Ilhan Omar Demands Apology From MSNBC’s Joy Reid Over “Islamophobic Comments” Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/01/2020 – 20:55
MSNBC personality Joy Reid is under fire once again after making an allegedly “Islamaphobic” comment”. But this time, her accuser is none other than controversial Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, who herself has refused to apologize for comments that were heralded as anti-semitic, while once blithely – and publicly – dismissing 9/11 as “a thing that happened”.
Omar and a anti-defamation league-type group called Muslim Advocates complained that Reid made callously Islamophobic remarks on air during a broadcast the other night.
Reid’s crime? She compared the way President Trump acts to the way “Muslims” act. She intended to compare Trump’s behavior to that of somebody like Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan, which is hilarious because in reality, there is no real grounds for comparison. Even their rhetorical styles differ markedly, though both have shown a penchant for “interfering” with the central bank.
But that’s not how it came out.
During her show, Reid said, “the leaders, let’s say in the Muslim world, talk a lot of violent talk and encourage their supporters to be willing to commit violence, including on their own bodies, in order to win against whoever they decide is the enemy. We in the U.S. media describe that as they are radicalizing those people—particularly they are radicalizing young people. That’s how we talk about the way Muslims act. When you see what Donald Trump is doing, is that any different from what we describe as radicalizing people?””
In a statement, Muslim Advocates demanded that Reid “apologize on air tonight.”
“Joy Reid must apologize on air tonight for spreading the false, dangerous myth that Muslims are inherently radical and violent. MSNBC also needs to take action to ensure anti-Muslim bigotry has no place on its network. Muslims have been gunned down in their homes and houses of worship by people who believe in the very same hateful, false smears that Reid shared on her program. This is deadly serious and it’s part of a dangerous, longstanding pattern.
Omar made a similar request.
Honestly, this kinda of casual Islamophobia is hurtful and dangerous.
We deserve better and an apology for the painful moment for so many Muslims around our country should be forthcoming. https://t.co/megnZyL9dd
This isn’t the first time Reid has been in the cross-hairs of Islamic rights groups. Back in 2018, a furor was unleashed when several old blog posts bearing homophobic and Islamophobic messages were unearthed.
Here’s an excerpt from one particularly “problematic” post:
“My feeling is that the only reason that a world war between civilizations has not already broken out is that the vast majority of Muslims living in the world today are so desperately poor that they have the time, energy and resources for only the occasional burst of AK-47 fire into the air from the garbage and sewage laden streets outside of their mud huts. Give them resources and I fear that they will come after us everywhere that they can find us, which is to say everywhere.”
Her use of the phrase “mud huts” is particularly appalling.
Yet, Reid survived past scandals and managed to hang on to her job at MSNBC. It’s almost like the news organization can’t fire her.
Last time around, Reid laughably made things worse by claiming that “hackers” published the offending blog posts under her name.
Will Reid make history as one of the first people to mendaciously cry “deep fake?”
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2YU8TjU Tyler Durden
In Unprecedented Move, CDC Halts Most Rental Evictions Until End Of 2020 Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/01/2020 – 20:30
In an unprecedented move on Tuesday, with Congress unable to reach a common ground on virtually any stimulus extension, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention unveiled today it would temporarily – at least through the end of 2020 – suspend most rental evictions for Americans struggling to pay rent due to the pandemic, in a step which CNN dubbed was “broader than eviction protections already in place.” The move comes as negotiations on further coronavirus aid have been stalled as Republicans and Democrats refuse to budge on topline numbers for what a new relief package would cost.
In a phone call with reporters, officials said the order will apply to Americans who qualified for direct payments under the CARES Act.
To be sure there are some hurdles: renters will have to prove that they’ve taken “best efforts possible to seek government assistance to make their rental payments,” and will have to “declare that they are unable to pay rent due to Covid financial hardship,” and must show they “will likely become homeless or move into congregate housing settings if they are evicted”, but that should not be a problem for anyone willing to live rent free indefinitely.
Renters will also have to fill out several forms, found on the CDC’s website, and give them directly to their landlords to qualify for the program.
“This will be a declaration presented to the landlord, if that landlord approaches a tenant with an intent to evict,” an official said. Because the move is federally mandated, it “would become a criminal offence” if the landlord chose to ignore the declaration. But it could still end up in courts, possibly leading to legal actions that could show up on background checks or credit reports.
And while landlords are being effectively stripped of most if not all of their rights with this extraordinary intervention, they will still be able to remove tenants for “committing criminal acts, threatening the health and safety of other residents, damaging property or other health and safety considerations,” an official added although good luck getting through to the local police station and reporting a crime in a country where defunding the local law enforcement is seen as the pinnacle of progressive thought.
“To the extent that there is a dispute between the landlord and the renter about whether or not an eviction protection is in place here, it can be filed, and that would be for the local courts, which are not federal to adjudicate,” an official said, without clarifying how long before defunding the local courts becomes the next progressive ideal. On the other hand, in places like Portland they won’t even have to do that: after all, everyone arrested for rioting is released the next day with the blessing of the judicial branch so they can resume rioting post haste.
Under the CARES Act, only renters in federally-backed rental units were protected from eviction. “This covers any rental unit in United States, so long as the renter meets those requirements, where they’ve demonstrated that they are at risk of becoming evicted,” an official said. There’s also currently a moratorium on evictions for federally-backed, single family home mortgages.
Realizing that this was nothing short of an invitation to stop paying rent, a CDC official said pointblankthis “is not an invitation to stop paying rent.” It was unclear how many in the audience laughed. “The order makes clear that a renter who cannot pay his or her full rent should pay an amount that is not unduly burdensome, and as close to payment as possible.”
The landlords are surely holding their breath (their best and only recourse… although if they hold it long enough they will surely get a Fed bailout too).
As for those asking just why on earth a decision to halt evictions is being made by the CDC and not say… Congress, an official said “the CDC director has authority to take measures that he’s reasonably necessary to mitigate the spread of communicable disease.”
“Congress has delegated broad authority to HHS, the Surgeon General and CDC, to take reasonable efforts to combat the spread of communicable diseases, and frankly I think it makes sense for those authorities abroad because we don’t know for any given situation or scenario what steps will be needed to stop the spread,” an administration official said. “I think, in this particular order, the CDC has made a very compelling case that it is quite problematic at this particular time. It’s focused on this particular pandemic, which is obviously the uniquely powerful grasp in the nation’s entire history in terms of the effect it’s had that for a bunch of reasons in particular, that the home has been sort of the focal point of people social distancing and building, sort of a safe space themselves over the past few months, and also the fact that if people get kicked out, they may end up in overcrowded congregated living facilities or homeless shelters, and that is a potential recipe for a big spread of COVID-19.”
Asked why that authority wasn’t being used to enact a federal mask mandate, officials refused to answer because the question didn’t “have to do with the call at hand.”
Finally, confirming the political nature of the decision, deputy press secretary Brian Morgenstern said the action “means that people struggling to pay rent due to the coronavirus will not have to worry about being evicted and risk further spreading of or exposure to the disease due to economic hardship,” and attacked Democrats on the hill.
Officials did not answer questions about how that legal action could impact credit or future housing options.
And with that, we now wait for the CDC to start sending unemployment benefits and buying Apple bonds.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3jO54VJ Tyler Durden
In the short time since the killing of George Floyd, demonstrations have taken place in all fifty US states. Riots have occurred in forty of them. In each of the incidents, many protesters held up signs saying, “Defund the Police.”
Of course, no one wants to become a riot victim, but in those cities and states that are Democrat-run, there’s a bit of a hitch: Politicians must be seen to sympathize with protesters, or they will not appear to be sufficiently outraged by “systemic racism.”
They must therefore choose between the safety of their constituents and appeasing protesters. This is not an enviable position to be in; yet, since most all politicians regard re-election as overshadowing all other concerns, they can be predicted to follow the irrational wishes of the protesters.
Minneapolis, where the protests began, has a population of some 425,000 residents. Only a small fraction of them actually joined the protest, and in fact, even the Democratic governor of Minnesota has stated that 80% of the protestors were from out of town.
There are conflicting theories as to whether these 80% were actual sympathisers or were hired by heavily funded organisations that hope to create a dysfunctional situation in Minneapolis and other cities in the US.
Not surprisingly, Minneapolis is now the first city whose city council has voted to defund the police.
In place of the police will be a department of community safety that will be staffed with people who have no police training whatever. There will, however, be people with expertise in mental health, social services and counselling.
The reader could be forgiven if he is inclined to shake his head and say, “But the removal of the police entirely won’t decrease crime, it will invite more crime. Don’t those on the city council understand that?”
Well, apparently, yes, they do. In fact, since they themselves will no longer have the protection of the police, they’ve arranged for the city to hire security guards to protect them. Over the past three weeks alone, it has cost the taxpayers of Minneapolis over $60,000 to protect council members.
So how can it be that police are not needed by the general public to protect them from rioters and other criminals, whilst the city council members do? Well, one member has explained that need, stating that she has no fear from rioters, but that white nationalists have made her fear for her life.
Without seeking to be judgmental, I think it’s safe to say that Minneapolis is in for a crime wave beyond anything it has ever experienced. Inner cities have a penchant for being breeding grounds for chronic street crime. And criminals in inner cities have a long-held record for creating as much crime as they can get away with. The only limitation on the crime level is whatever degree of arrests can be made.
And it may be safe to say that social service counsellors will not be making many arrests.
Those of us who are not American and don’t live in the US tend to be stupefied by such developments taking place, as the US had, for so long, been regarded by the rest of the world as a paragon of freedom and common sense.
In recent years, however, that perception has been tossed in the dustbin.
We tend to be stunned that such absurdly self-destructive decisions such as the recent one in Minneapolis could take place, and just as stunned that the majority of Americans, who surely have more sense, would not raise an immediate furor.
But this view leaves out an important factor in US political culture.
Beginning in the 1960s, American youth began to take their country in a new direction. In countless campus demonstrations, they championed causes such as peace and race relations. This was the baby-boomer generation, and whilst these university students may have been somewhat spoiled and self-focused, they were more numerous than the previous generation and had a huge impact on American society.
Also, truth be told, the concepts of peace, racial equality and gender equality unquestionably were laudable and well worth protesting for.
Indeed, it might be said that it would be perennially desirable for younger people to question the previous generation, and to offer possible alternatives. Not all would be workable, but it’s healthy for the grand social experiment to be questioned periodically.
But, unfortunately, this is not what we’re seeing in today’s America.
What we’re seeing is the maturation of political correctness – a movement that at first appeared to be relatively benign. However, from the very first, it contained a telltale dark aspect. Anyone who disagreed with a tenet of politically correct thinking was shamed and sometimes ostracized.
Of course, our old friend George Orwell warned us of this approach. He understood that once it took hold – once it had firmly rooted itself in the culture – it would be almost impossible to stop.
“War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”
This motto was created by Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth,” which dictated whatever the State decided was true at any given time.
Today’s Ministry of Truth actually has several outlets – primarily the twenty-four hour news programmes that repeat the same interpretations of events, ad nauseum.
And it does seem that the result has been that a percentage of Americans have come to accept the often-ludicrous concepts that are put forward by the Ministry.
This is how it’s possible for the politically correct but largely non-factual claim of systemic racism to soon be replaced by the very real systemic chaos.
And worse, just as our friend Mister Orwell predicted, the great majority – who thoroughly understand that many politically correct concepts are nonsense – are so fearful of being singled out as not accepting such dogma that they simply remain quiet and allow their once-great country to be converted into a collectivist oligarchy.
Of course, that term may startle some as possibly being an overstatement, but once those who value freedom and common sense have effectively been silenced, it’s safe to say that it’s game over.
From that point forward, the political class may pass whatever legislation it wishes, with impunity, no matter how illogical or harmful.
As Ayn Rand observed,
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.
Editor’s Note: Disturbing economic, political, and social trends are already in motion and now accelerating at breathtaking speed. Most troubling of all, they cannot be stopped.
That’s exactly why bestselling author Doug Casey and his team just released a free report with all the details on how to survive the crisis ahead.
It will help you understand what is unfolding right before our eyes and what you should do so you don’t get caught in the crosshairs.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2DlsIcv Tyler Durden
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, in a three-judge panel decision, declared today in the case of Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs vs. Attorney General New Jerseythat New Jersey’s ban on “large capacity magazines” (LCMs) that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition is indeed permitted under the Second Amendment.
The case has a convoluted history, and this is the second time the 3rd Circuit has made the same declaration upholding the law. As Jacob Sullum has reported, hardly anyone in Jersey has been obeying the law, which requires them to disable or turn in formerly legal LCMs they may have owned but that the law now makes illegal to possess.
Last month, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided a similar law in California was not permissible under the Second Amendment. The state of California has appealed for an en banc review of that three-judge-panel decision striking down their ban. For now, at least, it seems a full-on circuit split is brewing in the federal courts of appeals on the LCM ban issue, the sort of thing that ought to invite the Supreme Court to consider a case involving LCM bans when one is next brought before it (as it seems inevitable one will).
The 3rd Circuit, in a decision written by Judge Kent A. Jordan, did admit, at least for the purposes of argument, that the LCM ban implicates the Second Amendment. The court “assumed without deciding that LCMs are ‘typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and that they are entitled to Second Amendment protection.'” (The district court that first considered the case concluded LCMs are relevant to the Second Amendment.)
Both the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and the 3rd Circuit nonetheless think New Jersey can ban them anyway. They applied what courts call “intermediate scrutiny” to considering whether the burden on the Second Amendment was too high to be legal.
In doing so, the 3rd Circuit panel concluded the ban:
does not burden the core Second Amendment guarantee, for five reasons: (1) it does not categorically ban a class of firearms but is rather a ban on a subset of magazines; (2) it is not a prohibition of a class of arms overwhelmingly chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home; (3) it does not disarm or substantially affect Americans’ ability to defend themselves; (4) New Jersey residents can still possess and use magazines, just with fewer rounds; and (5) “it cannot be the case that possession of a firearm in the home for self-defense is a protected form of possession under all circumstances. By this rationale, any type of firearm possessed in the home would be protected merely because it could be used for self-defense.
The 3rd Circuit further concluded that the law is a fair and constitutional application of “New Jersey’s significant, substantial, and important interest in protecting its citizens’ safety.” They believe in mass shooting incidents, the inability (if the shooter was indeed kept from obtaining an LCM) to fire more than 10 rounds without changing magazines would mean “victims will be able to flee, bystanders to intervene, and numerous injuries will be avoided….”
The 3rd Circuit also noted that its “decision was in line with the decisions of at least four other circuits that have decided that laws regulating LCMs are constitutional.” They cite cases from the 4th, 2nd, 7th, and D.C. circuits that they say ratify their decision to consider an LCM ban constitutional.
In a lengthy dissent from the ruling panel decision, Judge Paul Matey explains why he thinks that Jersey’s LCM ban does not satisfy the standards of “intermediate scrutiny” applied to a potential Second Amendment violation:
the record does not show the State reasonably tailored the regulation to serve its interest in public safety without burdening more conduct than reasonably necessary. First, the State rests on the ambiguous argument that “when LCM equipped firearms are used, more bullets are fired, more victims are shot, and more people are killed than in other gun attacks.”….Perhaps, but “this still begs the question of whether a 10-round limit on magazine capacity will affect the outcomes of enough gun attacks to measurably reduce gun injuries and death.”
Matey calls back to another dissent by Judge Stephanos Bibas in an earlier iteration of this same case. Bibas had noted regarding an earlier, less-restrictive Jersey LCM ban that only affected magazines with over 15 rounds capacity, that “since 1990 New Jersey has banned magazines that hold more than fifteen bullets. The ban affects everyone. The challengers do not contest that ban. And there is no evidence of its efficacy, one way or the other.”
Matey also points out then when the Supreme Court itself has considered the Second Amendment this century, it has not relied on any specified level of interest-balancing “scrutiny,” referring to:
the clear repudiation of interest balancing by the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald. When twice presented with the opportunity to import tiered
scrutiny from decisions considering the First Amendment, the Supreme Court instead focused on text, history, and tradition. See Heller…(declining to apply a specified level of scrutiny and observing that “[w]e know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach.”); McDonald…(“[W]e expressly rejected the argument that the scope of the Second Amendment right should be determined by judicial interest balancing”)”
Be that as it may, even playing the game of applying “intermediate scrutiny” to Jersey’s LCM ban, Judge Matey thinks it should fail. In his dissent he asserts that while the state may have a legitimate public safety concern at issue, they have not adequately proven the law actually furthers public safety enough to justify the chipping at the Second Amendment inherent in the ban.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3hTyrp0
via IFTTT
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, in a three-judge panel decision, declared today in the case of Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs vs. Attorney General New Jerseythat New Jersey’s ban on “large capacity magazines” (LCMs) that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition is indeed permitted under the Second Amendment.
The case has a convoluted history, and this is the second time the 3rd Circuit has made the same declaration upholding the law. As Jacob Sullum has reported, hardly anyone in Jersey has been obeying the law, which requires them to disable or turn in formerly legal LCMs they may have owned but that the law now makes illegal to possess.
Last month, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided a similar law in California was not permissible under the Second Amendment. The state of California has appealed for an en banc review of that three-judge-panel decision striking down their ban. For now, at least, it seems a full-on circuit split is brewing in the federal courts of appeals on the LCM ban issue, the sort of thing that ought to invite the Supreme Court to consider a case involving LCM bans when one is next brought before it (as it seems inevitable one will).
The 3rd Circuit, in a decision written by Judge Kent A. Jordan, did admit, at least for the purposes of argument, that the LCM ban implicates the Second Amendment. The court “assumed without deciding that LCMs are ‘typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and that they are entitled to Second Amendment protection.'” (The district court that first considered the case concluded LCMs are relevant to the Second Amendment.)
Both the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and the 3rd Circuit nonetheless think New Jersey can ban them anyway. They applied what courts call “intermediate scrutiny” to considering whether the burden on the Second Amendment was too high to be legal.
In doing so, the 3rd Circuit panel concluded the ban:
does not burden the core Second Amendment guarantee, for five reasons: (1) it does not categorically ban a class of firearms but is rather a ban on a subset of magazines; (2) it is not a prohibition of a class of arms overwhelmingly chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home; (3) it does not disarm or substantially affect Americans’ ability to defend themselves; (4) New Jersey residents can still possess and use magazines, just with fewer rounds; and (5) “it cannot be the case that possession of a firearm in the home for self-defense is a protected form of possession under all circumstances. By this rationale, any type of firearm possessed in the home would be protected merely because it could be used for self-defense.
The 3rd Circuit further concluded that the law is a fair and constitutional application of “New Jersey’s significant, substantial, and important interest in protecting its citizens’ safety.” They believe in mass shooting incidents, the inability (if the shooter was indeed kept from obtaining an LCM) to fire more than 10 rounds without changing magazines would mean “victims will be able to flee, bystanders to intervene, and numerous injuries will be avoided….”
The 3rd Circuit also noted that its “decision was in line with the decisions of at least four other circuits that have decided that laws regulating LCMs are constitutional.” They cite cases from the 4th, 2nd, 7th, and D.C. circuits that they say ratify their decision to consider an LCM ban constitutional.
In a lengthy dissent from the ruling panel decision, Judge Paul Matey explains why he thinks that Jersey’s LCM ban does not satisfy the standards of “intermediate scrutiny” applied to a potential Second Amendment violation:
the record does not show the State reasonably tailored the regulation to serve its interest in public safety without burdening more conduct than reasonably necessary. First, the State rests on the ambiguous argument that “when LCM equipped firearms are used, more bullets are fired, more victims are shot, and more people are killed than in other gun attacks.”….Perhaps, but “this still begs the question of whether a 10-round limit on magazine capacity will affect the outcomes of enough gun attacks to measurably reduce gun injuries and death.”
Matey calls back to another dissent by Judge Stephanos Bibas in an earlier iteration of this same case. Bibas had noted regarding an earlier, less-restrictive Jersey LCM ban that only affected magazines with over 15 rounds capacity, that “since 1990 New Jersey has banned magazines that hold more than fifteen bullets. The ban affects everyone. The challengers do not contest that ban. And there is no evidence of its efficacy, one way or the other.”
Matey also points out then when the Supreme Court itself has considered the Second Amendment this century, it has not relied on any specified level of interest-balancing “scrutiny,” referring to:
the clear repudiation of interest balancing by the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald. When twice presented with the opportunity to import tiered
scrutiny from decisions considering the First Amendment, the Supreme Court instead focused on text, history, and tradition. See Heller…(declining to apply a specified level of scrutiny and observing that “[w]e know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach.”); McDonald…(“[W]e expressly rejected the argument that the scope of the Second Amendment right should be determined by judicial interest balancing”)”
Be that as it may, even playing the game of applying “intermediate scrutiny” to Jersey’s LCM ban, Judge Matey thinks it should fail. In his dissent he asserts that while the state may have a legitimate public safety concern at issue, they have not adequately proven the law actually furthers public safety enough to justify the chipping at the Second Amendment inherent in the ban.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3hTyrp0
via IFTTT
With gold trading at an all-time high, and legendary investor Warren Buffet backing the precious metal for the first time, it’s time to consider where the next big gold discovery will emerge. And chances are it will be the same country that Buffett just bet on: Canada.
Buffett wasn’t betting on discovery though, instead, he was betting on dividends. But dividends are for small, steady returns over a long period of time.
But for investors looking for big returns, small-cap miners are where the risk-reward potential gets interesting. Especially when it’s a small-cap miner like Starr Peak Exploration that was prescient enough to place itself right next to a huge gold discovery – before it happened.
And now the company is doubling down with major new acquisitions in the heart of one of the friendliest mining regions in the world. The smart money is already circling the stock, with Starr Peak’s shares on a tear, gaining over 900% in 12 months.
Even Buffett Believes The Time Is Right For Canadian Gold
Buffett broke with his long-held negative stance on gold on August 17th when his Berkshire Hathaway disclosed a massive stake in Canadian Barrick Gold (NYSE:GOLD) at a time when gold is soaring.
Berkshire Hathaway bought more than $560 million in Barrick Gold shares.
Buffett has always called gold useless for the most part.
But with COVID-19 ravaging the economy, even if the dollar makes a few temporary comebacks, gold is on track for a 90% increase in a very short time frame. That makes gold one of the biggest opportunities in the past few months.
Still, holding gold-mining stocks isn’t the same as holding physical gold, which is largely just a safe haven hedge against inflation – and nothing more. Buffett didn’t buy gold. He bought GOLD.
Gold-mining stocks come with much bigger potential rewards, but the biggest risks and rewards of all are the small-cap stocks that are sitting on new potential resources that nobody knows about.
The company is now trying to replicate a huge discovery made by its neighbor – Amex Exploration, whose own shares surged over 2,000% in the last year on new gold discoveries, and over 1000% in the last 12 months alone.
And it’s right in the heart of what is arguably the best gold venue in the world …
Canadian Gold and the Quebec Heartland
The future is bright for gold miners in Quebec, with a rich precious metals history and still a ton of unexplored and underexplored territory.
And it’s got geology that makes the mining industry reel with anticipation. More than 90% of the province’s substratum consists of Precambrian rock, which is famous for rich deposits of gold – as well as iron, copper, and nickel.
That’s why the province has at least 30 major mines and some 160 exploration projects. And that is with only around 40% of the province’s mineral potential even known.
The biggest prize is the Abitibi Greenstone Belt, home to some of the world’s largest gold and base metal deposits. These are “world-class” deposits – a dozen of them, including the recent giant discovery by Amex. And Starr Peak is working to repeat Amex’s success.
When gold soars, the first – and biggest – beneficiaries are those stocks on Canada’s main index, the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX). And it’s been a phenomenal 2020 for these stocks. And the best way to look for the surges is what’s coming out of Quebec.
Right now, we’re looking at the best conditions ever for new high-value gold discoveries. The soaring optimism has market values climbing uproariously since March for an entire lineup of Canadian miners, including Osisko Mining (TSX:OSK), IAMGOLD Corporate (NYSE:IAG), McEwen Mining Inc. (NYSE:MUX), and many others.
After years of cost-cutting, gold miners are now ready to spend, spend, spend on exploration – globally.
But what’s happened is this: Mining majors have largely given up exploration, standing by to let the junior miners do all the heavy lifting and then scooping them up on a major discovery, or once a discovery has been proved up. That makes some junior mining stocks worth far more than their market caps. And it makes millionaires out of some of their investors.
And Quebec is one of the friendliest, most lucrative gold-mining venues in the world. This isn’t African gold, with the uncertainty of corruption and the lack of infrastructure. This is a superior mining country with massive infrastructure already in place.
Welcome to the Discovery Zone: Past, Present & Future
Starr Peak acquired its first property directly adjacent and joining Amex’s property back in June 2019.
That was prescient because it was done before Amex made its first big discovery, and even before it started drilling aggressively.
Anytime later and that would have been prime real estate with a prime price. Which is what it is, precisely, now.
Figure 1: Geological Map of the NewMetal property with the new acquired claims blocs with respect to Amex Exploration’s Perron Project.
Figure 1: Geological Map of the NewMetal property with the new acquired claims blocs with respect to Amex Exploration’s Perron Project
Starr Peak’s NewMétal Property is immediately east of AMEX’s Perron Property, and also hosts the past-producing Normétal Mine, which Starr Peak just acquired on August 10th 2020.
The acquisition hunger here has been incredibly aggressive. Even though Starr Peak and its early staged investors were already confident that the company was sitting on an Amex-style re-run, they still moved fast to keep expanding their position.
It’s been a series of acquisitions over the past 12 months, including a huge package that looks like a pincer movement around Quebec’s best-positioned gold play.
In June 2020, it expanded the first property by strategically acquiring a property that almost doubled its existing land position next to the world class deposit discovered by Amex.
There were dozens of companies trying to get their hands on the property, but Starr Peak already had a leg up in the area.
Then, in August, Starr Peak acquired a 100%-interest in three major gold properties, orchestrating what can only be described as a mining coup for a small-cap company like this:
The Normetal/Normetmar gold, copper, zinc and silver property
The Rousseau gold property
The Turgeon Lake gold property
Starr Peak now has 74 mineral claims on some 2,280 hectares in one of the world’s most exciting gold plays.
As we speak, Amex is drilling closer and closer to Starr Peak’s property line–and the closer it gets, the higher the grades of gold and the shallower the depth.
Right now, it’s only about 1.2 kilometers away from Starr Peak.
And Starr Peak is fully funded and ready to start drilling its own property, with the same top geological consulting firm in Quebec, Laurentia Exploration–the same one behind the Amex discovery–to ramp it up.
These are exciting times in the Canadian gold patch, and nowhere is more exciting than the untapped precious metals potential of the world’s favorite gold province–Quebec. This is where giant discoveries have a past, a present, and an even bigger future. If Normetal was a major player, and Amex a story of wild returns for investors, Starr Peak may be next in line.
Other companies set to benefit from record-high gold prices:
Freeport-McMoRan
While Freeport-McMoRan is primarily known for its significant copper mining operations, the resource giant also has a fair influx of gold as well. In fact, its Grasberg mine in Indonesia holds of the world’s largest deposits of copper and gold. But that’s just scratching the surface of the miner’s global assets. Freeport-McMoRan also has extensive operations across the Americas, including mines in Arizona, Mexico and Peru.
Though its business struggled as global demand for copper took a hit, panic-buying from China has lifted prices higher in recent months – and that’s good news for Freeport-McMoRan. In addition to climbing copper prices, gold prices hit record levels, which will add even more to the mining giant’s bottom line.
Freeport-McMoRan has had a solid year, with the price of its stock bouncing off a low of $5.31 back in March to a high of $15.70 today, representing a strong 195% gain for shareholders.
Gold Fields
Gold Fields has catapulted itself into the global mining elite in recent years thanks to its forward-looking vision and exceptional management. Based out of Johannesburg, South Africa, Gold Fields is one of the de facto leaders in the region. With operations in South Africa, Ghana, Australia and Peru, Gold Fields is well-diversified.
In 2019, Gold Fields produced over 68 tons of the precious metal, up nearly 8% from the year before. And thanks to this year’s rally in gold prices, it’s on track to produce even more by the end of 2020.
Last September, Gold Fields was trading at only $5.12 per share, but thanks to its increased production, and the dramatic rise in gold prices, it’s now trading at $13.15, which means investors who held on have brought home over 150% returns – with many analysts suggesting the stock could go even higher.
Compania de Minas Buenaventura
It’s rare to see miners from outside of North America on the New York Stock Exchange, but Peruvian Compania de Minas Buenaventura is an exception. Listing on the NYSE in 1996, Minas Buenaventura has clawed its way up the ranks of the global mining elite. Currently valued at $3.51 billion, the mining giant is far from its all-time highs. But it’s not down for the count just yet.
Minas Buenaventure is exposed to six different mining properties around the globe which bring in an estimated 945,000 ounces of gold every year. But that’s not all its got going for it. It is also has exposure to a number of silver mines which produce as much as 26.5 million ounces per year, and tens of thousands of metric tons of industrial metals such as zinc, lead and copper from its domestic mines.
Harmony Gold
Harmony Gold is another South African miner which has exploded onto the radars of investors this year. Though it’s only the third-largest miner in the country, it has made some stellar moves in the marketplace. Domestically, it has nine underground mines in the resource-rich Witwatersrand Basin and one open-pit mine in the Kraaipan Greenstone Belt. It also has a major joint-venture with Newcrest Mining in Papua New Guinea.
Earlier this year, Harmony raised a whopping $200 million to partially fund a key acquisition of AngloGold’s assets in its home country. The deal is expected to more-than-triple its gold production to as much as 1.8 million ounces per year.
This time last year, Harmony was trading at just $3.22, dropping to a low of $1.93 in March as a result of the wider market downturn, but it has since soared by 260% in a matter of months, now trading at $6.95 per share.
AngloGold Ashanti
AngloGold is the third-largest gold mining company by production volume. And though it has had some problems over the past decade, specifically in the early 2010s when the gold market took a major hit forcing many miners, including AngloGold to shutter operations, the mining giant has persevered.
AngloGold is one of the more diverse miners on the planet, shielding itself from country-specific regulatory troubles or civil strife. It has operations on four continents including Africa, Australia, South America and North America.
Though AngloGold hasn’t performed quite as well as some of its peers over the past year, it has shown that it still has the potential for long-term growth. Back in 2015, the company’s share price dropped to just $5.97, but since then, investors who have been able to hold onto the stock have seen a 401% return over a five-year period.
Canadian miners are in the race, as well:
Yamana Gold
Yamana, has recently completed its Cerro Moro project in Argentina, giving its investors something major to look out for. The company ramped up its gold production by 20% through 2019 and its silver production by a whopping 200%. Investors can expect a serious increase in free cash flow if precious metal prices remain stable.
Recently, Yamana signed an agreement with Glencore and Goldcorp to develop and operate another Argentinian project, the Agua Rica. Initial analysis suggests the potential for a mine life in excess of 25 years at average annual production of approximately 236,000 tonnes (520 million pounds) of copper-equivalent metal, including the contributions of gold, molybdenum, and silver, for the first 10 years of operation.
The agreement is a major step forward for the Agua Rica region, and all of the miners working on it.
Eldorado Gold Corp. is a mid-cap miner with assets in Europe and Brazil. It has managed to cut cost per ounce significantly in recent years. Though its share price isn’t as high as it once was, Eldorado is well positioned to make significant advancements in the near-term.
In 2018, Eldorado produced over 349,000 ounces of gold, well above its previous expectations, and boosted its production even further in 2019.
Eldorado’s President and CEO, George Burns, stated: “As a result of the team’s hard work in 2018, we are well positioned to grow annual gold production to over 500,000 ounces in 2020. We expect this will allow us to generate significant free cash flow and provide us with the opportunity to consider debt retirement later this year. “
First Majestic Silver
Though First Majestic recently took a significant blow, as a strong dollar weighed on precious metals resulting in a poor quarterly earnings report, there’s still a lot of bullishness surrounding the stock. Adding to the negative numbers, however, was a string of highly valuable acquisitions which are likely to turn around for the metals giant in the mid-to-long-term.
While it’s primary focus remains on silver mining, it does hold a number of gold assets, as well. Additionally, silver tends to follow gold’s lead when wider markets begin to look shaky. And with analysts sounding the alarms of a global economic slowdown, both metals are likely to regain popularity among investors.
Wheaton Precious Metals Corp.
Wheaton is a company with its hands in operations all around the world. As one of the largest ‘streaming’ companies on the planet, Wheaton has agreements with 19 operating mines and 9 projects still in development. Its unique business model allows it to leverage price increases in the precious metals sector, as well as provide a quality dividend yield for its investors.
Recently, Wheaton sealed a deal with Hudbay Minerals Inc. relating to its Rosemont project. For an initial payment of $230 million, Wheaton is entitled to 100 percent of payable gold and silver at a price of $450 per ounce and $3.90 per ounce respectively.
Randy Smallwood, Wheaton’s President and Chief Executive Officer explained, “With their most recent successful construction of the Constancia mine in Peru, the Hudbay team has proven themselves to be strong and responsible mine developers, and we are excited about the same team moving this project into production. Rosemont is an ideal fit for Wheaton’s portfolio of high-quality assets, and when it is in production, should add well over fifty thousand gold equivalent ounces to our already growing production profile.”
Pan American Silver
Pan American is a world-class mining operation with active projects in Mexico, Peru, Canada, Bolivia and Argentina. Though silver has seen better days, it is still a favorite among investors stocking up on safe haven assets.
Recently, Pan American made a major acquisition of Tahoe Resources, absorbing the company’s issued and outstanding shares.
Michael Steinmann, President and Chief Executive Officer of Pan American Silver, said: “The completion of the Arrangement establishes the world’s premier silver mining company with an industry-leading portfolio of assets, a robust growth profile and attractive operating margins. We are also now the largest publicly traded silver mining company by free float, offering silver mining investors enhanced scale and liquidity.”
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/34TpEj9 Tyler Durden
A Deal To Sell TikTok Probably Isn’t Happening Tuesday – Or Any Time Soon Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/01/2020 – 18:50
CNBC assured us yesterday that despite Beijing’s latest attempt to stall any sale of TikTok, that Chinese conglomerate ByteDance could announce a deal with a chosen US partner by the end of Tuesday.
Well, here we are: The business day has ended in North America, and Asia is just waking up on Wednesday morning, and while reporters have doubled down on their assurances that a deal just might be in the offing, this latest report from the Wall Street Journal highlighting new obstacles to a TikTok sale is a pretty obvious sign that we’re not going to get a deal tonight.
But then again, we suspected as much earlier, when President Trump insisted that Sept. 15 would, in fact, be a hard deadline for TikTok to be sold (even though his last EO technically extended that deadline). Whatever the ‘deadline’ may be, Beijing has already clearly signaled that it won’t allow a “smash & grab” deal. For whatever reason, the CCP is pumping the breaks. The other day, we surmised that President Xi might be savoring the chance to stick it to Trump by embarrassing him politically. But in truth, this is probably an ancillary benefit.
According to WSJ, which cited an anonymous source close to Beijing’s thinking, the goal of China’s latest attempt to obstruct the deal is simply to delay a deal, not to scuttle it completely.
A delay, this source reasons, would create an opportunity for the Chinese government to have a say as well as to subject it to a level of Chinese government scrutiny similar to that imposed by CFIUS, as Beijing works to bolster the narrative that the US’s claims about national security threats stemming from China are brazen hypocrisies, and that Washington is the real threat to Beijing’s security.
CFIUS has killed several deals involving Chinese companies, including the sale of Grindr, the queer-focused hookup app, to a Chinese company, for fear that it could make members of the US military vulnerable to blackmail.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian responded to a question about a TikTok sale by accusing the US of “economic-bullying and political-manipulation tactics against non-U.S. companies.”
WSJ’s report noted that Beijing’s decision to force regulatory approval of any sale of TikTok by ByteDance would complicate the talks because the only option ByteDance would have to get around these restrictions would be to sell TikTok to Microsoft-Wal-Mart (or whoever) while retaining the algorithm – something that analysts say would pretty much invalidate the entire point of the deal, since the algorithm is so critical to TikTok’s success.
Others argued that ByteDance could circumvent Beijing’s restrictions by just selling the shell of the business, allowing the buyer to simply build their own algorithm, like Facebook did when it launched Instagram Reels.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3gOLtm8 Tyler Durden
From today’s unanimous Arizona Supreme Court decision in State v. Arevalo, written by Justice John R. Lopez IV:
A.R.S. § 13-1202(B)(2), which enhances the sentence [here, from a class 1 misdemeanor to a class 6 felony] for threatening or intimidating if the defendant is a criminal street gang member, is [un]constitutional … because it increases a criminal sentence based solely upon gang status in violation of substantive due process….
The charges against defendant Christopher Arevalo arise from two distinct cases. First, as alleged, on March 4, 2017, Arevalo entered a convenience store, was asked to leave by an employee who recognized him from prior shoplifting incidents, and grabbed a bag of peanuts and a soda without paying. As he was leaving, Arevalo gestured towards the employee and the store manager, mimicked holding a firearm, and vocalized gunfire noises. Arevalo did not mention any gang affiliation during the encounter.
The employee and manager later told the police they believed Arevalo was a criminal street gang member and felt threatened by his behavior. After his arrest, Arevalo told officers he stole the items and, when questioned about gang membership, admitted he was a gang member. He explained he was a member of a street gang in Los Angeles and that he began associating with a local gang after moving to Arizona. Arevalo was indicted for two counts of threatening or intimidating in violation of § 13-1202(B)(2).
Then, on April 14, 2017, Arevalo’s father called 911 after Arevalo became aggressive during a family dispute. When police arrived, Arevalo was hiding in a bedroom and told police to leave. Arevalo threatened one officer, vowing to “bash his head” if the officer entered the room. Several officers eventually entered the room, wherein Arevalo threatened them with a tire iron. Arevalo was arrested and charged with two counts of threatening or intimidating in violation of § 13-1202(B)(2)…. The State … did not allege a nexus between Arevalo’s charged conduct and his gang membership….
“[G]uilt is personal, and when the imposition of punishment on a status or on conduct can only be justified by reference to the relationship of that status or conduct to other concededly criminal activity … that relationship must be sufficiently substantial to satisfy the concept of personal guilt in order to withstand attack under the Due Process Clause ….” Scales v. United States (1961).
In Scales, the defendant was charged under the Smith Act, which criminalized “the acquisition or holding of knowing membership in any organization which advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force or violence.” The indictment alleged that the defendant was a member of the Communist Party of the United States and had “knowledge of the Party’s illegal purpose and a specific intent” to overthrow the government. The defendant challenged the statute’s constitutionality, in part, on due process grounds because “it impermissibly impute[d] guilt to an individual merely on the basis of his associations and sympathies, rather than because of some concrete personal involvement in criminal conduct.”
The Court distilled the constitutional inquiry to “an analysis of the relationship between the fact of membership and the underlying substantive illegal conduct, in order to determine whether that relationship is indeed too tenuous to permit its use as the basis of criminal liability.” In the context of the Smith Act’s criminalization of Communist Party membership, the Court reasoned that due process is satisfied only if the statute was applied to ” ‘active’ members” who have a “guilty knowledge and intent.” The Court declined to recognize “[m]embership, without more, in an organization engaged in illegal advocacy,” as a sufficient nexus between association and criminal activity to satisfy the concept of personal guilt under the due process clause.
We extract from Scales the principle that due process allows criminalization of membership in an organization only if such status has a sufficient connection, or nexus, to the underlying criminal conduct. We also import Scales‘ qualitative standard, even though it predates the three-tiered scrutiny level analysis the Supreme Court later adopted, because the relationship between associational membership and the underlying criminal conduct “must be sufficiently substantial to satisfy the concept of personal guilt in order to withstand attack under the Due Process Clause.” … [W]e conclude that § 13-1202(B)(2) fails even rational basis review—and therefore we need not analyze whether the statute meets strict or intermediate scrutiny—because it does not require a nexus between threatening or intimidating and gang membership….
The State argues that “the increased risk of violence when threats or intimidation [are] done by a gang member, versus a non-gang member … is the nexus the Court of Appeals referenced when it concluded [§] 13-1202(B)(2) does not penalize mere membership in a street gang.” The State reasons that there only “needs to be a relationship between the gang status and the crime of threatening and intimidating that is sufficient to permit gang membership’s use as the basis of criminal liability,” rather than a direct correlation between an individual’s gang membership and the purpose of his actual threats. We disagree.
Although a gang member’s proclamation of membership, when it accompanies the crime of threatening or intimidating, might provide a sufficient nexus between membership and the crime to justify enhanced punishment, a theoretical or abstract connection between the two fails to satisfy Scales‘ due process standard because “the relationship between the fact of membership and the underlying substantive illegal conduct” must be sufficiently substantial to warrant punishment. A non-gang member’s threat is indistinguishable from that of a gang member if the threat is not bolstered—or connected—by gang membership. The flaw in the State’s argument is that it sanctions what due process forbids—punishment based solely on associational status….
An example is illustrative. Assume a teenager is, unbeknownst to his mother, a gang member. In the midst of a domestic disturbance, he threatens to strike his mother and is subsequently charged with threatening or intimidating. Under the State’s argument and the court of appeals’ reasoning, the defendant would be subject to a (B)(2) sentencing enhancement for gang membership even though his mother was unaware of his affiliation, he never invoked it to bolster his threat, and the crime was altogether unrelated to his gang activity. And even if the mother knew of her son’s gang membership, the State would not have to prove that knowledge or otherwise relate his membership to the offense to invoke (B)(2)’s enhancement.
{It may be true that the policy animating (B)(2)’s enactment is to confront what is presumed to be “the added menace inflicted when a criminal street gang member is engaged in criminal conduct,” but the statute’s text [does not require evidence of such menace]—it penalizes mere membership in a criminal street gang.} By its terms, § 13-1202(B)(2) permits sentencing enhancement absent any nexus between gang membership and the crime. The absence of a nexus requirement between gang status and the crime of threatening or intimidating renders the statute facially invalid ….
The statute in Scales criminalized organizational membership whereas § 13-1202(B)(2) enhances a sentence, based on gang membership, for an underlying personal crime. But, as the State conceded at argument, this distinction is immaterial. Scales‘ “personal guilt” or “nexus” due process requirement applies with equal force to substantive offenses and sentencing enhancements….
The statutory structure of § 13-1202 further dispels the notion that (B)(2) serves any purpose other than to enhance punishment based solely on gang status. Section 13-1202(A)(3) provides: “A person commits threatening or intimidating if the person threatens or intimidates by word or conduct: … [t]o cause physical injury to another person or damage to the property of another in order to promote, further or assist in the interests of or to cause, induce or solicit another person to participate in a criminal street gang ….” A violation of (A)(3) is a class 3 felony pursuant to § 13-1202(C).
Section (A)(3) evinces the legislature’s intent to justify an enhanced sentence for threatening or intimidating when a sufficient nexus exists between a defendant’s gang membership and the underlying crime. By contrast, other than its impermissible purpose to penalize mere gang membership, any constitutional application of (B)(2) would render the provision superfluous because a violation of (A)(3) would, in most instances, subsume it.
We note that courts in other jurisdictions have held similar statutes unconstitutional as violative of due process if they penalize gang membership without requiring a nexus between gang status and the underlying crime…. In O.C., the Florida Supreme Court invalidated a statute that enhanced penalties “[u]pon a finding by the court at sentencing that the defendant is a member of a criminal street gang” because the statute did not require a nexus and lacked a ” ‘reasonable and substantial relation’ to a permissible legislative objective.”
Similarly, in Bonds, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals examined a statute that stated, in relevant part, that “[a] criminal gang offense committed by a defendant who was a criminal gang member at the time of the offense shall be punished one (1) classification higher than the classification established by the specific statute creating the offense committed.” The defendants challenged the statute as a violation of substantive due process because it “lack[ed] a nexus between gang membership and criminal conduct.” The court held the subsection unconstitutional as it was “completely devoid of language requiring that the underlying offense be somehow gang-related.” Consequently, like § 13-1202(B)(2), the statute impermissibly enhanced the defendant’s punishment solely for his association with a gang….
I’m skeptical of the court’s conclusion that the statute “fails even rational basis review”; that famously forgiving standard, under which statutes must be upheld if there is “any conceivable rational basis” to believe they “further a legitimate governmental interest,” seems amply satisfied here. For instance, the law can be rationally believed to further a legitimate governmental interest in deterring street gang membership.
Likewise, it can be rationally believed to further a legitimate governmental interest in especially punishing crimes that are especially threatening or intimidating, because people who know the criminal is a street gang member may be especially frightened (and especially reluctant to call the police). To be sure, the law may be overinclusive to that interest, because the law applies even to defendants whom the victims don’t suspect of being gang members; but overinclusiveness is generally not enough to invalidate a statute under the rational basis test. I think it would have been better for the court to acknowledge that it was applying more demanding review than the traditional “rational basis review” (Scales does suggest that more demanding review is called for), and to explain why the statute failed that review.
The statute, by the way, defined “criminal street gang” to essentially mean “an ongoing formal or informal association of persons in which members or associates individually or collectively engage in the commission, attempted commission, facilitation or solicitation of any felony act.”
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2YXVLdw
via IFTTT
Trump Lashes Out At Drudge Over “Fake News Report On Mini-Strokes”; Suggests Selfish, Ulterior Motives Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/01/2020 – 18:27
President Trump lashed out at the Drudge Report on Tuesday, after the formerly right-leaning news aggregator headlined a rumor from New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt, who claimed that Trump had suffered a series of small strokes last year, requiring Vice President Mike Pence to be on ‘standby’ in case Trump was incapacitated.
“Drudge didn’t support me in 2016, and I hear he doesn’t support me now. Maybe that’s why he is doing poorly,” Trump claimed in a Tuesday tweet, adding “His Fake News report on Mini-Strokes is incorrect. Possibly thinking about himself, or the other party’s “candidate”.
Drudge didn’t support me in 2016, and I hear he doesn’t support me now. Maybe that’s why he is doing poorly. His Fake News report on Mini-Strokes is incorrect. Possibly thinking about himself, or the other party’s “candidate”. https://t.co/9FraoFqOKq
Earlier in the day, Trump tweeted “Now they are trying to say that your favorite President, me, went to Walter Reed Medical Center, having suffered a series of mini-strokes,” adding “Never happened to THIS candidate – FAKE NEWS. Perhaps they are referring to another candidate from another Party!”
It never ends! Now they are trying to say that your favorite President, me, went to Walter Reed Medical Center, having suffered a series of mini-strokes. Never happened to THIS candidate – FAKE NEWS. Perhaps they are referring to another candidate from another Party!
Of course, it’s perhaps a bit of a stretch for Trump to suggest that Drudge wasn’t pulling for him in 2016. Could this be ‘4D chess’ to force a discussion on Drudge’s clear ideological shift over the past year?
In April, President Trump retweeted conservative journalist Paul Sperry, who called a Drudge Report headline about coronavirus peaking “disingenuous,” to which Trump said “I gave up on Drudge (a really nice guy) long ago, as have many others. People are dropping off like flies!” His comment was a reference to conservative figures growing less popular, and Drudge losing web traffic, after breaking with Trump, and not the rising death toll in the U.S. from coronavirus.”
I gave up on Drudge (a really nice guy) long ago, as have many others. People are dropping off like flies! https://t.co/L77SXS2mE8
Drudge responded, telling CNN “The past 30 days has been the most eyeballs in Drudge Report’s 26 year-history,” adding “Heartbreaking that it has been under such tragic circumstances.”
Former Drudge employee Joseph Curl suggested that Matt Drudge simply wants ‘more turmoil’ and ‘doesn’t give a shit about America.’
This is pretty big coming from someone like Curl, who worked closely with Drudge not that long ago. https://t.co/pIK5w1Z3kc
Senior editor, Ash Bennington, hosts Tony Greer, editor of The Morning Navigator, to discuss how the Fed’s “inflation running hot” memo has been translated by the markets. With a weakening dollar, rally in TIPS, and a steeper yield curve, Tony argues that the asset price inflation happening is the way the Fed had intended it to be and that understanding how the Fed fits into the equation will shape the investor’s understanding of the sustainability of this rally. He and Ash examine the price action and continuous rotation across different sectors as well as how commodities continuing to rip is an expression of an ever-weakening dollar. Tony then provides his forward guidance for the remainder of the week. In the intro, Nick Correa goes over the newest U.S. manufacturing numbers as well as what’s happening with copper and other industrial metals.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3jzZmq7 Tyler Durden
