Author: admin

Authored by Andrew Moran via Liberty Nation,

Canada’s energy sector is home to the nation’s forgotten man…

All over the world, the forgotten man is rising up, reminding the ruling elite of his existence. Fed up with leaders catering to the whims of 0.05% of society, or instituting policies that impact their pocketbooks, the working folks of America, Italy, Brazil, and France are making sure their voices are heard in the political arena. This uncomfortable fact is sending shivers up and down their masters’ spines, including those in the Great White North.

Ivory Tower

For so long, Canadians were passive and apathetic about how they were treated by their rulers. They just drowned their sorrows of excessive taxation and abuse of the public purse in a Tim Hortons double-double and a plate of poutine. That’s just the way it is, they cried. There’s nothing to do, they grieved.

But then Prime Minister Justin Trudeau happened.

The trust fund baby is a man who continually talks down to those who are not like him. By encouraging young people to use “peoplekind,” openly wishing that Ottawa would embrace a Chinese-style government, and suggesting citizens with real concerns about Syrian migrants are racist, Trudeau has begun to light the populist spark from British Columbia to Newfoundland.

To truly comprehend the left’s disdain for blue-collar Canadians who do not accept the premises of leftist dogma, you will need to travel to Calgary, Alberta. At a recent demonstration of energy workers, Liberal Mayor Naheed Nenshi treated the crowd like kindergarteners:

“Well, for those of you who are saying, ‘No I don’t believe in climate change,’ good luck changing hearts and minds because we have to be able to say that there is no difference between standing up for the economy and standing up for the environment.”

Nenshi shifted his remarks into French, but he received pushback from the crowd. This led the condescending mayor to threaten the crowd with detention: “If you want someone to listen to you, you have to speak their language.”

It is this mockery, condescension, and dismissal that is producing discontent nationwide, particularly in the energy sector. In the era of Trudeaumania 2.0, politicians from major urban centers turn their noses up at workers employed in the oil, gas, and coal industries. Journalists, accepting a $600 million bribe from the federal government, refrain from calling out such deplorable behavior. Instead, they report favorably on imposing carbon taxes, delaying pipelines, and implementing egregious environmental regulations in the resource-rich country.

Of course, the energy sector’s tax dollars are good enough to be used against them, extending generous grants and subsidies to the politically-connected green industry. Why? To appease the globalists who are using the religion of global warming to control populations.

But Canadians are no longer sitting idly by. They’re mad as hell and are sending clear signals that they’re not going to take it anymore.

Polite No More

In December, a convoy of trucks in Grand Prairie, Alberta “touched its tail” as it rallied in the city impacted by several government policies, including the carbon tax, Bill C-48, and Bill C-69. While the carbon tax is terrifying for all Canadians, C-48 and C-69 mainly target energy; the former prohibits oil tanker traffic on British Columbia’s northern coast and the latter dramatically transforms the process of environmental assessments for every major infrastructure project, including the ever-important trans-province energy project proposals.

The protests against the levy and Bills C-48 and C-69 are only intensifying. Another Alberta-based convoy of trucks is taking its frustrations to Ottawa next month.

“We want to make our voices heard,” James Robson, the grassroots Canada Action manager, told The Star. “Families are supported by the energy sector. It’s one of the most important economic drivers in Canada.”

The Trudeau government seems indifferent to the growing opposition to carbon taxes and punishing legislative blitzkrieg. This should not come as a surprise. Energy Minister Catherine McKenna, also known as Climate Barbie, encouraged a grain farmer to just adopt artificial intelligence to combat the costs of the carbon tax.

It is this level of arrogance that puts Trudeau and his minions out of touch with typical Canadians.

The Forgotten Man’s Resurgence

Is Canada igniting another Tea Party, Arab Spring, or Yellow Vest movement?

Perhaps the modesty of your average Canadian will never concede to something so iconic, instead preferring to just have their voices heard by the central planners who think they’re better than someone from rural Alberta or the Maritimes. Canada’s thought police and gatekeepers of permissible opinion are warning about the dangers of populism, but if they wish to quash its inevitable ascent to mainstream politics, they should quit treating voters not from Toronto, Vancouver, or Ottawa either like they don’t exist or as if they’re children riding the short bus.

via RSS http://bit.ly/2RvbBL8 Tyler Durden

Following what Bloomberg calculated was a record net reverse repo liquidity injection on Wednesday, when the PBOC injected a whopping 560 billion yuan of liquidity into the financial system via open market operations, the Chinese central bank has done it again and in Thursday’s open market operation, it sold 250BN yuan in 7 Day repos (slightly below yesterday’s record 350BN), and 150BN in 28 Day repos, which net of maturities resulted in a whopping net 380BN yuan ($56.2BN) liquidity injection.

This brings the net liquidity injection this week to a near record 1.14 Trillion yuan (Monday 20BN, Tuesday 180BN, Wednesday 560BN and Thursday 380BN) and the week is not even over yet – should tomorrow’s reverse repo be of similar magnitude, then this week will go down in history as China’s biggest liquidity injection on record.

As yesterday, today’s massive liquidity injection was aimed at “keeping reasonable and sufficient liquidity in banking system as liquidity falls relatively fast during peak season for tax payments,” according to a statement from the PBOC, although why this year should be such a significant outlier, even when factoring in the liquidity needs ahead of the Lunar new year, to prior periods was not exactly clear.

There is, of course, a much simpler explanation: with Chinese economic and trade data turning from bad to worse with every passing day, Beijing’s response is increasingly one of a panicked “spasm”, as Nomura’s Charlie McElligott wrote today when he noted that with regard to the response of Chinese authorities in addressing their economic slowdown and credit crunch, “it had to get worse before it got better”—recently collapsing Chinese data has now clearly forced an escalation of easing-/stimulus-/liquidity- policies, as follows:

• Two days ago in a press conference between the PBoC, the MoF and the NDRC, Beijing announced new tax cuts, fresh measures to stabilize auto consumption and an announcement that authorities are supportive of increasing issuance of local government “special bonds” to stimulate infrastructure spending were all made in a “stimulus” spasm.
• Overnight Chinese Premier Li has called for more investments in infrastructure and services, while also voicing support for a “stepping-up” of targeted economic controls from authorities.

And, as discussed in this post and last night, the annual PBoC liquidity injection to offset the pre-Lunar New Year holiday-/pre-tax payment peak-/maturation of MLF funds- cash drain went full mental” last night, with the Chinese central bank injecting a record 560B Yuan ($84B USD) into the system using 7d reverse repo operations—the largest 1d cash injection in their history, and was followed by a not much smaller 380B Yuan injection today.

It is worth noting that this short-term liquidity injection adds to the larger “credit impulse” being re-engineered by Chinese authorities, which on the headline level came in as “better than consensus” estimates across new aggregate social financing & new loans.

Unfortunately for Chinese stock bulls, this week’s record liquidity injections have had no impact whatsoever on Chinese stocks, which were unchanged yesterday and are flat on Thursday, while S&P futures are fractionally lower, amid growing fears that the trade war storm is back on after the WSJ reported that  U.S. authorities are investigating Huawei for stealing trade secrets, while according to a separate report, Apple plans to cut back hiring for some divisions, and finally Singapore exports unexpectedly fell, a trifecta of news hitting the market’s three weakest points: trade, earnings and the slowing global economy.

The bigger issue is that if not even China can move the needle with short-term liquidity injections, and a long-term monetary intervention is out of the question for now due to China’s record debt, while fiscal stimulus takes months if not quarters to kick in, once the sugar rush from the current bear market rally is over, the hangover will be especially brutal.

via RSS http://bit.ly/2AOPUv8 Tyler Durden

It was just a few days ago that we reported on the latest installment of the Elon Musk and Azealia Banks feud, which now appears to be escalating. Banks’ fire for Musk was recently stoked by a motion filed by the Tesla CEO’s lawyers to prevent Banks, Musk’s ex-girlfriend Grimes, and several media organizations from being subpoenaed as part of a shareholder lawsuit against Musk.

Now, it looks like we are one step closer to getting a chance at seeing what was on the mind (and on the devices) of Banks, Grimes and some of the reporters who were involved with them directly after the CEO put out his now infamous “funding secured” tweet. Banks was a guest in Musk’s home around the time Musk sent out the Tweet, reportedly invited by Musk’s then girlfriend, Grimes.

According to Bloomberg, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco ordered on Tuesday that although Tesla and Musk themselves cannot be subpoenaed, Banks, Grimes and reporters involved with the situation immediately after it happened could be subpoenaed and asked to preserve records. Chen said “that asking for potentially relevant evidence to not be destroyed won’t impose any burdens on Tesla or Musk”. 

Business Insider also reported on Wednesday that a motion to serve subpoenas against Banks, Grimes, Business Insider, Gizmodo and the New York Times was granted.

Adam Apton, attorney for the Plaintiffs stated: “Ms. Boucher and Ms. Banks were in close contact with Mr. Musk before and after the tweet and are believed to be in possession of relevant evidence concerning Mr. Musk’s motives. Business Insider also appears to have relevant evidence in light of its relationship with Ms. Banks.”

Shareholder attorneys are trying to place Banks in Musk’s house during the fallout from Musk’s famous tweet. Banks had previously posted in depth about her time staying at Elon‘s home, claiming that while there, Grimes was comforting Musk about “being too stupid not to go on Twitter while on acid”. Banks claims she saw Musk “scrounging for investors” at the time of the incident. 

Curiously, the judge also said that “lead plaintiff’s claim that defendants have a practice of trying to silence critics is not well supported”. Perhaps he hasn’t heard of Montana Skeptic – or Martin Tripp.

Arguably, the possible results of any forthcoming subpoenas – as they sometimes do in lawsuits – may open up a new can of worms if any (or all) of the dirt Azealia Banks claims to have on Elon Musk turns out to not be fabricated.

Banks took to Instagram on last week writing “They are still slighting [sic] me like I don’t have plenty more dirt to spill on Elon. This is going to get extremely ugly…Elon will learn very soon who is more powerful of us two.”

The preservation of such material, from immediately after Musk put out his “funding secured” tweet may finally help answer the question of what was going on in Elon Musk’s head at the time of the incident. We can’t wait to see where this goes. 

via RSS http://bit.ly/2RA0ctB Tyler Durden

Authored by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

We’re all familiar with the term, “quantitative easing.” It’s described as meaning, “A monetary policy in which a central bank purchases government securities or other securities from the market in order to lower interest rates and increase the money supply.”

Well, that sounds reasonable… even beneficial. But, unfortunately, that’s not really the whole story.

When QE was implemented, the purchasing power was weak and both government and personal debt had become so great that further borrowing would not solve the problem; it would only postpone it and, in the end, exacerbate it. Effectively, QE is not a solution to an economic problem, it’s a bonus of epic proportions, given to banks by governments, at the expense of the taxpayer.

But, of course, we shouldn’t be surprised that governments have passed off a massive redistribution of wealth from the taxpayer to their pals in the banking sector with such clever terms. Governments of today have become extremely adept at creating euphemisms for their misdeeds in order to pull the wool over the eyes of the populace.

At this point, we cannot turn on the daily news without being fed a full meal of carefully- worded mumbo jumbo, designed to further overwhelm whatever small voices of truth may be out there.

Let’s put this in perspective for a moment.

For millennia, political leaders have been in the practice of altering, confusing and even obliterating the truth, when possible. And it’s probably safe to say that, for as long as there have been media, there have been political leaders doing their best to control them.

During times of war, political leaders have serially restricted the media from simply telling the truth. During the American civil war, President Lincoln shut down some 300 newspapers and arrested some 14,000 journalists who had the audacity to contradict his statements to the public.

As extreme as that may sound, this practice has been more the rule in history than the exception.

In most countries, in most eras, some publications go against the official story line and may very well pay a price for doing so. But, other publications go along with the official story line to a greater or lesser degree and are often rewarded for doing so.

It should come as no surprise, then, that media outlets often come to report the news in a less than accurate manner.

Mark Twain is claimed to have said, “If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you’re misinformed.” Quite so.

Still, only fifty years ago, much of the then “Free World” enjoyed a relatively objective Press. Even on television, reporters such as Walter Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley, etc. presented the news in a bland manner. It wasn’t very exciting, but at least it was relatively balanced and, to this day, most people who were around then still have no idea as to whether reporters like Walter Cronkite were liberal or conservative. Although he was a committed Democrat, he never allowed that to significantly colour his reporting.

But today, we have a very different corporate structure as regards the media. The same six corporations hold the controlling interest of over 80% of the media. And those same corporations also own a controlling interest in the military industrial complex, Wall Street, the major banks, Big Pharma, etc.

What we’re witnessing today is media having been transformed into something more akin to a three-ring circus than journalism of old. This is no accident.

The present travesty that is the 21st century media, is journalism in name only.

So, why should this be so?

Well, as it happens, people tend not to like governments dominating their lives – simple as that.

And yet, the primary objective of any government is to increase its size and power as rapidly as the populace will tolerate it. The only reason that they rarely do this quickly, is that they can’t get away with it. Like boiling a frog, it takes time to lull the populace into submission, bit by bit.

Once having had enough time to do so, there comes a point at which the government becomes woefully top-heavy, as well as unworkably autocratic. At such times, all that’s necessary to make people rebel is an economic crisis.

Such is the case in much of the world today – the EU, the US, Canada, etc.. Even in their arrogance, the powers that be have to be aware that they’re right at the tipping point. An economic crisis would almost certainly push the situation over the edge.

When truth threatens to undermine machinations for self-aggrandizement, individuals tend to obfuscate in order to delay the inevitable fallout. Governments are no different.

So it was that, in 1999, the largest banks entered into a massive lending scam that would most certainly collapse within a decade. However, before putting the scam in place, they arranged for a “bailout” by the government, which would effectively pass the bill to the taxpayer, while the banks themselves simply increased their own wealth massively.

Of course, QE, as massive as it was, was a mere Band-Aid solution. All those involved (big business and the government) understood that it would hang like a sword of Damocles over the economy until it inevitably came crashing down – a fate far worse than if QE had never been implemented.

And so, for those entities to have invested into the domination of the media was, in fact, essential. Had they not done so, it’s entirely likely that, with a free press, the man on the street would, by now, have figured out that he’d been hoodwinked.

Thus do we see the journalistic equivalent of Quantitative Brainwashing, in which the inevitable realization is delayed for as long as possible.

And, in order to make sure that the public do not figure out what’s been done to them, the news reporting becomes Orwellian in its endless repetition of a false narrative.

It is, however, true that, “You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” Eventually, the Band-Aid peels back to reveal an infection that’s far beyond what had been generally perceived. It then falls away in layers, as increasing numbers of people become aware that they’ve been scammed – that the media is entirely corrupt and that the media’s owners – big business – have, with the enthusiastic compliance of the government, robbed them on a wholesale basis.

Historically, that’s when the jig is up. What happens then is a matter of historic record.

*  *  *

Clearly, there are many strange things afoot in the world. Distortions of markets, distortions of culture. It’s wise to wonder what’s going to happen, and to take advantage of growth while also being prepared for crisis. How will you protect yourself in the next crisis? See our PDF guide that will show you exactly how. Click here to download it now.

via RSS http://bit.ly/2RC3vk4 Tyler Durden

In a world of record wealth inequality, many believe that one of the fringe benefits of the rich getting richer and the poor staying, well, poor is that consumption has become less sensitive to moves in stock prices because of the lower spending propensity of wealthy households, in other words, the “wealth effect” has become increasingly muted (after all remember, “The Rich Hold Assets, The Poor Have Debt“).

The claim, proposed for example by the NBER in 2013, is that declines in equity prices now translate into smaller declines in consumer spending than in the past, because wealthy households now bear a larger share of the losses and have lower propensities to spend. In other words, if the wealth effect has indeed fallen, it would be one reason to expect only a modest drag on consumer spending from the recent sell-off.

If this is correct, it would imply that the recent stock market sell-off is likely to weigh only modestly on consumption.

However, in a new report from Goldman’s economists, the bank disagrees with cheerful take and believes that once America’s rich see their latest, and sharply reduced brokerage statements, they too will cut back on spending, adversely impacting the broader economy, for two reasons:

First, while the share of equities owned by the wealthiest households has risen over the last three decades, equity holdings have more than tripled as a share of disposable income at the aggregate level and have also risen substantially for middle and upper-middle wealth groups. Therefore, a 1% move in stock prices now has a much larger impact on wealth levels for most groups.

To be sure there is no arguing that the rich have gotten richer, or as Goldman puts it, “stock ownership has become more concentrated.” Indeed, the wealthiest 0.1% and 1% of households now own about 17% and 50% of total household equities respectively, up significantly from 13% and 39% in the late 80s.

Furthermore, as the left panel of the next chart shows, household equity holdings have more than tripled as a share of disposable income at the aggregate level since the late 80s. Combining these aggregate holdings with the group-level ownership shares from the chart above, it emerges that equity holdings as a share of income have risen substantially for not only the upper-middle and upper wealth groups, but also the “middle”.

Therefore, according to Goldman, “the hit to the wealth level from a 1% decline in stock prices is now about 3 times larger than in the late 80s for the top-10% of households and a third larger for those in the 50-90th percentiles.” The hit is even greater if one includes household holdings through pension funds and life insurances, which now stand at 30% and 10% of disposable income respectively.

The Second reason why Goldman is concerned about the impact of sliding stock on the propensity to spend is that equity price moves also have a meaningful effect on the spending of wealthy households. Goldman finds evidence for this claim in that spending on luxury goods largely purchased by wealthy households is highly sensitive to stock prices.

As evidence, Goldman presents the next chart which shows that equity price moves do have a meaningful effect on the spending of wealthy households: the PCE share spent on jewelry and watches is highly correlated with moves in the stock market (left panel). Using regressions of spending growth on stock price changes, Goldman confirms this strong relationship more formally for jewelry and watches, pleasure boats and pleasure aircrafts (right panel). Intuitively, it does make sense that even the top 0.01% will spend less on “pleasure boats and pleasure aircrafts” if they are watching the market go down in flames. Curiously, this correlation has only increased in the past two decades when the market sprinted higher because when focusing on a sample since 1995, the bank found large effects of the stock market on luxury spending while the effects are actually weaker in earlier decades.

In other words, Goldman’s analysis suggests that the wealth effect from the stock market is unlikely to have fallen substantially over the past 30 years despite the rise in wealth inequality because i) equity holdings have risen sharply, and especially for the richest Americans, and ii) because equity price moves still have a meaningful effect on the spending of wealthy households.

As a result, Goldman summarizes that “a 1% move in stock prices now has a much larger impact on wealth levels for most groups” and finds that the since the wealth effect is alive and well – much to the delight of former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke who in an WaPo op-ed explicitly advocated artificially boosting the stock market to stimulate the “wealth effect” – and by implication, there is now a substantial negative wealth effect on real PCE, which Goldman expects to slow to 2¼-2½% this year, despite healthy labor income growth, an elevated saving rate, and cheaper oil.

As a result of this analysis, Goldman concludes that stock market wealth effects, i.e. a continued drop in equities, could subtract about 0.5% off real GDP growth this year, a number which will only grow as stocks continue to slide, and is – some could argue – the most salient reason why the Fed’s put was triggered at around 2,300 because any further drops would have had a significantly adverse impact on the economy.

via RSS http://bit.ly/2RSZIOp Tyler Durden

Authored by Eduardo Neret via Campus Reform,

A Villanova University marketing professor blasted Gillette for the razor company’s “The Best Men Can Be” ad, which referenced “toxic masculinity.”

The professor, Charles Taylor, criticized Gillette’s new “The Best Men Can Be” ad campaign, in an op-ed for Forbes. A spin-off of the company’s old “The Best a Man Can Get” campaign, “The Best Men Can Be” was launched with a now-viral commercial that highlights behaviors in boys and men such as bullying, sexual harassment, and sexism.

In the ad, Gillette calls out “toxic masculinity” and attributes this concept to men as a whole with a YouTube description reading “bullying. Harassment. Is this the best a man can get?”

“The use of the term ‘toxic masculinity’ in the ad was a flat-out mistake,” Taylor noted in his op-ed.

“While only mentioned quickly and briefly, the use of this term, which many men associate with a one-sided critique and stereotype of an entire gender [sic].”

Taylor went on to add that corporations should never alienate a substantial portion of their consumer base, which Gillette’s campaign “unnecessarily” did. Taylor also warned that without modification or apology, Gillette’s campaign would go down in history as an “all-time marketing blunder.”

“The shame of all of this is that Gillette surely could have devised a campaign focusing on positive encouragement of good behaviors without making sweeping generalizations about men and what it is to be masculine,” Taylor continued. At the time of publication of this article, the ad had over twelve million views on Gillette’s official YouTube page and nearly three times as many “thumbs down” as “thumbs up.”

While Taylor told Campus Reform that he hasn’t witnessed similar unnecessary and divisive political rhetoric on Villanova’s campus, he reiterated that companies “generally should stay away from controversial hot button issues as it really does not make sense to alienate the target market.” 

“Ads built around non-controversial topics framed in a positive way absolutely can work.  Budweiser’s depiction of its hurricane relief efforts or Toyota’s support of Special Olympians from last year’s Super Bowl are good examples of this. The moment the company appears to take a side, however, they are taking a big risk,” the professor told Campus Reform.

“It absolutely is not the case that any publicity is good publicity – press that contributes to alienating and losing consumers is not a good thing.”

Gillette’s ad also redirects viewers to a statement on its website that further explains the reasoning behind the campaign. The company states that it is now a “new era of masculinity,” and it “is clear that changes are needed.”

Despite criticisms claiming that the company itself stereotypically depicted men in the ad, Gillette pledged “to actively challenge the stereotypes and expectations” of what it means to be a man. The company will also donate $1 million per year for the next three years to nonprofits that “inspire, educate and help men of all ages achieve their personal ‘best’ and become role models for the next generation.”

Taylor speculated that one possible motive for the ad was an attempt by Gillette to resonate with millennials. However, he told Campus Reform that the problem with this is that “not all millennials share the same political view.” 

Gillette isn’t the only razor company to take on the issue of masculinity, though. In 2017, Harry’s tweeted on International Men’s Day, lamenting that it was even “a thing.” 

“Now more than ever, being a man demands introspection, humility, and optimism. To get to a better tomorrow, we need to take a look at today, and at the misguided stereotypes that got us here in the first place,” the tweet read. The now-deleted ad also crossed out phrases such as “be tough,” “be a rock,” “be a man,” and “be the breadwinner,” according to National Review.

Harry’s deleted the year-old tweet following the Gillette backlash.

via RSS http://bit.ly/2swBJpT Tyler Durden

Get ready for round two of crazy weather in California

Another Pacific storm is expected to strike California on Wednesday afternoon, bringing a threat of mudslides to the area of the most destructive wildfire in state history and a blizzard warning in the Sierra Nevada.

The Butte County Sheriff’s Office issued a flood evacuation warning Tuesday for Pulga, a small town northeast of Paradise. The notice read: “if you are in this area, you should evacuate to higher ground.”

Most of Butte County area was included in a flood watch by the National Weather Service (NWS), which warns of 3 inches of rain in the valley and up to 6 inches in the foothills between Wednesday and Thursday.

Unlike the storm from earlier this week, this new round of rain is slow and steady, forecasters said, which could trigger mudslides.

“If flooding occurs, this can quickly become a dangerous and life-threatening situation,” the Butte County Sheriff’s Office warned.

A series of storm systems will bring very heavy rain to lower elevations of California and some surrounding states. Areal flooding and flash flooding, including burn scar mud and debris flow, will be possible through Thursday. pic.twitter.com/QlKIoKDrSc

— NWS (@NWS) January 16, 2019

This could be the strongest storm of the year with torrential downpours triggering flash floods in the San Francisco Bay Area. 

Flood and high wind watches were posted for the Sacramento area, with NWS warning of widespread power outages, downed trees, and difficult driving conditions.

The storm is expected to bring blizzard conditions to the higher elevations of the Sierra Nevada through Thursday, with meteorologists predicting as much of five feet of snow in higher elevations and wind gusts of up to 100 mph on ridgetops.

Intense snow is also expected for the mountains in Northern California and north into the Cascades.

A week of storms has left officials worried about the potential danger for thousands of people living in foothill and canyon areas devastated by last year’s wildfires.

Rainfall records could be broken in areas such as San Jose and Riverside, where 1.42 inches and 1.37 inches of rain are expected, respectively, according to NWS.

The rain should subside by Thursday afternoon, said Bonnie Bartling, a weather specialist with the NWS in Oxnard.

“This one is going to be a little bit different,” Bartling said.

“We’re going to tap into subtropical moisture, which means we’re going to have some decent rainfall and gusty winds off and on.”

The same storm system is expected to hit the Midwest, Mid-Atlantic, and the North East later this week into the weekend, fueled by arctic air from a polar vortex.

“A strong storm has impacted California over the past few days, leading to nearly 2 inches of rainfall in Los Angeles and feet of snow across the Sierra Nevada.

This same system will traverse the United States through the weekend, bringing impactful along the I-80 and I-70 corridors Friday across the Mid-Continent, then deliver a major winter storm to portions of the Northeast. While specifics are still to be determined, the signal for a large, impactful storm along the East Coast is quite strong,” said Vallee Weather Consulting meteorologist Ed Valle.

People who live in the Mid-Atlantic and or the North East now is the time to prepare for the second round of winter weather that could rear its ugly head this weekend.

via RSS http://bit.ly/2AOykHu Tyler Durden

By Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com,

Best-selling author of “The Age of Anomaly,” economist Andrei Polgar, says the world is set up to be blindsided in the next financial disaster.

Polgar points out, “Right now, after so many years after the ‘Great Recession,’ not only are people comfortably unaware, but even worse yet, the entire idea of financial preparedness has been discredited…”

“I have noticed this because I have been on many shows promoting my book… People are not that interested in financial preparedness. A common element was always this: People have made predictions, and they didn’t pan out. Other analysts have made gloomy predictions, and they didn’t pan out. So now, the general public has essentially been numbed.

One of the big issues I talk about with my book is sustainable financial preparedness, and it’s a tough sell. It’s a tough sell because people are even worse than just ignorant in an uncomfortable way; they are downright dismissive with anything that has to do with financial preparedness. So, on top of all the problems with our economy, and on top of all the political issues you are well aware of, we also have this general state of not even apathy, even worse, contempt… of financial preparedness in general.”

Polgar says, “Market crashes are cyclical. Of course, we are going to have one, and I am not afraid of the idea of a market crash…”

“I am afraid of what happens when the chain is broken or, to put it differently, when the status quo no longer works….

Your readers comment about being comfortably ignorant. That makes perfect sense. People have in their mind, yeah, there is going to be a crash, but central banks and governments will have it all under control.”

Polgar predicts, “The next crash will be the worst the world has ever seen… because problems have kept accumulating.”

“Now, we have come to accept the unsustainable as status quo. We look at the GDP ratio of Japan that is over 200% and we say it’s all fine. We look at Italy with 130% debt to GDP and say it’s fine. We look at France, Belgium and the United States with debt to GDP at around 100%, and we say it’s fine…they’re going to do more of the same and hopefully that’s going to work. That’s what keeps me up at night. What happens when that chain breaks?…

If things are this bad right now when, for better or worse, nothing is burning, what do you think is going to happen when we are going to have to deal with all our problems,  when we have to deal with the unsustainable nature of our system? Things are already unbelievably bad here in Europe. We are buried under excessive bureaucracy. We have, for the most part, a pretty spoiled population, and this is true for other Western populations…

In Romania, at least we understand that sometimes systems fail, whereas in the Western world… way too many individuals are just getting by as it is. They are overly indebted. They are overly dependent on the system functioning flawlessly. If a small crack appears, then these people will not be able to cope with it.”

In closing, Polgar says, “The system will break from bottom to top…”

“As bad as things are in the Western world, I see much more pain initially in emerging markets…Developed countries like the United States will be the last to fall…

The baseline scenario I am afraid of is… having our usual market crash followed by a loss of confidence of central banks and governments to keep it under control. To simplify it, we will have deflation first followed by a loss of control that ultimately leads to an inflationary spiral.”

Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with economist Andrei Polgar, the best-selling author of “The Age of Anomaly.”

To Donate to USAWatchdog.com Click Here

You can find out about Andrei Polgar by going to his website AndreiPolgar.com. There you can buy his book from a variety of booksellers. You can also go to Polgar’s YouTube Channel and enjoy dozens and dozens of original economic videos for free.

via RSS http://bit.ly/2VYhVth Tyler Durden

In a shocking new development regarding Tuesday’s brazen terror attack on an upscale hotel in Kenya’s capital of Nairobi which left 15 dead as Somali-based al-Shabab militants stormed through the complex with automatic weapons, the lone American citizen identified among the dead was a 9/11 survivor. 

The victim, Jason Spindler, was confirmed by family members to have survived the terror attacks in New York City on Sept. 11, 2001. “It is with a heavy heart that I have to report that my brother Jason Spindler passed away this morning during a terror attack in Nairobi, Kenya. Jason was a survivor of 9-11 and a fighter. I am sure he gave them hell!”, his brother Jonathan posted on Facebook.

Described further as managing director of an investment firm that attempts to grow small businesses in emerging markets such as Africa, Jason Spindler was one of 15 killed after four gunmen from the al-Qaeda affiliate al-Shabab militia stormed a Riverside luxury hotel in a posh area of Nairobi.

Government troops and police responded in what ended up being a 20-hour siege and shootout between up to five terrorists and security forces.

The Kenyan president later announced the terrorists were killed, with two others thought to be involved under arrest after hideouts were raided. 

CCTV footage reveals faces of militants behind #RiversideAttack. #KenyaAttack #WeShallOvercome pic.twitter.com/ouYugp5s9v

— Nairobi News (@Nairobi_News) January 16, 2019

The Daily Beast, citing other reports, notes that on 9/11 Spindler had been working inside the World Trade Center’s Building 7 before it was evacuated and collapsed: 

The Daily Mail Online reports Spindler was working as an analyst in New York for the Salomon Brothers investment bank on 9/11 and escaped with his life from the World Trade Center’s Building 7, which was completely destroyed after the collapse of the North Tower.

Most of the American public to this day remains unfamiliar with the Building 7 collapse — which occurred at free fall speed — though it was never directly hit by an incoming plane, but suffered fire and debris damage as a result of the attacks on the neighboring Twin Towers, for which it’s remained subject of fierce controversy and speculation.

Spindler was the CEO of an investment firm, I-Dev International, which he founded and managed. Among the dead was also a British national, which was announced by the foreign office. 

Parts of Tuesday’s terror assault were captured on CCTV footage. The attack reportedly involved an initial suicide bombing in the hotel lobby, as well as explosions of three vehicles on the complex, before attackers dressed in paramilitary fatigues went on a shooting rampage in the area. 

Like the 2013 attack at the Westgate Mall which killed over 70 and wounded some 200 more, this terror event appeared aimed at wealthy Kenyans and foreigners.

via RSS http://bit.ly/2FvSx90 Tyler Durden

Authored by Ray McGovern via ConsortiumNews.com,

Was former FBI Director James Comey pulling a Hoover on Trump to keep him in line?

For those interested in evidence — or the lack of it— regarding collusion between Russia and the presidential campaign of Donald Trump, we can thank the usual Russia-gate promoters at The New York Times and CNN for inadvertently filling in some gaps in recent days.

Stooping to a new low, Friday’s Times headline screamed: “F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia.” The second paragraph noted that FBI agents “sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow’s influence.”

Trump had been calling for better relations with Russia during his presidential campaign. As journalist Michael Tracy tweeted on Sunday, the Times report made it “not a stretch to say: the FBI criminally investigating Trump on the basis of the ‘national security threat’ he allegedly poses, with the ‘threat’ being his perceived policy preferences re: Russia, could constitute literal criminalization of deviation from foreign policy consensus.”

On Monday night CNN talking heads, like former House Intelligence Committee chair Mike Rogers, were expressing wistful hope that the FBI had more tangible evidence than Trump’s public statements to justify such an investigation. Meanwhile, they would withhold judgment regarding the Bureau’s highly unusual step.

Evidence?

NYT readers had to get down to paragraph 9 to read: “No evidence has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly in contact with or took direction from Russian government officials.” Four paragraphs later, the Times’ writers noted that, “A vigorous debate has taken shape among former law enforcement officials … over whether FBI investigators overreacted.”

Brennan: “I don’t do evidence.” (White House photo)

That was what Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy was wondering when he grilled former CIA director John Brennan on May 23, 2017 on what evidence he had provided to the FBI to catalyze its investigation of Trump-Russia collusion.

Brennan replied: “I don’t do evidence.”

The best Brennan could do was repeat the substance of a clearly well-rehearsed statement: “I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign … that required further investigation by the Bureau to determine whether or not U.S. persons were actively conspiring, colluding with Russian officials.”

That was it.

CNN joined the piling on Monday, quoting former FBI General Counsel James Baker in closed-door Congressional testimony to the effect that FBI officials were weighing “whether Trump was acting at the behest of [the Russians] and somehow following directions, somehow executing their will.” The problem is CNN also noted that Lisa Page, counsel to then FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe, testified that there had been “indecision in the Bureau as to whether there was sufficient predication to open [the investigation].’ “Predication” is another word for evidence.

Within hours of Comey’s firing on May 9, 2017, Page’s boyfriend and a top FBI counterintelligence official, Peter Strzok texted her: “We need to open the case we’ve been waiting on now while Andy [McCabe] is acting [director].” After all, if Trump were bold enough, he could have appointed a new FBI director and who knew what might happen then. When Page appeared before Congress, she was reportedly asked what McCabe meant. She confirmed that his text was related to the Russia investigation into potential collusion.

Comey v. Trump Goes Back to Jan. 6, 2017

The Times and CNN, however unintentionally, have shed light on what ensued after Trump finally fired Comey. Apparently, it finally dawned on Trump that, on Jan. 6, 2017, Comey had treated him to thetime-honored initiation-rite-for-presidents-elect — with rubrics designed by former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.

It seems then-FBI Director James Comey rendered a good impersonation of Hoover that day when he briefed President-elect Trump on the scurrilous “Steele dossier” that the FBI had assembled on Trump. Excerpts from an interview Trump gave to the Times(below) after the firing throw light on what Trump says was at least part of his motivation to dump Comey.

To dramatize the sensitivity of the dossier, Comey asked then-National Intelligence Director James Clapper and the heads of the CIA and NSA to depart the room at the Trump Tower, leaving Comey alone with the President-elect. The Gang of Four had already briefed Trump on the evidence-impoverished “Intelligence Community Assessment.” That “assessment” alleged that Putin himself ordered his minions to help Trump win. The dossier had been leaked to the media, which withheld it butBuzzfeed published it on Jan. 10.?

‘This Russia Thing’

Evidently, it took Trump four months to fully realize he was being played, and that he couldn’t expect the “loyalty” he is said to have asked of Comey. So Trump fired Comey on May 9. Two days later hetold NBC’s Lester Holt:

“When I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.’”

Comey: Pulled a Hoover on Trump? (Carciature by DonkeyHotey)

The mainstream media and other Russia-gater aficionados immediately seized on “this Russian thing” as proof that Trump was trying to obstruct the investigation of alleged Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. However, in the Holt interview Trump appeared to be reflecting on Comey’s J. Edgar Hoover-style, one-on-one gambit alone in the room with Trump.

Would Comey really do a thing like that? Was the former FBI director protesting too much in his June 2017 testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee when he insisted he’d tried to make it clear to Trump that briefing him on the unverified but scurrilous information in the dossier wasn’t intended to be threatening. It tool a few months but it seems Trump figured out what he thought Comey was up to.

Trump to NYT: ‘Leverage’ (aka Blackmail)

In a long Oval Office interview with the Times on July 19, 2017, Trump said he thought Comey was trying to hold the dossier over his head.

“…Look what they did to me with Russia, and it was totally phony stuff. … the dossier … Now, that was totally made-up stuff,” Trump said. “I went there [to Moscow] for one day for the Miss Universe contest, I turned around, I went back. It was so disgraceful. It was so disgraceful.

“When he [James B. Comey] brought it [the dossier] to me, I said this is really made-up junk. I didn’t think about anything. I just thought about, man, this is such a phony deal. … I said, this is — honestly, it was so wrong, and they didn’t know I was just there for a very short period of time. It was so wrong, and I was with groups of people. It was so wrong that I really didn’t, I didn’t think about motive. I didn’t know what to think other than, this is really phony stuff.”

The dossier, paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign and compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, relates a tale of Trump allegedly cavorting with prostitutes, who supposedly urinated on each other before the same bed the Obamas had slept in at the Moscow Ritz-Carlton hotel. [On February 6, 2018, The Washington Post reported that that part of the dossier was written Cody Shearer, a long-time Clinton operative and passed it along to Steele. Shearer ignored a request for comment from Consortium News. [Shearer had been a Consortium advisory board member who was asked to resign and left the board.]

Trump told the Times: “I think [Comey] shared it so that I would — because the other three people [Clapper, Brennan, and Rogers] left, and he showed it to me. … So anyway, in my opinion, he shared it so that I would think he had it out there. … As leverage.

“Yeah, I think so. In retrospect. In retrospect. You know, when he wrote me the letter, he said, ‘You have every right to fire me,’ blah blah blah. Right? He said, ‘You have every right to fire me.’ I said, that’s a very strange — you know, over the years, I’ve hired a lot of people, I’ve fired a lot of people. Nobody has ever written me a letter back that you have every right to fire me.”

McGovern lays out more details during a 12-minute interview on Jan. 10 with Tyrel Ventura of “Watching the Hawks.”

via RSS http://bit.ly/2FEyAMH Tyler Durden