Today’s News 16th June 2021

• Deutsche Bank Nets "Almost $1 Billion" Win On Its Best Trade Since Shorting Subprime
  Deutsche Bank Nets “Almost $1 Billion” Win On Its Best Trade Since Shorting Subprime

  Remember when Deutsche Bank was the butt of every investment banking liquidity joke on the street just a couple years ago? Well, thanks to Bill Hwang, that ridicule has now been turned toward Credit Suisse while, at the same time behind the scenes, Deutsche Bank has apparently been putting together some wins.

  Today, the investment bank is benefitting to the tune of “almost $1 billion” on a 35 year old trader’s bet on shipping company Zim Integrated Shipping Services, according to Bloomberg. 

  The trade on the world’s 11th-largest container shipping carrier could net Deutsche its biggest win since its “big short” trade during the global financial crisis, the report notes. 

  Deutsche had been betting on bonds and bank loans of Zims that had been trading at a large discount as far back as 2016. The bank also took a small slice of equity in the name. Since then, shipping rates have skyrocketed and the investment has been such a success, it could make up “about a quarter of [Deutsche Bank’s] 2020 investment banking profit”.

  Trader Mark Spehn starting putting on the position when he joined the bank from SC Lowy. Zim was in the midst of emerging from a debt restructuring that took place in 2014. As a result, the company had less debt and had diluted its equity. But over the coming years, shipping rates remained depressed, making it difficult for shippers make up ground.

  

  Meanwhile, Spehn made Zim his top conviction trade, convinced there would be industry consolidation and an eventual leaner and meaning company emerging as a result. With rates staying low, he tried to lure others into his bet, but found little success. 

  That has all changed now. Shipping rates have started to skyrocket this year as a result of continued demand in the U.S. and Europe, mixed with new carbon emission standards. Supply chain and shipping bottlenecks are a way of life as global economy adapts to the ongoing post-Covid recovery. The Shanghai Containerized Freight Index is up 265% over the last year, Bloomberg notes. 

  Deutsche has started to ring the register on its trade, selling about $90 million in stock on June 4. It still has a stake of about $645 million after the sale. Debt the company owed was redeemed at face value. Zim equity is up over 400% over the last 12 months.

  Ofer, who has been helping Zim financially for the last decade, has also benefited from the trade. Firms King Street Capital Management and Davidson Kempner Capital also had exposure to the restructuring. 

  Deepak Natarajan, managing director at King Street, concluded: “It was important for us to monetize a decent portion of our position just because the liquidity of the equity is relatively low. We are still relatively constructive on freight rates in the next six to 12 months.”

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/16/2021 – 02:45

• The Next Serbia? Belarus Alarmed By NATO's Threats
  The Next Serbia? Belarus Alarmed By NATO’s Threats

  Authored by Rick Rozoff via AntiWar.com,

  On Monday the foreign minister of Belarus, Vladimir Makei, expressed alarm over recent statements by NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg about his nation, ones that were openly hostile and implicitly threatening. He’s quoted by the Belarusian Telegraph Agency voicing these concerns: “We are absolutely concerned over these recent statements by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. Just a few days ago, he expressed concern over deeper ties between Minsk and Moscow, saying that they see it as a threat to the alliance’s eastern flank. They are also concerned about closer cooperation between Moscow and Beijing. They also see it as a threat.”

  Although one of many statements in the same vein of late, the foreign minister may at least in part have been responding to an interview with Stoltenberg published by the Welt am Sonntag on June 6 in which the NATO chief said the military bloc was “following what is happening in Belarus very closely,” especially what he claimed were closer ties between Belarus and its neighbor and Union State partner Russia.

  

  He warned that the thirty-nation military bloc he leads is prepared “to protect and defend any ally against any kind of threat coming from Minsk and Moscow.” The language was inflammatory and threatening and meant to conjure up a specter of a new mini- (or micro-) Warsaw Pact. Belarus has a population of some 9.5 million. NATO nations have a population of over 1 billion.

  The Belarusian foreign minister also said that his country doesn’t comment on the closer integration of NATO member states or the relations of the latter with third parties. He then posed the question: “Does it all mean that we should stay silent while they will react to a minor event [likely the Ryanair incident] and tell us how to live?”

  On June 14 CNBC interviewed Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda who, echoing statements from leaders of NATO nations and NATO partners that portray the lamb as a threat to the wolf, launched this diatribe:

  “We see the military buildup of Russian forces in Ukraine, in [the] Kaliningrad region [part of Russia] and of course we see what’s happening in Belarus right now. We see that this country is losing its last elements of independence, and could be used in the hands of Russians as a weapon….for foreign aggressive activities towards NATO allies.” Again the numbers: 9.5 million vs 1 billion.

  In a recent interview with Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky condemned the consolidation of the Union State between Belarus and Russia in these words:

  “We are observing how Russia and Belarus persistently cooperate with each other. They can include defense there, and then these countries will be able to exert serious pressure on us.”

  Four of the five nations bordering Belarus are members or an Enhanced Opportunities Partner of a military bloc controlled by the U.S. – Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, and Ukraine, respectively – but closer cooperation between two neighboring states with the same cultural, linguistic and religious background is a threat to Ukraine, Europe and North America according to Zelensky.

  

  Over a month ago he claimed of tensions with Russia at the time, “I think it could be a world war.” He also said Russia could invade Ukraine not only from Crimea (which Ukraine and its American, NATO and European Union sponsors refer to as temporarily occupied territory) but also from Belarus.

  Speaking at the same event as the Ukrainian president when he made the comments, Ukrainian Defense Minister Andriy Taran claimed “Russian military hardware still remains near our northern border,” and asserted his nation’s armed forces were monitoring events inside Belarus and were considering the invasion of Ukraine by Russian troops through Belarus “or the spread of military aggression through Belarusian territory.“

  The defense chief also warned that “if necessary, we have developed plans and we know how to act if we see signs of the creation of a group of armed forces that can be used through Belarus.” Zelensky, Taran and other leading Ukrainian officials, in attempting to depict Belarus as a threat to their nation, frequently alluded to the autumn, specifically September, when Russia and Belarus are scheduled to hold the latest iteration of the quadrennial Zapad military exercise.

  Regarding Belarus, Defense Minister Taran spoke in these terms in May: “As for the escalation, perhaps in the autumn, I would say this: If I expect there might be an escalation in the autumn, I must be held criminally liable. We expect a possible escalation at any moment. We are always ready to give an appropriate rebuff.”

  As to who is likely to invade whom, after the presidential election last August Belarusian President repeatedly warned of NATO nations invading the western part of his country with statements like: “The defense ministry should pay special attention to movements of NATO forces in Poland and Lithuania. We should track all directions of their movements and intentions.”

  In regard to which Defense Minister Viktor Khrenin said: “I can confidently state that the Armed Forces are ready for combat. The morale is high. We are ready to carry out missions. The main task for us is to preserve territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of the country….” Monday’s Belarusian media report that the nation’s members of parliament have sent an appeal to the United Nations and other international organizations concerning the threat to the nation.

  

  In the words of Sergei Sivets, the chairman of the Standing Commission on Legislation and State Construction:

  “You know that the MPs of all levels and members of the Council of the Republic of the National Assembly have adopted the address to the international community in connection with the situation around Belarus. The situation is primarily connected with the unprecedented political, information and sanctions pressure on our country on the part of the collective West. We have put together the signature sheets of the authentic signatures of all deputies and members of the Council of the Republic, sent it to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which in turn will froward them to international and intergovernmental organizations….”

  In late May President Lukashenko addressed members of parliament and other government officials and used the same language as did the Ukrainian president earlier about the true nature of the threat that a war in northeastern Europe would portend:

  “The time has chosen us. We have found ourselves on the front line of a new cold, even freezing cold war. Only countries that will be able to resist this hybrid pressure will hold out.

  The goal is clear. We also know who would benefit from demonizing Belarus. We are a small country, but we will respond appropriately. The world knows examples of similar situations. Before making any rushed moves, remember, that Belarus is in the center of Europe, and if things spin out of control here – it will be another world war.”

  NATO may be planning to treat Belarus as it did Serbia/Yugoslavia 22 years ago. But unlike Serbia, Belarus borders Russia. And autumn is not far off.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/16/2021 – 02:00

• Escobar: Empire Of Clowns Versus Yellow Peril
  Escobar: Empire Of Clowns Versus Yellow Peril

  Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Asia Times,

  Global South will be unimpressed by new B3W infrastructure scheme funded by private Western interests out for short-term profit…

  

  It requires major suspension of disbelief to consider the G7, the self-described democracy’s most exclusive club, as relevant to the Raging Twenties. Real life dictates that even accounting for the inbuilt structural inequality of the current world system the G7’s economic output barely registers as 30% of the global total.

  Cornwall was at best an embarrassing spectacle – complete with a mediocrity troupe impersonating “leaders” posing for masked elbow bump photo ops while on a private party with the 95-year-old Queen of England, everyone was maskless and merrily mingling about in an apotheosis of “shared values” and “human rights”.

  Quarantine on arrival, masks enforced 24/7 and social distancing of course is only for the plebs.

  The G7 final communique is the proverbial ocean littered with platitudes and promises. But it does contain a few nuggets. Starting with ‘Build Back Better’ – or B3 – showing up in the title.

  B3 is now official code for both The Great Reset and the New Green Deal.

  Then there’s the Yellow Peril remixed, with the “our values” shock troops “calling on China to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms” with a special emphasis on Xinjiang and Hong Kong.

  The story behind it was confirmed to me by a EU diplomatic source, a realist (yes, there are some in Brussels).

  All hell broke loose inside the – exclusive – G7 room when the Anglo-American axis, backed by spineless Canada, tried to ramrod the EU-3 plus Japan into an explicit condemnation of China in the final communiqué over the absolute bogus concentration camp “evidence” in Xinjiang. In contrast to politicized accusations of “crimes against humanity”, the best analysis of what’s really going on in Xinjiang has been published by the Qiao collective.

  Germany, France and Italy – Japan was nearly invisible – at least showed some spine. Internet was shut off to the room during the really harsh “dialogue”. Talk about realism – a true depiction of “leaders” vociferating inside a bubble.

  The dispute essentially pitted Biden – actually his handlers – against Macron, who insisted that the EU-3 would not be dragged into the logic of a Cold War 2.0. That was something that Merkel and Mario ‘Goldman Sachs’ Draghi could easily agree upon.

  In the end the divided G7 table chose to agree on a Build Back Better World – or B3W – “initiative” to counter-act the Chinese-driven Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

  Reset or else

  The White House, predictably, pre-empted the final G7 communiqué. A statement later retracted from their website, replaced by the official communique, made sure that, “the United States and our G7 partners remains deeply concerned by the use of all forms of forced labor in global supply chains, including state-sponsored forced labor of vulnerable groups and minorities and supply chains of the agricultural, solar, and garment sectors – the main supply chains of concern in Xinjiang.”

  “Forced labor” is the new mantra handily connecting the overlapping demonization of both Xinjiang and BRI. Xinjiang is the crucial hub connecting BRI to Central Asia and beyond. The new “forced labor” mantra paves the way for B3W to enter the arena as the “savior” human rights package.

  Here we have a benign G7 “offering” the developing world a vague infrastructure plan that reflects their “values”, their “high standards” and their way of business, in contrast to the Yellow Peril’s trademark lack of transparency, horrible labor and environmental practices, and coercion methods.

  Translation: after nearly 8 years since BRI, then named OBOR (One Belt, One Road) was announced by President Xi, and subsequently ignored and/or demonized 24/7, the Global South is supposed to be marveling at a vague “initiative” funded by private Western interests whose priority is short-term profit.

  As if the Global South would fall for this remixed IMF/World Bank-style debt abyss. As if the “West” would have the vision, the appeal, the reach and the funds to make this scheme a real “alternative”.

  There are zero details on how B3W will work, its priorities and where capital is coming from. B3W idealizers could do worse than learn from BRI itself, via Professor Wang Yiwei.

  B3W has nothing to do with a trade/sustainable development strategy geared for the Global South. It’s an illusionist carrot dangling over those foolish enough to buy the notion of a world divided between “our values” and “autocracies”.

  We’re back to the same old theme: armed with the arrogance of ignorance, the “West” has no idea how to understand Chinese values. Confirmation bias applies. Hence China as a “threat to the West”.

  We’re the builders of choice

  More ominously, B3W is yet another arm of the Great Reset.

  To dig deeper into it, one could do worse than examining Building a Better World For All, by Mark Carney.

  Carney is a uniquely positioned player: former governor of the Bank of England, UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance, adviser to PM Boris “Global Britain” Johnson and Canadian PM Justin Trudeau, and a trustee of the World Economic Forum (WEF).

  Translation: a major Great Reset, New Green Deal, B3W ideologue.

  His book – which should be read in tandem with Herr Schwab’s opus on Covid-19 – preaches total control on personal freedoms as well as a reset on industry and corporate funding. Carney and Schwab treat Covid-19 as the perfect “opportunity” for the reset, whose benign, altruistic spin emphasizes a mere “regulation” of climate, business and social relations.

  This Brave New Woke World brought to you by an alliance of technocrats and bankers – from the WEF and the UN to the handlers of hologram “Biden” – until recently seemed to be on a roll. But signs in the horizon reveal it’s far from a done deal.

  Something uttered by B3W stalwart Tony Blair way back in January is quite an eye-opener:

  “It’s going to be a new world altogether… The sooner we grasp that and start to put in place the decisions [needed for a] deep impact over the coming years the better.”

  So here Blair, in a Freudian slip, not only gives away the game (“deep impact over the coming years”, “new world altogether”) but also reveals his exasperation: the sheep are not being corralled as fast as necessary.

  Well, Tony knows there’s always good old punishment: if you refuse the vaccine, you should remain under lockdown.

  BBW, incidentally, accounts for a heterodox category of porn flics. B3W in the end may reveal itself as no more than toxic social porn.

  Tyler Durden
  Wed, 06/16/2021 – 00:05

• China Sends Record 28 Fighter Jets Toward Taiwan After Telling NATO: 'We Won't Sit Back'
  China Sends Record 28 Fighter Jets Toward Taiwan After Telling NATO: ‘We Won’t Sit Back’

  The timing appears an unmistakable message and warning to the West after on Monday NATO issued a communiqué which for the first time ever singled out China as a central security “challenge” to the military alliance and a stable global order: China’s PLA military on Tuesday flew a record 28 fighter jets into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone.

  While China has over the past months since Biden took office flown near daily groups of aircraft and bombers near or in Taiwan contested airspace, this latest comes as Biden is in Europe shoring up support among allies for a tougher united front against Beijing. In March China’s military had sent a record at that time of 20 aircraft, which included four nuclear-capable bombers, but Tuesday’s 28 total aircraft marks the biggest incursion since Taiwan’s defense ministry began keeping public tally of incursions.

  

  According to the AP, “The planes included various types of fighter jets including 14 J-16 and six J-11 planes, as well as bombers, the ministry said.” And further the report noted “China’s show of force comes after leaders of the Group of Seven industrialized nations issued a statement Sunday calling for a peaceful resolution of cross-Taiwan Strait issues and underscored the importance of peace and stability.”

  In response Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian on Tuesday slammed the G-7 nations as deliberately “interfering in China’s internal affairs.” He added: “China’s determination to safeguard national sovereignty, security and development interests is unwavering.”

  NATO’s later communiqué was even more muscular, calling out China’s “assertive behavior which presents systemic challenges to the rules-based international order and to areas relevant to Alliance security.”

  BREAKING: Taiwan Defense Ministry says 28 Chinese PLA warplanes entered its ADIZ this morning. Largest known recent incursion. https://t.co/h0ngSh3RVf

  — Jesse Johnson (@jljzen) June 15, 2021

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

  This new record-setting PLA incursion is no doubt is meant as a further “answer” to the Western powers which are increasingly defining a new global security priority as ‘confronting’ a rising China.

  It also comes just after a US carrier group entered the South China Sea on Tuesday. The strike group’s aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan was accompanied by the guided-missile cruiser USS Shiloh and the guided-missile destroyer USS Halsey. The group of vessels entered the heavily disputed South China Sea waters on Tuesday to conduct a maritime security operation. 

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 23:45

• GOP Lawmakers Unveil Bill To Defund 1619 Project In Public Schools
  GOP Lawmakers Unveil Bill To Defund 1619 Project In Public Schools

  Authored by Isabel van Brugen via The Epoch Times,

  A group of Republican lawmakers on Monday unveiled legislation that would block federal funds for public schools from being used to teach the controversial 1619 Project published by The New York Times.

  

  Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) at the Conservative Partnership Institute in Washington on July 27, 2020. (Brendon Fallon/The Epoch Times)

  Reps. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) and Rick Allen (R-Ga.), alongside Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), reintroduced the “Saving American History Act” (pdf) which “would ban federal funds from being used to teach the 1619 Project in K-12 schools or school districts,” a news release from Buck’s office states.

  The 1619 Project, an offshoot of the Marxist teaching model critical race theory (CRT), has been criticized for attempting to rewrite American history as fundamentally racist and disregarding the merits of the nation’s founding documents. The controversial project has been panned by historians as having false information.

  It is a “racially divisive and revisionist account of history that threatens the integrity of the Union by denying the true principles on which it was founded,” the bill states.

  “Critical Race Theory is dangerous, anti-American, and has no place in our nation’s schools,” said Buck in a statement.

  “School curriculum plays a critical role in a child’s development and greatly influences the type of adult they will become.”

  The lawmaker added, ”Children shouldn’t be taught that they will be treated differently or will be racist because of their skin color.”

  Former President Donald Trump established the so-called “1776 Commission” in the final months of his presidency to combat “false narratives about the American Founding,” however, it was formally dissolved by President Joe Biden upon taking office.

  The Biden administration has put CRT as its top priority and included “equity”—which emphasizes equality of outcome, rather than equal opportunity—as its focus for all legislation.

  Allen said in a statement that the 1619 Project “aims to indoctrinate our students into believing that America is an evil country.”

  

  U.S. Reps. Rick Allen (L) (R-Ga.) and Doug Collins (R) (R-Ga.), speak as they await the arrival of President Donald Trump in Atlanta, Georgia, on July 15, 2020. (Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images)

  “There is no room for that in our classrooms,” the lawmaker continued.

  “We must teach our young folks to learn from our nation’s past in order to form a more perfect union. Teaching revisionist history and promoting divisive ideology will not move our nation forward.”

  The Georgia lawmaker said the measure will ensure federal funds are used to provide students with a “historically accurate curriculum.”

  “Activists in schools want to teach our kids to hate America and hate each other using discredited, Critical Race Theory curricula like the 1619 Project,” charged Cotton.

  “Federal funds should not pay for activists to masquerade as teachers and indoctrinate our youth.”

  

  Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) questions President Joe Biden’s nominee for secretary of defense, retired Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee at the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Jan. 19, 2021. (Greg Nash-Pool/Getty Images)

  Parents across the country have begun pushing back against the use of CRT in schools, while an increasing number of local and state governments have responded with legislation banning its use.

  Georgia’s state Board of Education passed a resolution in May that says students should not be taught CRT in schools.

  Governors from Tennessee, Idaho, Arkansas, and Oklahoma have already signed anti-CRT bills, while in Texas and Iowa, similar legislation is awaiting signatures from the governors.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 23:25

• USS Regan Strike Group Enters Heavily Disputed South China Sea 
  USS Regan Strike Group Enters Heavily Disputed South China Sea 

  The great power competition between China and the U.S. continued Tuesday as the Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group sailed into the South China Sea for the first time this year, according to a U.S. Navy press release. 

  The strike group’s aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan was accompanied by the guided-missile cruiser USS Shiloh and the guided-missile destroyer USS Halsey. The group of vessels entered the heavily disrupted South China Sea waters on Tuesday to conduct a maritime security operation. 

  

  The Navy said, “upholding freedom of the seas in the South China Sea is vitally important where nearly a third of global maritime trade, roughly 3.5 trillion dollars, a third of global crude oil, and half of the global liquefied natural gas passes through the sea each year.” 

  This comes vulnerabilities to global trade continue beyond narrow chokepoints as more than 200 Chinese vessels, mainly fishing vessels believed to be manned by China’s maritime militia, have been causing havoc near the Philippines. 

  Earlier this year, the USS John S. McCain, an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, was “expelled” by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) from the Paracel Islands in the heavily disrupted waters. PLA alleged, at the time, around February, the destroyer “trespassed” into China’s territorial waters.

  In April, the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier and its strike group sailed through the region as exclusive economic zones between the Philippine government and Chinese were in dispute. 

  The Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group is expected to conduct maritime security operations, “which include flight operations with fixed and rotary-wing aircraft, maritime strike exercises, and coordinated tactical training between surface and air units,” according to the Navy. 

  Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group commander rear admiral Will Pennington said: 

  “The South China Sea is pivotal to the free flow of commerce that fuels the economies of those nations committed to international law and rules based order.

  “It is both a privilege and a pleasure to work alongside our allies, partners, and joint service teammates to provide full spectrum support to key maritime commons and ensure all nations continue to benefit from a free and open Indo-Pacific region.”

  Here’s the latest U.S. naval deployment map from Stratfor (as of June 10). 

  

  There’s more here than meets the eye as a great power competition continues to brew between both countries. 

  Over the past year, the U.S. has increased aerial patrols, and U.S. Navy warship sails through the disrupted region and near and through the Taiwan Strait, an exercise aimed at angering Beijing. Such “close encounters” and U.S. flyovers and sail through in the South China Sea and near Taiwan become more frequent during the tail-end of the Trump presidency.

  It’s only a matter of time before PLA officials or Chinese state-run media denounces the latest U.S. sailing. So should we expect the PLA to try to expel the Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group from the heavily disputed waters?

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 23:05

• France's Macron Just Gave Away The Plot With His Outside Voice
  France’s Macron Just Gave Away The Plot With His Outside Voice

  Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, ‘n Guns blog,

  French President Emmanuel Macron, whose poll numbers are abysmal and needs a sincere shot in the arm, just gave away the plot with his outside voice.  

  I’ve noticed this trend within The Davos Crowd in recent months, speaking with their outside voice what they only ever talk about internally.

  

  That plot, by the way, is to transfer power over the global money supply to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) by eventually doing away with individual central banks.

  To that end Macron’s latest proposal is to bailout Africa because COVID by coordinating $100 billion in gold sales of national reserves of the G-7. Who would they sell that gold to? The IMF. That money can then be distributed by the IMF, expanding the supply of SDRs — Special Drawing Rights — using the gold as collateral for the development loans.

  He’s talking about $100 billion here.  That’s around 1600 tonnes of gold at current prices.  32150.7 ounces/tonne x $1900 per ounce. $0.06109 billion per tonne.  1610 tonnes of gold.

  Now, interestingly, a reader on Twitter put a lot of pieces together with this, saying, in effect that that this is the humanitarian cover story for the upcoming liquidation of Italy.

  Tom said the ECB needs the physical gold for the revaluation and to balance their books(ECB books are nuked). In the case of Italy the physical Gold can just be wheeled out since it is deeply indebted to the ECB, EU member countries that are not as indebted however..proxy/pretext

  — Eric Yeung 👍🚀🌕 (@KingKong9888) June 11, 2021

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

  Having spoken with the Mittdolcino.com, an Italian blog with a similar mission, it is well understood within Italian circles that his liquidation of Italy is well underway and Mario Draghi was put in power to effect this.

  Italy, officially, has 2450 tonnes of gold, give or take.  Macron can ask them to pony up because they owe at least that much to the ECB and Germany through TARGET2.  Draghi has already made it explicit that there will be no Italeave without paying that debt.  He said this as ECB President. With Christine Lagarde in power that requirement is still there. Now that he’s Prime Minister, Italeave is off the table. Worse, he can effect this transfer once there is political cover for it.

  I don’t think this plan has legs just yet, but it is another sign that they have to accelerate their plans because of the rising opposition to the basic framework of Davos’ agenda.  

  So, Macron speaking on the eve of the G-7 conference to spill the plot is telling of just how bad his electoral prospects are in France, because he needs to improve his image and this is the best he can come up with? Sell some of France’s gold to the IMF to pay for a new colonization program in Africa?

  No wonder he got slapped last week.

  That said, since this plan is now out in the open what are the implications:

  1. It gives political cover for stealing Italy’s gold, humanitarian giving from the virtuous first world.

  2. It puts the IMF at the center of the post-COVID bailout strategy, neatly avoiding the EU’s naked aggression against its own members.

  3. It rolls the current western gold reserves into one institution rather than a bunch of disparate ones.

  4. Gives the IMF even more ammunition to combat China and Russia’s rampant accumulation of gold and set it up as the future for a world government enforced by the UN

  5. It tells everyone that Europe is losing ground to China and Russia in Africa for the future of rare earths and lithium necessary to pull off their Green Revolution.

  6. It puts the world on notice that the EU now feels confident of its ability to recolonize the third world because of the primacy of its central unelected authority.

  7. This fits right in with the global minimum corp. tax agreement… because once they all agree on this there will have to be an enforcement agency… that agency will be handed to the UN and collected through the IMF.

  8. It paves the way for national CBDC’s unmoored from gold but backed by a basket of “gold-backed SDR’s” and tax policy.  

  9. It’s also a frontal assault on Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies which are gaining traction very quickly in African countries most vulnerable to dollar supply and demand shock, now that Lightning Network has proven to be functional.

  10. It puts paid that the changes to Basel III’s Stable Funding Ratios are there to increase the price of gold, by removing the Fed’s ability to keep it under wraps through the futures markets and unallocated paper gold.

  Macron will not be allowed to leave office next year unless something dramatic happens against Davos’ wishes in France, i.e. some form of violent uprising rather than just protests.  There is no doubt in my mind that there will be a number of attempts to prop him up to get him across the finish line, Marine Le Pen will get closer but she won’t be allowed to win.  

  They stopped Trump, they’ll stop Le Pen.  It may be the last time they do such a thing and they may burn what political capital and cover they have left in the process, but don’t bet on them NOT DOING IT.   At this point no price is too high to pay.  They’ve garnered this political capital exactly for this reason, they will spend it.

  What comes next is what my friend at The Duran, Alex Mercouris, talked about in my recent chat with him. The Biden / Putin summit will be a bribe and a threat from Biden to Putin. Get on board with this new post-COVID European Marshall Plan to recolonize Africa and we’ll pay you a few hundred million dollars or face a new round of massive sanctions.

  This is supposed to create the new version of the Sino-Soviet split? The Russians bring in a few hundred million a month from the U.S. now, exporting 1.4 million barrels per day in May. The idea is laughable on its face and further advances my thesis that the U.S. is intentionally destroying relations with Russia and China through diplomatic ‘gaffes’ which preclude any rapprochement.

  The goal is ultimately isolation of the U.S. as a world power diplomatically, while doing exactly what Davos wants to ensure they aren’t blamed for what comes next. So, expect a final break with the U.S. by Russia financially in the post-Summit environment.

  This will not be a mistake, it will be part of the plan. Because, again, the goal is the political, economic and cultural dissolution of the U.S. and that only occurs by disrupting as much of the infrastructure of U.S. internal energy market as possible.

  At the same time I’ve noted that the Fed was completely silent about this new plan of Macron’s while it’s also clear that Fed Chair Jerome Powell is not down with the ECB’s Christine Lagarde’s over-the-top push to coordinate central bank policy to fight climate change.

  That public disagreement on the fulcrum issue for Davos was the most important headline from last week. It signals that whatever Davos has planned for the U.S. the Fed and the banking system is not going to go gently into that dark night.

  So, there’s another crack in the Davos agenda. Another front in this war is opening up and it’s going to intensify from here. Powell is not a globalist in the same way that Lagarde, Draghi, Kuroda, Carney and Gordon Brown are.

  He’s a private equity guy with a far different ethos and understanding of the situation. He represents similar, but not the same, people.

  And he’s not going to sell or revalue one ounce of the U.S.’s gold nor give up the commercial banking sector in the U.S. because the word came down from Klaus Schwab.

  That said, the central banks know they are done with the current system and need a new one. To survive they will have to disconnect money from value and work. By doing that they disconnect you from your own value in the work you do. It’s that simple. The most efficient way to do that is sell the gold and isolate those powers unwilling to go along with their plans.

  And this all ties directly back to Macron’s innocent and innocuous sounding request for the world to come together and help out poor Africa recover post-COVID and sell their country’s only tangible measure of savings left backing their rapidly devaluing currencies, their gold.

  *  *  *

  Join my Patreon if you don’t like selling your gold to globalists

  Donate via

  BTC: 3GSkAe8PhENyMWQb7orjtnJK9VX8mMf7Zf
  BCH: qq9pvwq26d8fjfk0f6k5mmnn09vzkmeh3sffxd6ryt
  DCR: DsV2x4kJ4gWCPSpHmS4czbLz2fJNqms78oE
  LTC: MWWdCHbMmn1yuyMSZX55ENJnQo8DXCFg5k
  DASH: XjWQKXJuxYzaNV6WMC4zhuQ43uBw8mN4Va
  WAVES: 3PF58yzAghxPJad5rM44ZpH5fUZJug4kBSa
  ETH: 0x1dd2e6cddb02e3839700b33e9dd45859344c9edc

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 22:45

• Hawaii Scrambles Stealth Jets For "Irregular Air Patrol" 
  Hawaii Scrambles Stealth Jets For “Irregular Air Patrol” 

  Officials over the weekend would not disclose why three armed stealth fighter jets were scrambled for an “irregular air patrol,” according to Honolulu Star-Advertiser. 

  “The 154th Fighter Wing launched two F-22 Raptors from Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam at approximately 4 p.m. Sunday,” Pacific Air Forces wrote in an email.

  “A third was launched at approximately 5 p.m.”

  The command at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam said the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requested the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command to “conduct an irregular air patrol and the situation resolved, prompting the fighters and a KC-135 Stratotanker (a refueling plane) to return to base. We cannot discuss further specifics of the situation.”

  

  Scrambling stealth fighter jets is not uncommon. 

  For example, F-22s are tasked with intercepting unknown or potentially threatening aircraft that approach or have entered U.S. airspace.

  

  But what remains a mystery here is that usually, the military is open about its encounters. 

  The War Zone submitted a Freedom Of Information Act request into what happened Sunday afternoon and received a short non-response…

  

   

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 22:25

• Why America's Oligarchs Are Moving Left
  Why America’s Oligarchs Are Moving Left

  Authored by José Niño via The Mises Institute,

  These days it’s not your typical latte-sipping millennials who are going woke.

  Taking a stroll around America’s largest metro areas will have one believe social justice is the latest fad that’s sweeping across corporate boardrooms.

  Much has been written about woke capital—businesses’ recent pivot to signal their affinity for leftist movements—and what it means for society at large. Suffice it to say that since last year, this trend has accelerated at breakneck speeds.

  

  Scratching one’s head in utter confusion should be a natural response to corporate America’s virtue signaling. One has to wonder why big business, which has traditionally been perceived as a reactionary institution aligned with the political right, would make common cause with radicals on the cultural left. Counterintuitive as it may seem, corporations and prominent business moguls have many incentives to jump on the virtue-signaling bandwagon.

  For megacorporations, woke signaling is a matter of self-preservation in order to protect themselves from ravenous mobs in both the virtual and physical realms. What’s more, in a time when hall monitors—state and nonstate—are lurking around every corner waiting for individuals to commit some kind of impropriety, many institutions will go out of their way to signal their compliance with the regime’s standards. Not abiding by the regime’s accepted behavior comes with major social and financial costs that the bulk of businesses are not willing to bear.

  For wealthy members of society who have leftist inclinations, there’s a diminishing marginal utility of money, as Mises Institute president Jeff Deist spelled out in an interview with Jay Taylor two years back. Put simply, spending hundreds of millions on civilization-destroying campaigns is a casual expense for America’s premier tycoons, who have plenty of money to spare after covering their expenses on basic necessities. 

  When someone is rich, say an individual who has $10 billion, they have the luxury of throwing money at uneconomic ventures without losing any sleep about meeting their basic economic needs. The multibillionaire spearheading a woke project that is rejected by the public will not land in the poorhouse from the financial fallout. They can go back to their private affairs or pivot to another political cause that is not as divisive. By contrast, for a small business owner, such virtue signaling could mean bankruptcy if their customer base tends to be right wing or is at least hostile toward culturally radical virtue signaling.

  Indeed, one of the more perverse developments in Western societies is the rich’s penchant to squander away the wealth they’ve accumulated by funding all sorts of bizarre social projects. Only in such a developed economy, characterized by hyperabundance and unprecedented luxuries, can people engage in bizarre activities that in previous eras would have been viewed as masochistic and self-destructive.

  The likes of George Soros and Michael Bloomberg offer stark counterexamples to the business elites of the past. The two financial titans have built a reputation of bankrolling a wide network of gun control groups which strive to pass legislation designed to infringe on millions of people’s ability to defend themselves. By contrast, Bloomberg and his left-leaning oligarchical counterparts have the luxury of living in gated communities and relying on private security to defend themselves. In fairness, business magnates in previous eras were likely not fervent champions of wedge political issues like gun rights, but you would not see them enthusiastically throwing their weight behind the latest political fads the Left gravitates toward these days.

  Bolsheviks and Billionaires

  Although the Left has changed in its overall strategy, going from class-reductionist conflicts toward an identity politics focus over the course of the past century, there exist several commonalities between the contemporary left and its past iterations. Foremost of these is its elitist origins.

  In his polemical work, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, economic historian Antony Sutton uncovered the oligarchical backing of Bolshevism—the twentieth century’s most destructive political movement in terms of the body count and economic mayhem it unleashed in countries that embraced its precepts.

  Contrary to the mythology that leftist historians have created, Bolshevism was no spontaneous uprising of workers, but rather a movement of elite aspirants. Lenin himself counted on a law degree and worked as a writer and political activist during his time in exile while living in Switzerland, Germany and the United Kingdom. Similar to Karl Marx, who relied on industrialist Friedrich Engels’s lavish patronage to subsidize his daily activities, prominent financiers such as Swedish banker Olof Aschberg helped bankroll Lenin and his revolutionary compatriots, Sutton’s work revealed.

  It’s perhaps counterintuitive for financial heavyweights to throw their weight behind an individual and a movement advocating for the destruction of private property, but it makes sense when analyzing how rent-seeking economic actors behave in the context of state centralization.

  The inherently centralist nature of socialist systems, even when policymakers make deviations around the margins, as seen with Lenin’s New Economic Policy, remains attractive to unscrupulous financial actors, who seek to exploit these features for the sake of easy profits while not facing any serious competition. Sutton observed how economic radicals and big financial interests can become strange bedfellows:

  Bolshevists and bankers have then this significant common ground—internationalism. Revolution and international finance are not at all inconsistent if the result of revolution is to establish more centralized authority. International finance prefers to deal with central governments. The last thing the banking community wants is laissez-faire economy and decentralized power because these would disperse power.

  Likewise, Ludwig von Mises acknowledged in Omnipotent Government how the salt of the earth are not the ones responsible for making collectivist political movements mainstream:

  It is not true that the dangers to the maintenance of peace, democracy, freedom, and capitalism are a result of a “revolt of the masses.” They are an achievement of scholars and intellectuals, of sons of the well-to-do, of writers and artists pampered by the best society. In every country of the world dynasties and aristocrats have worked with the socialists and interventionists against freedom.

  “Wokeness” as a Public Relations Strategy

  Furthermore, woke signaling has an obfuscation function that businesses and individuals can use to divert attention away from their questionable behavior. In a world dominated by woke standards of conduct, these actors are banking on the assumption that being against the prevailing orthodoxy constitutes a larger social offense than providing shoddy services or participating in morally questionable behavior.

  Instead of competing with other companies on the basis of fulfilling consumer wants, companies try to one-up each other by trying to display their woke credentials. Those with skeletons in their closets would likely find use in this type of signaling as a way to avoid any unwanted attention. Going woke acts as a release from all social obligations. By viewing their nation’s history as fundamentally bigoted, individuals and institutions no longer feel compelled to abide by basic rules of decency and serve their clients and community.

  With this in mind, one cannot underestimate the role of ideology in shaping the way corporate actors behave in contemporary times. Business magnates are often caricatured as homines oeconomici whose only concern is profit and who see human relations through an exclusively transactional lens. Such a perception understates the level of socialization that has permeated across class lines throughout America.

  There’s nothing special about the upper-middle class and higher that exempts them from being infected by the cultural left’s ideology. As a matter of fact, America’s well-to-do grow up in milieus, from the educational institutions they’re enrolled in to the social clubs they participate in, that expose them to the dominant political and social trends. Over the course of their development, many members of this class end up being conditioned to accept the established ruling doctrine.

  The current crop of business elites have little in common with Gilded Age corporate titans who still operated within the confines of bourgeois propriety. In fact, traditional values and resistance to cultural radicalism are more the province of the working classes and other Americans who have not placed themselves in the PC conveyer belt that is the contemporary education-to-corporation pipeline.

  One thing is certain, though: woke leftism is not about fighting for the interests of the common man. Grievance politics’ ornamental displays of victimhood only obscure the oligarchical nature of this project.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 22:05

• Biden's NATO Warning To Putin: If You Don't Cooperate, 'We Will Respond'
  Biden’s NATO Warning To Putin: If You Don’t Cooperate, ‘We Will Respond’

  Mainstream media is positively giddy with excitement that “tough on Russia” Joe Biden will finally “confront” Putin during their highly anticipated summit in Geneva on Wednesday. Though any level of diplomatic “check mate” won’t come publicly as Biden will give a solo press conference, ensuring that he can give his version of events to a pliant press pool, which one admin official earlier described as communicating “with the free press” (…the implication being that Putin’s presence would somehow make it not a “free press”).

  During Biden’s Monday press conference at the end of the one-day NATO summit in Brussels, the US president vowed: “But I will tell you this: I’m going to make clear to President Putin that there are areas where we can cooperate, if he chooses.  And if he chooses not to cooperate and acts in a way that he has in the past, relative to cybersecurity and some other activities, then we will respond. We will respond in kind.”

  Biden additionally said in his NATO summit remarks: “There need not be — we should decide where it’s in our mutual interest, in the interest of the world, to cooperate, and see if we can do that.  And the areas where we don’t agree, make it clear what the red lines are.”

  And then the president dubbed Putin “a worthy adversary”…

  I have met with him. He’s bright. He’s tough. And I have found that he is a — as they say, when you used to play ball, “a worthy adversary.”

  As we highlighted earlier, much of this “adversary” talk is more simply geared toward a US domestic audience, particularly a Democratic base which has been primed and pumped for years on the Russiagate and ‘interference’ kool-aid…

  Mainstream media are barely reporting – and at times distorting – olive-branch remarks by Putin, and are at pains to “accentuate the negative”. We are particularly concerned over the incessant media commentary on “Russian hacking”, which seems to be aimed at mousetrapping you into an ill-advised confrontation with Putin. Revelations since the last summit in July 2018 – including testimony under oath to Congress – give President Putin some very high cards. Should things get acrimonious, he might decide to put them into play.

  Meanwhile, Russian official sources have revealed the agenda for Wednesday’s bilateral summit, which is to include cyberattacks and cybercrime, fighting the pandemic, the war in Donbass and Ukraine issues, and then there’s no doubt Biden will focus heavily on human rights. 

  President Biden says if jailed Kremlin critic Alexey Navalny were to die in prison it would be a “tragedy.”

  “Navalny’s death would be another indication that Russia has little or no intention of abiding by basic fundamental human rights” https://t.co/WqfuBhPQMA pic.twitter.com/qBl94yuT8Z

  — CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) June 14, 2021

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

  The two presidents are due to meet at 1pm local time at Geneva’s historic Villa La Grange.

  * * * 

  In the meantime…

  TIME cover blasted for over-the-top attempt to make Biden ‘look cool’ ahead of Putin meeting https://t.co/iz4gKGgGfS

  — Fox News (@FoxNews) June 11, 2021

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

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 21:45

• Taper To Be Discussed But Quickly Dismissed; No 2023 Hike Dots Will Be Seen As Dovish
  Taper To Be Discussed But Quickly Dismissed; No 2023 Hike Dots Will Be Seen As Dovish

  By Steve Englander, head G10FX research and NA Macro Strategy at Standard Chartered

  FOMC Preview – Taper to be discussed but quickly dismissed 

  Key highlights:

  • Tapering very likely to be discussed and dismissed, unlikely to be mentioned in the statement

  •  UST market unlikely to see major moves; ongoing absence of 2023 hike in dots may be read as dovish

  •  Soft recent data discourages a hawkish signal until the FOMC has more clarity on growth and inflation

  Talk is cheap

  The 16 June FOMC is unusual in that there are potentially several market drivers in both directions but no dominant one:

  • Tapering of asset purchases will likely be discussed, given the number of FOMC participants who have raised the issue, but we expect Chair Powell to stress that all (or almost all) participants see tapering action as very premature.

  • It is a close call on a 2023 hike in the June projections; on balance we think the FOMC will wait until 2024 projections are introduced in September and put the first hikes in 2024.

  • The 2021 forecast of core inflation is likely to rise, but we expect 2023 core inflation unchanged at 2.1%. The end-2021 unemployment rate projection rising from its current 4.5% would be a dovish signal.

  • We do not see rates on reverse repos (RRP) or overnight reserves (IOER) being raised at this meeting but they could well be raised in the coming months.

  • The inflation update in the statement could edit the May comment to implicitly acknowledge higher inflation but not as a policy factor: “With inflation running persistently below this longer-run goal, The Committee will aim to achieve inflation moderately above 2 percent for some time”.

  • Fed Chair Powell will likely push back against the view that the rebound has come off the rails but not spook the market by completely ignoring data softness.

  We anticipate the FOMC giving itself a few more months to assess incoming data on both inflation and growth, recognizing the potential embarrassment of another episode of premature hawkishness. FOMC comments will be in the context of sluggish economic data (including a risk of soft May retail sales data, due 15 June) and much less aggressive market pricing (Figure 1).

  

  We see a small chance that the FOMC will indicate that it is advancing its normalization schedule, but at current yield levels such a shift would likely have a big bond market impact. The FOMC is much more likely to advocate and practise patience in assessing the underlying trends in activity and inflation, which points to very moderate signals. Yields have some downside if the FOMC sees the recovery as being more sluggish than earlier expected, but such overt pessimism would surprise us.

  We, and we suspect the FOMC, expect the activity data to firm in the coming months, and the center of the FOMC may even be worrying more about inflation; but incoming data makes it risky to be overtly hawkish.

  We don’t see a spike in yields unless the tapering discussion is accompanied by added inflation concerns in the out years. Many have discussed labor-market tightness, but real wages have not moved much this year, with inflation offsetting a big chunk of nominal gains. And inflation expectations in surveys such as the New York Fed’s still show increases in the coming years. So far the upward inflation move is heavily concentrated in a few small sectors. We expect the FOMC to argue that the evidence supports a transient rather than permanent inflation pick-up, but perhaps with slightly less conviction than before.

  Given the decline in breakevens recently, particularly in the 2Y-3Y sector of the curve, the market may be caught off-guard if the 2023 core PCE projection rises from March’s 2.1% forecast. Markets could see such a rise as inconsistent with the Fed’s view that the inflation pick-up is transient. A 2.2% core inflation projection for 2023 could be seen as close enough to the upper end of “somewhat higher” to justify beginning policy rate normalization. We think that nine (including Powell) will push for unchanged signals, and expect a few swing participants to go with the Chair. While projections are not discussed or debated at FOMC meetings, we suspect that participants develop an understanding of which projections are potentially sensitive and reflect carefully on those projections.

  Yields could also rise if Fed Chair Powell looks through recent data, conveying a message that the Fed is convinced that the current soft data patch is temporary. But given FOMC emphasis on making policy based on current data, he is likely to argue that they expect robust growth but need to see how growth plays out.

  The biggest dovish risk that we see is if the unemployment rate projections rise. The unemployment trend since January does not jive with the current 4.5% median projection (Figure 2). If that rises, and especially if the increase is not made up in later years, investors may contemplate an even slower anticipated future tapering path. Powell has been at pains to stress that projections are not policy signals, but more elevated unemployment projections would be indicative of added caution on growth prospects. While Fed rate hike pricing has retreated somewhat since the March and April FOMC meetings, the market still prices in about 2½ hikes by end-2023, so there is room for further paring if the projections suggest slower normalisation (Figure 3).

  

  There are enough FOMC participants arguing that is time to begin the tapering discussion that it would be a surprise if there were none. Too many Fed speakers have mentioned tapering for it not to be discussed; it would look as if they were avoiding mention of the elephant in the room. However, we expect the possibility of near-term tapering to be dismissed quickly without mention in the statement. Given the run of data, it is more credible for Fed Chair Powell to say that there was broad agreement that sufficient progress had not yet been made and concrete discussion was premature.

  We think the bond market will react negatively initially to the mention of a tapering discussion, especially given that 10Y UST yields are well below levels prevailing immediately before and after the March and April FOMCs. The dominant market view looks to be that any mention of a tapering discussion is the first step towards normalization. We don’t think this reaction will persist and expect the dismissal of an imminent move to reassure investors. The scenario would be different if payroll gains had averaged 900,000 the past two months rather than 418,000.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 21:25

• WHO 'Highly Compromised', Unfit To Lead COVID-19 Investigation According To Former CDC Director
  WHO ‘Highly Compromised’, Unfit To Lead COVID-19 Investigation According To Former CDC Director

  The World Health Organization is “highly compromised” and unfit to lead an investigation into the origins of COVID-19, according to former CDC head Robert Redfield.

  “Clearly, they were incapable of compelling China to adhere to the treaty agreements that they have on global health, because they didn’t do that,” Redfield told Fox News on Tuesday. “Clearly, they allowed China to define the group of scientists that could come and investigate. That’s not consistent with their role.“

  In March, Redfield told CNN that he doesn’t believe the natural origin theory which posits that COVID-19 jumped from a bat to a human through a yet-to-be determined intermediary species.

  “I think they were highly compromised,” Redfield said of the World Health Organization (WHO), which ‘investigated’ the origins of the pandemic in what was nothing more than political theatre conducted by a highly conflicted group – one of whom, Peter Deszak of NGO EcoHealth Alliance, worked with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and was funded to the tune of millions of dollars by Anthony Fauci’s NIH.

  Redfield slammed Fauci during the interview, saying that while he supports the lab-leak hypothesis, “Other individuals, Tony Fauci, for example, would say that he prefers to support that it evolved from nature.”

  “Now, why would that be?” asked Redfield, adding that “sometimes scientists when they bite into a bone on a hypothesis, it’s hard for them to move on.”

  “I guess if I’m disappointed about anything about the early scientific community it’s that there seemed to be lack of openness to pursue both hypotheses,” he continued.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 21:05

• US Indo-Pacific Commander Requests More Spending To Contain China
  US Indo-Pacific Commander Requests More Spending To Contain China

  Authored by Alex Wu via The Epoch Times,

  Facing the Chinese communist regime’s increasing aggression in the Asia-pacific region, the newly appointed Indo-Pacific Commander John Aquilino has recently requested an additional $890 million in spending from Congress to strengthen military equipment in Guam, Alaska, and Hawaii for possible military confrontations. Meanwhile, the Biden administration’s top Asia official revealed a new strategy to contain China in the region.

  

  Adm. John C. Aquilino and Adm. Philip S. Davidson with Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin arrive at at a Change of Command ceremony for the U.S Indo-Pacific Command, at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam west of Honolulu, Hawaii, on April 30, 2021. (Cindy Ellen Russell/Honolulu Star-Advertiser via AP)

  Aquilino said that the spending request is less than 1 percent of the total authorized amount allocated to the Department of Defense, but is “critical for deterring China’s decision calculus,” Foreign Policy reported on June 8.

  Portions of the additional spending request will be used for missiles and improving facilities—$231 million will be used to strengthen air defense and missile defense in Guam, because it is within the range of Chinese missiles; $114 million will be used to improve facilities in Alaska and Hawaii to ensure that they can maintain digital communications with U.S. forces and allies conducting military drills in the Western Pacific. Prior to this, the budget proposed by the Indo-Pacific Command was $5.1 billion.

  Aquilino sent a letter to the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Adam Smith, and other members of Congress last week, emphasizing the importance of increasing funding and proposing plans “to ‘seize the initiative’ by providing a pragmatic and viable approach that deters potential adversaries from unilaterally attempting to change the international rules based order, reassures allies and partners, and shapes the security environment.”

  He also warned that the time for Beijing to launch an attack on Taiwan may be sooner than what most people think. He said the Hawaii-based military command needs more resources and troops to respond to the Chinese regime’s possible rapid attack on Taiwan.

  Meanwhile on June 8, the Deputy Assistant to the President and Coordinator for Indo-Pacific Affairs on the National Security Council Kurt Campbell, talked about a few key areas of a new strategy to contain the Chinese regime in the region, at an event organized by the Center for a New American Security.

  

  Australian Scott Morrison (L) participating in the inaugural Quad leaders meeting with President Joe Biden, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a virtual meetingin Sydney, Australia, on Friday, March 12, 2021. (AP Image/Pool/Dean Lewins)

  He said the United States is “working closely with allies like Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and others” to assist island nations in the Pacific, especially in South Pacific, where the competition for influence between China, the United States, and allies has intensified in recent years.

  He added that the Quad bloc—the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue composed of the United States, Japan, India, and Australia—would have another leaders’ meeting later this year, and it is open to other countries that have shown “interest” in joining the group to deal with the security threats posed by the Chinese regime in Asia Pacific.

  Campbell emphasized that the United States is committed to continuing to provide defensive articles to Taiwan, but he also reminded Taiwan to take measures to step up its own defense capabilities.

  Campbell said that China has only itself to blame for a global backlash against its policies, including the militarization of artificial islands in the South China Sea, and its aggressive approach to global diplomacy, which Beijing’s foreign policy establishments know. However, he asked, “But is that getting through to the most inner-circle in the Chinese leadership? I think that’s a question we can’t answer.”

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 20:45

• "The Idea That Inflation Is Transitory Is Nonsense": How One Hedge Fund Manager Plans To Profit From Fed Stupidity
  “The Idea That Inflation Is Transitory Is Nonsense”: How One Hedge Fund Manager Plans To Profit From Fed Stupidity

  Ahead of tomorrow’s FOMC decision, and in general, two clear camps are emerging when it comes to the increasingly acrimonious debate whether the current soaring inflation is “transitory” or not. In one camp we have the establishmentarians: those with little vision, limited imagination, and whose job precludes them from conceiving of any outcome but that accepted by the groupthink led by the Fed. As noted earlier, this now includes the vast majority of Wall Street…

  

  … not to mention most central bankers and virtually every TV newscaster and reporter, desperate to hit that career pinnacle of asking the Fed chair a ridiculously boring and boneheaded question one day: a career goal that will never happen if one dares to think originally.

  In the other camp we have a handful of contrarians, “divergents”, and the occasional brilliant trader such as Paul Tudor Jones ( “buy commodities, buy crypto, buy gold”), Kyle Bass (“real inflation is 10%…The Fed has got to really start thinking about food prices.”) and Michael Burry, people who took the opposite side to the consensus and won big.

  People always ask me what is going on in the markets. It is simple. Greatest Speculative Bubble of All Time in All Things. By two orders of magnitude. #FlyingPigs360

  — Cassandra (@michaeljburry) June 15, 2021

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

  They will likely end up winning again.

  Today we can add one more to what will soon be the winning team: Wincrest Capital founder Barbara Ann Bernard was quite clear where she stands on the temporary/permanent inflation debate when in an idea with Bloomberg she said that “The idea that inflation is transitory is nonsense.”

  

  Picking up on what BofA, Deutsche Bank, and increasingly more “serious” analysts have said, the chief investment officer of the Nassau, Bahamas-based Wincrest said that much of the Biden administration’s agenda, including reducing wealth inequality and promoting the ESG hypocrisy, support a structural lift to inflation.

  Naturally, Fed officials, who have been always wrong about everything but can cover up all of their mistakes with ever more grotesque amounts of money printing, have been taking the opposite view, emphasizing that a recent surge in inflation won’t last. A lot is riding on this debate, and if money managers like Bernard or Paul Tudor Jones prove correct, it could mean that central bankers will have to move ahead with plans to begin normalizing their ultra-loose monetary policy.

  Unlike many of her peers, Barnard has no problem with being outspoken: the money manager began her career in finance at 15, when she persuaded the iconic investor John Templeton – a fellow Bahamian resident – to take her on board for the first of what would become a series of summer jobs at Templeton Global Advisors. Her career also included stretches at Deutsche Bank AG in alternative investments and at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. as an investment banking analyst.

  For Bernard, the U.S. administration’s focus on wealth distribution and the potential for higher minimum wages in some states could put more money in more pockets, adding to price pressures. Talk of a carbon tax and increased focus on environmental, social and governance initiatives also stand to add to companies’ costs.

  

  “All of that plus changing supply chains is inflationary,” she said, making a point so obvious one can see why nobody at the Fed can grasp it.

  Like PTJ she plans on making money when the “transitorists” are proven wrong, and like PTJ she is going long commodities, such as nickel and copper. On Monday, iconic trader Tudor Jones told in an interview with CNBC that inflation risk wasn’t transitory. If he were on the investment committee of a pension fund, he said he’d “have as many inflation hedges on as I possibly could.”

  Yet despite growing warnings from some of the most erudite traders of their generation, the Treasury market appears unfazed by the inflation risk, and as we noted previously, yields in the world’s biggest bond market aren’t far above a three-month low set Friday. The rate is down from a March 30 peak of 1.774%. The bond market’s most-watched proxy for inflation expectations has also faded from recent highs.
  Bernard’s take is that the market is ill-prepared for what’s ahead (we discussed this in “5 Reasons Why Treasury Yields Tumbled Even As Inflation Surges… And Isn’t Transitory“).

  “There are ways to outrun inflation,” Bernard said. “But if you just sit there, you are going to get rolled over.”

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 20:25

• No, The Second Amendment Was Not Primarily About Suppressing African Americans
  No, The Second Amendment Was Not Primarily About Suppressing African Americans

  Authored by Jonathan Turley,

  The media has given highly favorable coverage to a new book by Dr. Carol Anderson, chair of Emory University’s Black Studies Department, that argues that “[the Second Amendment] was designed and has consistently been constructed to keep African Americans powerless and vulnerable.” 

  In interviews with media outlets like CNN and NPR Anderson’s theory is not challenged on the history and purpose of the Second Amendment.

  Like the contested claims of the “1619” project (which posited that slavery was the motivation for the establishment of the colonies), there might be a reluctance by academics to raise the countervailing historical sources out of fear of being labeled insensitive, defensive, or even racist. 

  

  However, this is not a new theory and, while there were concerns at the time about slavery and uprisings, the roots of the Second Amendment can be traced largely to England and the fears of government oppression. The point is not to dismiss this consideration for some pro-slavery figures at the time but to put those statements in a more historically grounded and accurate context.

  The book, “The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America,” is the latest work of Anderson who previously published “White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide.”  NPR bills its interview as “Historian Carol Anderson Uncovers The Racist Roots Of The Second Amendment.”

  In truth, this is not a new theory and was long preceded by more detailed accounts by figures like Carl Bogus who wrote the 1998 work The Hidden History of the Second Amendment. Carl T. Bogus, The Hidden History of the Second Amendment, 31 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 309 (1998); see also Carl T. Bogus, Race, Riots, and Guns, 66 S. CAL. L. REV. 1365 (1993). These works are worth reading as are the writings of my colleague Robert Cottrol (and my former colleague) Ray Diamond. See Robert J. Cottrol & Raymond T. Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration, 80 GEO. L.J. 309 (1991).

  Bogus highlighted the quotes used later by Anderson, including a warning by Patrick Henry that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government in the “common defense” and did not leave enough powers with the states to defend themselves. Bogus asked “What was Henry driving at? In 1788, Americans did not fear foreign invasion.  Nor did Americans still harbor the illusion that the militia could effectively contest trained military forces.” His answer was slavery and its preservation.

  Slavery was a matter discussed both at the Declaration of Independence and during the Constitutional debates. There were those who were concerned about efforts to abolish slavery as well as slave uprisings. However, the Second Amendment does not appear the result in whole or in large part due to those fears. The right to bear arms was viewed as a bulwark against oppression of citizens by the government. In Northern states where slavery was not as popular, the Second Amendment was an important guarantee against that danger of tyranny. For example, the Pennsylvania Constitution (that preceded the Constitution) included these provisions:

  That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil power.

  The inhabitants of the several states shall have liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times, on the lands they hold, and on all other lands in the United States not enclosed, and in like manner to fish in all navigable waters, and others not private property, without being restrained therein by any laws to be passed by the legislature of the United States.

  New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and other states had similar precursors to the Second Amendment.  The Framers had just overthrown a tyrant and the image of the militia and the famed “Minutemen” remained fixed in the minds of many at the time.

  James Madison captured this purpose in in Federalist No. 46 when he noted that a small federal standing army would be opposed by “a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands” which would be able to defeat a tyrannical standing army. He was highlighting “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation”

  Likewise, important contemporary writers at the time connected the Second Amendment to values heavily steeped in the shared history from England. There were also strong cultural and practical value placed on gun ownership, a right that was limited in England. This was still a young country where many lives along the frontier and relied on guns to sustain themselves and their families in terms of both security and sustenance. There was also a deep-seated mistrust of both a standing army and a centralized government.

  That is evident in St. George Tucker’s American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (1803). In his publication of Blackstone, Tucker added two footnotes that reflected the thinking of many Framers:

  [fn40] The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.

  [fn41] Whoever examines the forest, and game laws in the British code, will readily perceive that the right of keeping arms is effectually taken away from the people of England.  The commentator himself informs us, Vol. II, p. 412, “that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistence to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws.”

  Tucker later explained this point further:

  “This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty . . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.”

  There are a myriad of historical sources expounding on this rationale for the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has itself highlighted that rationale in its discussions of the history and purpose of the Amendment.

  The Anderson book effectively repeats the arguments of Bogus but she offers a far more fluid and casual treatment of the history, as is evident in a recent interview:

  “…George Mason. Patrick Henry and George Mason really teamed up like tag team taking on the Federalists and the Constitution. What they argued, was that the Constitution put control of the militia under federal control. That meant that Virginia would be left defenseless, as they saw it, when there is an uprising. When there is a slave uprising, that they could not count on the North. They could not count on the federal government and those in Congress to deploy the militia to help out in the midst of a slave revolt.

  And they were like, ‘you know, the North detests slavery and we will be left defenseless. I mean, can we really count on those folk?’ and Madison is arguing, ‘look, you got the Atlantic slave trade. Look, you got the three fifths clause. Look, you got the fugitive slave clause, you’re protected.’ And Patrick Henry’s like, ‘No, we are not.’ And so you started seeing the momentum for a new constitutional convention. And that was the last thing James Madison wanted, because he’s like, ‘if these folks get another bite at this, we’re gonna end up with the Articles of Confederation again’.”

  …

  This is the payoff to Patrick Henry and to George Mason. Look, the militia is here. And what it does is it says that the feds cannot interfere with the militia. You are safe to have your militia to defend against slave uprisings. So sitting here in the Bill of Rights, we have an amendment that is about denying Black people their rights.”

  That is not, in my view, an accurate account of what was said by some of these figures and, more importantly, what was the primary motivation for the Second Amendment.

  While I disagree with the analysis and conclusion, I value the discussion of how slavery may have impacted this and other amendments. Slave revolts were a concern in the South and that fear no doubt reinforced the desire to have a guaranteed right to bear arms, particularly for slave holders like Patrick Henry. I simply disagree with the sweeping generalizations and conclusions reached in the book. Moreover, this is not a new theory as suggested in these media accounts. Indeed, the case was made stronger by academics like Bogus and the general subject is presented with far greater depth and understanding by academics like Cottrol and Diamond.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 20:05

• Non-Fungible Tokens Are "Changing The Lives" Of Many In Southeast Asia
  Non-Fungible Tokens Are “Changing The Lives” Of Many In Southeast Asia

  Just days after we noted that people in South Korea saw bitcoin as their “only chance of escape” from their social status, it looks as though non-fungible tokens are also catching on in Southeast Asia. 

  At least that was the topic of a new report by Nikkei, which took at look at how skeptics and believers are clashing head-to-head about NFTs, whether they have any value and whether or not they could be the future of asset ownership and finance. 

  “NFTs are indeed changing the lives of some Southeast Asians” the report notes, with some people using them to earn extra income. One such person is Gilbert Jalova, who has been buying and selling digital assets in a game called Axie Infinity. He can earn up to $550 a month doing so, the report notes, which is “more than he makes in his regular job”. 

  Jalova said: “It’s a huge help to us and at the same time, it has become our family bonding.”

  The report estimates that more than 80% of Axie Infinity’s player base comes from emerging economies where it is tough to find work or where inflation has run rampant. 

  “People are turning to these games as a way to supplement their income or as an alternative means of employment,” one Filipino game developer said. 

  

  Riky Candra, a 20-year-old university student in Pekanbaru, said: “I’ve managed to earn a total of around 10 million rupiah ($700) in the year that I have been playing. I’m able to spend that on daily campus needs, such as books or other equipment, and I tend to set aside some for deposit as future assets.”

  Trung Nguyen, co-founder of the game’s developer said an NFT is a way “to represent objects that are unique in nature. So it’s a very good fit with game characters and game assets.”

  Artists in Southeast Asia are also cashing in on NFTs. One artist, who goes by the name Monez, sold his first NFT artwork in March of this year for 0.8 ETH, or about $1200. “In the real world … people buy the first painting from the painter, which is usually very cheap, and can sell it for double the price, but the original artist is still poor because we get [only the first payment],” he said.

  But there is still some skepticism about NFTs looming. Naohito Yoshida, founder and CEO of Digital Entertainment Asset, pointed out the lack of liquidity: “Liquidity in the NFT market could be a potential risk. If someone buys NFTs for purely collection purposes, there won’t be much of a problem. But if people are buying for investment purposes, then low market liquidity will be an issue, as it means you will not be able to sell it when you want.”

  And there are already “signs that liquidity may be drying up, or that the NFT bubble is bursting,” Nikkei writes. While $101 million of NFTs sold on May 3, that number has dropped to about $2 million per day by the end of may. 

  Poltak Hotradero, business development manager at the Indonesia Stock Exchange, concluded: “For the digital natives of the younger generations, it will be easy. But for older generations, I don’t think they can appreciate NFTs [on a] par with tactile arts which they can see and touch.”

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 19:45

• 15 States Are Moving To Curb Public Health Agency Powers Following Lockdown Carnage
  15 States Are Moving To Curb Public Health Agency Powers Following Lockdown Carnage

  Authored by John Miltimore via The Foundation for Economic Education,

  More than a dozen states have passed or advanced legislation to place new checks on the powers of public health agencies in the wake of the pandemic…

  

  Mike Fratantuono grew up in a restaurant. Literally.

  For decades, Sunset Restaurant in Glen Burnie, Maryland, was the family business. Over the years, he’d done seemingly every job imaginable: busboy, bartender, and butcher; prep cook and plumber; handyman and manager.

  Fratantuono says that’s what made it so hard to watch the family’s legacy become a COVID casualty in 2020.

  “It kills me. We were supposed to be getting ready to celebrate our 60th anniversary this year, and instead we’re packing up and closing at the end of this month,” Fratantuono told the Washington Post last year.

  “I try not to get too sentimental about it, because it won’t change a damn thing, but sometimes the stress hits me and my heart starts going like crazy. I get frustrated. It makes me angry.”

  Fratantuono is just one of the countless business owners across America who saw their dreams vanish before their eyes in the wake of government lockdowns that crushed their businesses. Now, in the wake of the pandemic, states across the country are advancing legislation to curb the powers of public health departments following one of the most destructive and contentious years in American history.

  Reining in Public Health Agencies

  In May, the Network for Public Health Law published a report showing that in recent months no fewer than 15 state legislatures have passed or are considering passing measures that would restrict the legal authority of public health departments.

  Among the provisions passed or considered are the following:

  • Prohibitions on requiring citizens to wear masks;

  • Prohibiting health agencies from closing businesses or schools;

  • Banning the use of quarantines for people who have not been shown to be sick;

  • Preventing state hospitals and universities from requiring vaccinations for employees and students;

  • Preventing local governments from exercising emergency powers that are inconsistent with state health department guidelines;

  Earlier this year, for example, North Dakota passed legislation making it unlawful for state officials to force citizens to wear masks—just one of a growing number of states to place restrictions on mask orders. In March, Kansas’s legislature passed legislation that removes the governor’s ability to shut down businesses during a public health emergency.

  Meanwhile, more than 40 states passed legislation that made it unlawful for health departments to mandate COVID-19 vaccination.

  A recent report found that no fewer than 15 state legislatures have passed or are considering passing measures that would curb the powers of public health departments.

  This is very good news. pic.twitter.com/5WJbAAGzNV

  — Jon Miltimore (@miltimore79) June 9, 2021

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

  A Serious Threat to Life?

  The report concludes that opposition to “reasonable” public health measures poses serious dangers to life and health.

  “Legislation to stop expert public health agencies from leading the response to health emergencies creates unforeseen, serious risks to life and health,” the report states.

  “These laws could make it harder to advance health equity during a pandemic that has disproportionately sickened and killed Black, Hispanic and Latino, and Indigenous Americans.”

  Not mentioned in the report, however, are the unintended consequences of the actions taken by public health agencies across the country in 2020. The collateral damage of lockdowns included business closures, job losses, supply disruptions, mass protests, surging violence, increased mental health problems, unprecedented drug overdoses, and a collapse in cancer screenings.

  Public health agencies, meanwhile, proved incapable of taming the coronavirus through the use of lockdowns. And these struggles were not confined to the United States.

  “A new study by German scientists claims to have found evidence that lockdowns may have had little effect on controlling the coronavirus pandemic,” The Telegraph reported last week.

  “Statisticians at Munich University found ‘no direct connection’ between the German lockdown and falling infection rates in the country.”

  The Lesson of Lockdowns

  The devastating impact of lockdowns, combined with their failure to slow the spread of the virus, demonstrates why states are right to curb the powers of public health agencies.

  If 2020 taught us anything, it’s the danger of unchecked executive power. Using emergency powers, governors and public health bureaucrats across the country took unilateral, sweeping, and indefinite measures that massively damaged livelihoods and infringed on the rights of millions of Americans. People were fined and arrested for simply gathering privately or exercising outside, walking a pet, paddling a boat on the water (alone), or taking a child to the park—even though most transmissions took place in homes and the coronavirus is rarely transmitted outdoors.

  Americans may disagree on the precise role public health departments should play in society today. But the pandemic reminded us why checks and balances on concentrated power are so important.

  The American constitutional system was deliberately designed to avoid concentrated power because the Framers feared it above all else.

  “The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty,” wrote John Adams.

  The authors of the Network for Public Health Law report express concern that public health agencies are being stripped of the power to act by dangerous radicals. The truth is that dangerously radical government agencies are being put in check.

  Ohio, for example, passed a law in March that limits the length of a public health emergency order to 90 days unless it’s extended by the legislature. The same month, lawmakers in Utah passed legislation allowing the state legislature to override state health agency orders during public health emergencies. Missouri, meanwhile, has proposed a law that limits lockdowns to 15 days, after which extensions must be approved by legislative bodies.

  These reforms are not radical. They are both reasonable and sensible. They do not represent an attack on science—which tells us what is, not what we ought to do—but are prudent checks on power from lawmakers acting within their rightful province.

  “It is necessary to curb the power of government,” the economist Ludwig von Mises noted in Human Action.

  “This is the task of all constitutions, bills of rights and laws. This is the meaning of all struggles which men have fought for liberty.”

  The preservation of liberty, protected by separating and checking power, is the ideal on which the American system was founded. Following a year that saw Americans’ rights, dreams, and health trampled by central planners wielding vast power with little restraint and few checks, it’s a vision Americans are right to rekindle.

  Just ask Mike Fratantuono and the millions of other Americans whose lives were derailed in 2020.

  https://fee.org/Scripts/fee-repub.js

  

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 19:25

• Ceasefire Over? Israeli Jets Attack After Incendiary Balloons Fired From Gaza
  Ceasefire Over? Israeli Jets Attack After Incendiary Balloons Fired From Gaza

  The Israeli military said its aircraft attacked Hamas armed compounds in the Gaza Strip on Wednesday in response to 20 fires sparked by incendiary balloons launched earlier in the day from the territory into southern Israel.

  At least one explosive balloon was reported over southern Israel, with residents reporting that they saw and heard the balloon explode in the air, according to Israeli media.

  In a statement, the military said that it was “ready for all scenarios, including renewed fighting in the face of continued terrorist acts emanating from Gaza”.

  #صور مواجهات بين شبان وقوات الاحتلال على السياج الفاصل شرق رفح جنوب قطاع غزة، بالتزامن مع “مسيرة الأعلام” للمستوطنين في القدس المحتلة. pic.twitter.com/Q4JgBzNC09

  — وكالة شهاب للأنباء (@ShehabAgency) June 15, 2021

  Israel’s new prime minister, Naftali Bennett, had said in the past that the Israeli government should not tolerate incendiary balloons, and must retaliate as if Hamas had fired rockets into Israel.

  

  The escalation came after an Israeli nationalist march, as part of “Jerusalem Day” in East Jerusalem that angered Palestinians.

  

   

  Crowds waving blue and white Israeli flags set off from Damascus Gate, the main entry to the Muslim Quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City, dancing and chanting “This is our home” and “Jerusalem is ours.”

  

  Iron Dome anti-missile defense units were also reinforced ahead of the march, amid threats by Hamas in recent days and weeks.

  On Tuesday evening, Defense Minister Benny Gantz held a situation assessment with IDF Chief of Staff Aviv Kohavi, Shin Bet head Nadav Argaman, IDF Intelligence Directorate head Maj.-Gen. Tamir Heiman, IDF intelligence analysis chief Brig.-Gen. Amit Saar and Defense Ministry Policy and Political-Military Bureau head Zohar Palti.

  Is the Egyptian-brokered cease-fire officially over?

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 19:07

• 899 Patients Given Expired Jabs At Times Square Vaccination Site
  899 Patients Given Expired Jabs At Times Square Vaccination Site

  Authored by Jack Phillips via the Epoch Times

  Hundreds of people were administered doses of expired COVID-19 vaccines during an event in New York City’s Times Square, city health officials authorities said.

  The New York City Health Department confirmed that 899 individuals got Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine at the former NFL Experience building between June 5 and June 10.

  

  A spokesperson for the department told news outlets on Tuesday that those people should schedule another vaccination session as soon as possible.

  “We have communicated with Pfizer, which recommended that the patients receive another dose as soon as possible,” the spokesperson said in statements to the media outlets. “While there is no safety risk for the patients, the re-administration is being carried out to ensure that the individuals are fully protected.”

  Other city health department officials, including spokesman Patrick Gallahue, said that patients “have received e-mails, phone calls, and are also being sent letters to make sure they are aware of this situation,” reported The Associated Press.

  Patients who got the defective vaccines were informed by ATC Vaccination Services, which said in emails that they need to receive another shot because the firm can’t guarantee whether the shot is effective at preventing the spread of COVID-19, otherwise known as the illness caused by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus.

  “We are contacting you concerning the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine you received at Times Square–NFL Experience vaccination site on June 5 to June 10, 2021. It was recognized after the vaccine was administered, that it had been in the freezer beyond the approved time frame prior to it being administered,” ATC’s David Savitsky said in an email to patients, reported the New York Post.

  The firm contacted the city’s Department of Health and New York City Vaccine Command Center, Savitsky added in the email before saying that “there should be no adverse health consequences from the vaccine already received.” Those who got the defective doses can get their “repeated dose” right away “in the opposite arm,” he added.

  ATC Vaccination Services issued a statement following the incident and apologized.

  “We apologize for the inconvenience to those receiving the vaccine batch in question and want people first and foremost to know that we have been advised that there is no danger from the vaccine they received,” the firm said, according to The Associated Press.

  The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for COVID-19 requires two shots to be administered about three weeks apart, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

  The Epoch Times has contacted the city’s Department of Health and ATC for comment.

  Tyler Durden
  Tue, 06/15/2021 – 18:45

Digest powered by RSS Digest