• Martin Armstrong Exposes "The Real Clinton Conspiracy" Which Backfired Dramatically

  Submitted by Martin Armstrong via ArmstrongEconomics.com,

  

  Meanwhile, Hillary lost not merely because she misread the “real” people, she decided to run a very divisive and nasty negative campaign, which has fueled the violence ever since. According to WikiLeaks emails from campaign John Podesta, Clinton colluded with the DNC and the media to raise what they thought would be the extreme right among Republicans to then make her the middle of the road to hide her agenda.

  

  Clinton called this her “pied piper” strategy, that intentionally cultivated extreme right-wing presidential candidates and that would turn the Republicans away from their more moderate candidates. This enlisted mainstream media who then focused to Trump and raise him above all others assuming that would help Hillary for who would vote for Trump. This was a deliberate strategy all designed to propel Hillary to the White House.

  The Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee along with mainstream media all called for using far-right candidates “as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right.” Clinton’s camp insisted that Trump should be “elevated” to “leaders of the pack” and media outlets should be told to “take them seriously.”

  If we look back on April 23, 2015, just two weeks after Hillary Clinton officially declared her presidential campaign, her staff sent out a message on straregy to manipulate the Republicans into selecting the worse candidate. They included this attachment a “memo for the DNC discussion.”

  

  The memo was addressed to the Democratic National Committee and stated bluntly, “the strategy and goals a potential Hillary Clinton presidential campaign would have regarding the 2016 Republican presidential field.” Here we find that the real conspiracy was Clinton manipulating the Republicans. “Clearly most of what is contained in this memo is work the DNC is already doing. This exercise is intended to put those ideas to paper.”

  “Our hope is that the goal of a potential HRC campaign and the DNC would be one-in-the-same: to make whomever the Republicans nominate unpalatable to a majority of the electorate.”

  The Clinton strategy was all about manipulating the Republicans to nominate the worst candidate Clinton called for forcing “all Republican candidates to lock themselves into extreme conservative positions that will hurt them in a general election.”

  It was not Putin trying to rig the elections, it was Hillary. Clinton saw the Republican field as crowded and she viewed as “positive” for her. “Many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right.” Clinton then took the strategic position saying “we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more ‘Pied Piper’ candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party.”

  Her manipulative strategy was to have the press build up Donald Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz and Ben Carson. “We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously.”

  This conspiracy has emerged from the Podesta emails. It was Clinton conspiring with mainstream media to elevate Trump and then tear him down. We have to now look at all the media who endorsed Hillary as simply corrupt. Simultaneously, Hillary said that Bernie had to be ground down to the pulp. Further leaked emails showed how the Democratic National Committee sabotaged Sanders’ presidential campaign. It was Hillary manipulating the entire media for her personal gain. She obviously did not want a fair election because she was too corrupt.

  What is very clear putting all the emails together, the rise of Donald Trump was orchestrated by Hillary herself conspiring with mainstream media, and they they sought to burn him to the ground. Their strategy backfired and now this is why she has not come out to to speak against the violence she has manipulated and inspired.

  

  This is by far the WORST campaign in history and it was all orchestrated by Hillary to be intentionally divisive for the nation all to win the presidency at all costs. She has torched the constitution and the country. No wonder Hillary could not go to the stage to thank her supporters. She never counted on them and saw the people as fools. The entire strategy was to take the White House with a manipulation of the entire election process. Just unbelievable. Any Democrat who is not angry at this is clearly just a biased fool. Wake up and smell the roses. You just got what you deserve.

   

  

  

• Is A Real Civil War Possible?

  Submitted by Doug Casey via InternationalMan.com,

  The Trump victory is very good news for the US – relative to a win for Hillary, which would have been an unmitigated disaster. So I’m happy he won.

  Will Trump winning mean a real change in direction for the US? Unlikely. Don’t mistake Trump for a libertarian. He has all kinds of stupid notions—torture as official policy, killing families of accused terrorists, and putting on import duties. He has no grasp of economics. He’s an authoritarian. His cabinet choices, so far, are all neocons and Deep State hangers-on. He’s likely to treat the US as if it were his 100% owned corporation.

  On the bright side, he has real business experience—although of the kind that sees government as a partner. I doubt he’ll try, or be able if he does, to pull up any agencies by the roots. He’ll mainly be able to set the tone, as did Reagan. But, hey, something is better than nothing.

  THE POLITICAL FUTURE

  A brief word on US political parties. I’ve said for years that the Demopublicans and the Republicrats are just two wings of the same party. One says it’s for social freedom (which is a lie), but is actively antagonistic to economic freedom. The other says it’s for economic freedom (which is a lie), but is actively antagonistic to social freedom. Both are controlled by members of the Deep State.

  I still think that’s an accurate description of reality. But, in truth, it’s a little unfair to the Republicans. The creatures who control the Republican Party are one thing – and they were massively repudiated by the victory of Trump. Good riddance. But the people who gravitate towards the GOP are something else. To them, the GOP mostly represents a cultural club they belong to.

  Rank and file Republicans don’t have any cohesive philosophy binding them together. They’re just sympathetic to “traditional” values. They like the picture postcard version of America. The 1950’s style Father Knows Best family. The world of American Graffiti. A house in the suburbs, or a small, neat farm. Thanksgiving dinners with relatives. The exchange of Christmas cards. Going to church on Sunday. The husband having a job that allows him to support the wife and kids. Chevrolets and Fords. A relatively small, non-predatory government. A friendly neighborhood cop. A basically decent and stable society, which doesn’t tolerate crime, or overly outlandish behavior, where social norms are understood and observed.

  You get the picture. It’s a cultural thing, not an ideological or political construct. Unfortunately, it’s no longer a reality. It’s more and more just an ideal, about as dated as a Norman Rockwell painting on the defunct Saturday Evening Post.

  The Democrats are quite different in outlook. They see themselves as hip and sophisticated, and see traditional values as “square”. They’re for globalism, not American nationalism. Forget the clean-cut Mouseketeers; the fat and loathsome Lena Dunham is the new role model. Political correctness rules. White men are automatically despised. Black is beautiful. Women are better than men. The very idea of America is in disrepute, and held in contempt. Multiculturalism overrules home-grown values. Etc. Etc.

  You’ll notice that there was very little discussion about policy in this election. It was almost all ad hominem attacks, mostly pushing emotional hot buttons, not intellectual points. It’s all about a culture clash. It’s a non-violent civil war. These two groups no longer have very much in common. And they don’t just disagree, they hate each other.

  Is a real civil war possible? Unlikely. The electorate is too degraded to actually get off their couches to fight, apart from the fact few know how to use a gun anymore. Besides, 25% of the US is on antidepressants or other psychoactive drugs; they’re too passive to want radical change. Almost half the country is on some form of the dole; they fear having their doggy dishes taken away. More than half the country is obese; fat people tend to avoid street fights. The median age in the US is 38; old people don’t usually get in fights. Anyway, everybody lives on their electronic devices, not the real world.

  You’ll notice that voting for Trump and Hillary broke along cultural lines. The Republicans won the rural areas (which are dropping in population); the Democrats won the cities (which are growing). The Reps are white (and becoming no more than a plurality); the Dems have most of the so-called “people of color”, who used to be called “colored people” (and are becoming a majority). The Reps did better with males; the Dems better with females, who tend to see the world in softer and gentler shades. The Reps are favored by native-born Americans; the Dems are favored by immigrants, who often have very different values. The Reps represent the diminishing middle-class; the Dems represent the growing underclass. The Reps did better with older people, who are on their way out; the Dems did better with younger people, indoctrinated by academia and the media, who are on their way up.

  None of this looks good for the future of traditional American culture. In fact, Hillary won the popular vote. That means, demographics being what they are, the Republicans are in more trouble next time. With current immigration and birth patterns, the constituency of the Democrats should gain about 2% every four-year election cycle in the future. Even more important, as we leave the eye of the storm that started in 2007, and go into the trailing edge of the economic hurricane, the Trump administration will be blamed. There will, therefore, be a radical reaction away from what it’s believed to represent in 2020.

  It used to be the Reps and the Dems differentiated mostly on ideological grounds. Now it’s much more on cultural grounds. Allow me to identify the elephant in the room, and spell out the real nature of the Democratic Party.

  The Democratic party is a cesspool filled with leftist social engineers, academics, busy-body pundits, the “elite”, cultural Marxists, race baiters, racial “minorities” who see race as their main identity, radical feminists and LBGT types, entitled underachievers, statists, the soft-headed, the envy-driven, the stupid, professional losers, haters of free markets, and people who simply hate the idea of America. I can’t imagine anyone of good will, or even common decency, being a member of today's Democratic Party. It needs to be flushed. But it will only get stronger in the near future, for many reasons.

  But it’s an honest party—they generally say what they believe, even if it’s repulsive to anyone who values things like liberty. Interestingly, there are no Dinos—unless they’re Stalinists or Maoists who think the others aren’t going far enough. The party has absolutely no redeeming values.

  A real battle for the soul of the country is shaping up. But I fear it won’t be heroic, so much as sordid. The knaves versus the fools. The Dems are the evil party, but the Reps are just the stupid party.

  Why? Trump and the Trumpers have no ideology except a vision of a vanished world. They’re understandably angry, but don’t know what to do about it. They have no real program, except to say the Dems have gone too far. No coherent philosophy, just a nebulous belief that the Democrats are wrong. They’re justifiably fed up with the Establishment that gave them non-entities like Dole, McCain, and Romney.

  Why did Trump win? Two reasons.

  First, “Cultural Americans” know that their culture is dying, and their standard of living is declining. They sensed—correctly—that this would be their “last hurrah”, their last real kick at the cat. Trump is likely the last white male president. Unless a rabid statist like Tim Kaine is elected in 2020, with promises of a new and more radical New Deal. Or ongoing wars tilt the odds towards a general, most of whom are still white males.

   

  Second, don’t forget that Trump wasn’t the only protest candidate in the primaries. There was Bernie. His supporters know that Hillary and the Dem insiders stole it from him, and they’re still very unhappy. Many abstained from voting for Hillary because of the theft. A few probably voted for Trump out of spite. Or because they wanted to burn the house down. Nobody says this.

  Perversely, they’ll get their wish. The Greater Depression will deepen under Trump, even if he makes the right moves. Which will play into the election of someone from the Democrat cesspool in 2020. So maybe the Trump victory isn’t such a good thing after all.

  But let’s look at the bright side. All things considered, we’re in for some wonderful free (kind of) entertainment.

  

  

• NATO Panics As Putin Urges Trump To Force Alliance Withdrawal From Russian Border

  While many in the media have speculated that the Kremlin had a hand in Wikileaks’ procurement of hacked Podesta emails – something Julian Assange denied last week – and US intelligence services officially accused Russian government-supported hackers of interfering with the US election (providing zero proof for the allegation), the truth is that Vladimir Putin is delighted with the outcome from the US elections: not so much for Hillary’s loss as that the sharp, neo-con wing in the Pentagon has been muted for the next four years.

  And, in the first test of Trump’s willingness to rebuild bridges with Russia, Putin’s spokesman suggested that President-elect Donald Trump should begin rebuilding the U.S.-Kremlin relationship by urging NATO to withdraw forces from the Russian border.  Dmitry Peskov told the Associated Press that such a move  “would lead to a kind of detente in Europe.” Trump repeatedly praised Putin during his campaign and suggested the U.S. abandon its commitment to the NATO alliance.

  The request comes at a time of disturbing, relentless escalations in military tensions between NATO and Russia: this week we reported that NATO has placed as much as 300,000 troops on “high alert” in preparation for confrontation with Russia. 

  Peskov said in the interview that the NATO presence does not make Russia feel “safe.”  “Of course, we have to take measures to counter,” he said.

  Additionally, setting the stage for Trump’s official position on Crimea, in a separate interview with the Associated Press on Thursday, Peskov insisted that Crimea which became part of Russia after the CIA-sponsored Ukraine presidential coup in 2014, will remain such.   “No one in Russia — never — will be ready to start any kind of discussion about Crimea,” he said, refusing to call it “annexation.”

  When asked how Trump could approach the Crimea issue, quoted by The Hill, Peskov said it would take time. “We understand that it will take time for our partners in Europe, for our partners here in the United States to understand that. We are patient enough to wait until this understanding occurs here in Washington, in the States, in Europe,” he said.

  * * *

  But while the Crimea issue is largely moot, with the West resigned to its concession to Moscow, fears that Trump will indeed follow Russia’s advice and pressure the alliance into standing down, or worse, withdraw US support, has resulted in outright panic, and according to German Spiegel, NATO strategists are planning for a scenario in which Trump orders US troops out of Europe.

  Spiegel adds that strategists from NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg’s staff have drafted a secret report which includes a worst-case scenario in which Trump orders US troops to withdraw from Europe and fulfills his threat to make Washington less involved in European security.

  “For the first time, the US exit from NATO has become a threat” which would mean the end of the bloc, a German NATO officer told the magazine. During his campaign, Trump repeatedly slammed NATO, calling the alliance “obsolete.” He also suggested that under his administration, the US may refuse to come to the aid of NATO allies unless they “pay their bills” and “fulfill their obligations to us.”

  Of course, this is the same Spiegel which after Trump’s victory has predicted the end of the world.

  

  “We are experiencing a moment of the highest and yet unprecedented uncertainty in the transatlantic relationship,” said Wolfgang Ischinger, former German ambassador in Washington and head of the prominent Munich Security Conference. By criticizing the collective defense, Trump has questioned the basic pillar of NATO as a whole, Ischinger added.

  Alternatively, by putting into question a core support pillar behind NATO’s endless provocations and troop buildup at Russia’s border, Trump may prevent World War III.

  NATO, however, demands its way or no other way at all, and it why Ischinger demands that the president-elect reassure his “European allies” that he remains firm on the US commitment under Article 5 of the NATO charter prior to his inauguration.

  This wasn’t the only criticism launched at Trump by the military alliance: earlier this week, Stoltenberg slammed Trump’s agenda, saying: “All allies have made a solemn commitment to defend each other. This is something absolutely unconditioned.” Perhaps the commitment was only contingent on having a resident in the Oval Office who put the interests of the Military Industrial Complex ahead of those of, for example, the American people?

  NATO’s panic has grown so vast that out of fear Trump would not appear in Brussels even after his inauguration, NATO has re-scheduled its summit – expected to take place in early 2017 – to next summer, Spiegel said.

  The NATO report likley also reflects current moods within the EU establishment as well, as Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, has called on the member states to establish Europe’s own military. Washington “will not ensure the security of the Europeans in the long term… we have to do this ourselves,” he argued on Thursday. Because Greek troops just can’t wait to give their lives to defend German citizens and vice versa.

  Meanwhile, Spiegel admits that despite NATO’s bluster, Trump has all the leverage, and if Trump is serious about reducing the number of US troops stationed in Europe, large NATO countries like Germany have little to offer, Spiegel said. Even major member states’ militaries lack units able to replace the Americans, which in turn may trigger debate on strengthening NATO’s nuclear arm, a sensitive issue in most European countries for domestic reasons.

  How will Trump respond? It is unclear: while in his pre-election rhetoric, Trump pushed for an anti-interventionist agenda, and certainly made it seem that NATO would be weakned under his presidency, that remains to be seen as his transition team currently hammers out the specifics of his rather vague policies. We would not be surprised at all to find that for all the anti-establishment posturing, the “shadow government” – now in the hands of the Bush clan – which Ron Paul warned against earlier, manages to regain dominance, and far from a detente, Trump’s position emboldens NATO to pressure Putin even further. We would be delighted if our cynicism is proven wrong on this occasion.  
  

  

  

• Chicago Man Beaten By Angry Black Mob For Voting Trump Speaks Out

  A couple of days ago we wrote about the 49-year old Chicago resident, David Wilcox, who was beaten by a group of angry black men as onlookers shouted “you voted Trump? you gonna pay for that sh*t,” “beat his ass,” and “don’t vote Trump.”  Today the battered Wilcox spoke to the Chicago Tribune to give more details on the events surrounding the assault.  In addition to being beaten mercilessly, Wilcox was also drug down the streets of Chicago’s West Side at 70-80 miles per hour as he attempted to prevent the mob from stealing his vehicle.

  “I stopped and parked. And I asked if they had insurance, and the next thing that I knew they were beating the s— out of me,” Wilcox said Thursday.

   

  “They were beating me to have me let go of the car,” Wilcox said. “The guy went to 70 and 80 mph. If I let go, I was dead. He slowed to 45. … He tried to push the door open. …So he stepped on it again.”

   

  “He stepped up back to 70 and 80, swerved again,” Wilcox said. “The wheels on my side left the ground, up to 2 inches. … Then he slowed down. I was looking at oncoming traffic. He probably slowed to about 45. God was watching over for me. I rolled about five or seven times into the oncoming traffic lanes.”

   

  “There was a parole officer with a gun and bulletproof vest,” he added. “He turned left, and he told me just sit down and wait for the police to come.”

   

  Wilcox filled out a police report, but no one was reported in custody Thursday afternoon. Police said they were investigating the beating and who made the “politically divisive” statements in the video.

   

  Wilcox believes the attackers, who were black, were egged on by the bystanders. “They intensified it, aggravated it and made it more than it was.”

   

  Ironically the attackers didn’t even know that Wilcox was a Trump voter at the time of the attack.  That said, he confirmed his support of Trump to the Chicago Tribune which he attributed to his view that Trump would be better for the economy.

  “He’s gonna bring back the economy. I believe he’s gonna be the one to protect the (nation). I know he doesn’t speak politically correct sometimes, but 95 percent of the country doesn’t.”

  Somehow we suspect if this event were reversed and a white Trump mob was video taped beating a black Hillary supporter the mainstream media would pay a little closer attention.  That said, we won’t hold our breath waiting for CNN and MSNBC to cover this one.

  * * *

  Below is what we shared a couple of days ago.

  Authored by Paul Joseph Watson, originally posted at InfoWars.com,

  Shocking video out of Chicago shows a mob of young black men viciously beating an older white man because he voted for Donald Trump, dragging him through the streets as he hangs out of the back of his car.

  The clip shows the thugs repeatedly screaming, “you voted Donald Trump” as they assault the victim from every angle while others steal his belongings.

  “You voted Trump,” the mob screams, “You gonna pay for that sh*t.”

  Another woman shouts “beat his ass,” while another man is heard laughing before remarking, “Don’t vote Trump.”

  A second video of the incident which is dubbed with the “F**k Donald Trump” song, a phrase now being chanted by “protesters” across the country, shows one of the attackers driving away in the man’s vehicle while his hand is still stuck in the window as the car drags him down the street.

  “The scene is frankly reminiscent of a lynching,” remarks Chris Menahan.

  It is not even clear if the victim was a Trump supporter. Presumably, the mob used that as an excuse to beat and rob him.

  YouTube quickly deleted the video, but it has been mirrored on numerous different websites.

  If the roles had been reversed, and Trump supporters had been caught on tape viciously beating a black Hillary voter, this would be a national news story right now.

  As it is, you won’t see this on CNN any time soon.

  

  Finally, here is SHFPlan.com’s Mac Slavo with his typically eloquent perspective on this deplorable behavior…

  Violence and retribution for the election of Trump has proven to be the result of a media-driven attack on his character. For months now, the pundits and columnists have done nothing but tell the population that Trump supporters are racists, etc. and now racially-motivated beatings are taking place in the street without any other pretext or provocation.

   

  Are they proud of themselves yet? And how far will this violence spread?

   

  read more here…

  

  

• Chart Of The Week: The Exodus Begins

  In March, hordes of 'triggered' and 'fearful' liberals began to investigate just what it would take to leave the country if – horror of horrors – Donald Trump should win the US presidential election. As the following chart shows, that 'blip' of search hysteria appears to have been nothing compared to the overwhelming exodus that just occurred…

  trends.embed.renderExploreWidget(“TIMESERIES”, {“comparisonItem”:[{“keyword”:”move to canada”,”geo”:””,”time”:”today 5-y”}],”category”:0,”property”:””}, {“exploreQuery”:”q=move%20to%20canada”});

  Of course, this has not gone unnoticed by the Canadians (who emigration website crashed on Wednesday), as Jim Quinn previously wrote, the flood of Trump-fearing American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has intensified in the past week. The Republican presidential campaign is prompting an exodus among left-leaning Americans who fear they’ll soon be required to hunt, pray, pay taxes, and live according to the Constitution.

  Canadian border residents say it’s not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, liberal arts majors, global-warming activists, and “green” energy proponents crossing their fields at night.

   

  “I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in the barn,” said southern Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota. “He was cold, exhausted and hungry, and begged me for a latte and some free-range chicken. When I said I didn’t have any, he left before I even got a chance to show him my screenplay, eh?”

   

  In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher fences, but the liberals scaled them. He then installed loudspeakers that blared Rush Limbaugh across the fields, but they just stuck their fingers in their ears and kept coming. Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals just south of the border, pack them into electric cars, and drive them across the border, where they are simply left to fend for themselves after the battery dies.

   

  “A lot of these people are not prepared for our rugged conditions,” an Alberta border patrolman said. “I found one carload without a single bottle of Perrier water, or any gemelli with shrimp and arugula. All they had was a nice little Napa Valley cabernet and some kale chips. When liberals are caught, they’re sent back across the border, often wailing that they fear persecution from Trump high-hairers.

   

  Rumors are circulating about plans being made to build re-education camps where liberals will be forced to drink domestic beer, study the Constitution, and find jobs that actually contribute to the economy.

   

  In recent days, liberals have turned to ingenious ways of crossing the border. Some have been disguised as senior citizens taking a bus trip to buy cheap Canadian prescription drugs. After catching a half-dozen young vegans in blue-hair wig disguises, Canadian immigration authorities began stopping buses and quizzing the supposed senior citizens about Perry Como and Rosemary Clooney to prove that they were alive in the ’50s.

   

  “If they can’t identify the accordion player on The Lawrence Welk Show, we become very suspicious about their age,” an official said.

   

  Canadian citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are creating an organic-broccoli shortage, are buying up all the Barbara Streisand CD’s, and are overloading the internet while downloading jazzercise apps to their cell phones.

   

  “I really feel sorry for American liberals, but the Canadian economy just can’t support them,” an Ottawa resident said. “After all, how many art-history majors does one country need?"

  Finally, for those still thinking of leaving, our exclusive “Canadian insider” offered these tips and answers about making the move to Canada and what you can expect when you arrive:

  1. Are Canadians as polite as the jokes say?

  In fact they are. One joke that even Canadians laugh at goes, “How do you get 47 Canadians out of the pool as quickly as possible?” The answer: simply yell, “Get out of the pool!”

  2. Is the weather in Canada as bad as the jokes say?

  No; it is actually worse. The beautiful East Coast becomes an ice cube in the winter—an endurance test equaled only by the weather in the capital, Ottawa, where the main distraction (aside from watching your breath freeze) is skating on the central canal, which freezes solid during winter. The prairies are no better. The outdoor parking spots accompanying most condos and hi-rises each have a built-in electrical outlet. No, not for your orbital buffer; they’re for your block heater. (If you don’t know what a block heater is, perhaps the Dominican Republic should really be your first choice for bugging out…?)

  3. Of course, there is always Vancouver, which experiences the best winters in the country (like Seattle, but with fewer serial killings).

  Keep in mind, however, that Vancouver currently has the largest housing bubble on the planet. (Source: “This is Freaking Nuts — House sells $750K above Asking,” Zerohedge, March 1, 2016.)

  4. Canada has cross-country “value added tax” (VAT), called HST, that can add about 13% to a typical purchase in the mere blink of an eye.

  If you are in business, you may be able to reclaim it. Most Canadians just pay it. Americans will find this unsettling. Of course, the whole idea of a VAT is that it theoretically obviates the need for income tax. Unfortunately Canada has not figured this out yet. They introduced income tax right after WWI, swore it was just temporary, and yet it is still here…? If, however, you are seeking the comfort and nostalgia of politicians who say one thing and then do another, Canada could be a dream come true.

  5. Speaking of politics, the wise voters of Canada just threw out the most conservative leader in decades (that is “conservative” with BOTH a small “c” and a capital “C”).

  This was mainly because they were bored with his conservatism, and (the irony!) they felt he was too close to the U.S.

  6. Social medicine will be a kick if you are making the journey north.

  It has its plusses and minuses. If you are in dire need, it is there. I have a friend who recently received a lung transplant, did not pay a nickel, and now loves Canada so much he moved back to Toronto from the Czech Republic. On the other hand, if you are looking for a simple MRI in a non-urgent situation, be prepared to wait several months or (more irony!) be prepared to cross into a U.S. border town and pony up cold hard cash.

  7. Supermarkets will be a shocker.

  Imagine that 70% of all the products you have come to know and love disappeared in the blink of an eye, like in a sci-fi movie, and, in many cases, they were replaced by brands you have never heard of. Your first time grocery shopping may possibly bring a tear to your eye. Good news? They do stock Kleenex, just like in the U.S.

  8. No, you don’t have to learn French, in spite of the millions of dollars a year Canadians spend translating and labeling everything that moves or squeaks into the official “second language.”

  Learning French is mainly useful only if you plan to live in Quebec or run for federal office. And if you learned history via U.S. textbooks, be prepared for some revisionism. Turns out that France did not lose the war for Canada to the Brits at the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. It was actually a “draw.” (Luckily, nobody bothered to tell the British or every province in Canada would have two tax systems and two levels of government, just like those freethinkers in Quebec.)

  9. The thing you will notice the most?

  Well, the whole money thing will be uncomfortable. First of all, everything in Canada costs more, ceteris paribus, than the equivalent item in the U.S., even before taxes. Why? Mainly because of the higher costs of labeling and moving goods in the sparser geography (hey! those French labels don’t put themselves on the items, do they…). Next, if you factor in the weaker loonie, well, let’s just say that as a Canadian newbie, your first experience with socialized medicine might be for anti-depressants. The good news? The doctor’s visit, and part of the cost of your meds, will be picked up by the very same country that depressed you in the first place!

  

  

• As The Dust Settles: Goldman Q&A On Life In Trumplandia

  Expect the election result to increase policy uncertainty, warns Goldman Sachs, as a result of an increased pace of legislative action in 2017 without clarity, so far, regarding which issues the administration will prioritize. Over the near-term, much will depend on how financial conditions respond to the policy positions of the new administration. Despite today’s favorable market reaction, investors may take a dimmer view on proposals to raise tariffs or otherwise restrict international trade.

  Via Goldman Sachs,

  Q: Where do the final results stand?

  A: Republican sweep. At this point, Mr. Trump is likely to finish with 309 electoral votes but is slightly behind Sec. Clinton in the popular vote (the margin is likely to grow as votes are still being counted). In the Senate, one race has not yet been decided but Republicans look likely to hold 52 seats in the next Congress, two less than the 54 they hold currently. Likewise, in the House, four races have yet to be called, but Republicans look likely to hold 241 seats, down six from the their current level (including one vacant Republican seat).

  Q: What does this mean for policy in general?

  A: Overall, we think the election result implies greater policy uncertainty, for two reasons. First, the likelihood of significant legislative activity has increased as a result of single-party control for the first time since 2010, and Republican single-party control since 2006. In some areas, like fiscal policy, the question is now less if legislation passes, but what legislation passes. Second, uncertainty also looks likely to rise, at least temporarily, because it is much less clear what the priorities—or, on some issues, even the general views—of a Trump Administration are likely to be compared to most incoming administrations. As a first pass in thinking about policy under the new administration and Congress, we would categorize issues along two dimensions: how much political support Mr. Trump would need from Congress, and which issues have been key to his political success, suggesting a need to follow through directionally though not necessarily on the specifics.

  Q: What is likely to be on the Trump Administration’s agenda?

  A: The issues on Mr. Trump’s agenda are fairly apparent but it is less clear how priorities will be ordered. The campaign focused on tax reform, trade and immigration restrictions, easing of regulation, repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or Obamacare) and increased spending on infrastructure and defense. Some of these issues appear more likely to become priorities for the Trump Administration than others. For example, it is clear that congressional Republicans hold tax reform as a top priority, along with ACA repeal. While both of these issues likely resonated with many of Mr. Trump’s supporters, these are issues that congressional Republicans—and the 2012 Republican presidential candidate—have highlighted in the past, with mixed electoral success.

  By contrast, Mr. Trump focused new attention on trade policy and immigration, taking more restrictive stances in both areas than many Republican members of Congress support. While there were several factors behind Mr. Trump’s surprising victory, many of the states where he significantly outperformed were those with some of the highest shares of manufacturing-related employment (Exhibit 1). Given this, it would be surprising to see a Trump Administration distance itself entirely from commitments made on the campaign trail regarding trade. He also appears focused, as do many of his advisors, on reducing regulation, particularly in the energy and financial sectors. Some of these changes could require legislation, but many would be possible through executive action.

  Exhibit 1: Trump outperformed in manufacturing-intensive swing states

  
  Source: CNN, Department of Labor, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research

  Q: How much congressional support will President Trump need for his agenda?

  A: It ranges from needing bipartisan support to unilateral executive authority, depending on the particular issue. He would need bipartisan support for regulatory-focused legislation, for example. Under current Senate rules, it usually takes 60 votes to pass major legislation dealing with most policy areas, such as regulatory changes affecting various sectors, legal changes (for instance, dealing with immigration or anti-trust laws) or labor laws like a minimum wage increase. In some cases, bipartisan support in the Senate might be possible in light of the fact that 10 Democratic senators representing states that Mr. Trump won will be up for reelection in 2018 (only one Republican senator representing a state that Sec. Clinton won will face reelection in 2018). Coalitions will differ based on the issue, but a deregulatory push in some areas, like energy, could receive sufficient support from these Democratic lawmakers to cross the 60-vote threshold. On many other issues, like comprehensive immigration reform, we expect that reaching a compromise would remain difficult.

  Fiscal policies could be addressed with only a simple majority in the House and Senate. Under the budget “reconciliation” process, the majority party can pass legislation to cut or raise taxes with only 51 votes in the Senate, rather than the usual 60 votes needed for most legislation. The two issues most likely to be addressed using this process would be tax reform and changes to the ACA. It is possible that certain aspects of federal spending, like Mr. Trump’s infrastructure program, might be addressed through this process as well.

  A third set of issues could be addressed without congressional involvement at all. The president has broad powers related to trade policy, as discussed below. Once in office, President-elect Trump could also reverse the “deferred action” policies for undocumented immigrants that President Obama put in place in 2012. Beyond this, there are a number of regulatory actions that the current administration has taken that could be modified or reversed, related to labor rules, energy exploration and production, carbon emissions and other aspects of environmental regulation, and financial regulation.

  Q: What has President-elect Trump proposed on taxes?

  A: Mr. Trump has proposed personal and business tax reform that would reduce tax revenues by an estimated $4.4 trillion over ten years, or roughly 1.9% of GDP over that period. Roughly half of this cost is estimated to come from his proposed corporate tax reform plan, which would reduce the corporate income tax rate to 15% and would impose a one-time 10% tax on all foreign earnings not yet taxed by the US. Companies would be free to repatriate earnings without additional tax once this tax has been paid. Like the House Republican proposal, this would involve a transition to a new corporate tax system for taxing foreign earnings. The two plans are similar in several other respects as well, including a top individual marginal tax rate of 33%. However, the House Republican plan is estimated to cost around half as much over the next ten years as Mr. Trump’s plan, at least in part because it proposes to go further in limiting or eliminating existing individual and corporate tax preferences (Exhibit 2).

  Exhibit 2: Tax plans compared

  
  Source: Office of Management and Budget, House Ways and Means Committee, Trump Campaign, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research

  Q: Will his tax proposal pass?

  A: We expect that significant tax legislation has a good chance of passing in 2017, but we would not expect it to reduce revenues by as much as Mr. Trump has proposed. We note three potential obstacles to passing such a proposal:

  First, the cost is likely to be prohibitive for some members of Congress. While the majority party is able to pass tax legislation with only a simple majority in the Senate using the budget reconciliation process described above, it would require near-unanimity among the 52 Republicans in the Senate next year to do so. Our expectation is that some Republican lawmakers would balk at the deficit impact of his proposal.

   

  Second, while the House Republican proposal would increase the deficit less, it has also generally been proposed in the context of the broader Republican budget proposal, which would also reduce spending in several areas. Mr. Trump has not proposed a significant net spending reduction.

   

  Third, tax reform is complicated, and even under a unified Republican government, it may be too complex to resolve in a matter of months.

  Ultimately, the outlook for a tax cut depends on how willing marginal Republican lawmakers are to increase the deficit, and/or how willing they are to find offsetting savings elsewhere. Overall, our expectation is that there is a good chance that some type of tax legislation passes next year, but the obstacles to comprehensive tax reform go beyond partisan disputes, so we would expect tax legislation that is adopted in 2017 to be narrower in scope than the campaign proposal, and significantly smaller in its revenue effect.

  Q: What has Mr. Trump proposed in terms of infrastructure spending?

  A: His infrastructure plan calls for up to $1 trillion in additional spending over ten years, most of it privately financed. A memo released in late October by Mr. Trump’s economic advisors Wilbur Ross and Peter Navarro detailed a plan to finance up to $1 trillion in infrastructure spending over ten years, equal to $100bn per year or about 0.5% of GDP. We previously estimated that a spending boost of this size would reduce the unemployment rate by about 0.3pp and raise inflation a touch, leading the Fed to eventually hike one or two more times by 2019 relative to a baseline without the infrastructure package.

  The plan described by Ross and Navarro would be largely privately financed, but encouraged by tax credits. The plan would seek to incentivize the private sector to increase investment in infrastructure projects that would be supported by future usage fees, such as road tolls. Ross and Navarro suggest that 17% of the initial investments could be financed with equity and the remainder with debt. The government would then provide a tax credit equal to 82% of the equity to reduce the cost of financing. The large role of debt-financed private investment in Mr. Trump’s infrastructure plan implies that a significant increase in interest rates could be a hurdle for the plan’s feasibility.

  Ross and Navarro argue that the plan would be revenue neutral because the tax credit would be offset by revenue raised from taxes on income earned by workers employed by the infrastructure projects and on profits earned by contractors. However, their calculations both assume that the workers employed would not otherwise be earning taxable income and assume a tax rate that looks somewhat optimistic under the tax plan proposed by the Trump campaign. We expect that the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Tax Committee would find that the plan increased the deficit under their methodologies.

  Q: Will it pass?

  A: Mr. Trump appears to be more focused on infrastructure than many Republicans in Congress are. That said, his proposal, which relies on tax credits, might attract more Republican support than a spending plan of the same size. Moreover, there is significant Democratic support for additional infrastructure investment, which raises the possibility that it could be combined with the tax reform legislation discussed earlier to increase support for the overall package.

  Q: What does this signal regarding overall fiscal policy?

  A: We expect fiscal policy to loosen by about 0.75% of GDP, though there would be only a partial effect in 2017. Our very preliminary view is that fiscal policy might loosen by around 0.75% of GDP, with perhaps 0.5% coming through tax reductions and 0.25% through spending. Our expectation is that the effect in 2017 would probably be smaller, for two reasons. First, tax legislation would probably not pass until around mid-year, at earliest. Second, increases in infrastructure spending (or subsidies) and/or defense spending would likely take until 2018 to materially change spending levels.

  Q: What has President-elect Trump proposed regarding trade and tariffs?

  A: Mr. Trump has opposed existing trade agreements and suggested large tariff increases. He has proposed to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and raised the possibility of withdrawing from the World Trade Organization (WTO). Mr. Trump also opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). In terms of explicit changes, Mr. Trump has suggested imposing a 35% tariff on imports from Mexico and a 45% tariff on imports from China. If tariffs on imports from Mexico and China only were raised to 35 and 45% respectively, the average effective tariff rate would rise by roughly 11-12 percentage points (pp) from 1.5% to roughly 13%, a level not seen since WWII (Exhibit 3).

  Exhibit 3: Will tariffs stay low?

  
  Source: International Trade Commission, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research

  Q: What authority does the President have over trade and tariffs?

  A: Trade policy is an area of greater presidential discretion. The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations but as a practical matter Congress has ceded much of this power to the executive branch over the years. Congress approves trade agreements, but the actual legislation that Congress passes usually simply authorizes the president to enter into an agreement that has already been concluded. The consensus among legal scholars is that presidents generally have the authority to withdraw from bilateral and multilateral trade agreements approved this way.

  Tariff levels are technically under the purview of Congress, though most levels are governed by commitments in bilateral and multilateral agreements. The executive branch lacks the authority to make broad permanent changes to tariffs on a unilateral basis, such as Mr. Trump’s suggestion that imports from China should face a 45% tariff. That said, the president does have authority to raise tariffs broadly on a temporary basis, or to raise tariffs narrowly on a longer term basis. Regarding the former, authority exists under the Trade Act of 1974 that grants the president power to impose quotas and/or an import surcharge of no more than 15%, though neither could be left in place for longer than 150 days. Regarding the latter, the Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission oversee anti-dumping and countervailing duty complaints from various US industries seeking relief from import competition. The tariffs imposed in these cases are often substantial, but they are limited to certain narrowly defined products from certain countries, rarely affecting more than 1% of annual imports and averaging less than 0.2% of imports since 1980.

  Q: What would be the effects of tariff hikes on the economy?

  A: Tariff increases would likely boost inflation, and have mixed short-run but negative long-run growth effects. We estimate that a hypothetical 10pp hike in US import tariffs would 1) depress imports by about 5% and 2) boost the core PCE price level by roughly 0.6% cumulatively. The decline in exports would depend on the extent to which trading partners retaliate.

  The growth effects of import tariff increases depend on the horizon. The short-term impact on GDP is uncertain and likely mixed. On the one hand, the shift from imports to domestic production contributes positively to short-term growth, and tariff revenues can finance fiscal stimulus. On the other hand, the real income loss from expensive imports lowers consumption and investment. Other important negative short-term effects include the decline in exports under retaliation, tighter monetary policy, and possibly broader FCI tightening. While trade raises important distributional questions, the long-term aggregate growth effects from trade restrictions are negative in our view. The academic trade literature has highlighted several channels through which trade fosters long-run welfare. Trade can boost output as countries specialize; raise the variety of available products; and increase productivity through larger and more competitive markets.

  Q: What are the President-elect’s views on monetary policy and the Federal Reserve?

  A: As a candidate Mr. Trump was sometimes critical of the Fed, but his views on the appropriate direction for policy are unclear. On the one hand, Mr. Trump has expressed support for low interest rates, given the current inflation backdrop: “If inflation starts coming in, and we don’t see any signs of that, inflation starts coming in, that’s a different story. You have to go up and you have to slow things down. But right now I am for low interest rates.” He has also expressed concern about excessive dollar appreciation, saying in the same interview: “If we raise interest rates, and if the dollar starts getting too strong, we’re going to have some very major problems.” He added: “While there are certain benefits, it sounds better to have a strong dollar than it actually is.” Mr. Trump has also often noted that, as a developer, he prefers low rates. For example, at the Economic Club of New York in September, he said: “As a real estate person, I always like low interest rates, of course.”

  On the other hand, Mr. Trump has said he worries low interest rates are artificially supporting asset prices: “In terms of real estate, if I want to develop … from that standpoint I like low interest rates. From the country’s standpoint, I’m just not sure it’s a very good thing, because I really do believe we’re creating a bubble.” Similarly, he has said Fed policy has created a “false stock market”, that the “only reason the stock market is where it is, is because you get free money”, and that the FOMC “should have raised the rates” at its September 2016 meeting. Many conservative economists favor tighter monetary policy, but Mr. Trump’s views appear more nuanced, and we are therefore unsure whether he would favor a more hawkish Fed stance after taking office.

  Similarly, Mr. Trump’s preferences for Fed Chair are still unclear. During the campaign he said clearly that he would want to replace Yellen: “She is not a Republican … When her time is up, I would most likely replace her because of the fact that I think it would be appropriate.” And earlier today, a campaign spokesperson said that Mr. Trump would prefer a Fed Chair “whose thinking is more in keeping with his own”. However, at other times during the last year Mr. Trump said that he has “great respect” for the Fed Chair, and that he is “not a person who thinks Janet Yellen is doing a bad job.” So while unlikely, we would not totally rule out a Yellen reappointment. Several past Fed chairmen have been reappointed after the White House changed parties, including Chairmen Martin, Volcker, Greenspan, and Bernanke (Exhibit 4).

  Exhibit 4: Fed Chairs have been reappointed by presidents of the other party

  
  Source: Federal Reserve Board, Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research

  Q: What changes have you made to your forecasts following the election result?

  A: We nudged down the odds of a Fed rate increase next month, but have made no other changes at this point. After the tightening in financial conditions immediately following the election results, we lowered our subjective probability of a December rate increase to 60% from 75% previously. Markets have now recovered substantially—the S&P 500 in fact closed 1.1% higher on the day. If financial conditions remain benign in the coming weeks, the odds of a December rate hike would rise.

  For now we are sticking with our forecast that real GDP will grow at a 2% pace in 2017. Over the near-term, much will depend on how financial conditions respond to the policy positions of the new administration. Despite today’s favorable market reaction, investors may take a dimmer view on proposals to raise tariffs or otherwise restrict international trade. Beyond the next couple of quarters, increased potential for fiscal stimulus may be a source of upside risk. Given that the US economy is already close to full employment, aggressive fiscal stimulus would also point to upside risks to inflation.

  

  

• Trading For A Living

  Submitted by Erico Matias Tavares via Sinclair & Co.,

  Adam Grimes has two decades of experience in the industry as a trader, analyst and system developer. His trading experience covers all major asset classes–futures, currencies, stocks, options, and other derivatives, and the full range of timeframes from very short term scalping to constructing portfolios for multi-year holding periods. Adam is currently Chief Investment Officer of Waverly Advisors, LLC, a research and advisory firm for which he writes daily market commentary and trade notes. He is also a contributing author for several publications on quantitative finance and related topics, and is much in demand as a speaker and lecturer on the topics of technical trading, risk management, and system development. When not doing finance stuff, Adam is also an accomplished musician and a classically-trained French chef.

  E. Tavares: Adam, you have dedicated most of your professional life to trading, as a private trader and later also including research publisher and coach. You have traded for a living since the 1990s and at this point have looked at all kinds of systems and approaches out there. This is actually a very valuable perspective today. In addition to a tough jobs market central banks have condemned savers – especially retirees – with zero interest rate policies, and so trading might be an alternative to generate income. Have you seen an increasing number of people trying to trade for a living in recent years?

  A. Grimes: I think it comes and goes with market cycles. When markets get difficult the number of people interested in doing this drop off because as we know trading profitably is a very hard skill to develop. I may have missed it but I have not really seen people driven by the low interest rates moving into active trading. However, there is a perennial ongoing interest from people trying to figure out the markets.

  ET: Your background is quite unique in that regard. You went from a trained musician to a full time trader. What prompted you to do that? Are there similarities between the two professions?

  AG: I honestly don’t know if there was any rationale for that. Trading caught my interest. I had some negative early experiences but then I was fortunate to figure some things out—I think the negative experiences were good learning experiences, and probably part of why I eventually did figure it out. It was more of a hobby which eventually grew into something significant.

  People talk a lot about the parallels between the two professions and maybe make too much of that. A lot of the skills and a lot of the intelligence we develop are very domain specific, meaning if you study chess it will make you a better chess player. I don’t know if studying chess makes you better or more intelligent at other tasks.

  Maybe the things that I carried from being a musician centered around focus. It was very natural for me to work six to eight hours a day, day after day, for months at a time in a project. That’s not a normal skill for people to have; and also the emphasis on basics, on the importance of really understanding the basic building blocks and how if you have a strong foundation you can build an impressive structure.

  It seems that many people just want to get to the cool stuff and they ignore the basics. They don’t understand that the soul of any discipline truly is the basics.

  ET: Indeed. Trading is very difficult, extremely difficult in fact, as it requires a range of skills and a level of performance that most people are not even aware of when they begin that journey. Today we would like to briefly explore three core trading fundamentals, or basics as you call them: technicals, risk management and psychology.

  Let’s start with technicals, meaning having the right tools. One concept that is enormously helpful particularly for new traders is a proper understanding of the expectancy formula, roughly speaking the number of times you win times the gain per trade less the number of times you lose times the loss per trade over time. Can you talk about this and the importance of developing a system that has a trading “edge”, meaning a sustainable positive expectancy (expected gains greater than expected losses)?

  AG: The key is that we have a positive expectancy and we hope that it is enduring. All of our system work, if done correctly, should point us towards having something that is robust, meaning that if it works today it should still continue to work tomorrow. Of course, depending on the system the edge may be more or less stable and may require some work here and there. There are plenty of quantitative systems that require a good deal of refitting and rework on a semi-regular basis and that’s fine, it’s part of the game.

  It’s very easy when you start trading to look at patterns, to start thinking about all the money you are going to make and to forget – coming back to those basic concepts – that if you don’t have an edge, a positive expectancy, then nothing else matters.

  One of the reasons why traders struggle is because they are using systems that don’t work and they cannot work because those systems just don’t have an edge. It is essential that you have an edge.

  ET: Yes, in fact there are thousands of trading systems out there being advertised to retail investors using every financial instrument possible, from buying stocks to highly sophisticated option strategies. Some promise very high win rates, meaning the chances of having a loss are small, which intuitively is appealing because nobody likes to lose money. But that is not the whole story, not if you want to make it in this business. How can you use that expectancy formula to evaluate the system you are looking at?

  AG: Well, for one there is a difference in quality in what I consider to be three types of data or system stats.

  First, doing some type of backtest, meaning going back in time and testing different parameters in search of that positive expectancy. You should never trust a backtests done by others, certainly from anyone wanting to sell you things. Even if they are not dishonest people make all kinds of mistakes, not to mention things like aggressive marketing and the like. You want to do your own backtest but even that I would not really trust because there are so many ways it can be wrong. In general, any backtest is highly suspect!

  The next piece is some type of forward test. Perhaps do some paper trading where you can execute the system without real money. Basically what you are looking for here is if the paper trading resembles the results of the backtest. In both of these cases we are looking for that positive expectancy.

  And then the third piece is trading with real money where what we are looking to do is see if each of these kind of link together. We are talking statistical measures with a good deal of variation, it is not always easy to say yes, they do look the same, but we want to have some consistency between all of these different expressions.

  You talk about the high win ration and this to me is pure marketing. There are a lot of people who have made a lot of money winning just 25% of the time. I can tell you from my own experience that you can win 90% of the time and not make money. What matters is that you have a positive expectancy.

  ET: Let’s focus on that trading edge now. Your research indicates that securities behave differently, something that perhaps is not widely understood: stocks trade differently from commodities and foreign exchange, for instance. As such, in order to find that edge your system either needs to be adapted to the asset class you are trading or be so robust that it can be applied across the board. How do you go about doing that?

  AG: You are correct. One of the great lies of technical analysis that is perpetuated in so many places today is that you can apply any tool to any market in any timeframe and you can make money. Somebody doing statistical tests with no more powerful tools than Microsoft Excel and freely available data can show you that there are basic differences between asset classes, for instance in the way they mean revert, and it’s illogical to think that you can apply tools the same way if markets behave differently.

  ET: If you do a backtest when stocks are at all-time highs this means by definition that you could have bought at any time in the past in any imaginable way and you would be in the money. So you can come up with any number of parameters and you will always end up with a system that has a positive expectancy, provided that you stay in the market. Can this stock market condition make people develop systems which are not as reliable going forward? Actually, this may be more relevant at this juncture into a seven year bull market in stocks. Investors seem to forget that in nature – as in markets – trees don’t grow to the sky…

  AG: If we take stocks that are at all-time highs and then look at statistical edges going forward that is different. Otherwise you are correct. If you take stocks now and look at how they have performed over the past you would have made money – in theory.

  There are things that we can do to have more robust results. One of the huge problems we need to account for is survivorship bias. In other words you want to make sure that in your backtesting you are somehow incorporating delisted stocks and stocks that are undergoing some type of market action.

  But in general you need to be very aware of how you are constructing your test and being aware of any leakage from the future, meaning that you have to make sure that your system does not in any way know about what will happen after.

  However, I consider that the stock market has a fundamental element in that stocks over any appreciable period of time always seem to go up. It is quite difficult to imagine anything happening that would move us out of that environment. So I would not have a problem dealing with stocks in the conditions you described. But you can develop systems and edges that are not conditional on this fundamental upward shift in stocks.

  ET: A quick note on market indicators, which seem to fill trading screens these days. Some are very sophisticated and based on exotic proprietary formulas. In your opinion are they worth the complexity and often the cost?

  AG: It’s definitely hard to make a hard generalization. But the efficiency of simple tools for instance ultimately depends on how they are applied. You can have a tool that works very well but if you don’t apply it properly you will not get good results. Complexity is not a bad thing but may not be necessary.

  ET: Can you comment on using purely mechanical systems, where the parameters are predefined (largely as a result of the backtesting we just discussed) and you just follow that plan day in day out, versus more discretionary systems, where you can add your own input to the final decision, some of it more subjective like economic conditions, supply and demand and so forth? It seems you use both in your work, do you favor one in particular?

  AG: There are certainly people who do both effectively, others who are more effective in just one. But particularly for developing traders, if you are going to be a discretionary trader you need to make sure that you are aligned with the market. You can’t just trade any old idea and hope that it works. So there needs to be some type of education there. Other than that I don’t have a particular bias towards any approach.

  ET: Is it fair to say that the quicker you turn over your positions (day trading being the most extreme for retail investors) the more technical systems you should use, and the longer your timeframe the more you should consider factors like longer term trendlines, fundamentals and economic conditions? Is it also fair to say that in trading the real money is made in the bigger moves, meaning trading less and being positioned for the bigger swings over time? The short term, especially day trading, appears to be very noisy, perhaps too noisy to consistently make money.

  AG: You certainly can make money day trading. More people talk about it than doing it effectively but it is possible. Most developing traders will probably find better success in longer time frames. I don’t think that a generalization is possible, other than using fundamental data for short-term systems makes less sense to me.

  ET: That gets us to risk management, another fundamental of trading, which in very simplified terms deals with how much you should invest in each trade. This is another area where that expectancy formula can be very helpful. If a trader is seeking to change her approach to limit her loss per trade she will very likely find that her win ratio will drop as a result, so that the expected result may not change that much. In other words, in efficient markets there are no free lunches; any improvement comes at the expense of something else. So can risk management really help you?

  AG: What you just outlined is a very good expression of the edge, the expectancy. Yes, you can change your win ratio and the relationship between average win and average loss but at the end of the day the other side will compensate such that your expectancy will be more or less the same within some limits.

  To me risk management is a bigger topic than just position sizing. How much you risk on each trade is certainly a part of that, but the idea is to maximize your equity curve while reducing the chance of something very bad happening. Basically position sizing lets you stay in the game, make the most money you can with the minimal chance of going broke.

  ET: Actually, we often hear that “you will not go broke by taking a profit”. That’s actually not quite true. If your system needs to have profits per trade 5x larger than your losses just to breakeven this means that if you always sell as soon as you reach 2x or even 4x you will eventually go broke. Your thoughts?

  AG: Yes, that saying is one of the great lies told to traders. That is absolutely untrue. In fact one of the biggest psychological barriers of developing traders is managing winning trades. I hear this over and over from people: “it’s very easy for me to get out of my losers but I can’t hold on to winners, I always take profits too early”. This is something that people don’t think about often enough but it is a serious problem.

  ET: That’s a great point. In fact, while it is hard to consistently make money over time there are things that will definitely put you on the losing side over time. Can you briefly talk about those?

  AG: The biggest, I think, is simply doing something that doesn’t work, having some trading system that you don’t understand because you got it off some chat room or bought it from someone else. Even if the system has an edge it’s not your system so you can’t execute it appropriately.

  And then there are things like sabotaging yourself, meaning taking the wrong size in trades, the behavioral issue of ignoring stops, getting lazy and not doing the necessary work, skipping trades, not managing your positions and so forth. There are many things you can do wrong that will effectively sabotage you.

  ET: How would you rate the importance of finding a trading edge versus risk management? You closely liken the two but some traders suggest that the latter is the absolute key and even propose different optimization formulas.

  AG: Yes, they’re equally important but the idea that you could go into a market and make money provided you have good risk management is incorrect. There’s this famous trading book where only one random test in a group of commodity markets is presented confirming this idea, but it was a bad test—the standard obviously should be the baseline drift, not that the tests made money, and it was just one result. Though this test is famous, it was poorly constructed as a statistical argument.

   Risk management is not enough. You can’t make money if you don’t have an edge and risk management does not solve that problem.  

  ET: So let’s look at psychology, the third fundamental which ties together all that we just discussed. Its importance is of course beyond dispute. If you have a winning system but the inevitable losses put you off trading then you can never be a trader. Full stop.

  It can also be more subtle than that, as each trader needs to find and adapt a trading system that truly suits his or her personality. In other words, to be a profitable trader there are no shortcuts, it requires a lot of introspection, research, hard work and confidence. Like every other challenging undertaking in life actually. Your thoughts here?

  AG: Again, trading psychology is not an edge by itself, but you can certainly have an edge and sabotage it with the wrong psychology. It is vital in many level and stages. You have traders who may do well for a while but then they struggle with some aspect and everything comes crashing down. You can also have inherent conflicts with money, the wrong reasons for trading or you are not a coherent human being, all of these can come out and affect your trading over the long run.

  All of this is important but it is critical to understand that you need these three pieces: the edge, the risk management to apply the edge and the psychology to make sure you do what you are actually supposed to do.

  ET: Should trading be boring or exciting, especially if you want to do it for a living? What should motivate you each day as a trader?

  AG: When I talk to a trader who wants to work with me as a coach or mentor, I get very concerned when somebody tells me that they are looking for excitement in trading. If that is your motivation you can have that; simply put on some positions that are too large or ignore your stops and all of the sudden your trading will be very exciting.

  To be a profitable trader this means that you find something that is robust and repeatable and sadly this means it’s boring. Effective professional trading is really doing the same thing over and over. One of my closest mentors said that the best definition of good trading is like being a stonemason or bricklayer. You put a brick down, then put the mortar, smooth it, then put another brick down, then the mortar, smooth it and so on. If you continue doing the same thing over and over at some point you will build a big wall. But the actual act of doing is the same boring, tedious routine. It is almost an insignificant thing.

  And by the way this parallel goes a bit further because most people can’t build a brick wall. It’s not as easy as it looks and they don’t have the skills to do it. Even though the basic elements seem to be simple, it takes real work to develop the skills—the same as in trading.

  Your motivation for trading cannot be excitement. An important stumbling block is once you become a successful trader it can get pretty boring. All of the sudden you realize you lack excitement, that you will not solve any of the world’s problems trading. You’re just doing the same thing over and over, it’s a reality shock that many people having difficulties coping with.

  ET: You have written extensively over the years on all these topics in your blog and even produced a video trading course, all which are available for free. We can’t recommend those enough to anyone wanting to think through and improve their trading skills. Why did you go through all that effort and then charge nothing for it? These are excellent resources that can be further explored in your book, The Art and Science of Technical Trading, which was very well received, and even help to better understand the thinking behind your excellent research product at Waverly Advisors, but aren’t you concerned about giving away your “secret ingredients”?

  AG: First of all thank you for your kind words on my work. Everything I do I try to put out information that I wish I had had when I started trading. I have certainly been immensely touched by the feedback that I have received and I think I’ve shortened the learning curve for some people.

  Regarding the trading course I wanted to put out a product that was equal to or better than courses that cost $10,000+, and I did that. This course has been very well received and has put me in touch with a lot of smart people, but it really did have an altruistic beginning.

  It’s been a great way to get in touch with a lot of intelligent people. It is free, there is no upsell, no hidden fees and it will always remain free. I very much believe that anyone starting from scratch will learn enough to build a profitable trading system, and that’s based on actual feedback.

  ET: That’s excellent. Final question. In light of everything we just discussed, can retail investors prevail in the markets and find consistent ways to supplement their income, if not outright trade for a living, or does it all boil down to a coin flip?

  AG: The answer is yes you can do this, but the way I would think about it is that you have a choice to make.

  If you treat trading as a hobby then you can certainly do that and there’s room in the market for that. But realize that this is entertainment and you probably will not make much money doing that. Your primary motivation is an interest in the financial markets, you want to solve the puzzle but let’s be honest: hobbies cost money.

  If you want to make money in the market then I think you need to make the commitment to trade with a professional mindset. This does not mean that it is your full time job necessarily, that you should take your focus away from your family and anything else that you are doing but it does mean that you approach the market with a full professional mindset, understanding that you operating within the bounds of probability and that you’re looking to apply the same simple system over and over.

  I don’t know how else to put it. You have to make the commitment to become a professional trader because I don’t think the hobbiest has much of a chance to make money. Having said that, virtually anyone in the world with that desire could commit to becoming a professional trader. If you want to do this, you can do it.

  ET: Adam, thank you very much for sharing your thoughts.

  AG: My pleasure, thank you.

  

  

• What "The World's Most Bearish Hedge Fund" Thinks Of The Trump Presidency

  October was not a good month for the “world’s most bearish hedge fund” Horseman Global Management, which suffered another steep drop, losing 5% in the month, and down 5.5% YTD. Absent a rebound in the last two months of the year, Horseman is set to have its worst year since 2009. Alas, with Horseman’s net exposure a whopping -84% (if fractionally more bullish than the -100% recorded in early 2016) as a result of an equity short and a bond long, November does not appear overly promising for the fund’s investors. Unless, of course, the market swoons as both yields and the dollar continue surging (as DB warned), and Horseman does have the final laugh.

  That, however, would be surprising considering that some of the most prominent billionaire mega-bears, such as Carl Icahn and Stanley Druckenmiller, both quikcly flopped to bullish in the aftermath of Trump’s election, on just one catalyst: more debt resulting in more stimulus, and (hope) for more growth.

  Yet Horseman refuses to change its thesis. Why? Instead of guessing, here is the answer straight from the “Horse’s mouth” – the following excerpt from the latest letter to investors by CIO Russell Clark lays out what the gloomy hedge fund believes will be the outcome from a Trump presidency.

  Your fund fell 4.96% last month. Losses came from the bond book, the forex book and the short book. The long book made money.

   

  First Brexit and now the Trump triumph has left many supporters of open liberal economies despairing. They feel that the world is turning in on itself and that perhaps a darker less safe world is emerging. And perhaps they are right.

   

  But in many ways, the great western democracies of the world, the UK and the US are working as they should. It is plainly obvious that large parts of the population in both the UK and the US feel that the system has not worked for them, and they have voted for change. And those voters have had their voices heard and change is on the way.

   

  Undemocratic regimes in the rest of the world look on in either horror or bemusement at the changes in the UK and US and congratulate themselves that their system is so safe and stable. And yet, the reality is that if the political system cannot provide the change that people seek, then eventually and inevitably, revolution becomes the only option for change. And revolution always extracts a very high price on those that have been in power.

   

  When thinking about a possible Trump victory, I perceived that the USD could be very weak, and that this weakness would lead to treasuries also being weak as foreign investors dumped their holdings. What has happened is that domestic US investors have reappraised their views of US domestic growth upwards, and have dumped treasuries to buy equities, and the US dollar has been very strong.

   

  While the stated aims of the Trump administration are very pro-growth, to me the actual effects seem likely to disappoint. Plans to allow more drilling will be dependent on a much higher oil and gas price. Scrapping car emission standards whilst good for SUV makers, will unlikely reverse the falling demand for cars due to high levels of auto debt. Lower taxes and more infrastructure spending may well be bullish for growth, but need to be balanced against the sell-off in the long end of bonds, which will have a negative effect on housing and with DR Horton reporting weak numbers makes, I feel growth will disappoint in the short term.

   

  The more apparent of the negative aspects is that higher bond yields are starting to cause some financial pressure in Hong Kong and Chinese interest rates. If a trade war, becomes more likely, then a large Chinese devaluation also becomes more likely. Furthermore, the Trump win makes the break up of the Eurozone far more likely in my mind.

   

  After Brexit, being short equities and long bonds was a fantastic trade for a week or two, but then reversed quickly after, causing severe pain for those that had reacted to the market quickly. I think the Trump win has seen many investors sell defensive positions and buy cyclical positions. I suspect they will come to regret that. Your fund remains long bonds and short equities.

  * * *

  Steepping away from Trump, here is Clark’s asset allocation and sector breakdown, and what appears to be a wager that Trump is about to end the record wave of industry consolidation in a move straight out of Teddy Roosevelt’s playbook:

  This month losses in the short portfolio, in particular from the European and Japanese banks and the automobile sectors, were partially offset by gains in the banks and oil sectors in Brazil and the defence contractors in the long portfolio.

   

  In the US the value of announced mergers and acquisitions (M&A) reached $337 billion in October, making it the biggest deal-making month ever. 2015 was the biggest M&A year ever globally with total deals of about $4.3 trillion dollars (source: Bloomberg). High M&A activity may give the impression that the economy is robust, but in our opinion it merely reflects a sluggish economic environment as companies struggling to grow their revenues and profit margins organically, and turn to mergers and acquisitions instead.

   

  QE monetary policies have supported M&A activity by allowing ample availability of funding, as investors searching for yield are eager to buy corporate debt and drive credit margins lower.

   

  M&A activity causes a decrease in the number of firms and an increase of their respective market shares. This can result in significantly reduced competition between firms. In economic theory, when a few large firms dominate a market there is the potential to engage in collusive behaviours such as deliberately joining together in cartels in order to increase prices. In extreme cases a company that becomes too dominant develops the power to influence market price, run competition out of business or not allow competitors to emerge. Once enough other companies are bankrupt or bought off, the remaining company can stop improving its product, lower the quality and raise prices as much as it wishes, because consumers have no choice.

   

  It has been argued that some companies with large market shares can employ what game theorists call a “trigger strategy,” whereby they signal to their competitors that if they lower their prices, they will start a vicious retail war. If a rogue player refuses to play the game, it becomes the target of an aquisition, not because it makes great products, but because owning it allows an oligopolist to raise prices.

   

  Another detrimental effect of low competition to the consumer was illustrated by an article in The New York Times entitled ‘Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice’, about the rise of private arbitration clauses in consumer services contracts, which allow large companies to avoid the court system and prevent consumers from joining together in class-action lawsuits.

   

  The Herfindahl-Hirschman index (“HHI”) measures market concentration by industry and is used by regulators when reviewing mergers, values between 1,500 and 2,500 are defined as “moderately concentrated,” while values above 2,500 are defined as “highly concentrated”.

   

  The US beer market has a high HHI of 2696, it is dominated by one large producer, whose current market share is 46%. The company recently made a large acquisition, but subsequently was forced by the Department of Justice to sell part of the acquired business as the combined market share of 70% would have resulted in almost monopolistic conditions.

   

  At the turn of the 20th century, Teddy Roosevelt became president. He realised that for capitalism to maintain popular support, the monopolists and oligopolists of his time had to be taken on, and his presidency was driven by Trust busting. This set of policies looks set to re-appear.

   

  The fund maintains short positions in airlines, banks, and certain consumer staples, primarily because we think that margins will remain under pressure due to the macro-economic environment and specific sectoral issues (please refer to Russell Clark’s Market views). These are not monopolistic sectors, however they are concentrated, should competition increase at some point, stock prices could de-rate even further.

  Finally, here are Horseman’s Top 10 long positions as of this moment. Alas, the far more useful, top 10 shorts, are not public.

  

  

  

• "The Economic Peace Is Over" – Get Ready, Change Is Upon Us

  Submitted by Chris Martenson via PeakProsperity.com,

  “After four years of warfare that tore the world apart like never before, a peace was finally reached.  But it was a peace which one man in particular vociferously condemned — and that man was John Maynard Keynes.

   

  In just two months, Keynes wrote the book that would make him a household name around the world — The Economic Consequences of the Peace.

   

  In the book, Keynes was highly critical of the deal struck at Versailles, which he felt sure would lead to further conflict in Europe — describing the agreement as a “Carthaginian peace” — and with the passing of a surprisingly short period of time, he would be proven correct.”

   

    ~ Grant Williams in The Economic Consequences of Peace

  After WWI, a particularly noxious set of treaties and economic reparations agreements were put in place that all but guaranteed a future WWII.   Mr. Keynes sniffed that out and, sadly, was proven correct.

  The lesson from this is that, at certain times, it’s really not that hard to predict "what" is going to happen next after disastrously short-sighted and self-interested policies are enacted. Predicting the "when", with precision, is much trickier. But obvious misguided economic policies are destined to have a limited period of apparent (but false) prosperity, after which they end with a nasty Bang!.

  We have entered just such a time. This isn't a Trump vs. Clinton thing; I'd make this claim regardless of who won this week's presidential election — as our plight is much bigger than a single Administration. And my observation is that neither political party had much interest beyond some temporary election year lip-service to the economic plight of the middle class.

  And by “middle class” I mean anybody not in the top 5% economic bracket. For those doing the math at home, that leaves the remaining 95% of us stuck in the meat grinder.

  WTF Happened?

  I know a lot of people who are suffering very raw emotional wounds from the harsh negativity and divisiveness of the seemingly never-ending election we just went through.  There will be a period of healing and adjustment for many, and I can fully empathize with how they feel.

  For the Clinton supporters stunned that she didn't experience the victory so many predicted, here's a “what went wrong” post-mortem given by the brilliant British comedian Jonathan Pie that I think hits close to the mark (caution: it's a pretty heated rant):

  Pie asks some very important questions, chief among them: Have we lost the ability to entertain alternative points of view? Are we ready to begin finally talking to each other again?

  The Left has a lot of soul searching to do. As does the Right.  Because let’s be clear: Trump wasn’t the Republican’s preferred choice either.  They fought him tooth and nail. In terms of the traditional Left vs Right rivalry, both sides lost this time.

  If we're to heal and progress from here, it's critical that we take the time to understand why.

  The conversation has to begin here, I believe, with this excellent article that I ran across in Cracked – yes, the comedy alt-everything online outfit – explaining how it's the rural vs urban divide more than anything else that's pulling our society apart at the moment.

  For those desperately seeking answers to Trump's surprise win, this article, of which I have reproduced only a small part, provides essential context. It's explanation has done wonders for everyone I have shared it with who was struggling:

  How Half Of America Lost Its F**king Mind

  Oct 12, 2016

  [Note: please go to the article to read reasons #6 through #3 as they are very important for understanding the two I have snipped out below]

  (…)

   

  Reason #2:  Everyone Lashes Out When They Don't Have A Voice

   

  [To a rural person] it really does feel like the worst of both worlds: all the ravages of poverty, but none of the sympathy. "Blacks burn police cars, and those liberal elites say it's not their fault because they're poor. My son gets jailed and fired over a baggie of meth, and those same elites make jokes about his missing teeth!" You're everyone's punching bag, one of society's last remaining safe comedy targets.

   

  They take it hard. These are people who come from a long line of folks who took pride in looking after themselves. Where I'm from, you weren't a real man unless you could repair a car, patch a roof, hunt your own meat, and defend your home from an intruder. It was a source of shame to be dependent on anyone — especially the government. You mowed your own lawn and fixed your own pipes when they leaked, you hauled your own firewood in your own pickup truck. (Mine was a 1994 Ford Ranger! The current owner says it still runs!)

   

  Not like those hipsters in their tiny apartments, or "those people" in their public housing projects, waiting for the landlord any time something breaks, knowing if things get too bad they can just pick up and move. When you don't own anything, it's all somebody else's problem. "They probably don't pay taxes, either! Just treating America itself as a subsidized apartment they can trash!"

   

  The rural folk with the Trump signs in their yards say their way of life is dying, and you smirk and say what they really mean is that blacks and gays are finally getting equal rights and they hate it. But I'm telling you, they say their way of life is dying because their way of life is dying. It's not their imagination. No movie about the future portrays it as being full of traditional families, hunters, and coal mines. Well, except for Hunger Games, and that was depicted as an apocalypse.

   

  So yes, they vote for the guy promising to put things back the way they were, the guy who'd be a wake-up call to the blue islands. They voted for the brick through the window.

  It was a vote of desperation.

   

  #1. Assholes Are Heroes

   

  But Trump is objectively a piece of shit!" you say. "He insults people, he objectifies women, and cheats whenever possible! And he's not an everyman; he's a smarmy, arrogant billionaire!"

   

  Wait, are you talking about Donald Trump, or this guy:

   

  

  Marvel Studios

   

  You've never rooted for somebody like that? Someone powerful who gives your enemies the insults they deserve? Somebody with big fun appetites who screws up just enough to make them relatable? Like Dr. House or Walter White? Or any of the several million renegade cop characters who can break all the rules because they get shit done? Who only get shit done because they don't care about the rules?

   

  "But those are fictional characters!" Okay, what about all those millionaire left-leaning talk show hosts? You think they keep their insults classy? Tune into any bit about Chris Christie and start counting down the seconds until the fat joke. Google David Letterman's sex scandals. But it's okay, because they're on our side, and everybody wants an asshole on their team — a spiked bat to smash their enemies with. That's all Trump is. The howls of elite outrage are like the sounds of bombs landing on the enemy's fortress. The louder the better.

   

  Already some of you have gotten angry, feeling this gut-level revulsion at any attempt to excuse or even understand these people. After all, they're hardly people, right? Aren't they just a mass of ignorant, rageful, crude, cursing, spitting subhumans?

   

  Gee, I hope not. I have to hug a bunch of them at Thanksgiving. And when I do, it will be with the knowledge that if I hadn't moved away, I'd be on the other side of the fence, leaving nasty comments on this article.

  The essential context is simply that rural residents are drowning under chronic economic blight. And when they dare to complain about it, they're castigated and humiliated by the dominant city culture that has no awareness of or sympathy for their troubles.

  We've NAFTA'd away millions of manufacturing jobs (and those that served manufacturing communities) without providing the displaced labor a path to reskill and apply itself. Instead, we've left a patchwork of bomb crater communities across the heartland, where there are no employers and no prospects. To these rural folks, being cast as racist, misogynist, ignorant, or uneducated buffoons for being angry about their plight just adds kerosene to the fire that's been smoldering within theem. A fire which just conflagrated during this week's election.

  So to reiterate: the cultural divide that's really in play here is not between the 'enlightened/progressive' people and their supposed opposites. Rather, it's Urban vs Rural.  

  And as the rural dwellers have increasingly felt marginalized, demonized and otherwise unfairly treated, they are now angry enough at the perceived injustice to lash out against the status quo and roll the dice with an outsider who promises to shake things up. It's not surprising, really — as I've written about before, we humans are wired to reject unfairness. This next short video is a favorite of mine, because it perfectly demonstrates how it's in our genes to become enraged when we perceive we're being unjustly treated:

  To put in in monkey terms: since surbanites set the rules because they happen to outvote the rural people, and those same urbanites don't have to live with the consequences of their decisions, then it's cucumbers for rural people and grapes for the urban folks.

  Adding to this understanding is today's article by our good friend Charles Hughes Smith, who validates the rage the downtrodden are feeling these days:

  The Source of our Rage: The Ruling Elite Is Protected from the Consequences of its Dominance

   

  There are many sources of rage: injustice, the destruction of truth, powerlessness.

   

  But if we had to identify the one key source of non-elite rage that cuts across all age, ethnicity, gender and regional boundaries, it is this: The Ruling Elite is protected from the destructive consequences of its predatory dominance.

   

  We see this reality across the entire political, social and economic landscape. If I had to pick one chart that illustrates the widening divide between the Ruling Elite and the non-elites, it is this chart of wages as a share of the nation's output (GDP): 46 years of relentless decline, interrupted by gushing fountains of credit and asset bubbles that enriched the few while leaving the economic landscape of the many in ruins.

   

  

   

  The Ruling Elite once had an obligation to uphold the social contract as a responsibility that came with their vast privilege, power and wealth (i.e. noblesse oblige).

   

  America's Ruling Elite has transmogrified into an incestuous self-serving few unapologetically plundering the many. In their hubris-soaked arrogance, their right to rule is unquestioningly based on their moral and intellectual superiority to "the little people" they loot with abandon.

   

  Rather than feel a responsibility to the nation, America's Elite views the status quo as a free pass to self-aggrandizement. Much has changed in America in the past 46 years. Not only have wages and salaries declined as a share of "economic growth," but the wealth that has been generated has flowed to the top of the wealth/power pyramid (see chart below).

   

  

   

  Social mobility has also declined drastically: Restoring America’s Economic Mobility, as has trust in government and key institutions.

   

  As Frank Buckley, the author of The Way Back: Restoring the Promise of America observed: "In a corrupt country, trust is a rare commodity. That’s America today. Only 19 percent of Americans say they trust the government most of the time, down from 73 percent in 1958 according to the Pew Research Center."

   

  The top .01% has seen its share of the household wealth triple from 7% to 22% in the past four decades, while the share of the nation's wealth owned by the bottom 90% has plummeted from 36% to 23%.

  Look at that.  The share of the national wealth has been steadily, if not increasingly, siphoned away from the 95% and towards the 5%.  In reality, it's almost entirely gone towards the 0.1%.

  The economic “peace” we’ve seemingly enjoyed over the past number of decades turned out to be no peace at all. It was the same sort of peace that existed between the Treaty of Versailles and the outbreak of WWII — a crippling arrangement that overwhelmingly favored one side over the other. Germany eventually had no choice but to rebel.

  Similarly, by failing to protect anyone but their cloistered and wealthy friends, the elites of both current US political parties has laid the fuel for the fire that now burns.

  Bernie Sanders’ post-election statement had this to say about the economics that drove the result:

  "Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media. People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids — all while the very rich become much richer.”

  Bernie would have easily bested Trump in my opinion. It was a huge twin set of mistakes by the DNC to first hamper his primary efforts, and then fail to at least make him Clinton's running mate. 

  Redistribution of money and power seem to happen peacefully only rarely among humans and virtually never in America.  Labor rights?  Fought and died over.  Women’s right to vote?  Fought and died over.  Environmental rights?  Brought kicking and screaming across the moats.  Racial rights?  Only partially achieved after the greatest amount of violence and bloodshed of all these causes.

  Can we do better? Absolutely, in theory.  But so far we don’t a lot of better examples to point to inside the US.

  So this battle is just getting started and will far outlive Trump and everybody reading this. Decades of ill-advised growth and financial squandering cannot be wished away — we, and our children (and likely our grandchildren, too), will be cleaning up the messes of our profligacy for a long time.

  And just as one can easily peer at Charles Hughes Smith's charts and conclude that eventually a rebellion of sorts is inevitable, there’s an even more startling chart you need to see. If you can truly internalize it, you'll understand why the new era of status quo rejection is just getting underway.

  Promises That Can’t Be Kept

  There's a lot of data I can provide here, but I’ll go with a single — but critically important — chart from Ray Dalio’s Bridgewater Associates, one of the largest money management firms out there.

  I’m sorry that you have to squint a little to see this, but here’s all you need to know: when you add up both the debts and the liabilities of the US, those are more than 1,000% of current GDP:

  

  (Source)

  One thousand one hundred percent?!?!?  As in eleven times GDP??  You might as well say eleventy gajillion because there’s no sense in any of these numbers.

  Yep.  No country has ever dug out from under such a load. None have even come close.  The “prediction,” which is so simple it’s not really a prediction at all, that flows from the above chart is this: Somebody is going to have to eat the losses.

  Massive, fabulously enormous losses. 

  Trillions and trillions of losses in current dollars. Even if the economic elites don’t try to force all of those losses on the ‘little people’, the pain is still going to be so extraordinary that serious political and social crises will erupt.

  You can count on it.

  You can already see that larger future predicament playing out painfully around us. One example is how pensions are cutting back benefits, lowering expectations, demanding higher funding payments by taxpayers, and otherwise displaying signs of distress.

  And this is with equity markets perched at all-time highs (at the moment of this writing, the Dow is at a new record).

  So our recent decades of economic peace must end, given the thousand percent indebtedness predicament revealed by the chart above.

  We got into that thousand percent predicament the exact same way the DNC lost to Trump: by failing to address things that plainly needed to be dealt with.  We proved to ourselves, yet again, that pretending something uncomfortable doesn’t exist doesn’t make it go away.

  “Well, we might just grow out from under those debts and obligations” some might be tempted to say. My response is to ask you to go back and look at that chart again and note that it has grown from 700% to 1,100% since 2001.  If GDP had been growing at the same pace, the ratio value wouldn't have budged. It would have remained at 700%.

  But it grew to 1,100%, which means the debts and obligations were growing much faster than GDP.

  So for the past 15 years the “grow out of it” mantra — which has been echoed ad nauseum — has been a complete train wreck of a failure.  How many more years before we can all just admit the obvious?

  Just as both the RNC and DNC opted to ignore the extreme damage their policies had been inflicting on the upper, middle and lower classes, sparing only the very tippy-top elites (but hand-feeding those elites peeled grapes it should be noted, because their lot improved wildly over the past decades), everybody in power has been steadfastly ignoring our massive debt and liability problems, too.

  Those are going to shape the future, and that future is going to be plenty painful. The longer we wait, the more painful it will be. This has been our steady message at Peak Prosperity for a very long time, and we are actually hopeful that now, finally, we can speak about the unspeakable to those who had no willing ear for it just a short week ago.

  Conclusion

  The political upheaval of Donald Trump is best understood through the lens of economic erosion suffered by the vast majority of people.  If a democracy is measured in how well it serves the interests of the majority, the United States is not a democracy at all.

  Of course, nearly everyone already knows this. But it's been all but unspeakable in polite circles to say so.

  Now, it is finally becoming okay to voice.

  Which is, admittedly, a breath of fresh air for us at Peak Prosperity.  Because not only are massive, obvious economic issues going to unavoidably visit the US in the not-too-distant future, but they'll be doing so at a time when many critical resources will be in decline.

  Chief among those? Oil, of course.

  To skirt the impact of a future oil supply crunch, we'll need an incredible effort of joined forces and strict prioritization to assure that whatever transition we can effect will be a smooth as possible.  Even then, we’ll be lucky to evade painful disruption.

  But if we don't begin to view our future with clear eyes and a united sense of what the predicaments are, if we instead turn to another version of four more years of preservation of the status quo, then we will face a future of disruption so painful it will make the worst of post-election Wednesday for the most ardent liberal seem like a minor inconvenience (by comparison, I mean, of course). 

  It will take an enormous amount of effort simply to stem the tide of economic erosion that now besets the land.  And that’s just as true for the US as it is for Japan, Europe and the UK.  The same forces are at play in all of these centers.

  It will take another massive bowlful of effort to begin to address the debts and liabilities issues.  And yet another cauldron of effort to revamp our energy infrastructure in parallel with all the other challenges.  Put it all together and you can begin to understand why, if we're going to deplore something from the recent election, it should be the running of an intentionally divisive set of campaigns that have driven as large a wedge between people in the US as has existed in a very long time.

  We need to be working together on the common predicaments that care not if we are liberal or conservative, religious or not, male or female, or which race or sexual persuasion best applies to us. Declining global net energy per capita. Our massive fiscal over-indebtedness. The collapse of too many ecosystems we depend on for food and drinkable water. The list is sadly long…

  It’s not just time to heal; it’s imperative that we do. So that we stand united to deal with these predicaments as they arrive in full force.

  There’s really not a moment to spare.

  And for those looking to get a jump on what's coming, we need to better understand the implications of what just happened this week. The Trump upset has changed all of the probabilities that we track.

  I've been keeping a running update of the developing situation in OK, Here's What We Think Is In Store After Trump's Win (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access). We'll be continuing to update this important assessment as new information filters in over the next few days.

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Do Progressives Really Find "White Trash" More Threatening Than Nuclear War?

  Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

  The American electorate’s preference for Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders has established two facts. One is that the majority of the American people do not believe the media presstitutes. The other is that only the “progressives” and “liberals” who inhabit the Atlantic Northeast and Pacific West coasts believe the presstitutes.

  Trump’s election to the presidency has confirmed these holier-than-thou souls in their strongly held belief that America is a white trash racist country. They have told us this all day long today.

  From these people and from the presstitutes we hear that white supremacy elected Trump. This is their propaganda, the intention of which is to discredit a Trump administration before it is inaugurated. Funny how white supremacy elected black Obama twice previously.

  Truthout has lost it completely. John Knefel declares “The David Dukes of the World Prevail.”

   

  Kelly Hayes declares “White Supremacy Elected Donald Trump.”

   

  William Rivers Pitt declares “We have elected a fascist that Mussolini would have recognized on sight.”

   

  Hillary carried only a handful of states, the states that comprise the One Percent’s stomping grounds. Yet Amy Goodman of Democracy Now sees meaning in political writer John Nichols claim that as Hillary carried New York and California, she won the popular vote and should be in the White House. I remember a few days ago George Soros saying that Trump would win the popular vote, but that the electoral vote would go to Hillary, thus ridding the oligarchs of Trump.

   

  Earth Justice promises to hold Trump accountable. Trump who promises to end the threat of nuclear war with Russia and China, thereby doing more to save animal and human life than the entirety of the Democratic Party and environmental organizations, is going to be held accountable by an organization that allegedly is beyond politics and is dedicated to preserving animals from destruction.

   

  The ACLU, of which I am a member, has also put “on notice” the president-elect who has said he will save us from nuclear war. Faced with this idiocy from the ACLU, I will not renew my membership.

   

  Feminists tell us that we are “grieving, scared, and in shock,” and that “it is critical that we stand together and support each other.”

   

  Jeremy Ben-Ami of the J Street Jewish Community tells us that it is “an incredibly sad and difficult day. For tens of millions of Americans who share a core belief in tolerance, decency and social justice, the election results are a severe shock. In this challenging moment, we turn to one another for comfort and community. During this election, J Street made unequivocally clear our conviction that Donald Trump is not fit to be president of the United States.”

   

  Van Jones, a CNN commentator, said that Trump’s election is a nightmare, “a deeply painful moment,” a “whitelash” against minorities. While he bemoaned the pain inflicted upon poor little presstitute Van Jones, he didn’t mind insulting the American electorate and the President-elect of the United States. After all, Van Jones sees that as his racist prerogative.

  And so, the holier-than-thou crowd prefers Hillary, despite her unambiguous position that she would maximize conflict with Russia and China, provoke direct military conflict between the US and Russia by imposing a no-fly zone in Syria, attack Iran and other of Israel’s targets, further enrich her Wall Street handlers by privatizing Social Security, and prevent any dissent from the lowly people class of her high-handed ways. If William Rivers Pitt sees Trump as a Mussolini fascist, Trump is too mild for Pitt. He prefers Hillary, a Hitler to the third power.

  The progressives have totally discredited themselves just as the presstitutes have done. Their need for a bogyman to nourish their hysteria indicates serious psychological disturbance. They actually prefer the risk of Armageddon to peace among nuclear powers. As their 501(c)3s live off corporate contributions, they prefer globalist corporate profits to jobs for ordinary Americans.

  These are the people who think of themselves as our instructors and our betters.

  If only Trump could exile the lot of them. They are anti-American to the core.

  

  

• OreGONE – Oregon Joins California In Proposal To Secede After Trump Victory

  Just yesterday we wrote about the “Calexit” proposal that was starting to gather steam after Trump’s historic victory on Tuesday night.  Now The Oregonian points out that a group in Oregon has also filed the “Oregon Secession Act” in response to the perceived notion that “Oregonian values are no longer the values held by the rest of the United States.”  But, unlike the Calexit proposal, the distraught Hillary supporters in Oregon are thinking big picture and have invited the states of California, Washington, Hawaii, Nevada and Alaska to all band together to form a new nation.

  On Thursday morning, Jennifer Rollins, a lawyer, and Christian Trejbal, a writer, filed the Oregon Secession Act.

   

  “Oregonian values are no longer the values held by the rest of the United States,” Trejbal said over the phone Thursday.

   

  Those values? “Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness,” Trejbal said, “plus equality.”

   

  “Obviously,” he said, the ballot proposal “came about partially in response to the election results on Tuesday.”

   

  Trejbal said that joining forces with other states like Washington, California and Nevada is “a viable way to go forward.”

   

  These states, he said, “could all get together and form a nation that uphold the values that we share.”

   

  To start the ballot title drafting process, the Oregon Secession Act must receive 1,000 signatures. Trejbal said he and Rollins would be at Pioneer Courthouse Square in Portland on Thursday night to begin the process of getting those signatures.

  And here is the full 1-page proposal…clearly they put a lot of time and effort into this between their violent protest sessions and crying fits.

  

   

  The good thing is that the devastated Hillary supporters are moving through the “7 Stages of Grief” pretty quickly as they seem to have already reached stage 4 after only 3 days.  That said, we suspect the depression stage could last for a little while…college professors shouldn’t expect our snowflakes to be taking tests for at least another couple of weeks.

  

  

  

• Paul Joseph Watson Crushes The Hypocrisy Of The Left And Their "Temper Tantrum"

  Earlier today, Paul Joseph Watson posted the following epic video in which he systematically destroys the utter hypocrisy of the left for, among other things, failing to denounce the violent riots flaring up across the country in response to Trump’s victory.  The whole video is a must see but below is just a small selection of our favorite quotes:

  “After weeks of taunting Trump supporters, over Trump’s suggestion that he might not immediately accept the election results, Hillary voters came together preached the message of unity and graciously accepted Donald Trump’s victory.  Oh no, they actually rioted, attacked people in the street and threatened to kill Donald Trump and his supporters.“

   

  “All year they denounced us as being hateful and intolerant.  And what’s the first thing they do after the election?  Engage in rampant hateful intolerance.“

   

  “Seriously, has anyone told you people you can’t change the outcome of democratic election by throwing a temper tantrum.”

   

  “Your behavior is why Trump won in the first place.  Do you understand that yet?“

  

  

• Never Forget!

  Thank you…

   

  

  Source: MichaelPRamirez.com

  Veterans Lives Matter…

  98 years ago today, the guns of the Great War fell silent after four years of unimaginable suffering and destruction. The Battle of the Somme was the largest battle on the Western Front during World War 1 with more than a million men killed or wounded. Today is Armistice Day and Statista's infographic below looks at at the estimated casualties of World War 1's most horrific battle.

  
  You will find more statistics at Statista

   

  Americans shed some guilt for sending young soldiers to war by saying “thank you for your service” but it’d be better to ask vets about their war experiences, says ex-U.S. Army chaplain Chris J. Antal who served in Afghanistan (via ConsrtiumNews.com)…

  Veteran’s Day too often only serves to construct and maintain a public narrative that glorifies war and military service and excludes the actual experience of the veteran. This public narrative is characterized by core beliefs and assumptions about ourselves and the world that most citizens readily accept without examination.

   

  The U.S. public narrative reconciles deep religiosity with a penchant for violence with an often unexamined American National Religion. The core beliefs of this religion include the unholy trinity of governmental theism (One Nation Under God, In God We Trust, etc.), global military supremacy, and capitalism as freedom. These core beliefs provide many U.S. citizens with a broad sense of meaning and imbue the public narrative with thematic coherence.

   

  War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning, as Christopher Hedges wrote. Yet this kind of coherence has a moral and psychological cost. The consequence of an unexamined faith in American National Religion is a moral dualism that exaggerates U.S. goodness and innocence and projects badness on an “other” who we then demonize as the enemy and kill.

   

  Walter Wink described this moral dualism as a “theology of redemptive violence,” the erroneous belief that somehow good violence can save us from bad violence.

   

  Veteran’s Day, in the context of American National Religion, enables selective remembering, self-deception, and projected valorization. In short, it serves to perpetuate lies in order to avoid facing uncomfortable truths about who U.S. citizens are and what kind of people we are becoming.

   

  Imagine a Veteran’s Day where citizens gathered around veterans and asked, “what’s your story?” Citizens who risk this bold step begin to bridge the empathy gap between civilians and veterans and open up the path for adaptive change and post-traumatic growth.

   

  I believe one citizen who approaches a veteran with the invitation, “what’s your story?” does more for the veteran than a thousand patriotic platitudes like “Thank you for your service” could ever do.

   

  Only a First Step

   

  Asking the question is only the first step. A citizen who wants to give back to veterans should cultivate narrative competence, the capacity to recognize, absorb, interpret, and be moved by the stories one hears or reads. The voice of veterans, if we open our ears to hear them, often provides an essential counter-narrative to the U.S. public narrative.

   

  

   

  Violent, sudden, or seemingly meaningless deaths, the kind of deaths often experienced by veterans, can make the world appear dangerous, unpredictable, or unjust. The experience of warfare can often undercut our sense of meaning and coherence and shatter assumptions. Because of this many veterans carry a depth of pain that is unimaginable to many citizens.

   

  The voice of the veterans often reveals uncomfortable truths and invites collective examination of core beliefs and assumptions, especially those that form the bedrock of American National Religion.

  Imagine a Veteran’s Day where communities join together for authentic dialogue between veterans and civilians. Such a gathering would empower veterans to share the kind of stories that would help the community face real problems. What new story might emerge in the process? How might we become a better people as a result?

  

  

• The Clintons And Soros Launch America's Purple Revolution

  Submitted by Wayne Madsen via Strategic-Culture.org,

  Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to «go quietly into that good night». On the morning after her surprising and unanticipated defeat at the hands of Republican Party upstart Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, entered the ball room of the art-deco New Yorker hotel in midtown Manhattan and were both adorned in purple attire. The press immediately noticed the color and asked what it represented. Clinton spokespeople claimed it was to represent the coming together of Democratic «Blue America» and Republican «Red America» into a united purple blend. This statement was a complete ruse as is known by citizens of countries targeted in the past by the vile political operations of international hedge fund tycoon George Soros. 

  The Clintons, who both have received millions of dollars in campaign contributions and Clinton Foundation donations from Soros, were, in fact, helping to launch Soros’s «Purple Revolution» in America. The Purple Revolution will resist all efforts by the Trump administration to push back against the globalist policies of the Clintons and soon-to-be ex-President Barack Obama. The Purple Revolution will also seek to make the Trump administration a short one through Soros-style street protests and political disruption.

  It is doubtful that President Trump’s aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin. President Trump should not allow himself to be distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump’s most loyal supporters.

  America’s globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national security and military «experts» opposed Trump’s candidacy, Trump is «required» to call on them to join his administration because there are not enough such «experts» among Trump’s inner circle of advisers. Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush’s White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush’s Secretary of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump’s White House team. There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic, and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump’s senior- and middle-level positions.

  Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit them to infest his administration. If Mrs. Clinton had won the presidency, an article on the incoming administration would have read as follows:

  «Based on the militarism and foreign adventurism of her term as Secretary of State and her husband Bill Clinton’s two terms as president, the world is in store for major American military aggression on multiple fronts around the world. President-elect Hillary Clinton has made no secret of her desire to confront Russia militarily, diplomatically, and economically in the Middle East, on Russia’s very doorstep in eastern Europe, and even within the borders of the Russian Federation. Mrs. Clinton has dusted off the long-discredited ‘containment’ policy ushered into effect by Professor George F. Kennan in the aftermath of World War. Mrs. Clinton’s administration will likely promote the most strident neo-Cold Warriors of the Barack Obama administration, including Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, a personal favorite of Clinton».

  President-elect Trump cannot afford to permit those who are in the same web as Nuland, Hadley, Bolton, and others to join his administration where they would metastasize like an aggressive form of cancer. These individuals would not carry out Trump’s policies but seek to continue to damage America’s relations with Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, and other nations.

  Not only must Trump have to deal with Republican neocons trying to worm their way into his administration, but he must deal with the attempt by Soros to disrupt his presidency and the United States with a Purple Revolution

  No sooner had Trump been declared the 45^th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obama’s lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014.

  As the Clintons were embracing purple in New York, street demonstrations, some violent, all coordinated by the Soros-funded Moveon.org and «Black Lives Matter», broke out in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Oakland, Nashville, Cleveland, Washington, Austin, Seattle, Philadelphia, Richmond, St. Paul, Kansas City, Omaha, San Francisco, and some 200 other cities across the United States. 

  The Soros-financed Russian singing group «Pussy Riot» released on YouTube an anti-Trump music video titled «Make America Great Again». The video went «viral» on the Internet. The video, which is profane and filled with violent acts, portrays a dystopian Trump presidency. Following the George Soros/Gene Sharp script to a tee, Pussy Riot member Nadya Tolokonnikova called for anti-Trump Americans to turn their anger into art, particularly music and visual art. The use of political graffiti is a popular Sharp tactic. The street protests and anti-Trump music and art were the first phase of Soros’s Purple Revolution in America.

  President-elect Trump is facing a two-pronged attack by his opponents. One, led by entrenched neo-con bureaucrats, including former Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and Bush family loyalists are seeking to call the shots on who Trump appoints to senior national security, intelligence, foreign policy, and defense positions in his administration. These neo-Cold Warriors are trying to convince Trump that he must maintain the Obama aggressiveness and militancy toward Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and other countries. The second front arrayed against Trump is from Soros-funded political groups and media. This second line of attack is a propaganda war, utilizing hundreds of anti-Trump newspapers, web sites, and broadcasters, that will seek to undermine public confidence in the Trump administration from its outset.

  One of Trump’s political advertisements, released just prior to Election Day, stated that George Soros, Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein, are all part of «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». Soros and his minions immediately and ridiculously attacked the ad as «anti-Semitic». President Trump should be on guard against those who his campaign called out in the ad and their colleagues. Soros’s son, Alexander Soros, called on Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner, to publicly disavow Trump. Soros’s tactics not only seek to split apart nations but also families. Trump must be on guard against the current and future machinations of George Soros, including his Purple Revolution.

  

  

• What Donald Trump's Proposed Tax Cut Means For You

  Now that Trump is president, both individual and corporate tax-payers are taking a second look at Trump’s proposed tax regime to see how it will impact their bottom line.

  Here is a quick primer.

  Trump has proposed personal and business tax reform that would reduce tax revenues by an estimated $4.4 trillion over ten years, or roughly 1.9% of GDP over that period. Alternatively, this also means that GDP will grow by roughly the same amount, all else equal, with incremental debt use to fund the shortfall.  Roughly half of this cost is estimated to come from his proposed corporate tax reform plan, which would reduce the corporate income tax rate to 15% and would impose a one-time 10% tax on all foreign earnings not yet taxed by the US.

  Companies would be free to repatriate earnings without additional tax once this tax has been paid. Like the House Republican proposal, this would involve a transition to a new corporate tax system for taxing foreign earnings. The two plans are similar in several other respects as well, including a top individual marginal tax rate of 33%. However, the House Republican plan is estimated to cost around half as much over the next ten years as Mr. Trump’s plan, at least in part because it proposes to go further in limiting or eliminating existing individual and corporate tax preferences.

  This is summarized in the chart below. The good news is that virtually all entities and income tax brackets will pay less taxes compared to Obama’s 2017 Budget (assuming Trump does not change his mind on this framework). The bad news, is that even more debt will be used to replace it, and should foreign buyers balk at US obligations it will require more deficit monetization courtesy of the Fed and another QE episode.

  

  Which brings us to the second point: will Trump’s tax plan pass? According to Goldman Sachs, the tax legislation has a good chance of passing in 2017, but it is not expected to reduce revenues by as much as Trump has proposed. There are three potential obstacles to its passage:

  • First, the cost is likely to be prohibitive for some members of Congress. While the majority party is able to pass tax legislation with only a simple majority in the Senate using the budget reconciliation process described above, it would require near-unanimity among the 52 Republicans in the Senate next year to do so. The prevailing expectation is that some Republican lawmakers would balk at the deficit impact of his proposal.
  • Second, while the House Republican proposal would increase the deficit less, it has also generally been proposed in the context of the broader Republican budget proposal, which would also reduce spending in several areas. Mr. Trump has not proposed a significant net spending reduction.
  • Third, tax reform is complicated, and even under a unified Republican government, it may be too complex to resolve in a matter of months.

  Ultimately, the outlook for a tax cut depends on how willing marginal Republican lawmakers are to increase the deficit, and/or how willing they are to find offsetting savings elsewhere. Overall, there is a good chance that some type of tax legislation passes next year, but the obstacles to comprehensive tax reform go beyond partisan disputes, so one should expect tax legislation that is adopted in 2017 to be narrower in scope than the campaign proposal, and significantly smaller in its revenue effect; in other words much of this week’s market rally – driven by hopes of tax-cut boosted economic growth  and consumer spending – will be for nothing.

  

  

• This Trophy Of Mainstream Media Arrogance Can Be Yours For Only $250

  As we pointed out last weekend, with several days to go before the presidential election on November 8th, bookstores around the country started receiving a curious commemorative edition of Newsweek with their chosen candidate on the cover.  As Infowars reported, the magazines went viral when a Twitter user, who works at one of those bookstores, tweeted the images with the comment, “I work at a bookstore and we typically get magazines early and lookie what we got here.” 

  While Newsweek later explained that they had created 2 versions of the magazine with Trump and Hillary on the cover, apparently they made a “business decision” to only print the “Madam President” version.

  Bet @mghnbtts wishes she didn’t break @Newsweek embargo.
  Shut down account after fueling Trumpists’ hysteria about “rigged” #Election2016 pic.twitter.com/ZvsPyjUOVn

  — Luke Costin (@LukeCostin) November 7, 2016

   

  Now, you too can own your very on own piece of the mainstream media’s arrogance courtesy of numerous Ebay auctions looking to fetch a couple hundred dollars for the ill-advised magazines.  Somehow we suspect these “collectors editions” will end up as stocking stuffers for many Hillary supporters this holiday season.

  

   

  And while this is certainly embarrassing for Newsweek, it’s not the first time the arrogant mainstream media got caught off guard.

  

  

  

• A Visit To Trump's America

  Authored by retired bank CEO Edward Speed, originally posted at TheRivardReport.com,

  Two months ago, when I was in Ohio visiting my daughter, I was given an insight into the early indicators of a Trump victory. The clues were there, but I didn’t fully understand what I was seeing. At that time, I had no inkling of the depth and breadth of rural dissatisfaction that would elect a Donald Trump as President.

  I’m a photographer and the coordinator of The Texas Farm and Ranch Photography Project, photographing the daily lives of farm and ranch families, their work, meals, worship, and family life. In September, I drove almost 300 miles up and down the rural roads east of Dayton and south of Columbus, Ohio, to add some farm images to my portfolio.

  Mile after mile, farm after farm, town after town, ag business after ag business, I saw only Trump signs. It was obvious that if Ohio was going to block Trump, it would have to be in the cities because agricultural Ohio was overwhelmingly Trump country. This mirrored the same Trump support that I saw in the agricultural communities I have been photographing across Texas for the past year.

  

  As I engaged in countless conversations in both rural Ohio and Texas, I tried to understand how any farming or ranching family could even remotely identify with a brash, thrice-married, womanizing, bankruptcy-declaring, New York billionaire. 

  What I learned is that agricultural America felt not only ignored and forgotten, it felt rejected and despised by America’s political elite, and that any candidate who could hurt that elite was worth their vote.

  No story brought this home to me more powerfully than a grandfather who spoke of national news stories about what he described as the whining and crying on elite college campuses by those who demanded “safe places” and “safe zones” where they will be sheltered from anything that remotely offends them. He spoke of ingrates wanting special “only me” safe places where they do not have to do anything, hear anything, see anything, or be around anyone or anything they don’t like.

  In that farmer’s mind, while the safe-space crowd whined about its “offendedness” and demanded entitlements, children of agricultural families were up early in the morning working on their chores and projects, followed by a full day at school, coming home to more work – all while being part of a family, a community, and a nation.

  He described watching youngsters at county fairs and livestock shows hauling feed, cleaning stalls, washing and grooming livestock, shoveling manure, unloading and loading their family trucks and trailers, and trying to sleep in uncomfortable chairs – all while ungrateful elite college students failed to appreciate their pampered lives.

  

  In this gentleman’s world view, it was not black versus white, rich versus poor, feminism versus patriarchy, illegal versus citizen; rather, it was those who produce nothing believing themselves entitled, without appreciation, to the goods produced by others versus those who actually produce.

  Although this grandfather did not use the exact words, he pretty much described a political elite and liberal establishment as thinking of American agriculture families as nothing more than serfs in a self-protecting, self-serving feudal system.

  A ranch mom whose family I photographed in far West Texas alluded to the Black Lives Matter movement by telling me that unless America starts recognizing that Farm Lives Matter, no lives are going to matter.

  Rural and agricultural America has revolted against this perceived feudal system in an unimaginable way. It voted not only out of feelings of rejection and abandonment, but also out of the sentiment of being taken for granted. The result was an agricultural electorate that rose up against urban elites who they believed show only disdain and ridicule to those who endure the back-breaking work and financial hardships required to feed our nation.

  As a result, hard-working, long-suffering agricultural families sent Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party, and the perceived political establishment to bed without their supper.

  They also sent a powerful message and reminder that our food does not spring magically from grocery stores.

  Agricultural America helped deliver the White House to Trump, then got up early the next morning and went back to its daily, unending chores.

  

  

• ObamaTrade Is Dead: White House Abandons TPP As EU Halts Trade Talks After Trump Victory

  It appears the entire ‘ObamaTrade’ farce is collapsing under the weight of its secrecy and corporatocracy in the immediate aftermath of Trump’s triumph. First this morning, Bloomberg reported that EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom said EU-U.S. negotiations on a free-trade agreement are on hold, and now WSJ reports that the Obama administration on Friday gave up all hope of enacting its sweeping Pacific trade agreement, denting American prestige in the regions at a time when China is flexing its economic and military muscle.

  Just days after Donald Trump won the election, all of Washington’s major trade deals are dead or dying.

  
  

  First, NAFTA

  As Joe Joseph reports, both Mexico and Canada have agreed to re-negotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) signed under President Clinton.

  You have the Canadian Prime Minister and his Mexican counterpart that are now saying, “hey buddies… hey United States… we want to renegotiate NAFTA.”

   

  …Maybe, just maybe, we might actually have a little bit of justice… he hasn’t even taken the oath of office yet.

  Second, TTIP

  Trump lashed out at market-opening initiatives such as the planned Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP, during his successful campaign to succeed U.S. President Barack Obama. Trump, the Republican Party’s candidate, defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton in the Nov. 8 election.

   

  “With the new president-elect, we don’t really know what will happen,” Malmstrom told reporters on Friday in Brussels. “There is strong reason to believe that there will be a pause in TTIP, that this might not be the biggest priority for the new administration.”

   

  The EU and U.S. have spent three years working on an accord to expand the world’s biggest economic relationship by eliminating tariffs on goods, enlarging services markets, opening public procurement and bolstering regulatory cooperation. Obama and European leaders such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel had called TTIP a policy priority.

   

  Both sides have held 15 rounds of talks since 2013. The last round took place in October in New York.

   

  “Whether it makes sense to have new rounds — well probably not,” Malmstrom said on Friday.

  And Finally, TPP

   Just days after Donald Trump surprise victory, U.S. officials said Republican congressional leaders had made clear that they wouldn’t consider the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership in the remainder of Mr. Obama’s term. The White House had lobbied hard for months in the hope of moving forward on the pact if the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, had won.

   

  The failure to pass what is by far the biggest trade agreement in more than a decade is a bitter defeat for Mr. Obama, whose belated but fervent support for freer trade divided his party and complicated the campaign of Mrs. Clinton.

   

  The TPP’s collapse also dents American prestige in the region at a time when China is flexing its economic and military muscle.

  The 2016 election season has shown that domestic concerns about globalization, the trade deficit and stagnant wages easily beat out the appetite for international engagement. The TPP became a symbol Washington pursuing policies that disproportionately favor wealthier Americans over ordinary workers. Mr. Trump blamed the TPP on special interests trying to “rape” the country.

  As we detailed previously, Trump was right on Trade Agreements.

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• "He Won Because The Elites Want Him There, The Global Economy Will Collapse"

  Though Trump’s election was a great victory/rebuke over the dictates and controls of the financial oligarchy that own and run this nation, SHTFPlan.com's Mac Salvo warns, the American people are not out of the woods yet.

  Quietly but constantly in the background of the entire Obama Administration, the Federal Reserve’s stimulus program that combined unlimited QE with zero percent interest rates has absolutely wrecked this country and its economic stability.

   

  The system as we know it cannot be sustained. Yellen and co. have been simply waiting for the right time to let the other shoe drop – namely, after it could influence the election even further in the direction of Trump’s populist uprising. Unfortunately, he will now be largely blamed for the great destruction that is scheduled to fall upon this nation. In fact, that is the very reason that Brandon Smith of Alt-Market.com attributed to Trump’s victory when he predicted his election many months ago.

   

  Something big is coming… prepare yourselves accordingly.

  How Alt-Market Predicted Trump’s Win Months in Advance: “He won because the elites WANT HIM THERE, the global economy WILL collapse”

  Authored by Melissa Dykes via The Daily Sheeple,

  While many of us in the alternative media and especially those researchers of Clinton crimes are breathing a big fat sigh of relief that anybody but Hillary is headed to the White House in 2017, Brandon Smith of Alt Market is warning us all not to get too comfortable… and with history on his side here, we should listen to him.

  Despite what looked like a rigged, fraudulent Hillary win orchestrated from the top down with the entire establishment machine behind her, Trump won the election. In an election year that would have otherwise seen record low voter turnout, the specter of Hillary that led to Trump’s victory has now given the people a reason to believe their vote actually matters again, an extra boon to further relegitimize the corrupt system running things in this country.

  But Smith reminds us that if Trump is walking into the Oval Office in January, it is only because the elites decided to put him there in advance — and for a reason.

  First it should be noted that Smith accurately predicted that Brexit would pass, even when the majority of the alt media was reporting that there was no way it possibly could. Was it another victory for the people?

  No, it was predetermined well in advance:

  “The mainstream media has been consistently comparing Trump supporters to Brexit supporters, and Trump himself has hitched his political wagon to the Brexit. This fits perfectly with the globalist narrative that populists and conservatives are killing the global economy and placing everyone at risk.“

  Then he accurately predicted a Trump win… but not because voting actually matters:

  “U.S. elections are indeed controlled, and have been for decades, primarily through the false left/right paradigm.  However, as I have been pointing out since I correctly predicted the success of the Brexit referendum, I don’t think that Clinton is the choice of the elites.”

   

  “To be clear, my position is that Trump is slated to take the White House and that this is by design. This has been my position since before Trump won the Republican Primaries, it was my position when the election cycle began, it has never changed, nor have my views on the reasons for this outcome ever changed…”

  Smith says regardless of whether or not Trump is a legitimate anti-establishment candidate, his win means the global economic collapse the system has been holding off on will finally come to pass — as planned — under Trump’s watch:

  “…Even if Trump is a legitimate anti-establishment conservative, his entry into the Oval Office will seal the deal on the economic collapse, and will serve the globalists well.  The international banks need only pull the plug on any remaining life support to the existing market system and allow it to fully implode, all while blaming Trump and his conservative supporters…”

  He will be the perfect scapegoat for something the alternative media have known is coming for a long, long time.

  Now Smith is spelling it out:

  The bottom line is, Trump is on the way to the White House because the elites WANT HIM THERE.  Now, many liberty proponents, currently in a state of elation, will either ignore or dismiss the primary reason why I was able to predict the Brexit and a Trump win.  These will probably be some of the same people that were arguing with me only weeks ago that the elites would NEVER allow Trump in office.

   

  So, to clarify:

   

  Trump may or may not be aware that he and his conservative followers have been positioned into a a trap.  We will have to wait and see how he behaves in office (and he WILL be in office, despite the claims of some that the elites will try to “stop him” before January).  My primary point is THAT IT DOES NOT MATTER, at least not at this stage.  The elites will initiate a final collapse of the global economy under Trump’s watch (this will probably escalate over the course of the next six months), and they WILL blame him and conservatives in general.  This IS going to happen.  The elites play the long game, and so must we.

  And there you have it.

  It’s not much of a secret that the economy is being artificially propped up. The Fed’s QE stimulus programs are no longer working. We know it can’t remain this way forever.

  And even though everyone just feels so much relief that we’ve all been spared the nightmare of Hillary Clinton climbing into yet another seat of even more power, we can’t just assume we’re all going to skip off into happy magical fairy sprinkle land unscathed.

  Sure, the people have spoken, but it’s only the illusion of power that we’re seeing play out now. The Powers That Shouldn’t Be running this insanity circus always have a plan… how else have they gotten away with controlling the globe for at least the past century?

  After saying “I told ya so,” Smith issued a final warning that we shouldn’t be so naive:

  While millions of Americans are celebrating Trump’s win today, I will remain even more vigilant.  The party is just getting started, folks.  Don’t get too comfortable.

  Sadly, we can’t ignore decades of New World Order history here just because we’re relieved a psychopath like Hillary lost the election. Smith is right. We’d all do well to listen to him and get prepared for what’s coming.

  2017 is going to be a bumpy ride.

  

  

• More Troubling Signs For NYC Real Estate As Rent Concessions Soar

  The October 2016 Douglas Elliman Real Estate Guide for Manhattan reveals some fairly startling hints about the “health” of NYC real estate.  For months we’ve been writing about the soaring capacity of luxury apartment buildings in New York City and it looks as though that capacity influx is starting to take a toll as the percentage of rental inventory offering landlord concessions soared to 23.9% in October, more than double the 10.4% recorded last October.

  The market continues to be softest at the top.  Luxury median sales price declined 10.9% to $7,792 over the same period and the largest decline in more than 4 years.  The market share for landlord concessions more than doubled to 23.9% from the same period last year to the highest share in 6 years this metric has been tracked.  As a result, net effective median rent fell 1% to $3,322 from the same period last year.  Days on market, the number of days from the original list date to the lease date, expanded by 6 days to an average of 46 days.  Listing discount, the percentage from the original list price to the rental price, rose to 3.1% rom 2.3% in the same month a year ago.

  The percent of rental inventory granting landlord concessions has surged in recent months as building owners attempt to fill new apartment capacity.  As Bloomberg points out, with several buildings still under construction, the surge in new high-end capacity shows no signs of abating at any point in the new future.

  Lease-signing sweeteners, such as a month of free rent or payment of broker fees, were offered on 24 percent of new rental agreements in October, up from 10 percent a year earlier, according to a report Thursday by appraiser Miller Samuel Inc. and brokerage Douglas Elliman Real Estate. It was the biggest share for any month since the firms began tracking the data six years ago. Landlords also agreed to cut an average of 3.1 percent from their asking rents in order to reach a deal.

   

  Property owners in Manhattan are working harder to lure tenants who now have the ability to bargain-shop amid a surge of high-end apartment construction that shows no signs of abating. The final months of the year are considered to be the slowest time for apartment leasing in New York City, adding to the urgency for landlords, said Jonathan Miller, president of Miller Samuel.

   

  “Concessions are one way to keep the vacancy rate in check and keep the buildings as full as possible,” Miller said in an interview. “It’s a baseline metric we’re going to be dealing with for the next several years, at least.”

  

   

  Meanwhile, it’s not just new capacity that’s putting pressure on rental prices and concessions.  As the following chart highlights, new leases signed in recent months have also been falling with October new leases down 3.9% YoY and nearly 23% sequentially. 

  

   

  Rental days on the market also increased by 15% YoY to 46 days while listing discounts increased 80 bps to 3.1% of the original listing price.

  

   

  Finally, listing inventory in Manhattan is up nearly 23% YoY while Jonathan Miller, President of New York City appraiser Miller Samuel, warned “This is probably not a temporary blip.”

  “There must be great concern because of how much competition has been added to the market over the last couple of years,” Miller said. “This is probably not a temporary blip.”

   

  For Manhattan apartments, the median rent rose 0.3 percent from a year earlier to $3,400 a month, Miller Samuel and Douglas Elliman said. But when factoring in the value of concessions, the median actually declined by 1 percent.

   

  “Incentives remain the preferred alternative for owners to keep face rents high while creating a sense of value in the marketplace,” Gary Malin, president of brokerage Citi Habitats, said in a separate report on the rental market Thursday.

   

  The fancier and more costly the apartment, the more landlords had to offer enticements. In Manhattan buildings with doormen, 31 percent of new leases last month came with incentives, Miller Samuel and Douglas Elliman said. In buildings without lobby attendants, sweeteners were given on 17 percent of new agreements.

  

   

  With trends like this, Jimmy McMillan may be able to retire soon.

  

  

  

• Trump Voter Beaten By Black Mob: "You Voted Trump. You Gonna Pay For That Sh*t"

  Authored by Paul Joseph Watson, originally posted at InfoWars.com,

  Shocking video out of Chicago shows a mob of young black men viciously beating an older white man because he voted for Donald Trump, dragging him through the streets as he hangs out of the back of his car.

  The clip shows the thugs repeatedly screaming, “you voted Donald Trump” as they assault the victim from every angle while others steal his belongings.

  “You voted Trump,” the mob screams, “You gonna pay for that sh*t.”

  Another woman shouts “beat his ass,” while another man is heard laughing before remarking, “Don’t vote Trump.”

  A second video of the incident which is dubbed with the “F**k Donald Trump” song, a phrase now being chanted by “protesters” across the country, shows one of the attackers driving away in the man’s vehicle while his hand is still stuck in the window as the car drags him down the street.

  “The scene is frankly reminiscent of a lynching,” remarks Chris Menahan.

  It is not even clear if the victim was a Trump supporter. Presumably, the mob used that as an excuse to beat and rob him.

  YouTube quickly deleted the video, but it has been mirrored on numerous different websites.

  If the roles had been reversed, and Trump supporters had been caught on tape viciously beating a black Hillary voter, this would be a national news story right now.

  As it is, you won’t see this on CNN any time soon.

  

  Finally, here is SHFPlan.com's Mac Slavo with his typically eloquent perspective on this deplorable behavior…

  Violence and retribution for the election of Trump has proven to be the result of a media-driven attack on his character. For months now, the pundits and columnists have done nothing but tell the population that Trump supporters are racists, etc. and now racially-motivated beatings are taking place in the street without any other pretext or provocation.

   

  Are they proud of themselves yet? And how far will this violence spread?

   

  read more here…

  

  

• Grubhub CEO Faces Backlash After Telling Trump-Supporting Employees "You Have No Place Here"

  Many faux-liberal tech firm CEOs have responded to the election of Donald Trump in the same "stunned" memos to staff reassuring them "our firm is a safe space" with some even promising to fund a so-called CaliExit secession from the Union. However, as Fox News reports, GrubHub CEO Matt Maloney has – to some who have begun to boycott the food-delivery app – gone too far by implying in a company-wide email that Trump-supporting staff are not welcome and should resign.

  “If you do not agree with this statement then please reply to this email with your resignation because you have no place here,” wrote Matt Maloney, Co-Founder of Grubhub. “We do not tolerate hateful attitudes on our team."

  

  Maloney, a Hillary Clinton supporter, sent the email Wednesday afternoon with the subject line, “So…that happened…what’s next?”

  

   

  He made it clear in the email statement that he is personally stunned and deeply concerned with the results of Tuesday’s election.

  “I absolutely reject the nationalist, anti-immigrant and hateful politics of Donald Trump and will work to shield our community from this movement as best as I can,” Maloney wrote about Trump’s supporters. 

   

  “I want to reaffirm to anyone on our team that is scared or feels personally exposed, that I and everyone else here at Grubhub will fight for your dignity and your right to make a better life for yourself and your family here in the United States.”

   

  The CEO made it clear he’s particularly concerned Trump’s victory will empower others in his workplace to act out against marginalized groups.

   

  “While demeaning, insulting, and ridiculing minorities, immigrants, and the physically/mentally disabled worked for Mr. Trump, I want to be clear that this behavior — and these views — have no place at Grubhub,” Maloney explained.

  Ironically, the CEO said that he deeply respects the right of people to vote for whoever they decide, but that he simply wanted to “reassure our employees that our company will actively support diversity and inclusion — regardless of national politics."

  As Fox concludes, this letter is noteworthy because it underscores the fine-line between the intersection of politics and business, especially given the divisive presidential campaign of the past year and a half.

  However, the backlash had already begun and, in a tweet that was later deleted, Maloney added: "To be clear, GrubHub does not tolerate hate and we are proud of all our employees – even those who voted for Trump."

  As The Chicago Tribune reports, in a statement posted by Grubhub later Thursday evening, Maloney said his comments had been misconstrued.

  "I want to clarify that I did not ask for anyone to resign if they voted for Trump," the statement said. "I would never make such a demand."

  By Thursday afternoon, Twitter users were calling others to #boycottgrubhub.

  #BoycottGrubhub! There's no place in the world for this type of fascist intolerance! https://t.co/jXfHPPo5iv

  — Deplorable Dennis (@Dennis_QH3) November 10, 2016

  

  

• Calexit – California Secession Petition Gaining Strength After Trump Win

  A group of secessionists in California are taking advantage of post-election discontent and re-introducing their petition to make California its own country.  Apparently, the liberal elites of California aren’t big fans of Donald Trump…who knew? 

  According to the Sacramento Bee, support for the “The 2019 #Calexit Independence Referendum” is gaining some momentum after devastated Hillary supporters received their bad news on Tuesday night.

  About 11,000 people liked the Facebook page for the “Yes California Independence Campaign” as of Tuesday night. By midday Wednesday, it had grown to nearly 17,000 likes and counting.

   

  “Obviously it was a huge boost for the movement because Californians hate Donald Trump,” said Marcus Ruiz Evans, vice president of the group.

   

  The hashtag #Calexit was already trending on Twitter and Facebook on Wednesday. Posts ranged from Shervin Pishevar, a Bay Area venture capitalist and tech entrepreneur, calling for the state to secede, to conservatives welcoming a California-less nation.

   

  Ruiz Evans said Yes California intends to launch an initiative that asks Californians whether they believe the state should remain part of the United States or break away on its own. Similar to the Citizens United ballot measure voters approved Tuesday, it would begin as an advisory proposal to kick-start an arduous process.

   

  The results will serve as a rallying cry and give the campaign credibility with lawmakers, he said. If passed, it would call for a special election and official vote on whether California should become its own country. Ultimately, Congress and the states would likely have to ratify an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

   

  “The reason that we’re here today is we wanted to point out to everybody in California that the American system is broken. It’s failing. It’s sinking,” he said. “You as a Californian have a choice to make: Do you go down with that ship out of tradition or sail on your own?”

  Apparently the group’s leadership is convinced that California’s economic problems are the direct result of their statehood as opposed to the failed liberal agenda of their  elected officials.  The group’s website lays out a myriad of reasons for secession but summarizes that “the United States of America represents so many things that conflict with Californian values.”

  In our view, the United States of America represents so many things that conflict with Californian values, and our continued statehood means California will continue subsidizing the other states to our own detriment, and to the detriment of our children.

   

  Although charity is part of our culture, when you consider that California’s infrastructure is falling apart, our public schools are ranked among the worst in the entire country, we have the highest number of homeless persons living without shelter and other basic necessities, poverty rates remain high, income inequality continues to expand, and we must often borrow money from the future to provide services for today, now is not the time for charity.

   

  However, this independence referendum is about more than California subsidizing other states of this country. It is about the right to self-determination and the concept of voluntary association, both of which are supported by constitutional and international law.

   

  It is about California taking its place in the world, standing as an equal among nations. We believe in two fundamental truths: (1) California exerts a positive influence on the rest of the world, and (2) California could do more good as an independent country than it is able to do as a just a U.S. state.

   

  In 2016, the United Kingdom voted to leave the international community with their “Brexit” vote. Our “Calexit” referendum is about California joining the international community. You have a big decision to make.

  While this will unfortunately never come to a fruition, we suspect after Tuesday’s election results that, outside of a couple of major metro areas in the Northeast, a lot of people in this country would be quiet happy to be rid of their leftist west coast state.

  

  

• China 'Devalues' Yuan To Weakest Since Breaking The Peg In 2010

  With offshore Yuan tumbling in recent days – echoing the collapse in US Treasury bond prices – the spread to the onshore fix appears to have forced the PBOC’s hand. With a 200 pip cut in the CNY fix tonight, China has all but erased any strength in the Renminbi against the USD since it broke the peg (“enabled more flexibility”) in June 2010.

  • CHINA SETS YUAN FIXING AT 6.8115 VS 6.7885 DAY EARLIER

  

   

  Given the wakness in the Reniminbi basket, one could argue that the Yuan could be sold against the USD considerably more to catch down to the pressure that other major basket currencies have been under…

  

   

  With US Treasury market closed tomorrow, one wonders where China’s wrath will fall…

  

  

  

• Canadian Parliament Condemns Free Speech

  Submitted by Judith Bergmann via The Gatestone Institute,

  • "Now that Islamophobia has been condemned, this is not the end, but rather the beginning." — Samer Majzoub, president of the Canadian Muslim Forum. Majzoub is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood.
  • What exactly are they condemning? Criticism of Islam? Criticism of Muslims? Debating Mohammed? Depicting Mohammed? Discussing whether ISIS is a true manifestation of Islam? Is any Canadian who now writes critically of Islam or disagrees with the petitioners that ISIS "does not reflect in any way the values or the teachings of the religion of Islam" now to be considered an "Islamophobe"?
  • The question, naturally, is whether Canada's motion will be replicated in other parliaments in the West. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is particularly active in Europe, having opened a Permanent Observer Mission to the European Union in 2013.
  • In what parallel universe can the efforts of the OIC to stifle free speech possibly be considered advancement of freedom of speech and religion?
  • As the OIC steps up its media campaign and efforts in Europe, European parliaments are likely to experience initiatives like the petition in Canada. The European Union, for one, looks as if it would be to happy facilitate such a motion.

  On October 26, Canada's parliament unanimously passed an anti-Islamophobia motion, which was the result of a petition initiated by Samer Majzoub, president of the Canadian Muslim Forum. The petition garnered almost 70,000 signatures.

  According to the text of the petition,

  "Recently an infinitesimally small number of extremist individuals have conducted terrorist activities while claiming to speak for the religion of Islam. Their actions have been used as a pretext for a notable rise of anti-Muslim sentiments in Canada; and these violent individuals do not reflect in any way the values or the teachings of the religion of Islam. In fact, they misrepresent the religion. We categorically reject all their activities. They in no way represent the religion, the beliefs and the desire of Muslims to co-exist in peace with all peoples of the world. We, the undersigned, Citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to join us in recognizing that extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam, and in condemning all forms of Islamophobia".

  The Parliament of Canada, in Ottawa. (Image source: Saffron Blaze/Wikimedia Commons)

  While a motion will have no legal effect unless it is passed as a bill, the symbolic effect of the Canadian parliament unanimously condemning "all forms of Islamophobia," without making the slightest attempt at defining what is meant by "Islamophobia," can only be described, at best, as alarming.

  What exactly are they condemning? Criticism of Islam? Criticism of Muslims? Debating Mohammed? Depicting Mohammed? Discussing whether ISIS is a true manifestation of Islam? Is any Canadian who now writes critically of Islam or disagrees with the petitioners that ISIS "does not reflect in any way the values or the teachings of the religion of Islam" now to be considered an "Islamophobe"?

  No one knows, and it is doubtful whether the members of the Canadian parliament know what it means themselves. It would seem, however, that the initiator of the petition, Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Samer Majzoub, knows. This is what he had to say in an interview with the Canadian Muslim Forum after the motion passed:

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

  Whereas the Canadian parliamentarians seem entirely unaware of what Muslim organizations have in store for them in terms of "comprehensive policies", it is clear that to the parliamentarians, the motion constitutes "virtue-signaling" at its worst. Whereas the parliamentarians might now feel good about themselves, does their vote mean that those Canadians who dare to criticize Islam and disagree vehemently with the premises of the motion are likely to be considered (even more) beyond the pale of civilized society? Does it mean that only one view is correct and that any view that differs from it will now be, by default, incorrect — if not criminal?

  It will almost certainly deter people from speaking up, for fear that they will be labeled "racists" or "Islamophobes" by arbitrarily creating a threatening atmosphere of political correctness, where those who do not adhere to the groupthink are shamed and ostracized. Such strangulation of opinion also cannot be beneficial to any country's national security. How can anyone warn the authorities about virtually anything if they have to worry first that their warning might be considered "Islamophobic"?

  There were, of course, no parallel motions in Canada's parliament to condemn "Christianophobia" or "Judeophobia," the latter being much more prevalent than "Islamophobia." In fact, according to statistics, Jewish Canadians are more than 10 times as likely to be the victim of a hate crime than Muslim Canadians.

  It was exactly this kind of toxic, politically correct atmosphere in the United States that enabled Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, to gun down 13 people and to wound 29 others in the Fort Hood massacre in 2009. His former classmate, Lt. Col. Val Finnell, told Fox news at the time that, despite Hasan's suspicious behavior, such as giving a presentation justifying suicide bombings, nothing was done about Hasan to see if he might be a security risk. Instead, he was treated with kid gloves. "The issue here is that there's a political correctness climate in the military. They don't want to say anything because it would be considered questioning somebody's religious belief, or they're afraid of an equal opportunity lawsuit", said Lt. Col. Finnell.

  In December 2015, a man who had been working in the area where the San Bernardino terrorist Syed Farook lived told CBS Los Angeles that,

  "he noticed a half-dozen Middle Eastern men in the area in recent weeks, but decided not to report anything since he did not wish to racially profile those people. "We sat around lunch thinking, 'What were they doing around the neighborhood?'" he said.

  The fear of being labeled an "Islamophobe" is real and has had lethal consequences. It is this fear that the Canadian parliament has now elevated into a parliamentary motion, signaling that this sentiment is shared by the highest echelons in the country, those who make the laws.

  A democratic parliament presumably should not be cowing its citizens into silence. The term "bullying" comes to mind. Parliamentary bullying and reckless disregard of the freedom of speech should have no place in a society that cares about the values of freedom and national security. Canada has already seen, to its disgrace, attacks on free speech against Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, among others. Is this the country Canada wishes to become?

  The motion is reminiscent of the US House Resolution 569, "Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States," which was introduced in the House of Representatives on December 17, 2015. This Resolution is more detailed than the short condemnation of Islamophobia from the Canadian parliament, but the essence of both appears to be the same: Criticism of Islam or of Muslims is wrong and should be condemned, if not outright criminalized.

  In condemning "all forms of Islamophobia", Canada's parliament has in effect done everything the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) — consisting of 56 Muslim states plus "Palestine" — could wish for. Fighting "Islamophobia" is at the very top of the agenda of this organization, which is headquartered in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The OIC is aggressively promoting the so-called Istanbul Process, which aims to forbid all criticism of Islam and make this ban a part of international law.

  Ironically, the Saudi Arabian flag flew on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on November 2, as Canadian public officials met with a so-called "human rights" commission from Saudi Arabia. This commission publicly supported Saudi Arabia's mass executions in January 2016, in which 47 people were executed by the authorities, saying that they "enforce justice, fulfill … legitimate and legal requirements, and protect the society and its security and stability". That, apparently, is not problematic in the eyes of Canadian parliamentarians.

  As recently as October 24, the General Secretariat of the OIC held a meeting "to review the media strategy for countering Islamophobia". The meeting was scheduled to:

  "discuss the OIC media strategy and ways to counter Islamophobia in light of the recent developments and hate campaigns in different parts of the world, especially with the increasing number of Muslim refugees in Western countries and the mounting hate discourse in a manner that causes serious concern. The meeting aims to come up with clear and practical mechanisms for a counter-Islamophobia media campaign that highlights the true noble image of Islamic and contributes to halting the ongoing deliberate defamatory campaigns waged in different Western fora".

  The question, naturally, is whether Canada's motion will be replicated in other parliaments in the West. The OIC is particularly active in Europe, having opened a Permanent Observer Mission to the European Union in 2013. The OIC also recently formed the so-called Contact ‎Group for Muslims in Europe, whose formation was announced at the OIC Istanbul Summit in April 2016, and includes Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Algeria, Egypt, Somalia, Malaysia and Jordan.

  The establishment of the OIC Contact Group for Muslims in Europe

  "aims at ensuring the effective cooperation between the relevant parties, in order to lay out strategies to eliminate hate speech, physical assault, practices of intolerance, prejudice, racial discrimination and Islamophobia, and to support intercultural dialogue and social inclusion.‎ Further, the Group ‎can be a platform through which Muslims from various nationalities can exchange experiences, define best practices, with a view to increase Muslim participation in the political and social life in Europe". [emphasis added]

  The EU apparently sees the OIC as a friendly and benevolent organization with shared values. According to the EU's European External Action service (its diplomatic service, which assists the EU's foreign affairs chief):

  "The OIC has undergone important changes during the last decade: it made advances in support of freedom of speech and freedom of religion/belief. It enlarged its cooperation to economic, cultural, development and humanitarian fields."

  Seriously? In what parallel universe can the efforts of the OIC to stifle free speech possibly be considered advancement of freedom of speech and religion?

  As the OIC steps up its media campaign and its efforts in Europe, European parliaments are likely to experience initiatives like the petition in Canada. The European Union, for one, looks as if it would be happy to facilitate such a motion.

  

  

• Russell Napier Interviewed: Fiscal Stimulus Comes With Dangerous Baggage – Financial Repression

  Financial repression is coming to Europe and the people that can’t see that don’t have a strong understanding of financial history and the lengths that politicians will go to get re-elected. That’s the view of financial historian and strategist Russell Napier, who thinks that the failure of central banks to reflate the global financial system will lead to stronger and more significant government action.

  Napier is the co-founder of online research platform ERIC and the author of Anatomy of the Bear: Lessons from Wall Street’s Four Great Bottoms. In an interview with Real Vision TV, he envisions a sharp change in momentum from governments, starting with Europe, which is in a clear state of policy paralysis.  Items on the policy menu include capital controls, dividend controls and the forced purchase of government debt.

  
  Manipulated by the System with a Deluge of Monetary Policy

  While professional investors have learned how to play the game against central bankers, who are not too dissimilar to investors themselves – being forward looking and focused on inflation – Napier said they have been “royally gamed by the financial system” on a diet of monetary policy more monetary policy and more monetary policy.

  “But if it switches to government, then I think it’s a completely different game,” he said. “We’ve seen a little bit of it already in terms of government action, regulation, forcing people to buy that debt. But primarily, that debt’s been bought by central bankers,” he said.

  It’s clear now that central banking isn’t working in terms of reflating the economy and its failure to produce nominal GDP growth above the growth in debt, is now leading some to believe that a fiscal solution is coming. But if people are getting excited about that, then Napier thinks they couldn’t be more wrong.

  Fiscal Expansion Comes with Dangerous Baggage – The Tools of Financial Repression

  “The nine most dangerous words in the English language are: ‘We’re from the government and we’re here to help you,’” he told Real Vision. “So to me it’s bizarre that people who are the stewards of other people’s capital are getting really excited because the government is coming,” adding that a fiscal expansion is likely to come with a lot of dangerous baggage.

  These are the tools of financial repression and Napier said the first thing to understand about the government is that they don’t give up, they want to get re-elected and they’ll come back with something else. And once you go down the rabbit hole of financial repression then one control eventually leads to another.

  It all starts with keeping the yield curve below inflation, which is easy enough for investors who will simply not buy any bonds, but that of course will encourage borrowing, which is what the government is trying to discourage, Napier says.

  “So they have to bring in other things, measures, to stop you and I gearing up, which is the elements of financial repression. They have to try and force you and I to buy government debt even though it is a virtually guaranteed loss-making proposition, and they have to bring in controls that would stop us behaving naturally as a response to negative real interest rates. Now, those historically have been some horrific things.”

  Who’s Going to Buy the Government Debt ? You Are !

  While the first main tool of financial repression has to be capital controls, Napier said it won’t just stop there, with dividend controls and higher corporate profits among the tactics designed to make other investments look less attractive, relative to government debt

  “A lot of people think central bankers will keep going forever, but if we ever go to inflation, they clearly have to stop expanding their balance sheet, but somebody has to buy the government debt,” he said.  “So let’s say the fiscal policy comes. It succeeds. We get growth. We get inflation. Central bank balance sheets cannot expand in the growth and inflation. So who’s going to buy the government debt? The answer is you are. Particularly if you work for a regulated financial institution. It’s much better if you’re an individual. But regulated financial institutions are the people who will be expected to do that, and that is financial repression.”

  The Focus is Productive Growth – Not Speculative Growth

  Over the past thirty years, it’s been an easy job for investors to buy an asset, gear up and wait for the profits, but not necessarily in an era where debt is supposed to grow more slowly than GDP and Napier said it is clear there will need to be a period of adjustment where the flow of credit needs to be controlled. “It has to go to what they will define as productive, not speculative,” he said. “And I think Theresa May may have already used that phrase.

  “So we could be looking at a prolonged period of re-equitization of the whole financial system. It would happen tomorrow morning on the passage of one piece of legislation. The government bans the ability to deduct interest in the computation of corporation tax.”

  “Instantly, you’ve got a huge change. Now, do you think asset prices would go up in that environment? It seems to me that that policy, actually, would be a prime policy for financial repression. And I think if you take a longer term view– if you look at the structure of what we’ve built, it wouldn’t be a bad thing in the long term. You’d have to phase it in slowly.”

  Europe is the Battleground for Financial Repression

  The economic and political problems in Europe are well documented and this is where we could see the start of financial repression, Napier contends. In fact, its already been introduced twice with two countries having exchange controls imposed on them in the single currency block.

  “Everything’s possible. And the political justifications are Europe is going through a major reconsideration of its constitutional relationship. It’s deciding whether it’s going to have fiscal integration or not fiscal integration,” Napier said. “Now, against the background of that we can’t have the financial professionals front-running all of that.”

  No-one really cares about the call for capital controls when it’s happening in places like Greece and Cyprus, he adds, but if it happens in one market where people have significant liquid assets, then that changes everything.

  That is the crucial thing about the global impact of this,” Napier said, “If you de-liquify a major asset class– which is what a capital control does. It’s a de-liquefication event. As we know from financial history, that can be a solvency event for somebody. So that’s why I think it’s important.

  “You have to rank things by their probability and their importance. I think this is probable, and I think it changes the 21st century,” he said, adding that when he speaks to investment managers about it, they just want him to phone them up the day before it happens, which sums up the problem as far as he is concerned. “We have to ride this to the end,” Napier said. “I think if you’re a steward of other people’s money and savings and their savings for their pensions and their retirement, you don’t get to leave the party at one minute to midnight.”

  It all Comes Down to Financial History

  What it all boils down to is a lack of understanding and appreciation of financial history, which isn’t taught in business school, but it’s a subject close to Napier’s heart, which he has written and taught about at length. He’s even opened a library in Edinburgh, dedicated to financial history, called ‘The Library of Mistakes’.

  “They just don’t get it. They can’t cope with it. They don’t want to analyze it. They don’t want to talk about it. As far as they’re concerned, I’ll just buy good companies. I’ll stick with good companies. Everything will be fine. That will be what I’ll do,” he said.

  “Now, that didn’t work out so well in the great financial crisis. Nothing to do with politicians, but to do with more not understanding money and credit. But this time, they don’t want to get to grips with the politicians.”

  With Europe now in the process of potentially dissolving the euro for political reasons – nothing to do with economics and finance, which Napier said should have meant it would have been falling apart for years – it really highlights that politicians have been prepared to bend just about every rule to make it work

  “Clearly if you’ve read a bit of financial history, you can’t forecast with 100 degree accuracy. But politicians may ultimately be more forecast-able than the prices you’re trying to forecast every day,” he said.

  Watch the full interview on Real Vision TV , a dedicated financial television service featuring in-depth interviews with many of the worlds most respected investors, analysts, investment strategists and geopolitical analysts.  No ads, no bias, no bullshit.  Try it free for 7 days.
  
   

  

  

• The Unbearable Smugness Of The American Media

  Submitted by Will Rahn via CBS News

  The mood in the Washington press corps is bleak, and deservedly so.

  It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that, with a few exceptions, we were all tacitly or explicitly #WithHer, which has led to a certain anguish in the face of Donald Trump’s victory. More than that and more importantly, we also missed the story, after having spent months mocking the people who had a better sense of what was going on.

  This is all symptomatic of modern journalism’s great moral and intellectual failing: its unbearable smugness. Had Hillary Clinton won, there’s be a winking “we did it” feeling in the press, a sense that we were brave and called Trump a liar and saved the republic.

  So much for that. The audience for our glib analysis and contempt for much of the electorate, it turned out, was rather limited. This was particularly true when it came to voters, the ones who turned out by the millions to deliver not only a rebuke to the political system but also the people who cover it. Trump knew what he was doing when he invited his crowds to jeer and hiss the reporters covering him. They hate us, and have for some time.

  And can you blame them? Journalists love mocking Trump supporters. We insult their appearances. We dismiss them as racists and sexists. We emote on Twitter about how this or that comment or policy makes us feel one way or the other, and yet we reject their feelings as invalid.

  It’s a profound failure of empathy in the service of endless posturing. There’s been some sympathy from the press, sure: the dispatches from “heroin country” that read like reports from colonial administrators checking in on the natives. But much of that starts from the assumption that Trump voters are backward, and that it’s our duty to catalogue and ultimately reverse that backwardness. What can we do to get these people to stop worshiping their false god and accept our gospel?

  We diagnose them as racists in the way Dark Age clerics confused medical problems with demonic possession. Journalists, at our worst, see ourselves as a priestly caste. We believe we not only have access to the indisputable facts, but also a greater truth, a system of beliefs divined from an advanced understanding of justice.

  You’d think that Trump’s victory – the one we all discounted too far in advance – would lead to a certain newfound humility in the political press. But of course that’s not how it works. To us, speaking broadly, our diagnosis was still basically correct. The demons were just stronger than we realized.

  This is all a “whitelash,” you see. Trump voters are racist and sexist, so there must be more racists and sexists than we realized. Tuesday night’s outcome was not a logic-driven rejection of a deeply flawed candidate named Clinton; no, it was a primal scream against fairness, equality, and progress. Let the new tantrums commence!

  

   

  That’s the fantasy, the idea that if we mock them enough, call them racist enough, they’ll eventually shut up and get in line. It’s similar to how media Twitter works, a system where people who dissent from the proper framing of a story are attacked by mobs of smugly incredulous pundits. Journalists exist primarily in a world where people can get shouted down and disappear, which informs our attitudes toward all disagreement.

  Journalists increasingly don’t even believe in the possibility of reasoned disagreement, and as such ascribe cynical motives to those who think about things a different way. We see this in the ongoing veneration of “facts,” the ones peddled by explainer websites and data journalists who believe themselves to be curiously post-ideological.

  That the explainers and data journalists so frequently get things hilariously wrong never invites the soul-searching you’d think it would. Instead, it all just somehow leads us to more smugness, more meanness, more certainty from the reporters and pundits. Faced with defeat, we retreat further into our bubble, assumptions left unchecked. No, it’s the voters who are wrong.

  As a direct result, we get it wrong with greater frequency. Out on the road, we forget to ask the right questions. We can’t even imagine the right question. We go into assignments too certain that what we find will serve to justify our biases. The public’s estimation of the press declines even further — fewer than one-in-three Americans trust the press, per Gallup — which starts the cycle anew.

  There’s a place for opinionated journalism; in fact, it’s vital. But our causal, profession-wide smugness and protestations of superiority are making us unable to do it well.

  Our theme now should be humility. We must become more impartial, not less so. We have to abandon our easy culture of tantrums and recrimination. We have to stop writing these know-it-all, 140-character sermons on social media and admit that, as a class, journalists have a shamefully limited understanding of the country we cover.

  What’s worse, we don’t make much of an effort to really understand, and with too few exceptions, treat the economic grievances of Middle America like they’re some sort of punchline. Sometimes quite literally so, such as when reporters tweet out a photo of racist-looking Trump supporters and jokingly suggest that they must be upset about free trade or low wages.

  We have to fix this, and the broken reasoning behind it. There’s a fleeting fun to gang-ups and groupthink. But it’s not worth what we are losing in the process.

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Truth Is The Enemy Of The State

  Submitted by Bob Livingston via PersonalLiberty.com,

  There is a saw that comes from Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice” that “the truth will out.” But not if government has its way.

  That’s because truth is the enemy of the state. The state, meaning the apparatus of government, is “the system” that controls the American people.

  Most people believe they control the political system through elections. Little do they know that the government and the corporate state own and control the state and the people. In other words, the system is rigged, as Donald Trump says. The system must keep this information invisible and it does so through constant conditioning of the public mind.

  Now consider what has happened and is happening to Julian Assange. Consider Edward Snowden.

  Assange created WikiLeaks in 2006, exposing, among other things, malfeasance in the conduct of Bush the Lesser’s “War on Terror.” Progressive Democrats loved Assange then.

  But by 2010, with George W. Bush out of power and Barack Obama continuing old wars and starting new ones, the truths that were being outed by WikiLeaks were hitting too close to home. WikiLeaks got its hands on a treasure trove of State Department and Pentagon emails and documents being dispatched across the globe.

  I wrote at the time in “A war on the truth,” that what WikiLeaks was revealing was:

  …the result of a secretive, unaccountable and over-powerful government; a perfidious empire that seeks to rule the world by guile, cunning or force, if necessary. And the response by the United States government and by authorities in some of the U.S.’s puppet states — like Great Britain, which arrested Assange, and Sweden, which brought spurious charges of rape against him — demonstrate the length the ruling elites will go to suppress the truth.

   

  Truth is the enemy of a totalitarian regime. Fooling, lying, spying: That is the way of the totalitarian regime. Fooling, lying to and spying on friends and enemies, and even worse, its own citizens.

  Just before I wrote that, we now know, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was contemplating various ways to shut WikiLeaks down. During a November meeting, sources say, Clinton suddenly blurted out, “Can’t we just drone this guy?”

  According to sources present at the meeting:

  The statement drew laughter from the room which quickly died off when the Secretary kept talking in a terse manner, sources said. Clinton said Assange, after all, was a relatively soft target, “walking around” freely and thumbing his nose without any fear of reprisals from the United States. Clinton was upset about Assange’s previous 2010 records releases, divulging secret U.S. documents about the war in Afghanistan in July and the war in Iraq just a month earlier in October, sources said. At that time in 2010, Assange was relatively free and not living cloistered in in the embassy of Ecuador in London. Prior to 2010, Assange focused Wikileaks’ efforts on countries outside the United States but now under Clinton and Obama, Assange was hammering America with an unparalleled third sweeping Wikileaks document dump in five months. Clinton was fuming, sources said, as each State Department cable dispatched during the Obama administration was signed by her.

   

  Clinton and other top administration officials knew the compromising materials warehoused in the CableGate stash would provide critics and foreign enemies with a treasure trove of counterintelligence. Bureaucratic fears about the CableGate release ultimately proved to be well founded by Clinton, her inner circle and her boss in the White House.

  Efforts to shut down WikiLeaks included an American intelligence-initiated operation to entrap Assange in a phony rape charge. The U.S. government also pressured PayPal, VISA and MasterCard to shut down donations to WikiLeaks. The Swedish bank handling Assange’s legal defense fund was pressured by the U.S. government to freeze the account. The firm hosting WikiLeaks’ website was pressured to shut the site the down.

  Now WikiLeaks is revealing widespread corruption, vote rigging, media manipulation and other damning evidence against the Democrat Party, Hillary Clinton and her minions. WikiLeaks and Assange are prying the lid off the propaganda machine and exposing the corrupt system.

  In response, U.S. intelligence (an oxymoron) initiated another effort to entrap Assange in a sex-related scandal; this time by connecting him with a phony “dating site” and alleging he solicited sex with an 8-year-old girl.

  John Kerry’s State Department pressured Ecuador to cut off Assange’s internet connection. There is a new move afoot to figure a way to pry him out of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London and turn him over to U.S. authorities, where he will no doubt disappear into the bowels of indefinite detention.

  Only the power of propaganda keeps the people from overthrowing the U.S. government by force. So truth is the enemy of the state and the state will do everything it can to suppress it.

  That’s not surprising. What is surprising is the vast number of people on both “sides” of the political spectrum outside of government who see truth seekers and truth disseminators like Assange, Snowden and Bradley Manning as enemies rather than friends of liberty.

  

  

• 5 Shot, 2 Life-Threatening Injuries During Anti-Trump Protest In Seattle

  Following an afternoon and evening of protests decrying the election of Donald Trump as America’s next president, The Seattle Times reports, police are responding to reports that at least four people were shot downtown Wednesday night.

  Officers were converging on the area of Third and Pike.  

  

  An anti-Trump rally, which started at Westlake Mall, turned into a march and was proceeding down nearby streets at the time of the shootings, according to witnesses.

  Video from Seattle…

  seattle rn pic.twitter.com/sCe3UPsZtg

  — _ (@thricedotted) November 10, 2016

  I just heard shots fired on 3rd and Pine. Massive scene- I can see one person on the ground #Q13FOX pic.twitter.com/4LC7lAtZue

  — Jamie Tompkins (@JamieQ13FOX) November 10, 2016

  Very large police response in downtown Seattle following report of shooting with several injured; at least 2 seen transported pic.twitter.com/2i3BITijai

  — Jimmy Lovaas (@jimmylovaas) November 10, 2016

   

  More details to follow…

  

  Seattle Fire Dept confirm 5 short, 2 life-threatening injuries…

  Seattle Fire crews treating 5 patients with gunshot wounds. 2 of the 5 with life-threatening injuries. Medics transporting to HMC. pic.twitter.com/HTtHejkTpc

  — Seattle Fire Dept (@SeattleFire) November 10, 2016

  

  

• Anarchists Storm US Consulate, Protest Obama's Visit To Greece

  Anarchists entered the US Consulate in Thessaloniki, Northern Greece and threw flyers opposing the upcoming visit of Barack Obama to Greece. As KeepTalkingGreece.com reports, a group of some 15 people reportedly entered the building where the Consulate is located on the 7th floor on Tuesday morning. They chanted slogans, threw flyers in the corridors and attempted to open banners.

   

  

  Police rushed to the area and detained six of the protesters.

  According to Athens News Agency, the “Anarchist Collective of Rubicon” and the “Libertarian Thessaloniki Initiative” uploaded a text in a website of the Greek anti-authoritarian movement. They stated that “the visit of the outgoing US President, Barack Obama in Greece on the eve of the anniversary of the [Students’] Polytechnic uprising (and thus under a left government) is anything but a courtesy visit. The content of the visit could be summed up as “business as usual” and it is known that such “jobs are dirty with the blood of the people.”

  The group Rubicon is known for raiding and entering even public buildings and public transport stations to protest the state mechanisms.

  

  

• The Source Of Our Rage: The Ruling Elite Is Protected For The Consequences Of Its Dominance

  Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

  ELECTION NOTE: As I write this Tuesday evening, it appears Donald Trump may win the presidency. For those who cannot understand how anyone could possibly vote for Trump, please read the above essay again and ponder what people were voting against by voting for Trump.

   

  They may well have been voting against the corrupt, self-serving status quo rather than voting for the individual Donald Trump.

   

  There are very few opportunities for powerless non-elites to register their disapproval of the nation's Ruling Elite and the corrupt status quo. Voting for an outsider in a national election is one such rare opportunity.

   

  As I noted in October, The Ruling Elite Has Lost the Consent of the Governed (October 20, 2016).

   

  If you still don't understand how Trump could win, please read the below essay as many times as is necessary for you to get it: the status quo of corrupt self-serving insiders generates injustice and inequality as its only possible output.

  There are many sources of rage: injustice, the destruction of truth, powerlessness. But if we had to identify the one key source of non-elite rage that cuts across all age, ethnicity, gender and regional boundaries, it is this: The Ruling Elite is protected from the destructive consequences of its predatory dominance.

  We see this reality across the entire political, social and economic landscape.

  If I had to pick one chart that illustrates the widening divide between the Ruling Elite and the non-elites, it is this chart of wages as a share of the nation's output (GDP): 46 years of relentless decline, interrupted by gushing fountains of credit and asset bubbles that enriched the few while leaving the economic landscape of the many in ruins.

  

  The Ruling Elite once had an obligation to uphold the social contract as a responsibility that came with their vast privilege, power and wealth (i.e. noblesse oblige).

  America's Ruling Elite has transmogrified into an incestuous self-serving few unapologetically plundering the many. In their hubris-soaked arrogance, their right to rule is unquestioningly based on their moral and intellectual superiority to "the little people" they loot with abandon.

  Rather than feel a responsibility to the nation, America's Elite views the status quo as a free pass to self-aggrandizement.

  Much has changed in America in the past 46 years. Not only have wages and salaries declined as a share of "economic growth," but the wealth that has been generated has flowed to the top of the wealth/power pyramid (see chart below).

  Social mobility has also declined drastically: Restoring America’s Economic Mobility, as has trust in government and key institutions.

  As Frank Buckley, the author of The Way Back: Restoring the Promise of America observed:

  "In a corrupt country, trust is a rare commodity. That’s America today. Only 19 percent of Americans say they trust the government most of the time, down from 73 percent in 1958 according to the Pew Research Center."

  The top .01% has seen its share of the household wealth triple from 7% to 22% in the past four decades, while the share of the nation's wealth owned by the bottom 90% has plummeted from 36% to 23%.

  

  As I described in America's Ruling Elite Has Failed and Deserves to Be Fired and Now That the Presidential-Election Side Show Is Finally Ending…., the economy is rapidly undergoing structural changes that tend to reward the top 5% class of technocrats and managers and the top .1% with millions in mobile capital, while leaving the bottom 95% in the dust.

  

  Rather than address this rising inequality directly and honestly, the Ruling Elite has parroted propaganda and policies that protect their gains while obfuscating the reality that most American households have been losing ground for decades, a decline that has been masked by replacing real income with rising debt.

  The ceaseless parroting of the Ruling Elite and the Mainstream Media that prosperity has been rising for everyone is nothing less than the destruction of truth. This propaganda has one purpose: to mask the inequality and injustice built into the American status quo.

  The rapid concentration of wealth has also concentrated political power in the hands of a few who seamlessly combine public and private modes of power.

  This wealth and power protects the Ruling Elite from the perverse consequences of their dominance. Their precious offspring rarely serve at the point of the American military's spear, they never lose their jobs or income when corporations shift production (and R&D, etc.) overseas, and they are never replaced with illegal immigrants paid under the table.

  Rather, the Ruling Elite is pleased to pay immigrants a pittance to care for their children, clean their luxe homes, walk their dogs, etc.

  This is why we're enraged: we bear the consequences of the Ruling Elite's dominance. The system is rigged to benefit the few, who use their wealth and power to protect themselves from the destructive consequences of their self-serving dominance.

  This rage is as yet inchoate, sensed but not yet understood as the inevitable result of a broken system and a predatory Elite that exploits the system to maximize their private gain by any means available.

  

  

• After Bashing "Son Of A Whore" Obama, Philippines' Duterte Congratulates, Wants To Work With Trump

  Trump has barely been president elect for one day, and he is already fixing the foreign policy mistake of his predecessor.

  What a difference a presidential election makes: after lashing out on an almost daily basis at outgoing American president Barack Obama, calling him “son of a whore” and telling him he can “go to hell”, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte joined Vladimir Putin in congratulating Donald Trump on his election success, and said on Wednesday he now wishes to stop quarrelling with the United States, recalling his anger at the Obama administration for criticising him.

  The maverick leader, incidentally known as “Trump of the East” for his unrestrained rants and lewd remarks, has repeatedly hit out at Washington in recent months, threatening to cut defense pacts and end military joint drills. “I would like to congratulate Mr. Donald Trump. Long live,” Duterte said in a speech to the Filipino community during a visit to Malaysia.

  

  “We are both making curses. Even with trivial matters we curse. I was supposed to stop because Trump is there. I don’t want to quarrel anymore, because Trump has won” he said cited by Reuters.

  Duterte, who as profiled previously won a May election by a huge margin and is often compared with Trump, having himself been the alternative candidate from outside of national politics, campaigned on a populist, anti-establishment platform and struck a chord among ordinary Filipinos with his promises to fix what he called a broken country.

  But the biggest fixture of Duterte’s presidency so far has been his hostility toward the Obama White House, expressed in near-daily eruptions of anger over its concerns about human rights abuses during his deadly war on drugs.

  He also threatened on numerous occasions to sever a military relationship that has been a key element of Washington’s “pivot” to Asia.

  Duterte on Wednesday told Filipinos how angry he had been at Washington, saying it had threatened to cut off aid and had treated the Philippines like a dog tied to a post. “They talk as if we are still the colonies,” he said. “You do not give us the aid, shit, to hell with you,” he said, recalling comments he had directed at Obama. In retrospect, we can partially commiserate with the outgoing administration: it is not exactly clear what the proper response to such daily verbal diarrhea is.

  Ironically, with the Obama administration having effectively lost the Philippines as a core strategic ally in the Pacific Rim, it was Trump who told Reuters that the Philippines was a very important strategic location and that Duterte’s comments about removing foreign troops showed “a lack of respect for our country.”

  Judging by Duterte’s sudden change of heart, it wasn’t lack of respect for the country, just the individual in charge of it.

  On the other hand, for some reason we get the feeling that once the US Trump and the “Trump of the East”, the outcome will be quite volatile, if extremely entertaining.

  

  

• How Did The Media Pollsters Get The Election So Wrong?

  The day before the 2016 US Presidential Election, most pollsters and statistical models had pegged Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning at greater than 90%.

  However, as VisualCapitalst’s Jeff Desjardin noted yesterday, the consensus view is not to be trusted in a post-Brexit world.

  Here’s what went wrong:

   

  

  Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

   

  We looked at the predictions made by 12 major newspapers and pollsters the day before the election, to see where they went wrong.

  For Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire – not a single source gave an edge to Republicans.

  For Florida and North Carolina, the pollsters were slightly less reckless. The Associated Press correctly had the Sunshine State as “leaning red”, while the Huffington Post saw North Carolina ultimately voting Trump.

  After this and the Brexit polling disaster, the media is sure to be much more cautious with their models going into the next big political event.

  

  

• Soros-Sponsored Social Justice Warriors Besiege Trump Tower – Live Feed

  Seemingly unwilling to accept the results of the democratic selection of the nation's leader for the next four years, hundreds of grieving Hillary Clinton supporters – egged on by George Soros' MoveOn.org – are laying siege to Trump Tower in New York City. Screaming "Fuck Donald Trump", yelling "Not My President", chanting "Pussy Grabs Back", and burning the American flag, it appears these young millennials are just the kind of deplorables this country should be proud of…

  As NBC's Katy Tur exclaimed "It's surreal in NYC. People are walking around like zombies with thousand yard stares."

  MoveOn.org released the following press release Wednesday afternoon:

  Americans to Come Together in Hundreds Peaceful Gatherings of Solidarity, Resistance, and Resolve Following Election Results

   

  Hundreds of Americans, dozens of organizations to gather peacefully outside the White House and in cities and towns nationwide to take a continued stand against misogyny, racism, Islamophobia, and xenophobia.

   

  Tonight, thousands of Americans will come together at hundreds of peaceful gatherings in cities and towns across the nation, including outside the White House, following the results of Tuesday’s presidential election.

   

  The gatherings – organized by MoveOn.org and allies – will affirm a continued rejection of Donald Trump’s bigotry, xenophobia, Islamophobia, and misogyny and demonstrate our resolve to fight together for the America we still believe is possible.

   

  Within two hours of the call-to-action, MoveOn members had created more than 200 gatherings nationwide, with the number continuing to grow on Wednesday afternoon.

   

  WHAT: Hundreds of peaceful gatherings of solidarity, resistance, and resolve nationwide

   

  WHEN / WHERE: Find local gatherings here. Major gatherings include in New York City’s Columbus Circle and outside the White House in Washington, DC.

   

  RSVP: Please email press@moveon.org to confirm attendance.

   

  “This is a disaster. We fought our hearts out to avert this reality. But now it’s here,” MoveOn.org staff wrote to members on Wednesday. “The new president-elect and many of his most prominent supporters have targeted, demeaned, and threatened millions of us—and millions of our friends, family, and loved ones. Both chambers of Congress remain in Republican hands. We are entering an era of profound and unprecedented challenge, a time of danger for our communities and our country. In this moment, we have to take care of ourselves, our families, and our friends—especially those of us who are on the front lines facing hate, including Latinos, women, immigrants, refugees, Black people, Muslims, LGBT Americans, and so many others. And we need to make it clear that we will continue to stand together.”

  Live Feed from New York's Trump Tower…

   

  The 'basket' of protesters marched up through Times Square…

  Thousands march through Times Square protesting Trump pic.twitter.com/eZahsVTWSQ

  — Katy Tur (@KatyTurNBC) November 10, 2016

  Images of the deplorable behavior…

   

  

  

  

  

  

  

• Meanwhile, From Canada…

  Submitted by Jim Quinn via The Burning Platform blog,

  h/t Robmu1

  The flood of Trump-fearing American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has intensified in the past week. The Republican presidential campaign is prompting an exodus among left-leaning Americans who fear they’ll soon be required to hunt, pray, pay taxes, and live according to the Constitution.

  Canadian border residents say it’s not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, liberal arts majors, global-warming activists, and “green” energy proponents crossing their fields at night.

  “I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in the barn,” said southern Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota. “He was cold, exhausted and hungry, and begged me for a latte and some free-range chicken. When I said I didn’t have any, he left before I even got a chance to show him my screenplay, eh?”

  In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher fences, but the liberals scaled them. He then installed loudspeakers that blared Rush Limbaugh across the fields, but they just stuck their fingers in their ears and kept coming. Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals just south of the border, pack them into electric cars, and drive them across the border, where they are simply left to fend for themselves after the battery dies.

  “A lot of these people are not prepared for our rugged conditions,” an Alberta border patrolman said. “I found one carload without a single bottle of Perrier water, or any gemelli with shrimp and arugula. All they had was a nice little Napa Valley cabernet and some kale chips. When liberals are caught, they’re sent back across the border, often wailing that they fear persecution from Trump high-hairers.

  Rumors are circulating about plans being made to build re-education camps where liberals will be forced to drink domestic beer, study the Constitution, and find jobs that actually contribute to the economy.

  In recent days, liberals have turned to ingenious ways of crossing the border. Some have been disguised as senior citizens taking a bus trip to buy cheap Canadian prescription drugs. After catching a half-dozen young vegans in blue-hair wig disguises, Canadian immigration authorities began stopping buses and quizzing the supposed senior citizens about Perry Como and Rosemary Clooney to prove that they were alive in the ’50s.

  “If they can’t identify the accordion player on The Lawrence Welk Show, we become very suspicious about their age,” an official said.

  Canadian citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are creating an organic-broccoli shortage, are buying up all the Barbara Streisand CD’s, and are overloading the internet while downloading jazzercise apps to their cell phones.

  “I really feel sorry for American liberals, but the Canadian economy just can’t support them,” an Ottawa resident said. “After all, how many art-history majors does one country need?”

  *  *  *

  Fact or Fiction?
  

  

  

• European Politicians Terrified By "Horror Scenario" After Brexit, Trump

  First it was Brexit, then there was Trump. Two “shocking” events that nobody in the media, markets or punditry could admit could possibly happen. They happened… and that’s just the beginning – as we showed last night, the political calendar over the next two years is only heating up, with countless potential “black swan” events – often involving nationalist tendencies or outright separatism, and further hits to the establishment status quo – on the horizon.

  

  Most of these events take place in Europe, a powderkeg of simmering anger and resentment built up over the centuries of artificially enforced borders cutting across religions, ethnicities and cultures, which has only been swept under the rug over the past several decades with the help of an artificial customs and monetary union which is increasingly unstable. As such, even the smallest domino can push the entire continent into a state of terminal socio-economic collapse.

  And both Europe, and the globalist establishment, know this.

  The “horror scenario”

  Which is why back in May, when Donald’s Trump’s victory in the U.S. presidential election seemed the remotest of possibilities, a senior European official took to Twitter before a G7 summit in Tokyo to warn of a “horror scenario“.

  Imagine, said the official quoted by Reuters, if instead of Barack Obama, Francois Hollande, David Cameron and Matteo Renzi, next year’s meeting of the club of rich nations included Trump, Marine Le Pen, Boris Johnson and Beppe Grillo: truly a horror for an exclusive group of aloof elitists who enjoy sneering on the same people whom they take advantage of every single day.

  A month after Martin Selmayr, the head of European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s cabinet made the comment, Britain shocked the world by voting to leave the European Union. Cameron stepped down as prime minister and Johnson – the former London mayor who helped swing Britons behind Brexit – became foreign minister. Now, five months later, with Trump’s triumph over his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, the populist tsunami that seemed outlandish a few months ago is becoming reality, and the consequences for Europe’s own political landscape are potentially huge.

  This is why Europe is suddenly terrified that what until June seemed impossible, is now all too likely: in 2017, voters in the Netherlands, France and Germany – and possibly in Italy and Britain too – will vote in elections that could be coloured by the triumphs of Trump and Brexit, and the toxic politics that drove those campaigns.

  And, as Reuters writes, the lessons will not be lost on continental Europe’s populist parties, who hailed Trump’s victory on Wednesday as a body blow for the political mainstream. “Politics will never be the same,” said Geert Wilders of the far-right Dutch Freedom Party. “What happened in America can happen in Europe and the Netherlands as well.”

  Just like after Brexit, French National Front founder Jean-Marie Le Pen was similarly ebullient. “Today the United States, tomorrow France,” Le Pen, the father of the party’s leader Marine Le Pen, tweeted.

  Trump as a Model

  Daniela Schwarzer, director of research at the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP), said Trump’s bare-fisted tactics against his opponents and the media provided a model for populist European parties that have exercised comparative restraint on a continent that still remembers World War Two. “The broken taboos, the extent of political conflict, the aggression that we’ve seen from Trump, this can widen the scope of what becomes thinkable in our own political culture,” Schwarzer said.

  Perhaps it is not the “political conflict” or aggression from Trump that Daniela is worried about; perhaps it is the threat of a truly democratic vote in a world in which all the benefits of crony capitalism and suppressed representation have gone exclusively to the 1%, something which is now openly known and resented by the rest of the increasingly angry population. And, as both Brexit and Trump have shown, an angry, education population is the worst possible enemy of any elitist, globalist clique.

  Italy and Austria

  Europe will get the first taste of its own “Trump Moment” as early as next month, when on December 4 Austrians will vote in a presidential election that could see Norbert Hofer of the Freedom Party become the first far-right head of state to be freely elected in western Europe since 1945. On the same day, a constitutional reform referendum on which Prime Minister Renzi has staked his future could upset the political order in Italy, pushing Grillo’s left-wing 5-Star movement closer to the reins of power.

  Channeling Donald Trump, local Euroskeptic politician and comedian, Beppe Grillo said that “an epoch has gone up in flames. The real demagogues are the press, intellectuals, who are anchored to a world that no longer exists.”

  Right-wing parties are already running governments in Poland and Hungary. In western Europe, the likelihood of a Trump figure taking power seems remote for now but that too is rapidly changing. In Europe’s parliamentary democracies, traditional parties from the right and left have set aside historical rivalries, banding together to keep out the populists.

  But the lesson from the Brexit vote is that parties do not have to be in government to shape the political debate, said Tina Fordham, chief global political analyst at Citi. She cited the anti-EU UK Independence Party which has just one seat in the Westminster parliament. “UKIP did poorly in the last election but had a huge amount influence over the political dynamic in Britain,” Fordham said. “The combination of the Brexit campaign and Trump have absolutely changed the way campaigns are run.”

  On Wednesday, UKIP leader Nigel Farage hailed Trump’s victory on Wednesday as a “supersized Brexit”.

  Europe’s Political Limbo

  As new political movements emerge, traditional parties will find it increasingly difficult to form coalitions and hold them together.  In Spain, incumbent Mariano Rajoy was returned to power last week but only after two inconclusive elections in which voters fled his conservatives and their traditional rival on the left, the Socialists, for two new parties, Podemos and Ciudadanos. After 10 months of political limbo, Rajoy finds himself atop a minority government that is expected to struggle to pass laws, implement reforms and plug holes in Spain’s public finances.

  The virus of political fragility could spread next year from Spain to the Netherlands, where Wilders’s Freedom Party is neck-and-neck in opinion polls with Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s liberals. For Rutte to stay in power after the election in March, he may be forced to consider novel, less-stable coalition options with an array of smaller parties, including the Greens.

  The Le Pen Factor

  In France, which has a presidential system, the chances of Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right National Front, emerging victorious are seen as slim. According to Reuters, the odds-on favourite to win the presidential election next spring is Alain Juppe, a 71-year-old centrist with extensive experience in government who has tapped into a yearning for responsible leadership after a decade of disappointment from Francois Hollande and Nicolas Sarkozy.

  Then again if there is anything the Trump election has shown, is how woefully bad the polling industry has become and how incapable it is to deal with a splintering society that no longer conforms to historical norms. In a sign of Le Pen’s strength, polls show she will win more support than any other politician in the first round of the election. Even if she loses the second round run-off, as polls suggest, her performance is likely to be seen as a watershed moment for continental Europe’s far-right. It could give her a powerful platform from which to fight the reforms that Juppe and his conservative rivals for the presidency are promising.

  The Heart of Europe

  And then there is the country at the center of its all. In Germany, where voters go to the polls next autumn, far-right parties have struggled to gain a foothold in the post-war era because of the dark history of the Nazis, but that too is changing. Just three years old, the anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany (AfD), has become a force at the national level, unsettling Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives, who have been punished in a series of regional votes because of her welcoming policy towards refugees.

  Merkel could announce as early as next month that she plans to run for a fourth term, and if she does run, current polls suggest she would win. But she would do so as a diminished figure in a country that is perhaps more divided than at any time in the post-war era. Even Merkel’s conservative sister party, the Bavarian Christian Social Union, has refused to endorse her.

  * * *

  One year ago, Europe would have ignored any potential risks from the vote of society’s “fringe.” Now, after the two biggest political shocks in recent “developed nation” history, it can no longer afford to leave any outcome to chance, which means that the contemplated “horror scenario” is an all too real threat for the European’s political oligarchy. The question we have, however, is whether similar to previous occasions in which the establishment status quo has found itself trapped, Europe’s political elite will do anything and everything to stay in power, even if that means engage in preemptive “horrors” of its own against its own people. Sadly, Europe’s history is all too full of precisely such examples and if there is anything the recent leaked glimpses into the decisionmaking process of the elite have confirmed, it is that one can no longer discount any theoretical outcome, no matter how ridiculous or “conspiratorial” it may appear at first glance.

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Huffington Post Ends Editor's Note Calling Trump "Serial Liar, Rampant Xenophobe, Racist, Misogynist"

  For months, every story on the Huffington Post about Trump came with a disclaimer at the end describing him as a “serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist,” among other things.  Now, according to Politico, a note sent to HuffPo staff from the organization’s Washington Bureau Chief, Ryan Grim, on Tuesday evening said the disclaimer will no longer be used in an effort create a “clean slate”.

  “Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.”

  Of course, Huffington Post spokeswoman Sujata Mitra noted that the plan all along was to remove the “Editor’s Note” after the election cycle…of course, because the point was to block a Trump presidency which didn’t really work out that well apparently.

  “The thinking is that (assuming he wins) that he’s now president and we’re going to start with a clean slate,” Grim wrote in the memo, obtained by POLITICO. “If he governs in a racist, misogynistic way, we reserve the right to add it back on. This would be giving respect to the office of the presidency which Trump and his backers never did.”

   

  “This note was added to stories about presidential candidate Donald Trump during the election cycle,” Huffington Post spokeswoman Sujata Mitra wrote in a statement. “Now that the election is over, we will no longer be adding the note to future stories, as he is no longer a presidential candidate.”

  Seems like Ariana probably should have accepted this board position from PMUSA…turns out her “independence” wasn’t all that “useful” to Hillary after all.

  “She is enthusiastic abt the project but asks if she’s more useful to us not being on the Board and, instead, using Huffpo to echo our message without any perceived conflicts. She has a point.”

  

  

  

• Yale Professor Makes Exam Optional Due To Student Shock Over Presidential Election

  Students are being triggered across the nation tonight and so one Yale Economics professor has taken a stand to protect the special snowflakes are they wrote him expressing shock over the outcome of the presidential election… by making their exams optional.

   

  

  h/t @Jon_Victor_

  

  

• Meanwhile, At Hillary Clinton's Headquarters: Tragedy

  It was supposed to be a night of joy, celebrations and breaking “glass ceilings.” It is now nothing short of tragedy.

  despite a palpable buzz in the air at the start of the evening, the crowd grew quiet as the swing states of North Carolina and Florida went to the Republican presidential nominee. Michigan, New Hampshire and Wisconsin all look as though they could swing for Trump, as well. Pardon, president Trump.

  “I feel nauseous,” one top campaign official for Clinton told People before slipping behind a black curtain beyond which reporters were barred.

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

• S&P & Nasdaq Limit-Down, Erase 2016 Gains, Peso Plunges To Record Low As Trump Victory Looks Assured

  This chart tells the whole story of the night: Trump – the massive underdog – appears to have pulled off precisely what he promised to do: Brexit times 10, having won virtually every key battleground state including Ohio, North Carolina and moments ago, Florida.

  

  The latest electoral map:

  

  

  *  *  *

  Futures

  • S&P: -5%
  • FTSE: -5%
  • DAX: -5%
  • Nikkei: -6.3%
  • Crude: -3.8%
  • Peso/USD: -13%
  • Dollar Index: -2%
  • Gold: +4.3%
  • 30-Yr Treasury: +1.2%

  Who could have seen this coming?

  

   

  S&P and Nasdaq are limit down…

  

   

  Nasdaq has given up 2016 gains…

  

   

  Nikke Futures are down 1000 points…

  

   

  USDJPY overnight vol at its highest since Lehman…

  

   

  10Y yields have plunged most since Brexit…

  

   

  December rate hike odds have collapsed to 50-50…

  

   

  S&P 500 Futures are very near limit down…

  

   

  AP has called Florida for Trump…

  

   

  US equities are down almost 5% from the close… (S&P -100, Dow -700, Nasdaq -200)

  

  Every market is in turmoil…

  

   

  These are the key battleground states that Trump won tonight against all odds:

  • Florida
  • Georgia
  • Iowa
  • North Carolina
  • Ohio
  • Utah

  And, more shockingly, he appears set to win Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Arizona.

  *  *  *

  Update 1046:

  Trump is projected to win North Carolina by FOX

  * * *

  Update 10:32PM

   

  *  *  *

  Update 10:24pm

  NBC project Trump winner in Ohio, and sees 168 electoral college votes for Trump, 109 for Clinton

  * * *

  Update 10:15pm

  Total bloodbath in markets – Peso has crashed to record lows above 20/$ and Dow Futures are down over 650 points…

  

   

  VIX Futures are soaring above 22 and Gold is above $1310…

  

  *  *  *

  Update 10:00 pm

  Donald trump is prijected to win Montana, Hillary Clinton is projected to win Virginia.

  * * *

  Update 9:40pm

  Donald Trump is declared winner in Louisiana; Hillary Clinton is projected to win Connecticut.

  * * *

  Update 9:13pm

  Trump declared winner in Texas, Arkansas

  * * *

  Update: 09.10pm

  Clinton is projected to win New York; Trump Wins Dakotas, Kansas, Wyoming

  * * *

  Update 09:04pm

  Bloodbath in markets as Trump leads in Florida and Ohio…

  

  *  *  *

  Update 8:33pm

  • REPUBLICANS MAINTAIN CONTROL OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: NBC

  *  *  *

  Update 8:04pm

  Peso and Stocks are soaring as Clinton leads Florida and takes 68-48 lead in early states.

  

   

  * * *

  Update 7:41pm

  And the first votes from Ohio start coming in, and once again, Trump is in the early lead with 1% of the vote counter.

  

  * * *

  Update 7:36pm

  The fight for Florida is furious, and with 46% of the vote counted, Trump has again regained a small, 25% lead.

  

  Meanwhile, with 2% of the vote in North Carolina, another must win state for Trump, he has an early lead.

  

  * * *

  Update 7:32pm

  CNN and NBC News have called West Virginia for Trump leaving him leading Hillary by 24 to 3.

  

  *  *  *

  Update 7:30pm

  It is all about Florida, where in a close race, Trump and Hillary have been trading the lead, and with 36% of the vote, Hilllary has a 49.2% lead to Trump's 48.0%

  

  * * *

  Update 7:04pm

  While the early states were heavily republican and thus a given for Trump – where he was just projected winner –  moments ago votes have begun comiking in from key battleground states including Florida (29 electoral votes) and Virginia (13). As well as Georgia (16), South Carolina (9) and Vermont (3), which was just called for Hillary.

  As of this moment Trump has won 19 electoral votes, while Hillary has 3.

  With 12% of the vote in, Trump has a modest lead in Florida, and a bigger lead in Georgia.

  

  Meanwhile, in Virginia, with 3% of the vote counted, Trump has a 57.1% lead over Clinton.

  

  * * *

  Update 7:00pm.

  And following Trump, commanding lead in the first states, CNN just called Indiana and Kentucky for Donald Trump; while Hillary clinton projected to win Vermont.

  While it is still very early in the evening, with only a handful of the early votes counted, the first results are coming in and Trump – at least for now – has the lead in both republican strongholds of Kentucky and Indiana with some 70% of the vote, in line with expectations.

  Trump's early lead is thanks to Kentucky and Indiana.

  

  Live feed from Bloomberg:

   

  * * *

  

  

• Donald's Trump Victory Odds Rise Above 95%

  To get a sense of what is going on with Hillary Clinton’s winning changes, look no further than the following chart courtesy of the NYT, which has seen Hillary’s victory odds plunge from 80% to less than 5%, as Trump’s, which were at 13% just a few hours ago, are now over 95%. Or, as some would say, game over.

  And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why you should never listen to forecasters.

  

  

  

• Market Crashes As Traders Suddenly Worried Trump Can Win

  After some early shenanigans, the markets are turmoiling as Trump takes an unexpected lead in several battleground states including Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina

  

   

  The Peso plunged above 19/$, Dow Futures crashed below 18,000 and Gold is testing towards $1300…

  

   

  This massive puke has erased all the post-Comey gains (or losses in Gold) – Dow down 450 points, Peso crashed 9%!

  

   

  This is the biggest crash in the Peso since The 1994 Tequila Crisis…

  

  

  

• Major Networks Confirm That Republicans Will Retain Control Of The House

  As expected, all the major networks are now projecting that Republicans will maintain control of the House of Representatives.  While it’s unclear exactly what the balance of power will ultimately be, it was always fairly unlikely that Democrats would be able to make up their 30-seat deficit.  Now, all eyes will turn to the key Senate races around the country where Democrats have a much better chance of taking over the majority.

  As The Hill points out, while many House races are still underway several seats have already flipped parties in Florida.

  Republican Neal Dunn defeated Democrat Walter Dartland in Florida’s 2nd district. That seat was vacated by retiring Rep. Gwen Graham (D-Fla.). The Florida Panhandle-area seat had become even more favorable to Republicans this year due to redistricting.

   

  In southeastern Florida, Republican Brian Mast prevailed over Democrat Randy Perkins. The seat had been vacated by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Fla.), who ran for Senate and lost earlier in the evening to Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).

   

  Democrats evened out those losses with two gains of their own in Florida.

   

  In district 10, former Orlando police chief Val Demings cruised to victory. Demings is the first woman and first African-American to represent the district. The district had previously been represented by Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.), who decided to run for reelection this year in another district.

   

  Former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist defeated Rep. David Jolly (R-Fla.) in a district that had become more Democratic thanks to redrawn boundaries. Jolly had originally run for Senate but decided to run for reelection after Rubio reversed course on keeping his seat.

  With Republicans now confirmed to to maintain control of the House the focus will be on how many seats Democrats are able to pick up overall as it will have a big impact on Paul Ryan’s chances of retaining the Speakership.  Per The Hill, Democrats would declare a victory if they’re able to pick up 20 seats or more while Republicans will be deemed the victors if they keep the lost seats below 10.

  If Democrats can gain as many as 20 seats, it will be seen as a significant victory. And if Republicans can keep Democratic gains to single digits, it would be seen as a victory for them.

   

  A smaller House GOP majority would make Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) job all the more difficult in the next Congress starting in January 2017.

  Meanwhile, as of right now, 158 of the 277 House seats up for grabs have been called with Republicans having a 32 seat advantage.

  

   

  With that, all eyes turn to the Senate and Clinton vs. Trump which is looking more and more like it will be a long battle.

  

  

• Massive Sinkhole Swallows Entire Intersection In Japan

  A gigantic sinkhole has opened up in the southwestern Japanese city of Fukuoka, swallowing an entire intersection of a 4-lane highway.  While the cause of the sinkhole is still under investigation, crews were working underground nearby to extend a subway tunnel and are thought to have triggered the collapse.

  No injuries or casualties were reported though over 100 buildings in the area were cut off the electricity grid.  Police have evacuated nearby buildings and closed the roads leading to the pit, which officials are reporting currently measures about 20 meters in diameter.

  Street collapses in heart of Fukuoka, Japan, creating a massive sinkhole and cutting off power to parts of the city. https://t.co/JMqfyAyaRV pic.twitter.com/qZdp7xVUJK

  — ABC News (@ABC) November 8, 2016

  Giant sinkhole opens up in city streets of Fukuoka Japan pic.twitter.com/H1KmDKq8Hz

  — Gautam Trivedi (@Gotham3) November 8, 2016

  ?????????? pic.twitter.com/tq9dmAGsPG

  — ???????? (@utintibinbou) November 7, 2016

   

   

  

  

• Your Complete Guide To Election Day And Night: What To Watch For And When

  It’s almost over: the most divisive, theatrical, dramatic and dirty presidential campaign will be in the history books in just a few hours, with more than 130 million Americans expected to cast ballots across 50 states. However, just winning the popular vote will be insufficient: indeed, it may well be that the popular-vote winner does not win the electoral college.

  So which states should one be looking at, and how long is the final day’s drama set to continue?

  For the benefit of the traders out there, last week we showed a primer from Citigroup explaining when traders can hope to go home on election evening, according to which it was “all about Florida, North Carolina and Ohio.”

  As Citi said, for traders hoping to capitalize on volatility next Tuesday as the election results come trickling in, it may all be over by early evening, at least if Trump loses. That is the calculation of Citi’s Steven Englander, who determined that if Trump loses either Florida or North Carolina or Ohio “the math doesn’t work and it tells us that the shift to Trump was not as pronounced as feared.”

  Those states close at 7:00 or 7:30 ET. As Citi adds, even if Trump loses by a little in one of these states, it becomes almost impossible for him to win. It would take a tidal wave in a couple of states that look firmly Democrat.  Citi helpfully added that “the odds that he loses, say a Florida or North Carolina, but wins a Pennsylvania do not seem high” at which point “vol collapses, MXN rallies and we go home early.”

  However, in a hint that tomorrow may be a very long night for traders – recall that Brexit was an all-nighter, which briefly saw ES halted limit down – the just released “no toss up” map from RCP based on the latest polling, shows Trump winning all three of these key states, and suddenly opening up the prospect not only for much more volatility, and yet another all-nighter, but potentially a Trump victory, something the market after today’s furious rally, is certainly not prepared for.

   

  In any event, no matter the fate of these three states, here is a full preview of tomorrow’s election night.

  The following chart from Morgan Stanley summarizes what times polls close for any given state as well as the number of electoral votes afforded to each:

  

  As the FT observes, this year’s election is being fought hardest in 10 states: Arizona (11 electoral college votes), Colorado (9), Florida (29), Iowa (6), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), North Carolina (15), Ohio (18), Pennsylvania (20) and Virginia (13). Clinton starts with an advantage in the electoral college and can afford to lose traditional battlegrounds such as Florida and Ohio. But if that happens, falling short in states such as Pennsylvania and North Carolina could prove fatal to her presidential ambitions. On the other hand, as noted above, if Trump does not win in Florida and Ohio, his chances of victory will be non-existent. One key could be the size of the turnout of Latino voters in Arizona, Florida and Nevada, which have large Hispanic populations. Another could be whether African-American voters go to the polls at a high rate in North Carolina and Ohio.

  

   

  What to watch for during the day, courtesy of Bloomberg:

  • 12 am – Voting is already over in Dixville Notch, the New Hampshire hamlet that delivered a 5-5 tie in the 2012 race between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. This time, Clinton received four votes, Trump two and Gary Johnson one, with a write-in vote for Mitt Romney, AP reported. Election Day has, finally, arrived.
  • 6 am – Polls are open in eight states, including battlegrounds Virginia and New Hampshire, as well as in New York, where Clinton votes at a public school in Chappaqua, Trump at a public school in Manhattan.
     
  • 8 am – VoteCastr, which aims to break Election Day’s “traditional information embargo,” goes live on Slate.com with estimates based on early voting in Florida, Colorado, Nevada and Iowa. Those are four of the eight states, representing 102 electoral votes, where VoteCastr is concentrating its data-crunching. More results, from more states, are made available in rolling fashion throughout the day.
  • 2 pm –  The VoteCastr/Slate partnership will probably have data from all the battleground states by now, reflecting broad election-day voting patterns.
  • 4 pm – Late afternoon is when leaks and rumors about exit polls may begin to spread, as they did in the last three presidential elections. (The actual results of exit polls are supposed to be closely held by the TV networks and the Associated Press until voting closes, state by state.) Trust these early unconfirmed reports at your own peril, as they indicated in 2004 that the next president would be named Kerry and that Romney was on track to carry Florida in 2012.

  And after markets close, here is the hour by hour guide to closing polls:

  

  • 6pm EST  — The first polls close in Indiana (11), home to Trump running mate Mike Pence, the state’s governor, and Kentucky (8). Both states are heavily Republican and likely to be carried by Mr Trump
  • 7pm EST — Polls close in the battleground states of Florida (29) and Virginia (13). As well as Georgia (16), South Carolina (9) and Vermont (3). The counting of ballots across the nation will go on well into Wednesday. You can, however, expect US media outlets to begin calling the races in safe Democratic and Republican states such as Kentucky, Vermont and South Carolina. But do not expect early calls in Florida or Virginia. In 2012, a winner was not declared in Florida until days after the election. A result in Virginia was not declared until after midnight.
  • 7:30pm EST  — Polls close in two more important states: Ohio (18) and North Carolina (15). They also shut in West Virginia (5), where Trump is heavily favoured. Trump has done a lot of campaigning in Ohio, hoping to capitalise on the appeal of his protectionist trade policies in the rust belt state. In 2012, Mitt Romney had been declared the winner in four of the five states called before 8pm. President Barack Obama had won only Vermont.
  • 8pm EST — Things start to heat up. Polls close in the crucial states of Pennsylvania (20) and Michigan (16), and in Alabama (9), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), the District of Columbia (3), Illinois (20), Kansas (6), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), Mississippi (6), Missouri (10), New Jersey (14), Oklahoma (7), Rhode Island (4) and Tennessee (11).  Expect a flurry of declarations in safe Republican and Democratic states. If Mrs Clinton does not take Pennsylvania it will be a big blow — especially because she chose to spend the last night of her campaign in Philadelphia alongside her husband and the Obamas. In 2012 it took almost two hours for Obama to be named the winner in the state. It was the first real battleground to be called. Maine is the first of two states that do not allocate their electoral college votes on a winner-takes-all system. Maine and Nebraska allocate some of their electoral votes by congressional district.
  • 9pm EST — The polls close in Colorado (9), Wisconsin (10) and Texas (38). They also shut in Louisiana (8), Minnesota (10), Nebraska (5), New Mexico (5), New York (29), South Dakota (3) and Wyoming (10).  Look for early calls for Clinton in the population-heavy states of New York and New Jersey where she is firmly favoured. 
  • 10pm EST — Polls are closing in western states Arizona (11), Idaho (4), Montana (3), Nevada (6) and Utah (6) as well as the mid-western farm state of Iowa (6). In 2012, this is when Mr Obama began really piling up the victories. Although it has a long tradition of voting Republican in presidential races, Arizona has been seen as more of a battleground this year. Utah is also interesting this year as conservative Mormon Evan McMullin has been polling well in the state and could even win it. 
  • 11pm EST — The polls close in the biggest electoral prize on the map — solidly Democratic California (55) — as well as Washington state (12), Oregon (7) and North Dakota (3).
  • 1am EST — Polls close in Alaska (3) and Hawaii (4).

  * * *

  Time for the concession speeches?

  In 2008 and 2012, John McCain and Mitt Romney each gave nationally televised concession speeches shortly after midnight eastern time. 

  But what if there is no winner by the end of the night? In the event that neither candidate gets to 270, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives will decide who the next president should be.

  * * *

  What are the main factors to watch? 

  With polls showing voters having negative opinions of both major candidates, one of the key factors on election day could be the enthusiasm of their bases. If black, female, Latino and young voters do not turn out in significant numbers, it could represent a blow to the Clinton camp. Likewise, if white working class voters do not go to the polls in significant numbers it would hurt Mr Trump.

  Turnout among African-American voters looks likely to be lower than it was in 2008 and 2012. But Trump’s provocative immigration policies mean a growing Hispanic electorate is expected to vote heavily against him.

  

  What other races should I keep an eye on? 

  Americans will also be voting for 34 of the US Senate’s 100 seats and for all 435 seats in the House of Representatives. Twelve governorships are up for grabs this year. The big question beyond the presidency is what will happen in the Republican-controlled Congress. A good night for Democrats would see them win five seats and regain control of the Senate (four if Mrs Clinton wins as that would mean vice-president Tim Kaine would cast the deciding vote) while also whittling down the Republicans’ 30-seat majority in the 435-seat House. It is extremely unlikely Democrats will regain control of the House.

  * * *

  Here is Goldman’s own guide to election night:

  • Poll closing times and the estimated time each state will be called: we note the time that polls close in each state. For states in multiple time zones, we include the latest poll closing time. We also include a rough estimate of when media outlets will announce a winner of the presidential race in each state, based on the polling margin (close votes take much longer to call).
  • Prediction market probabilities: we note the implied probability of a Democratic win in each state for the presidential and Senate contests. Probabilities are taken from Predictit.org as of 2pm ET on Nov. 7.

  

  

  * * *

  Finally, here is an election survival guide from Credit Suisse.

  

  

  

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Vote As If Your Life Depended On It… Because It Does

  Authored by Eric Zuesse,

  Here’s why:

  Hillary has repeatedly said: “We should also work with the coalition and the neighbors to impose no-fly zones that will stop Assad from slaughtering civilians and the opposition from the air. Opposition forces  on the ground, with material support from the coalition, could then help create safe areas where Syrians could remain in the country, rather than fleeing toward Europe."

  This would mean that U.S. fighter-jets and missiles would be shooting down the fighter-jets and missiles of the Syrian government over Syria, and would also be shooting down those of Russia. The Syrian government invited Russia in, as its protector; the U.S. is no protector but an invader against Syria’s legitimate government, the Ba’athist government, led by Bashar al-Assad. The CIA has been trying ever since 1949 to overthrow Syria’s Ba’athist government — the only remaining non-sectarian government in the Middle East other than the current Egyptian government. The U.S. supports Jihadists who demand Sharia law, and they are trying to overthrow and replace Syria’s institutionally secular government. For the U.S. to impose a no-fly zone anywhere in Syria would mean that the U.S. would be at war against Russia over Syria’s skies.

  Whichever side loses that conventional air-war would then have to choose whether to surrender, or instead to use nuclear weapons against the other side’s homeland, in order for it to avoid surrendering. That’s nuclear war between Russia and the United States.

  Would Putin surrender? Would Hillary? Would neither? If neither does, then nuclear war will be the result.

  Here are the two most extensive occasions in which Hillary has stated her position on this:

  To the Council on Foreign Relations, on 19 November 2015:

  We should also work with the coalition and the neighbors to impose no-fly zones that will stop Assad from slaughtering civilians and the opposition from the air. Opposition forces on the ground, with material support from the coalition, could then help create safe areas where Syrians could remain in the country, rather than fleeing toward Europe.

   

  This combined approach would help enable the opposition to retake the remaining stretch of the Turkish border from ISIS, choking off its supply lines. It would also give us new leverage in the diplomatic process that Secretary Kerry is pursuing. …

   

  QUESTION: When you were secretary of state, you tended to agree a great deal with the then-Secretary of Defense Bob Gates. Gates was opposed to a no-fly zone in Syria; thought it was an act of war that was risky and dangerous. This seems to me the major difference right now between what the president — what Obama’s administration is doing and what you’re proposing.

   

  Do you not — why do you disagree with Bob Gates on this?

   

  CLINTON: Well, I — I believe that the no-fly zone is merited and can be implemented, again, in a coalition, not an American-only no-fly zone. I fully respect Bob and his knowledge about the difficulties of implementing a no-fly zone. But if you look at where we are right now, we have to try to clear the air of the bombing attacks that are still being carried out to a limited extent by the Syrian military, now supplemented by the Russian air force.

   

  And I think we have a chance to do that now. We have a no-fly zone over northern Iraq for years to protect the Kurds. And it proved to be successful, not easy — it never is — but I think now is the time for us to revisit those plans.

   

  I also believe, as I said in the speech, that if we begin the conversation about a no-fly zone, something that, you know, Turkey discussed with me back when I was secretary of state in 2012, it will confront a lot of our partners in the region and beyond about what they’re going to do. And it can give us leverage in the discussions that Secretary Kerry is carrying on right now.

   

  So I see it as both a strategic opportunity on the ground, and an opportunity for leverage in the peace negotiations. …

   

  QUESTION: Jim Ziren (ph), Madam Secretary. Hi. Back to the no- fly zone. are you advocating a no-fly zone over the entire country or a partial no-fly zone over an enclave where refugees might find a safe haven? And in the event of either, do you foresee see you might be potentially provoking the Russians?

   

  CLINTON: I am advocating the second, a no-fly zone principally over northern Syria close to the Turkish (ph) border, cutting off the supply lines, trying to provide some safe refuges for refugees so they don’t have to leave Syria, creating a safe space away from the barrel bombs and the other bombardments by the Syrians. And I would certainly expect to and hope to work with the Russians to be able to do that. [She expects Putin to join America’s bombing of Syria’s government and troops and shooting-down of Russia’s planes in Syria, but no question was raised about this.] …

   

  To have a swath of territory that could be a safe zone … for Syrians so they wouldn’t have to leave but also for humanitarian relief, … would give us this extra leverage that I’m looking for in the diplomatic pursuits with Russia with respect to the political outcome in Syria.

  During a debate against Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries:

  Hillary Clinton, in a debate with Bernie on 19 December 2015, argued for her proposal that the U.S. impose in Syria a “no-fly zone” where Russians were dropping bombs on the imported jihadists who have been trying to overthrow and replace Assad: "I am advocating the no-fly zone both because I think it would help us on the ground to protect Syrians; I'm also advocating it because I think it gives us some leverage in our conversations with Russia.” She said there that allowing the jihadists to overthrow Assad “would help us on the ground to protect Syrians,” somehow; and, also, that, somehow, shooting down Russia’s planes in Syria (the “no-fly zone”) "gives us some leverage in our conversations with Russia.”

  Bernie Sanders’s response to that was: "I worry too much that Secretary Clinton is too much into regime change and a little bit too aggressive without knowing what the unintended consequences might be.” He didn’t mention nuclear war as one of them.

  The “no-fly zone” policy is one of three policies she supports that would likely produce nuclear war; she supports all of them, not merely the “no-fly zone.”

  Hillary Clinton has never been asked “What would you do if Russia refuses to stop its flights in Syria?” Donald Trump has said nothing about the proposal for a no-fly zone (other than “I want to sit back and see what happens”), because most Americans support that idea, and he’s not bright enough to take her on about it and ask her that question. Probably, if he were supportive of it, he’d have said so — in which case it wouldn’t still be an issue in this election. Trump muffed his chance — which he has had on several occasions. But clearly he, unlike her, has not committed himself on this matter.

  Hillary Clinton is obviously convinced that the U.S. would win a nuclear war against Russia. The question for voters is whether they’re willing to bet their lives that she is correct about that, and that even if the U.S. ‘wins’, only Russia and not also the U.S. (and the world) would be destroyed if the U.S. nuclear-attacks Russia.

  Every other issue in this election pales by comparison to the no-fly-zone issue, which is virtually ignored, in favor of issues that are trivial by comparison. But a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for nuclear war against Russia, regardless of whether or not the voters know this. And a vote for Trump is a vote for the unknown. Could the unknown be even worse than Hillary Clinton? If so, would it be so only in relatively trivial ways?

  This election should be about Hillary Clinton, not about Donald Trump.

  *  *  *

  Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

   

  

  

• Your Complete Guide To Election Night: What To Watch For And When

  It’s almost over: the most divisive, theatrical, dramatic and dirty presidential campaign will be in the history books by this time tomorrow, with more than 130 million Americans expected to cast ballots across 50 states. However, just winning the popular vote will be insufficient: indeed, it may well be that the popular-vote winner does not win the electoral college.

  So which states should one be looking at, and how long is the final day’s drama set to continue?

  For the benefit of the traders out there, last week we showed a primer from Citigroup explaining when traders can hope to go home on election evening, according to which it was “all about Florida, North Carolina and Ohio.”

  As Citi said, for traders hoping to capitalize on volatility next Tuesday as the election results come trickling in, it may all be over by early evening, at least if Trump loses. That is the calculation of Citi’s Steven Englander, who determined that if Trump loses either Florida or North Carolina or Ohio “the math doesn’t work and it tells us that the shift to Trump was not as pronounced as feared.”

  Those states close at 7:00 or 7:30 ET. As Citi adds, even if Trump loses by a little in one of these states, it becomes almost impossible for him to win. It would take a tidal wave in a couple of states that look firmly Democrat.  Citi helpfully added that “the odds that he loses, say a Florida or North Carolina, but wins a Pennsylvania do not seem high” at which point “vol collapses, MXN rallies and we go home early.”

  However, in a hint that tomorrow may be a very long night for traders – recall that Brexit was an all-nighter, which briefly saw ES halted limit down – the just released “no toss up” map from RCP based on the latest polling, shows Trump winning all three of these key states, and suddenly opening up the prospect not only for much more volatility, and yet another all-nighter, but potentially a Trump victory, something the market after today’s furious rally, is certainly not prepared for.

   

   

  In any event, no matter the fate of these three states, here is a full preview of tomorrow’s election night.

  The following chart from Morgan Stanley summarizes what times polls close for any given state as well as the number of electoral votes afforded to each: .

  

  As the FT observes, this year’s election is being fought hardest in 10 states: Arizona (11 electoral college votes), Colorado (9), Florida (29), Iowa (6), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), North Carolina (15), Ohio (18), Pennsylvania (20) and Virginia (13). Clinton starts with an advantage in the electoral college and can afford to lose traditional battlegrounds such as Florida and Ohio. But if that happens, falling short in states such as Pennsylvania and North Carolina could prove fatal to her presidential ambitions. On the other hand, as noted above, if Trump does not win in Florida and Ohio, his chances of victory will be non-existent. One key could be the size of the turnout of Latino voters in Arizona, Florida and Nevada, which have large Hispanic populations. Another could be whether African-American voters go to the polls at a high rate in North Carolina and Ohio.

  

   

  Here are the key events by hour, and when traders will have to be particularly careful

  

  • 6pm EST  — The first polls close in Indiana (11), home to Trump running mate Mike Pence, the state’s governor, and Kentucky (8). Both states are heavily Republican and likely to be carried by Mr Trump
  • 7pm EST — Polls close in the battleground states of Florida (29) and Virginia (13). As well as Georgia (16), South Carolina (9) and Vermont (3). The counting of ballots across the nation will go on well into Wednesday. You can, however, expect US media outlets to begin calling the races in safe Democratic and Republican states such as Kentucky, Vermont and South Carolina. But do not expect early calls in Florida or Virginia. In 2012, a winner was not declared in Florida until days after the election. A result in Virginia was not declared until after midnight.
  • 7:30pm EST  — Polls close in two more important states: Ohio (18) and North Carolina (15). They also shut in West Virginia (5), where Trump is heavily favoured. Trump has done a lot of campaigning in Ohio, hoping to capitalise on the appeal of his protectionist trade policies in the rust belt state. In 2012, Mitt Romney had been declared the winner in four of the five states called before 8pm. President Barack Obama had won only Vermont.
  • 8pm EST — Things start to heat up. Polls close in the crucial states of Pennsylvania (20) and Michigan (16), and in Alabama (9), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), the District of Columbia (3), Illinois (20), Kansas (6), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), Mississippi (6), Missouri (10), New Jersey (14), Oklahoma (7), Rhode Island (4) and Tennessee (11).  Expect a flurry of declarations in safe Republican and Democratic states. If Mrs Clinton does not take Pennsylvania it will be a big blow — especially because she chose to spend the last night of her campaign in Philadelphia alongside her husband and the Obamas. In 2012 it took almost two hours for Obama to be named the winner in the state. It was the first real battleground to be called. Maine is the first of two states that do not allocate their electoral college votes on a winner-takes-all system. Maine and Nebraska allocate some of their electoral votes by congressional district.
  • 9pm EST — The polls close in Colorado (9), Wisconsin (10) and Texas (38). They also shut in Louisiana (8), Minnesota (10), Nebraska (5), New Mexico (5), New York (29), South Dakota (3) and Wyoming (10).  Look for early calls for Clinton in the population-heavy states of New York and New Jersey where she is firmly favoured. 
  • 10pm EST — Polls are closing in western states Arizona (11), Idaho (4), Montana (3), Nevada (6) and Utah (6) as well as the mid-western farm state of Iowa (6). In 2012, this is when Mr Obama began really piling up the victories. Although it has a long tradition of voting Republican in presidential races, Arizona has been seen as more of a battleground this year. Utah is also interesting this year as conservative Mormon Evan McMullin has been polling well in the state and could even win it. 
  • 11pm EST — The polls close in the biggest electoral prize on the map — solidly Democratic California (55) — as well as Washington state (12), Oregon (7) and North Dakota (3).
  • Midnight EST — Polls close in Alaska (3) and Hawaii (4).

  * * *

  Time for the concession speeches?

  In 2008 and 2012, John McCain and Mitt Romney each gave nationally televised concession speeches shortly after midnight eastern time. 

  But what if there is no winner by the end of the night? In the event that neither candidate gets to 270, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives will decide who the next president should be.

  * * *

  What are the main factors to watch? 

  With polls showing voters having negative opinions of both major candidates, one of the key factors on election day could be the enthusiasm of their bases. If black, female, Latino and young voters do not turn out in significant numbers, it could represent a blow to the Clinton camp. Likewise, if white working class voters do not go to the polls in significant numbers it would hurt Mr Trump.

  Turnout among African-American voters looks likely to be lower than it was in 2008 and 2012. But Trump’s provocative immigration policies mean a growing Hispanic electorate is expected to vote heavily against him.

  

  What other races should I keep an eye on? 

  Americans will also be voting for 34 of the US Senate’s 100 seats and for all 435 seats in the House of Representatives. Twelve governorships are up for grabs this year. The big question beyond the presidency is what will happen in the Republican-controlled Congress. A good night for Democrats would see them win five seats and regain control of the Senate (four if Mrs Clinton wins as that would mean vice-president Tim Kaine would cast the deciding vote) while also whittling down the Republicans’ 30-seat majority in the 435-seat House. It is extremely unlikely Democrats will regain control of the House.

  * * *

  Finally, here is Goldman’s own guide to election night:

  • Poll closing times and the estimated time each state will be called: we note the time that polls close in each state. For states in multiple time zones, we include the latest poll closing time. We also include a rough estimate of when media outlets will announce a winner of the presidential race in each state, based on the polling margin (close votes take much longer to call).
  • Prediction market probabilities: we note the implied probability of a Democratic win in each state for the presidential and Senate contests. Probabilities are taken from Predictit.org as of 2pm ET on Nov. 7.

  

  

  

  

• Trading Tomorrow's Main Event: "Keep It Simple" And Watch This Indicator

  "Close your books. Take out a piece of paper. It’s time for a pop quiz," says Bloomberg's Richard Breslow. "What were the market-moving news items from last week?"

  Amazing that it takes some work to remember that there were four big central bank meetings, a raft of PMIs, let alone a U.S. non-farm payroll report. When we look back, probably the only thing we’ll remember was the Article 50 decision in the U.K. And maybe one tracker poll for the bonus question.
  I’ll bet this week will be easier for market historians to pinpoint on the economic time line. It’s rarely the regularly scheduled events that lastingly move the needle. No matter how much we build up the expectation.

  And then we can begin the latest test of all the “what to expect next year” theories. Word of caution, the shelf-life of these fun but mostly futile exercises gets shorter every year. And the cost of being wrong bigger. No death by a thousand cuts here. Let’s blow them out in January and get on with the thrust and parry of trading revolving themes.

  One interesting event from last week, is that we saw futures pricing of a December rate-hike creep up; at the same time it was wilting for the year ahead.

  

  Rising risk premium? Safe bet. Clever Fed messaging on low and slow? Well, we’ve had a one-two on the “running hot” question from Yellen and Fischer. Actually, a lot more hedging going on than we credited.

  Rate expectations for next year are a big deal and not just for STIRT traders. The dollar will care and, by extension, commodities (read oil). The yield curve will bend to it.

  Coming out of tomorrow, watch where 2017 futures reprice. It will help decide how aggressively you might consider chasing or fading the initial reactions.

  

  If you’re going to trade the event. Keep it as simple as possible. We saw, from last week through this morning, how traders will likely react depending on the outcome. Down the road will be a chance to re-evaluate the prospects for global trade, geopolitics and latest forecast meme driving markets over the course of the year.

  

  

• NATO Places 300,000 Troops On "High Alert" In Readiness For Confrontation With Russia

  Submitted by Alex Christoforou of The Duran

  NATO a preparing a military force of up to 300,000 personnel, capable of being deployed within just two months to attack Russia.

  As the world remains fixated on the outcome of Tuesday’s US elections, NATO continues its aggressive troop build up around Russia.

  With each passing day, the constant NATO activity is looking more and more like a preparation for full scale conflict with Russia. Something that would become a very real possibility should Hillary Clinton make it to the White House.

  
  Nato soldiers stand on a pontoon bridge constructed across the Vistula river
  in Poland during the NATO Anaconda-16 exercise earlier this year

  Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg announced that NATO member nations are at this very moment putting hundreds of thousands of troops in a state of high alert, in an effort to deter the fantasy threat from Russia. Stoltenberg said…

  “We have seen Russia being much more active in many different ways.”

   

  “We have seen a more assertive Russia implementing a substantial military build-up over many years; tripling defence spending since 2000 in real terms; developing new military capabilities; exercising their forces and using military force against neighbours.”

   

  “We have also seen Russia using propaganda in Europe among NATO allies and that is exactly the reason why NATO is responding. We are responding with the biggest reinforcement of our collective defence since the end of the Cold War.”

  The UK’s Examiner reports…

  Adam Thomson, the outgoing permanent representative to Nato, estimates that at present, it would take the military alliance 180 days to deploy a force of 300,000, and that speeding up this rate is of top importance.

   

  The measures come in response to Russia flexing its military might abroad, allegedly conducting cyber attacks on Washington and holding nuclear war drills at home.

   

  Last week, Moscow was seen as deliberately antagonising Nato by sending hundreds of paratroopers to a Serbian airbase despite Nato holding disaster relief exercises just 150 miles away in Montenegro.

   

  Putin’s decision to hold military drills so close to Nato’s emergency exercises in Montenegro – which went ahead despite Moscow’s drills – was seen as a brazen stand-off between both sides.

   

  Igor Sutyagin, an expert at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies, said: “Russia wants to show that it can intimidate NATO… and NATO is saying to Russia, ‘If you show up, we’ll be there as well’.”

   

  Meanwhile, Russian authorities have been accused of attempting to pervert the democratic process of the US presidential election by hacking into Democrat emails and sharing findings with vigilante publishers such as WikiLeaks and DC Leaks.

  In summary, NATO justifies its military build up around Russia as a response to:

  • Alleged Russian cyber attacks to influence the US elections…allegations made by the honest and trustworthy Clinton campaign, and half heartedly commented on by US Intelligence Czar James Clapper, a man who lied under oath to the American public.
  • Russia’s military exercises in its own country. I repeat, military exercises within its own borders.
  • Russia sending hundreds of paratroopers to long time ally Serbia.
  • “Russia using propaganda in Europe among NATO allies”. Whatever that means? Its cryptic and nonsensical…and of course we know the US and NATO allies never ever engage in propaganda against Russia, or other nations for that matter.

  

  

• China Trade Data Disappoints (Again) Despite Plunging Yuan

  Chinese imports have now declined for 23 of the last 24 months (falling 1.4% YoY in USD terms) and for 18 of the last 20 months, despite a devaluing yuan, exports have declined YoY (-7.3% YoY in October). In both USD and Yuan terms, trade data disappointed across the board suggesting a global economy that is far from as exuberant as recent PMIs suggest.

  

   

  As Bloomberg notes, a depreciation of about 9 percent in the yuan since August 2015 has cushioned the blow from tepid global demand, but failed to provide any sustained boost to shipments. Rising input costs and surging wages bills have flattened profit margins for exporters to the point where many can no longer discount and are mulling price increases, according to interviews at the Canton Fair last month.

  

  “We expect export growth to remain sluggish over the coming quarters due to a weak global economic environment and rising costs for Chinese goods,” BMI Research wrote in a report ahead of the data release. “The slow growth in the global economy will continue to be the major factor weighing on China’s export sector over the coming quarters.”

  But what may be most concerning, especially to oil bulls, is that it appears China’s oil SPR is getting full as China – the world’s second largest oil consumer – imported only 28.79m tons of crude last month, the lowest since January, according to the General Administration of Customs, equivalent to 6.81mmbpd. The October drop was 12.9% m/m, a huge drop and a big concern for OPEC which is suddenly seeing demand melt before its eyes.

  Some other statistics:

  • Oil product imports at 1.76m tons; exports at 4.07m tons
  • Coal imports at 21.58m tons, lowest since July
  • Natural gas imports at at 3.82m tons

  In short, China’s trade – aside from the recent burst in coal imports – is once again slowing down rapidly, and what makes it worse is that this is taking place shortly after another massive credit impulse and near-record fiscal stimulus was created to stimulate the economy.

   

  

  If China’s domestic economic weakness once again spills over to the rest of the world as it did in 2015, then good bye Fedrate hike plans.

  

  

• Judge Napolitano: "Comey Knows His FBI Days Are Numbered" No Matter Who Wins Election

  Submitted by Josephn Jankowski via PlanetFreeWill.com,

  Former New Jersey Superior Court Judge and Senior Judicial Analyst for Fox News Andrew Napolitano believes that the way in which FBI Director James Comey handled the re-opening and closure of the investigation into the emails of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will tarnish the reputation of the FBI and limit the time the current director has in his position no matter who is elected on Nov. 8.

  On Sunday, FBI director Comey sent a letter sent to House and Senate committee leaders stating that agents had completed their review of all messages to or from Clinton on a laptop seized last month from former Rep. Anthony Wiener and that nothing worthy of prosecution was found.

  “There’s nothing wrong with the FBI investigating (Hillary), absolutely should investigate her where ever the investigation takes her,” Judge Napolitano explained to Fox News’ Bill Hemmer on Monday. “But to have given a snapshot of that investigation ten days ago, and then another snapshot of it’s closure last night, all of this within two weeks of the election, puts a thumb on the political scale that will tarnish the FBI’s reputation and in my opinion, most respectfully, prevents Jim Comey from staying on as FBI director no matter which of the two candidates are elected tomorrow.”

  When asked to clarify if he believes that Comey’s days are numbered as FBI Director, the Judge respond, “Yes, and I’m saying he knows his days are numbered and he is now just doing the best he can to burnish the reputation of the FBI, which I believe he loves, and to burnish his own personal reputation.”

  It came as a shock to many that the FBI was able to review the 650,000 emails from the laptop of disgraced Anthony Wiener, the estranged husband of longtime Clinton aide Huma Abedin, in just a matter of days. Many believe that the investigation may have been extremely partial considering it took the FBI over a year to review some 50,000 Clinton emails during the initial investigation.

  “You can’t review 650,000 emails in eight days,” Donald Trump said Sunday in a campaign speech in Michigan hours after Comey’s letter to congress made headlines.

  Judge Napolitano was able to give some insight into how the FBI went through the 650,000 emails.

  “They devised software that would allow 650,000 emails to be examined digitally for certain keywords, phrases and references, which would draw out the ones they needed to read fully,” the Judge said. “They did that 24/7 for eight days and concluded yesterday afternoon – they started this Sunday afternoon a week ago yesterday when the search warrant was signed – that there is nothing in here that makes the case against her stronger.”

  Napolitano predicts that if Trump manages to take the White House the DOJ will continue to pursue an investigation into Clinton pertaining to the Clinton Foundation and the allegations of pay-to-play public corruption.

  As for Hillary, if elected the Judge believes she will “begin her presidency as wounded as Rich Nixon did as he began his second in January of 73′” and would still have to deal with House Republicans investigating her.

  

  

• Chinese Capital Outflows Send FX Reserves To Lowest Since 2011

  Overnight, China reported that the PBOC’s FX reserves fell another US$46bn to US$3.121 trillion in October as the central banks struggled to offset the impact of accelerating capital outflows, a bigger drop than the consensus estimate of US$34bn, triple the official September decline of US$19bn (recall that according to Goldman, the true FX outflow in recent months has been far greater), and the biggest drop since January. The October decline brought China’s total reserves the lowest amount since 2011.

  

  As we have shown previously, a separate dataset called “PBOC’s FX position”, which shows the amount of PBOC’s FX assets at book value and is usually released around the middle of the month, should provide a cross-check on PBOC’s FX sales net of valuation effects.

  As Bloomberg notes, the data come amid a period of renewed weakness for China’s currency. The yuan fell 1.53 percent last month, the most since a devaluation in August last year that shook investor confidence and ignited global market turmoil. Policy makers were suspected of propping up the exchange rate in the weeks leading up to a Group of 20 meeting in September and before the yuan’s entry into the International Monetary Fund’s reserves on Oct. 1 – and then reducing support after exports plunged the most in seven months. The currency fell to a six-year low of 6.7856 a dollar on Oct. 28.

  The chart below which correlated China’s outflows with the value of the Yuan suggests that either the currency is temporarily undervalued, or that the real amount of Chinese reserves, which may be unreported by the PBOC to prevent an even greater retail outflow scramble, may be as much as half a trillion dollars less than what has been officially reported.

  

  And with Chinese capital outflows speculated as soon becoming the biggest risk factor to global financial stability, in a repeat of late 2015, once the chaos surrounding the US presidential election is over, below are some economist reactions to the reported number:

  • “The yuan was sprinting all the way to approach 6.8 in October, which may have prompted the PBOC to sell some reserves to stabilize the market,” said Gao Qi, a Singapore-based foreign-exchange strategist at Scotiabank. “Capital outflows will continue, the only questions is how fast, and that depends on the dollar’s move.”
  • “Capital outflow pressures will be sustained at least for the coming months,” said Frederik Kunze, chief China economist at Norddeutsche Landesbank in Hanover, Germany. “Growing anxiety with regard to the soundness of the Chinese financial markets and the fear of a property bubble have to be seen in this context.”
  • “The number indicates relatively light intervention by PBOC during the month,” said Ding Shuang, head of Greater China economic research at Standard Chartered Plc. in Hong Kong. Most of the drop comes from valuation effects, he said.
  • Faster yuan depreciation against the dollar, higher interbank interest rates, and PBOC liquidity injections via open market operations “pointed to continued capital outflows in October,” said Robin Xing, an economist at Morgan Stanley in Hong Kong.

  Should Clinton win tomorrow, and push the USD even higher on expectations of a December Fed rate hike, many strategists believe that the next stop for the Yuan will be to drop to a level somewhere in the vicinity of USDCNY 7.00.

  And speaking of tomorrow’s election outcome, and how it may impact Chinese risk assets, here is Bank of America with how 4 distinct election scenarios can impact Chinese equities:

  • Best scenario for China equities: Clinton win/split congress

  If Hillary Clinton wins with a split Congress, we suggest buying short-duration HSCEI calls to position for a potential relief rally (likely to be brief); if it’s a Clinton sweep, buying environmental sectors and exporters, selling Rmb-sensitive sectors such as property, financials and commodities; if Donald Trump win/split Congress, buying One-Belt One-Road (OBOR) sectors, selling Chinese exporters to the US and Rmb-sensitive sectors; if a Trump sweep, buying HSCEI puts and domestic service sectors, selling environmental, Rmb-sensitive sectors and exporters in general; whoever wins, buying defense stocks as regional tension rises

  • Polls say Clinton win/split Congress most likely

  For more details, please see US Election: four scenarios, four lists by Savita Subramanian on Oct 28. This is arguably the best outcome for China equities in our view because the status quo may largely be maintained and the absence of a clean-sweep may mean only moderate upward pressure on USD. In addition, as the US election uncertainty is largely removed, risky assets, including China equities, may stage a relief rally.

  • A Clinton sweep could hurt China equities

  As David Woo argued, a clean sweep, either by Clinton or Trump, would be bullish for the USD. Such strength would come at a particularly sensitive time for Rmb devaluation expectations, thus, may trigger significant capital outflow from China and put significant pressure on Rmb, by our assessment. Separately, given the Democrats’ emphasis on environmental issues and the global nature of such issues, we expect related sectors in China to benefit as well.

  • A Trump win/split Congress: impact on Rmb more uncertain

  On the campaign trail, Trump wanted to label China as a currency manipulator & impose a 45% tariff on Chinese exports (Helen Qiao, Asia: trade tensions either way, Oct 24). This is behind our strategy-level call to sell Chinese exporters with heavy US exposure (Table 1, stocks with the highest US revenue ratio). To counter, China may speed up its OBOR program (One Belt & One Road, Great Expectations, 16 Mar, 2015). The impact on Rmb/USD rate is more uncertain – the Chinese govt may strengthen the soft peg to ease the trade tension or it may allow more flexibility on the exchange rate to stand up to the US or to reduce the chance of being labeled a manipulator. On balance, we think the latter is more likely due to the constraint imposed by capital outflow.

  • A Trump sweep is the worst scenario for China stocks

  In our view, a Trump sweep may mean a very strong USD, a much reduced risk appetite and a major sell-off of offshore China stocks by global investors. It could also blunt globalization as it loses its biggest champion, hence our selling of exporters broadly (Table 6 in our 2016 Year-Ahead lists the top exporters). If China’s growth turns inward, we expect domestically-oriented sectors, especially services, to benefit the most.

  

  

• Florida, Florida, Florida: National Race A Dead-Heat As Polls Swing In Toss-Up States

  As the 2016 Presidential campaign comes to a frenetic end, with both candidates frantically hopping from rally to rally across several key swing states, RealClearPolitics made two significant shifts in its “no toss up states” electoral college map.

  1. Shifting Florida from Clinton to Trump as the latest Trafalgar Group poll showed Trump up by 4 points…

  

   

  2. Shifting New Hampshire from Trump to Clinton as the latest Emerson poll showed Clinton up by 1 point…

  

   

  Which left the electoral map in an almost dead-heat on election eve…

  

   

  As The Hill reports, the Democratic nominee will enter Tuesday with several different paths to the White House, and Clinton wasn’t timid about showing her assurance when asked about the challenge of unifying the nation after a bitterly divisive presidential campaign. 

  “I think I have some work to do to bring the country together,” Clinton said. “I really do want to be the president for everybody.”

   

  Clinton held a lead of around 3 percentage points in the RealClearPolitics national average. Her margin had been twice as large in mid-October. Nonetheless, her lead has actually ticked upward from a recent low in the past few days.

  Trump insisted that he was going to win, pointing to his tens of thousands of enthusiastic supporters. Lines for Trump rallies snaked around the grounds even for last-minute stops in states that are normally safe for Democrats in presidential elections, such as Minnesota.

  “The whole psyche will change tomorrow,” Trump said at a Monday rally in Florida. 

  While Clinton betrayed no nervousness, her campaign lavished attention on Michigan, a seemingly safe state for the Democrat that hasn’t voted for a Republican presidential nominee since 1988. 

  President Obama spoke in Ann Arbor, while the candidate herself returned for the second time since Friday for a rally in Grand Rapids. Those efforts suggest the Clinton campaign sees challenges in the Wolverine State, which Obama won by 10 points in 2012. 

  A Trump victory in Michigan would upend the electoral map, suggesting that Clinton could be in real trouble, with demographically comparable states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio also in play.

  “She’s defending states she thought she had locked up months ago,” Trump deputy campaign manager David Bossie said on a conference call with reporters. “A late surge of enthusiasm for Donald Trump is forcing her to make an unanticipated last-minute defense of these states, particularly Pennsylvania and Michigan.”

  Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook dismissed Trump’s efforts, calling his blue-state strategy a desperate end-of-game ploy with no real muscle behind it.

  “I think he needed to get those into play much earlier,” Mook said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

   

  “I’m not concerned that he’s spending so much time there at the end because he didn’t build a ground game.”

  

  

• "I Just Lost All Faith In Our Deeply Corrupt Legal System And In The Rule Of Law In The US"

  Submitted by Michael Snyder via The End of The American Dream blog,

  The FBI just gave Hillary Clinton the biggest gift in the history of presidential politics. Two days before the election the FBI has announced that they are ending their investigation into Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information. After reviewing the emails that were found on electronic devices owned by Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner, FBI Director James Comey sent a letter to Congress telling them that “we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton.” That means that there will be no indictment, and the path is now clear for Hillary Clinton to become the next president of the United States on Tuesday unless an election miracle happens.

  These days it is unusual for a news story to hit me on a deeply emotional level, but this one sure did. When the FBI originally announced that they were renewing this investigation, it gave me a glimmer of hope that there may be a little bit of integrity left in our legal system.

  But after yesterday’s announcement I have lost all faith in our deeply corrupt system of justice. America has become a lawless nation, and the rule of law is completely dead in this country.

  Yes, it is true that those of us in the general public do not know what was contained in those emails, and Director Comey says that nothing significant was found in them…

  In a letter to lawmakers, Comey said the FBI is standing by its original findings, made in July, that Clinton should not be prosecuted for her handling of classified information over email as secretary of State.

   

  “The FBI investigative team has been working around the clock to process and review a large volume of emails from a device obtained in connection with an unrelated criminal investigation,” Comey said in the letter. “During that process we reviewed all of the communications that were to or from Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of State,” Comey wrote. “Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton.”

  But of course the truth is that the FBI already had more than enough to go after Clinton based on what they discovered the first time around.

  In the world of national security, if you transmit a single classified document via a channel that is unsecured, you will lose your security clearance in a heartbeat and it is quite likely that you will be prosecuted and sent to prison for mishandling classified information.

  In fact, two different members of the U.S. military were recently convicted for doing precisely that…

  Just last month, Bryan Nishimura, a California Naval reservist, was sentenced to two years’ probation and a $7,500 fine after he pleaded guilty to removing classified material and downloading it to a personal electronic device. The FBI found no evidence he planned to distribute the material.

   

  Last year, Bronze Star recipient and combat veteran Chief Petty Officer Lyle White pleaded guilty to storing classified documents on a nonsecure hard drive in Virginia. He received a suspended 60-day sentence and a suspended $10,000 fine in return for the plea. White said the information was for training purposes to study and that he had no intent to communicate with anyone.

  Neither of those individuals intended to mishandle classified information, and they certainly never intended to share it.

  But they were both convicted anyway.

  So what makes Hillary Clinton any different?

  During the initial investigation, the FBI found 113 emails that contained classified information…

  Clinton had repeatedly said she did not have any classified emails on her server, but the results of the FBI investigation show that claim was incorrect.

   

  Of the tens of thousands of emails investigators reviewed, 113 contained classified information, and three of those had classification markers. FBI Director James Comey has said Clinton should have known that some of the 113 were classified, but others she might have understandably missed.

  And I would be willing to bet that the FBI found some more classified emails that they had not seen previously among the 650,000 or so that they reviewed for this renewed investigation.

  But it doesn’t matter now. Hillary Clinton is free as a bird even though she mishandled 113 classified emails, and it looks like she is going to become the next president of the United States on Tuesday.

  As a law student and then later as an attorney working in Washington D.C., I got to see just how deeply corrupt our legal system has become.

  But after yesterday, I don’t see how any American can ever have faith in the rule of law again.

  If the law does not apply equally to all persons at all times and in all circumstances, we might as well not even have a legal system.

  At this point, there is only one way that some sort of justice can be achieved in this case. And that is if the American people go to the polls on Tuesday and vote to keep her out of the White House.

  It won’t be perfect justice of course, but at least it would keep Hillary Clinton from getting what she wants more than anything else in life.

  The choice before the American people is very simple. Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt politician to ever run for the presidency, and the extremely long laundry list of Clinton scandals and crimes has been well documented over the past three decades.

  The voters know exactly what they are getting with her. And if they choose her anyway despite all of the things that have been revealed, that means that America is willingly choosing lawlessness.

  To most conservatives, this election is all about Trump, but I believe that it is far more about Hillary Clinton.

  I am convinced that we are at a pivotal moment in American history, and if the American people willingly choose Hillary Clinton it will be an indication that there is zero hope for the future of this nation.

  So let us pray for an election miracle, because right now Donald Trump is behind in most national polls and time is running out.

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Here's What Happened When A Hillary-Supporting MIT Professor Decided To Analyze Her Emails…

  Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

  A few days ago, Cesar A. Hidalgo published a very important article titled, What I Learned From Visualizing Hillary Clinton’s Emails.

  So who is Cesar Hidalgo?

  César A. Hidalgo is associate professor of media arts and sciences at the MIT Media Lab and the author of Why Information Grows: The evolution of order from atoms to economies. He has also lead the creation of data visualization sites that have received more than 100 million views, including datausa.io, dataviva.info, atlas.media.mit.edu, immersion.media.mit.edu, pantheon.media.mit.edu, streetscore.media.mit.edu, and others (see chidalgo.com for more details).

  At this point, I’m sure you’re wondering why I’m highlighting this guy’s post two days before the Presidential election. It’s for two reasons. First, the piece offers a very good representation of the sort of peer pressure that can come down upon an academic for being seen as having the “wrong” political opinion. Second, and perhaps most important, his email visualization tool taught him that the current state of our government in these United States simply can’t achieve the best outcomes for the public at current scale (size, geographic/cultural diversity, etc).

  

  With all that out of the way, I’m going to highlight what I found to be the most powerful part of his piece.

  Enjoy:

  So what did we learn by making this dataset accessible?

   

  We learned a few things about what Clinton’s emails said, about how the media works, and about how people interpreted the project.

   

  We made clinton.media.mit.edu publicly available last Friday night (October 28, 2016). We launched with a single story, written by Alejandra Vargas from Univision.

   

  My intuition was that the story was likely to get picked up by other news sources. After all, the tool facilitated people’s ability to read and understand the content of these emails, and the connections of the people involved in them. But I was wrong—it has been nearly a week since we released the project and no other major news source has picked up the story, despite having been viewed by more than 300,000 people in less than a week.

   

  So how did we get so much traffic without any news coverage? The answer is social media. So far, the tool has been shared widely on Twitter, Facebook, and for a brief but intense time, on Reddit. Its spread has been fueled by different motives, and also, has been battled in different ways.

   

  Many reporters shared the news on their personal accounts understanding that the tool represents a different form of data reporting, or data journalism: one where people are provided with a tool that facilitates their ability to explore a relevant dataset, instead of being provided with a story summarizing a reporter’s description of that dataset.

   

  Another group of people that shared the news were interface designers, who understand that there is a need to improve the tabular interface of present day email clients, and that the inbox we presented in this project was an attractive new alternative.

   

  But many people also shared our site claiming that this was evidence of Clinton’s corruption, and that the site supported Trump. More on that later.

   

  But the spread of the site was not without its detractors. A few hours after we released the site I received a message from a friend telling me that what I had done was “a huge mistake” and that I should have waited to post this until “later in the year.”

   

  A few days later, outside my lab, a member of a neighboring research group called me a “Trump supporter” and told me that I should have only made that site available if it also included Trump’s emails. I told him that I would be happy to include them, but I had no access to the data. In haste, this colleague began emailing me news articles, none of which provided access to the alleged public dataset of Trump emails.

   

  Later, a friend of one of my students posted the news on Reddit, where it went viral. And I mean really viral. It became the top story of the Internetisbeautiful subreddit, and made it to Reddit’s front page. It collected more than 3,000 upvotes and 700 comments. But as the story peaked, a moderator single-handedly removed it in an authoritarian move, and justified this unilateral silencing of the post by adding a rule banning “sites that serve a political agenda or that otherwise induce drama.” Of course, the rule was added AFTER the post was removed.

  Reddit appears to be rampant with censorship these days.

  So when it comes to media, social or not, I learned that providing information directly to people so that they can inspect it and evaluate it, is a value that many people consider second to supporting their preferred electoral choice. The twist is that I don’t support Trump. In fact, I don’t support him at all. I think he is potentially a threat to global security, and also, a candidate that has shown repeatedly to be a dividing rather than unifying force. He has failed to respect contracts numerous times, defrauding contractors; and he certainly has shown little respect for people’s development by creating a fraudulent university. So I think he is ill prepared for most jobs, including a difficult one like that of being president.

   

  I support Clinton in this election, and even though I don’t get to vote (As a green card holder I just pay taxes), I want her to win next Tuesday. I really do. But I understand that this is my own personal choice, a choice that I want to make sure is informed by my ability to evaluate information about the candidates directly, and by a media that is more transparent than the one we now have. Trust me, if I had Trump’s tax records, I would also think it is a good idea to make a tool that makes them more easily digestible. But my reason to make that tool, once again, would not come from my support for Clinton, or my opposition to Trump. It would come from my support for a society where people have direct access to relevant sources of information through well-designed data visualization tools.

  Now here’s where we get into very important lessons about the future.

  So what did I learn about Clinton’s emails? One of the advantages of helping design a data visualization tool is that you get an intimate understanding of the data you are visualizing. After all, you have to explore the data and use the tool to make dozens of design decisions. In this case, the development cycle was particularly fast, but nevertheless I got to learn a few things about the data.

   

  Of course, the whole point of making this tool is that you can use it to come up with your own interpretation of the data. That said, you might be curious about mine, so I’ll share it with you too.

   

  What I saw on Clinton’s emails was not surprising to me. It involved a relatively small group of people talking about what language to use when communicating with other people. Also, it involved many unresponded-to emails. Many conversations revolved around what words to use or avoid, and what topics to focus on, or how to avoid some topics, when speaking in public or in meetings. This is not surprising to me because I’ve met many politicians in my life, including a few presidents and dozens of ministers and governors, so I know that what work means to many people in this line of work, on a daily basis, is strategizing what to say and being careful about how to say it. I am sure that if we had access to Trump’s emails we would see plenty of the same behavior.

   

  So what I got from reading some of Clinton’s email is another piece of evidence confirming my intuition that political systems scale poorly. The most influential actors on them are spending a substantial fraction of their mental capacity thinking about how to communicate, and do not have the bandwidth needed to deal with many incoming messages (the unresponded-to emails). This is not surprising considering the large number of people they interact with (although this dataset is rather small. I send 8k emails a year and receive 30k. In this dataset Clinton is sending only 2K emails a year).

   

  Our modern political world is one where a few need to interact with many, so they have no time for deep relationships?—?they physically cannot. So what we are left is with a world of first impressions and public opinion, where the choice of words matters enormously, and becomes central to the job. Yet, the chronic lack of time that comes from having a system where few people govern many, and that leads people to strategize every word, is not Clinton’s fault. It is just a bug that affects all modern political systems, which are ancient Greek democracies that were not designed to deal with hundreds of millions of people.

   

  On another note, this exercise also helped me reaffirm my belief that the best way to learn about the media is not by reading the news, but by being news. I’ve had the fortune, and misfortune, to have been news many times. This time, I honestly thought that we had a piece of content that some media channels would be interested in and that it would get picked up easily. I have many reporter friends who are enthusiastic about new forms of data journalism, and that actually have been positive and encouraging this week. So I imagined that there was a good chance that a reporter would see the site, go to his or her editor, and say: “Hey, I have an interactive data visualization of all Clinton’s emails. Can I write a story on it?” and the editor would say: “Of course, make it quick.” I don’t know if these conversations actually happened, but given the large volume of traffic our project received I would be surprised if they didn’t. I learned that the outcome was not the one I intuited.

   

  And this brings me to my final point, which is that while I support Clinton in this election, and I think Trump is a bad choice for president (a really bad one), I still think that we should work on the creation of tools that improve the ability of people to personalize scrutinize politically relevant information. I now understand that much of the U.S. media may not share that view with me, and that I think this is an important point of reflection. I hope the media takes some time to think about this on November 9 (or the week after).

   

  Also, the large number of people who were unable to interpret our tool as anything but an effort to support or oppose a political candidate?—?and that was true for both liberals and conservatives?—?speaks to me about an ineffective public sphere. And that’s something I think we should all be concerned about. This polarization is not just a cliché. It is a crippling societal condition that is expressed in the inability of people to see any merit, or any point, in opposing views. That’s a dangerous, and chronic, institutional disease that is expressed also in the inability of people to criticize their own candidates, because they fear being confused with someone their peers will interpret as a supporter of the opposing candidate. If you cannot see any merit in the candidate you oppose, even in one or two of the many points that have been made, you may have it.

   

  So that’s how this election has muddled the gears of democracy. When we cannot learn from those we oppose, or agree when they have a valid point, our learning stops. We keep on talking past each other. I know that this election has made learning from those we oppose particularly difficult, but the difficult tests are the ones that truly show us what we are really made of. These are the situations that push us to see past all of the things that we don’t like, or don’t agree on, so we can rescue a lesson. You may not agree with me, but I hope at least I gave you something to think about.

  While his points about media censorship and peer pressure are self-explanatory, I want to take a quick moment to discuss his most meaningful insight, which is the idea that “political systems scale poorly.” This is hugely important, because as the current status quo system collapses, many of us in the Western world will be presented with an incredible opportunity to do things completely different. Unfortunately, none of the candidates in the 2016 election (including Sanders and Trump) have been promoting the idea of political decentralization, which is the direction I think we need to move toward. In voting for Brexit, that’s exactly what the British people professed a preference for, and it’s what we need here in America.

  In some important ways, I think we should look back toward the original concept of government as understood by our founders. A loose-knit collection of largely self-governing states that are bonded together in certain important ways, yet independent and sovereign in all other ways. Indeed, I think we can break things up even further than that, but let’s start there for the time being.

  If we want to stick with representative democracy, I think for it to work best, it needs to be very local. I think the future of mankind depends on us getting our political systems right, and I think governance has to be shifted to the local level as much as possible.

  This all reminds me of Aldous Huxley’s extremely prescient warning in his 1958 book Brave New World revised (see my review of it), in which he wrote:

  Or take the right to vote. In principle, it is a great privilege. In practice, as recent history has repeatedly shown, the right to vote, by itself, is no guarantee of liberty. Therefore, if you wish to avoid dictatorship by referendum, break up modern society’s merely functional collectives into self-governing, voluntarily co-operating groups, capable of functioning outside the bureaucratic systems of Big Business and Big Government.

  Bottom line: We need to decentralize everything, especially government.

  

  

• Major Quake Strikes Cushing, Oklahoma – Near US' Largest Oil Storage Facility

  Shortly after 1945 local time, a strong 5.0 magnitude earthquake struck some 50 mile northeast of Oklahmoa City. The nearby town of Cushing, home of America's largest oil storage facility, experienced structural damage and lost power.

  This was Oklahoma's 5th largest quake..

  

  No injuries have been reported.

  Another picture of earthquake damage in Cushing shared by viewer Kipp Jones on our @NewsOn6 Facebook page. #okquake pic.twitter.com/LGGqWVPwHV

  — Stephen Nehrenz (@StephenNehrenz) November 7, 2016

   

  As Bloomberg reports, the quake struck 2km west of Cushing, Oklahoma, according to USGS.

  

  Cushing is location of largest oil storage site in U.S. where benchmark WTI crude futures are delivered.

  Quake at depth of 5km.

  Cushing fire officials haven’t yet received any calls for damage at the oil tank yard, and no injuries have been reported, News9 Oklahoma’s Justin Dougherty says in posting on Twitter.
  

  Oklahoma registered 5.6 magnitude earthquake in September, tying state record set in 2011; number of earthquakes measuring 3.0 or higher reached 890 last year.

  

  

  FOX23 reports that Payne County Emergency Management officials confirm power was cut off to Cushing following the earthquake, and The Cimarron Tower Apartments in Cushing were evacuated.

  

   

  Thanks to Cushing native @bencochran for correcting my location. Cleveland Street before and after. pic.twitter.com/bfUdNKtEvZ

  — Kevin Stump (@StumpStumpStump) November 7, 2016

  We got this photo into the KRMG newsroom from someone west of Cushing. #Earthquake #5.0 #Oklahoma pic.twitter.com/XWBezNZRXT

  — NEWS102.3 KRMG (@KRMGtulsa) November 7, 2016

  For now there i sno reaction in WTI Crude…

  

  Oklahoma Corporation Commission says there are no reports of damage to Cushing's oil infrastructure. pic.twitter.com/m2leTEluyg

  — Adam Wilmoth (@awilmoth) November 7, 2016

  As a reminder, several energy producers, and also the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, are facing lawsuits because of seismic activity allegedly linked to oilfield wastewater disposal in Oklahoma and other states

  

  

• Doug Band Accuses Chelsea Of Using Clinton Foundation Money To Pay For Her Wedding

  A couple of days ago we shared a Podesta email from Doug Band about Chelsea talking openly in public about her “internal investigation” into the Clinton Foundation. 

  As with many of the Doug Band email chains, the rabbit hole just got a little deeper today with Band accusing of Chelsea of “using foundation resources for her wedding and life for a decade” among other accusations.  He also concludes with another veiled threat on the consequences “once we go down this road….”

  The investigation into her getting paid for campaigning, using foundation resources for her wedding and life for a decade, taxes on money from her parents….

   

  I hope that you will speak to her and end this

   

  Once we go down this road….

   

  

   

  The implications are troubling: as our friends from the Southern Investigative Reporting Foundation point out, “*If true* people (then) worth well into 8 figures used 501c3 $ to pay for a wedding.“

  *If true* people (then) worth well into 8 figures used 501c3 $ to pay for a wedding. #PodestaEmails32 @wikileakshttps://t.co/xpYZbDN4C0

  — SIRF (@SIRF_Report) November 6, 2016

  The latest Band email comes after he previously accused Chelsea of talking about her “internal investigation” in the Clinton Foundation with “one of the bush 43 kids.”

  I just received a call from a close friend of wjcs who said that cvc told one of the bush 43 kids that she is conducting an internal investigation of money within the foundation from cgi to the foundation

   

  The bush kid then told someone else who then told an operative within the republican party

   

  I have heard more and more chatter of cvc and bari talking about lots of what is going on internally to people

   

  Not smart

  Something tells us that Chelsea and Doug may not be on speaking terms for a while after all the WikiLeaks revelations.

  

  

• Vatican Warns Of "Path Of Bloodshed" In Venezuela If Talks With Anti-Maduro Political Leaders Fail

  A few weeks ago we warned that Venezuela was on the verge of revolution after Maduro took steps to block a recall referendum that many thought would have resulted in his ouster.  In response, Maduro’s political opposition urged Venezuelans to take to the streets to protest the move which they say was tantamount to a coup.  Here’s what we wrote before:

  Once a “flagship socialist nation,” Venezuela has suffered over the past couple of years from a dramatic economic crisis that has resulted in severe shortages of food, clean water, electricity, medicines and hospital supplies all of which have resulted in a desperate population which has resorted to the black market and violence for survival.  That said, Venezuela likely inched one step closer to revolution on Friday when Maduro’s leftist government took steps to block a recall referendum that could have resulted in his ouster.  According to the US News and World Report, Venezuelan opposition leaders are calling the efforts of Maduro “a coup” in light of the broad based public support of the recall effort.

   

  Venezuela is bracing for turbulence after the socialist government blocked a presidential recall referendum in a move opposition leaders are calling a coup.

   

  The opposition is urging supporters to take to the streets, beginning with a march on a major highway Saturday led by the wives of jailed activists, while a leading government figure is calling for the arrest of high-profile government critics.

   

  Polls suggest socialist President Nicolas Maduro would lose a recall vote. But that became a moot issue on Thursday when elections officials issued an order suspending a recall signature drive a week before it was to start.

   

  “What we saw yesterday was a coup,” said former presidential candidate Henrique Capriles, who had been the leading champion of the recall effort. “We’ll remain peaceful, but we will not be taken for fools. We must defend our country.”

   

  International condemnation was swift. Twelve western hemisphere nations, including the U.S. and even leftist-run governments such as Chile and Uruguay, said in a statement Friday that the suspension of the referendum and travel restrictions on the opposition leadership affects the prospect for dialogue and finding a peaceful solution to the nation’s crisis.

  

   

  Apparently we weren’t that far off with our “revolution” prediction as the Vatican and the Union of South American Nations were recently called in to negotiate a truce between the Venezuelan government and the opposition leaders as the situation has continued to spiral out of control.  In order to calm tensions, Maduro agreed to release a few political opposition members from prison and the opposition called off a symbolic “trial” in congress against Maduro and a street protest.  That said, as Yahoo News points out, if continued talks brokered by the Vatican fail the result could well be “bloodshed.”

  If upcoming Vatican-backed talks between Venezuela’s bitterly antagonistic government and opposition fail, the result could well be “bloodshed,” a papal envoy warned Saturday.

   

  “If one delegation or the other ends the dialogue, it’s not the pope but the Venezuelan people who will lose, because the path then could truly be one of blood,” Archbishop Claudio Maria Celli told the Argentine daily La Nacion in Rome, after visiting Caracas.

   

  -‘Very ugly’ situation –

   

  There are fears a breakdown in the talks could see a return of street confrontations between anti-Maduro protesters and security forces, and possibly an escalation into outright violence.

   

  “There are people who aren’t afraid to see bloodshed. This is what worries me,” Celli told the newspaper.

   

  He said Pope Francis was playing a “strong role” in the talks.

   

  “We are running a risk,” he admitted. “We will see. May God help us.”

  That said, there are already signs that talks between Maduro and his opposition are breaking down as opposition leaders have demanded the release of more “political prisoners” while Maduro has shot back: “There can be no ultimatums.”  Given the extreme economic crisis in Venezuela that has resulted in severe food shortages, hyperinflation and so forth, we’re not sure that Venezuelans will be willing to maintain the Vatican’s truce much longer without some meaningful concessions from Maduro’s leftist government.

  

  

• The TRUTH about REDNECKS in America and in Politics

  Redneck culture doesn’t get much attention – until now.  That’s because that generally they stick to themselves, don’t participate in the mainstream, and don’t come to town too often.  As we explain in our best selling book Splitting Pennies – the world isn’t as it seems.  Rednecks don’t rule the world, but – from time to time they do get their moment of glory.  There’s no better metaphor to understand Politics than with than Rednecks.  You know there’s an old expression, you can take the kid out of the city but you can’t take the city out of the kid.  In the south they say ‘born and bred’ whatever that means.  Let’s take 2 significant Redneck political examples as ‘rich Rednecks’ who popularized Redneck culture in politics; Bill Clinton, and Lee Atwater.  First let’s hear from Bill Clinton in his full backwoods accent:

  You know, if you played this for any Southerner, and didn’t tell them it was “Bill Clinton” speaking, they’d think he was one of they own!  Spoken like a true Southerner.  But we’ve been convinced, that Bill Clinton is a guy with a high IQ, a Rhodes scholar.. a ‘genius.’  Well he certainly is a good ol’ boy.  Just google a few keywords about Bill such as “Clinton Body Count” and “Clinton Drugs Arkansas Importation” just to name a few.  Sadly, Bill grew up in a typical Redneck environment, from Wikipedia:

  He was the son of William Jefferson Blythe Jr. (1910–1946), a traveling salesman who had died in an automobile accident three months before his birth, and Virginia Dell Cassidy (1923–1994). His parents had been married on 4 September 1943, but this later proved to be bigamous, as Blythe was still married to a previous wife…Clinton says he remembers his stepfather as a gambler and an alcoholic who regularly abused his mother and half-brother, Roger Clinton Jr., to the point where he intervened multiple times with the threat of violence to protect them…

  The next significant Redneck in American politics, is Lee Atwater – you can say he is the inventor of dirtball politics.  Slumbag politics.  Negative campaign ads.  Before Lee’s aggressive campaigns against Democrats, such a thing didn’t exist.  If you really want to understand how our modern political system works, THIS IS A MUST WATCH: Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story

  So, in some way, the current election really is based on a Redneck ideaology.  Lee Atwater wasn’t just a Redneck, he was Openly Redneck.  He wasn’t like Bill Clinton, trying to act like something he’s not.   

  

  The Clinton campaign is using Lee’s dirty tricks right out of his Redneck playbook but they’ve taken it to a whole new level.  So it’s a little ironic when Bill is teasing that Trump supporters are a bunch of Rednecks.  Well this is partially true, but with 94 Million Americans ‘out of the workforce’ who can blame them.  Many Rednecks were not born Rednecks, they became so by years of being disenfranchised by the mainstream, for one reason or another.  One sad Redneck demographic are War Vets, who don’t get the treatment they need for their disability being exposed to the cocktail of Military grade chemical weapons, radiation, and other exposure they have during wartime.  

  Another bright example of the Redneck connection to politics is the Redneckary of George Dubya – the Bushes are from Connecticut.  They have yachts.  GW graduated from Yale.  Lee taught them well.  So GW bought a Texas ranch, a pickup truck, and learned how to shoot a gun.  And he took to the Redneck culture real well (‘Specially Drankan!).  By the time it came to vote, GW had a landslide in the Red states.  

  It’s still unknown how many Rednecks will come out of the woods and vote for Trump.  But it looks like – it will be many!  Remember, they don’t participate in polls, so there’s no data on their behavior.  They have TVs mostly, but it’s only to watch Wrastlin’ (that is, WWF).  

  The Truth is that Rednecks don’t often participate and they certainly aren’t the mainstream.  But when they do it, they do it big.  They ‘Git R Done’.  And in the case of Lee Atwater, they do know how to swing an election.  This election, they clearly support Trump.  However, the mainstream establishment is pulling out all the stops, even asking illegals to vote.  If the story of Redneck Bill Clinton teaches us one thing – don’t bet against a Redneck!  The South Will Rise Again!

  Checkout our series on Redneck Investin’ Redneck Investin Part 2 – The evolved Redneck – READ before RIOT | Zero Hedge  and Redneck Investin Part 1 – A look from the other side | Zero Hedge

  For a full edumacation explainin what is muny and how you can get lots of it, without selling cans, checkout Splitting Pennies – Understanding Forex.  

  

  

• Wikileaks Releases 8,200 Emails From DNC Hack; Reveals Collusion Between CNN And Democrats

  With Wikileaks releasing what may have been the final 2,073 Podesta emails in part 32 of its ongoing dump of hacked campaign chairman emails, with the dramatic discoveries over the past week largely overshadowed by the FBI “scandal” which has now fully blown over after Director Comey first zigged, announcing in a cryptic statement he was reopening a probe into Clinton’s email server last Friday, only to zag just 9 days later when the FBI reported it had found nothing material in the 650,000 emails found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop, the whistleblower organization appeared to have run out of steam.

  However moments ago, Wikileaks announced the release of another huge batch of hacked DNC emails, which it dubbed #DNCLeak2, contained some 8,263 previously unseen, hacked DNC emails – a server penetration which had previously been attributed either to the Guccifer 2.0 hacker, or Vladimir Putin, and which over the summer cost Debbie Wasserman Schultz her job when it was revealed that the DNC was rigging the primary in HIllary’s favor – going public for the first time.

  RELEASE: 8263 new emails from the DNC #DNCLeak2 #feelthebern #imwithher #demexithttps://t.co/ftwH5t57lj pic.twitter.com/EljYHE0n9E

  — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) November 7, 2016

  While we expect the FBI to fully parse, scan and finalize it report on this batch within the next 10 or so minutes, and to conclude there is nothing of significance in the pile, we will as usual try to find anything particularly relevant, although if the Podesta emails – which provided an explicit admission by an internal review of the Clinton Foundation that it was breaking the law on at least one occasion, and that Teneo, CGI and the CF were operated as “political organizations”, meant to boost “pay to play” – failed to get an indictment out of the FBI, we truly doubt that anything that is contained in tonight’s 8,000 emails will sway the so-called law enforcement authorities into action.

  As usual, readers are warmly invited to submit any material discoveries our way at the usual address.

  * * *

  In an April 2016 email from DNC research director Lauren Dillon, we find that CNN’s Wolf Blitzer had tasked the DNC with coming up with questions for his interview of Donald Trump:

  Wolf Blitzer is interviewing Trump on Tues ahead of his foreign policy address on Wed.

   

  Please send me thoughts by 10:30 AM tomorrow.

   

  Thanks!

  The DNC was quick to oblige, even if ultimately the interview ended up getting cancelled.

  

  * * *

  Also in April 2016, Dillon was tasked by CNN to come up with questions, only this time for Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina:

  

  * * *

  An email from May 2016, shows yet another instance of the DNC creating and approving a fake Craigslist ad seeking to mock Donald Trump.

  

  The DNC’s outside councel at Perkins Coie was not particularly impressed the ideas, with lawyer Jacquelyn Lopez noting that “the defamation risk here is too high. I know we are going for a parody, but given the content of the post (his private business practices, sexual harassment, etc) we would open ourselves up to a defamation suit if we posted.“

  That however did not ruin the DNC’s enthusiasm:

  Apparently Graham took this all the way to Marc, and he said no. So if we do this, we need to get Amy and Lindsey to agree that we’re ok with the possibility of getting sued.

  * * *

  Jackie said to Cate “if you think getting sued would be awesome publicity and Amy and Lindsey are willing to go there, then let’s talk, but…”

  * * *

  Rapid team has signed off, we just need to decide within this group IF we want to take this to lindsey / amy / luis

  * * *

  If we have a likelihood of getting sued I need to look at it closely too if you want to move forward.

   

  You can take it to them first to decide and if they say no that will save me time but I may end up making edits – or I may not – before it actually goes out.

   

  My team if great as you know but I lawsuit should be on my shoulders.

  Ultimately, it is unclear if the DNC ended up running the mocking Craig’s List ad.

  * * *

  Last but not least, a May 2016 DNC email reveals the culprit behind Donald Trump’s exorbitant tax loopholes. And it is, drumroll, William Jefferson Clinton.

  

  

  

• Meet The Million Dollar Donors (Spoiler Alert: They Are "With Her")

  Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

  A few days ago the Wall Street Journal published a very powerful piece titled, The Million-Dollar Donors. What you’ll see should sufficiently dash any and all fantasies that Hillary Clinton is for the average person.

  Here are a few of the graphics:

  

   

  

   

  

  For additional graphics and more detailed information, click here.

  So are you ready?

  

  

  

• Doug Noland Interview: "In The Next Crisis The Fed's Balance Sheet Will Hit $10 Trillion"

  The global bubble that central banks have kept afloat for the past eight years, based on sovereign and government debt, as well as central bank credit, runs right to the heart of the monetary system. That, according to Doug Noland, means we are in for a bigger crash and deeper dislocation when it all comes to an end, and Noland has a good idea which will be the first central bank to crack.

  Doug Noland of McAlvany Wealth Management has a long history in the hedge fund industry as a short seller, having worked with Gordon Ringoen and Bill Fleckenstein among others, but is perhaps best known for his ability to spot bubbles ahead of the crowd.

  Studying credit data, he was initially concerned about the balance sheet expansion of Freddie and Fannie in the early 90s and started writing about the mortgage finance bubble in 2002. He also called the government finance bubble in April 2009.

  In an interview with Real Vision TV, Noland said the current market bubble is a dangerous place to be and there has been a major shift from previous boom bust scenarios, where the impact has been more limited. He also examines how support from central banks has led the markets to ignore the risk – and what happens when that support is taken away.

   

  Deeply Systemic Bubble – Consequences Unknown

  “This bubble is deeply systemic,” he said “I thought the bubble burst in ’08. I thought we were going into another depression. I wrote as much. Well, in early ’09, I had to come out and say– I started warning about the potential for what I called back in, I think it was April 2009, the global government finance bubble.

  “I think we’re late, but this is a different type of a bubble because it’s global. Very different dynamics. The other thing is it’s gone to the heart of money and credit. Right now this bubble is being fed by government debt, sovereign debt, and central bank credit. Back when WorldCom debt and Telecom debt was driving the technology bubble, in my mind that can only go on so long. People will have enough of that junk debt and that will end that cycle.

  “The mortgage finance bubble was a little different. That was more money-like. Moneyness of credit is a term I used during that period. People had insatiable demand for GSE credit, insatiable demand for AAA rated mortgage backed securities. That bubble could go much longer, as it did, go longer, have a much deeper impact on economic structure.

  “This bubble, again, it’s gone to the heart and soul of money and credit. And right now central bankers are basically doing everything to keep it going. So this one, we’re what, eight years into it? I think we’re really late, but we don’t know to what extent central bankers will continue to try to sustain the backdrop.”

  * * *

  Which Central Bank Domino Will Fall First

  Although the markets are ignoring the risk and continuing to move higher, cracks are starting to appear in the global environment, Noland said. As stresses and strains become evident among central banks, the discussion is turning to which will be the first of the dominos to fall, because the greater concern is that once faith goes in one central bank, the ripple effect will be fast and fatal.

  “There’s a lot of complacency here in this country because the Fed postponed its QE, and the bull market just continued and everything looked fine,” Noland said. “Well part of the reason they were able to do that is because of the massive QE globally and the flow of finance into the US from QE abroad.

  “But right now, it seems like the Bank of Japan is in the crosshairs. They’ve tried to devalue their currency, that didn’t work. Their latest spin is to try to manipulate their yield curve, and that certainly hasn’t worked so far. So I think the Bank of Japan is in the forefront of a credibility crisis. I think in Europe, the ECB is only one step behind. Their QE has certainly destabilized finance throughout Europe and is playing a major role in the European bank issues right now.

  * * *

  Danger, Desperation and a $10 Trillion Balance Sheet

  All the policy measures in play now are reactive, with helicopter money and fiscal stimulus the latest ideas on the table and we’re now hearing the Fed wants the ability to buy equities. With the Fed looking at a balance sheet of around $10 trillion, Nolan said things are starting to look desperate.

  “I’ve often contemplated the size of the Fed’s balance sheet, and I don’t think $10 trillion is ridiculous,” he said. “I said that before and it sounded outrageous. I think the next crisis, the next serious de-risk and de-leveraging, the Fed’s balance sheet is going to probably have to double again. Larry Summers was out also saying there’s a role for buying– continuous buying of stocks and corporate debt by central bankers. Yeah. They’re desperate. It’s a global bubble. And the markets believe they’ll do anything to keep it going, and that’s just a very dangerous place to be.“

  * * *

  Markets Believe Central Banks Will Save Them but Cracks Mean Caution

  Markets are convinced that central bankers will not allow an institution like Deutsche Bank to fail, Noland said, but indications of stress can be seen in the currency swaps market. “You don’t hardly even see it in Deutsche Bank senior CDS because the perception is there’s no way they’re going to allow this,” he said. “Their CoCo bonds and some of the more mezzanine debt, yeah, that’s under pressure. But in the market there is confidence that they will not allow a crisis with that institution.”

  “To me there are enough cracks out there, there are enough cracks to be extremely cautious. For me, I would not be exposed to global securities markets, I would not be. We’re in the environment now where to survive, people have had to ignore risk. And they’re ignoring it today as much as ever. I don’t want to be in that situation because the risks are so high. I don’t want to be in the market when everyone else comes to realize, recognize that there are risks.”

  * * *

  The Short Opportunity of a Lifetime

  For now, Noland is in the process of putting together a new venture with David McAlvany, which he said is exciting and because he thinks “this is the opportunity of a lifetime on the short side. But I’m happy to be watching from the sidelines right now,” he said, with some ferocious tops in chaotic markets.

  “I think it’s time to be risk averse. I’m a big fan of the precious metals, I think they’re investable. To me, marketable securities, they’re not investable to me because I don’t know what the risk is. And I know the market wants to ignore the risk. What do we do if central bankers back away? What is the risk profile for economies, for the financial markets?

  “I was very concerned back in 2007. I was very concerned with the consequences of this bubble imploding. I’m much more worried today. In 2007, I wasn’t worried about the world. I wasn’t worried about geopolitical. And I never want to be part of the lunatic fringe, but if people aren’t concerned about geopolitics right now, they’re not paying attention.

  * * *

  A Destructive Bubble Squandering Wealth

  When this particular episode ends and people really understand how much money has been spent propping up a broken system, the divisions in society and mistrust of governments evident in the past year could move to more extreme levels.

  “For me, bubbles are always about a redistribution and a destruction of wealth. During the bubble, there is perceived wealth that keeps the system inflating. People believe there’s all this wealth and securities and asset prices, etc. And they find out when the bubble bursts that a lot of that wealth was actually squandered. The problem with this global government finance bubble– we’ll call it that– is this is a redistribution of wealth globally.

  “And this is not going to sit well. Right now, global central bankers are all working together to try to keep the global financial system liquid, levitated. Politicians generally are cooperating, but you can see society starting to fray here. This is not working right. This is archaic, but this is the consequence of unsound money. History tells us this, right? Society here in the US, people don’t trust their institutions, they don’t trust their politicians, they don’t trust Wall Street, they don’t trust the banks. That’s not a good place to be.”

  Watch the full interview on Real Vision TV, one of the best sources of in-depth interviews with many of the worlds most respected investors, analysts, investment strategists and geopolitical analysts.  No ads, no bias, no bullshit.  Try it free for 7 days.

  

  

• Goldman Spots Odd "Asymmetry" In Chinese Yuan Fixing As Outflows Accelerate

  Starting in early June, when Goldman’s FX team unveiled the Yuan doom loop…

   

  

   

  … the bank has been esecially bearish on the Chinese currency, a trade reco with which the investment bank has been surprisingly on the money.

  And with Chinese FX data which is expected to show an acceleration in capital outflows on deck, the market’s attention will be increasingly more focused on the Yuan. Which brings us to the latest note by Goldman’s FX team, in which we find that Robin Brooks et al appears to have discovered a curious “asymmetry.”

  Here is Goldman’s explanation of what it uncovered:

  We have spent recent weeks modeling the fixing mechanism for $/CNY. In the process, we uncovered meaningful asymmetry, meaning that the RMB does not reverse declines made on Dollar strength when the Dollar weakens. This episode of Dollar weakness is a case in point, with the CFETS basket resuming its fall after a period of stability (Exhibit 4). Even beyond the trade-weighted decline in the RMB, we have argued that a rising USD makes things difficult for China, because it means that $/CNY has to fix higher (Exhibit 5), which carries the risk of accelerating capital flight. Hedging costs for RMB downside have pulled back, offering a compelling entry point should Dollar strength resume on a Clinton win.

  

   

  And some more details:

  We often encounter the view that the RMB is asymmetric, by which people mean that the currency weakens when the Dollar appreciates, but doesn’t commensurately strengthen when the greenback weakens. Intuitively, the fact that the CFETS basket has fallen around 10 percent while the Dollar has been stuck in a range means that this is true almost by definition. This FX Views test for this asymmetry evaluates how severe it is currently, and tracks how it has evolved over time. We find that the response in $/CNY fixings became asymmetric in the direction of RMB weaker from March of this year, but has shown signs of abating recently. In a way, our results are statistical proof of a “bias to depreciate,” which we see as supportive of our shift to a more bearish RMB view this summer, after being more-constructive-than-consensus early this year. We continue to think that hedging RMB weakness is attractive, even with forwards moving to price a bit more depreciation.

  Finally, in light of the recent exposure of Chinese capital flight which as calculated by GS was some 3 times greater than the official number, Barclays expects a significant drop in FX reserve when the latest official Chinese FX reserve number is announced shortly, confirming that China’s capital flight is accelerating notably.

  USDCNY came close to breaching 6.80 on USD strength. We think the pullback will be short lived and, as likely to be revealed in FX reserves data over coming days, capital outflows will put further pressure on the CNY. Much will depend on the USD, but assuming that the USD continues to appreciate in the months ahead, China’s referencing of the CNY NEER basket implies more potential upside for USDCNY and USDCNH

  A reminder of what China’s FX reserves look like:

  

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• MOST Voters Now Think Clinton Broke the Law

  McClatchy reports:

  A total of 83 percent of likely voters believe that Clinton did something wrong – 51 percent saying she did something illegal and 32 percent saying she something unethical but not illegal.  Just 14 percent said she’s done nothing wrong.

   

  By comparison, 79 percent think Donald Trump did something wrong, though not nearly as many think he did something illegal. Just 26 percent think he’s done something illegal, while 53 percent think he’s dome something unethical but not illegal. Just 17 percent think he’s done nothing wrong.

  The difference between 17% and 14% thinking that Trump and Clinton, respectively, did nothing wrong is trivial.

  The real difference is that twice as many voters think Clinton broke the law as think that Trump did.

  

• Trump Rushed Off Stage In Nevada By Secret Service

  Details surrounding the event are few – according to initial unconfirmed reports, a person in the crowd allegedly pulled a gun –  but shortly after appearing on stage at a Nevada rally, Donald Trump was rushed off stage by Secret Service agents.

   

  JUST NOW: Donald Trump was just rushed off stage during his Nevada campaign rally: https://t.co/7fTJ3N3MQN pic.twitter.com/Hm7CRdFDTU

  — CBS News (@CBSNews) November 6, 2016

   

  While many have donned their tin foil hats over the past few months, the big question everyone is asking is – will the establishment use the ultimate tool to stop Trump winning the election? Initial unconfirmed reports suggest that a man in the crowd pulled a gun:

  Massive disruption here in Reno. Armed officers jumped in. People on the floor said — & this is unconfirmed — that they saw a man pull a gun pic.twitter.com/l2u64m83d1

  — Jose A. DelReal (@jdelreal) November 6, 2016

  According to The Hill, the Republican presidential nominee noticed a protestor in the crowd and told event security to remove him. But as Trump looked out over the crowd to spot the protestor, two men in suits ran to the stage, grabbed him by the shoulders, and rushed him behind the curtain. 

  A group of security officials jumped over the barricade, protecting the stage and looking into the crowd, backing up shocked attendees who tried to take video of the protestor. 

  Security led a bald man out of the convention hall as the crowd cheered and also booed the protestor.

  And moments later:

  Trump is back on stage. Looks cool as a cucumber. Crowd goes wild.

  — Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) November 6, 2016

  Trump returned to the stage moments later to continue his speech. “Nobody said it was going to be easy for us, but we will never be stopped. Never ever be stopped,” Trump said. “I want to thank the Secret Service. These guys are fantastic – they don’t get enough credit,” he said.:

  Trump thanks the secret service as he returns to the stage after being rushed off in Nevada https://t.co/xeNxna6aa6 pic.twitter.com/qV7HLVBAo6

  — CBS News (@CBSNews) November 6, 2016

  Trump returns: “Nobody said it was going to be easy for us. But we will never be stopped. Never, ever be stopped.” https://t.co/SC4WWJAatZ

  — Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) November 6, 2016

  A few minutes later, the businessman paused to thank his supporters for helping to protect him as the man rushed the stage.

  “I want to thank all these people,” he said, pointing to the area where the man was stopped.

  “I saw what you were doing – that’s a tough group of people right there. I saw that, that was pretty amazing. Nobody messes with our people,” he said.

  Below is a photo of the alleged gunman:

  Man taken off rally floor under heavy police escort amid chaotic scene at @realDonaldTrump event in Reno. pic.twitter.com/eAyvkbrU8y

  — M. Scott Mahaskey (@smahaskey) November 6, 2016

  Man who Secret Service deemed a threat to Trump being held by armed officers in bathroom – Trump almost at airport pic.twitter.com/fElkbmlgK8

  — John Santucci (@JTSantucci) November 6, 2016

  ABC News reported no weapon was found on the man, according to sources. However, shouts from the crowd about a gun elevated the Secret Service’s response.

  Senior sources tell @ABC the threat escalated when someone shouted gun at Trump rally. Source with direct knowledge says no weapon found

  — John Santucci (@JTSantucci) November 6, 2016

  Trump’s campaign released a brief statement that echoed the candidate’s appreciation for Secret Service, but did not provide any additional information as to what had occurred. The tense situation came during a slew of Trump rallies three days before the election, as the businessman and his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton criss-cross the country before Election Day.

  Reno PD tell @ABC told at time was “medical incident” that resulted in shoving & commotion. More details to come https://t.co/JLShxwJJ2s

  — John Santucci (@JTSantucci) November 6, 2016

  Trump did not appear to cut his rally short Saturday, despite the interruption. The incident took place about 35 minutes into his speech and he spoke for another 10 minutes after returning to the stage. NBC reported that no weapon was ultimately found on the alleged attacker. 

  No weapon was found at Reno event where Trump was rushed off stage, senior law enforcement official tells NBC News. https://t.co/Ft9NG3ZJ4E pic.twitter.com/soj0FabCnL

  — NBC News (@NBCNews) November 6, 2016

  Secret Service Stmt: “No weapon was found” on man apprehended at Trump rally in Reno where Trump was rushed off the stage –> pic.twitter.com/7MhiO00OXi

  — Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp) November 6, 2016

  According to the latest update, the man detained by SWAT has been released:

  The man detained by Secret Service after Trump was rushed off the stage has been released

  — Benjamin Margiott (@BenMargiott) November 6, 2016

  JUST IN: Secret Service on incident at Trump event in Reno: Unidentified individual shouted “gun,” subject was apprehended, no weapon found. pic.twitter.com/nQmF7RtMK0

  — ABC News (@ABC) November 6, 2016

  

  

• Can The Oligarchy Still Steal The Presidential Election?

  Authored by Paul Craig Roberts via Strategic-Culture.org,

  The election was set up to be stolen from Trump. That was the purpose of the polls rigged by overweighting Hillary supporters in the samples. After weeks of hearing poll results that Hillary was in the lead, the public would discount a theft claim. Electronic voting makes elections easy to steal, and I have posted explanations by election fraud experts of how it is done.

  Clearly the Oligarchy does not want Donald Trump in the White House as they are unsure that they could control him, and Hillary is their agent.

  With the reopening of the FBI investigation of Hillary and related scandals exploding all around her, election theft is not only more risky but also less likely to serve the Oligarchy’s own interests.

  Image as well as money is part of Oligarchic power. The image of America takes a big hit if the American people elect a president who is currently under felony investigation.

  Moreover, a President Hillary would be under investigation for years. With so much spotlight on her, she would not be able to serve the Oligarchy’s interests. She would be worthless to them, and, indeed, investigations that unearthed various connections between Hillary and oligarchs could damage the oligarchs.

  In other words, for the Oligarchy Hillary has moved from an asset to a liability.

  A Hillary presidency could put our country into chaos. I doubt the oligarchs are sufficiently stupid to think that once she is sworn in, Hillary can fire FBI Director Comey and shut down the investigation. The last president that tried that was Richard Nixon, and look where that got him.

  Moreover, the Republicans in the House and Senate would not stand for it. House Committee on oversight and Government Reform chairman Jason Chaffetz has already declared Hillary to be “a target-rich environment. Even before we get to day one, we’ve got two years worth of material already lined up.” House Speaker Paul Ryan said investigation will follow the evidence.

  If you were an oligarch, would you want your agent under this kind of scrutiny? If you were Hillary, would you want to be under this kind of pressure?

  What happens if the FBI recommends the indictment of the president? Even insouciant Americans would see the cover-up if the attorney general refused to prosecute the case. Americans would lose all confidence in the government. Chaos would rule. Chaos can be revolutionary, and that is not good for oligarchs.

  Moreover, if reports can be believed, salacious scandals appear to be waiting their time on stage. For example, last May Fox News reported:

  “Former President Bill Clinton was a much more frequent flyer on a registered sex offender’s infamous jet than previously reported, with flight logs showing the former president taking at least 26 trips aboard the “Lolita Express” — even apparently ditching his Secret Service detail for at least five of the flights, according to records obtained by FoxNews.com.

   

  “Clinton’s presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein’s Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported, but flight logs show the number is more than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by their initials or first names, including “Tatiana.” The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young girls.”

  Fox News reports that Epstein served time in prison for “solicitation and procurement of minors for prostitution. He allegedly had a team of traffickers who procured girls as young as 12 to service his friends on ‘Orgy Island,’ an estate on Epstein’s 72-acre island, called Little St. James, in the U.S. Virgin Islands.”

  Some Internet sites, the credibility of which is unknown to me, have linked Hillary to these flights.

  This kind of behavior seems reckless even for Bill and Hillary, who are accustomed to getting away with everything. Nevertheless, if you are an oligarch already worried about the reopened Hillary email case and additional FBI investigations, such as the one into the Clinton Foundation, and concerned about what else might emerge from the 650,000 emails on former US Rep. Weiner’s computer and the NYPD pedophile investigation, putting Hillary in the Oval Office doesn’t look like a good decision.

  At this point, I would think that the Oligarchy would prefer to steal the election for Trump, instead of from him, rather than allow insouciant Americans to destroy America’s reputation by choosing a person under felony investigations for president of the United States.

  Being the “exceptional nation” takes on new meaning when there is a criminal at the helm.

  

  

• Julian Assange's Most Incendiary Interview: "Hillary Clinton Is The Central Cog Of The Establishment"

  In what may be his most provocative and incendiary interview ever given, Wikileaks founder and whistleblower Julian Assange – who realizes that if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency his prospects turn even more bleak – spoke to Australian journalist and documentary maker John Pilger, and summaraized what he has gleaned from the tens of thousands of Clinton emails released by WikiLeaks this year in the following interview courtesy of RT and Dartmouth films.

  John Pilger, another Australian émigré, conducted the 25-minute interview at the Ecuadorian Embassy, where Assange has been trapped since 2012 for fear of extradition to the US. Last month, Assange had his internet access cut off for alleged “interference” in the American presidential election through the work of his website. 

  Full interview transcript below:

  ‘Clinton made FBI look weak, now there is anger’ 

  John Pilger: What’s the significance of the FBI’s intervention in these last days of the U.S. election campaign, in the case against Hillary Clinton? 

  Julian Assange: If you look at the history of the FBI, it has become effectively America’s political police. The FBI demonstrated this by taking down the former head of the CIA [General David Petraeus] over classified information given to his mistress. Almost no-one is untouchable.  The FBI is always trying to demonstrate that no-one can resist us.  But Hillary Clinton very conspicuously resisted the FBI’s investigation, so there’s anger within the FBI because it made the FBI look weak.  We’ve published about 33,000 of Clinton’s emails when she was Secretary of State.  They come from a batch of just over 60,000 emails, [of which] Clinton has kept about half – 30,000 — to herself, and we’ve published about half.

  Then there are the Podesta emails we’ve been publishing.  [John] Podesta is Hillary Clinton’s primary campaign manager, so there’s a thread that runs through all these emails; there are quite a lot of pay-for-play, as they call it, giving access in exchange for money to states, individuals and corporations. [These emails are] combined with the cover up of the Hillary Clinton emails when she was Secretary of State, [which] has led to an environment where the pressure on the FBI increases. 

  * * *

  ‘Russian government not the source of Clinton leaks’

  JP: The Clinton campaign has said that Russia is behind all of this, that Russia has manipulated the campaign and is the source for WikiLeaks and its emails. 

  JA: The Clinton camp has been able to project that kind of neo-McCarthy hysteria: that Russia is responsible for everything.  Hilary Clinton stated multiple times, falsely, that seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our publications. That is false; we can say that the Russian government is not the source.

  WikiLeaks has been publishing for ten years, and in those ten years, we have published ten million documents, several thousand individual publications, several thousand different sources, and we have never got it wrong. 

  * * *

  ‘Saudi Arabia & Qatar funding ISIS and Clinton’

  JP: The emails that give evidence of access for money and how Hillary Clinton herself benefited from this and how she is benefitting politically, are quite extraordinary. I’m thinking of  when the Qatari representative was given five minutes with Bill Clinton for a million dollar cheque.

  JA: And twelve million dollars from Morocco …

  JP: Twelve million from Morocco yeah.

  JA: For Hillary Clinton to attend [a party].

  JP: In terms of the foreign policy of the United States, that’s where the emails are most revealing, where they show the direct connection between Hillary Clinton and the foundation of jihadism, of ISIL, in the Middle East.  Can you talk about how the emails demonstrate the connection between those who are meant to be fighting the jihadists of ISIL, are actually those who have helped create it.

  JA: There’s an early 2014 email from Hillary Clinton, not so long after she left the State Department, to her campaign manager John Podesta that states ISIL is funded by the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.  Now this is the most significant email in the whole collection, and perhaps because Saudi and Qatari money is spread all over the Clinton Foundation.  Even the U.S. government agrees that some Saudi figures have been supporting ISIL, or ISIS. But the dodge has always been that, well it’s just some rogue Princes, using their cut of the oil money to do whatever they like, but actually the government disapproves.

  But that email says that no, it is the governments of Saudi and  Qatar that have been funding ISIS.

  JP: The Saudis, the Qataris, the Moroccans, the Bahrainis, particularly the Saudis and the Qataris, are giving all this money to the Clinton Foundation while Hilary Clinton is Secretary of State and the State Department is approving massive arms sales, particularly to Saudi Arabia.

  JA: Under Hillary Clinton, the world’s largest ever arms deal was made with Saudi Arabia, [worth] more than $80 billion.  In fact, during her tenure as Secretary of State, total arms exports from the United States in terms of the dollar value, doubled.

  JP: Of course the consequence of that is that the notorious terrorist group called ISIl or ISIS is created largely with money from the very people who are giving money to the Clinton Foundation.

  JA: Yes.

  JP:That’s extraordinary. 

  * * *

  ‘Clinton has been eaten alive by her ambition’

  JA: I actually feel quite sorry for Hillary Clinton as a person because I see someone who is eaten alive by their ambitions,  tormented literally to the point where they become sick; they faint as a result of [the reaction] to their ambitions. She represents a whole network of people and a network of relationships with particular states.  The question is how does Hilary Clinton fit in this broader network?  She’s a centralising cog. You’ve got a lot of different gears in operation from the big banks like Goldman Sachs and major elements of Wall Street, and Intelligence and people in the State Department and the Saudis.

  She’s the centraliser that inter-connects all these different cogs.  She’s the smooth central representation of all that, and ‘all that’ is more or less what is in power now in the United States. It’s what we call the establishment or the DC consensus. One of the more significant Podesta emails that we released was about how the Obama cabinet was formed and how half the Obama cabinet was basically nominated by a representative from Citi Bank. This is quite amazing. 

  JP: Didn’t Citibank supply a list …. ?

  JA: Yes.

  JP: … which turned out to be most of the Obama cabinet.

  JA: Yes.

  JP: So Wall Street decides the cabinet of the President of the United States?

  JA: If you were following the Obama campaign back then, closely, you could see it had become very close to banking interests. So I think you can’t properly understand Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy without understanding Saudi Arabia.  The connections with Saudi Arabia are so intimate.

  * * *

  ‘Libya is Hillary Clinton’s war’

  JP: Why was she so demonstrably enthusiastic about the destruction of Libya? Can you talk a little about just what the emails have told us – told you – about what happened there? Because Libya is such a source for so much of the mayhem now in Syria: the ISIL, jihadism, and so on. And it was almost Hillary Clinton’s invasion. What do the emails tell us about that?

  JA: Libya, more than anyone else’s war, was Hillary Clinton’s war. Barak Obama initially opposed it. Who was the person championing it?  Hillary Clinton.  That’s documented throughout her emails. She had put her favoured agent, Sidney Blumenthal, on to that; there’s more than 1700 emails out of the thirty three thousand Hillary Clinton emails that we’ve published, just about Libya. It’s not that Libya has cheap oil. She perceived the removal of Gaddafi and the overthrow of the Libyan state — something that she would use in her run-up to the general election for President.

  So in late 2011 there is an internal document called the Libya Tick Tock that was produced for Hillary Clinton, and it’s the chronological description of how she was the central figure in the destruction of the Libyan state, which resulted in around 40,000 deaths within Libya; jihadists moved in, ISIS moved in, leading to the European refugee and migrant crisis.

  Not only did you have people fleeing Libya, people fleeing Syria, the destabilisation of other African countries as a result of arms flows, but the Libyan state itself err was no longer able to control the movement of people through it. Libya faces along to the Mediterranean and had been effectively the cork in the bottle of Africa. So all problems, economic problems and civil war in Africa — previously people fleeing those problems didn’t end up in Europe because Libya policed the Mediterranean. That was said explicitly at the time, back in early 2011 by Gaddafi:  ‘What do these Europeans think they’re doing, trying to bomb and destroy the Libyan State? There’s going to be floods of migrants out of Africa and jihadists into Europe, and this is exactly what happened.

  * * *

  ‘Trump won’t be permitted to win’

  JP: You get complaints from people saying, ‘What is WikiLeaks doing?  Are they trying to put Trump in the Whitehouse?’

  JA: My answer is that Trump would not be permitted to win. Why do I say that?  Because he’s had every establishment off side; Trump doesn’t have one establishment, maybe with the exception of the Evangelicals, if you can call them an establishment, but banks, intelligence [agencies], arms companies… big foreign money … are all united behind Hillary Clinton, and the media as well, media owners and even journalists themselves.

  JP: There is the accusation that WikiLeaks is in league with the Russians. Some people say, ‘Well, why doesn’t WikiLeaks investigate and publish emails on Russia?’

  JA: We have published about 800,000 documents of various kinds that relate to Russia. Most of those are critical; and a great many books have come out of our publications about Russia, most of which are critical. Our [Russia]documents have gone on to be used in quite a number of court cases: refugee cases of people fleeing some kind of claimed political persecution in Russia, which they use our documents to back up.

  JP: Do you yourself take a view of the U.S. election?  Do you have a preference for Clinton or Trump?

  JA: [Let’s talk about] Donald Trump. What does he represent in the American mind and in the European mind?  He represents American white trash, [which Hillary Clinton called] ‘deplorable and irredeemable’.  It means from an establishment or educated cosmopolitan, urbane perspective, these people are like the red necks, and you can never deal with them.  Because he so clearly — through his words and actions and the type of people that turn up at his rallies — represents people who are not the middle, not the upper middle educated class, there is a fear of seeming to be associated in any way with them, a social fear that lowers the class status of anyone who can be accused of somehow assisting Trump in any way, including any criticism of Hillary Clinton. If you look at how the middle class gains its economic and social power, that makes absolute sense.

  * * *

  ‘US attempting to squeeze WikiLeaks through my refugee status’

  JP: I’d like to talk about Ecuador, the small country that has given you refuge and [political asylum] in this embassy in London.  Now Ecuador has cut off the internet from here where we’re doing this interview, in the Embassy, for the clearly obvious reason that they are concerned about appearing to intervene in the U.S. election campaign.  Can you talk about why they would take that action and your own views on Ecuador’s support for you?

  JA: Let’s let go back four years.  I made an asylum application to Ecuador in this embassy, because of the U.S. extradition case, and the result was that after a month, I was successful in my asylum application. The embassy since then has been surrounded by police: quite an expensive police operation which the British government admits to spending more than £12.6 million. They admitted that over a year ago.  Now there’s undercover police and there are robot surveillance cameras of various kinds — so that there has been quite a serious conflict right here in the heart of London between Ecuador, a country of sixteen million people, and the United Kingdom, and the Americans who have been helping on the side.  So that was a brave and principled thing for Ecuador to do. Now we have the U.S. election [campaign], the Ecuadorian election is in February next year, and you have the White House feeling the political heat as a result of the true information that we have been publishing.

  WikiLeaks does not publish from the jurisdiction of Ecuador, from this embassy or in the territory of Ecuador; we publish from France, we publish from, from Germany, we publish from The Netherlands and from a number of other countries, so that the attempted squeeze on WikiLeaks is through my refugee status; and this is, this is really intolerable. [It means] that [they] are trying to get at a publishing organisation; [they] try and prevent it from publishing true information that is of intense interest to the American people and others about an election.

  JP: Tell us what would happen if you walked out of this embassy.

  JA: I would be immediately arrested by the British police and I would then be extradited either immediately to the United States or to Sweden. In Sweden I am not charged, I have already been previously cleared [by the Senior Stockholm Prosecutor Eva Finne]. We were not certain exactly what would happen there, but then we know that the Swedish government has refused to say that they will not extradite me to the United States we know they have extradited 100 per cent of people whom the U.S. has requested since at least 2000.  So over the last fifteen years, every single person the U.S. has tried to extradite from Sweden has been extradited, and they refuse to provide a guarantee [that won’t happen].

  JP: People often ask me how you cope with the isolation in here. 

  JA: Look, one of the best attributes of human beings is that they’re adaptable; one of the worst attributes of human beings is they are adaptable.  They adapt and start to tolerate abuses, they adapt to being involved themselves in abuses, they adapt to adversity and they continue on. So in my situation, frankly, I’m a bit institutionalised — this [the embassy] is the world .. it’s visually the world [for me].

  JP: It’s the world without sunlight, for one thing, isn’t it?

  JA: It’s the world without sunlight, but I haven’t seen sunlight in so long, I don’t remember it.

  JP: Yes.

  JA: So , yes, you adapt.  The one real irritant is that my young children — they also adapt. They adapt to being without their father. That’s a hard, hard adaption which they didn’t ask for.

  JP: Do you worry about them?

  JA: Yes, I worry about them; I worry about their mother.

  * * *

  ‘I am innocent and in arbitrary detention’

  JP: Some people would say, ‘Well, why don’t you end it and simply walk out the door and allow yourself to be extradited to Sweden?’

  JA: The U.N. [the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention] has looked into this whole situation. They spent eighteen months in formal, adversarial litigation. [So it’s] me and the U.N. verses Sweden and the U.K.  Who’s right?  The U.N. made a conclusion that I am being arbitrarily detained illegally, deprived of my freedom and that what has occurred has not occurred within the laws that the United Kingdom and Sweden, and that [those countries] must obey. It is an illegal abuse.  It is the United Nations formally asking, ‘What’s going on here?  What is your legal explanation for this? [Assange] says that you should recognise his asylum.’ [And here is]

  Sweden formally writing back to the United Nations to say, ‘No, we’re not going to [recognise the UN ruling], so leaving open their ability to extradite.

  I just find it absolutely amazing that the narrative about this situation is not put out publically in the press, because it doesn’t suit the Western establishment narrative — that yes, the West has political prisoners, it’s a reality, it’s not just me, there’s a bunch of other people as well.  The West has political prisoners. Of course, no state accepts [that it should call] the people it is imprisoning or detaining for political reasons, political prisoners. They don’t call them political prisoners in China, they don’t call them political prisoners in Azerbaijan and they don’t call them political prisoners in the United States, U.K. or Sweden; it is absolutely intolerable to have that kind of self-perception.

  JA: Here we have a case, the Swedish case, where I have never been charged with a crime, where I have already been cleared [by the Stockholm prosecutor] and found to be innocent, where the woman herself said that the police made it up, where the United Nations formally said the whole thing is illegal, where the State of Ecuador also investigated and found that I should be given asylum.  Those are the facts, but what is the rhetoric? 

  JP: Yes, it’s different.

  JA: The rhetoric is pretending, constantly pretending that I have been charged with a crime, and never mentioning that I have been already previously cleared, never mentioning that the woman herself says that the police made it up.

  [The rhetoric] is trying to avoid [the truth that ] the U.N. formally found that the whole thing is illegal, never even mentioning that Ecuador made a formal assessment through its formal processes and found that yes, I am subject to persecution by the United States.

  

  

• California Secessionists To Meet At Capitol Day After Presidential Election

  Submitted by Joseph Jankowki via PlanetFreeWill.com,

  An organization which has the aims out separating the state of California from the Union of the United States is set to hold a meeting at the state capitol in Sacramento on Wednesday, November 9, 2016, the day after the presidential election.

  The Yes California Independence Campaign, which is based in San Diego, describes itself as a “nonviolent campaign to establish the country of California using any and all legal and constitutional means to do so.”

  The group is currently trying to qualify a citizen’s initiative in 2018 to get a referendum for secession on the ballot in 2019, reports SF Gate. They will be in Sacramento in hopes to gather support for the state’s exit, or the “Calexit”, as they call it.

  “In our view, the United States of America represents so many things that conflict with Californian values, and our continued statehood means California will continue subsidizing the other states to our own detriment, and to the detriment of our children,” reads Yes California’s official website.

  The group’s page reads on:

  Although charity is part of our culture, when you consider that California’s infrastructure is falling apart, our public schools are ranked among the worst in the entire country, we have the highest number of homeless persons living without shelter and other basic necessities, poverty rates remain high, income inequality continues to expand, and we must often borrow money from the future to provide services for today, now is not the time for charity.

   

  However, this independence referendum is about more than California subsidizing other states of this country. It is about the right to self-determination and the concept of voluntary association, both of which are supported by constitutional and international law.

   

  It is about California taking its place in the world, standing as an equal among nations. We believe in two fundamental truths: (1) California exerts a positive influence on the rest of the world, and (2) California could do more good as an independent country than it is able to do as a just a U.S. state.

  Yes California’s website lays out 9 different points covering topics the group believes will benefit from a California exit from the US, including education, peace and security, debt and taxes and immigration…

  THE CASE FOR INDEPENDENCE IN 9 SIMPLE POINTS
  Being a U.S. state is no longer serving California’s best interests. On issues ranging from peace and security to natural resources and the environment, it has become increasingly true that California would be better off as an independent country. Here’s a summary of why we think so.

   

  1. PEACE AND SECURITY
  The U.S. Government spends more on its military than the next several countries combined. Not only is California forced to subsidize this massive military budget with our taxes, but Californians are sent off to fight in wars that often do more to perpetuate terrorism than to abate it. The only reason terrorists might want to attack us is because we are part of the United States and are guilty by association. Not being a part of that country will make California a less likely target of retaliation by its enemies.

   

  2. ELECTIONS AND GOVERNMENT
  California’s electoral votes haven’t affected a presidential election since 1876. On top of that, presidential election results are often known before our votes are even counted. So, why should we keep subjecting ourselves to presidents we play no role in electing, to 382 representatives and 98 senators we can’t vote for, and all the government officials and federal judges appointed by those very same people we don’t elect.

   

  3. TRADE AND REGULATION
  The U.S. Government maintains a burdensome trade system that hurts California’s economy by making trade more difficult and more expensive for California’s businesses. As long as California remains within this burdensome trade system, we will never be able to capitalize on the trade and investment opportunities that would be available to us as an independent country. On top of that, the United States is dragging California into the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement which conflicts with our values.

   

  4. DEBT AND TAXES
  Since 1987, California has been subsidizing the other states at a loss of tens and sometimes hundreds of billions of dollars in a single fiscal year. As a result, we are often forced to raise taxes and charge fees in California, and borrow money from the future to make up the difference. This is partly why California presently has some of the highest taxes in the country, and so much debt. Independence means that all of our taxes will be kept in California based on the priorities we set, and we will be able to do so while repaying our debts and phasing out the current state income tax.

   

  5. IMMIGRATION
  California is the most diverse state in the United States and that is something we are proud of. This diversity is a central part of our culture and an indispensable part of our economy. As a U.S. state, our immigration system was largely designed by the 49 other states thirty years ago. This immigration system has since neglected the needs of the California economy and has hurt too many California families. Independence means California will be able to decide what immigration policies make sense for our diverse and unique population, culture, and economy, and that we’ll be able to build an immigration system that is consistent with our values.

   

  6. NATURAL RESOURCES
  Certain minerals and other natural resources like coal, oil, and natural gas are being extracted from California at below market value rates by private corporations with the permission of the U.S. Government. While a small portion of the revenue is shared with us, our share has been withheld during times of sequestration. That means the U.S. Government is paying their debts with royalties collected from selling off California’s natural resources. Independence means we will gain control of the 46% of California that is currently owned by the U.S. Government and its agencies. We will therefore take control of our natural resources and be the sole beneficiary of royalties collected if and when they are extracted from our lands.

   

  7. THE ENVIRONMENT
  California is a global leader on environmental issues. However, as long as the other states continue debating whether or not climate change is real, they will continue holding up real efforts to reduce carbon emissions. The truth is this country accounts for less than five percent of the world’s population yet consumes one-third of the world’s paper, a quarter of the world’s oil, 27 percent of the aluminum, 23 percent of the coal, and 19 percent of the copper. Independence means California will be able to negotiate treaties to not only reduce the human impact on our climate but also to help build global resource sustainability.

   

  8. HEALTH AND MEDICINE
  The Affordable Care Act was enacted by the U.S. Government to lower the cost of health care and expand health insurance coverage to the uninsured, yet millions of Californians still lack access to quality health care because they can’t afford it. For many, access to hospitals and medicine is a life or death issue. Independence means we can fund the health care programs we want and ensure everyone has access to the medicines they need because our taxes will no longer be subsidizing other states. Finally, California can join the rest of the industrialized world in guaranteeing health care as a universal right for all of our people.

   

  9. EDUCATION
  California has some of the best universities but in various ways, our schools are among the worst in the country. Not only does this deprive our children of the education they deserve, but it also costs taxpayers billions in social services and law enforcement expenses linked to lacking opportunities resulting from poor education. Independence means we will be able to fully fund public education, rebuild and modernize public schools, and pay public school teachers the salaries they deserve. On top of that, independence means freedom from federal education policies and one-size-fits-all standards set by political appointees on the other side of the continent.

  One blog post on their page draws parallels with a “Calexit” and the recent referendum known as “Brexit” that passed in the UK in June which showed that most British people are ready for their country to leave the EU.

  The push for secession is nothing new to California. In 1941 the mayor of Port Orford, Oregon, Gilbert Gable, proposed the idea to push the Oregon counties of Curry, Josephine, Jackson, and Klamath to join with the California counties of Del Norte, Siskiyou, and Modoc to form a new state, later named Jefferson.

  Modoc County of Northern California voted in 2013 to join neighboring Siskiyou County in a push to secede from the State of California.

  In 2014, two counties in northern California petitioned for the right to form a 51st State of America, which they also wanted to name Jefferson.

  

  

• Shocked CNN Admits Clinton Has Dropped Below 270 On Electoral Map

  Despite the very recently increasing lead of Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump in the "polls", even CNN has been forced to admit today that "this race has tightened."

  In a shocking turn of events for the Clinton campaign's propaganda arm, the latest snapshot of the Electoral College map heading into the final days shows Hillary Clinton has dropped below 270 electoral votes for the first time in CNN's electoral map when adding up the states that are either solidly Democratic or leaning in her direction.

   

  

  CNN made four moves in the map since their last update and all of them are in Donald Trump's direction.

  Maine's 2nd Congressional District moves from "battleground" to "lean Republican"

   

  New Hampshire moves from "lean Democrat" to "battleground"

   

  Ohio moves from from "battleground" to "lean Republican"

   

  Utah from "battleground" to "lean Republican"

  Leaving the scorecard as follows…

  

   

  As The Hill notes, Trump has been closing in on Clinton's lead both nationally and in several battleground states. Although the Democratic nominee still holds an advantage, CNN's map now shows more opportunity for the GOP nominee to reach the required number of electoral votes to secure the presidency.

  * * *

  Ironically, given our earlier comment, CNN has now folded again and admit their latest national poll shows Trump and Clinton deadlocked.

  Another national survey shows a near-even race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in the final weekend before Election Day.

   

  The former secretary of state has 44% of support among likely voters in a McClatchy-Marist poll released Saturday while the businessman has 43%, within the poll's margin of error.

   

  Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson has 6% of the vote while Green Party nominee Jill Stein garners 2%.

   

  "Although Clinton and Trump are separated by the slimmest of margins, the Electoral College can present a very different picture," said Dr. Lee M. Miringoff, director of The Marist College Institute for Public Opinion. "Close popular votes can, but do not necessarily, translate into tight battles for 270 electoral votes."

   

  The poll included voters who are undecided but leaning toward a candidate or who have already voted.

   

  When the McClatchy-Marist poll last reported these results in September, Clinton was ahead of Trump by 6 points among likely voters nationally.

  

  

• Preppers Stockpile Survival Food On Fears Of Post-Election Chaos

  The 2016 election year is bringing out the worst among some elements of society. From vandalism to physical assaults to large scale race riots to terrorist bombings and mall stabbings, STHFPlan's Stefan Gleason notes that social disorder has become a more prominent feature of life in a polarized America.

  It’s easy (and politically convenient) for the establishment media to blame Donald Trump for inflaming the political divide. In reality, Trump supporters have far more often been the victims rather than the instigators of political violence.

   

  Moreover, the forces driving social unrest have been building for years. Surveys show that large numbers of Americans – including Republicans and Democrats, blacks and whites – agree that race relations have worsened under President Obama’s watch. The nation’s first half-African president has repeatedly sided with racial agitators and refused to denounce antipolice riots. His attorney general, Loretta Lynch, has given legal legitimacy to vicious racial narratives that have little to no basis in fact.

   

  In addition to leaving the country with fresh new racial wounds, the outgoing Obama administration will leave America with a doubling of the national debt to nearly $20 trillion, a historically low rate of workforce participation, 20 million more people on food stamps, and a shrinking middle class whose earnings aren’t keeping up with surging costs of things like health insurance.

   

  People are frustrated, restless, angry. And officially, we aren’t even in a recession yet. Officially, the inflation rate remains below 2%.

   

  What happens when the economy and stock market start tanking? Or when costs for fuel, food, and other consumer goods start taking off again?

  Well, it appears the answer – as so many have already realized – is finally being recognized by the mainstream media as NBC News reports, preppers are running up sales of emergency survival food due to election night doomsday concerns…

  While sales for "long term food" typically see an increase around natural disasters and elections, "this is more intense than what we saw in 2012," said Keith Bansemer, VP of marketing for My Patriot Supply, a manufacturer and seller of survival food. During the previous election his company saw sales double. This time it's triple.

   

  "We have everyone we can on the phones," he said. "We are overwhelmed."

   

  Purchases at other long term food supply companies are up as well. Emergency preparedness online store TheEpicenter reports a 6 percent uptick in year over year sales.

   

  What's feeding this new urgency?

   

  Survivalist consumers says they're preparing for post-election unrest that could involve everything from massive riots, to power grid outages, to the total collapse of the financial system where a can of food becomes currency.

   

  And it's not just guys digging a hole on their farm and filling it with MRE's who are driving sales, companies say, but schoolteachers, moms, and successful financial planners. Nor is it limited to just rural areas.

  For $2,000 spent at Legacy Foods, you could eat three square meals a day for an entire year. That's 1,080 servings. TheEpicenter has a 14-day supply kit for $235 that's recently been "selling really well," said owner Bryan Nelson. The most popular entry-level seller at My Patriot Supply is a 3-month supply for $497. It comes a in nondescript gray slim line totes bin designed to be easy to stack in the back of a closet or slip under your bed. Big name retailers are in on the game. Costco sells a 1-month supply of 390 servings in plastic gallon buckets for $114.99. Wal-Mart has a bucket deal, too.

  As one 41-year-old "urban prepper" from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania predicts, a Trump win will see the urban poor revolting across the nation and the imposition of martial law to quell riots and the burning of businesses.

  But he's also getting ready for the possibility of a Clinton victory that he says could lead to conflict with Russia and "World War 3 in 2017."

   

  Either way, Freddy's ready – with both supplies and a word of advice.

   

  "At minimum stock up your cabinets as if you knew a hurricane was coming," he said. "It'll be like a hurricane that could touch every city in America."

   

  "You hear them saying, no matter who wins, I know I could take a positive step myself and secure what's important," he said. "They're securing their food supply."

  Simply put, as SHTFPlan.com's Mac Slavo writes, there will come a time when it's too late and you'll be begging to have your old life back…

  With the things heating up just days before what is arguably the craziest Presidential election in American history, Joe Joseph weighs in on the latest leaks, the potential for post-election unrest, and looming crisis.

  They’re so worried about… ‘maybe at the end of the day I might not be able to sit in my Barca lounger at the end of the night’ or ‘I might not be able to watch that football game on Sunday’… Let me tell you… If things go the way that The Powers That Shouldn’t Be want them, there will be no Barca lounges and there will be no NFL.

   

  So it’s either we do things now while we have the chance… because there will come a time when it’s too late.. and you will be begging to  have your old life back.

  And the answer’s going to be, ‘you had the opportunity and now it’s gone.’

   

  There’s a lot of things here in the United States, in the western world and in society that we used to have and used to enjoy… quality of life… the ability to earn a liveable wage… fast evoparting… those used to be a lot more present… people used to be a lot more comfortable..

   

  And it’s just not the case anymore… And it’s only going to get worse…

   

  Unless we the people draw the line in the sand and we stick with it.

  …

  

  

• Class 8 Truck Orders Continue To Plummet Posting 20th Consecutive Monthly YoY Decline

  For months now we have been writing about the massive collapse of class 8 truck orders.  Just a few days ago we pointed out that order declines are coming just as large public trucking companies around the country are being forced to slash fleets amid slumping demand and slack capacity.  According to the Wall Street Journal, several U.S. trucking companies, including Swift, Werner and Covenant, have all been forced to cut 1,000s of trucks from their fleets as “overcapacity has driven down pricing.”  Of course, all this means that class 8 truck manufactures are unlikely to see an uptick in new orders anytime in the near future with Werner promising it won’t add trucks “until they see meaningful improvement in the freight and rate markets.”

  “We haven’t seen any difficulty in finding trucks,” said Ken Forster, chief executive of logistics company Sunteck Transport Group, a broker based in Jacksonville, Fla., that finds and books trucks for freight shippers. “It’s clear that overcapacity has driven down pricing.”

   

  In quarterly earnings reports this month, Swift Transportation Co., Werner Enterprises Inc. and Covenant Transportation Group Inc. said they have pulled a combined hundreds of trucks from service since the second quarter.

   

  Idling trucks is a way large fleets can quickly reduce capacity to match demand, which has stagnated this year amid uneven retail imports and sluggish growth for manufacturers.

   

  Swift, the country’s largest truckload carrier, counted 581 fewer trucks in the third quarter than it did this time last year, and plans to cut an additional 200 trucks in the fourth quarter. The company’s fleet tops 19,000 big rigs.

   

  Werner, the fifth-largest U.S. truckload carrier, according to SJ Consulting Group, said it cut its fleet by 240 trucks in the quarter ended Sept. 30 from a year earlier. The company posted a 41% drop in third-quarter net profit, to $18.9 million, and said in its earnings statement that it won’t add trucks “until we see meaningful improvement in the freight and rate markets.”

  Warnings like the one above from Werner do seem to be playing out the monthly net class 8 truck order data.  Net orders for the month of October 2016 were down 46% compared to last year.  In fact, the level of trailing 12-month net orders is the lowest since January 2011 and down 49% from there February peak.

  

   

  Moreover, monthly truck orders have now declined YoY for 20 consecutive months.

  

   

  Unfortunately, as BMO’s Joel Tiss points out, things are likely to get worse for the class 8 truck OEM’s before they get better.  With October net orders “much worse than expected” and build rates at 17-18k units, Tiss expects the total backlog to increase to 81-82k units later this month.  Moreover, Tiss points out that increasing backlog and softening 2016 orders are likely to put further downward pressure on 2017 and 2018 forecasts for the OEMs.

  With October builds probably in the 17–18K range, we expect total backlog of 81–82K units when reported later this month. October is a closely watched month for truck demand—historically accounting for about 9% of full-year intake—as OEMs roll out next year’s models, and big fleets set budgets and start placing orders. Based on this, and combined with an average 26% increase from September (13.9K units last month) and where levels have been running this year, October’s tally is much worse than expected.

   

  ACT’s 2016 North American Class-8 outlook calls for a 30% YoY drop in production (227K units vs. 323K in 2015) and 19% lower retail sales (251K vs. 310K in 2015). The 2017 forecast assumes another down year for production and retail sales (-11% and -17%, respectively), with particular weakness in the U.S. For 2018 and 2019, ACT believes the 2017 electronic logging device (ELD) mandate will reduce capacity (5–10% expected) and drive overall industry profits higher, resulting in a solid rebound in truck builds. For 2020, ACT sees a strong pre-buy ahead of the second phase of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards starting in 2021, causing another big drop in production that year (-39% forecast).

   

  With U.S. Class-8-truck demand set to decline another 17% or so in 2017 following a 19% drop this year, we expect to see production cuts that began in 1H16 continue into 2H. Also, we have heard from some large dealers that used-truck inventories remain above optimal levels, weighing on used prices and affecting new trucks as well. The combination of lower production and weaker prices could put more pressure on 2017 and 2018 forecasts.

  But, it’s probably nothing.

  

  

• Saturday Humor? Are Americans Too Scared To Consider What Drove Trump's Resurgence In The Polls?

  Are the non-deplorable Americans about to reach the fifth and final “acceptance” stage of Kubler-Ross grieving for a return to the old normal?

  

  WASHINGTON – Claiming it felt queasy just thinking about what the cause could be, the nation’s populace said Monday it was too terrified to look at what Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s recent rise in the polls was attributed to.

   

  “I know that he just got a pretty big bounce, but frankly, I don’t think I can handle any more information than that,” said Salem, OR resident Tina Redmond, one of the millions of Americans who had learned of Trump’s 2.5-point increase over the previous week’s polling and were too frightened to find out why.

   

  “Once I heard that number, I just couldn’t bear even one more detail. I know if I see a single word of explanation, I won’t sleep for a week – it’s just too horrifying.”

   

  At press time, the nation had learned that support for third-party candidates remained high among millennials and was scared to death of hearing anything further.

  Source: The Onion

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• Julian Assange Says Trump Won't Be Allowed To Win, "Clinton And ISIS Are Funded By The Same Money"

  One day after Julian Assange officially revealed for the first time that the source of hacked Podesta and DNC emails in Wikileaks’ possession is not Russia, in the second excerpt from the John Pilger Special, to be broadcast by RT on Saturday Julian Assange accuses Hillary Clinton of misleading Americans about the true scope of Islamic State’s support from Washington’s Middle East allies.

  As previously reported, in an August 17, 2014 email made public WikiLeaks last month, Hillary Clinton, who had served as secretary of state until the year before, urges John Podesta, then an advisor to Barack Obama, to “bring pressure” on Qatar and Saudi Arabia, “which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIS and other radical Sunni groups.”

  “I think this is the most significant email in the whole collection,” Assange, whose whistleblowing site released three tranches of Clinton-related emails over the past year, told Pilger in the interview. “All serious analysts know, and even the US government has agreed, that some Saudi figures have been supporting ISIS and funding ISIS, but the dodge has always been that it is some “rogue” princes using their oil money to do whatever they like, but actually the government disapproves. But that email says that it is the government of Saudi Arabia, and the government of Qatar that have been funding ISIS.”

  As recounted by RT, Assange and Pilger, who sat down for their 25-minute interview at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London where the whistleblower has been a refugee since 2012, also talked about the conflict of interest between Clinton’s official post, her husband’s nonprofit, and the Middle East officials, whose stated desire to fight terrorism may not have been sincere.

  John Pilger: The Saudis, the Qataris, the Moroccans, the Bahrainis, particularly the first two, are giving all this money to the Clinton Foundation, while Hillary Clinton is secretary of state, and the State Department is approving massive arms sales, particularly Saudi Arabia.

  Julian Assange: Under Hillary Clinton – and the Clinton emails reveal a significant discussion of it – the biggest-ever arms deal in the world was made with Saudi Arabia: more than $80 billion. During her tenure, the total arms exports from the US doubled in dollar value.

  JP: Of course, the consequence of that is that this notorious jihadist group, called ISIL or ISIS, is created largely with money from people who are giving money to the Clinton Foundation?

  JA: Yes.

  The conversation then turns to the imminent presidential election: Pilger questioned Assange over increasingly frequent accusations from the Clinton camp, and Western media, that WikiLeaks is looking to swing next week’s US presidential election in favor of Donald Trump – perhaps at Russia’s behest.

  However, just as he did last week, Assange again dismissed the prospect of Trump, who is almost tied in the polls, winning as unlikely, and not necessarily due to his standing with the electorate.

  “My analysis is that Trump would not be permitted to win. Why do I say that? Because he has had every establishment off his side. Trump does not have one establishment, maybe with the exception of the Evangelicals, if you can call them an establishment,” said Assange. “Banks, intelligence, arms companies, foreign money, etc. are all united behind Hillary Clinton. And the media as well. Media owners, and the journalists themselves.”

  He is right, but the same was said about Brexit.

  

  

• CLiNToN PaY To PLaY…PART II

  

  

• "This Quickly Escalates Into Open Warfare" – Why The Government Is Preparing For Post-Election Chaos

  Submitted by Mac Slavo via SHTFPlan.com,

  There have been a wide array of reports suggesting that the U.S. government is preparing military and Homeland Security assets for widespread election fall out. Given the mainstream media’s inclination towards Hillary Clinton and recently presented evidence that Democrat operatives have been attempting to illegally influence the ballot box through falsifying votes and electronic tampering, it appears that concerns surrounding a rigged election are not necessarily unfounded, as President Obama would have us believe.

  With the election just days away, the fix appears to be in and some Americans are readying themselves for a confrontation should one be necessary.

  As the most divisive presidential election in recent memory nears its conclusion, some armed militia groups are preparing for the possibility of a stolen election on Nov. 8 and civil unrest in the days following a victory by Democrat Hillary Clinton.

  They say they won’t fire the first shot, but they’re not planning to leave their guns at home, either.

   

  …

   

  Trump has repeatedly warned that the election may be “rigged,” and has said he may not respect the results if he does not win. At least one paramilitary group, the Oath Keepers, has called on members to monitor voting sites for signs of fraud

   

  …

   

  Over the past week, some prominent Trump supporters have hinted at violence.

   

  “If Trump loses, I’m grabbing my musket,” former Illinois Representative Joe Walsh wrote on Twitter last week. Conservative commentator Wayne Root fantasized about Clinton’s death while speaking at a Trump rally in Las Vegas on Sunday.

   

  Back in Georgia, the Three Percent Security Force wrapped up rifle practice in the midday sun. They then headed further into the trees to tackle an obstacle course with loaded pistols at their sides, ready for whatever may come.

   

  Source: Zero Hedge via Raw Story

  The story comes from the mainstream media, of course, and ties in the Oklahoma City bombing, Waco and the Ruby Ridge incidents, all of which involved people with ties to militias.

  The way the report itself is framed appears to have the purpose of sowing seeds of “crazy conspiracy theorists” into the minds of the general public so that if push comes to shove government actions will be justified in the eyes of the American citizenry.

  But whatever the narrative, it is clear that the possibility of post-election chaos is becoming all the more probable. Whether the initial outcome shows a Trump win or a Hillary win, there are going to be tens of millions of very pissed off people in this country. And there’s a very good chance that some of them will take action, which according to Mike Adams could subsequently lead to open warfare on the streets of America:

  As I’ve publicly predicted numerous times over the last year, if Donald Trump wins, the radical extreme leftists go on a violent rampage that leads to the rest of us begging for martial law. After half a dozen cities burn with riots and looting, Trump invokes a national emergency, deploying National Guard troops across the most devastated urban areas, and the radical left finds itself in a shooting war with the government.

   

  If Hillary Clinton wins, all the Trump supporters who have been violently assaulted, spat upon and physically attacked by the radical left un-holster their concealed weapons and start shooting back. This quickly escalates into open warfare between lunatic leftist Hillary supporters and armed Trump “Second Amendment” people who basically figure they’ve got nothing left to lose anyway, so why not fight to save America?

   

  Full Report: The Election Is A Ticking Time Bomb: “Chaos Will Erupt In Less Than 100 Days”

  It would only take a small group, perhaps even one that’s operating under a false flag, to light a wildfire that could spread from coast to coast. The assets, as Jeremiah Johnson warns, have already been put into place by the Obama administration:

  In summary, the U.S. is prepositioning its “enemy-assets” to blame – on what the administration does – for a collapsed election labeled as “rigged” or the suspension of the election for any number of reasons, real or illusory, such as a genuine attack the U.S. provokes or an attack the U.S. carries out on itself.  Civil unrest and/or war are the escape hatches to bail out of the Constitution and to take control of the country…not letting either crisis go to waste.  With civil rest or a world war, the administration will be handed the country on a platter – indefinitely – and the election will be a moot point, whether it happened or not.

   

  Full report: The United States Is Pre-Positioning “Enemy Assets” In Preparation For A Rigged Election

  All of this may sound extreme, but this Presidential election has been nothing short of insane thus far.

  Whatever the outcome, there will be calls of rigging from both sides, especially if it happens to be Hillary Clinton who , as evidence shows, has been rigging things all along.

  It only took one bullet in 1914 to lead to widespread global confrontation. In the end, no one really cared who fired it or who got shot. The assets had already been positioned ahead of time and were just waiting for someone to detonate the powder keg.

  If this is the case in America today, then this election will not end on November 8th, but could drag on for weeks or months as we saw with Bush vs. Gore in 2000.

  Should tensions heat up and lead to confrontation, it is possible that President Obama will call for a national emergency and activate the Doomsday Executive Order to “restore order.” In this instance, the entire country could be on lock-down, so preparing for this outcome now in the event of curfews, rationing or any number of other potential scenarios is in order.

  

  

• Commuter-In-Chief: Obama Cuts Sentences Of 72 More Drug Dealers; Total Exceeds Previous 11 Presidents Combined

  Earlier today President Obama commuted the sentences of another 72 federal prisoners bringing his total to 944, more than the previous 11 presidents combined.  This latest move is just further evidence of his stated intention to ramp up commutations throughout the remainder of his presidency.  While the President often claims publicly that his commutations are only for “low-level” and “non-violent” criminals, The Hill points out that 16 of the 72 commutations from today were for people serving life sentences. 

  Friday’s clemency grants include 16 people serving life sentences. More than two dozen will be released as early as next spring, but many will not be freed immediately.

   

  Some will not get out of prison until fall 2018. Other inmates’ releases are conditional on them entering enter residential drug treatment programs.

   

  During the final stretch of his presidency, Obama has ramped up his use of clemency power to free prisoners serving lengthy sentences handed down during the government’s war on drugs.

  In his typical fashion, the President also took to Twitter to brag about his latest “accomplishment.”

  .@POTUS has commuted more sentences than the past 11 presidents combined. Today, he granted 72 more: https://t.co/at8cs4afpw pic.twitter.com/63bfxvoONf

  — The White House (@WhiteHouse) November 4, 2016

   

  Of course, Obama has repeatedly denounced long sentences for “nonviolent, low-level” drug offenses as overly punitive, arguing they’ve had a devastating impact on “communities of color.”  That said, we would encourage everyone to take a look at the DOJ’s list of offenses committed by the folks that Obama is intent upon releasing.  Below is a brief sample…do these look like “nonviolent, low-level” criminals to anyone?
  

  Gerardo Hernandez – Conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 371; conspiracy to gather and transmit national defense information, 18 U.S.C § 794(c); conspiracy to commit murder, 18 U.S.C. § 1117; fraud and misuse of documents, 18 U.S.C § 1546(a); possession with intent to use five or more fraudulent identification documents, 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(3); acting as an agent of foreign government without prior notification to the Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. § 951

   

  Anthony Pender – Possession of a firearm by convicted felon; possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base

   

  Tesmone Darin Paschal – Possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base; aided and abetted in the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon
  

   

  Mark Foster – Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 & 841(b)(1)(A); carrying or possessing a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)

   

  Ali Reno Harden – Possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); possession of a firearm having an obliterated serial number, 18 U.S.C. § 922(k); possession with intent to distribute more than five grams of cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & 851; possession of a firearm during the commission of a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); possession of marijuana, 21 U.S.C. §§ 844 & 851

  Finally, here is the full statement from the President’s White House blog released earlier today:

  Following last Thursday’s grant of 98 commutations, today, President Obama granted commutation to another 72 federal inmates. In just an eight-day period, the President has issued two rounds of grants, totaling 170 commutations. With today’s grants, the President has now commuted the sentences of 944 individuals, including 324 life sentences.

   

  What President Obama has done for commutations is unprecedented in the modern era. The President is committed to reinvigorating the clemency authority, demonstrating that our nation is a nation of second chances, where mistakes from the past will not deprive deserving individuals of the opportunity to rejoin society and contribute to their families and communities. The President’s 944 commutation recipients have earned that second chance — whether by obtaining a GED, taking vocational programming to learn skills for future employment, or addressing the substance abuse that so often has led to their criminal conduct. These stories demonstrate that neither society nor these individuals benefit from disproportionate sentences that keep rehabilitated individuals incarcerated, even after they have been adequately punished for their wrongdoing. The personal stories behind each of the President’s commutation recipients underline the individualized consideration that goes into each grant.

   

  Only Congress can achieve the broader reforms needed to ensure our federal sentencing system operates more fairly and effectively in the service of public safety. As Congress returns this month, it is essential that they take up bipartisan criminal justice reform legislation, including reforms that address the excessive mandatory minimum sentences that imprisoned many of the individuals receiving commutation today.

  944 extra democrat voters and counting…

  

  

• Hillary And Bill Clinton: The "Bonnie & Clyde" Of American Politics

  Submitted by Wayne Madsen via Strategic-Culture.org,

  Whether the information originated from hacked e-mails and computer files or Freedom of Information Act requests, the revelations about the political and business activities of Hillary and Bill Clinton and their cronies hearken back to another era, the Great Depression of the 1930s and the crime spree of another unscrupulous couple: bank robbery desperados Bonnie and Clyde.

  Aside from Hillary Clinton running her own lucrative «off-the-books» foreign policy via her private email servers and e-mail chain of associates and flunkies, it was her and her husband’s joint Clinton Foundation and Teneo Capital operations that scream out the word «corruption.» The servers were merely a mechanism by which the Clintons ran their own «pay-to-play» racketeering operation, something that would have been the envy of a contemporary of Bonnie and Clyde, Chicago crime boss Al Capone.

  Teneo, which runs a hedge fund operation and a «private intelligence» service jam-packed with former Central Intelligence Agency operatives, is where Mrs. Clinton’s «gal pal» and aide Huma Abedin worked simultaneously to her government employment with the State Department. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s probe of 650,000 emails found on the laptop computer of disgraced former New York Democratic Representative Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of Abedin, is but the proverbial tip of the iceberg. While FBI agents pore through Abedin’s emails that were discovered on the laptop and looking Mrs. Clinton’s emails that were either not destroyed by her aides or which were never accounted for, the real story is the FBI’s investigation of the Clinton Foundation and Teneo.

  Five FBI field offices are investigating the racketeering of the foundation and the foreign connections of Teneo. The offices include New York; Los Angeles; Washington, D.C.; Little Rock, Arkansas; and Miami. Little Rock is the home of the Clinton Foundation, while New York is the home base of Teneo. The addition of the Miami field office to the Clinton probe is significant. One of Teneo Intelligence’s many global offices is located in Bogota, Colombia. A secretive Colombian private equity fund, «Fondo Acceso», financed by Mexican mega-billionaire Carlos Slim and Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra, is run out of the Clinton Foundation’s Bogota office. Tracking the money being fed into the Clinton Foundation may include proceeds from the illegal narcotics traffic in Colombia and other nearby countries. The Bogota activities of the Clinton Foundation, «Fondo Acceso», which ironically means «Access Fund», and Teneo appear to be concentrated in the Chico Business Park in the Colombian capital. Therefore, the involvement of the Miami office, in investigating Clinton Foundation funding, including the major donations from Slim and Giustra, makes a world of sense.

  Teneo was co-founded by longtime Bill Clinton associate Doug Band, who served in Clinton’s White House Counsel’s Office and later as Clinton’s chief aide in the Clinton Foundation and its associated Clinton Global Initiative. Band’s brother is Bill Clinton’s medical doctor who accompanies the ex-president on foreign trips. Doug Band was the point person who lobbied the incoming Barack Obama administration in 2008 to appoint Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.

  Mrs. Clinton’s tenure at State ensured that there was little separation between her department, the Clinton Foundation and Global Initiative, and Teneo. Abedin served as Mrs. Clinton’s «transition team» leader as the Secretary of State left the department to launch her presidential candidacy after the November 2012 election. From that time on, Mrs. Clinton, Abedin, Doug Band, Clinton’s campaign chief John Podesta, and others engaged in an email flurry to 1) ensure that the files in the private servers were either scrubbed or sanitized; 2) to officially sever all links between them and the Clinton Foundation and Teneo; and 3) to paint a picture for the public that all was well and legal with Mrs. Clinton’s term as America’s chief foreign policy executive. Unfortunately, the entire Clinton team has been exposed with the publication of emails from Mrs. Clinton’s swearing in as Secretary of State in 2009 to after she launched her campaign for the White House in 2013.

  The picture painted by the emails is one of modern-day gangsters milking everything they possibly could out of supposed public service.

  The FBI’s New York field office is also likely looking at Teneo’s dealings with other Clinton allies. It was Teneo that advised former New Jersey Democratic Governor Jon Corzine's MF Global investment firm as it was collapsing amid charges of major fraud by Corzine, a Clinton loyalist. It is also known as Mrs. Clinton communicated with President Obama over her private server and that Obama used a pseudonym. Obama lied to the American people when he stated that he first learned of the existence of Mrs. Clinton’s server from news media reports. There is little wonder why Obama has refused to condemn FBI director James Comey for re-launching his probe of the Clinton emails, based on the discovery of the additional traffic on Weiner’s laptop. Presidents who dug themselves deep into scandals by lying about «what they knew and when they knew it» helped sink the administration of Richard Nixon and almost cost Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton their presidencies. Obama was wise not to interfere in the FBI’s many criminal cases now building up like a tidal wave against Mrs. Clinton.

  The many Clinton scandals also involve the illegal shipment of U.S.- and foreign-manufactured weapons to jihadist rebels in Libya and Syria against U.S. law. When Clinton and Abedin oversaw the jihadist rebellions in both countries, the U.S. was subject to imposing a United Nations arms embargo directed against both civil war theaters. The sudden decision on October 5, 2016, by the Justice Department to drop all charges against the State Department-licensed Turi Defense Group of Arizona and its owner, Marc Turi, for violating U.S. law by shipping unregistered weapons to Libyan rebels, some of which were transferred to Syrian rebels by the CIA station in Benghazi, indicates that Attorney General Loretta Lynch wanted the Turi case to disappear before the November 8th election.

  The federal trial of Turi and his company was due to begin on November 8th. The indictment of Turi was brought in the U.S. Court for the District of Arizona in Phoenix. Phoenix's Sky Harbor International Airport was the scene of an impromptu and highly-questionable tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and Attorney General Lynch on June 27, 2016. Turi claims that approval for the secret weapons shipments to Libya and onward to Syria were personally approved by Mrs. Clinton and had a green light from the CIA. Any new email or other evidence that Mrs. Clinton authorized illegal weapons shipments to jihadist terrorists would have required the FBI to broaden its investigation of both Hillary and Bill Clinton, as well as Lynch. Mrs. Clinton may have violated federal law by permitting the shipment of weapons to belligerent parties in Libya and Syria; Mr. Clinton may have obstructed justice in talking to the Attorney General; and Lynch may have violated her oath of office in misusing her position as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice.

  The Clinton scandal, in many ways, resembles the Iran-Contra episode more than it does Watergate. In Watergate, the cover-up by Nixon and his cronies, in many respects, was worse than the original crimes. In Iran-Contra, the arms and drugs smuggling crimes were equal to the cover-up, including the criminal role of then-Vice President George H. W. Bush in the entire affair. With the Clintons’ «E-mailgate», shipping U.S. weapons to terrorists and accepting foreign campaign donations from dodgy regimes in Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Qatar are every bit as bad as the obvious ensuing cover-up by Hillary Clinton and her and her husband's cronies.

  If these many cases are what the FBI and its offices in Washington, New York, Little Rock, Los Angeles, Miami, and possibly Phoenix, are now looking at, the FBI director had every right and a constitutional responsibility to inform Congress and the voting public. And FBI director Comey has every right not to tip off to the Clinton gang what he and the bureau may have on them, evidence demanded now by Mrs. Clinton and her supporters. This evidence may become material to the impeachment of Mrs. Clinton from the office of president of the United States should she be elected on November 8^th.

  

  

• Iranian Revolutionary Guard Commander Boasts That The US In "Strong Decline"

  Seemingly no amount of cash ransom payments, made in the form of Swiss Francs and Euros (you know, because USD just wasn’t acceptable), are sufficient to buy off a continuously defiant Iranian government.  Time and time again the Iranians continue act in a provocative fashion either taking our sailors hostage or provoking our navy fleet in international waters but we still grant more concessions.  According to the Daily Mail, the latest Iranian insults come courtesy of Revolutionary Guard commander, Hossein Salami, who told a crowd gathered to celebrate the 1979 US Embassy siege that the US is in “strong decline.”

  A senior Iranian military official welcomed Thursday what he said was the “strong decline” of the United States, during celebrations marking the start of the 1979 US embassy siege.

   

  “America is no longer number one and the first power of the world,” deputy Revolutionary Guards commander Hossein Salami told thousands gathered outside the former US mission in Tehran.

   

  “America’s political will can no longer manage political and military development in… the world of Islam. America’s political power has strongly declined.”

  

   

  Perhaps we’re naive but this all sounds more like taunting than a country that wants to engage in reasonable discourse with the United States.  Perhaps Secretary of State John Kerry could explain one more time why we lifted sanctions against a country whose commander tells a group of students that “our fight with Americans will continue” all while those students shout “death to America?”

  Every year on November 3-4, Iran celebrates the 444-day siege of the embassy when more than 50 diplomats, staff and spies were taken hostage by Islamist students demanding the extradition of the shah, who had fled to America after being deposed a few months earlier in the Islamic revolution.

   

  The crisis severed US-Iranian diplomatic ties for decades, but Tehran last year clinched a deal with world powers to curb its controversial nuclear programme in exchange for an easing of economic sanctions.

   

  Protesters on Thursday chanted the traditional rallying cries of “Death to America” and “Death to the House of Saud”, in reference to Iran’s regional rival Saudi Arabia.

   

  But the US remains Iran’s main enemy, and Tehran and Washington back opposing sides in several regional conflicts, including Syria and Yemen.

   

  “Our fight with the Americans will continue” Salami said. “Pursuing our ideals in the world of Islam and in Iran, we will recognise no stopping point or red line.”

  Meanwhile, this is what we received in return for lifted sanctions and billions of cash:

   

  Mr. Obama, might we suggest it’s time for a new approach?

  

  

• …And The Dominoes Fall

  With Guy Fawkes Day tomorrow, and America’s “most important election ever” just around the corner, we thought this clip prescient as we have a feeling the dominoes are going to fall soon…

  “…so much chaos, someone will do something stupid… and when they do, things will turn nasty”

  h/t Jim Quinn’s Burning Platform blog

  

  

• Civil War II – Fourth Turning Is Intensifying (Part 1)

  Submitted by Jim Quinn via The Burning Platform blog,

  “History offers even more sobering warnings: Armed confrontation usually occurs around the climax of Crisis. If there is confrontation, it is likely to lead to war. This could be any kind of war – class war, sectional war, war against global anarchists or terrorists, or superpower war. If there is war, it is likely to culminate in total war, fought until the losing side has been rendered nil – its will broken, territory taken, and leaders captured.” – The Fourth Turning – Strauss & Howe -1997

  

  As we enter the final stretch of this vitriolic, deplorable, venomous, propaganda saturated, deceitful, rigged presidential election spectacle, it becomes painfully obvious this Fourth Turning is careening toward bloodshed, bedlam, confrontation, and civil war. The linear fixated establishment, who fancy themselves intellectually superior to the irredemables, are too blinded by their sociopathic, increasingly audacious subversion of the Constitution, to grasp the level of rage and disillusionment of a white working class that has been screwed over for decades.

  As the Wall Street shysters frantically accelerate their embezzlement of what remains of middle class wealth, with the Fed and the corporate media propagandists as their wing-men, the country devolves into a corporate fascist state. The disposition of the nation grows dark like the sky before an approaching deadly blizzard. As passions boil over and violence portends, this Fourth Turning hastens towards a bloody decade ahead with an uncertain climax.

  If you think this is just hyperbole, you either haven’t studied history or your cognitive dissonance and normalcy bias prevent you from seeing the unavoidable societal altering clashes, which occur like clockwork on an eighty year cycle, when the portents are right in front of your eyes. Historian Arnold Toynbee’s great war cycle that arise every 80 years or so, aligns perfectly with the Fourth Turning generational theory. Great wars occur when the generation that doesn’t remember the last catastrophic war ascends to leadership of the country.

  We are eight years into a Crisis period which won’t end until the mid-2020s. As this bitterly vicious presidential campaign accelerates towards a finale which will leave the country divided and irate, the hostile opposing forces will be seeking revenge, retribution, and retaliation no matter the outcome. There is no doubt the regeneracy is well under way.

  “The next Fourth Turning is due to begin shortly after the new millennium, midway through the Oh-Oh decade. Around the year 2005, a sudden spark will catalyze a Crisis mood. Remnants of the old social order will disintegrate. Political and economic trust will implode. Real hardship will beset the land, with severe distress that could involve questions of class, race, nation and empire. The very survival of the nation will feel at stake. Sometime before the year 2025, America will pass through a great gate in history, commensurate with the American Revolution, Civil War, and twin emergencies of the Great Depression and World War II.” – Strauss & Howe – The Fourth Turning 

  It was five years ago I spent a couple fascinating hours with Neil Howe, co-author of the Fourth Turning, during the Occupy Wall Street protests. He thought the protests were all passion and no depth, engineered by anarchist Boomers. He was right. I thought OWS might be the start of the regeneracy, but it flamed out quickly. It was only a foreshadowing of what was to come. Whatever event or movement created the regeneracy, it would be driven by the toxic combination of debt, civic decay, and global disorder.

  Neil was particularly worried about the Federal Reserve zero interest rate policy and how it was ruining our economic system, creating disincentives to saving and encouraging warped, debt driven speculation. And that was in 2011. The Fed keeping interest rates near zero on behalf of a corrupt establishment for the last eight years has been the primary factor in creating the anger, disillusionment and revolutionary spirit driving the regeneracy.

  No critical thinking human being can deny this tumultuous presidential election and its equally turbulent primaries have been fueled by the dreadful self-serving response of the establishment to the 2008 Wall Street created financial collapse; the geopolitical anarchy created by U.S. interventionism in the Middle East; the civic decay created by a failing government educational system; rampant debt financed materialism enabled and encouraged by the financial/media complex; and racial division facilitated by the president and his social justice warrior brethren.

  The rescue of Wall Street and destruction of Main Street by the Fed, Wall Street and the captured politicians of both parties in Washington D.C. has created the angry, acrimonious, throw the bums out mood boiling over in flyover America. The widening Grand Canyon gap in wealth between the haves and the have nots, produced by solutions from sociopaths in suits has reached the pitchfork and torch level.

  The linear thinking ruling class has been in denial since this Crisis catalyzed in September 2008. Their looting, pillaging and ransacking campaign, designed to enrich and empower a small cadre of shadowy, powerful, wealthy men, had been successful for decades. When you control the currency and interest rates; rig the financial markets; buy the politicians; write the laws and regulations; own the corporate propaganda machines known as the mainstream media; operate a high tech surveillance state; create a dumbed down populace through government school indoctrination; and distract the masses with iGadgets, reality TV, hero worship, professional sports, social media, irrelevant cultural issues, and literally thousands of other modern day bread and circuses; you become arrogant and careless.

  These sociopaths are so consumed with their ravenous fleecing of the middle class, waging wars for profit, and shredding the Constitution, they failed to recognize 2008 for the seismic earth shattering event that will change everything. The mood of the country shifted like tectonic plates beneath the nation. The mood continues to grow dimmer, as the peasants grow poorer and the modern day aristocracy (Wall Street bankers, corporate executives, corrupt politicians, shadowy billionaires) accumulate obscene ill-gotten wealth through their complete capture of the system. This perverted, degenerative, criminal degradation of our society is powerfully summed up by Jesse from Jesse’s Café Americain:

  “Not all sociopaths wield knives and knotted cords. Some wear suits, and are exceptionally intelligent and articulate, obsessively driven, and are able to use and undermine the law and the rules for their advantage, like weapons.  It is never about the win, never about the money.  It is about the kill, the expression of their hatred, about elevating themselves with the suffering of others. Bind, torture, kill.  Not only with ropes and knives, but also with power and money, and the subversion of law.  Lawlessness is their addiction, their will to power.

  When societies become lax and complacent, these sociopaths can possess great political power through great amounts of unprincipled money.  And over time they become almost anti-human, destroyers of all that is good, all that is life, all that offends their insatiable sickness with its goodness.  They twist the public against itself, and turn a broad sweep of society into their killing grounds. This is the undeniable lesson of the last century.  There are monsters, and they walk among us.”

  Neil Howe has noted in previous articles the catalyst, climax and resolution of Fourth Turnings can be specifically dated. But the regeneracy is more of an era than a date. With only three previous American Fourth Turnings, I imagined the regeneracy to be a specific event where the American people, faced with growing peril and danger, put aside their differences and rallied around a strong leader to build something new. Boy was I wrong.

  In retrospect, the American people were numbed by the Great Depression and the bloody initial battles of the Civil War. They just let FDR and Lincoln do whatever they needed to do. The regeneracy marks a growth in centralized authority and resolute governance at a time of great risk and urgency. I believe this era of regeneracy began at the outset of the presidential primaries early in 2016.

  Based upon the reaction of the citizens in the last ten months, the dire problem facing the nation, perceived as the largest threat to our future, happens to be the Deep State establishment currently ruling the country. The captured mainstream media and grey beards running both political parties were completely stunned, horrified, and irate at the unprecedented success achieved by the two anti-establishment candidates, Trump and Sanders.

  This election was supposed to follow the script as planned and coordinated by the establishment, with Hillary Clinton defeating Jeb Bush and continuing the corrupt status quo policies agreed to by the bought off leaders of both parties. They badly miscalculated the mood of the country and the whirlwind of change seeking to sweep away the stubborn remnants of a crooked, decrepit, putrid, existing social order. This collective middle finger to the establishment could only happen during a Fourth Turning.

  This regeneracy is well under way and is poised to transform and replace the very foundation of this crumbling empire of debt, delusions, and denial. The unanswered question is what happens next. I posed that question to Neil Howe five years ago and he said the specific events of a Fourth Turning are unknowable, but the reaction to those events by the generational cohorts is consistent over time.

  We are seeing the reaction of critical thinking Americans as they come to the realization the system is rigged against them. A revolutionary spirit is once again rising among the deplorables. I also asked Neil about the theory Fourth Turnings alternate between external conflicts and internal conflicts. He found the subject fascinating, but didn’t think there were enough data points to make a determination.

  Based on the current path of this Fourth Turning, I’m now convinced of this alternating sequence between advancement cycles and atonement cycles. The advancement cycles can be seen as establishing, whereas atonement cycles are disestablishing. It is apparent each Fourth Turning alternates between an external struggle and an internal struggle. The American Revolution was a struggle against an external oppressor – Great Britain.

  The Civil War was an internal struggle between the industrial North and the agrarian South. The Depression/World War II struggle was mainly against an external threat – Germany, Japan, and Italy. The American Revolution established our country. There was optimism and elation as a new republic, forged under an enlightened Constitution and led by judicious intelligent men, was born. It was clearly an advancement cycle.

  The Civil War disestablished states’ rights, slavery, agrarian society and Constitutional rights. It was an atonement cycle for our actual and implicit sins. There was no glorious high. The resolution felt more like defeat, with the country exhausted, bitter and angry. The country had exhausted itself, spilling the blood of over one million men. The new High after an atonement cycle is like a cold miserable rainy dark Spring.

  The Great Depression/World War II Fourth Turning established a new world order led by the United States. As the only major country left unscathed by the ravages of global war, the U.S. became the producer for the world, whose dollar was unquestioned as the currency of global trade. The new High was unleashed with fanfare and adulation. It was like a delightfully warm Spring, with flowers blooming and children frolicking.

  All signs point toward this Fourth Turning being a life or death struggle between the ruling class of sociopathic bankers, corporate elites, and sleazy politicians versus the oppressed and infuriated middle class. The lying, deceit, rigging, deception, theft and other crimes perpetrated by the ruling elites will be atoned for. The heroic patriotic revelations from Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, and Bradley (Chelsea) Manning proving the government and politicians to be lying, corrupt, immoral, sociopathic traitors to the Constitution have undermined the last vestiges of trust in the system and the establishment. The alignment of generational dynamics will provoke the responses to events moving forward. We have been badly led. A silent coup by Deep State perpetrators has led to the complete capture of our economic, financial, judicial and political systems.

  A vast swath of the populace has been lured into living beyond their means. The existing system is unsustainable. The Boomer generation does not want to yield on their perceived entitlements. The Millennial generation is saddled with un-payable debts, living in their parents’ basements, working the night shift at Ruby Tuesday. Generation X is trapped in the middle of this generational struggle. The huge economic imbalances, created by politicians buying votes and engineering wealth inequality to benefit the few, have built up over decades like flood waters behind a weakening levee. When the levee breaks the morally bankrupt criminal social order will be swept away in the raging torrent to follow.

  Winter will eventually turn into Spring, but it might be a bitter, gloomy, austere Spring. Every Fourth Turning brings on forecasts of imminent doom, but that is also a trait of Prophet (Trump, Clinton) Generations. It’s how they feel about the prospects of their imminent die off; they expect the entire world to go with them. The 2008 financial crisis was horrific, scary and an eye opener for those who blindly believed what they were told by their establishment zoo keepers. The regeneracy has begun; trust in the system has further disintegrated; this presidential election has further deepened this distrust of the entrenched establishment; and the coming bust for stocks, bonds, and real estate will knock out the supports for the dwindling remaining trust in this crooked system.

  “This might result in a Great Devaluation, a severe drop in the market price of most financial and real assets. This devaluation could be a short but horrific panic, a free-falling price in a market with no buyers. Or it could be a series of downward ratchets linked to political events that sequentially knock the supports out from under the residual popular trust in the system. As assets devalue, trust will further disintegrate, which will cause assets to devalue further, and so on.”

  Eventually, all of America’s lesser problems will combine into one giant problem. The very survival of the society will feel at stake, as leaders lead and people follow. The emergent society may be something better, a nation that sustains its Framers’ visions with a robust new pride. Or it may be something unspeakably worse. The Fourth Turning will be a time of glory or ruin.” – Strauss & Howe – The Fourth Turning

  The next ten or so years will be atonement for decades of bad choices, corrupt leadership, living beyond our means, waging wars of choice across the globe, believing blatant falsehoods, exhibiting willful ignorance, ignoring facts, and failing to uphold the Constitution. Don’t think you can escape the consequences of this Fourth Turning. It doesn’t matter whether you lived according to a moral code, avoided debt, worked hard, paid taxes, and generally lived an upstanding honorable life.

  The death and destruction headed our way will engulf the innocent as well as the guilty. I’m reminded of the penultimate scene in Clint Eastwood’s dark, brooding, vengeful western Unforgiven when Little Bill Daggett laments to “killer of women and children” William Munny that he doesn’t deserve to die this way. Munny responds, “deserves got nothin’ to do with it.” Then he pulls the trigger. This is the kind of future we will be dealing with, whether we like it or not.

  

  In Part Two of this article I will use recent polling data to assess where the most likely sparks will arise to start the civil war conflagration which will accelerate the crumbling of the American Empire. To reinforce the obvious, Fourth Turnings NEVER de-intensify. They end after the spilling of much blood, incomprehensible destruction and the total defeat of the vanquished.

  

  

• Demystifying The Chinese Yuan

  With one of the world’s largest economies and a growing financial sector, China continues to rise as a global power. And, as The Money Project notes the country’s currency, the Chinese yuan (officially the Renminbi), is also starting to mature.

  The most recent evidence of this? The IMF’s decision to include the yuan as a part of its SDR international reserve asset, a basket of major world currencies:

  

  The Chinese economy is significant on a world stage, but its currency and financial system still have major growing up to do.

  

  Courtesy of: The Money Project

   

   

  China is walking a fine balance: it desperately wants to legitimize its currency, but it also must find ways to keep its economic engine moving forward.

  The Yuan’s Wild Ride So Far

  In the early 1980s, the Chinese began to implement ‘Socialism with Chinese characteristics’, by opening up the state-controlled economy to the global market in very limited ways.

  Since being on the world stage, the yuan has been all over the place. It’s been pegged to the U.S. dollar, unpegged, and then temporarily re-pegged again during the Financial Crisis.

  Most recently, the currency was devalued sharply in 2015 to make up for slowing GDP growth. Today, it sits at six-year lows against the U.S. dollar.

  The PBOC and the Chinese Yuan

  The strategy used by The People’s Bank of China has not been easy to follow.

  China wants its currency to matter, but it is also guilty of intervening in currency markets according to the priorities of the day.

  In September 2016, for example, the country increased overnight borrowing rates and bought up the yuan in large amounts to counteract shorting from international traders.

  The Fix Is In

  Onshore, the yuan is allowed to trade within 2% of the PBOC reference point.

  The previous day’s trading might be a factor in setting this. Then again, it may not matter. The decision is not up to the market. Value is set by unnamed officials behind the scenes.

  This “flexibility” allows China to swing between different strategies for the yuan.

  The Dragon’s Gambit

  China can print money endlessly to keep the yuan’s value artificially low, which is good for manufacturers. This is handy in a case such as when exports fall year-over-year, and the economy is slowing.

  But in other cases, China has different priorities, such as protecting the value of the yuan during times of international uncertainty. It can help to do this by securing the yuan with surprise gold holdings announcements or by dumping massive amounts of U.S. Treasuries to prop up the yuan’s price.

  Sometimes these divergent strategies appear to be operating in the same week. Who’s in charge?

  International currency traders ultimately don’t know how these decisions are made, or who is making them.

  The Golden Hoard That Wasn’t

  China’s currency manipulation has helped it to accumulate massive foreign exchange holdings. But these holdings are not a sign of economic strength or a basis for investment in the country’s future. They’re a hedge against currency flight. When the economy is sinking, the government can use these reserves to prop it back up.

  

  The Dragon Sleeps

  According to the Bank of International Settlements, trading volume of the Chinese yuan has doubled over the last three years.

  But the U.S. greenback and other top currencies have a huge advantage: people think they know what they are worth. The value isn’t set by government apparatchik.

  For now, the Chinese yuan remains a sleeping dragon. If China ever really joins the global market in a meaningful way, watch the currency wake up and breathe fire.

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest

• "Something Big Is Underway On All Fronts"

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

  As of this writing, the increased U.S. troop presence in Eastern Europe includes a battalion-sized element of American troops being emplaced in the Suwalki Gap, Polish territory that borders Lithuania in a 60-mile stretch of corridor.  The Russian Defense Ministry announced that 600 Russian and Belarussian airborne troops conducted training exercises in Brest, on the Belorussian-Polish border only a few miles from where the U.S. forces are deploying in Poland.  This on the heels of Britain deploying 800 men, tanks, and jets to Estonia, along with pledges of Challenger 2 tanks, APC’s (Armored Personnel Carriers), and drones.  Two companies of French and Danish Soldiers will join the British in the deployment to Estonia.

  For the first time since 1945, Norway has violated its treaty with Russia (then the Soviet Union) not to station foreign troops on its soil.  A company of U.S. Marines will soon be stationed for a 6-month deployment in Norway.  The situation is heating up in Ukraine, according to a report on fort-russ.com entitled Ukraine Moves Massive Force up to Lugansk Frontline, published October 28, 2016.  The report reveals the Ukrainian Army is deploying 3,500 soldiers and 200 armored vehicles of the 15^th Motorized Infantry Brigade to Krasny Oktyabr in the district of Lugansk in Eastern Ukraine.  For the first time in history, Romanian airspace is being patrolled by the RAF (Royal Air Force) of Britain.

  In addition, the Ukrainian National Guard is deploying a tactical company equipped with 82 mm mortars and AGS-17 auto grenade launchers, along with APC’s and missile launchers.  A separate reconnaissance battalion named the “Night Shades,” a nationalist volunteer battalion will be deploying to Lugansk as well.  No doubt they will receive a “warm” reception, as the fighting has been ongoing in the region for more than two years.  The area is a severe flashpoint, as the separatists are ethnic Russians of Ukrainian nationality who wish to secede in the manner that Crimea did…Russia annexed them after the popular vote to leave Ukraine.  Now (since December 2015) the Congress gave the green light to send weapons and munitions to Ukraine; the “holdup” is due to Obama not wanting to jeopardize the election of Hillary Clinton, as the Russians have stated weapons to Ukraine means war with the U.S. and NATO.

  Meanwhile the Varshankya-class stealth subs are deploying into the Black Sea as the Russian fleet is moving toward Syria.  The Russian and Syrian armies continue to bomb and attack the al-Nusra/Jabhat Fatah ash-Sham fighters emplaced in the city of Aleppo.  The mainstream media, meanwhile, is faltering in its attempt to create a “sacred U.S.-coalition crusade” to “free the city of Mosul,” as the offensive is not working quite as planned.  There are also reports that the U.S. government has plans to “navigate” Islamic terrorists from Mosul into Syria, to cause more problems for Assad and the Russians; the mainstream media is notoriously silent on the collateral damages being caused by the U.S.-led Mosul attacks, in which U.S. aircraft are supporting with bombing missions.

  Let’s be clear on this: The U.S. is beefing up conventional forces of American troops into Eastern Europe and convincing NATO countries to augment these deployments with soldiers and equipment.  The Russians have been responding with opposing counter-deployments to offset the U.S.-NATO movements.  The aggressive stance is being taken by the U.S.-NATO-IMF hegemony in its military buildup in Eastern Europe and the Baltic States, the very “backyard” of Russia.

  The bottom line: the stage is being set to start WWIII on the slightest provocation.

  The domestic perspective yields that just a few weeks after the ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) transfer from U.S. control to (basically) the UN on October 1, 2016, the U.S. has had a DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) attack from hackers on October 21, 2016 affecting the east and west coast of the U.S. as well as Texas and part of Europe.  Just one week before, on OCtobr 13, 2016 Obama signed an Executive Order for Space Weather anomalies just “in case” some “space weather anomaly” were to cripple the power grid and electrical infrastructure of the United States.

  Something even worse that happened may really tie into this.

  Last week it was reported by the U.S. Army that Major General John Rossi had committed suicide.  Rossi had been slated to take over as the Commander of U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, and the Army Forces Strategic Command.  General Rossi was about to complete 33 years of service and was only 55 years old.  He was “found” at Redstone Arsenal, and the Army just ruled it a suicide.  The Daily Mail on dailymail.co.uk reported that a U.S. government official told USA Today: “It seemed that Rossi was overwhelmed by his responsibilities” as a potential reason for his suicide.

  The problem is, he committed suicide on July 31, 2016…and it’s taken two months for the Army to rule it as being a suicide?

  With the command assignment, Rossi would have been privy to every procedure and protocol to defend the United States against an ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) attack or an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) attack or event.  He would know everything from the “top” down: that is, the Commander-in-Chief (Obama) would have to foster a one-on-one relationship with the man who would hold the key post to defending against a foreign missile attack.

  Maybe this time the missile would not have been foreign, or if it was?  It may not have been the leader of a foreign country to direct it against the United States.

  It is almost impossible to believe that a Major General of the United States Army just receiving a top command post, a 55-year-old soldier…a general officer…with 33 years of service, a wife, and a loving family would “off” himself because of being “overwhelmed by responsibility.”  Men such as Rossi (the highest-ranking member of the military to do such a thing) do not shirk responsibility: they meet it, head on.  The whole thing stinks of a purge, in the manner that the entire military of the United States has been purged of hundreds of senior General Staff officers, Admiralty, and Senior Noncommissioned Officers…replaced by “yes” men over the course of Obama’s term.

  The whole thing stinks of an assassination: no suicide note, no real press coverage, and nothing from his friends, family, or fellow soldiers.  This occurs, and then Obama signs his Executive Order to “protect” us from the dreaded space anomaly that will take down our infrastructure.  Could this have possibly been a suicide?  Think of all of the heartache and grief his family is going through with his loss.  What about the benefits and retirement that his family would lose with such an act?  If he really committed suicide, then it was probably because he found out about something so heinous, so vile that would occur to the U.S. that he couldn’t live with it and probably couldn’t stop it.

  Bottom line: Was he terminated when he wouldn’t go along with a false flag EMP-plan conceived by Obama to take down our grid, cripple our response time, and set the stage for martial law and the suspension of all rights under the Constitution of the United States?

  As I have mentioned in the past, I repeat once again:

  The next war will be initiated by an EMP device detonated above the continental United States followed by a limited nuclear exchange and then conventional warfare.

  I never said that it wouldn’t be Obama who initiated the EMP device, and in all probability if he doesn’t initiate it…he’ll either provoke it, allow it, or request it.  We haven’t even mentioned the voting (early voting) taking place where fraud is occurring in Maryland, Virginia, Illinois, and Florida, among others.  The illusion of the vote: the joke of the year, but the joke is on us.

  And Obama is the joker, setting the stage for the transfer of power.  That transfer is not going to occur with the losing candidate (in either case) going gently into that good night.  The stage is set for a war to begin.  The stage is set for a false flag operation to take down our grid.  The stage is set to steal the election for Clinton or declare it null and void.  Within the next few weeks, the future of the United States will be decided…with or without the consent of the governed.

  

  

• What Does It Take To Bring Hillary Clinton To Justice?

  Authored by Pepe Escobar, originally posted op-ed via RT.com,

  Virtually the whole planet holds its collective breath at the prospect of Hillary Clinton possibly becoming the next President of the United States (POTUS).

  How’s that humanly possible, as the (daily) Bonfire of The Scandals – relentlessly fed by WikiLeaks revelations and now converging FBI investigations – can now be seen from interstellar space?   

  It’s possible because Hillary Clinton, slouching through a paroxysm of manufactured hysteria, is supported by virtually the whole US establishment, a consensual neocon/neoliberalcon War Party/Wall Street/corporate media axis. 

  But History has a tendency to show us there’s always a straw that breaks the camel’s back. 

  This could be it – as revealed by WikiLeaks; March 2, 2015, the day when John Podesta wrote, “we are going to have to dump all those emails.”

  That happened to be the exact same day it was revealed Hillary Clinton had used a personal email server as Secretary of State. 

  Yet this reveals only part of the puzzle. There’s got to be a response to Podesta’s email – which WikiLeaks may, or may not, leak in the next few days before the election. If the back and forth clearly shows intent (to mislead), then we’ve got a 100 percent smoking gun: the whole Clinton (cash) machine narrative – according to which Hillary just deleted "personal" emails – crumbles like the ultimate House of Cards.    

  Moreover, that would unveil what was from the start the privileged Clinton machine strategy: to thwart the subsequent internal State Dept. and FBI investigations. 

  As far as the Clinton machine is concerned, an interlocking influence peddling pile up is the norm. John Podesta also happens to be the founder of the Center for American Progress – a George Soros operation and prime recruiting ground for Obama administration officials, including US Treasury operatives who decided which elite Too Big To Fail (TBTF) financial giants would be spared after the 2008 crisis. DCLeaks.com, for its part, has connected Soros Open Society foundations to global funding rackets directly leading to subversion of governments and outright regime change (obviously sparing Clinton Foundation donors.)

  Exceptional bananas, anyone? 

  The perfectly timed slow drip of WikiLeaks revelations, for the Clinton machine, feels like a sophisticated form of Chinese torture. To alleviate the pain, the relentless standard spin has been to change the subject, blame the messenger, and attribute it all to “evil” Russian hacking when the real source for the leaks might have come straight from the belly of the (Washington) beast.   

  At the Valdai discussion club last week, it took President Putin only a few sentences to debunk the whole Clinton machine narrative with a bang:

  “Another mythical and imaginary problem is what I can only call the hysteria the USA has whipped up over supposed Russian meddling in the American presidential election. The United States has plenty of genuinely urgent problems, it would seem, from the colossal public debt to the increase in firearms violence and cases of arbitrary action by the police. You would think that the election debates would concentrate on these and other unresolved problems, but the elite has nothing with which to reassure society, it seems, and therefore attempt to distract public attention by pointing instead to supposed Russian hackers, spies, agents of influence and so forth.

   

  I have to ask myself and ask you too: Does anyone seriously imagine that Russia can somehow influence the American people’s choice? America is not some kind of ‘banana republic’, after all, but is a great power. Do correct me if I am wrong.”

  Reality, though, continues to insist on offering multiple, overlapping banana republic instances, configuring a giant black hole of transparency. 

  Anthropologist Janine Wedel has been one of the few in Clinton-linked US mainstream media acknowledging how Bill Clinton, while Hillary was Secretary of State, perfected his version of “philantro-capitalism” (actually a money laundering “pay to play” racket), a practice “by no means confined to the Clintons”.    

  And the racket prospered with inbuilt nuggets, such as Hillary being perfectly aware that prime Clinton Foundation donors Qatar and Saudi Arabia were also financing ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.  

  Huma, the Fall Princess 

  Now, less than a week before the election, we have come to the crucial juncture where the WikiLeaks revelations are merging with the FBI investigations – all three of them. 

  Exhibit A is this WikiLeaks bombshell; Peter Kadzik, who’s now in charge of the Department of Justice (DOJ) probe into the 650,000 emails found on the laptop shared by Clinton’s right-hand woman Huma Abedin and her estranged, pervert husband Anthony Wiener, is a Clinton asset.

  Not only Kadzik was an attorney for Marc Rich when he was pardoned by Bill Clinton; Podesta – as also revealed by WikiLeaks – thanked Kadzik for keeping him “out of jail”; and it was Kadzik who gave Podesta a secret heads up on the Clinton email investigation.  

  The Clinton machine, starring a self-described virtuous Madonna, is actually a pretty nasty business. Huma and her family’s close connections to Saudi Arabia – and the Muslim Brotherhood – are legendary (that includes her brother Hassan, who works for Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi). Podesta, by the way, is a handsomely remunerated lobbyist for Saudi Arabia in Washington; that’s part of the Clinton Foundation connection.

  Yet now, with Huma in the spotlight – still maintaining she didn’t know all those emails were in her and Wiener’s laptop – it’s no wonder Hillary has instantly downgraded her, publicly, to “one of my aides”. She used to be Hillary’s ersatz “daughter”; now she’s being framed as The Fall Princess. 

  And that brings us to the intersection of those three FBI investigations; on Hillary’s Subterranean Email Server (in theory closed by FBI’s Comey last summer); on the Clinton Foundation; and on Wiener’s sexting of minors. The FBI has been investigating the Clinton Foundation for over a year now. Let’s try to cut a long story short.

  Follow the evidence

  Last July, the DOJ – under Clinton/Obama asset Loretta Lynch – decided not to prosecute anyone on Emailgate. And yet FBI director Comey – who nonetheless stressed Hillary’s “extreme carelessness” – turbo-charged his no-denial mode on another investigation, as in the FBI “sought to refocus the Clinton Foundation probe.” 

  Soon we had Clinton Foundation FBI investigators trying to get access to all the emails turned over in the Emailgate investigation. The East District of New York refused it. Very important point; up to 2015, guess who was the US attorney at the East District; Clinton/Obama asset Lynch. 

  Enter an extra layer of legalese. Less than two months ago, the Clinton Foundation FBI investigators discovered they could not have access to any Emailgate material that was connected to immunity agreements. 

  But then, roughly a month ago, another FBI team captured the by now famous laptop shared by Huma and Wiener – using a warrant allowing only a probe on Weiner’s sexting of a 15-year-old girl. Subsequently they found Huma Abedin emails at all her accounts – from Humaabedin@yahoo.com to the crucial huma@clintonemail.com.  This meant not only that Huma was forwarding State Dept. emails to her private accounts, but also that Hillary was sending emails from the “secret” clintonemail.com to Huma at yahoo.com. 

  No one knew for sure, but some of these emails might be duplicates of those the Clinton Foundation FBI investigators could not access because of the pesky immunity agreements. 

  What’s established by now is that the metadata in the Huma/Wiener laptop was duly examined. Now picture both teams of FBI investigators – Clinton Foundation and pervert Wiener – comparing notes. And then they decide Huma’s emails are “relevant”. 

  Key questions apply; and the most pressing is how the emails were deemed “relevant” if the investigators could only examine the metadata. What matters is that Comey certainly was made aware of the content of the emails – a potential game-changer. That’s why one of my sources insists his decision to go public came from above. 

  The other key question now is whether the DOJ – via Kadzik? – will once again thwart another investigation, this time on the Clinton Foundation. Senior, serious FBI agents won’t take that – massive euphemism – kindly.

  The FBI has been on the Clinton Foundation for over a year. Now, arguably, they are loaded with evidence – and they won’t quit. Winning the presidency now seems to be the least of Hillary Clinton’s Bonfire of Scandals’ problems. 

  

  

• Turkish Police Raid Opposition Headquarters, Arrest Pro-Kurdish Party Leaders

  Back in May, just two months before the Turkish “coup”, we reported that the puppet parliament of Turkish president Erodgan agreed to strip its members of immunity, a move which we predicted would “be used by Erdogan to prosecute members of the pro-Kurdish HDP, parliament’s third-biggest party, as well as anyone else he choose to take down.“

  Six months, and one fake coup which concentrated virtually all domestic political power in Erdogan’s hands later, we were proven right, when overnight two co-leaders of Turkey’s pro-Kurdish, People’s Democratic Party (HDP) and at least 11 more MPs were detained overnight as police raided homes in Ankara and eastern Kurdish-majority areas. Local media reported that other than in Ankara and Diyarbakir, the arrests have been made in the eastern and southeastern Turkish cities of Hakkari, Mardin and Batman. The arrests are linked to “terrorist propaganda” cases, Reuters said.

  
  The raids took place on Thursday night in several Turkish cities

  Turkish police raided the Ankara house of co-leader Selahattin Demirtas and the house of co-leader Figen Yuksekdag in Diyarbakir, the largest city in Turkey’s mainly Kurdish southeast, the party’s lawyers told Reuters. “HDP call international community to react against Erdogan Regime’s coup,” the party said on Twitter, referring to President Tayyip Erdogan.

  
  Selahattin Demirtas was detained at his home in Diyarbakir

  Police also raided and searched the party’s head office in central Ankara. Television images showed party officials quarreling with police during the raid, and a Reuters witness said many police cars and armed vehicles had closed the entrances to the street of the HDP headquarters.

  Police raid HDP headquarters in Ankara, detain 11 deputies around country https://t.co/F9AtNXaCch pic.twitter.com/3FP2wakTWu

  — Turkish Minute (@TurkishMinuteTM) November 4, 2016

  Selahattin Demirtas and Figen Yuksekdag were detained at their respective homes as part of a “counter-terrorism inquiry”, security sources quoted by Anadolu news agency said. At least nine other HDP MPs were also taken into custody.

  The lawmakers were detained after “failing to appear for a summons to testify as part of a counter-terrorism investigation,” Anadolu state news agency reported.

  At 4am local, I make 14 HDP MPs in custody, although two are unconfirmed. See the full list here: https://t.co/fjfV1C1LZS pic.twitter.com/skRtBlC1oW

  — JamesInTurkey.com (@jamesinturkey) November 4, 2016

  The testimonies are connected to “terrorist propaganda” probes related to the Kurdish militant group PKK, and to the pro-Kurdish protests with violent clashes of October 2014, which HDP co-chair Demirtas is accused of inciting. The MPs were required to show up for testimonies after their parliamentary immunity was lifted thanks to the abovementioned law passed earlier this year. The two HDP leaders reportedly vowed not to testify.

  Police broke into the home of HPD co-leader Figen Yüksekda? in Diyarbakir and detained her early Friday, while Selahattin Demirtas was detained in his Ankara house

  The party’s lawyers told Reuters that 11 other HDP parliamentarians were also arrested in the raids, with two more wanted for arrest. Local media reported that other than in Ankara and Diyarbakir, the arrests have been made in the eastern and southeastern Turkish cities of Hakkari, Mardin and Batman.

  Those detained included HDP’s deputy speaker in the Turkish parliament, RIA Novosti reported. “Deputy speaker of parliament Pervin Buldan has also been detained in Ankara,” the HDP representative was quoted as saying.

  Policemen breaking into home of HDP Co-chair @FigenYuksekdag and detain her @HDPgenelmerkezi pic.twitter.com/47mSpEdsWE

  — Mutlu Civiroglu (@mutludc) November 3, 2016

  The HDP, which is in strong opposition to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government and supports the Kurdish- and other minorities, has been accused of having links to PKK, which Ankara considers a terrorist organization.

  Meanwhile social networks could not be accessed from inside Turkey. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Whatsapp were inaccessible, even when users tried to circumvent restrictions using a virtual private network (VPN).

  Mr Demirtas had tweeted about his arrest before the sites were restricted. Another MP from the party who is currently abroad, Ertugrul Kurkcu, told the BBC that the detentions were “totally unlawful”. He said: “This crackdown tonight is nothing to do with procedural law, criminal law, any law whatsoever or the constitution. This is an unlawful hijacking of HDP parliamentarians.

  “The Turkish government is heading towards a dictatorship of Nazi style [sic].

  “Will the Turkish government abide by the internationally accepted standards of parliamentary democracy? This is the basic question.”

  Turkey claims that the HDP has links to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), a militant group, but the party strongly denies this. The PKK is deemed a terrorist organisation by the US, the European Union and Turkey.

  Turkey remains under a state of emergency that was imposed after a failed coup in July. The emergency allows President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his cabinet to bypass parliament when drafting new laws and to restrict or suspend rights and freedoms. About 100,000 public sector employees with alleged links to the coup’s alleged mastermind were subsequently purged from their jobs.

  The HDP entered the Turkish parliament for the first time last year, when it won 59 seats and became the country’s third-largest party. It had done so after at least two people died in explosions at one of its rallies. But just three months later, against a backdrop of rising violence between Turkish forces and the PKK, a crowd attacked the HDP’s offices in Ankara.

  The next day, Mr Demirtas accused the ruling party of orchestrating nationalist attacks. Turkish politicians normally have immunity from prosecution, but this was removed from the HDP earlier this year.

  The take home message: after cracking down on the rank and file, the police, army, the state workers in the aftermath of July’s “failed coup”, Erdogan has now gone after the third largest political party in Turkey, and his on his way to becoming a full-fledged dictator, and all thoughout the humanitarian,democratic western powers sit back and pretend not to see Turkey’s collapse into a dictatorial power.

  

  

• The October Payrolls Report: What Wall Street Expects

  While the October payrolls report, due out at 8:30am on Friday, has taken on a secondary importance in light of the market’s near certainty that the Fed will hike rates in December (absent a Trump victory and/or a market crash), analysts and traders will surely be concerned any prominent outlier prints that deviate too far from the consensus estimate of 175K. So, in preview of tomorrow’s biggest economic update, here is a snapshot of what Wall Street expects.

  According to consensus, while estimates point to a pick up in payrolls growth for October, but jobless claims and ADP report have sent mixed signals ahead of NFP release; still, the number should be strong enough to prompt the Fed to raise rates in December, strategists say. 

  • The average Nonfarm payrolls estimate stands at 175k, up modestly from September’s +156k
  • The Unemployment rate seen at 4.9% vs 5.0%
     
  • Average weekly hours exp. at 34.4
  • Average hourly earnings exp. +0.3% m/m, vs +0.2% in September

  This is what the latest ADP report said:

  “Job growth remains strong although the pace of growth appears to be slowing,” Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics Inc. in West Chester, Pennsylvania, said in a statement. Moody’s produces the figures with ADP. “Behind the slowdown is businesses’ difficulty filling open positions. However, there is some weakness in construction, education and mining.”

  The Nov. 2, FOMC statement was optimistic:

  “The labor market has continued to strengthen and growth of economic activity has picked up from the modest pace seen in the first half of this year. Although the unemployment rate is little changed in recent months, job gains have been solid”

  Summary Analyst Views:

  Deutsche Bank (Joe Lavorgna)

  • Headline and private payrolls are expected to rise 150k, slowing moderately
    from their three-month trailing averages of 192k and 177k, respectively
  • A similar reading to the ADP report for today’s employment report from the BLS
    will certainly keep the Fed on track to hike in December.
  • “The October employment report should
    strengthen the Fed’s resolve to raise rates next month…. the bar is fairly low with respect to
    what the Fed needs to see from the October labor data.”

  FTN (Jim Vogel, in note)

  • Current market expectations are in line with December rate hike; only a figure of 125k or less could push market-implied Fed hike odds below 65%
  • Payrolls of 150-200k would see UST 5Y yield between 1.27-1.32%, UST 10Y yield between 1.79-1.84%

  Barclays (Michael Gapen, in note)

  • Recent data on jobless claims “supportive of further improvement in labor market conditions this year”
  • “However, over the past few months, the relationship between claims and employment seems to have weakened somewhat and we have chosen to take less signal from the ongoing declines than we have in the past”

  BMO (Ian Lyngen, in note)

  • ADP miss suggests “marginal downward skew” in NFP report
  • Notes relevant correlation between the two measures that has held up 9 times in last 12 months

  Morgan Stanley (Ted Wieseman, in note)

  • Lowers payrolls forecast to 185k from 205k
  • ADP miss points to weakness ahead of NFP report; overall figure of +147k was “far enough below” MS estimate of 197k to prompt a downward adjustment to payrolls prediction

  * * *

  One notable point brought up by Joe Lavorgna, and the reason why going forward, he is “less sanguine on the labor market.” is that as the chart below indicates, “the year-over-year change in temporary hiring leads that of the overall labor market by two quarters. Temp hiring has been trending noticeably lower as of late. If temp hiring began declining outright on an annual basis, the risk of a more concerning slowdown in hiring would increase.”

  

  * * *

  According to Southbay Research, today’s Challenger Layoffs, and seasonal retail hiring holds the key to the October Payrolls report, as retailers are scrambling for workers.

  Retail stores Are Hiring Earlier

  Thanks to Amazon, big box stores continue to cut store fronts.
  This year brought another wave of big-box store closings (Walmart, JC Penny, Macy’s, etc).  On top of that is the bankruptcy of Sports Authority.

  No drop in hiring despite fewer store fronts

  With hundreds of fewer brick-and-mortar stores, we should expect fewer retail seasonal workers.
  In fact, the opposite is the case: (per Challenger Gray) announced seasonal retail hiring will slightly exceed last year’s.  The reason: more online shopping is driving more logistical/inventory/shipping support.

  

  Early Hiring?

  Seasonal hiring kicks off in October: last year 194K people were hired (not seasonally adjusted).
  More importantly, the trend over the last few years is towards earlier October hiring.
  Is that the case this year?

  Per Challenger Gray, October job cut announcements were (-1K), much lower than last year’s (-5K).
  That could be a sign that retailers are staffing up early.

  One possible driver: Halloween spending. 

  Per the National Retail Federation, spending this year was up 10% over last year.

  * * *

  Finally, here is Goldman’s comprehensive preview of what to expect:

  Payrolls Preview

  We forecast an increase of 185k in nonfarm payroll employment for October, slightly above consensus expectations. An expected rebound in employment growth for state and local governments, as well as education- and health care-related industries, is a key reason for the acceleration from a 156k gain in payrolls in September.

  We look for a decline in the unemployment rate to 4.9%, which is now unusually high compared with continuing jobless claims. Favorable calendar effects as well as strengthening underlying wage tends likely boosted average hourly earnings by 0.3% month-over-month.

  We forecast that nonfarm payroll employment increased by 185k in October, slightly more than expected by consensus estimates (+175k). Although payroll growth edged down to 156k in September, much of the slowing was concentrated in state and local government employment and (private) education and health care employment. In September these industries added just 14k jobs, compared with an average monthly increase over the prior twelve months of 61k (Exhibit 1). A partial rebound in these sectors—with other industries steady—would be enough to lift payroll growth into the high-100k range.

  Expecting a Rebound in Government, Education and Health Employment

  

   

  Arguing for a stronger report:

  • Jobless claims: Initial claims for unemployment insurance benefits have continued to trend down, with the four-week moving average falling to 252k in the October survey week from 258k in the September survey week. The decline would have been even larger except for a rise in claims in the Southeast due to Hurricane Matthew (see below) and an unusually large increase in claims in Kentucky (which we believe was related to a temporary auto plant shutdown). In general, the level of initial claims looks consistent with very low layoff activity in the economy.
  • Manufacturing surveys: The majority of the employment components of the various monthly manufacturing surveys improved in October. The ISM manufacturing (+3.2pt to 52.9), Philly Fed (+1.3pt to -4.0), Kansas City Fed (+10 to +7), and Richmond Fed (+16pt to +3) measures all rose, while the Dallas Fed employment index declined (-2.1pt to +0.2). Manufacturing employment fell by 13k in September, and has declined by 5k on average over the last six months.
  • Seasonals: Seasonal factors are mildly positive for payroll growth this month, in our view. Since the 2008-9 recession, October payroll growth has surprised consensus expectations to the upside two-thirds of the time, with an average surprise of 45k. Moreover, October has often featured favorable revisions: the average two-month revision in the October employment report has been 67k since 2010, 37k since 2005, and 42k since 2000 (Exhibit 2).

  October Employment Reports Often Feature Upward Revisions

  

   

  Arguing for a weaker report:

  • Job availability: The Conference Board’s labor differential—the difference between the share of households saying that jobs are plentiful and the share saying they are hard to get—declined 3.1 points to +2.2. Despite the pullback, the labor differential remains near a post-crisis high.
  • ADP: ADP reported a 147k gain in private payroll employment in October, below a revised +202k increase in September. The ADP report introduced methodological changes this month, and will now offer more details by sector. Our preliminary analysis suggests that the forecast performance of the ADP series should be similar under the new methodology.
  • Hurricane Matthew: Hurricane Matthew struck the Southeastern US in early October, and may have weighed on payroll employment growth in some states. Initial jobless claims in the region were cumulatively about 10k above their pre-hurricane trend during the middle weeks of last month (with most of the effects in North Carolina). We therefore expect a modest drag from the hurricane of 5-10k on October payroll employment growth (see here for more details).

  Neutral factors:

  • Service sector surveys: The employment components of some service sector surveys deteriorated in October, but most appear consistent with healthy payroll gains. In particular, the ISM non-manufacturing report’s employment index declined to 53.1 following a record monthly increase to 57.2 in September. Aside from the September value, however, the index is at its highest level of this year. Among the regional surveys, the NY Fed index rose slightly (+1.6pt to +9.7, not seasonally adjusted) and the Richmond Fed measure was unchanged (at +6), although the Philly Fed index (-10.8pt to +8.5) and Dallas Fed index (-1.7pt to +2.7) declined. Service sector employment rose 157k last month, and has increased 163k on average over the last six months.
  • Job cuts: Announced layoffs reported by Challenger, Gray & Christmas were little changed at 31k for October. Announced job cuts have remained within a narrow range over the last six months and, like initial jobless claims, appear consistent with generally low layoff activity.

  We expect that the unemployment rate declined to 4.9% in October from an unrounded 4.965% previously. On a rounded basis, the headline U3 unemployment rate edged up by one-tenth in September, and is now up three-tenths from a cyclical low of 4.7% in May. A further increase in the U3 unemployment rate would be surprising in light of the continued decline in the number of unemployment insurance benefit recipients (Exhibit 3). The U3 and U6 measures of labor utilization may take on heightened importance this month, given Fed officials’ focus on the degree of slack remaining in the labor market.

  Unemployment Rate High Compared to Continuing Claims

  

  We forecast that average hourly earnings for all workers rose by 0.3% (mom) in October, in large part reflecting favorable calendar effects. We expect the year-on-year rate to remain at 2.6%. The broader wage data remain encouraging: our wage tracker—which aggregates four measures of wage growth—also stands at 2.6% year-on-year, a sign that diminishing slack is boosting wage growth.
  

  

  

• Donald Trump & The Passion Of The Christ

  Authored by Antonius Quinas via AntoniusAquinas.com,

  If Donald Trump can somehow defeat the Wicked Witch of Chappaqua despite vote rigging, outlandish media bias, backstabbing by his own party’s elites, and opposition of Wall Street, his victory may be the most serious setback for The Establishment since, perhaps, the release of Mel Gibson’s blockbuster movie, The Passion of the Christ.

  Both Gibson and Trump faced seemingly impossible odds at the start of their quests and were viciously attacked and undermined by the usual Establishment suspects, yet, in Gibson’s case, he was able to beat the bastards at their own game producing one of the most accurate and authentic Christian movies ever made which garnered over a half billion dollars and numerous cinematic awards!

  Unfortunately, Mel Gibson did not parlay his enormous success and cause further aggravation for the Entertainment industry with additional non-cultural Marxist features, but fell prey to booze and the pleasures of the flesh.  Moreover, Gibson, who was once a traditional Catholic who rejects the heretical changes brought about at the Vatican II Anti-council, could have been a force in a counter insurgency to rid the Church of its current horde of apostates including its head honcho.

  If Trump wins he will have completed what earlier populists, most specifically Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan, had started, but were unable to complete.  A real challenge to the two-party duopoly could have taken place had Perot and Buchanan stuck with the Reform Party and built it up as a legitimate alternative.

  A Trump Presidency will, at the very least, put a temporary halt to the totalitarian liberal order’s relentless drive to render American sovereignty and create a multicultural society via mass controlled (and uncontrolled) immigration.  There would be no return from such a demographic onslaught and political realignment, at least through the ballot box, with the only alternative being secession or the emergence of a strongman who would violently suppress the Left.

  A Trump victory would not only be a blow against the entrenched political class, but like Gibson’s great movie, it would be a mighty and much needed knockdown of the mass media.  No presidential candidate has ever dared to openly take on the mainstream media and expose it for what it truly is – the propaganda arm for the New World Order and the purveyors of degenerate cultural Marxism.

  The protagonist in The Passion of the Christ has often been referred to as “The Prince of Peace,” which is somewhat of a misnomer.  The Christ of the Scriptures is a fighter who spends a good portion of His ministry battling and upbraiding the corrupt Church officials and hierarchy of the day who were not properly shepherding His flock.

  Similarly, Donald Trump has always considered himself a fighter (counter puncher) who has promised to get rid of the corruption and criminality that pervades the political establishment, especially the Clinton cartel.  Trump is uniquely qualified for such a task because, unlike nearly every other politician, he is not beholding financially to anyone.

  Most importantly, Trump will set a new course in US foreign policy which will lead to a de-escalation in tensions around the globe especially with Russia.  High praise was attributed to the peacemakers by the Author of the Beatitudes who said: “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called children of God.”

  Not only for America, but a Trump victory will have positive reverberations throughout the Western world which would surpass that of the surprising Brexit vote.  European anti-immigration groups and organizations would undoubtedly become further emboldened both psychologically and financially in their struggle to stem the tide of massive unwanted and society-wrecking immigration.  There is no telling what the effect would be when the chief executive of the world’s dominant power would be in sympathy with those who have courageously sought to preserve their families, heritage and way of life from the wicked designs of the New World Order.

  While Mel Gibson self destructed after the phenomenal success of the The Passion of the Christ, his movie still stands not only as an inspirational and moving cinematic masterpiece, but as a glorious blow against the Establishment.  A Trump victory could mean an even greater strike against our globalist masters.

  

  

• FBI Agents: Hillary Is The "Antichrist Personified"

  Having exposed the mutinous divide between The FBI and The Department of Justice, it appears the drip-drip-drip leaky bucket has turned into a spigot as The Guardian cites several seriously pissed off agents describe the FBI as "Trumplandia."

  As The Hill details, in a report published Thursday, multiple sources within the FBI say that deep antipathy toward Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and anger that FBI Director James Comey did not bring charges against her this summer have motivated leaks that could damage her presidential campaign.

  One agent told The Guardian that many at the bureau view Clinton as the “antichrist” and are supportive of Trump.

  The currently serving FBI agent said Clinton is “the antichrist personified to a large swath of FBI personnel,” and that “the reason why they’re leaking is they’re pro-Trump.”

   

  “The FBI is Trumpland,” said one current agent.

  But another FBI source disputed the level of support Trump has within the bureau, according to The Guardian.

  “There are lots of people who don’t think Trump is qualified, but also believe Clinton is corrupt,” the source said. “What you hear a lot is that it’s a bad choice, between an incompetent and a corrupt politician.”

  According to the report, the tensions boiled over in July when Comey declined to recommend charges against the Democratic presidential nominee for possibly mishandling classified information through her use of a private email server to conduct government business, according to the FBI agent.

  “Many FBI agents were upset at the director, not because he didn’t [recommend to] indict, but they believe he threw the FBI under the bus by taking the heat away from DoJ [Department of Justice],” the former bureau official said.

  As The Hill concludes, there have been further leaks about internal fights within the FBI and other possible investigations since the Comey news broke, all of which has suggested an agency in a public war with itself.

  

  

  

• Voter Fraud Allegations Surface In California As Man Discovers 83 Live Ballots At His Doorstep

  For the past couple of days we’ve been writing about a police investigation underway in Delaware County, PA related to a potentially illegal scheme to fraudulently register voters.  As it turns out, the left coast may be experiencing some voter fraud of their own…shocking. 

  According Fox News, San Pedro, CA resident Jerry Mosna got a bit of a surprise on Saturday morning when he discovered 83 actual live 2016 ballots on his doorstep.  All 83 of the ballots were addressed to his neighbor but each had a different name.  Given that his neighbor is an 89-year old lady, who lives alone in her two bedroom apartment, Mosna was fairly confident that the ballots were not intended for her and reported them to his county registrar. 

  The 83 ballots, each unused, were addressed to different people, all supposedly living in his elderly neighbor’s two-bedroom apartment.

   

  “I think this is spooky,” Mosna said. “All the different names, none we recognize, all at one address.”

   

  His wife, Madalena Mosna, noted their 89-year-old neighbor lives by herself, and, “Eighty people can’t fit in that apartment.”

   

  They took the ballots to the Los Angeles Police Department, but were directed to the post office. They felt little comfort there would be an investigation, and called another neighbor, John Cracchiolo – who contacted the Los Angeles County Registrar’s office.

   

  A spokeswoman for the Registrar said the office will investigate. Both Cracchiolo and Jerry Mosna told FoxNews.com they think they stumbled upon a case of fraud.

  

   

  Of course, just like in Pennsylvania, California officials are warning people not to jump to conclusions because this is all likely just a simple mistake.  In this particular case, apparently we’re to believe that extra live ballots were randomly printed with the names of 83 different people on them and then sent to the same address because of a “system error.”  We assume the “system error” has been linked back to Russia by 784 distinct U.S. intelligence agencies but we’re awaiting official confirmation on that.

  In a statement, the office of the Registrar said, “We are carefully reviewing our records and gathering information to fully identify what took place.  Our preliminary assessment is that this appears to be an isolated situation related to a system error that occurred causing duplicate ballots to be issued to an address entered for a single voter. We are working directly with the system vendor to ensure the issue is addressed and to identify any similar occurrences.”

  

   

  And we’ll end with this summary just one more time:

  Of course there is large scale voter fraud happening on and before election day. Why do Republican leaders deny what is going on? So naive!

  — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 17, 2016

  

  

• AP To Clinton Campaign: We Are Preparing To Report FBI Has Thumb Drive, But Can Be Steered Away

  Moments ago, after teasing its twitter followers to “stay tuned for our FBI-DoJ #PodestaEmail special circa 4pm EST” Wikileaks released what appears to be part 28 of its Podesta dump, dubbed the “DoJ/FBI/Huma special” and includes some 1,308 emails, bringing the total to 45,526 in total emails released. 

  RELEASE: The Podesta Emails Part 28 – DoJ/FBI/Huma special #PodestaEmails https://t.co/tIw3T6L6se

  More: https://t.co/v8OnMJnWsS

  — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) November 3, 2016

  We assume the batch will be heavily focused on the DOJ, FBI and Huma, and will present readers with any relevant emails as we find them.

  * * *

  In an email from June 10, 2011 from now-campaign communication manager Jenn Palmieri to John Podesta and Neera Tanden, Palmieri writes – regarding Huma Abedin following the first Anthony Weiner scandal – that it is…

  “Time to get in the haz mat suits… Bust in that house and get Huma the hell out of there.”

  Tanden responds “Lord have mercy.”

  

  We assume this was a reference to one of the early Anthony Weiner scandals, and a harbinger of things to come regarding Huma’s husband. In retrospect, they should have followed their rhetorical advice.

  * * *

  On August 27, 2015, an email from Lanny Davis, special counsel to President Bill Clinton, and spokesperson for the President and the White House on matters concerning campaign-finance investigations and other legal issues,  appears to suggest that both Fox news and Megyn Kelly were part of the campaign’s pre-coordination with journalists. Davis tells Jen Palmieri the following “personal” thoughts, which suggest getting a guarantee from Megyn Kelly that she won’t be “tough on Hillary” in a proposed interview – which could be a “ratings and media bonanza” – meant to explain why Hillary “wiped” her server.

  Dear Jen,

   

  I know what I’m about to propose is very risky and will be instinctively viewed negatively on the first reaction. But because of the high advantages that I see, perfectly aware of the risks, I think this proposal should be considered.

   

  I propose that the Secretary be on the Megyn Kelly File show for at least 30 minutes. I believe I can reduce the risks, since I know Megyn and Roger Ailes very well, by ensuring that the Secretary will have an opportunity to answer tough questions on emails and other issues without interruption.

   

  In fact, I believe it is in the interest of Secretary Clinton as well as Fox for the questions to be tough, something we should not fear as long as she has an opportunity to answer. I know she will do well with adequate preparation, and especially after yesterday’s excellent statement taking full responsibility for mixing personal an official business on a single email device.

   

  I still believe the issue of the wiping out of uthe private server still needs to be dealt with – e.g., simply stating that was done primarily to protect personal privacy on personal emails but she made the mistake of mixing personal with official on the server because she was using a single device, and she should have been more transparent shortly after she left office.

   

  This interview has the potential to be a ratings and media bonanza. I have confidence she would hit a political home run and have a massive audience to deliver her message without a filter.

   

  Of course there is a risk that Megan will try to show how tough she can be, even tougher than on Trump. I am assuming the worst case on that risk. But if we have a guarantee, which I believe We will get, that she will have an uninterrupted chance to respond to every question, and we have time to prepare, I think this could be a major plus and even a game changer in the various negative narratives about the Secretary being largely inaccessible and sometimes testy with the media.

   

  It would be so much better to be able to talk to you on the phone about this and discuss the pros and cons. If you are willing and available, what would be the best time in the best telephone number?

   

  With warmest regards, and thanks as always for your consideration of my ideas,

   

  Lanny
  

  He follows up four days later with the following:

  Would love a chance to talk on phone – a few additional background points re conversation I had with Roger Ailes and Megyn some time ago on the subject of HRC pre – announcement.

  It is unclear what was the ultimate fate of the “personal” proposal.

  * * *

  In an email dated 8/11/15, Hillary’s lawyer David Kendall expressed some notable concern about information related the AP preparing to report that the FBI has taken possession of Hillary’s thumb drive, a story which the campaign has vocally denied. Which may also explain why as AP journalist Eric Tucker notes, “If you wanted to steer us away and say that we are misinformed, then I would gladly accept that as well.”

  Recall that on a previous occasion, Kendall made it clear that the official talking point was to deny that the thumb drive had been handed over to the FBI:

   I can see why you might not want to say who the turnover was to, but it seems to me omitting this may be misinterpreted and certainly will trigger another round of questioning. This may defeat the whole point of the exercise. The statement could be read to imply we turned over the thumb drive and server to the State Department—which we didn’t (“There they go again—misleading, devious, non-transparent, tricky etc.”). I would recommend saying “to the Department of Justice.”

  Curiously, over a year later, we learned that the thumb drive had in fact been turned over to the FBI, however as the FBI reported two months ago, it was somehow “lost” in the process.

  A laptop containing a copy, or “archive,” of the emails on Hillary Clinton’s private server was apparently lost—in the postal mail—according to an FBI report released Friday. Along with it, a thumb drive that also contained an archive of Clinton’s emails has been lost and is not in the FBI’s possession.

   

  The thumb drive containing the second copy of the archive also was never found.

   

  “Neither Hanley nor [the Platte River employee] could identify the current whereabouts of the Archive Laptop or the thumb drive containing the archive, and the FBI does not have either item in its possession,” the FBI report stated.

  Full exchange below:

  Hi David,

   

  We have been told, and we are preparing to report, that the FBI has taken possession of the thumb drive that was once in your possession. This is what we have been informed, and we wanted to see whether there was any sort of comment that could be provided. If you wanted to steer us away and say that we are misinformed, then I would gladly accept that as well. But we have solid reason to believe this. We’d welcome any comment you can offer. Thanks very much.

   

  Eric

   

  

  

  

• Government Pension Plans Are Headed For Disaster

  Submitted by Robert Fellner via The Mises Institute,

  The combined debt held by U.S. public pension plans will top $1.7 trillion next year, according to a just-released report from Moody’s Investors Services.

  This “pension tsunami” has already forced towns like Stockton, California and Detroit, Michigan into bankruptcy. Perhaps no government mismanaged their pension as badly as Puerto Rico, where a $43 billion pension debt forced the commonwealth to seek protection from the federal government after having defaulted on its obligations to bondholders — a default which is expected to spread to retirees in the form of benefit cuts.

  While the disastrous outcome of Puerto Rico’s pension plan — which is projected to completely run out of assets by 2019 — represents the worst-case scenario, the same series of events that led to its demise can be found in most public pension plans nationwide.

  There are three primary culprits that can be found in nearly every state suffering from a public pension crisis:

  1. The use of accounting gimmicks that are designed to shift costs onto future generations — an approach outlawed for private pension plans and rejected by both public and private plans in Canada and Europe.
  2. Lawmakers, acting in their political self-interest, who have catered to the past demands of government unions to enrich their members’ benefits while passing the costs onto future generations.
  3. A broken governance structure where public pension board members are actually penalized in tangible ways for acting responsibly, and are rewarded by choosing to delay the day of reckoning.

  Perhaps the most concise assessment of public pensions came from the former chief actuary for the nation’s largest public pension fund — CalPERS — who noted simply that: “Politics and pensions just don’t mix.”

  And it’s not just "liberal" states like California who have succumbed to the siren call of public pensions. My home state of Nevada — historically thought to be a bastion of limited government thought — is in a proportionally deeper hole than our California neighbors!

   

  The Trouble in Nevada 

  While most financial experts are warning of future teacher shortages, decaying roads, higher taxes and cuts to public safety, the Public Employees’ Retirement System of Nevada (PERS) is confident they can avoid all that by doing one simple thing: produce investment returns higher than what even Warren Buffett expects to get! 

  Because PERS has failed to hit its investment targets over the past 5-, 10-, 15-, 20- and 25-year periods, government workers’ retirement costs have soared to today’s record-high 28 percent of pay (40.5 percent for police and fire officers) — which now consumes more than 12 percent of all Nevada state and local government tax revenue combined.

  And as more money is sent to PERS, less is available for salaries, like the only $34,684 offered to new Clark County school teachers last year — almost certainly a driving factor behind the district’s perennial teacher shortages. 

  What’s worse, over 40 percent of what all government workers — excluding police and fire officers — pay towards PERS is spent on the system’s previously accrued debt, rather than on financing the employee’s future benefits.

  Consequently, all new hires are expected to be net losers under PERS — receiving a benefit worth less than its total cost — which, unsurprisingly, will “negatively affect current teacher quality and retention,” according to scholars at the Bureau of Labor and Statistics.

  Retirement costs for police and fire officers are even higher: Paying PERS an amount equal to 40.5 percent of their salary means fewer cops on the street. 

  The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, for example, has sat on roughly $100 million in funds explicitly designated for hiring new cops for over a decade now — likely anticipating the future explosion in retirement costs to come. In fact, despite the surplus, Metro is pushing for yet another tax hike, citing their ever-increasing personnel costs.

  But that was just the tip of the iceberg.

  PERS debt is projected to explode over the next decade, rising from roughly $11.4 billion to over $38 billion if the average 5.85 percent annual investment return forecast of the consultant hired by PERS — Wilshire Associates — is accurate:

  To put that in perspective, in 2013 Nevada spent less than $3 billion on police, highways, and fire protection combined.

  Servicing a debt of this size would require similarly massive increases in contribution rates, inevitably requiring lower wages for government workers, cuts to vital services, and higher taxes. 

  At that point, it’s likely that there would simply not be enough taxes to hike and services to cut to make PERS solvent — leaving no other choice but to cut the benefits promised to retirees.

  In order to avoid that fate, and save PERS, Nevada lawmakers must act with the urgency that this situation demands.

  How We Got Here

  PERS is different from retirement accounts in the private sector, where workers’ contributions are deposited directly into individually owned accounts.

  In PERS, workers’ retirement contributions are all pooled together in one large fund, with members promised a fixed future benefit based on salary and work experience — similar to how Social Security works. 

  Consequently, PERS must make a series of projections to determine how much workers must contribute in order to ensure their promised, future benefit is fully funded. One of the most significant projections PERS makes is its assumed 8 percent annual investment return.

  In other words, PERS would consider a $10 payment due in 30 years as fully funded with only $1 today — as the expected gains from investing that $1 would bridge that $9 gap over time.

  Unfortunately, if PERS investments underperform that target, taxpayers and government workers must bail them out via higher contribution rates.

  But using expected investment returns to discount guaranteed future benefits amounts to serious malpractice, which is why such an approach is rejected by private US pension plans, public and private plans in Canada and Europe, and 98 percent of financial economists. US public pension plans are the only dissenters from this consensus.

  The easiest way to see why this is wrong is to look at what happens by raising that rate. Imagine if the governor and the legislature uniformly demanded the PERS board must immediately pay down the approximately $11 billion unfunded liability it currently reports.

  That sounds like an impossible task, right?

  But because of the flawed PERS accounting methodology, the board could appear to pay off that entire amount in an instant. All that would be needed is for the PERS investment advisor to claim that instead of an 8 percent annual return, he now believes PERS can return 10.5 percent.

  Presto! PERS would have eliminated their entire $11 billion debt, and would actually enjoy a slight surplus to boot!

  Of course, their actual unfunded liability — over $50 billion using correct accounting — hasn’t changed.

  If that approach sounds fishy to you, you’re in good company. 

  But given that this is the approach PERS board members employ, they should be extremely vigilant in ensuring their assumed investment return is one that they can confidently expect to hit.

  Instead, they ignore both their poor past performance, as well as the projections of their own, hand-picked consultants who are warning that the board’s assumed annual rate of return is far too high.

  After a careful selection process, PERS last year commissioned a second-opinion review by Wilshire Associates, which, on August 20, 2015, informed the Board that it was most likely to realize only an average annual return of 5.85 percent over the next decade — not the 8 percent minimum PERS must hit to avoid falling further into debt.

  Wilshire’s assessment of lower expected future returns is shared by virtually all major industry experts.

  The McKinsey Global Institute, for example, warned that, “After an era of stellar performance, investment returns are likely to come back down to earth over the next 20 years.” Based on McKinsey’s projections, PERS can expect a 20-year return ranging from as low as 4.6 percent under a “slow-growth” recovery to as high as 7.4 percent under a “growth-recovery” scenario.

  Even investing guru Warren Buffett uses a mere 6.5 percent assumed long-term rate of return for Berkshire Hathaway’s pension plan.

  Because of this, most US public pension plans are now lowering their investment targets. For example, the nation’s largest public pension plan — CalPERS — implemented a plan last year to gradually drop their 7.5 target to 6.5 percent over the next several years.

  A Broken Governance Structure

  So why does PERS — in defiance of its peers, experts, and its own consultants — continue to employ an 8 percent assumed rate of return?

  Political self-interest.

  After PERS investment advisor Ken Lambert offered a few half-hearted reasons to justify dismissing the Wilshire report — the Board asked for a precise calculation of what lowering its rate to 7 percent would entail.

  Such a move would increase the non-safety contribution rate from 28 to 38 percent of pay, at which point, according to Lambert, “We’ll all go home” — apparently predicting massive rebellion by public employees that would drive the current board and its staff out of office.

  PERS here illustrates the core error built into the governance structure of US public pension plans: Short-term board members, with no skin in the game, face a set of incentives where they are actually punished for doing the right thing, and benefit from pushing costs off onto future generations.

  Given that understanding, it’s easy to see why PERS characterized the Wilshire report as meriting “no rush, no real urgency” and containing “nothing [that] is actionable,” when Nevada State Education Association president Ruben Murillo repeatedly, and correctly, pressed the board for answers.

  PERS now finds itself in a Catch-22 situation: Because board members have for so long failed to face reality, costs will skyrocket if they should now adopt correct assumptions. Yet, failing to do so will only compound their initial mistake — and the resultant carnage — when the day of reckoning finally arrives.

  Significantly, because PERS only has about 72 cents of every dollar of promised benefits on hand, the system actually needs to outperform its 8 percent investment target. Only then would the system have enough money to make good on its promises.

  Making matters worse is the fact that PERS is now cash-flow negative — paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxpayer and employee contributions. 

  If this trend persists and Wilshire’s projected investment returns are realized, PERS could easily find itself approaching a funded ratio of only 50 percent — which is considered a “crisis-point” that is “very difficult to climb out of,” by CalPERS Chief Investment Officer Ted Eliopoulos.

  Even though the call for reform enjoys widespread, bipartisan support and includes at least one former PERS board member, Warren Buffett’s assessment of public pensions still rings sadly true in Nevada:

  There probably is more managerial ignorance on pension costs than any other cost item of remotely similar magnitude. And, as will become so expensively clear to citizens in future decades, there has been even greater electorate ignorance of governmental pension costs.

  Thankfully, there is still time left to save PERS, but the particulars of reform are much less important than acknowledging the fundamental problems. As officials with Oregon’s pension plan stated of their similar crisis: “This is becoming a moral issue. We can’t just talk about numbers anymore.”

  Conclusion

  In theory, government is ostensibly designed to override the allegedly short-sighted, greedy nature of individual actors with policies that are long-term oriented and designed to maximize the general welfare.

  Yet, as the case of public pensions (not to mention infrastructure spending, the national debt, entitlements, etc.) reveals, the political process actually does the exact opposite: it actually rewards those who underfund the present and defray costs onto future generations.

  Thus, asking for lawmakers to “be more responsible” or “think about the future” misses the point. We are all self-interested actors. Instead of wishing this wasn’t so, it would be vastly more effective to embrace this reality and restrict the role of government to only those areas that it is well-equipped to provide.

  As Ron Seeling said, “Politics and pensions just don’t mix. That’s all there is to it.”

  

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest