, is also a huge fan of pedophilia as long as the abuser is a woman – as told in a 2007 issue of Playboy magazine:

  

  This isn’t the first time Maher has defended statutory rape. While the official DSM definition of pedophilia has an age cutoff of 13, the HBO host vehemently defended former teacher and convicted statutory child rapist Mary Kay Letourneau for having a sexual relationship with one of her students, which began when the boy was 12 – firmly putting Maher’s advocacy for the relationship in pedo territory.

  (Note how Henry Rollins is completely on point?)

   

    

  Karma Bill, karma. Oh, and about that sex club mentioned earlier; it appears Maher is into some Eyes Wide Shut shit. While normally I wouldn’t care – the hypocrisy of his ivory tower judgment of a gay conservative, and the fact that he piled on and took credit for kicking off Milo’s “downfall” for the exact same practice he’s advocated several times, makes it fair game to point out that the HBO host loves him some expensive orgies!

  At a swanky party in a Beverly Hills, Calif., mansion last Saturday, I spot Bill Maher in a sea of beautiful young women and make my approach.

   

  “Are you a Leo?” I ask the host of HBO’s “Real Time,” while eyeing a lion pendant around his neck.

   

  “No, they make me wear this stupid thing because I’m a member,” he replies, stroking the back of his date, a pretty younger woman in a short black leather dress.

   

  Single men pay $1,850 per party, or $1,500 if they come with a female partner. For the erotic elite, there’s an annual Dominus membership for $75,000, which includes admission to all parties, a sterling-silver necklace with a lion pendant and access to private rooms at parties and Lawner’s network of sex experts.

  The sex club also has an interesting initiation:

  Dominus members sign a “blood oath,” involving blood and a paper document, to join — but Lawner won’t go into details. –NY Post

  What??? AIDS tests are in the back of the store at the pharmacy counter, Bill.

  The crickets are warming up for yet another prolonged silence from the MSM.

   

    

  

• MSNBC Anchor: "Our Job" Is To "Control Exactly What People Think"

  During a lively discussion centered on fears that President Trump is “trying to undermine the media,” MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski let slip the awesome unspoken truth that the media’s “job” is to “actually control exactly what people think.”

  
  

  SCARBOROUGH: “Exactly. That is exactly what I hear. What Yamiche said is what I hear from all the Trump supporters that I talk to who were Trump voters and are still Trump supporters. They go, ‘Yeah you guys are going crazy. He’s doing — what are you so surprised about? He is doing exactly what he said he is going to do.'”

   

  BRZEZINSKI: “Well, I think that the dangerous, you know, edges here are that he is trying to undermine the media and trying to make up his own facts. And it could be that while unemployment and the economy worsens, he could have undermined the messaging so much that he can actually control exactly what people think. And that, that is our job.”

  As grabien points out, the comment failed to raise any eyebrows from her co-panelists. Instead, her co-host, Joe Scarborough, said that Trump’s media antagonism puts him on par with Mussolini and Lenin…

  

  

  

• How Tennessee Could Be About To Start A Constitutional Crisis

  The State Senate of Tennessee has laid the legislative groundwork for something that hasn’t been done in the United States of America since the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia.  With a vote of 27-3, the Tennessee Senate has voted to call a “convention of the states” in order to draft and pass an amendment to the Constitution that would require balanced budgets to be passed every year. 

  For those who are little fuzzy on their high school U.S. history knowledge, the Tennessean explains that the U.S. Constitution can be amended in two ways.  The first would require a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers of Congress, an unlikely outcome in today’s hyper-partisan political arena.  The second, on the other hand, requires that two-thirds of the states (34 in total) pass a resolution calling for a Constitutional Convention. 

  There are two ways to propose amendments to the Constitution. The first and more traditional method is through a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Then the amendment is sent to the state legislatures, where it needs ratification by three-fourths or 38 states in order to become law. Nearly all 27 amendments have followed this path.

   

  But the Constitution also provides a second, more populist path to amending the document. If two-thirds or 34 states pass a resolution calling for a Constitutional Convention, delegates from all 50 states will meet to draft an amendment. This is what the Tennessee lawmakers are calling for in their resolution.

  Of course, calls for a convention to pass a balanced budget amendment started in the 1970s and have failed each time.  That said, with Republicans now controlling 32 state legislatures, this latest effort initiated by Tennessee seems to have the best chance of succeeding so far. 

  And while there have been close calls for Constitutional Conventions before, each time Congress has acted preemptively to stave off the need for a convention. In 1911, for example, 28 states of the required 32 passed a resolution calling for direct election of Senators before Congress intervened and drafted the Seventeenth Amendment instead.

  

   

  But, as the Tennessean notes, the problem with amending the Constitution through a convention is that once the convention is convened anything can happen.  For example, the last time the states gathered for a convention in 1787 they ended up tossing out the Articles of Confederation and forming an entirely new government based on the current Constitution.

  The last time the states gathered to amend a governing document on the scale the resolution calls for, the delegates threw out America’s first basis of government and replaced it with the Constitutional system used today.

   

  “They were supposed to meet to make amendments to the Articles of Confederation but ended up with a whole new form of government,” said Nathan Griffith, an associate professor of political science at Belmont University. “Not just a new constitution, but a whole new form of government.”

  If enough states pass a similar resolution, then a planning convention could meet as early as this upcoming July, and by November the first Article V Convention in history could be called by Congress.

  Meanwhile, as we noted earlier today, President Trump offered his own warning on America’s national debt this morning saying that “[spending] was out of control,” as officials gathered to discuss the budget, adding that there is “enormous work to do on the national debt.”

  There is a “moral duty” to taxpayers, President Trump says at White House budget lunch, “we must do a lot more with less.”

   

  “Our budget is absolutely out of control” he added, and in the future “will reflect our priorities.”

   

  The hiring freeze for non-essential workers will remain.

   

  “We have enormous work to do on the national debt”

   

  There will be “no more wasted money, we will spend in a careful way.”

   

  Of course, we’re not really sure what all the fuss is about…only $10 trillion has been added to the national debt over the past 8 years, which, when you think about it, is a very manageable $31,000 per man, woman and child.

  

   

  And balancing the budget 5 years out of 50 is pretty good, right?

  

  

  

• The Conflictual Relationship Between Donald Trump And The US "Deep State" – Part 2

  Submitted by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

  In just two weeks as president of the United States, Donald Trump has left traces of how he intends to tackle various international political situations. The previous article dealt with a series of possible sabotage efforts suffered by the Trump administration. In this second and concluding article, I intend to analyze the situations in Iran, Russia, Ukraine, and Syria as well as the stance towards NATO, the EU and China. The goal is to decipher how Trump has used admissions, silences and bluffs in order to advance his intentions and obviate the deep state’s sabotage efforts.

  Deep-state sabotage is in full swing and is increasingly influencing the Trump administration. The latest example can be seen in the resignation of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. He was forced to resign either for inappropriate contacts with the Russian ambassador in the US prior to his appointment, or for not telling the truth about his phone call to the Vice President and President.

  As with the whole Trump presidency, it is very difficult to understand whether we are facing an act of sabotage from the deep state or whether this is yet another semi-improvised strategy to muffle the drums of war. We all know of Flynn’s closeness to his Russian counterparts, a rapprochement that cannot be placed in danger with the dismissal of the new National Security Adviser. Trump needs Russia more than Russia needs Washington; improving ties is something that Trump needs in order to avoid major conflicts and de-escalate the international situation. One could even imagine that Flynn was wisely removed given his harsh and trenchant positions on Iran that would send Washington on a terrible path of war with Tehran.

  There are several international situations in which the intentions of the new administration are very difficult to understand and sometimes even provoke amazement. Let us first examine the administration’s attitude towards the Iran and Yemen. As noted a few weeks ago, very harsh words from the US administration were directed towards Tehran following a legitimate missile test, and especially with the defensive actions of the Houthis in Yemen. With Yemen and Iran not looking like diminishing their legitimate actions, the affair regarding Flynn could fall into a de-escalation strategy to contain excesses in Islamophobia expressed by the former National Security Advisor.

  Trump has always preferred to counter deep-state sabotage attempts with substantial bluffing, as seen with the strong rhetoric used against Tehran regarding its recent actions, exactly as in Yemen for the actions of Ansarullah defense forces. The Trump strategy seems to want to please the factions closest to the neoconservative wing, the Israeli and Saudi lobbies. Targeting Yemen and Iran with words has at least temporarily quietened the drums of war of an important part of the establishment in Washington. Trump has to carry out a careful balancing act involving his words and actions in order not to not draw too harsh a response from the Washington establishment.

  Flynn's dismissal could also be seen as an easy attempt to sabotage and prevent a rapprochement with Russia; indeed this is likely to be so.

  But meanwhile, we can consider one positive aspect: Flynn has always been highly Islamophobic, tending to find it difficult to distinguish between Wahhabi terrorist goons and legitimate Islamic fighters like the Houthis or Hezbollah. Flynn has usually maintained pro-Saudi positions and even pro-Qatar Muslim Brotherhood positions. It may even be that Trump has torpedoed his own personally chosen pick dampening the excessive saber-rattling against the Islamic Republic of Iran that was possibly laying the groundwork for an escalation that Trump had to reign in. This is pure speculation, but everything is possible with this unpredictable presidency.

  Much talk, little action

  Trump still gives the strong impression that he intends to avoid any further conflict. Bluffing on Iran and Yemen seems to be the ideal choice for the Trump administration: harsh tones and words to placate the most hawkish factions without actually taking any action appears to be the new normal. The first strategy of Trump's foreign policy therefore seems to be to employ a tactic of inaction. Not acting could well represent a new turning point in American foreign policy, avoiding further involvement in the Middle East and in the Persian Gulf. This would represent the first confirmation of Trump’s intention not to squander American resources by going to war and betraying his election promises, thereby further impoverishing the United States. Observing the very intense words on Iran, let us try and analyze the intentions of the Trump administration. Certainly having people like General Mattis within the administration is a big test for how Trump will manage to contain the most anti-Iranian wing of his inner council. Could Flynn's departure be the first step of this internal cleansing, a warning signal to other pro-war figures? Or maybe it is none of the above and in actual fact the first successful sabotage from the deep state.

  Silence as a strategy of inaction

  Another important approach in Trump’s presidency is a frequent silence or lack of comment on international events. Two most recent cases concern Syria and China. With regard to the «One China» policy, Trump confirmed assumptions made in the past, namely that his intentions are anything but malicious. The tone was initially hard, only to be replaced by a long silence, and then finally words one would not expect, averting an international crisis on this front. It is a modus operandi that should be taken as an example for understanding the psychology of Trump. At first he was critical in a decisive way, calling into question China and Taiwan, then he no longer mentioned the topic, and finally he gave his blessing to the «One China» policy, initiating a likely mutually fruitful cooperation.

  Another important part of Trump’s policy of silence involves Syria. Since becoming president, Trump has rendered events in Syria irrelevant, making the issue disappear from the media radar. Thanks to Trump’s guerrilla tactics, lobbing smoke grenades hither and tither and signing two executive orders a day, the media simply does not have the time and perseverance to keep up with everything. One of the sacrificial victims has been the reality in Syria; but a lack of attention from the mainstream media is currently the best hope that we can desire for the Syrian people. Trump’s attitude seems to be deliberately cautious and silent about developments in that nation. The situation in Syria is firmly in Russian hands, and what seems to be occurring is an indirect coordination between Washington and Moscow against Daesh in the country. The silence from Trump certainly irritated the most radical and extreme wing of the deep state, but any attempt to sabotage this progress in Syria now seems to be wrecked thanks to the inaction of the Trump administration and the actions of Moscow. The final coup de grace would be to openly cooperate or act in joint US-Russia actions to defeat terrorism in the region.

  Admissions to confirm the election promises

  Finally, Trump has never hidden and indeed has often touted his vision of the approach that should be taken with the Russian Federation. A rapprochement with Putin to combat terrorism is one of the pivotal points around which the Trump presidency rotates. During the election campaign he has never hidden his positive intentions, even though this increased the criticism directed towards him. This part of his tactic is based on the admission from the beginning of his campaign of his intention to reach a deal with Moscow. The first confirmation of this intention can be seen in Syria, with Washington apparently ceasing the flow of money and weapons to the so-called moderate rebels, pleasing Moscow and looking for a de-escalation of the conflict. Another important aspect regarding Trump’s statements in terms of foreign policy concerns the role of NATO and his European allies.

  During the election campaign he repeatedly attacked the role of NATO, but then was forced to reach an agreement given the importance of the international framework guaranteed by NATO in Europe. This provided a very clear indicator of how Trump’s strategy works out if he has to defer to other considerations. He changed his initial positions by placing a strong emphasis on the need for US allies to pay their share of military spending, namely 2% of GDP. Currently all NATO countries, excluding the United States and Greece, fall below this commitment. Sharp focus is brought on the EU members on the cost of keeping NATO alive, forcing them to come to terms with the harsh economic reality that this implies. In the long term this could lead to a strong treaty revision of NATO. EU countries are increasingly facing difficulty in increasing defense spending, especially when considering existing austerity measures as well as the lack of importance placed on NATO by the European public, with the exception of the EU elite.

  This tactic will further weaken the integrity of the European Union. In a sense, the Trump strategy in this case is crystal clear and will probably achieve its objectives.

  This situation will provide the perfect opportunity for the European populist and nationalist parties to further attack the foundations of the European Union and its security framework guaranteed by NATO. If Trump wanted to undermine the EU's foundations, pointing to the futility of NATO and at the same demonstrating to his base that he will act on his election promises, then this strategy seems perfectly calibrated.

  Ultimately, we can already say that the relations between Trump and the deep state are essentially based on sabotage efforts against Trump, and the asymmetrical responses of his administration, ranging from bluffing, to silences, and admissions.

  To correctly assess Trump’s foreign policy, one should divide into three categories the vicissitudes of the United States. In a first column we can include words and rhetoric; in the second, inaction; and in the third, actions taken.

  While it is clear and obvious that the first column includes Iran, Yemen and the EU/NATO, it is worthwhile noting that the second column certainly includes inaction like shown towards China, Syria, and the events in Ukraine. The third column, for the moment, essentially concerns the first steps towards Russia and the rapprochement with Moscow. In this sense, it is worth remembering that the resignation of Flynn may just be a deep-state move to sabotage Trump before he takes decisive action to settle a deal with Russia. The tactic of not acting, or of inaction, is difficult to sabotage, as the deep state came to realize when Obama decided not to act in Syria in 2013. Criticizing actions taken is much more effective and easy for the media, as seen with the attacks on Trump’s team for ties with Putin that are deemed too close. In this sense, the hypothesis that Flynn has been sacrificed should not be discarded in this context as a way of promoting a rapprochement with Russia, eliminating one of the most contentious issues between the administration and the deep state.

  On this aspect we will need to await the developments between Moscow and Washington, and how this will possibly change the rhetoric against countries such as Yemen and Iran, two countries long criticized by Flynn and his colleagues.

  Conclusions

  The only possible conclusion relates to the previous point, namely the clear division between words, actions, or inaction. At the moment, the Trump team’s strategy seems to use these three options to further advance their own interests and strategic objectives. Given the uncertainty surrounding the intentions of Trump’s administration, the only sensible attitude seems to wait and see whether the aggressive rhetoric remain just that. Another consideration relates to actions taken by the administration to approach and mend troubled relations with the Russian Federation. Finally is the inaction in foreign policy that amounts to a precise tactic. If words remain words and inaction will continue to remain a key part of the current presidency, perhaps for the first time in decades we will see in practice a positive change in direction from the new US administration.

  In all this it remains to be seen whether Trump will really change the direction set by liberal hegemony with its global ambitions for a more realistic one as repeatedly suggested by the school of political realism represented by Mearsheimer. Only time, and actions, will tell.

  

  

• Dallas Police Pension Board Approves Benefit Cuts; Asks For More Taxpayer Money To Avoid Collapse

  For the past several months we’ve warned that the taxpayers of the City of Dallas, despite all of the tough talk coming out of their elected city council members, would ultimately be forced to bail out the failing Dallas Police and Fire Pension (DPFP) system.  And just last night the DPFP board voted 9-0 to approve a plan that would do just that. 

  The plan to save the DPFP was proposed by Dan Flynn, chair of the pensions committee in the Texas House of Representatives, and calls for Dallas taxpayers to contribute 34.5% of police and firefighter salaries each year into the failing pension system, up from 27% in 2015, plus an incremental $11 million per year.  In total, the adopted plan will cost Dallas taxpayers an extra $22 million per year.

  That said, the plan also calls for pensioners to grant concessions, including the following:

  • Increase in retirement age to 58 from 55
  • Increase in employee contributions to 13.5% of payroll from 8.5%
  • Elimination of COLAs in the near term
  • Elimination of exorbitant interest payments made on employees DROP accounts

  Of course, the $7 billion shortfall in the DPFP triggered downgrades to Dallas’s credit rating from Moody’s and S&P in recent months which has wreaked havoc on the city’s bond yields. (chart per Bloomberg).

  

   

  Meanwhile, no amount of incremental taxpayer funding will ever be sufficient to stop angry pensioners from playing the victim card when the realities of their pension ponzi schemes are exposed for all to see.  Per NBC 5:

  There was a whirlwind of emotions at the meeting, from clapping, to tears and obvious tension, both from board members and from those whose futures hang in the balance.

   

  “I think we’re being treated like animals to a certain degree, and I was hesitant to even come down here today,” said Frank Varner, a retired Dallas firefighter.

   

  “How do you fix broken promises? These people deserve better. The firefighters and officers working today deserve better,” said Mike Mata, a Dallas police officer and president of the Dallas Police Association.

  http://www.nbcdfw.com/portableplayer/?cmsID=414291733&videoID=ZglWSJ0UXaSo&origin=nbcdfw.com&sec=news&subsec=local&width=600&height=360&t=63

   

  Don’t worry dear pensioners, there is no problem too large for taxpayers to bail out.

  A summary of the plan adopted by the DPFP board can be viewed below:

  https://www.scribd.com/embeds/340019651/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-gcElNzntRia0JNQ6iMqR&show_recommendations=true

  

  

• As China's Housing Minister Admits There Is A Bubble, Axiom Warns "Sell Commodities Now"

  After several months of slowing price growth across China’s bubbly housing market, if mostly in the lower-tiered cities, last month we reported that China’s National Bureau of Statistics confirmed that the latest Chinese housing bubble has finally popped, after housing prices across the 70 cities tracked by the NBS were up 12.7% Y/Y, below the 12.9% annual growth rate in November. This was the first deceleration in year-over-year housing price growth after 19 months of continued acceleration.

  Then, overnight, China reported that after the November peak, January house prices decelerated again, and according to Goldman calculations, on a year-over-year, population-weighted basis, housing prices in the 70 cities were up 12.4% vs. 12.7% yoy in December, and 12.9% in November, the second consecutive month of deceleration.

  On year-over-year basis, housing price growth moderated in January
  

  On a month-over-month basis, house price inflation decelerated modestly in tier-1 and tier-4 cities, and remained stable in tier 2 and tier 3 cities: In tier-1 cities, January price growth was 0.3% month-over-month after seasonal adjustment, vs. 0.5% in December. In tier-4 cities, property price growth was 0.2% month-over-month after seasonal adjustment, vs. +0.3% in December. Average property price inflation in tier 2/3 cities was 0.5%/0.4% month-over-month after seasonal adjustment respectively in January.

  Average house price inflation stabilized in January compared with December
  

  According to Goldman’s China analyst, Maggie Wei, “we expect property transactions and house price inflation to slow this year from the rapid growth last year. On the other hand, property construction and investment activities may remain solid, supported by the strong land sales last year. We forecast only a small moderation in property FAI growth this year compared with last year.”

  Consultancy giant McKinsey, which also is never too late to point out the obvious, said earlier on Wednesday that it sees “early signs of slowdown in China property market”, with McKinsey partner Oliver Ramsbottom speaking at an iron conference in Dalian adding that “our belief is that in property market we’re starting to see a slowdown.” He added that slower mortgage lending will be key indicator for slowing starts and completions, and that the government’s reaction to growth of price appreciation suggests increased focus on cooling, and slower starts.

  As a result, he expects cooling in demand for recently red hot commodities such as steel and iron ore.

  Another analyst who sees the bursting of China’s housing bubble as a big negative for commodities is Axiom Capital’s Gordon Johnson, who likewise looked at China’s slowing housing data and asked, rhetorically “what’s the significance of these data points?”

  His answer: “the last time we had 18 consecutive months of home price acceleration in China (7/31/12-to-12/31/13), iron ore prices rallied, as did steel prices; yet, when year-over-year (“y/y”) growth in home prices turned negative 1/31/14, it marked the beginning of 16 consecutive months of deceleration in home prices, which also ushered in a collapse in both steel prices and iron ore prices, as well as other bulk commodity prices – we remind our readers that Chinese investors use home price growth, y/y, as a catalyst to invest in real estate in China (real estate, by far, is the most steel-intensive sector in China).”

  Normal
  0

  false
  false
  false

  EN-US
  X-NONE
  X-NONE

  MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

  Normal
  0

  false
  false
  false

  EN-US
  X-NONE
  X-NONE

  MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

  
  
  

  As a result, with the second consecutive deceleration in home
  price growth in China in 20 months, Axiom sees imminent risk to construction
  activity, and thus steel/iron ore prices.

  His suggestion: sell commodities now.

  Furthermore, Johnson has noticed a troubling trend when looking at land sales in China. As detailed in the chart below, land sales in China have shown an acute falloff recently. He reminds readers that land sales are a key funding source for local governments in China, and also lead key indicators of Chinese growth, like freight volumes, by around six months.

   

  

  Johnson’s conclusion: “We see C1Q17 as the exact opposite of C4Q16 (i.e., stocks are rallying, despite what we see as a pending downturn in economic data points in China); with the data already beginning to support this narrative, yet investors completely ignoring it at present, we see an acute reversal in the commodity stocks as likely. At risk of stating the obvious, we do not believe this is consensus thinking at present.”

  And speaking of rallying stocks, we pose the same question we asked – rhetorically – last month: “now that the Chinese housing bubble has finally hit its inflection point and is headed downward, prompting the momentum chasers to flee, the question is whether the Chinese stock market is about to become the bubble choice du jour, as happened in mid to late 2014 and early 2015, when the bursting of the home bubble once again pushed all the housing speculators into the stock market with scary, if entertaining, consequences. It may not be a bade idea to buy some deep out of the money calls on the Shenzhen composite, as that is the place where the most degenerate of Chinese gamblers eventually congregate to every time the housing bubble bursts, only to be reincarnated two years down the line.”

  With headlines such as this one in Caixin from last week, “China Relaxes Curbs on Stock-Index Futures Trading“, the answer is clearly yes.

  Finally, while China will do everything in its power to assure another soft landing for the burst Chinese housing bubble, a curious headline popped up moments ago, one which may assure a far more aggressive selling for Chinese real estate in the coming months: according to Bloomberg,  “China Is Doing Preparation Work on Property Tax: Vice Minister” adding that “China will unveil property tax in “timely” manner, Lu Kehua, vice minister of the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, says at a briefing in Beijing.“

  Meanwhile, China’s Housing Minister Chen Zhenggao said at the briefing China property prices to “continue to stabilize” in 1Q, and admitted that mainland real estate is about to crash when he said that “China will contain the property bubble and prevent large fluctuations in property market.”

  Well, thanks for the admission, because few things inspire confidence in artificial real estate values quite like the threat of imminent property taxes (which only those who sell now won’t have to pay) coupled with the local housing minister admitting the entire housing market in a bubble that has now burst.

  

  

• New Study Finds That Trump's Immigration Crack Down Could Cost $5 Trillion In GDP Over 10 Years

  Earlier today we wrote about the impacts that Trump’s immigration policies may have on the U.S. housing market (see “Could Trump’s Immigration Ban Cause Another Housing Crash?“), but that’s just the beginning of the story.  No matter where you come down on the immigration debate, like it or not, there are millions of low-skill jobs in this country, particularly in the Southwest, that our pampered, snowflake millennials wouldn’t touch with a 10-foot pole and are thus filled by “undocumented” workers primarily from Mexico and other portions of South America. 

  Courtesy of a recent study from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), we know that the industries that employ the highest percentage of migrant workers are, quite unsurprisingly, industries like Agriculture, Construction and Leisure and Hospitality, all of which require either back-breaking work in the blistering sun and/or low pay.  In fact, per the NBER study, nearly 20% of all agricultural labor in the United States is performed by illegal aliens while 13% of construction jobs are filled by illegals….jobs that most entitled American youth are unlikely to fill at almost any price.

  

   

  Meanwhile, as we pointed out last fall, the seasonality of agricultural jobs makes them even more unattractive to domestic laborers.  Per the chart below, the total number of people working in the ag industry in California spikes by about 33% starting in May every year and remains elevated for about 6 months through October.  Ask any farmer in California how tight the labor market is during those summer months and you’ll quickly understand that, even with the 1,000’s of illegal migrants working in the state, that farmers find it almost impossible to fully staff their operations during the peak harvesting seasons. 

  

   

  And, of course, the majority of the illegal migrant workers in the U.S. come from Mexico and Central/South America.

  

   

  Meanwhile, the NBER study estimates that every 1 million fewer workers in the U.S. equates to a roughly 0.5% drag on GDP.  Per Bloomberg:

  President Donald Trump’s sweeping crackdown on undocumented immigrants will strain an already tight U.S. job market, with one study suggesting that removing all of them would cost the economy as much as $5 trillion over 10 years.

   

  “The challenge is particularly high now because the labor market has tightened up not just overall but in areas in which you would think undocumented immigrants would be important, so that means that it’s going to be hard to fill these jobs if you deport these employees,” Harris said. “You have to think about indirect effects when you disrupt production in industries in which they’re a critical part of getting things done. So there’s a transition cost, as well as the cost of a reduced labor force.”

   

  Harris estimates that for every 1 million fewer workers in the economy, GDP would be reduced by about 0.5 percent. That’s the equivalent of $94 billion, based on the annualized pace of $18.9 trillion in fourth-quarter GDP.

  And here are the states that would be forced to absorb the greatest economic losses:

  

   

  Perhaps it’s time to start preparing young Tristan James Abernathy III for a life in the fields?  Good luck with that…

  

  

  

• The New Wave Of Violent Protests Is Exactly What The Elite Want – Here's Why

  Submitted by Chase Rachels via The Free Thought Project,

  

  Over the past 18 months, there has been a significant increase in the frequency and severity of riots conducted by the extreme left.  Their ranks are comprised of self-described anti-fascists,  anarcho-communists, radical 3^rd wave feminists, Black Lives Matter (BLM), and other social justice warriors (SJWs).  They have attained great notoriety through their willingness to employ violence/intimidation, vandalize/loot private property, and engage in the very same behavior they accuse their ideological opponents of perpetrating.  Tragically, innocent and non-interested bystanders often get caught in the cross hairs whilst they throw their violent temper tantrums.  To add further cause for concern, these otherwise marginal groups are coalescing under the banner of “intersectionality” thereby effecting a swelling of their ranks, temerity, and menace.

  However, as Professor Matthew Feinberg of the University of Toronto recently published a study confirming “extreme protest tactics reduce popular support for social movements.” Violent and destructive protests render peaceful protestors inept and guilty by association. The following summarizes the results of the study in greater detail:

  “Social movements are critical agents of change that vary greatly in both tactics and popular support. Prior work shows that extreme protest tactics – actions that are highly counter-normative, disruptive, or harmful to others, including inflammatory rhetoric, blocking traffic, and damaging property – are effective for gaining publicity. However, we find across three experiments that extreme protest tactics decreased popular support for a given cause because they reduced feelings of identification with the movement. Though this effect obtained in tests of popular responses to extreme tactics used by animal rights, Black Lives Matter, and anti-Trump protests (Studies 1-3), we found that self-identified political activists were willing to use extreme tactics because they believed them to be effective for recruiting popular support (Studies 4a & 4b). The activist’s dilemma – wherein tactics that raise awareness also tend to reduce popular support – highlights a key challenge faced by social movements struggling to affect progressive change.”

  To further illustrate the nature of such protests/riots a brief outline and analysis of the more notable examples will be provided in the following sections.

  Berkeley Students Racist Barricade

  In late October of 2016, a number of angry Berkeley SJWs barricaded a key bridge on campus to physically bar any white people from crossing.   The objective of the protest was to secure more segregated spaces for people of color a.k.a. “spaces of color”.  Any white person who attempted to breach the barricade was violently denied.  The group also saw fit to post faux eviction notices on a private bookstore with the threat that “community action will continue to escalate” lest they cede the location to the student protesters for the purpose of transforming it into a “space of color.”  Though obvious, it is worth explicitly recognizing the utter hypocrisy of this allegedly “anti-racist” group employing violence and threats against others based merely on the color of their skin for the sake of securing racially segregated spaces.

  Berkeley Anti-Milo Riot

  Riots erupted on February 1^st, 2017 at the University of California at Berkeley over the arrival of the conservative celebrity and self-described “dangerous faggot” Milo Yiannopoulos. So-called anti-fascists and other SJWs were inciting mass violence, vandalism, and hysteria in order to prevent the gay interracial loving Jewish foreigner from peacefully expressing a political opinion that differs from their own. They firebombed the location where Milo’s event was to take place, pepper sprayed a female while being interviewed (and who was ironically offering words of respect to the non-violent protestors who showed up), burned Milo effigies, beat Milo supporters unconscious, and even violated neutral yet curious bystanders. It has repeatedly been made clear that as soon as a person of color, queer, woman, or Muslim expresses non-leftist/non-egalitarian views, the left will treat him/her with the same or even greater level of disdain and prejudice they accuse “right leaning” bogeymen of.

  Yes, Yiannopoulos is a troll and says things to rile up the masses, but meeting free speech with violence only serves to empower your opposition.

  Free speech was stomped on by the radical left at the birthplace of the free speech movement. The poorly named “anti-fascists” (a.k.a antifas) were the ones leading the violent charge to silence and censor the gay Jew. If the irony weren’t thick enough, the topic of Milo’s discussion was a critical examination of “cultural appropriation,” yet it seems the antifas took no issue with culturally appropriating the tactics of fascists and Nazis.

  Presidential Inauguration Riots

  On January 20, 2017, in Washington D.C. several hundred antifas, anarcho-communists, and other radical leftists came together to protest the presidential inauguration of Donald Trump.  To the dismay of peaceful protestors and Trump supporters alike, the radical leftist rioters quickly resorted to tactics of violence and vandalism.  Many were caught throwing bricks and blocks of concrete, breaking the windows of private businesses, violently clashing with and intimidating Trump supporters, setting cars on fire, and harassing defenseless trash cans. Before the day was done, over 200 rioters would be arrested.  One may rest assured that engaging in such public, juvenile, and violent behavior is the surest way to secure a second term for the controversial commander in chief.

  Black Lives Matter (BLM) Riots

  While most Black Lives Matter protests across the country remain entirely peaceful the majority of the time, some of them, often with the help of outside instigators devolve into utter chaos. Examples of this chaos happened in August and September of 2016, when violent BLM protests devolved and riots broke out in Milwaukee, WI and Charlotte, NC respectively. In Milwaukee, BLM rioters set fires to gas stations, auto parts stores, banks, and several other businesses.  There were also reports of rioters firing off guns, hurling bricks, and looting local grocery stores.

  In Charlotte, BLM chaos erupted after a black police officer shot a black man. Rioters responded by shutting down an interstate and setting it ablaze, looting several private businesses, throwing rocks at random motorists, and even targeting white people for beat downs simply for being white. It’s fairly safe to say that if your cause is to diminish the ill effects that racism has on society and your community, then it’s probably best not to burn down local productive enterprises, hinder your community’s ability to travel safely, and beat down any white person you can find with extreme prejudice.

  Women’s March

  On January 21^st, 2017 more than 2.5 million protestors participated in the worldwide “Women’s March” whose aim was to promote human, civil, and reproductive rights.  Unlike the other examples, this protest was largely absent the more injurious elements of violence and intimidation. However, many of the same themes were promoted and other off-putting tactics used thus a brief examination is warranted.

  Perhaps the most paradoxical feature of the protest was the ubiquitous presence of both vagina attire (ranging from subtle vagina shaped/colored headwear to ostentatious full bodied vagina costumes) and anti-“islamophobia” themes.

  It’s amusing to consider how the average Muslim, in his capacity as a Muslim, would be absolutely mortified upon encountering a woman dressed as a giant pubic hair infested vagina.  Such a costume must be the antithesis of the hijab.

  Beyond this, of course, the majority of the march’s themes were anti-libertarian as they included support for anti-discrimination laws, tax-funded healthcare, and the subsidization of both contraceptives and abortion.  It should go without saying that all such measures entail both theft and private property violations.  Thus, to say this was a march for liberty would be a gross misnomer.  It was instead a march for entitlements funded at liberty’s expense.

  Conclusion

  If one is sincerely opposed to racism, sexism, and fascism then it may be best for him to refrain from engaging in racist, sexist, and fascist means to support his cause.  The fact these radical leftist factions utilize such means indicates a more sinister and subtle objective than the purported one of “social justice.” And unfortunately, any legitimate peaceful protests to stop injustice will be deemed illegitimate and the cause ignored as it will be immediately associated with violence. Aside from the societal damage created by such violence and intolerance, this divisive and obstinate environment plays right into the hands of those who want to keep you under control.

  When objectively assessed, these violent protests are revealed as being among the most bigoted, hateful, and dangerous threats to the cause of liberty.

  

  

• Taiwan Joins Global War On Cash: Plans To Ban Purchases Of Houses, Cars, & Jewelry

  The cancerous virus of freedom-destroying worldwide cash-bans – in the name of fighting terrorism – has reached Taiwan this week. With the aim of 'preventing money-laundering', Taiwan may ban cash purchases of properties and luxury goods, Taipei-based Economic Daily News reports, citing unidentified official at Ministry of Justice.

  

  As we previously noted, the War on Cash is not merely continuing, it is intensifying.

  It began in the West, with relatively minor infringements on our right to use the currency of our own nation. The War has now shifted to India, been radically ratcheted up, and inflicted upon a population of 1.2 billion people, where 68% of transactions were conducted with cash. And now, as The Economic Daily News reports (via Google Translate), to Taiwan…

  With the goal of strengthening the prevention and control of money laundering, Taiwan's Ministry of Justice plans to promote large-scale transactions without cash. The first wave may lock real estate, luxury cars and jewelry transactions.

   

  According to the provisions of the money-laundering control law, which currently controls the use cash payment tools, The Ministry of Justice to discuss the plan with other regulators in the second half of the year.

   

  Once finalized, the sale of real estate, cars, and jewelry will not be possible using cash; only non-cash payment tools, such as credit cards, financial cards, checks, electronic payments or remittances.

  Current regulations require the keeping of records and reporting of any transcations over 500,000 Yuan (around $72,000), with no limit on the amount of cash that can be used.

  As to whether a lower threshold will be set, it is unclear; but from indications, for the sale of real estate, luxury cars or jewelry the threshold will be zero – and only non-cash allowed.

  Officials said that in addition to changes in the concept of the majority of normal business people should not be affected, but for some with bad credit, who can not apply for a credit card or bank account, it admitted the new law may cause inconvenience.

  Of course, the excuse for all this cah ban is simple –

  The Ministry of Justice internal data show that the criminal group's asset allocation is especially heavy in gold, diamonds, and real estate. Real estate transactions are considered to high-risk money laundering transactions.

  As we noted previously, on the face of it, this 'war on cash' smacks of conspiracy theory, yet certainly, all governments would benefit from this control and would be likely to get on board. In fact, it might prove to be the only way out of their present economic problems.

  So, how would it play out? Here’s roughly how I saw Phase I:

  • Link the free movement of cash to terrorism (Create a consciousness that any movement of large sums suggests criminal activity.);
  • Establish upper limits on the amount of money that can be moved without reporting to some government investigatory agency;
  • Periodically lower those limits;
  • Accustom people to making all purchases, however small or large, through a bank card;
  • Create a consciousness that the mere possession of cash is suspect, since it’s no longer “necessary”.

  When I first wrote on the subject, there was considerable criticism as to the possibility that such a programme would ever be attempted, let alone succeed. And, granted, it was so Orwellian that it was understandably seen as a crackpot idea. But since that time, the programme has been developing extremely rapidly. In the last six months alone, it has become so visible that it has even garnered a name – “the War on Cash”.

  References in the media have been made that terrorist groups fund their attacks with cash. Dozens of countries have placed limits on the maximum amount of money that can be moved without reporting. Some, notably France, have already begun lowering their limits. Banks in some countries, notably Sweden, are already treating all cash transactions as suspicious. The previously theoretical Phase I is now well under way.

  It would appear Taiwan is joining the rest of the world in this war on cash. There are three major players involved in the war on cash:

  1. The Initiators

  Who? Governments, central banks.

   

  Why? The elimination of cash will make it easier to track all types of transactions – including those made by criminals.

   

  2. The Enemy

  Who? Criminals, terrorists

   

  Why? Large denominations of bank notes make illegal transactions easier to perform, and increase anonymity.

   

  3. The Crossfire

  Who? Citizens

   

  Why? The coercive elimination of physical cash will have potential repercussions on the economy and social liberties.

  The shots fired by governments to fight its war on cash may have several unintended casualties:

  1. Privacy

  • Cashless transactions would always include some intermediary or third-party.
  • Increased government access to personal transactions and records.
  • Certain types of transactions (gambling, etc.) could be barred or frozen by governments.
  • Decentralized cryptocurrency could be an alternative for such transactions

  2. Savings

  • Savers could no longer have the individual freedom to store wealth “outside” of the system.
  • Eliminating cash makes negative interest rates (NIRP) a feasible option for policymakers.
  • A cashless society also means all savers would be “on the hook” for bank bail-in scenarios.
  • Savers would have limited abilities to react to extreme monetary events like deflation or inflation.

  3. Human Rights

  • Rapid demonetization has violated people’s rights to life and food.
  • In India, removing the 500 and 1,000 rupee notes has caused multiple human tragedies, including patients being denied treatment and people not being able to afford food.
  • Demonetization also hurts people and small businesses that make their livelihoods in the informal sectors of the economy.

  4. Cybersecurity

  • With all wealth stored digitally, the potential risk and impact of cybercrime increases.
  • Hacking or identity theft could destroy people’s entire life savings.
  • The cost of online data breaches is already expected to reach $2.1 trillion by 2019, according to Juniper Research.

  This issue has expanded more quickly than we’d anticipated. Clearly, the governments that are forcing it into being are running out of time. There can only be one reason why they’d rush a programme that normally would be given more time for people to accept, and that’s that they see a crash coming before they can get Phase II of the programme underway.

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest