- Surprise: Refugees Are Making The Military Industrial Complex Even Richer
As Europe comes to terms with a Brexit vote fueled in large part by anti-immigrant hate-mongering, a new report exposes how war profiteers are influencing EU policy to make money from unending Middle East conflicts as well as the wave of refugees created by that same instability and violence.
The report (pdf), Border Wars: The Arms Dealers Profiting from Europe’s Refugee Tragedy, released jointly by the European Stop Wapenhandel and Transnational Institute (TNI) on Monday, outlines arms traders’ pursuit of profit in the 21st century’s endless conflicts.
“There is one group of interests that have only benefited from the refugee crisis, and in particular from the European Union’s investment in ‘securing’ its borders,'” the report finds. “They are the military and security companies that provide the equipment to border guards, the surveillance technology to monitor frontiers, and the IT infrastructure to track population movements.”
The report shows that “far from being passive beneficiaries of EU largesse, these corporations are actively encouraging a growing securitization of Europe’s borders, and willing to provide ever more draconian technologies to do this.”
In the past decade, the report says, corporate players have viewed intractable Middle East warfare as a windfall: “Several large international arms companies cited instability in the Middle East to assure investors about future prospects for their business. The arms companies are assisted by European governments, which actively promote European arms in the region and are very reluctant, to say the least, to impose stricter arms export policies.”
Indeed, “from 2005 to 2014, EU member states granted arms exports license to the Middle East and North Africa worth over 82 billion euros,” according to the report.
The report details how a steady flow of arms from outside the Middle East supplies all players in multi-part conflicts, such as Syria’s civil war, with an endless supply of high-tech weaponry—thus ensuring that those conflicts endure.
And as these wars create more and more refugees who seek asylum in Europe, the very same corporations are lobbying the EU to ‘securitize’ its borders against them—thus creating additional profit for those in the business of militarization.
Moreover, Stop Wapenhandel and TNI found “industry representatives, government officials and military and security personnel meet around the year at conferences, fairs and round tables.”
The report quotes Nick Vaughan-Williams, international security professor at the University of Warwick, saying: “At these events it is possible to identify a cyclical culture whereby the presentation of new technologies not only responds to, but also enables and drives the formulation of new policies and practices in the field of border security and migration management.”
And these “special fairs and congresses on border security are relatively new,” the report notes. “They all started within the last decade.”
“I believe the influence of the military and security industry on the shaping of the [EU’s] border security policy is quite big, especially on the securitization and militarization of these and on the expanding use of surveillance technology and data exchange,” Stop Wapenhandel’s Mark Akkerman told Common Dreams. “Industry efforts include regular interactions with EU’s border institutions (including high ranking officials and politicians), where ideas are discussed that later turn up in new EU policy documents.”
“For example, the industry has been pushing for years to upgrade [EU border agency] Frontex to a cross-European border security agency,” Akkerman added. “The new European Border and Coast Guard Agency the European Commission has proposed, which has a lot more powers (has its own equipment, direct interventions in member states, binding decisions forcing member states to strengthen border security capacities) than Frontex has now, is exactly that.”
“If the establishment of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency proceeds,” the report notes, “this would mean a fundamental shift to an EU-controlled system of border security, with the possibility of bypassing the member states and forcing them to strengthen controls and purchase or upgrade equipment.”
“It is not hard to predict that this will lead refugees to use increasingly dangerous routes, strengthening the business case for traffickers. For the military and security industry, however it means the prospect of more orders from the agency itself and from member states,” the report continues.
Akkerman pointed out the EU’s stunning dismissal of human rights in this profit-motivated process:
The human rights of refugees play no real role in this thinking, except for promotional purposes. Both the policy makers and the industry sometimes try to sell the increase in and militarization of border security as a humanitarian effort, in terms of strengthening search and rescue capacities. The EU has repeatedly tried to put all the blame for refugee deaths on traffickers. This has resulted in narrowing its response to ‘taking away the business model of smugglers’, with even more military means to try to accomplish this.
This creates a downward spiral: the greater the controls and the more the repression, the greater the risks refugees are forced to take resulting in more deaths. Experts (academics) and human rights organizations have been warning about this for years, but they have been ignored.
As death tolls rise and a record number of people are displaced by conflict, it seems that the fear-mongering and profiteering—and devastating human rights abuses—will only continue.
* * *
Full report below…
- This Is How They Protect Us!
Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,
The Latest TSA Horror
“These people think they are God. They think they can do anything they want.”
A partially blind, partially deaf young woman returning home from treatment for a brain tumor was brutally smashed to the ground by goon tug TSA “security” while her mother, a nurse, was shoved away.
The goon thugs responsible should get at least 30 years in a maximum security prison for assault with intent to kill. But nothing will happen to them. Their corrupt bosses always cover up for the psychopaths who occupy so many “security” and police positions from which they exercise unaccountable brutality over those of us forced to pay their salaries.
This is America today. We are forced to pay for our own brutilization by a criminal element that has taken refuge in “security” that “protects us.” We are in far more danger from the security forces allegedly protecting us than we are from terrorists. Indeed, the security forces are the terrorists.
Remember, during eight years of the Iraq War, US police killed more Americans than the US lost troops in combat. We needed our soldiers at home protecting us from the police, not over there “protecting” us from Iraqis who were not bothering us at all.
The only way to stop the continuous murder and brutalization of American citizens by “security” is to give the same jail sentences to the psychopaths, who comprise a large percentage of police, as are given to criminals without badges to hide behind. Until this happens, no one is safe, not even a handicapped young women traveling home from a hospital with her mother.
The same prison sentences should be given to executive branch officials who initiate wars of aggression on the basis of lies and fraud. These officials are criminals, not “world leaders.”
Read the article from the Guardian and weep for your lost country in which we are far less safe from “our” government than we were under King George. Indeed with Washington’s record of destroying seven countries in 15 years, no one in the world is safe from the government of “the land of liberty.”
America is now justice-proof. “Security” has so thoroughly inoculated us against justice that justice cannot happen in America. Winning some taxpayer money in a civil lawsuit is not justice. Justice is prison for the goon thug criminals with badges.
- Some Refugees Are Being Sold For Organs
While there have been numerous headlines and stories that have come out of the immigrant crisis over the past year and a half, one recent revelation is particularly disturbing.
Migrants traveling from Africa to Europe who are unable to pay smugglers for their journey are being sold and killed for their organs the Independent reports.
Nuredein Wehabrebi Atta, a people smuggler who has been sentenced to five years in prison for his involvement in moving migrants, told Italian police that migrants who couldn't pay for journeys across the Mediterranean "were sold for €15,000 to groups, particularly Egyptians, who are equipped for harvesting organs."
Atta's testimony helped break open a transnational network dedicated to migrant trafficking with Italian police confirming they have detained 38 people suspected of being involved: 25 Eritreans, 12 Ethiopians and one Italian. Interior Minister Angelino Alfano said the group used Rome for its financial transactions hub, and the arrests have dealt a "harsh blow" to the criminal network.
Atta had been granted witness protection in Italy in exchange for a confession, and an Eritrean man arrested in 2014 had collaborated with authorities in order to provide for the first time a complete picture of the trafficking operations.
From the Independent
Palermo police said in a statement that an Eritrean man who was arrested in 2014 collaborated with authorities, providing for the first time "a complete reconstruction of criminal activities" of migrant trafficking involving operations both in North Africa and Italy.
Mr Atta is the first foreigner to be granted witness protection in Italy. He said the shocking number of deaths among migrants attempting to cross the sea is what led him to confess, specifically the death of 360 due to a boat sinking in Lampedusa, though he said he was not involved in the incident.
"The deaths that we were aware of were a small part of it," Mr Atta told police, according to local media. "In Eritrea alone there have been victims in eight out of 10 families."
He said that migrants who can not afford to pay the smugglers are then sold to organ traffickers.
* * *
The number of refugees displaced by conflict was estimated to have reached a global total of 65 million, a record high, at the end of 2015. Sadly, much of this crisis (if not all) is driven by countries such as the United States meddling in other people's affairs and creating an even worse situation than was previously the case. Unfortunately, we don't believe this will cease being the case any time soon.
- In Clinton Case, Obama Administration Nullifies 6 Criminal Laws
Authored by Eric Zuesse,
When the Obama Administration, on July 5th, ruled that in regard to Hillary Clinton’s privatized email system while she was Secretary of State, "Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case” to a grand jury, because “We cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges,” they ignored the following six U.S. criminal laws, each of which undeniably describes very well what she did:
18 U.S. Code § 2232 — Destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure
(a) Destruction or Removal of Property To Prevent Seizure
Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure, knowingly destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government’s lawful authority to take such property into its custody or control or to continue holding such property under its lawful custody and control, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) Impairment of In Rem Jurisdiction
Whoever, knowing that property is subject to the in rem jurisdiction of a United States court for purposes of civil forfeiture under Federal law, knowingly and without authority from that court, destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of impairing or defeating the court’s continuing in rem jurisdiction over the property, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
18 U.S. Code § 1512 — Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
(c) Whoever corruptly
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
18 U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
18 U.S. Code § 2071 — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
18 U.S. Code § 641 — Public money, property or records
Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use, or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof, …
Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years or both. …
18 U.S. Code § 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information …
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer —
Shall be fined not more than $10, 000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. (g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy, shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.
Those laws are consequently null and void, by Executive action. When Congress (which is supposed to be the Legislative branch of the government) passed those laws, what were they describing, if not this? Of course, they did describe there what Clinton has, in fact, done.
If we are a nation “of laws, not of men” (as that old basic description of democracy phrased it), then Ms. Clinton will be prosecuted, at least through the grand jury stage, on (at least) those grounds. The decision regarding her innocence or guilt will be made by jurors (first by the grand jurors, of course, and if they find there to be a case, then by a trial jury), not by the broader public – and also not by the nation’s Executive: the President and his appointed Administration. That is what it means for a government to be a functioning democracy. Any government which violates this principle – that it is “of laws, not of men [including women]” – is not functioning as a democracy: it’s something else.
In addition to these criminal laws, there are also federal regulations against these matters, but violations merely of federal regulations (such as these) are far less serious than are actions that violate alsofederal criminal laws (such as the six laws that are listed above).
She isn’t even being sanctioned for the violations the the State Department’s own regulations (or “rules”).
This is not a partisan issue. I was until recently an active Democrat, and I joined with millions of other Democrats who expressed condemnation when George W. Bush was allowed to get away with many severe crimes (such as this) while he was in office; and one of the reasons why I was trying to find someone to contest against President Obama in Democratic primaries for the 2012 Democratic Presidential nomination was that Obama had refused to prosecute his predecessor’s crimes against this nation. But now this same Obama is nullifying at least these six laws in order to win as his successor Hillary Clinton, who surely will not prosecute Obama for his many crimes (such as this and this) while he has been leading this nation and destroying our democracy.
I parted company from the Democratic Party when I gave up on both Parties in 2012 as they and the government they operate have been since at least 1980 — not at all democratic, but instead aristocratic: holding some persons to be above the law (that researcher there called the U.S. an “oligarchy,” which is simply another word for the same thing — rule by the top wealth-holders, not by the public: not a “democracy").
There can be no excuse for Obama’s depriving the public, via a grand jury decision, of the right to determine whether a full court case should be pursued in order to determine in a jury trial whether Hillary Clinton’s email system constituted a crime (or several crimes) under U.S. laws. The Obama Administration’s ‘finding’ that “clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information” would need to have been proven, in order for her to have been prosecuted under any U.S. criminal law, is a flagrant lie: none of the above six U.S. criminal laws requires that, but the only way to determine whether even that description (“clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information”) also applies to Clinton would be to go through a grand jury (presenting the above-cited six laws) and then to a jury case (to try her on those plus possibly also the charge that there was “clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information”). But now, those six laws are effectively gone: anyone who in the future would be charged with violating any one of those six laws could reasonably cite the precedent that Ms. Clinton was not even charged, much less prosecuted, for actions which clearly fit the description provided in each one of those U.S. criminal laws. Anyone in the future who would be charged under any one of these six laws could prove discriminatory enforcement against himself or herself. (In the particular case discussed there, discriminatory enforcement was ruled not to have existed because the enforcement of the criminal law involved was judged to have been random enforcement, but this condition would certainly not apply in Clinton’s case, it was clearly “purposeful discrimination” in her favor, and therefore enforcement of the law against anyone else, where in Clinton’s case she wasn’t even charged — much less prosecuted — for that offense, would certainly constitute discriminatory enforcement.) So: that’s the end of these six criminal laws. The U.S. President effectively nullified those laws, which were duly passed by Congress and signed into law by prior Presidents
And that’s the end, the clear termination, of a governemnt “of laws, not of men”.
* * *
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
- Time To Take The Fed's Warning Seriously: CMBS Has "Greatest Ever Monthly Delinquency Increase"
With three UK-based property funds, among them Standard Life, Aviva and M&G, all “freezing” assets in the past 2 days and suspending redemptions over fears of a swoon in UK housing prices, spreading panic shockwaves around the globe that the Brexit dominoes have come home to roost (to mix and match metaphors), it may not be a bad time time to jump across the Atlantic and look at US real-estate and in particular, commercial properties. As CMBS specialist Trepp wrote today in its weekly TreppWire commentary, the “Trepp CMBS delinquency rate moved noticeably higher in June, as the rate was pushed up by loans that reached their maturity date but were not paid off.” It was the fourth straight month that the rate has crept higher following two large decreases in January and February. The delinquency rate for US commercial real estate loans in CMBS is now 4.60%, an increase of 25 basis points from April.
This is in line with recent warnings from the Fed which just two weeks ago cautioned not only about another stock bubble when on June 21 it said that “forward price-to-earnings ratios for equities have increased to a level well above their median of the past three decades” but again warned that commercial real estate remains the most troubled sector: “valuation pressures have remained notable in the commercial real estate sector, to which some small banks have substantial exposures.” This includes not just bricks and mortar malls, which are losing bankrupt retail tenants by the hour, but also the collapse in the shale sector. It also includes a sudden spike in vacant office space.
Over the weekend, the Fed’s warning was validated not just by Trepp, but also by Morgan Stanley, whose Richard Hill looked at the latest CMBS 2.0 remittance reports and observed that in June, “delinquent loans rose by $142MM, including a potential reps breach.” As Hill puts it, “this delinquency increase was the greatest ever.” The silver lining: so too was the decline in specially serviced and watchlist loans, as near insolvent loans rolled off to delinquent status.
Here is the key highlight from MS’ summary of newly delinquent loans:
15 loans totaling $221MM became newly delinquent in June. In total, 71 loans with a balance of $760.6MM were delinquent in June, resulting in a delinquency rate of 32bp. The $142MM month-over-month increase in the volume of delinquent loans was the greatest ever – it eclipses the $116MM increase in March 2016 and compares to an average monthly increase of $40.7MM.
Some other observations on the state of CMBS 2.0:
- Specially serviced: There were four loans totaling $43.3MM that were newly transferred to ‘specially serviced’ this month, but the volume of loans declined by the most ever to $1B, resulting in a specially serviced rate of 42bp. There are currently 13 loans totaling $206MM that are delinquent but not specially serviced, including the largest loan to become newly delinquent this month. Looking forward, we expect the two CMBS 2.0 loans totaling $293MM to be imminently transferred to special servicing, given their exposure to JQ Hammons Hotels, which filed for bankruptcy on Sunday.
- Watchlist: 206 loans totaling $2B were added to the watchlist in June, but the volume of loans declined to $17.5B, resulting in a watchlist rate of 7.37%. The month-over-month decline in balance of specially serviced loans was the greatest ever and compares to a 12-month average increase of $580MM. However, the outstanding balance remains higher than what was observed in February 2016.
- Appraisal reductions: 21 loans totaling $161MM realized Apprisal Reduction Amounts (ARA) this month. 10 of these loans totaling $62.1M were first-time appraisal reductions while 11 totaling $99.3M were updated appraisals. Seven of the ten loans with first-time ARAs are secured by properties located in ‘oil boom’ regions.
- Prepayments: 29 loans totaling $456MM paid off in June and, in total, 424 loans with a balance of $9.2B have now been paid off. The largest pay-off this month was the $85MM loan secured by the Keystone Marquee Office Portfolio (DBUBS 2011-LC2A) at its maturity date.
- Defeasance: 22 loans with a balance of $345.5MM were defeased in June. In total, 291 loans with a balance of $5.8B have now been defeased, of which 213 loans totaling $3.4B remain outstanding. The largest loan to defease this month was the $1655MM loan secured by One South Wacker Drive (WFRBS 2013-C11 WFRBS 2013-C12), which is scheduled to mature on 1/1/2018
So is it time to start worrying about US commercial real estate? Well, with massive retail and shale bankruptcies, vacant malls around the nation, and rapidly evacuating offices, absolutely. Only in this day and age worrying means buying as much risk assets as one can afford, because the worse things are the greater the likelihood of an imminent bailout: of even a 1% correction in stocks by central banks. Case in point: frontrunning.
- JAPAN’S 20-YEAR GOVT BOND YIELD FALLS TO ZERO FOR FIRST TIME
- JAPAN’S 30-YEAR YIELD FALLS TO RECORD 0.03%
And while we have been joking for the past 7 years that algos will push the S&P to +? in case World War III breaks out (on 1 offerless contract), this is looking increasingly more likely with every passing day. And now that Hillary is assured of being the next president, it just may happen in the not too distant future.
- Martin Armstrong: "James Comey Had No Problem Keeping Me In Prison Without Any Charges"
Submitted by Martin Armstrong via ArmstrongEconomics.com,
To indict someone, the criteria is supposed to be “intent.” Comey has used that to pretend there is no evidence that Hillary “intentionally” erased anything. Comey also stated that Hillary’s lawyers erased her emails using a keyword search program and they did not “read” the emails. He added that he would not recommend charges against Hillary or her aides.
“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” Comey declared.
It was Comey who indicted Frank Quattrone for claiming he instructed his people to erase emails in his technology-industry banking group at Credit Suisse Group’s Credit Suisse First Boston, based upon a single email that read “clean up those files” in December 2000. That was more than enough for his “intent” requirement to obstruct justice. This further illustrates the double standard of justice for them vs. us.
Comey has said that he could not find anyone else who had been prosecuted for such a thing, but then added after clearing Hillary that this is not to say everyone in the government can do this or that they would not prosecute someone else for the same thing. Comey said,“[O]ur judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
Comey presented a scathing rebuke of Hillary’s conduct that anyone else would have certainly been indicted for. For Obama to have announced in advance he would campaign for Hillary, it was clear that this was a cover-up and he knew the results before today. For Comey to say, “Although we did not find clear evidence [of any intentional misconduct] there is evidence that they were extremely careless of very sensitive, highly classified information.” It is the jury’s role to determine if there is any evidence and the case should have been presented for a Grand Jury to decide if she should have been indicted. That, of course, is off limits as well.
Comey went on to all but acknowledge that Russia hacked Hillary’s emails:
“With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.”
For Comey to claim neither the Department of Justice nor the White House knew what he was going to announce, seriously undermines his trustworthiness in this matter. Of course, Obama knew or he would not have scheduled to campaign for Hillary since, if indicted, she would have had to be on bail to stay out of jail to even campaign. This is by no means credible. But nobody would have expected Hillary to be indicted when the Democrats control the executive branch. Had Hillary been indicted, she could not have run for office, for even that statute says such a person would be disqualified for such an office. The entire election would have been a fiasco and the Democratic Party would have collapsed. This is what Bernie was holding out for and why he had his talk with Obama who informed him forget it — there would be no indictment for Hillary.
“From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent,” Comey said.
Then, Comey contradicted Lynch in making it clear that the final decision was her’s: “As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.”
James Comey was the chief prosecutor in the Southern District of New York between 2003 and 2005. He had no problem keeping me in Federal Prison on contempt of court without any charges, indictment, or a civil complaint describing any crime whatsoever that they even admitted openly in court. There were never any charges or complaint filed, and they publicly stated, “[T]here is no description of criminal liability.” Yet, Comey allowed me to be held in prison, entirely arbitrarily, with absolutely nothing whatsoever; Comey completely violated my civil rights, those of my family, and all 240 employees. So he is not someone who upholds the Constitution when it goes against government or the banks. As they say, the Department of Justice is really “Just Us” in reality. He has proven that once again.
Comey also allowed a LIFETIME GAG ORDER on me to prevent me from providing any assistance to my clients in Japan to sue the bankers. Now the State Department has asked for a two-year stay in turning over any of Hillary’s emails. Why would they do that if there is nothing criminal? This only proves that this is a cover-up, as always, because the Democratic Party cannot allow Hillary to go down for they would lose everything. Sorry, but Comey has a track record of defending the banks even when they stole billions and pleaded criminally guilty before having to pay them back. He kept me in prison on contempt to turn over assets for a “possible” restitution, but when I got into the Supreme Court, I was released and no such charges were ever filed nor did I ever have any restitution. They then tried to prevent “The Forecaster” from being shown in the USA.
So much for any honesty from the Department of Justice. It is the Department of “Just Us,” as they say.
- Domino #3: M&G Suspends Trading In $6 Billion UK Property Fund
Things are getting bad fast in Britain…
Domino #1: *STANDARD LIFE INV PROPERTY DROPS 15%; TRADING IN FUND SUSPENDED
In a stark flashback to the catalytic event that ultimately brought down Bear Stearns in 2008, and subsequently unleashed the greatest financial crisis in history, last night we reported that Standard Life, has been forced to stop retail investors selling out of one of the UK’s largest property funds for at least 28 days after rapid cash outflows were sparked by fears over falling real estate values.
As we further noted, citing an analyst, “given the outflows the sector seems to be experiencing, this could well put downward pressure on commercial property prices,” said Laith Khalaf, senior analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown. “The risk is this creates a vicious circle, and prompts more investors to dump property, until such time as sentiment stabilises.”
As we concluded, whie Brexit is not a Humpty Dumpty event, where all the Fed’s horses and all the Fed’s men can’t glue the eggshell back together, it is an event that forces investors to wake up and prepare their portfolios for the very real systemic risks ahead. And, indeed, if Standard Life was the first domino, moments ago the second domino also tumbled when as Bloomberg reported that Aviva Investors Property Trust is as of this moment "frozen" citing "extraordinary" market conditions.
Domino #2: *AVIVA SUSPENDS TRADING ON AVIVA INVESTORS PROPERTY TRUST
As the FT adds, Aviva Investments said it had prevented retail investors from selling out of its £1.8bn UK Property Trust since Monday afternoon.
Cited by Bloomberg, Aviva said in an email that "market circumstances, which are impacting the wider industry, have resulted in a lack of immediate liquidity" adding that "we have acted to safeguard the interests of all our investors by suspending dealing in the fund with immediate effect…. Suspension of dealing will give Aviva Investors greater control in managing cash flows and conducting orderly asset sales in order to meet our obligations to investors.”
And now Domino #3: *M&G SUSPENDS TRADING IN M&G PROPERTY PORTFOLIO FUND
As Bloomberg reports, M&G suspends trading in property portfolio, feeder funds, according to statement on website.
"Investor redemptions in the fund have risen markedly because of the high levels of uncertainty in the U.K. commercial property market since the outcome of the European Union referendum.
Redemptions have now reached a point where M&G believes it can best protect the interests of the funds’ shareholders by seeking a temporary suspension in trading."
The plunge before the freeze…
As Laith Khalaf, a senior analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown cited above, put it, “the dominoes are starting to fall in the U.K. commercial property market, as yet another fund locks its doors on the back of outflows precipitated by the Brexit vote. It’s probably only a matter of time before we see other funds follow suit."
We could not have said it better ourselves.
- Yahoo Finance Editor-In-Chief Is Sad: "We're Suffering The Consequences Of Too Much Democracy"
Following James Traub's mind-numbingly-elitist rebuttal of the democratic rights of "we, the people" in favor of allowing "they, the elite" to ensure the average joe doesn't run with scissors, "It's time for the elites to rise up against the ignorant masses."
The Brexit has laid bare the political schism of our time. It’s not about the left vs. the right; it’s about the sane vs. the mindlessly angry…
The Guardian's David Van Reybrouck appears willing to take the fight for elite survival even further…proclaiming "our voting system worked well for decades, but now it is broken. There is a better way to give voice to the people…. you do not ask everyone to vote on an issue few people really understand, but you draft a random sample of the population and make sure they come to the grips with the subject matter in order to take a sensible decision. A cross-section of society that is informed can act more coherently than an entire society that is uninformed."
Brexit is a turning point in the history of western democracy. Never before has such a drastic decision been taken through so primitive a procedure – a one-round referendum based on a simple majority. Never before has the fate of a country – of an entire continent, in fact – been changed by the single swing of such a blunt axe, wielded by disenchanted and poorly informed citizens.
But this is just the latest in a series of worrying blows to the health of democracy, and Yahoo Finance Editor-in-Chief, Andy Serwer took to his Tumblr, to explain why, in his opinion, Democracy, you could argue, is pretty much like sunshine, cold beer and ice cream. They’re all great —until you have too much.
Too much democracy? That’s not possible, is it?
In fact it may be. Some economists and political scientists are suggesting as much in the wake of the Brexit vote and the subsequent wave of “Leave the EU” sentiment that’s sweeping across Europe. And you can look to a big honking use case right here in the US to make that argument.
It’s way too early to tell how Brexit will affect the economy of the UK at this point — although early days have been rocky enough with the crashing pound, stumbling stock market, and political chaos. But I would argue the biggest negative of Brexit will be the messiness and uncertainty that ensues. The UK will be forced to rewrite tax rules, as well as draft and implement new legislation. It will have to craft a new relationship with Europe. And the UK will more than likely haggle over referendums in Scotland and Northern Ireland. An OECD report says Brexit could cost the UK 3.3% of its GDP by 2020.
Despite those headaches and risks, “Leavers” across Europe — including those in France, the Netherlands, Italy, Hungary, Austria and Finland— have taken up the call. A Citibank note says “… political risks in Europe are high and probably rising, in our view, and ‘referendum risk’ contributes significantly to these risks …” Those risks include outright withdrawal from the EU, scuttling of EU policies, and shying away from EU-centric policies that could bolster local economies. Citi notes that Italy and Hungary will likely both have referendums on matters pertaining to the EU this year.
So what does this have to do with the US, besides the collateral damage of a potentially basket-case Europe — (no small thing that, by the way)? Because while referendums are actually rare in the UK, (the Brexit vote is only the third to cover the whole UK), they are much more common in the US.
Twenty-six states — mostly Western ones — plus Washington, D.C., allow for initiatives and referendums. And over the years, there have been various successes and failures, never mind wackiness. (One of my favorites was the 2006 Arizona Voter Reward Act which would give a single Arizona citizen $1 million in every general election. It was defeated.) But other ballot initiatives of course are more serious, and in some states referendums and such have had real teeth, nowhere more so than in California, where they have been elevated to a powerful form of governance, with high-profile propositions.
For those of you old enough to remember, the watershed moment of the California Proposition movement was 1978 with the passage of Proposition 13, which capped real estate taxes. (Remember Howard Jarvis — the leader of the movement — on the cover of Time Magazine: Tax Revolt!)
The success of that vote ushered in a golden age of referendums for the Golden State, although that may be a mischaracterization. Since then the state has voted on hundreds of referendums on gun control, abortion, marijuana and the death penalty. But mostly the initiatives have tended towards the fiscal: i.e., taxes, budgets and bond issues. To some this has been a shining era of democracy. Others are not so sanguine, saying Prop. 13, for example, helped lead to the gutting of education budgets.
One thing that is undoubtedly true is that this so-called direct democracy model has made governing more difficult. The Economist delved into this in great length in a 2011 special report:
“This citizen legislature has caused chaos. Many initiatives have either limited taxes or mandated spending, making it even harder to balance the budget. Some are so ill-thought-out that they achieve the opposite of their intent: for all its small-government pretensions, Proposition 13 ended up centralizing California’s finances, shifting them from local to state government. Rather than being the curb on elites that they were supposed to be, ballot initiatives have become a tool of special interests, with lobbyists and extremists bankrolling laws that are often bewildering in their complexity and obscure in their ramifications. And they have impoverished the state’s representative government. Who would want to sit in a legislature where 70-90% of the budget has already been allocated?”
The best evidence of the effects of this dysfunction perhaps is that during this period, California experienced a precipitous decline in its credit rating. In 1980, California had an AAA rating. By the early 1990s it had fallen to single A, and it bounced around that level for decades until as recently as 2014, when it was the second-lowest rated state in the nation. (This is a state, of course, with Silicon Valley, Hollywood, oil and gas, timber, minerals and the richest farmland in the nation.) Say what you will about Jerry Brown (twice!), Arnold Schwarzenegger and Pete Wilson, but it ain’t all the governors’ fault. In fact it may be Jerry Brown’s multiterm experience with government by referendum that has allowed him get a handle on the state’s finances and help boost its credit rating back up to AA (from S&P), its highest rating since 2001. But that’s hardly consolation.
Direct democracy does have a shining example of efficacy, and that is Switzerland, though there certainly are reasons particular to that country — homogeneity being one — that explain why it has worked there.
Otherwise, I would argue that direct democracy is best used sparingly, for local initiatives perhaps. A big drawback of direct democracy is that those who want change — no matter its validity — are much more fired up than those who want to maintain the status quo, and therefore many more of the “Changers” go to the polls, as was perhaps the case in the Brexit vote. Think about the consequences of that.
I know it sounds horribly anachronistic, but checks and balances, branches of government, and slow, messy and deliberate governance actually have their place. It is true that both in the case of Britain’s relationship with the EU and with real estate taxes in California in the 1970s, real change was needed. In cases like this, and probably just in general, politicians need to step up more briskly than they are typically comfortable doing. But putting the onus all back on the people may not be the answer. One thing’s for sure, it certainly has its consequences.
- Chinageddon – Gold Spikes As USDJPY, Yuan, Bond Yields Plunge
For the first time since March 2014, Gold is back above $1370, spiking higher as China opens. While silver has been celebrating way above Brexit spike highs, gold's initial reaction was far bigger and that spike high has now been taken out.
Across Asia things are moving fast. Bond yields in Taiwan are breaking to record lows, JGBs are at fresh record lows with 20Y yields reaching zero for the first time…
- *JAPAN'S 30-YEAR YIELD FALLS TO RECORD 0.015%
- *JAPAN'S 10-YEAR YIELD FALLS TO RECORD MINUS 0.27%
- *TAIWAN 10-YEAR GOVT BOND YIELD FALLS TO RECORD-LOW 0.695%
And USDJPY plunged to a 100 handle again…
And then China devalued The Yuan fix significantly…to the weakest agaionst the USD since Nov 2010
Which is rippling through to US Equity futures… Dow -230 from earlier highs..
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...