Oct 11

Today’s News 11th October 2020

  • Western Allies Block Ex-OPCW Chief's Explosive Testimony On Syria Chemical Weapons
    Western Allies Block Ex-OPCW Chief's Explosive Testimony On Syria Chemical Weapons

    Tyler Durden

    Sun, 10/11/2020 – 00:00

    Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

    This past Monday at the UN Security Council, the US, the UK, France, and allies blocked testimony from a former director-general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Jose Bustani is a Brazilian diplomat and was the first director-general of the OPCW, which was formed in 1997.

    Bustani was pushed out of the organization in 2002 by the Bush administration for his efforts to negotiate with Saddam Hussein. The Brazilian was prepared to deliver testimony to the UN Security Council on Monday over the OPCW’s investigation into an alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria, in April 2018.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The US, UK, and France responded to the alleged Douma attack with airstrikes on Syrian government targets. After the strike, OPCW inspectors arrived in Douma to investigate.

    Since the OPCW released its final report on the alleged Douma attack in March 2019, a trove of leaked documents have surfaced. The leaks, along with whistleblower testimony, suggest the OPCW suppressed evidence and ignored the findings of senior inspectors to fit the narrative that the Syrian government carried out a chemical attack in Douma.

    In October 2019, Bustani attended a panel hosted by the Courage Foundation that heard testimony from an OPCW whistleblower who presented evidence that the Douma investigation was corrupted. After hearing the evidence, the panel released a statement urging the OPCW to revisit its investigation into the Douma incident.

    The Grayzone published Bustani’s prepared statement that he was blocked from delivering at the UN Security Council. In his statement, Bustani urges Fernando Arias, the current OPCW director-general, to hear out the inspectors who were on the ground in Douma and had their findings suppressed:

    “I would like to make a personal plea to you, Mr Fernando Arias, as Director General of the OPCW. The inspectors are among the Organization’s most valuable assets. As scientists and engineers, their specialist knowledge and inputs are essential for good decision making.”

    “Most importantly, their views are untainted by politics or national interests. They only rely on the science. The inspectors in the Douma investigation have a simple request – that they be given the opportunity to meet with you to express their concerns to you in person, in a manner that is both transparent and accountable.”

    Read the full transcript of Bustani’s testimony here.

  • Visualizing The State Of 5G Networks Worldwide
    Visualizing The State Of 5G Networks Worldwide

    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/10/2020 – 23:30

    By 2025, the world will reach 1.8 billion 5G connections – led by Developed Asia and North America, two regions that could each see nearly half of mobile connections operating on 5G networks.

    This sweeping rollout relies on infrastructure capacities, and, as Visual Capitalist’s Iman Ghosh notes, many operators are buying in big to usher in 5G adoption. This infographic from Raconteur covers where we are on the roadmap towards 5G becoming mainstream, and which regions are leading the way in connectivity.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Commercial Launches of 5G Networks

    From its earliest iterations to the Internet of Things, we’ve surpassed three generations of wireless networks. Now, 5G is at a tipping point.

    5G is unique in that in order to actually start using the network, you need a device that works on it—unlike previous generations where they could simply switch over. Moreover, carriers need to invest in the infrastructure to optimize network access and the density of devices using it.

    As more operators buy into the technology, the latter is finally beginning to happen in some areas. Here’s how the total numbers break down across the world, as of mid-September 2020:

    • 397 operators are investing in 5G mobile or 5G fixed wireless access/home broadband networks

    • 118 operators have announced the deployment of 5G within their live network

    • 96 operators have announced 3GPP (protocols for mobile telecomms) 5G service launches

    Major phone operators and even tech companies are behind accelerating this change, from Vodafone to Verizon—and most recently, Microsoft has entered the playing field.

    Cross-Generational Mobile Connections, By Region

    As Cisco highlights, there’s more room to grow yet. By 2023, North America will have the highest share of 5G networks, at 17% within the region.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    *Low-power wide-area (LPWA) networks are a generic type of network that can coexist across 2G, 3G, and 4G. Network shares may not add up due to rounding.

    Meanwhile, the Middle East and Africa could have the most catching up to do, with 73% of the region still operating on 3G networks or less in 2023. The good news? Commercial 5G trials in Nigeria may signal the potential of networks leapfrogging ahead.

    Need for Speed

    As the number of 5G networks tick up, there will be an undeniable boost to mobile and broadband speeds (Mbps) across regions by 2023. In particular, Asia Pacific will have the fastest broadband speeds at 157 Mbps while Western Europe will lead with 62 Mbps on mobile.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Faster speeds is one of several factors catapulting the promise of 5G networks to unlock transformations across entire industries, from manufacturing to healthcare.

    What further advancements could dial reach region’s share of 5G networks all the way up?

  • 'Non-Partisan' Chairman Of Presidential Debate Commission Linked To Steele Dossier & More…
    'Non-Partisan' Chairman Of Presidential Debate Commission Linked To Steele Dossier & More…

    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/10/2020 – 23:00

    White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany dared to ‘spew’ what many call ‘hate speech’ this week when she tweeted about the extreme and obvious bias (some might say it’s systemic) from the Commission on Presidential Debates…

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    What drove Kayleigh to such un-presidential comments? Hmm, let’s see… <sarcasm off>

    • Chris Wallace, moderator of the first presidential debate, was widely panned for his non-centrist bias during the chaotic to and fro. Having expressly stated before the event that he wouldn’t operate as a fact-checker, that’s all he did for at least the first hour of the debate;  interrupting Trump but not Biden at nearly every turn, blocking the incumbent before he could correct mischaracterizations and flat-out lies from Biden, to full-throated arguments with the president despite lobbing soft-ball questions — or no questions at all — to the former vice president, Wallace’s presentation was appalling.

    • Susan Page, moderator the vice-presidential debate, was far better than Wallace but, aside from the fact the fact she is Nancy Pelosi’s biographer, her bias was exposed numerous times including highlighting the horrid state of the economy without mentioning that the economy was historically booming before COVID-lockdowns were enforced, cutting off VP Pence numerous times and allowing Senator Harris to escape answering key questions (will you pack the courts?).

    • Steve Scully, moderator for the second presidential debate, had previously interned for Joe Biden and tweeted a ‘Never-Trump’ article in 2016 “No, Not Trump, Not Ever”, was caught red-handed in an accidental public tweet to none other than disgrintled former White House Comms Director Anthony Scaramucci on “responding to Trump” (which he later claimed was a hack – the third time the so-called reporter’s account had been hacked).

    • And finally, the Commission on Presidential Debates has now refused to change the format of the second presidential debate from ‘virtual’, directly ignoring the ‘science’ and the words of the ‘doctors’ who plainly said Trump is healthy (all of which has led to the cancellation of the second debate).

    So, is it just us that puts all of this together and suspects an ever-so-modest amount of systemic bias within the commission against the president and for ‘anyone-but-Trump’?

    Well, it just got a whole lot more real, as Revolver.com reports, it turns out the chairman of the Presidential Debate Commission is co-founder an organization called “Color Revolution” which has strong links to the Steele Dossier and more…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The nominally Republican Chairman of Presidential Debate Commission, Frank Fahrenkopf, is both a co-founder and current board member of the International Republican Institute (IRI), a top “Color Revolution” propaganda outfit. The IRI was run by Never Trump neoconservative John McCain for decades. It is closely linked to the thoroughly discredited Steele Dossier at the center of the Russia Hoax.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Frank Fahrenkopf, Co-Chair of Commission on Presidential Debates, Co-Founder of National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and International Republican Institute (IRI).

    At first glance, it might appear as though Fahrenkopf’s Republican Party membership, combined with his board membership at the International Republican Institute, lends him, and by extension the Debate Commission, some semblance of balance.

    The Debate Commission’s board has a Republican Co-Chair and a Democrat co-Chair, creating the appearance of fairness and bipartisanship. Nothing could be further from the truth. Bipartisanship in the Trump era all too often means that the corrupt establishment elements of both parties join arms to undermine Trump and his agenda. A Debate Commission consisting of John McCain and Hillary Clinton would be technically bipartisan, but it would not be balanced when it comes to Trump and his supporters. Globalist Republicans and globalist Democrats have far more in common with each other than they do with Trump.

    Our choice of John McCain in this example was not arbitrary. As it turns out, the late Senator John McCain served as the Chairman of the Board of the International Republican Institute for 25 years.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Just months before he died, John McCain took to Twitter to scold the Trump Administration for allegedly defunding the organization.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The Washington Post article in the above tweet reveals that George Soros’ Open Society Foundation was furious that Trump would dare to “downscale” a “democracy promotion event” at the State Department.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

     

    Source: The Washington Post

    Perhaps McCain was just standing up for his friend Soros, who, incidentally, was a major contributor to the McCain Foundation.

    That the current Co-Chair of the Debate Commission Frank Fahrenkopf is himself a sitting board member and Co-Founder of IRI offers insight into just what kind of Republican he is and what sort of balance his Chairmanship really provides — in reality it weighs the scales even more heavily against Trump.

    Fahrenkopf’s colleagues on the IRI board include Lindsey Graham, H.R. McMaster, and Senator Mitt Romney. This does not exactly inspire confidence for Trump supporters. By now, it is very clear exactly the type of Republican this organization caters to.

    One of Fahrenkopf’s colleagues on the IRI board is especially outrageous — a man by the name of David Kramer.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    David Kramer, Board Member, International Republican Institute.

    Kramer was an aide to the late Senator John McCain. He is most notorious for spreading the completely discredited Steele Dossier that served as the basis for the Russia Hoax.

    David Kramer, the John McCain aide who leaked the discredited Christopher Steele dossier on President Trump, testified in a libel case that he spread the unsubstantiated anti-Trump material all over Washington during the presidential transition.

    Mr. Kramer, a former State Department official and a Trump detractor, leaked dossier material to the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post’s Fred Hiatt, CNN’s Carl Bernstein, National Public Radio, McClatchy news service and others, he said. [AP]

    Prior to his role at IRI, Kramer served as head of yet another “democracy promotion” NGO called Freedom House. In the following clip, Kramer offers some additional insight on where he stands politically. He notes that Freedom House was founded to fight four “isms” — fascism, nazism, communism and … isolationism. Isolationism is of course a smear word used to refer to the position of people like President Trump and the majority of the American people who reject the Bush-McCain foreign policy of forever wars and democracy promotion. That Kramer would conflate this position with nazism and communism is quite remarkable.

    We could go into quite a bit more on this maniacally unhinged globalist, but for now we will turn to another recent member of IRI’s board named Scott Carpenter:

    Scott Carpenter is the director of free expression at Google Ideas where he drives implementation of the team’s overall strategy to make online repressive censorship irrelevant.  Prior to joining Google, Carpenter founded and directed Project Fikra as the Keston family fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, where he remains an adjunct scholar. [IRI]

    For those unfamiliar, “Google Ideas” is the precursor to Google Jigsaw, which is Google’s in-house think tank tasked with developing Artificial Intelligence technology to censor so-called “toxic hate speech” online. Revolver briefly covered the Jigsaw program and its founder Jared Cohen in a recent piece as follows:

    Infamously biased anti-Trump Tech behemoth Google sponsors a project known as Jigsaw whose main purpose is to develop Artificial Intelligence capabilities to censor so-called “hate speech” online. Of course, hate speech is weakly defined, and almost always ends up casting a wide net. Inevitably, those censored tend to be Trump supporters concerned with law and order, fighting open borders, and ending America’s wars. The man who runs Jigsaw, Jared Cohen, is a veteran of Hillary Clinton’s State Department. Cohen made a name for himself in developing digital strategies to advance American national security objectives. [Revolver News]

    CNBC has more on Jigsaw.

    Jigsaw, a technology incubator within Alphabet, says it has developed a new tool for web publishers to identify toxic comments that can undermine a civil exchange of ideas. Starting Thursday, publishers can start applying for access to use Jigsaw’s software, called Perspective, without charge.

    “We have more information and more articles than any other time in history, and yet the toxicity of the conversations that follow those articles are driving people away from the conversation,” said Jared Cohen, president of Jigsaw, formerly known as Google Ideas. [CNBC]

    Carpenter’s name no longer appears on IRI’s listing of board members. His official Twitter page now lists his current title as Managing Director at Jigsaw. To get a sense of what this (former?) board member of the International Republican Institute and current managing director of Google’s AI tool to censor “hate speech” thinks about Trump, see the following tweet.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    “Bipartisan” opposition to Trump, just as we suspected. Here is another instructive tweet, retweeted and endorsed by Carpenter.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Michael Hayden, readers will recall, is a virulently anti-Trump former head of the CIA and NSA.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    This consummate Deep State operative oversaw the development of the massive domestic surveillance program that he lied about both to foreign leaders and to the American people.

    Hayden has a long history of making misleading and outright false statements, and by the estimation of many lawyers, likely committed countless felonies during the Bush administration. It is something of a wonder that someone responsible for so many reprehensible acts is now considered a totally above-the-fray, honest commentator on all issues intelligence. [Columbia Journalism Review]

    While we don’t know whether Scott Carpenter is still on the board of IRI, we do know that he was recently appointed to the board of its parent NGO, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The IRI is one of four grantees of the NED, and is therefore entirely dependent on it for its funding. The NED is one of the major NGO arms advancing US Government objectives abroad, particularly by supporting the Color Revolution regime change model (more on that later). NED was founded to function as a new, improved CIA.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    This provides more context to NED and Scott Carpenter’s approving quote of former CIA Director Hayden.

    NED’s mandate is to focus on “democracy promotion” (Color Revolutions) abroad, but it couldn’t keep from weighing in on the death of George Floyd as BLM and Antifa terrorists were burning down Minneapolis.

    The brutal killing of George Floyd by a police officer in Minneapolis has provoked an outpouring of anger and rage that the United States has not seen since the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. more than fifty years ago. Our democracy is  being tested as never before in the memory of most living Americans. We will not overcome this crisis and begin to heal our divided nation unless the four police officers responsible for the killing of George Floyd are prosecuted to the full extent of the law,
    and unless America commits itself fully to the principles of racial justice and equality for all citizens.

    The NED’s mission of supporting people around the world who are fighting for democracy is
    based upon the same values of freedom and human equality that inspired the movement for civil rights that ended the Jim Crow system of legalized racial segregation and discrimination in the United States. Those values are rooted in the American creed, and it was by appealing to them that the civil rights movement achieved its historic breakthrough. But much more needs to be done to carry forward the struggle to end racism. By doing so, we will be more united and stronger as a country. [NED]

    The current President of the International Republican Institute, the grant subsidiary of NED, fully concurs.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Twining, the current head of the IRI, was previously at the Soros-funded German Marshall Fund, whose Vice President recently had this say about President Trump.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Prior to his employment at the German Marshall Fund, Twining distinguished himself as a legislative aide for arch-neoconservative and Trump nemesis Senator John McCain!

    By now we have a good idea of what the IRI is about, and have gained a deeper sense of just what a scandal it is that the “Republican” co-chair and co-founder of the Debate Commission, Frank Fahrenkopf, is also a sitting board member and co-founder of this shadowy organization. The IRI is deeply and intimately associated with one of Trump’s most vicious rivals, whose board members have promoted the discredited Steele dossier and are openly supporting Biden on Twitter.

    IRI’s official stated position on the George Floyd issue is directly in keeping with the rhetorical narratives fueling the Antifa and BLM fires that are part and parcel of the Color Revolution against Trump. The notion that Fahrenkopf’s status as a registered Republican provides any kind balance when it comes to the presidential debates is laughable and absurd.

    But the story is actually much bigger and more sinister than even the above would suggest. Indeed, the IRI and the Debate Commission are not merely partisan. Careful readers will have already picked up a disturbing national security element to the IRI and its parent NGO, the National Endowment for Democracy.

    Both the IRI and the NED function primarily as organizations to promote Color Revolutions abroad. The term “Color Revolution” requires a brief bit of explanation for readers who have not yet read Revolver News’ series on the Color Revolution regime change model and its role in the coup against Trump.

    First, a quick note on Color Revolutions. A “Color Revolution” in this context refers to a specific type of coordinated attack that the United States government has been known to deploy against foreign regimes, particularly in Eastern Europe deemed to be “authoritarian” and hostile to American interests. Rather than using a direct military intervention to effect regime change as in Iraq, Color Revolutions attack a foreign regime by contesting its electoral legitimacy, organizing mass protests and acts of civil disobedience, and leveraging media contacts to ensure favorable coverage to their agenda in the Western press.

    It would be disturbing enough to note a coordinated effort to use these exact same strategies and tactics domestically to undermine or overthrow President Trump. The ominous nature of what we see unfolding before us only truly hits home when one realizes that the people who specialize in these Color Revolution regime change operations overseas are, literally, the very same people attempting to overthrow Trump by using the very same playbook. [Revolver News]

    The IRI is clearly a Color Revolution outfit, as it is one of the most prominent United States government-linked NGOs tasked with providing “democratization support” abroad. Rudimentary research on the IRI — or even a brief scroll through its Twitter feed — reveals its obsession with such efforts overseas. Here is a representative tweet from IRI President Twining.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The fixation on Belarus, whose combination of a contested election scenario and massive “peaceful protests” bears all the hallmarks of a Color Revolution, is revealing. We urge readers to read Revolver’s first Color Revolution installment, The Curious Case of George Kent, for further context:

    The similarity between the Atlanticist-backed Belarus riots and the way the organized ANTIFA and BLM protests operate in the United States is impossible to ignore. Indeed, many of the Color Revolution experts currently fixated on Belarus have explicitly made this comparison in relation to the United States. The Transatlantic Democracy Working Group (more about them later) is a deeply anti-Trump so-called “bipartisan” group that is essentially a Who’s Who of every influential Color Revolution regime-change NGO in the World.

    …

    Many have noticed theoretical parallels and similarities between how US State Department and associated Atlanticist NGOs run color revolutions in foreign countries, and the sustained operations targeted against Trump in the United States. The case of George Kent — and many others to be exposed in this series — demonstrates that these similarities are not merely theoretical—they literally involve the same people! The very same people running cover revolution operations in Ukraine and Eastern Europe have been using the very same playbook to overturn 2016 and destroy the legitimacy of President Trump’s election.

    And guess who runs the Belarus station at the State Department? If you guessed star never Trump impeachment witness George Kent, the “color revolution professional,” you might be right. [Revolver News]

    In his tweet above, Twining favorably quotes David Kramer, his fellow board member at IRI who shopped the Steele Dossier. Kramer once served in a diplomatic post in Eastern Europe. In fact, almost every major operative in the effort to overthrow Trump has or has had a diplomatic post in Eastern Europe. Kramer happened to serve from 2005-2008 as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of European and Eurasian Affairs — working on issues related to Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. George Kent currently occupies this very same post. What a coincidence!

    Revolver’s Color Revolution thesis explains why there is such an overlap between State Department officials focused on Eastern Europe and key never-Trump operatives — from Lt. Colonel Vindman to Fiona Hill to Yovanovich to George Kent and David Kramer. They are running an Eastern European-style Color Revolution against Trump because they are Color Revolution professionals used to deploying the same strategies and tactics against target regimes in Eastern Europe.

    Note the name McFaul in the above Belarus Tweet. Michael McFaul is yet another professional covered in Revolver’s previous reports. Also note the wording of the title of the NBC News piece referenced in the Tweet: “Belarus is on the edge of a democratic breakthrough.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    McFaul elucidated precisely what he meant by a “democratic breakthrough” in a deleted tweet that was perhaps too honest about his intentions.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    If you are still unconvinced that IRI and its parent NGO, the National Endowment for Democracy aren’t principally Color Revolution outfits, consider these passages from the Senate Subcommittee on European Affairs from July 29, 1999. In this remarkable exchange, Soros representative J. Fox explains to Senator Joe Biden the role of organizations like IRI, NED, and IRI’s sister NGO, NDI in the “democracy promotion” process.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Here Biden calls to give Serbia’s “peaceful protesters” walking money to facilitate their overthrow of Milosevic.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And here is Biden learning about the NED, IRI, and NDI from Soros Foundation representative Fox, who details the IRI-NDI operational procedures to Biden.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Continuing along this line, Fox complains that the resources devoted to Color Revolution NGOs like NED and IRI in Croatia have not yet been deployed in Serbia (Spoiler Alert: they got their way and effected a Color Revolution against Milosevic called “Otpor!”).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It is worth noting that in Color Revolution craft, the terms “democracy” and “democratization,” like the term “peaceful protest,” are actually terms of art. As McFaul’s own tweet suggests, “democratic breakthrough” is the preferred euphemism for Color Revolution. Here is additional insight on how and why these people use the word “democracy,” taken from the third installment of Revolver’s Color Revolution series.

    And there we have it, folks—Norm Eisen, former Obama Ethics Czar, Ambassador to Czechoslovakia during the “Velvet Revolution,” key counsel in impeachment effort against Trump, and participant in the ostensibly bi-partisan election war games predicting a contested election scenario unfavorable to Trump—just happens to be a Color Revolution expert who literally wrote the modern “Playbook” in the explicitly acknowledged tradition of Color Revolution Godfather Gene Sharp’s “From Dictatorship to Democracy.” 

    Before we turn to the contents of Norm Eisen’s Color Revolution manual, full title “The Democracy Playbook: Preventing and Reversing Democratic Backsliding,” it will be useful to make a brief point regarding the term “democracy” itself, which happens to appear in the title of Gene Sharp’s book “From Dictatorship to Democracy” as well.

    Just like the term “peaceful protestor,” which, as we pointed out in our George Kent essay is used as a term of craft in the Color Revolution context, so is the term “democracy” itself. The US Government launches Color Revolutions against foreign targets irrespective of whether they actually enjoy the support of the people or were elected democratically. In the case of Trump, whatever one says about him, he is perhaps the most “democratically” elected President in America’s history. Indeed, in 2016 Trump ran against the coordinated opposition of the establishments of both parties, the military industrial complex, the corporate media, Hollywood, and really every single powerful institution in the country. He won, however, because he was able to garner sufficient support of the people—his true and decisive power base as a “populist.” Precisely because of the ultra democratic “populist” character of Trump’s victory, the operatives attempting to undermine him have focused specifically on attacking the democratic legitimacy of his victory.

    In this vein we ought to note that the term “democratic backsliding,” as seen in the subtitle of Norm Eisen’s book, and its opposite “democratic breakthrough” are also terms of art in the Color Revolution lexicon. We leave the full exploration of how the term “democratic” is used deceptively in the Color Revolution context (and in names of decidedly anti-democratic/populist institutions) as an exercise to the interested reader. Michael McFaul, another Color Revolution expert and key anti-Trump operative somewhat gives the game away in the following tweet in which the term “democratic breakthrough” makes an appearance as a better sounding alternative to “Color Revolution.” [Revolver News]

    We conclude this installment by returning to the key subject of the piece, Debate Commission Co-Chair and Co-Founder Frank Fahrenkopf.

    The fact that Fahrenkopf is chair of the Commission on Presidential Debates and a co-founder and current board member of IRI takes on a more interesting and sinister overtone when we consider the affiliation of his co-chair, Kenneth Wollack.

    Prior to his appointment as Co-Chair of the Commission on Presidential debates, Wollack Served as President of the National Democratic Institute (NDI). Like the IRI, the NDI is also an NGO whose purpose is to aid “democracy” efforts overseas — in other words, to serve as a propaganda arm promoting Color Revolution efforts on behalf of the US Government.

    Although the IRI is staffed mostly with Republicans and NDI mostly with Democrats, the IRI and NDI are “sister organizations” as two of the four core grantees of the National Endowment for Democracy, which is itself a major umbrella group responsible for aiding Color Revolution efforts. In fact, Debate Commission Co-Chair and Co-Founder Frank Fahrenkopf also co-founded the National Endowment for Democracy, and served as board member and vice chair from 1983-1993.

    What does all of this mean? For one, it is rather odd that the commission would have one chair, Fahrenkopf, who co-founded NED and who still sits on the board of IRI, which he also co-founded, and another Chair, Kenneth Wollack, who previously ran NDI. In fact, Fahrenkopf co-founded the Commission on Presidential Debates with Paul Kirk, who, like Wollack, had previously served as President of NDI. Taken alone, the deeply rooted connections between the Commission on Presidential Debates and Color Revolution NGOs (IRI, NDI, NED) would be suspicious in its own right.

    This connection becomes positively explosive, however, when one considers it within the context of Revolver’s thesis that the coup being run against Trump is based on the Color Revolution regime change model. The same people, the same networks, and the same institutions tasked with Color Revolutions abroad are the key players in deploying the same strategies here at home against our democratically elected President, Donald J. Trump. As we have shown in this fourth installment of the series, these biased debates are literally being run by the people and institutions tasked with revolutionary propaganda efforts abroad — and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

    Stay tuned.

  • 50 Richest Americans Now Worth More Than Poorest 165 Million 
    50 Richest Americans Now Worth More Than Poorest 165 Million 

    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/10/2020 – 22:30

    If readers want more evidence that the current economic system is rigged towards the working poor, well, look no further: New Federal Reserve data shows how these monetary wizards exacerbated the wealth gap during the virus pandemic via unprecedented quantitative easing programs. 

    Never before has the Fed unleashed so much monetary stimulus in a given quarter (2Q20) to shield the economy from the virus-induced downturn. The result is a “K-shaped” recovery, disproportionately affecting low-wage service workers and households of color, while billionaires, cent millionaires, and millionaires added record wealth. The Fed’s monetary interventions resulted in surging stock and other asset prices, while those who owned no assets did not participate in the “V” recovery. 

    Earlier this week, Swiss bank UBS and accounting firm PwC published a new report that showed the wealth of the world’s 2,189 billionaires jumped to a new record high of $10.2 trillion in July, surpassing the $8.9 trillion record at the end of 2017. 

    It was only when the world’s central banks aggressively expanded their balance sheets, beginning in March, that the rich got richer… 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Bloomberg notes that the Fed data shows the top 1% of Americans are worth $34.2 trillion, while the poorest 50%, around 165 million people, control about $2.08 trillion, or less than 2% of all household wealth. 

    Meanwhile, the 50 wealthiest people in the country are worth almost $2 trillion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, up $339 billion from the start of 2020. Tesla’s Elon Musk is a prime example of a billionaire who saw his wealth rapidly increase this year, up $75.6 billion year-to-date, to $103 billion. 

    50 Richest Americans Wealth Surge 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Bloomberg Billionaires Index

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Covid-19 has exacerbated the already worsening inequality issues in the U.S. If it’s monetary or fiscal, the transmission of stimulus has primarily flowed to society’s wealthiest. The rich got richer, and the working-poor got poorer. Tens of millions of working poor households were handed lousy $1,200 checks, with many folks still without jobs, depleted emergency savings, food insecurity issues, and millions at risk of eviction.

    The wealthiest 1% saw their wealth erupt earlier this year as they own about 50% of all stocks and mutual funds. The top 9% own about a third of stocks, which means the top 10% of Americans own about 88% of stocks. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Fed Chair Jerome Powell warned Tuesday that the “pandemic is further widening divides in wealth and economic mobility,” calling for more “government aid” to thwart a waning recovery.

    “A long period of unnecessarily slow progress could continue to exacerbate existing disparities in our economy,” Powell said. 

    The system is deeply flawed. The “K” recovery is the result of socialism and central planning. The Fed and federal governments coming blowback by enriching the elites via failed policy during the virus pandemic on the backs of the financially crushed working poor could result in additional social instabilities. 

  • Crane Counts In North American Cities Drop For First Time Since 2017
    Crane Counts In North American Cities Drop For First Time Since 2017

    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/10/2020 – 22:00

    By Zachary Phillips of ConstructionDive,

    Data in brief:

    • For the first time since July 2017, the number of cranes in North American cities has decreased, according to Rider Levett Bucknall’s newest crane count. The biannual count dropped by 40 cranes, 455 to 415, from Q1 to Q3 2020.

    • Toronto still holds the crown for most cranes in a North American city, with 124, towering above all other metropolitan areas recorded. Of the 14 measured cities, only Phoenix, Seattle, Toronto and Washington, D.C., saw an increase in the number of cranes.

    • Five of the 14 cities — Chicago, Denver, Las Vegas, New York and San Francisco — experienced what RLB called a “significant decrease,” dropping between 27% and 76%.

    Although projects across North America have resumed after being stalled by coronavirus restrictions this spring, RLB’s report said “the pandemic-induced recession is expected to have far-reaching effects.” For example, lenders are less likely to provide support for large developments and projects in significantly impacted sectors like sports and hospitality.

    “The next weeks are going to be crucial for the future of the construction industry, especially regarding the provision of another economic support stimulus package from the federal government,” Julian Anderson, president of RLB’s North American region, told Construction Dive.

    “If there is [a stimulus package], then I am hopeful that the recession will be shallow; if not, then I am concerned that the construction industry will be in for tough times in the new year.”

    The RLB data is in line with other recent reports showing that construction starts in some U.S. metro areas have been negatively impacted by the COVID-19 outbreak. Starts in the top 20 metropolitan areas posted a decline of 22% through the first six months of 2020 compared to the same period a year ago, according to Dodge Data and Analytics. After a normal start to the year, the drop began in March as a direct result of the coronavirus pandemic.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Dodge analysis showed that out of the country’s major markets, only Phoenix was spared from declines brought on by COVID-19. 

    Meanwhile, Toronto’s vastly higher number of cranes likely has to do with high-rise condos, Anderson said. The strength and local importance of the condo market makes Toronto a “localized anomaly” in the North American market, though the trend is the same in other parts of the world, such as Australia, he said.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Other key findings of the report include: 

    • Healthcare projects experienced an increase of 38% compared with Q1 data.

    • Residential projects accounted for 40% of all cranes counted, the most of any sector.

    • Mixed-use projects accounted for the second most of any sector at 25%.

    • Transportation projects increased by 80% compared with Q1.

    • Civil projects dropped by 40% 

    • Cultural projects saw a 38% decrease.

    • Sports projects dropped from seven to zero.

  • White House Doctor Says Trump No Longer At Risk Of Transmitting The Coronavirus
    White House Doctor Says Trump No Longer At Risk Of Transmitting The Coronavirus

    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/10/2020 – 21:35

    In a statement posted at 8:50pm on Saturday night, Trump’s personal physician Sean Conley said that President Trump meets  “CDC criteria for the safe discontinuation of isolation”, “is no longer considered a transmission risk to others” and and that advanced diagnostic tests show “there is no longer evidence of actively replicating virus.”

    Trump has been fever-free for well over 24 hours and all symptoms have improved, Conley said in the memorandum published by the White House. Also, testing throughout his illness has shown “decreasing and now undetectable” viral loads.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Members of the anti-Trump press were quick to point out that the statement does not mention when last negative Covid-19 test was…

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    … while some pedantically mused whether Trump had a fever yesterday based on the letter’s phrasing.

    The statement came just hours after the Pres addressed a campaign-style rally on the South Lawn from the WH Balcony.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The announcement is unlikely to change the view of the Commission on Presidential Debates, which on Friday canceled the second debate between Trump and Biden after the President declined to do a virtual debate over alleged concerns about his Covid-19 diagnosis, resulting in ever louder allegations that the “bipartisan” commission is anything but bipartisan in the aftermath of “Never Trump” C-Span anchor Steve Scully’s “hacked” twitter gaffe, and Bob Dole’s tweeted admission that none of the Republicans on the commission support Donald Trump.

  • The US Plans To Deliver Weapons Anywhere On Earth In 1 Hour
    The US Plans To Deliver Weapons Anywhere On Earth In 1 Hour

    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/10/2020 – 21:30

    The United States military wants to be able to deliver massive amounts of advanced weaponry and military cargo to any location across the globe in less than one hour.

    The Department of Defense announced this week it is teaming up with Elon Musk’s SpaceX in order to develop a rocket capable of traveling 7,500 miles per hour, but which can simultaneously transport 80 tons of cargo.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    SpaceX/NASA file image

    “Think about moving the equivalent of a C-17 payload anywhere on the globe in less than an hour,” General Stephen Lyons, head of US Transportation Command, said in a virtual defense conference this week. “I can tell you SpaceX is moving very, very rapidly in this area. I’m really excited about the team that’s working with SpaceX.”

    This would essentially involve aircraft which is capable of hauling military cargo through orbit, further with hardware the size of tanks aboard.

    The example being widely cited is that while currently the fastest large military transport plane would complete a 7,652-mile journey from Cape Canaveral, Florida, to Bagram airbase in Afghanistan in 15 hours, the new SpaceX planned system could be capable of accomplishing it merely one hour.

    The US government also signed a contract with a company called Exploration Architecture Corporation (XArc) for work on the at this point highly theoretical concept.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The plan was announced on the heels of SpaceX also landing a $149 million contract for developing missile-tracking satellites with the Pentagon.

    Meanwhile, Gen. Lyons touted that a “proof of principle” test could be unveiled to the world as soon as next year, though clearly such an ambitious technological innovation is likely decades away from being realized and put into operation. 

    Should such a technology become operational, it would likely fall under the domain of Trump’s recently establish Space Force, the DoD’s sixth military branch to be established.

  • "Patriot Rally" Attendee Killed By Security Guard In Denver
    "Patriot Rally" Attendee Killed By Security Guard In Denver

    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/10/2020 – 21:21

    Update (2230ET): The shooter has been reported to be a bodyguard for a local news reporter with no affiliation to Antifa, according to the Denver Police.

    The private security guard in custody was contracted through Pinkerton by 9NEWS. It has been the practice of 9NEWS for a number of months to contract private security to accompany staff at protests.

    DPD originally took two people into custody and later found the second individual, a 9NEWS producer who works in the investigative unit, was not involved in the incident. The producer is no longer in police custody and is not a suspect. –9News

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.jshttps://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    It appears that during an altercation, the Patriot rally attendee slapped the bodyguard, who pulled his gun, got maced, then fired on the man.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    (Photos: Helen H. Richardson/MediaNews)

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    *  *  *

    Update (2205ET): Shortly after shots rang out, at least one presumed leftist could be heard celebrating that the man was “shot right in the fuckin’ dome.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    *  *  *

    A man initially reported as a participant in a Denver “Patriot Rally” was shot and killed by another man on Saturday near the Denver Art Museum, according to the Denver Post.  A suspect, an employee of 9News, is in custody. Early reporting suggested that the suspect was an Antifa participant in an anti-police counter-rally, however the Post has updated their report to say that the shooter’s affiliation is unknown after police took issue with the initial characterization.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Video of the incident appears to show the man drawing and spraying pepper spray at a shot rang out.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Update: A Denver Post staff member witnessed the fatal confrontation. This story has been updated after authorities called into question the accuracy of that journalist’s report concerning the affiliation of the shooter.

    In a news conference after the incident, division Chief Joe Montoya, said police could not confirm the shooter’s or the victim’s affiliations, but said the incident started as a verbal altercation. Two guns were found at the scene, he said, as well as a mace can.

    When asked about the 9News report, Montoya said he could not confirm any connection, only saying that the department was still interviewing witnesses. One of those witnesses was a Denver Post photojournalist.

    “We’re hopeful that as soon as possible we can get the factual information out as to what led to this — who the individuals involved were,” Montoya said. “We’re hopeful that that information will help kind of calm the waters a little bit.” –Denver Post

    According to The Denver Channel, several police officers in riot gear were already on the scene when the shooting occurred attempting to perform crowd control.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Suspect surrendering

    The shooting his being investigated as a homicide, while charges have yet to be filed against the suspect.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

     

  • Doug Casey On What Happens After The Election
    Doug Casey On What Happens After The Election

    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/10/2020 – 21:00

    Authored by Doug Casey via InternationalMan.com,

    Whenever a really radical group takes over—and the Democrats are serious radicals—they try to cement themselves in power. I’ve explained my reasons for believing the Democrats are going to win, and it only takes a small number of people working as a cadre to do it. I’d like to discuss what happens next.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    At the time of the Russian Revolution, the hardcore Bolsheviks only numbered in the hundreds. That was enough to take control of a hundred million Russians and stay in power for 70 years until they totally ran the wheels off the economy.

    The same thing happened with Fidel Castro in Cuba. He landed with only 50 or 60 guys, but once he took over the country, his apparatchiks were able to keep control of it.

    Serious populists, socialists, Marxists, and other authoritarians can pull that off because they’re completely unbound by conventional notions of morality. They sincerely believe the ends justify the means, and nothing is off the table when it comes to gaining and maintaining power. They always say they’re working for the people and invariably promise lots of free stuff. The hoi polloi want to hear that during a crisis—like the one we’re entering. When things get tumultuous, once they’re in, it’s almost impossible to get them out. Democracy—which is a sham anyway in today’s world—be damned.

    If the positions discussed by the twenty final contenders for their presidential nomination are any indication, the Democratic Party has been completely captured by leftists like AOC and her gang of four, who really want to change the very nature of the US. If they win, they’ll be able to do so.

    In order to succeed in an American Purple Revolution, they’ll need to cement themselves in place. It takes time for cement to dry. Even though the Republicans are just ineffectual and spineless “me too-ers” with no core beliefs, the Democrats will see there’s no point in letting them regain power.

    How will they ensure that?

    • First, it seems almost certain that the Democrats will make both Washington DC and Puerto Rico states; there will then be 104 senators voting—and they will without question be left-leaning Democrats. That will also help assure control of the Electoral College—assuming it’s not abolished—since it will have two more reliably Democratic states.

    • Second, the 20 million undocumented people—illegal aliens—now in the US will undoubtedly be made citizens; they lean heavily toward the Democrats.

    • Third, they’ll expand the size of the Supreme Court and pack it with leftists, so any new laws they pass can’t be challenged effectively.

    There could be more, of course. Perhaps they’ll reduce the voting age to 16; such is already the case in Argentina and a growing number of other countries. Young people, especially once they’re freshly indoctrinated by the State schools, always tend to favor socialist ideas. Maybe they’ll even engineer a new Constitutional Convention to change everything. The 2nd Amendment will go, of course, and the rest of the Bill of Rights would be heavily modified. Most of it is already a dead letter—but that would formalize the change once and for all. There will probably be “free” college in order to ensure an extra four years of intense leftist indoctrination for all. State-administered and paid medical care is a sure thing, as well.

    These things would cement the Democrats into office for at least a generation. But please don’t think I support the Republicans. That would be like supporting tuberculosis just because it’s better than terminal cancer. Could things get violent? Yes.

    There are quite a few examples, and these things can come out of almost nowhere, like the witch hysteria in Salem in the late 17th century. It was completely irrational, of course, and couldn’t have been predicted. But if you argued against the prevailing hysteria, you too could be accused and hung.

    Sometimes, these things are ethnic. Look at what happened in Rwanda a generation ago. The Hutus and Tutsis had lived together, more or less amicably, for generations. Then, all of a sudden, a million people were hacked with machetes. The wave blew over, and now things are peaceful again. But if you weren’t out there slaughtering Tutsis during the hysteria, you might be accused of being a sympathizer and be killed yourself.

    Sometimes, these things are religious, like the war between Christians and Muslims in Bosnia, or Lebanon, or the Central African Republic—among other places.

    Sometimes, conflict is political, like the gang warfare between the National Socialists and Communists in 1920s Germany.

    But what the US seems to be facing isn’t so much political, or religious, or ethnic as it is cultural, which is much more serious. The country is on the cusp of a full-blown cultural revolution. It happened during the Terror of the French Revolution. In a short period, perhaps over 20,000 people were murdered, mostly guillotined. Who would have guessed that simple regime change could get so out of control? It did, however, because it wasn’t just a political revolution. It was a cultural revolution, right down to changing the names of the months.

    It famously happened in Russia in 1917, when the Bolsheviks succeeded in changing the basic structure of society. And it happened in Cambodia in the late 1970s with Pol Pot, when a quarter of the population was murdered. Who would have thought that even possible in modern times? That was also a cultural revolution against the educated and essentially anyone who wasn’t a peasant.

    Of course, the mother of all social convulsions was Maoist China’s Great Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. The whole country, or at least what looked like the whole country, was bamboozled into overthrowing what they called the Four Olds—old customs, old culture, old habits, and old ideas. It went on for ten years, killed perhaps two million people, and destroyed the lives of tens of millions more.

    Right now, the same meme is spreading in the US. Absolutely anything could happen after the November election, no matter who wins. But with the serious financial, economic, and social problems the US is facing, authoritarians will know how to use them to their own advantage.

    The people promoting a US cultural revolution aren’t getting much resistance. The old regime—the conservatives, the Republicans—are totally intimidated. They’ve been brainwashed into accepting the righteousness of the Left’s cultural, political, economic, and social agendas. They don’t like it, but they sheepishly accept it. The schools, the NGOs, corporations, Hollywood, and the media are completely controlled by leftists and have inculcated their notions into society.

    This is a real problem. When these things get out of control, the consequences can be genuinely terrible. Trends in motion tend to stay in motion—and this one is even accelerating.

    America was unique among the world’s countries because it was founded on the premise of individualism and capitalism, free minds, and free markets. More than any other country, it’s lived up to those ideals.

    But these people don’t want just a change of government; they want to overturn the actual things that have made America—America. There’s no other place to go once America goes.

    Where can you run? In fact, the whole world is moving in the same direction.

    That’s really dangerous because the president has a lot of power, including the power to make several thousand direct appointees with immense influence. Trump has been very unsuccessful in all his appointments. Most of them turn on him viciously. He might as well have picked random names out of the telephone directory. The Democrats, however, can be counted on to plug in fully vetted idealogues.

    If Biden wins, he’ll probably get the Senate and the House, too. The Democrats will get a vast array of programs and departments approved. The changes will be much more radical than either Roosevelt’s New Deal or Johnson’s Great Society. Taxes will skyrocket, along with unlimited money in a world of Modern Monetary Theory. The US will get a makeover. America will cease to exist.

    I don’t know how the red areas of the country will react if/when the Dems win. They’re culturally conservative, so I doubt there will be serious counterviolence. But if Trump does wind up in office, after a seriously contested election, we can count on more Portlands and Kenoshas. A domestic version of the leftist saying during the ’60s: “Two, three, many Vietnams.” It’s really serious.

    The consequences of the Greater Depression will go far beyond a simple bear market. If Trump does win, no doubt the Republicans will crack down on the country in an attempt to keep order. The Dems will have cause to say they were right about his dictatorial tendencies. Then, assuming we have an election in ’24, we’ll certainly get a leftist Democrat in office.

    On the (kind of) bright side, gold will go a lot higher. So will Bitcoin, partly because FX controls will be installed. And the next financial bubble will be in gold mining stocks. They’re very cheap right now; those in production are coining money. Ten-to-one shots will be thick underfoot. Buy them now, so you have the capital to insulate yourself from the bad things to come.

    Then it’s game over for the Old America. Even if we don’t have an actual civil war.

    *  *  *

    Right now, the US is the most polarized it has been since the Civil War. 

    If you’re wondering what comes next, then you’re not alone.

    The political, economic, and social implications of the 2020 vote will impact all of us.

    EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: The Day After—How to Prepare for What’s Coming After the 2020 Election

    That’s exactly why bestselling author Doug Casey and his team just released this urgent new video about how to prepare for what comes next. Click here to watch it now.

  • China Blasts Latest US Navy Deployment Near Paracel Islands: "Halt Provocations!"
    China Blasts Latest US Navy Deployment Near Paracel Islands: "Halt Provocations!"

    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/10/2020 – 20:30

    China again put the United States on notice on Friday, warning the Pentagon to “halt provocations” in the South China Sea.

    This after the latest incident involving the US destroyer John McCain sailing near the disputed Paracel Islands administered and militarized by China. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Illustrative image: Guided missile destroyer USS Forest Sherman, Wiki Commons.

    A PLA military spokesperson denounced the sail-by, saying Washington must seek permission to navigate the area. “We demand the US immediately stop such provocative actions, (and) strictly control and restrict military operations in the sea and air,” the spokesperson said.

    This constitutes the latest notable incident after last summer there was a major uptick in US military flights over the region, however, during the past month there seems to have been fewer of these provocative sail-throughs.

    Prior angry denunciations from Beijing related to American spy aircraft observed in the region, sometimes even shielding any identifying characteristics to appear like civilian aviation, which the PLA has said is dangerous given the possibility of ‘mistaken’ incidents.

    The Chinese military has repeatedly charged that the US Navy has ‘frequently’ deployed warships in the South China Sea to “show off its force and severely infringe upon China’s sovereignty and security interests,” according to a quote in The Daily Mail. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The Pentagon response has typically been that it’s conducting peaceful ‘freedom of navigation’ operations to ensure adversaries adhere to international law for open waters.

    China has over the past years used both artificial islands as well as expanding military bases on the tiny land masses to extend its maritime claims, butting up against that of American allies in the region like the Philippines or unrecognized Taiwan.

  • Welcome To Bergeron!
    Welcome To Bergeron!

    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/10/2020 – 20:00

    Via EricPetersAutos.com,

    America is becoming Bergeron – a new country based on the principles laid out in Kurt Vonnegut’s depressingly prescient short story, Harrison Bergeron.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    It is a country in which – as in the book – you may not act if anyone of lesser strength or ability or drive cannot act at the same level. You must accommodate yourself to their level.

    Everything is leveled – ever downward.

    Until all are depressingly . . . equal.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In misery. In poverty. In thrall to suffocating edicts limiting what they are permitted to do – and told they must not do – on the basis of what others can’t do. Or resent you for being able to do, which they can’t.

    One of the most obvious expressions of this principle is on the road, where the law punishes competence as a kind of affront to the incompetent. If some people can’t handle making a right turn on red without creeping out in front of right-of-way traffic and causing a wreck thereby, no one else is allowed to make a right-on-red. If someone ignores the law forbidding it and makes a right-on-red safely and competently, by judging the flow of traffic and applying the necessary degree of acceleration to merge with it smoothly, he is punished for being competent.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    For having ability – and daring to use it.

    Some will say that, no, the offender ignored the law. True – but only superficially.

    Consider that the competent execution of the action isn’t a mitigating factor. Just as health is no excuse for not Diapering.

    Which is proof positive that the true offense – not mentioned but nonetheless – is lack of obedience premised on the acceptance of incompetence (and sickness) even in its absence.

    At the first hint of snow, the roads are now inundated with liquid brine – if they’re not closed outright, as in my part of Virginia – where the Blue Ridge Parkway is closed even before it snows, stays closed if it doesn’t actually snow . . . because it might snow.

    Because some people can’t deal with snow.

    Highway speed limits are today what they were 60 years go – notwithstanding 60 years of improvements in tire/brake/suspension technology and half a dozen “safety assists” in addition to that.

    Glaucomic granny sets the pace.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And now – because granny might die – everyone is treated as if they, too, were a granny and might die.

    Healthy people at very little to no risk of death from catching a cold must live in perpetual fear of death. If they don’t fear it, having no reason to – they must be forced to act – and look – as if they did.

    For the sake of those who do fear it.

    Instead of sequestering granny, everyone else is sequestered.

    And Diapered.

    Soon, they will be Needled. Not because they need it – being healthy – but because some people aren’t. Everyone must be made unhealthy – by injecting them with substances that make them so, which suppress the competence of their own healthy immune system to ward off colds.

    A public sneeze will soon be treated the same as spraying a crowd with machine gun fire – and there are Bergeronites who equate the two. Even if you don’t sneeze. Because you might.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Ergo, the Diaper.

    It’s as vindictive a policy as forcing people who can drive to operate at the level of those who can’t – and punishing them if they don’t.

    It all flows from the same ugly principle. The Sickness Regime is merely the latest and entirely predictable evolution of least common denominatorism – the Bergeroning of America.

    It has been evolving for a long time, gradually – until it reached a critical mass – gesundheit! – this year.

    Decades before the locking-down of the healthy population to protect the unhealthy portion of the population, it became common practice – in government schools – to limit the progression of instruction of the bright kids to accommodate the dullest kids.

    It was called “mainstreaming.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    When kids played team sports, participation trophies were handed out to everyone in lieu of  trophies for winning.

    Adults lacking ability were hired for jobs over those with ability. This was called “affirmative action” – and it worked in the same way (and on the basis of the same motives) as forcing a champion sprinter to run in boots so that a mediocre rival could keep up with him.

    Because some people can’t use a rearview mirror, everyone must be forced to buy a back-up camera. Because some people are terrible drivers when sober, the slightest amount of alcohol in the system of a good driver subjects him to a charge of “drunk” driving without regard to his actual driving.

    Everything has to be idiot-proofed . . . for the sake of the idiots at the expense of those who aren’t.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    People with the foresight to live below their means, who set aside money for their own retirement, are punished for their prudence by being forced to “contribute” money to subsidize the retirement of the imprudent, thereby rendering them just as dependent.

    People who can competently handle a firearm – having never given reason to believe otherwise – are presumed incompetent to handle a firearm on account of the demonstrated incompetence of other people.

    And now, the healthy must pretend they are sick – and be treated as presumptively sick. The fact that they aren’t isn’t a mitigating factor. In fact, it is a kind of perverse crime in that they are punished for living normally – on the basis of the fact that they aren’t sick.

    This is being characterized as “selfish.”

    It is an actionable offense in many areas.

    Granny isn’t forced to enter a restaurant – and can enter wearing a Face Diaper if she likes.That’s not Bergeronic enough. The restaurant must force all of its employees and patrons to wear a Face Diaper.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Every level of American society is being pulled toward the floor like a tablecloth grabbed by a temper-tantruming toddler – who will never be allowed to grow up – by making the adults at the table sit on the floor, amid the spilled soup and broken plates.

    *  *  *

    If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.  We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!  Our donate button is here.

  • Now Biden Says Filling Ginsburg Seat 'Not Constitutional' – And Americans Don't 'Deserve To Know' If He'll Pack Court
    Now Biden Says Filling Ginsburg Seat 'Not Constitutional' – And Americans Don't 'Deserve To Know' If He'll Pack Court

    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/10/2020 – 19:55

    Update (1617ET): In the latest round of malarkey over whether or not Biden will pack the Supreme Court (he will), the former Vice President confidently said on Saturday that filling the current vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court is unconstitutional.

    “Look, the only court-packing is going on right now. It’s going on with the Republicans packing the court now. It’s not constitutional what they’re doing,” said Biden while traveling to Pennsylvania for a campaign stop.

    “The fact is that the only packing going on is this court is being packed now by the Republicans after the vote has already begun,” he added. “I’m going to stay focused on it so we don’t take our eyes off the ball here.”

    As Politico‘s Jake Sherman asks: “What’s not constitutional here?”

    Watch:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Will some brave journalist ask Biden to elaborate? 

    *  *  *

    Update (1500ET): On the insaneness of modern politics amplifier, things just went to ’11’, when presidential candidate Joe Biden told a reporter, who asked him the question everyone wants answered currently – “will you stack the courts?” – that voters “don’t deserve” to know his stance until after the election…

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    You cannot make this up!

    *  *  *

    In a rather stunning admission of malarkey, Joe Biden told a group of so-called ‘reporters’ this week, “You’ll know my opinion on court-packing when the election is over.” 

    But, we already know Joe’s “opinion” on packing the courts – he thinks it’s a “bonehead idea.”

    As David Harsanyi reminds us, via RealClearPolitics, President Franklin Roosevelt revived a Woodrow Wilson plan to arbitrarily place political allies into the courts, one for every judge over 70 years old, which would have meant 50 additional political allies on the federal bench, and six additional Supreme Court justices. Like today’s Democrats, he first softened up the public by attempting to delegitimize the Court — claiming, for instance, that the justices were incompetent geriatric cases incapable of performing their duties. (It is somewhat ironic that the most reliably pro-New Deal justice at the time, Louis Brandeis, was the only octogenarian on the Court.)

    In those days, there were still enough politicians who valued the separation of powers to stop him.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Of the 10 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who signed a document opposing FDR’s scheme, seven were Democrats.

    They didn’t merely maintain that FDR was wrong or misguided; they argued that the court-packing plan was an “utterly dangerous abandonment of constitutional principle,” a transparent scheme to punish justices whose opinions diverged from the executive branch, and “an invasion of judicial power such as has never before been attempted in this country.”

    If enacted, the senators wrote, court-packing would create a “vicious precedent which must necessarily undermine our system.” They concluded that the plan “should be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America.”

    FDR, whose popularity would plummet to historic lows after the court-packing threat, ultimately went on to appoint eight justices, and to largely have his way in fundamentally changing American governance. But he was prevented from destroying the Court as an institution, and modern-day Democrats are now seeking to finish that job.

    Wit that as background, fast forward to a 1983 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on whether to allow President Ronald Reagan to replace members of the Commission on Civil Rights.

    Specifically, as The Washington Free Beacon detailed, Biden opposed the nominated commissioners not because he viewed them as unqualified, but because he thought Reagan’s takeover of the commission would damage its legitimacy.

    He compared it to Roosevelt’s court-packing push, which he called a “terrible, terrible mistake.”

    “President Roosevelt clearly had the right to send to the United States Senate and the United States Congress a proposal to pack the Court,” Biden said during the hearing. “It was totally within his right to do that—he violated no law, he was legalistically absolutely correct.”

    “But it was a bonehead idea. It was a terrible, terrible mistake to make, and it put in question, for an entire decade, the independence of the most significant body—including the Congress in my view—the most significant body in this country, the Supreme Court of the United States of America.”

    In his own words…

    Of course, the real question is – especially given Pelosi’s unveiling of a 25th Amendment-seeking panel this week – will a President Joe Biden have anything to do with the decision to pack the courts as he is ousted for a leftist revolution and one of the gravest threats to the constitutional order in modern American history?

    “We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court,” Kamala Harris said last year following the Justice Kavanaugh hearings.

    “We have to take this challenge head on, and everything is on the table to do that.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    As Andrew Wynne ominously concluded, forgive us if we’re rightfully skeptical that Biden will stand up to the radical left when they ram through Congress an institution-crumbling, court-packing scheme.

  • "Big Tech Has Become A Tool Of Totalitarian Fascism" – Google Has 'Memory-Holed' The Great Barrington Declaration
    "Big Tech Has Become A Tool Of Totalitarian Fascism" – Google Has 'Memory-Holed' The Great Barrington Declaration

    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/10/2020 – 19:45

    The bureaucrat/scientists who have been guiding the American response to the coronavirus – even Dr. Fauci acknowledges that the Trump Administration has accepted most of his recommendations (even if Trump hasn’t always followed them on a personal level).

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Many who have been closely following coverage of the 2nd wave of the virus hammering Europe have heard Europe’s leaders explain to indignant reporters how their lockdown-free approach differs from an outright ‘herd immunity’ strategy question, as well as the growing acceptance of lockdown-free approaches to tackling the coronavirus (even as Sweden imposes new restrictions as Europe’s second wave looms). Just yesterday in the UK, London Mayor Sadiq Khan said a return to ‘lockdown’ status within London was “inevitable”, even as London’s infection rate lags the hot spots in northern England (in and around Manchester, as well as a few other areas) by a sizable margin.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Leaders in Europe have all warned that returning to a national lockdown would be an absolute last resort, as their economies struggle to recover from the springtime mass closures that wrought unprecedented havoc on the real economy (even if it hasn’t always translated over to the market).

    But an even bigger threat to the status quo engineered by Dr. Fauci, Dr. Birx and their colleagues around the world is the sudden emergence in academia of a credible, and vocal, chorus of dissent, as researchers who are luminaries in their field speak out against lockdowns.

    Since the spring, libertarians have criticized governors and even President Trump for following in the footsteps of communist China, which clearly allowed the virus to spread unchecked for weeks, or even months, before stepping in. Fewer than 100k cases have been confirmed in China – a figure that many observers suspect is far short of the real number.

    But we digress. As many of the springtime hotspots from around the world – densely populated areas like Madrid and Paris – suffer through second waves that are equally, if not more, punishing than the first round, more laypeople are starting to question: what was this all for?

    And whatever happened to Dr. Fauci saying that the goal was to “flatten the curve” so hospitals aren’t overwhelmed? Not force businesses to close for longer than 6 months, destroying the livelihoods of millions, as we hope and pray for the FDA to expedite approval of a vaccine.

    Well, on Oct. 4, a group of scientists from Oxford, Harvard, Stanford and other distinguished academic institutions from around the world published the Great Barrington Declaration, a brief statement offering an alternative public policy approach. Instead of mandating business closures, lockdowns should be lifted, and a shift to “focused protection” should be implemented. Resources should be focused to protect the vulnerable (the elderly and those with CDC-designated risk factors). The young and health population should be allowed to live normally, with the hope that they would eventually build up immunity.

    Critics have attacked the statement’s recommendations, but their criticisms are mostly superficial or easily addressable. The most salient, in our view, is the notion that we don’t yet know how long immunity from COVID-19 lasts, now that confirmed cases of reinfection have been found around the globe. To be sure, those cases are few and far between, and there’s a substantial amount of anecdotal and scientific data suggesting that health care workers have developed lasting immunity.

    But since the approach challenges the status quo in the US, a position that Democrats have embraced at risk of their political reputations, big tech has rallied to try and censor the Great Barrington Declaration. First Reddit buried discussion of the declaration; now Google has “memory holed” the declaration, as one Twitter user explains.

    Here’s the thread, courtesy of @boriquagato:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    He continues:

    Simple, right?  Here’s the declaration, and here’s the wiki page.

    You can see the authors, kulldorf, gupta, bhattacharya’s names and know this this was written by medical professors at harvard, stanford, and oxford.

    there’s no slant, not editorializing, it’s primary source info.

    now let’s have a look at google.

    pretty different looking results, huh?  not only do they not lead with the declaration itself or its authors, they lead with dishonest hit pieces.

    they try to tie it to climate denial and fake science.

    um, no.  this is “fake search.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    the google results for “great barrington declaration” are simply not search results at all.

    it’s a propagandistic hit piece ducking the science, ignoring the credentials of the authors, failing to show the declaration, and spinning it as some kind of fringe cabal of “deniers.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    it’s staggeringly blatant once you see it, but will anyone?

    or will they be fooled by this because it’s subtle and you think google is a search engine, not a radicalized editorial column.

    and it’s now EVERYWHERE.

    Reddit will not allow users to see it.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    know what a man fears by watching what he tries to silence.

    these groups know they have lost the debate.

    they know that the facts and the science are not on their side.

    and now they want to win by lying.

    what choice have they left themselves?

    when you have hitched your wagon to “credentialism” from buffoons like fauci and brix and ding and topol and then the REAL credentialed crowd shows up and calls you out, what can you do?

    you’re cornered by your own argument. so you have to hide this fact. it’s fatal to you.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    and oh how they are going to try to hide it.

    at the risk of sounding tinfoil hatty: big tech has become an apparatus of totalitarian fascism.

    this is what that looks like. you push a government line and “right-think” while politicizing all things.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    government and business in the same bed to shape society for “it’s own good.”

    that’s what fascism is.

    “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.”

    when mussolini said that, he meant it as a positive.

    “totalitarian” was a complement.  and make no mistake, big business LOVES this.

    it’s profitable and certain and protects your market position and entrenches oligopoly.

    big business does not like free markets. it likes “less competition and a thumb on the scale.”

    they LOVE fascism.  this fascism is always and everywhere a leftist youth movement. it’s not right wing, it’s left. (yes, i know what wikipedia says, it’s wrong. read your history on where these parties came from. they all emerged from socialist parties)

    now it comes from san francisco.  and this is the part we need to understand:

    they thought they were the good guys. hitler, stalin, mussolini, all of them

    they thought there were the way forward to a greater society, a more perfect nation, justice, & progress.

    and the companies that helped them thought so too  they are not sitting around twirling their moustaches in sinister fashion plotting the the downfall of the world.

    it’s far worse.

    they honestly believe that they are the anointed whose great wisdom & intellect gives them a right & a duty to tell the benighted masses how to live

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    they have convinced themselves that calling fascism “antifa” means they are the good guys

    but make no mistake, this is an attempt to rule you and it’s showing its true colors now

    they, like all despots, believe that they will be benign.

    history is not kind to that presumption.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    we seem to be at a crossroads.

    we can either see this for the power play that it is and seek out new ways to get information and communicate and take back our data and our speech, or we can fall under this spell and become lost in this propagandistic house of mirrors.

    search and social media do not have to be like this.

    the can be peer to peer, open source, and provide personal agency.

    remember that you are not google’s customer, nor twitter’s.

    you are their product.

    they sell you to their customers.

    did you not ask who pays the bills?

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    but this can change and will change.

    the more they adulterate and censor, the more incentive there is to leave their walled gardens and find a better way.

    this is going to be the awkward adolescence of internet and social media.

    but it needs to happen.

    it’s time to grow up.

    * * *

    Source: @boriquagato

  • A New Problem Emerges If Congress Can't Agree On A Fiscal Stimulus Deal
    A New Problem Emerges If Congress Can't Agree On A Fiscal Stimulus Deal

    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/10/2020 – 19:30

    Back on May 4, in its then-latest estimate of Marketable Borrowings the US Treasury shocked markets when it unveiled that in the April-June quarter it would borrow a humongous $2.999 trillion, exponentially higher than what it had expected to borrow during the quarter in its previous estimate in February when it forecast a $56 billion decline in debt. And while the projected debt number stunned the market, it barely registered on the price or yield of US Treasurys for the simple reason that just weeks earlier the Fed announced it would monetize all gross debt issuance for the US when it unveiled Unlimited QE, something it has been doing since.

    This massive surge in debt issuance would also result in a far higher Treasury cash balance which would be used to pre-fund various fiscal stimulus programs, and as the chart below shows, that’s precisely what happened with the Treasury cash balance exploding from $400BN at the end of March to an record high just above $1.7 trillion currently, an amount that is just waiting to be spent as soon as Congress gives the green light.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    In retrospect the cash surge was too much: in fact, more than double what the Treasury had expected on May 4. While the Treasury had forecast a $3 trillion increase in marketable borrowing for the quarter ending June 30, it also expected the cash balance to grow to $800 billion on that same date (shown highlighted in yellow on the table below).

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    And yet the final number ended up being approximately $900 billion higher, meaning that the Treasury had substantially overshot its funding need and suddenly found itself with a record cash buffer.

    So with all this extra cash in hand, did the Treasury reduce its debt needs? As shown above, five months ago the Treasury expected that it would need to borrow $677BN in the final fiscal quarter of the year ending Sept 30, which while a massive number, was still well below the $2.753 trillion it ended up borrowing (just shy of the $2.999 trillion initial forecast, a number which was not hit due to “lower-than-projected expenditures and higher receipts largely offset by the increase in the cash balance.”)?

    The answer, as we pointed out in August, was a resounding no because as it disclosed in its latest estimate of Marketable Borrowing needs, the Treasury once again surprised markets by announcing it would borrow a whopping $947BN last quarter, $270BN more than it had forecast a quarter ago, even though the Treasury started this quarter with a cash balance that is $922 billion higher than it had expected one quarter ago!

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Source: US Treasury

    Why this unexpected increase in debt even though the Treasury was starting off with nearly $1 trillion more in cash than originally budgeted? This is how it explains it.

    During the July – September 2020 quarter, Treasury expects to borrow $947 billion in privately-held net marketable debt, assuming an end-of-September cash balance of $800 billion.  The borrowing estimate is $270 billion higher than announced in May 2020.  The increase in privately-held net marketable borrowing is primarily driven by higher expenditures, due to a shift from the prior quarter and anticipated new legislation, largely offset by the higher beginning-of-July cash balance and higher receipts.

    In other words, not only will the Treasury draw down on $922 billion in cash in the calendar quarter the ends in less than two months…

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    … but it will also sell enough debt to raise an additional $881 billion (net) which will also end up being spent, suggesting that in the current quarter the Treasury plans on spending a gargantuan $1.8 trillion, something which as we learned last week was the latest Trump offer to Pelosi and House Democrats (an offer which Pelosi just turned down earlier today).

    But that’s not all, because in its first glimpse of the current Oct-Dec quarter’s funding needs, the Treasury now expects to borrow another $1.216 trillion in privately-held net marketable debt, once again assuming that the end-of-December cash balance remains unchanged from the Sept 30 balance of $800 billion. This means that the Treasury will spend an additional $1.2 trillion in the quarter ending Dec. 31, assuming every dollar it raises in the open market is then promptly spent (since the cash balance remains unchanged).

    According to the Treasury, “these estimates assume $1 trillion of additional borrowing need in anticipation of additional legislation being passed in response to the COVID-19 outbreak.”

    So what does this mean?

    First, when putting together the actual data for the first three quarters of fiscal 2020 and adding the Fiscal Q4 estimate of $947BN in new issuance, the Treasury will borrow a record $4.5 trillion in Fiscal 2020, more than it borrowed in the previous view years combined!

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Second, it means that for calendar Q3 and Q4, the Treasury planned on spending almost $3 trillion consisting of:

    • i) a drawdown in cash from $1722 billion to $800 billion, for $922 billion, in the quarter ending Sept 30
    • ii) new debt issuance of $947 billion in the same quarter and
    • iii) new debt issuance of $1,216 billion in the quarter ended Dec 31

    … for a grand total of $3.085 trillion in new funds (either from spending cash or raising debt).

    And even if the Treasury uses some of this cash to pay down maturing Bills (which we doubt as it will most likely keep rolling this short-term debt indefinitely with rates at all time lows), it means that as recently as August, the Treasury was budgeting for nearly $3 trillion for Congress and Trump to spend as they fit in order to boost the economy to ensure that there is no “double dip” economic crash. It also meant that for all the posturing about whether the $1 trillion Republican or $3 trillion Democrat stimulus package is accepted, the Treasury was already budgeting for the latter.

    * * *

    Alas, a problem emerged: with less than 4 weeks left until the elections, Congress and Trump remain hopelessly deadlocked on when – and if – a new stimulus will take place. And while that in itself is a major problem for an economy and for Trump’s re-election chances (which explains why Democrats are playing hardball on a new deal and will only accept it if it includes bailouts of insolvent state pensions in Democratic states), something we explained two weeks ago, “Failure To Launch New Fiscal Stimulus Would Have Catastrophic Consequences For The US Economy“, another major problem has emerged.

    The growing uncertainty over a new, fifth fiscal deal raise significant questions about the Treasury’s plans for managing its cash balance – which as shown above, is at $1.69 trillion and remains more than double its projected target of $800 billion at Dec 31 – between now and year end.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    So, as BofA first hinted last week, if no deal is reached this quarter, the Treasury would need to pay down nearly $1 trillion worth of bills in the next two months to reach its year-end cash target of $800bn, writes Barclays strategist Joseph Abate.

    And yet, another fiscal stimulus deal remains just a matter of time, the only question is whether before the election, or after. That however is a key wildcard for the massive cash holdings at the Treasury, which Trump was hoping to use up before the election and prop up the economy.

    Indeed, as Abate writes, a spending package is still likely in the new year, and since “the purpose of the Treasury’s cash stockpile was to have immediately available resources to finance a portion of any new stimulus, we see no reason for the Treasury to cut bill issuance aggressively this quarter.”

    Moreover, the decline in bill rates over the summer means the Treasury may have a harder time selling large amount of bills next year. “This may be an additional reason why the Treasury has not decided to pay down bills or run down its cash balance in case it would be forced back into the bill market,” according to Abate.

    For its part, Barclays expects the Treasury will flag a one-year note linked to SOFR at the November refunding announcement, with the first sale delayed until February. The Treasury will probably need to trim bill issuance to make room for the new note, in addition to any potential supply changes created by a stimulus package.

    Maybe, but there’s more: as BofA rates strategist Marc Cabana wrote last week, the Treasury will ultimately target a $400bn cash balance after stimulus needs are met & PPP loan forgiveness is complete, suggesting a $1.2 trillion drawdown from current cash levels. Making matters worse, and why the Treasury could face material pressure to get their cash balance even lower by the summer of next year is that the Treasury will need to lower their cash balance to $133bn by end July ’21 to be in compliance with the existing debt limit law (the 2019 Bi-Partisan Budget Act suspended the debt limit through end July ’21 but when the debt limit is reinstated UST needs to hold no more cash on hand vs when the bill was originally signed into law which is $133bn).

    As a result, if a new debt ceiling is not instituted before end July ’21 – due to continued Congressional bickering for example – it could imply less financing need from bills, all else equal. The impact of different TGA levels on expected Q420 and 1H21 net bill supply in tables 3 and 4.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    What all of this boils down to, simply said, is that depending on the trajectory of stimulus discussions, the Treasury could see vast swings in its cash balance which in turn would affect its Bill financing strategy. As we discussed last week, there is a range of bill supply outcomes between now & 1H ’21 as shown in Table 2. Much of the bill supply impact will be a function of the Treasury cash balance level, which remains near record levels. The implications of a few bill supply scenarios are listed below:

    • Pre-election stimulus: In Q4 ’20 bill supply would likely total $250-$300bn. The Treasury will drop their cash balance to $1tn, which would add ~$600bn of cash into the banking system. The expected increase in banking system cash would likely overwhelm bill supply & keep front end rates stable to lower.
    • Base case (no stimulus pre-election, $1.5tn post inauguration): In Q4 ’20 bill supply will likely be flat or slightly negative with a Treasury cash balance at year-end of $1.6tn. This is lower vs prior forecasts due to a downward revision in deficit estimates and the TGA ending September higher than BofA had previously anticipated. In 1H ’21 bill supply will also likely be flat on net but there may be one notable variation; Cabana “might anticipate” $200-$300bn bill supply after stimulus is passed in Feb or March but expect this would be paid down after the April tax date. The decline in Treasury cash balance will limit the need for elevated bill supply.
    • Extreme scenarios: in 1H ’21 a “supersized” or “skinny” deal could see bill supply range from positive $350-$400bn to negative $1tn. In a “supersized” scenario the bill supply increase would likely be greatest after a bill is passed in Feb or March ’21. In a “skinny” deal the risk of sharply negative bill supply stems from a potential “forced” reduction of the Treasury cash balance. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The bottom line is that depending on the outcome of the ongoing stimulus discussions, the Treasury may end up injecting approximately $600 billion of cash into the banking system as existing Bills mature and are not rolled over, which according to Cabana “would likely overwhelm bill supply & keep front end rates stable to lower.” It would also mean that banks suddenly have to allocate a massive amount of excess cash into various securities, which if previous instances of such capital reallocation inflection points are an indicator, would – together with the Fed’s ongoing injection of at least $120BN in reserves each month courtesy of QE – result in a wholesale meltup across the entire risk spectrum.

    The irony of all this is that should there be no fiscal deal, and should Trump lose the election, the market may end up exploding higher in the last weeks of the year… just as the US economy – starved for more stimulus capital – careens into a double dip depression.

  • Don't Assume Gen Z Will Show Up
    Don't Assume Gen Z Will Show Up

    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/10/2020 – 19:00

    Authored by Samuel Abrams via RealClearPolitics.com,

    As the November presidential election approaches, stories abound showing overwhelming support among Generation Z for former Vice President Joe Biden over President Trump, with claims like “Young voters backing Biden by 2-to-1 margin.”

    While many may assume widespread electoral support for Biden among younger voters is a fait accompli, a surprising number of Gen Z voters may have already chosen to opt out of voting come November.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The idea that these voters would essentially “stay home” on Election Day is counterintuitive, given their heightened interest in our polarized times, but my ideas changed once the fall school year reopened and I had a chance to speak with scores of students around the country. Their stories were consistent: Gen Zers were having trouble accepting Joe Biden as their candidate of choice and staying home and opting out was appealing to them. Despite my comments that this could lead to a second Trump term, students consistently said that Biden did not inspire them. New survey data suggests that Gen Z’s turnout may be overstated. Politicos should take note.

    First, the fall youth poll from Harvard’s Institute of Politics finds a significant enthusiasm gap between the candidates: 56% of America’s 18-to-29-year-old likely voters who support Trump are “very enthusiastic” about voting for him. This stands in stark contrast to just 35% of likely voters who back Biden. Those in Gen Z are generally not excited about the Democratic nominee and tell me that they were deflated when more progressive candidates dropped out of the race. Such low levels of enthusiasm may not translate to actually casting a ballot.

    Second, as the American Enterprise Institute’s new “Socially Distant: How Our Divided Social Networks Explain Our Politics” survey reveals, just 7% of Gen Zers have a very favorable view of Biden while another 40% have a favorable view – making for a 47% overall favorability rating. While this is appreciably higher than Trump’s 20% favorability rating, it is anything but a landslide of support from younger Americans for Biden. My students regularly share the fact that they have trouble getting behind Biden given his  history of inappropriately touching women and his less than consistent left-of-center positions. This fact, along with the Harvard enthusiasm data, again suggests that the drive to vote for Biden may indeed be lower than many narratives assert; candidates need to inspire voters to drive turnout.

    Relatedly, the survey asks if it has been easy or hard to make a decision about who to vote for this year (2020). Given the polarized climate and the overall disdain for the Trump administration among young people, one would think that making a decision about voting in a few weeks should be fairly easy. However, 30% of Gen Zers and Millennials state that their decision was hard – this is significantly higher than their parents (21%) and grandparents (14% for Boomers and 10% of Silents) – and again provides a hint of evidence that Gen Zers may opt out of voting entirely.

    Going further, when asked who they’d vote for if the election were held today, Gen Z is not uniformly in support of Biden: 57% would vote for Biden and 18% for Trump. But 6% state someone else and another 19% say that they will sit this election out. And compared to the older cohorts, this intention to sit out is very different: Just 8% of Gen Xers and 5% of Boomers do not intend to vote.

    Moreover, when asked about how certain they are about their choice, those in Gen Z are less certain compared to older cohorts. Just 51% of those in Gen Z state that they are absolutely certain that they will vote in the 2020 election; this shows that Biden’s support in large numbers is not assured. In contrast, 71% of those in Gen X and 80% of the Boomers state that they are absolutely certain that they will vote.

    Finally, the survey data makes it clear that those in Gen Z are politically engaged, but not necessarily with the election. Two-thirds (67%) have been following the election fairly or very closely, notably lower than the 88% who have been paying attention to the COVID-19 pandemic and the 80% who are following the BLM protests. Gen Zers are not ignoring current events, but they may be increasingly disinterested in the election itself.

    Collectively, these data points confirm a story that my students have been sharing with me for the past month: Do not assume that Gen Zers will vote this fall. Excitement for Biden is low and large numbers of Gen Zers already report that they do not intend to vote in November. Given the fact that survey data on vote intentions often over-report turnout intention, it is quite possible that participation will be far lower among our youngest cohort of voting-aged Americans. The electoral implications could be significant and help swing the nation back to Trump for another four years.

  • "Schools Aren't Superspreaders" – The Atlantic Explains Why Students Should Be Back In School, Now
    "Schools Aren't Superspreaders" – The Atlantic Explains Why Students Should Be Back In School, Now

    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/10/2020 – 18:30

    After months of waging war, mainstream media outlets recently started to seriously address the reality of herd immunity, or at least the type of “focused” approach described in documents like the Great Barrington declaration, as a credible alternative to the lockdown-first strategy embraced by Dr. Fauci and the public health establishment around the world, to varying degrees of success.

    So far, we’ve seen WSJ (these are just a couple of examples), the FT and now the Atlantic, with its “Schools Aren’t Super Spreaders” article about why schools – at least for minor students – haven’t emerged as the COVID-19 breeding grounds that many feared.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The article was written by Emily Oster, an economist at Brown University. In it, she makes some surprising points. Before readers can write her off as an “economist” and not a “subject matter expert”, Oster explains that she has been working with national teacher and principal associations to collect data on school reopenings as part of a sprawling research project, which was also recently profiled in the NYT.

    While Brown acknowledges that she has seen a deluge of stories and datas about small (but decidedly not deadly) outbreaks on colleges campuses, she notes that there has been vanishingly little evidence of outbreaks in K-12 schools, whether private or public.

    Data on almost 200,000 kids in 47 states from the last two weeks of September shows an infection rate of 0.13% among students and 0.24% among staff. That translates to 1.3 infections over two weeks in a school of 1,000 kids, or 2.2 infections over two weeks in a group of 1,000 staff. Even in the most high-risk areas where schools were open, the risk to students was always well under half a percent, Oster explains.

    What’s more, researchers in Texas and other states have arrived at similar conclusions.

    Since early last month, I’ve been working with a group of data scientists at the technology company Qualtrics, as well as with school-principal and superintendent associations, to collect data on COVID-19 in schools. (See more on that project here.) Our data on almost 200,000 kids in 47 states from the last two weeks of September revealed an infection rate of 0.13 percent among students and 0.24 percent among staff. That’s about 1.3 infections over two weeks in a school of 1,000 kids, or 2.2 infections over two weeks in a group of 1,000 staff. Even in high-risk areas of the country, the student rates were well under half a percent. (You can see all the data here.)

    School-based data from other sources show similarly low rates. Texas reported 1,490 cases among students for the week ending on September 27, with 1,080,317 students estimated at school—a rate of about 0.14 percent. The staff rate was lower, about 0.10 percent.

    Of course, as Oster readily acknowledges, while these infection numbers are low, and deaths (among the children, at least) have been rare, they’re not zero.

    But for everybody who insists on 100% safety, Oster warns, it comes at a serious cost to the long-term well-being of children. And this burden is felt most intensely by low-income families and students, as parents simply don’t have the time and resources to supervise their child’s education from home.

    While infection numbers across the US have picked back up since Labor Day, Oster claims there’s no evidence connecting this to schools reopening. Indeed, even with schools still virtual in the nation’s largest districts, cases have still rebounded.

    The risk to children, at this point, has been well documented.

    One might argue, again, that any risk is too great, and that schools must be completely safe before local governments move to reopen them. But this approach ignores the enormous costs to children from closed schools. The spring interruption of schooling already resulted in learning losses; Alec MacGillis’s haunting piece in The New Yorker and ProPublica highlights the plight of one child unable to attend school in one location, but it’s a marker for more. The children affected by school closures are disproportionately low-income students of color. Schools are already unequal; the unequal closures make them more so. Virtual school is available, but attendance levels are not up to par. Pediatricians have linked remote schooling to toxic stress.

    Parents are struggling as well, not just children. Cities have recognized the need for child care for parents who cannot afford to quit their jobs to supervise their kids, but this has led to a haphazard network of options. Houston, for example, has opened some schools as learning centers. L.A. has learning centers set up for low-income students in alternative locations. These spur the questions: If school isn’t safe for everyone, why is it safe for low-income students? And if school is safe for low-income students, why isn’t it safe for everyone?

    From all the data she’s collected and distilled, Oster concludes simply this: “We do not want to be cavalier or put people at risk. But by not opening, we are putting people at risk, too.”

    It’s just another example of how research is challenging credentialed experts’ initial assumptions about COVID-19. With publications like the Atlantic already starting to take this line of thinking seriously, why is Silicon Valley still trying to suppress dissenting thinkers on similar issues like the Great Barrington Declaration?

  • Transportation Capacity Hits New Lows, "No Relief In Sight" For Pricing
    Transportation Capacity Hits New Lows, "No Relief In Sight" For Pricing

    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/10/2020 – 18:00

    By Todd Maiden of FreightWaves,

    A September supply chain survey shows transportation capacity has reached new lows. The Logistics Managers’ Index (LMI), a survey of leading logistics executives, showed capacity fell to new lows, dipping another 770 basis points during the month to a 23.8% reading.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The LMI is a diffusion index, wherein a reading above 50% indicates expansion and a reading below 50% indicates contraction. The survey captures the rate of change in activity for key supply chain trends in areas like transportation, inventory and warehousing.

    The September transportation capacity reading was the lowest level ever for any of the eight metrics the survey tracks. The capacity situation was even worse for “downstream firms,” or those closest to the consumer, at 16.3%.

    “Clearly consumer-facing firms are struggling to find the capacity needed to meet the increasing consumer appetite for home delivery,” the report stated. “It is interesting that logistics capacity is already this pressed at the end of Q3. Traditionally Q4 is when we see peak logistics demand, so the fact that it’s already close to maximum utilization calls into question whether or not missed or late deliveries will become an issue through peak retail times in November and December.”

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The lack of available capacity was also “reflected in the premium firms are paying.” The transportation pricing subindex increased 410 basis points in the month to 87.9%, the highest reading since October 2018. “Observing the last two years of transportation prices shows a U-shaped trend, with September’s rate of growth representing a return to the heady days of mid-to-late 2018,” the report stated.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    The overall index increased 450 basis points from August to 70.5% in September, the first reading north of 70% since October 2018 and only the sixth time the index has breached 70% since its inception in 2016. The index bottomed during the depths of the pandemic-induced shutdowns in April at 51.3%.

    “Growth rates in the logistics industry are roaring” because of e-commerce, the report said. 

    “Digital-heavy retail methods allow concerned shoppers to avoid in-person stores but are also more logistics resource intensive. Logistics-intensive commerce becoming a more significant proportion of retail activity explains why the metrics tracked in the LMI are increasing at rates not seen since mid-2018, in spite of the relatively modest overall economic growth,” it said.

    Capacity declines to moderate, pricing to remain high

    The survey captures 12-month forward-looking expectations as well. Respondents indicated that they expect capacity to continue to contract over the next year but at a more subdued pace. The future indication for capacity registered at 48.1%, still in contraction territory, but up significantly from the August prediction of 31.7%.

    However, increases in transportation pricing show no signs of letting up. Survey respondents registered an 85.8% reading for the index one year from now, implying that the current high rate at which transportation pricing is increasing is expected to continue. “Respondents clearly expect the continued tightness in the freight market to result in increasing costs – with no relief in sight.”

    Inventory and warehousing

    The rate of inventory growth moved higher, up 330 basis points to a 61.4% reading during the month. Inventories have remained in expansion territory since March. “Bustling port activity as firms move to replenish the inventory from international suppliers that they were unable to procure early in the summer” was listed as the primary reason. Additionally, the costs to hold inventory remain on an upward trajectory, up 110 basis points at 65.8%

    All of the warehousing metrics – capacity, utilization and prices – continued to show tightening in the logistics real estate market.  Capacity declined 740 basis points to contraction territory at 43.1%, with utilization increasing 590 basis points to 71.1%. The warehousing prices component increased 190 basis points to 70.5%.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    “At this point it seems likely that these high rates of growth will continue even if the overall economy is slow in Q4. The dramatic reliance on logistics services due to the pandemic may insulate the industry from moderate economic downturns in the near future.”

    The LMI is a collaboration among Arizona State University, Colorado State University, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rutgers University and the University of Nevada, Reno, conducted in conjunction with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals.

  • Flint Councilman Proposes Shutting Down Gas Stations, Liquor Stores At Night To Reduce Crime
    Flint Councilman Proposes Shutting Down Gas Stations, Liquor Stores At Night To Reduce Crime

    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/10/2020 – 17:30

    After surging violent crime in Flint, Michigan, in the first half of 2020, Flint City Councilman Maurice Davis has had enough with the chaos on the streets. He recently proposed a new ordinance to shutter business operations by 9 p.m. to help reduce crime, reported NBC 25. 

    Councilman Davis believes forcing liquor stores, corner stores, and gas stations to close by 9 p.m. will help prevent the loitering outside of these establishments, which sometimes result in arguments and or shootings. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    If his ordinance is passed, Councilman Davis expects violent crime in the evening and night hours could slump as there would be no need for some to leave their homes when gas stations, liquor stores, and corner stores are closed at night. He said it could give peace and comfort to some in the community who fear leaving their homes at night. 

    “If they can get an ordinance passed to close down liquor stores, and gas stations at 9 o’clock I wouldn’t be mad about it,” said Robert Massie Jr., a Flint resident.

    Massie hopes the ordinance is passed but believes it could cause some frustration among some. 

    “It’s going to be people that’s going to be mad, and then you’re going to have some people that’s going to like it because they can feel like they can be a little safe out here. But that’s not going to stop anything. It’ll just calm it down,” he explained.

    Councilman Davis told ABC 12 that he’d proposed the new ordinance for months now as gun violence kills loved ones in the city. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    A 2018 crime data report via the FBI found Flint was the sixth most dangerous US city with a population of at least 50,000. 

    University of Michigan-Flint Associate Professor of Criminal Justice Kenneth told Flint Beat that the surge in violence over the summer could be due to increased temperatures and COVID-19 woes. 

    Michigan State Police Lt. David Kaiser told Flint Beat that “this year’s violent crime is even worse and the only difference between this year and last year is COVID-19 keeping people cooped up.” 

    There’s also depressionary unemployment in Flint, as many people forget, recessions typically drive up violent crime. 

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    Councilman Davis plans to meet with Flint City Council on Oct. 12 to push his new ordinance into law.  

    Shutting down businesses, which would decrease economic activity in the local economy, is likely not the solution in curbing Flint’s violent crime issues. Flint residents desperately need jobs, not closed businesses. 

  • America Has An Epic Choice
    America Has An Epic Choice

    Tyler Durden

    Sat, 10/10/2020 – 17:00

    Authored by MN Gordon via EconomicPrism.com,

    “There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion.  The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.” 

    – Ludwig von Mises, Human Action [1949]

    Crisis Now or Total Catastrophe Later?

    On Tuesday, while still hopped up on anti-coronavirus goofballs, President Trump had a moment of clarity.  After 40 years of near uninterrupted credit expansion, it was finally time to cut it off.  And he was just the guy to do the cutting.

    Trump took to Twitter to make his first snips.  He announced that stimulus bill negotiations were severed.  Minutes after, the Dow Jones Industrial Average hit a 400 point air pocket.  Several hours later, and perhaps following a little tutelage from Mnuchin and Kudlow, Trump reversed course.

    We don’t know what Mnuchin and Kudlow said to Trump.  But we suppose they informed him that, at this point, the immediate health of the American economy is contingent on delivering printing press money to citizens and non-citizens alike…who cares if the long-term consequences are catastrophic?  Thus, Trump called on Congress to approve a second round of $1,200 stimulus checks.

    This course of action eschews voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion.  This, no doubt, is the path of least resistance for politicians.  Unless Trump wants to lose the election, he can’t tell voters there’s no more free money.

    The choice is real simple.  Voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion and a crisis now.  Or further credit expansion and the final and total catastrophe of the dollar system later.

    For a politician this isn’t really a choice at all.  If you recall, Nero clipped coins in 64 A.D. and fiddled as Rome burned.  The decision every president makes is to avoid a crisis now and, with a little luck, leave total catastrophe for some other sucker.

    We’ll have more on this in a moment.  But first, some perspective…

    Between a Rock and a Hard Place

    In the Spring of 2003, 27-year old Aron Ralston found himself between a rock and a hard place.  While solo canyoneering within the rock fissures and tapered caverns of Bluejohn Canyon, in eastern Utah, something heinous happened.

    <!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

    While negotiating a 10 foot drop in a 3 foot wide canyon, Ralston dislodged a boulder he thought was stable.  As he fell back, the boulder crashed down and crushed his right hand and lower arm.  What’s worse, the 800 pound rock pinned him in the canyon.  He was entombed.

    Ralston was carrying a small rucksack with just one liter of water, two burritos and a few chunks of chocolate.  He also had his rock climbing ropes and a small multi-purpose knife.  He hadn’t bothered to tell anyone where he was going.  He knew he was invincible.

    Over the next 127 hours (more than 5 days), Ralston rationed his water and fruitlessly chipped away at the massive boulder with a dull multi-tool knife.  He slowly slipped into a state of delirium.  As Ralston weakened and his supplies faded, he was faced with a grim question: Your hand or your life?

    Ralston concluded his only way out was to tourniquet his arm with his climbing ropes, and cut off his hand.  But when he cut through the flesh with his dull knife he encountered another problem.  His bones!

    By the fifth day, as Ralston later recounted, he had found “peace” in “the knowledge that I am going to die here, this is my grave.”  However, the following morning he had reservations.  His peace was gone.

    What happened next?

    With death staring him in the face, Ralston went into a rage…resulting in another stark revelation.  He could fling himself against the boulder to break his own bones.

    The snap of his bones “like, pow!” was a horrifying sound “but to me it was euphoric,” recalled Ralston.  “The detachment had already happened in my mind – it’s rubbish, it’s going to kill you, get rid of it.”

    After snapping his bones and severing his hand (it took about an hour to hack through his flesh), Ralston somehow managed to scale a 65 foot cliff to escape the canyon.  He then hiked out to his rescue – minus a hand.

    America Has an Epic Choice

    America has an epic choice.  And it has nothing to do with who will be the next president of the United States.  It has nothing to do with if the new stimulus bill is $1.6 trillion or $2.2 trillion.

    To review, the choice is as follows: Voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion and a crisis now.  Or further credit expansion and the final and total catastrophe of the dollar system later.

    The President, Joe Biden, Congress, the Secretary of Treasury, the Federal Reserve, economic advisors, the political class, lobbyists, government contractors, Wall Street, pensioners, CalPERS, transfer payment recipients, social security and Medicare beneficiaries, and so on and so forth, including…

    Jamie Dimon, the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, Arlington Virginia, bureaucrats at the Department of HUD, Anthony Fauci, mortgage brokers, Edward Jones, Lockheed Martin, the staff at the IRS, public private partnerships, teachers unions, and much, much more.

    The whole lot – and then some – are firmly on the side of further credit expansion and the final and total catastrophe of the dollar system later.  Just this week, for example, Fed Chair Powell offered the following words of encouragement:

    “The US federal budget is on an unsustainable path, [and] has been for some time.  [But] this is not the time to give priority to those concerns.”

    In other words, avoid a crisis now in exchange for total catastrophe later.

    The choice, by all measures, is heinous.  But sometimes, like Aron Ralston, one must cut off their hand if they want to live.  By this, voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion is the way out of the current financial predicament.  Stop the madness.  Bring on the crisis.

Digest powered by RSS Digest