Month: January 2017

In the immediate aftermath of Trump’s controversial executive order, prohibiting entry into the US of citizens from seven mostly-Muslim nations – Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen and Libya – yet which excludes such nations as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey in which Trump has done business deals…

… Google issued a stark warnig to staff traveling overseas who may be impacted by a new executive order on immigration from President Donald Trump: Get back to the U.S. now.

According to Bloomberg, Google CEO Sundar Pichai slammed Trump’s move in a note to employees Friday, telling them that more than 100 company staff are affected by the order. “It’s painful to see the personal cost of this executive order on our colleagues,” Pichai wrote in the memo. “We’ve always made our view on immigration issues known publicly and will continue to do so.” The memo follows a similar statement made on Friday by Facebook Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg in which he said he was “concerned” by Trump’s recent moves to restrict immigration.

Per the memo, some Google employees were traveling abroad and were trying to get back to the U.S. before the order took effect. The company asked them to reach out to Google’s security, travel, and immigration teams for assistance, according to a person familiar with the situation. The person asked not to be identified talking about internal company communications.

The employees in question normally work in the U.S. but just happened to be abroad either on work assignments or vacations. The concern is that even if Google staff have valid visas, they may still be at risk if they’re from one of the seven countries and they’re outside the U.S. when the order kicks in, the person also said.

 

One employee rushed back from a trip to New Zealand to make it into the U.S. before the order was signed, Google’s Pichai wrote in his memo.

“We’re concerned about the impact of this order and any proposals that could impose restrictions on Googlers and their families, or that create barriers to bringing great talent to the U.S.,” a Google spokeswoman said in a statement. “We’ll continue to make our views on these issues known to leaders in Washington and elsewhere.”

The unexpected fallout and Google’s comments “underscore a growing rift between the Trump administration and several large U.S. technology companies, which include many immigrants in their ranks and have lobbied for fewer immigration restrictions. Pichai’s note echoed similar statements from tech peers voicing concerns about the harm such policies could have on their businesses.”

The Department of Homeland Security issued a directive on Friday afternoon ordering the Customs and Border Control agency to enforce the order, the New York Daily News reported. Late Friday, some green card and visa holders were already being blocked from boarding flights to the U.S., the newspaper said.

“We are advising our clients from those seven countries who have green cards or any type of H-1B visa not to travel outside the U.S.” said Ava Benach, a partner at immigration law firm Benach Collopy LLP, while noting that the order takes effect immediately. “No one is really sure whether a green card holder from these seven countries can return to the U.S. now. It’s fairly clear that an H-1B visa holder can’t,” Benach said. The H-1B lets U.S. companies employ graduate-level workers from other countries in technical occupations such as technology, engineering and science.

“If anyone in these situations has the misfortune to have gone abroad recently, it’s a treacherous moment, possibly for green card holders too,” Benach said.

Other technology companies are likely in a similar situation, she added. In addition to Facebook, Microsoft inserted language in a securities filing on Thursday on the issue, cautioning investors that immigration restrictions “may inhibit our ability to adequately staff our research and development efforts.”

via http://ift.tt/2kEpzp8 Tyler Durden

Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

In my last two articles, 'How Globalists Predict Your Behavior' and 'How To Predict The Behavior Of Globalists', I explained the base fundamentals behind a concept with which most people are unfamiliar. They are so unfamiliar with it, in fact, that I didn’t bother to name it. In this article I hope to explain it, but I highly recommend people read the previous articles in this series before moving forward.

What I outlined, essentially, was a beginners course on 4^th Generation Warfare. This methodology is difficult to summarize, but here I will list what I believe are some of its core tenets.

Fourth Gen warfare is based on a primary lesson within Sun Tzu’s The Art Of War. Sun Tzu argues in the classical military tome that the greatest strategists win wars by NOT fighting, or at least, by not fighting their opponents openly and directly. That is to say, they win by convincing their opponents that fighting back is futile and that surrender is preferable, or, they convince their opponents to destroy themselves through internal conflict and psychological sabotage. Sun Tzu felt this method was far superior to engaging in direct combat in a real world battle space.

While this might sound bizarre to some, it is becoming more and more apparent (in my view) that 4^th Gen warfare is now the go-to weapon for globalists. Defeating the system established by the globalists, a system prevalent for decades, is an impossible task unless 4^th Gen warfare is understood.

A classic example of a tried and true form of 4^th Gen attack is to initiate a civil war within a target population, and in most cases, control the leadership on both sides of that conflict. Another method is to conjure an enemy, an outside threat which may be legitimate or entirely fabricated, and use that enemy to push a target population to unify under a particular banner that benefits the globalist cabal in the long run. Fourth Gen requires patience above all else.

In fact, I would say 4^th Gen is the weaponization of patience.

A 4^th Gen attack is not carried out over days, or months, but years. To find a comparable experience is difficult, but I would suggest people who have the tenacity set out to learn how military snipers operate. Can you train for years mastering long distance marksmanship, crawl for hours from an insertion point to an observation point, then sit in a hole in the ground (if you are lucky enough to have a hole in the ground) for days waiting to take just one shot, perhaps the only important shot you will ever take in combat, at a vital target, and do it with certainty that you will not miss?

The amount of planning, intense precision and foresight that goes into a sniper operation is much like the kind of effort and calm needed to complete a 4^th Gen psy-ops mission. This kind of warfare is dominated by the “think tanks”, and anyone hoping to counter such tactics look into the history of one particular think tank — RAND Corporation, and their premier psy-ops tool — rational choice theory.

Whenever I hear someone argue that a conspiracy of globalists could not exist because “such plans would be too elaborate and require too much power to carry out in real life,” I have to laugh and bring up RAND, which has had almost limitless funding from globalist foundations like the Ford Foundation and was built specifically to develop not only next gen weapons, but 4^th Gen psychological warfare schemes. RAND's influence is everywhere, from politics, to the social sciences, to military applications and even in Hollywood. After studying their efforts for many years now I can say that these people are indeed smart. Some of them may not be aware of the greater consequences as they war game ideas for dominating the public, and some of them are undoubtedly morally bankrupt, but they are still smart, and should not be underestimated.

Another reference point I would suggest to researchers would be a document called From Psyop To Mindwar: The Psychology Of Victory written by Michael Aquino and Paul Vallely for the Pentagon. In it, they make it clear that the methods of 4^th Generation warfare are not limited to foreign enemies. In fact, they are recommended for use by governments against their own populations. Again, the thrust of the methodology was to manipulate a target population into subduing itself, so that force was not necessary. Aquino and Vallely note that this would be a better outcome for everyone involved, because it would help to avoid the bloodshed of insurgency and counterinsurgency.

I am skeptical that these people care at all about bloodshed or collateral damage, but I do think they would very much like the process of totalitarian centralization to be less tedious. The elites hope to streamline tyranny by convincing the public that globalization must be embraced for “the greater good of the greater number.” But, in order to accomplish this vast change in society and the collective unconscious, they need crisis and calamity. They see themselves as creators, but for them, creation is about destruction. In other words, the old world must be destroyed so that they can use the leftover building blocks to make something new.

If we do not embrace their solution of global centralization rising from the ashes, they believe they have a response for that problem too. Read my article 'When Elites Wage War On America, This Is How They Will Do It'; more specifically, the section on Max Boot from the Council On Foreign Relations. Boot is the CFR’s resident “insurgency expert,” and while I question his ability to apply academic models to real word conflicts as if theory is akin to practice in war, it is enough to know the mindset of these elitists.

Boot’s work focuses on a particular model of quarantining insurgencies from the non-combative population, based on the methods the British used against communist guerrillas in Malaysia. In fact, Max seems to revel in the British efforts to catalog Malaysian citizens and relocate them into large cities that amounted to concentration camps. This made recruitment difficult for the insurgents and stopped them from hiding among civilian centers. It also focused food production into highly managed areas and gave the British leverage over the population. With this separation, it was much easier for the authorities to “educate” the locals on the threats of the insurgency and gain their support.

So, the question is, if this array of tactics is going to be aimed at liberty proponents and free peoples within the U.S. in particular, with an increasing potential for things to become far worse in the near term, how do we fight back?

Firstly, I need to point out a disturbing trend within the liberty movement, which is the propensity for activists to show far more interest talking about the problem than talking about solutions. Over the years I have noticed a consistent lower readership on articles having to do with specific solutions and strategies; not just my own articles, but many other analysts as well. It is much more popular to write on the reality of looming crisis rather than to write about what individuals can do to blunt the edge of the event. I would not be surprised if this article receives only half of the readership my other articles receive.

The first step in fighting back in a 4^th Gen war is to acknowledge that there is no easy way out. There is no way to change the corrupt system from within. There is no way to use politics and government to our advantage. Despite all the hopes activists have, Trump is not going to save you, or America. The Republican controlled House and Senate is not going to save us. There is nothing they could do even if they wanted to.

I will write in more detail on this in my next article, but actions such as shutting down the Fed alone are half measures that will actually exacerbate a crisis in the short term, rather than defuse one. A debt jubilee (another commonly mentioned false solution) is meaningless when the value of your world reserve currency on the global market is still destroyed in the process and your treasury bonds are no longer desirable.  Pushing corporations to create a few thousand manufacturing jobs here and there is a drop in the bucket when considering the 95 million people no longer counted in the U.S. labor force on top of the millions still officially considered unemployed. There is no stopping the ongoing economic collapse from running its course.  We will be required to take our medicine eventually, and this will happen sooner rather than later.

Here is what can be done, though, to mitigate the damage and fight back against the establishment…

Separation From The System

People are always looking for grand and cinematic solutions to fighting the globalists, but the real solutions are far less romantic. Defeating the “new world order” requires individuals to take smaller actions in their day-to-day lives. Becoming more self sufficient, the ability to provide one’s own necessities, the ability to defend one’s self and family, the move away from grid dependence, homeschooling your children, a healthy skepticism of web tied technologies and the “internet of things,” etc.

This does not mean you have to go build a cabin in the woods and start typing up a manifesto, but it does mean that you will have to sacrifice certain modern comforts and amenities and manage your life in a way that might feel strange at first. To put it simply, it means you will have to learn to start doing most things for yourself and perhaps learn to live with less “things” and less mainstream stimulation.

I know many people that have undertaken this effort while still living what you might call “normal lives.” The bottom line is, if you are dependent on the system, you will never be able to fight the system.

Separation From Invasive Technologies

Remove active surveillance from your life. Stop carrying a cell phone around with you everywhere you go, or at least pull the battery until you need it. Cover or remove computer cameras. Deactivate microphones when not in use. Refuse to purchase appliances with built-in web connectivity. Refuse to participate in smart grid programs. Remove GPS modules from your vehicles. Stop posting photos constantly to Facebook and sharing your entire life on social media. Give the enemy less information to work with.

Build Real Community

Stop trying to build hollow friendships with people on the other side of the country through a cold medium like the internet and start building relationships with the people that live right in your own neighborhood or town. The one thing the elites fear more than anything else is people organizing groups that are outside of their influence. The more community groups there are, big and small, the more effort, money and resources are required to keep tabs on them all. With localized groups populated by members that know each other and have lived in one place for a long time, infiltration is a strenuous prospect and co-option is nearly impossible.

Establish Alternative Communications

Make sure your group or community has at least one ham radio expert. Resistance to tyranny requires independent communications. Without this ability you will have no access to information in the event of a crisis and thus, you will have nothing. Ham radio can be used to spread information across the country and can even reach out to other parts of the world. In the event of a breakdown in civility, ham can be used to send digital mail and files, and these files can be encrypted.

The founding fathers had the midnight ride, we have ham radio.

Refuse To Participate In Resource Management

In the event of a greater collapse, resource management will be the name of the game. For the elites to gain a stranglehold on a population, they need to isolate the insurgency (freedom loving people) from the regular (subdued) citizenry, and then they need to confiscate as many resources as possible to supply “loyalists” while starving out undesirables.

I believe a successful rebellion would require rural communities to maintain complete control over their resources and refuse to allow government to dictate how these resources are dispersed. Ultimately, in order to break an establishment stranglehold over the population through Max Boot’s method of “friendly” concentration camps, the tactic would have to be reversed. Resources may need to be cut off to these places entirely. This would remove the leverage governments would have in terms of necessities, leaving no reason for anyone to want to stay in these sorts of green zones again.

Vigilante Justice

I am not condoning OR criticizing this kind of development, but I am pointing out that it is inevitable. If top globalists continue to engage in the use of economics as a nuclear option against the public, along with their many other crimes, then individuals with the right skill-sets will likely seek them out with the intention of ventilating them. I think the danger of lone-wolf vigilantes acting without group contact and without warning is terrifying to the globalists.

They are used to being able to co-opt enemy groups or exploit informants to infiltrate and relay information. With a lone wolf, there is no trail to follow and individuals are decidedly harder to predict in their behavior and plans than groups are. I would not be surprised to see prominent globalists living in the U.S. suddenly leave the country en masse just as social unrest becomes heightened.  And, I would not be surprised to see some globalists killed anyway by fed up citizens who suddenly snap and take matters into their own hands.

Our Window Of Time Is Short

Keep in mind that the millennial generation is about 10 years away from becoming the dominant cultural force in this country, and those precious snowflakes are like another species. The majority of them long for collectivism, and they work diligently to stifle dissent in colleges and public schools. The great danger is that in ten to fifteen years many of the people within conservative movements might be too old to effectively fight back, and while we deal with economic disaster it will be millennials steeped in cultural Marxism that are elevated as part of the globalist solution.

Whatever we end up doing, I believe we have about 10 years before hitting the point of no return (with ample crisis and struggle from now until then). After this, we will either have the globalists in prison or in the ground, or, we will have a massive economic reset and a new world order. The choice is up to us, even though some people don’t want to accept it.

via http://ift.tt/2jGSjO0 Tyler Durden

From the Slope of Hope: Being an equity bear has been brutal for, oh, nearly eight years now. With the S&P up about 250% since bottoming in March 2009, equities have been, on the whole, raging higher, with some sectors in particular benefiting tremendously from the Trumpgasm. One area, though, seems to be recognizing a bitterly cold chill of reality, and that is retail.

Not everything retail is weak, of course, Amazon has had an astonishing run (and we’ll see if it holds together when they report next week), and some stocks such as Autozone (AZO) and O’Reilly Auto Parts (ORLY) have cranked out multi-hundred percent gains for years now. But many retail companies, particularly those having to do with clothing, have been getting whacked. Take, for instance, Abercrombie & Fitch, which I’ve picked on endlessly: it is actually lower than it was at the greatest depths of the financial crisis. For how many stocks could you make that statement?

Bed Bath & Beyond has a quite well-formed head and shoulders pattern (whose neckline is shown with a red horizontal below) that suggests much lower prices to come.

Be careful not to confuse this with a very similar symbol, however – Best Buy – which, competition from Amazon be damned, is defying gravity and broke above resistance this year.

Let’s get back to the bearish charts, though: Shoe retailer Finish Line has been trending lower for months, and the analog is going beautifully:

Another storefront at your local luxury mall is Kate Spade. It found strength off and on recently due to buyout chatter (they are desperately trying to sell themselves), but the pattern is bearish, and just so you are clear, just because a company is for sale doesn’t mean there will be any buyers. Just ask Twitter.

Speaking of analogs, take a look at Macy’s. Even though the stock has lost over half its value, if history is any guide, there are doomed as doomed can be (this is more impressive if you say it in an Ed Grimley voice).

Hold on there……..it’s another analog……and from another company I pick on a lot: Pier One, purveyor of scented candles, throw pillows, and monkeys carved from coconuts. This is another fine example of how just because a stock has already suffered a momentous collapse (about 65% so far) doesn’t mean it isn’t just going to keep collapsing. Firm support exists at $0.00.

Overpriced seller of kitchenware, Williams Sonoma, is setting itself up for a big fall. It has found support for years in the mid 40s, but don’t count on that surviving the year intact.

I will say, however, that some retailers are so far gone, the opportunity has already passed by. Stage Stores is a good example of a ship that’s already sailed.

On the other hand, Deckers Outdoor (makers of the UGG shoe line, among others) has plenty of juice left to squeeze.

Dillard’s is another stock which has lost about 60% of its value already but doesn’t look anywhere close to being done falling.

What got me thinking about all this was my best-performing short position, CBL Associates. I wasn’t sure what they did, but it turns out they are a big player in retail real estate – – hence their stock is also in a terrific analog and appears to be screwed and tattooed.

If anyone is looking for rumblings to signal the kind of break in 2006/2007 that preceded the financial crisis, look no further than the charts above.

via http://ift.tt/2kclbRk Tim Knight from Slope of Hope

This spring, Ohio State University will launch a new course entitled “Crossing Identity Boundaries” which will empower America’s precious snowflakes with all of the tools they need to detect microaggressions and become “self-aware” of their inherent “white privilege.”  Unfortunately, this isn’t a joke.

According to the class homepage, at the end of the course, students should be able to “identify micro-aggressions within their daily lives and within society as a whole” and “identify ways in which they can challenge or address systems of power and privilege.”

Moreover, although it seems a little off topic for this particular course, students will also apparently be taught whether or not it’s appropriate for guys to always pay on a date.  And even though it’s not explicitly addressed on the course syllabus, we presume it’s a given that such a question would only be asked after determining one’s preferred pronoun because otherwise we’re just not sure how young people would go about confirming they’re actually on a date with a “guy.”  It’s also very unclear whether the mere discussion of stereotypical gender roles, like who should pay for a date, might be a “micro-aggression” in and of itself…dicey territory for sure.

 

For those of you who may want to do some personal, private study, here is a list of a couple of books/articles from the course’s required reading list:

• Waking up White: What it means to accept your legacy, for better and worse
• White privilege: unpacking the invisible knapsack
• Here’s the perfect explanation for why White people need to stop saying #AllLivesMatter
• 3 examples of everyday cissexism
• The science behind why people fear refugees
• Creating identity-safe spaces on college campuses for Muslim students
• Christian privilege: Breaking a sacred taboo

Meanwhile, per College Fix, homework assignments include, among other things, taking two “implicit bias tests” and finding at least 12 example of micro-aggressions on social media.

Taking the course, offered through the Department of Educational Studies, is one way students can fulfill the university’s mandatory diversity requirement, and many sections are offered throughout the school year.

 

Part of the homework includes taking two “implicit bias tests,” and writing journals on prompts such as “power/privilege in your life” or calling on Christians to write about what it might feel like to be Muslim, or males on what it’s like to be female, and “reflecting on how this new identity would have impacted your day.”

 

One big part of the class is a microaggressions group presentation and reflective paper.

 

The assignment, according to a syllabus, calls on students to “find at least 12 examples of microaggressions using at least 3 different types of social media (e.g., Yik Yak, Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest). Explain who the target of the microaggression is and why your group believes it is an example of a negative remark. Provide an example of how you might respond to such a comment.”

 

The assignment’s goal is for students to “evaluate the impact that power and privilege have within social media,” a syllabus states. Students are graded on the “quality of microaggresion chosen (do they clearly articulate why they are microaggressions and which group is targeted” and “quality of response (did they address the microaggression in an appropriate and meaningful way?)”

Amazingly, American parents can get all of this for the bargain basement price of just $44,784 per year.  Just an amazing value.

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

Submitted by Jeremish Johnson (nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces ) via SHTFPlan.com,

One of the best things is the fact that we can now say “President Trump.”  Fawning media pundits and those armies of liberals who worship propriety will use the term “president” to address his predecessor; however, he is just “Obama,” plain and simple.  It’s good to be rid of him.  Now the real work can be done.

The primary focus of the American people from a perspective of priorities should be to convince the president to rally the Congress on one hand, and to use executive orders on the other to reverse the damage done by Obama over the past eight years.  This is where it will take the American citizens to get the ball rolling on this.  For those who may think it cannot be done, look at Prohibition.  That heinous law was repealed, and in this light so can the evils pushed through Congress when the Democrats controlled it and the bureaucratic and executive fiats ramrodded upon us also may be negated.

Such actions as repealing all the hideous quackeries and Draconian edicts follow a logical series of steps to complete.  The President has enough time, however, he and Congress need to work swiftly.  Here’s how it can proceed:

1. The most pressing issues (such as Obamacare, the border fence for the illegal aliens, etc.) must be brought toward both the Congress and the President…in a listed format…a petition
2. This petitioning must also be supplemented by letters, e-mails, and telephone calls to each and every Congressman and Senator regarding these issues.
3. Organizations that are nationwide must carry out these “campaigns” of changing the existing legislation and heinous pieces of bureaucratic rules and statutes…in the manner they campaigned for the President before the election. With the unity of different groups (such as voting groups, veterans’ organizations, and political party associations), the attention of Congress and the President can be obtained
4. The petitions and letters must be sent to the President in duplicate, so that he will be aware of these issues that need to be changed, and that Congress (Representatives and Senators) is requested to act upon these matters
5. Legislation can be initiated, and action can proceed, on repealing Obamacare, for example.
6. If it should hit a stall in some way, the President can influence it, and possibly take those same Executive Actions that Obama brandished for almost a decade with impunity.

The bottom line is that the President promised to repeal existing legislation and initiate the changes himself, but he is not solely responsible for this: the American people (who hold him accountable at the booths) must not forget it is their job to monitor his progress and to help it along.

Here’s the deal.  Around November, the Congressmen and Senators will begin to campaign.  They will be a year out, and in order to keep their seats in the midterm election in November of 2018, there will have to be a good track record for the next year, with visible results within 6 to 8 months.  There is also no excuse, now.  The Republican party holds the House and the Senate.  There is nothing from a legislative perspective that the President cannot accomplish, at least for the next year and nine months.

Of course, this will take solidarity within the Republican Party, and the Republicans have not had a very good track record in this department…with Speaker of the House Paul Ryan being the prime example.  Ryan refused to back the President before the elections when Hillary Clinton was conducting the “smear” campaign with the closet conga line of “damsels in distress” videos and “boo-hoo” interviews.  Then when the President won, Ryan did a complete-180.

That solidarity may not be able to be coaxed, but it can be coerced, by the people with the power of their votes.  This will take action: by individuals writing and phoning en masse, and by groups (as mentioned earlier) and organizations.

When these Representatives and Senators realize their jobs are on the line, they’ll act: not for the good of the issue, but to keep their job.

So, the President is off to a good start.  We need to wish him as much success as possible.  We also need to help him out.  How?  By being proactive with the Congressmen and Senators of our States to bring matters to their attention.  The election is over, and Donald Trump is now the President, but the real work is just beginning.  If the people do not push these politicos with correspondence backed with the power of the vote, then the politicos will take a Merovingian stance and sit around idly.  We the people have a chance to make a change, and it’s in our hands.  The president is off and running, but even a champion racehorse needs a jockey for direction, and the jockey in this case is an informed and active public that keep him on the right course: the one to reflect the will of the people.

via http://ift.tt/2kw4opR Tyler Durden

After a pompous, liberal agenda was crammed down the throats of the American people during his first two years in office, President Obama suffered staggering losses in Congress for the next six years that cost Democrats control of both houses.  But, heavy Democrat losses, courtesy of an electorate that vehemently rejected a far-left agenda, didn’t stop Obama from continuing to push through countless new rules and regulations from the White House all while pushing his authority to the brink of every Constitutional boundary known to man. 

Of course, the problem with “legislating from the White House” is that all those rules and regulations can be undone by the next administration.  And, as Kimberley Strassel points out in a Wall Street Journal Opinion piece today, a little know tool within the Congressional Review Act could allow Republicans to wipe out 8 full years of Obama’s liberal agenda, with a simple majority vote, all while preventing similar rules from every being recreated by future administrations.

Todd Gaziano on Wednesday stepped into a meeting of free-market attorneys, think tankers and Republican congressional staff to unveil a big idea. By the time he stepped out, he had reset Washington’s regulatory battle lines.

 

These days Mr. Gaziano is a senior fellow in constitutional law at the Pacific Legal Foundation. But in 1996 he was counsel to then-Republican Rep. David McIntosh. He was intimately involved in drafting and passing a bill Mr. McIntosh sponsored: the Congressional Review Act. No one knows the law better.

 

Everyone right now is talking about the CRA, which gives Congress the ability, with simple majorities, to overrule regulations from the executive branch. Republicans are eager to use the law, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy this week unveiled the first five Obama rules that his chamber intends to nix.

 

So, here’s how it works:

But what Mr. Gaziano told Republicans on Wednesday was that the CRA grants them far greater powers, including the extraordinary ability to overrule regulations even back to the start of the Obama administration. The CRA also would allow the GOP to dismantle these regulations quickly, and to ensure those rules can’t come back, even under a future Democratic president. No kidding.

 

Here’s how it works: It turns out that the first line of the CRA requires any federal agency promulgating a rule to submit a “report” on it to the House and Senate. The 60-day clock starts either when the rule is published or when Congress receives the report—whichever comes later.

 

“There was always intended to be consequences if agencies didn’t deliver these reports,” Mr. Gaziano tells me. “And while some Obama agencies may have been better at sending reports, others, through incompetence or spite, likely didn’t.” Bottom line: There are rules for which there are no reports. And if the Trump administration were now to submit those reports—for rules implemented long ago—Congress would be free to vote the regulations down.

But, it gets even better:

There’s more. It turns out the CRA has a expansive definition of what counts as a “rule”—and it isn’t limited to those published in the Federal Register. The CRA also applies to “guidance” that agencies issue. Think the Obama administration’s controversial guidance on transgender bathrooms in schools or on Title IX and campus sexual assault. It is highly unlikely agencies submitted reports to lawmakers on these actions.

 

“If they haven’t reported it to Congress, it can now be challenged,” says Paul Larkin, a senior legal research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Mr. Larkin, also at Wednesday’s meeting, told me challenges could be leveled against any rule or guidance back to 1996, when the CRA was passed.

 

The best part? Once Congress overrides a rule, agencies cannot reissue it in “substantially the same form” unless specifically authorized by future legislation. The CRA can keep bad regs and guidance off the books even in future Democratic administrations—a far safer approach than if the Mr. Trump simply rescinded them.

As Strassel points out: “The entire point of the CRA was to help legislators rein in administrations that ignored statutes and the will of Congress. Few White House occupants ever showed more contempt for the law and lawmakers than Mr. Obama. Republicans if anything should take pride in using a duly passed statue to dispose of his wayward regulatory regime. It’d be a fitting and just end to Mr. Obama’s abuse of authority—and one of the better investments of time this Congress could ever make.”

via http://ift.tt/2jf7AJL Tyler Durden

Submitted by Bill O'Grady via Confluence Investment Management,

Yesterday, we began this two-part report by examining America’s geographic situation and how it is conducive to superpower status. This condition is problematic for foreign powers because it can be almost impossible to significantly damage America’s industrial base in a conventional war with the U.S. In addition, it would be very difficult to launch a conventional attack against the U.S. (a) with any element of surprise, and (b) without significant logistical challenges. The premise of this report is a “thought experiment” of sorts that examines the unconventional options foreign nations have to attack the U.S. Although these may not lead to regime change in America, such attacks may distract U.S. policymakers enough that foreign powers could engage in regional hegemonic actions that would otherwise be opposed by the U.S.

In Part I of this report, we discussed two potential tactics to attack the U.S., a nuclear strike and a terrorist attack. Today, we will examine cyberwarfare and disinformation. We will conclude with market effects.

#3: Cyberwarfare

Cyberwarfare is a broad tactical category, ranging from the use of computer technology in conventional warfare to hacking enemies’ industrial, financial, media, utility and social networks to gain information, monitor behavior, spread disinformation and disrupt operations of these networks. Both state and non-state actors are active in cyber activities. There is a significant criminal element as well.

The best known cyberattack was allegedly jointly created by Israel and the U.S. Dubbed “Stuxnet,” it was a computer virus which took control of systems that monitored Iran’s nuclear centrifuges. The virus returned information to its handlers and eventually was able to adversely affect the operation of the machinery itself, causing some of the centrifuges to spin out of control. Although Iran’s nuclear facilities were not directly connected to the internet, the bug was apparently introduced through a flash drive. This means that either a spy plugged a drive into Iran’s system or an innocent Iranian did it by mistake.

Initially, as reports from Iran began emerging about problems in its nuclear facilities, it was generally assumed that the Persians simply didn’t know what they were doing or had purchased faulty equipment. Eventually, Stuxnet ruined about 20% of Iran’s nuclear centrifuges. The virus turned out to be rather pervasive, spreading to Indonesia, India, Azerbaijan and Pakistan, and, interestingly enough, also infecting about 1.6% of American computers.

There are numerous other examples of cyberwarfare. The U.S. hacked insurgents’ cell phones in Iraq, allowing the American military to track their movements and even send them texts with false orders that may have led to their capture or demise. China has become notorious in its hacking of U.S. government and defense sites. Criminals routinely use “phishing” emails to gain control of individual and business computers, sometimes to “kidnap” their data (ransomware) or to simply gain their information.

Cyberwarfare carries numerous risks. As seen with Stuxnet, once released, a virus can become uncontrollable, harming friends and foes alike. It is relatively easy to conceal as it can be difficult to determine where an attack originated. In other words, a state actor could make it appear that a criminal group was responsible for the hack. Or, the criminal group could act as a mercenary for a state, giving the government plausible deniability. Governments have an incentive to co-opt and coerce technology firms to build in “back doors” that allow them to monitor information from citizens. This deliberate defect makes the product less attractive to consumers. On the other hand, an impregnable information system would be a very attractive tool for terrorists and criminals. Essentially, personal privacy is always at risk in a world where cyberattacks are possible.

Technology, for the most part, improves efficiency. Recently, my family traveled to the Caribbean which required a tour through U.S. Customs upon our return. We were checked into the country using an automated kiosk that scanned our passports, took a picture and sent us to a border agent. The following day the system crashed and what took us about 45 minutes to navigate took others up to six hours to clear. Payment systems have become increasingly electronic. This allows households to carry less cash and lets banks and other financial institutions move funds more easily through the economy. However, it also makes the system vulnerable to hackers. Banks are constantly facing threats from criminals trying to gain access to accounts.

Fraudulent purchases on credit cards are common. These acts are more easily facilitated due to technology.

In financial services, technology has changed how orders are handled. Trade execution is nearly instantaneous. The futures pits used to be populated with wildly waving traders in colorful jackets; now, these trades are executed via terminals and, in many cases, ordered by algorithm. Although this has lowered execution costs, it also makes financial markets susceptible to “flash crashes” that occasionally roil the markets.

Essentially, technology has been eliminating the number of people directly involved in processing transactions, everything from financial markets to retailing and government services. Although this makes the economy more efficient, it also makes it more fragile. If a system crashes, it can cause widespread disruptions and close firms, government agencies and markets. The U.S. economy, due to its technological advances, may be more vulnerable to cyberattacks than other nations.

Although cyberattacks won’t likely cause regime change in the U.S., it could seriously disrupt the American economy, giving a foreign power time to use conventional military means to establish regional hegemony. Thus, if China wanted to capture Taiwan or if Russia wanted to invade the Baltics, a major cyberattack, such as bringing down the electrical grid, causing dams to malfunction or disrupting air traffic control, may be enough to shift security and other officials’ attention in order to improve the odds of a successful attack.

Cyberwarfare is a significant threat to U.S. security and has very attractive characteristics. It is stealthy; the origin of the attack can be disguised and it can cause significant damage to an economy. Although the U.S. may be vulnerable to such an attack, it should be noted that American intelligence agencies and the military have significant firepower in this area as well. The difference is that disrupting the Russian economy might not matter all that much because it’s already in poor shape. But, in the U.S., shutting down the electrical grid for several days would be considered catastrophic; in fact, simply bringing down the internet might be just as bad. The U.S. faces a constant threat from cyberattacks. The key concern is what a foreign power would do with a disruption. China has already captured defense plans and personal information. So far, it has used this information to improve its own defense materials and to create countermeasures to U.S. defense goods. But the threat of a cyberattack as cover for a regional military operation is perhaps the greatest threat the U.S. currently faces.

#4: Disinformation

Disinformation is nothing new. From time immemorial, governments have tried to fool their adversaries. From America’s perspective, Radio Free Europe was broadcasting the truth to those behind the Iron Curtain. To the communists, it was pure propaganda.

There are two changes that make disinformation more dangerous. First, the technology behind news flow has changed dramatically. During the era of print media, disseminating news was rather expensive. Printing needed to occur. Journalists needed to be hired. The journalists were usually trained and there were standards of conduct that acted as a screen for reports. Although there was a “yellow press” in American history, the Cold War period was probably the golden age of journalism.

By the 1980s, cable news became an alternative to the major networks. The cable news companies discovered that they were able to capture a more reliable viewership by taking a definite slant toward the news. AM radio, as an older technology and because of its low cost, became an avenue of more extreme views. But the real change agent was the internet and social media. The internet allowed for news to be disseminated almost instantly. Social media allows common citizens to post items and videos for all to see. Regular media companies suddenly found themselves competing with citizens and their cell phones. From 1981 to 2014, the number of daily newspapers declined by 25.3%. Social media and news aggregators have the ability to screen news flow based on the viewing habits of the reader. Essentially, if one reads off the internet uncritically, they can live in a virtual news echo chamber. Thus, news, “facts” and viewpoints become hardened.

The changes in news dissemination dovetailed with changes in political polarization.

This chart is a measure of party polarization; essentially, it measures partisanship. The higher the reading on the chart, the more the political structure is partisan and polarized. Before the U.S. emerged on the world stage, there were strong disagreements on policy. There was less polarization by WWI, and during the Cold War the degree of polarization reached historical lows. In other words, regardless of political party, there was a high degree of bipartisanship.

When the Cold War ended, bipartisanship also deteriorated. Currently, the country is probably the most polarized it has been since the Civil War. Unfortunately, this degree of disunity is dangerous for a superpower because it creates conditions that can distract policymakers from global concerns.

Perhaps the greatest risk to the evolution of American hegemony was the Civil War. Although the British were the undisputed global superpower at the time, the leadership of that nation was watching the explosive economic growth in the U.S. warily. The British probably made a strategic mistake in not supporting the Confederacy because if it had survived the U.S. would have been divided and would never have achieved the same degree of power. According to historians, the political elites favored supporting the South but the public opposed it because of slavery. In addition, Queen Victoria also supported abolition and opposed the Confederacy. The British did offer some support but never enough to turn the tide.

An America divided is susceptible to disinformation. We are living in an era where “false news” is routinely disseminated. In addition, facts have become increasingly tied to social and political positions; in other words, no fact seems to exist outside a social and political context. During the Cold War, the losing political party in an election was in opposition but did work with the winner; in the current environment, the losing party believes catastrophic events are likely and the only way to ensure a better future is to resist the policy goals of the other party.

This environment allows foreign powers to influence social and political beliefs. It is clear the Russians tried to influence the U.S. presidential election. This should not come as a shock to anyone. The U.S. has done this for years; what Americans see as supporting democracy-loving activists in foreign nations looks much like meddling to foreign governments. In addition, it is routine for other nations to have lobbying efforts in the U.S., ostensibly to affect American policy.

What is surprising is that the Russians seem to have had some success, although we would argue that it probably wasn’t as significant as the media is suggesting. We believe the reason the Russians were able to find some traction with the leaks and its behavior is that the political environment allowed it to occur. A political environment in which the other party isn’t seen as merely an American with a different political position but one that is perhaps evil allows leaks and disinformation to have power.

Essentially, it appears that our current highly partisan climate has created an environment where disinformation is more likely to be accepted. If this process makes America more divided, it will reduce our ability to project power and exercise hegemony. Although disinformation probably won’t bring regime change, it can create conditions under which an aspiring regional hegemon can try to influence American public opinion in a fashion that will reduce the likelihood that the U.S. responds negatively to the aspiring regional hegemon’s encroachment. In other words, if Russia wanted to take the Baltics, it may try to use false news and internet dissemination to sway Americans to oppose U.S. and NATO intervention.

Ramifications

This report is something of a thought experiment about how foreign nations can attack a hegemon with extraordinarily favorable geographic conditions. We identified four primary methods—a nuclear strike, terrorism, cyberattack and disinformation. These are not the only methods, but we suspect these are the most likely. Two others that deserve mention are biological/chemical warfare and space. The reason we didn’t explore the former is that it is probably similar to a nuclear attack if done in scale; we would know who did it and we would not be surprised to see a state-sponsored biological attack met with a nuclear strike or a massive conventional attack. Of course, a terrorist attack using these methods could be effective but these weapons are notoriously difficult to deploy effectively. And, the U.S. has an advanced medical sector that would probably be able to cope with a small biological attack. A space attack, which could range from attacking satellites to launching weapons, is possible. However, the U.S. is probably as well prepared as any nation for such conflicts and so a pre-emptive strike would probably be met in kind. Thus, for considerations of length, we didn’t explore either of these methods in detail.

We are not likely to face a nuclear attack but the other three are quite likely and, in fact, have occurred and will likely continue to occur. Of the remaining three, we are most worried about the two discussed this week. Computer hacking by China and Russia is common; although it hasn’t led to anything that threatens civil order, the potential does exist that it could at some point.

Disinformation is another rising concern. Although this method has existed for centuries, the internet allows dissemination without filters. Thus, the ability to affect the unity of the nation and America’s capacity to mobilize against enemies to support allies could be compromised.

As noted, we believe a conventional military attack on the continental U.S. is highly unlikely. However, that doesn’t mean that aspiring regional hegemons won’t use the last three methods to improve their odds of success in local actions. The Russian concept of “hybrid war” uses the last three in combination to undermine nations in its near abroad and weaken any opposition to Russian goals of regional domination. The U.S. may become a more likely target of similar actions in order to distract America from opposing the aims of aspiring regional hegemons to expand their areas of control.

The market ramifications are complicated. Technology security firms should find steady business from the private and public sector. Media companies may face additional burdens of screening news for potential “false news” stories. Overall, though, the biggest impact may be that these factors are part of a trend where the U.S. continues to move away from the superpower role it has played since the end of WWII. We have documented and discussed these issues at length. The bottom line is that a G-0 world is one that is negative for foreign investment but probably bullish for commodities. The dollar and U.S. financial assets will likely benefit relative to foreign assets.
 

via http://ift.tt/2kbNcZ7 Tyler Durden