Democrats Chase Red Herring Of ‘Russia-Gate’

Authored by Norman Solomon via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

President Trump has caused many prominent progressives to degrade their own political discourse. It’s up to us to challenge the corrosive effects of routine hyperbole and outright demagoguery.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)

Consider the rhetoric from one of the most promising new House members, Democrat Jamie Raskin, at a rally near the Washington Monument over the weekend. Reading from a prepared text, Raskin warmed up by declaring that “Donald Trump is the hoax perpetrated on the Americans by the Russians.”

Soon the congressman named such varied countries as Hungary, the Philippines, Syria and Venezuela, and immediately proclaimed: “All the despots, dictators and kleptocrats have found each other, and Vladimir Putin is the ringleader of the unfree world.”

Later, asked about factual errors in his speech, Raskin floundered during a filmed interview with The Real News.

What is now boilerplate Democratic Party bombast about Russia has little to do with confirmed facts and much to do with partisan talking points.

The same day that Raskin spoke, the progressive former Labor Secretary Robert Reich featured at the top of his website an article he’d written with the headline “The Art of the Trump-Putin Deal.” The piece had striking similarities to what progressives have detested over the years when coming from right-wing commentators and witch-hunters. The timeworn technique was dual track, in effect: I can’t prove it’s true, but let’s proceed as though it is.

The lead of Reich’s piece was clever. Way too clever: “Say you’re Vladimir Putin, and you did a deal with Trump last year. I’m not suggesting there was any such deal, mind you. But if you are Putin and you did do a deal, what did Trump agree to do?” From there, Reich’s piece was off to the conjectural races.

Propaganda Techniques

Progressives routinely deplore such propaganda techniques from right-wingers, not only because the Left is being targeted but also because we seek a political culture based on facts and fairness rather than innuendos and smears. It’s painful now to see numerous progressives engaging in hollow propaganda.

CIA seal in lobby of the spy agency’s headquarters. (U.S. government photo)

Likewise, it’s sad to see so much eagerness to trust in the absolute credibility of institutions like the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency — institutions that previously earned wise distrust. Over the last few decades, millions of Americans have gained keen awareness of the power of media manipulation and deception by the U.S. foreign-policy establishment. Yet now, faced with an ascendant extreme right wing, some progressives have yielded to the temptation of blaming our political predicament more on a foreign “enemy” than on powerful corporate forces at home.

The over-the-top scapegoating of Russia serves many purposes for the military-industrial complex, Republican neocons, and kindred “liberal interventionist” Democrats. Along the way, the blame-Russia-first rhetoric is of enormous help to the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party — a huge diversion lest its elitism and entwinement with corporate power come under greater scrutiny and stronger challenge from the grassroots.

In this context, the inducements and encouragements to buy into an extreme anti-Russia frenzy have become pervasive. A remarkable number of people claim certainty about hacking and even “collusion” — events that they cannot, at this time, truly be certain about. In part that’s because of deceptive claims endlessly repeated by Democratic politicians and news media.

One example is the rote and highly misleading claim that “17 U.S. intelligence agencies” reached the same conclusion about Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee — a claim that journalist Robert Parry effectively debunked in an article last week.

What Americans Want

During a recent appearance on CNN, former Ohio State Senator Nina Turner offered a badly needed perspective on the subject of Russia’s alleged intrusion into the U.S. election. People in Flint, Michigan, “wouldn’t ask you about Russia and Jared Kushner,” she said. “They want to know how they’re gonna get some clean water and why 8,000 people are about to lose their homes.”

White House adviser Jared Kushner, who is also President Trump’s son-in-law

Turner noted that “we definitely have to deal with” allegations of Russian interference in the election, “it’s on the minds of American people, but if you want to know what people in Ohio — they want to know about jobs, they want to know about their children.” As for Russia, she said, “We are preoccupied with this, it’s not that this is not important, but every day Americans are being left behind because it’s Russia, Russia, Russia.”

Like corporate CEOs whose vision extends only to the next quarter or two, many Democratic politicians have been willing to inject their toxic discourse into the body politic on the theory that it will be politically profitable in the next election or two. But even on its own terms, the approach is apt to fail. Most Americans are far more worried about their economic futures than about the Kremlin. A party that makes itself more known as anti-Russian than pro-working-people has a problematic future.

Today, 15 years after George W. Bush’s “axis of evil” oratory set the stage for ongoing military carnage, politicians who traffic in unhinged rhetoric like “Putin is the ringleader of the unfree world” are helping to fuel the warfare state — and, in the process, increasing the chances of direct military conflict between the United States and Russia that could go nuclear and destroy us all.

But such concerns can seem like abstractions compared to possibly winning some short-term political gains. That’s the difference between leadership and demagoguery.

via http://ift.tt/2rcnwvv Tyler Durden

Questioning Government Is What Makes You An American

Authored by Rachel Blevins via TheAntiMedia.org,

Questioning your government does not make you Un-American.

It shouldn’t be a hard concept to understand, but based on a lot of the messages and the comments I have received this week, it sounds like some of y’all need a little help…

The United States was founded on the principle that citizens should have free speech, and they should be able to question their government. Yet today, we live in a country where if you use your First Amendment rights in a way that people don’t like, they tell you that if you don’t like what is going on, you should leave the country.

Seriously? This is what it has come to? You just have to take everything you’re fed, and then thank your masters, because at least you’re a slave in the best country in the world?

It amazes me that even at a time when our shiny new Republican president is doing exactly what his Democratic opponent would have done, we still have a public that is brainwashed into believing there is actually a difference between the two parties.

I have been accused of being both a leftist liberal snowflake, and a right-wing conspiracy theorist, and I am often asked where I stand politically, and what party I align with. The answer is always, none of the above.

I believe that the government should be as small as possible, and it’s not my job to tell you which master should rule over you, or how you should live your life. As long as you’re not harming anyone, I believe you should be able to do what you want—it’s your life.

I believe that mass surveillance is unacceptable, and that citizens should turn to their communities when they need help, instead of waiting for government handouts.

I believe that both police officers and politicians should be held accountable for their actions.

In a world filled with problems, I believe that we should take care of our own issues before pointing the finger at others.

I believe that overthrowing governments in sovereign nations is wrong, war should be avoided at all costs, and absolutely nothing justifies killing innocent civilians.

Most importantly, I believe that questioning authority is what truly makes you patriotic—not the other way around.

via http://ift.tt/2rHvaBz Tyler Durden

Visualizing The Global Demographic Timebomb

With record-high amounts of student debt, questionable job prospects, and too much avocado toast in their bellies, many millennials already feel like they are getting the short end of the stick.

But, as Visual Capitalist's Jeff Desjardins notes, there’s another economic headwind they face as they are coming of age: the percentage of the global population that is 65 or older will double from 10% to 20% by 2050.

As millennials enter their peak earning years, there will be 1.6 billion elderly people on the planet.

SOMEONE HAS TO PAY THE BILL

Today’s infographic comes to us from Aperion Care, and it highlights how demographics are shifting as well as the economic challenges of a rapidly aging global population.

Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

With an older population that works less, support and dependency ratios get out of whack.

After all, countries already spend trillions of dollars each year on healthcare and social security. These systems were designed a long time ago, and were not setup to work with so few people paying into the programs.

WHICH COUNTRIES FACE HEADWINDS?

While most countries face similar obstacles with aging populations, for some the problem is more severe.

The Potential Support Ratio (PSR), a measure of amount of working people (15-64) for each person over 65+ in age, is anticipated to fall below 5.0 in countries like Japan, Italy, Germany, Canada, France, and the United Kingdom. These countries will all have significant portions of their populations (>30%) made up of elderly people by 2050.

The United States sits in a slightly better situation with 27.9% of its population expected to hit 65 or higher by the same year – however, this is still analogous to modern-day Germany (which sits at 27.6%), a country that is already dealing with big demographic issues.

Here’s one other look, from our previous Chart of the Week on dropping fertility rates and global aging:

Will millennials be able to diffuse the demographic timebomb, or will an aging population be the final straw?

via http://ift.tt/2sJ6vuN Tyler Durden

What Do “Think Tanks” Think About?

Authored by Bonner & Co.'s Bill Bonner, annotated by Acting-Man's Pater Tenebrarum,

“Russiagate”

First, there is a dust-up in the Washington, D.C., area. “Russiagate,” it is called. As near as we can make out, some people think the Trump team had or has illegal or inappropriate contacts with the Russian government.

 

It’s all very obvious, if one looks closely…  Putin has inundated the brains of US voters with his evil Putin rays from his redoubt in Moscow, causing them to make the wrong choice.

 

This knowledge, such as it is, has apparently been obtained by illegal or inappropriate leaks of information gotten by illegal or inappropriate eavesdropping by government agencies doing illegal or inappropriate things for illegal or inappropriate reasons.

Does it matter one way or another? Probably not. The insiders are firmly in control no matter which way it turns out. What we have here is a fight among insiders – a scrap over who gets to rip us off and how.

Mr. Trump has proven to be flexible and compliant. He is willing to go along with practically every scam and bamboozle in the Deep State repertoire. But much of the establishment finds him unreliable, embarrassing, and vulnerable.

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

In Saudi Arabia, for example, the president delivered the big bucks to Raytheon and other arms merchants. But then he stiffed the “alternative energy” industry by rejecting the Paris climate change agreement. Both moves, he claimed, would lead to “jobs, jobs, jobs.”  Trump:

“I have just returned from a trip overseas where we concluded nearly $350 billion of military and economic development for the United States, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. It was a very, very successful trip, believe me.”

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer:

“The visit also included historic economic development deals for the United States, totaling well over half a trillion dollars and the creation of tens of thousands of American jobs.”

 

First he engages in professional sword dancing and then he single-handedly makes the sea levels rise… is there anything he cannot do?

 

The Saudi feds have money. They get it by selling oil to people who need it to power their factories, fuel their cars, and heat their houses. The money comes out of the productive, win-win economy.

Every penny of this money gets applied to something. They can use it to buy tanks and fighter jets. Or they can buy tomatoes or make movies. Big arms deals get the headlines, but do they create more jobs other than spending?

Does money spent by the feds ever create more wealth and satisfaction than money spent by the people who earned it?

The answer to both those questions is “no.” We know that only win-win deals add real wealth. Government arms deals are not win-win.

“But wait,” you say. “They might buy their tomatoes from anywhere… but we’ve got the high-tech killing machines. When they buy from Raytheon, they put Americans to work.”

Hmmm… Somewhere, someone looks at the Big Scheme of Things. He must wonder: Why is it better for an American to have a good job than, say, a Canadian? He must also wonder: Why is it better to pay people to build a tank than to build a truck?

 

All Downhill

Fighter jets are bought by the government – with money it took, by force, from its citizens. Most often, military spending serves no purpose other than to protect or enhance the power of the government. Only rarely does it pay to build a tank.

The last time American civilians were targeted by a conventional military attack was when Sherman’s Yankee army marched through Georgia – more than 150 years ago.

 

Sherman’s march to the sea –  Sherman didn’t like railroad tracks, so he ordered his troops to remove them and tie them around trees (these tree ornaments became known as “Sherman’s necklaces”).

Like government itself, a little bit of “defense” spending may be necessary, but it fast reaches the point of declining marginal utility. Then, it is all downhill. The money is either wasted or used to create a bloodbath.

In the Middle East, it’s been going downhill for many decades; the odds that these weapons will be put to any honest service – such as preventing an attack on Saudi Arabia – are close to zero.

 

Drunken Bards

Weapons and warfare are favorite Deep State scams; they are ways to transfer wealth and power from the people who earn it to governments and their crony military suppliers.

And here, we draw a line – from “The Donald’s” trip to the Middle East… to a think tank called the Center for Gulf Affairs at the Middle East Institute… to the Raytheon corporation.

 

It always was and always will be the by far biggest racket of all time…

 

Reports Just Security, an online forum for national security issues:

“In March of this year, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee invited former ambassador Gerald Feierstein – director of the Center for Gulf Affairs at the Middle East Institute – to speak about the situation in Yemen and about his views on the sale of U.S. arms to the Saudis.

 

As one might have anticipated from his interview in the Washington Post, Feierstein told the committee, “Accusations of war crimes leveled against Saudi and Coalition armed forces and threats to end arms sales to the Saudis have the potential to inflict long-lasting damage to these relationships.” Limiting the supply of munitions, he said, would be “counter-productive” […]

 

Never disclosed in the Washington Post interview or in the Senate hearing was the source of funding for Feierstein’s Middle East Institute. According to its most recent public report, the Institute counts among its chief donors leading members of the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen and major arms manufacturers.

 

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait provide the highest level of support as “Platinum Sponsors,” and the UAE [United Arab Emirates] is also a donor. Raytheon, the manufacturer of the very weapons at issue in the Senate hearing, is a Gold Sponsor of the Institute. It is worth noting, of course, that the Middle East Institute is not unique in Washington. The defense industry and foreign governments pump money into many think tanks.”

(emphasis added)

What do think tanks think about? Whatever they are paid to think about, of course. Like drunken bards, they sing praises to whomever will buy them a drink.

 

Post war rumors making the rounds.

 

via http://ift.tt/2t0jNlP Tyler Durden

Tucker Talks Tentacle Porn After Kurt Eichenwald Caught Red Handed

Oh boy…

Senior writer for Newsweek, contributing editor for Vanity Fair, and MSNBC contributor Kurt Eichenwald was caught red handed Wednesday night after posting a screenshot to Twitter which happened to include several open tabs in his browser…

Users on 4chan noticed the tabs immediately and ENHANCED

And what did that lead to? Why – Japanese tentacle porn (Hentai)!

Kurt’s response

“I was looking up tentacle porn with my kid in order to prove to my wife it exists…”

LOL!

Even if true, looking up tentacle porn with your adult child is beyond creepy.

Tucker’s on the case…

Tucker Carlson, who presided over Eichenwald’s “self immolation” last december as a guest of Tucker Carlson Tonight, couldn’t resist covering the latest in the saga of Kurt Eichenwald.

“Well of course! Just another afternoon of surfing the internet for hardcore porn with your kids!” -Tucker

VIDEO HERE (sorry for quality, will update):

Reactions have been hilarious



via http://ift.tt/2s2pVg1 ZeroPointNow

Morgan Stanley Warns Of “Unprecedented Buyer’s Strike” In Autos; Slashes Car Sales Forecast

Morgan Stanley’s auto team, led by analyst Adam Jonas, seems to be convinced that the auto trade is officially over prompting him to slash over 11 million units from his North American SAAR forecast over the next 4 years.  Jonas attributes his controversial call to the fact that OEMs have been so aggressive in implementing policies designed to pull forward sales (e.g. longer loan terms, higher loan mix to subprime borrowers, etc.) that they’ve actually started to pressure used car prices to the point that they’re cannibalizing new sales.

We had held to a ‘higher-for-longer’ thesis on the assumption that the OEMs could keep pulling forward demand from the future… For several years, we have expressed our concern over the sustainability of used car values and powerful forces that could drive a multiyear cyclical decline, impairing the ability for consumers to transact and the willingness of financial institutions to lend as aggressively as in the past. Up to this point, we had believed that competitive forces, particularly the ability of the captive finance subs to find new ways to lower the monthly payment and put ‘money on the hood’, would help extend the US auto volume cycle a few more years to new heights.

 

8 years into the biggest auto cycle on record, we appear to be hitting a point of diminishing returns where the tactics required to attract the incremental consumer may be putting even more pressure on the second hand market, leading to adverse conditions for selling new vehicles…

 

As such, for the first time this cycle, we are directly incorporating our views of used car value erosion into our US light vehicle sales forecasts, resulting in substantial SAAR reductions of several million units per annum through 2020.

So just how bad does MS see new car sales getting?  In aggregate, they cut 11.3 million units out of their 4-year forecast and slashed their 2019 estimate by 4.2 million units, or 22%.

Our cuts for the out-years are more substantial. Our 2018 US SAAR forecast is cut to 16.4 from 18.9mm, implying a further 7% decline from 2017 to 2018. Our 2019 and 2020 forecasts are cut to 15.0mm units both years units from 19.2mm and 18.7mm respectively. This pace of sales is equal to levels last seen in 2013. In our view, to maintain a 15mm SAAR and no worse we may need to see government support for new car purchases in the form of an incentive program similar to ‘Cash for Clunkers’.

 

The cuts to our 2019/2020 forecasts are driven by our extensive work over potential used car price erosion due to technological obsolescence at a time when the powertrain (from ICE to EV) and driving policy (from human to automated) is changing in an unprecedented way. In the US, roughly 9 out of 10 new car purchases involve a trade-in or off-lease vehicle making used values a consumer’s currency. Our more recent work on the ‘Osborne Effect’ explores the potential for a buyers’ strike whereby consumers delay purchases to wait for an significantly improved product just a few years away.

 

And while shifting consumer patterns and technology upgrades will always have an impact on the timing of large-ticket purchases, Morgan Stanley’s prediction that used car prices will crash up to 50%, over the next several years, was the primary reason behind their call.

 

Of course, such a catastrophe in the used car market will only serve to exacerbate the minor issue that negative equity in America’s passenger rolling stock is currently at an all time high.  And, since Americans don’t really like to save cash, that puts a real damper on their primary source of a down payments: trade-in values.

 

That said, ridiculously high inventory levels….

 

…and soaring off-lease volumes probably won’t help new car sales and/or prices either.

 

Meanwhile, lending standards probably can’t get all that much worse…

 

…which means that the industry is pretty much capped out in terms of sales that can be pulled forward.

 

Welcome to the other side of the “plateau.”

Plat

via http://ift.tt/2t0BcdY Tyler Durden

Which Colleges Give You The Best Value For Your Money

You won’t find Evergreen State College on this list.

The Federal government’s decision to throw student loan dollars at any American with a pulse – while simultaneously offering to forgive that debt upon graduation – has driven college enrollment rates to record highs.

But as surging costs have rained the return on invested capital of a liberal arts degree, students who plan on leaving their safe spaces (basements) and venturing out into the working world after graduation might want to prioritize maximizing value.

To that end, Forbes and the Center for College Affordability and Productivity have devised a formula to determine which colleges and universities provide students with the best overall return. And they've broken down their findings by state.

Their formula involves five criteria: The quality of the education (35%, based on Forbes’ Top College Rankings), the dropout risk (15%, as reported by the Intergrad Postsecondary Education Data System), the graduation success (15%, also IPEDS), post graduate earnings (25% mid-career, based on data from PayScale and the DOE College Scoreboard), and a measure of the school brand’s value-add as calculated by the Brookings Institution. The Brookings data measure the difference between actual alumni outcomes (like salaries) and the outcomes one would expect given a student’s characteristics and the type of degree.

Here's a list of the schools included in the graphic:

Duke University, Durham NC ($47,243)

Yale University, New Haven CT ($45,800)

Rice University, Houston TX ($40,566)

Cornell University, Ithaca NY ($47,286)

Dartmouth College, Hanover NH ($48,108)

The University of Virginia, Charlottesville VA ($13,208)

Georgetown University, Washington DC ($46,744)

Brown University, Providence RI ($47,434)

Vanderbilt University, Nashville TN ($43,838)

The University of Chicago, Chicago IL ($49,380) 29. Haverford College, Haverford PA ($47,214)

The University of Washington, Seattle WA ($12,394)

The University of Maryland, College Park MD ($9,427)

The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI ($13,486)

Emory University, Atlanta GA ($45,008)

The University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame IN ($46,237)

Middlebury College, Middlebury VT ($46,044)

Bowdoin College, Brunswick ME ($46,808)

Washington University, St. Louis MO ($46,467)

Carleton College, Northfield MN ($47,736)

Grinnell College, Grinnell IA ($45,620)

The University of Wisconsin, Madison WI ($10,410)

Kenyon College, Gambier OH ($47,330)

Clemson University, Clemson SC ($13,446)

The University of Delaware, Newark DE ($12,342)

The University of Colorado, Boulder CO ($10,789)

Creighton University, Omaha NE ($35,360)

University of Portland, Portland OR ($40,424)

The University of Oklahoma, Norman OK ($9,495)

Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge LA ($8,750)

New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro NM ($6,256)

The University of Arizona, Tucson AZ ($10,957)

Auburn University, Auburn AL ($10,200)

The University of Wyoming, Laramie WY ($4,646)

The University of Kansas, Lawrence KS ($10,448) 259. Berea College, Berea KY ($24,270)

Brigham Young University-Idaho, Rexburg, ID ($3,950)

The University of Arkansas, Little Rock AR ($8,210)

via http://ift.tt/2s28dt4 Tyler Durden

Tucker Carlson Lays Waste to Comey’s Testimony and Democrat Attempt to Unseat the President

Content originally published at iBankCoin.com

 

There will come a day when the city square will be packed with gibbets filled with swinging heads of traitorous bastard commies — most readily found in leftshit cities. The degeneracy must end. Today’s testimony by Comey was a farce, a transparent attempt by a spent and bitter bureaucrat trying to hurt a sitting President.

Everything about Comey is wrong. The fact that he felt the need to ‘take notes’ because the President asked for loyalty is fucking absurd. What sort of example did he make for fellow G men when he referred to his dealings with his commander in chief as being ‘slightly cowardly’? The whole thing is rot, helping to fuel a bogus investigation spearheaded by a broken democratic party who have lost their fucking mind.

Tucker chimes in and reviews the day’s events, pointing out the hypocrisy of Comey and his dealings with AG Lynch, who asked for Comey to word the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email scandal as a ‘matter.’ If that’s not collusion and political pressure on the FBI, nothing is.

He also touched upon the mercenary media’s fake news about Trump, provided by bad sources, which was confirmed by Comey today.

via http://ift.tt/2t0kEmD The_Real_Fly

Gun Control Groups Are Losing The Battle Against Suppressors

Authored by Duane Norman via Free Market Shooter blog,

Back in March, the NRA detailed how WaPo‘s very own “fact check” had to rebut the claims from Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) that a firearm “silencer” makes a weapon “quiet”:

In the meantime, although the popular name of this accessory is a silencer, foes of the law such as Gillibrand should not use misleading terms such as “quiet” to describe the sound made by a high-powered weapon with a suppressor attached. We wavered between Two and Three Pinocchios, but finally tipped to Three. There is little that’s quiet about a firearm with a silencer, unless one also thinks a jackhammer is quiet.

However, as PA Gun Blog pointed out, gun control groups (in conjunction with the MSM) went on a Memorial Day weekend push to demonize suppressors in the eyes of voters.  As the NRA also pointed out, WaPo’s editorial board went against its own “fact check”, and in the absence of facts, chose to editorialize against firearm suppressors instead:

And it is the general public upon whose behalf Congress is supposed to legislate, not the tens of millions who participate in shooting sports. Even a marginal increase in risk to the population cannot be justified, unless the harms to the minority from current policy are very severe and there are no means to reduce them other than the proposed legislation.

Nowhere in their article did they mention any increased risk to Americans from suppressors, and chose to use a flimsy opinion to back up its own already established factsThe NRA used WaPo’s own facts in conjunction with CNN’s to destroy their editorial narrative:

Effective how, exactly? Well, according to the Post, “Silencers are almost never used in murders and other crimes under the current restrictive law, but certainly they would be used in more crimes if there were more of them in circulation.”

 

But in fact suppressor use in crime hasn’t perceptibly increased at all, even as the number of suppressors legally owned in America has nearly doubled in the last three years (the Post itself put the current number at “about 900,000,” while CNN reported it was 571,750 in March 2014). Figure in the mountain of unprocessed applications, as ATF struggles with a months-long backlog, and the actual number legally in circulation would already be considerably higher.

 

And if the HPA were to become law, retail sales of suppressors would still have to be processed by federally licensed dealers, with the buyer undergoing a background check and filling out the associated paperwork that would allow for tracing of the device if it were recovered at the scene of a crime.

Sebastian of PA Gun Blog sums this one up nicely…

I’m happy to see that gun people in the comments are coming armed with facts and shooting down every argument opponents make. It strikes me that they don’t really have any good arguments against the Hearing Protection Act.

…because our favorite Monsanto lobbyist turned “stay-at-home mom” for gun control Shannon Watts presented absolutely no facts when The Hill prompted her to over memorial day weekend, instead editorializing a similar emotional plea to WaPo’s:

“It’s all semantics,” said Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.

 

“Focusing on the name distracts people from the real conversation,” Watts said. “They did the same thing with the debate over whether to use the term ‘assault rifles’ or ‘semiautomatic rifles,’ and then the whole conversation shifted to ‘What are we going to call these things?’”

No surprise there; in failing to use facts to support a suppressor ban, she forgot how The New York Times, one of the most anti-gun liberal MSM publications of all, very publicly rebutted the “assault weapons” she cited for The Hill, referring to the entire term as a “myth”:

But in the 10 years since the previous ban lapsed, even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference.

 

It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do.

In fact, even with a coordinated push from many mainstream media outlets to get out the gun control crowd’s word, just as many are realizing the weakness of their argument.  The Hill, the very same outlet that gave the gun control crowd one of its memorial day voices, previously allowed pro-gun champion John Lott to publish an opinion piece (which actually read far more as “demonstration of facts” than opinion) on the gun control lobby’s repeated misuse of statistics:

The tally of 969 deaths is the result of triple and even quadruple counting. Michigan — by far the worst state according to VPC numbers — supposedly suffered 78 homicides and 390 suicides. Supposedly, Michigan was the site of over 40 percent of all deaths attributed to permit holders.

 

The main problem is that pending cases are counted in the same way as convictions. The Michigan State Police report the number of pending cases and convictions each year.

 

In any case, permit holders committed suicide at just 38 percent of the rate of the adult Michigan population as a whole.

 

Concealed handgun permit holders are also much more law-abiding than the rest of the population.

 

In fact, they are convicted at an even lower rate than police officers. According to a study in Police Quarterly, police committed an average of 703 crimes (113 firearms violations) annually from 2005-2007.

 

This is likely to be an underestimate since some news reports may have been missed and not all police crimes receive media coverage.

As is the problem with concealed carry reciprocity, it remains to be seen if there are enough votes in the Senate to overcome the 60-vote threshold to advance legislation legalizing firearm suppressors.  That is likely the reason we haven’t seen the legislation advanced to a vote, but Republicans could be delaying a vote until next year’s midterm elections, in the hopes of putting Democrats in vulnerable districts in the difficult position of voting against their own constituents.

As The New York Times stated, handguns are used in most murders; of the approximately eight thousand firearm murders annually, over two thirds are confirmed to have been committed with a handgun, with less than 8% being confirmed as being committed with a rifle, shotgun, or other type of weapon.  This is due to handgun concealability, which makes them popular among criminals.

Most suppressors nearly double the length of average handguns, and render them difficult if not impossible to conceal.  How many criminals do you think would voluntarily attach a suppressor to their handgun just to reduce the sound by a small fraction, leaving the firearm still as loud as a jackhammer?

The fact is, gun control’s coordinated media blitzes and less-than-factual pleas for more regulations are no longer working.  Gun control relies on emotion instead of reason, and one billionaire throwing money at gun control groups to fund their existence is not going to change the fact that the “silencer” is a creation of Hollywood movies, and it will take more than a repeal of ridiculous restrictions on suppressors to get the gun control crowd wound up. 

If only there was a guy like Obama around to get the media behind the gun control cause.  Oh wait

via http://ift.tt/2s2b1GN Tyler Durden

“Historic” Chinese Yield Curve Inversion Flashes Recession

A month ago, China 5s10s curve inverted for the first time ever, flashing warning signs of an imminent recession (but technical, liquidity factors were offered as excuses for this shift in the belly of the curve). The curve then double-inverted (with 3s10s inverting) seemingly confirming fundamental fears. And now, China's yield curve is inverted from 1Y to 10Y for the second time in history.

China's $1.7 trillion government-bond market is turning curiouser and curiouser

The yield on China’s one-year government bond climbs 6 basis points to 3.66%, rising above the 10-year yield of 3.65%, ChinaBond data show. 

This is only the second time that the yield curve has inverted in data going back to 2006, with the first coming during a record cash crunch in June 2013.

As The Wall Street Journal recently wrote, such a “yield-curve inversion” defies normal market logic that bonds requiring a longer commitment should compensate investors with a higher return. It usually reflects investor pessimism about a country’s long-term growth and inflation prospects.

Perplexed traders and analysts offered up many excuses…

“Many of us are scratching our heads for an explanation because this kind of curve inversion is absolutely not normal,” said Wang Ming, a partner at Shanghai Yaozhi Asset Management Co., a bond fund that manages 2 billion yuan ($289.66 million) in assets.

 

“The inversion is a form of mispricing in the bond market,” said Liu Dongliang, senior analyst at China Merchants Bank . “The fact that no one is taking the bargain despite the higher yield on the five-year bond just shows how depressed investors’ mood is.”

 

“It’s really difficult to predict when the selloff or such anomalies will end because China’s bond market is reacting to the regulatory crackdown only and is no longer reflecting economic fundamentals,” said China Merchants Bank’s Mr. Liu.

But of course, the reality is – without massive and continued credit creation, there are very large questions about just how 'dynamic' Chinese growth could be and while technical flows are certainly part of the reasoning for short-end yields rising, the question is, why wouldn't the rest of the world pile in to 'reach for yield'… unless the fundamentals really did have them worried?

The nature of the inversion (higher yields, higher funding costs, and leverage pressure) is starting to reflexively impact the real economy (and hence the chances of dramatically lower growth/recession), as The FT reports Chinese corporate bond financing hit a record low in May, as a market rout discouraged new issuance while a wave of previously issued notes came due.

The combination of tight liquidity and a regulatory crackdown on leveraged investment in bonds has hammered China’s debt market in recent months.

Net corporate bond financing — new issuances less maturities — totalled negative Rmb217bn ($31bn) in May, well below the previous record low of negative Rmb89bn in February, according to data from Wind Information.

 

A “regulatory windstorm” led by China’s ambitious new banking regulator, Guo Shuqing, has targeted banks’ use of borrowed money to invest in bonds. The People’s Bank of China has also drained liquidity from the money market, making it more expensive for banks to borrow from each other to fund bond purchases.

 

“Banks’ demand for bonds has drastically reduced. The shock has been pretty large,” said Xu Hanfei, chief fixed-income analyst at China Merchants Securities in Shanghai. “Pressure has spread from the liabilities side to the asset side,” he said, referring to the impact of higher funding costs on demand for bonds.

 

“In the context of the increasing financing difficulty for bonds and non-standard (shadow bank) products, issuers of low quality are more severely impacted, and the corresponding credit risks tend to increase,” Haitong chief economist at Jiang Chao wrote this week.

Investors are also nervous about rising credit risk.

According to a survey of investors by Haitong Securities, only 5 per cent of bond investors are “optimistic” about low-rated corporate bonds. Companies cancelled or postponed 400 planned bond sales worth Rmb390bnbn in the year to May, up from Rmb286bn in cancellations a year earlier, according to Wind data.

But apart from that, we are sure everything is fine in the world's biggest/second-biggest economy.

via http://ift.tt/2t0tyjT Tyler Durden