Category: zerohedge

A 41-year-old woman who assaulted a man wearing a “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) hat last Monday inside a Massachussetts Mexican Restaurant was arrested Tuesday morning by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. 

Police say 41-year-old Rosiane Santos knocked the MAGA hat off the head of 23-year-old Bryton Turner as she was walking past him, only to return and verbally confront him. 

“The minute I walked in and sat down, the woman [Santos] said something to me, she said, ‘What does your hat say, what does your hat say,’ and I showed her, ” Turner said on the Howie Carr Show on Friday.

“She goes, ‘Why would you wear that here?’,” he said. “And I said, it’s America and I can wear this hat wherever I want.”

Turner said Santos told the bartender to poison his drink. –Howie Carr Show

According to the Howie Carr Show, police officers arrived on the scene after the bartender called 911 and arrested Santos after she refused to leave the restaurant. After they ran her fingerprints and sent them to ICE, they discovered she is in the country illegally after overstaying a 1994 tourist visa. 

“While [Santos] is presently no longer in ICE custody, she was arrested by ICE ERO earlier today, she has been provided with a Notice to Appear that has been filed on her and she has been entered into removal proceedings before federal immigration court,” said an ICE official. 

 

In another story of national tolerance, an 81-year-old man wearing a MAGA hat was assaulted in a New Jersey ShopRite on Tuesday. 

The victim was confronted by an unknown man over the hat just before 3:30 p.m. Monday in Franklin Township in Somerset County, officials said.

County authorities, who are working with local cops on the investigation, would not release any further details.

The injured man, who is a Franklin Township resident, refused medical treatment. –New York Post

So in the last few weeks, people in MAGA hats have been assaulted by liberals, while liberals are making up hoaxes about being attacked by people wearing MAGA hats. 

Another MAGAphobic hate crime. https://t.co/nKlgq2fdb7

— Kambree Kawahine Koa (@KamVTV) February 26, 2019

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2EyPr2A Tyler Durden

Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev told Argumenty i Fakty that the US is deploying military assets to Puerto Rico and Colombia for a future military intervention in Venezuela to remove President Nicolás Maduro from power.

“Showing sarcasm and arrogance towards the Venezuelan people, the United States is preparing a military invasion of an independent state,” Patrushev told the Russian newspaper.

According to his statements, Washington is transferring “American special operations forces to Puerto Rico, the landing of US forces in Colombia,” which “clearly indicates that the Pentagon is reinforcing the grouping of troops in the region.”

As he explained, Venezuela rejected humanitarian aid imposed on it by the US because it recognizes that Washington uses aid as a precursor to military intervention.

“And the Venezuelan people understand this well. Hence, such a reaction, the refusal to accept cargo from the aggressor country and the support of their president,” Patrushev added.

The Russian security official said that Washington recommended holding several talks on Venezuela, and Moscow accepted. However, Trump administration officials started using far-fetched pretexts to circumvent these discussions, Patrushev added.

Last week, president Putin said that Russia is militarily ready for a “Cuban Missile-style crisis”, commenting on nuclear first strike capability amidst growing tensions with the US. The remarks were given to Russian media following a prior speech wherein he warned Moscow will match any attempt by the US to station intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe in the wake of the now collapsing INF treaty.

Putin specifically threatened deployment of hypersonic missiles on ships and submarines which could enter US territorial waters without detection if American intermediate-range missiles move into Europe.  

While it remains unclear just how far Russia’s commitment to protecting the Maduro regime would stretch, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza said Monday that his government would not tolerate foreign interference. “We are not going to allow intervention, we Venezuelans will solve our problems,” he said.

Arreaza insisted that the current crisis in Venezuela and the US interest, is due to natural resources, and he believes that Washington “wants to unseat Maduro because they intend to regain control over the Venezuelan economy.”

And for more hints that the US is facilitating an upcoming military intervention and openly promoting a coup d’état in the South American country, here is Vice President Michael Pence on Tuesday delivering a straightforward message to Venezuela’s self-proclaimed interim president Guaido: “We [Trump adminstration] are with you 100%.” 

‘With you 100 percent’ – Pence to #Guaido#Venezuela #US #Trump pic.twitter.com/1ixPByygr6

— Ruptly (@Ruptly) February 26, 2019

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Su0I7L Tyler Durden

Less than two weeks after President Trump declared a national emergency to fund his border wall, House Democrats have voted unanimously to block Trump’s declaration, marking an unprecedented congressional challenge to a president’s authority to invoke emergency powers.

13 Republicans joined with Democrats to admonish Trump’s move — well short of the number Democrats would need to overturn the president’s promised veto.

As The Hill reports, the vote marks the first time Congress has taken formal action to block a presidential emergency declaration since the power was created in the National Emergencies Act of 1976.

Democrats hinged their opposition on the basic principles of constitutional law, arguing that Trump’s unilateral move marks a clear-cut violation of the separation of powers and the unique authority of Congress to dictate where federal dollars are spent.

“If it were truly an emergency we’d all be there with the president,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said several hours before Tuesday’s vote, during a conference of the American Legion in Washington.

“Our founders had great vision. They did not want a king.”

As a reminder, here’s a list of all the national emergencies…

1. Nov 14, 1979: Blocking Iranian Government Property (EO12170)

2. Nov 14, 1994: Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (EO 12938)

3. Jan 23, 1995: Prohibiting Transactions With Terrorists Who Threaten To Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process (EO 12947)

4. Mar 15, 1995: Prohibiting Certain Transactions with Respect to the Development of Iranian Petroleum Resources (EO 12957)

5. Oct 21, 1995: Blocking Assets and Prohibiting Transactions with Significant Narcotics Traffickers (EO 12978)

6. Mar 1, 1996: Declaration of a National Emergency and Invocation of Emergency Authority Relating to the Regulation of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels (Proc. 6867)

7. Nov 3, 1997: Blocking Sudanese Government Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Sudan (EO 13067)

8. Jun 26, 2001: Blocking Property of Persons Who Threaten International Stabilization Efforts in the Western Balkans (EO 13219)

9. Aug 17, 2001: Continuation of Export Control Regulations (EO 13222)

10. Sep 14, 2001: Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks (Proc. 7463)

11. Sep 23, 2001: Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism (EO 13224)

12. Mar 6, 2003: Blocking Property of Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Zimbabwe (EO 13288)

13. May 22, 2003: Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq Has an Interest (EO 13303)

14. May 11, 2004: Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting the Export of Certain Goods to Syria (EO 13338)

15. Jun 16, 2006: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Undermining Democratic Processes or Institutions in Belarus (EO 13405)

16. Oct 27, 2006: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (EO 13413)

17. 17. Aug 1, 2007: Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon or Its Democratic Processes and Institutions (EO 13441)

18. Jun 26, 2008: Continuing Certain Restrictions With Respect to North Korea & North Korean Nationals (EO 13466)

19. Apr 12, 2010: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Somalia (EO 13536)

20. Feb 25, 2011: Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya (EO 13566)

21. Jul 24, 2011: Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations (EO13581)

22. May 16, 2012: Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen (EO 13611)

23. Mar 6, 2014: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine (EO 13660)

24. Apr 3, 2014: Blocking Property of Certain Persons With Respect to South Sudan (EO 13664)

25. May 12, 2014: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in the Central African Republic (EO 13667)

26. Mar 8, 2015: Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela (EO 13692)

27. Apr 1, 2015: Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities (EO 13694)

28. Nov 22, 2015: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Burundi (EO 13712)

29. Dec 20, 2017: Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption (EO13818)

30. Sep 12, 2018: Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election (EO 13848)

31. Nov 27, 2018: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Nicaragua (EO 13851)

…and since the National Emergencies Act went into effect in the mid-1970s, a total of 58 have been declared, most of which were in regard to foreign issues (like the War in Iraq).

“People will say, ‘Well, there have been a lot of emergency designations.’ That’s right,” said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).

“This is the only one — the only one — that has been used to get around a Congress’s refusal to appropriate money for a particular objective.”

The Hill points out that passage in the upper chamber is not guaranteed, but appears increasingly likely. Three GOP senators — Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Tom Tillis (N.C.) — are already on record in support of the disapproval resolution, and a handful of others are leaning that way.

The president, for his part, has vowed in no uncertain terms to veto the resolution if it travels that far. Neither chamber is expected to have enough support to win a two-thirds vote to override the promised veto.

“They’re not going to be able to reverse this emergency declaration. But it does show that they’re in denial that there’s a crisis at the border,” House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) told The Hill ahead of the vote.

“Pelosi goes to the border and waves a Mexican flag saying there’s no crisis the same week that an illegal alien goes to Napa right in her own backyard and attacks a cop,” he continued.

“I mean it’s it’s happening every day. There’s a real crisis and the president is taking steps to keep our country safe.”

No matter, what, Trump already called the endgame – “we’ll see you in the Supreme Court.”

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Ub14BV Tyler Durden

Ivanka Trump fired a shot across the bow of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), telling Fox News‘s Steve Hilton that the majority of Americans don’t share AOC’s ultra-progressive agenda (which could cost up to $93 trillion, according to former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin). 

Trump suggests that most Americans would prefer to achieve upward mobility through hard work and opportunity; essentially the ‘teach a person to fish’ approach vs. ‘steal fish from rich people and give them to lazy people‘ – prescribed in AOC’s Green New Deal.

Hilton asked Trump: “You’ve got people who will see that offer from the Democrats, from the progressive Democrats, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ‘Here’s the Green New Deal, here’s the guarantee of a job,’ and think, ‘yeah, that’s what I want, it’s that simple.’ What do you say to those people?”

To which Ivanka responded: “I don’t think most Americans, in their heart, want to be given something. I’ve spent a lot of time traveling around this country over the last 4 years. People want to work for what they get,” adding “So, I think that this idea of a guaranteed minimum is not something most people want. They want the ability to be able to secure a job. They want the ability to live in a country where’s there’s the potential for upward mobility.”

Hilton also asked Trump if she thought the 2020 election would be framed as a battle between her father’s capitalism and the Democratic party’s recent shift towards socialist candidates.

“I think fundamentally if you ask yourself the question, ‘are we better today than we were yesterday or we were 2 years ago?’ The answer is, undoubtedly, yes,” replied Ivanka. “So, as an American, families sitting down and thinking about their financial situation relative to a month ago or a year ago, America is doing very well and it stands in quite sharp contrast to the rest of the world. So, not only are we doing well, much of the world has slowed down in terms of the pace of their growth.”

Ivanka clarified on Twitter that she is not opposed to a minimum wage – rather, a guaranteed minimum for people “unwilling to work.” 

I’ve spent much of the last 2 years focused on inclusive economic growth via workforce development and skills training as well as pro-working family policies such as the doubled Child Tax Credit & CCDBG.

— Ivanka Trump (@IvankaTrump) February 26, 2019

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Eze0wa Tyler Durden

Authored by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

In 1986, Peter Munk bought a gold mine in northeastern Nevada for $62 million.

The mine was only producing 40,000 ounces of gold a year back then (around $16 million annually) … and the sellers believed the land held 600,000 ounces easily minable gold.

But those estimates were woefully short.

By 1992, the mine yielded 1.1 million ounces of gold. Today, the mine, known as Goldstrike, is the richest mine in North America – producing over two million ounces per year. And it has reserves of over 21 million ounces of gold.

Although the Goldstrike acquisition proved to be his best, Munk bought many other successful gold mines.

He was the founder of the world’s largest gold producer, Barrick Gold. And his company earned the top spot through deal making…

Before buying Goldstrike, Munk bought half the Renabie mine in Ontario… then the Camflo mine in Quebec.

But it was Barrick’s 2005 acquisition of Placer Dome that gave the company its title as the world’s largest gold producer and cemented its place at the top of the food chain.

It’s been over a decade since Barrick’s blockbuster deal. And the gold sector has gone quiet. Low prices for both the metal and mining stocks caused investors to completely ignore the sector.

But the commodities markets are cyclical… As our friend Rick Rule says, “the cure for low prices is low prices.”

And we’re starting to see signs of life.

We’ve been writing about a number of tailwinds for the yellow metal, including a lack of major discoveries, which we argued would lead to higher gold prices and frenzied takeover activity as gold demand increased.

Well, the gold price has increased from a 2018 low of $1,175 to $1,340 – a ten month high.

And we’ve started to see M&A (merger & acquisition) activity among the largest miners…

Barrick made headlines late last year when it announced it would acquire Randgold Resources in a $6 billion deal. It was a major sign of life in a sector that was left for dead.

Then, in January, another mining giant, Newmont, announced it would buy Goldcorp for $10 billion.

But last week, we got a sign that merger mania in the gold sector is officially on…

Barrick announced its intention to make its largest acquisition yet – a $17.8 billion deal for Newmont Mining.

Newmont rejected Barrick’s offer and intends to pursue its merger with Goldcorp. Barrick is turning its bid hostile.

And the miners are publicly trashing each other, with Barrick calling Newmont “desperate” and Newmont in turn calling Barrick “inferior.”

But despite the theatrics, this deal tells us one thing – the gold sector is gearing up for a spate of M&A activity.

We’re seeing the largest companies consolidate first. They’re merging to try to further cut redundant costs and bolster reserves (gold companies have been slashing costs for years to improve margins in a down market).

But these mergers don’t solve the problem of no major new gold discoveries in the past 15 years.

Next, we should see the gold giants start acquiring the junior mining companies. As the name implies, these companies are much smaller. And they raise equity capital to find new gold deposits. These juniors take the big risks to find new deposits. And the successful ones see their share prices soar or get acquired by a larger miner – or both.

It’s not just the economics of the gold sector that make an M&A boom likely. We saw record M&A activity across the board last year, as cheap money and record profits sent companies on a buying spree.

And we’ve got the same backdrop today. The Fed and other central banks around the world have already backed off their plans to tighten monetary policy.

We’re even seeing some very powerful people calling for negative interest rates in the US.

On its own, monetary easing (the continued destruction of fiat money) and record debt around the globe make gold an incredibly attractive asset class.

But in this, coming gold bull market… low rates and an excessive appetite for debt will also continue fueling the gold company merger frenzy.

The stage is being set for a mega melt-up in gold and gold stocks right now.

And we continue to be quite bullish on the sector.

And to continue learning how to ensure you thrive no matter what happens next in the world, I encourage you to download our free Perfect Plan B Guide.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2TdOkxr Tyler Durden

Self-Proclaimed Venezuelan “interim president” Juan Guaido faces a potential 30-year jail term for violating a travel ban placed on him by the Maduro government. The ban, imposed earlier by the Venezuelan Supreme Court, was broken last Friday as Guaido secretly crossed the border from Venezuela into Colombia, from where he’s since organized attempts for US humanitarian aid shipments to cross bridges into Venzuela, and after meeting with US Vice President Mike Pence and regional leaders in what was essentially a regime change strategy session. 

“He can leave and come back and will have to see the face of justice because justice had prohibited him from him leaving the country… He has to respect the laws,” Maduro told ABC News in a new interview published Tuesday. In a follow-up question concerning whether Maduro would have the opposition leaders arrested, the president said that only a court can make this decision. 

Despite the court imposed travel ban, the AP previously reported that Guaido may have initially crossed the border on a Colombian air force helicopter Friday evening in order to attend the Live Aid-inspired show in Cucuta, Colombia, sponsored by British billionaire Richard Branson. According to a prior AP report: 

It’s not clear how Guaido sneaked into Colombia — in one video circulating on social media he appears running across a bridge near the Colombian town of Puerto Santander, while in another he could be seen boarding a helicopter belonging to the Colombian air force.

On Monday Guaido met with Pence and regional leaders as part of the Lima Group summit in Bogota, Colombia, where he called on his regional allies and the international community to take “all measures” to “liberate” Venezuela’s suffering population.

But now he could face serious prison time the moment he returns to Venezuela, especially considering he not only defied the travel ban, but met with foreign enemies of Caracus to openly plot how to undermine Maduro. 

Deputy judge of the Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal of Justice, Juan Carlos Valdez told Russia’s Sputnik on Tuesday the opposition leader “may face up to 30 years in jail” for violating the travel ban. 

The deputy judge said according to the breaking report: 

He is a person hiding from justice. What is happening with runaways, who are reentering the country and found by the authorities? They must be caught and sent to a prison […] He may face up to 30 years in jail.”

The supreme court judge further said “the prosecution was currently analyzing the possible crimes committed by Guaido,” according to Sputnik. Guaido has recently indicated to regional media that he plans to return to Venezuela understanding full well he’s likely to be arrested.

Meanwhile the US administration has warned in the past against Caracas authorities prosecuting the opposition leader and National Assembly head, in what would likely trigger some kind of greater military action by Washington. 

Last month, just days after Nicolás Maduro was sworn in for a second six-year term and shortly before unrest on the streets of the past weeks, secret police had seized and then quickly released Guaido. The January 13 incident involved an aggressive police raid on Guaido’s vehicle by masked security forces on a busy highway as he traveled to a political rally with his family.

Urgente…..vean como fue el secuestro de @GuaiF Narcodictadura asesina pic.twitter.com/pUO53nVrH4

— Antonio Ledezma (@alcaldeledezma) January 13, 2019

The whole scene had been caught on video, and perhaps is a sign of just what Guaido will likely face the moment he steps foot back on Venezuelan soil. 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2T1YnpW Tyler Durden

Authored by Kevin Muir via The Macro Tourist blog,

Lately I have fallen down when it comes to the number of MacroTourist posts. It’s not that I didn’t want to write, but I got Lennon’ed with life getting in the way of my plans. So to remedy this situation, I have decided to commit to posting today’s write up, but also a follow up tomorrow. I figure that if I promise you two pieces, the shame of not following through will ensure compliance. Call it my own little life hack.

Today’s piece will be the bear argument, with tomorrow’s post arguing the bull case. I will not bother giving you all the reasons why the market might go up or down, but rather, focus on subtler reasons the market might be missing. Call it my version of the market’s in-attentional blindness (which by the way, I never seem to miss the guy in the gorilla suit so I almost don’t believe this is a real thing.)

So on to it! The bear case.

Yesterday I was watching Bloomberg TV and one of my favourite reporters, fellow Canadian Luke Kawa made the following joke:

“ask a journalist what’s the scariest thing for the markets, and the answer is triple B’s.”

What did Luke mean by this comment? Well, I think it’s best explained by the following Bloomberg chart:

Investment grade debt is all corporate debt rated BBB or higher. If a debt security drops below this level, it is no longer investment grade, and gets relegated to the high-yield or junk pile. The important thing to realize is that at that point, many institutions can no longer invest in the security. Therefore it is important for companies that rely on this funding to maintain at least a BBB rating.

What’s scary is that the number of issuers in the investment grade market ranked BBB has never been higher.

This means that the number of investment grade companies whose credit worthiness is one downtick away from junk is precariously perched ready to topple at the slightest weakness in the economy. Scary, huh? No wonder all the Bloomberg reporters have been highlighting it as a risk. It’s one of those inside baseball concerns that’s hard for the general public to get their minds wrapped around, but has professionals fretting.

Yet what’s the overwhelming conclusion about the consequence of this development? Why… that you should short investment grade bonds of course!

And maybe that’s the right trade. Maybe we are about to have another credit-led crisis as these companies slip to junk and can no longer fund themselves at the absurdly-low levels.

But I think too many people assume the next crisis will look like the last. And if there is one thing I know for sure, it’s that’s markets rarely make it so easy.

So I look at the number of BBB issuers, and I worry about the ominous development, but in my gut, I think the obvious trade (shorting LQD) will not be a money maker. Yet I didn’t know how to square this obviously negative trend with my forecast.

Lucky for me, another Canadian set me right in my thinking. I am indebted to Gluskin Sheff’s David Rosenberg’s insights regarding the implications of the large amount of BBB issuers. Recently David gave a speech at the University of Toronto (from the Varsity online publication):

Focusing on corporate debt, Rosenberg emphasized that “we have never had a more junkier corporate bond market than we do today.” He added that even the quality of bonds is poor, with 50 per cent of investment grade bonds rated BBB. This is the lowest rating for an investment grade bond, with lower graded bonds classified as ‘junk’ and considered high-risk or speculative.

Rosenberg explained that the response to the current high leverage will be corporate deleveraging. This would in turn lead to recession because of the sacrifices in capital spending.

Imagine you are a CEO at one of these companies that is teetering on losing its investment grade rating. What would you do? Continue spending balls-to-the-wall on equity buybacks and capex? No, not a bloody chance. You would hunker down and cut both of those expenditures. You will do whatever it takes to maintain your investment grade rating.

Therefore the trade is not to short investment grade bonds, but rather to short equities and play for a weakening economy due to weak capex spending.

Let that sink in for a second. There is little doubt the BBB story will get more airplay in the coming months and quarters. There will be lots of worrisome pieces which will encourage lots of bearish recommendations on investment grade bonds.

But ignore them. The trade will not be to short investment grade bonds. The problem will not be a collapse of investment grade bond prices, but rather the effects this credit deterioration has on equities and the economy as a whole…

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2tCfUWH Tyler Durden

Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan’s response to Tuesday’s dramatic escalation with nuclear armed rival India was to direct his armed forces and the public to “remain prepared for all eventualities.” This after Pakistani officials confirmed that Indian fighter jets dropped “four bombs” in its sovereign territory while noting the Indian attack was repulsed and while going back the aircraft “jettisoned their payload” — implying the mission was cut short due to Pakistani defense efforts, according to the Times of India. “India has committed uncalled for aggression to which Pakistan shall respond at the time and place of its choosing,” Khan’s office said soon after the brazen violation of Pakistan’s airspace.

“There will be some form of escalation,” Kamran Bokhari, an expert on Pakistani-Indian relations at the Center for Global Policy with the University of Ottawa told Bloomberg. “Pakistan will have to strike back — I am not saying this will lead to an all out war, but I don’t see that it’s over.” Indian Army, Navy and Air Force chiefs meanwhile praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi for his bold actions and underscored the military’s preparedness to deal with “any possible retaliatory action” by Islamabad.

The incident marks the most dangerous and significant escalation since 2001, when after a mass terror attack on government buildings in New Delhi, both countries moved ballistic missiles and troops to their border amidst heated rhetoric on who’s to blame for the Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) bombings. 

Tuesday’s provocative cross border Indian jet raid was in retaliation for one of the deadliest terror attacks in the history of the long-running Kashmiri insurgency. Earlier this month, a Muslim ‘mujahidin’ drove a car loaded with explosives into a bus packed with Indian paramilitary soldiers, killing more than 40 in what became known as the Pulwama attack. 

It appears the response against the terror group finally came, with Indian fighter jets carrying out a tactical strike on what the Indian government described as a training camp for the militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed, killing more than 300 militants and infuriating the government in Islamabad.

But as we detailed earlier, Pakistan has rejected this version of events. Prime Minister Khan’s office said Pakistan would respond “at the time and place of its choosing,” rejecting India’s account of targeting and wiping out terrorists.

Payload of hastily escaping Indian aircrafts fell in open. pic.twitter.com/8drYtNGMsm

— Maj Gen Asif Ghafoor (@OfficialDGISPR) February 26, 2019

Instead Pakistan is claiming Indian bombs merely fell in an open field, and published photographs in an attempt to prove the assertion. 

“Once again the Indian government has resorted to a self-serving, reckless and fictitious claim,” the statement from Khan’s office said further. 

Minister of State for External Affairs VK Singh on India strikes at JeM camp in Balakot: India had made it clear that terrorism must be eradicated, we had given many chances to Pakistan, therefore, India was forced to take action so that these things can be stopped. pic.twitter.com/ERow0LRnrN

— ANI (@ANI) February 26, 2019

India’s Minister of State for External Affairs VK Singh countered that “terrorism must be eradicated” and given the Jaish-e-Mohammed camp was operating out in the open, “India was forced to take action so that these things can be stopped.”

Indian officials have emphasized they gave Pakistan many warnings and chances to clamp down on the terror training camp. 

Indian aircrafts intruded from Muzafarabad sector. Facing timely and effective response from Pakistan Air Force released payload in haste while escaping which fell near Balakot. No casualties or damage.

— Maj Gen Asif Ghafoor (@OfficialDGISPR) February 26, 2019

India has previously claimed Pakistan had a “direct hand” in the recent February 14 Pulwama bombing. “It is a well-known fact that Jaish-e-Mohammed and its leader Masood Azhar are based in Pakistan. These should be sufficient proof for Pakistan to take action,” India’s Foreign Ministry said in a Feb. 19 statement.

How do longtime bitter enemies and rivals Pakistan and India stack up against each other militarily? 

India has since repeatedly promised it will take steps to “isolate” Pakistan internationally, including economic and diplomatic measures. 

Islamabad has vehemently denied all charges that it’s facilitated any terrorist activity on Indian soil, or given any freedom for JeM to operate or run training camps. 

Meanwhile, powerful countries in the region such as China and Australia have urged a calming of tensions. China called on both sides to “exercise restraint” in the immediate aftermath of Tuesday’s airstrikes. 

“Both India and Pakistan are important countries in South Asia,” China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lu Kang said to reporters. “We hope that both sides can exercise restraint, and take actions that can contribute to the region’s stability and improve their mutual relationship, but not the opposite.”

Indeed, considering both Pakistan and India have nuclear warheads each in the range of well over 100, with many of these likely pointed at the other just across the border, the potential for the region to enter an uncharted nuclear conflagration remains perilously high. 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2T2QAIj Tyler Durden

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Oriental Review,

Facebook imposed double standards to censor popular Russia-connected pages.

The US-based social media platform removed several pages managed by Maffick Media, a company partly owned by RT-subsidiary Ruptly, on the alleged basis that they were misleading their audience about their connections to Russia. The company’s CEO Anissa Naouai suggested that CNN was tipped off about this beforehand by a US government-funded think tank that helped coordinate this infowar operation, decrying what she described as a loophole that allows for state censorship. Facebook, for its part, claims that it’s trying to improve so-called “transparency” on its site by rolling out new standards behind the scenes that have yet to go live or be implemented in full.

In principle and provided that Facebook is telling the truth, the idea is sound enough, though only if it’s universally applied and done so without discriminating against anyone in particular like Maffick Media, which regrettably wasn’t the case in this instance. The US government seems to have been working indirectly through one of its many partially funded think tanks in order to coordinate this infowar operation while retaining so-called “plausible deniability” in the face of Anissa’s censorship claims. The selective enforcement of transparency standards speaks to the fact that the US wants to send an intimidating message to all Alternative Media outlets that they could be next.

That in and of itself is a dystopian thought to countenance, but the larger issue at play is the topic of “cyber sovereignty” and whether non-US-based users – including companies – have any universal rights on American platforms, which they seemingly do not. As disturbing as it may be, there’s practically nothing that anyone can do to ensure the fair and equal application of Facebook’s ever-changing rules (including secret ones that have yet to be publicly announced like the excuse that was used to censor Maffick’s pages), nor any recourse to rely upon whenever this doesn’t happen. Simply put, victims of injustice are literally out of luck.

Thankfully, however, Maffick isn’t just any random company but has created content that generated over 2,5 billion views and had tens of millions of subscribers. Furthermore, Anissa was able to utilize her professional contacts with RT to draw global attention to what happened, thereby putting pressure on Facebook to address the situation unlike how they might have otherwise ignored it had she not been able to successfully do this. No matter what ultimately happens and whether or not Facebook ever impartially imposes new so-called “transparency” standards all across the board including with regards to US government-linked entities, it nevertheless established a dark precedent by censoring Maffick Media.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2tEU3O8 Tyler Durden

Cryptocurrencies aside, the most ridiculous bubble of the past two years has to be the ridiculous move in Weight Watchers stock which exploded higher in early 2017 after Oprah Winfrey bought a sizable chunk of stock, with investors betting that the “Oprah effect” would make this chronically disappointing stock a star, and sending it higher from $10 in early 2017 to above $100 in mid 2018.

That is all over now as WW, formerly known as Weight Watchers, is down 30% after hours after missing on the top- and bottom-line, and slashing its outlook after a weak start to the year (its key selling period).

Here are the key numbers compared with what analysts surveyed by Bloomberg were expecting:

• Adjusted earnings per share: $0.63 versus $0.60 expected

• Revenue: $330 million versus $346 million expected

• Subscribers: 3.9 million (from 4.5 million in the second quarter and fell to 4.2 million in the third quarter)

• 2019 EPS forecast: $1.25 to $1.50 versus $3.36 expected

WW is now down 30% erasing all gains since April 2017…

“2018 was a significant year for WW,” said CEO Mindy Grossman in a press release. “We launched WW Freestyle, built an expanded technology ecosystem, rebranded to WW and reinforced our mission to become the world’s partner in wellness.”

But, Grossman continued:

“While we are proud of our accomplishments in 2018, we had a soft start to 2019 versus last year’s strong performance with the launch of WW Freestyle. Given our Winter Campaign did not recruit as expected, we have been focused on improving member recruitment trends. We quickly moved to course correct, including introducing new creative with a stronger call-to-action and further optimizing our media mix.”

Since Oprah jumped on board in Dec 2016, she is still in the money – just.

Seems like insiders have been active since Oprah jumped in…

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2IEM6mF Tyler Durden