Trump. Embracing Volatility We Are

 This a new year, and my crystal ball was supposed to have become magically unfogged by the turn of the calendar. Well, I hate to disappoint you, but it hasn’t. Unlike our new president, I lack certitude about the brightness of our future.

My thinking is caught between two quotations from Mark Twain. The first is, “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.” And the second: “I’ve lived through some terrible things in my life, some of which actually happened.”

On one side I am in agreement with the majority who expect Trump’s policies to benefit the economy: lower corporate taxes, foreign corporate cash repatriation, deregulation, and so on. This inclines me to pause and reflect, not just because I find myself in the innately uncomfortable position of agreeing with the majority but because these in-your-face positives are only part of the new president’s package.

Trump’s ascendancy also brings a lot of uncertainty – something the market is ignoring, for now. The business-oriented pragmatism that it loves today comes with nationalistic and protectionist “job creation” rhetoric that may result in trade (or even conventional) wars. U.S. foreign policy, trade, and military alliances that have been in place since World War II are being questioned by the new president.

In addition, Trump has been elected at a time when the U.S. economy is quite levered. His “growth” policies will likely bring higher interest rates, which are both positive and negative for the consumer – they help savers and punish spenders. Higher interest rates would most likely be a net negative for corporations, whose average debt load has doubled since the financial crisis. And finally, higher interest rates will be a negative for the government, whose interest expense in 2016 was at the same level as in 2007, despite the debt load almost doubling. Thank you, low interest rates!

 

This is when we start thinking of Twain’s second insight and remind ourselves that we worry too much. Trump was not elected king or dictator in a lawless banana republic. He is the U.S. president, and when it comes to domestic policy, his powers are limited by the Constitution, which includes plenty of checks and balances.

The Constitution grants the president a lot more power in his role as commander-in-chief, with fewer checks and balances. But now we should remember that Trump has kids and grandkids and owns a lot of shiny buildings with his name on them in this and other countries. In other words, he has a lot of vested interests that he really wants to keep intact during and beyond his presidency. Think of it this way: The U.S. is a large boat, and Trump has a very large room (a gold-plated penthouse) on this boat. Instead of worrying about his conflicts of interest, we should embrace them  –  they are a guarantee that his foreign policy, though it may be different from that of his predecessors and may therefore create uncertainty and volatility in the interim, will not sink this boat, since he would go down with it. (This brings to mind another of Twain’s adages: “Prosperity is the best protector of principle.”)

Of course there is an easy counterargument to be made: If Trump screws up, starts a trade war, and plunges America into a recession, his net worth may decline – let’s say from $3 billion to $1 billion – but he will remain a rich man and his lifestyle will not change one iota. That is absolutely true. In theory, you’d think people who still had $1 billion would feel proportionately less pain than the average Joe whose stock portfolio fell from $300,000 to $100,000 and suddenly he can’t retire. I can’t speak for every billionaire, but Donald Trump would be devastated, as he cares deeply about his net worth and rank on the Forbes 400 list.

Uncertainty does lead to more volatility. We don’t, however, equate uncertainty with risk. This point is very important. Uncertainty equates to risk under only two circumstances: first, if your investment time horizon is not long enough to wait out an asset’s reversion to its fair value. For instance, if you have to write a check for your daughter’s wedding in two days and your portfolio is down 30 percent, then volatility and risk are one and the same, since your sale will result in a permanent loss of capital.

The second circumstance is when volatility is your master and not the other way around. If you have done your research and believe a stock is worth $10, and the market prices it today at $4, you should celebrate and praise the gods of volatility for their gracious gift. Unfortunately, you need to have done the work to know what the company is worth, but this research would have given you the confidence to buy when most investors are hiding under their desks.

On this point I find myself thinking not of Mark Twain but of another eminently quotable sage – Yoda. As he might have put it, “Embracing volatility we are.”

Vitaliy N. Katsenelson, CFA, is Chief Investment Officer at Investment Management Associates in Denver, Colo. He is the author of Active Value Investing (Wiley) and The Little Book of Sideways Markets (Wiley).  

Forbes Magazine called him “The new Benjamin Graham”.   To receive Vitaliy’s future articles by email or read his articles click here.

via http://ift.tt/2k6prQ7 Vitaliy Katsenelson

“I’m A Woman Who Went To The Women’s March And The March For Life. The Differences Were Stunning”

Submitted by Antonia Okafor via Indepedent Journal Review,

A week after the Inauguration of Donald Trump, politically active women across America could choose to make themselves heard at two major rallies revolving around women's issues. They could attend a pro-choice, feminist march known as the Women's March or they could wait one week and attend the 44th annual pro-life, March for Life.

Some lucky few, such as myself, were able to attend both.

The marches had their similarities. Both marches were held in D.C. Both marches were heavily attended by women. And both marches attracted people from all over the country to participate. But each march was not made equal.

Being physically at the marches, it is easy to recognize differences between the two. In fact, some of the differences were downright stunning. Take a look for yourself, perhaps you will agree.

Young Adults at the March for Life

Image Credit: Drew Angerer/Getty Images

 

Young Adults at the Women's March

Image credit: Joshua Lott/AFP/Getty Images

 

Examples of inclusion at The March for Life

Image Credit: Destiny Herndon-de La Rosa/New Wave Feminists, used with permission

 

Examples of “inclusion” at the Women's March

 

 

 

Signs at the March for Life

Image credit: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images
 

Image Credit: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images
 

Image Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

 

Signs at the Women's March

Image Credit: Ebet Roberts/Getty Images

 

Image Credit: Cynthia Edorh/Getty Images

 

Image Credit: Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images

 

Attire at The March for Life

Image Credit: ZACH GIBSON/AFP/Getty Images
 

Image Credit:TASOS KATOPODIS/AFP/Getty Images

Attire at the Women's March

Image Credit:Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
 

Image Credit: Emma McIntyre/Getty Images

 

Speakers at the March for Life

Image Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
 

Image Credit: Tasos Katopodis/AFP/Getty Images
 

Image Credit: Somodevilla/Getty Images

 

Speakers at the Women's March

Image Credit: by Araya Diaz/Getty Images
 

Image Credit: Theo Wargo/Getty Images

 

Men at the March for Life

Image Credit: ZACH GIBSON/AFP/Getty Images
 

Image Credit: Drew Angerer/Getty Images

 

Men at the Women's March

Image Credit: Ebet Roberts/Archive Photos/Getty Images
 

Image Credit: JASON CONNOLLY/AFP/Getty Images

 

The main reason for the 1st Annual Women's March.

Image Credit: Cynthia Edorh/Getty Images

 

The main reason for the 44th Annual March for Life.

Image credit: ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP/Getty Images

Only one march persuaded me to attend again.

 

via http://ift.tt/2jjCws8 Tyler Durden

Here Are The Latest Updates On Trump’s Refugee Ban

Less than 48 hours after announcing his executive order on refugees, global opposition to Trump intensified on Sunday as world leaders, US (mostly tech) companies and civil rights groups condemned the move to temporarily limit entry from predominantly Muslim countries.

Here are the latest updates in the ongoing saga as of noon on Sunday:

  • Global government lash out at order. Governments from London and Berlin to Jakarta and Tehran spoke out against Trump’s order. A spokesman for the U.K.’s Theresa May, who visited Trump on Friday and hadn’t commented during the day yesterday, told the AP May does “not agree” with the order. Canada PM Trudeau, in a tweet, said on Saturday Canada would welcome those fleeing “persecution, terror and war. Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith.” Scotland’s Nicola Sturgeon endorsed Trudea’s tweet. A similar message was sent by Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, who said refugees deserve a safe haven regardless of their background or religion. Danish Foreign Minister Anders Samuelsen said the decision was unfair.  Germany pledged to play a bigger role on the international stage.
  • US tech companies “do not support:” Netflix Inc.’s chief executive officer said the changes were “un-American”; Alphabet Inc.’s Google advised staff who may be impacted by the order to return to the U.S. immediately; commeting on the order, Apple’s Tim Cook said “It is not a policy we support”
  • Lyft donates $1 million to ACLU. In an email from Lyft to users, the company noted that the executive order is “antithetical to both Lyft’s and our nation’s core values. We stand firmly against these actions, and will not be silent on issues that threaten the values of our community.” The release went on to note that the company pledged to donate “$1,000,000 over the next four years to the ACLU to defend our constitution.”
  • Uber slammed. Lyft’s response to the protests contrasted to that of its rival, Uber. While Uber’s CEO Travis Kalanick pledged to compensate drivers stranded overseas due to the executive order, he did not specifically condemn the executive order.  The company was criticized for the tone-deaf response from its CEO, prompting a new hashtag on Twitter: #DeleteUber.
  • Trump refuses to relent. Despite the global criticism, Trump was steadfast as of Sunday morning, tweeting twice on the topic, first saying that “our country needs strong borders and extreme vetting, NOW. Look what is happening all over Europe and, indeed, the world – a horrible mess!”  following it up with “Christians in the Middle-East have been executed in large numbers. We cannot allow this horror to continue!”

  • Federal Judge issues nationwide stay, partially blocking the Trump immigration order. A Brooklyn judge temporarily blocked Trump’s administration late Saturday from enforcing portions of his order, however neither ruling strikes down the executive order, which will now be subject to court hearings.
  • Another ruling: A Boston judge ruled to release two Iranian professors from Logan International Airport, according to the Boston Globe. The decision also stated that travelers could not be removed OR detained for 7 days.
  • White House comments on judge’s ruling: “Nothing in the Brooklyn judge’s order in anyway impedes or prevents the implementation of the president’s executive order which remains in full, complete and total effect,” White House adviser Stephen Miller told reporters.
  • White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus “we apologize for nothing”: Priebus told “Meet the Press” the situation yesterday “wasn’t chaos.” He appeared to contradict an official clarification by the White House, when he said on Sunday green-card holders won’t be impacted by the order going forward, but could face additional screening at CBP “discretion.” Other countries could be added to order.
  • DHS continues to enforce the travel ban. Despite the ruling, the DHS vowed early on Sunday to continue implementing the order, stating it will “enforce all of the president’s executive orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people.” It added that “President Trump’s Executive Orders remain in place — prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety.”
  • The initial statistics: A DHS official told CNN that there were 109 travelers barred from entry to the U.S. when Trump signed the order. It was unclear how many were deported vs. detained.
  • Opening for democrats: As Axios points out, after spending nearly two months back on their heels. Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey showed up at Dulles airport, then tweeted last night: “I am driving North now from Virginia. I will check in on things at Newark airport tomorrow.” Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe held a press conference on a concourse at Dulles, calling the order “antithetical to the values that make America great. It will not make our country safer.” @HillaryClinton tweeted: “I stand with the people gathered across the country tonight defending our values & our Constitution. This is not who we are.”
  • Republicans revolt: As Axios also notes so far 10 GOPers have announced opposition to or questioned Trump’s executive order. These include Sen. John McCain; Rep. Carlos Curbelo; Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; Rep. Charlie Dent; Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick; Rep. Justin Amash; Rep. Barbara Comstock; Sen. Susan Collins; Sen. Jeff Flake; Sen. Ben Sasse.

via http://ift.tt/2kI36HC Tyler Durden

Another Reason Not To Sell Bonds…Yet

Submitted by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Since the November election of Donald Trump, the investing landscape has gone through a dramatic change of expectations with respect to economic growth, market valuations and particularly inflation. As I noted two weeks ago, there is currently “extreme positioning” in many areas which have historically suggested unhappy endings in the markets. To wit:

Much like a ‘rubber band,’ prices can only be stretched so far before having to be relaxed to provide the ability to be stretched again.

 

The chart below shows the long-term trend in prices has compared to its underlying growth trend. The vertical dashed lines show the points where extreme overbought, extended conditions combined with extreme deviations in prices led to a mean-reverting event.”

We can also witness the rather extreme extension of prices above the 200-dma. Such extensions, which are always combined with extreme overbought conditions, have typically not lasted long and have been a good indication to take profits in the short-term. This provides some opportunity to invest capital following a correction to some level of support.


Buy The Dip? Probably.

HedgEye had a good note on why the market keeps going up against what we would deem to be rational behavior:

“How does the rate of change of volatility (VIX) affect what’s getting “expensive” and “cheap”?

 

I think about that in terms of the volatility of volatility. It’s something you can readily measure and map with futures and options data.

 

Looking at the S&P 500’s (SPY) realized volatility,  for example:

  1. 30-day realized volatility has been smashed to 6.6%
  2. But, at 8.7%, implied volatility is trading at +29.2% premium
  3. On a TTM z-score that implied volatility premium is +0.44x”

“So that keeps telling me that the highest probability outcome remains for lower-highs and lower-lows in VIX.

 

And that keeps happening in a US Equity market that is often called “expensive” (it is), but doesn’t get cheaper. Maybe someone from the orthodoxy of macro “valuation” experts can chime in on why this is happening.

 

I think it’s because consensus continues to position for a correction that would be deemed “rational”, as opposed to buying all dips in an irrationally profitable position that’s been complimented by prevailing growth and inflation conditions.

 

Can the U.S. stock market get more expensive? Absolutely.”

“buyable correction” would suggest a correction back to recent support levels that keep the overall “bullish trend” intact. 

The chart below shows the recent advance of the market has gotten to extremely overbought conditions on a short-term basis and the ‘sell signal’ noted at the top of the chart, combined with the extreme overbought condition at the bottom, suggest a potential correction could take the market back to 2200. Also, note the negative divergence of the PMO oscillator despite the advance in the market. 

While such a correction would be relatively minor in the short-term, it would also violate the bullish uptrend that has held since the 2016 lows. 

However, putting this into an actual loss perspective, the following chart details specific support levels back to the psychological level of 2000. A violation of the 2000 level and we are going to start discussing the potential for a more severe market correction.

A violation of initial support level sets up corrections of 4.9%, 6.6%, 8.6% and 13.2% from the recent highs. With bullishness running at highs, and cash allocations at lows, the risk of a short-term reversal is high.

However, I am certainly not discounting the short-term ability for the markets to move higher as discussed in “2400 or Bust!.” This is particularly the case if fiscal policy is actually implemented, earnings improve more than expected or additional monetary policy is introduced. But it is the risk of loss that currently outweighs the reward.

However, there is another more extreme view that was put out by Matrix Trade yesterday:

“For the last seven years, we have tracked both the DJIA and SPX with very similar bull markets in both 1929 and its copy 1987 {made famous by Paul Tudor Jones using very similar technology for arguably one of the greatest trades of all time}. The US markets have now entered the last but most aggressive phase of the uptrend where sentiment takes over and where perma-bears give up all hope. They are now finally right in principle but not timing nor extent”

“We had wondered what would trigger such aggressive strength and volatility… until November 9th, 2016 when Donald Trump was elected. The subsequent change in the market dynamic not only provides the reasons for this move but also provides a very clear date from which to countdown very similar blowouts. As we have target areas for both percentage and a timeline to count up or down and indeed different indices to compare we will continue to monitor the price action exactly in line with these famous historic blowouts and crashes. Good Luck !”

Like a dealer at a poker table enticing players into a game:

“Step right up, place your bets and take your chances.” 


Another Reason Not To Sell Bonds…Yet

As I penned last weekend:

“If the market corrects, OR the economy hits a speed bump, OR something happens in the Eurozone, OR…OR…OR…the covering of short positions in bonds will cause an extremely fast drop in yields.

 

Sure, anything can happen. If yields on the 10-year Treasury break above 3% it will be coincident with a sharp rise in consumer spending, wages, inflationary pressures that are broad based and surging economic growth. In such a case it will make sense to reduce bond holdings in favor of equities.

 

However, given the fact we are already in the 3rd longest economic expansion in history, combined with the second highest levels of valuation on stocks, the odds of such an outcome are extremely low.” 

But here is another reason to stay long bonds.

Currently, as noted by ZeroHedge on Friday:

“With political and economic policy uncertainty at record highs and equity market valuations near record highs, we have one question: which market – interest rates or stocks – is right about ‘risk’ ahead?”

Currently, there are record shorts on volatility which suggest there is little expectation of a market correction currently. In other words, everyone is now on the long-side of the proverbial “boat.” 

So, why own bonds? 

As shown in the chart below, interest rates are negatively correlated to the volatility index. With the extreme net short positioning in bonds, a market correction would spark a rotation from “risk” to “safety” pushing rates towards 2%. However, such a reversal would also trigger a panic-driven short-covering trade which would likely push rates even lower towards 1.5%. 

That thought was also discussed recently at the Macro Man blog:

“We still think that Mr. Bond will have a soft landing this time. In fact, now that the Inaugural is behind us, with all of its ‘Sound and Fury signifying nothing’, Mr. Market will likely undertake a more cerebral evaluation of the likelihood of 4, 5 and 6% US GDP in 2017.

 

A renewed safe haven bid for Mr. Bond and other fixed income assets seems certain before long, as Real Money and commercials have increased their net longs. The speculative community remains extremely short bonds, providing a mechanism to accelerate any recovery in fixed income once it gathers speed, eventually forcing a surprising number of concealed shorts to return to a more neutral positioning in Treasuries.”

Currently, we remain long bonds as a hedge until the abnormalities are reversed.

via http://ift.tt/2jFGZ7e Tyler Durden

What We Saw at the #MuslimBan Protest at LAX: New at Reason

Download Video as MP4

President Trump famously called for a halt to all Muslim immigration during his campaign, and he seemed set to follow through only a week after being sworn in by signing an executive order that not only stops all refugees from entering the country for at least 120 days and Syrian refugees indefinitely, but puts a 90-day hold on travel visa and even green card holders from several predominantly Muslim countries.

This last move left many travellers who live and work or have family in the US stranded at airports and, in many cases, sent back home.

At Los Angeles Airport, for instance, we spoke with Iraqi-born journalist and U.S. citizen named Mohammed Al-Rawis whose father was en route to the United States for a family visit when he was detained for 12 hours and then sent back to Baghdad.

Hours after Trump signed the order, a New York federal judge issued a stay saying immigrants stuck at American airports should not be sent home.

The chaos ensuing from Trump’s executive actions led to protests at JFK Airport in New York and in front of the Tom Bradley International terminal in LA, where Reason TV was on the scene to talk with demonstrators.

Watch the video above for a look at the protest.

Produced by Alexis Garcia. Music by Kai Engel.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

View this article.

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

Trump Administration Flip-Flops: Green Card Holders Are Not Affected By Immigration Ban

Following yesterday’s statement from a Department of Homeland Security official that “[the order] will bar green card holders”, it appears The White House has shifted its view. During an interview of NBC’s “Meet The Press”, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus flip-flopped that “as far as green card holders moving forward, [the order] doesn’t affect them.”


As The Hill reports, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus on Sunday said the president’s executive order barring refugees and people from seven majority-Muslim nations does not affect green card holders.

“We didn’t overrule the Department of Homeland Security, as far as green card holders moving forward, it doesn’t affect them,” Priebus said on NBC’s “Meet The Press.”

 

But Priebus noted if a person is traveling back and forth to one of the seven countries included in that order, that person is likely to be “subjected temporarily with more questioning until a better program is put in place.”

 

“We don’t want people that are traveling back and forth to one of these seven countries that harbor terrorists to be traveling freely back and forth between the United States and those countries,” he said.

When pressed further on whether the order impacts green card holders, though, Priebus appeared to reverse himself, saying, “Well, of course it does.”

“If you’re traveling back and forth, you’re going to be subjected to further screening,” he said.

Furthermore, Priebus also said more countries could be added to the list already included in the president’s executive order.

“Perhaps other countries needed to be added to an executive order going forward,” he said.

 

“But in order to do this in a way that was expeditious, in a way that would pass muster quickly, we used the 7 countries that have already been codified and identified.”

As we noted yesterday, of the seven countries that are on the banned list, we note that the United States is actvely bombing five of them.

 

via http://ift.tt/2kHhd4f Tyler Durden

US Servicemember Killed In Yemen Raid: First Combat Death Under Trump Administration

One U.S. servicemember was killed and three were wounded in a raid against al-Qaeda militants in Yemen, the Pentagon said Sunday. It was first combat death under the administration of President Trump and, if Trump’s executive order on expanding the US military deployment in the middle east and partitioning Syria into safe zones is followed, many more are sure to follow.

The name of the servicemember killed in action is being withheld pending next of kin notification, the statement  said.

According to the WSJ, the Saturday raid resulted in the deaths of 14 militant members of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, the principal al Qaeda franchise in Yemen, defense officials said. It also led to the capture of critical intelligence, according to U.S. Central Command, which oversees U.S. military operations in the Middle East.


A woman in San’a walks past graffiti protesting U.S. drone operations in Yemen.

Reuters added that the special forces raid was authorized by President Donald Trump and was aimed at gathering intelligence about the militant group, a U.S. military official said on Sunday. The official said American elite forces did not seize any militants or take any prisoners off-site after Saturday’s raid, which the Pentagon said killed 14 members of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. U.S. forces carrying out the raid came under fire.

AQAP is considered one of the most deadly branches of the terror organization. The terror group has been  able to get a stronger foothold in Yemen after the country descended into civil war three years ago. The U.S. has launched drone strikes against al-Qaeda militants in Yemen and has at times deployed Special Operations forces in the country in an effort to combat the militants. The U.S. military has also launched occasional ground raids in other countries, such as Libya, where al-Qaeda or militant groups have a presence.

This appeared to be the first such counter-terror ground raid conducted the Trump administration, which has pledged to take a hardline to defeat radical Islamic groups. 

Another unexpected complication was that according to a Central Command statement, a U.S. military aircraft involved in the raid experienced a “hard landing” and had to be destroyed to avoid having it fall into enemy hands. The incident resulted in additional injuries.

“This is one in a series of aggressive moves against terrorist planners in Yemen and worldwide,” the statement said. “Similar operations have produced intelligence on al-Qaeda logistics, recruiting and financing efforts.”

“We are deeply saddened by the loss of one of our elite servicemembers,” Gen. Joseph Votel, the commander of Central Command, said in a statement. “The sacrifices are very profound in our fight against terrorists who threaten innocent peoples across the globe.”

via http://ift.tt/2kBJR3k Tyler Durden

War With US Becoming A “Practical Reality” Chinese Military Warns

In the harshest warning yet that China is actively contemplating a worst case scenario for its diplomatic relations with the US, a senior Chinese military official said that “a war within the president’s term’ or ‘war breaking out tonight’ are not just slogans, they are becoming a practical reality.The remarks, first reported by the SCMP, were published on the People’s Liberation Army website in response to the escalating rhetoric towards China from America’s new administration, and as Beijing braces itself for a possible deterioration in Sino-US ties, with a particular emphasis on maritime security.

The commentary written by an official at the national defence mobilisation department in the Central Military Commission – which has overall authority of China’s armed forces – also called for a US rebalancing of its strategy in Asia, military deployments in the East and South China Seas and the instillation of a missile defence system in South Korea were hot spots getting closer to ignition.

The People’s Liberation Army, quoted by SCMP, said in a commentary on its official website last Friday, the day of Trump’s inauguration, that the chances of war have become “more real” amid a more complex security situation in Asia Pacific.

China’s sabre-rattling then peaked earlier last week, following an unconfirmed report that China’s military moved long range ICBM closer to the north east border in Heilongjiang province, within firing range of the US. As reported here, Chinese social media carried pictures claiming to show the Dongfeng-41 advanced intercontinental ballistic missile system near the Russian border.

Provocative state-run tabloid The Global Times suggested the People’s Liberation Army could have leaked the photos on social media as a warning to Mr Trump. However, Chinese President Xi Jinping has also recently called for the reduction of nuclear weapons.

The most recent deterioration in US-Sino diplomacy follow a statement by Trump spokesman Sean Spicer who told a press conference on Monday that the US would prevent China from taking over territory in international waters in the South China Sea. Spicer told the press “the US is going to make sure that we protect our interests there,” when asked about US President Donald Trump’s position on the South China Sea. “It’s a question of if those islands are in fact in international waters and not part of China proper, then yeah, we’re going to make sure that we defend international territories from being taken over by one country,” he said.

Foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying responded by telling the US “to be cautious in what it says and does, so as to avoid harming the peace and stability in the region.”

The Chinese military is constantly prepared for possible military conflict whoever serves as US president, but Donald Trump’s possible “extreme approach” against China was dangerous, according to analysts.
Ian Storey, a senior fellow at ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore, said some of the comments from Trump’s key advisors and appointees suggest that the US may pursue a more hardline policy against Beijing in the South China Sea over the next four years.

“As it’s highly unlikely that China will compromise its sovereignty claims in the face of US pressure, we can be sure that the dispute will increasingly become a risky point of contention between Beijing and Washington,” he said.

The comments come as President Xi Jinping is overseeing massive reforms within China’s military to improve its fighting capabilities. A huge reshuffle is also underway in the military’s top brass. Vice-Admiral Shen Jinlong, commander of the South Sea Fleet, is to replace retiring Admiral Wu Shengli as chief of the PLA Navy.

via http://ift.tt/2kBLJt5 Tyler Durden

Trump’s Unconstitutional Attack on Sanctuary Cities

On January 25 President Donald Trump signed an executive order denying federal funds to sanctuary cities, which are those jurisdictions that either won’t help the federal government round up and deport undocumented immigrants or otherwise refuse to participate in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. This executive order debases the U.S. Constitution in three significant ways. Let’s take them in turn.

The 10th Amendment

In 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Printz v. United States. At issue was whether the federal government could lawfully order state officials to enforce certain provisions of the 1993 Brady Handgun Prevention Act. The feds lost the case—and rightfully so. The federal government’s actions violated the 10th Amendment.

“The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems,” declared the majority opinion of Justice Antonin Scalia, “nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” In other words, the federal government may not commandeer the states for federal purposes. Scalia’s opinion in Printz plainly forbids the Trump administration from ordering sanctuary cities to enforce federal immigration laws.

The Spending Clause

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to tax and spend. But this power is not unlimited. For example, it is unconstitutional to impose what the Supreme Court has called “coercive” conditions on federal spending grants to the states. This principle was recently affirmed by seven Supreme Court justices in the 2012 Obamacare case National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. At issue was whether Congress exceeded its Spending Clause powers when it threatened to cut off all existing Medicaid funding to any state that refused to expand Medicaid in accordance with the new health care law.

The federal government’s Medicaid expansion amounted to a “gun to the head,” the Supreme Court held. “A State that opts out of the Affordable Care Act’s expansion in health care coverage…stands to lose not merely ‘a relatively small percentage’ of its existing Medicaid funding, but all of it.” That sort of “economic dragooning…leaves the States with no real option but to acquiesce.”

Trump’s attempt to dragoon sanctuary cities by threatening to cut off their federal funding is unconstitutional for the exact same reasons.

The Separation of Powers

The U.S. Constitution sets forth a system of limited and enumerated federal powers. The federal spending power (including the power to attach non-coercive conditions on federal spending) is located in Article I, Section 8. Open your copy of the Constitution and turn to Article I. You will find that it pertains exclusively to Congress. The limited and enumerated powers of the president are spelled out in Article II.

What this means is that Trump’s executive order on sanctuary cities seeks to usurp a core congressional function. That makes it an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. Whether Trump likes it or not, no president has the unilateral authority to act in this manner.

In sum, Trump’s attack on sanctuary cities is a malignant executive power grab that subverts the Spending Clause and tramples the 10th Amendment. It is an affront to both the text and structure of the Constitution.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2kgqBv6
via IFTTT

Homeland Security Will Continue Enforcing Trump’s Travel Ban

Following a tumultuous night, in which late on Saturday evening a Brooklyn Federal Judge issued a partial ban on Trump’s immigration order, on Sunday morning the Department of Homeland Security issued a statement saying it planned on continuing to “enforce all of the president’s executive orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people.” The DHS said the court order would not affect the overall implementation of the White House order and the court order affected a small number of travelers who were inconvenienced by security procedures upon their return, Fox News first reported.

“The president’s executive orders remain in place—prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety,” the statement said.

However, the DHS also added it would “comply with judicial orders” not to deport detained travelers affected by President Donald Trump’s order.

Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to the White House, said, “Nothing in the Brooklyn judge’s order in anyway impedes or prevents the implementation of the president’s executive order which remains in full, complete and total effect.”

As reported before, just before 9pm on Saturday, U.S. District Judge Ann Donnelly in New York issued an emergency order temporarily barring the U.S. from deporting people from nations subject to President Donald Trump’s travel ban, saying travelers who had been detained had a strong argument that their legal rights had been violated. The stay was ordered after lawyers for the ACLU filed a court petition on behalf of people from seven predominantly Muslim nations who were detained at airports across the country as the ban took effect.

Homeland Security said the order affects a small amount of people traveling internationally. The DHS said the order was the “first step towards reestablishing control over America’s borders and national security.”

Prior to the ruling, Trump’s travel ban sparked protests around the country at several international airports. Demonstrators ranged from a few dozen people to thousands. Protests are scheduled to continue on Sunday at least seven cities: Orlando, Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Seattle, Washington and Chicago, mostly at airports.

Under Trump’s order, it had appeared that an unknown number of foreign-born U.S. residents now traveling outside the U.S. could be stuck overseas for at least 90 days even though they held permanent residency “green cards” or other visas.  

However, an official with the DHS said Saturday night that no green-card holders from the seven countries cited in Trump’s order had been prevented from entering the U.S. Trump also billed his sweeping executive order as a necessary step to stop “radical Islamic terrorists” from coming to the U.S. It included a 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. by citizens of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia or Yemen and a 120-day suspension of the U.S. refugee program. 

Early on Sunday, Trump in his first official statement since the Brooklyn Court ruling stayed his ground and tweeted that “our country needs strong borders and extreme vetting, NOW. Look what is happening all over Europe and, indeed, the world – a horrible mess!

The DHS said in the statement that they “will faithfully execute the immigration laws, and we will treat all of those we encounter humanely and with professionalism.” They also added that they plan to ensure the safety of the American people by making sure those entering the U.S. pose no threat.

The full DHS statement is below:

Department Of Homeland Security Response To Recent Litigation

 

The Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce all of President Trump’s Executive Orders in a manner that ensures the safety and security of the American people. President Trump’s Executive Orders remain in place—prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety. President Trump’s Executive Order affects a minor portion of international travelers, and is a first step towards reestablishing control over America’s borders and national security.

 

Approximately 80 million international travelers enter the United States every year. Yesterday, less than one percent of the more than 325,000 international air travelers who arrive every day were inconvenienced while enhanced security measures were implemented. These individuals went through enhanced security screenings and are being processed for entry to the United States, consistent with our immigration laws and judicial orders.

 

The Department of Homeland Security will faithfully execute the immigration laws, and we will treat all of those we encounter humanely and with professionalism. No foreign national in a foreign land, without ties to the United States, has any unfettered right to demand entry into the United States or to demand immigration benefits in the United States. 

 

The Department of Homeland Security will comply with judicial orders; faithfully enforce our immigration laws, and implement President Trump’s Executive Orders to ensure that those entering the United States do not pose a threat to our country or the American people.

via http://ift.tt/2kHpP6D Tyler Durden