Category: zerohedge

Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

There are many signs of American collapse. One of the most scary is the fact that the American Civil Liberties Union no longer knows what are the civil liberties it purports to defend. Identity Politics has transformed civil rights into privileges for victim groups.

Yesterday (February 22, 2018) I received a 50-state survey from the ACLU. The envelope in which the questionnaire arrived said the survey was about how “to protect civil liberties during the Trump Presidency.” However, the survey (essentially a fundraiser) did not mention a single civil liberty contained in the Bill of Rights and added as amendments to the US Constitution.

Nothing about the sweeping away by the criminal Bush regime of habeas corpus with indefinite detention. No mention of the criminal Obama regime’s kill list, which swept away due process by executing US citizens on allegation alone without trial, evidence, and conviction. Nothing about the sweeping away by both criminal regimes of the prohibition against spying on citizens without warrants. No mention of the shutdown of free speech and protest or of the destruction of civil liberties by unaccountable police who brutalize, rob, and murder Americans at will.

In place of civil liberties, the ACLU has Identity Politics. The ACLU “civil rights” survey is concerned with the civil rights of illegal aliens, of women to have abortions and publicly financed birth control, the “fundamental rights of LGBT people,” and Muslim bans. The civil liberties listed in the Constitution do not qualify for concern; only invented rights that are not listed in the Bill of Rights.

The letter accompanying the questionnaire does mention the First Amendment and suppression of free speech “emanating from the White House.” I mean, really, the Bush and Obama regimes decimated free speech and imprisoned whistleblowers. Julian Assange has been imprisoned for years in the Ecuadoran embassy in London for publishing leaked material revealing criminal and deceitful behavior of the US government. By the time of Trump’s election, the First Amendment was a dead letter civil right.

In the ACLU’s Identity Politics, white people, especially white heterosexual males, have no rights. They are not protected by quotas, political correctness, or hate speech prohibitions. No one has to worry about offending a white by destroying statures of white males or church plaques commemorating George Washington and Robert E. Lee. Try destroying a stature of Martin Luther King. A white person can be called every name in the book, and is. White DNA is said to be an abomination. Anyone who said black DNA or homosexual DNA was an abomination would face hate crime charges.

Even men-hating white feminists jump on the anti-white bandwagon, denouncing white heterosexual–not homosexual–males as misogynist. The feminists reserve their hate for the men attracted to women.

War is the greatest destroyer of civil liberty. Indefinite detention, execution without due process, spying without warrants, suppression of the First Amendment are all consequences of the use of 9/11 to put the US on a war basis. The replacement of civil liberty with a police state is said to be necessary in order to protect us from Muslim terrorists, expanded to include undefined “domestic extremists.” Currently the US is being put on an even greater war basis with Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and even Venezuela declared as threats to America.

The ACLU shares responsibility for the explosion of the threat level from al Qaeda to every country that “threatens” America by having its own independent foreign policy and insisting on its sovereignty. It was Trump who said he was going to normalize relations with Russia, and it was the ACLU and the entirety of the liberal/progressive/left who jumped on the anti-Trump bandwagon and went after him with the orchestrated conspiracy of Russiagate. What the liberal/progressive/left did was to drive Trump into the arms of the military/security complex.

Clearly, the liberal/progressive/left and the ACLU are a greater menace to the Bill of Rights than Donald Trump.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2EQx231 Tyler Durden

Only a few weeks ago, we pointed out a remarkable development in the US mortgage market that has significant implications not only for mortgage borrowers, but perhaps the broader economy as a whole: Wells Fargo, formerly America’s foremost mortgage lender, had seen its share of the market eclipsed by Quicken Loans – the Detroit-based, nonbank lending behemoth that pioneered applying for mortgages on the Internet with its now-famous Rocket Mortgage (readers will remember RM’s celebrity-packed SuperBowl spot).

Many factors (aside from Wells’ own criminality, which recently drew a strong, but ultimately meaningless, rebuke from the Fed) have contributed to this shift, as Bloomberg points out.

But as it turns out, the rising dominance of nonbank lenders like Quicken could portend a massive, bad-debt fueled binge reminiscent of the circumstances that led up to the housing crisis. That is to say, a wave of bad debt could create a cascading wave of defaults with repercussions far beyond the housing market.

Considering all the restrictions that Dodd-Frank and other post-crisis regulations slapped on mortgage lenders, one might wonder how this might be possible.

Of course, as Bloomberg explains, instead of making the market safer, regulators are inadvertently enabling the rise of lenders like Quicken who aren’t bound by many of the rules that restrict banks’ mortgage-lending practices. As a result, Quicken Loans is effectively free from many of the regulations that have forced some of the biggest mortgage lenders into a period of retrenchment…

Make no mistake, regulators have done plenty to rein in the mortgage business since the 2000s. New rules require that lenders carefully assess borrowers’ ability to pay, and that mortgage servicers — which process payments and manage other relations with borrowers — give troubled customers plenty of opportunity to renegotiate their debts before resorting to foreclosure. The Federal Reserve performs regular stress tests to ensure that banks have enough capital to weather defaults.

Problem is, the requirements have weighed most heavily on traditional, deposit-taking banks. The added hand-holding required in mortgage servicing, for example, has roughly quadrupled the cost of handling delinquent loans, turning them into major loss-makers. Together with stringent capital requirements, this has all but guaranteed that banks will lend only to people with the most pristine credit. In some cases, they have given up the business entirely: Late last year, Capital One announced it was exiting mortgage origination because it was “structurally disadvantaged.”

Because they’re not FDIC-backed, the shadow (aka “nonbank”) mortgage lenders have much more latitude to approve mortgages to borrowers with lower credit scores. This is a huge advantage in a market where supply is limited, which has helped squeeze home prices to their highest levels on record – surpassing even the pre-crisis peak from June 2006.

As we’ve pointed out many times  (but most recently last month), with home prices in 80% of US cities growing twice as fast as wages, American working- and middle-class families are finding it increasingly difficult to support their families – let alone afford a home.

Just the other day, we highlighted the cognitive dissonance between data showing US household debt of about $13.15 trillion, of which nearly $1 trillion is the credit card debt alone. Households, it seems, are truly on a dangerous debt binge. Yet, as the economists keep telling us, the US economy has almost never been in better shape…

…Of course, the reality is that the economy looks just peachy if you’re a wealthy individual who owns lots of financial securities…

…This has accounted for the bulk of assets gained during the recovery, as the hart above illustrates…

Meanwhile, nonbank lenders are happily courting these already debt-burdened borrowers by signing the up for mortgages with higher interest rates, even though many banks – who will now only deal with borrowers with the most pristine records – won’t touch these customers. This has caused the average FICO score for loan originations at these lenders to fall precipitously, as Bloomberg adds.

The non-banks’ growth has been breathtaking. At the end of 2016, such unaffiliated mortgage companies accounted for more than 40 percent of new conventional mortgages (those eligible for sale to government-controlled guarantors Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), twice the share they accounted for just eight years earlier. They’re also responsible for a decline in credit standards: The average FICO score at origination stood at 730 at the end of 2017, down from 750 five years earlier. For loans guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration — an area where the non-banks’ share is greatest — the average FICO score has fallen to 680.

And the shift has been even more extreme among companies that provide mortgage-servicing…

The shift has been even more extreme in mortgage servicing. Non-banks now service about 51 percent of all loans packaged into new Freddie Mac securities, according to mortgage analytics firm Recursion Co. That’s more than double the share of just five years ago. For securitized FHA loans, the share stands at a staggering 83 percent. Again, banks are leaving the business: Last year, CitiMortgage announced it would exit by the end of this year, transferring the servicing rights for about 780,000 mortgages.

Quicken Loans and its ilk might argue that their gains are a result of their cutting-edge technology (offering mortgages over the Internet?, the banks say. Why didn’t we think of that!). But this simply isn’t true.

What accounts for the non-banks’ appetite? They might argue that their processes and technologies give them greater confidence in their underwriting. But one can’t ignore the reality that, thanks to relative lax regulation, they also have less at stake. By operating with less capital, they can reap very large returns in good times. In bad times, however, they might not have the capacity to withstand losses or deal with the servicing burden created by widespread delinquencies. As a result, a large swathe of the country’s lending and servicing system could implode when the next crisis hits.

The only sensible solution, Bloomberg posits, would be to level the playing field by adopting additional regulations specifically aimed at these non-bank lenders. But this, too, would come with risks that could potentially harm consumers…

The only solution is to level the regulatory playing field between the banks and the non-banks. This means raising capital requirements for the latter, and subjecting them to stress tests. Difficult as this might sound, the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation actually created an institution tailor-made to handle such systemic issues: the Financial Stability Oversight Council. The council should put non-bank mortgage lenders at the top of its agenda this year.

Of course, given what looks like a market peak, this might not be such a bad thing…

* * *

Another factor enabling this expansion is the continued dominance of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. All together, Fannie and Freddie guarantee some $4 trillion in residential mortgages, accounting for some 40% of the US market. And as we pointed out late last year, the hope that the two mortgage giants – which were nationalized during the crisis following a $187 billion taxpayer bailout – could be wound down under federal oversight has all but vanished.

Today, Senators on both sides of the aisle have concluded that they are too big and too risky to replace. Proposed legislation in 2018 will see them maintain their position as the beating heart of the US mortgage industry, rather than replacing them, like the Senate tried and failed to do four years ago.

Once again, government regulations – that were intended to protect consumers – are instead creating the unintended consequence of making consumers increasingly vulnerable to the same types of predatory lending practices the regulations were initially designed to stamp out.

Make sense?

We didn’t think so…

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2CJTODS Tyler Durden

Authored by Sheldon Richman via AntiWar.com,

The whole election-meddling distraction is remarkable in both comic and tragic ways. The tragedy can be summed up in three words: New Cold War. At a time when the U.S. and Russian governments ought to be working toward nuclear disarmament, relations are deteriorating dangerously. As the estimable Australian writer Caitlin Johnstone, notes, despite Donald Trump’s campaign promise of détente with Russia,

This administration has already killed Russians in Syria, greatly escalated nuclear tensions with Russia, allowed the sale of arms to Ukraine (a move Obama refused for fear of angering Moscow), established a permanent military presence in Syria with the goal of effecting regime change, forced RT and Sputnik to register as foreign agents, expanded NATO with the addition of Montenegro, assigned Russia hawk Kurt Volker as special representative to Ukraine, shut down a Russian consulate in San Francisco and expelled Russian diplomats as part of continued back-and-forth hostile diplomatic exchanges.

We are already at an extremely dangerous point in the ongoing trend of continuous escalations with a country that is armed with thousands of nuclear warheads. [Johnstone’s links.]

Would Trump have done these things without the pressure of Russiagate? I don’t know, but Russiagate hasn’t helped. And what more would Hillary Clinton have done by this point? Johnstone argues that Russiagate is all about putting Russia in its place and securing the American ruling elite’s geopolitical and economic interests — not about getting Trump:

America’s unelected power establishment doesn’t care about impeaching Trump, it cares about hobbling Russia in order to prevent the rise of a potential rival superpower in its ally China. All this lunacy makes perfect sense when you realize this. The US deep state is using the hysterical cult of anti-Trumpism to manufacture support for increasing escalations with Russia, and the anti-Trumpists are playing right along under the delusion that pushing for moves against Russia will hurt Trump.

Of course, removing Trump from office would be a cherry on top. If the drivers of Russiagate can’t have that, at least they can leave the impression that Hillary Clinton would be president today were it not for the diabolically cunning Vladimir Putin and the inherently depraved Russia in cahoots with their tool, Donald Trump. (Putin’s opponents in Russia are irritated that Americans portray Putin as virtually omnipotent.) Russiagate promoters in the Democratic Party deny they intend to right the wrong of 2016, but I don’t believe them. Surely they are trying to delegitimate the election on the grounds that Trump and Putin stole it from its rightful owner. (For the record, I think all elections are illegitimate but not because of foreign involvement.)

The anti-Russia campaign has certainly gone well beyond overboard. Former Director of National Intelligence James (Yeah, I lied. What you gonna do about?) Clapper, on “Meet the Press,” said the Russians “are “typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique.” (Beg your pardon, I linked to RT. Here’s an American site for anyone concerned about having RT in their browser history.) Johnstone points out that Clapper has said such things before, including: “But as far as our being intimate allies, trusting buds with the Russians that is just not going to happen. It is in their genes to be opposed, diametrically opposed to the United States and to Western democracies.” As I recall, former CIA Director John Brennan said something similar.

On the comic side, Russiagate is a new theater of the absurd, featuring Americans running around with their hair on fire over alleged official Russian actions that amount to nothing significant: it was an act of war — another Pearl Harbor — no wait, another 9/11!

Let’s assume – purely for the sake of discussion since no evidence has been made public — that the Russians did it. Note, first, that the “it” looks like the product of the gang that couldn’t shoot straight. I’m not going to do what Johnstone, Glenn Greenwald, Aaron Maté, and the late Robert Parry have done so well so many times, namely, catalog all the inane acts the Putin-guided Russian intel agencies are said to have committed in order to bring down America. (Start here.) Suffice it to say that if that’s the best Putin can come up with, we have little to worry about. Of course, the very inanity of this so-called campaign to destroy America — the ridiculous discrepancy between means and alleged end, the sheer clownish ineptitude — furnishes sufficient grounds for skepticism, at least, about the Russiagate narrative. (See David Stockman’s explanation of the ineptitude. SPOILER ALERT: It wasn’t a Russian Intel operation. The man who we are to believe sought to subvert America’s democracy is a freelance pro-Putin Russian food-industry oligarch employing a bunch of minimum-wage keyboard jockeys who didn’t pay attention to the United States until the 2014 U.S.-sponsored coup in Ukraine, i.e., before there was a Trump campaign.)

Another comic aspect is the national arrogance of it all. How dare anyone interfere with our election! What’s so funny is that some people who express such outrage really have no idea how many times the US government has interfered in other countries’ elections (including Russia’s), not to mention far worse things, like perpetrating assassinations, coups, and invasions. (See Stephen Kinzer’s Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq. This sordid history is summarized here.)

Americans generally do not know the nefarious things “their” government has done over many, many years. This is partly due to what Bryan Caplan in The Myth of the Rational Voter calls “rational irrationalism.” Americans embrace a nationalism that is impervious to facts. Even vivid accounts of the systematic wholesale slaughter of the Indians wouldn’t shake it. People generally don’t like to venture outside their comfort zones to shake up their worldview, and even if they did so, what would change? Each person has only one vote, and the chance that one vote will make a difference is close to zero. So why not indulge one’s nationalist biases? It’s not as though there’s an opportunity cost to doing so.

On the other hand, politicians and pundits do have some idea of America’s long record of intervening in other countries. (Maybe I’m being too charitable.) What’s their excuse for being so offended by even the possibility of meddling in an U.S. election? One explanation is the “exceptional nation” dogma of the American creed, or what I call the American chosen-people complex. Even secular American nationalists believe America has been anointed — by history if not by a deity — to lead the world. (This goes back to the founding generation, by the way. It’s no post-World War II phenomenon. See America’s Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited.)

Thus, we have a moral inequivalence on our hands. It’s okay if we do it to “them” (whoever), but it’s not okay if “they” do it to us. Moreover, we can do it to ourselves, but if anyone else tries it, there’ll be hell to pay.

Any way you look at it, Russiagate is ridiculous. Of course it serves some people’s interests. But it harms the rest of us, most of all by bringing us closer to conflict with Russia, perhaps even to nuclear war.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2GGCiCE Tyler Durden

Given that the trend has only accelerated in recent years, we’ve report time and time again (and again) on the declining participation rate of healthy, working-aged men (typically defined as those aged 25 to 54).

The labor force participation rate for prime-age men (age 25 to 54) has declined dramatically in the US since the 1960s. But in recent years, the declines have intensified. In 1996, 4.6 million prime-age men did not participate in the labor force. By 2016, this number had risen to 7.1 million.

As the paper’s author wrote in the excerpt: “Better understanding these men and the personal situations preventing them from working may be crucial in evaluating whether they are likely to return to the labor force.”

And in a perhaps more shocking finding, it’s likely that many of these men will never return to the workforce due to a phenomenon called “job polarization”…

In addition, I argue that “job polarization,” a phenomenon that describes declining demand for middle-skill workers in response to advancements in technology and globalization, has been a key contributor to the increase in nonparticipation among prime-age men. I show that if job polarization had not changed the composition of jobs in the labor market in the past two decades, 1.9 million more men would likely be employed in 2016, representing a 3.6 percent increase in overall employment of prime-age men. However, the effects of job polarization are unlikely to unwind any time soon—survey evidence suggests nonparticipating prime-age men are unlikely to return to the labor force if current conditions hold.

But by taking a closer look at this trend, the researchers at the Kansas City Fed discovered that the numbers more or less line up with a trend that politicians have been lamenting for decades: The hollowing out of the American middle class. Indeed, the study discovered that, over the past two decades, unemployment gains were highest for men in the middle education group – those with a high school degree or some college.

…While the nonparticipation rates rose for all education groups over the past two decades…

 

…the largest increase was for those in the middle-education groups, who had only a high school degree, some college, or an associate’s degree…

 

Indeed, that trend can also be seen in comparisons between the education levels of participating and nonparticipating men…

…Meanwhile, within the prime working age group, older men tended to see the highest rates of participation, presumably as disruption has left many men stranded mid- or late-career without any usable skills to help them attain a position comparable to their old job…

Here’s a more complete breakdown by education group below:

Read the report in its entirety:

1q18tuzemen by Anonymous JJ6eerL on Scribd

 

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2EPyiDq Tyler Durden

Three weeks ago, news broke that Dan Och was stepping down as CEO of the once iconic Och-Ziff hedge fund (which as of January 1 managed $32BN in AUM), following internal turmoil in the form of a growing feud between founder Daniel Och and former superstar trader Jimmy Levin. As we noted at the time, it was unclear what future Levin, currently co-CIO at Och Ziff would have at the company as part of the executive fallout.

We now know the answer: according to Bloomberg, Levin, 34, who was passed over for the hedge fund’s top job in December and who netted the firm over $2 billion in 2012, will remain at the fund, and get restricted stock worth $35.6 million as of Friday’s close, as well as a guaranteed annual bonus of $7.5 million under his new job contract.

As disclosed in the company’s 10-K, Levin’s employment agreement entitles him to receive 1.1% to 1.5% of the gross profit of some of the firm’s funds, subject to a $7.5 million minimum guarantee, most of which will be paid in cash. In addition to receiving restricted stock, he’ll give up large chunks of previously awarded equity units, Bloomberg notes.

Och-Ziff Chief Financial Officer Alesia Haas said last week that Levin’s new contract would link his compensation more closely to fund performance to reflect his responsibilities as co-CIO. Returns at the hedge fund firm strengthened last year, with the flagship OZ Master Fund gaining 10.4 percent — the most since 2013 — and the OZ Credit Opportunities Fund jumping 11 percent.

As previously reported, Levin who  “in the late 1990s, was working at a summer camp in Wisconsin, teaching Mr. Och’s son how to water ski” was promoted to co-CIO in February last year, a move many saw as his promotion to heir apparent of Dan Och.

As part of the promotion, he got 39 million shares tied to stock return, outlining an effort by the firm to prop up its share price, which has plunged more than 92% since its 2007 initial public offering. The award would have been worth almost $200 million if all goals were met.

However, as the WSJ detailed last month, outgoing CEO Dan Och told investors in December that Levin wouldn’t succeed him.

Over Christmas weekend, Och-Ziff rushed out a letter to investors revealing that the 57-year-old Mr. Och had changed his mind, overruling others in the process. “After extensive discussion with the board of directors, including the company’s independent directors, who support transitioning to Jimmy in the near future, it was the conclusion of Dan Och …that now is not the right time to transition to Jimmy.”

Mr. Och himself has never publicly addressed why he soured on Mr. Levin and reasserted control at the big firm. Interviews with more than a dozen people close to the situation at Och-Ziff suggest that many inside the firm, including board members and Mr. Levin, were shocked by the shift. People familiar with Mr. Och’s thinking say he felt Mr. Levin pushed too far, too fast, asking for more money and control than he was due.

“A level of distrust” had developed between the two executives, says a person close to the matter.

In January, the firm said Robert Shafir, the former chairman of the Americas at Credit Suisse Group AG, would take the CEO job Feb. 5 and receive a $60 million pay package. Part of the award would be linked to the fund’s stock price performance.

While for many a $7.5 million guarantee is unheard of, for Levin – who was named global head of credit in 2013 – it represents a big step down from his prior arrangement. In 2013, Levin, then 30 years old, was rewarded with a $119 million payday for his big, and successful, bet on RMBS.

Last February, when relations between the two traders were better, Och shocked Wall Street by elevating Levin, the star of the firm’s credit business, to co-chief investment officer and handing him an incentive package of $280 million. 

“It’s the kind of crazy pay you don’t hear about in the industry much these days” Bloomberg reported at the time. As part of the deal, Och agreed to surrender around $100 million of his own stock to Levin, meaning Mr. Levin’s raise essentially came out of Och’s pocket.

Inside the firm, some seethed. Outside, they sneered; the move smelled a bit of desperation. Five months later, that remains the burning question: Is this a Hail-Mary stab by Och to win back his seat of dominance in the hedge-fund universe or a stroke of genius?

One year later, even as the internal “seething” has died down, the question remains – with Och relinquishing control of the hedge fund he built, and almost destroyed, is keeping Levin – a trader who made it to the top largely thanks to a concurrent bond bull market – still a desperation “Hail Mary” by the company?

Today, Och-Ziff, still one of the world’s largest hedge funds, manages just over $30 billion, down from almost $50 billion in 2005 as a result of the fund’s performance and legal woes, and its shares closed at $2.66 on Friday. To be sure, Levin’s challenge is great.

… to reverse the merciless bleeding of assets — and defections of personnel — triggered by Och-Ziff’s misconduct in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Libya and other African countries. If Levin makes it happen, it’ll be because he’s successful in his push to remake Och-Ziff, a firm long dominated by equity trades, into something of a fixed-income shop. The firm now has half of its $32 billion in assets tied to credit, including dedicated funds that have cropped up in just the past few years.

“We certainly weren’t known as a credit shop when I first met with clients,” Levin said recently from an Och-Ziff conference room overlooking Central Park, recalling when he was a twenty-something on the road trying to convince investors to part with their money. “Those early meetings weren’t the easiest in the world.”

Well, if he fails at least he will at least have some guaranteed “pocket change” to fall back on, because for a man who has made hundreds of millions at the fund he joined in 2006, that’s precisely what $7.5 million represents. That, and of course, a forced vacation: Levin has a two-year noncompete clause in his contract precluding him from going to a new firm.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2ow5Tao Tyler Durden

Via MiddleEastMonitor.com,

The South African government is intending to cut diplomatic ties with Israel in protest of its treatment of the Palestinian people, the country’s Science and Technology Minister Naledi Pandor announced yesterday.

Pandor informed parliamentarians of the government’s resolution during a ten-hour joint debate on South African President Cyril Ramaphosa’s State of the Nation Address (SONA) that he delivered last week.

“The majority party has agreed, that government must cut diplomatic ties with Israel, given the absence of genuine initiatives by Israel to secure lasting peace and a viable two-state solution that includes full freedom and democracy for the Palestinian people,” she said.

The comments were made in response to opposition leader Kenneth Meshoe, who had argued that it was disappointing that national and provincial authorities in South Africa had refused help from Israeli companies to address the country’s current water crisis.

However, the proposal was applauded by parliamentarians and Pandor, who is expected to be appointed vice president in Ramaphosa’s new Cabinet, was given a standing ovation as she left the podium.

The government’s decision was further confirmed on the South African Parliament’s official Twitter account.

#Pandor: The majority party has resolved that government must cut diplomatic ties with Israel #SONADebate

— Parliament of RSA (@ParliamentofRSA) February 19, 2018

South Africa has been a staunch ally of the Palestinian struggle and regularly spoken out against the atrocities committed by the Israeli government.

Last month, the South African representative to the UN told the Human Rights Council that Israel is the “only state in the world that can be described as an apartheid state”, just days after the ruling African National Congress (ANC) party called for government ministers to strengthen the country’s visa restrictions with Israel.

Last year, the government also resolved  to downgrade the South African Embassy in Israel to a liaison office, and cautioned Tel Aviv for blacklisting supporters of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which included prominent figures of the ANC.

The BDS South Africa campaign has witnessed significant support from the nation’s public, with universities and churches backing a cultural and economic boycott of Israel affiliated organisations.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2Fs5ptW Tyler Durden

Following President Trump’s block (due to sources and methods needing to be redacted), and Rep Adam Schiff’s admission that the Democratic Party memo (rebuttal of the GOP memo) also needed to be redacted further, House Intelligence Committee Democrats have released their memo countering the GOP document that alleged surveillance abuses in the Justice Department and FBI. 

Key counterarguments are as follows:

1. The Steele Dossier was not the catalyst for launching the Trump-Russia probe

2. The rationale for surveilling Carter Page was carefully weighed.

3. The Nunes memo used classified information selectively and included distortions and misrepresentations  

4.  Papadopoulos’ role as the original catalyst for the Trump-Russia investigation outlined.

5. DOJ’s FISA application was carefully vetted and wasn’t used to spy on Trump or his campaign 

6.  Steele’s information about Page’s contacts with Kremlin insiders like Sechin was consistent with Papadopoulos information

As The Hill reports, the Democratic memo, which can be viewed in its entirety below, claims to “correct the record” on what the Democrats say is a “transparent effort to undermine” the FBI and Justice Department, as well as the Russia investigations, on the part of the committee’s GOP members.

The White House has releases a statement that President Trump supported the release of the memo.

Full Democratic Rebuttal Memo below:

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2F5y9eA Tyler Durden

Heading into the weekend, the Italian government massively stepped up security across the country in anticipation of demonstrations by anti-fascist and far-right groups, ahead of the general election on March 04. Italians will go to the polls next Sunday, in an election that could rebalance the political environment or send shockwaves through the European Union.

According to CNBC, here are the three leading candidates dominating the race:

• Silvio Berlusconi, former prime minister and head of Forza Italia.

• Matteo Renzi, the embattled leader of the center-left Democratic Party (PD) and former prime minister who quit the post in 2016 after a referendum on constitutional reform failed.

• Luigi Di Maio, the anti-establishment 5 Star Movement’s (M5S) leader.

Last night in Pisa, Italy, anti-fascist protestors formed a counter-demonstration against Lega leader Matteo Salvini, who was speaking at the center of town. Anti-fascist groups threw glass bottles and rocks and attacked police officers as they tried to silence Salvini, a leading anti-EU political figure, before next week’s elections.

Italy, #Pisa #antifa protest against the visit of Lega far-right leader Salvini LIVE STREAM https://t.co/Wzad5gmsVg

— Professor Cuz (@ProfessorCuz) February 23, 2018

Insane video of Anti-fascist activists fighting with police last night in Pisa

Soros puppets meet Italian police.. pic.twitter.com/6k0uiiLCw6

— Voice of Europe (@V_of_Europe) February 23, 2018

In the early hours of Saturday morning, riots have erupted on the streets as police and protesters have clashed in Pisa and Milan with massive marches expected in Rome later in the day, said the Daily Express.

Rome : la manifestation anti-fasciste arrive sur la place du peuple #Italie pic.twitter.com/BWPTWb0p5r

— François Beaudonnet (@beaudonnet) February 24, 2018

Former Italian prime minister Matteo Renzi is expected to visit an anti-fascist protest hosted by the Democratic Party in Rome. Preliminary reports indicate more than 20,000 people are expected to protest in just one march by the National Association of Italian Partisans (ANPI) and ’Mai piu fascismo’ (Fascism Never Again). There will also be three other protests planned in the Italian capital later in the day.

Police commissioner Guido Marino told the Daily Express: “We have two objectives – guarantee a high standard of counter-terrorism prevention and prevent violent groups from infiltrating the marches with negative consequences for order and security.”

Protestors from the National Association of Italian Partisans (ANPI) are currently underway in Rome…

Italy – A day of #antifascist agitation to protest against openly #fascist parties spreading their message of fear and intolerance.
The #Partisans Association #ANPI in #Rome right now. (Ph. @marimande2)#24febbraio #MaiPiuFascismi #Maipiurazzismi pic.twitter.com/ommWZtXVGj

— ANPI Brescia (@AnpiBrescia) February 24, 2018

Demonstrators from ’Mai piu fascismo’ (Fascism Never Again) are lining up for a rally in the heart of Rome.

Rome anti fascist march pic.twitter.com/z9F5vDx3T7

— mike cooper (@cooparia) February 24, 2018

“At the call of the left, thousands of people parade against fascism in Rome, in the rain but in good humour #AFP,” said one Twitter blogger.

A l’appel de la gauche, des milliers de personnes défilent contre le fascisme à Rome, sous la pluie mais dans la bonne humeur #AFP pic.twitter.com/XaHQPDa2sJ

— Fanny Carrier (@fannycarrier) February 24, 2018

“MFJ in #Rome on #siCobas March for immigrant & workers rights-against #razzismo& #Fascismo #24febbraio Open the borders of Italy and Europe! Organize community proletarian defense against the fascists led by workers/gold immigrants, young and young! Solidarity!,” one activist said.

MFJ in #Rome on #siCobas march for immigrant & Workers rights – against #razzismo & #Fascismo #24febbraio
Aprire le frontiere d’Italia e d’ Europa! Organizzare difesa proletaria comunitaria contro i fascisti guidata da lavoratrici/ori immigrati, giovani e giovani! SOLIDARITY! pic.twitter.com/LvG7kxzQeb

— Movement for Justice (@followMFJ) February 24, 2018

“Anti-fascist protests have kicked off outside Termini station in Rome!,” alerted one twitter user.

Anti-fascist protests have kicked off outside Termini station in Rome! pic.twitter.com/cwyV6YKdKD

— Kat Sanders (@AnatomyKat) February 24, 2018

The Daily Express provides the economic and social backdrop in why Italy’s political environment is in chaos:

The bleak economic forecast and growing immigration concerns have resulted in toxic election campaigns for the upcoming vote amid fears of a revival of neo-fascist sentiment.

 

Tensions have risen across Italy ahead of the elections as right-wing Lega Nord Matteo Salvini has pledged large scale deportation of refugees.

 

He vowed to deport 500,000 migrants within five years if his party wins the election – including 100,000 in the first year.

 

Polls suggest the conservative coalition made up of former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia (Go Italy!) and its far-right allies will win the most parliamentary seats, but probably will fall short of an outright majority.

 

In that case, President Sergio Mattarella could ask a centre-right figure to try to form a government, or he could turn to Luigi Di Maio, leader of the anti-establishment 5-Star Movement, which looks set to become Italy’s largest party.

 

Before a poll blackout came into force on Saturday, 5-Star was polling at around 28 percent, ahead of the ruling PD on 23 percent and Forza Italia on 16 percent.

Maxime Sbaihi, a Euro-Area economist for Bloomberg said (Feb 19), “Italy’s general election, aka the euro-area’s top political event of 2018. Our composite poll tracker shows @Mov5Stelle and @pdnetwork, the 2 poll leaders, drifting further apart.”

Italy’s Nationalism verse Popularism explained in one chart:

And perhaps it is this chart more than others that has the market getting nervous.

As Tom Luongo details, we are in the quiet period before the Italian elections.  No public opinion polls are published in the last two weeks of an election cycle per Italian law. Consequently, there is a bit of a news lockout on the subject.

These are the most important elections in Europe this year – laying aside the possibility of a German re-vote – and the amount of coverage it is getting is disturbingly scant.  Articles like this bit of pablum from Bloomberg is what passes for analysis, purporting to tell you “What You Need to Know about Italy’s March 4^th Elections”

Even as the specter of populist revolt recedes elsewhere in Europe, Italy’s anti-establishment, Euroskeptic Five Star Movement is seeking a breakthrough.

That’s a lie.  And a bald-faced one at that.  There hasn’t been one election in Europe in the past two years where populism hasn’t been a major and rising factor.  The fact that Italy’s President dissolved parliament early and moved elections up from May to March 4^th is proof they are scared of the trend.

Because the trend is against them.  Five Star Movement or M5S continues to rise in the polls and another two months would put them in a position to put a government together.

The writers of this article push a lie that M5S is uninterested in forming a coalition government.  The rules for this election were changed to allow the parties to fight as coalitions to freeze out M5S from ruling, even if they win the most votes.

The last polls taken had the Northern League tied at 15% with Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia.  These two are campaigning together.  And the intention, clearly expressed by the Bloomberg writers, is to create a ‘grand coalition’ a la Germany, which no one in Italy wants except the political elites who back further integration with the European Union.

Bond Posturing

These are the real stakes in the Italian elections next week. And despite the gaslighting of the Bloombergs and worse, the Los Angeles Times, trying to tell everyone that M5S has no chance at winning, traders in the sovereign bond pits aren’t buying it.

Since the beginning of December European bond yields across the board have been rising.  The chart below is the magnitude of the rise in yields for Germany, France, Portugal and Italy.

Note how for most of February yields have been rangebound, treading water.  This is most likely the European Central Bank in there buying up supply to keep yields from rising despite the steady march higher of yields in the U.S.

Italy’s debt, however, is in free fall.  In the past five trading days Italian 10-year debt has risen a whopping 20 basis points. Rising yields equals lower bond prices and the bond vigilantes are calling the bluff of the media and the ECB by selling Italian debt with impunity.  They are rightly scared that the polling numbers are far worse than what we’ve seen at this point.

Italy’s 10-year debt is now trading well above recent high at 2.10% (see chart below).  More importantly this week’s price action broke a long-running trend of lower highs and lower lows in yields, indicative of a bullish market.

Now, it’s hard for that market to not be bullish when the ECB is the only marginal buyer of Italian debt and heretofore, traders bet on that behavior continuing in perpetuity, front-running the ECB’s buying.

But, rising yields means that the net volume of selling across the spectrum of European sovereign debt is more than the ECB is willing or allowed to buy.  So, what’s happening is the ECB is managing the rate of the rise in sovereign bond yields and that is clear in the chart above.

What is also clear is that it is losing control of the Italian bond markets.

Coalition Party Bingo

So, what’s next?  While new polls will not be published between now and the election, polls are being taken.  Someone has seen them.  And, by inference, the Italian bond market is telling us that those numbers are either far worse than we’ve been led to believe at this point or some traders are simply nervous.

I believe it’s the former, otherwise yields wouldn’t have pushed through 2.1% to the upside.  If the Northern League and M5S can pull off something close to a clear majority together that would be a big blow to Brussels’ plans to control coalition talks.

Moreover, if this last bit of news about M5S candidates standing for specific seats gaining ground is accurate then the renegade party will have a much stronger hand to play as it will pick up more seats than poll watchers were anticipating.

The natural alliance here is the Northern League and M5S.  Berlusconi, I feel, has been acting as a stalking horse for the established political powers to freeze M5S out of coalition talks and hand a weak “cartel” government to Brussels for upcoming debt relief and banking reform talks.

NL leader Matteo Salvini has wrapped himself fully in the populist flag, echoing Donald Trump.  One of the few things the Bloomberg article linked above gets right is all of the parties backing off from a referendum on the euro.

For now that is off the table to get votes but Salvini and his M5S counterpart Luigi Di Maio both know that Italy’s path to prosperity lies through either a massive write-down of its sovereign debt, something German voters are clearly not in favor of (and are becoming moreso every day) or leaving the euro and depreciating it away.

Given the rate at which rates are rising that is moving that timetable up considerably.  And with no government in Germany yet that creates a lot of uncertainty for investors, who rightly, are beginning to panic that those in charge really aren’t.

A firming dollar and U.S. equity markets would also imply that we’re seeing capital begin a panic move out of Europe in case the populists win.

In any case, the markets will tell us what’s really happening even if the politicians and the media won’t.

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2sU2EPH Tyler Durden

As we dig further into the monumental breakdown in protocol between the FBI and Florida officials which could have prevented 17 deaths in the Valentines Day massacre at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida – Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) revealed on Friday that the FBI never contacted Google – which owns YouTube, after it was reported that suspect Nikolas Cruz, under his own name, said “I’m going to be a professional school shooter” in a YouTube video comment last September.

When the uploader of the video, Ben Bennight, contacted the FBI shortly after Cruz left the comment, officials spoke with him for 20 minutes, after which there was no follow up until the same agent or agents came to his home on Wednesday. 

In a press conference late last week, Special Agent Robert Lansky who is in charge of the Miami FBI division said that the FBI received the tip, however they were “unable to further identify” the person who made the comment, despite conducting “database reviews” and “checks.”

“No other information was included with that comment, which would indicate a time, location or the true identity of the person who made the comment,” Lasky said. “The FBI conducted database reviews, checks, but was unable to further identify the person who actually made the comment.”

What they didn’t do is contact Google – which would have been able to help confirm Cruz’s identity. Cruz’s IP address, for example, would have allowed the FBI to at minimum know what town the comment came from – narrowing the list of suspects to everyone named “Nikolas Cruz” in the region.

Had they simply followed up, the FBI would have also discovered from Florida’s state social services agency that Cruz intended to buy a gun, or that he had been cutting his arms on snapchat. 

FBI investigators could have then called the Broward County Sheriff’s department and found out about the 23 times deputies responded to Cruz’s home over a seven year period for emergencies including a “mentally ill person, ” “child/elderly abuse”, “domestic disturbance,” and “missing person.” 

The last call received by Broward County Sheriff’s office on November 30, was a warning a caller who warned that  Cruz is collecting guns and knives. Concerned he will kill himself one day and believes he could be a school shooter in the making.”

To top things off, a young woman close to Cruz warned the FBI she was concerned he would “get into a school and just shoot the place up,” according to a leaked transcript of her call to the bureau’s tip line one month before the massacre.

You know, its just so much, said the caller. I know heshes going to explode. The woman said she was making the call because she wanted a clear conscience if he takes off and, and just starts shooting places up, according to the transcripts which were reviewed by the Wall Street Journal. 

Two different people specifically told authorities from two different agencies that Cruz might shoot up a school. 

And despite all of that, the survivors of the Valentine’s Day massacre are being paraded around on national television as puppets for gun control – demonizing gun owners and the NRA. 

Instead of blaming guns, perhaps the cumulative angst of Parkland survivors should be directed towards the monumental failures by the FBI, the Broward County Sheriff’s office – whose officers refused to enter the active shooting at the school, and the Florida state social services agency that concluded Cruz did not pose a threat. 

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2HKQfRA Tyler Durden

New revelations have surfaced in a drug scandal case festering at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, involving a criminal ring of about ten midshipmen, according to Fox News.

The United States Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) was briefed on the illegal activity three months ago when a fellow midshipman contacted authorities about a rogue group of midshipmen selling drugs on campus.

Current reports estimate ten midshipmen were part of the elaborate scheme to supply midshipmen throughout the Naval Academy with powerful drugs including cocaine, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), and Ketamine. Fox News specifies the criminal ring used Bitcoins to purchase the drugs on the dark web then distributed the product throughout campus.

Sources from within the academy tell Fox News that roughly two-dozen midshipmen are under investigation. No formal or pending charges have been brought against any midshipmen as the investigation expands.

Second in command of the school, Capt. Robert B. Chadwick II conducted a surprise drug test for all 4,500 midshipmen at 5:30 a.m. Wednesday morning. Sources tell Fox News that drug tests are only given at the company level with about 150 midshipmen at a time. Chadwick’s response demonstrates that America’s most prestigious military academy has a massive drug problem.

Several midshipmen informed Fox News that the investigation is situated around 23rd company of about 150 midshipmen. The midshipmen who provided Fox News spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not permitted to talk with the media.

Fox News has obtained the names of the midshipmen who have tested positive for drugs but says the names will be withheld as the investigation is ongoing.

Since charges have not been brought against any of the suspected midshipmen, Fox News is withholding the names of those implicated. Two are prior enlisted midshipmen who had spent time in the fleet before gaining appointment to the Naval Academy, which educates and trains young men and women to become officers in the Navy or Marine Corps. One of the midshipmen tested positive on a drug test in early January after returning from Christmas break, adding more urgency to the investigation, according to one midshipman.

Chadwick recently addressed the brigade at lunch, telling them that while the investigation is ongoing, there would be no more discussion about it, according to several midshipmen present that day.

“The Naval Academy and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service recently initiated a command-assisted investigation in Annapolis after receiving a midshipman report of alleged recreational drug use within the Brigade,” Cmdr. David Mckinney, a Naval Academy spokesman, told Fox News.

“[T]he results of the investigation are still pending. We are continuing to work with NCIS on these reported allegations. The Navy has a zero tolerance for drug abuse and takes all allegations of misconduct very seriously,” he added.

Between 2010 and 2011, the Annapolis Capital reported, “NCIS conducted an 11-month investigation into the use of synthetic marijuana, or spice, by midshipmen. That investigation ended the careers of at least 27 midshipmen.” Naval officials have confirmed from 2010 through 2017, seven midshipmen were expelled for drugs.

Drugs in the United States Naval Academy should make you furious. It threatens our national security because it lowers the readiness of our midshipmen to become efficient officers. Drugs undermine the authority and strict order that fuels military efficiency. And of course, drugs damage the health of the men and women who are protecting this country. As drugs flourish throughout the military, are we witnessing another crack in the American empire?

via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/2EQR0qb Tyler Durden