Tag: news

Via Oriental Review,

Amid the escalating economic war between the US and China, discussions have intensified on how Beijing might stand up to the economic power of America, especially given that the global economy is increasingly dependent on the US dollar as the main currency for international trade, and the closing of US markets could do some serious damage to China’s export-oriented companies. China’s main foreign-policy publication, the Global Times, points to three trump cards that Beijing could use to at least level the playing field in its fight with the Trump administration and cause appreciable harm to the US economy, possibly forcing its opponent to temporarily scale back its ambitions.

According to an article in the Global Times by a professor at the Renmin University of China, the three trump cards are:

1) banning the export of rare earths to the US;

2) blocking US companies’ access to Chinese markets; and

3) using China’s portfolio of US Treasury bonds to bring down the US government debt market.

Each of these trump cards are worth looking at in detail, both in terms of their impact on the US economy and also in terms of any possible retaliation from the US and the repercussions for the global economy as a whole.

Banning the export of rare earths to the US would actually be a pretty serious blow for US electronics manufacturers and, indeed, US high-tech manufacturers generally. This is because rare earths are a key raw material for the production of smartphones, various chips, and other high-value-added products that are the biggest cash cows of US companies such as Apple and Boeing.

President Donald Trump during a meeting with Chinese Vice Premier Liu He over trade talks in the Oval Office, February 22, 2019

Reuters, an agency one could hardly accuse of sympathising with Beijing, reports: “The United States has again decided not to impose tariffs on rare earths and other critical minerals from China, underscoring its reliance on the Asian nation for a group of materials used in everything from consumer electronics to military equipment.”

China does not exactly have a monopoly on such materials, but the market would definitely be in short supply without Chinese exports, with all the price implications that would bring. Moreover, it is likely that some deficit positions will be impossible to close no matter how much money is involved.

Not everything is that simple, however. Should such a ban be introduced, then Beijing will encounter certain technical difficulties. If sanctions are only imposed on US companies, then they will still be able to purchase the necessary materials through Japanese or European straw buyers, making the embargo pointless. But if China imposes a total export ban, then it won’t just be US companies that suffer but European ones as well, leading to EU reprisals against Chinese exporters to Europe. This would be very painful for China, especially given the economic war with the US that is making access to European markets invaluable to the Chinese economy.

It appears that a ban on rare earth exports is a powerful weapon, but its use will require the utmost delicacy and serious diplomatic efforts to avoid any extremely unpleasant side effects.

The second trump card mentioned by the Global Times is blocking US companies’ access to the fast-growing and extensive Chinese market. This should be looked at from a political, rather than economic, point of view (although the latter may seem logical). The aim of such restrictive measures is not to inflict unacceptable damage on the US economy, but to make the full might of America’s corporate lobbying machine work against Donald Trump and support his political opponents.

According to the S&P Dow Jones Indices, Asia only accounts for around 14 per cent of the sales of S&P 500 companies. If we assume that China makes up the majority of this, then not even a complete closure of the Chinese markets would be a disaster. There are a few important details, however.

• First, China is the only (and final) market for sales growth for many US companies. So if China closes, the graphs at business presentations won’t be showing any kind of growth.

• Second, China plays a key role in many production chains that end with sales in the US and other markets. A loss of access to Chinese production would therefore severely damage the competitiveness of American companies on the world (and even on the US) market, especially if their European and Japanese competitors retain complete access to China’s production facilities.

As a result, the profits of US companies and the future of the American stock market (which is a key political barometer given that many Americans have invested their savings in shares) would be at risk. It might be possible to offset these problems by transferring production to other Asian countries with cheap labour and favourable terms, but this couldn’t be done quickly and it would be risky, given that Trump is waging trade wars with everyone from the European Union to loyal US allies such as Japan and India. In light of this, US companies will have a huge incentive to prevent Trump from being elected for a second term, and the lobbying and political capabilities of that part of the US corporate sector that will suffer the most from this trump card could really play a key role in the political victory of Trump’s opponents.

The third trump card involves China dumping its portfolio of US Treasury bonds. The Global Times writes: “China holds more than $1 trillion of US Treasury bonds. China made a great contribution to stabilizing the US economy by buying US debt during the financial crisis in 2008. The US would be miserable if China hits it when it is down.” One can conclude from this that Beijing will most probably save dumping its portfolio of US treasury bonds for dessert – in that it will have the biggest impact when the US stock market is experiencing its next crisis.

China’s Vice Premier Liu He (left) speaks during a meeting with President Donald Trump (right) in the Oval Office of the White House on February 22, 2019

The move is not likely to cause catastrophic damage in and of itself (although the value of US bonds will definitely fall), but if it is done at the moment when America is most vulnerable, then China’s portfolio may well end up being the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

Beijing is not displaying a particularly cocksure attitude. As the Global Times’ editor-in-chief quite rightly notes on Twitter:

“Most Chinese agree that the US is more powerful than China and Washington holds initiative in the trade war. But we just don’t want to cave in and we believe there is no way the US can crush China. We are willing to bear some pain to give the US a lesson.”

As China lays its trump cards on the table, the world’s globalised economy will creak and collapse. Globalisation is going backwards, and chances are we’ll end up with a completely different economic system that has more protectionism. Instead of a global market, there will be several large regional markets with their own rules, dominant currencies, technical standards, and financial systems.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2JJ1rCf Tyler Durden

If you don’t know about Jeopardy Champion James Holzhauer by now, you haven’t been paying attention (or read “Meet The Man Who Mastered “Jeopardy!” By Ignoring Conventional Wisdom“). Holzhauer has shocked the world, not only by amassing millions of dollars in Jeopardy winnings, but doing it at a blistering pace, making former Jeopardy champion Ken Jennings look like a snail in comparison. Despite being $455,000 behind Jennings in total winnings still, Holzhauer is closing in Jennings’ $2.5 million at breakneck speed. 

The New York Times has published two charts showing, graphically, just how efficient of a player Holzhauer has been. As you can see from the first chart, Holzhauer’s pace when compared to former champion Ken Jennings is stunning. He is averaging about $76,500 per episode, compared to Jennings’ $34,000 per episode. 

In addition, his projected winnings, should he continue at this pace, will likely near $6 million by the time he has played as many game as Jennings. Jennings’ streak is, so far, still 47 games longer than Holzhauer. 

When factoring in the “Tournament of Champions” games, Brad Rutter is still the all time earner at $4.7 million. Inclusive of these games, Jennings stands at $3.4 million. 

Here are some other “by the numbers” facts about Holzhauser’s incredible run, courtesy of freelance writer Bill Rice, Jr, a freelance writer in Troy, Alabama. 

• 0 –  Number of Daily Double clues answered incorrectly by James in game’s “Double Jeopardy” round (through 28 games).
• 5 – Through 28 episodes, number of games where James won more than $100,000.
• 7 – Through 28 games, number of times James wagered $11,914 in Daily Doubles (his daughter’s birthday: 11-9-14).
• 7 – Number of times James wagered $9,812 in Daily Doubles (his wedding date: 9-8-12).
• 10 – Number of “perfect games” – no incorrect responses  – recorded by James in first 28  games (includes clues in Final Jeopardy). 
• 10 – Number of games James had only one incorrect response (through 28 games).
• 13 – According to James, approximate number of years he tried to get on “Jeopardy!” before being selected as a contestant. James, 34, began trying in college.
• 15 – Through 28 episodes, number of games where James won more than $80,000.
• 15 – Number of spots James holds in Top 15 all-time winnings on show (through 28 games).
• 20 – Number of games (through 28) where James had either zero or one incorrect response.
• 21 – Number of times James went “all in” on these first-round Daily Doubles.
• 22 – Number of Daily Doubles “found” by James in the game’s first round (first 28 games).
• 28 – Number of consecutive games won by James Holzhauer though May 25.
• 35.9 – Average number of correct responses per game by Ken Jennings (includes Final Jeopardy).
• 37.15 – Average number of correct responses per game by James (includes Final Jeopardy)
• 41 – Percent increase in show’s ratings over same period a year ago.
• 68 – Percent of Final Jeopardy clues correctly answered by Ken Jennings (51-of-75).
• 96.4 – Percent of Final Jeopardy clues correctly answered by James (27/28) in first 28 games.
• 120 – Consecutive correct responses by James in Games 22 through 24.

We detailed Holzhauer’s strategy at length in a recent post , remarking how the “secret” of his success was turning conventional wisdom on its head. Unlike 99.9% of the game’s previous contestants, he starts at the bottom of the board and goes sideways.

“It seems pretty simple to me: If you want more money, start with the bigger-money clues,” Holzhauer explained in an interview with Vulture magazine. He told NPR “What I do that’s different than anyone who came before me is I will try to build the pot first” before seeking out the game’s Daily Doubles. He then “leverages” his winnings with “strategically aggressive” wagers (read: wagers far larger than any contestant before him was willing to make).

This strategy – along with the fact he’s answering 96.7 percent of the clues correctly –  has allowed James to build insurmountable leads heading into Final Jeopardy. He can then be ultra-aggressive with his Final Jeopardy wagers, including one of $60,013. It was this wager that allowed James to establish his current single-game record of $131,016.

You can read more on his strategy here. 

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2W9woWM Tyler Durden

Authored by Major Danny Sjursen via AntiWar.com,

Time was that a stint, or even a career, in the military did not necessarily translate into any serious combat duty. That may seem hard to believe eighteen years after 9/11, but this middle-aged middling major is just old enough to remember such a bygone era. As a cadet at West Point (2001-05), having joined the army just months before the September 11 attacks, most of my professors and tactical officers had never been to war. The colonels had joined in the early 1980s and, at worst, saw limited combat in the petite (and absurd) conflicts in Panama and/or Grenada. The captains and majors commissioned in the early 1990s. As such, most just missed Persian Gulf War 1.0, a few deployed to Somalia or the Balkans, and most hadn’t seen the elephant at all.

Back then, soldiers trained for war but didn’t necessarily expect to fight in one. The Cold War, post-Vietnam army was built as much to contain America’s enemies, and to deter war, as it was to actually engage in combat. Those days seem charmingly quaint from the viewpoint of 2019. Indeed, when I entered the U.S. Military Academy on July 2, 2001, my expectation was to travel the world and maybe do some light peacekeeping in Bosnia or Kosovo, not to fight extended wars. How naive that seems now.

Instead I spent a career training for and deploying to wars across the Greater Middle East. Hell, that’s been the story of my entire generation of soldiers. When I graduated in 2005, this still seemed unique and profound. More than a decade later it’s simply the mundane way of things. So it was, this past week, that Vice President Mike Pence addressed the graduating class at West Point, and reminded them to prepare for ever more war.

The content of this bellicose, and banal, speech should have been remarkable; should have raised Americans’ collective “spidey-sense.” Instead, hardly anyone noticed that Pence, like a Punxsutawney groundhog, was veritably predicting many more years of winter (read: warfare). Still, the vice president’s oratory was disturbing on a number of levels.

First off, he bragged about President Trump’s absurd military budget and explained that the cadets should be honored to join “an Army that’s better equipped, better trained, and better supplied than any United States Army in the history of this country.” Evidence for such an assertion was glaringly absent, and none in the audience had the opportunity to ask why this unsurpassed army hasn’t won a single war in this century. Also absent was any discussion of the tradeoffs inherent in ballooning defense spending, the opportunity costs of such largesse, or an explanation as to why the US spends more on its military than the next seven nations combined. And why should he have brought any of this up? Defense spending is politically popular; it’s the one type of public outlay that draws essentially no criticism.

Next, Pence engaged in some genuine truth-telling that revealed the nature of military service in a time of forever war. He informed the cadets that “It is a virtual certainty that you will fight on a battlefield for America at some point in your life.  You will lead soldiers in combat.  It will happen.” This should have been a controversial statement, an alarming prophecy of perpetual war. Only in 2019 that’s the norm for military members and their families. They should expect combat, because almost no mainstream political figures demonstrate the capacity or intent to reign in the American war machine.

Pence went further, though, and actually listed out where these newly minted officers should expect to fight. Sure he listed the usual suspects – “Some of you will join the fight against radical Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq” – so apparently the war on terror will roar on indefinitely.

However, Pence also listed a few other places where the young officers will join “the fight,” including the “Korean peninsula,” the South China Sea, and Europe (against “an aggressive Russia”). Mind you, there are – as of yet – no actual shooting wars in any of these locales, thus labeling them ongoing “fights” is both provocative and irresponsible.

Nevertheless, the true surprise, and most distressing of all, was the VP’s casual assertion that “some of you may even be called upon to serve in this hemisphere.” This was a clear reference to Venezuela, Washington’s stated policy of regime change there, and to the recent kick off of Cold War 2.0 with what John Bolton labeled the “troika of tyranny” – Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua. Never mind that not a single one of these tinpot tyrannies presents a significant threat to the US, Pence still gleefully paraded the old ghost, and villain, of “socialism.” It was all so 1980s!

Pence’s retro foreign policy, and outrageously pugnacious rhetoric befit the actions of an empire, not a republic. His casual assumption that today’s young graduates – most of whom were kindergarteners on 9/11 – will see combat in both ongoing and future wars reflects life in an increasingly militaristic and unhinged society. That such crazy is so routine is even more problematic.

The normalization of war can be just as detrimental to a republic as war itself. The barbarians are not at the gates, folks. War is not a foregone conclusion or a national necessity. Each successive occupant of the White House only needs you to believe that in order to centralize the power of an increasingly imperial presidency, stifle dissent, and chip away at what remains of civil liberties.

Seen in its proper context, Pence’s speech would have raised alarm bells in a healthy, functioning republic. But America in 2019 is far from that. Instead, the VP’s staggeringly absurd speech registered as barely a blip on the media’s 24-hour news cycle. After eighteen years of perpetual conflict, members of the military, and the populace at large, have grown immune to the inertia of war. As such, the republic’s bleeding is internal, as American Democracy dies a slow, opaque death from the inside out. It may be too late to reverse course, and one wonders if a distracted and apathetic public even notices…

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2ws6T3T Tyler Durden

A car company in Central China has claimed that it has built a hydrogen powered vehicle that’s capable of traveling up to 500km using only water as power, according to the South China Morning Post. 

The vehicle was made by Qingnian Cars in Henan province and made its first drive on Wednesday of last week when local Communist Party chiefs visited the plant. The vehicle has reportedly not been tested over longer distances, but Ping Qingnian, the company’s CEO, said that it could go 300 to 500km using 300 to 400 liters of water as fuel. 

Qingnian said: “The cost [of research and development] is a trade secret that I cannot reveal. We achieved this at a low cost, this is our company’s technology.”

“The water that we are using is ours, we don’t have to go to the Middle East to buy [petrol]. Water is not polluting either,” Pang continued, explaining that the engine ran on a chemical reaction using a catalyst applied to a mixture of aluminum powder and water. He said the company could recycle the reactants used in the process.

Hydrogen continues to “gain steam” in the new energy vehicles market, but still remain far less mainstream than electric vehicles. These vehicles generally react hydrogen and oxygen to power an electric motor. To fuel with water alone, the water has to undergo electrolysis, which creates hydrogen power. 

Many hydrogen cars in the past have been debunked or written off as not cost efficient or energy efficient. Qingnian’s vehicle was confirmed by an official from the Nanyang Bureau of Industry and Information Technology as “only a prototype” and the car is not in mass production yet. 

The company has been developing the technology with Hubei University of Technology since 2006. 

Jiang Feng, a professor of material sciences at Xian Jiaotong University responded to widespread skepticism on the web: “If you don’t understand it, at least you should have a tolerant attitude toward it. I think making emotionally charged comments is inappropriate.”

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/30SOCKT Tyler Durden

Authored by Alex Kimani via SafeHaven.com,

First there was Tether; a controversial dollar-backed cryptocurrency by crypto exchange firm, Bitfinex. Then came Petro, the industry’s first oil-backed crypto issued by the Venezuelan government last year. And now we might be about to see the first gold-backed cryptocurrency—by a central bank, no less. According to Russian news agency, TASS, Russia’s central bank, the Bank of Russia will consider issuing gold-backed cryptocurrencies – a rather strange move considering how cryptocurrencies are generally anathema to central banks.

Shot in the arm

But before crypto bugs can start doing a round of high fives, the head of the Bank of Russia, Elvira Nabiullina, has revealed that the cryptocurrencies are not meant for retail use but rather for conducting big mutual settlements for entities with global jurisdictions.

In other words, only the heavyweights will get to lay their hands on them. Further, she says that she still believes that it’s better for countries to develop international settlement systems such as the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) framework that use their own national currencies noting the said framework has demonstrated good dynamics.

Finally, she admonishes that the latest twist should not be interpreted to mean that the bank supports a scenario where cryptocurrencies eventually replace fiat in the monetary system.

The Bank of Russia’s latest move is a belated concession that cryptocurrencies do have a place in the modern monetary system, whether banks and financial institutions like it or not. It’s a big shot in the arm for an industry that has endured so much unmerited criticism, animus and outright rejection.

Last month, the Bank of Russia released a policy brief outlining the potential benefits of CBDCs (central bank digital currencies) including being less risky than existing systems and a more liquid asset that can lower transaction costs.

It’s worth noting that the bank cited anonymity as the only major drawback of CBDCs (and possibly cryptos by extension).

Russia’s largest bank is not the only one to endorse cryptos–though it’s the only central bank to-date to expressly say it’s seriously considering launching one.

A couple of days ago, the European Central Bank (ECB) declared thatcryptocurrencies are not a threat to the region’s financial stability. Closer home, JPMorgan launched JPM Coin in February, a stablecoin meant for clients of its wholesale payments business. Each JPM Coin is pegged to a dollar.

Finally last year, a banking consortium launched We.Trade, a challenger to Ripple, the cryptocurrency that facilitates interbank transfers.

Commodity-backed cryptos survive

Recently, CoinTelegraph reported that Bank of Russia was discussing mutual settlements with Venezuela in Petro and the Russian Ruble. That will certainly mark a major milestone for Maduro’s infantile cryptocurrency.

When President Maduro’s beleaguered government launched Petro last year, we dismissed it arguing it was destined to fail due to lack of trust from the community with commodity-backed cryptos having their fair share of scandals. What we failed to anticipate was the brutal determination by the Venezuelan government in making sure it’s brainchild not only survives but thrives.

Since then, Maduro has elevated Petro to an alternate official currency while using underhand tactics such as converting pensioners’ payments to the cryptocurrency without their consent in a bid to make it go mainstream. Popular crypto blog CCN reported in January that Petro seems to be alive and well despite lack of evidence for the oil stockpiles that are supposed to back it up and also being user-unfriendly.

And now Venezuela’s Petro is about to get a new lease on life after teaming up with another renegade. Both countries eschew the dollar viewing it as being too dominant and hope the new cryptocurrency will help them ditch the American currency.

Yet another stablecoin—the dollar-backed Tether—seems to be doing well, too, despite its share of controversies. A month ago, New York AG charged Bitfinex with dipping into its Tether cash reserves to cover up internal losses.

The fact that many commodity-backed cryptos seem to be surviving major trust issues is almost a validation of the whole idea of having a physical commodity back-stopping a digital currency.  

The new ones by Russia’s central bank will have a much lower hurdle to clear.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2YSt92T Tyler Durden

During the lengthened Memorial Day weekend, Chicago police responded to 42 people shot, seven of whom died of their injuries.

The violence was slightly above average for this time of year, according to homicide data indexed by the Chicago Tribune.

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot told reporters on Monday that the surge in violent crime over the weekend “is just an unacceptable state of affairs.”

“I certainly knew that before, but to see it graphically depicted is quite shocking and says that we’ve got a long way to go as a city,” she said. “This is not a law enforcement-only challenge. It’s a challenge for all of us in city government. It’s a challenge for us in communities to dig down deeper and ask ourselves what we can do to step up to stem the violence.“

Lightfoot stressed that gun violence is not how residents should resolve disputes. “For those who think it is, we can give them no quarter, they can have no sanctuary in our city,” she said. “We’ve got to make sure we flood these areas with a lot more resources.”

Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson also told reporters a new program to crack down on illegal guns had been implemented to curb gun violence.

The extended holiday weekend, combined with elevated temperatures, allowed more people to hit the streets, therefore some neighborhoods across Chicago transformed into warzones. Leading up to the weekend, Chicago police raided several trap houses and added addition shifts to patrols.

Since Friday afternoon, the shootings stretched from Roseland to West Rogers Park. The Tribune notes the epicenter of the violence was in the South and West sides of the city that are considered low-income areas.

As shown in the chart below, shootings and homicides ramped up into the holiday weekend and exploded on Sunday. From 5/26 through 5/28, three people were shot and killed, 21 people shot and wounded, and a total of 5 homicides.

However, the violence subsided on Monday due to inclement weather, which deterred people from congregating on city streets.

For the month, 40 people have been shot and killed, 175 people shot and wounded, and a total of 43 homicides.

Year to date, 174 people have been shot and killed, 720 people shot and wounded, and a total of 189 homicides.

Every 3 minutes and 57 seconds, someone in Chicago is shot. A person is murdered about ever 18.5 hours. 

And according to HeyJackass!, an online crime statistic website, the current forecasts show about 200 homicides and an additional 950 shooting from now to Labor Day weekend.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2X9YzBj Tyler Durden

While the dollar is giving back some of the day’s gains as Asia opens, US equities and US Treasury yields are extending the day’s trends  – collapsing further…

S&P Futs broke below 2,800 and kept going…

To lowest since early March…

10Y Yields just touched 2.24%…

But the dollar is reversing its US session trend early on as safe haven flows are surging into yen…

And Yuan is also weaker…

 

And finally, the Aussie yield curve just inverted…

 

 

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2EDVBhA Tyler Durden

Authored by José Niño via The Mises Institute,

On May 9, 2019 Florida Governor Ron Desantis signed SB 7030 into law, which allows school or contract employees to be armed under Florida’s new Guardian Program. Local district superintendents must appoint these individuals, and then they must receive final approval from the school board. On top of that, staff who wants to be armed must also complete rigorous training and possess a valid concealed carry license. The training course mandates 144 hours of training, which emphasizes proper firearms usage.

Like clockwork, anti-gun commentators sounded off against this legislation, expressing their horror at the prospect of armed teachers. Fierce gun control advocate and 2020 presidential hopeful, Eric Swalwell, criticizedthis measure. He declared that “More guns is not the solution. Teachers with guns is not the solution.” Instead he believes that the solution to this dilemma is “getting the most dangerous weapons out of the hands of the most dangerous people. Period.”

Naturally, with Florida as the epicenter of the gun control debate after the 2018 Parkland shooting, the passage of a law to arm teachers will stir up heated debate. Despite the hand-wringing from gun control advocates, states that have armed personnel on campus are not filled with rampant cases of gun violence.

Research Shows that Arming Teachers is Not a Disaster in the Making

New research published by John Lott’s Crime Prevention Research Center shows that schools that allow teachers to carry have not experienced shootings during school hours. He noted that schools allowing teachers to carry have “been remarkably safe” and there “has yet to be a single case of someone being wounded or killed from a shooting, let alone a mass public shooting, at a school that lets teachers carry guns.” Lott also found that the “average rate of death or injury from shooting is 0.039 per 100,000 students across all schools,” whereas the rate of death or injury from shooting is 0 per 100,000 in schools with armed teachers.

A Decent Step in the Right Direction

While not an infringement on gun rights, Florida’s newly passed law is a marginal upgrade at best. First of all, it still treats the carry of firearms as a regulated privilege where individuals must jump through plenty of hurdles just to exercise a “right” they supposedly have. However, more fundamental in this discussion is the nature of federal gun-free zones and school autonomy.

Under the bipartisan Gun-Free School Zones Act , which was introduced by 2020 Presidential candidate Joe Biden and then signed into law by Republican President George H.W. Bush in 1990, the possession or carry of firearms within one thousand feet of public, private, and parochial elementary and high schools is prohibited. As a result, schools have turned into potential soft targets for those willing to inflict harm.

We’re already witnessing reduced crime rates throughout the nation during the past three decades. Even with the increase of per capita gun ownership, crime rates have continued to fall much to the gun control advocates’ dismay. Curiously, mass shootings continue to take place in gun-free zones. Approximately 98 percent of mass shootings take place in these kinds of venues. Hardly anyone brings this point up, nor do they strike at the root of the problem — the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act .

How To Make Schools Safe

In an ideal world, 1990 GFSZA should be repealed. However, the solution to school safety is not so much about legislation that arms teachers. Instead, it should be more centered on giving school’s the freedom to decide how security services are provisioned in their facilities. If that means arming teachers to the teeth, that is the school’s prerogative. However, certain schools would likely prefer to have armed security personnel instead. In a previous article addressing gun-free zones, Jeff Deist notes there is a “market impulse to outsource services to specialists.”

Deist draws on real-world examples to illustrate this point:

“This is why neighborhoods hire private security patrols, and why celebrities hire professional bodyguards. Not everyone wants to carry a gun or train themselves in gun proficiency. And there is the issue of scale, where individuals might find themselves arrayed against organized criminal gangs.”

Free societies do not entail one-size-fits-all solutions. They deal with rigorous experimentation and the freedom to voluntarily associate and transact with others. Certain types of arrangements will look differently from others. The key is that people that mutually cooperate with each other on a voluntary basis.

In discussions concerning guns at schools, teachers, administrators, parents, etc – not politicians or bureaucrats in far-away jurisdictions like Washington D.C. – should be the ones determining security policies on campus. A good place to start is by allowing local jurisdictions to reassert local control over school safety policy. Although Florida’s SB 7030 is not a comprehensive reform, it has started a new conversation on how schools can provide safer environments for students.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2Mp2U30 Tyler Durden

Having been practically a recluse since since the ‘fake dossier’ alleging links between Donald Trump and Russia that he produced was published by BuzzFeed in January 2017, Christophe Steele has reportedly refused to cooperate with AG Barr’s probes.

Reuters reports that, according to a source with knowledge of the situation, Steele, a former Russia expert for the British spy agency MI6, will not answer questions from prosecutor John Durham, named by Barr to examine the origins of the investigations into Trump and his campaign team.

However, buried deep in Reuters story is the same source claiming that Steele might cooperate with a parallel inquiry by the Justice Department’s Inspector General into how U.S. law enforcement agencies handled pre-election investigations into both Trump and Clinton.

In the past Steele has cooperated, willingly being interviewed twice in the special counsel’s investigation, and submitting answers in writing to the Senate Intelligence Committee, but apparently this time he is not willing.

With Steel refusing to cooperate, Joe DiGenova, former U.S. Attorney warned Monday on WMAL radio’s Mornings on the Mall radio show,

“this is full scale war,” adding that “we are heading toward a gigantic, gigantic fight…

The intelligence community, which includes the FBI, is in full resistance to disclosing what they did during the presidential campaign.”

Sara Carter reports that DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz is expected to release his report on the FBI’s handling of the investigation into Trump within weeks.

These investigation will hold those in the intelligence and law enforcement community accountable, depending on what evidence is discovered. This reporter is hearing from sources that it will be scathing. Those who abused their power and weaponized the tools meant to target America’s enemies against a political opponents should be held accountable.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2WsnTp7 Tyler Durden