US Attorney General Finally Admits Weed Isn’t A Gateway Drug… But Prescription Pills Are

Submitted by Alice Salles via TheAntiMedia.org,

The National Institute on Drug Abuse is a U.S. federal research institute focused on[advancing] science on the causes and consequences of drug use and addiction … to apply that knowledge to improve individual and public health. ” Though it admits “the majority of people who use marijuana do not go on to use other, ‘harder’ substances,” it still describes marijuana as a gateway drug.

But U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch recently told a group of Kentucky high school students the role of marijuana in the national drug abuse debate has been overstated.

While discussing how heroin abuse and how individuals often develop an addiction, Lynch argued:

[I]ndividuals [start out] with a prescription drug problem, and then because they need more and more, they turn to heroin. It isn’t so much that marijuana is the step right before using prescription drugs or opioids —  it is true that if you tend to experiment with a lot of things in life, you may be inclined to experiment with drugs, as well. But it’s not like we’re seeing that marijuana as a specific gateway.”

Attorney General Lynch added that instead of trafficking rings, what “introduce[s] a person to opioids … [is] the household medicine cabinet.”

 

The event she attended was part of the Prescription Opioid Heroin Epidemic Awareness Week, a campaign designed by the White House that includes “250 different events highlighting the importance of prevention, enforcement, and treatment.” As expected, the campaign focused on advertising the official approach to drug abuse, encouraging the public to support the Obama administration’s approach to the opioid crisis.

Measures embraced by the administration includeexpanding evidence-based prevention and treatment programs, increasing access to the overdose-reversal medicine naloxone, and supporting targeted enforcement activities.” But nowhere in the official campaign page is there a list of practical solutions to the opioid crisis, an admission of guilt, or a concession stating that, despite marijuana’s official federal classification, cannabis is not seen as the root of the problem by the very head of the United States Department of Justice.

In early August, the Obama administration said no to a bid urging the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to reconsider how marijuana is classified under federal drug control laws. Currently, the DEA lists marijuana as a Schedule I drug, along with heroin, the pivot drug of the opioid epidemic. But as the Attorney General’s comments demonstrate, the federal government fails to take its own classification methodology seriously, choosing instead to contend that prescription drug abuse is a much bigger issue. Per its federal classification, marijuana should be seen as a threat as dangerous as heroin, and yet Lynch appears to contend the abuse of legal drugs is keeping federal agents busy — not the enforcement of her agency’s own rules.

What Lynch is failing to discuss on the federal government’s anti-opioid abuse campaign trail is the racist, opportunistic roots of the failed and decades-long drug war in America. But as American states begin to shift their approach to some of the targets of this nationwide anti-drug campaign, legalized marijuana is able to accomplish what many drug war apologists claimed criminalization would achieve: bringing down the drug cartels.

But as the Washington Post report demonstrates, legalizing pot is not enough.

While powerful drug cartels have seen legalized marijuana taking a chunk out of their profits, the criminalization of other drugs such as heroin continues to put addicts in harm’s way.

With drug cartels seeing an increase in demand due to the pressure mounting from the growth of the relationship between the government and the pharmaceutical industry, dangerous alternatives to heroin, such as fentanyl, are sold on the street as regular heroin.

Without legal means to produce the drugs the market demands, these cartels are not concerned with the quality of their product nor the health of their consumer. When looking at the destruction stemming from the illegal drug trafficking industry, we are able to trace it back to the criminalization of drug commerce and useand yet government officials prefer to live in the dark ages, upping their involvement with the war on yet another drug epidemic entirely manufactured by crony kingpins.

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

Hungary Referendum To Reject EU Refugee Quotas Likely Invalid Due To Low Voter Turnout

In the latest push back against Merkel’s imposing immigration policies, today Hungarians are voting in a referendum whether to accept mandatory EU quotas for relocating migrants. Prime Minister Viktor Orban opposes plans to relocate a total of 160,000 migrants across the bloc. Under the scheme Hungary would receive 1,294 asylum seekers. During last year’s migrant crisis, Hungary became a transit state on the Western Balkan route to Germany and other EU destinations. In an effort to curb the influx, it sealed its border with Serbia and Croatia. The measure was popular at home but criticised by human rights groups.

To be sure, voters are expected to overwhelmingly reject the migrant quotas: moments ago exit polls forecast some 95% voting to reject the quotas, and only 5% voting for. However, turnout will likely be too low to make the vote valid, disappointing Prime Minister Viktor Orban. To be enforced, the turnout needs to be over 50% and with an hour and a half to go before the end of voting the figure was about 40%.

Voting will close at 1700 GMT. Preliminary results are expected after 1800 GMT. Orban also said his government could modify the Hungarian constitution after the vote.

While Orban and his rightwing Fidesz party are still likely to herald the vote as a victory at home, an invalid referendum would curb Orban’s ability to exert pressure on Brussels to change its migration policies.


Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban casts his vote in the referendum

Cited by Reuters, Attila Juhasz, an analyst at thinktank Political Capital said “I think if turnout is around 40 percent, that is a fiasco for Viktor Orban and the government in international terms.” Juhasz said they estimated turnout to be 44 to 46 percent based on currently available data.

An outspoken critic of Merkel’s policies, Orban, in power since 2010, is among the toughest opponents of immigration in the EU, and over the past year has sealed Hungary’s southern borders with a razor-wire fence and thousands of army and police border patrols.  After casting his vote in a wealthy Budapest district early on Sunday, Orban told reporters that he would go to Brussels next week to start talks, empowered by the referendum result.

“And I shall try, with the help of the outcome, if this is an appropriate outcome, to ensure that we should not be forced to accept in Hungary people we don’t want to live with.” He said what mattered was that votes rejecting the quotas should exceed the number of “Yes” votes.

In a letter published in a daily newspaper on Saturday, Orban again urged Hungarians to send a message to the EU that its migration policies posed a threat to Europe’s security. “We can send the message that it is only up to us, European citizens, whether we can jointly force the Union to come to its senses or let it destroy itself,” he wrote in the Magyar Idok.

Echoing a tension observed in other European countries, while Budapest says immigration policy should be a matter of national sovereignty, human rights groups have criticized the government for stoking fears and xenophobia, and for mistreating refugees on the border. Last year, hundreds of thousands of migrants fleeing war and poverty in the Middle East crossed Hungary on their way to richer countries in Western Europe. This year Hungary recorded around 18,000 illegal border crossings.

Orban’s hardline approach on migration has won allies in Central Europe. Eastern Europe’s ex-communist states, now in the EU, are opposing a policy that would require all EU countries to take in some of the hundreds of thousands of people seeking asylum in the bloc. Opinion polls show support for a rejection of EU migrant quotas of more than 80 percent among those who say they will vote.

Erzsebet Virag, voting near Budapest’s eastern railway station where a year ago thousands of migrants camped outside waiting to get on trains toward Vienna, said:  “I voted (No) because there are a lot of poor people in our country too and if more poor people come in we will be even poorer and have to work even more.”

Unfortunately for Orban, while nearly all of those voting will reject EU migrant quotes, the total number of people voting will not be enough for the vote to stick and leave an impact on Europe, meaning that at least for now, nothing will change.

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

Brexit Means March: Theresa May Will Trigger EU Divorce In Q1 Of 2017

Brexit means Brexit“, and now we know that it also means March 2017, according to a much anticipated Article 50 timetable revealed today by the UK’s new prime minister.

After weeks of speculation on the UK’s timetable for invoking Article 50, and eventually exiting the EU, Prime Minister Theresa May today announced she’ll begin the U.K.’s withdrawal from the European Union in the first quarter of 2017, ending speculation about the start of the 2-year Brexit process.

During the Conservative Party’s annual conference in Birmingham, May told delegates that she’ll invoke Article 50 of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty, the formal trigger for two years of talks,  before the end of March. The premier also said she’ll introduce a bill next year to convert all existing EU laws into U.K. legislation on the day that Brexit is completed to provide certainty for business and investors, Bloomberg reported.

“We should not let things drag on too long; having voted to leave, I know that the public will soon expect to see, on the horizon, the point at which Britain does formally leave the European Union,” May said cited by the BBC. “There will be no unnecessary delays in invoking Article 50. We will invoke it when we are ready. And we will be ready soon. We will invoke Article 50 no later than the end of March next year.”

May also told the Tory Party conference, her first as prime minister, the government would strike a deal with the EU as an “independent, sovereign” UK. Voters had given their verdict “with emphatic clarity”, she said, and ministers had to “get on with the job”. In a speech on the first day of the conference in Birmingham, she attacked those who “have still not accepted the result of the referendum” adding that “it is up to the government not to question, quibble or backslide on what we have been instructed to do, but to get on with the job.”

She told delegates there would be no “blow-by-blow” account of the negotiations. “Every stray word and every hyped up media report is going to make it harder for us to get the right deal for Britain,” she said.

Speaking on BBC One’s The Andrew Marr Show earlier, Mrs May, who had previously only said she would not trigger Article 50 this year, ended speculation about the government’s timetable. She said it would be done by “the first quarter of 2017”, marking the start of a two-year exit process.

* * *

Should Article 50 indeed be triggered in the first quarter of 2017, it means that the two years of Brexit negotiations should be completed in 2019, 46 years after the country joined the bloc, though Trade Secretary Liam Fox cast some doubt on that timetable.

“Everything we do as we leave the EU will be consistent with the law and our treaty obligations, and we must give as much certainty as possible to employers and investors,” said May. “I want to give British companies the maximum opportunity to trade in and operate in the single market.”

Going back to the core issue that sparked the Brexit wave in the first place, May pledged to control immigration in Britain’s best interests while retaining access for business to the European single market. However, it remained unclear what exactly the prime minister will seek in the talks and what her counterparts in Europe will agree to.

“I know some people ask about the ‘trade-off’ between controlling immigration and trading with Europe. But that is the wrong way of looking at things,” May said. “We have voted to leave the European Union and become a fully independent, sovereign country. We will do what independent, sovereign countries do. We will decide for ourselves how we control immigration. And wewill be free to pass our own laws.”

As well as commerce and immigration, the two sides must find common ground on rights for their citizens in each other’s territory, the border between the two Irelands and what if anything the U.K. contributes to the EU budget. There’s also a string of legal, regulatory, energy, agricultural and security issues to address.

European Union President Donald Tusk welcomed May’s announcement, saying it bring “welcome clarity on the start of Brexit talks” The remaining 27 member states of the EU will engage with the U.K. once Article 50 is invoked, he said.

Importantly, Bloomberg adds, the government’s planned “Great Repeal Bill” will abolish the 1972 European Communities Act that took Britain into what was then the European Economic Community, while converting all EU laws governed by it into domestic legislation on the day Britain eventually completes its pullout, May said. Subsequent governments will then be able to repeal or amend individual laws if needed. 

The bill will be introduced in Parliament between May 2017 and May 2018, Transport Secretary Chris Grayling told ITV’s “Peston on Sunday” program. On the same show, former Business Minister Anna Soubry, who left her post when May became premier, said that the repeal act was a necessary step but not a “big deal.” She called for more detail on the “guiding principles” of the government’s Brexit plan and expressed concern at the timeline.

 

“We need to know what are our red lines as we go into this process,” Soubry said. “This idea that we hold the cards and that the EU is going to come to us and say, ‘Do you know what, we’ll give you pretty much what you want’ — the idea that we’re going to get anything like we’ve got now is rubbish. We’re going to get something worse.”

However, uncertainly remains: asked if he could be 100 percent certain that the U.K. would be out of the EU by the time of the next general election, scheduled for 2020, trade secretary Fox declined to give a guarantee. “What we want is the best exit for the United Kingdom, not the quickest,” he said at an event in Birmingham before the start of the party conference. “I wouldn’t put a timescale on it. Again, I think that’s one of the cards we have in our negotiation. Why would we want to hand it over at the outset?”

The British premier also said she will not allow Brexit to be used by nationalists to break up the U.K. That drew the response from pro-EU Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who has held out the prospect of a new Scottish independence referendum, that May “is going out of her way to say Scotland’s voice and interests don’t matter.”

While the politics of the process remain in flux, from a market standpoint, in the continued absence of any detail on the nature of the future relationship with the EU, Sunday’s announcement will likely exacerbate concerns among investors that the government will pursue what’s become known as a “hard Brexit.” That would see it willingly surrender membership of the EU’s single market for trade in return for more power over immigration, law-making and the country’s budget. As Bloomberg reminds us the pound just wrapped up its worst quarterly run against the dollar since 1984, driven down first by the result of the June 23 referendum and then kept weak by speculation of a swift, severe break. It found some support as the economy proved more resilient than most forecast.

“Sterling remains a very vulnerable currency given the scale of the work that needs to be done to take the U.K. from where it is now, with effectively unchanged trading relationships with Europe, to a completely new position,” said Jane Foley, a senior currency strategist at Rabobank International in London. “Over the next couple of months, the form of how complicated the talks are going to be on Brexit is going to become clearer.”

Businesses remain skeptical to the consequences of Brexit. Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn said on Sept. 29 that he may not be able to make new investments in Britain without a government pledge for compensation in the event of adverse consequences stemming from Brexit. And Vodafone Group Plc has said it’ll consider moving its headquarters to mainland Europe if Britain doesn’t preserve access to the EU’s single market. For now however, the reality has been far less gloomy than predicted.

 

As we observed last night, qhile there’s been movement in the currency and equity markets, other economic indicators have been status quo or better for the UK so far. Retail sales beat in July and August, and unemployment remains at 11-year lows. Purchasing manager indices dropped temporarily, but jumped back up.

Still, one thing is almost certain: as Bank of England Deputy Governor Minouche Shafik said Wednesday , more easing will probably be needed after the “sizable economic shock” of the Brexit vote.  “It seems likely to me that further monetary stimulus will be required at some point in order to help ensure that a slowdown in economic activity doesn’t turn into something more pernicious,” Shafik said in a speech at the Bloomberg Markets Most Influential Summit in London.

Said otherwise, while the US economy may keep humming along, the BOE will continue to preemptively interfere in the economy regardless of the underlying dynamics, just so the wealth effect, at least as far as the 1% are concerned, keeps humming along. Meanwhile, questions about how buying the bonds of such US companies as Verizon and Apple “help” the UK, remain unanswered.

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

Donald Trump’s Billion-Dollar Tax Loss Is a Diversion From More-Serious Matters

If you care about substantive policy debate, it’s not good for Donald Trump that The New York Times has published a few pages of 21-year-old state-tax returns showing he declared a $916-million loss in 1995.

Cue another week wasted with trivial distractions from what we should be talking about in the final month-plus of a presidential campaign. Care about foreign policy, government spending, and more? Maybe we’ll get around to hashing all that out after the election. But don’t hold your breath.

To be sure, a billion-dollar write-off is a lot of money and, as the Times suggests in the story’s headline, it means “He Could Have Avoided Paying Taxes for Nearly Two Decades.” This adds fuel to the fire that Hillary Clinton lit during last week’s presidential debate when she said that there are only sketchy reasons for Trump not to release his federal tax returns to the public, as presidential candidates have almost all done since 1976. A billionaire who doesn’t pay any taxes who dares speak for the common man! Ouch, even though there’s no reason to think there’s anything at all illegal or even fuzzy about Trump’s taxes. This will harden Clinton supporters in their contempt for Trump and it will do the same for Trump supporters toward Crooked Hillary, especially if a Clinton operative is unmasked as the leaker. For the record, here’s the Trump campaign’s official response:

Mr. Trump is a highly-skilled businessman who has a fiduciary responsibility to his business, his family and his employees to pay no more tax than legally required. That being said, Mr. Trump has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in property taxes, sales and excise taxes, real estate taxes, city taxes, state taxes, employee taxes and federal taxes, along with very substantial charitable contributions. Mr. Trump knows the tax code far better than anyone who has ever run for President and he is the only one that knows how to fix it.

More here.

As I type, Trump and Clinton surrogates are duking it out on the Sunday morning shows, explaining why this unmasks Trump as a uniquely awful plutocrat or reveals him to be the single person who can dismantle our terrible tax code and replace it with something that will allow economic growth. This story, like the Miss Universe controversy that immediately preceded it, clearly puts Trump on the defensive. Given his softening in the polls after a weak debate performance and the rapidly approaching end of the campaign season (there are just 37 days leftt), the tax revelation forces Trump to engage an issue that has nothing to do with the core issues that put him in a tight race to the next president.


Whatever. Sucks to be Trump right now. But you know what? No laws apparently have been broken and this doesn’t even amble into the territory of bad judgment that many of his (and Clinton’s) actions do. As Seinfeld’s Kramer would note, most of us don’t even know what a write-off is, and Trump is the one who’s writing it off.

Far more important, this sort of story is a major distraction from actually serious issues tied to the current state of the world and the specific proposals that candidates have laid out in their bids to become the country’s next leader. As Matt Welch demonstrated with respect to foreign policy and failed military interventions, we already know that the “Media Would Rather Talk About Gary Johnson’s ‘Aleppo Moment’ Than a Damning New Report on Hillary Clinton’s Actual War.” And as Brian Doherty pointed out, it turns out that Gary Johnson’s trade-and-diplomacy vision for “has impressed even the foreign policy mavens at Foreign Policy magazine.” Even as Aleppo is now being besieged by Syrian government, Iranian, and Russian forces and the president has dispatched new troops to Iraq, neither Trump nor Hillary have engaged in meaningful foreign-policy discussion about the United States’ role in the world.

And consider this: According to the latest numbers from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Hillary Clinton would hike spending and taxes over the next decade from its already-upward trajectory and historically high levels, while Trump would reduce expected increases in spending but slash tax revenues by far more (thus resulting in yet-bigger deficits). If you care about this sort of thing, only Libertarian Gary Johnson has pledged to submit a balanced budget in his first year while reducing spending and simplifying taxes. Both major-party candidates have signed on to a host of new federal programs (such as paid family leave) and Clinton is pushing for free in-state tuition at public colleges and a doubling of the federal minimum wage. Where Clinton says she wants to expand Social Security and Medicare, two of the largest federal spending programs, Trump has said that he would leave benefits untouched. Neither bothers to offer credible ways to pay for such stuff.

Persistent and high levels of debt correlate strongly with lower-than-average economic growth, so now dig this:

Both candidates’ plans to increase the debt come on top of current law projections that already estimate that debt will grow by $9 trillion over the next decade. As a result, under Clinton’s plans debt would grow from nearly 77 percent of GDP today to over 86 percent by 2026; under Trump’s plans, debt would grow to 105 percent of GDP by 2026.

Note also that CRFB is talking about debt held by the public, a subset of overall government debt. When you add what government agencies owe each other (such as FICA taxes supposedly earmarked for Social Security, Medicare, and more that are spent on other things and replaced by IOUs), the gross debt owed by the government is at or above 100 percent of the economy. Read more from CRFB here.

Even among the content-lite campaigns of recent memory, the 2016 general race has failed to generate much in the way of serious policy discussion. On the Republican side, Donald Trump bullied and vanquished his primary opponents by talking incessantly about the phantom menace of illegal Mexican immigration that peaked almost a decade ago and that 90 percent of Republicans didn’t even care about. At other times, we were treated to disquisitions about the size of his cock, his admiration of Vladimir Putin, and his apparent lack of basic legislative process. On the Democratic side, the Sanders insurgency goosed Clinton’s already-expansive vision of government so the former secretary of state is now promising just about everything to everyone without any pretense of paying for it. She is explicitly running as a continuation of Barack Obama, whose personal charm obscures the sad fact that over 60 percent of Americans agree the country is going in the wrong direction (only about 30 percent think it’s headed in the right direction). Gary Johnson, the most-successful third-party candidate in decades, has voluntarily stepped in more dog piles than he should have, but is at least bringing some serious policy talk to the campaign while also providing a counter to liberal and conservative visions of bigger government.

The Trump tax story will likely be joined by other “October surprises” sprung on the candidates. Here’s hoping the next bombshell will actually spur a substantive discussion about the policies we need to create a more free, more fair, and more prosperous society. But let’s not kid ourselves, right?

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2djzU8G
via IFTTT

Fukushima Radiation Has Contaminated The Entire Pacific Ocean (And It’s Going To Get Worse)

Submitted by Whitney Webb via TrueActivist.com,

The nuclear disaster has contaminated the world's largest ocean in only five years and it's still leaking 300 tons of radioactive waste every day.

An energy map provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows the intensity of the tsunami in the Pacific Ocean caused by the magnitude 8.9 earthquake which struck Japan on March 11, 2011. Thousands of people fled their homes along the Pacific coast of North and South America on Friday as a tsunami triggered by Japan's massive earthquake reached the region but appeared to spare it from major damage. REUTERS/NOAA/Center for Tsunami Research/Handout (UNITED STATES - Tags: DISASTER ENVIRONMENT) FOR EDITORIAL USE ONLY. NOT FOR SALE FOR MARKETING OR ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS. THIS IMAGE HAS BEEN SUPPLIED BY A THIRD PARTY. IT IS DISTRIBUTED, EXACTLY AS RECEIVED BY REUTERS, AS A SERVICE TO CLIENTS

Credit – NOAA

What was the most dangerous nuclear disaster in world history? Most people would say the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Ukraine, but they’d be wrong. In 2011, an earthquake, believed to be an aftershock of the 2010 earthquake in Chile, created a tsunami that caused a meltdown at the TEPCO nuclear power plant in Fukushima, Japan. Three nuclear reactors melted down and what happened next was the largest release of radiation into the water in the history of the world. Over the next three months, radioactive chemicals, some in even greater quantities than Chernobyl, leaked into the Pacific Ocean. However, the numbers may actually be much higher as Japanese official estimates have been proven by several scientists to be flawed in recent years.

fukushima-debris-island

Radioactive Debris from Fukushima approaching North America’s western coast       Credit – RT

If that weren’t bad enough, Fukushima continues to leak an astounding 300 tons of radioactive waste into the Pacific Ocean every day. It will continue do so indefinitely as the source of the leak cannot be sealed as it is inaccessible to both humans and robots due to extremely high temperatures.

It should come as no surprise, then, that Fukushima has contaminated the entire Pacific Ocean in just five years. This could easily be the worst environmental disaster in human history and it is almost never talked about by politicians, establishment scientists, or the news. It is interesting to note that TEPCO is a subsidiary of General Electric (also known as GE), one of the largest companies in the world, which has considerable control over numerous news corporations and politicians alike. Could this possibly explain the lack of news coverage Fukushima has received in the last five years? There is also evidence that GE knew about the poor condition of the Fukushima reactors for decades and did nothing. This led 1,400 Japanese citizens to sue GE for their role in the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

Even if we can’t see the radiation itself, some parts of North America’s western coast have been feeling the effects for years. Not long after Fukushima, fish in Canada began bleeding from their gills, mouths, and eyeballs. This “disease” has been ignored by the government and has decimated native fish populations, including the North Pacific herring. Elsewhere in Western Canada, independent scientists have measured a 300% increase in the level of radiation. According to them, the amount of radiation in the Pacific Ocean is increasing every year. Why is this being ignored by the mainstream media? It might have something to do with the fact that the US and Canadian governments have banned their citizens from talking about Fukushima so “people don’t panic.”

 
dead-starfish

Credit – AP

Further south in Oregon, USA, starfish began losing legs and then disintegrating entirely when Fukushima radiation arrived there in 2013. Now, they are dying in record amounts, putting the entire oceanic ecosystem in that area at risk. However, government officials say Fukushima is not to blame even though radiation in Oregon tuna tripled after Fukushima. In 2014, radiation on California beaches increased by 500 percent. In response, government officials said that the radiation was coming from a mysterious “unknown” source and was nothing to worry about.

However, Fukushima is having a bigger impact than just the West coast of North America. Scientists are now saying that the Pacific Ocean is already radioactive and is currently at least 5-10 times more radioactive than when the US government dropped numerous nuclear bombs in the Pacific during and after World War II. If we don’t start talking about Fukushima soon, we could all be in for a very unpleasant surprise.

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

Hillary Responds To Hacked Fundraiser Recording Mocking “Basement Dwelling” Millennials

With 'leaks' flying fast and loose across the election battlefront, the Clinton campaign is responding with distraction (NY Times' Trump taxes) and desperation to her leaked fundraiser comments about Millennials, claiming that she was "inspired" by the basement-dwellers who backed Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

As a reminder, Clinton explained why she felt so many Democratic voters, many of whom "live in their parents' basement" were gravitating to Sanders. Ironically, for a presidential candidate that touts the economic recovery the US is going through, she admits these "children of the Great Recession" don't see much of a future…

Some are new to politics completely. They’re children of the Great Recession. And they are living in their parents’ basement. They feel they got their education and the jobs that are available to them are not at all what they envisioned for themselves. And they don’t see much of a future.

… and with an entire generation unexpectedly finding itself in a dead-end economy, it provides a perfect incubator for what according to Hillary is an army of Bernie supporters: "if you’re feeling like you’re consigned to, you know, being a barista… then the idea that maybe, just maybe, you could be part of a political revolution is pretty appealing."

I met with a group of young black millennials today and you know one of the young women said, “You know, none of us feel that we have the job that we should have gotten out of college. And we don’t believe the job market is going to give us much of a chance.

 

So that is a mindset that is really affecting their politics. And so if you’re feeling like you’re consigned to, you know, being a barista, or you know, some other job that doesn’t pay a lot, and doesn’t have some other ladder of opportunity attached to it, then the idea that maybe, just maybe, you could be part of a political revolution is pretty appealing

One wonders whose fault it is that millions of young people are stuck in dead end jobs, living in their parents basement, while both Obama and Hillary make TV appearances touting the strength of the economic recovery.

Well forget the blame-mongering (cough – eight years of Hillbama policies and the hollowing out of America's middle classs – cough), the poor fortune of America's Millennials is, according to the Clinton campaign, "inspirational"(as The Hill reports)…

"As Hillary Clinton said in those remarks, she wants young people to be idealistic and set big goals. She is fighting for exactly what millennial generation cares most about — a fairer more equal, just world. She's working to create new pathways to jobs and career opportunities, to build more inclusivity and community, and to ensure everyone gets a fair shot," the statement read.

 

Clinton's campaign called young voters "the most diverse, open-minded generation in history" who want to be heard, and touted her and Sanders's college plan.

 

"She's inspired by the optimism and the drive of this generation and Sanders supporters across the country — and they've helped her craft and promote the most progressive platform in Democratic party history," the statement said.

So to clarify – anyone claiming America is not awesome is a skeptic, a cynic, and not fit to be elected… but anyone who says Millennials are suffering and hurting from economic deterioration is "inspiration" got the next President? Odd then that she proclaimed in her leaked speech that believing in false promises is exactly the problem…

We should all be really understanding of that and should try to do the best we can not to be, you know, a wet blanket on idealism. We want people to be idealistic. We want them to set big goals… But those of us who understand this, who've worked in it know that it's a false promise. But I don't think you tell idealistic people, particularly young people that they've bought into a false promise.

In other words – believe in my false promises, not his false promises!

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

NIRP is the Fuel that Will Rocket Gold to $5,000 or Higher

For decades, the primary argument by Warren Buffett and other financial elites for not owning gold was that “gold doesn’t pay you anything.”

Once the ECB took interest rates to NIRP in 2014, this argument became null and void. In a world in which bonds are charging you to hold them, gold with its ZERO yield has become attractive as an investment.

Yes, we have reached the point at which NOT getting paid is considered an advantage for an investment.

One NIRP cut was bad enough, but the ECB has since engaged in three more. And the Bank of Japan got in on the action too in early 2016.

As a result, today, some $13+ TRILLION in bonds are posting NEGATIVE yields.

Globally the sovereign bond market is roughly $40T in size. This means that  1/3 of global sovereign bonds are posting NEGATIVE yields.

Put another way, Gold is now more attractive than 1/3 of the sovereign bond market from an income perspective.

And now we get to the worse news.

Any reduction in NIRP will only make this situation worse.

If the BoJ or ECB were to raise rates (thereby moving them to closer to positive) this would force bonds to fall and yields to rise.

This would potentially mark the end of the current bond bubble.

Investors have been piling into bonds to front-run Central Bank QE programs. This has spun finance on its head with investors now buying bonds for capital gains and stocks for income (dividends no matter how small, are better than being charged to hold bonds).

If Central Banks began tightening, the trend will reserve and all those front-running investors and momentum algos will start dumping bonds.

Looking at the surge in bond yields that began in August, one could potentially argue that the market is already anticipating this. Both the BoJ and the ECB have disappointed in terms of additional stimulus and have begun pushing for fiscal stimulus from Governments (a signal that more easing is not coming from CBs). Indeed, the collapse in Deutsche Bank is the only thing stopping yields from spiking higher (h/T Bamabroker)

IF the market DOES believe this is happening, then bonds will be falling in price, pushing yields higher and Gold will go THROUGH THE ROOF.

A spike in yields signals the inflation genie is out of the bottle. Core CPI has already been above the Fed’s target for 10 months.

Again, NIRP has been a disaster as a monetary policy. And it has set the stage for the next leg up for Gold. Even if Central Banks reverse policy on NIRP and begin tightening, Gold will erupt higher.

We believe the next leg up is about to begin for Gold. Those who remember form the last Gold bull market in the ‘70s, it was the second leg of Gold’s bull market that saw the most gains.

From 1970 to 1974, Gold rose 550%. It then took two-year breather before beginning its second, much larger leg up. During that second leg, it rose over 900% in value.

If Gold were to stage a similar move now, it would rise to over $10,000 per ounce.

On that note, we just published a Special Investment Report concerning a secret back-door play on Gold that gives you access to 25 million ounces of Gold that the market is currently valuing at just $273 per ounce.

The report is titled The Gold Mountain: How to Buy Gold at $273 Per Ounce

We are giving away just 100 copies for FREE to the public.

To pick up yours, swing by:

http://ift.tt/1TII1fq

Best Regards

Graham Summers

Chief Market Strategist

Phoenix Capital Research

 

 

via http://ift.tt/2dinO2U Phoenix Capital Research

Liberty Links 10/2/16

screen-shot-2016-10-02-at-9-39-01-am

Opinion/Must Reads

Gary Johnson: Take a Deep Breath, Voters. There Is a Third Way. (Op-ed by Gary Johnson, New York Times)

Geopolitics/Foreign Affairs

U.S. to Send More Troops to Iraq Ahead of Mosul Battle (We’re never getting out of Iraq, Reuters)

Pakistan ‘Completely Rejects’ Indian Claim of Cross-Border Strikes (Reuters)

Erdogan Signals Preference for Longer Turkey Emergency Rule (Of course he does, Bloomberg)

EU Launches Program to Issue Cash Cards to Migrants in Turkey (Reuters)

The Woman Who Could Break Spain’s Political Deadlock (Reuters)

Congress Votes to Override Obama Veto on 9/11 Victims Bill (New York Times)

Election 2016 

Chelsea Clinton: Didn’t Know Mom Had Pneumonia (Interesting to say the least, The Hill)

Bill Maher: Colin Kaepernick ‘An Idiot’ (Because he criticized Hillary, The Hill)

See More Links »

from Liberty Blitzkrieg http://ift.tt/2dz2voc
via IFTTT

New Report Exposes The Orwellian Tools Law Enforcement Use To Spy On Activists On Social Media

Submitted by Jake Anderson via TheAntiMedia.org,

Last week, the California ACLU released an alarming report about California law enforcement agencies’ covert use of social media surveillance software. The report compiles records requested of 63 police departments, sheriffs, and district attorneys across the state. The ACLU found over 40% are using the software without any transparency or public disclosure. They also reported law enforcement officers may be using the social media surveillance software in a way that specifically targets activists of color.

The three primary pieces of software cited in the ACLU report are MediaSonar, X1 Social Discovery, and Geofeedia. These tools are marketed to law enforcement agencies as ways to keep track of protesters, particularly protesters and activists of color.

In one email from a Geofeedia representative to the San Diego Sheriff, the software is praised for its ability to aggregate “social media posts from the scene of Ferguson, Missouri.”

Promotional emails sent after the non-indictment of Officer Darren Wilson and the killing of Freddie Gray in Baltimore urged law enforcement to take advantage of the tool to “curate” social media posts related to #BlackLivesMatter. Another email urges Los Angeles District Attorney to “join the Baltimore County Police Department” and “stay one step ahead of the rioters.”

Another document obtained from Geofeedia refers to unions and activists as “overt threats.”

The ACLU argues their research makes clear that law enforcement agencies view protesters exercising their constitutional rights as “enemies.”

“The racist implications of social media surveillance technology are not surprising,” writes Nicole Ozer, Technology & Civil Liberties Policy Director for the ACLU of Northern California.

“We know that when law enforcement gets to conceal the use of surveillance technology, they also get to conceal its misuse. Discriminatory policing that targets communities of color is unacceptable — and secretive, sophisticated surveillance technologies supersize the impact of racial profiling and abuse.”

In a statement to the Anti-Media, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s (EFF) Criminal Defense Staff Attorney, Stephanie Lacambra, said:

“Social media monitoring is incredibly troubling for the preservation of individual privacy. I often run into the widespread misperception that ‘because I’m not doing anything wrong’ or ‘I have nothing to hide,’ digital privacy doesn’t concern me. This perspective is troubling because it fails to grasp the power of information in the digital age and its potential for abuse – by law enforcement and others. For example, there are a number of instances where law enforcement has abused its power by prosecuting completely innocent people. Please see our recent post on the consequences of the Calgang database: http://ift.tt/2bow3V4

 

“The aggregating of discrete data points into one metadata profile that is stored and mined for personal information has the potential to eviscerate the last vestiges of individual privacy. This is why it is so concerning that our laws and courts have not yet recognized the inherent danger in allowing law enforcement such overwhelming access to our social media profiles. The problem with aggregating data of this sort is that the aggregate metadata profile is bound to reveal much more than any one discrete data point would in isolation. For example, checking in on yelp at a particular restaurant on a particular day may not seem all that significant, but if the police can see that you frequently check in to that restaurant on multiple days and cross-reference that against messages or posts that tag other friends within your social network, they can begin to make a case for your association with that person and that person’s social network. This is often how prosecutors will try to prove up gang affiliation.”

The ACLU has come out strongly against law enforcement’s digital database of anti-police and anti-government posts. They believe it is a breach of privacy. Moreover, when social media surveillance software is engaged in racial profiling, the transgression increases significantly.

They note, optimistically, that a coalition of national organizations is spearheading a multi-city legislative initiative, Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS). Their goal is to use the legal system to implement stronger local legislation ensuring transparency with the use of this software, as well as limits on how it can be used.

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

About That Deutsche “Settlement” Rumor: Cryan Hasn’t Even Started Negotiations With The DOJ

Friday’s market session was about one thing: will Deutsche Bank stock close the week ahead of a three day holiday at a record low. It did not because, as we reported, the AFP announced that based on “sources” (most likely from Twitter), the DOJ was willing to reduce the $14 billion settlement that sent DB stock on a rollercoaster ride over the past two weeks, to just under $6 billion. The news unleashed a massive short squeeze relief rally, which sent DB stock soaring on Friday, pushing the entire market up 1%.

And while repeated attempts by the likes of Reuters to get additional information from either the DOJ, the German government or Deutsche Bank itself, have proven fruitless, overnight Frankfurter Allegemeine Zeitung reported that Deutsche Bank executives are heading to the United States in the coming days to negotiate the $14 billion settlement over a fine the infamous $14 billion for misselling RMBS.

The FAZ did not cite any sources for its report. Deutsche Bank did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Chief Executive John Cryan’s travel plans.

In other words, not only was the $5.6 billion “agreed upon” number, as “reported” by Twitter and then AFP, bogus, but the actual negotiations have not yet even begun.

It also means that the catalyst for Friday’s ramp was, as we suspected, nothing but the latest attempt at media manipulation meant to push DB stock higher and prevent a concerned German population from pulling its cash out of the bank, of which DB has well over €300 billion in retail deposits.

With Germany closed on Monday and only the far more illiquid US DB stock trading on Monday, we look forward to the market’s reaction to the realization that what it soared on what was nothing more than a media stunt, especially in the aftermath of Saturday’s announcement that Italy is the latest sovereign to take Deutsche Bank to task for its allegedly illegal manipulation and misrepresentation of Monte Paschi’s books.

via http://ift.tt/2dn3rhv Tyler Durden