Today’s News 22nd February 2017

  • DHS Issues Sweeping New Rules On Deportation Of Illegal Immigrants

    The Department of Homeland Security released on Tuesday documents translating President Trump’s executive orders on immigration and border security into policy, providing details on how it will prosecute undocumented immigrants and criminal immigrants, repealing nearly all of the Obama administration’s guidances, and bringing a major shift in the way the agency enforces the nation’s immigration laws.

    As the WSJ notes, “almost everybody living in the U.S. illegally is now subject to deportation, and more undocumented arrivals at the southern border would be jailed or sent back to Mexico to await a hearing rather than released into the U.S.” according to the new guidance.

    “The Department no longer will exempt classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement,” the enforcement memo says. “Department personnel have full authority to arrest or apprehend an alien whom an immigration officer has probable cause to believe is in violation of the immigration laws.”

    Secretary John Kelly’s two memos expand raids and the definition of criminal aliens, while diminishing sanctuary areas and enlisting local law enforcement to execute federal immigration policy. 

    The memos still outline priority groups, starting with serious criminals. But the priorities are much broader and include people charged with crimes who haven’t been convicted, people guilty only of immigration-related crimes such as using false documents, and anybody who an immigration officer believes is a risk to public safety.

    While DHS officials said they wouldn’t target otherwise law-abiding undocumented immigrants and don’t plan roundups of illegal immigrants, and said their limited resources would still require a focus on those people who pose a public-safety risk, they also said that people who don’t fall into a priority group aren’t exempt from deportation, and the DHS memo says exceptions would be made on a case-by-case basis.

    Previously, under Obama guidelines, undocumented immigrants convicted of serious crimes were the priority for removal. Now, immigration agents, customs officers and border patrol agents have been directed to remove anyone convicted of any criminal offense. That includes people convicted of fraud in any official matter before a governmental agency and people who “have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits.” The only Obama-era guidances left in place were those relating to undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children.

    According to the NYT, the policy also calls for an expansion of expedited removals, allowing Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to deport more people immediately. Under the Obama administration, expedited removal was used only within 100 miles of the border for people who had been in the country no more than 14 days. Now it will include those who have been in the country for up to two years, and located anywhere in the nation. The change in enforcement priorities will require a considerable increase in resources. With an estimated 11 million people in the country illegally, the government has long had to set narrower priorities, given the constraints on staffing and money.

    Some more details from the NYT:

    In the so-called guidance documents released on Tuesday, the department is directed to begin the process of hiring 10,000 new immigration and customs agents, expanding the number of detention facilities and creating an office within Immigration and Customs Enforcement to help families of those killed by undocumented immigrants. Mr. Trump had some of those relatives address his rallies in the campaign, and several were present when he signed an executive order on immigration last month at the Department of Homeland Security.

     

    The directives would also instruct Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as well as Customs and Border Protection, the parent agency of the Border Patrol, to begin reviving a program that recruits local police officers and sheriff’s deputies to help with deportation, effectively making them de facto immigration agents. The effort, called the 287(g) program, was scaled back during the Obama administration.

    The memos were decried by immigration advocates, and face resistance from many states and dozens of so-called sanctuary cities, which have refused to allow their law enforcement workers to help round up undocumented individuals.

    “These memos lay out a detailed blueprint for the mass deportation of 11 million undocumented immigrants in America,” Lynn Tramonte, Deputy Director of America’s Voice Education Fund, said Tuesday in a statement. “They fulfill the wish lists of the white nationalist and anti-immigrant movements and bring to life the worst of Donald Trump’s campaign rhetoric.”

    Senior Homeland Security officials told reporters Tuesday morning that the directives were intended to more fully make use of the enforcement tools that Congress has already given to the department to crack down on illegal immigration. The officials emphasized that some of the proposals for increased enforcement would roll out slowly as the department finalizes the logistics and legal rules for more aggressive action.

    According to Bloomberg, the memos could further inflame tensions between the U.S. and Mexico, which has advised its citizens living in the U.S. to take precautions in the face of Trump’s new immigration policy. DHS is considering employing a rarely used law to return people who traveled to the U.S. illegally through Mexico back into Mexico, even if they are not Mexican nationals. Officials said that returning Central American refugees to Mexico to await hearings would be done only in a limited fashion, and only after discussions with the government of Mexico, which however would most likely have to agree to accept the refugees.

    While nothing in the directives would change the program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which provides work permits and deportation protection for the young people commonly referred to as Dreamers, officials made clear that the department intended to aggressively follow Mr. Trump’s promise that immigration laws be enforced to the maximum extent possible, marking a significant departure from the procedures in place under President Barack Obama.

    That promise has generated fear and anger in the immigrant community, and advocates for immigrants have warned that the new approach is a threat to many undocumented immigrants who had previously been in little danger of being deported.

    Meanwhile Trump, who said during his campaign that he would cancel the program, has since changed his stance, calling those covered by DACA “incredible kids.” “The DACA situation is a very, very — it’s a very difficult thing for me because you know, I love these kids,” Trump said at a Feb. 16 press conference. “I find it very, very hard doing what the law says exactly to do and you know, the law is rough.”

  • Is James O'Keefe About To Smoke CNN? Tells Hannity He's Set To Release "Hundreds of Hours" Of Newsroom Footage "Wikileaks Style"

    James O’Keefe of Project Veritas is set to unleash holy hell Thursday on #FakeNews network CNN. Well, he didn’t exactly say it was CNN, but it was heavily implied. Apparently the network has a mole…

    O’Keefe is known for undercover sting operations which have led to such bombshells as the DNC’s paid agitator network, the outing of “DisruptJ20” / Antifa organizers which took place comet ping pong – and netted three arrests (including a suspected pedophile), and most recently New Hampshire election fraud.

    Today O’Keefe was interviewed on Sean Hannity’s radio show where he revealed that a major network has been “stung”

    O’Keefe: In the next 48 hours, Project Veritas, like Wikileaks, will be releasing hundreds of hours of tape from within the establishment media. Our next target is in fact, the media.

     

    Hannity: How long have you been working on this?

     

    O’Keefe: We’ve had people on the inside come to us. Just like Julian Assange has people come to him, we’ve had people, sources come to us and give us information, and we’re going to be releasing it “Wikileaks Style” this week.

    Moments later:

    Hannity: Can you give us a hint what organizations are going to be impacted by this?

     

    O’Keefe: It’s one that Trump has really been talking about, you can probably use your imagination.

     

    Hannity: So, it’s CNN…

    Listen here:

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    In other words, a closeted Trump supporter working deep inside hyper-liberal CNN just gave O’Keefe a ton of behind the scenes footage of “The Most Trusted Name In News.” My guess is we’re about to hear a bunch of establishment media puppets revealing their extreme hatred for the sitting President of the United States.

    Remember that time CNN employees were laughing about Trump’s plane crashing? If O’Keefe’s release is anything along these lines, popcorn sales are about to go through the roof…

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  • The Conflictual Relationship Between Donald Trump And The US "Deep State" – Part 1

    Submitted by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    In just two weeks as president of the United States, Donald Trump has given indications of how he intends to tackle various international political situations. So far we have observed the controversy over Iran, the events related to NATO, rapprochement with Russia, escalation in Ukraine, silence on Syria, the US special-forces operation in Yemen, verbal clashes with the EU, and the absence of further criticism of China. This first article will focus on the he US deep state’s possible sabotage attempts of the Trump presidency.

    Tensions continue to rise unabated in the first two weeks of Donald Trump’s presidency, as more decisions come across Trump’s table. While we have seen many executive orders and pieces of legislation, most regard domestic politics, which is a core focus of the Trump presidency. On the other hand, in foreign policy, Trump seems to be using the common tactic of many politicians, which involves much talk and little action. Since US foreign policy has been a mess for quite some time, militating against common sense, taking little action can actually be a positive thing, the best thing a US president has been able to do in almost thirty years! If there is one thing that is clear to everyone about Trump’s way of doing things following two weeks in office, it is that it is completely different from his predecessor, especially in relation to the press and his willingness to engage with it.

    The use of executive orders looks more and more like a weapon to flood the press and news agencies with talking points concerning domestic policies, leaving little room for particular pressure on foreign policy from the media establishment. It almost looks like a tactic of guerrilla warfare to overwhelm the mainstream media. It could and probably is also a PR stunt to show the American people he is doing what he promised. Stunt or not, acknowledging the power of the media in creating a pretext for war, and therefore putting a stop to the drums of war, is one of the first key marks of his success.

    The main problem continues to be the ongoing war with the US deep state, something that will not be going away anytime soon, and a campaign that may have entered a new stage against the Trump presidency.

    Sabotage or Incompetence?

    The first two weeks of the new presidency have already provided a few significant events. The operation that took place in Yemen, conducted by the American special forces and directed against Al Qaeda, has reprised the previous administration. Being a complex operation that required thorough preparation, the new administration thereby had to necessarily represent a continuation of the old one. Details are still vague, but looking at the outcome, the mission failed as a result of incompetence. The American special forces were spotted before arriving at al Qaeda’s supposed base. This resulted in the shooting of anything that moved, causing more than 25 civilian deaths.

    The media that had been silent during the Obama administration was rightfully quick to condemn the killing of innocent people, and harsh criticism was directed at the administration for this operation. It is entirely possible that the operation was set up to fail, intended to delegitimize the operational capabilities of the new Trump team. Given the links between al Qaeda, the Saudis and the neoconservatives, something historically proven, it is not unthinkable that the failure of the operation was a consequence of an initial attempt at sabotaging Trump on a key aspect of his presidency, namely the successful execution of counter-terrorist efforts against Islamist terrorism.

    Another structural component in the attempts to undermine the Trump administration concern the deployment of NATO and US troops on the western border of the Russian Federation. This attempt is obvious and is one of the strategies aimed at preventing a rapprochement between Washington and Moscow. The EU persists in its self-defeating policy, focusing its attention on foreign policy instead of gaining strategic independence thanks to the new presidency. It is now even more clear that European Union leaders, and in particular the current political representatives in Germany and France, have every intention of continuing in the direction set by the Obama presidency, seeking a futile confrontation with the Russian Federation instead of a sensible rapprochement.

    Europe continues to insist on failed economic and social policies that will lead to bankruptcy, using foreign-policy issues as diversions and excuses. The consequences of these wrongheaded efforts will inevitably favor the election of nationalist and populist parties, as seen in the United States and other countries, which will end in the destruction of the EU. For the US deep state and their long-term objectives, this tactic has a dual effect: it prevents the proper functioning of the EU as well as significantly halts any rapprochement between the EU and the Russian Federation. The latter strategy looks more and more irreversible given the current European Union elites. In this sense, the UK, thanks to Brexit, seems to have broken free and started to slowly restructure its foreign- policy priorities, in close alignment to Trump’s isolationism.

    Finally the most obvious attempt to sabotage the administration can be seen in the events in Ukraine. Unsurprisingly, Senators Graham and McCain, two of the deep state’s top emissaries, visited Ukraine at the beginning of the year, prompting Ukrainian troops to resume their destructive offensive against the Donbass. The intentions are clear and assorted. First is the constant attempt to sabotage any rapprochement between Moscow and Washington, hoping to engulf Trump in an American/NATO escalation of events in Ukraine. Second, given the critical situation in Europe, is the effort to push Berlin to assume the burden of economically supporting the failing administration in Kiev. Third is the increasing pressure applied to Russia and Putin, as was already seen in 2014, in an effort to actively involve the Russian Federation in the Ukrainian conflict so as to justify NATO’s direct involvement or even that of the United States. The latter situation would be the dream of the neoconservatives, setting Trump and Putin on a direct collision course.

    The new American administration has thus far suffered at least three sabotage attempts, and it is the attitude Trump intends to have with the rest of the world that has spurred them. In an interview with Bill O'Reilly on Fox News, Trump reiterated that his primary focus is not governed by the doctrine of American exceptionalism, a concept he does not subscribe to anyhow. The religion driving democratic evangelization looks more likely to be replaced with a pragmatic, realist geopolitical stance.

    This is how one could sum up Trump’s words to Bill O’Reilly:

    «There are a lot of killers. We have a lot of killers», Trump said. «Well, you think our country is so innocent?»

    What the deep state refuses to accept is that they have lost the leading role in educating the rest of the world on humanitarian issues related to the concept of democracy. The main actors of the deep state clearly understand the negative implications for them personally in economic and financial terms associated with the abandonment of the pursuit of global hegemony. For over a hundred years, no US president has ever placed their country on a par with others, has ever abandoned the concept of a nation (the US) «chosen by God».

    In an article a few weeks ago, I tried to lay the foundations for a future US administration, placing a strong focus on foreign policy and revealing a possible shift in US historic foreign relations. In a passage I wrote:

    «Donald Trump has emerged with in mind a precise foreign policy strategy, forged by various political thinkers of the realist world such as Waltz and Mearsheimer, trashing all recent neoconservative and neoliberal policies of foreign intervention (R2P – Right to Protect) and soft power campaigns in favor of human rights. No more UN resolutions, subtly used to bomb nations (Libya). Trump doesn’t believe in the central role of the UN and reaffirmed this repeatedly.

     

    In general, the Trump administration intends to end the policy of regime change, interference in foreign governments, Arab springs and color revolutions. They just don’t work. They cost too much in terms of political credibility, in Ukraine the US are allied with supporters of Bandera (historical figure who collaborated with the Nazis) and in Middle East they finance or indirectly support al Qaeda and al Nusra front».

    The recent meeting in Washington with Theresa May, the first official encounter with a prominent US ally, revealed, among other things, a possible dramatic change in US policy. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom expressed her desire to follow a new policy of non-intervention, in line with the isolationist strategy Trump has spoken about since running for office. In a joint press conference with the American president, May said: «The era of military intervention is over. London and Washington will not return to the failed policy in the past that has led to intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya».

    During the election campaign, Trump made his intentions clear in different contexts, but always coming from the standpoint of non-interventionism inspired by the concept of isolationism. It is becoming apparent that these intentions are being put into action, though the rhetoric regarding Iran has become alarming. In typical Trump fashion (which contrasts with the Iran issue), the situation in Syria is normalizing and the initial threats directed at China appear to have been put aside. The case of Iran is a different and complex story, requiring a deeper analysis that deserves a separate article. What will gradually be important, as the Presidency progresses, is understanding the necessity to distinguish between words and actions, separating provocations from intentions.

    Conclusions and future questions

    There is a whole list of Trump statements that are seen as threats to other countries, primarily Iran. The next article will further explain the possible strategy to be employed by Donald Trump to fight these attempts to sabotage his administration, a strategy that seems to be based on silences, bluffs and admissions to counter the perpetual attempts to influence his presidency. If one wants to place weight on his words during the election campaign, it should be taken into consideration that Trump won the election thanks to the clear objectives of wanting to avoid a further spending spree on destructive wars. This priority was made clear and expressed in every possible way with the adoption of an America First policy, especially regarding domestic policy.

    The bottom line is always that Trump has the ability and willingness to be resilient to the pressures of the deep state, focusing on the needs of the average American citizen, rather than caving in to the interests of the deep state such as intelligence agencies, neocons, Israel lobby, Saudi lobby, the military-industrial complex, and many more. It is only in the next few months that we will come to understand if Trump will be willing to continue the fight against war or bend the knee and pay the price.

  • Irrespective Of Travel Ban, Trump Has Broad Executive Powers On Immigration Enforcement

    If eight years under Obama rule, 6 of which included Republican majorities in Congress, taught us anything, it’s that Presidents have fairly broad authority to govern through executive orders and rules changes implemented at the 100’s of government agencies responsible for overseeing our every move.  Fortunately for the Trump administration, this broad Presidential authority extends to immigration laws and, despite his recent defeat in the 9th Circuit, grants the executive branch of the federal government broad authority on vetting immigrants and enforcing immigration laws.  Per Bloomberg:

    The law vests the president with broad authority over immigration, said Austin Fragomen, whose Manhattan-based Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy is the biggest U.S. law firm focused on immigration. Trump hasn’t wasted time tapping his power.

     

    The Department of Homeland Security oversees almost two dozen agencies that determine who enters and leaves the U.S., including Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection and Citizenship and Immigration Services. The agency has an annual budget of $41 billion and more than 229,000 employees. Trump has broad discretion to use the money and employees as he sees fit without seeking approval from Congress.

    In the wake of the 9th Circuit’s decision to overturn his “immigration ban”, Trump initially drew a hard line via the following tweet vowing to continue the litigation of the controversial executive order.

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

     

    That said, in a fiery, surreal press conference hosted last week, he drew a slightly more subdued tone saying that his administration was working on a revised immigration executive order which would be “tailored to the 9th Circuit decision” (see “In Fiery, “Surreal” Press Conference, Trump Launches War On The Media“).

    But, irrespective of how new executive actions on travel bans play out, the fact is that the President of the United States has fairly broad authority under the Constitution to vet new immigrants coming into the country and enforce federal laws once they’re here. 

    Of course, one option is to simply ramp up the hiring of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to crack down on those currently residing in the country illegally.  As we’ve noted before, the Trump administration has already said it will hire 10,000 incremental ICE agents and utilize local law enforcement agents as well.

    The president wants to bolster that force, saying he’ll hire 10,000 more agents and use state and local law enforcement as immigration officials. As part of the executive order, Trump vowed to strip funds from so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with his crackdown. Several state attorneys general have vowed to fight that initiative.

     

    “He can essentially unleash ICE officials to enforce however they choose,” said Cristina Rodriguez, a Yale Law School professor, referring to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    Moreover, absent policies that target specific groups of immigrants based on nationality, religion, etc., which as the 9th Circuit recently confirmed becomes far more complicated, the executive branch has fairly broad authority to vet incoming immigrants as they see fit. 

    The president can instruct State Department and ICE officials to tighten criteria for letting people into the U.S. and to increase searches at the border, where agents have much more freedom to rifle through people’s belongings than police inside the country. Trump has said the order will hasten adoption of “extreme vetting” procedures.

     

    Trump has “very broad authority” to tighten entry requirements, particularly if he avoids policies that unfairly single out Muslims or other groups, Fragomen said.

     

    “The only restraint on doing that now is we want to facilitate visitors and people coming to visit the U.S. and facilitate global business,” he said. “But the U.S. could be much more strict in terms of the screening process.”

    Meanwhile, just as President Obama demonstrated by raising the caps, Trump also have fairly broad authority to lower the caps on refugees admitted into the country, a power which he has already utilized by reducing the 2017 target to 50,000 from Obama’s 110,000.

    Of course, no matter what powers the Constitution affords the President, rest assured that disaffected liberal lawyers, flush with cash from George Soros and others, stand ready to challenge the every move of the White House for the next 4 years.

  • The valuation of financial knowledge

    How does one value financial knowledge? Finance as both a topic and industry has been holding huge secrets guarded by the most rich and powerful in the world for hundreds of generations. Why don’t they teach these secrets to the masses? It’s the same reason a magician doesn’t reveal his tricks. But just like children are fascinated with the skilled magician pulling the rabbit out of a hat, adults are fascinated with the financial wizardry of financial experts. We show you in our simple to follow introductory course that finance and investing is not magic. Just like the magician, financial experts simply are well trained, and follow a financial philosophy of their choosing (there are several) such as “Value Investing.” Due to the internet, obtaining this knowledge is possible for anyone in any place at any time. It’s not necessary to go to an expensive Business school like Harvard or Wharton anymore (although, you won’t make high level connections anywhere else) to gain financial knowledge. You can do it in the comfort of your own home.

    The study of knowledge is known as Epistemology, roughly defined as:

    Epistemology studies the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief. Much of the debate in epistemology centers on four areas: (1) the philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and how it relates to such concepts as truth, belief, and justification, (2) various problems of skepticism, (3) the sources and scope of knowledge and justified belief, and (4) the criteria for knowledge and justification.

    This definition provides a great template of how to understand what is financial knowledge and how to value it. If one knows how to take a dollar and turn it into two – this certainly is priceless. But there’s a big spectrum of financial knowledge, ranging from Wall St. genius to understanding personal finance and how to properly file taxes. The problem of the valuation of an investment strategy for example, it is binary – either it works, or it doesn’t. The difference between a 15% return and a 17% return is not statistically significant. But how to look at the mathematics of a return, and determine the difference between Bernie Madoff and George Soros? That’s priceless.

    The importance is to understand the ‘gestalt’ of what markets are, how finance works, that is – practically. Any system can be analyzed and understood by looking at its components and how they behave together. The specialization of finance has confused the larger view, with experts teaching micro-subjects like how to trade Candlestick patterns, or ‘how to make money’ using these simple tools. Making money is sometimes easy – many people stumble upon good luck and money falls into their hands. Not losing money, that is very difficult – something very few rich people and businesses can achieve. Only a full understanding of how markets operate globally, will make you a great trader – as well, will protect you from losing. Not losing is the big secret to financial success. It’s why investors are so concerned about risks. If one can simply not lose, ultimately what’s left will be profits and growth. Tools such as understanding risk, and even quantifying risk (as much as possible) are priceless.

    Building a financial knowledgebase is like building a house; the first step is to make a blueprint (usually by hiring an architect) and laying a strong foundation. By having a strong foundation, the building materials of your knowledge (wood, stone, clay) are not as important. With a ‘basement’ which is the modern day equivalent of a bunker, you’ll be able to withstand any tornado or storm that may rock the markets and the economy. Having a defense line, financially speaking – is the most important tactic in any personal finance strategy. For businesses too, but most business does this intuitively (not relying on a single customer or single product line). Tools like hedging, even if simple – can be extremely powerful. Preppers take things to the extreme but provide a great living example of how everyone should act regarding their financial portfolio – hope for the best and prepare for the worst. A portfolio should be like a castle – capable of withstanding any disaster, war, or siege.

    It’s true that the world’s Elite engineer financial disasters like stock market crashes to seize the wealth of the growing middle class. It’s like culling the herd for fresh competition. But the good news, seeded into this system are the tools to protect you and even profit. For the first time in history, anyone can access the same tools the Elite have used for centuries to maintain their wealth and seize the wealth of others. This knowledge can also help you in your career, in your business, in your portfolio, or for your retirement.

    There’s never been a better time than now to build financial knowledge for yourself. Whether you are wealthy and want to protect your wealth, or are not and want to grow your portfolio and become wealthy – a solid financial understanding of business and the markets is the first step towards achieving real financial self-actualization.

    With our system as a whole, top-wards down approach, you’ll learn to understand your business better, by understanding where money comes from, how it’s exchanged, how it’s valued, loaned, securitized, packaged and repackaged. Money has become the most virulent electronic commodity in the world and is the least talked about. Learn FX, and learn how all markets work, and the foundation underpinning the global economy, at Fortress Capital Trading Academy www.fctradingacademy.com

    Spring into trading special:  35% OFF your first course – use coupon code spring17 to get 35% off.

    CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP AND TAKE THE COURSE

  • The Illusion Of Freedom: The Police State Is Alive And Well

    Submitted by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    “What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security… This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.”—Historian Milton Mayer, They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45

    Brace yourself.

    There is something being concocted in the dens of power, far beyond the public eye, and it doesn’t bode well for the future of this country.

    Anytime you have an entire nation so mesmerized by the antics of the political ruling class that they are oblivious to all else, you’d better beware. Anytime you have a government that operates in the shadows, speaks in a language of force, and rules by fiat, you’d better beware. And anytime you have a government so far removed from its people as to ensure that they are never seen, heard or heeded by those elected to represent them, you’d better beware.

    The world has been down this road before.

    As historian Milton Mayer recounts in his seminal book on Hitler’s rise to power, They Thought They Were Free, “Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about—we were decent people?—and kept us so busy with continuous changes and 'crises' and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the 'national enemies', without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us.”

    We are at our most vulnerable right now.

    The gravest threat facing us as a nation is not extremism—delivered by way of sovereign citizens or radicalized Muslims—but despotism, exercised by a ruling class whose only allegiance is to power and money.

    Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

    America is burning, and all most Americans can do is switch the channel, tune out what they don’t want to hear, and tune into their own personal echo chambers.

    We’re in a national state of denial.

    Yet no amount of escapism can shield us from the harsh reality that the danger in our midst is posed by an entrenched government bureaucracy that has no regard for the Constitution, Congress, the courts or the citizenry.

    If the team colors have changed from blue to red, that’s just cosmetic.

    The playbook remains the same. The leopard has not changed its spots.

    Scrape off the surface layers and you will find that the American police state is alive and well and continuing to wreak havoc on the rights of the American people.

    “We the people” are no longer living the American Dream.

    We’re living the American Lie.

    Indeed, Americans have been lied to so sincerely, so incessantly, and for so long by politicians of all stripes—who lie compulsively and without any seeming remorse—that they’ve almost come to prefer the lies trotted out by those in government over less-palatable truths.

    The American people have become compulsive believers.

    As Nick Cohen writes for The Guardian, “Compulsive liars shouldn’t frighten you. They can harm no one, if no one listens to them. Compulsive believers, on the other hand: they should terrify you. Believers are the liars’ enablers. Their votes give the demagogue his power. Their trust turns the charlatan into the president. Their credulity ensures that the propaganda of half-calculating and half-mad fanatics has the power to change the world.”

    While telling the truth “in a time of universal deceit is,” as George Orwell concluded, “a revolutionary act,” believing the truth—and being able to distinguish the truth from a lie—is also a revolutionary act.

    Here’s a truth few Americans want to acknowledge: nothing has changed (at least, not for the better) since Barack Obama passed the reins of the police state to Donald Trump.

    The police state is still winning. We the people are still losing.

    In fact, the American police state has continued to advance at the same costly, intrusive, privacy-sapping, Constitution-defying, relentless pace under President Trump as it did under President Obama.

    Police haven’t stopped disregarding the rights of citizens. Having been given the green light to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip, shoot and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts, America’s law enforcement officials are no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace. Indeed, they continue to keep the masses corralled, under control, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens.

    SWAT teams haven’t stopped crashing through doors and terrorizing families. Nationwide, SWAT teams continue to be employed to address an astonishingly trivial array of criminal activities or mere community nuisances including angry dogs, domestic disputes, improper paperwork filed by an orchid farmer, and misdemeanor marijuana possession. With more than 80,000 SWAT team raids carried out every year on unsuspecting Americans for relatively routine police matters and federal agencies laying claim to their own law enforcement divisions, the incidence of botched raids and related casualties continue to rise.

    The Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security haven’t stopped militarizing and federalizing local police. Police forces continue to be transformed into heavily armed extensions of the military, complete with jackboots, helmets, shields, batons, pepper-spray, stun guns, assault rifles, body armor, miniature tanks and weaponized drones. In training police to look and act like the military and use the weapons and tactics of war against American citizens, the government continues to turn the United States into a battlefield.

    Schools haven’t stopped treating young people like hard-core prisoners. School districts continue to team up with law enforcement to create a “schoolhouse to jailhouse track” by imposing a “double dose” of punishment for childish infractions: suspension or expulsion from school, accompanied by an arrest by the police and a trip to juvenile court. In this way, the paradigm of abject compliance to the state continues to be taught by example in the schools, through school lockdowns where police and drug-sniffing dogs enter the classroom, and zero tolerance policies that punish all offenses equally and result in young people being expelled for childish behavior.

    For-profit private prisons haven’t stopped locking up Americans and immigrants alike at taxpayer expense. States continue to outsource prison management to private corporations out to make a profit at taxpayer expense. And how do you make a profit in the prison industry? Have the legislatures pass laws that impose harsh penalties for the slightest noncompliance in order keep the prison cells full and corporate investors happy.

    Censorship hasn’t stopped. First Amendment activities continue to be pummeled, punched, kicked, choked, chained and generally gagged all across the country. The reasons for such censorship vary widely from political correctness, safety concerns and bullying to national security and hate crimes but the end result remained the same: the complete eradication of what Benjamin Franklin referred to as the “principal pillar of a free government.”

    The courts haven’t stopped marching in lockstep with the police state. The courts continue to be dominated by technicians and statists who are deferential to authority, whether government or business. Indeed, the Supreme Court’s decisions in recent years have most often been characterized by an abject deference to government authority, military and corporate interests. They have run the gamut from suppressing free speech activities and justifying suspicionless strip searches to warrantless home invasions and conferring constitutional rights on corporations, while denying them to citizens.

    Government bureaucrats haven’t stopped turning American citizens into criminals. The average American now unknowingly commits three felonies a day, thanks to an overabundance of vague laws that render otherwise innocent activity illegal, while reinforcing the power of the police state and its corporate allies.

    The surveillance state hasn’t stopped spying on Americans’ communications, transactions or movements. On any given day, whether you’re walking through a store, driving your car, checking email, or talking to friends and family on the phone, you can be sure that some government agency, whether it’s your local police, a fusion center, the National Security Agency or one of the government’s many corporate partners, is still monitoring and tracking you.

    The TSA hasn’t stopped groping or ogling travelers. Under the pretext of protecting the nation’s infrastructure (roads, mass transit systems, water and power supplies, telecommunications systems and so on) against criminal or terrorist attacks, TSA task forces (comprised of federal air marshals, surface transportation security inspectors, transportation security officers, behavior detection officers and explosive detection canine teams) continue to do random security sweeps of nexuses of transportation, including ports, railway and bus stations, airports, ferries and subways, as well as political conventions, baseball games and music concerts. Sweep tactics include the use of x-ray technology, pat-downs and drug-sniffing dogs, among other things.

    Congress hasn’t stopped enacting draconian laws such as the USA Patriot Act and the NDAA. These laws—which completely circumvent the rule of law and the constitutional rights of American citizens, continue to re-orient our legal landscape in such a way as to ensure that martial law, rather than the rule of law, our U.S. Constitution, becomes the map by which we navigate life in the United States.

    The Department of Homeland Security hasn’t stopped being a “wasteful, growing, fear-mongering beast.” Is the DHS capable of plotting and planning to turn the national guard into a federalized, immigration police force? No doubt about it. Remember, this is the agency that is notorious for militarizing the police and SWAT teams; spying on activists, dissidents and veterans; stockpiling ammunition; distributing license plate readers; contracting to build detention camps; tracking cell-phones with Stingray devices; carrying out military drills and lockdowns in American cities; using the TSA as an advance guard; conducting virtual strip searches with full-body scanners; carrying out soft target checkpoints; directing government workers to spy on Americans; conducting widespread spying networks using fusion centers; carrying out Constitution-free border control searches; funding city-wide surveillance cameras; and utilizing drones and other spybots.

    The military industrial complex hasn’t stopped profiting from endless wars abroad. America’s expanding military empire continues to bleed the country dry at a rate of more than $15 billion a month (or $20 million an hour). The Pentagon spends more on war than all 50 states combined spend on health, education, welfare, and safety. Yet what most Americans fail to recognize is that these ongoing wars have little to do with keeping the country safe and everything to do with enriching the military industrial complex at taxpayer expense.

    The Deep State’s shadow government hasn’t stopped calling the shots behind the scenes. Comprised of unelected government bureaucrats, corporations, contractors, paper-pushers, and button-pushers who are actually calling the shots behind the scenes, this government within a government continues to be the real reason “we the people” have no real control over our so-called representatives. It’s every facet of a government that is no longer friendly to freedom and is working overtime to trample the Constitution underfoot and render the citizenry powerless in the face of the government’s power grabs, corruption and abusive tactics.

    And the American people haven’t stopped acting like gullible sheep. In fact, many Americans have been so carried away by their blind rank-and-file partisan devotion to their respective political gods that they have lost sight of the one thing that has remained constant in recent years: our freedoms are steadily declining.

    Here’s the problem as I see it: “we the people” have become so trusting, so gullible, so easily distracted, so out-of-touch and so sure that our government will always do the right thing by us that we have ignored the warning signs all around us.

    In so doing, we have failed to recognize such warning signs as potential red flags to use as opportunities to ask questions, demand answers, and hold our government officials accountable to respecting our rights and abiding by the rule of law.

    Unfortunately, once a free people allows the government to make inroads into their freedoms, or uses those same freedoms as bargaining chips for security, it quickly becomes a slippery slope to outright tyranny. And it doesn’t really matter whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican at the helm, because the bureaucratic mindset on both sides of the aisle now seems to embody the same philosophy of authoritarian government.

    As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, this is what happens when you ignore the warning signs.

    This is what happens when you fail to take alarm at the first experiment on your liberties.

    This is what happens when you fail to challenge injustice and government overreach until the prison doors clang shut behind you.

    In the American police state that now surrounds us, there are no longer such things as innocence, due process, or justice—at least, not in the way we once knew them. We are all potentially guilty, all potential criminals, all suspects waiting to be accused of a crime.

    So you can try to persuade yourself that you are free, that you still live in a country that values freedom, and that it is not too late to make America great again, but to anyone who has been paying attention to America’s decline over the past 50 years, it will be just another lie.

    The German people chose to ignore the truth and believe the lie.

    They were not oblivious to the horrors taking place around them. As historian Robert Gellately points out, “[A]nyone in Nazi Germany who wanted to find out about the Gestapo, the concentration camps, and the campaigns of discrimination and persecutions need only read the newspapers.”

    The warning signs were definitely there, blinking incessantly like large neon signs.

    “Still,” Gellately writes, “the vast majority voted in favor of Nazism, and in spite of what they could read in the press and hear by word of mouth about the secret police, the concentration camps, official anti-Semitism, and so on. . . . [T]here is no getting away from the fact that at that moment, ‘the vast majority of the German people backed him.’”

    Half a century later, the wife of a prominent German historian, neither of whom were members of the Nazi party, opined: “[O]n the whole, everyone felt well. . . . And there were certainly eighty percent who lived productively and positively throughout the time. . . . We also had good years. We had wonderful years.”

    In other words, as long as their creature comforts remained undiminished, as long as their bank accounts remained flush, as long as they weren’t being discriminated against, persecuted, starved, beaten, shot, stripped, jailed and turned into slave labor, life was good.

    This is how tyranny rises and freedom falls.

    As Primo Levi, a Holocaust survivor observed, “Monsters exist, but they are too few in number to be truly dangerous. More dangerous are the common men, the functionaries ready to believe and to act without asking questions.”

    Freedom demands responsibility.

    Freedom demands that people stop sleep-walking through life, stop cocooning themselves in political fantasies, and stop distracting themselves with escapist entertainment.

    Freedom demands that we stop thinking as Democrats and Republicans and start thinking like human beings, or at the very least, Americans.

    Freedom demands that we not remain silent in the face of evil or wrongdoing but actively stand against injustice.

    Freedom demands that we treat others as we would have them treat us. That is the law of reciprocity, also referred to as the Golden Rule, and it is found in nearly every world religion, including Judaism and Christianity.

    In other words, if you don’t want to be locked up in a prison cell or a detention camp—if you don’t want to be discriminated against because of the color of your race, religion, politics or anything else that sets you apart from the rest—if you don’t want your loved ones shot at, strip searched, tasered, beaten and treated like slaves—if you don’t want to have to be constantly on guard against government eyes watching what you do, where you go and what you say—if you don’t want to be tortured, waterboarded or forced to perform degrading acts—if you don’t want your children to grow up in a world without freedom—then don’t allow these evils to be inflicted on anyone else, no matter how tempting the reason or how fervently you believe in your cause.

    As German theologian and anti-Nazi dissident Dietrich Bonhoeffer observed, “We are not to simply bandage the wounds of victims beneath the wheels of injustice, we are to drive a spoke into the wheel itself.”

  • Dear Disaffected Hillary Protesters: Michael Moore Really Wants To Lead Your "Resistance"

    Michael Moore, the ultra-liberal documentary filmmaker who infamously predicted a Trump victory well before election night last November by stunningly calling Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania for the Republican nominee, has since had a noticeably difficult time processing the victory that he, himself, predicted long before anyone else.  Meanwhile, Moore’s inability to come to terms with Trump’s presence in the White House has since resulted in his very public broadcast of multiple nervous breakdowns over various social media outlets for all to see. 

    In fact, his latest “episode” came just last week when Moore lit up the Twittersphere asking Trump “What part of “vacate you Russian traitor” don’t you understand?” while threatening that “We can do this the easy way (you resign), or the hard way (impeachment).”

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

     

    But apparently random social media rants and continuous calls for Trump’s resignation are no longer sufficient for Moore who has unilaterally taken it upon himself to organize “The RESISTANCE”, a very ‘clever’, crowd-sourced calendar featuring all of the anti-Trump rallies being organized by disaffected Hillary supporters all around the country. 

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Resistance

     

    Meanwhile, in Facebook rant announcing the project, Moore describes the calendar as a “24/7 clearinghouse of the already MASSIVE resistance to Trump, to the Republican Congress, and, yes, to many of the spineless Democratic politicians out there.”

    GOOD NEWS FRIENDS! I’ve promised you a one-stop site, a clearinghouse of all actions — a RESISTANCE CALENDAR — where you can find EVERY upcoming action, protest, march, sit-in, town hall, anti-Trump, pro-democracy event in all 50 states! A site where YOU can post your own action so all can see it. A place where you can quickly go and check it daily, ensuring that you don’t miss any event in your area to stop the Trump madness.

     

    So, right now, I and a team of graphic designers are launching the RESISTANCE CALENDAR!

     

    In addition to you finding events in your area, we want you to be able to post any local actions you’re aware of. So much is happening so fast it’s hard to keep track of all the actions popping up — but our intention is to do just that. Every day. A 24/7 clearinghouse of the already MASSIVE resistance to Trump, to the Republican Congress, and, yes, to many of the spineless Democratic politicians out there. We welcome all resisters across the movement to use this tool. It’s completely free. There’s no big “funder” or group behind it. There will be no ads, no commercialization, no fundraising lists — all the stuff we hate. Just you, me, the volunteers donating their time to keep it going and the World Wide Web. BOOM!

     

    I sincerely hope this is a huge help and that all of you use it! Sign up on Facebook and Twitter now — and please tell your friends about it. Take a moment to add all the local events you know of. And remember — All hands on deck! It’s the only way we’re going to beat him and lessen the damage he’s doing. Our goal is his removal from office — and the defeat of any politician who isn’t with us. WE ARE THE MAJORITY.

    We must admit that we were previously somewhat dismissive of Moore’s 2AM twitter rants calling for Trump’s resignation.  That said, now that he has a calendar, we clearly see that he means business…

  • Break Up The USA?

    Submitted by Llewellyn Rockwell via The Mises Institute,

    Some of our assumptions are so deeply embedded that we cannot perceive them ourselves.

    Case in point: everyone takes for granted that it’s normal for a country of 320 million to be dictated to by a single central authority. The only debate we’re permitted to have is who should be selected to carry out this grotesque and inhumane function.

    Here’s the debate we should be having instead: what if we simply abandoned this quixotic mission, and went our separate ways? It’s an idea that’s gaining traction — much too late, to be sure, but better late than never.

    For a long time it seemed as if the idea of secession was unlikely to take hold in modern America. Schoolchildren, after all, are told to associate secession with slavery and treason. American journalists treat the idea as if it were self-evidently ridiculous and contemptible (an attitude they curiously do not adopt when faced with US war propaganda, I might add).

    And yet all it took was the election of Donald Trump for the alleged toxicity of secession to vanish entirely. The left’s principled opposition to secession and devotion to the holy Union went promptly out the window on November 8, 2016. Today, about one in three Californians polled favors the Golden State’s secession from the Union.

    In other words, some people seem to be coming to the conclusion that the whole system is rotten and should be abandoned.

    It’s true that most leftists have not come around to this way of thinking. Many have adopted the creepy slogan “not my president” – in other words, I may not want this particular person having the power to intervene in all aspects of life and holding in his hands the ability to destroy the entire earth, but I most certainly do want someone else to have those powers.

    Not exactly a head-on challenge to the system, in other words. (That’s what we libertarians are for.) The problem in their view is only that the wrong people are in charge.

    Indeed, leftists who once said “small is beautiful” and “question authority” had little trouble embracing large federal bureaucracies in charge of education, health, housing, and pretty much every important thing. And these authorities, of course, you are not to question (unless they are headed by a Trump nominee, in which case they may be temporarily ignored).

    Meanwhile, the right wing has been calling for the abolition of the Department of Education practically since its creation in 1979. That hasn’t happened, as you may have noticed. Having the agency in Republican hands became the more urgent task.

    Each side pours tremendous resources into trying to take control of the federal apparatus and lord it over the whole country.

    How about we call it quits?

    No more federal fiefdoms, no more forcing 320 million people into a single mold, no more dictating to everyone from the central state.

    Radical, yes, and surely not a perspective we were exposed to as schoolchildren. But is it so unreasonable? Is it not in fact the very height of reason and good sense? And some people, we may reasonably hope, may be prepared to consider these simple and humane questions for the very first time.

    Now can we imagine the left actually growing so unhappy as to favor secession as a genuine solution?

    Here’s what I know. On the one hand, the left made its long march through the institutions: universities, the media, popular culture. Their intention was to remake American society. The task involved an enormous amount of time and wealth. Secession would amount to abandoning this string of successes, and it’s hard to imagine them giving up in this way after sinking all those resources into the long march.

    At the same time, it’s possible that the cultural elite have come to despise the American bourgeoisie so much that they’re willing to treat all of that as a sunk cost, and simply get out.

    Whatever the case may be, what we can and should do is encourage all decentralization and secession talk, such that these heretofore forbidden options become live once again.

    I can already hear the objections from Beltway libertarians, who are not known for supporting political decentralization. To the contrary, they long for the day when libertarian judges and lawmakers will impose liberty on the entire country. And on a more basic level, they find talk of states’ rights, nullification, and secession – about which they hold the most exquisitely conventional and p.c. views – to be sources of embarrassment.

    How are they going to rub elbows with the Fed chairman if they’re associated with ideas like these?

    Of course we would like to see liberty flourish everywhere. But it’s foolish not to accept more limited victories and finite goals when these are the only realistic options.

    The great libertarians – from Felix Morley and Frank Chodorov to Murray Rothbard and Hans Hoppe — have always favored political decentralization; F.A. Hayek once said that in the future liberty was more likely to flourish in small states. This is surely the way forward for us today, if we want to see tangible changes in our lifetimes.

    Thomas Sowell referred to two competing visions that lay at the heart of so much political debate: the constrained and the unconstrained. In the constrained vision, man’s nature is not really malleable, his existence contains an element of tragedy, and there is little that politics can do by way of grandiose schemes to perfect society. In the unconstrained vision, the only limitation to how much society can be remade in the image of its political rulers is how much the rubes are willing to stomach at a given moment.

    These competing visions are reaching an endgame vis-a-vis one another. As Angelo Codevilla observes, the left has overplayed its hand. The regular folks have reached the limits of their toleration of leftist intimidation and thought control, and are hitting back.

    We can fight it out, or we can go our separate ways.

    When I say go our separate ways, I don’t mean “the left” goes one way and “the right” goes another. I mean the left goes one way and everyone else — rather a diverse group indeed — goes another. People who live for moral posturing, to broadcast their superiority over everyone else, and to steamroll differences in the name of “diversity,” should go one way, and everyone who rolls his eyes at all this should go another.

    “No people and no part of a people,” said Ludwig von Mises nearly one hundred years ago, “shall be held against its will in a political association that it does not want.” So much wisdom in that simple sentiment. And so much conflict and anguish could be avoided if only we’d heed it.

  • "It Looks Like A War Zone": Trump Vindicated After Violent Riot Erupts In Swedish Suburb

    As we reported last night, just days after the media mocked Trump for his allegations of major problems with Swedish migrant policies, the president was vindicated after a violent riot broke out in the borough of Rinkeby, also known as “little Mogadishu.” Now that the incident is over, in their “post-mortem” Swedish officials confirm that riots erupted in the “heavily immigrant Stockholm suburb” Monday night, as masked looters set cars ablaze and threw rocks at cops, injuring one police officer, Swedish officials said.

    The violence erupted just days after President Trump was ridiculed during a Saturday campaign rally for mentioning Sweden alongside a list of European targets of terror. Trump later said his “You look at what’s happening last night in Sweden” remark was in response to a Fox News report on the country’s refugee crime crisis that aired on Friday evening.

    “Sweden. They took in large numbers [of refugees],” Trump added at the Florida rally. “They’re having problems like they never thought possible.”

    Sweden’s official Twitter account – which is operated by a different user each week – tweeted at Trump on Monday morning: “Hey Don, this is @Sweden speaking! It’s nice of you to care, really, but don’t fall for the hype. Facts: We’re OK!”

    Events just hours later refuted that optimistic assessment.

    The violence in Rinkeby began around 8 p.m., when officers arrested a suspect at an underground station on drug charges, The Local reported. A group soon gathered, hurling rocks and other objects at officers and prompting one cop to fire his gun “in a situation that demanded he use his firearm,” police spokesman Lars Bystrom said.

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Hours later, the Rinkeby riots began, with a second wave starting around 10:30 p.m. Seven or eight cars were set on fire and many stores saw looting, The Local reported. A photographer from media outlet Dagens Nyheter said a group of 15 people beat him as he tried to document the chaos. Swedish Police were forced to fire warning shots at the unidentified group of rioting protesters, who set cars on fire, throwing stones at police and looting local stores.

    A police officer was injured during the clashes, forcing law enforcers to fire several warning shots at the crowd, Swedish public service broadcaster SVT reported, citing a local police spokesperson.

    A policeman investigates a burnt car in Rinkeby, Sweden February 21, 2017

    The silver lining is that “nobody has been found injured at the scene and we have checked the hospitals and there hasn’t been anyone with what could be gunshot wounds,” Bystrom added.

    “I was hit with a lot of punches and kicks both to my body and my head. I have spent the night in hospital,” said the photographer, who was not named. “It looks like a war zone” he added.

    The rioting ended just after midnight.

    https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FRTvids%2Fvideos%2F1478794178797497%2F&show_text=0&width=500

    No arrests were made; however, reports were filed on three violent acts, violence against a police officer, two assaults, vandalism and aggravated thefts, authorities said.

    Firefighters survey the scene in the suburb of Rinkeby where riots erupted on Monday night.

    As we reported last night, Rinkeby is the same area where an Australian “60 Minutes” crew was attacked by a group of men in April 2016. The film crew was attempting to enter a so-called “no go zone,” which authorities deny they use as a label. Rinkeby, however, has been officially classified as one of 15 “particularly vulnerable” areas across Sweden.

    The country’s prime minister, Stefan Lofven, said Monday, “Yes, we have challenges like all other countries. There’s no doubt. We have a situation in the world where 65 million people had to flee their countries last year, the year before that. 65 million. So that’s a war for us together.” He also said Sweden was investing more in housing, technology and its welfare system.

    Reports of rapes in Sweden jumped 13 percent in 2016 compared to the previous year, and reports of sexual assaults were up 20 percent, according to preliminary data from the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention. Recent migration to Sweden hit its peak in 2015 with more than 160,000 asylum applications. It dropped to almost 30,000 in 2016.

    The mainstream media, so eager to mock Trump’s “error” on Saturday, has been oddly delayed in reporting on last night’s Swedish violence.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 21st February 2017

  • Don’t Short This Dog, Report 20 Feb, 2017

    This week, the prices of the metals mostly moved sideways. There was a rise on Thursday but it corrected back to basically unchanged on Friday.

    This will again be a brief Report, as yesterday was a holiday in the US.

    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
    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 this week.

    The Ratio of the Gold Price to the Silver Price
    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
    The Gold Basis and Cobasis and the Dollar Price

    The price was unchanged, but the basis is up slightly and cobasis is down (i.e. gold became slightly more abundant). This is not the news dollar shorters (i.e. those betting on the gold price) want to see.

    Our calculated fundamental price is all but unchanged around $1,360.

    Now let’s look at silver.

    The Silver Basis and Cobasis and the Dollar Price
    The Silver Basis and Cobasis and the Dollar Price

    In silver, the basis is basically unchanged but the cobasis went up a bit. The silver market got just a bit tighter, and our calculated fundamental price is up more than 30 cents to about a quarter above the market price. Not exactly “bet the farm with leverage territory”, but definitely not “short this dog” either.

    Watch this space. We have some exciting data science to reveal soon.

    © 2016 Monetary Metals

  • Stockman Warns Trump "Flynn's Gone But They're Still Gunning For You, Donald"

    Submitted by David Stockman via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

    General Flynn's tenure in the White House was only slightly longer than that of President-elect William Henry Harrison in 1841.  Actually, with just 24 days in the White House, General Flynn's tenure fell a tad short of old "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too".  General Harrison actually lasted 31 days before getting felled by pneumonia.

    And the circumstances were considerably more benign. It seems that General Harrison had a fondness for the same "firewater" that agitated the native Americans he slaughtered at the famous battle memorialized in his campaign slogan. In fact, during the campaign a leading Democrat newspaper skewered the old general, who at 68 was the oldest US President prior to Ronald Reagan, saying:

    Give him a barrel of hard [alcoholic] cider, and… a pension of two thousand [dollars] a year… and… he will sit the remainder of his days in his log cabin.

    That might have been a good idea back then (or even now), but to prove he wasn't infirm, Harrison gave the longest inaugural address in US history (2 hours) in the midst of seriously inclement weather wearing neither hat nor coat.

    That's how he got pneumonia! Call it foolhardy, but that was nothing compared to that exhibited by Donald Trump's former national security advisor.

    General Flynn got the equivalent of political pneumonia by talking for hours during the transition to international leaders, including Russia's ambassador to the US, on phone lines which were bugged by the CIA. Or more accurately, making calls which were "intercepted" by the very same NSA/FBI spy machinery that monitors every single phone call made in America.

    Ironically, we learned what Flynn should have known about the Deep State's plenary surveillance from Edward Snowden. Alas, Flynn and Trump wanted the latter to be hung in the public square as a "traitor", but if that's the solution to intelligence community leaks, the Donald is now going to need his own rope factory to deal with the flood of traitorous disclosures directed against him.

    In any event, it was "intercepts" leaked from deep in the bowels of the CIA to the Washington Post and then amplified in a 24/7 campaign by the War Channel (CNN) that brought General Flynn down.

    But here's the thing. They were aiming at Donald J. Trump. And for all of his puffed up bluster about being the savviest negotiator on the planet, the Donald walked right into their trap, as we shall amplify momentarily.

    But let's first make the essence of the matter absolutely clear. The whole Flynn imbroglio is not about a violation of the Logan Act owing to the fact that the general engaged in diplomacy as a private citizen.

    It's about re-litigating the 2016 election based on the hideous lie that Trump stole it with the help of Vladimir Putin. In fact, Nancy Pelosi was quick to say just that:

    'The American people deserve to know the full extent of Russia's financial, personal and political grip on President Trump and what that means for our national security,' House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a press release.

    Yet, we should rephrase. The re-litigation aspect reaches back to the Republican primaries, too. The Senate GOP clowns who want a war with practically everybody, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, are already launching their own investigation from the Senate Armed Services committee.

    And Senator Graham, the member of the boobsey twins who ran for President in 2016 while getting a GOP primary vote from virtually nobody,  made clear that General Flynn's real sin was a potential peace overture to the Russians:

    Sen. Lindsey Graham also said he wants an investigation into Flynn's conversations with a Russian ambassador about sanctions: "I think Congress needs to be informed of what actually Gen. Flynn said to the Russian ambassador about lifting sanctions," the South Carolina Republican told CNN's Kate Bolduan on "At This Hour. And I want to know, did Gen. Flynn do this by himself or was he directed by somebody to do it?"

    We say good riddance to Flynn, of course, because he was a shrill anti-Iranian warmonger. But let's also not be fooled by the clinical term at the heart of the story. That is, "intercepts" mean that the Deep State taps the phone calls of the President's own closest advisors as a matter of course.

    This is the real scandal as Trump himself has rightly asserted. The very idea that the already announced #1 national security advisor to a President-elect should be subject to old-fashion "bugging," albeit with modern day technology, overwhelmingly trumps the utterly specious Logan Act charge at the center of the case.

    As one writer for LawNewz noted regarding acting Attorney General Sally Yates' voyeuristic pre-occupation with Flynn's intercepted conversations, Nixon should be rolling in his grave with envy:

    Now, information leaks that Sally Yates knew about surveillance being conducted against potential members of the Trump administration, and disclosed that information to others. Even Richard Nixon didn’t use the government agencies themselves to do his black bag surveillance operations. Sally Yates involvement with this surveillance on American political opponents, and possibly the leaking related thereto, smacks of a return to Hoover-style tactics. As writers at Bloomberg and The Week both noted, it wreaks of 'police-state' style tactics. But knowing dear Sally as I do, it comes as no surprise.

    Yes, that's the same career apparatchik of the permanent government that Obama left behind to continue the 2016 election by other means. And it's working. The Donald is being rapidly emasculated by the powers that be in the Imperial City due to what can only be described as an audacious and self-evident attack on Trump's Presidency by the Deep State.

    Indeed, it seems that the layers of intrigue have gotten so deep and convoluted that the nominal leadership of the permanent  government machinery has lost track of who is spying on whom. Thus, we have the following curious utterance by none other than the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes:

    'I expect for the FBI to tell me what is going on, and they better have a good answer,' he told The Washington Post. 'The big problem I see here is that you have an American citizen who had his phone calls recorded.'

    Well, yes. That makes 324 million of us, Congressman.

    But for crying out loud, surely the oh so self-important chairman of the House intelligence committee knows that everybody is bugged. But when it reaches the point that the spy state is essentially using its unconstitutional tools to engage in what amounts to "opposition research" with the aim of election nullification, then the Imperial City has become a clear and present danger to American democracy and the liberties of the American people.

    As Robert Barnes of LawNewz further explained, Sally Yates, former CIA director John Brennan and a large slice of the Never Trumper intelligence community were systematically engaged in "opposition research" during the campaign and the transition:

    According to published reports, someone was eavesdropping, and recording, the conversations of Michael Flynn, while Sally Yates was at the Department of Justice. Sally Yates knew about this eavesdropping, listened in herself (Pellicano-style for those who remember the infamous LA cases), and reported what she heard to others. For Yates to have such access means she herself must have been involved in authorizing its disclosure to political appointees, since she herself is such a political appointee. What justification was there for an Obama appointee to be spying on the conversations of a future Trump appointee?

    Consider this little tidbit in The Washington Post. The paper, which once broke Watergate, is now propagating the benefits of Watergate-style surveillance in ways that do make Watergate look like a third-rate effort.  (With the) FBI 'routinely' monitoring conversations of Americans…… Yates listened to 'the intercepted call,' even though Yates knew there was 'little chance' of any credible case being made for prosecution under a law 'that has never been used in a prosecution.'

    And well it hasn't been. After all, the Logan Act was signed by President John Adams in 1799 in order to punish one of Thomas Jefferson's supporters for having peace discussions with the French government in Paris. That is, it amounted to pre-litigating the Presidential campaign of 1800 based on sheer political motivation.

    According to the Washington Post itself, that is exactly what Yates and the Obama holdovers did day and night during the interregnum:

    Indeed, the paper details an apparent effort by Yates to misuse her office to launch a full-scale secret investigation of her political opponents, including 'intercepting calls' of her political adversaries.

    So all of the feigned outrage emanating from Democrats and the Washington establishment about Team Trump's trafficking with the Russians is a cover story. Surely anyone even vaguely familiar with recent history would have known there was absolutely nothing illegal or even untoward about Flynn's post-Christmas conversations with the Russian Ambassador.

    Indeed, we recall from personal experience the thrilling moment on inauguration day in January 1981 when word came of the release of the American hostages in Tehran. Let us assure you, that did not happen by immaculate diplomatic conception — nor was it a parting gift to the Gipper by the outgoing Carter Administration.

    To the contrary, it was the fruit of secret negotiations with the Iranian government during the transition by private American citizens. As the history books would have it because it's true, the leader of that negotiation, in fact, was Ronald Reagan's national security council director-designate, Dick Allen.

    As the real Washington Post later reported, under the by-line of a real reporter, Bob Woodward:

    Reagan campaign aides met in a Washington DC hotel in early October, 1980, with a self-described 'Iranian exile' who offered, on behalf of the Iranian government, to release the hostages to Reagan, not Carter, in order to ensure Carter's defeat in the November 4, 1980 election.

    The American participants were Richard Allen, subsequently Reagan's first national security adviser, Allen aide Laurence Silberman, and Robert McFarlane, another future national security adviser who in 1980 was on the staff of Senator John Tower (R-TX).

    To this day we have not had occasion to visit our old friend Dick Allen in the US penitentiary because he's not there; the Logan Act was never invoked in what is surely the most blatant case ever of citizen diplomacy.

    So let's get to the heart of the matter and be done with it. The Obama White House conducted a sour grapes campaign to delegitimize the election beginning November 9th and it was led by then CIA Director John Brennan.

    That treacherous assault on the core constitutional matter of the election process culminated in the ridiculous Russian meddling report of the Obama White House in December. The latter, of course, was issued by serial liar James Clapper, as national intelligence director, and the clueless Democrat lawyer and bag-man, Jeh Johnson, who had been appointed head of the Homeland Security Department.

    Yet on the basis of  the report's absolutely zero evidence and endless surmise, innuendo and "assessments", the Obama White House imposed another round of its silly school-boy sanctions on a handful of Putin's cronies.

    Of course, Flynn should have been telling the Russian Ambassador that this nonsense would be soon reversed!

    But here is the ultimate folly. The mainstream media talking heads are harrumphing loudly about the fact that the very day following Flynn's call — Vladimir Putin announced that he would not retaliate against the new Obama sanctions as expected; and shortly thereafter, the Donald tweeted that Putin had shown admirable wisdom.

    That's right. Two reasonably adult statesman undertook what might be called the Christmas Truce of 2016. But like its namesake of 1914 on the bloody no man's land of the western front, the War Party has determined that the truce-makers shall not survive.

    The Donald has been warned.

  • UK Police Chief: Former British PM Was HUGE Pedo, Establishment Covered Up

    In the four weeks since Donald Trump’s inauguration there have been a record number of human trafficking arrests – including the largest bust in US history which received virtually no MSM attention. In total, over 1500 suspects have been taken down, including high profile serial child molester Jerry Sandusky’s adopted son, Jeffrey Sandusky, who was arrested a week ago on charges of sexually assaulting two minors and sending Anthony Weiner-esque texts.

    And it’s way more than just domestic busts in the United States; two days before the Clinton Foundation pulled out of Haiti, a sting rescued at least 31 victims of human trafficking right next to where Bill and Hillary spent their honeymoon. There have also been international busts in Quebec, a huge takedown in Japan, and another in Ghana. A little over two weeks ago, a fifth of the “dark web” was taken down – around half of which was related to human trafficking and pedophilia.

    Even before Trump’s inauguration but after the US election, Norway (around the same time they eliminated almost all contributions to the Clinton Foundation) conducted a gigantic takedown of a child-porn ring, which the New York Times initially reported on but then deleted from their website. Not surprising, considering the NYT’s history of defending pedophilia – which I’m sure has nothing to do with CEO Mark Thompson’s career spent covering up or otherwise “normalizing” the heinous proclivity.

    The latest revelation comes from Wiltshire, UK police chief Mike Veale, who sources say is certain that long-suspected former British Prime Minister – Sir Edward Heath, was in fact a huge pedophile; allegations Veale believes are “120 percent” genuine:

    More than 30 people have come forward with claims of sexual abuse by the former Conservative Prime Minister, according to well-placed sources. And they are said to have given ‘strikingly similar’ accounts of incidents to Wiltshire Police – even though the individuals are not known to each other. 

     

    Astonishingly, Mr Veale is also understood to support claims that Sir Edward’s alleged crimes were reported to police years ago but covered up by the Establishment.


    The investigation into Sir Edward, called Operation Conifer, was set up in 2015 in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal.

    DailyMail

    Veale, in response to the leaked “120 percent” headline, called the speculation “unhelpful,” though he did not deny he said it:

    “In relation to the recent unhelpful speculation regarding the veracity of the allegations made, let me once again be clear, it is not the role of the police to judge the guilt or innocence of people in our criminal justice system. The Guardian

    Let’s take a quick look at the Savile case that NYT boss Mark Thompson swept under the rug, and which launched Veale’s investigation:

    Of note, Savile was good friends with Prince Charles and disgraced pedophile bishop Peter Ball. Yikes.

    Indeed, it looks like it’s open season on human traffickers and child predators around the world. If all of these recent busts are Trump’s way of setting the stage for those high profile arrests we keep hearing whispers about – it’s a brilliant strategy, even if the MSM has been deafeningly quiet on the topic.

    This official ad from Trump’s Department of Homeland Security and ICE is telling:

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    At this rate I think it’s safe to say we can all look forward to more episodes of To Catch a Pedator

     

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

  • Government Knows Best – Junk Food Ban Goes Global

    Obesity is a ‘big’ (pardon the pun) problem in the Pacific Islands.  In fact, a recent World Bank study found that over half the adult population in 16 of the 17 Pacific Island countries and territories were obese while over 75% of the population was obese in 11 of those counties.

    Pacific Island Obesity

     

    So what do you do when you just can’t count on citizens to make sound judgements about their own personal health decisions?  Well, you call in the Nanny State to ban sodas and sugary snacks, of course…which, according to the New York Times, is exactly what the tiny Pacific island nation of Vanuatu is doing.

    While many governments struggle to ban soda to curb obesity, the tiny Torba Tourism Council in the remote Pacific island nation of Vanuatu is planning to outlaw all imported food at government functions and tourist establishments across the province’s 13 inhabited islands.

     

    Provincial leaders hope to turn them instead into havens of local organic food. The ban, scheduled to take effect in March, comes as many Pacific island nations struggle with an obesity crisis brought on in part by the overconsumption of imported junk food.

     

    “We want to ban all other junk food from this province,” Luke Dini, the council’s chairman and a retired Anglican priest, said in a telephone interview from Torba. He said the province had about 9,000 residents and got fewer than 1,000 tourists a year, mostly Europeans.

    Nanny State

     

    Not surprisingly, so-called “public health experts” have praised Vanuatu’s ban on imported food while blasting international consumer goods companies for “exploiting these nations by providing a food supply that is not, in the long term, better for health” while “decimating” local populations.

    Public health experts who study the island nations of the Pacific welcomed the ban, saying that bold measures were necessary for an impoverished and isolated region of 10 million people — one where the cost of sending legions of patients abroad for dialysis treatment or kidney transplants is untenable.

     

    “Imagine if 75 million Americans had diabetes — that’s the scale of the epidemic we’re talking about in Vanuatu,” Roger Magnusson, a professor of health law and governance at Sydney Law School in Australia, said in an email.

     

    “Can anyone seriously say that Vanuatu doesn’t have the right to exercise its health sovereignty in every way possible to protect its population from an epidemic of that scale?” he added.

     

    It is so wrong what is being done to exploit these nations by providing a food supply that is not, in the long term, better for health,” said Elaine Rush, a professor of nutrition at the Auckland University of Technology in New Zealand who has studied health problems in the Pacific islands. She described the effect that the health crisis was having on families there as “decimating.”

    Of course, there are just a couple of small problems with the “evil corporation” theory as presented by “public health experts” and the New York Times.  Unfortunately, while the “health experts” would like for you to believe that obesity is a new problem plaguing the people of the Pacific islands, as Wendy Snowden of the World Health Organization points out, in reality obesity rates on these islands were simply “higher to start with.”  Moreover, as Snowden also notes, one other small problem is that no level of “taxes and prohibitions” on sugary food products has “been able to demonstrate reductions in obesity prevalence.”

    Still, Dr. Snowdon said, the taxes and prohibitions on drinks in the Pacific islands — along with education, food labeling and school-nutrition programs — have not reduced the region’s overall incidence of obesity or its associated health problems.

     

    “No country in the world has been able to demonstrate reductions in its obesity prevalence, so we’re not that different,” she said. “It’s just that our levels are higher to start with.”

    But rest assured, dear citizens of the world, that your Nanny State’s aggressive, invasive policies stripping you of your basic personal liberties are intended for your own good and are in no way a meaningless attempt to cram their liberal agendas down your throat at all costs, irrespective of scientific data proving their complete lack of effectiveness in achieving their stated goals.

  • The Billionaire-Owned, Corporate Media Is As Worthless As Ever

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    I think the U.S. citizenry is being afflicted by a sort of mass insanity at the moment. There are no good outcomes if this continues. As a result, I feel compelled to provide a voice for those of us lost in the political wilderness. We must persevere and not be manipulated into the obvious and nefarious divide and conquer tactics being aggressively unleashed across the societal spectrum. If we lose our grounding and our fortitude, who will be left to speak for those of us who simply don’t fit into any of the currently ascendant political ideologies?

     

    From the post: Lost in the Political Wilderness

    Rather than focus its journalistic energy on chronicling the economic insecurity plaguing so many of our fellow Americans, the billionaire-owned corporate media appears entirely obsessed with chattering endlessly about Russia conspiracy theories and domestic coup plots. Instead of looking in the mirror and admitting how its countless errors and propaganda pushing led to multiple humanitarian disasters over the last couple of decades, the oligarch-owned mainstream media insist upon a narrative that Trump the individual is at the root of our problems, as opposed to an entrenched executive branch with excessive power. This is because the mainstream media isn’t actually concerned about our cancerous, systemic metastasizing statism, it merely doesn’t want Trump in charge of it. I, on the other hand, want to dismantle that unconstitutional state entirely and transfer power to the American people where it belongs — self-government. Does anyone actually think for a second the media would be this adversarial if Hillary won?

    This weekend’s article by Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times represents a sort of coming out party for the billionaire-owned, corporate media. More than anything else I’ve seen, it perfectly demonstrates how completely disconnected and worthless billionaire-owned media truly is. It’s the height of absurdity that these media organizations, owned by billionaires or giant corporate conglomerates, are playing the victim in all this when they’ve been the world’s primary abuser for the entire 21st century.

    You can be a staunch defender of the free press and the 1st Amendment, and at the same time point out that the billionaire-owned media has failed us. This is my position, and Trump’s election hasn’t changed that. The handful of corporations and billionaires who control the mainstream press does not = “the press.” They (and the deep state) are currently trying to convince the public that they’re the only ones standing between you and fascism. This is complete stupidity, and if we fall for it, we will get what we deserve.

    The billionaire-owned media is far more complicit in creating the imperial Presidency than Donald Trump, he merely figured out a way to get control of it. Now these same charlatans are pretending to put out a fire they themselves started, and want to be celebrated for being so courageous. This is eerily similar to the scam pulled off by the Federal Reserve during and after the financial crisis.

    With that introduction out of the way, let’s take a look at a few excerpts from the mind-bogglingly explicit piece in this past weekend’s New York Times, titled brazenly enough, How Can We Get Rid of Trump?

    Maybe things will settle down. But what is striking about Trump is not just the dysfunction of his administration but also the — vigorously denied — allegations that Trump’s team may have cooperated with Vladimir Putin to steal the election. What’s also different is the broad concern that Trump is both: A) unfit for office, and B) dangerously unstable. One pro-American leader in a foreign country called me up the other day and skipped the preliminaries, starting with: “What the [expletive] is wrong with your country?”

     

    So let’s investigate: Is there any way out?

     

    Trump still has significant political support, so the obstacles are gargantuan. But the cleanest and quickest way to remove a president involves Section 4 of the 25th Amendment and has never been attempted. It provides that the cabinet can, by a simple majority vote, strip the president of his powers and immediately hand power to the vice president. The catch is that the ousted president can object, and in that case Congress must approve the ouster by a two-thirds vote in each chamber, or the president regains office.

    It’s never been attempted in the history of the country, but let’s promote it anyway!

    The 25th Amendment route is to be used when a president is “unable” to carry out his duties. I asked Laurence Tribe, the Harvard professor of constitutional law, whether that could mean not just physical incapacity, but also mental instability. Or, say, the taint of having secretly colluded with Russia to steal an election?

     

    Tribe said that he believed Section 4 could be used in such a situation.

     

    “In the unlikely event that Pence and a majority of Trump’s bizarre cabinet were to grow the spine needed to do the right thing with the process set up by that provision, we would surely be in a situation where a very large majority of the public, including a very substantial percentage of Trump’s supporters, would back if not insist upon such a move,” Tribe said. “In that circumstance, I can’t imagine Trump and his lawyers succeeding in getting the federal courts to interfere.”

    As a reminder, here’s an example of the intellectual and ethical wasteland known as Laurene Tribe’s mind as of late:

    Now back to Kristof.

    The better known route is impeachment. But for now it’s hard to imagine a majority of the House voting to impeach, and even less conceivable that two-thirds of the Senate would vote to convict so that Trump would be removed. Moreover, impeachment and trial in the Senate would drag on for months, paralyzing America and leaving Trump in office with his finger on the nuclear trigger.

    In Kristof’s mind, a major downside to pursuing impeachment is that it won’t get rid of Trump fast enough. Is this really a paper the public can remotely trust to report on the country’s problems in a fair manner?

    Now here’s where it starts to get simply comical. Kristoff writes:

    Some people believe that the 2018 midterm elections will be so catastrophic for the G.O.P. that everyone will be ready to get rid of him. I’m skeptical. In the Senate, the map is disastrous for Democrats in 2018: The Republicans will be defending only eight Senate seats, while Democrats will in effect be defending 25.

     

    So while Democrats can gnash their teeth, it’ll be up to Republicans to decide whether to force Trump out. And that won’t happen unless they see him as ruining their party as well as the nation.

    Perhaps instead of “gnashing their teeth,” Democrats could come up with a coherent platform that doesn’t revolve around worshiping Wall Street.

    Finally, here’s how Kristoff ends his pathetic plea for overthrowing Trump.

    And what does it say about a presidency that, just one month into it, we’re already discussing whether it can be ended early?

    No Nicholas, “we” aren’t already discussing it. You are. You and your media peers. Which brings me to the most infuriating aspect of what is happening in American discourse today. What is someone like me, who dislikes Trump, but dislikes the corporate media even more, supposed to do?

    This is the uncomfortable position I find myself in today, and if I’m there, millions of others are there as well. Trump understands this, which is why he continues his unrelenting attacks on elements of the corporate press. Personally, my dislike of Trump would be far more acute if not for my total disdain for the billionaire-owned media. Journalists are supposed to be adversarial toward power generally, not pick and choose which powerful figures to challenge based on political ideology. The corporate media has clearly failed the country, thus Trump is being politically savvy by picking a fight with it. As I noted last week on Twitter:

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Once again, the corporate media is proving its worthlessness by making everything about a man, as opposed to the systemic disaster that is the oligarch-controlled society we live in. The current President isn’t charismatic enough, and doesn’t espouse the right platitudes when he bombs Muslim women and children. That’s the media’s red line apparently. If it sounds like I’m against everything, there’s a reason. Our culture is deranged and corporate media deserves a lot of the blame.

    Finally, here’s an article published by Forbes last year to get you up to speed on what we’re up against: These 15 Billionaires Own America’s News Media Companies.

    Billionaires don’t buy media outlets to make money, they already have that. They buy them to manipulate public opinion.

  • People Are Suddenly Worried About China (Again)

    Considering that in the past 3 months the only daily topic of relevance for the media has been “Donald Trump” both in the US and abroad, one would assume that when it comes to global policy uncertainty the primary source would be, record S&P 500 paradoxically notwithstanding, the United States. One would also be wrong, because while Trump seemingly remains the only topic worthy of discussion blanketing the airwaves, as the following chart from Goldman demonstrates, it has been China where policy uncertainty has stealthily exploded in the past three months according to policyuncertainty.com, while making virtually no new headlines.

    But how is it possible that China, which is seemingly far more “concerning” at this moment than it was a year ago when fears about Chinese financial conditions and devaluation led to global market selloff and pushed the S&P into correction, has had virtually no impact on risk assets so far in 2017: clearly either the chart above, or the market, is wrong.

    Conveneintly it is the same Goldman which has published an exhaustive report laying out the key risks to China’s growth, many of which have been discounted by the market which erroneously assumes that just because the world went though a China “scare” period one year ago, that the world’s second biggest economy remains contained. Far from it.

    For those pressed for time, below is the summary of Goldman’s “Risks To China’s growth In The Year of the rooster” report, from the team of MK Tan:

    • After meeting the 2016 growth target, Chinese policymakers are focused on stability ahead of the upcoming leadership reshuffling. This relative calm–we expect only a modest deceleration in growth in the Year of the Rooster—is coming at the cost of further increases in credit and other imbalances. Meanwhile, markets have tempered their acute bearishness on the Chinese economy and are focused on policy and politics in the US and Europe. Still, with growth arguably above potential and Chinese policy tightening, we think a review of China-related risks is timely. We separate risks into those emanating from the Chinese economy itself, and adverse shocks from abroad.
    • Domestically, our concerns center on the ongoing credit boom and the calibration of policy tightening. A fading “credit impulse” to growth seems likely, with cyclical sectors like housing apt to slow this year—even if low reliance on foreign funding and strong government influence on bank lending and bond purchases reduce the risk of an acute credit crunch. As for policy tightening, policymakers have tried to balance growth targets with financial stability, but inflation could become a new constraint as potential growth declines.
    • The biggest risks for China from abroad are an accelerated pace of Fed tightening and/or US protectionism. As for the former, with two Fed hikes already priced in for 2017, it would probably take a shift into more hawkish territory than our own forecast (three hikes) to cause a major shock. As for the latter, the most disruptive measures would be a large across-the-board tariff on China or the “border-adjusted cash flow tax” under consideration by the House of Representatives. Either could impose a meaningful hit to Chinese exports and growth, as well as exacerbating capital outflow and financial stability risks.
    • If one or more of these risks materializes, a Chinese slowdown would be transmitted to other countries through three main channels: slowing goods imports from the rest of the world, falling commodity prices, and tighter financial conditions (most likely via a stronger USD and weaker equity prices). Open Asian economies, particularly those with commodity exposure and/or dollar indebtedness, remain the most vulnerable to a “hard landing” in China.

    * * *

    Those interested in the details behind the report are encouraged to read on for the key select excerpts:

    Introduction

    A year ago, markets were abuzz over the possibility of a financial calamity in China and/or a “big deval” in the currency. Market pricing implied the likelihood of substantial equity price moves and CNY depreciation (Exhibit 1). Fears of a China crisis reverberated through global markets, tightening financial conditions around the world and pushing the US Federal Reserve to postpone its plans for further rate hikes.

    Exhbit 1: China’s equity and currency markets were both under stress a year ago

    Chinese policymakers wrestled with challenges throughout 2016, but large and sustained policy stimulus eventually fostered recovery. Fiscal and regulatory easing, alongside continued rapid credit growth, underpinned strong growth in infrastructure spending and a rebound in cyclical sectors like property and motor vehicles. Real GDP growth came in on target (6.7% versus a 6.5%-7.0% target range), and alternative measures of activity also improved (Exhibit 2). Our China Current Activity Indicator bottomed out at 4.3% (see dark line in Exhibit 2; this is measured on a three-month, three-month annualized basis) in early 2015, recovered to the mid-5% range last year, and is now running at 6.9%. Heavy industry, as proxied by our physical output measure (gray line in Exhibit 2), has seen an even more pronounced reacceleration.

    Exhibit 2: After a tough 2015, our measures of Chinese growth accelerated in 2016

    Now, while forecasters still expect a little slowing in growth and some further depreciation in the renminbi, the focus is much more on policy in the US and Europe. In the US, President Trump’s tweets have spawned a cottage industry of interpreters vying to understand where policy may head in the coming year. Across the Atlantic, the road map for “Brexit” as well as continued uncertainty about politics in the rest of the Eurozone occupies many market participants. While we subscribe to the view that Chinese policymakers will manage through the year with reasonably high growth, it is still prudent to review the risks ahead.

    After the roller coaster of the past year, most observers expect Chinese policymakers to make significant efforts to keep growth stable this year and try to reduce volatility in financial markets. Indeed, commentary following December’s Central Economic Work Conference suggested that “controlling financial risks” may even take precedence over the growth target—a sensible ordering of priorities, in our view. Still, even if the Communist Party of China (CPC)’s long-term commitment to double income in this decade—as promulgated by the previous administration and reiterated last year by many senior officials—is pushed out by a year or two, it continues to carry some weight. We therefore expect the growth target to be near 6.5% for 2017, and policymakers to accept only limited flexibility around this target (sub-6% GDP growth is unlikely to be acceptable). A special motivation for minimizing market and economic “noise” in 2017 is the upcoming 19th Party Congress and associated leadership reshuffling, which will involve the majority of members in the Politburo and Standing Committee of the CPC. 

    Global financial markets seem to have bought into the notion that China-related risks will be managed, shrugging off China’s significant bond and FX market volatility in recent months. Substantial capital outflows and CNY depreciation against the USD continued in late 2016 but have not (yet) resulted in substantial tightening in global financial conditions, unlike last year (Exhibit 3).

    Exhibit 3: Less spillover from China to US financial conditions recently

    The aforementioned improvement in growth, alongside clearer messages from policymakers (publicly rejecting a large devaluation and holding the trade-weighted renminbi stable since mid-2016) and friendlier global conditions (a more dovish Fed in particular) have all helped.

    What could bring China fears to the fore again, and cause the markets to change their assessment?

    We explore some possible paths to a “hard landing” in China. (For the purposes of this discussion we define a “hard landing” as a drop of at least 4pp in our China Current Activity Indicator within one year—on this basis we’ve had a few near misses in the last few years, most recently in early 2015, but no hard landing. From the current growth pace, this would imply a drop in CAI to the mid-2% range or below.) We divide our review into external shocks and then domestic vulnerabilities, although clearly the two interact with each other. We emphasize these risks are not part of our baseline scenario for China in 2017, though they are more than mere “tail risks”.

    Domestic vulnerabilities—credit and policy miscalibration

    We see two principal risks domestically. The first is an abrupt end to China’s credit boom.

    A widespread perception of a “policy put”, implicit guarantees to state enterprises and governments at all levels, and generally strong growth have underpinned the stability of the financial system. They have also encouraged rapid growth in leverage, including a reacceleration in 2015-16 (Exhibit 4).[5] China’s post-GFC credit boom has taken debt levels well beyond those of EM peers (Exhibit 5).

    Exhibit 4: Credit growth has reaccelerated since 2015 and is well in excess of nominal GDP growth

    Exhibit 5: China’s debt level well above EM peers 

    Sustained debt booms typically lead to slower growth, greater financial volatility, and heightened risk of a financial crisis. Looking at more than a century of historical data, we found that a “large domestic debt boom” lasting at least 7 years where the debt-to-GDP ratio increases by over 52pp—China’s easily qualifies—is typically followed by a 2pp slowdown in growth and a heightened risk of financial crisis (Exhibits 6 and 7).

    Exhibit 6: Real GDP growth decelerates after debt booms: Real GDP growth relative to average during debt boom period

    Exhibit 7: Financial crises common but not inevitable in large-country domestic debt booms

    Another way to look at the potential growth consequences is to estimate the negative “credit impulse” if credit growth were to slow to half its current pace. Using our past analysis of the relationship between credit and growth, and assuming a deceleration over one year, this would slow growth by 2-3pp or more (a more gradual deceleration would spread this growth hit over a longer period). 

    We have seen credit booms end because of intentional tightening (Japan, where policymakers raised interest rates and imposed credit controls), external shocks (capital outflows in the Asia Financial Crisis), or to some extent collapsing under their own weight (the United States, where rising defaults led to a vicious cycle of tighter credit, falling asset prices, and weaker growth). Similarly, a structural break in China’s credit expansion—a sharp tightening in credit availability—could occur because of a deliberate policy shift or because imbalances have simply grown too large to be sustained (more on both below). Regardless of the trigger, a supply-driven tightening in credit would have highly negative consequences for growth.

    Chinese policymakers are trying to avoid this sort of sharp pullback. Perhaps with the US experience in mind, they have been particularly attentive to “shadow banking” risks, recently taking steps to regulate off-balance sheet activities such as wealth management products, and to increase the cost of repo financing that is often used to fund shadow banking activity, even at the cost of prompting a significant bond market selloff in late 2016. In this context, our forecast remains for a “bumpy deceleration” in growth rather than a hard landing, though the longer the credit boom continues, the more difficult it will be to guide the economy to a soft landing.

    The second domestic risk is a major policy tightening. This could be intentional or unintentional, although we view the latter as much more plausible. 

    Chinese policymakers’ growth goals appear increasingly likely to conflict with supply-side constraints. Historically, the growth target was a “policy put” that was out of the money—a reassurance that growth would not be allowed to drop too far. However, in recent years the target appears to have become a binding constraint on policy. Actual growth is near the target instead of well above it (Exhibit 8), and our estimates suggest potential growth is slightly lower (near or below 6%).

    To meet the GDP growth targets, credit growth has boomed, as noted in the previous section, and a key driver of demand for that credit has been a large increase in the broadly-defined fiscal deficit (Exhibit 9). Indeed, a portion of the fiscal expansion has been underwritten by the central bank itself in the form of rising credit to the banking sector (e.g., “pledged supplementary lending” to policy banks such as CDB; see Exhibit 10). 

    Attempting to boost growth above its potential rate for a sustained period is likely to lead to rising inflation and/or unsustainable asset price appreciation. We have already seen a large run-up in housing prices, substantial capital outflow pressures, and a sharp turnaround in producer prices (although we would attribute the latter primarily to CNY depreciation and upstream supply-side constraints rather than demand stimulus). As yet, CPI inflation is modest (Exhibit 11), but inflation could eventually force more difficult tradeoffs—and possibly a harsh policy tightening–if growth targets are not tempered further.

    With growth in the target range for now, policymakers have begun tightening on a number of fronts to address these risks:

    • Housing restrictions in tier 1 and 2 cities, mostly on the demand side, to address surging home prices.
    • Regulation of “shadow banking” activities such as wealth management products to limit liquidity risks and overall credit growth.
    • Higher and more volatile repo rates to limit shadow credit growth (and perhaps also to discourage outflows and support the currency).
    • Stricter enforcement of controls on capital outflows.

    The steps thus far look like “targeted tightening” designed to limit risks without too much damage to economic growth. For policymakers to cut their growth aspirations significantly and tighten very aggressively, other economic challenges such as inflation or capital outflows would have to get much worse, in our view.

    Exhibit 8: Policymakers have kept real GDP growth on target…

    Exhibit 9: …but fiscal support has reached unprecedented levels

    Exhibit 10: PBOC and banking sector have helped finance stimulus

    Exhibit 11: PPI rebounded sharply, but CPI inflation still modest

    Even if policymakers do not intend to slow growth sharply, there is always a risk that they do so accidentally. The past few years have featured numerous occasions where policy tightening generated bigger effects (either in financial conditions or the real economy) than expected. Examples include the mid-2013 spike in repo rates (Exhibit 12), volatility in the equity markets around policy interventions (such as the introduction of the “circuit breaker” in early 2016), and of course the ructions in global currency and equity markets around the small renminbi devaluations in August 2015 and early 2016. Late last year, modest tightening by PBOC contributed to a significant backup in the bond market (Exhibit 13). In the real economy, efforts to reform local government finances slowed investment and heavy industry activity in late 2014 and early 2015, prompting a reversal in the spring of 2015 and substantial easing thereafter.

    Exhibit 12: Sharp repo spikes in earlier years; moderate increase in volatility recently

    Exhibit 13: Recent bond market backup ended a three-year rally

    The biggest vulnerabilities to unintended tightening are probably in the less formal areas of off-balance sheet spending (on the fiscal side) and non-bank credit extension (on the monetary side). On-budget fiscal policy is relatively transparent and controllable, but how local governments will respond to changing incentives—including anticorruption efforts, shifts in performance criteria, and changing availability of credit—is harder to predict. Likewise, policymakers have considerable influence on direct lending by large state banks, but less so on other bond market participants or “shadow banking” entities. This is especially true when multiple regulators/policymakers may be acting in a manner that is not completely coordinated. A particularly big challenge is how to unwind the perception of implicit guarantees on the debt of many SOEs and local governments’ financing vehicles without precipitating a credit crunch.

    In summary, we see a policy tightening “accident” as a key domestic risk. Credit expansions can buckle under their own weight as leveraged asset prices rise to unsustainable levels and rising defaults prompt a reversal in credit availability. But with policymakers attempting to manage both housing prices and defaults directly, we think the central issue in the year ahead is policy calibration. Policymakers clearly do not want the economy to slow sharply, particularly ahead of the leadership transition later this year. At the same time, they need to address some of the imbalances in the economy to limit future volatility. Getting the balance right is particularly challenging given the leverage already in the system. Warning signs of overtightening could come from a large pullback in fiscal activity (Exhibit 9), a sharper spike in short-term interest rates (Exhibit 12), a widening in credit spreads (Exhibit 13; this might occur for example because of a reassessment of the value of implicit guarantees), or any sign that polices were causing an abrupt seizure in broad credit availability (Exhibit 4).

    * * *

    Potential shocks from abroad—export slump or hawkish Fed

    We see two main potential shocks from abroad that could conceivably cause a “hard landing” in China:

    First is a sharp decline in export demand… Despite the rapid growth of domestic demand and services, exports remain an important pillar of China’s economy. In recent years, 15-20% of Chinese value-added was dependent on demand outside the country. Although this proportion has been declining, China remains sensitive both to global growth shocks and to any lurch towards protectionism in developed markets, particularly the US. 

    …either because of global growth… The single most important driver of Chinese exports is the pace of domestic demand growth in its trading partners. Our analysis suggests that Chinese real export growth moves slightly more than one-for-one with foreign demand growth,after accounting for exchange rate moves and commodity prices.[18] With an export-to-GDP ratio of slightly over 20%, it would clearly take a very large shock to directly cause a “hard landing” in China. It took the global financial crisis for an external shock to slow growth by 4pp on its own (Exhibit 14). Of course, weaker external demand could have indirect effects on domestic challenges also (e.g., by increasing non-performing loans and credit stresses, or by leading to greater FX outflows). However, weaker external demand isn’t our base-case scenario; on the contrary, global activity has been accelerating and we expect at least a modest improvement in domestic demand growth in developed markets in 2017.

    …or increased trade barriers. In the wake of the US election, the more likely risk to export demand comes from protectionist measures on the part of China’s trading partners. China benefited enormously from the reduction in trade barriers following its entry to the World Trade Organization in 2001 (Exhibit 15), and clearly would be adversely impacted from any backsliding in this area.

    Exhibit 14: Export shock would need to be GFC-sized to cause hard landing on its own


    Exhibit 15: Chinese export shares have leveled off since the GFC

    More substantial US actions would include across-the-board tariffs on Chinese imports (Trump advisor Peter Navarro has proposed 45%) or a “border-adjusted tax,” which would effectively be a tariff on imports from all countries. These could potentially have meaningful growth impacts, particularly when second-round effects of retaliatory tariffs are taken into consideration. Still, while our analysis suggests that tariffs in the single or low double-digits will certainly slow growth, our models do not suggest a magnitude approaching our 4pp “hard landing” threshold in most scenarios that we find plausible. This is particularly true in 2017, since we think the new US administration would be unlikely to apply large tariffs to China or implement a border-adjusted tax before lengthy negotiation and debate.

    2. Fed tightening. The pace of Fed hikes in 2017 will be an important determinant of external pressures. More rapid Fed hikes would raise interest differentials and likely result in a stronger USD.[23] Chinese policymakers would then face the choice of seeing their own currency appreciate on a trade-weighted basis (and thereby losing competitiveness), or depreciating against the USD (potentially exacerbating capital outflow pressures). A stronger dollar would also be unhelpful for regional growth.[24] We think Fed and dollar pressures are an important risk in 2017 and beyond, though the gap between market pricing of rate hikes (close to two hikes for the year) and our US team’s view of three rate hikes for the year has closed as markets have priced in better growth and inflation outlook post-election.

    However, it is important to note there is an automatic stabilizer of sorts. To the extent outflows or the CNY move are viewed by markets as disorderly, or having the potential to become so, we could revisit the experience of August 2015 and January 2016 where US financial conditions tightened (USD strength/equity weakness), causing the Fed to back off and reducing the pressure that created the concern in the first place. US policymakers certainly have no interest in seeing a “hard landing” in China’s economy, and have been responsive to financial conditions.[25] Clearly, however, this process would be damaging to risk assets initially, as it was in August 2015 and early 2016.

    Taken together, while external conditions could prove more difficult in some respects in 2017, we do not think that they will be the fundamental triggers of a “hard landing” in China in 2017. Global growth appears healthy at the moment, with our Global Leading Indicator recently marking an 6-year high.[26] And while we expect the Fed to tighten and trade policy to become less friendly to imports from China, we do not think the magnitude of these changes will do much damage to 2017 growth as a whole.

    A more challenging external shock would be a combination of a big protectionist move by the United States and a hawkish shift by the Fed (perhaps reacting to the growth and inflationary consequences of tighter US trade policy). This could result in a substantial blow to Chinese growth, perhaps magnified by interactions with China’s domestic imbalances. Still, as the new administration is still making key personnel appointments in trade-related areas, and we expect the Fed to wait until June for its next hike, this is probably a bigger risk for 2018 (or perhaps late 2017) than for most of this year.

    * * *

    Policy buffers large but eroding

    It’s important to point out that Chinese policymakers still have large—though shrinking—policy buffers relevant to both domestic and external shocks.

    External policy buffers include:

    1. A solid current account surplus. The current account surplus was $210bn in 2016, or 1.9% of GDP. Unlike many countries in the runup to the Asian Financial Crisis, China is not borrowing from abroad to fund imports.
    2. A strong net international investment position (15.7% of GDP as of Q3 16). As China has run large surpluses for years, it has accumulated a substantial net long position in foreign assets.
    3. Low external debt as a share of GDP. Looking at the liability side, FX debt is large on an absolute basis at ca $1.5trn, but quite modest relative to the scale of China’s economy ($11trn GDP). From a macro perspective, FX liabilities should not be a major constraint on depreciation, though some sectors that have borrowed significantly in dollars (e.g. property developers) are exposed to this risk.
    4. Still-substantial PBOC reserves. Official reserves stand at just under $3 trillion, within the IMF’s recommended range for a fixed currency regime. Even if one assumes some off-balance-sheet FX selling, the amount is still large and our tally of Chinese holdings of US/German/Japanese fixed income and equity assets (presumably an effective lower bound for liquid reserves, as it excludes holdings via financial centers like the UK, as well as holdings of other countries’ securities) is $1.7 trillion based on data as of mid-2016.

    On the domestic side, key resources available to policy makers are:

    1. Fiscal deposits. These currently total 5.4% of GDP, although they have come off their recent peak in early 2015.
    2. More generally, a high credit rating and still-substantial “fiscal space” for the central government. The government has recourse to large assets in the form of the SOEs, although to be sure there are also considerable contingent liabilities throughout the economy—for example the debt of local governments and central SOEs. There appears to be still-considerable scope for government-driven infrastructure investment, even if the ROI of such investment is declining in some areas.[28]
    3. Monetary policy space. Interest rates are still well above zero and there is the potential to loosen constraints on the banking sector (e.g. RRR cuts).

    As policymakers spend down this “ammunition”, the market and economic reactions to shocks could become more volatile.

    * * *

    Conclusion: Key risks and their transmission

    In conclusion, we see the biggest risks in China centering on the country’s rising credit imbalances, with mis-calibration of policy or a sharp external shock as possible triggers of a sharp tightening in credit conditions and “hard landing” in growth. To reiterate, this is not our base case for 2017 (and not yet for 2018 either, for that matter). But it deserves close monitoring, and we will be watching the fiscal stance, credit market conditions, and other metrics—as well as comments by policymakers—to update our assessments of these risks.

    Should China’s economy slow significantly, it would clearly have effects throughout the region, transmitted via three key channels:

    1. Trade. Just as China would be affected by a drop in export demand, so other countries in Asia would face a growth hit from a slowdown in China. Small open economies would be particularly hard-hit.[30]
    2. Commodities. A slowdown—to the extent it involved goods-producing and construction activities—would have implications for commodity prices, helping the terms of trade in much of the region but hurting it for commodity producers such as Malaysia, Indonesia, and Australia.
    3. Financial conditions. As we observed with renminbi volatility over the past 18 months, financial volatility and growth weakness in China has the potential to tighten global financial conditions, slowing growth and prompting further monetary easing abroad.

    Our past work has suggested that the biggest effects of weaker Chinese growth would come in Korea, Taiwan, and Southeast Asia, where most economies would feel the impact through two or all three of these channels.

  • Exposing The 9 Fakest Fake-News Checkers

    Submitted by Chelsea Schilling via WND.com,

    Since President Donald Trump won the presidential election in November, there’s been an explosion of “fake-news” checker sites, some cloaked behind a veil of anonymity.

    trust

    In some cases, Americans really have fallen for “fake news.” Just days ago, 20th Century Fox apologized for creating “fake news” sites – such as as the Houston Leader, the Salt Lake City Guardian, Sacramento Dispatch, the New York Morning Post and Indianapolis Gazette – as part of a promotional campaign for its psychological thriller, “A Cure for Wellness.”

    But on the heels of media hysteria over the trend, now it seems everyone claims to be a foremost expert on the topic of spotting “fake news.”

    “Trust us,” they say.

     

    “We’ll help you navigate Facebook and filter out the fake news stories,” they promise.

    But just who are these self-appointed gatekeepers who claim to be the ultimate arbiters of what is or is not “fake news”?

    WND found “fact-checker” sites run by:

    • A gamer.
    • A leftist, Trump-hating, feminist professor who specializes in “fat studies.”
    • A sex-and-fetish blogger.
    • A health-industry worker.
    • Organizations with billionaire Democratic Party activists and donors.
    • And another guy who went to extreme lengths to conceal his identity.

    But most of the self-appointed “fact-checker” sites had one thing in common: President Trump – and the news sites that dare to give him a fair shake – are overwhelmingly their favorite targets.

    The websites often show an obvious bias against conservative-leaning outlets. And many fail to include clear explanations of the criteria they use for determining whether a news site is legitimate. Other “experts” offer little or no biographical information establishing their qualifications for making judgments about journalism quality.

    WND has compiled the following list of the Top 9 “fakest ‘fake-news’ checkers.”

    1. Pigscast

    The website Pigscast, which stands for Politics, Internet Gaming and Sports, was founded by “gamer” Will Healy.

    In a Reddit forum discussing the chart, Healy explains in late January: “I tried to base as much of it off this site that someone posted in the thread yesterday mediabiasfactcheck.com.”

    On Jan. 25, Healy tweeted his chart of news organizations and the message, “Stop #FakeNews, check out this news guide @ThePigscast #Pigscast #alternative facts.”

    Healy-fake-news-TW

     

    Will Healy, founder of Pigscast

    Will Healy, founder of Pigscast

    He ranked the news organizations as “Garbage Left (not worth it),” “Hyper-Partisan Left (To Confirm Your Beliefs),” “Leans Left (Not Horrible),” “Neutral (What Journalism Should Be),” “Leans Right (Not Horrible),” “Hyper-Partisan Right (To Confirm Your Beliefs)” and “Garbage Right (Not Worth It).”

    Healy labeled WND, the Drudge Report, the Blaze, Accuracy in Media, the Family Research Council, Breitbart and other organizations as “Garbage Right (Not Worth It).”

    However, Healy considers the following to be “Neutral (What Journalism Should Be)”: Reuters, USA Today, the Texas Tribune, Financial Times, Associated Press, C-SPAN and the Economist. Even NPR is located partially in the “neutral” category on his chart.

    One Twitter user named Nigel Fenwick asked Healy: “Hi Will – is this your own graphic? What’s the basis of this analysis? What data was used? Is it objective or subjective?”

    Healy simply replied: “[M]ost of this was from mediabiasfactcheck.com but note this is just the first draft. I plan on a final version later.”

    WND’s request for comment from Healy concerning his news ranking methodology and expertise in evaluating news organizations hadn’t been returned at the time of this report.

    He appears to have some anti-Trump views. On Election Day, Healy tweeted: “Anyone who voted third party should hold their head high. They didn’t vote for a horrible candidate. That they voted their conscience.”

    Healy-TW2

    In May 2016, he tweeeted his support for former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian Party nominee in the race for the White House: “I side 82% with @GovGaryJohnson. Just reaffirms my choice this November.”

    And on Jan. 22, he tweeted: “Aren’t #alternativefacts just bulls–t? #Trump administration already off to a poor start.”

    Healy also praised the Womens March on Washington, D.C., tweeting Jan. 21: “The fact that around this country we can have massive peaceful protests after a peaceful transition of power is awesome #WomansMarch.”

    Healy-TW

     

    2. Media Bias Fact Check

    MediaBIasFactCheck.com describes itself as “the most comprehensive media bias resource in the Internet.” The site is owned by Dave Van Zandt from North Carolina, who offers no biographical information about himself aside from the following: “Dave has been freelancing for 25+ years for a variety of print and web mediums (sic), with a focus on media bias and the role of media in politics. Dave is a registered Non-Affiliated voter who values evidence based reporting” and, “Dave Van Zandt obtained a Communications Degree before pursuing a higher degree in the sciences. Dave currently works full time in the health care industry. Dave has spent more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence.”

    WND was unable to locate a single article with Van Zandt’s byline. Ironically, the “fact checker” fails to establish his own credibility by disclosing his qualifications and training in evaluating news sources.

    Asked for information concerning his expertise in the field of journalism and evaluating news sources, Van Zandt told WND: “I am not a journalist and just a person who is interested in how media bias impacts politics. You will find zero claims of expertise on the website.”

    Concerning his purported “25+ years” of experience writing for print and web media, he said: “I am not sure why the 25+ years is still on the website. That was removed a year ago when I first started the website. All of the writing I did was small print news zines from the ’90s. I felt that what I wrote in the ’90s is not related to what I am doing today so I removed it. Again, I am not a journalist. I simply have a background in communications and more importantly science where I learned to value evidence over all else. Through this I also became interested in research of all kinds, especially media bias, which is difficult to measure and is subjective to a degree.”

    WND asked: Were your evaluations reviewed by any experts in the industry?

    “I can’t say they have,” Van Zandt replied. “Though the right-of-center Atlantic Council is using our data for a project they are working on.”

    MBFC-banner

    Van Zandt says he uses “three volunteers” to “research and assist in fact checking.” However, he adds that he doesn’t pay them for their services.

    Van Zandt lists WND on his “Right Bias” page, alongside news organizations such as Fox News, the Drudge Report, the Washington Free Beacon, the Daily Wire, the Blaze, Breitbart, Red State, Project Veritas, PJ Media, National Review, Daily Caller and others.

    “These media sources are highly biased toward conservative causes,” Van Zandt writes. “They utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Sources in this category may be untrustworthy.”

    His special notes concerning WND link to Snopes.com and PolitiFact.com, websites that have their own questionable reputations and formulas as so-called “fact checkers.” (See the “Snopes” and “PolitiFact” entries below.)

    Van Zandt says he uses a “strict methodology” in determining which news sources are credible, but his website offers vague and typo-ridden explanations of his criteria, such as the following:

    VanZandt-categories

    Asked if his own political leanings influence his evaluations, Van Zandt said: “Sure it is possible. However, our methodology is designed to eliminate most of that. We also have a team of 4 researchers with different political leanings so that we can further reduce researcher bias.”

    Bill Palmer of the website Daily News Bin accused Van Zandt of retaliating when the Daily News Bin contacted him about his rating. Palmer wrote:

    “[I]t turns out Van Zandt has a vindictive streak. After one hapless social media user tried to use his phony ‘Media Bias Fact Check’ site to dispute a thoroughly sourced article from this site, Daily News Bin, we made the mistake of contacting Van Zandt and asking him to take down his ridiculous ‘rating’ – which consisted of nothing more than hearsay such as ‘has been accused of being satire.’ Really? When? By whom? None of those facts seem to matter to the guy running this ‘Media Bias Fact Check’ scam.

     

    “But instead of acknowledging that he’d been caught in the act, Van Zandt retaliated against Daily News Bin by changing his rating to something more sinister. He also added a link to a similar phony security company called World of Trust, which generates its ratings by allowing random anonymous individuals to post whatever bizarre conspiracy theories they want, and then letting these loons vote on whether that news site is ‘real’ or not. These scam sites are now trying to use each other for cover, in order to back up the false and unsubstantiated ‘ratings’ they semi-randomly assign respected news outlets. …

     

    “‘Media Bias Fact Check’ is truly just one guy making misleading claims about news outlets while failing to back them up with anything, while maliciously changing the ratings to punish any news outlets that try to expose the invalidity of what he’s doing.”

    But Van Zandt accused Palmer of threatening him, and he said MediaBiasFactCheck welcomes criticism. If evidence is provided, he said, the site will correct its errors.

    “Bottom line is, we are not trying to be something we are not,” he said. “We have disclaimers on every page of the website indicating that our method is not scientifically proven and that there is [sic] subjective judgments being used as it is unavoidable with determining bias.”

     

    3. Fake News Checker

    FakeNewsChecker.com is another self-appointed “fact checker” run by anonymous individuals. The website offers no contact information.

    As WND reported, the site is publishing “fake news,” specifically “fake news” about WND. It claims that WND’s founder and CEO, Joseph Farah, “received donations from the Donald Trump superPAC “Great America “PAC” (sic) calling into further question the motives behind the ‘fake’ and conspiratorial nature of the content.”

    Fake-News-Checker-screenshot

    But there’s one major problem with the site’s purported “fact.”

    WND didn’t get any donations from any superPACs, “not this one or any other,” company officials confirmed.

    FakeNewsChecker.com effectively categorizes as “fake” virtually all news resources except those in the “mainstream media,” which surveys reveal are enjoying less and less consumer trust these days.

    The website states:

    Fake news has become a catchall term for news sources that lack journalistic integrity. These sites use sensational headlines, make false claims, exaggerate the editorial spin to reflect a bias, are misleading, are conspiratorial, are anti-science, promote propaganda, are written in satire or just plain hoaxes. Many of the sites are untrustworthy because they begin with a premise that is close to a truth and build a false story around it. Please check your sources and your emotions as you read the articles on these sites.

    fake-news-checker

     

    4. Trump-bashing prof’s ‘hit list’ of ‘fake’ news sites

    The mainstream media went wild circulating a viral list of so-called “fake news” websites in November 2016 – and the list included established news sites like WND, Breitbart, Red State, the Daily Wire and Project Veritas – but WND found a leftist, Trump-bashing assistant professor in Massachusetts who specialized in “fat studies” was behind the effort to target and discredit legitimate news organizations.

    Meet Merrimack College Assistant Professor Melissa Zimdars, a 30-something self-identified feminist and activist who has expressed great dislike for President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence.

    Merrimack College assistant professor Melissa Zimdars, author of the "fake news" list circulated online (Photo: Twitter)

    Merrimack College assistant professor Melissa Zimdars, author of the “fake news” list circulated online (Photo: Twitter)

    She had only actually held her teaching position at the private college in North Andover, Massachusetts, for 15 months when she published her “fake news” list.

    Zimdars published and circulated a list of “fake, false, or regularly misleading websites that are shared on Facebook and social media.” She said she began writing the list because she didn’t approve of the sources her students were citing.

    The problem?

    In addition to some satirical and bogus sites, her list attacks the credibility of well-established news organizations such as Breitbart, BizPac Review, Red State, the Blaze, the Independent Journal Review, Twitchy, the Daily Wire, WND and James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas. In many cases (such as with her WND listing), she offers no explanation for why the news organizations were included on the list.

    Melissa "Mish" Zimdars is an assistant professor of communication at Merrimack College in Massachusetts

    Melissa “Mish” Zimdars is an assistant professor of communication at Merrimack College in Massachusetts

    Mainstream media outlets such as the Los Angeles Times circulated Zimdars’ growing list. The Times headlined its story, “Want to keep fake news out of your newsfeed? College professor creates list of sites to avoid.” The Times offered no details concerning Zimdars’ qualifications or background. News organizations such as CNN, the Washington PostBoston Globe, New York Magazine, USA Today, Business Insider, the Austin American-Statesman, the Dallas Morning News and others spread the list like gospel and cited it in their reports.

    But nearly none of them considered Zimdars’ political leanings or questioned her criteria or qualifications for determining which news sources should be included on her list.

    Zimdars teaches courses in radio, production, mass communication, feminist media studies, television criticism and new media and digital communication. She received her doctorate in communication and media studies just in 2015.

    In response to the list, PJ Media’s Stephen Kruiser wrote, “It’s no surprise that a college professor compiled this list; what’s galling is that the Los Angeles Times ‘reported’ on it without mentioning that it’s complete garbage.”

    Sean Hannity’s website warned that Zimdars’ list includes “mainstream conservative sources” and “is giving us insight into just what kind of websites the left plans on targeting for censorship.”

    In addition to her new job as an assistant professor, Zimdars is also a columnist and contributor for Little Village Magazine – a left-leaning magazine that says it’s focused on issues such as “racial justice,” “gender equity,” “critical culture,” “economic and labor justice” and “environmental sustainability.” Her Twitter profile describes her as a “feminist” and “activist.”

    Zimdars’ social-media accounts are protected from public view, leading tweeter Vanessa Beeley to note that Zimdars “can’t take the heat. Named ‘fake media’ & then protected all her own media sites.”

     

    5. International Fact-Checking Network

    In December, Facebook announced it would use the International Fact-Checking Network, or IFCN, to check on the legitimacy of news articles posted to the social media site.

    Alexios Mantzarlis runs the International Fact-Checking Network (Photo: Twitter)

    Alexios Mantzarlis runs the International Fact-Checking Network (Photo: Twitter)

    IFCN is hosted by the Poynter Institute for Media Studies and funded, in part, by Google and foundations of leftist billionaires George Soros and Bill Gates. Soros donated $25 million to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. The Daily Mail reported that Clinton super-donor and eBay founder Pierre Omidyar is also backing the project.

    In response to Facebook’s announcement, FrontPage said conservatives should consider ditching Facebook.

    “In essence, Facebook is giving the partisan left free space on conservative news links. It’s also allowing them to undermine a conservative link while promoting their own agenda,” FrontPage said.

    “It’s not quite censorship, but the partnership with left-wing partisan ‘checkers’ helps move it to the next step of barring sites outright. For the moment, Facebook has decided that you shouldn’t just be able to share links to what you’re interested in without the left getting a say.

    “This is yet another reason for conservatives to rethink being on Facebook.”

    The website reveals: “Poynter’s IFCN has received funding from the Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation, the Duke Reporters’ Lab, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Google, the National Endowment for Democracy, the Omidyar Network, the Open Society Foundations and the Park Foundation.”

    IFCN-screenshot

    Alexios Mantzarlis runs IFCN, which does not appear to have published any “fact-checking” articles since 2015.

    However, a Feb. 16 Poynter “news” headline blasted “President Trump’s anti-media meltdown.”

    Poynter-Trump

    From the very beginning, the story trashed the president for unveiling “an alternate universe … in which virtually every problem of his is a creation of the press.”

    “In a rambling, angry and contradictory media meltdown, Trump bashed ‘the failing New York Times,’ The Wall Street Journal, CNN and the BBC, among others, following a fleeting announcement of a new nominee for Labor Secretary,” wrote Poynter’s James Warren. “It constituted what at minimum is a quadrupling down – or might it be quintupling down? – on a transparent strategy to portray the press as an opposition party.”

    In the same post, Warren continued: “Never has Trump’s personal obsession with coverage of himself been so vivid. It was only sidetracked, it seemed, by an odd array of declarations and claims. Those included his taking selective and self-serving use of polling to new depths, while also proffering a new species of political self-congratulation during his strikingly defensive performance: prospectively heralding the ‘massive’ crowd to attend a Saturday rally in Melbourne, Florida.”

     

    6. Washington Post Fact Checker

    WaPo-Pinocchios

    The Washington Post’s Fact Checker has come under fire repeatedly, as critics charge it has a left-leaning bias.

    Washington Post "Fact Checker" Glenn Kessler

    Washington Post “Fact Checker” Glenn Kessler

    As WND reported, Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos, who is also a Democratic Party donor and controls a personal investment firm that owns the Washington Post, had an army of 20 newspaper staffers to scour Donald Trump’s life for any dirt they could find on the presumptive GOP nominee. Bezos, a Seattle billionaire and the world’s 19th wealthiest man, purchased the Washington Post in 2013 for $250 million.

    The Washington Post’s Fact Checker uses Pinocchio ratings to rate the truthfulness of statements. Zero Pinocchios means a statement is true. Two makes the statement half true. Three means mostly false, and four indicates it is false.

    Red State reported that Washington Post “Fact Check” columnist Glenn Kessler fell for fake campaign ads claiming Donald Trump’s father, Fred Trump, campaigned to be mayor of New York City in the 1970s.

    Wapo-Fact-Checker

     

    Washington Post "Fact Checker" Michelle Ye Hee Lee

    Washington Post “Fact Checker” Michelle Ye Hee Lee

    In 2015, the Washington Free Beacon’s David Rutz published a list of “5 Times the Washington Post failed at fact-checking.”

    And in August 2016, the Washington Post’s Fact Checker came under fire from the New York Post after it “fact checked” Trump’s statements concerning Hillary Clinton lacking stamina to be president. The Fact Checker gave Trump its worst rating.

    “Trump has claimed twice, without proof, that Clinton lacks the physical and mental stamina to be president,” it said. “In the absence of any evidence, he earns Four Pinocchios.”

    But New York Post writer Eddie Scarry observed: “Curious that the Post, in earnest, would fact-check Trump’s opinion on his opponent’s energy level. The paper didn’t bother to investigate the veracity of Clinton’s claim in late May that Trump ‘lacks the temperament to lead our nation and the free world."

     

    7. Snopes

    Snopes-logo

    Snopes.com, a website that’s been around since 1995, is sometimes cited by other “fact-checking” sites to support their claims. Facebook has indicated it plans to use Snopes as one of its arbiters of “fake news.” But WND revealed the site has been criticized by conservatives for a left-leaning bias and admits it has no standard procedure for fact-checking.

    Kim LaCapria, principal fact checker at Snopes, has blogged as "Vice Vixen" and offered sex toy tips

    Kim LaCapria, principal fact checker at Snopes, has blogged as “Vice Vixen” and offered sex toy tips

    One of Snopes’ leading fact-checkers is a former sex-and-fetish blogger who described her routine as smoking pot and posting to Snopes.com, and the company now is embroiled in a legal dispute between its former married founders that includes accusations the CEO used company money for prostitutes.

    “This is Facebook’s high journalistic standard,” commented Pamela Geller, an author and blogger who focuses on the politically incorrect subject of Islam and terrorism.

    “What a joke,” she wrote on her blog. “Facebook’s fact checkers will be used to censor and ban conservative perspectives, not to distinguish truth from falsehood. Everyone knows that.”

    The Daily Mail of London reported one of Snopes.com’s main fact checkers, Kim LaCapria, is disclosed to be a former sex-blogger who called herself “Vice Vixen.”

    Investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson told WND in December that she thinks the uproar over “fake news” is a “narrative-driven propaganda campaign.”

    “I think there’s an agenda to censor the news as opposed to actually trying to eliminate fake news,” she said.

    A DailyMail.com investigation found that Snopes.com’s founders, former husband and wife David and Barbara Mikkelson, are embroiled in a lengthy and bitter legal dispute in the wake of their divorce.

    He has since remarried to a former escort and porn actress who is one of the site’s staff members.

    Snopes Founder David Mikkelson with his new wife, Snopes staff member Elyssa Young

    Snopes Founder David Mikkelson with his new wife, Snopes staff member Elyssa Young

    Barbara Mikkelson accuses her ex-husband of embezzlement while David claims she took millions from their joint accounts and bought property in Las Vegas.

    One of Snopes.com’s lead fact-checkers is Kim LaCapria, the Daily Mail reported, who has also been a sex-and-fetish blogger who went by the pseudonym “Vice Vixen.” Her blog had “a specific focus on naughtiness, sin, carnal pursuits, and general hedonism and bonne vivante-ery.”

    Snopes Founder Barbara Mikkelson (Photo: Facebook)

    Snopes Founder Barbara Mikkelson (Photo: Facebook)

    Her day-off activities she said on another blog were: “played scrabble, smoked pot, and posted to Snopes.'”

    “That’s what I did on my day “on,” too,” she added.

    David Mikkelson told the the Daily Mail that Snopes does not have a “standardized procedure” for fact-checking “since the nature of this material can vary widely.”

    He said the process of fact-checking “‘involves multiple stages of editorial oversight, so no output is the result of a single person’s discretion.”

    Snopes has no formal requirements for fact-checkers, he told the London paper, because the variety of the work “would be difficult to encompass in any single blanket set of standards.”

    Mikkelson has denied that Snopes takes any political position, but the Daily Mail noted his new wife ran for U.S. congress in Hawaii as a Libertarian in 2004.

    During the campaign she handed out “Re-Defeat Bush” cards and condoms stamped with the slogan “Don’t get screwed again.”

    “Let’s face it, I am an unlikely candidate. I fully admit that I am a courtesan,” she wrote on her campaign website.

     

    8. PolitiFact

    politifact

    In December, PolitiFact.com was identified by Facebook as one of the sites the social media platform would use to label “fake news” stories. But Breitbart reported, “Facebook’s decision to tout PolitiFact as a credible and independent fact checker is awfully disturbing, given the organization’s repeated smear campaign against Donald Trump throughout the 2016 election.”

    “OH HELL NO,” was the response from the Weekly Standard’s Mark Hemingway to Facebook’s announcement that it would use PolitiFact.com to check news stories.

    “Facebook is bringing in Poynter/PolitiFact to police ‘fake news’? They’re INCREDIBLY biased,” he said.

    In December 2015, PolitiFact claimed 76 percent of all Donald Trump’s statements were “mostly false,” “false” or “pants on fire.”

    politifact-trump

    PolitiFact Editor Angie Drobnic Holan

    PolitiFact Editor Angie Drobnic Holan

    Breitbart noted that PolitiFact pushed “fact checks” to discredit Republicans while promoting stories that favored Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton.

    In fact, one of PolitiFact’s largest contributors is Clinton donor Alberto Ibarguen, president and CEO of the Knight Foundation. Ibarguen contributed $200,000 to the 8th annual Clinton Global Initiative University meeting in February 2015, Breitbart reported. The Knight Foundation also donated between $10,000 and $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation, Politico reported.

    PolitiFact’s editor is Angie Drobnic Holan, who helped launch the site in 2007.

    Breitbart’s Jerome Hudson published an analysis that included the following list of reasons PolitiFact is “unqualified to be an objective judge of what’s real and ‘fake’ news”:

    1. Last March, PolitiFact delivered a “mostly false” rating for a joke made by Republican Senator Ted Cruz.

    2. Last April, PolitiFact made phone calls and sent a reporter to investigate whether Governor Scott Walker actually “paid one dollar for” a sweater he bought at Kohl’s. PolitiFact later ruled Walker’s claim “true.”

    3. When Trump said Clinton wants “open borders,” PolitiFact deemed his statement “mostly false” — despite the fact that Clinton admitted as much in a private, paid speech to a Brazilian bank on May 16, 2013. “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders,” she said at the time.

    4. PolitiFact cast doubts on comments Pat Smith made during her emotional speech at the Republican National Convention, where she said Hillary Clinton said “a video was responsible” for her son’s death during the terror attacks in Benghazi.

    Smith was referring to when she “saw Hillary Clinton at Sean’s coffin ceremony,” and then-Secretary of State Clinton “looked me squarely in the eye and told me a video was responsible.”

    But PolitiFact, taking an oddly defensive stance, said Smith’s memory could’ve been “fuzzy” and referred its readers, instead, to a “brief meeting behind closed doors” where Clinton addressed the families of the victims of the attack.

    5. Despite video evidence to the contrary, PolitiFact claimed Hillary Clinton didn’t laugh about Kathy Shelton’s rape as a child. Trump invited Shelton to the second presidential debate and called out Clinton’s embarrassing behavior.

    Again, moving to dismiss and downplay Clinton’s actions, PolitiFact wrote: “Trump is referring to an audio tape in which she does respond with amusement at her recollections of the oddities of the case, which involve the prosecution and the judge. At no point does she laugh at the victim.”

    6. In an attempt to explain Hillary Clinton’s role in the sale of 25 percent of the United States’ uranium stockpile, Politifact ignored numerous key facts, downplayed other key facts, and ultimately made 13 errors in its analysis.

    7. A few months later, PolitiFact was, again, attempting to whitewash Clinton’s role in the Russian uranium deal. Like PolitiFact’s first foray into the subject, the second report commits many factual errors and is full of glaring inaccuracies and omissions.

    8. During a televised campaign event, Clinton said Australia’s compulsory gun buyback program “would be worth considering” in the U.S.

    When the National Rifle Association included Clinton’s comments on one of its flyers, PolitiFact ruled the organization’s claim “mostly false.”

    9. While PolitiFact admitted that Trump’s claim that Russia’s arsenal of nuclear warheads has expanded and the U.S.’ has not, the left-wing outfit deemed Trump’s statement “half true.”

    In a June 2016 piece published at Investor’s Business Daily, Media Research Center President Brent Bozell wrote:

    “This is a pattern with PolitiFact. Overall, they’ve rated Trump “False”/”Mostly False”/”Pants on Fire” 77% of the time. But they’ve rated Clinton “False” and “Mostly False” only 26% of the time.

     

    “The PolitiFact political agenda jumps off the page. On the Republican side, Sen. Ted Cruz lands on the “False” side 65% of the time, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich 57% of the time and former Sen. Rick Santorum 55% of the time. For Democrats, President Obama is ruled false 25% of the time, and Sen. Bernie Sanders is false only 30% of the time. This is the guy who routinely says, ‘the business model of Wall Street is fraud.'”

    Also, in 2013, WND reported PolitiFact misled the public on Obamacare.

    A 2013 study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs found that PolitiFact determines Republicans are dishonest nearly three times as often as it reaches the same conclusion for Democrats.

    “PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama’s second term,” the center said, “despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP.”

     

    9. FactCheck.org

    FactCheckorg

    FactCheck.org was launched by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, which was founded by the late philanthropists Walter and Lenore Annenberg, friends of former Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. FactCheck’s current editor is Angie Drobnic Holan.

    The website is perhaps the least overtly partisan “fact checker” in this list. However, the organization came under fire after it published a July 21, 2015, piece called “Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video,” an entry that defended the abortion provider during the baby-parts scandal. Several leftist groups linked to the article, tweeted it and shared it on Facebook.

    FactCheck.org Director Emeritus Brooks Jackson

    FactCheck.org Director Emeritus Brooks Jackson

    Breitbart’s John Sexton noted that FactCheck.org only addressed one video in a series of at least seven videos exposing the baby-parts trade. The site wrote about an interview with Deborah Nucatola of Planned Parenthood, who commented on crushing babies. Nucatola also suggested Planned Parenthood is satisfied with turning a profit in the body-parts trade, so long as doing so doesn’t make the nonprofit look bad.

    Sexton writes: Here is how FactCheck frames Nucatola’s admission: ‘Nucatola does make one statement in the unedited video that suggests to critics that some clinics would be comfortable with a payment that was slightly more than their expenses for providing the tissue.’ Is this really only suggestive to critics? Why isn’t it just a fact that she admitted it despite her obvious concern about getting caught? And is it possible Planned Parenthood has supporters as well? Might the supporters be eager to downplay this admission? FactCheck doesn’t have anything to say about that. It’s another instance of the real story being sidestepped by introducing a partisan narrative, i.e. ‘Republicans pounced.'”

    In yet another article concerning FactCheck.org, Breitbart reported the site was forced to “make an embarrassing correction” after it appeared to have made up a quote that never appeared in Peter Schweizer’s book, “Clinton Cash.” The site falsely claimed Schweizer wrote in his book that Hillary Clinton had “veto power” and “could have stopped” the sale of 20 percent of U.S. uranium to the Russian government.

    In 2016, FactCheck.org claimed TV host Bill Nye is “more of a scientist than [Sarah] Palin,” and the site listed his “six honorary doctorate degrees, including Ph.D.s in science from Goucher College and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute” as evidence for its assertion.

    FactCheck-Trump

    In 2015, FactCheck.org dubbed Donald Trump the “King of Whoppers.” 

    “In the 12 years of FactCheck.org’s existence, we’ve never seen his match,” the site wrote. “He stands out not only for the sheer number of his factually false claims, but also for his brazen refusals to admit error when proven wrong.”

    In a post titled, “Trump’s bogus voter fraud claims,” FactCheck.org stated, “Donald Trump is citing unsubstantiated urban myths and a contested academic study to paint a false narrative about rampant voter fraud in the U.S. and the likelihood of a ‘rigged’ election.”

    While Trump said the U.S. has a problem with ballots that are cast by illegal immigrants and on behalf of dead people – a 2014 study in the Electoral Studies Journal shows illegals may have cast as many as 2.8 million votes in 2008 and 2010 and investigations have found that ballots have been cast for dead people in multiple elections – FactCheck.org found, “his evidence is lacking,” and “researchers say voter fraud involving ballots cast on behalf of deceased voters is rare.”

    Any examination of a “fact-checking” website would not be complete without a look at the organization’s primary source of funding. FactCheck.org receives the largest amount of its funding from the Annenberg Foundation, which funds a number of nonprofits. The foundation funded the Chicago Annenberg Challenge to the tune of $49.2 million. In 1995, Barack Obama was a founding member of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. He remained on the board until 2001, when the challenge was phased out.

    According to CNN, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was the brainchild of Weather Underground terrorist group co-founder Bill Ayers. “A review of board minutes and records by CNN show Obama crossed paths repeatedly with Ayers at board meetings of the Annenberg Challenge Project,” CNN reported. The Wall Street Journal reported, “The group poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists.”

     

  • Russian Ambassador To UN Vitaly Churkin Has "Died Suddenly" In New York; Putin "Deeply Upset"

    Update: according to Reuters, Vladimir Putin was deeply upset to learn of the death of Vitaly Churkin, Russian news agencies cited Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov as saying on Monday.

    “The head of state highly valued Churkin’s professionalism and diplomatic talent,” Peskov said.

    * * *

    Vitaly Churkin, who served as Russia’s permanent representative to the United Nations since 2006, “died suddenly” in New York, the Russian Foreign Ministry announced. Churkin died one day before his 65th birthday. Russia’s deputy U.N. ambassador, Vladimir Safronkov, told AP that Churkin became ill and was taken to Columbia Presbyterian Hospital, where he died Monday.

    Churkin was at the Russian embassy on East 67th Street when he became sick with a “cardiac condition” around 9:30 am, sources told the New York Post. A Russian Embassy spokesperson told CBS News that they believe Churkin died of a heart attack but they do not yet have official word on the cause of death.

    As the AP adds, Churkin has been Russia’s envoy at the United Nations for a little over a decade and was considered Moscow’s great champion at the U.N. He had a reputation for an acute wit and sharp repartee especially with his American and Western counterparts. He was previously ambassador at large and earlier served as the foreign ministry spokesman.

    Colleagues took to social media to react to Churkin’s death, starting with Churkin’s old nemesis Samantha Power:

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The announcement “of Churkin’s passing this morning” was met with shock when it was delivered during a session at the UN headquarters. “He was a dear colleague of all of us, a deeply committed diplomat of his country and one of the finest people we have known,” a UN official who delivered the news to her colleagues said.

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The Russian foreign ministry gave no details on the circumstances of his death but offered condolences to his relatives and said the diplomat had died one day before his 65th birthday. Here is the statement issued moments ago from the Russian Foreign Ministry:

    A prominent Russian diplomat has passed away while at work. We’d like
    to express our sincere condolences to Vitaly Churkin’s family.

     

    The Russian Foreign Ministry deeply regrets to announce that Russia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations Vitaly Ivanovich Churkin has died suddenly in New York on February 20, a day ahead of his 65th birthday.

    “He was an outstanding person. He was brilliant, bright, a great diplomat of our age,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said, adding that the news of Churkin’s death was “completely shocking.”

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    According to Sputnik, Russia’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations Yevgeniy Zagaynov said about Churkin that he kept working “till the very end.” The representative of the UN Secretary-General said that the UN was shocked by the news, extending their condolences to Moscow.

    Perhaps the best known Russian diplomat alongside Sergey Lavrov, Vitaly Ivanovich Churkin was born in Moscow in 1952. He graduated from the Moscow State Institute of International Relations in 1974, beginning his decades-long career at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs shortly.

    Ambassador Churkin, who held a Ph.D in history, served as Russia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations since 2006, where he has clashed on numerous occasions with opposing members of the Security Council whose decisions Russia has vetoed more than once. Prior to this appointment, he was Ambassador at Large at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation (2003-2006), Ambassador to Canada (1998-2003), Ambassador to Belgium and Liaison Ambassador to NATO and WEU (1994-1998), Deputy Foreign Minister and Special Representative of the President of the Russian Federation to the talks on Former Yugoslavia (1992-1994), Director of the Information Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the USSR/Russian Federation (1990-1992).

    Churkin is survived by his wife and two children.

  • Here's Why Your Auto Insurance Rates Have Soared Nearly 20% In The Past Several Years

    If you’re among the millions of Americans that have noticed your auto insurance premiums skyrocketing in recent years then you may want to thank the people in your life who habitually text and drive.  Since 2009, the average, annual U.S. car-insurance premium has risen over 17%, to $926 in 2016, according to trade group Insurance Information Institute. 

    And, just like Obamacare, that rising premium is simply the socialization of added risks created by people making bad life decisions…like driving their cars at 80 miles per hour on a crowded freeway while simultaneously looking down at their phones to text about the latest Kardashian rumor.

    Auto Insurance Rates

     

    Of course, auto insurance rates are rising despite all of the high-tech, anti-collision bells and whistles that have been added to vehicles (at a very hefty price, we might add) over the past decade as seemingly no amount of gadgetry can offset the benefits of actually keeping your eyes on the road…no matter what Tesla would have you believe.

    According to a note from the Wall Street Journal, 36% of drivers admitted to texting and driving in a State Farm survey in 2015, which we assume means that the real number is roughly double that.

    It’s “an epidemic issue for this country,” said Michael LaRocco, chief executive of State Auto Financial Corp., at an insurance-industry conference last month.

     

    State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., the largest U.S. auto insurer by market share, said 36% of the people it surveyed in 2015 admitted to texting while driving, and 29% said they access the internet, compared with 31% and 13%, respectively, in 2009.

     

    State Farm’s survey found that 52% of respondents in 2011 owned a smartphone, and 88% owned one in 2015.

     

    “Distracted driving was always there, but it just intensified as more applications for the smartphones became available,” said Bill Caldwell, executive vice president of property and casualty at Horace Mann, in a recent interview. The insurer expects to raise rates 8% this year, on top of average 6.5% increases in 2016.

    Oddly enough, insurance payouts started to spike right about the same time the first iPhone hit the shelves in 2007.

    Auto Insurance Rates

     

    Meanwhile, as if texting and driving weren’t bad enough, roughly 20% of people admitted to State Farm that they regularly snap selfies from the driver’s seat and about 10% record videos….because why not?

    The alarms being sounded by the industry are based partly on internal investigations to determine causes of policyholders’ crashes. Many insurers collect police reports, witness statements and their own drivers’ accounts in costlier wrecks, executives said. In claims that involve litigation, they may obtain drivers’ phone records, they said.

     

    State Farm began surveying the public in 2009 to assess behind-the-wheel phone use. Drivers that participated in the survey acknowledge the distractions of their smartphones, according to State Farm, but many continue to use them. In the latest survey, about one-fifth of drivers admitted taking photos with their phones and a 10th recorded video. Both these activities were added to the 2015 survey.

     

    ”Those are big numbers, and they are going in the wrong direction,” said Chris Mullen, who heads State Farm’s technology research.

    Of course, life is just a little better when we spread the wealth around to pay for the bad decisions of others…just ask Obama.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 20th February 2017

  • Paul Craig Roberts Explains The Stakes For Trump And All Of Us

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    We need to understand, and so does President Trump, that the hoax “war on terror” was used to transform intelligence agencies, such as the NSA and CIA, and criminal investigative agencies, such as the FBI, into Gestapo secret police agencies. Trump is now threatened by these agencies, because he rejects the neoconservative’s agenda of US world hegemony that supports the gigantic military/security annual budget.

    Our secret police agencies are busy at work planting “intelligence” among the presstitute media that Trump is compromised by “Russian connections” and is a security threat to the United States. The plan is to make a case in the media, as was done against President Nixon, and to force Trump from office. To openly take on a newly elected president is an act of extraordinary audacity that implies enormous confidence, or else desperation, on the part of the police state agencies.

    Here you can see CNN openly cooperating with the CIA in treating wild and irresponsible speculation that Trump is under Russian influence as if it is an established fact.

    The “evidence” provided by CNN and the CIA is a “report” by the New York Times that, with little doubt, was planted in the NYT by the CIA.

    This is so obvious that it is clear that CNN and the CIA regard the American people as so gullible as to be completely stupid.

    Glenn Greenwald explains to Amy Goodman that the CIA is after Trump, because Trump’s announced policy of reducing the dangerous tensions with Russia conflicts with the military/security complex’s need for a major enemy.

    https://www.democracynow.org/embed/story/2017/2/16/greenwald_empowering_the_deep_state_to

    “The deep state, although there’s no precise or scientific definition, generally refers to the agencies in Washington that are permanent power factions. They stay and exercise power even as presidents who are elected come and go. They typically exercise their power in secret, in the dark, and so they’re barely subject to democratic accountability, if they’re subject to it at all. It’s agencies like the CIA, the NSA and the other intelligence agencies, that are essentially designed to disseminate disinformation and deceit and propaganda, and have a long history of doing not only that, but also have a long history of the world’s worst war crimes, atrocities and death squads. This is who not just people like Bill Kristol, but lots of Democrats are placing their faith in, are trying to empower, are cheering for as they exert power separate and apart from—in fact, in opposition to—the political officials to whom they’re supposed to be subordinate.

     

    “And you go—this is not just about Russia. You go all the way back to the campaign, and what you saw was that leading members of the intelligence community, including Mike Morell, who was the acting CIA chief under President Obama, and Michael Hayden, who ran both the CIA and the NSA under George W. Bush, were very outspoken supporters of Hillary Clinton. In fact, Michael Morell went to The New York Times, and Michael Hayden went to The Washington Post, during the campaign to praise Hillary Clinton and to say that Donald Trump had become a recruit of Russia. The CIA and the intelligence community were vehemently in support of Clinton and vehemently opposed to Trump, from the beginning. And the reason was, was because they liked Hillary Clinton’s policies better than they liked Donald Trump’s. One of the main priorities of the CIA for the last five years has been a proxy war in Syria, designed to achieve regime change with the Assad regime. Hillary Clinton was not only for that, she was critical of Obama for not allowing it to go further, and wanted to impose a no-fly zone in Syria and confront the Russians. Donald Trump took exactly the opposite view. He said we shouldn’t care who rules Syria; we should allow the Russians, and even help the Russians, kill ISIS and al-Qaeda and other people in Syria. So, Trump’s agenda that he ran on was completely antithetical to what the CIA wanted. Clinton’s was exactly what the CIA wanted, and so they were behind her. And so, they’ve been trying to undermine Trump for many months throughout the election. And now that he won, they are not just undermining him with leaks, but actively subverting him. There’s claims that they’re withholding information from him, on the grounds that they don’t think he should have it and can be trusted with it. They are empowering themselves to enact policy.

     

    “Now, I happen to think that the Trump presidency is extremely dangerous. You just listed off in your news—in your newscast that led the show, many reasons. They want to dismantle the environment. They want to eliminate the safety net. They want to empower billionaires. They want to enact bigoted policies against Muslims and immigrants and so many others. And it is important to resist them. And there are lots of really great ways to resist them, such as getting courts to restrain them, citizen activism and, most important of all, having the Democratic Party engage in self-critique to ask itself how it can be a more effective political force in the United States after it has collapsed on all levels. That isn’t what this resistance is now doing. What they’re doing instead is trying to take maybe the only faction worse than Donald Trump, which is the deep state, the CIA, with its histories of atrocities, and say they ought to almost engage in like a soft coup, where they take the elected president and prevent him from enacting his policies. And I think it is extremely dangerous to do that. Even if you’re somebody who believes that both the CIA and the deep state, on the one hand, and the Trump presidency, on the other, are extremely dangerous, as I do, there’s a huge difference between the two, which is that Trump was democratically elected and is subject to democratic controls, as these courts just demonstrated and as the media is showing, as citizens are proving. But on the other hand, the CIA was elected by nobody. They’re barely subject to democratic controls at all. And so, to urge that the CIA and the intelligence community empower itself to undermine the elected branches of government is insanity. That is a prescription for destroying democracy overnight in the name of saving it. And yet that’s what so many, not just neocons, but the neocons’ allies in the Democratic Party, are now urging and cheering. And it’s incredibly warped and dangerous to watch them do that.”

    The United States is now in the extraordinary situation that the liberal/progressive/left is allied with the deep state against democracy. The liberal/progressive/left are lobbying for the impeachment of a president who has committed no impeachable offense. The neoconservatives have stated their preference for a deep state coup against democracy. The media obliges with a constant barrage of lies, innuendos and disinformation. The insouciant American public sits there sucking its thumb.

    What can Trump do? He can clean out the intelligence agencies and terminate their license granted by Bush and Obama to conduct unconstitutional activities. He can use anti-trust to breakup the media conglomerates that Clinton allowed to form. If Bush and Obama can on their own authority subject US citizens to indefinite detention without due process and if Obama can murder suspect US citizens without due process of law, Trump can use anti-trust law to break up the media conglomerates that speak with one voice against him.

    At this point Trump has no alternative but to fight. He can take down the secret police agencies and the presstitute media conglomerates, or they will take him down. Dismissing Flynn was the worse thing to do. He should have kept Flynn and fired the “leakers” who are actively using disinformation against him. The NSA would have to know who the leakers are. Trump should clean out the corrupt NSA management and install officials who will identify the leakers. Then Trump should prosecute the leakers to the full extent of the law.

    No president can survive secret police agencies determined to destroy him. If Trump’s advisers don’t know this, Trump desperately needs new advisers.

  • North Korea's Regime In Jeopardy After China Bans All Coal Imports

    North Korea just lost a very big ally.

    On Saturday, China said that it was suspending all imports of coal from North Korea as part of its effort to implement United Nations Security Council sanctions aimed at stopping the country’s nuclear weapons and ballistic-missile program. The ban, according to a statement posted on the website of the Chinese Commerce Ministry, takes effect on today and will last until the end of the year. While China will hardly suffer material adverse impacts, Chinese trade – and aid – have long been a vital economic crutch for North Korea, and the decision strips North Korea of one of its most important sources of foreign currency.

    The ban comes six days after the North Korean test of a ballistic missile that the Security Council condemned as a violation of its resolutions that prohibited the country from developing and testing ballistic missile technology. In the test, – which took place during a dinner between Japan’s Prime Minister and Donald Trump – North Korea claimed that it had successfully launched a new type of nuclear-capable missile. It said its intermediate-range Pukguksong-2 missile used a solid-fuel technology that American experts say will make it harder to detect missile attacks from the North.

    According to the NYT, China’s decision has the potential to cripple North Korea’s already moribund economy: coal accounts for 34-40% of North Korean exports in the past several years, and almost all of it was shipped to China, according to South Korean government estimates. As Yang Moo-jin, a professor at the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul confirms, coal sales accounted for more than 50 percent of North Korea’s exports to China last year, and about a fifth of its total trade. China had previously bought coal under exemptions that allowed trade for “livelihood” purposes. China’s Ministry of Commerce didn’t respond to faxed questions outside office hours. 

    “Of course they may have methods to replace the damage, but just by looking at the size of the loss, that’s a pretty big blow,” Yang said.

    China’s import ban follows a UN Security Council resolution adopted in November in response to the North’s fifth and most powerful nuclear test, according to which the country should not be allowed to export more than 7.5 million metric tons of coal a year or bring in more than $400 million in coal sales, whichever limit is met first. It was unclear whether that cap has already been reached for this year.

    Officials of the United States and its allies, including President Trump, have suggested that China, North Korea’s principal economic patron, should be more aggressive in enforcing sanctions. But while it does not approve of the North’s weapons program, China has also been seen as reluctant to inflict crippling pain on North Korea, for fear that it might destabilize its Communist neighbor.

    That, however, changed on Saturday and as Bloomberg says “China’s move to ban coal imports from North Korea, effectively slicing the country’s exports by about half, came with a message for the U.S. and its allies: It’s time to do a deal” even if it means risking political upheaval.

    While China has previously resisted calls by the U.S. to apply greater pressure on Kim’s regime, North Korea is increasingly becoming a strategic liability, according to Zhou Qi, director of the National Strategy Institute at Tsinghua University in Beijing. “What we’re seeing now is Beijing is showing a new willingness to bring the North to near the breaking point,” she said. “There is still some room to squeeze the regime. But of course, it’s a risky card to play.”

    “The Chinese are getting more frustrated with North Korea,” Eurasia Group President Ian Bremmer said in an interview at the same conference. “They clearly don’t feel that they have a lot of influence and they’re worried that the U.S. under Trump is going to blame China as opposed to continuing a multilateral process.”

    At the same time as China announce the coal import bank, Chinese officials said that pushing North Korea into a corner won’t work as Kim’s regime will keep developing its nuclear capability until it feels safe. Instead, it’s time to restart talks and “break the negative cycle on the nuclear issue,” Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said in a statement on Sunday after meeting South Korean counterpart Yun Byung-se at a security meeting in Munich.

    As Bloomberg adds, China’s call for a new initiative contrasts with a more hawkish tone out of Washington.

    President Donald Trump, who during his campaign said he could negotiate with Kim over a hamburger, this month promised to deal with North Korea “very strongly” after its latest missile test. He also called on China to get tougher. The U.S. is putting a defense system called Thaad in South Korea — a move that also potentially threatens Beijing’s military capabilities.

     

    China may soon have company in making the shift. South Korea’s President Park Geun-hye was impeached in December and the leading candidates to replace her all take a softer line on North Korea, with front-runner Moon Jae-in saying that the next administration should review the decision to deploy Thaad.

    Meanwhile, last week’s bizarre assassination of Kim’s estranged half-brother, who was protected by Chinese authorities, added to calls in Beijing’s foreign policy establishment to take stronger action, according to Shi Yongming, an associate research fellow at the Foreign Ministry-run China Institute of International Studies. “The case fully exposed the desperate irrationality of the Kim regime,” Shi said. “Beijing still wants to bring him to a negotiation table – and that’s where the U.S. role lies – because the collapse of the regime is right now outside China’s realistic capacity to handle.

    Making the recent situation somewhat embarrassing for Beijing, China has backed the Kim dynasty since it took charge after the Korean War, in part to prevent having a U.S. ally on its border.

    With the international community enforcing sanctions on North Korea after a series of nuclear tests, China now accounts for more than 90 percent of its total trade, according to Bloomberg data.

    Whether the Chinese ban will bring Kim’s regime to the negotiating table is unclear. North Korea has accelerated its development of nuclear bombs and ballistic missiles since 2009, when it walked away from six-party talks involving the U.S., South Korea, China, Russia and Japan. However, losing perhaps the biggest source of outside funding will almost certainly lead to political chaos in the communist nation.

    The question on everyone’s lips, but which few dare to ask in public, is whether Kim Jong-Un, pressed into a corner, will – after years of posturing with his ballistic missile tests, finally launch a rocket into one of the neighboring nations. Trump’s administration has said it will deploy the missile defense system this year in South Korea and back Japan “100 percent” in moves to deter North Korea.

    Since it may have no choice but to test out this defense system in the very near future, one hopes that any North Korean “desperation” launches are safely brought down.

  • China Responds To Fed Jawboning March "Live" – Weakens Yuan, Spikes Money Market Rates

    After a week of jawboning markets into believing that the March FOMC meeting is now "live", it appears China has decided to send a little message.

     

    After weakening the fix by the most since Jan 9th, Chinese money market rates are soaring (1 week CNH HIBOR up 303bps) despite notable liquidity injections…

     

    Of course an unexpected rate hike in March is an implicit tightening of the world's financial conditions and thus liquidity withdrawal… reversing recent improvements in global dollar liquidity.

    As Mark St.Cyr asks (and answers), is China about to begin pre-emptively devaluing the yuan?

    Remember when any member of the Federal Reserve, regardless of the action be it a speech, interview, what they had for breakfast et cetera, was met with panting breaths by the financial media? You know, like it was back in the old days, say around 90 days ago more or less. My how time both flies and changes.

    Today? Like it or not (and I presume they disdain it) the President as opposed to a Fed. president, has reclaimed all the oxygen, print, airwaves, bandwidth, and more from not only the general news, but the business/financial news as well. I have a feeling that’s not sitting well within the confines of the Eccles Building. Remember: Elites don’t like sharing stages, especially with those they deem as “outsiders.”

    So what does the above have anything to do with March and the Yuan you may be asking? It’s this:

    You or I may be enjoying a respite from the media where the Fed. (or central bankers in general) aren’t dominating every topic of business/financial discussion. Yet, the one audience I’ll contend that’s still hanging on every syllable for meaning and intent is China. And China is the, and I mean just that – the – only audience that matters. The reasoning is simple:

    China, overnight, can bring the entire global markets crashing to its knees via one wrong move, exponentially faster than any Fed. misstep, intentional, or otherwise. Period.

    In other words, the Fed. more often than not will signal first (yet they can surprise) and the move would cause turmoil, but the move (and resulting chaos) itself would be more reaction to surprise than substance, where knee-jerk-selling is met with horns-over-hooves buying from Bulls just itching to buy the next dip. (i.e., 1/4% unannounced or unanticipated hike or something else in kind.)

    China on the other hand could intentionally devalue the Yuan in whole number, even double-digit percentages, unannounced overnight, and the chaos could quickly transform into unstoppable monetary bedlam. And there’s recent precedent for clues. e.g., August of 2015.

    So with the above for context the question that should be first and foremost in everyone’s mind is this:

    If China believes there’s a rate hike in March, regardless of what the rest of the world (and academia) might think. Will it force  China into delivering a monetary strike first, and deal with its aftermath later, rather, than simply waiting around to then deal with any potential monetary aftermath or chaos unleashed by the Fed. later?

    I believe not only will they move first – the move borders on inevitable.

    I base this on no other reasoning than watching the Fed. continuing to throw ever-the-more fuel onto this “monetary powder keg” that brings that response on quicker, rather than later. For the more they pile on, the more this “monetary powder keg” moves from in-need-of-a-match, into self-igniting.

    I am of the opinion China’s ever-growing capital flight problems, and more can not withstand another rate hike, let alone one so close after December. And the tell-tale signs for this to be more plausible than not have been occurring in plain sight with far more telling frequency (and I’ll imply: intent) than previously. And the ones who seem to not be reading the “tea leaves” is none other than the Fed. itself.

    Here’s some of my reasoning from the article, “Feb’s FOMC Meeting: A Powder keg In Search Of A Match” To wit:

    “If China feels that it is in a no-win situation (and it’s easily conceivable using the Fed’s latest words, speeches, shift in policy signaling and a whole lot more) They might decide after coming back from their New Year holiday and – act first – question later.”

    Guess what the politburo did when they returned? Hint: Everything and anything but (and it’s a very big but) the one thing they always did in unison – defend the Yuan.

    Everything in China went ballistic. Bonds, stocks, commodities, all up. The Yuan? Tumbled to one-month lows.

    I’ll contend this is an overt signaling action which screams warning signs everywhere. For why did China, this time, throw so much money everywhere else except for the one place it basically threw the “kitchen sink” at only a month or so prior? (e.g., The Yuan as to strengthen it away from the much dreaded psychological USD/CNH 7.00 cross.)

    Was this a test to see what reaction (both market and political) would take place doing something other than something solely Yuan centric? Or, was this a move of desperation as to subside further capital flight? After all: This is precisely the exact opposite of what one should/would do if the plan was to strengthen, rather than weaken one’s currency, correct?

    Again: Why would you throw enormous sums of money into actions which not only have a negative effect, but a canceling effect on what you just threw (again) enormous sums of money only a month prior? Does the old joke “Drilling holes in the bottom of the boat to let the water coming in out.” come to mind here? Which is why I’m siding on the side of desperation – first, as opposed to  a test. And here’s why, as stated by economist, and China watcher Andy Xie (one of the few economists I admire) to wit:

    “China’s domestic woes and international challenges are largely due to its inefficient system. The government is obsessed with concentrating economic resources in its own hands, and asset markets are like casinos, sucking people in and making them lose money. The government uses its vast resources inefficiently. Hence, China’s currency has a tendency to depreciate.”

    Using the above for a prism it’s easy to see how the politburo can do two things at the same time which seem diametrically opposed to what was professed (or signaled) only weeks prior. Why? Because when elites panic – they’ll throw money everywhere and anywhere first, because that’s all they know. And I believe this demonstrates China is beginning to panic.

    The real question (and problem) now is: How far, and how fast, from the “beginning” to “end game” they decide to proceed going forward from here? I believe all we have to do is look to our own Fed. for clues, for they appear utterly clueless to what is taking place right before their own eyes.

    So what kind of signaling (hence exacerbating China nervousness) is forthcoming from the Fed you ask? Fair question, to wit:

    From Reuters™ “Dollar Index Rises As Yellen Signals More Rate Hikes”

    “Waiting too long to remove accommodation would be unwise,” Yellen said in prepared remarks before the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, the first of her two-day testimony before Congress.

    That was just a few days ago from Fed. chair Janet Yellen’s televised two-day testimony before Congress.

    But what went along with the above was what went nearly unreported (as I implied when stating “the old days”) when none other than the Fed’s Dennis Lockhart (another Fed. president retiring at the end of the month) stated in an interview with Bloomberg™ “March meeting is live.”

    That’s a lot of confirmation that March is to be considered live, is it not?

    As I’ve iterated before, I believe the rest of the world (or “markets”) are still of the idea that the Fed. is once again “crying wolf” as they did all throughout 2016. For China? I think they’re back to an August 2015 frenzy caught between what to do next, never-mind, what not to do. And it’s getting more complicated for them by the day.

    Think I’m over exaggerating? Fair point, so here’s just a few “other” headlines China returned from holiday to read and think about, let alone, needing a response to:

    “…Trump Backs Japan Over Disputed East China Sea Islands”

     

    Or how about this from the WSJ™ implying further retaliation, “U.S. Eyes New Tactic To Press China”

    So where are we now? As I stated in my previous article, I believe it’s all about the Fed. minutes, to wit:

    During that time I believe China will wait for the minutes to be released, and if it is made apparent that there was indeed further discussion as to bolster the inferences that the Fed. may be actively considering a path as to embark on a march towards higher rates, along with the thinning of its balance sheet, which would inevitably send the $Dollar rocketing skywards?

    They’ll act first and ask (or maybe not) questions later. Sending everything that is now taken for granted in the “markets” (e.g., “It’s good to be long!) into total chaos. All before March 15th’s next meeting. Again, which just so happens to be the exact date originating the “Ides of March” warning.”

    If the actions by China after returning from their holiday break are any clue? Than the possibility for a “monetary first strike” is all the more plausible, if not probable, than these “markets” are signaling, let alone contemplating.

    China has thrown buckets of capital at not only the Yuan, but its credit markets in unison – and capital flight is accelerating still on all fronts. All while the $Dollar strengthens, and Yuan weakens seemingly against the will of both monetary bodies.

    So again, with all the above for context, as I said in the title…

    If March Is indeed “live?”  Then so too is the mother of all monetary shocks.

    We shall see our first clues for the minutes of the latest FOMC meeting are to be released this week. And if they are indeed “hawkish?” I believe it will force China’s hand before the next meeting. Whether anyone is prepared for it, or not.

    And if any clues are to be extrapolated by current “market” action? The answer is self-evident: nobody thinks such a thing is possible anymore, let alone – positioned for it, making things more problematic than they already are. If that’s even possible.

    *  *  *

    Finally we wonder if – just as was the case after the Shanghai Accord had fulfilled its Plunge Protection Team role in Q1 2016 – whether the same is about to occur…

    Notice that the Yuan has been strengthening against the USD for the last 2 months (despite all the gnashing or political teeth over its manipulation). A Fed rate hike is the perfect excuse to let that pretense slide again.

  • Maryland Considers Teaching Kids That Boys Are Presumed Guilty In Rape Accusations

    Submitted by Greg Piper via The College Fix,

    “Affirmative consent” is a fuzzy concept even for adults, which is why one of them taught 10th graders in California that they must say “yes” every 10 minutes during sex or it becomes rape.

    The concept was enshrined in state law in October 2015, and since then California has remained the only state to legally require “yes means yes” be taught in public schools.

    Maryland could soon be the second.

    The Washington Post reports that a House of Delegates committee is considering a bill today (HB 365) that would set up a pilot program in Montgomery County, just outside Washington, D.C.

    It would “provide instruction on affirmative consent as part of a specified curriculum in specified grades in public schools in the county beginning in the 2017-2018 school year.”

    But that’s just the start for the sponsors, Montgomery County Democratic Dels. Ariana Kelly and Marice Morales, according to the Post:

    The two lawmakers say they are drafting a companion piece of legislation that would extend the mandate statewide.

     

    Both measures would define consent as “clear, unambiguous, knowing, informed and voluntary agreement between all participants to engage in each act within the course of sexual activity.”

     

    Local education officials would be required to teach the concept in both seventh and 10th grades, but individual districts would be able to decide how to tailor the lessons in an age-appropriate way.

    The Post report fails to note that affirmative consent essentially shifts the burden of proof onto the accused student, which in the vast majority of cases is a male being accused by a female.

    It inexplicably cites the National Coalition for Men, whose president said affirmative consent is driven by “people who don’t like men that much,” as the face of the opposition.

    But the consent standard has better known and less polarizing critics who cite the lack of due process inherent in affirmative consent, including the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and the Maryland-based female-led advocacy group Stop Abusive and Violent Environments.

    FIRE in particular has warned that affirmative-consent provisions do not put students on notice of what behavior can get them punished. Tracking the language of other bills and campus codes, the Maryland measure requires consent for “each act within the course of sexual activity” – which could mean anything from changing positions during intercourse to each kiss and touch preceding intercourse.

    The bill also does not define “sexual activity,” a problem it shares with a college-specific bill signed into law in Connecticut last summer.

    One Republican lawmaker on the committee hearing the bill, Del. Kevin B. Hornberger of Cecil County, makes a federalism argument rather than a due-process argument to keep the county-level pilot from going statewide, the Post says:

    “What works best for Montgomery County doesn’t necessarily work best for Cecil or any of the other jurisdictions in this state,” Hornberger said. “The positive from this experiment is that it puts the conversation out there and raises awareness of affirmative consent.”

    Hornberger was also a “peer educator” in college who taught affirmative consent. Chances are he was never accused of rape months after a sexual encounter because the consent did not consist of a continuous stream of “yes” statements.

  • Who's Really Behind The Soft-Coup? Obama-Founded Activist Group Offers Anti-Trump Protest "Guide"

    "The left is intentionally fighting to remain relevant," remarks Armstrong Economics' Martin Armstrong, adding that "the hatred spewing out of their mouths is really off the wall." Furthermore, Armstrong warns the Obama administration is behind the so-called 'soft coup' under way and as The Post reports, an Obama-tied activist group training tens of thousands of agitators to protest Trump's policies plans to hit Republican lawmakers even harder this week.

    Organizing for Action, a group founded by Obama and featured prominently on his new post-presidency website, is distributing a training manual to anti-Trump activists that advises them to bully GOP lawmakers into backing off support for repealing ObamaCare, curbing immigration from high-risk Islamic nations, and building a border wall. As The NY Post details,

    In a new Facebook post, OFA calls on activists to mobilize against Republicans from now until Feb. 26, when “representatives are going to be in their home districts.”

     

    The protesters disrupted town halls earlier this month, including one held in Utah by House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz, who was confronted by hundreds of angry demonstrators claiming to be his constituents.

    The manual, published with OFA partner “Indivisible,” advises protesters to go into halls quietly so as not to raise alarms, and “grab seats at the front of the room but do not all sit together.” Rather, spread out in pairs to make it seem like the whole room opposes the Republican host’s positions. “This will help reinforce the impression of broad consensus.” It also urges them to ask “hostile” questions — while keeping “a firm hold on the mic” — and loudly boo the the GOP politician if he isn’t “giving you real answers.”

     

    “Express your concern [to the event’s hosts] they are giving a platform to pro-Trump authoritarianism, racism, and corruption,” it says.

     

    The goal is to make Republicans, even from safe districts, second-guess their support for the Trump agenda, and to prime “the ground for the 2018 midterms when Democrats retake power.”

     

    “Even the safest [Republican] will be deeply alarmed by signs of organized opposition,” the document states, “because these actions create the impression that they’re not connected to their district and not listening to their constituents.”

    After the event, protesters are advised to feed video footage to local and national media.

    “Unfavorable exchanges caught on video can be devastating” for Republican lawmakers, it says, when “shared through social media and picked up by local and national media.”

     

    After protesters gave MSNBC, CNN and the networks footage of their dust-up with Chaffetz, for example, the outlets ran them continuously, forcing Chaffetz to issue statements defending himself.

     

    The manual also advises protesters to flood “Trump-friendly” lawmakers’ Hill offices with angry phone calls and emails demanding the resignation of top White House adviser Steve Bannon.

     

    A script advises callers to complain: “I’m honestly scared that a known racist and anti-Semite will be working just feet from the Oval Office … It is everyone’s business if a man who promoted white supremacy is serving as an adviser to the president.”

    None other than Robert Reich is front and center in the "Townhall Disruption Guide"…

    https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Findivisibleguide%2Fvideos%2F1472749059404352%2F&show_text=0&width=560

    Additionally, as Axios notes, Progressive groups are circulating information about town hall meetings on a MoveOn.org-powered website, "Resistance Recess."

    More than a dozen major groups in the institutional left are involved, with groups like Planned Parenthood and unions like SEIU organizing protests. The former Hillary Clinton super PAC Priorities USA is running localized digital ads — its first paid ads since the election — to spotlight Republican town halls. Democratic leaders like Bernie Sanders and Chuck Schumer will lead events.

     

    What's in store:

    • "Resistance Events" will target everyone from Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton (Wednesday evening) to Indiana Rep. Jackie Walorski (Tuesday morning) to Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz (Saturday morning). Protesters can find them by locale or zip code on resistancerecess.com.
    • Nobody is safe. Not even the members ducking town halls. Our Revolution, the group that spun off from Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign, will launch a map tomorrow showing every congressional district in the country that they intend to swarm next Saturday.
    • Shannon Jackson, Our Revolution's executive director, says they've already got close to 200 events planned around the country and will be rallying outside nearly every Republican congressional office.

     

    Resisting the resistance: House Republicans have been intensely prepping for these confrontations. At least 175 members attended Obamacare "listening sessions" — which were really detailed policy briefing sessions — convened by House Majority Whip Steve Scalise.

    Finally, Martin Armstrong concludes by remarking that the Obama administration intentionally set the stage knowing what they were doing was designed to undermine and cripple the Trump Administration. The sanctions on Putin were also intended to prevent Trump from reversing the tension created by Obama to create an international conflict. These leaks appear to be part of an intentional plot by Obama/Left to allow his supporters within the intelligence community to topple Trump if they can. Obama waited until he had just 17 days left in office to sign an executive order to expand the power of the National Security Agency (NSA) allowing it to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before any application of top secret or privacy protection would be attached. Obama never did this while he was in office. Whenever a politician does something like this, there is ALWAYS a hidden agenda. This Obama executive order changed everything with regard to national security that was put in place by an executive order dating back to Ronald Reagan. Obama opened the flood gates and this I personally believe was a treasonous act showing the Democrats adopted a strategy to under,mine Trump from the outset and to create massive civil unrest.

    Trump must reinstate the national security procedures that have been in place since Ronald Reagan and fire everyone in intelligence appointed by Obama. Clean the swamp must start right there and NOW! Obama knew he would set up a shadow government and refuse to leave Washington. He seems to be working harder now while as President he may have played golf more than any other president.

    Proof that Obama is behind the civil unrest is the fact he has taken to Twitter.

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    As he states boldly to believe in that the people can bring about change through their own action. He is implying to rise up and create civil unrest on a massive scale.

    Obama has been behind this entire affair of creating civil unrest and I believe is deliberately undermining national security with his moles strategically placed within the intelligence community to undermine the government. That is unquestionable TREASON and the press will only attack Trump and never defend the country. When Obama won, you did not see the other 46% set fires and try to bring down the government. The left always demands it is their way or no way. This is why we will move into civil war in the years ahead. Independents just say live and let live – don’t bother me and I will not bother you. Leftists say you can live only as they command – they cannot sleep at night worrying what independents are doing. It’s like the Hunger Games – suppress all freedom is their agenda.

  • Tulsi Gabbard Versus "Regime Change" Wars

    Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is a rare member of Congress willing to take heat for challenging U.S. “regime change” projects, in part, because as an Iraq War vet she saw the damage these schemes do, as retired Col. Ann Wright explains to ConsortiumNews.com.

    I support Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, going to Syria and meeting with President Bashar al-Assad because the congresswoman is a brave person willing to take criticism for challenging U.S. policies that she believes are wrong.

    It is important that we have representatives in our government who will go to countries where the United States is either killing citizens directly by U.S. intervention or indirectly by support of militia groups or by sanctions.

    We need representatives to sift through what the U.S. government says and what the media reports to find out for themselves the truth, the shades of truth and the untruths.

    We need representatives willing to take the heat from both their fellow members of Congress and from the media pundits who will not go to those areas and talk with those directly affected by U.S. actions. We need representatives who will be our eyes and ears to go to places where most citizens cannot go.

    Tulsi Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran who has seen first-hand the chaos that can come from misguided “regime change” projects, is not the first international observer to come back with an assessment about the tragic effects of U.S. support for lethal “regime change” in Syria.

    Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Maguire began traveling to Syria three years ago and now having made three trips to Syria. She has come back hearing many of the same comments from Syrians that Rep. Gabbard heard — that U.S. support for “regime change” against the secular government of Syria is contributing to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Syrians and – if the “regime change” succeeded – might result in the takeover by armed religious-driven fanatics who would slaughter many more Syrians and cause a mass migration of millions fleeing the carnage.

    Since 2011, the Obama administration supported various rebel groups fighting for “regime change” in Syria while U.S. allies – Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey – backed jihadist groups including Islamic State and Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, some of the same extremists whom the U.S. military is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. If Assad were overthrown, these extremists might take power and create even worse conditions for Syrians.

    This possibility of jihadists imposing perverted extremist religious views on the secular state of Syria remains high due to international meddling in the internal affairs of Syria. This “regime change” project also drew in Russia to provide air support for the Syrian military.

    Critical of Obama’s ‘Regime Change’

    During the Obama administration, Rep. Gabbard spoke critically of the U.S. propensity to attempt “regime change” in countries and thus provoking chaos and loss of civilian life.

    On Dec. 8, 2016, she introduced a bill entitled the “Stop Arming Terrorists Act” which would prohibit the U.S. government from using U.S. funds to provide funding, weapons, training, and intelligence support to extremists groups, such as the ones fighting in Syria – or to countries that are providing direct or indirect support to those groups.

    In the first days of the Trump administration, Rep. Gabbard traveled to Syria to see the effects of the attempted “regime change” and to offer a solution to reduce the deaths of civilians and the end of the war in Syria. A national organization Veterans For Peace, to which I belong, has endorsed her trip as a step toward resolution to the Syrian conflict.

    Not surprisingly, back in Washington, Rep. Gabbard came under attack for the trip and for her meeting with President Assad, similar to criticism that I have faced because of visits that I have made to countries where the U.S. government did not want me to go — to Cuba, Iran, Gaza, Yemen, Pakistan, North Korea, Russia and back to Afghanistan, where I was assigned as a U.S. diplomat.

    I served my country for 29 years in the U.S. Army/ Army Reserves and retired as a colonel. I also served 16 years in the U.S. diplomatic corps in U.S. Embassies in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia, Afghanistan and Mongolia. I resigned from the U.S. government nearly 14 years ago in March 2003 in opposition to President George W. Bush’s “regime change” war on Iraq.

    In my travels since my resignation, I didn’t agree with many of the policies of the governments in power in those countries. But I wanted to see the effects of U.S. government policies and, in particular, the effects of attempts at “regime change.”

    I wanted to talk with citizens and government officials about the effects of U.S. sanctions and whether the sanctions “worked” to lessen their support for the government that the U.S. was attempting to change or overthrow.

    For making those trips, I have been criticized strongly. I have been called an apologist for the governments in power. Critics have said that my trips have given legitimacy to the abuses by those governments. And I have been called a traitor to the United States to dare question or challenge its policy of “regime change.”

    But I am not an apologist, nor am I a traitor … nor is Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard for her recent trip to Syria.

    *  *  *

    Ann Wright served 29 years in the US Army/Army Reserves and retired as a colonel. She also was a U.S. diplomat for 16 years and served in U.S. Embassies in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia, Afghanistan and Mongolia. She resigned in March 2003 in opposition to the war in Iraq. She has lived in Honolulu since 2003.

  • Visualizing The Stunning Truth About How Students Are Spending Loan Cash

    Over the last 15 years the starting salary for recent college grads has declined about $4000. Unfortunately, as ValueWalk.com details, the amount of student loan debt most students are graduating with has skyrocketed. You can now expect to graduate into a worse job market and with more debt than just a decade ago, which is leading to a serious financial crisis- the average debt load upon graduation is $37,000, and many people can’t even make their minimum payments.

    Nearly 60% of student borrowers have no idea when their student loans will be paid off. Over half of borrowers have no idea what their monthly payments will be when they graduate. When you combine these facts with declining wages and rising housing rates, many people will find they just can’t make ends meet.

    There are a few things students can do before graduation to ensure they aren’t set up for failure. Find out what your total costs will be and only take out the amount you need- financing a pizza every Friday night for four years can easily turn an expense of $1800 into $2291 when you have to pay interest over time. Try to seek out alternative ways to cover at least a portion of your expenses- a work-study program or part-time job can be a big help!

     

    Student loans can never be bankrupted, so it’s important to pay them off as quickly as possible. Make payments while you are still in school on order to minimize your debt load upon graduation, and once you graduate try to make additional principal payments whenever possible to help accelerate your payoff schedule. Stay on top of payments and set up automatic payments if necessary so you never miss a payment- penalties can keep you on the hook much longer than you need to be. Learn more about lightening the student loan burden from this infographic!

  • The Three Lives Of Alan Greenspan… And Why The Third Won't Redeem The Second

    Submitted by John Rubino via DollarCollapse.com,

    When the history of these times is written, former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan will be one of the major villains, but also one of the greatest mysteries. This is so because he has, in effect, been three different people.

    He began public life brilliantly, as a libertarian thinker who said some compelling and accurate things about gold and its role in the world. An example from 1966:

    An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense – perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire – that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other…

     

    …In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold [in 1934 under FDR]. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.

     

    This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard.

    Awesome, right? But when put in charge of the Federal Reserve in the late 1980s, instead of applying the above wisdom — by for instance limiting the bank’s interference in the private sector and letting market forces determine winners and losers — he did a full 180, intervening in every crisis, creating new currency with abandon, and generally behaving like his old ideological enemies, the Keynesians. Not surprisingly, debt soared during his long tenure.

    Along the way he was instrumental in preventing regulation of credit default swaps and other derivatives that nearly blew up the system in 2008. His view of those instruments:

    The reason that growth has continued despite adversity, or perhaps because of it, is that these new financial instruments are an increasingly important vehicle for unbundling risks. These instruments enhance the ability to differentiate risk and allocate it to those investors most able and willing to take it. This unbundling improves the ability of the market to engender a set of product and asset prices far more calibrated to the value preferences of consumers than was possible before derivative markets were developed. The product and asset price signals enable entrepreneurs to finely allocate real capital facilities to produce those goods and services most valued by consumers, a process that has undoubtedly improved national productivity growth and standards of living.

    He cut interest rates to near-zero in the early 2000s, igniting the housing bubble – which he was unable to detect along the way. He even made it into the dictionary, as the “Greenspan put” became the term for government bailing out its Wall Street benefactors.

    From this the leveraged speculating community learned that no risk was too egregious and no profit too large, because government – that is, the Fed – had eliminated all the worst-case scenarios. Put another way, under Greenspan profit was privatized but loss was socialized.

    Greenspan retired from the Fed in 2006 and, miraculously, began morphing back into his old libertarian self. A cynic might detect a desire to avoid the consequences of his past actions, while a neurologist might suspect senility. But either way the transformation is breathtaking. Consider this from yesterday:

    Gold Standard Needed Now More Than Ever? – Alan Greenspan Comments

    (Kitco News) – It would be best not to be short-sighted when it comes to gold; at least that is what one former Fed chair says.

    “[T]he risk of inflation is beginning to rise…Significant increases in inflation will ultimately increase the price of gold,” noted Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve chairman from 1987 to 2006, in an interview published in the World Gold Council’s Gold Investor February issue.

     

    “Investment in gold now is insurance. It’s not for short-term gain, but for long-term protection.”

     

    However, it is really the idea of returning to a gold standard that Greenspan focused on — a gold standard that he said would help mitigate risks of an “unstable fiscal system” like the one we have today.

     

    “Today, going back on to the gold standard would be perceived as an act of desperation. But if the gold standard were in place today, we would not have reached the situation in which we now find ourselves,” he said.

     

    “We would never have reached this position of extreme indebtedness were we on the gold standard, because the gold standard is a way of ensuring that fiscal policy never gets out of line.”

     

    To Greenspan, the reason why the gold standard hasn’t worked in the past actually has nothing to do with the metal itself.

     

    “[T]here is a widespread view that the 19th Century gold standard didn’t work. I think that’s like wearing the wrong size shoes and saying the shoes are uncomfortable!” he said. “It wasn’t the gold standard that failed; it was politics.”

    One of the nice things about the information age is that public figures leave long paper trails and can’t therefore easily escape their pasts. Greenspan’s past, being perhaps the best documented of any central banker in history, will haunt him forever.

    But hey, at least he’s going out a gold bug.

  • Trump Administration Toughens Asylum Rules, Speeds Deportation Process

    Amid judicial blockages, and rogue border agents, it appears the Trump administration is still trying its best to follow through on its campaign promises to crackdown on illegal immigration. As Reuters reports, The Department of Homeland Security has prepared new guidance for immigration agents aimed at speeding up deportations by denying asylum claims earlier in the process.

    Following last week's apparent crackdown on DREAMers, Reuters reports new guidelines, contained in a draft memo dated February 17 but not yet sent to field offices, directs agents to only pass applicants who have a good chance of ultimately getting asylum, but does not give specific criteria for establishing credible fear of persecution if sent home.

    The guidance instructs asylum officers to "elicit all relevant information" in determining whether an applicant has “credible fear” of persecution if returned home, the first obstacle faced by migrants on the U.S.-Mexico border requesting asylum.

    Three sources familiar with the drafting of the guidance said the goal of the new instructions is to raise the bar on initial screening.

    The administration's plan is to leave wide discretion to asylum officers by allowing them to determine which applications have a "significant possibility" of being approved by an immigration court, the sources said.

     

    Furthermore, as The Wall Street Journal reports, parents and others who help children travel illegally to the U.S. would be subject to deportation or prosecution under new Trump administration policies being completed, according to a second leaked memo prepared by the Department of Homeland Security.

    The draft memo also indicates people from countries other than Mexico trying to cross the southern U.S. border illegally could be returned to Mexico to await legal proceedings, while others would be held in detention centers.

     

    The memo directs that those apprehended at the border be detained, or jailed, until their cases are heard, unless they first establishes a “credible fear” of persecution, or meet other limited exceptions.

     

    Leon Fresco, who headed the Justice Department’s Office of Immigration Litigation under President Barack Obama, predicted many of these policies would meet resistance from courts, which are already reviewing smaller changes implemented under the previous administration.

     

     

    He said he was particularly struck by the change in how children would be handled.

     

    “It is a complete 180 to move from a policy that focused on unaccompanied minors being placed into safe locations while their removal proceedings were pending to placing the custodians of unaccompanied minors into removal proceedings,” he said. Even the smaller Obama version “is already the subject of pending litigation in Los Angeles federal court and is likely going to be viewed with great skepticism by that court.”

    *  *  *

    Of course, as a reminder, these immigrants are illegally entering the country and this is what the American people voted for.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 19th February 2017

  • Jay Sekulow: Obama Should Be "Held Accountable" For The "Soft Coup" Against Trump

    In light of the recent flurry of leaks by the so-called “deep state”, which includes such agencies as the NSA and FBI and which last week lead to the resignation of Mike Flynn after a phone recording of his  phone conversation with the Russian ambassador was leaked to the WaPo and other anti-Trump publications, an article published on January 12 by the NYT has generated renewed interest. One month ago, the NYT reported that “In its final days, the Obama administration expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.”

    The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches. The change means that far more officials will be searching through raw data. Essentially, the government is reducing the risk that the N.S.A. will fail to recognize that a piece of information would be valuable to another agency, but increasing the risk that officials will see private information about innocent people.

    While previously the N.S.A. filtered information before sharing intercepted communications with another agency, like the C.I.A. or the intelligence branches of the F.B.I. and the Drug Enforcement Administration, and furthermore N.S.A.’s analysts passed on only information they deemed pertinent, screening out the identities of innocent people and irrelevant personal information, following passage of Obama’s 11th hour rule, “other intelligence agencies will be able to search directly through raw repositories of communications intercepted by the N.S.A. and then apply such rules for “minimizing” privacy intrusions.

    In other words, what until recently was a trickle of private data captured about US individuals by the NSA with only a handful of people having full, immersive access, suddenly became a firehose with thousands of potential witnesses across 16 other agencies, each of whom suddenly became a potential source of leaks about ideological political opponents. And with the universe of potential “leaking” culprits suddenly exploding exponentially, good luck finding the responsible party.

    However, the implications are far more serious than just loss of privacy rights.

    According to civil right expert and prominent First Amendement Supreme Court lawyer, Jay Sekulow, what the agencies did by leaking the Trump Administration information was not only illegal but “almost becomes a soft coup”, one which was spurred by the last minute rule-change by Obama, who intentionally made it far easier for leaks to propagate, and next to impossible to catch those responsible for the leaks.

    This is his explanation:

    There was a sea-change here at the NSA with an order that came from president Obama 17 days before he left office where he allowed the NSA who used to control the data, it now goes to 16 other agencies and that just festered this whole leaking situation, and that happened on the way out, as the president was leaving the office.

     

    Why did the Obama administration wait until it had 17 days left in their administration to put this order in place if they thought it was so important. They had 8 years, they didn’t do it, number one. Number two, it changed the exiting rule which was an executive order dating back to Ronald Reagan, that has been in place until 17 days before the Obama administration was going to end, that said the NSA gets the raw data, and they determine dissemination.

     

    Instead, this change that the president put in place, signed off by the way by James Clapper on December 15, 2016, signed off by Loretta Lynch the Attorney General January 3, 2017, they decide that now 16 agencies can get the raw data and what that does is almost creates a shadow government. You have all these people who are not agreeing with President Trump’s position, so it just festers more leaks.

     

    If they had a justification for this, wonderful, why didn’t they do it 8 years ago, 4 years ago, 3 years ago. Yet they wait until 17 days left.

    One potential answer: they knew they had a “smoking gun”, and were working to make it easier to enable the information to be “leaked” despite the clearly criminal consequences of such dissemination.

    As this point Hannity correctly points out, “it makes it that much more difficult by spreading out the information among 16 other agencies, if they want to target or take away the privacy rights, and illegally tap the phones, in this case General Flynn, it’s going to be much harder to find the perpetrator.”

    Sekulow confirms, noting that back when only the NSA had access to this kind of raw data, there would be a very small amount of people who have access to this kind of data. “But this change in the Obama Administration was so significant that they allowed dissemination to 16 other agencies, and we wonder why there’s leaks.”

    The lawyer’s conclusion: “President Obama, James Clapper, Loretta Lynch should be held accountable for this.”

    Full clip below:

  • Retired Green Beret Warns: Deep State's Utopia Of Oligarchs Is "Enslavement And Complete Control Of All Of Mankind"

    Submitted by Jeremiah Johnson (nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces (Airborne)) via SHTFPlan.com,

    In past articles the fact of a long struggle was mentioned and how it ties in with the current first year of the President’s administration.  The struggle is not merely to overcome the executive actions and orders of Obama.  The true battle is to remove the Marxists from bureaucratic fiefs established by Obama for carryover into the current administration and to deflect and negate their attacks and the attacks of others.

    The circuit court in San Francisco and the Department of Justice have been waging a seesaw-type of battle over the executive order signed by the President.  The order’s intent is to stem the illegal aliens and foreigners entering the U.S. from Middle Eastern nations either openly hostile to or providing the highest probability (intentionally or indirectly) for terrorists to enter the country.  This makes perfect sense, and because it does, one can easily see that only those hell-bent on weakening the U.S. and fostering infiltration would be against the order: those Marxists of the Left labeled as “Democrats” and calling themselves “Progressives.”

    They are not alone: they are aided by the Left-Right, which is even worse.  The Left-Right are those masquerading as Republican Conservatives, when they are Marxist-Leftists and proponents of Global Governance and the New World Order.  They are the Paul Ryans, the Mitch McConnells, and the Newt Gingriches.  They are the pseudo-Republican politico’s in office presently and in the past who have those CFR slots and are working toward their fantasy: The Utopia of Oligarchs.

    Even if they do not overtly act on behalf of the Marxists, they have been guilty…numerous times…of enabling the Marxists through the complacency of inactivity.

    They do not simply wish to derail the actions of President Trump: it is a much larger concept than that.  They see themselves as “partners” with the Left in the same game: to establish an elitist politico-oligarchic ruling class, broken down into divisions throughout the globe for ethno-cultural manipulation, yet with the same end-state.  That goal is the enslavement and complete control of all of mankind with the elitists ensconced as the ruling moneyed class.  They see themselves as the educated, sensible minority with tender sensibilities and true humanistic views…who must…must…take a stand in the globalist crusade against the barbaric Neanderthals of the proletariat and populist serfs.

    This new President has taken more action and more rapidly than even President Reagan did when he took office, and that is saying something.  Even those globalists playing the part of conservatives are knuckling under in lock step, shivering internally: A President is in the White House that can turn these bedbugs out of the mattress and burn them.  This new President quietly and without fanfare made it a point to be there for the SEAL who was killed in Yemen as his casket was brought back home.

    That should speak volumes on the caliber of the man who is in the White House.

    Everything that he does is attacked by the media and disparaged by the leftists.  Even the removal of Dodd-Frank (let’s remember…that was Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank…two troglodytes…who came up with that one) is sneered at.  The executive order to halt the illegals from potential hotbeds of Middle Eastern terrorism is challenged by states packed with liberals and also by the business and industry oligarchs who would rather the U.S. be vulnerable if they can continue to hire “tax-free” day-laborers for less than minimum wage with impunity.

    Senator John McCain (R- AZ) wants to go to war with Russia and he wants to reshape eastern Europe.  McCain and Lindsey Graham were instrumental in the Obama-ordered and sanctioned coup d’état that brought down Ukraine’s government and president and installed a U.S. puppet picked by Victoria Nuland.  McCain hasn’t stopped: he’s just been “on hold” to see where he can take footing when the dust settles from the initial Trump shakeup.

    In previous articles, it was mentioned how critical this first 6 months to one year-period in office is for the President, namely because of the midterm elections.  If the public does not see results, they could very well change the complexion and composition of Congress in 2018 and the Republicans could lose control of either one of or both houses of Congress.  The President realizes this, and he is moving swiftly.

    The public will also see that he is doing good things, and that it is the Democrats who are attempting to obstruct his efforts.  This will carry the Republicans through in the midterm elections, and thus all legislative efforts by the President will be able to be enacted.  It’s a tough fight and at times it’s uphill, but he started out well, and right…and the Democrats won’t be able to hold him off.

  • "It's Unfair" – Hispanic Workers Upset After Being Fired For Absence On "Day Without Immigrants"

    The manager of the ironically named "I Don't Care" Bar and Grill in Catoosa, Oklahoma is hiring…

    https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FIDCGrill%2Fposts%2F857546944386779&width=500

    After firing 12 staff last week for violating his “no call/no show” policy.

    http://foxbaltimore.com/embed/news/nation-world/catoosa-restaurant-fires-12-workers-for-not-showing-up-on-day-without-immigrants?external-id=3b2878151d334321b3471e359c95309e

    Fox Baltimore reports that the workers are without a job after getting fired for skipping work as a show of support for “A Day Without Immigrants.”

    The restaurant workers are all Hispanic and say it was important to them to participate in the national protest.

     

    But they didn’t think it would cost them their jobs.

     

    “They feel like they’ve been unfairly terminated," said a friend, translating for the employees.

    The owner fired them by text message.

    A message to one of the employees reads: "You and your family are fired. I hope you enjoyed your day off, and you can enjoy many more. Love you.

     

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The group willingly chose to stay home with others across the country, supporting “A Day Without Immigrants.”

    “(They’re) upset they stood for something they felt was necessary so the community would stand together, and they got terminated for that," said the friend.

    Restaurant owner Bill McNally gave us a written statement, saying he has a "zero tolerance policy for no show/no call incidents and the 12 employees violated that policy."

     

  • "There's Something Weird Going On": Jeff Snider On The Global Dollar Shortage

    The first time we explained that one of the biggest risks facing a world in which the dollar is the reserve currency is a global USD shortage, was in mid-2009, when we wrote “How The Federal Reserve Bailed Out The World.”

    At the time, the IMF calculated that just ahead of the financial crisis, “major European banks’ US dollar funding gap had reached $1.0–1.2 trillion by mid-2007. Until the onset of the crisis, European banks had met this need by tapping the interbank market ($432 billion) and by borrowing from central banks ($386 billion), and used FX swaps ($315 billion) to convert (primarily) domestic currency funding into dollars.” The IMF then extrapolated that “were all liabilities to non-banks treated as short-term funding, the upper-bound estimate would be $6.5 trillion.”

    Since then the shortage, which some have dubbed a potential multi-trillion dollar margin call, has only grown and became a prominent issue back in March of 2015, when this phenomenon was used to explain why the cross-currency swap had plunged to multi-year lows. As JPM explained at the time, “the fx basis reflects the relative supply and demand for dollar vs. foreign currency funds and a very negative basis currently points to relative shortage of USD funding or relative abundance of funding in other currencies. Such supply and demand imbalances can create big shifts in the fx basis away from its actuarial value of zero.”

    Fast forward a year and a half later, when none other than the Bank of International Settlements, or the “Central canks’ central bank”, warned last November that it was no longer the VIX that was the widely accepted barometer of market “fear”, it was now the dollar’s turn to become the global fear gauge: “just as the VIX index was a good summary measure of the price of balance sheet before the crisis, so the dollar has become a good measure of the price of balance sheet after the crisis. The mantle of the barometer of risk appetite and leverage has slipped from the VIX, and has passed to the dollar.”

    Shortly thereafter we once recapped the main risks emerging from this increasingly more prominent threat to global financial stability, and wondered at what point would the Fed finally address this risk pointed out not only by this website for nearly 8 years, but also by the BIS, in a post which piggybacked on the recent work by ADM ISI’s Paul Mylchreest, who has made tracking the global dollar shortage one of his primary objectives.

    * * *

    Now, in an exhaustive, 70 minute interview, submitted by Patrick Ceresna at MacroVoices.com, another prominent analyst who has been closely tracking the global dollar shortage, Alhambra Partners’ Jeffrey Snider sat down with Erik Townsend to explain – once again – why this is such a critical topic, even if it comes at a time of unprecedented global complacency (it’s amazing what record high stock prices will do to concerns – or lack thereof – about the future).

    As Snider puts it, while most other risk indicators imply smooth sailing, “there is ‘something’ weird going on” when it comes to dollar funding and global imbalances of the world’s reserve currency, i.e., dollar shortage.

    • In the interview, among the many topics covered, are
    • Understanding the Eurodollar Money Market
    • Swap Spreads and Interbank Hierarchy
    • Dimensions in the Eurodollar Futures and Eurodollar Money Supply
    • Why does the World Need So Many Dollars?
    • How the Eurodollar market supplanted the Bretton Woods System
    • U.S. Dollar and the Dollar Funding Gap
    • Reflation Trade Debunked
    • Interest Rates Trapped
    • Failing Global Currency System

    While we urge readers to listen to the full interview below, here are some of the highlights, starting with “why the Dollar shortage a symptom of an inherently unstable system.”

    As Snider explains, “the dollar shortage isn’t so much the shortage per se, it’s the fact that it’s a symptom of what is an inherently unstable system.” He notes that “the reason banks are withdrawing from the system is that it’s just is no longer tenable” and “so there has to be some kind of – whether you want to look at it like another Bretton Woods – conference, a global monetary system, a global monetary get together where people start to analyze solutions to the problem as they are rather than keep trying to apply band aids that are not going to work. “

    But, he concludes, “step one of that task is to actually recognize the problem as it is and so doing more stimulus or doing more QE isn’t going to solve anything it isn’t do anything just like prior QEs and prior stimulus haven’t done anything either because the problem is an unstable system.”

    * * *

    Snider focuses on the Eurodollar system, which he defines as a problem of “decay and dysfunction” and explains that “nothing ever happens in a straight line even the Eurodollar problem has not been a singular event. It’s not been a decade long straight line of decay and dysfunction.” 

    He goes on to say that the fact that after enough time these markets have adjusted to the fact that the economy’s going to be bad for a very long time until something actually changes and so true reflation is predicated on something actually changing rather than the hope that something might change.

    Looking at history, Snider observes that “what happened in July 2008 obviously was the fact that everyone decided almost all at once that wasn’t the right interpretation of what the Fed was doing nor was it the right interpretation of the dollar system overall. So, that reflation ended in reality which was the dollar system was eroding and it was eroding in a very dangerous way and that’s why oil prices essentially crashed from July till I think January 2009.”

    An implication of the ongoing reserve currency funding shortage is that, according to Snider, despite the occasional blip (arguably funded by massive Chinese credit creation), “reflation is going to fail and there’s nothing the Fed can do about it.” He goes on to state that “until they fix the global dollar problem we’re not going to fix the global economy and so we’re kind of stuck gyrating between various levels of really bad. We go from the lack of recovery to what looks like a global recession to the lack of recovery and back again” as a result he thinks that “reflation is going to fail.”

    Snider also said that “because of how they’ve defined the last ten years” even the Fed “no longer believes that it’s in its interest to do anything.” He agrees and sais that “there’s nothing that the Fed can do about it.”

    “In other words, we want them to start considering the global currency system and how it actually is operating and failing rather than their stylized academic approach which doesn’t apply. And until they’re actually convinced that there is a role for the central bank in that condition output gap or not, we’re kind of stuck.”

    The failure to stimulate benign inflation is captured on the next two charts which show “why this version of ‘reflation’ is so far less than even 2013’s version.

    His troubling assessment: “I hate to think of what the next decade might look like because history is not very kind in these kinds of situations where you have prolonged periods of stagnation.

    * * *

    Putting it all together, Snider goes on to say that the Eurodollar futures market in particular is saying is that “if the Fed is going to raise rates it’s not to raise rates for a long or it’s not going to be able to raise rates for long.” Echoing a warning we – and many others have made on many occasions – Snider says that if the yield curve happens to invert again “if they ever get that far” then it will “immediately be like in 2005 or 2006 all over again it won’t stay that way for very long either the market will force the Feds’ hand or the Fed will realize the error and correct it. What’s important about this is that “in each of these reflation episodes you can clearly see the market’s faith in that reflation diminishes each time for these very reasons that we’re talking about because these markets have become attuned to the fact the Fed isn’t exactly what everybody thought it was, monetary policy isn’t what everybody thought it was.”

    Snider summarizes by saying that “the fact that these markets realize that there’s a problem in Eurodollar system, there’s no banking to be had, no additional marginal banking capacity being added and without it none of these stuff really matters, none of these other stuff really matters. That’s the only thing that truly matters” and concludes gloomily that “the probability scenarios for economic and financial future are much darker now than they were three years ago.

    * * *

    Snider’s full interview can be heard below (Here is a link to the entire podcast transcript):

    https://player.podtrac.com/player/embed.js?w=500&h=0&feed=https%3a%2f%2fwww.macrovoices.com%2fcomponent%2fpodcastmanager%2f%3fformat%3draw%26feedname%3d2

    The embed code for this episode can be found here.


    We also urge listeners to follow along using Snider’s prepared slides presented below.
    https://www.scribd.com/embeds/339694812/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-KRsfrHVI6trsjrwvEKyd&show_recommendations=true

  • The FBI Is Pursuing Three Separate Probes Into "Russian Hacking" Of The Elections

    While it has been previously documented that the FBI has launched an investigation into Russian “hacking” of the elections, today Reuters provided more details on the ongoing effort to scapegoat Hillary Clinton’s loss on the Kremlin, when it reported that the FBI is pursuing at least three separate probes relating to alleged Russian hacking.

    The details according to Reuters, which cites unnamed officials, are as follows:

    • the FBI’s Pittsburgh field office, which runs many cyber security investigations, is trying to identify the people behind breaches of the Democratic National Committee’s computer systems. Those breaches, in 2015 and the first half of 2016, exposed the internal communications of party officials as the Democratic nominating convention got underway and helped undermine support for Hillary Clinton. The Pittsburgh case has progressed furthest, but Justice Department officials in Washington believe there is not enough clear evidence yet for an indictment, two of the sources said.
    • the FBI’s San Francisco office is trying to identify the people who called themselves “Guccifer 2” and posted emails stolen from Clinton campaign manager John Podesta’s account, the sources said. Those emails contained details about fundraising by the Clinton Foundation and other topics.
    • FBI counterintelligence agents based in Washington are pursuing leads from informants and foreign communications intercepts, two of the people said. “This counterintelligence inquiry includes but is not limited to examination of financial transactions by Russian individuals and companies who are believed to have links to Trump associates. The transactions under scrutiny involve investments by Russians in overseas entities that appear to have been undertaken through middlemen and front companies”

    Among the topics pursued by the counterintelligence investigations are the alleged contacts between members of the Trump campaign and current and former Russian intelligence officers prior to the November election, as previously reported by the New York Times.

    When reached by Reuters, Scott Smith, the FBI’s new assistant director for cyber crime, declined to comment this week on which FBI offices were doing what or how far they had progressed. The White House likewise had no comment on Friday on the Russian hacking investigations. A spokesman pointed to a comment Trump made during the campaign, in which he said: “As far as hacking, I think it was Russia, but I think we also get hacked by other countries and other people.”

    It was unclear if any FBI bureaus were investigating the leaks emanating from the US government which Donald Trump repeatedly slammed in the past week, and which led not only to the resignation of Michael Flynn but to constant disclosures into the inner workings of the Trump cabinet. While many of the opponents of the Clinton, Podesta and Democratic leaks – broadly grouped under the “Russians hacked the election” umbrella – have slammed “Russian interference” in the US electoral process, they have been far less troubled by similar leaks impacting Trump, and – of course – vice versa.

  • Trump Supporters Rally In Downtown Atlanta With Semi-Automatic Weapons

    As Trump was preparing to address an audience in Florida on Saturday afternoon, in a speech which Reuters summarized as “returning to the campaign trail to attack the media again and tout his accomplishments in the friendly atmosphere of a rally with supporters”, a group of supporters gathered for a pro-President Trump rally in downtown Atlanta armed with semi-automatic weapons.

    The crowd met at Centennial Olympic Park. Those there told Channel 2 Action News that they are part of an area militia group, III% Security Force, which was also serving as security for the event.

    As WSB-TV reports, members of the militia group said they were there to protect President Trump supporters. 

    “We’re using our second amendment rights to protect the first amendment rights,” Chris Hill said.

    “Throughout the day we’re going to have more people, more Trump supporters come to this corner, showing their support for President Trump. We are going to make sure that these people are safe and have the right to have their voices heard without fear of violence or intimidation from any opposing groups.” 

    Hill said he has seen counter-protesters circling the block, but he and his group want to make sure things stay peaceful. 

    “We want to make it known that this is a peaceful event and we’re going to do everything in our power to make sure that remains the case,” he said. Hill said he expected 20 to 30 people to show up for the rally. He said a permit is required if there are more than 35 people, but he did not think that would be the case.

    There were no reports of any confrontations or violence during the rally.

    In an interview on its website with one of its founding members, the “Three Percenter” militia explains that it is “is comprised of men and women as citizens in esch state which come together to form a chapter.  Each chapter is classified as being part of the “Unorganized Militia,” we are officially a civilian volunteer organization.

    We will come to the defense of public and private property, lives, and liberty to exercise God-given rights, seen plainly in the laws of Nature, and codified in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights.

     

    All local laws (not in violation of the U.S. Constitution and/or State Constitutions) shall be observed by members of III%SF. Each and every member and personnel within III%SF shall always conduct himself/herself with professional aptitude, integrity, and respect of others at all times. III%SF and its members shall not and will not ever cause or create any attempt to attack or overthrow any local, state, or federal department. We will never advocate or promote violence towards any organizations, groups, or persons.

     

    GSF III% has a zero tolerance policy regarding racial discrimination.  The Constitution says a militia is necessary for the security of the free state.  The State of Georgia says  the militia is comprised of all males between 17 and 45 and physically capable of acting in our common defense.

    A video showcasing the group is shown below.

  • The Shadow Government's Destruction Of Democracy

    The 'Deep State' has one simple rule – "do it my way… or else!"

    Source: Ben Garrison

    And on the heels of Dennis Kucinich's warnings, The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald, who opposes Trump for a variety of reasons, warns that siding with the evidently powerful Deep State in the hopes of undermining Trump is dangerous. As TheAntiMedia's Carey Wedler notes, Greenwald asserted in an interview with Democracy Now, published on Thursday, that this boils down to a fight between the Deep State and the Trump administration.

    https://www.democracynow.org/embed/story/2017/2/16/greenwald_empowering_the_deep_state_to

    Though Greenwald has argued the leaks were “wholly justified” in spite of the fact they violated criminal law, he also questioned the motives behind them.

    “It’s very possible — I’d say likely — that the motive here was vindictive rather than noble,” he wrote. “Whatever else is true, this is a case where the intelligence community, through strategic (and illegal) leaks, destroyed one of its primary adversaries in the Trump White House.”

    According to an in-depth report by journalist Mike Lofgren:

    “The Deep State does not consist of the entire government. It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street.”

    As Greenwald explained during his interview:

    “It’s agencies like the CIA, the NSA and the other intelligence agencies, that are essentially designed to disseminate disinformation and deceit and propaganda, and have a long history of doing not only that, but also have a long history of the world’s worst war crimes, atrocities and death squads.”

    Greenwald believes this division is a result of the Deep State’s disapproval of Trump’s foreign policy and the fact that the intelligence community overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton over Trump because of her hawkish views. Greenwald noted that Mike Morell, acting CIA chief under Obama, and Michael Hayden, who ran both the CIA and NSA under George W. Bush, openly spoke out against Trump during the presidential campaign.

    Greenwald asserts the the CIA preferred Clinton because, like the clandestine agency, she supported regime change in Syria. In contrast, Trump dismissed America’s practice of nation-building and declined to tow the line on ousting foreign leaders, instead advocating working with Russia to defeat ISIS and other extremist groups.

    “So, Trump’s agenda that he ran on was completely antithetical to what the CIA wanted,” Greenwald argued. “Clinton’s was exactly what the CIA wanted, and so they were behind her. And so, they’ve been trying to undermine Trump for many months throughout the election. And now that he won, they are not just undermining him with leaks, but actively subverting him.”

     

    “[In] the closing months of the Obama administration, they put together a deal with Russia to create peace in Syria. A few days later, a military strike in Syria killed a hundred Syrian soldiers and that ended the agreement. What happened is inside the intelligence and the Pentagon there was a deliberate effort to sabotage an agreement the White House made.”

    Greenwald, who opposes Trump for a variety of reasons, warns that siding with the evidently powerful Deep State in the hopes of undermining Trump is dangerous. “Trump was democratically elected and is subject to democratic controls, as these courts just demonstrated and as the media is showing, as citizens are proving,” he said, likely alluding to a recent court ruling that nullified Trump’s travel ban.

    He continued:

    “But on the other hand, the CIA was elected by nobody. They’re barely subject to democratic controls at all. And so, to urge that the CIA and the intelligence community empower itself to undermine the elected branches of government is insanity.”

    He argues that mentality is “a prescription for destroying democracy overnight in the name of saving it,” highlighting that members of both prevailing political parties are praising the Deep State’s audacity in leaking details of Flynn’s conversations.

    As he wrote in his article, “…it’s hard to put into words how strange it is to watch the very same people — from both parties, across the ideological spectrum — who called for the heads of Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Tom Drake, and so many other Obama-era leakers today heap praise on those who leaked the highly sensitive, classified SIGINT information that brought down Gen. Flynn.”

    He also points out the left’s hypocrisy in condemning Flynn for lying when James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence during the Obama administration, perpetuated lies without ever being held accountable.

  • Goldman: Investors Will Soon Realize They Were Too Optimistic

    Goldman Sachs really wants the market lower.

    After several increasingly more comprehensive critiques of Trump’s fiscal policies (most recently this past weekend), on Friday, just as the S&P closed at fresh all time highs propelled by a late day ramp, Goldman’s chief equity strategist who has a 2,300 year end target on the index, cautioned that “cognitive dissonance exists in the US stock market” as “investors must reconcile S&P 500’s performance with negative EPS revisions from sell-side analysts.” Specifically, Kostin notes that the “S&P 500 has returned 10% since Election Day while consensus 2017E adjusted earnings have been lowered by 1%“, and predicts that “investors will soon de-rate their expectations of potential 2017 EPS growth as they face the reality that the accretive impact from tax reform will not occur until 2018.

    In short, “Financial market reconciliation lies ahead: We are approaching the point of maximum optimism and S&P 500 will give back recent gains as investors embrace the reality that tax reform is likely to provide a smaller, later tailwind to corporate earnings than originally expected.

    First, Goldman points out that the underlying current of optimism unleashed with the Trump election is no longer warranted:

    Cognitive dissonance exists in the US stock market. S&P 500 is up 10% since the election despite negative EPS revisions from sell-side analysts (see Exhibit 1). Investors, S&P 500 management teams, and sell-side analysts do not agree on the most likely path forward. On the one hand, investors, corporate managers, and macroeconomic survey data suggest an increase in optimism about future economic growth. In contrast, sell-side analysts have cut consensus 2017E adjusted EPS forecasts by 1% since the election and “hard” macroeconomic data show only modest improvement.

     

     

    Some of the optimism has to do with a jump in Q4 earnings, however much of that has to do with a slowdown in energy company writedowns.

    On an operating basis, EPS grew by 24% aided by a recovery in Energy profits. Energy operating EPS recovered from -$2.43 in 4Q 2015 – the lowest level on record since 1967 – to $0.29 in 4Q 2016 as asset write-downs slowed. Energy contributed 13 pp of 24 pp to 4Q S&P 500 EPS growth. Index-level operating EPS grew by roughly 6% in 2016; we expect 10% growth in 2017.

    While there has certainly been an earnings rebound, the future is far less exciting than the recent rally will make it appear.

    Investors are optimistic about an improvement in economic growth and the prospect of increased corporate EPS.
    All 11 sectors contributed to the 10% rise in the S&P 500 index,
    with Financials and Information Technology contributing 30% and 22% of
    the 208 point gain. Decomposing the strong performance shows reduced EPS
    growth has been more than offset by P/E expansion which accounts for
    all the index gain (Exhibit 2).

     

    Goldman then notes that while corporate management team commentary from Q4 earnings calls substantiates some of this optimism, forward EPS do not justify it, and indeed “analyst EPS estimates paint a different picture. Consensus 2017E adjusted EPS has been revised downward by 1% over the last 3 months. Sell-side analysts appear hesitant to incorporate potential tax reform and deregulation into their estimates given elevated policy uncertainty. Positive revisions to aggregate S&P 500 EPS estimates are rare – during the last 33 years, consensus EPS estimates have been revised upward from their starting point just six times.”

    Kostin then points out something we have shown on various occasions in the past month: the recent “recovery” has been all in soft economic indicators such as sentiment and outlook. Hard data has for the most part, faded the entire bounce since the election:

     

    “Hard” macroeconomic data has shown only modest improvement. Housing indicators have flashed mixed signals with a notable decline in the latest reading of new home sales. Industrial Production was weaker-than-expected in January (-0.3% vs. median forecast of flat) and the December reading was revised down.

    Just as Congressional Republicans are likely to use the reconciliation process to pass fiscal policy legislation this year, so must investors reconcile S&P 500 performance with corporate earnings. We are approaching the point of maximum optimism regarding policy initiatives. Our US Economics team expects a tax reform package may not pass until late 2017 or early 2018. Even so, the tailwind to corporate earnings from tax reform will be constrained by the unwillingness of certain Congressional Republicans to significantly expand the federal budget deficit.

    Kostin’s conclusion: “We expect investors will soon de-rate their expectations of potential 2017 EPS growth as they face the reality that the accretive impact from tax reform will not occur until 2018. Many investors have incorporated lower taxes in a 2017 S&P 500 earnings estimate of roughly $130, reflecting 11% growth. In contrast, our S&P 500 adjusted EPS estimate for this year remains $123, just 5% above the flat earnings of 2014, 2015, and 2016. We forecast S&P 500 will peak in 1Q at 2400 before slipping to 2300 by year-end.”

    It’s perhaps worth noting once again, that every time Goldman has warned that a market turnaround is imminent, the S&P has proceeded to surge to new highs. For those expecting Trump’s first market correction, or worse, they may have to hold their breath until the bank that spawned most of Trump’s economic advisors finally throws in the towel and says to buy at any price.

  • Trump Left Saudi Arabia Off His Immigration Ban… Here's Why

    Submitted by Nick Giambruno via InternationalMan.com,

    On August 15, 1971, President Nixon killed the last remnants of the gold standard.

    It was one of the most significant events in US history—on par with the 1929 stock market crash, JFK’s assassination, or the 9/11 attacks. Yet most people know nothing about it.

    Here’s what happened…

    After World War 2, the US had the largest gold reserves in the world, by far. Along with winning the war, this let the US reconstruct the global monetary system around the dollar.

    The new system, created at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944, tied the currencies of virtually every country in the world to the US dollar through a fixed exchange rate. It also tied the US dollar to gold at a fixed rate of $35 an ounce.

    The Bretton Woods system made the US dollar the world’s premier reserve currency. It effectively forced other countries to store dollars for international trade, or to exchange with the US government for gold.

    By the late 1960s, the number of dollars circulating had drastically increased relative to the amount of gold backing them. This encouraged foreign countries to exchange their dollars for gold, draining the US gold supply. It dropped from 574 million troy ounces at the end of World War 2 to around 261 million troy ounces in 1971.

    To plug the drain, President Nixon “suspended” the dollar’s convertibility into gold on August 15, 1971. This ended the Bretton Woods system and severed the dollar’s last tie to gold.

    Since then, the dollar has been a pure fiat currency, allowing the Fed to print as many dollars as it pleases.

    Of course, Nixon said the suspension was only temporary. That was lie No. 1. It’s still in place over 40 years later.

    And he claimed the move was necessary to protect Americans from international speculators. That was lie No. 2. Money printing to finance out-of-control government spending was the real threat.

    Nixon also said the suspension would stabilize the dollar. That was lie No. 3. Even by the government’s own rigged statistics, the US dollar has lost over 80% of its purchasing power since 1971.

    The death of the Bretton Woods system—which was really the US government defaulting on its promise to back the dollar with gold—had profound geopolitical consequences.

    Most critically, it eliminated the main motivation for foreign countries to store large US dollar reserves and to use the US dollar for international trade.

    At this point, demand for dollars was set to fall… along with the dollar’s purchasing power. So the US government concocted a new arrangement to give foreign countries another compelling reason to hold and use the dollar.

    The new arrangement, called the petrodollar system, preserved the dollar’s special status as the world’s reserve currency. For President Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, it was a geopolitical and financial masterstroke.

    From Bretton Woods to the Petrodollar

    From 1972 to 1974, the US government made a series of agreements with Saudi Arabia, which created the petrodollar system.

    The US handpicked Saudi Arabia because of the kingdom’s vast petroleum reserves and its dominant position in OPEC—and because the Saudi royal family was (and is) easily corruptible.

    The US also picked Saudi Arabia for geopolitical reasons. During the Yom Kippur War of 1973, OPEC’s Arab members started an oil embargo to punish the US for supporting Israel. Oil prices quadrupled, inflation soared, and the stock market crashed.

    The US was in a vulnerable position. It needed to neutralize the Arabs’ potent Oil Weapon. Turning a hostile Saudi Arabia into an ally was the key. The alliance would also help check Soviet influence in the region.

    In essence, the petrodollar system was an agreement that the US would guarantee the House of Saud’s survival. In exchange, Saudi Arabia would:

    1. Take the Oil Weapon off the table.

    2. Use its dominant position in OPEC to ensure that all oil transactions would only happen in US dollars.

    3. Invest billions of US dollars from oil revenue in US Treasuries. This let the US issue more debt and finance previously unimaginable budget deficits.

    Oil is the world’s most traded and strategic commodity. If foreign countries need US dollars to trade oil, it creates a very compelling reason to hold large dollar reserves.

    For example, if Italy wants to buy oil from Kuwait, it has to purchase US dollars on the foreign exchange market to pay for the oil first.

    This creates an artificial market for US dollars. The dollar is just a middleman in countless transactions that have nothing to do with US products or services.

    Ultimately, the arrangement boosts the US dollar’s purchasing power. It also creates a deeper, more liquid market for the dollar and US Treasuries.

    Plus, the US has the unique privilege of buying imports, including oil, with its own currency… which it can print.

    It’s hard to overstate how much the petrodollar system benefits the US dollar. It’s allowed the US government and many Americans to live beyond their means for decades. And it’s the reason the media and political elite give the Saudis special treatment.

    It’s the reason why President Trump left the Saudis off of his recent immigration ban.

    It was a glaring omission that Saudi Arabia—the country that provided 15 of the 19 hijackers for the 9/11 attacks—was absent from the list.

    In short, the petrodollar is the glue that holds the US–Saudi relationship together. But its bind is not permanent.

    Bretton Woods lasted 27 years. So far, the petrodollar has lasted over 40 years. However, the glue is already starting to lose its stick.

    I think we’re on the cusp of another paradigm shift in the international financial system, a change at least as fundamental as the end of Bretton Woods in 1971.

    The relationship between Saudi Arabia and the US is near historic lows. I only expect it to get worse.

    The US government has released 28 previously classified pages of the 9/11 Commission Report, which show Saudi government involvement in the attacks. And Congress passed a law allowing 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government.

    These are major, unprecedented, irreparable blows to the petrodollar arrangement.

    Even without these radical changes, the petrodollar could still bite the dust…

    The Saudis could decide to sell their oil in Chinese renminbi, euros, IMF SDRs, gold, or many other non-dollar currencies. And they could influence most of OPEC to follow suit.

    Or the House of Saud could implode. I think that’s inevitable anyway, given the colossal economic and military mistakes it’s made recently.

    The geopolitical sands of the Middle East are rapidly shifting.

    Saudi Arabia’s regional position is weakening. Iran, which is notably not part of the petrodollar system, is on the rise. US military interventions are failing. And the emerging BRICS countries are creating potential alternatives to US-dominated economic/security arrangements. This all affects the stability of the petrodollar system.

    Right now, the stars are aligning against the Saudi kingdom. This is its most vulnerable moment since its 1932 founding.

    That’s why I think the death of the petrodollar system is the No. 1 black swan event for 2017.

    I expect the dollar price of gold to soar when the petrodollar system crumbles in the not-so-distant future. You don’t want to find yourself on the wrong side of history when that happens.

    When Nixon took the dollar off gold in 1971, it skyrocketed over 2,300%, from $35 an ounce to a high of $850 an ounce in 1980. Gold mining stocks did orders of magnitude better.

    I expect the returns to be at least this great after the end of the petrodollar.

    But that brings up another crucial point. There’s also likely to be severe inflation.

    The petrodollar system has allowed the US government and many Americans to live way beyond their means for decades.

    The US takes this unique position for granted. But it will disappear once the dollar loses its premier status.

    This will likely be the tipping point…

    Afterward, the US government will be desperate enough to implement capital controls, people controls, nationalization of retirement savings, and other forms of wealth confiscation.

    I urge you to prepare for the economic and sociopolitical fallout while you still can. Expect bigger government, less freedom, shrinking prosperity… and possibly worse.

    It’s probably not going to happen tomorrow. But it’s clear where the trend is headed.

    It is very possible that one day soon, Americans will wake up to a new reality, just as they did when Nixon severed the dollar’s last link to gold.

    Once the petrodollar system kicks the bucket and the dollar loses its status as the world’s premier reserve currency, you will have few, if any, options.

    The sad truth is, most people have no idea how bad things could get, let alone how to prepare…

    Yet there are straightforward steps you can start taking today to protect your savings and yourself from the financial and sociopolitical effects of the collapse of the petrodollar. This recently released video will show you where to begin. Click here to watch it now.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 18th February 2017

  • Who Really Rules The United States?

    Submitted by Matthew Continetti via FreeBeacon.com,

    How bureaucrats are fighting the voters for control of our country

    Donald Trump was elected president last November by winning 306 electoral votes. He pledged to "drain the swamp" in Washington, D.C., to overturn the system of politics that had left the nation's capital and major financial and tech centers flourishing but large swaths of the country mired in stagnation and decay. "What truly matters," he said in his Inaugural Address, "is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people."

    Is it? By any historical and constitutional standard, "the people" elected Donald Trump and endorsed his program of nation-state populist reform. Yet over the last few weeks America has been in the throes of an unprecedented revolt. Not of the people against the government—that happened last year—but of the government against the people. What this says about the state of American democracy, and what it portends for the future, is incredibly disturbing.

    There is, of course, the case of Michael Flynn. He made a lot of enemies inside the government during his career, suffice it to say. And when he exposed himself as vulnerable those enemies pounced. But consider the means: anonymous and possibly illegal leaks of private conversations. Yes, the conversation in question was with a foreign national. And no one doubts we spy on ambassadors. But we aren't supposed to spy on Americans without probable cause. And we most certainly are not supposed to disclose the results of our spying in the pages of the Washington Post because it suits a partisan or personal agenda.

    Here was a case of current and former national security officials using their position, their sources, and their methods to crush a political enemy. And no one but supporters of the president seems to be disturbed. Why? Because we are meant to believe that the mysterious, elusive, nefarious, and to date unproven connection between Donald Trump and the Kremlin is more important than the norms of intelligence and the decisions of the voters.

    But why should we believe that? And who elected these officials to make this judgment for us?

    Nor is Flynn the only example of nameless bureaucrats working to undermine and ultimately overturn the results of last year's election. According to the New York Times, civil servants at the EPA are lobbying Congress to reject Donald Trump's nominee to run the agency. Is it because Scott Pruitt lacks qualifications? No. Is it because he is ethically compromised? Sorry. The reason for the opposition is that Pruitt is a critic of the way the EPA was run during the presidency of Barack Obama. He has a policy difference with the men and women who are soon to be his employees. Up until, oh, this month, the normal course of action was for civil servants to follow the direction of the political appointees who serve as proxies for the elected president.

    How quaint. These days an architect of the overreaching and antidemocratic Waters of the U.S. regulation worries that her work will be overturned so she undertakes extraordinary means to defeat her potential boss. But a change in policy is a risk of democratic politics. Nowhere does it say in the Constitution that the decisions of government employees are to be unquestioned and preserved forever. Yet that is precisely the implication of this unprecedented protest. "I can't think of any other time when people in the bureaucracy have done this," a professor of government tells the paper. That sentence does not leave me feeling reassured.

    Opposition to this president takes many forms. Senate Democrats have slowed confirmations to the most sluggish pace since George Washington. Much of the New York and Beltway media does really function as a sort of opposition party, to the degree that reporters celebrated the sacking of Flynn as a partisan victory for journalism. Discontent manifests itself in direct actions such as the Women's March.

    But here's the difference. Legislative roadblocks, adversarial journalists, and public marches are typical of a constitutional democracy. They are spelled out in our founding documents: the Senate and its rules, and the rights to speech, a free press, and assembly. Where in those documents is it written that regulators have the right not to be questioned, opposed, overturned, or indeed fired, that intelligence analysts can just call up David Ignatius and spill the beans whenever they feel like it?

    The last few weeks have confirmed that there are two systems of government in the United States.

    The first is the system of government outlined in the U.S. Constitution—its checks, its balances, its dispersion of power, its protection of individual rights. Donald Trump was elected to serve four years as the chief executive of this system. Whether you like it or not.

     

    The second system is comprised of those elements not expressly addressed by the Founders. This is the permanent government, the so-called administrative state of bureaucracies, agencies, quasi-public organizations, and regulatory bodies and commissions, of rule-writers and the byzantine network of administrative law courts. This is the government of unelected judges with lifetime appointments who, far from comprising the "least dangerous branch," now presume to think they know more about America's national security interests than the man elected as commander in chief.

    For some time, especially during Democratic presidencies, the second system of government was able to live with the first one. But that time has ended. The two systems are now in competition. And the contest is all the more vicious and frightening because more than offices are at stake. This fight is not about policy. It is about wealth, status, the privileges of an exclusive class.

    "In our time, as in [Andrew] Jackson's, the ruling classes claim a monopoly not just on the economy and society but also on the legitimate authority to regulate and restrain it, and even on the language in which such matters are discussed," writes Christopher Caldwell in a brilliant essay in the Winter 2016/17 Claremont Review of Books.

    Elites have full-spectrum dominance of a whole semiotic system. What has just happened in American politics is outside the system of meanings elites usually rely upon. Mike Pence's neighbors on Tennyson street not only cannot accept their election loss; they cannot fathom it. They are reaching for their old prerogatives in much the way that recent amputees are said to feel an urge to scratch itches on limbs that are no longer there. Their instincts tell them to disbelieve what they rationally know. Their arguments have focused not on the new administration's policies or its competence but on its very legitimacy.

    Donald Trump did not cause the divergence between government of, by, and for the people and government, of, by, and for the residents of Cleveland Park and Arlington and Montgomery and Fairfax counties. But he did exacerbate it. He forced the winners of the global economy and the members of the D.C. establishment to reckon with the fact that they are resented, envied, opposed, and despised by about half the country. But this recognition did not humble the entrenched incumbents of the administrative state. It radicalized them to the point where they are readily accepting, even cheering on, the existence of a "deep state" beyond the control of the people and elected officials.

    Who rules the United States? The simple and terrible answer is we do not know. But we are about to find out.

  • Visualizing Gold's Value And Rarity

    Since Ancient times, Visual Capitalist's Jeff Desjardins explains, gold has served a very unique function in society.

    Gold is extremely rare, impossible to create out of “thin air”, easily identifiable, malleable, and it does not tarnish. By nature of these properties, gold has been highly valued throughout history for every tiny ounce of weight. That’s why it’s been used by people for centuries as a monetary metal, a symbol of wealth, and a store of value.

    Visualizing Gold’s Value and Rarity

    With all that value coming from such a small package, sometimes it is hard to put gold’s immense worth into context.

    The following 11 images help to capture this about gold, putting things into better perspective.

    1. The U.S. median income, as a gold cube, easily fits in the palm of your hand.

    U.S. Median Income as a Gold Cube

    2. A gold cube worth $1 million, has sides that are 2/3 the length of a typical banknote.

    One Million Dollars as a Gold Cube

    3. All gold used for electrical connections in the Columbia Space Shuttle would be worth $1.6 million today.

    All the Gold in the Columbia Space Shuttle in a Cube

    4. Trump’s entire fortune of $3.7 billion as a gold cube would be shorter than Trump himself.

    Donald Trump's fortune in a Gold Cube

    5. As a gold cube, the entire value of the Bitcoin market would fit in a hallway.

    The Bitcoin Market's Value as a Gold Cube

    6. The fortune of the richest man on Earth, Bill Gates, would take up a single traffic lane.

    Bill Gates' Wealth as a Gold Cube

    7. The world’s entire annual production of gold is just a 5.5m sided (18 ft) cube.

    Annual Gold Production a Gold Cube

    8. Take the 147.3 million oz of gold out of Fort Knox, and it’s only slightly bigger.

    All the Gold in Fort Knox Visualized as a Cube

    9. All gold held by the Central Banks pales in comparison to the Brandenburg Gate.

    The World's Central Banks Holdings as a Gold Cube

    10. All gold mined in human history is dwarfed by the Statue of Liberty.

    All Gold Mined in Human History Visualized as a Cube

    11. To pay off $63 trillion of global sovereign debt, you’d need a gold cube the size of a building.

    All Global Debt Visualized as a Gold Cube data-recalc-dims=

    Liked our visualizations of gold cubes? Check out this motion graphic video that shows how much money has been created by humans.

    The Money Project is an ongoing collaboration between Visual Capitalist and Texas Precious Metals that seeks to use intuitive visualizations to explore the origins, nature, and use of money.

  • The Great Wailing

    Authored by Bonner & Partners' Bill Bonner, annotated by Acting-Man's Pater Tenebrarum,

    Regret and Suffering

    BALTIMORE – Victoribus spolia

    So far, the most satisfying thing about the Trump win has been the howls and whines coming from the establishment. Each appointment – some good, some bad from our perspective – has brought forth such heavy lamentations.

     

    Oh no! Alaric the Visigoth is here! Hide the women and children! And don’t forget the vestal virgins, if you can find any…

     

    You’d think Washington had been invaded by Goths, now raping the vestal virgins (if there are any within the Beltway) on the White House lawns while the Capitol burns to the ground.

    Trump is happening, of course. And the very people who made it happen are now in various stages of regret…  suffering… or hysteria. What a delight it is to see them in such pain!

    All along I-95 – from the Holland Tunnel to Route 295 into the heart of D.C., at a distance of a football field between one and another – you see their fabled leaders, lieutenants, and water carriers crucified, with a small crowd gathered around each, weeping.

    There is Hillary, of course. And Senator Elizabeth Warren (secretly happy to see HRC brought to grief). Then there’s Nobel Prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. If there is another 9/11 crisis with Trump in charge, he warns: “America as we know it will soon be gone.”

    There are the Republican traitors, too – Colin Powell, Henry Paulson, Michael Chertoff – now hanging from their crosses. And there are the neo-con turncoats, too – Max Boot, Robert Kagan… Crucifixion is probably too good for them.

    They are not only traitors to the Republican cause, whatever that may be, but warmongers, too, ready to switch allegiances just to keep the money flowing to their crony friends in the security industry. Now they all keen away – but what did they expect?

     

    A random collection of establishment figures, shills, chicken hawks & frauds from the entire officially approved political spectrum. Whatever one thinks of Trump, the fact that he makes this seemingly diverse collection of welfare-warfare etatistes squirm in agony is deeply satisfying…

     

    Had they not been lustily ripping off the working stiffs for decades? With their fake money and fake wars, they had transferred trillions of dollars from the Main Street economy into their own pockets. And then, after the grandest larceny in all of history, didn’t they lecture the poor victims on global warming, racism, and cisgender issues?

    Had they not been so rapacious and sanctimonious, they might have their own egregious gal in the White House now! Instead, the country is run by a man they consider an outrageous jackass. Sniff… sniff… We feel so sorry for them.

     

    “Great Disruptor”

    But where does that leave us? It leaves us with the hero of 2016, too – the man who routed all those hopeless whiners. And it leaves us with the same swamp…  the same swamp critters pulling strings and hatching plans and the same fake wars – on the real economy, on terror, on poverty, and on drugs.

    So far, the losers are crying – all the way to the bank. Donald Trump is a “great disruptor,” says the press. What exactly will he disrupt? If Mr. Trump is to “make America great again,” he must do more than make the insiders mad. He must make them pay.

    We saw what destroyed the Soviet Union’s empire: win-lose deals. The nomenklatura, the insiders, the Communist Party hacks all made out well – for a time. Meanwhile, the average person suffered. His income fell in line with his liberty. Naturally, a lot of people didn’t like it.

    Stalin had to use drastic measures to keep the losers in check. Between 1936 and 1937, his secret police, the NKVD, arrested 1.5 million people. They shot 600,000 – a rate of about 1,000 a day.

     

    Unfortunately only this one grainy photograph (and variants thereof) of the event depicted above exists, but it captured a historic moment. It was taken in Moscow in 1934, at the 17th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Steelworkers from Tula had given Stalin a Mosin-Nagant rifle as a gift. He immediately began aiming it at assorted party colleagues attending the Congress, to much laughter, hooting and applause. If only they had known – he wasn’t joking, he was simply giving them a none too subtle hint as to what was coming next. Of the 1225 voting delegates at the Congress, less than half were still alive five years later – and as a rule, they didn’t die of old age. Of the 139 comrades voted into the party’s Central Committee on the day this picture was taken, less than one quarter died of natural causes. At least 98 of them were killed on Stalin’s direct orders. In short, 1934 was an exceptionally bad year for Communist apparatchiks in the Soviet Union to advance in their political career…

    Photo via pikabu.ru

     

    By 1953, there were 5 million people in Gulags, or “internal exile,” in Siberia. Whole groups were exterminated, including poets, writers, scientists, and 85% of the Russian Orthodox clergy.

    Meanwhile, win-win deals – voluntary exchanges – were practically outlawed. And without them, the system became so pathetic and unproductive, even the elite gave up trying to get anything out of it.

     

    Moneymen and Gunmen

    Now we know why America’s middle class suffers, too – not on the same scale, but for the same basic reason. Too many win-lose deals were imposed on them by the Parasitocrats, the insiders – the same people who now loathe the president they so richly deserve.

    Household income in the U.S. is now lower than it was at the end of the last century. In the year 2000, the typical household had an income of $58,574. Today, it is only $57,827.

    So now we know what Mr. Trump must do: reduce the number of win-lose deals to make room for more win-win deals. It is that simple. But doing so isn’t simple. The swamp critters – the insiders and Parasitocrats who control and profit from government regulations and legislation – are behind the win-lose deals. They’ll fight to protect them.

     

    Republican U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at the Treasure Island Hotel Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada June 18, 2016.

    Is swamp drainage achievable and will the man with the plan be up to it? It is usually best to keep one’s expectations modest – as long as the Donald keeps delivering in the entertainment department and doesn’t start any useless wars, we will be by and large content…

    Photo credit: David Becker / Reuters

     

    We’ve seen, too, that the deals fit into three main categories: entitlements, the military-industrial-security complex, and Wall Street. As for the first, the Republicans have promised to overhaul Obamacare. But the president has sent mixed messages.

    He also pledged to not cut entitlements. And when asked how he would pay for them, he answered that he knows “where to get the money from” and “nobody else knows.”

    More than likely, the new president will be unable or unwilling to make any substantial dent in spending on pensions, pills, or schools. There are simply too many crony swamp critters and zombie voters on the receiving end. Besides, they are not completely lose-lose programs. Overpriced and inefficient they may be. Still, ordinary people do get some real benefits from them.

    That leaves the two biggies: the military-industrial-security complex and Wall Street. Thus do the clouds lift and the picture clarifies. Trump and his team must try to rein in the gunmen and the moneymen, or they are nothing but conmen.

     

  • Norway Central Banker Warns Of Massive 50% Drop In Wealth Fund Assets To Cover Budget Deficits

    Back in August, we noted that, for the first time since it’s creation in 1996, the Norwegian government had started raiding its sovereign wealth fund in 2016 to cover government deficits.  Then in October the Nordic country revealed plans to massively increase withdrawals by over 25% in 2017, to $15 billion, to cover a budget hole that was expected to be roughly 8% of GDP. 

    That said, Norway’s ultimate GDP potential, and therefore budget deficits, are heavily dependent on oil prices so any further weakening of crude could result in even more withdrawals.  Moreover, given the substantial YoY increase, it’s important to recall that there are fiscal limits imposed on fund withdrawals equal to 4% of assets, or roughly $36 billion, which could come into play at some point in the future if oil prices remain “lower for longer.”

    Norway

     

    Of course the withdrawals accelerated just as the heavily oil-dependent economy of Norway started to absorb the impact of lower oil prices.

    Norway

     

    And what do you do when you depend on portfolio returns to fund everyday living expenses but are faced with extremely low returns courtesy of artificially depressed international bond yields?  Well, you just buy more equities, of course.  Which, as we noted back in December, was exactly the motivation behind a decision to increase the fund’s equity allocation from 60%, to a staggering 75%, all while funneling another $130 billion to the global equity bubble.

    The central bank’s board, which oversees the fund, on Thursday recommended an increase in the equity share to 75 percent from 60 percent. That will raise the expected average annual real return to 2.5 percent over 10 years and to 3.5 percent over 30 years, compared with 2.1 percent and 2.6 percent, respectively, under the current setup.

     

    The world’s largest sovereign wealth fund said that it expects an annual return of only 0.25 percent on bonds over the next decade and that the expected “equity risk premium,” or return on stocks over government bonds, will be just 3 percentage points in a cautious estimate.

     

    “In our analyses, this is clearly evident in global data: internationally, growth in firms’ cash flows and equity returns are correlated with growth in the global economy,” Deputy Governor Egil Matsen said in a speech Thursday in Oslo. “Global economic growth in the coming years is expected to be below its historical level. This ‘pessimism’ is partly related to the driving forces behind the low level of the real interest rate.”

    But despite their best efforts to protect the principle balance of Norway’s sovereign wealth fund through statutory spending caps and buying more and more equities, Norway’s central bank governor Oystein Olsen warned earlier today that increasing reliance on the fund to cover budget deficits could result in a “sharp reduction” in the fund’s capital over the next 10 years.  Per Bloomberg:

    Governor Oystein Olsen said that the continued rise in oil cash spending, which now accounts for about 20 percent of the budget and 8 percent of gross domestic product, must now be halted to protect the $900 billion fund, the world’s largest sovereign pool of cash.

     

    “With a high level of oil revenue spending, there’s a risk of a sharp reduction in the fund’s capital,” Olsen said in the traditional Annual Address in Oslo Thursday. “This could, for example, happen if a global recession triggers both a decline in oil revenue and low or negative returns on the fund’s capital.”

    In fact, in some of the more dire scenarios, Olsen warned that 50% of the fund’s $900 billion in assets could be wiped out over the next 10 years in the event of a global recession that kept oil prices low while also driving equity valuations down.

    While the fund, which is overseen by the central bank, so far has said it’s more than able to handle outflows without selling assets, Olsen’s speech did lift the lid to reveal some of the worst case scenarios being calculated by the investor.

     

    For example, it sees a 1 percent chance of a 50 percent decline over 10 years if spending is kept at the current level of about 3 percent of the fund. If spending is raised to 4 percent that probability rises to about 5 percent. If the fund’s allocation to stocks is boosted to 75 percent from 60 percent, which is currently being discussed, the probabilities rise even further to about 2 percent and 6 percent, respectively.

     

    “This shows what you may risk if you increase oil spending from today’s level,” Olsen said in a separate interview. “This helps us to strengthen the message.”

     

    “It must be recognized, however, that the longer-term challenges facing the the Norwegian economy can’t be resolved by spending more oil revenue and keeping interest rates low,” he said in the speech, arguing the Norwegian economy needs more legs to stand on.

    That said, we wouldn’t be too worried because equity prices never go down, right?  Silly Central Banker…

  • The Washington Post Actually Takes Russian Government Money (Unlike The Websites It Helped Slander)

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    Earlier this week, Tucker Carlson interviewed the Washington Post’s Erik Wemple and brought up the fact that the paper regularly receives money from the Russian government to publish propaganda known as “native advertising” within the contents of the newspaper. This was news to me.

    Here’s the clip.

    As you heard, the paid Russian propaganda sections are known as “Russia: Beyond the Headlines.” The earliest article I found about it was published in Slate back in 2007 in the piece, Hail to the Return of Motherland-Protecting Propaganda! 

    Here are a few excerpts:

    Soviet propaganda hit the skids during the Gorbachev era, and as the empire broke up, its propaganda essentially vanished. But the heavy-handed purveyors of party-line orthodoxy and nationalist cant have returned with the rise of President Vladimir Putin, and a demonstration of this lost art’s resurgence can be found in a 10-page advertising supplement to today’s (Aug. 30) Washington Post, titled “Russia: Beyond the Headlines.” (It can also be viewed on the newspaper’s Web site.)

     

    Produced by Rossiyskaya Gazeta, the official Russian government newspaper, the section mimics the look and feel of a hometown paper, with news, an op-edsection, a sports feature (Maria Sharapova), two business pages, an entertainment page, and even a recipe for “Salad Oliver.” But beneath the shattered syntax of these laughable pieces beats the bloody red heart of the tone-deaf Soviet propagandist.

     

    On the opinion page, we learn in “Dog-Walking – a Gateway to Wisdom” that Vladimir Putin likes Labradors and takes Connie, his Lab, with him to televised events. “Russia’s citizens like Putin, and that’s probably why there are a fair number of Labradors on my neighborhood streets,” the writer states. All glory to Labrador-loving Comrade Putin and his patriotic walking-dog, Connie!

    Now check out the following excerpts from a 2015 article on the topic from The Daily Caller titled, China, Russia Pay Washington Post To Publish Their Propaganda:

    Chinese and Russian propaganda supplements are regularly included in The Washington Post, but the widely read newspaper won’t say how much money it gets on the deals.

     

    China Watch – a China Daily publication – and Russia Beyond The Headlines – a Rossiyskaya Gazeta publication – have both appeared in the Post for years as paid advertising supplements. Both foreign periodicals are owned and operated by their respective governments.

     

    The Russia Beyond The Headlines material has appeared in other major news papers, including The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.

    I find all of this extremely interesting, as well as disturbingly dishonest and hypocritical, considering that The Washington Post itself played a major role in falsely claiming that 200 websites (including this one), were somehow doing the bidding of Vladimir Putin.

    As I discussed in last year’s post, Liberty Blitzkrieg Included on Washington Post Highlighted Hit List of “Russian Propaganda” Websites:

    What’s particularly interesting about this list, isn’t the fact that a bunch of anonymous whiners decided to demonize successful critics of insane, inhumane and ethically indefensible U.S. government policy, but rather the fact that the Washington Post decided to craft an entire article around such a laughably ridiculous list. This just further proves a point that is rapidly becoming common knowledge amongst U.S. citizens with more than a couple of brain cells to rub together. The mainstream media is the real “fake news.”

     

    Let’s take Liberty Blitzkrieg for example. Despite the fact that my site is mentioned on “the list,” nobody from PropOrNot bothered to contact me while doing their “research.” They could’ve asked very simple questions about how the site is run, who owns it, and who makes decisions about editorial content. Furthermore, I doubt they did any such research with regard to any of the mentioned sites before slandering them.

     

    Since they failed to do any real work, let me answer several of these questions. I, Michael Krieger, am the 100% owner of Liberty Blitzkrieg. I am the only person who makes decisions on what to publish and when. I have absolutely no connections, financial or otherwise, to the Russian government, Russian interests, or the interests of any other government or government related group. Moreover, there is simply nobody on planet earth who has any influence on what I write or what I publish. I left a very successful and financially lucrative job to do what I do now because my passions and ethical grounding pushed me in this direction. If I was interested in making enormous sums of money, I could’ve easily stayed on Wall Street.

     

    Moreover, I rarely write about Russia, with the exception of trying to prevent insane neocons and neoliberals in our government from actively seeking a military confrontation, because I — like most normal human beings — would prefer not to contribute to the manifestation of World War 3. Likewise, I try to prevent war breaking out in all circumstances where I think it can and should be avoided. I intentionally almost never use RT as a source, and I’ve never quoted anything from Sputnik. Unlike The Washington Post, I try to be extremely diligent about not publishing fake news, but I am a very strong critic of U.S. government policy, because much of U.S. government policy is certifiably insane and unethical. You can disagree with my opinion on that all you’d like, but I challenge anyone to find anything that could reasonably be considered pro-Russia propaganda on my website. If Liberty Blitzkrieg really is a Russian propaganda site, this should be easy to do since I’ve published thousands of articles over the years.

    The fact that The Washington Post would give credibility to a obviously ridiculous organization with an entirely invented list of “Russian propaganda websites,” knowing all the while that they themselves were the ones taking Russian government money is the height of hypocrisy, dishonesty and deceitful journalism. Once again proving the obvious point: The mainstream media is the real fake news. 

    Finally, if you want to help us in the struggle between real, independent media and fake, billionaire-owned mainstream propaganda press, consider visiting our Support Page.

  • Kyrgyzstan's Central Bank Urges Citizens To Own Gold

    "Gold can be stored for a long time and, despite the price fluctuations on international markets, it doesn’t lose its value for the population as a means of savings," Kyrgyzstan’s Central Bank Governor Tolkunbek Abdygulov said, "I’ll try to turn the dream into reality faster."

    A landlocked nation perched between China and Kazakhstan is embarking on an experiment with little parallel worldwide: shifting savings from cattle to gold. As Bloomberg reports,

    One of the first post-Soviet republics to adopt a new currency and let it trade freely, Kyrgyzstan’s central bank wants every citizen to diversify into gold. Governor Tolkunbek Abdygulov says his “dream” is for every one of the 6 million citizens to own at least 100 grams (3.5 ounces) of the precious metal, the Central Asian country’s biggest export.

     

    In the two years that the central bank has offered bars directly to the population, about 140 kilograms of bullion have been sold, Abdygulov, 40, said by phone from the capital, Bishkek.

     

    “We are hopeful that our country’s population will learn to diversify its savings into assets that are more liquid and — more importantly — capable of retaining their value,” he said. In rural areas, cattle is still the asset of choice for investors and savers, according to Abdygulov.

     

    What makes Kyrgyzstan unique is the central bank’s effort to win converts by providing infrastructure for safe-keeping and investment. The central bank produces bars of different sizes, varying in weight from 1 to 100 grams.

     

    The central bank governor believes his plan is realistic, even though it means the population would own about 600 tons of gold, equivalent to 30 times the nation’s current annual output. Abdygulov declined to specify the timeframe for when his goal of 100 grams per person can be met.

     

     

    “For Kyrgyzstan, gold is an alternative instrument of investment,” Abdygulov said. “The National Bank has ensured liquidity for gold — we aren’t only selling, but also buying back gold bars that we produced and sold.”

    These somewhat blasphemous words from a central banker echo the thoughts of no lesser elite than Alan Greenspan

    TETT: Do you think that gold is currently a good investment?

    GREENSPAN: Yes… Remember what we're looking at. Gold is a currency. It is still, by all evidence, a premier currency. No fiat currency, including the dollar, can macth it.

    GREENSPAN: …remember, we had that first tapering discussion, we got a very strong market response. And then we reassured everybody to have no — remember, tapering is still (audio gap) of an agreement that the central banks have made — European central banks, I believe — about allocating their gold sales which occurred when gold prices were falling down (audio gap) has been renewed this year with a statement that gold serves a very important place in monetary reserves.

    And the question is, why do central banks put money into an asset which has no rate of return, but cost of storage and insurance and everything else like that, why are they doing that? If you look at the data with a very few exceptions, all of the developed countries have gold reserves. Why?

    TETT: I imagine right now, it's because of a question mark hanging over the value of fiat currency, the credibility going forward.

    GREENSPAN: Well, that's what I'm getting at. Every time you get some really serious questions, the 50 percent of the gold price determination begins to move.

    TETT: Right.

    GREENSPAN: And I think it is fascinating and — I don't know, is Benn Steil in the audience?

    TETT: Yes.

    GREENSPAN: There he is, OK. Before you read my book, go read Benn's book. The reason is, you'll find it fascinating on exactly this issue, because here you have the ultimate test at the Mount Washington Hotel in 1944 of the real intellectual debate between the — those who wanted to an international fiat currency which was embodied in John Maynard Keynes' construct of a banker, and he was there in 1944, holding forth with all of his prestige, but couldn't counter the fact that the United States dollar was convertible into gold and that was the major draw. Everyone wanted America's gold. And I think that Benn really described that in extraordinarily useful terms, as far as I can see. Anyway, thank you.

    TETT: Right. Well, I'm sure with comments like that, that will be turning you into a rock star amongst the gold bug community.

    *  *  *

    Of course, as a reminder, here is Ben Bernanke putting people straight on Gold…

  • Why President Trump Does Not Tweet About Automation

    Via 13D Research (13D.com),

    "Fully automated trucks could put half of America’s truckers out of a job within a decade…"

    A widely circulated NPR graphic shows “truck driver” was the most common job in more than half of the U.S. states in 2014?—?in part because how the Bureau of Labor Statistics sorts common jobs, such as educators, into small groups. Indeed, truck driving is one of the last jobs standing that affords good pay (median salary for tractor-trailer drivers, $40,206) and does not require a college degree. According to the American Trucking Association, there are 3.5 million professional truck drivers in the U.S. Entire businesses (think restaurants and motels) and hundreds of small communities, supporting an additional 5.2 million people, have been built around serving truckers crisscrossing the nation. That’s 8.7 million trucking-related jobs. It also represents one of Trump’s most important voting blocs?—?working-class men.

    But like many of the blue-collar jobs the President promised to save during his campaign, the future of these 3.5 million trucking jobs is less than certain. Fully automated trucks could put half of America’s truckers out of a job within a decade, The Los Angeles Times reported last year. This isn’t an imagined future. It’s already happening. Otto, an automated trucking company acquired by Uber, made a delivery of beer last year and has been approved to travel two routes in Ohio.

    Last year, Noel Perry, an analyst at industry research firm FTR Transportation Intelligence, told The International Business Times: “Despite a shortage in high-quality drivers, pay hasn’t gone up in five years. Trucks are easier to drive.” So-called “soft-automation” features, like automatic braking and lane assist, mean the trucks can already be driven by less experienced operators commanding smaller salaries. Even ahead of automation, the profession is losing traction. Perry’s final remark to IBT strikes to the heart of the matter?—?“The free market produces jobs, the government doesn’t.”

    Drivers reportedly account for about one third of the cost in the trucking industry. Ostensibly, there isn’t much a president?—?even one as untraditional as Trump?—?can do to stop a company from making more money. Or is there? Which begs the question: How will automation, employment, productivity and Trump co-exist?

    A few days after Trump “saved” 750 jobs at Carrier, Greg Hayes, CEO of Carrier’s parent firm, United Technologies, admitted that automation would eventually win out. During a CNBC interview with Jim Cramer, Hayes revealed: “We’re going to make a $16 million investment in the factory in Indianapolis to automate to drive down costs so that we can continue to be competitive. . .But what that ultimately means is there will be fewer jobs.

    Thomas H. Davenport, professor in management and information technology at Babson College, opined recently for The Harvard Business Review:

    “Trump knows virtually nothing about technology?—?other than a smartphone, he doesn’t use it much. And the industries he’s worked in?—?construction, real estate, hotels, and resorts?—?are among the least sophisticated in their use of information technology. So he’s not well equipped to understand the dynamics of automation-driven job loss.

     

    “. . .The Art of the Deal’s author clearly has a penchant for sparring with opponents in highly visible negotiations. But automation-related job loss is difficult to negotiate about. It’s the silent killer of human labor, eliminating job after job over a period of time. Jobs often disappear through attrition. There are no visible plant closings to respond to, no press releases by foreign rivals to counter. It’s a complex subject that doesn’t lend itself to TV sound bites or tweets.

     

    To be fair, it’s not just Trump who finds this a difficult enemy to battle; other politicians don’t engage with that much either. And there are several good reasons. . . One is that automation usually comes with corporate investment rather than cutbacks. Note that United Technologies announced a $16 million investment in the Indiana Carrier plant. Who wants to criticize that?”

    As we have written, Trump’s number one priority is to get re-elected. To do so, he will have to keep the 8.7 million men and women in the trucking sector employed. At the same time, he has pledged to encourage foreign investment in the U.S. and to attract U.S. companies back to American soil, all with an eye to creating more jobs for Americans. To remain competitive, these companies will have to improve productivity, and the shortest path to increased productivity, is automation. But, even with vigorous training, the vast majority of America’s working middle-class, like the 3.5 million truckers who voted largely for Trump, cannot transition easily into the types of job created by automation?—?engineering, integration, IT.

    Therein lies the dilemma facing America, and much of the developed and the developing world. The economy needs more productivity growth, not less. But it also needs to create jobs. Any politician who wants to appeal to the business community will be reluctant to provoke a war against automation. But, he cannot afford to see his key voter bloc displaced.

    All of which begs the question: How can Trump insulate the status quo from the disruptive forces of automation and technology? Will he tweet to the perception or the underlying reality?

  • Democrats Question Trump's Sanity, Blasted For "Weaponizing Mental Health"

    The desperation is becoming grotesque as the left's inability to move through the stages of grief is ever more evident.

    In the latest farcical attempt to create a narrative, as The Hill reports, a growing number of Democrats are openly questioning President Trump’s mental health.

    Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) in a floor speech this week called for a review of the Constitution's procedures for removing a president. He warned the 25th Amendment of the Constitution falls short when it comes to mental or emotional fitness for office.

     

    Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) during a weekend interview with CNN’s “State of the Union” said that “a few” Republican colleagues have expressed concern to him about Trump's mental health.

     

     

    And Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) plans to introduce legislation that would require the presence of a psychiatrist or psychologist in the White House.

    The Democrats justify their questions by pointing to Trump’s habit of making demonstrably false claims.

    “It’s not normal behavior. I don’t know anybody in a position of responsibility that doesn’t know if they’re being rained on. And nobody I work with serially offers up verifiably false statements on an ongoing basis,”

    So not hapy with dividing the nation by sex (all of them), race, wealth, and clothing manufacturer, The Democrats have decided to pray on mental health, which has invited criticism that they have gone too far…

    “It’s divisive. The bottom line is, if Trump doesn’t succeed, we all fail. It’s time to give the guy a chance,” said Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.).

    Reps. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) and Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) both burst out laughing when told some Democratic colleagues were questioning Trump’s mental health.

    “Are you serious?” Hunter asked. “Yeah, I don’t care what they say.”

    “I think that’s a stretch,” Simpson said.

    Furthermore, mental health professionals say the politicization comes at a cost. Political actors suggesting an opponent has psychological problems risks stigmatizing people with actual mental illnesses, they say.

    “I think the politicization is troubling,” said Joshua Miller, a psychologist at the University of Georgia whose research focuses on pathological personality traits and personality disorders.

     

    “We certainly wouldn’t want individuals to use mental illness as a weapon to harm others.”

    Still when all you have an identity-politics hammer, every feeling-hurting problem is a nail.

    Perhaps the Democrats should remember that, as Judge Jeanine notes, "the American people voted for Trump because he made sense to them…"

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  • California City Erects 'Prison Camp' To Deal With Homeless

    There are two major problems that come to mind, explains SHTFPlan.com's Mac Slavo; first, the level of homelessness, poverty and idle populations in California and across the country, and second, the divided world between the 1% and the struggling 99% is coming to a head.

    Economically, things are very close to the brink, and there are far too many people who’ve given up at the individual level. This crisis has given the impetus for cities like Santa Ana to take drastic action.

     

    The other side of the coin, is that if they can do this to homeless vagrants, and out of work families, they can do it to anyone. If civil unrest comes, perhaps in combination with mass unemployment, a crashed stock market and monetary system and great misery, those keeping society in check will feel compelled to come down with a heavy hand. People will be rounded up, some of them unfairly. Entire communities can be disrupted, or forced under an emergency to evacuate and take shelter in FEMA centers while the cities become off limits. There are a lot of things that can happen – including to hard working, employment, head-above-water American families.

     

    When this thing starts to unravel, making do in the current atmosphere won’t cut it; in the aftermath of what is coming, many people will be desperate. Tent cities and migrating Americans looking for temporary work will return; millions more will flock to government welfare programs, and be dragged into the dregs of collectivist measure to ride out bad times. They are moving to sweep up the disarray of a society that is crumbling, and a financial landscape that is no longer survivable for a wide sector of the general population.

    City Erects Prison Camp To Deal With Homeless – Cutting Off Food And Water

    Authored by The Free Thought Project's Matt Agorist,

    The City of Santa Ana has come up with an innovative and despotic way of keeping their homeless population in check — imprison them. The city is now party to a federal lawsuit over unreasonable seizure, false imprisonment, and due process violations.

    Heading up the lawsuit on behalf of Michael Diehl, who has lived at the encampment for three years, is the ACLU of Southern California. The lawsuit demands the immediate removal of the 6-foot-tall chain-link fences penning in 75-100 people and their belongings.

    “Defendants’ actions have not only illegally restricted the liberty of the homeless people living in the encampment, but it has also cut them off from access to food, water, and medical care thus threatening their health and well-being,” the lawsuit states.

    According to Courthouse News:

    Diehl was shot in the head at a Tustin convenience store in 2009. He lost his right eye and doctors were unable to remove the bullet from his head. He takes medication every day to control seizures that have become more frequent with the increased presence of authorities at the encampment, he says in the complaint.

     

    When a woman suffered a seizure at the encampment after the fence was erected, Diehl says, paramedics had difficulty reaching her because the barriers have blocked parts of the sidewalks at Chapman Avenue and Orangewood Avenue where people used to come and go.

     

    If people living at the encampment cut holes in the fences with bolt cutters, Orange County Public Works employees repair it. For the elderly and disabled it is neither safe nor realistic to scale the fence or navigate the river to get to a steep, rocky embankment on the river’s west side, Diehl says.

    “Children, people with severe disabilities, the elderly and others are deprived of food, water and access to restrooms,” said ACLU homelessness policy analyst Eve Garrow. “The county should take action to rectify this egregious violation of basic human rights.”

    Naturally, the county is claiming that they are not doing anything wrong and that the fence, put in place after the homeless community began growing there, is for ‘flood control.’

    “The county is aware that there are homeless encampments in the project area. Flood control channels are not a safe place to live. Sign postings and in-person notifications about the project have been provided to those encamped along the county maintenance road,” the county said in a statement.

    However, according to Diehl and the others who are imprisoned in the camp, police told them that they should move there to avoid citations for sleeping in public in the other parts of town.

    What this case in Santa Ana illustrates is the state’s continued war on the right of people to exist. Every time a group homeless community finds a safe spot, located out of the way, they are targeted for removal, or, in this barbaric case — imprisonment.

    Earlier this month, the Free Thought Project reported on another war being waged against the homeless population in California. Known as ‘The Promised Land,’ a group of homeless people in Oakland sought to improve their situation by creating a camp that would foster sobriety and help people to get jobs. It was located out of the way, under a series of overpasses. They had running water, were growing their own food, and did not allow drug or alcohol use within the camp.

    As cops and officials allowed the other heroin riddled encampments to continue, they targeted The Promised Land for destruction. 

    Diehl now seeks an injunction ordering the county to provide him with “reasonable means of leaving the riverbed and being able to retrieve his property.”

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 17th February 2017

  • The Swamp Strikes Back

    Authored by Pepe Escobar, originally posted at SputnikNews.com,

    The tawdry Michael Flynn soap opera boils down to the CIA hemorrhaging leaks to the company town newspaper, leading to the desired endgame: a resounding victory for hardcore neocon/neoliberalcon US Deep State factions in one particular battle. But the war is not over; in fact it’s just beginning.

    Even before Flynn’s fall, Russian analysts had been avidly discussing whether President Trump is the new Victor Yanukovich – who failed to stop a color revolution at his doorstep. The Made in USA color revolution by the axis of Deep State neocons, Democratic neoliberalcons and corporate media will be pursued, relentlessly, 24/7. But more than Yanukovich, Trump might actually be remixing Little Helmsman Deng Xiaoping: “crossing the river while feeling the stones”. Rather, crossing the swamp while feeling the crocs.

    Flynn out may be interpreted as a Trump tactical retreat. After all Flynn may be back – in the shade, much as Roger Stone. If current deputy national security advisor K T McFarland gets the top job – which is what powerful Trump backers are aiming at – the shadowplay Kissinger balance of power, in its 21st century remix, is even strengthened; after all McFarland is a Kissinger asset.

    This call won’t self-destruct in five seconds

    Flynn worked with Special Forces; was head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA); handled highly classified top secret information 24/7. He obviously knew all his conversations on an open, unsecure line were monitored. So he had to have morphed into a compound incarnation of the Three Stooges had he positioned himself to be blackmailed by Moscow.

    What Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak certainly discussed was cooperation in the fight against ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, and what Moscow might expect in return: the lifting of sanctions. US corporate media didn’t even flinch when US intel admitted they have a transcript of the multiple phone calls between Flynn and Kislyak. So why not release them? Imagine the inter-galactic scandal if these calls were about Russian intel monitoring the US ambassador in Moscow.

    No one paid attention to the two key passages conveniently buried in the middle of this US corporate media story. 1) “The intelligence official said there had been no finding inside the government that Flynn did anything illegal.” 2) “…the situation became unsustainable – not because of any issue of being compromised by Russia – but because he [Flynn] has lied to the president and the vice president.”

    Recap: nothing illegal; and Flynn not compromised by Russia. The “crime” – according to Deep State factions: talking to a Russian diplomat.

    Vice-President Mike Pence is a key piece in the puzzle; after all his major role is as insider guarantor – at the heart of the Trump administration – of neocon Deep State interests. The CIA did leak. The CIA most certainly has been spying on all Trump operatives. Flynn though fell on his own sword. Classic hubris; his fatal mistake was to strategize by himself – even before he became national security advisor. “Mad Dog” Mattis, T. Rex Tillerson – both, by the way, very close to Kissinger – and most of all Pence did not like it one bit once they were informed.

    A “man of very limited abilities”

    Flynn was already compromised by his embarrassingly misinformed book co-written with neocon Michael Ledeen, as well as his juvenile Iranophobia. At the same time, Flynn was the point man to what would have been a real game-changer; to place the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff under White House control.

    A highly informed US source I previously called “X”, who detailed to Sputnik how the Trump presidency will play out, is adamant “this decision makes Trump look independent. It is all going according to script.”

    “X” stresses how “the NSA can penetrate any telephone system in the world that is not secure. Flynn was a man of very limited abilities who talked too much. You never hear from the real powers in intelligence nor do you know their names. You can see that in Flynn’s approach to Iran. He was disrupting a peace deal in the Middle East relating to Russia, Iran and Turkey in Syria. So he had to go.”

    “X” adds, “the Russians are not stupid to talk among themselves on unsecured lines, they assumed that Flynn controlled his own lines. Flynn was removed not because of his Russian calls but for other reasons, some of which have to do with Iran and the Middle East. He was a loose cannon even from the intelligence perspective. This is a case of misdirection away from the true cause.”

    In direct opposition to “X”, an analytical strand now rules there’s blood on the tracks; the hyenas are circling; a vulnerable Trump has lost his mojo; and he also lost his foreign policy. Not yet.

    In the Grand Chessboard, what Flynn’s fall spells out is just a pawn out of the game because the King would not protect him. We will only know for sure “draining the swamp” – the foreign policy section – is doomed if neocons and neoliberalcons continue to run riot; if neoliberalcons are not fully exposed in their complicity in the rise of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh; and if the much vaunted possibility of a détente with Russia flounders for good.

    What’s certain is that the fratricide war between the Trump administration and the most powerful Deep State factions will be beyond vicious. Team Trump only stands a chance if they are able to weaponize allies from within the Deep State. As it stands, concerning the Kissinger grand design of trying to break the Eurasian “threat” to the unipolar moment, Iran is momentarily relieved; Russia harbors no illusions; and China knows for sure that the China-Russia strategic partnership will become even stronger. Advantage swamp.

  • In Fiery, "Surreal" Press Conference, Trump Launches War On The Media

    President Trump blasted the "out of control" dishonesty of the mainstream media during a Thursday press conference, accusing reporters of distorting facts to help special interests.

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    At the start of a nearly two-hour announcement, which was meant to introduce the new pick for Secretary of Labor, Alexander Acosta and promptly turned into a fiery, at times rambling back and forth with members of the press more reminiscent of his campaign speeches, which covered leaks to the media, Russian relations, immigration policy, the final fate of ObamaCare and a multitude of other subjects, President Trump rejected portrayals of chaos in his administration and claimed "incredible" progress in his first four weeks in office, lashing out at media organizations he said "will not tell you the truth."

     "I'm not ranting and raving, I'm just telling you you're dishonest people," Trump told the press. 

    Trump opened the speech with what Bloomberg dubbed a 25-minute tirade in which he pointed to the stock market’s performance as evidence of his early accomplishments and said news organizations work "for the special interests and for those profiting off a very, very broken system." He mentioned that a Rasmussen poll found that he had 55 percent approval – Gallup’s most recent tracking poll found he had 40 percent support — and said "the stock market has hit record numbers, as you know."

    "I’m here today to update the American people on the incredible progress that’s been made the last four weeks since my inauguration," Trump said. "I see stories of chaos. It’s the exact opposite. This administration is running like a fine-tuned machine."  "There’s zero chaos" he claimed, and pivoted to Obama: "To be honest I inherited a mess," Trump said. "It’s a mess. At home and abroad."

    The president then launched into a laundry list of issues on which he has claimed victories and progress, including border security, combating the Islamic State, job creation and a reduction of government regulation.

    “In each of these actions I'm keeping my promises to the American people. These are campaign promises,” Trump said. He said the steps he’s taken in the four weeks since he was sworn in should surprise nobody, especially in the media.

    But the highlight was his all out attack on the press :

    “I'm making this presentation directly to the American people with the media present, which is an honor to have you, this morning, because many of our nation's reporters and folks will not tell you the truth. And will not treat the wonderful people of our country with the respect that they deserve."

     

    "Many of our nation's reporters and folks will not tell you the truth and will not treat you with the respect you deserve"

     

    "Much of the media in Washington, D.C., along with New York, Los Angeles in particular, speaks for the special interests and for those profiting off the obviously very, very broken system.

     

    “The press has become so dishonest that if we don't talk about it we are doing a tremendous disservice to the American people. Tremendous disservice. We have to talk about it. We have to find out what's going on because the press honestly is out of control."

     

    “In other words, the media is trying to attack our administration because they know we are following through on pledges that we made, and they are not happy about it, for whatever reason. But a lot of people are happy about it.”

    There was much more, including some of the key exchanges with the members of the press corps:

    • He warned that bad relations with Russia could result in nuclear war, as a way of explaining his attempt to remake relations with President Vladimir Putin. “Nuclear holocaust would be like no other,” he said.
    • He signaled that he was softening on immigration policy, saying that he’d deal with President Obama’s executive action unilaterally easing immigration law “with heart.”
    • He said he did not “know of” any official on his presidential campaign having contact with Russian officials during the election, though he had to be asked three times before giving an answer.
    • He said he’s instructed the Department of Justice to look into the leaks coming out of his administration.
    • He conceded that the leaks reported on by the press were correct, despite claiming news organizations continually get things wrong. “The leaks are absolutely real. The news is fake, because so much of the news is fake,” he said.
    • He scolded an Orthodox Jewish reporter for asking about rising anti-Semitism in America.
    • He asked a black reporter whether members of the Congressional Black Caucus are friends of hers.
    • He predicted that the press would claim that he was “ranting” and “raving.” “Tomorrow the headlines are going to be Donald Trump rants — I’m not ranting and raving,” he said.

    And some further details:

    Trump discussed his popularity and how well the administration is doing…

    Trump lauded a new poll from the conservative-leaning Rasmussen that found he holds a 55 percent approval rating, significantly higher than other recent polls.

    Additionally noting that Mike Flynn "did nothing wrong"

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Clarifying that the economy has problems and they are Obama's fault

     

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

     

    “I’m here again to take my message straight to the people,” POTUS stated. “As you know, our administration inherited many problems across government, and across the economy.”

     

    “To be honest, I inherited a mess. It’s a mess,” he added. “At home, and abroad, a mess.”

     

    “Jobs are pouring out of the country — you see what’s going on with all of the companies leaving our country, going to Mexico and other places — low pay, low wages, mass instability over seas, no matter where you look, the Middle East, a disaster. North Korea.”

     

    “We’ll take care of it, folks,” he reassured his audience. “We are going to take care of it all. i just wanted to let you know, I inherited a mess.”

    Trump then slammed reports of his advisers and associates being in contact with Russians during campaign:

    "it's all fake news."

     

    *TRUMP: I OWN NOTHING IN RUSSIA, HAVE NO DEALS OR LOANS THERE

    Some additional excerpts include:

    “Drugs are becoming cheaper than candy bars”

    "My administration is running like a fine-tuned machine"

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    "US 9th Circuit Court is in turmoil and chaos"

    • *TRUMP ON TRAVEL BAN SAYS WAS SMOOTH ROLLOUT BUT BAD COURT
    • *TRUMP: DID TRAVEL BAN QUICKLY TO AVOID PEOPLE RUSHING IN
    • *TRUMP TO REVISE TRAVEL ORDER IN NEAR FUTURE, DOJ SAYS: REUTERS
    • *TRUMP ON IMMIGRATION ACTION: TAILORED TO 9TH CIRCUIT DECISION
    • *TRUMP: WE'LL SHOW `GREAT HEART' ON DACA PROGRAM
    • *TRUMP SAYS WILL HAVE TO CONVINCE PEOPLE ON DACA SOLUTION

    "The tone of media coverage is full of such hatred"

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

     

    "I'm really not a bad person"

    "I didn't divide this country, it was divided when I got here"

    "There are two Chicagos – one is posh, safe; one is crime-ridden"

    "Rep. Cummings said meeting Trump would be bad for him"

    "I'm the least racist person, least anti-semitic person around"

    "The whole Russian thing is a ruse"

    • *TRUMP: SAYS PEOPLE WOULD CHEER HIM BLOWING UP RUSSIA SHIP
    • *TRUMP: BLOWING UP RUSSIAN SUB OFF U.S. WOULDN'T BE GOOD MOVE
    • *TRUMP: PUTIN MAY ASSUME HE CAN'T MAKE DEAL W/ ME
    • *TRUMP: EASIER TO BE TOUGH ON RUSSIA, BUT WE WOULDN'T MAKE DEAL
    • *TRUMP: I UNDERSTAND WHAT RUSSIA'S DOING MILITARILY
    • *TRUMP: I MAY NOT BE ABLE TO DO RUSSIA DEAL; AT LEAST I TRIED

    "Nuclear holocaust would be like no other"

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Trump then touched on the topic of a Russian reset, which he explained as follows:

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    "I watch CNN. It's so much anger and hatred and just the hatred. I don't watch it anymore"

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

     

    "The leaks are real, the news is fake"

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Finally, President Trump was called out on his 'alternative fact' about the electoral college votes.. "why should Americans trust you?"

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    * * *

    Summing it all up…

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The full "unorthodox" press conference below:

    https://static01.nyt.com/video/players/offsite/index.html?videoId=100000004937194

  • Munger's Musings: Trump's "Not Wrong On Everything"; "Young People Should Shop Less, Learn More"

    Charlier Munger, the 93 year old billionaire vice chairman of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway who once said Trump was not “morally qualified” to be President, seems to be warming up to the new administration.  Well, at least he doesn’t think Trump is quite as bad as Hitler anyway, which is a start. 

    In speaking with a group of investors and students for nearly two hours yesterday at the Daily Journal’s annual meeting, on a wide range of topics, Munger said that he’s “gotten more mellow” when it comes to Trump and is now convinced that “he’s not wrong on everything.”  Per Yahoo Finance:

    “Well, I’ve gotten more mellow,” Munger said at the Daily Journal’s 2017 meeting on Wednesday, adding, “I always try to think about the good as long as it’s not good.”

     

    “He’s not wrong on everything. And just because he isn’t like us, roll with it. If there’s a little danger, what the hell, you’re not going to live forever anyway.”

     

    “And when Donald Trump says he wouldn’t touch Social Security and Republicans have all kinds of schemes for revising Social Security — I’m with Donald Trump. If I were running the world … I wouldn’t touch [Social Security].”

    When asked about the disaffected, millennial protesters around the country, Munger blasted the “agitators” saying that short of Trump turning into “Hitler” he’s not in favor of “young people agitating and trying to change the whole world because they know so much.”  He also encouraged America’s entitled, know-it-all youth to “learn more and shop less.”

    “I don’t like all that. Basically, I’m not in favor of young people agitating and trying to change the whole world because they know so much. I think young people should learn more and shop less, so I’m not sympathetic to anybody. Young people are out in the streets agitating—that’s not my system. I think if you’ve got Hitler or something you can agitate. But short of that, young people should learn more and shop less.”

    Munger

     

    Meanwhile, in addressing Berkshire’s recent investments in Technology (AAPL) and Airlines (DAL, AAL, LUV and UAL), Munger sought to assure the crowd that he didn’t think the so-called ‘Oracle of Omaha’ had “gone crazy” but was “adapting” to changing markets.

    On Tuesday, Berkshire revealed multi-billion-dollar stakes in all five companies, marking a reversal of its longstanding aversion to the technology sector and antipathy to the “joke” that Munger said airlines once were.

     

    “The nice thing about the game we’re in is that we can keep learning,” Munger said.

     

    “He’s changed when he’s buying airlines, and he’s changed when he’s buying Apple,” he said of Buffett.

     

    “I don’t think we’ve gone crazy,” Munger added. “I think we’re adapting.”

    And here is the full 2-hour meeting for your viewing pleasure:

  • The Road To Hell Was Paved With College Safe Spaces

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    That isn’t what this resistance is now doing. What they’re doing instead is trying to take maybe the only faction worse than Donald Trump, which is the deep state, like the CIA with its history of atrocities, and say they ought to almost engage in like a soft coup where they take the elected President and prevent him from enacting his policy. And I think it is extremely dangerous to do that.

     

    – From Glenn Greenwald’s recent interview with Democracy Now

    Earlier today, I posted the following tweet:

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    This observation was merely my latest twist on a theme I’ve been hammering home ever since Trump won the election. Namely, given there are so many obvious things to be concerned about when it comes to Trump (his love affair with Goldman Sachs, support of civil asset forfeiture and a statist mentality overall), why are we being manipulated into focusing all our outrage on a largely invented conspiracy theory that he is some sort of Putin stooge?

    The reason is both extremely simple and extraordinarily clever. The main reason Russia is such an obsession within the fake “resistance,” is because it’s a way to demonize Trump while defending the police state apparatus. In other words, it prevents well-meaning people from taking Trump to task on issues that really matter. This way, they can simply distract with Russia noise and continue to loot and pillage society at large. It’s genius really. You create a fake yet salacious narrative and rally the gullible public around it in order to distract from real domestic problems. This way you can be “anti-Trump,” while at the same time being pro-Wall Street fraud, corporatism, war, unconstitutional spying, and the national security state. This is your “resistance” as it stands today.

    For example, nobody should cheer the following, which was reported yesterday by The Daily Caller:

    The talk within the tight-knit community of retired intelligence officers was that Flynn’s sacking was a result of intelligence insiders at the CIA, NSA and National Security Council using a sophisticated “disinformation campaign” to create a crisis atmosphere. The former intel officers say the tactics hurled against Flynn over the last few months were the type of high profile hard-ball accusations previously reserved for top figures in enemy states, not for White House officials.

     

    “This was a hit job,” charged retired Col. James Williamson, a 32-year Special Forces veteran who coordinated his operations with the intelligence community.

     

    “I’ve never seen anything like this before,” Retired Col. James Waurishuk, who spent three decades in top military intelligence posts and served at the National Security Council, said in an interview with TheDCNF. “We’ve never seen to the extent that those in the intelligence community are using intelligence apparatus and tools to be used politically against an administration official,” he said.

     

    “The knives are out,” said Frederick Rustman, who retired after 24 years from the CIA’s Clandestine Service and was a member of its elite Senior Intelligence Service.

     

    The intelligence community’s sprawling bureaucracy is organizing to topple the Trump presidency, Rustman charged in an interview with TheDCNF.

    This is a very dangerous game to play. You open this box and there’s no closing it up again. As someone named David Hines so wisely noted on Twitter earlier today:

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Which brings me to the next question. How are so many of our fellow citizens being so easily herded into obsessing about Russia conspiracy theories, when we face so many dire, existential problems?

    The useless mainstream media is obviously a key part of the problem, but there’s more. Specifically, I think what’s been going on at U.S. universities is equally destructive. Indeed, it seems the minds of our children have been stunted in a very damaging way by the people in charge of “higher education.”

    To explain the extent of the problem, I want to highlight a few passages from an excellent article by social psychologist at NYU’s Stern Business School, Jonathan Haidt.

    The term microaggression has swept through the academy in English speaking countries in the last two or three years. Lilienfeld (2017, this issue) has done the academy a great service in analyzing the concept and showing why it is not ready to serve as the scientific basis for new policies and programs being rolled out at many universities. In this commentary, I will extend Lilienfeld’s analysis and show why the “microaggression program” (as I’ll call the combination of theory and on-campus applications) is more damaging and less salvageable than Lilienfeld suggests. In fact, it may be the least wise idea one can find on a college campus today.

     

    To write my first book, The Happiness Hypothesis (Haidt, 2006), I read a large number of ancient texts and extracted every psychological claim I could find. I organized ancient wisdom into 10 “great truths.” It’s hard to identify the one greatest truth of all time, but surely one of the top three most important, most generative, and most life-improving psychological insights, discovered thinkers in all major civilizations, is the importance appraisal:

     

    The whole universe is change and life itself is but what you deem it. (Marcus Aurelius, 1964; Meditations, 4:3)

     

    What we are today comes from our thoughts of yesterday, and our present thoughts build our life of tomorrow: our life is the creation of our mind. (Buddha, The Dhammapada, in Mascaro, 1973)

     

    The ancients knew that we don’t react to the world it is; we react to the world as we construct it in our own minds. They also knew that in the process of construction we are overly judgmental and outrageously hypocritical; we urgently need to reduce our moral certainty and cultivate generosity of spirit:

     

    Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? . . . You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye. (Matthew 7:3–5)

     

    It is easy to see the faults of others, but difficult to see one’s own faults. One shows the faults of others like chaff winnowed in the wind, but one conceals one’s own faults as a cunning gambler conceals his dice. (Buddha, The Dhammapada)

     

    The microaggression program teaches students the exact opposite of ancient wisdom. Microaggression training is—by definition—instruction in how to detect ever smaller specks in your neighbor’s eye. Microaggression training tells students that “life itself is exactly what you think it is—you have a direct pipeline to reality, and the person who offended you does not, so go with your feelings.” Of course, the ancients could be wrong on these points, but the empirical evidence for the importance of appraisal and the ubiquity of bias and hypocrisy is overwhelming (I review it in chapters 2 and 4 of The Happiness Hypothesis). As Lilienfeld shows, the empirical evidence supporting the utility and validity of the micro- aggression concept is minimal at best.

     

    I think the section of Lilienfeld’s article that should most make us recoil from the microaggression program is the section on personality traits, particularly negative emotionality and the tendency to perceive oneself as a victim. These are traits—correlated with depression and anxiety disorders—that some students bring with them from high school to college. Students who score high on these traits perceive more microaggressions in ambiguous circumstances. These traits therefore bring misery and anger to the students themselves, and these negative emotions and the conflicts they engender are likely to radiate outward through the students’ social networks (Christakis & Fowler, 2009). How should colleges (and other institutions) respond to the presence of high scorers in their midst? Should they offer them cognitive behavioral therapy or moral validation? Should they hand them a copy of The Dhammapada or a microaggression training manual.

     

    It’s bad enough to make the most fragile and anxious students quicker to take offense and more self-certain and self-righteous. But what would happen if you took a whole campus of diverse students, who arrive from all over the world with very different values and habits, and you train all of them to react with pain and anger to ever-smaller specks that they learn to see in each other’s eyes? 

    Indeed, it’s become clear to me that we have more or less raised at least one generation of zombies in this country, and it appears the guardians of higher education are hellbent on creating more. Zombies don’t lead, they follow — mindlessly and destructively. We can see them everywhere, on both the right and the left, as the level of dialogue descends into the gutter and we appear entirely incapable of addressing any of our real problems, let alone solving them.

    Meanwhile, if you want to get a sense of where the victim mentally obsession eventually gets you, take a look at what’s currently happening at the University of California San Diego.

    Quartz reports:

    Chinese students are joining their peers on American campuses in getting woke. Their cause? Defending the official line of the Communist Party.

     

    On Feb. 2, the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) formally announced that the Dalai Lama would make a keynote speech at the June commencement ceremony.

     

    The announcement triggered outrage among Chinese students who view the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader as an oppressive figure threatening to divide a unified China. A group of them now plans to meet with the university chancellor to discuss the content of the upcoming speech.

     

    The awkwardness doesn’t end there. As the aggrieved students have trumpeted their opposition, their rhetoric has borrowed elements from larger campus activist movements across the United States. The upshot: What Westerners might perceive as Communist Party orthodoxy is mingling weirdly with academia’s commitment to diversity, political correctness, and other championed ideals.

     

    Opposition to the Dalai Lama among Chinese authorities is nothing new, of course. Less recognized in the West is that many Chinese citizens feel the same way as the government. At UCSD, the Chinese-student opposition to the invitation came instantly. Just hours after the announcement, the Chinese Students and Scholars Association (CSSA) issued a lengthy, Chinese-language note on WeChat saying it had communicated with the Chinese consulate about the matter.

     

    UCSD is a place for students to cultivate their minds and enrich their knowledge. Currently, the various actions undertaken by the university have contravened the spirit of respect, tolerance, equality, and earnestness—the ethos upon which the university is built. These actions have also dampened the academic enthusiasm of Chinese students and scholars. If the university insists on acting unilaterally and inviting the Dalai Lama to give a speech at the graduation ceremony, our association vows to take further measures to firmly resist the university’s unreasonable behavior. Specific details of these measures will be outlined in our future statements.

     

    This is not the first time that overseas Chinese students at US colleges have voiced opposition to certain campus events perceived as disrespectful to China. In 2008, hundreds gathered at the University of Washington to rally against the Dalai Lama’s acceptance of an honorary degree. But typically, criticism is couched in familiar tropes like “hurting the feelings of the Chinese people,” rather than failing to account for diversity.

     

    “If there were an objection to the Dalai Lama speaking on campus 10 years ago, you would not have seen the objection from Chinese students being framed within the rhetoric of diversity and inclusion,” says professor Jeffrey Wasserstrom, who researches modern Chinese history at the University of California, Irvine. “There is a borrowing of rhetorical strategies.”

     

    John Li, a UCSD student and principal member of the CSSA who requested Quartz not use his real name, says the chancellor invited a group of overseas Chinese students for a meeting on Feb. 15. According to him, the group won’t ask the chancellor to disinvite the Dalai Lama. But it will request that he “send out statements that clarify the content of Dalai Lama’s speech,” “make sure his speech has nothing to do with politics,” and “stop using words like ‘spiritual leader’ or ‘exile’” to describe the Dalai Lama.

     

    Li, the CSSA member, says that he hasn’t engaged with any non-Chinese student in person regarding Tibetan history and the nature of the Dalai Lama’s politics. But he’s nevertheless frustrated by a lack of consideration toward the arguments his Chinese peers share on Facebook.

     

    Yet several factors could cause Chinese overseas students to grow more vocal in expressing their opinions in matters of politics, which at times may or may not conform with views held by most Westerners.

     

    For one thing, more overseas Chinese students are studying in the US than ever before. According to the Institute of International Education, more than 304,000 international students were attending university in the US during the 2014-2015 academic year, marking a nearly fivefold increase from a decade prior.

     

    UCSD, along with other public universities in California and in the Midwest, has seen some of the highest uptake in admissions from Chinese international students. Data published in the fall of 2015 placed the school’s total overseas Chinese student population at 3,569—marking 10.6% of the total student population, and 55.7% of the international student population.

    These students also tend to pay full tuition. Indeed, some of the complaints among Chinese students on Facebook center around how they find it unfair that that their monetary contributions to the school aren’t reflected in the choice of the speaker.

     

    There’s also suspicion among some academics that CSSA, which represents students at UCSD and dozens of other US universities, sometimes serves as a conduit for Chinese consulates to promulgate Communist Party orthodoxy on overseas campuses. Last week, an official at the Chinese embassy in London reportedly phoned Durham University’s debate society, urging it to cancel an appearance by Anastasia Lin, a Chinese-Canadian beauty queen and vocal human rights activist. The school’s CSSA issued a statement also condemning Lin’s appearance.

     

    In its initial statement opposing the Dalai Lama’s appearance, UCSD’s CSSA wrote that it had “been in contact with the People’s Republic of China Consulate General in Los Angeles at the earliest opportunity since the matter arose,” and “was waiting for the advice of the Consulate General.”

     

    Li tells Quartz that this part of the letter is “a mistake.”

    When the Dalai Lama receives more protest from America’s college kids than Lloyd Blankfein, you know something’s very wrong.

    Still waiting on the resistance.

  • BNP Risk Indicator Flashes "Love" Warning Signal For US Stocks

    While the market itself has exhibited the exuberance we have all seen before (and never seem capable of learning from), BNP has quantified this love-panic relationship (and the news is not great for the bulls). When in 'love' mode, the average drop in stocks has been 12% in the next six months. The biggest drivers of this "love" have been investor confidence, CoT positioning, short-interest, relative trading volumes, and sectoral outperformance with fund-flows shifting away from "love" suggesting the short-term top is in. The index itself peaked last week at the highest level of "love" in two years…

    h/t @Not_Jim_Cramer

    BNP explains their framework:

    In our Love Panic model, we try to identify distress and euphoria in an attempt to predict forward market returns. In order to successfully predict the market we have chosen parameters with good predictive capabilities during different market cycles but also those that make qualitative sense. Investment should be dispassionate but not automatic. Some investors solve this problem by hiring a mechanic (or quant) to build a machine to invest on their behalf. This indicator is not for them. Instead, this indicator highlights when market sentiment is either overly depressed or excessively optimistic. This helps one at least adjust for ones mood. So we suggest that when the market has reached a level of distress, it’s a good time to buy. Meanwhile, when investors are euphoric,we advocate a sell. As a result we have developed a contrarian indicator model. When our signal is in panic (negative), it indicates a buy. While when the signal reads positive it’s a sell signal. In our Love Panic model, we try to identify distress and euphoria in an attempt to predict forward market returns. In order to successfully predict the market we have chosen parameters with good predictive capabilities during different market cycles but also those that make qualitative sense.

    And the market has not done well once investors fall in 'love'…

  • Media Silent As Mystery Illness Plagues Residents One Year After Historic US Gas Leak

    Submitted by Carey Wedler via TheAntiMedia.org,

    A year after the largest methane leak in U.S. history was sealed in Porter Ranch, California, residents are continuing to experience significant adverse health consequences. As SoCalGas – the company responsible for the blowout – uses fabricated gas shortages to justify reopening the Aliso Canyon gas storage facility, which has been shut down indefinitely since the leak occurred, a local doctor is now speaking out.

    Dr. Jeffrey Nordella has been treating Porter Ranch residents since the blowout of an underground methane storage well caused tons of methane gas to spewing the atmosphere in October 2015. A total of 5 billion cubic feet of methane was released into the atmosphere from October 23 to February 18, “or enough pollution to match the annual output of nearly 600,000 cars,The Guardian noted shortly after it was sealed.

    Though the leak was sealed last February, residents have continued to complain of symptoms. Though some local news outlets have provided consistent coverage of the disaster’s aftermath, most national outlets stopped covering the story after the blown-out well was closed and, consequently, the immediate drama of the story subsided.

    But Nordella says that since the gas leak began, he has been inundated with patients of all ages.

    https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Falexandra.nagy1%2Fvideos%2F10154279564957011%2F&show_text=0&width=560

    Those symptoms were broad but yet had a common denominator. Eye and nasal irritation, headache, nosebleed, sore throat, loss of voice, cough, shortness of breath, palpitations, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, fatigue, and skin rashes were among the most common,” he said during a press conference at his urgent care facility last Wednesday.

    According to the local Daily News:

    He’s seeing abnormal pulmonary functions among some of those patients, and low red blood cell counts in others. He’s reviewed the files of residents whose family members died and said he’s seen a rare case of anemia that can be connected to toxic exposure.”

    Nordella says the symptoms he’s seen in patients are “clearly different from those with a common upper respiratory tract infection, seasonal allergies, sinus infections, and viral bronchitis.” He also said multiple contaminants could be causing the variety of health issues.

    https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FSavePorterRanch%2Fvideos%2F563455567183456%2F&show_text=0&width=560

    According to Nordella, patients who evacuated Porter Ranch experienced relief from their symptoms only to endure them again upon moving back into their homes. He also said one family, who moved away permanently, experienced continued skin rashes when they came into contact with belongings from their Porter Ranch home. He believes this indicates contaminants from the blowout may still be coating the interiors of residencies in the area.

    Porter Ranch locals have feared the effects not only of methane, but also mercaptans — odorants added to natural gas to alert those nearby to its presence — and benzene, a carcinogenic substance found in the atmosphere during the leak (officials have asserted that though benzene levels were elevated during the leak, they were similar to what the rest of the city of Los Angeles is normally exposed to). Other substances released included toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes, which are known to cause a range of symptoms.

    Residents have referred to the decades-old facility as a “dinosaur,” and many in the area have continued to smell mercaptans in the air as they experience ongoing symptoms  — over a year after the leak was sealed.

    Because of these factors and the gas company’s ongoing attempts to re-open Aliso Canyon, Nordella felt compelled to speak out. As he told Anti-Media:

    I will admit… that it was a little bit concerning that they were moving at such a rapid pace, wanting to re-pressurize these rock beds, so I figured that we would move forward prior to that.”

    During his press conference, he clarified that he has not been contacted by “anyone from the gas company or Sempra,” has “not been retained by any law firm,” and has had “no communications with politicians.” He is also not affiliated with Save Porter Ranch, the community activist group created out of safety concerns before the massive leak even occurred. That group is fighting for a total shutdown of the facility.

    Nordella initiated a health screening for patients presenting symptoms, and though he admits his sample size is small — about 50 patients — he is calling for independent research into the effects of the leak, saying he cares about “the people, the patients, and the science.

    I will not deviate from the people. We all know about the potential politics here. I want to make sure that this is neutral, clean, and it’s done properly,” he said, suggesting a study be conducted by researchers outside of California to achieve these goals.

    Some California lawmakers are working to pass S.B. 57 within the state, which would shut down the facilityuntil [a] comprehensive review of the safety of the gas storage wells at the facility is completed” and the cause of the blowout can be determined. But politics-as-usual has riddled efforts to mitigate the effects of the catastrophe, which could be seen from space at its peak. Governor Jerry Brown, who often claims to champion environmental issues, waited two-and-a-half months to declare a state of emergency over the blowout, which forced thousands of evacuations and doubled Los Angeles’ greenhouse gas emissions by releasing nearly 100,000 metric tons of methane. His sister sits on the board of directors for SoCalGas’ parent company, Sempra Energy.

    The Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has also been accused of failing to sufficiently serve Porter Ranch residents. The agency recently settled a lawsuit filed by state regulators over its handling of the gas leak. In that agreement, they agreed to pay $1 million for a health study to determine the effects.

    But residents are dissatisfied with that outcome. “What should have been a $40 million long-term health study is only a $1 million health risk assessment,” asserts Save Porter Ranch.

    “It’s a study, but not a health study,” said Angelo Bellomo, the Los Angeles County deputy director for health protection at the Department of Public Health. “It is not responsive to addressing the health needs and concerns to this community. More importantly, it’s inconsistent with advice given to AQMD by health officials.”

    The Department of Public Health (DPH) has disappointed residents over its lack of attentiveness and apparent incompetence throughout the ordeal. As Nordella said:

    “I anticipated our politicians, Department of Public Health, and community leaders would act and recruit the appropriate parties to investigate so that the short- and long-term health effects could be revealed, but to no avail. Instead, what I received from DPH was, in my opinion, misguided information.”

    Even DPH has acknowledged the study SCAQMD is funding was supposed to have cost up to $40 million, admitting its limitations.

    Nordella says he has managed to schedule a meeting with DPH and has informed them the community’s trust in authorities is waning.

    He has vowed to remain independent as he continues to advocate for patients.

    In the meantime, SoCalGas is still fighting to reopen the facility, going so far as faking a gas shortage ahead of a public hearing on Aliso Canyon’s status. As a result, they withdrew gas from the facility for the first time since January 2016. The company has been caught deceiving residents and regulators on multiple occasions, including denying the blowout when concerned citizens called their hotline in the early days of the crisis.

    For now, those seeking to keep the facility closed are gaining ground. S.B. 57 was approved late last week by the state’s Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee, and according to Save Porter Ranch, Democrats now officially support it.

    As Nordella said during his press conference:

    Until a study is completed … it is nothing short of an act of negligence to reopen the Aliso Canyon facility. The people of the community deserve better. I’m extremely concerned that I’ve just scratched the surface and that there are other significant medical cases within the community.”

    In contrast, SoCalGas claims “There is no dependency on or need to wait for the results of the Root Cause Analysis. SoCalGas has demonstrated that the field is safe to resume injection operations,” according to its website.

    Nordella, however, is adamantly opposed to reopening Aliso Canyon because of the health risks it poses.

    As a doctor, my interest is very high on making sure that this did not make the residents of the community sick,” he told Anti-Media. “If it did, they should shut it all down and abort these fields. They should not move forward — should not move forward — and repressurize this system until we find out the health effects of the first blowout.”

  • The Ag Paradox: Farm Incomes And Equipment Purchases Tank While John Deere's Stock Soars

    Last week we wrote about the U.S Department of Agriculture’s latest biannual report of farm incomes which painted a very bleak picture for the American farmer.  In its first forecast for 2017, the USDA saw real farm cash receipts down 14% versus 2015 and 36% from the previous high set in 2012 as farm debt continued to soar and leverage surged to all-time highs.

    Below is a summary of some of the key takeaways: 

    Real farm incomes in 2017 are expected to sink below 2010 levels which represents a 36% decline from the recent peak and a 14% decline since 2015.

    Farms

     

    Meanwhile farm debt continues to rise at an astonishing rate…

    Farms

     

    While farmer leverage has spiked to the highest level since at least 1960.

    Farms

     

    And of course, lower incomes means less money to spend on shiny new John Deere tractors with equipment capex expected to decline 35% compared to 2015.

    Farms

     

    And finally, farmer returns have crashed to the lowest levels ever.  We’re not sure about you but a 2.1% ROIC seems a “little low” even in our current rigged interest rate environment. 

    Farms

     

    In summary, farmers are making no money but are managing to barely stay afloat by adding a massive amount of debt and slashing capital expenditures.

    Moreover, the summary above was seemingly confirmed recently when ISI released their latest data on North American sales volumes for tractors and combines.  Not surprisingly, January volumes were down anywhere from 20% to nearly 50% YoY, as they were for most of 2015 and 2016. 

    Tractors 1

    Tractors 1

     

    Which leads us to our final point, which is, what exactly are John Deere investors seeing that we’re not? 

    DE

     

    While we certainly understand the concept of investing in cyclical stocks at the bottom of their earnings cycle, we’re somewhat less familiar with the strategy of completely pricing in a recovery multiple years in advance while continuing to buy those same cyclical stocks at all-time highs and peak multiples.

    JD

     

    That said, we’re sure those multiples have room to get even “peak-ier” tomorrow when John Deere reports earnings…we can’t wait to see efficient markets at work.

  • Samsung Chief Arrested For Bribery, Perjury And Embezzlement

    Exactly one month ago, South Korea’s political crisis – recall that the country’s president Park Geun-hye was impeached last December – spilled over into the corporate sector when the country’s special prosecutor unexpectedly sought a warrant to arrest the head of Samsung, the country’s largest conglomerate, accusing him of paying multi-million dollar bribes to a friend of impeached President Park Geun-hye. On the night of January 16, investigators had grilled the head of Samsung, the world’s largest maker of smartphones, flat-screen TVs and memory chips, Jay Y. Lee for 22 straight hours last week as a suspect in a massive corruption scandal, which last month led to parliament impeaching president Park.

    As a quick tangent, putting Samsung’s size and importance in context, the company generates $230 billion in annual revenue, equivalent to about 17% of South Korea’s export-oriented economy, the fourth largest in Asia.

    The special prosecutor’s office had accused Lee of paying bribes total 43 billion won ($38 million) to organizations linked to Choi Soon-sil, a friend of the president who is at the center of the scandal, in order to secure the 2015 merger of two affiliates and cement his control of the family business. The 48-year-old Lee, who became the de facto head of the Samsung Group after his father, Lee Kun-hee, was incapacitated by a heart attack in 2014, was also accused of embezzlement and perjury.  Prosecutors allege that Lee, 48, funded Park’s associates as he tried to consolidate control over the sprawling conglomerate founded by his grandfather.

    But whereas on January 19 the court rejected a request from prosecutors to arrest Lee, one month later it changed its mind. Fast forward to today, when in denial of some cynics who suggested it would could not happen, Samsung chief Jay Y. Lee was formally arrested on allegations of bribery, perjury and embezzlement, “an extraordinary step that jeopardizes the executive’s ascent to the top role at the world’s biggest smartphone maker and the nation’s most powerful company.”


    Samsung chief, Jay Y. Lee, leaves for the Seoul Central District Court,
    February 16, 2017. Reuters

    The Seoul Central District Court issued the warrant for Lee’s arrest early Friday and the 48-year-old Lee was taken into custody at the Seoul Detention Centre, where he had awaited the court’s decision following a day-long, closed-door hearing that ended on Thursday evening. According to Reuters, the judge’s decision was announced at about 5:30 a.m. (2030 GMT) on Friday, more than 10 hours after Lee, the sprawling conglomerate’s third-generation leader, had left the court. There’s a chance the suspect could destroy evidence or flee, so arresting him is appropriate, a court spokesperson said.

    On Tuesday, the special prosecutor’s office had requested a warrant to arrest him and another executive, Samsung Electronics president Park Sang-jin, on bribery and other charges.  The court rejected the request to arrest Park, who also heads the Korea Equestrian Federation, saying it was not needed given his “position, the boundary of his authority and his actual role”.

    The court reversed its opinion because, as Reuters reports, the prosecution said it had secured additional evidence and brought more charges against Lee in the latest warrant request. “We acknowledge the cause and necessity of the arrest,” a judge said in his ruling, citing the extra charges and evidence.

    When he testified at a parliamentary hearing in December, Lee said he never ordered donations to be made in return for preferential measures and rejected allegations he received wrongful government support to push through a merger of two Samsung affiliates in 2015. Still, Lee, who has been put under a travel ban, confirmed he had private meetings with Park and that Samsung had provided a horse worth 1 billion won that was used for equestrian lessons by Choi’s daughter.

    That said, according to Bloomberg, when Including procedural steps and appeals, it may take as long as 18 months for a trial and verdict.

    Meanwhile, a Samsung spokeswoman said no decision had been made about whether Lee’s arrest would be contested or whether bail would be sought.

    Samsung and Lee have denied wrongdoing in the case. “We will do our best to ensure that the truth is revealed in future court proceedings,” the Samsung Group said in a brief statement after Lee’s arrest.

    While Lee’s arrest is not expected to hamper day-to-day operation of Samsung Group companies, which are run by professional managers, experts have said it could affect strategic decision-making by South Korea’s biggest conglomerate.  “There are more than 100,000 of us (in Samsung Electronics). It wouldn’t make sense for a company of that size to not function properly just because the owner is away. It’s business as usual for us,” said an engineer at Samsung Electronics, who declined to be identified.

    Of course, when the boss of one of the world’s biggest companies is arrested for bribery, perjury and embezzlement, it is hardly ever a good thing.

    To be sure, Lee’s arrest would have an impact on longer-term investment decisions, said Kim, now a professor at Sungkyunkwan University. “Samsung presidents are evaluated on an annual basis, so they cannot make bold bets about the future. They need a chairman when making long-term investment decisions,” he said.

    Ultimately, Lee may be just a pawn, albeit very powerful, in the ongoing legal crusade against President Park and her close friend Choi Soon-sil, who is in detention and faces charges of abuse of power and attempted fraud. As reported last month, prosecutors focused their investigations on Samsung’s relationship with Park, 65, who was impeached by parliament in December and has been stripped of her powers while the Constitutional Court decides whether to uphold her impeachment.

    They accused Samsung of paying bribes totaling 43 billion won ($37.74 million) to organizations linked to Choi to secure the government’s backing for a merger of two Samsung units. That funding includes Samsung’s sponsorship of the equestrian career of Choi’s daughter, who is in detention in Denmark, having been on a South Korean wanted list.

     

    If parliament’s impeachment is upheld by the Constitutional Court, Park will become South Korea’s first democratically elected leader to be forced from office early. Park remains in office but stripped of her powers while she awaits the Constitutional Court’s decision.

     

    “This is a painful event for Vice Chairman Lee,” said Kim Sang-jo, a shareholder activist and economics professor at Hansung University who was questioned by the special prosecutor as a witness in the probe. “But this will be an important opportunity for Samsung Group to sever ties with the past,” he said, referring to links between the government and the country’s conglomerates, also known as chaebol.

    What happens to the company’s stock? It is unlikely that the market will be too excited about this rather unexpected outcome.

    “In the short term, it could have an impact on the stock, only because of sentiment, and also because the stock has risen a lot recently,” Jung Sang-jin, a fund manager at Korea Investment Management, told Bloomberg. “In the long-term, there won’t be much impact on the stock, given previous times when other chaebol heads were arrested with few problems for their companies to keep running the business.”

    Perhaps he is being too optimistic: keep an eye on the Kospi where trading may be more volatile than usual after today’s news. On the other hand, we are confident the fund manager is right: in the long run, it will most likely be business as usual.

  • Leading Progressives Say that Even Americans Who Hate Trump Should Defend Him Against Attempted Coup by the “Deep State”

    Former liberal congressman and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich said Tuesday:

    What’s at the core of this is an effort by some in the intelligence community to upend any positive relationship between the U.S. and Russia. And I tell you there’s a marching band and Chowder Society out there. There’s gold in them there hills. There are people trying to separate the U.S. and Russia so that this military industrial intel axis can cash in.

     

    ***

    The American people have to know that there’s a game going on inside the intelligence community… at the bottom of all this is the fact that there are those that seek to separate US from Russia to reignite the cold war… that’s what’s at the bottom of all this …. Wake up America!!

     

    ***

     

    What’s going on in the intelligence community with this new president is unprecedented. They’re making every effort trying to upend him.

     

    ***

     

    It’s not just this administration. I want to remind the views and all those who are on the panel that in the closing months of the Obama administration, they put together a deal with Russia to create peace in Syria. A few days later, a military strike in Syria killed a hundred Syrian soldiers and that ended the agreement. What happened is inside the intelligence and the Pentagon there was a deliberate effort to sabotage an agreement the White House made.

    Similarly, Pulitzer prize winning journalist Glenn Greenwald said today:

    The deep state, although there’s no precise or scientific definition, generally refers to the agencies in Washington that are permanent power factions. They stay and exercise power even as presidents who are elected come and go. They typically exercise their power in secret, in the dark, and so they’re barely subject to democratic accountability, if they’re subject to it at all. It’s agencies like the CIA, the NSA and the other intelligence agencies, that are essentially designed to disseminate disinformation and deceit and propaganda, and have a long history of doing not only that, but also have a long history of the world’s worst war crimes, atrocities and death squads. This is who not just people like Bill Kristol, but lots of Democrats are placing their faith in, are trying to empower, are cheering for as they exert power separate and apart from—in fact, in opposition to—the political officials to whom they’re supposed to be subordinate.

     

    And you go—this is not just about Russia. You go all the way back to the campaign, and what you saw was that leading members of the intelligence community, including Mike Morell, who was the acting CIA chief under President Obama, and Michael Hayden, who ran both the CIA and the NSA under George W. Bush, were very outspoken supporters of Hillary Clinton. In fact, Michael Morell went to The New York Times, and Michael Hayden went to The Washington Post, during the campaign to praise Hillary Clinton and to say that Donald Trump had become a recruit of Russia. The CIA and the intelligence community were vehemently in support of Clinton and vehemently opposed to Trump, from the beginning. And the reason was, was because they liked Hillary Clinton’s policies better than they liked Donald Trump’s. One of the main priorities of the CIA for the last five years has been a proxy war in Syria, designed to achieve regime change with the Assad regime. Hillary Clinton was not only for that, she was critical of Obama for not allowing it to go further, and wanted to impose a no-fly zone in Syria and confront the Russians. Donald Trump took exactly the opposite view. He said we shouldn’t care who rules Syria; we should allow the Russians, and even help the Russians, kill ISIS and al-Qaeda and other people in Syria. So, Trump’s agenda that he ran on was completely antithetical to what the CIA wanted. Clinton’s was exactly what the CIA wanted, and so they were behind her. And so, they’ve been trying to undermine Trump for many months throughout the election. And now that he won, they are not just undermining him with leaks, but actively subverting him. There’s claims that they’re withholding information from him, on the grounds that they don’t think he should have it and can be trusted with it. They are empowering themselves to enact policy.

     

    Now, I happen to think that the Trump presidency is extremely dangerous.

     

    ***

     

    And it is important to resist them. And there are lots of really great ways to resist them, such as getting courts to restrain them, citizen activism and, most important of all, having the Democratic Party engage in self-critique to ask itself how it can be a more effective political force in the United States after it has collapsed on all levels. That isn’t what this resistance is now doing. What they’re doing instead is trying to take maybe the only faction worse than Donald Trump, which is the deep state, the CIA, with its histories of atrocities, and say they ought to almost engage in like a soft coup, where they take the elected president and prevent him from enacting his policies. And I think it is extremely dangerous to do that. Even if you’re somebody who believes that both the CIA and the deep state, on the one hand, and the Trump presidency, on the other, are extremely dangerous, as I do, there’s a huge difference between the two, which is that Trump was democratically elected and is subject to democratic controls, as these courts just demonstrated and as the media is showing, as citizens are proving. But on the other hand, the CIA was elected by nobody. They’re barely subject to democratic controls at all. And so, to urge that the CIA and the intelligence community empower itself to undermine the elected branches of government is insanity. That is a prescription for destroying democracy overnight in the name of saving it. And yet that’s what so many, not just neocons, but the neocons’ allies in the Democratic Party, are now urging and cheering. And it’s incredibly warped and dangerous to watch them do that.

     

    ***

     

    The idea that Donald Trump is some kind of an agent or a spy of Russia, or that he is being blackmailed by Russia and is going to pass secret information to the Kremlin and endanger American agents on purpose, is an incredibly crazy claim that has been nowhere proven to be true. It reminds me of the kind of things Glenn Beck used to say about Obama while he stood at his chalkboard and drew those—those unstable charts that he drew, these wild conspiracy theories that are without evidence.

     

    We ought to have a serious, sober, structured investigation of the claims that Russia hacked the DNC and John Podesta’s emails and that there were improper ties between Donald Trump and the Russians, and that ought to be made public so that we can see the information. But this constant media obsession of leaking whatever someone whispers to them about Donald Trump and Russia, because they know it will get their reporters huge numbers of retweets on Twitter and tons of traffic by people who are being fed what they want to hear, is really feeding into the worst kind of hysteria and even fake news that the media says they’re trying to combat. These are really serious claims that merit serious investigation, and that’s exactly what we’re not getting.

    https://www.democracynow.org/embed/story/2017/2/16/greenwald_empowering_the_deep_state_to

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 16th February 2017

  • The Public Should Demand To See The Michael Flynn Transcript

    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    The United States is much better off without Michael Flynn serving as national security adviser. But no one should be cheering the way he was brought down.

     

    The whole episode is evidence of the precipitous and ongoing collapse of America’s democratic institutions — not a sign of their resiliency. Flynn’s ouster was a soft coup (or political assassination) engineered by anonymous intelligence community bureaucrats. The results might be salutary, but this isn’t the way a liberal democracy is supposed to function.

     

    President Trump was roundly mocked among liberals for that tweet. But he is, in many ways, correct. These leaks are an enormous problem. And in a less polarized context, they would be recognized immediately for what they clearly are: an effort to manipulate public opinion for the sake of achieving a desired political outcome. It’s weaponized spin.

     

    In a liberal democracy, how things happen is often as important as what happens. Procedures matter. So do rules and public accountability. The chaotic, dysfunctional Trump White House is placing the entire system under enormous strain. That’s bad. But the answer isn’t to counter it with equally irregular acts of sabotage — or with a disinformation campaign waged by nameless civil servants toiling away in the surveillance state.

     

    – From The Week article: America’s Spies Anonymously Took Down Michael Flynn. That is Deeply Worrying.

    I never intended to write about the Michael Flynn affair. I figured it had been covered to death and I probably wouldn’t have anything to add to the conversation. That said, I hadn’t been following the story closely so I decided to get caught up by reading a diverse selection of articles on the topic. One of my favorite sources on such subjects is Glenn Greenwald, and I eagerly read his latest piece on the matter: The Leakers Who Exposed Gen. Flynn’s Lie Committed Serious — and Wholly Justified — Felonies.

    There are several key points he outlines in the piece, most of which I agree with. First, he proves that the leakers committed serious felonies under the law. Second, he states that if illegal leaks lead to the disclosure of information that is clearly very much in the public interest, then such action is not only justified, but ethically necessary. I agree with this as well. Where he doesn’t really convince me, is the argument that this particular leak represented some sort of great public service. He writes:

    This Flynn episode underscores another critical point: The motives of leakers are irrelevant. It’s very possible — indeed, likely — that the leakers here were not acting with benevolent motives. Nobody with a straight face can claim that lying to the public is regarded in official Washington as some sort of mortal sin; if anything, the contrary is true: It’s seen as a job requirement.

     

    Moreover, Gen. Flynn has many enemies throughout the intelligence and defense community. The same is true, of course, of Donald Trump; recall that just a few weeks ago, Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer warned Trump that he was being “really dumb” to criticize the intelligence community because “they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”

     

    It’s very possible — I’d say likely — that the motive here was vindictive rather than noble. Whatever else is true, this is a case where the intelligence community, through strategic (and illegal) leaks, destroyed one of its primary adversaries in the Trump White House.

     

    But no matter. What matters is not the motive of the leaker but the effects of the leak. Any leak that results in the exposure of high-level wrongdoing — as this one did — should be praised, not scorned and punished.

    Glenn’s conclusion here is that the Flynn leak exposed high-level wrongdoing. What wrongdoing are we talking about specifically? Yes, it seems he clearly lied to the public and Mike Pence about the content of his conversation with the Russian ambassador. The lie to Mike Pence in particular led to Pence embarrassing himself publicly by repeating that lie, and this betrayal seems to be the primary motivator (from my seat) of why Trump fired him. Others are referring to potential violations of the Logan Act, but as we learned from Lawfare:

    Flynn certainly breached protocol. He may also have broken the law by interfering with U.S. diplomatic efforts while still a private citizen, which is forbidden by the Logan Act. The centuries-old law is vague, however, and has never resulted in a conviction. Furthermore, there may be significant First Amendment problems with enforcing it. Officials became more alarmed when Flynn was not forthcoming with Vice President-Elect Pence and others, possibly including federal agents, about the conversations. Those officials feared that Flynn’s dissembling might open up him up to risks of blackmail.

    Yes, Flynn was a private citizen, but he was less than a month away from being a high-level government official, and the Obama administration was doing everything it possibly could to antagonize Russia during its last few weeks in office. I’m not justifying what Flynn said in those conversations, or the lies he told about it, but there’s a key problem with this whole leak. It wasn’t really a leak meant to inform the public. It was a leak to specific journalists, at specific papers, with a clear intent of political assassination through the manipulation of public opinion via cryptic releases of filtered information.

    For example, here’s how the New York Times reported on the information in its February 9 article, Flynn Is Said to Have Talked to Russians About Sanctions Before Trump Took Office:

    WASHINGTON — Weeks before President Trump’s inauguration, his national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, discussed American sanctions against Russia, as well as areas of possible cooperation, with that country’s ambassador to the United States, according to current and former American officials.

     

    Throughout the discussions, the message Mr. Flynn conveyed to the ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak — that the Obama administration was Moscow’s adversary and that relations with Russia would change under Mr. Trump — was unambiguous and highly inappropriate, the officials said.

     

    But current and former American officials said that conversation — which took place the day before the Obama administration imposed sanctions on Russia over accusations that it used cyberattacks to help sway the election in Mr. Trump’s favor — ranged far beyond the logistics of a post-inauguration phone call. And they said it was only one in a series of contacts between the two men that began before the election and also included talk of cooperating in the fight against the Islamic State, along with other issues.

     

    The officials said that Mr. Flynn had never made explicit promises of sanctions relief, but that he had appeared to leave the impression it would be possible.

    How do we know what was really said without the transcript?

    During the Christmas week conversation, he urged Mr. Kislyak to keep the Russian government from retaliating over the coming sanctions — it was an open secret in Washington that they were in the works — by telling him that whatever the Obama administration did could be undone, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were discussing classified material.

     

    Federal officials who have read the transcript of the call were surprised by Mr. Flynn’s comments, since he would have known that American eavesdroppers closely monitor such calls. They were even more surprised that Mr. Trump’s team publicly denied that the topics of conversation included sanctions.

     

    Prosecutions in these types of cases are rare, and the law is murky, particularly around people involved in presidential transitions. The officials who had read the transcripts acknowledged that while the conversation warranted investigation, it was unlikely, by itself, to lead to charges against a sitting national security adviser.

    I have so many issues with the above reporting it’s hard to know where to start. Everything mentioned above is given to us secondhand via “anonymous American officials.” Nowhere do I see any specific quotes from the transcript, despite the fact that the paper admits it talked with federal officials who read it. Why not? Why must we hear about the content of the transcripts secondhand from anonymous officials? This is the most significant red flag with this whole story. If the leakers were truly interested in transparency, and wanted the public to know the truth, why not leak the transcript to Wikileaks and let the public decide?

    I’ll tell you why. They didn’t do this because transparency was never the goal here. They wanted to illegally use intelligence information to take a scalp from a Trump administration they hate, and they knew they could do this via mainstream media journalists. I know what you’re thinking, Edward Snowden didn’t leak everything to Wikileaks either. He likewise picked a few journalists and trusted them to responsibly report the information. How is this any different?

    It’s different in two important respects. First, we are talking about a single transcript, or a few transcripts, as opposed to the enormous intelligence data-dump that Snowden provided. Secondly, The Intercept and others who reported on the Snowden material provided a huge amount of primary source documentation for the public to see so that it could come to its own conclusion. They didn’t simply tell everyone what to think about leaked documents while refusing to share any actual content. Where are the specific, comprehensive quotes from the Flynn transcript? Why doesn’t the public have a right to see the entire thing? Instead, we are being told what happened and what to think via secondhand anonymous sources. Sorry, but this doesn’t cut it for me.

    I have yet to see any excerpts from the transcript. All I’ve seen is what anonymous officials say was discussed. This is absurd. We the people should demand the content of the relevant transcripts so we can decide for ourselves just how bad Flynn’s actions were. In the absence of this, we’re essentially being manipulated on a massive scale by rogue intelligence agents and told what to think through the major newspapers. This doesn’t cut it for me. I want to see the content of these conversations so I can make up my own mind. Perhaps it’s even worse than we know. So be it. We should be treated as adults and allowed to see the actual conversation if it’s going to be made into a story of such huge national importance.

    Finally, I want to end with the mind-boggling absurdity of those who wanted Edward Snowden’s head on a platter, but are somehow ok with these leaks. As Lawfare explains:

    Furthermore, these leaks are criminal. As Edward Snowden has learned, the Espionage Act makes intentional disclosure of classified “communications intelligence activities” a felony if such disclosure is made in a “manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government . . . .”  18 U.S.C. § 798(a). This particular group of leakers might argue their motives were in defense of U.S. interests—to protect the nation from national security policy guided by a hand tainted by Russian influence—but under current law, that argument is highly unlikely to prevail. As Snowden well knows, there is no public interest defense to prosecution for violations of the Espionage Act.

    Somehow I doubt the Flynn leakers will find themselves in the same position as Snowden, scrambling to get to a country that will provide them safe haven from the vast, vindictive reach of the U.S. government. That’s because the leakers in this case are powerful operatives of the deep state. As Greenwald explained:

    It’s hard to put into words how strange it is to watch the very same people — from both parties, across the ideological spectrum — who called for the heads of Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Tom Drake, and so many other Obama-era leakers today heap praise on those who leaked the highly sensitive, classified SIGINT information that brought down Gen. Flynn.

     

    It’s even more surreal to watch Democrats act as though lying to the public is some grave firing offense when President Obama’s top national security official, James Clapper, got caught red-handed not only lying to the public but also to Congress — about a domestic surveillance program that courts ruled was illegal. And despite the fact that lying to Congress is a felony, he kept his job until the very last day of the Obama presidency.

     

    But this is how political power and the addled partisan brain in D.C. functions. Those in power always regard leaks as a heinous crime, while those out of power regard them as a noble act. They seamlessly shift sides as their position in D.C. changes.

    Finally, if you want to get a sense of the mindset behind the most adamant defenders of the Flynn leaks, take a look at the following tweets from former NSA analyst and Naval War College professor, John Schindler.

    If that’s “the resistance,” I want no part of it. As I summarized on Twitter:

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  • Arguing Immigration with a Compassionate Liberal -or- How to Twist Your Head into a Pretzel

     The following article by David Haggith was published first on The Great Recession Blog:

    Dorothea Lange [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

    Arguing with a liberal about the economic impact of rampant immigration will twist your brain into a pretzel. It inevitably goes something like this:

    “Illegal aliens and legal immigrants are taking millions of our jobs.”

    “No, they’re not.”

    “Then they’re all on welfare.”

    “No, they’re not. Even most undocumented workers are productive members of society.” 

    “How are they productive if they’re not taking jobs?”

    “Undocumented workers are only taking jobs American’s don’t want.”

    “Americans don’t want those jobs because migrant workers have been taking them for so many decades that wages have remained stagnant at a level that only a totally desperate person would work for. That is exactly how they are hurting us by taking jobs. They are not just taking up jobs, but they are keeping wages suppressed because Americans would have to reduce themselves to living like many migrant workers in substandard housing and driving badly broken vehicles in order to stay alive at those wages if they accepted those jobs.”

    “Migrants only live at that level because they are forced to.”

    “Exactly. They are forced to because the pay for those jobs never goes up because they are willing to live at that level out of desperation if that is what it takes to stay alive, and you’re willing to exploit them.”

    “And if migrant workers didn’t do that, you’d have to pay more for all the food you eat. Do you really want to pay more for everything?”

     

     

    Migrant Workers in California Fields

    Migrant workers in a California field.

     

     

    Maintaining a peasant immigrant labor class is what it is really all about

     

    And that, you see, is the bottom line — cheap labor via a peasant class. We don’t want to pay more for everything, so both political parties turn a blind eye to the cheap, illegal labor and keep the peasants coming, regardless of the social costs of maintaining a peasant class.

    They are truly peasants, not just because of their living conditions, but because they supposedly have no voting rights (debatable). They have no say in the laws that govern them so live by the rules of another class of people, and they have to keep their heads low to keep from being deported. That means they dare not complain about working conditions either, as Americans most certainly would.

    Peasants have to take what they get. That’s why we keep them illegal, and why we just catch and release them, letting them stay here in spite of the fact we know they have no legal right to because we just caught them crossing the border. It all forces them to keep their heads low … until one day they rise enough in numbers that they don’t keep their heads low any longer, and the peasants revolt against their slavish conditions.

     

     

    Caesar Chavez, Migrant Workers Union leader.

     

     

    What about the compassionate liberal argument for immigrant labor

     

    At this point, the liberal turns to the compassion argument, since the economic argument for immigrant labor leads to ruin. The compassionate argument runs like this, this time started by the liberal:

    “You are mean and cruel for wanting to kick a million and a half undocumented workers out of this country.”

    “No more mean and cruel than you are for insisting on keeping out the hundreds of millions more people who want in but are kept out because they respect our immigration laws.

    “I don’t insist on keeping anyone out.”

    “Of course you do. Otherwise, you’d spend all this protest energy trying to get the government to declare open borders to the whole world and let in everyone who wants in so long as they’re not criminals.”

    “There wouldn’t be that many that would come in anyway.”

    “Eliminate all immigration laws, except those barring criminals, and find out.”

    “That is ridiculous. We have to have some reasonable limits because we cannot absorb hundreds of millions all at once.”

    “So, you only want to keep out the ones who are respecting the legal process but keep in all the ones that jumped ahead of them in line? I want to kick out 1.5 million or more who jumped ahead in line, but you want to keep out hundreds of millions, and that makes you more compassionate?”

    “Yes, it does. We cannot absorb hundreds of millions. It’s ridiculous. I would if we could, but it’s not even possible.”

    “So, there is nothing wrong with having immigration laws, but just with enforcing them?”

    “Yes, that’s mean and cruel because you are breaking up families.”

    “Didn’t they know that was the huge risk they took in breaking the law and coming into the country illegally — that it might be really messy when they’re forced to leave?”

    “You’re a racist with no heart.”

    “What if I’m of English decent and also don’t want 1.5 million illegal aliens from the UK?”

    “You’re English? See, I knew you were racist.”

    “What if I just don’t want more people of any color, including my own, because we already have too many people in the US?”

    “Why don’t you just leave the country and solve the problem then?”

    “Aren’t you the one who promised you would leave if Trump was elected? Why should I just force the problem onto some other nation? You see, at one time, we had a vast land we wanted to occupy in order to keep the Indians from having it all, so bringing in immigrants was the only way to occupy all of it. But I think we’re full, and we can stop now.”

    “See, you’re a racist.”

    “No, I love Indians and even have some as relatives; but I’ll bet the Indians would have been glad to have a lot fewer migrants, too, starting with the Mayflower. Look, my point is that there was once a lot of land available. Now the land is overstrained. We don’t need more housing developments all over the countryside. Don’t need more congested streets and more auto pollution and more petroleum consumption. Don’t need more landfills filling up faster and more sewage, and we don’t even have enough potable water in the places that want immigrants the most. There is simply no way to bring in millions more people without adding to all those problems because we’re full now. The land simply cannot absorb more without it having a negative impact.”

    “That makes no sense. We’d have no economy if we stopped immigration. We have to keep bringing in people so that we have people to build housing for. Building those developments is what keeps the economy perking.”

    “So, we need all of our cities to endlessly grow like Mexico city or like California has been doing and never stop increasing the population because that is the only way to sustain a healthy economy? Is that the Californian version of sustainability? California has grown to where it doesn’t even have enough water for all of its people without going to another state to get it. So, doesn’t water, at least, force a point at which you say population growth is enough already? Yet, California wants immigrants more than any state. That’s why they’ve made themselves a sancturary against immigration law enforcement. Where is it going to get the additional water?”

    “That is ridiculous. Haven’t you seen that it is raining in California now? They’ve solved this problem. They now need more people in order to drink the water fast enough to keep their reservoirs from overflowing and breaking their damn dams.”

    “Maybe they just want to use all those people to fill the holes in the dam and plug the damn leaks.”

    “That’s horrible. They want them because they are compassionate.”

    “Then why are they so uncompassionate toward the millions of others that they keep out with immigration laws? Maybe they just don’t need all those others to pick their oranges for a penny each and mow their lawns at a nice low price. Maybe they just want enough to keep the price stable and low.”

    “That is a racist comment that assumes migrant workers are only good for mowing lawns and picking crops.”

    “It’s not me bringing them all in and then paying them poorly for mowing my lawn. I mow my own lawn. Isn’t that the situation you’re keeping all of them in? Why don’t you pay them more so they can live like you in a house right beside you, instead of mow your lawn and then return to their trailer? You know, open the community gates.”

    “That is ridiculous. Why is that my responsibility? I pay my gardeners fine. I pay them as much as anyone else does. I cannot help what the economy will bare.”

    “Of course you can, because maintaining such a huge supply of immigrant workers, especially the cheaper illegal ones, makes sure the cost of their labor stays low for you.”

     

    And there we are, full circle. It’s all about maintaining a peasant class for the privileged. How else will they enjoy a liberal lifestyle?

  • Youtube’s Biggest Personality, PewDiePie, Wrongly Defamed for Being an Anti-Semite

    PewdiePie used to do videos about video games, luring 53 million youngsters to subscribe to his channel — making it the biggest channel on Youtube ever, by a very large margin.

    Recently, he’s been dropping redpills on his subs, discussing media hypocrisy, with a slight conservative bent. He did a comedy video about Hitler and the result was manufactured outrage, spawned by a Wall Street Journal article and subsequent cancellation of a deal he had with Disney.

    Here’s the lesson gleaned from this episode of more main stream media FAKE NEWS: young people are getting pissed off by this and have taken to the internets to vent their rage.

    My son, who is 20, sent this to me.


     

    Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com

  • Meet China's Hedge Fund Capital

    China has often found itself in trouble over the past couple of decades for its attempts to replicate technology from other developed countries.  But technological advances aren’t the only things being mimicked in China as the country is also littered with fake replicas of monuments from around the world including the Great Sphinx of Giza, the Sydney Opera House and the U.S. Capitol building, just to name a few.

    Now, in an effort to replicate the United States’ bustling hedge fund industry, China has apparently also decided to knock off Greenwich, CT.  Appropriately named Yuhuang Shannan Fund Town, more than 1,000 hedge funds and private equity funds, overseeing a combined 580 billion yuan ($84 billion), have registered in the village since its official re-branding in May?2015.  And, with subsidies amounting to 30% of a typical firm’s tax bill adding to the area’s appeal, it’s no wonder that Yuhuang Shannan now boasts one of China’s largest hedge fund clusters outside the mega-cities of Shanghai, Beijing, and Shenzhen…hedgies do love their tax havens.  Per Bloomberg:

    Nestled between the Qiantang River and Jade Emperor Hill, the village of Yuhuang Shannan feels a world removed from the surrounding metropolis of Hangzhou. The city of 9 million is hectic and loud, while this gated community—on the same site where emperors in the Song dynasty prayed for good harvests centuries ago—is quiet and green, exuding the feeling of a laid-back, high-end oasis.

    China Hedge Funds

     

    Almost non-existent just a couple of years ago, China’s hedge fund industry has blossomed recently with the total number of hedge funds almost doubled in 2016, and assets under management that have more than tripled over the past two years.

    In part, the Chinese hedge fund industry is booming thanks to cautious support from securities regulators and the gradual liberalization of local equity and bond markets. Despite some scandals—including a high-profile market manipulation conviction—­policymakers are starting to view hedge funds as worthwhile contributors to Asia’s largest economy.

    China Hedge Funds

    China Hedge Funds

     

    As Bloomberg notes, “fund towns”, like Yuhuang Shannan, are attracting alumni from some the largest U.S. banks and hedge funds from Goldman Sachs to Bridgewater.

    Alumni of Goldman Sachs and Bank of America Merrill Lynch have moved in, while a representative of Connecticut-­based Bridgewater Associates, the world’s largest hedge fund firm, is said to have made a recent visit. “The natural environment is fantastic, and I believe the cluster effect will become stronger and stronger,” says Ted Wang, a former co-head of equities trading for the Americas at Goldman Sachs who now runs Puissance Capital Management, a global investment firm with offices in New York and China. Wang has registered two of his Chinese equity funds in Yuhuang Shannan.

     

    In many ways, the evolution of Yuhuang Shannan mirrors that of the entire country. The area was used mostly for farmland until the 20th?century, when industrialization brought factories and warehouses. About a decade ago the local government made a big push into services, promoting the area first as a tourism zone and then as a design hub. Neither of those efforts was successful, but when hedge funds began moving in and authorities heard about Greenwich, the idea for a fund managers’ village took root.

    China Hedge Funds

     

    Today, Yuhuang Shannan is one of the most prominent examples of what policymakers call “characteristic small towns.” The village hosts about 3,000?employees of funds and related businesses, a figure local officials predict will climb as new residential and office space comes online.

    Of course, for economic planners keen to reduce the nation’s reliance on infrastructure spending and heavy manufacturing, there’s a lot to like about hedge funds…after all, you can’t just keep constructing buildings then knocking them down and rebuilding them to engineer economic growth…better to pursue that strategy with financial markets instead.  

    Unfortunately for China’s newest financial wizards, in addition to replicating Greenwich architecture, the hedge fund managers also managed to replicate the negative 2016 fund returns of American’s largest “2 & 20” billionaires. 

    While Chinese hedge funds lost money on average last year, they avoided a client backlash by outperforming local equity and credit markets. Funds tracked by Shanghai Suntime Information Technology were down 2.5 percent in 2016, vs. a 12 percent slide in the Shanghai Composite Index and a 10 percent retreat in high-yield corporate bonds. Client inflows fueled a 55?percent jump in industry assets, while the number of registered funds rose to a record 27,015, according to the Asset Management Association of China.

     

    Charlie Wang, who ran Bank of America’s global equity quant group in London before leaving to start his own investment firm in 2015, launched two funds in China last year. He says the country’s markets have entered something of a sweet spot; while they’ve grown more sophisticated, adding new tools such as futures and options, they’re still inefficient enough to produce attractive returns for savvy managers. That’s thanks in part to the outsize impact of individual investors, who drive more than 80 percent of volume in the Chinese stock market, vs. about 15 ?percent in the U.S.

     

    “It’s easier to achieve alpha here,” says Wang, 53, who oversees about 350 million yuan as the chairman of MD Grand Investments. He opened a commodity futures fund in Yuhuang Shannan last March and added an equity fund in July, connecting with some of his early clients through the village’s management committee.

    This should end well…

  • The Difference Between "F##k You Money" And "F##k Everybody Money"

    Submitted by Daniel Drew via Dark-Bid.com,

    Something strange happened at Google recently. Bloomberg alleges that Google paid its top level employees so much that they crossed the line into "F*** You Money" territory, prompting the employees to pack up and quit. While this intriguing turn of events may have transpired at Google and other technology companies, this would never happen on Wall Street for one reason alone: "F*** You Money" is simply not good enough for the fast money crowd. The pinnacle achievement in the investment industry is "F*** Everybody Money."

    As the Wall Street Journal aptly noted in their concise chart, most people making less than $10,000 are dissatisfied with life.

    As people approach the $100,000 mark, most of them are satisfied. That's why it's not terribly surprising to see stories like this one. Bloomberg reports,

    "Early staffers had an unusual compensation system that awarded supersized payouts based on the project's value. In addition to cash salaries, some staffers were given bonuses and equity in the business and these awards were set aside in a special entity. After several years, Google applied a multiplier to the value of the awards and paid some or all of it out. The multiplier was based on periodic valuations of the division, the people said. A large multiplier was applied to the compensation packages in late 2015, resulting in multi-million dollar payments in some cases, according to the people familiar with the situation. One member of the team had a multiplier of 16 applied to bonuses and equity amassed over four years, one of the people said."

    The whole purpose of compensation is to prevent employees from leaving. Ironically, Google's high pay caused just the opposite, turning traditional compensation theory on its head. This whole episode will be a case study for human resources departments for years. Why does high pay cease to be an incentive after a certain point? The compensation analysts apparently forgot to read the Wall Street Journal study. Most people are satisfied with "F*** You Money."

    Legitimate retention efforts start at the hiring process. If you have such a valuable project, finding highly qualified people is not enough. You have to find people who are both qualified and exponentially driven by money – with no cutoff point. You need someone who isn't satisfied with "F*** You Money." What you need is someone who settles for nothing less than "F*** Everybody Money."

    What is "F*** Everybody Money," and where can you find these people? Look no further.

  • On The Verge Of Treason: US Spies Withhold Intelligence From Trump

    Following President Trump’s exclamations today with regard “un-American” leaks of classified intel, it appears he has a bigger, more serious problem on his hands. WSJ reports that US intel officials have withheld information from President Trump due to concerns it could be leaked or compromised.

    The Wall Street Journal, citing unidentified current and former officials familiar with the matter, reports that officials’ decision to keep information from Mr. Trump underscores the deep mistrust that has developed between the intelligence community and the president over his team’s contacts with the Russian government, as well as the enmity he has shown toward U.S. spy agencies. On Wednesday, Mr. Trump accused the agencies of leaking information to undermine him.

    In some of these cases of withheld information, officials have decided not to show Mr. Trump the sources and methods that the intelligence agencies use to collect information, the current and former officials said. Those sources and methods could include, for instance, the means that an agency uses to spy on a foreign government.

    In some ways Trump may not care: according to the WSK, “Trump doesn’t immerse himself in intelligence information, and it isn’t clear that he has expressed a desire to know sources and methods. The intelligence agencies have been told to dramatically pare down the president’s daily intelligence briefing, both the number of topics and how much information is described under each topic, an official said. Compared with his immediate predecessors, Mr. Trump so far has chosen to rely less on the daily briefing than they did.”

    However, now that the WSJ brought up this topic, one can be absolutely sure the first demand Trump will make during his next intel briefing: “show me all the information.” That’s when things could get rough.

    The officials quoted by the WSJ emphasized they know of no instance in which crucial information about security threats or potential plotting has been omitted, although if indeed “some” information is withheld, it is the functional equivalent of Trump making decisions blind.

    While a White House official said: “There is nothing that leads us to believe that this is an accurate account of what is actually happening”, Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said he has heard concerns from officials about sharing especially sensitive information with Mr. Trump.

    “I’ve talked with people in the intelligence community that do have concerns about the White House, about the president, and I think those concerns take a number of forms,” Mr. Schiff said, without confirming any specific incidents.

     

    “What the intelligence community considers their most sacred obligation is to protect the very best intelligence and to protect the people that are producing it.”

    So, why are they worried?

    The current and former officials said the decision to avoid revealing sources and methods with Mr. Trump stems in large part from the president’s repeated expressions of admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin and his call, during the presidential campaign for Russia to continue hacking the emails of his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton.

    As the long-running tensions between the pro-Hillary intelligence community and President Trump rise, it is becoming increasingly clear that this escalating distrust between the top US spies on one hand and the White House on the other, will lead to a vicious circle of less information-sharing and implicitly more distrust until Trump moves from tweet-castigation to treason charges, or alternatively the spooks dig deep into the NSA server’s bag of goodies, and unleash full out mutiny (see John Schindler’s narrative for big details how this may play out).

     

  • How Much Must A Family Earn To Live In Each Major US City

    London-based realtor Nested produced the 2017 Rental Index in conjunction with their recent Real Estate Index. The study illustrates the price of renting per square foot in 10 major US cities and a number of metropolises worldwide. The research conveys the minimum gross salary required to support an individual and a family of four in rented property based on the minimum space recommended for one person, and for four people respectively.

    Some of the key findings:

    • The top three most expensive cities to rent in worldwide are American: San Francisco, New York City and Boston
    • At $1.09 per square foot, Detroit is the cheapest of the American cities included, and is more affordable than Cape Town, Bangkok and Jakarta.
    • New York City and San Francisco are five times more expensive than Detroit, and three times more expensive than Houston

    The study was undertaken to understand the costs associated with renting as an individual and as a family, and to determine whether cities are becoming increasingly unaffordable. The inclusion of the global ranking alongside the US ranking allows easy comparison between the two, and illustrates the relative unaffordability of major US cities compared to other global settlements.

    The price per square foot of property was calculated based upon current market listings for all locations researched, while the minimum space recommended for one person and four people is laid out in guidelines from an urban planning authority. The gross salary guideline was included to help illustrate relative affordability.

    Here are the study’s core findings about the US market.

    • The most expensive city in the United States to rent property is San Francisco, at $4.95 per square foot.
    • To afford to rent the minimal rental space recommended for one person and cover additional living costs in San Francisco, an individual needs a gross income of $85,985.38 per year. 
    • The minimal rental space recommended for a family of four costs $3,942.82 per month in San Francisco. To afford that and cover additional living costs, a gross income of $163,151.17 per year is required. 
    • The most affordable American city in the list is Detroit, where a square foot costs $1.09.
    • To live alone in Detroit and cover additional living costs, an annual salary of only $18,933.96 is required.
    • The afford the minimal space recommended for a family of four and cover additional living costs in Detroit, an income of $35,926.34 is required.
    • A family rental in Detroit is cheaper than a single rental in seven US cities in the list, including Miami, Los Angeles and Seattle.
    • Rental properties in New York City and San Francisco are more than three times more expensive than in Houston, and almost five times more expensive than in Detroit.

    The results for the United States, ranked by the cost of rental per square per foot, are as follows:

    * * *

    Expanding to all global cities:

    • The three most expensive cities to rent globally are all in America: San Francisco, New York City and Boston. 120 global cities were included in the study.
    • Of the cities included in the list, five of the top ten most expensive cities to rent are in the US.
    • The most expensive city outside of the US for rental is Hong Kong, where a annual gross income of $66,530.07 is required to afford the minimum space recommended for one person and living costs.
    • To afford the minimum space recommended for a family of four and cover additional living costs in Hong Kong, an annual income of $126,236.28 is required. 
    • Of the 120 cities included, Cairo is the cheapest city to rent property, at just 28 cents per square foot.
    • To afford the recommended space for one person and cover additional living costs in Cairo, a gross income of $6,130.89 per year is needed.
    • To pay for family rental and additional living costs in Cairo, a gross income of $11,633.11 per year is needed.
    • At $1.09 per square foot, rental in Detroit is cheaper than in Cape Town, Bangkok or Jakarta.

    The top 25 results for the global cities list, ranked by the cost of rental per square per metre, are as follows:

    For the full list, go here.

  • The Globalist Long Game – Redefine Liberty Activism As Evil "Populism"

    Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

    One of the most favored propaganda tactics of establishment elites and the useful idiots they employ in Marxist and cultural-Marxist circles is to relabel or redefine an opponent before they can solidly define themselves.  In other words, elites and Marxists 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.

    Think of it this way: Say you want to launch an organization called “Movement Blue,” and you and others have gone through great struggle to grow this organization from the ground up.  However, just as your movement is about to achieve widespread recognition, someone else comes along, someone with extensive capital and media influence, and they saturate every outlet with the narrative that your movement is actually more like “Movement Red,” and that Movement Red is a terrible, no-good, bad idea.  They do such a good job, in fact, that millions and millions of people start calling you “Movement Red” without even knowing why, and they begin to believe all the negative associations that this label entails.

    Through the art of negative branding, your enemy has stolen your most precious asset — the ability to present yourself to the public as you really are.

    Negative branding is a form of psychological inoculation.  It is designed to close people’s minds to particular ideas before they actually hear those ideas presented by a true proponent of the ideas.  But beyond that, negative branding can also be used to trick groups and movements into abandoning their original identity.

    For example, the concept of economic freedom for individuals –the freedom from overt government interference or government favoritism for certain people over others, the freedom to compete with ideas and ingenuity to build a better business and a better product, the freedom to retain the fruits of one’s labor — used to be widely referred to as “free markets”, as defined by Adam Smith.  The very basis of free market philosophy was to remove obstruction and economic oppression from the common man in order to inspire a renaissance in innovation and prosperity.  The problem is, you rarely hear anyone but libertarians talk about traditional "free markets" anymore.

    Though Karl Marx did not coin the term “capitalism,” he and his followers (and editors) are indeed guilty of the pejorative version now used.  It has always been Marxist propagandists who have sought to redefine the idea of “free markets” in a negative way, and the use of the term capitalism is how they did it.  They have been so effective in their efforts that today even some free market proponents instead refer to themselves as “capitalists.”

    While “free markets” denote freedom of the common man to pursue a better life through productivity and intelligence and merit, “capitalism” denotes a monstrous and blind pursuit of wealth and power without moral regard.  One gives the impression of fairness, the other gives the impression of tyranny.

    Is there even such an animal as “capitalism?”  I can’t really say.  What I do know is that the system we have today, a hybrid mutation of corporatism and socialism, is certainly NOT a free market system if we are to follow the true definition and the original intent.  Yet, whenever cultural and economic Marxists attack the notion of economic freedom, they use the system we have now as an example of the failures of “free market capitalism.”

    This is the magic of negative branding, and it is used in every facet of social life and geopolitics.

    Now, before I get into the term “populist,” I recognize that people opposed to my position will immediately spring into a tirade about how liberty and sovereignty champions brand those against our ideals “in the exact same way.”  This is not quite true, though.

    When we refer to “globalists” in a negative manner, we are taking a pre-existing label, something that they often call themselves, and pointing out that their philosophy is flawed and highly destructive based on historical evidence and verifiable facts.  We are not seeking to redefine them as anything other than what they already are.  We are merely exposing to the public what they OPENLY promote and believe and then offer our side and our evidence as to why their beliefs are wrong.

    This is not what they do to us.  Instead, globalists and their cronies prefer that the public does not get to hear our views directly from us.  They rarely, if ever, actually use our publications as a source for their attacks on our principles.  They would much rather tell the public what we are and what we believe before they are ever exposed to us.  This is why you will often find that many participants in protest groups at events held by anti-globalists like Ben Shapiro or Milo Yiannopoulos have never actually seen or heard a single speech by the men in question.  They have no idea what we really stand for.  In fact, they protest our speakers, groups and movements based on what they were told we stand for by other biased sources.

    This brings us to “populism.”

    There has been a deep and concerted propaganda campaign taking place against liberty activists, sovereignty champions, anti-globalists, anti-SJW groups, and conservatives in general.  I noticed this particular campaign accelerating at the beginning of 2016, and it was the primary reason why I chose to take a hard stance on my predictions for Brexit passage and a Trump election win.  The propaganda narrative could be summarized as follows:

    Since early 2016 (according to globalists and the mainstream publications featuring their opinions), there has been a rising tide of nationalists and “populists” in western nations.  This sudden surge in “populism” is inexorably tied to the Brexit movement and the support for candidates like Donald Trump.  Populism will overrun the existing “stability” of globalism and cause severe economic crisis in numerous countries.  It finds its roots in the “less educated” portions of the population, as well as in older generations that think they have something to lose if globalism succeeds.  It is also driven by an “irrational fear” of economic change, global interdependence and multiculturalism.  Populists are predominantly naive and desperate for “strongmen” leaders to fight for them.  Some of them are motivated by self interest, while others are motivated by racism.

    You can see these sentiments expressed bluntly in numerous mainstream media outlets.  The Guardian has no qualms about linking the Brexit to “racism” and populism, for example.  The Washington Post also has had no problem linking the Tea Party and Trump supporters to racism and populism as well.

    Beyond the paper-thin accusations of racism, the general thrust of the negative branding is clear; if you are against globalism (or elitism) and its major tenets, then you are a “populist.”  This is reiterated in recent articles from Bloomberg and The Guardian.

    But in such publications, the most egregious argument is the one that is not directly made.  The insinuation is that “populism” is not just defined by a fear of corruption through organized elitism, but that this fear is UNFOUNDED.  Meaning, anyone who argues against the mechanizations of globalists, for instance, is not only redefined as a “populist,” but he/she is also, essentially, ignorant or insane.  See how that works?

    The populist label is often used to describe a political movement built on the cult of personality, a sycophantic love affair with a celebrity dictator that tends to have ulterior motives.  Thus, the philosophical underpinnings of that particular movement are further eroded because they don’t even know why they are doing what they are doing; they are only playing a foolish game of follow the leader.

    So, to recap, according to the establishment and their “press,” conservatives and sovereignty activists are actually “populists.” Our concerns over uncontrolled immigration and open borders are not based on rationalism and historic evidence of social and economic instability as well as the highly evidenced threats of terrorism; they are based on “xenophobia.”

    Our concerns over the increasing fiscal weakness generated by the economic interdependence of globalism and our lack of self reliance are not based on math and logic, but our “lack of understanding” on how interdependence makes everything better.

    Our concerns over rampant organized elitism and the corruption this entails are not based on numerous concrete examples, not to mention exposed documentation and the words of elitists themselves; they are based on a “fantasy world” of “tinfoil hatters” who just make stuff up while consuming heaping helpings of "fake news".

    If this is the case, then I suppose I should fasten my own tinfoil hat tightly and note that this narrative is part of an ongoing long-game by globalists.  They are not attempting to achieve the demonization of conservatives and sovereignty advocates today or tomorrow.  This is about preparing the public for a near future, perhaps five to 10 years from now, after they have sufficiently sabotaged the global economy and scapegoated us for the crisis this will cause.

    Not possible, you say?  By all means, read my article 'The False Economic Recovery Narrative Will Die In 2017' for further explanation.  If we are not careful, we will be redefined not just by establishment propaganda, but by a global calamity that will be gift wrapped with our name on it and tied around our collective necks.

    In the meantime, how do we fight back against this disinformation campaign?

    One factor that a “populist movement” generally does not have is the ability to remain self-critical.  Populism, at least according to the mainstream media, requires a mentality of mass blind faith in a cause that is misunderstood or a leader that is dishonest.  The liberty movement and conservative groups still have some members who are not afraid to point out when we are going astray in our logic or our actions.

    We have not been silenced by our own peers, yet.  Given enough crisis, it is hard to say how people will react.  A major terrorist attack, an economic panic, a war; these kinds of rip-tides can inspire a lot of intolerance for contrary views.  We are not there at this point, and as long as members of our movement are able to retain a critical eye, we will never be “populists.”

    Another method is to refrain from adopting the “branding” that the establishment tries to use against us.  Beware of anyone within our groups and organizations who begins referring to himself or us as “populists” as if this is a label of which we should be proud.

    In the long run, people with ill intent will call us whatever they want to call us.  The real issue is, will those labels stick?  Will we help them to stick by losing our composure and acting the way the propagandists always said we would?

    Negative branding is about burning a hole in the historical record, because memes last far longer than people.  In 100 years, how will we be remembered?  This is what the globalists value most – future impressions of today by generations not yet born.  Because wars are not just fought in one moment over one piece of ground or over one idea; they are fought in ALL moments, for days not yet passed, for the posterity of all ideas, even those not yet thought of.  If we do not fight back with this in mind, winning will be impossible.

  • FBI Reportedly Will Not Pursue Charges Against "Cooperative And Truthful" Mike Flynn

    Amid a day of condemnations and escalating supposition – if authorities conclude that Mr. Flynn knowingly lied to the F.B.I., "it could expose him to a felony charge" – it appears the Flynn story may be about to fade from the news cycle. Exposing The New York Times' "alternative facts" about Flynn, CNN's Jim Sciutto reports The FBI is not expected to pursue charges against Michael Flynn.

    Earlier today, media reports hit that FBI agents interviewed Michael Flynn when he was national security adviser in the first days of the Trump administration about his conversations with the Russian ambassador.

    While it is not clear what he said in his interview, the FBI now adds that investigators "believed that Mr. Flynn was not entirely forthcoming, the officials said." That avenue raises the stakes of what so far has been a political scandal that cost Mr. Flynn his job, and which Sean Spicer explained today was merely a matter of Trump "losing trust" in his Security advisor, because if authorities conclude that Mr. Flynn knowingly lied to the F.B.I., "it could expose him to a felony charge", even though some have questioned how an illegally obtained transcript of his phone conversation could be admissable as evidence in a court of law.

    But now, CNN's Jim Sciutto reports,

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    And even more disappointingly for those calling for his head…

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Seems fair, The FBI had no problem letting Hillary Clinton off the hook despite numerous attempts to hide the truth.. and from what it seems now, Flynn didn't even do that.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 15th February 2017

  • Top Neocon, Bill Kristol, Exposes His True Undemocratic Feelings During High Moment on Twitter

    Bill Kristol’s father was one of the founders of the neocon movement. Essentially, they were former communists who were loyal to Trotsky who toiled to overthrow Stalin, in an effort to spread communism. After the USSR collapsed, they coopted the GOP and used ‘democracy’ as their call for global revolution, which was essentially code for empire through war.

    Naturally, they’ve been part of the government for a long time, via Kissinger and Brzezinski, but they only truly came out in the open under the idiot Bush.

    Here’s an excellent piece discussing them.

    And now here he is laid bare. Do we need any further proof that these people are a threat to democracy?

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

     

     

    Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com

  • Coming Soon To A City Near You: The US Military's Plan To Take Over America

    Submitted by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    “Our current and past strategies can no longer hold. We are facing environments that the masters of war never foresaw. We are facing a threat that requires us to redefine doctrine and the force in radically new and different ways. The future army will confront a highly sophisticated urban-centric threat that will require that urban operations become the core requirement for the future land-force. The threat is clear. Our direction remains to be defined. The future is urban.”

     

    -“Megacities: Urban Future, the Emerging Complexity,” a Pentagon training video created by the Army for U.S. Special Operations Command

    The U.S. military plans to take over America by 2030.

    No, this is not another conspiracy theory. Although it easily could be.

    Nor is it a Hollywood political thriller in the vein of John Frankenheimer’s 1964 political thriller Seven Days in May about a military coup d’etat.

    Although it certainly has all the makings of a good thriller.

    No, this is the real deal, coming at us straight from the horse’s mouth.

    According to “Megacities: Urban Future, the Emerging Complexity,” a Pentagon training video created by the Army for U.S. Special Operations Command, the U.S. military plans to use armed forces to solve future domestic political and social problems.

    What they’re really talking about is martial law, packaged as a well-meaning and overriding concern for the nation’s security.

    The chilling five-minute training video, obtained by The Intercept through a FOIA request and made available online, paints an ominous picture of the future—a future the military is preparing for—bedeviled by “criminal networks,” “substandard infrastructure,” “religious and ethnic tensions,” “impoverishment, slums,” “open landfills, over-burdened sewers,” a “growing mass of unemployed,” and an urban landscape in which the prosperous economic elite must be protected from the impoverishment of the have nots.

    And then comes the kicker.

    Three-and-a-half minutes into the Pentagon’s dystopian vision of “a world of Robert Kaplan-esque urban hellscapes — brutal and anarchic supercities filled with gangs of youth-gone-wild, a restive underclass, criminal syndicates, and bands of malicious hackers,” the ominous voice of the narrator speaks of a need to “drain the swamps.”

    Drain the swamps.

    Surely, we’ve heard that phrase before?

    Ah yes.

    Emblazoned on t-shirts and signs, shouted at rallies, and used as a rallying cry among Trump supporters, “drain the swamp” became one of Donald Trump’s most-used campaign slogans, along with “build the wall” and “lock her up.”

    Funny how quickly the tides can shift and the tables can turn.

    Whereas Trump promised to drain the politically corrupt swamps of Washington DC of lobbyists and special interest groups, the U.S. military is plotting to drain the swamps of futuristic urban American cities of “noncombatants and engage the remaining adversaries in high intensity conflict within.”

    And who are these noncombatants, a military term that refers to civilians who are not engaged in fighting?

    They are, according to the Pentagon, “adversaries.”

    They are “threats.”

    They are the “enemy.”

    They are people who don’t support the government, people who live in fast-growing urban communities, people who may be less well-off economically than the government and corporate elite, people who engage in protests, people who are unemployed, people who engage in crime (in keeping with the government’s fast-growing, overly broad definition of what constitutes a crime).

    In other words, in the eyes of the U.S. military, noncombatants are American citizens a.k.a. domestic extremists a.k.a. enemy combatants who must be identified, targeted, detained, contained and, if necessary, eliminated.

    Welcome to Battlefield America.

    In the future imagined by the Pentagon, any walls and prisons that are built will be used to protect the societal elite—the haves—from the have-nots.

    We are the have-nots.

    Suddenly it all begins to make sense.

    The events of recent years: the invasive surveillance, the extremism reports, the civil unrest, the protests, the shootings, the bombings, the military exercises and active shooter drills, the color-coded alerts and threat assessments, the fusion centers, the transformation of local police into extensions of the military, the distribution of military equipment and weapons to local police forces, the government databases containing the names of dissidents and potential troublemakers.

    This is how you prepare a populace to accept a police state willingly, even gratefully.

    You don’t scare them by making dramatic changes. Rather, you acclimate them slowly to their prison walls. Persuade the citizenry that their prison walls are merely intended to keep them safe and danger out.

    Desensitize them to violence, acclimate them to a military presence in their communities and persuade them that there is nothing they can do to alter the seemingly hopeless trajectory of the nation.

    Before long, no one will even notice the floundering economy, the blowback arising from military occupations abroad, the police shootings, the nation’s deteriorating infrastructure and all of the other mounting concerns.

    It’s happening already.

    The sight of police clad in body armor and gas masks, wielding semiautomatic rifles and escorting an armored vehicle through a crowded street, a scene likened to “a military patrol through a hostile city,” no longer causes alarm among the general populace.

    Few seem to care about the government’s endless wars abroad that leave communities shattered, families devastated and our national security at greater risk of blowback. Indeed, there were no protests in the streets after U.S. military forces raided a compound in Yemen, killing “at least eight women and seven children, ages 3 to 13.”

    Their tactics are working.

    We’ve allowed ourselves to be acclimated to the occasional lockdown of government buildings, Jade Helm military drills in small towns so that special operations forces can get “realistic military training” in “hostile” territory, and  Live Active Shooter Drill training exercises, carried out at schools, in shopping malls, and on public transit, which can and do fool law enforcement officials, students, teachers and bystanders into thinking it’s a real crisis.

    Still, you can’t say we weren’t warned.

    Back in 2008, an Army War College report revealed that “widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security.” The 44-page report went on to warn that potential causes for such civil unrest could include another terrorist attack, “unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters.”

    In 2009, reports by the Department of Homeland Security surfaced that labelled right-wing and left-wing activists and military veterans as extremists (a.k.a. terrorists) and called on the government to subject such targeted individuals to full-fledged pre-crime surveillance. Almost a decade later, after spending billions to fight terrorism, the DHS concluded that the greater threat is not ISIS but domestic right-wing extremism.

    Meanwhile, the government has been amassing an arsenal of military weapons for use domestically and equipping and training their “troops” for war. Even government agencies with largely administrative functions such as the Food and Drug Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Smithsonian have been acquiring body armor, riot helmets and shields, cannon launchers and police firearms and ammunition. In fact, there are now at least 120,000 armed federal agents carrying such weapons who possess the power to arrest.

    Rounding out this profit-driven campaign to turn American citizens into enemy combatants (and America into a battlefield) is a technology sector that has been colluding with the government to create a Big Brother that is all-knowing, all-seeing and inescapable. It’s not just the drones, fusion centers, license plate readers, stingray devices and the NSA that you have to worry about. You’re also being tracked by the black boxes in your cars, your cell phone, smart devices in your home, grocery loyalty cards, social media accounts, credit cards, streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon, and e-book reader accounts.

    All of this has taken place right under our noses, funded with our taxpayer dollars and carried out in broad daylight without so much as a general outcry from the citizenry.

    It’s astounding how convenient we’ve made it for the government to lock down the nation.

    So what exactly is the government preparing for?

    Mind you, by “government,” I’m not referring to the highly partisan, two-party bureaucracy of the Republicans and Democrats.

    I’m referring to “government” with a capital “G,” the entrenched Deep State that is unaffected by elections, unaltered by populist movements, and has set itself beyond the reach of the law.

    I’m referring to the corporatized, militarized, entrenched bureaucracy that is fully operational and staffed by unelected officials who are, in essence, running the country and calling the shots in Washington DC, no matter who sits in the White House.

    This is the hidden face of a government that has no respect for the freedom of its citizenry.

    What is the government preparing for? You tell me.

    Better yet, take a look at the Pentagon’s training video.

    It’s only five minutes long, but it says a lot about the government’s mindset, the way its views the citizenry, and the so-called “problems” that the military must be prepared to address in the near future. Even more troubling, however, is what this military video doesn’t say about the Constitution, about the rights of the citizenry, and about the dangers of using the military to address political and social problems.

    The future is here.

    We’re already witnessing a breakdown of society on virtually every front.

    By waging endless wars abroad, by bringing the instruments of war home, by transforming police into extensions of the military, by turning a free society into a suspect society, by treating American citizens like enemy combatants, by discouraging and criminalizing a free exchange of ideas, by making violence its calling card through SWAT team raids and militarized police, by fomenting division and strife among the citizenry, by acclimating the citizenry to the sights and sounds of war, and by generally making peaceful revolution all but impossible, the government has engineered an environment in which domestic violence has become almost inevitable.

    Be warned: in the future envisioned by the military, we will not be viewed as Republicans or Democrats. Rather, “we the people” will be enemies of the state.

    As I make clear in my book, Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we’re already enemies of the state.

    For years, the government has been warning against the dangers of domestic terrorism, erecting surveillance systems to monitor its own citizens, creating classification systems to label any viewpoints that challenge the status quo as extremist, and training law enforcement agencies to equate anyone possessing anti-government views as a domestic terrorist. What the government failed to explain was that the domestic terrorists would be of the government’s own making, whether intentional or not.

    “We the people” have become enemy #1.

  • NYTimes Reports Trump Aides' "Repeated Contact" With Russian Intel Officials, Admits No Collusion Discovered

    As The White House tries to put the Flynn disappointment behind them, The New York Times appears to be resurrecting an old story with a new angle to keep the 'blame the Russians' narrative alive. Following FISA court approval (to spy on Trump's campaign), intercepted calls reportedly show "repeated contact" between Trump advisor Paul Manafort and senior Russian intelligence officials… but reveal no collusion.

    Intercepted phone calls and phone records show that several aides and allies to President Trump's campaign were in repeated contact with senior Russian intelligence officials, according to the New York Times. As The Hill explains,

    Current and former officials that spoke with the Times would not give many details, and it's not clear exactly who, both from the U.S. and Russia, were part of the conversations or what they talked about, including if discussions centered on Trump himself.

     

    Officials told the publication that they have seen no evidence of collusion in regards to hacking or the election.

     

    Three of the four current and former officials who spoke with the Times said the contacts were discovered during the same time that U.S. intelligence agencies were investigating Russia's extensive hacking campaign, later determined to be aimed at helping Trump win the White House.

     

    The Times' sources said Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign chairman, was picked up on the calls. Manafort left the campaign after several months as reports swirled about his business ties in Russia and the Ukraine.

    The officials would not name any other Trump aides or supporters captured in the conversations.

    As a reminder, it was not just Paul Manafort that was involved in FBI probes, but Tony Podesta – the brother of Hillary Clinton's campaign director John Podesta – who had set up secret meetinsg woth Ukraine officials.

    Manafort, who has not been charged with any crimes, exclaims To Britain's Telegraph that "this is absurb,"

    “I have no idea what this is referring to. I have never knowingly spoken to Russian intelligence officers, and I have never been involved with anything to do with the Russian government or the Putin administration or any other issues under investigation today.”

     

    Mr. Manafort added, “It’s not like these people wear badges that say, ‘I’m a Russian intelligence officer.’"

    Several of Mr. Trump’s associates, like Mr. Manafort, have done business in Russia, and it is not unusual for American businessmen to come in contact with foreign intelligence officials, sometimes unwittingly, in countries like Russia and Ukraine, where the spy services are deeply embedded in society. Law enforcement officials did not say to what extent the contacts may have been about business.

    Finally, buried deep in The New York Times' story – which is sure to run the narrative during tomorrow's media cycle (and already is a hot topic of conjecture on CNN) – the author admits, rather sheepishly that…

    The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.

     

    The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation.

    Which confirms what The FBI said back in November.

    *  *  *

    The bottom line here is that the only incremental news is that Manafort knowingly or unknowingly came into contact with Russian intelligence officials during his business dealings but no election-collusion was discovered. We leave it to Ari Fleischer to sum it all up perfectly…

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  • Democrats At Pennsylvania College Invite Students To Wear White Pins As Reminder Of Their "White Privilege"

    Students at Elizabethtown College in Pennsylvania are being encouraged by the campus Democrat club to wear a white pin for a year to help them reflect on their “white privilege and the impact white privilege has on people of color.”  The campaign was launched over the weekend by the Elizabethtown College Democrats, who say it aims to make students at the small and private liberal arts college in Pennsylvania more introspective about issues of race, especially in their predominantly white region of Lancaster County.

    Reached by College Fix via email, the President of the Elizabethtown College Democrats said that no matter how accepting white people are it “doesn’t stop them from being part of a system based on centuries of inequality.”

    “Discussions about race are often perceived as being only open to people of color, but I think it is just as important for white people to partake in conversations about race,” Aileen Ida, president of the College Democrats, told The College Fix via email.

     

    Ida said white people are continually allowing for a societal system of oppression to occur unless they work against it. The white puzzle piece pin represents racial struggles of all sorts.

     

    “No matter how accepting someone is, that doesn’t stop them from being part of a system based on centuries of inequality,” she said, adding the campaign transcends politics.

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

     

    Asked if all white students are ‘privileged’, Ida quickly dropped some of the knowledge she’s managed to accumulate in here vast 18ish years of worldly experiences by responding with a simple, “yes”…what more is there to say really?  While conceding that she doesn’t think all whites are socioeconomically privileged, Ida, to our complete shock, declined to cite specific examples of white privilege…way to act on your convictions supported by carefully considered facts and figures, Ida.

    She also clarified that it’s not just white students who can wear the pins, that students of all races should take part to start a campuswide discussion that crosses racial divides.

     

    Yet, she notes most people of color already have to live with racism while white people don’t.

     

    “I believe that this [inherent white privilege] can be seen in the day-to-day life of people of color versus the day-to-day life of white people,” Ida said. “Most people of color don’t have a choice but to consider how their race affects their life on a daily basis, this is not true for most white people.”

    Meanwhile, a Facebook post by the “Etown College Dems” helped to shed some additional light on the effort.

    The Elizabethtown College Democrats are proud to announce a campaign being launched this weekend! This project, which is slightly modified for our use, was started by a ELCA Lutheran Pastor from Wisconsin named Barb Girod. Barb made a commitment to wear a white puzzle piece pin every day for a year to force herself to think about her white privilege and the impact white privilege has on people of color. This project, along with ours, forces everybody to think about racial issues people face daily.

     

    The project sponsored by the Elizabethtown College Democrats will follow Barb’s inspiring initiative to create the conversation greatly needed in Central Pennsylvania. Students on campus and in the community are encouraged to join our campaign to think about one thing – how race affects their life, whether directly or indirectly. Following the launch of our pin campaign, a sister campaign will be launched where students have the opportunity to anonymously tell personal stories about how race affects their everyday lives.

     

    There will be a kick-off at the Mosaic House (346 E. Orange Street, Elizabethtown, PA) Sat., Feb. 11 at 7 p.m. where the project will be explained in full and guest speakers will present on the topic of racial privilege and the importance of such a conversation. There will be food and drinks! This event is free and open to the public.

    And, our parting thoughts…

    Full Retard

  • Michael Moore Melts Down; Tells Trump To "Resign By Morning" Or Face "Impeachment You Russian Traitor"

    Michael Moore, the ultra-liberal documentary filmmaker who infamously predicted a Trump victory well before election night last November by stunningly calling Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania for the Republican nominee, has, over the past 24 hours, decided to broadcast his latest nervous breakdown over Twitter for all to see. 

    It all started with the following tweet storm posted by Moore in the wee hours of the morning saying that, among other things, “Flynn DID NOT make that Russian call on his own” but rather “was INSTRUCTED to do so.”  Moore went on to insist that Flynn was just the first of several senior Trump advisors that would inevitably be fired and predicted that “Miller & Bannon” would be next before calling on Trump himself to “Resign by morning!”

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

     

    And, lest you thought he was just joking and/or slept off his temporary “mental incapacitation” and decided to move on with his life, Moore just lit up the Twittersphere again this afternoon asking Trump “What part of “vacate you Russian traitor” don’t you understand?” while threatening that “We can do this the easy way (you resign), or the hard way (impeachment).”

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

     

    But, while we certainly respect his November prognostication and admire his tenacity, we suspect his calls for a Trump resignation may be premature…just a hunch.

  • Judge Rules Health Insurance Companies Matter More Than Taxpayers

    Submitted by Tho Bishop via The Mises Institute,

    Largely overlooked last week in the wake of President Donald Trump’s court battle was another controversial judicial ruling.

    On Thursday the US Court of Claims rewarding Moda Health, an Oregon-based health insurer, $214 million for losses it took participating in the high risk insurance pools established under the Affordable Care Act. The dispute came after Republicans eliminated funding for tax payer subsidies to those firms that lost money writing insurance for high risk individuals.

    As Judge Thomas Wheeler wrote:

    The Court finds that the Government made a promise in the risk corridors program that it has yet to fulfill. Today, the Court directs the Government to fulfill that promise. After all, to say to [Moda], 'The joke is on you. You shouldn't have trusted us,' is hardly worthy of our great government.

    Of course history shows that this behavior is quite characteristic of "our great government."

    After all, Obamacare itself was sold to the public based on multiple (and intentional) lies. These included, the cost of Obamacare and the impact it would have on individuals pre-existing insurance coverage, as well as their ability to keep their doctor. The Supreme Court was only able to maintain Obamacare by interpreting the individual mandate as a tax, after the legislation’s defenders explicitly argued it wasn’t.

    The result of all of this was government effectively telling its citizens, "The joke is on you. You shouldn’t have trusted us."

    Of course it is not Moda Health’s fault that government lied through its teeth, and it is easy to find sympathy in their plight. As they argued in this case, the company only “aggressively” engaged in the ACA’s high risk insurance pools because they had an expectation to be compensated by government, as initially outlined in the law. As such, the company has been suffering severe losses and almost went into receivership based on their dire fiscal situation.

    Yet it is not the Obama Administration that will be left paying Moda Health hundreds of millions of dollars, but the taxpayers who themselves were victims of fraud. Further, since Moda is just the first of many health insurers suing the government of the change in policy, if this precedent continues the costs to taxpayers will end up being billions of dollars.

    At the end of the day, Moda was not forced to enter the high risk market and did so knowing this was a highly controversial piece of legislation that was subject to change, and with a government that has a history of not upholding its promises. Just as contracts based on Ponzi schemes and other fraudulent forms of financing are not held up in court, Moda Health and other health insurance companies should not be entitled to the money Obamacare’s victims.

    All last week’s court ruling demonstrated was that the interests of health insurance companies are to be protected at the expense of the American people. Unfortunately, that mindset also explains how America’s health system became what it is today.

     

  • Detroit 'Wins' Award For Most Unhealthy City In The U.S.; Here's Where Your City Ranks

    A couple of years ago, in the midst of its bankruptcy proceedings, we posted a series of stunning pictures illustrating the “Death And Decay Of Detroit.”  Once a beacon of America’s manufacturing prowess, a series of time lapsed pictures revealed how, in just a few years following the ‘great recession’ of 2008, the once vibrant metropolis became the poster child for urban decay. 

    Unfortunately, at least according to a new study from WalletHub, Detroit’s crumbling commercial and residential infrastructure isn’t the only thing deteriorating rapidly in “America’s Comeback City.”  The study, which ranks America’s 150 largest cities based on overall health, pegged Detroit ‘dead’ last. 

    Of course, in many ways, the map of America’s most healthy cities mimics an electoral college map with the Northeast and West Coast ranking generally more healthy while residents of the Southeast and Texas suffered the consequences of their love for fried foods.

    //d2e70e9yced57e.cloudfront.net/wallethub/embed/31072/geochart.html

    Source: WalletHub

     

    Meanwhile, the map of “least healthy” cities is pretty much the inverse of the following map of the “fattest” cities.

    //d2e70e9yced57e.cloudfront.net/wallethub/embed/10532/geochart-obesity4.html

    Source: WalletHub

     

     

    Among other things, the health of America’s metropolitan areas was ranked by the prevalence of obese residents and access and health and wellness facilities at reasonable costs.

    To reach their findings, WalletHub graded each city using 34 categories as metrics along with a specific weight for each category. The categories were split among four groups that accounted for 25 points each: health care, food, fitness, and green space. The higher the score, the healthier the city.

     

    Categories considered in the study included mental health counselors per capita, cost of medical visit, and quality of public hospitals for health care; healthy restaurants per capita, share of obese residents, and produce consumption for categories under food; fitness clubs per capita, weight loss centers per capital, and share of residents who engage in any physical activity for categories in fitness; and quality of parks, bike score, and walking trails per capita among the categories for green space.

    And here are your top and bottom 10 most/least healthy cities.  Unsurprisingly, the health conscious, liberal bastions of California dominate the most healthy cities while Texas and the Southeast dominated the least healthy cities.

    Healthy Cities

     

    Apparently people in CA, OR and WA love to eat their fruits and vegetables while the folks of LA, AL, MS and AR are still looking for a viable way to deep fry their strawberries before partaking.

    Healthy Cities

    But, keep you head up Detroit…we’re sure things will turn around for you at some point.

  • Mayor de Blasio Paradrops Leaflets Over Schools: "We Will Not Turn Our Back On Immigrant Brothers & Sisters"

    In what appears to be an effort to quell the fear rising in the 'legal' immigrant community about President Trump's 'illegal' immigration policies, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio – not one to shy away from scare-mongering that very fear into 'legal' immigrants – has leaflet-bombed the city's public schools reassuring 'immigrants' that they will not be bothered by President Trump’s 'illegal' immigration efforts.

    "The City of New York supports all its residents. Everyone, including undocumented immigrants, can access most City services, such as going to school or using the healthcare system or other City services.

     

    City employees will not ask about immigration status unless it is necessary to do their jobs. They must keep immigration status information confidential."

    Quick translation: [undocumented] = [illegal] but the former connotes no ill-will and implied they are pending documentation whereas the latter is what it is – the immigrants are in the country illegally, the noting of which will likely hurt someone's feelings.

    Full leaflet below:

    h/t Breaking911.com

    As Mayor Bill de Blasio complained when President Trump's executive order was issued:

    "As an American and the grandson of immigrants I am profoundly saddened by the President’s Executive Order on immigration issued today. The United States has been a beacon of hope to the world. We are a country founded on the belief of religious pluralism and equality. Today the President sent a shamefully different message. He has temporarily suspended nearly all refugee admissions, indefinitely banned refugee admissions from Syria, and imposed a 90-day ban on all immigration from a number of Muslim-majority countries. These policies do not reflect the values of the United States or of New York City. We must continue to embrace refugees in need who are victims of terror, not terrorists. We must protect and celebrate religious pluralism. In this great city of immigrants we will remain true to our values and always welcome all who yearn to breathe free."

    Presumably his grand-parents were 'legal' immigrants?

  • What Catalyst Will Start The Next Bear Market: Here Is Wall Street's Response

    In the latest monthly Fund Managers Survey conducted by Bank of America, virtually none of the biggest “tail risks” noted by Wall Street’s smart money (the 175 respondents to the survey collectively run a total of $543 billion) in February was touched upon in January, suggesting Wall Street has a whole new set of things that keep it up at night.

    As the following chart shows, when asked what the biggest ‘tail risks’ are this month, 36% responded European elections raising disintegration risk; 32% said Trade war; while only 13% said “Crash in global bond markets.”

    On the other hand, another notable, recurding question: “what do you think is the most crowded trade”, lead to similar responses as those seen last month: a vast majority 41% said being long the US Dollar, 14% said shorting government bonds (a modest increase from the prior month), and only 13% said being long US/EU corporate bonds.

    But the most interesting question was one we had not noticed before in the BofA survey, namely “What will be the most likely catalyst to cause an end to the 8-year equity bull market?

    The responses: “protectionism” = 34%, “higher rates” = 28%, “financial event” = 18%, “weaker EPS” = 15%.

    A follow up question asked “What economic outcome do you expect new “populist policies” to induce?” The answers suggested a curious split – on one hand Wall Street has voted that Trump’s policies would be beneficial for stocks as seen by yet another all time high in the S&P; on the other half, more than half of respondents said that should Trump truly unleash his “populist policies”, the outcome would be either stagflation, recession, or stagnation. Go figure.

    In this context, another interesting question – and answers – when BofA asked “Which of the following investments would perform best if the world shifted decisively toward protectionism?” the answer was clear.

    Finally, one tangential if very important question in this age of rising rates: “What level of sustained 10-year Treasury yields would cause an equity bear market?” The answer is that – for now at least – yields are too low to hurt stocks, with 64% saying that 10-year Treasury yields of 3.5%-4% required for equity bear market.

    * * *

    As an added bonus, BofA’s Michael Hartnett says anyone who is brave enough to be a contrarian to the prevailing thought on Wall Street, i.e., a contrarian macro bear (expecting weaker growth) would sell banks, US dollar, Japan, and buy bonds, utilities, staples. Meanwhile the contrarian macro bull (expecting higher inflation) would reduce cash, sell REITs, tech, and buy sterling, EM, industrials.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 14th February 2017

  • 5 Stinging Trump Quotes About The Fed

    Fed chief Janet Yellen will testify before the U.S. Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday. She is likely to receive a frosty reception from the Republicans emboldened by President Trump’s stinging remarks about the Federal Reserve and its current chair. Take a look…

    1

    “Janet Yellen is highly political”

    November 3, 2015

    The public feud began in November 2015 when then-Republican nominee Donald Trump accused the Fed of doing President Obama’s bidding by keeping interest rates low. Speaking at a news conference at Trump Tower, he said Obama “wants to be out playing golf in a year from now and he wants to be doing other things and he doesn't want to see a big bubble burst during his administration.”

     

    2

    “When her time is up, I would most likely replace her”

    May 5, 2016

    Trump said he would probably replace Janet Yellen when her four-year term expires (which is in February 2018). In an interview with CNBC, he said “people that I know have high regard for her, but she is not a Republican.” However, there was some common ground. Trump called himself a “low interest rate person,” saying a strong dollar would cause “major problems” for the U.S. economy.

     

    3

    The Fed has created a "very false economy"

    September 5, 2016

    Four months later, Trump does a U-turn and says interest rates “are going to have to change”. Speaking on the campaign trail, he claimed the Fed was “keeping the rates down so that everything else doesn't go down.” The billionaire also called the stock market “artificial.”

     

    4

    “She’s doing what Obama wants her to do”

    September 12, 2016

    Trump again questioned the Fed’s independence, saying the central bank is propping up the stock market to keep Obama happy. In an interview with CNBC, Trump said “any increase [in interest rates] at all will be a very, very small increase because they want to keep the market up so Obama goes out and let the new guy … raise interest rates … and watch what happens in the stock market.”

     

    5

    Yellen should be “ashamed of herself”

    September 12, 2016

    Then it gets super personal! In the same interview, Trump said Yellen should be “ashamed” of what she’s doing to the country. He said American savers are feeling the pain of low interest rates: “they saved their money [and] they cut down on their mortgages, … and now they're practically getting zero interest on the money.”

    Of course, President Trump isn’t the only Republican who has criticised the Fed. Long-time critic Kentucky senator Rand Paul has been calling for an audit of the Federal Reserve for many, many years. Meanwhile, Texas senator Ted Cruz has blamed the central bank for causing the Great Recession.

    Yellen’s testimony begins at 10:00 a.m. ET on February 14, 2017.

    Follow LIVE coverage of FOMC on FinancialJuice.com

  • "What The F**k Is Wrong With You America" – Moby Claims Trump Dossier 100% Real, War With Iran Looms

    After last night's "Agent Orange" debacle at The Grammy's, it appears the music-erati are jealous of their Hollywood peers and ratched amplifier on hysteria up to '11' today. Having asked America "what the fuck is wrong with you" shortly after electing President Trump, veteran electronic music star Moby shared a Facebook post where he claims his "D.C. friends" confirmed the Trump dossier is "100% real"

    By way of background, here is Moby expressing his dis-satisfaction at the deplorables' voting in November

    "As a life-long progressive i'm supposed to be diplomatic and understanding, but America, what the fuck is wrong with you?" he wrote in the open letter shared with Billboard. "But then I ask myself, very sadly, why am I surprised?"

     

    Moby continued: "This is the America who has now elected a dim-witted, racist, misogynist. A dim-witted, racist, misogynist who has ruined businesses and has no policy proposals other than 'build a wall.' I guess there will be some cold, bitter schadenfreude in spending the next 4 years watching middle america wake up to the fact that donald trump is an incompetent con-man.

     

    "The rust belt jobs won't come back. the wall won't get built. and Hillary won't get locked up. Donald Trump will be impeached, or end his presidency with single digit approval ratings; and hopefully, somehow, america will finally wake up the fact that republicans are, simply, terrible."

    And today as Moby explains (seemingly incapable of using Capital letters)… (bolding added)

    after spending the weekend talking to friends who work in dc i can safely(well, 'accurately'…) post the following things:

     

    1-the russian dossier on trump is real. 100% real. he's being blackmailed by the russian government, not just for being peed on by russian hookers, but for much more nefarious things.

     

    2-the trump administration is in collusion with the russian government, and has been since day one.

     

    3-the trump administration needs a war, most likely with iran. at present they are putting u.s warships off the coast of iran in the hope that iran will attack one of the ships and give the u.s a pretense for invasion.

     

    4-there are right wing plans to get rid of trump. he's a drain on their fundraising and their approval ratings, and the gop and koch brothers and other u.s right wing groups are planning to get rid of trump.

     

    5-intelligence agencies around the world, and here in the u.s, are horrified by the incompetence of the trump administration, and are working to present information that will lead to high level firings and, ultimately, impeachment.

     

    i'm writing these things so that when/if these things happen there will be a public record beforehand.

     

    these are truly baffling and horrifying times, as we have an incompetent president who is essentially owned by a foreign power.

     

    -moby

    "Baffling" indeed Mr. Moby (or is it just Moby?)

    As you can imagine, Facebook 'friends' who followed Mody were a little quizzicial of his evidence…

    Carlos Godinez – "Your friends who work in D.C." Let me guess, Starbucks?

     

    Soren Le Goff – Moby your so ignorant it hurts, stop posting propaganda.

     

    Frankie Lenaghan – You have lost the plot mate.

     

    Eddy G. Munoz – Moby, please get back to the lab and get to work. You are losing your mind. Now you are having delusions of being privy to information that would be considers confidential.

     

    Brady Spenrath – I know you mean well, and I agree with your intent, but just posting unverified rumors with no sources or evidence to back that up is as harmful as the White House staff making stuff up. What happened to "When they go low, we go high"?

    The question we have for Mark Zuckerberg – is this 'fake news'? Should this kind of information be shared on your social network? What if a so-called self-identified, non-progressive celebrity allegedly claimed to have alleged proof that Nancy Pelosi was in fact the alleged Russian hooker pissing all over Trump in an alleged Moscow hotel? (Could be? We have alleged friends in D.C. who said it's possible).

  • Kurt Schlichter Shoves Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals" Right Back In "The Left's Ugly Face"

    Authored by Kurt Schlichter via Townhall.com,

    The Left is getting massively out-Alinsky'd, and the hilarious thing is that this band of withered hippies, unemployable millennial safe-space cases, and unlovable and unshaven libfeminists don’t even know it.

    Oh, their masters sure know it. Soros is bitterly having to ramp up his infusions of blood money to keep his community-organized “grassroots” movements afloat. The less dumb ones among the lying dinosaur media are panicking as their influence fades, and Chuck Schumer is enduring such a non-stop parade of serial humiliations that if the Senate were a penitentiary, he’d be McConnell’s prison Mitch.

    The Leftist mafia godmaleidentifyingparents pulling the strings of the Marxist Muppets know the score – they are losing. And it’s awesome. Because, finally, the Right has taken Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and shoved it up where #TheResistance don’t shine.

    Thank you, Andrew Breitbart. You yelled “Follow me!” and led a movement that had previously been dominated by doofy wonks and bow-tied geeks over the top in a glorious bayonet charge against the paper tiger liberal elite. The Left hadn’t taken a good, solid gut punch since Ronald Reagan turned the Oval Office keys over to the wimpcons who found fighting Democrats uncouth because conflict made for awkward luncheons down at the club. Bizarrely, the guy who picked up the standard and carried it forward when our beloved commander was felled by fate was a New York billionaire with no identifiable ideological foundation who instinctively understood the one thing that could make up for his other failings: He knows how to fight liberals and win. For Donald Trump and the revitalized conservative movement, Alinsky's book isn’t some dusty old commie tome – it’s a lifestyle.

    Alinsky’s Rules are relatively simple, and they make sense when you are fighting a conventional opponent with an interest in maintaining the status quo. The Rules are terrific for dealing with an old-school conservative guy who drives a Buick, enjoys gardening, and doesn’t want any trouble. They aren’t so effective against conservative brawlers who like to punch, and who aren’t too fussy about whether it’s with tweets or with fists.

    The Rules are not some magic incantation; they are simply some tactical principles that work in certain kinds of fights against certain kinds of opponents – particularly ones willing to unilaterally disarm in the face of an unprincipled enemy. But once the secret is out, it’s relatively easy to turn them around on an enemy that is so stupid it thinks it’s going to gain widespread acceptance among normal Americans by dressing up as genitalia. That’s why the thirteen classic Alinsky Rules are playing out right now in a way the Left did not expect.

    Rule 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Actually, we now have a lot of power. No, we don’t have direct power over liberal bastions like Hollywood, the media and academia, but by threatening to use governmental levers of power to impact their tax breaks, copyright laws, and subsidies, we can pound them into submission. And Trump is clearly willing to use all his powers to beat the living liberalism out of our enemy.

     

    Wait, this is where the Fredocons loosen their bow ties and stutter, “Why…we can’t…Professor Wellington Wimpenheimer IV would not approve…it’s so mean…oh, well I never!”

     

    Wake up. Man up. If you ever want to win (and maybe someday even kiss a girl) you need to get real. They hate us, and we either win or we spend the rest of our miserable lives as Boxer the Horse, slaving away to fund the welfare state under the lash of the Left until it decides it’s time to pack us off to the glue factory.

     

    Rule 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people” and Rule 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.Stupid GOP wonkcons want to fight to where the liberals are strong, like on entitlements. Trump is smart enough to fight where liberals are weak, like on the economy. And he’s going to throw down some serious jujitsu by doing a liberal thing – infrastructure spending – in a conservative way. He's a developer – he knows how to build stuff, and he will freak the Left out by delivering concrete results (not the least of them, a wall) where liberals (for whom “infrastructure” means giving our money to their deadbeat constituents) never actually build stuff anymore. As a conservative, I’m not thrilled about “infrastructure” spending. But as a conservative insurgent who wants to see the Left on its collective collectivist back, twitching like a dying roach, I’m thrilled.

     

    Rule 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” This is not so much about pointing out the lies and hypocrisy that constitute Leftist orthodoxy – the vicious racism they deny is racism because it’s anti-white, the racism against non-whites who refuse to serve a liberal master, the sexism against women who think babies should be actually be born, and so on. It’s about not letting them tie us into knots by using our morals and values as bear traps to immobilize and neutralize us. Fortunately, most of us have discovered how losing our superficial “political values” helps us regain our freedom. We have embraced the power of not #caring. And liberals have no idea what to do when they shout “Trump is a meanie,” and we shrug, smile, and bust out with an impromptu interpretive dance to celebrate Neil Gorsuch.

     

    Rule 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” Actually, the AR15 a more potent weapon, but ridicule will do as long as the Left doesn't try to make good on its countless threats of violence and tyranny. Regardless, we finally we have a conservative corps that is willing to mock the members of that motley collection of pompous, inept, lying jerks we call the Democrat Party and its media catamite corps. When they turn around and try to mock us back, well, we aren’t watching their late night hack comics anymore, and frankly they can make all the jokes they want. The punchline is still going to be “And then the Republicans repealed Obamacare.”

     

    Rule 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” I’m having fun watching the liberals lose. How about you?

     

    Rule 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” I don’t know – I doubt I am ever going to be tired of so much #winning.

     

    Rule 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.Remember the Trump outrage du jour a couple days ago when we were supposed to be on the verge of war with Australia? Well, Down Under’s kangaroos and giant scary spiders still wander freely, and we’ve long since moved on. President Trump has been busy owning the news cycle with appointments, executive orders, and the occasional squirrel-sighting tweet that sends the media chasing off on a rodent-seeking tangent. Oh no, Kellyanne Conway said to buy Ivanka’s stuff – if I ever cared (and I never did), I’ve already moved on to giggling about the progressive freak out over ICE being allowed to do its job again.

     

    Rule 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” No, Alinsky was wrong. The thing itself is much, much worse – as Democrats will find out when President Trump signs the law mandating national concealed carry reciprocity.

     

    Rule 10: “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.” Democrats are trying to do the massive resistance thing again, and it’s going about as well as when they tried the massive resistance thing against integration. It may arouse libs in blue cities and on soon-to-be-defunded college campuses, but normals are getting tired of the nonstop Leftist nonsense. See Rule 7. Conversely, Trump’s nonstop series of orders, appointments, and policies seems to be helping him – mostly because they are popular.

     

    Rule 11: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Unhinged Leftist obstruction, including violence, is driving people right. However, leftist harping on Trump’s rough edges seems to be backfiring – instead of “Oh my, what a brute!” people seem to be saying “Good. He fights.”

     

    Rule 12: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Trump has a program and it’s popular. What’s the Democrats’ program? “Give us more of your money so we can buy votes from welfare cheats, and then we’ll lecture you on your privilege?

     

    The Democrats have no meaningful policies because their entire focus is on them regaining and keeping power – that’s their desired end state, not a country made great again, and that’s why they get no traction anywhere on the map outside of the dysfunctional blue spots. Watch for then to eventually seriously propose secession by the liberal states – after the last few months, I’ve been tempted to move my novel People’s Republic, about California ignoring the admonition to never go full Venezuela, over to the nonfiction section.

     

    Rule 13: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.Well, they try to. They try to make Trump a demonic chimera composed of bits and pieces of Hitler, Mussolini, and more Hitler, and he just doesn’t care. We don’t care, because we know what they are really saying is that we normals are the monsters, that it’s not Trump governing that is illegitimate but that it is we normals having a voice in governing ourselves that is illegitimate.

    And now we are woke, as the ridiculous Left would put it, to the Left’s tired Alinsky antics. We see it’s all a lie. It’s all a scam. And we aren’t playing the game by their rules anymore.

  • Mike Flynn Resigns As National Security Advisor

    As many had expected, multiple sources have now confirmed that former General Mike Flynn has resigned from his role as President Trump's national security advisor. The White House has confirmed that Lt. General Joseph Keith Kellogg, Jr. has been appointed Acting National Security Advisor.

    President Donald J. Trump Names Lt. General Joseph Keith Kellogg, Jr. as Acting National Security Advisor, Accepts Resignation of Lt. General Michael Flynn

     

    President Donald J. Trump has named Lt. General Joseph Keith Kellogg, Jr. (Ret) as Acting National Security Advisor following the resignation of Lt. General Michael Flynn (Ret).

     

    General Kellogg is a decorated veteran of the United States Army, having served from 1967 to 2003, including two tours during the Vietnam War, where he earned the Silver Star, the Bronze Star with "V" device, and the Air Medal with "V" device.

     

     

    He served as the Commander of the 82nd Airborne Division from 1997 to 1998. Prior to his retirement, General Kellogg was Director of the Command, Control, Communications, and Computers Directorate under the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    The full text of General Flynn's resignation letter is below:

    February 13, 2017

     

    In the course of my duties as the incoming National Security Advisor, I held numerous phone calls with foreign counterparts, ministers, and ambassadors. These calls were to facilitate a smooth transition and begin to build the necessary relationships between the President, his advisors and foreign leaders. Such calls are standard practice in any transition of this magnitude.

     

    Unfortunately, because of the fast pace of events, I inadvertently briefed the Vice President Elect and others with incomplete information regarding my phone calls with the Russian Ambassador. I have sincerely apologized to the President and the Vice President, and they have accepted my apology.

     

    Throughout my over thirty three years of honorable military service, and my tenure as the National Security Advisor, I have always performed my duties with the utmost of integrity and honesty to those I have served, to include the President of the United States.

     

    I am tendering my resignation, honored to have served our nation and the American people in such a distinguished way.

     

    I am also extremely honored to have served President Trump, who in just three weeks, has reoriented American foreign policy in fundamental ways to restore America's leadership position in the world.

     

    As I step away once again from serving my nation in this current capacity, I wish to thank President Trump for his personal loyalty, the friendship of those who I worked with throughout the hard fought campaign, the challenging period of transition, and during the early days of his presidency.

     

    I know with the strong leadership of President Donald J. Trump and Vice President Mike Pence and the superb team they are assembling, this team will go down in history as one of the greatest presidencies in U.S. history, and I firmly believe the American people will be well served as they all work together to help Make America Great Again.

     

    Michael T. Flynn, LTG (Ret)
    Assistant to the President / National Security Advisor

    *  *  *

    As we detailed previously, after last night's news that Trump (and Steve Bannon) were actively deciding whether to fire National Security Advisor Mike Flynn over the recent scandal involving his [hone calls with Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, discussing the Russian sanction something he denied publicly on several occasions, yet which now appears to have been the case, the ice below Flynn had got thinner this afternoon when the Trump administration for the second consecutive day sent conflicting signals in its support for Flynn amid uncertainty whether Flynn misled Mike Pence about his conversation with Russia’s U.S. ambassador. About an hour after White House counselor Kellyanne Conway said in a television interview that Flynn “does enjoy the full confidence of the president," press secretary Sean Spicer released a statement saying President Donald Trump is “evaluating” the situation involving his top security aide. Trump “is speaking to Vice President Pence relative to the conversation the vice president had with General Flynn and also speaking to various other people about what he considers the single most important subject there is, our national security,” Spicer said in an e-mailed statement. One day earlier, Trump adviser Stephen Miller declined to defend Flynn or say whether his job was safe. Miller, appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” said Flynn had served the country admirably, but that “It’s not for me to tell you what’s in the president’s mind.”

    Now, following the latest report in the WaPo, the young Trump administration may have no choice but to make Flynn the first casualty. According to the Bezos-owned publication, the acting attorney general informed the Trump White House late last month that she believed Michael Flynn had misled senior administration officials about the nature of his communications with the Russian ambassador to the United States, "and warned that the national security adviser was potentially vulnerable to Russian blackmail." The message was delivered by Sally Yates and was prompted by concerns that ­Flynn, when asked about his calls and texts with the Russian diplomat, had told Vice ­President-elect Mike Pence and others that he had not discussed the Obama administration sanctions on Russia for its interference in the 2016 election. It is unclear what the White House counsel, Donald McGahn, did with the information.

    Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan also reportedly shared Yates’ concerns about Flynn. The pair believed “Flynn had put himself in a compromising position”, thinking that Pence had a right to know that he had been misled, and agreed with Yates’ decision to warn the White House. One official told the Post all three officials believed Pence had a right to know Flynn had possibly misled him about his talks with Kislyak. Furthermore, current and former officials told the Post they believed Flynn deceived the vice president, adding they could not rule out the possibility he acted with the knowledge of other transition officials.  Yates, who was then the deputy attorney general, considered Flynn’s comments during an intercepted phone call with Kislyak last December “highly significant” and “potentially illegal.” The WaPo adds that an official familiar with Yates’ thinking told the Post she suspected Flynn may have violated the Logan Act, which prohibits U.S. citizens from interfering in diplomatic disputes with another nation. Trump fired Yates last month, after she refused to have the DOJ defend his temporary ban on visitors from seven Muslim-majority nations in court. Making matters worse – for Trump – is that a senior Trump administration official said that the White House was aware of the matter, adding that “we’ve been working on this for weeks.”

    The final nail in Flynn's coffin is that according to a report in the NYT, the Army has been investigating whether Mr. Flynn received money from the Russian government during a trip he took to Moscow in 2015, according to two defense officials. Such a payment might violate the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, which prohibits former military officers from receiving money from a foreign government without consent from Congress. The defense officials said there was no record that Mr. Flynn, a retired three-star Army general, filed the required paperwork for the trip.

    If confirmed, and if Flynn indeed lied, Trump will have no choice but to let him go.

    *  *  *

    And indeed it appears it is confirmed, following his apology to Vice President Pence and other White House officials, CNN, Bloomberg, and NBC News confirm sources that Mike Flynn has officialy resigned

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    And as AP reports, national security adviser Michael Flynn has resigned after reports he misled Trump administration officials about his contacts with Russia's ambassador to the U.S.

    Flynn's departure less than one month into the Trump administration marks an extraordinarily early shakeup in the president's senior team of advisers. Flynn was a loyal Trump supporter throughout the campaign, but his ties to Russia caused concern among other senior aides.

     

    Flynn initially told Trump advisers that he did not discuss sanctions with the Russian envoy during the transition. Vice President Mike Pence, apparently relying on information from Flynn, publicly vouched for the national security adviser.

     

    Flynn later told White House officials that he may have discussed sanctions with the ambassador.

    Making him the first of Trump's appointees to be let go, just as the odds predicted…

     

    Rather more notably, the dollar index tumbled on the news as perhaps the first cracks start to appear in the potemkin village of hope the markets have built around a Utrumpian future…

  • Random Mar-A-Lago Guest Posts Selfie With "Nuclear Football" Briefcase

    Richard DeAgazio, a 72-year-old Palm Beach businessman, Trump supporter and actor, raised some eyebrows over the weekend after he essentially live blogged Trump’s Mar-A-Lago golf outing with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.  Among other misguided posts, DeAgazio thought it would be a really good idea to pose with, and publicly identify, “Rick”, the service man responsible for carrying the “nuclear football.”

    DeAgazio has since deleted his Facebook account, but as parents have been warning their teenagers for nearly a decade now, it’s almost impossible to erase something from the internet once it hits social media.  Unfortunately for Richard, this was no exception:

    Nuke Football

     

    Of course, this type of aloof behavior from Mar-A-Lago guests who pay annual membership dues of $200,000 to Trump’s business interests, will be exploited to the maximum extent possible by outraged Democrats.  We’re awaiting an impeachment motion from Nancy Pelosi which should be forthcoming at any moment.

    While the picture above was likely plenty to get him “Fired” from the club, DeAgazio was far from finished.  Here is a lovely picture with Steve Bannon…

    Nuke Football

     

    …and another with Trump standing in front of a glorious portrait of himself.

    Nuke Football

     

    But he still wasn’t done, at 1:35AM DeAgazio posted the following pics of Prime Minister Abe and Trump reacting after news broke that North Korea had “launched a missile in the direction of Japan”….”HOLY MOLY!!!”

    Nuke Football

    Finally, after the scrambled press conference between Trump and Abe to address the Korean launch, Trump crashed a wedding taking place at Mar-a-Lago, grabbed the mic and spoke to the guests. The groom came from a wealthy Ohio family. His father is co-CEO of American Financial Group and gave $100,000 toward Trump Super PACs last fall, according to New York Magazine.

  • Did The Fed Just Experience A "Margin Call" Moment?

    Authored by Mark St.Cyr,

    For those not familiar, the reference is attributed to a scene from the movie “Margin Call” where John Tuld (Jeremy Irons) makes the sanguinary argument for dumping its portfolio of toxic holdings immediately against contradictory arguments that it’ll be seen as panicking by others with the line, “It’s not panicking if you’re first.”

    That one line in fiction contains volumes as to the reality about how Wall Street, bankers, and more view the world. Which is precisely why when I read the news that Federal Reserve member, and “Regulatory Point Man” Daniel Tarullo resigned unexpectedly I just sat back in my chair thinking, “Of course he did” as that afore-mentioned scene came to mind.

    The reason why this sudden departure (remembering his term expires in 2022 some 5 years away) inspired thoughts as the above  that will surely be met with retorts such as “tinfoil wearing, conspiracy type” nonsense was not just the timing. But his resignation letter. To wit:

    “After more than eight years as a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, I intend to resign my position on or around April 5, 2017. It has been a great privilege to work with former Chairman Bernanke and Chair Yellen during such a challenging period for the nation’s economy and financial system.”

    Yep, that’s it. No alluding “health reasons.” No “need more time with family” qualifiers. Nor, anything else. Just a corporate styled, “Thanks, see Ya!” as to vacate 5 years early one of the most prestigious jobs in banking (Board of Governors) with quite possibly one, if not “the” most powerful agencies in the world, bar none. e.g., The Federal Reserve. Right, “Nothing to see here people, just move along, thanks for stopping by.”

    If this doesn’t ring alarm-bells, than I guess Barron’s™ is right and “Next Stop Dow 30,000” here we come! Or, was that cover-story what signaled Mr. Tarullo to heed what it may portend (i.e., marking market tops) and thought, “Getting outta Dodge” before this thing falls apart first was the next prudent banking and career move? All one can do is speculate.

    That said: It’s a fun thought experiment on one hand. But on the other? All I’ll say is this:

    If you’re into market signals? These aren’t what you want to see emanating from the Fed. if you’re one of those still buying every dip horns-over-hooves. Because the next “dip” just may be a cliff. That is, unless you’re a vaunted investment “guru” on CNBC™ and your mail arrives 2 days late crushing your prior invest advice to then flip, then flip again only 6 days later back to what you argued was wrong to begin with. But I digress.

    So again: Why would a member of the Fed suddenly resign?

    Unless?

    And that one word, much like the one line from the movie speaks volumes. The difference this time? It’s not in a fictional setting – it’s reality. And what it portends doesn’t have anything close to the intention of any movie. e.g., entertainment.

    No, these signals are troubling at their root cause. i.e., The realization that the entire monetary system may in fact be teetering on the verge of chaos. And the finger-pointing has already begun directed squarely at central bankers, and in particular The Fed.

    The abdication, its timing, along with its terse reasoning reinforces the argument that things are not as “great”, or “under-control” as the powers that be (e.g., central bankers) would have one believe. Especially from an institution that is supposedly hell-bent on making sure “signaling” or “policy” interpretations are delivered in a manner as to not be misconstrued.

    From the outside looking in, it would appear either someone didn’t get that memo, or didn’t care.

    The only thing more concerning is, if they did – and still didn’t care.

    Again, there seems to be far more to this resignation by the very manner in which it was brought forth. And that’s not an “interpretation problem” for others to overcome. No: That’s a problem of interpreting at face value anything now emanating from the Fed. Period.

    Why? I’ll propose it’s occurring at precisely the exact wrong time where “believe” and or “trust” that the Fed. knows or understands the implications of its decisions are needed.

    And what is the current Fed. “smoke signals?” Utter shambles for anything resembling coherent, concise messaging.

    Think I’m exaggerating or being hyperbolic? Fair point. Here’s just a few of the prevailing “arguments” one needs to try to decipher when attempting to understand current monetary policy and what it may, or may not, portend for the future.

    One down, (e.g., Mr. Turullo) how many will follow? e.g., Is Fed. Governor Lael Brainard next? After all, Ms, Brainard was not only an ardent supporter of Mrs. Clinton, but she also appears misaligned with current policy messaging. i.e., Not to keen about hiking rates.

    Or how about other arguments, along with statements such as this from Vice Chair Stanley Fischer: “There is quite significant uncertainty about what’s actually going to happen, I don’t think anyone quite knows.” when responding to a question about future fiscal policy which may, or may not, be forth coming in the U.S.

    To me, the real trouble was what followed when he said: “At the moment we are going strictly according to what we see as our responsibility according to law.”

    So, maybe it’s just me. But I’m quite sure that his boss, Chair Yellen, quite confidently alluded to at the last FOMC presser exactly what was needed and forthcoming, regardless of what came out of the current administration. i.e., Three rate hikes (via the Dot Plot) and possibly even more should they (The Fed.) see fit in reaction to anything “fiscal.” Has that changed? Again? And if it hasn’t? Is that still not an even bigger problem for the “markets?”

    If the above referenced conference and articles are any clue? The messaging, and signaling are bordering on incoherent. Again!

    Think there’s no reason to “panic” if you’re on the inside, let alone trying to gain insights from the outside looking in?

    Remember when the scariest notion viewed by Wall Street was the possibility that the Fed. would even consider, let alone float the idea of winding down its balance sheet first, before exhausting all other “tools” or options? How many “think tank” aficionados along with the gaggle of Ivy Leagued Ph.D economists touted such a thing as “crazy talk” when the notion was ever brought up?

    This even caused the former Chair to take to the keyboard on Jan. 26th 2017 and ask (or plead) that it wasn’t so.

    Can you say “Oh, Oh?”

    From St. Louis Fed. President Bullard’s discussion on 2/9/2017 for 2017 Monetary Policy. To wit:

    “Now that the policy rate has been increased, the FOMC may be in a better position to allow reinvestment to end or to otherwise reduce the size of the balance sheet,”

    So, are we to infer that if we are to get only one or two rate hikes, what we might actually see concurrent with that is the only other thing deemed even scarier in the eyes of Wall Street? e.g., Selling by the Fed. rather than buying?

    Again, can you say, “Oh, Oh?” Or is this all “conspiracy”, “tin-foiled” cap wearing crazy talk?

    Could be. Or, it could be fiction transforming into reality straight out of a scene in “Margin Call.” After all, as of November 15, 2016 Mr. Tarullo’s position was to carefully watch market reaction to Trump administration. And his conclusion?

    Hint: Re-read the first paragraph while remembering: When it comes to “bag holders?” That’s not in their job description, that’s yours.

  • Corporate America Setting Up "War Rooms" To Prep For Potential Trump Tweets

    Since November 8th, several public companies have unsuspectingly fallen into the cross hairs of Trump tweets sending their stocks gyrating violently while adding or erasing millions of dollars worth of market cap in a matter of seconds.  Here is just a small sample:

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

     

    As we pointed out back in January, Toyota’s shares, along with the Mexican Peso, tumbled on Trump’s threat to impose a “big border tax” on their Corolla imports as the unprepared and shocked company frantically drafted a response.

    As Mr. Trump posted his message, Toyota’s chief communications officer, Scott Vazin, was packing his suitcase and preparing to leave his hotel room in Las Vegas, where he had been holding meetings around a trade show organized by the Consumer Technology Association. Mr. Vazin’s phone began to buzz as he faced a deluge of text messages and calls from his communications staff and reporters.

     

    Once the tweet was sent, Mr. Vazin called Messrs. Lentz and Nagata to discuss the statement he would craft, as the company’s stock began to inch downward. The auto maker posted its response on Twitter less than two hours later.

     

    “Toyota has been part of the cultural fabric in the U.S. for nearly 60 years,” said its statement, which bolded the name of the Mexican city where its plant will be located—Guanajuato, not Baja. The company touted its “$21.9 billion direct investment in the U.S.” and its number of employees and facilities in the U.S. Mr. Vazin said the company hasn’t been contacted by Mr. Trump since the statement.

    Now, according to the Wall Street Journal, Trump’s Twitter blasts, which often drive ‘yuge’ market reactions and come without warning, are forcing companies across the country to draft plans for “war rooms” to address a surprise presidential tweet.  Moreover, other companies are actively exploring strategically placing ads on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” CNN and “The O’Reilly Factor”—programs and networks fro which Trump has often appeared to draw inspiration for his tweets.

    “Every business and association in Washington is thinking about how they would respond to a tweet from Donald Trump,” said Alex Conant, a partner at the communications firm Firehouse Strategies and a longtime Republican strategist.

     

    In one recent simulation to prepare for a public attack by Mr. Trump, says consultant Eric Dezenhall, top executives of a science and technology company spent an afternoon in a room responding to various fallout scenarios, such as a stock-price plunge, congressional hearings or questions from investigative reporters.

     

    Mr. Dezenhall says the company that
    rehearsed the drill is now looking for something it can use as a potential peace offering to the president in the event of a critical tweet or other Trump tirade, “an equivalent to ‘we’re no longer building a plant in Mexico.’”

     

    Lobbying shops are telling their clients to do a thorough review of their business interests, especially as they relate to federal contracts, so they can tell a story about how the firm invests domestically.

    Still others companies have begun aggressively promoting previously announced job creation numbers in an effort to head off any criticism from the White House.  The latest example of such a move came from Intel’s CEO, Brian Krzanich, who recently visited the White House to tout a $7BN investment in a facility in Chandler, Arizona which was already announced under the Obama administration.

    Other companies have taken more proactive steps. Intel Corp. CEO Brian Krzanich last week traveled to the White House to roll out the company’s plans for a $7 billion investment in a major manufacturing plant in Arizona—plans that had been in the works for several years. Mr. Trump said following the announcement: “We’re very happy.”

     

    Other companies, including Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Amazon.com Inc., have issued press releases touting U.S. job creation numbers from previously planned store openings and expansions. Some are also turning to “social-listening” tools to monitor mentions of their products on social networks, analyze the fallout from Trump tweets about other companies and track what’s said on the accounts that Mr. Trump follows.

     

    General Motors Co.—whose CEO Mary Barra has frequently spoken with Mr. Trump—said last month it would invest at least $1 billion across several U.S. factories, days after the president accused it on Twitter of moving Mexican-made vehicles across the border.

    Guess we can add the cost of establishing these ‘war rooms’ to the list of excuses as to why companies will inevitably miss Q1 2017 earnings…at least they get to blame something other than the “weather” for once.

  • A New Jacksonian Era?

    Submitted by Jim Quinn via The Burning Platform blog,

    “Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you out!” – Andrew Jackson

    “There is nothing the political establishment will not do, and no lie they will not tell, to hold on to their prestige and power at your expense. The Washington establishment, and the financial and media corporations that fund it, exists for only one reason: to protect and enrich itself. This is a crossroads in the history of our civilization that will determine whether or not We The People reclaim control over our government. The political establishment that is trying everything to stop us, is the same group responsible for our disastrous trade deals, massive illegal immigration, and economic and foreign policies that have bled this country dry.

    The political establishment has brought about the destruction of our factories and our jobs, as they flee to Mexico, China and other countries throughout the world. It’s a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth, and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities.” – Donald Trump

    Andrew Jackson was a bigger than life figure who lived from the early stages of the American Revolution until the country was on the verge of splitting apart over slavery and states’ rights issues. Born in the Carolinas shortly after his father died in an accident, he acted as a courier during the Revolutionary War. Andrew and his brother Robert were captured by the British and held as prisoners and nearly starved to death in captivity.

    When Andrew refused to clean the boots of a British officer, the officer slashed him with a sword, leaving deep scars on his left hand and head. His brother died of smallpox and his mother from cholera in 1781, leaving him an orphan at the age of 14. He blamed the British for their deaths and held an intense hatred of the British for the rest of his life.

    Jackson was a grudge holder. He was a courageous military hero, nicknamed Old Hickory by his troops because of his toughness. He was combative and vindictive. He was a self-made lawyer, military leader and statesman. He was a wealthy plantation owner and merchant. Over one hundred and fifty slaves worked on his plantation.

    He fought Indians, the British, politicians, and bankers. He was scorned and ridiculed by the press. Establishment politicians cheated him out of a presidential victory, but that loss motivated him to crush his political enemies in the next election. He was a devoted dependable friend to his compatriots and a steadfast adversary to those who crossed him.

    If you think the fake news media and vitriolic political campaigns, personally attacking the families of candidates was a modern day phenomenon, you would be badly mistaken. American politics sinking into the sewer and sensationalistic journalism existed from the earliest days of our country. Jackson’s controversial marriage to Rachel Robards made Jackson resentful towards any attack on her honor. He had mistakenly married her before her divorce was official. An attack on their honor published in a local Nashville newspaper led Jackson to challenge Charles Dickinson to a duel.

    Charles Dickinson was considered an expert shot. Jackson decided to let Dickinson fire first, betting his aim might be off in his haste. Dickinson did fire first striking Jackson just below the heart. The musket ball remained lodged in his lung for the rest of his life. Under the rules of dueling, Dickinson had to remain still as Jackson took aim and killed him. Jackson’s behavior in the duel outraged men of honor in Tennessee, who called it a brutal, cold-blooded killing and saddled Jackson with a reputation as a violent, vengeful man. As a result, he became a social outcast.

    Jackson’s wound didn’t keep him from becoming a national military hero nine years later by leading his outnumbered troops to an overwhelming victory over the British at the Battle of New Orleans during the War of 1812. His hatred for the British going back to the Revolutionary War likely motivated him to defend New Orleans to the death. Jackson took command of the defenses, directing 5,000 militia from various Western states. He was a strict officer but was popular with his troops. Jackson’s soldiers won a crushing victory over 7,500 attacking British soldiers.

    The British had 2,037 casualties: 291 dead (including three senior generals), 1,262 wounded, and 484 captured or missing. The Americans had 71 casualties: 13 dead, 39 wounded, and 19 missing. This victory propelled him to national prominence and spurred his presidential aspirations. The common man saw Jackson as a populist hero. He continued to build his militaristic resume by defeating the Seminole and Creek Indians in Florida, who were secretly supported by the British and Spanish.

    In another example of history rhyming, the 1824 presidential election was far more dysfunctional and corrupt than the most recent election campaign. There was essentially one political party, the Democrat-Republican Party. The states put forth four candidates: Andrew Jackson, William Crawford, John Quincy Adams, and Henry Clay. In a hotly contested campaign, filled with nasty accusations and condemnations, Jackson won the popular vote and a plurality of the electoral votes, but not a majority. Therefore, the decision went to the House of Representatives. As an establishment outsider, Jackson was at a disadvantage.

    In what became known as the “Corrupt Bargain”, Henry Clay, the current Speaker of the House, convinced Congress to elect Adams, who then made Clay his Secretary of State. For the next four years Jackson and his supporters railed against the Adams administration calling it illegitimate and tainted by corruption and an aristocratic governing style. The Jacksonians rightly denounced the Adams administration for its pork barrel spending and rewarding of special interests. Jackson’s defeat burnished his political credentials as many voters believed the “man of the people” had been robbed by the “corrupt aristocrats of the East”.

    “I weep for the liberty of my country when I see at this early day of its successful experiment that corruption has been imputed to many members of the House of Representatives, and the rights of the people have been bartered for promises of office.” – Andrew Jackson

    He learned from his mistakes and built a coalition of support in 1828, with John C. Calhoun as his running mate and Martin Van Buren as a key ally. He created the Democratic Party and when his opponents referred to him as “jackass” he embraced the insult and used it as a symbol for his campaign. The donkey later became the symbol of the Democratic Party. The campaign was mean and personal with insults and accusation flying in the press.  It reached a low point when the press accused Jackson’s wife Rachel of bigamy. Jackson won the election in an electoral landslide. Rachel died suddenly on December 22, 1828, before his inauguration, and was buried on Christmas Eve. The stress of the election led to her heart attack. He blamed Adams and his cronies for her death.

    Jackson’s eight year presidency marked a turning point in American politics. He rode a wave of populism to victory and it marked the first time political power had passed from establishment elites to ordinary voters based in political parties. Jackson’s philosophy as President followed much in the same line as Thomas Jefferson, advocating Republican values held by the Revolutionary War generation. He attempted to conduct his presidency with high moral standards, but ultimately fell short.

    He attempted to limit the Federal government, but when South Carolina opposed the tariff law he took a strong line in favor of nationalism and against secession. He also used the power of the Federal government to forcefully relocate Indian tribes to west of the Mississippi.  He despised the moneyed interests and dismantled the Second Bank of the United States. His actions indirectly led to the Panic of 1837.

    In another occurrence with similarities to Trump’s cabinet selections, Jackson believed the president’s power was derived from the common man. Instead of choosing hand- picked party cronies for his cabinet, he decided choosing businessmen, who would get things done and follow his lead, was the better course. Having headstrong businessmen with huge egos and vicious gossip mongering wives in his administration would have fit in nicely in our present day degraded Kardashian selfie culture.  Salacious rumors and sex scandals led to bitter partisanship between Eaton, Calhoun and Van Buren. Jackson was forced to fire and revamp his entire cabinet in 1830.

    The issue which most reflected Jackson as the president of the common man versus the vested interests was his struggle against Nicholas Biddle and the Second Bank of the United States. It was chartered in 1816 by James Madison in an effort to restore an economy ravaged by the War of 1812. Biddle attempted to renew its charter in 1832 and successfully got the renewal through Congress.

    Jackson, believing that Bank was a corrupt monopoly whose stock was mostly held by foreigners, vetoed the bill. Jackson used the issue to endorse his democratic values, contending the Bank was being run by a den of vipers for the benefit of the wealthy elite. Jackson stated the Bank made “the rich richer and the potent more powerful”. He never stopped fighting for the common man.

    “You are a den of vipers. I intend to rout you out and by the Eternal God I will rout you out. If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning.” Andrew Jackson

    His veto became the primary issue in the 1832 presidential campaign against Henry Clay, as his opponents rebuked his veto as the work of a demagogue, claiming he was using class warfare as a ploy to get the support of the common man. Proving a populist message brought directly to the people can defeat an establishment machine, Jackson crushed Clay in the election, with 55% of the popular vote and receiving 219 electoral votes to Clay’s 49. He warned the people against allowing central bankers to take control of the government. We didn’t heed his warning. Whether Trump has the courage of Jackson in taking on the Central banker den of vipers is yet to be seen.

    “The bold effort the present (central) bank had made to control the government … are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it.” Andrew Jackson

    Jackson knew powerful banking and corporate interests were the antithesis of how a government by the people, for the people and of the people should function. He also knew debt and fiat paper created a speculative gambling economy, not beneficial to the common man over the long-term. Giving away the power of the people to bankers and corporations created as much havoc and suffering in the 1830s as it has today.

    “The mischief springs from the power which the moneyed interest derives from a paper currency which they are able to control, from the multitude of corporations with exclusive privileges which they have succeeded in obtaining, and unless you become more watchful in your states and check this spirit of monopoly and thirst for exclusive privileges you will in the end find that the most important powers of government have been given or bartered away.” Andrew Jackson

    After disposing of the Bank of the United States in 1833, Jackson removed federal deposits from the bank and the money-lending functions were taken over by the multitude of local and state banks across America. The national economy boomed as the federal government coffers overflowed with revenue from tariffs and the sale of public lands in the west. In January 1835, Jackson paid off the entire national debt, the only time in U.S. history that has been accomplished. He rightfully saw the national debt as a curse, only benefitting the moneyed interests.

    “I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country.” – Andrew Jackson

    I find it amusing historians of a Keynesian persuasion blame Jackson’s dismantling of the central bank in 1833 for the Panic of 1837 and the subsequent four year depression. The true cause of the Panic and depression was reckless land speculation by the rich, financed by state and local bankers who failed to exercise due diligence, risk management or restraint on their lending practices. Does that sound familiar (2008 Financial Crisis)? Bankers have been the perpetual cause of financial crisis since the inception of this country.

    Jackson was forced to rein in the rampant credit bacchanal by issuing the Specie Circular, which required buyers of government land to pay in specie (gold or silver coins). This was another example of when the tide goes out you see who was swimming naked. The credit speculators had no gold or silver and bank losses threw the country into panic and depression. Just as the Fed induced housing boom and the Wall Street mortgage and derivatives control fraud were the cause of the 2008 financial crisis, it was banker fueled land speculation which caused the 1837 Panic. Jackson was just the pin popping the bubble before it got even bigger.

    The non-stop speculation about assassinating Trump as the left wing solution to losing a fair election has reached epic proportions on social media. Of course, cowardly social justice warriors, who don’t believe in free speech, election results, the Constitution, or the rule of law, are good at making hollow threats and causing destruction within their liberal enclaves of hate, but they don’t have the balls to actually attempt an assassination. Back in Jackson’s day of duels and face to face justice, there were no safe spaces and trigger warnings.

    The first assassination attempt on a sitting president occurred in 1835 outside the U.S. Capitol when Richard Lawrence, an unemployed house painter from England, aimed two pistols at President Jackson as he was leaving the East Portico after a funeral. Both pistols misfired. As Lawrence was disarmed and restrained by, among others, Davey Crockett, Jackson attacked him with his cane. Lawrence blamed Jackson for the loss of his job.

    Afterwards, due to public curiosity concerning the double misfires, the pistols were tested and retested. Each time they performed perfectly. Many believed Jackson had been protected by the same Providence they believed also protected their young nation. The incident became a part of the Jacksonian mythos.

    There is no doubt Jackson and Trump have similarities in their confrontational natures, blunt talk and fiery tempers. Historian H.W. Brands noted how opponents were terrified of his temper in his autobiography of the iconic figure:

    “Observers likened him to a volcano, and only the most intrepid or recklessly curious cared to see it erupt…. His close associates all had stories of his blood-curling oaths, his summoning of the Almighty to loose His wrath upon some miscreant, typically followed by his own vow to hang the villain or blow him to perdition. Given his record – in duels, brawls, mutiny trials, and summary hearings – listeners had to take his vows seriously.”

    If twitter had existed in the 1830s, Jackson would have surely been hurling insults at his opponents and the feckless press. Jackson used his reputation for rage and fearsomeness to achieve his policy goals by intimidating his opponents. If you think Trump’s insults hurled at Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush and Chuck Schumer have been too un-presidential like, consider Jackson’s final thoughts about his two most hated political opponents.

    “After eight years as President I have only two regrets: that I have not shot Henry Clay or hanged John C. Calhoun.” Andrew Jackson

    It is fascinating how the intellectual elites of Jackson’s time had the same level of contempt for the common man as the arrogant ruling elite have for the “deplorables” inhabiting the towns and hamlets of flyover America today. Alexis de Tocqueville, a pretentious French intellectual, and contemporary of Andrew Jackson, treated Jackson, his presidency, and his supporters disdainfully in his book Democracy in America, written during Jackson’s presidency. The haughty condescension of the rich and powerful elite towards the plebs has spanned the ages, with the NYT, Washington Post and CNN scornfully filling the role of Tocqueville today.

    “Far from wishing to extend the Federal power, the President belongs to the party which is desirous of limiting that power to the clear and precise letter of the Constitution, and which never puts a construction upon that act favorable to the government of the Union; far from standing forth as the champion of centralization, General Jackson is the agent of the state jealousies; and he was placed in his lofty station by the passions that are most opposed to the central government. It is by perpetually flattering these passions that he maintains his station and his popularity. General Jackson is the slave of the majority: he yields to its wishes, its propensities, and its demands–say, rather, anticipates and forestalls them.

    General Jackson stoops to gain the favor of the majority; but when he feels that his popularity is secure, he overthrows all obstacles in the pursuit of the objects which the community approves or of those which it does not regard with jealousy. Supported by a power that his predecessors never had, he tramples on his personal enemies, whenever they cross his path, with a facility without example; he takes upon himself the responsibility of measures that no one before him would have ventured to attempt. He even treats the national representatives with a disdain approaching to insult; he puts his veto on the laws of Congress and frequently neglects even to reply to that powerful body. He is a favorite who sometimes treats his master roughly.” – Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

    Andrew Jackson was most certainly a flawed human being, with a multitude of personal tragedies coalescing to form his persona and worldview. His hardscrabble upbringing, fighting nature, contempt for republican elitism, and disdain for the greedy acolytes of wealth and privilege, formed his political philosophy and popularity among average citizens. Jackson’s goal was to rid government of class preferences and shred the credit driven advantages of the wealthy minority, whose only concern was their personal wealth.

    He dedicated himself to ridding the government of those who exploited the majority to benefit the few. Equal rights and limited government while ensuring the wealthy establishment cronies could not enrich themselves at the public trough by capturing the governmental levers of power and plundering the nation’s wealth, was the vision espoused by the Jacksonians.

    By demonizing the moneyed aristocracy and supporting the common man, Jackson broadened electoral participation to include an overwhelming majority of white men. Jackson’s success in democratizing the political process works when an educated involved civic minded electorate is active in the process. As time passed and the electorate expanded, our democracy has devolved into a vote buying exercise of who promises the masses the most. Huge portions of the electorate are feeble minded, free shit seeking ideologues, with no concern for the long-term sustainability of the nation. The voice of the people had been silenced by Deep State special interests until Trump’s unlikely victory in November.

    The Jacksonian Era of operating government for the benefit of the people was short lived, as the power of the elites reconstituted among the Northern business interests and Southern planters – ultimately leading to the Civil War resolution and further expansion of Federal government power and control. Jackson’s efforts were noble but ultimately a failure. Will Trump’s rhetoric of taking back government for the people ultimately fail? Can the rich and powerful vested interests be defeated? The odds are heavily against Trump, but we are in for a spectacular fireworks display as history unfolds.

     “It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth cannot be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society—the farmers, mechanics, and laborers—who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government.” –  Andrew Jackson

    In Part Two of this article I will ponder whether the Trumpian Era will see Trump’s populist agenda successfully implemented or whether we experience a spectacular failure.

  • Institutional Investors are Terrified of this Asset

    One of the most important traits that an investor can have is patience. Everyone knows this and it makes perfect sense. Patience allows you to be opportunistic and only choose the best opportunities for your portfolio. Despite this common knowledge nearly all investors ignore the most important asset in their portfolio. The most important asset in every portfolio is Cash. Cash is an asset that gives investors optionality and helps improve returns in the future.

    When we say cash, we don’t specifically mean the U.S. Dollar, Euro, Yen or Treasuries. We’re using it as a general term for anything that can be quickly deployed to purchase an investment. As much as my readers would like to discuss the viability of the U.S. dollar or the implosion of the Euro this isn’t that article. Investors can keep cash or cash equivalents in whatever currency they view as the most stable.

    Cash Misconceptions

    As we have said before, cash gives investors optionality. Optionality allows investors to choose the best opportunities and outperform the market. Seth Klarman’s hedge fund Baupost, one of the most successful hedge funds of all time has used cash to maintain optionality. A letter from former Baupost employee Brian Spector highlights how important cash was to the success of their firm.

    “One of the most common misconceptions regarding Baupost is that most outsiders think we have generated good risk-adjusted returns despite holding cash. Most insiders, on the other hand, believe we have generated those returns BECAUSE of that cash. Without that cash, it would be impossible to deploy capital when we enter a tide market and great opportunities become widespread.”

    Academics and Institutions typically view cash as a drag on the performance of a portfolio. Given our prior experience as institutional investors we have seen the pressure that CIO’s place on portfolio managers to cut their cash allocations. Every month when portfolio managers review their attribution against benchmarks cash and cash equivalents can either be positive or negative. In a rising market no CIO wants to see their funds underperforming benchmarks due to cash allocations.

    Absolute Returns Matter Most

    Unfortunately, this flawed institutional logic typically makes its way to individual investors. Institutions compete against a benchmark. A Fidelity portfolio manager whose portfolio only declines 25% while the market declines 30% is considered extremely successful. For the individual investors, only absolute returns matter. Individuals realize that when a portfolio declines 25% it takes a 33% increase to get back to even. They don’t have the advantage of investing other people’s money and skimming 1 – 2% off the top.

    We even found a ridiculous article that talks about how “dangerous” cash drag can be on performance. This article, What a (Cash) Drag: Institutional Investors and ETF Cash Equitization describes the trend of institutional investors using ETF’s rather than holding cash. Institutional investors do this because they don’t want to lag benchmarks because of cash. The article begins by asking “why aren’t more retail investors using ETFs to equitize their cash?”. The simple answer is because it is a terrible idea. Measuring against benchmarks creates terrible incentives which is an advantage that individual investors have over institutions.

    Cash the Call Option

    Having a significant portion of your portfolio allocated to cash is like having a call option on all available opportunities. If you had even a minimal amount of cash available in 2008 and 2009 you would have had endless opportunities to deploy your cash and earn extremely high returns. The opportunity cost of cash far outweighs the potential drag on performance. Cash is the perfect call option because it costs nothing yet gives you the opportunity to purchase any available asset. This is the view that Warren Buffett has of his cash allocation. According to Buffett biographer Alice Schroeder,

    “He thinks of cash differently than conventional investors. He thinks of cash as a call option with no expiration date, an option on every asset class, with no strike price.”

    Having this type of mindset and ability to hold cash in your portfolio will set you up for success.

    Cash and Financial Repression

    Another reason to allocate more of your portfolio to cash is because of the current macro environment. Investors in Europe and Japan face negative interest rates. Faced with the choice of paying a government to own its debt as opposed to holding cash the choice seems easy. While most short-term debt is easily convertible into cash investors should never pay governments to hold their debts. Our modern age of financial repression means that investors should seriously consider holding larger cash allocations.

    Cash is King

    Financial portfolios and individual investors benefit from holding cash. Cash gives investors optionality to purse every available option. Holding cash will give you more piece of mind because you will be ready when the perfect investment appears. Let the institutions who compete against benchmarks always be invested. As Warren Buffett and Seth Klarman show us, successful investors consider cash one of their most important assets.


    Originally published at BoomBustMarket.com

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 13th February 2017

  • Silver Futures Market Assistance, Report 12 Feb, 2017

    This week, the prices of the metals moved up on Monday. Then the gold price went sideways for the rest of the week, but the silver price jumped on Friday. Is this the rocket ship to $50? Will Trump’s stimulus plan push up the price of silver? Or just push silver speculators to push up the price, at their own expense, again?

    This will again be a brief Report this week, as we are busy working on something new and big. And Keith is on the road, in New York and Miami.

    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
    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 fell this week.

    The Ratio of the Gold Price to the Silver Price
    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
    The Gold Basis and Cobasis and the Dollar Price

    Again, we see a higher price of gold (shown here in its true form, a lower price of the dollar) along with greater scarcity (i.e. cobasis, the red line).

    This pattern continues. What does it mean?

    First, it means the price of gold is being pushed up by buyers of physical metal. Not by buyers of futures (which would push up the basis, and reduce scarcity).

    Second, if it continues too much more, it means nothing good for the banking system. There is one force that can make all the gold in the world—which mankind has been accumulating for thousands of years—disappear faster than you can say “bank bail in”. The force is fear of counterparties, fear of banks, fear of currencies, fear of central bank balance sheets… fear of government finances.

    We want to emphasize that the gold basis is not signaling disaster at the moment. It is merely moving in that direction, for the first time in a long time. It has a ways to go yet.

    Our calculated fundamental price is up another $40 (on top of last week’s +$40). It is now about $130 over the market price.

    Now let’s look at silver.

    The Silver Basis and Cobasis and the Dollar Price
    The Silver Basis and Cobasis and the Dollar Price

    Note: we switched to the May contract, as March was becoming unusable in its approach to expiry.

    In silver, the story is a bit less compelling. The scarcity of the metal is holding, as the price rises. However, scarcity is not increasing.

    Were we to take a guess, we would say there is some good demand for physical, and the price action had futures market assistance.

    While the market price moved up 44 cents, our calculated fundamental price moved up … 46 cents.

    © 2016 Monetary Metals

  • "As Ye Sow…"

    Submitted by Robert Gore via Straight Line Logic blog,

    Our deranged world is a product of deranged minds.

    Philosophy begins with invariably difficult questions. Why am I here? What is the purpose of life? Is there a god or gods? What is right and what is wrong? How should groups of people be organized and function together? Ironically, when such questions are infrequently asked, when philosophy is generally ignored or disparaged, as it is now, is when it’s needed the most.

    Political philosophy is the branch that addresses the question of how coercive power is to be distributed in a society. It’s a knotty issue, but one question provides clarification, enabling further analysis and leading to useful conclusions. Who owns a political unit’s resources? This question differentiates between governments that protect individual rights and property and those that don’t. It also highlights a key problem: on planet earth, every government falls into the latter category.

    The United States’ founding documents pay tribute to individual rights and private properly. Some of the founders may have thought they were establishing a government subordinated to protection of individual rights, which would have been an historical first. However, none thought such a government would be easy to maintain, and their fears were borne out. The US government places prominently on the inglorious list of governments claiming ownership over everything within their dominion, defined as any place where they can exercise their coercive power.

    To those who say the institution of inviolate private property still exists in the US, what asset can the US government not seize? The income tax gives it first claim on income. No real estate is exempt from eminent domain. Intellectual property claims are at the sufferance of the patent, trademark, and copyright authorities. Financial assets held within the banking system can be “bailed in,” and plans are afoot to ban cash. The already extensive range of assets subjected to civil asset forfeiture continues to expand. More ominously, assets can be seized from parties never adjudicated guilty. Conscription grants to the government the lives of the conscripted. The US government is no exception to the general rule, nothing is inviolate expect perhaps a person’s thoughts, and undoubtedly it’s working on that.

    Individuals who assert the right to initiate aggression against whomever they choose are philosophically unhinged, candidates for an asylum or a penitentiary. Rejecting the first principle that must guide human interaction—that no one may rightfully initiate force against another person—such individuals have no rational foundation for their thoughts or actions. The “garbage in” of their philosophical premises produces “garbage out” emotional states, mental processes, and ultimately, lives. Having abandoned reason for coercion and violence, reality becomes a chaotic, incomprehensible void.

    Governments’ coercive power allow them to take: might makes right. A philosophy that recognized a right of some individuals to steal from others fails on first principles; there is no logical distinction possible between the privileged and the subjugated. Does the aggregation of individuals into a unit which calling itself a government give them a right which none of them have individually? One could say that the aggregate was for the protection of its constituents’ persons, property, and rights, but a government so limited is acting as their constituents’ subordinate agent, exercising and enhancing their right of self-defense. Efforts have been made, notably the American experiment, but no government has ever been restricted in this manner.

    No matter its guiding “ism,” every government has granted itself the power to initiate violence against its citizens. Just because the ruling agglomerate asserts this privilege doesn’t render it philosophically valid. What it does is legitimate the initiation of violence for any and all causes—domestic and foreign—the government deems proper.

    Having violated the first principle of nonaggression, nothing can stop that philosophical default from trickling down to the subject population. The ragged thief who holds up a liquor store lacks the polish and articulation of the politician who asserts the government’s first claim on a nation’s production, the central banker who depreciates its currency, or the general bent on global dominance who wages offensive wars, but philosophically they’re soul mates. In fact, the thief has a moral one up on the others: he doesn’t claim to be protecting the values he destroys.

    Millions have decried the violence that prevented Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking at the University of California at Berkeley, just as millions on the other side decried mostly illusory violence among Trump supporters during the campaign. However, not one in a thousand of those denouncing the violence as violations of fundamental civil liberties denounce the daily violations of fundamental liberties visited upon them by their own government. America’s corruption is so complete that those who insist that they are not fodder for the government, that their lives are their own, and that the only proper government is one subordinated to the protection of their individual rights—and maintain positions consistent with those principles—could hold a convention and not fill a high-school gym.

    This small group is the victim of a terrifying pincer movement from above and below. When a society abandons itself to violence, “legal” and otherwise, it abandons itself to mindless irrationality driven by hate and antipathy towards every positive value. Violence is not a means to any end other than destruction and death; violence itself is the end. Humanity has been fed the same tripe for centuries: noble ends justify evil means. Violation of the first principle—the stricture against initiated aggression—bars consideration of the purported ends. A “discussion” with a gun is no discussion. Violence exercised in self-defense protects positive values, but when violence is initiated, destruction, death, and the depraved pleasure of loathsome minds are its only ends.

    An individual who claims by word or deed the right to initiate violence – and the consequent rights to subjugate, injure, and kill – is a rabid, deranged, and dangerous animal. A government that asserts that right is a pack. In self-defense, the virtuous, if they are to protect their liberty, rights, and lives, must quarantine or kill the rabid. A necessary corollary of the stricture against initiated aggression is that we have the right to use all means necessary to defend ourselves from it—with pity, perhaps, but no remorse.

    The chaos, the terror, of our deteriorating world is a true and faithful reflection of souls abandoned to hate. The free mind and its methods—intrepid curiosity, truth, and logic—stand as their ultimate enemy. If those who would oppose this destruction and death abandon their souls, they become the mindless evil they opposed. Those who defend their rights, values, and lives without surrendering their morality will rebuild from the rubble the kind of world in which they deserve to live. They will do so unobstructed—hate inevitably leads to its own destruction.

  • China Bonds, Stocks, Commodities Extend Gains As Yuan Tumbles To One-Month Lows After Renewed Liquidity Injection

    As China got back to work after Golden Week, it appeared a renewed exuberance appeared in every orifice of liquidity provision (even as PBOC sucked up excess for 6 straight days). Stocks are up, bonds are up, and commodities are soaring (all as Yuan tumbles) and tonight authorities unleashed 100bn reverse-repo (for the first time in 7 days) as leverage seems nothing to worry about again yields drop and asset prices rise.

    As Bloomberg reports, China’s central bank restarted the use of an instrument that adds cash to the financial system, helping ease liquidity concerns before $153 billion of funds come due this week.

    The monetary authority sold a total 100 billion yuan ($14.5 billion) of reverse-repurchase agreements, the first auction after a six-day pause, a statement posted on its website showed. While the open-market operations resulted in a net withdrawal of 90 billion yuan because of maturing contracts, the resumption signals that policy makers don’t want a sudden tightening of money supply, according to Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ (China) Ltd. The People’s Bank of China last week allowed 625 billion yuan of reverse repos to mature, mopping up cash after adding record funds in the days before the week-long Lunar New Year holidays. Some 900 billion yuan of the contracts are set to mature this week, as well as 151.5 billion yuan of loans under the Medium-term Lending Facility, data compiled by Bloomberg show. That adds up to 1.05 trillion yuan, or $153 billion.

    “The PBOC restarted the use of reverse repos to stabilize market sentiment because large maturities are on the way,” said Li Liuyang, a Shanghai-based market analyst at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ (China).

     

    “The net result will probably continue to be a withdrawal this week, but the pace will be controlled to avoid any crunch. We also expect it to conduct MLF, given the maturities.”

    And Lo and Behold – China soars…so much for all that worry about Trump trade wars!!

    Stocks are up…

    Bonds are up…

     

    And every industrial commodity is exploding higher…

     

    And all of this as the Yuan tumbles in a Trump-infuriating way… dropping to 5-week lows

  • The Rats Are Fleeing The Sinking Bond Ships

     

    Glen Hubbard, George Bush Jr.’s economic adviser, was a candidate
    to replace Alan Greenspan as Federal Reserve Chairman.  George Bush Jr. asked him if the economy
    sputtered, what would he do.  As he
    described the typical monetary policy tool of adjusting the overnight Federal
    Funds Rate, he said the net result would be to boost GDP by a half of a percent
    to percent.  I assume the same question
    was asked to Ben Bernanke.  Helicopter
    Ben didn’t disappoint and won the appointment.  As Chairman of the Federal Reserve, he got his
    chance and threw everything including the kitchen sink at stimulating the
    economy.  He lowered the Federal Funds
    rate down to zero and purchased trillions of bonds to expand the monetary base.
     He unleashed the most excessively
    accommodative monetary policy in history which was continued by current Federal
    Reserve Chairman Janet Yellen.  Fast
    forward to today and we are on the cusp of a 3+% GDP, core inflation running
    above 2% and full employment.  However,
    there are some perilous costs associated with such accommodative monetary
    policy.  The cost that should be the most
    worrying is the unwinding of the ultra-low bond yields in the US and globally
    that has just begun.

     

    Bond yields and market volatility are on the rise. This is
    the result of more normalized growth and inflation levels, less perceived
    global risks and hope for continued growth in the future. Fixed income investors
    have just begun to adjust to the idea of more normal yields in the bond market.  It may seem tempting to dip a toe into the
    bond market waters with this back-up in yields. But these are dangerous waters.
    Don’t lose a toe.  After 10 years of bond
    markets rallying the unwind is just beginning.

     

    Normalized markets for longer dated government bonds places
    yields around 2% to 3% above the rate of inflation.  And with inflation running at 2% and moving
    higher, longer term bond yields should be greater than 5%, not the current 3%.  If bonds yields backed up to the longer term
    averages, market losses could be 40% or more for the longest maturity bonds.

     

    The trillions in bond purchases that drove yields to
    all-time lows have abated and that’s bad news for bonds.  Banks have finished adding regulatory bond
    purchases and central banks have ended or are close to ending bond purchases
    for monetary policy purposes.  Government
    bond purchases made to limit rising currencies have now turned into sales to
    limit currency weakness.  And oil
    producing nations are no longer looking to put their surplus dollars from oil
    sales to work in the bond market.  They
    are now selling bonds to fund the holes in their fiscal budgets stemming from
    low oil prices.

     

    The last big purchaser of bonds still remains some very
    large and leveraged hedge funds.  Hedge
    funds have been caught on the wrong side of the global bond trade and are now
    trying to avoid selling their positions.  Fear and greed had helped keep bond yields at
    these low levels for longer than most would have thought.  In fact, yields have been so low for so long,
    anyone betting on higher yields has been fired, put out of business, or
    probably has a laundry list of stress related health problems.

     

    Whatever backup in yields we’ve seen, it’s just the first
    movement it what is sure to be an unharmonious symphony.  The bond market has spent years below more
    normal long-term yields while unprecedented accommodation was stuffed in the
    system. It is highly probable and reasonable to believe that the bond market needs
    to spend some time above the long run yield level.  That, by definition, is how an average is
    created.

     

    Now that the fixed income market has begun to adjust, losses
    are piling up and will soon be reported to investors.  The size of these losses are sure to shock the
    investor community that has grown accustomed

     

    to steady gains from fixed income.  In fact, when people open up their monthly account
    statements and see excessive losses from bonds yielding low single digits, the
    second movement in this symphony will begin.  Disappointed bond investors will soon put in
    sell requests and leveraged bond managers who were the last marginal buyer of
    bonds will have to turn into sellers. 
    Market yields will have to adjust higher and find a level that attracts
    the unlevered bond purchaser.  And that
    yield level appears to be much higher.

     

    So what is an investor to do?  Many hedge funds are trying to hold off
    liquidating bond trades by offering fee rebates to limit redemptions.  This is always a leading indicator of more
    pain to come. Just like rats that leave a sinking ship before it goes under,
    redemptions are starting to line up at many bond hedge funds.  These hedge fund captains are offering cheese by
    reducing fees which is sure to entice the fat rats. After 10 years of easy
    money in the bond market, these fat rats are incapable of swimming and will
    choose the cheese.   I remember when the over leveraged Long Term
    Capital Management hedge fund first started to suffer losses in their bond
    portfolio.  They incorrectly believed
    that if needed, more investor capital would be available to stabilize losing
    trades.  My advice to investors is to
    take a lesson from history and don’t bet on this old proverbial dead cat
    bouncing.  When markets turn, it’s best
    to move back to cash and let the markets readjust.  After such a long period of low yields and
    limited volatility, this market symphony will have many movements and we are
    not even at intermission.

        

  • A MeSSaGE FRoM MiSSiLe KiM…
  • Canada's Problem? US Refugee Crossings "Epidemic" Amid Fear, Distrust Of Trump

    In what some might call a 'win' for President Trump, Canadian immigration officials warn they are experiencing a "big surge [of refugees] coming across the border" with many of them proclaiming their distrust and fear of President Trump.

    Sherali and Sarah Shah took in three asylum seekers who had been trying to get into Canada through the Emerson, Man., border Tuesday.

    In the first official report of a group of "asylum seekers" who are malcontent refugees in the U.S. trying to become refugees in Canada being apprehended, U.S. border security guards and a local sheriff caught three Somali nationals trying to sneak across an open stretch of the U.S.-Canada border on Tuesday, according to CBC News.

    Kris Grogan, a public affairs officer for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, said border officials on the U.S. side are becoming increasingly worried about asylum seekers trying to get into Canada.

     

    "It is extremely dangerous to be putting yourself out into these elements where you could end up dying," he said.

     

    As CBC News first reported in January, hundreds of asylum seekers have walked into Canada through fields near the Emerson border.

     

     

    The issue came into the spotlight after two refugees from Ghana were hospitalized in Winnipeg after suffering frostbite on Christmas Eve while lost on Highway 75, near the Canada-U.S. border.

     

    The refugees were so badly frostbitten, they lost fingers and toes. Since the story of the two men became public, dozens of other asylum seekers, including a mother and two-year-old child, have crossed into Manitoba.

    As AFP reports, Farhan Ahmed hoped to find refuge in the United States after fleeing death threats in Somalia, but fear over a US crackdown on immigration sent him on another perilous journey — to Canada.

    The 36-year-old was among nearly two dozen asylum seekers who braved bone-chilling cold on a February weekend to walk across the border, trudging through snow-covered prairies in the dead of night to make a claim in this country.

     

     

    It was a record number of arrivals for a single weekend in the small border town of Emerson, and Canadian officials said Thursday they are bracing for more.

    An agreement with the US prevents asylum seekers from lodging claims in Canada if they first landed stateside, but it only applies to arrivals at border checkpoints, airports and train stations.

    Rita Chahal, executive director of the Manitoba Interfaith Immigration Council, described a "big surge coming across the border." According to Canada's Border Services Agency, numbers have roughly doubled in each of the last four years to 321 cases in fiscal 2015-2016. Since April, there have been 403 cases.

     

    People often come from Djibouti, Ghana, Nigeria and Somalia, said Chahal, whose agency works out of a building designed by a top Canadian architect who was once himself a refugee.

     

    The numbers are high, but the risky routes asylum seekers take are also alarming. "They're crossing through farmers' fields. Many of them are getting lost," Chahal said. The recent arrivals, she said, tell a common story: "'We're afraid of what's happening in the United States, we're not sure what's going to happen if I get sent back to my country.'"

     

    Samatar Adam, 30, from Djibouti, arrived last month. Asked why he did not file a refugee claim in the US, he replied: "Donald Trump." He left soon after the inauguration. "It saddens me to see refugees flee not only their country but also a safe, democratic country like the United States," said the Immigration Partnership Winnipeg's Hani Al-Ubeady, himself an Iraqi refugee who now helps resettle others.

     

    "They have to take another risky journey to make it to another safe place — Canada."

    As a reminder, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau responded to Donald Trump’s immigration ban by saying Canada welcomes refugees who have been rejected from the US.

    “To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada,” he tweeted.

    And now it's Canada's problem? Will protesters blockade the northern border demanding US refugees stay in America? Will virtue-signaling have to be turned up to '11'? For now it seems Canada's "safe spaces" are safer than America's "safe spaces."

  • Washington Post Admits Shutting Down 'Fake News' Will Move Us Closer To A Modern-Day '1984'

    Submitted by Flemming Rose and Jacob Mchangama via The Washington Post,

    Remember George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth? In his dystopian novel “1984,” its purpose was to dictate and protect the government’s version of reality. During the Cold War, Orwell’s book was banned behind the Iron Curtain, because readers perceived the novel as an allegory for their own repressive regimes.

    It was a serious crime to distribute information defaming the Soviet social and political system. Such criminal laws were widely used by the Kremlin to silence dissidents, human rights activists, religious movements and groups fighting for independence in the Soviet republics. Similar laws were on the books in East Germany, Poland and other Eastern bloc countries.

    Thankfully, today this landscape is much changed, but increasingly there are disturbing echoes of the past. Amid a debate about the rising influence of fake news and the danger it poses to the political and social order in the West, democratic politicians in Europe have proposed sanctions — and even prison terms — for those found responsible for distributing false information.

    Euopean Union Justice Commissioner Vera Jourova has warned tech companies such as Facebook and Twitter that if they don’t find ways to eliminate hate speech and combat fake news, a law mandating action may be necessary. Commissioner Andrus Ansip reinforced that threat last month, albeit in softer language, prompting social-media giants and traditional media to announce a flurry of initiatives aimed at combating fake news.

    Italy’s antitrust chief, Giovanni Pitruzzella, has said that E.U. countries should set up a network of government-appointed bodies to remove fake news and potentially impose fines on the media. Pitruzzella doesn’t hide his political agenda — he wants to target his opponents on the populist left and right. “Post-truth in politics is one of the drivers of populism, and it is one of the threats to our democracies,” he told the Financial Times.

    In Germany, politicians eager to counter Russian meddling and populist movements in upcoming parliamentarian elections have issued similar calls. Justice Minister Heiko Maas argues that authorities need the power to impose prison terms for fake news on social media. “Defamation and malicious gossip are not covered under freedom of speech,” Maas said. “Justice authorities must prosecute that, even on the Internet. Anyone who tries to manipulate the political discussion with lies needs to be aware [of the consequences].”

    It is understandable that liberal democracies are deeply worried about disinformation, which tears at the fabric of pluralistic democratic societies. John Stuart Mill famously argued that free speech would help exchange “error for truth” and create “the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.” Yet this justification weakens considerably if lies and disinformation become indistinguishable from truth. In such an environment, “Democracy will not survive a lack of belief in the possibility of impartial institutions,” political scientist Francis Fukuyama recently wrote. “Instead, partisan political combat will come to pervade every aspect of life.”

    That is indeed a nightmare scenario to be avoided. But using legal measures to counter disinformation is likely to be a cure worse than the disease. One does not need to go back to the Cold War to worry about what happens when governments become the arbiters of truth.

    In the past two years, Egypt has sentenced six Al Jazeera journalists to death or long prison terms for, among other things, allegedly spreading false news. In 2013, Gambia — until the recent ouster of Yahya Jammeh, one of Africa’s worst dictators — introduced a punishment of up to 15 years’ imprisonment and hefty fines for those who spread “false news,” citing a need for stability and the prevention of “unpatriotic behavior” and “treacherous” campaigns. Russia, ironically the source of so much of the disinformation menacing liberal democracies, uses broad and vague anti-extremism laws to prohibit news that the Kremlin views as propaganda — including prison sentences for social-media users who insist that Crimea is part of Ukraine.

    Of course, Europe’s established democracies have little in common with the Soviet Union or other illiberal regimes. But the legal tools proposed by European politicians to suppress fake news sound alarmingly like those used by authoritarian governments to silence dissent. This is dangerous. Not only are such measures incompatible with the principle of free speech, but also they set precedents that could quickly strengthen the hand of the populist forces that mainstream European politicians feel so threatened by.

    Europe may soon find itself with populists such as France’s Marine Le Pen and the Netherlands’ Geert Wilders with real power. Such leaders would draw the line between fake news and free speech very differently than mainstream politicians — perhaps aiming them at the supposedly corrupt established media rather than websites, blogs and social media trafficking in “alternative facts.” It is also unlikely that the increasingly illiberal governments of Poland and Hungary would agree with the European Commission or German Chancellor Angela Merkel on what constitutes false information or fake news.

    And while the First Amendment prevents the U.S. government from overtly limiting press freedom, it’s clear that President Trump’s definition of fake news is vastly different from what his opponents or the media have in mind.

    Above all, rather than strengthening established media institutions, banning fake news might very well undermine them in the eyes of the public.

    If alternative outlets are prosecuted or shut down, mainstream media risk being seen as unofficial propaganda tools of the powers that be. Behind the Iron Curtain, nonofficial media outlets had more credibility than official media in spite of the fact that not everything they published was accurate or fact-checked. The hashtag #fakenews could become a selling point with the public if it were banned rather than rigorously countered and refuted.

    As White House strategist Stephen K. Bannon replied when asked whether press secretary Sean Spicer, after making irrefutably false statements, had damaged his credibility with the media: “Are you kidding me? We think that’s a badge of honor.”

  • Trump, Bannon Said To Weigh Firing Mike Flynn Over Russian Phone Calls Scandal

    Top White House aide and policy adviser, Stephen Miller, sidestepped repeated chances during Sunday news shows to publicly defend embattled National Security Adviser Michael Flynn following reports that he engaged in conversations with Russian diplomat(s) about U.S. sanctions before Trump’s inauguration. The uncertainty came as Trump was dealing with North Korea’s apparent first missile launch of the year and his presidency, along with visits this week from the leaders of Israel and Canada.

    Pressed repeatedly, Stephen Miller said it wasn’t up to him to say whether the president retains confidence in Flynn. “It’s not for me to tell you what’s in the president’s mind,” he said on NBC. “That’s a question for the president.”

    While Trump has yet to comment on the allegations against Flynn, the White House said in an anonymous statement Friday the president had full confidence in Flynn. But officials have been mum since then amid fallout from reports that Flynn addressed U.S. sanctions against Russia in a phone call late last year. The report, which first appeared in The Washington Post, contradicted both Flynn’s previous denials, as well as those made by Vice President Mike Pence in a televised interview.

    Now we know why the administration has been so quiet about the fate of Flynn. As the WSJ reports, the White House is reviewing “whether to retain Flynn amid a furor over his contacts with Russian officials before President Donald Trump took office, an administration official said Sunday.” Flynn has apologized to White House colleagues over the episode, which has created a rift with Vice President Mike Pence and diverted attention from the administration’s message to his own dealings, the official said.

    “He’s apologized to everyone,” the official said of Mr. Flynn.

    Still, the WSJ concedes that Trump’s views toward the matter aren’t clear. In recent days, he has privately told people the controversy surrounding Mr. Flynn is unwelcome, after he told reporters on Friday he would “look into” the disclosures.  At the same time, Trump also has said he has confidence in Mr. Flynn and wants to “keep moving forward,” a person familiar with his thinking said. Close Trump adviser Steve Bannon had dinner with Mr. Flynn over the weekend, according to another senior administration official, and Bannon’s view is to keep him in the position but “be ready” to let him go, the first administration official said.

    The paper also adds that Jard Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, hadn’t yet weighed in on Flynn’s future yet as of Sunday evening.

    For those who may not have followed the story, Flynn initially said that in a conversation Dec. 29 with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, he didn’t discuss sanctions imposed that day by the outgoing Obama administration, which were levied in retaliation for alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Flynn now concedes that he did, administration officials said, after transcripts of his phone calls show as much. He also admits he spoke with the ambassador more than once on Dec. 29, despite weeks of the Trump team’s insisting it was just one phone call, officials said.

    If Flynn had promised any easing of sanctions once Mr. Trump took office, he may have violated a law that prohibits private citizens from engaging in foreign policy, legal experts have said. That would mark the first instance of a person close to Mr. Trump found to have inappropriate links to Russia, a subject U.S. officials have been investigating for months.

    U.S. intelligence services routinely intercept and monitor conversations with Russian diplomats, officials have said. While the transcripts of the conversations don’t show Mr. Flynn made any sort of promise to lift the sanctions once Mr. Trump took office, they show Flynn making more general comments about relations between the two countries improving under Mr. Trump, people familiar with them said.

    Flynn’s alleged lies have angered VP Mike Pence, who in television interviews vouched for Flynn, administration officials said. Pence and Flynn spoke twice on Friday, one official said quoted by the WSJ.

    Reince Priebus is leading the Trump administration’s review of Flynn.

    Some administration officials are hopeful Mr. Flynn would resign on his own, a person familiar with the matter said. Some people close to Mr. Trump already are speculating on possible successors, including retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, who advised Mr. Trump during the campaign and who is chief of staff of the National Security Council.

     

    Jettisoning Mr. Flynn might end one controversy, but would potentially feed perceptions of a disorganized White House, some people close to Mr. Trump said. That’s one reason the White House might be hesitant to cut ties to Mr. Flynn, they added.

    Meanwhile, Democrats smell blood and want Flynn out immediately.

    As pressure built on White House officials, Democrats on Sunday pressed for an independent investigation into Mr. Flynn’s conversations with Russia’s ambassador.

     

    “Either he was lying about discussing it or he forgot,” said Sen. Al Franken (D., Minn.), speaking Sunday on CNN. ”You don’t want a guy in either of those scenarios to be in that position.”

    Franken has also called for an independent investigation into the Trump campaign’s and the administration’s ties to Russia, citing allegations of Kremlin interference in the 2016 U.S. election and Mr. Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns, as candidates have done since the 1970s. “We don’t know what [Mr. Trump] owes Russia,” Mr. Franken said. “We don’t know how many Russian oligarchs have invested in his business.” At the same time Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.), who lead the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subpanel on crime and terrorism, already have launched an investigation of Russia’s efforts to influence the U.S. election.

    While the situation remains liquid, two things are certain: Trump will have a “kneejerk response” tweet momentarily, and the market will interpret this latest tremor inside the White House as even more bullish.

  • Suggesting New York Times Isn't Dying, In Spite of Digital Subscription Growth, is Fake News

    I’ve read a lot of drivel the past few weeks about the $NYT and how their burgeoning online digital ad business was booming — mostly by disaffected leftards who have somehow tethered themselves to the old gray lady in an effort to defy Trump.

    Why? You’re fucking stupid.

    The business has been cut in half since 2008. They’ve gone from raking in $300m per quarter in earnings to $40m. This isn’t a god damned online journal. The core business is print and there’s no way digital can make up for the lost ground in print, without having a profound effect on the way the company is staffed.

    Does this revenue trend look healthy to you?
    NYT3

    Earnings are down 50-75% since 2008.

    NYT2

    The stock has been cut in half over the past 8 years.

    NYT

    That’s what a slow death looks like, not a revival spearheaded by amazing digital revenue growth.

    Trump

    Prove to me the New York Times isn’t dying.

    Pro tip: you can’t.

    Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com

Digest powered by RSS Digest