Month: January 2018

Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

There’s a reason education sucks, and it’s the same reason it will never ever ever be fixed. It’s never going to get any better. Don’t look for it. Be happy with what you’ve got… because the owners of this country don’t want that. I’m talking about the real owners now… the real owners. The big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions.

Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls. They got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying. Lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I’ll tell you what they don’t want. They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. That’s against their interests. 

– George Carlin on The American Dream

Part 2 of this series dived into the importance of technology and innovation to the evolution of the human species. Indeed, innovation is one of the most important pieces to the puzzle, with the caveat that such advancements must be rooted in higher consciousness. An unconscious people will create and embrace technology that will enslave, while a conscious and thoughtful people will manifest innovation that can propel humans forward toward a vastly superior paradigm. Consciousness + innovation are the two most crucial variables when it comes to realizing our higher potential in the decades and centuries to come.

That said, not everyone has the capacity or desire to work on the next groundbreaking technology. That’s perfectly fine. What we all possess is the capacity to become more conscious,thoughtful and loving, and it’s from this foundation that every individual can contribute to the creation of a better world. Whether you’re a lawyer, a banker, a painter or a chef, the most important thing you can do is ensure your work stems from a higher state of consciousness.

An unfortunate aspect of life here on earth is we often neglect the power we have as individuals to affect the world around us. We overlook the fact we’re presented with various opportunities on a daily basis to do some good via small interactions with others and the environment. Don’t discount the importance of all the little things you do every day simply because you aren’t in a corporate suite making billion dollar decisions, or voting on legislation in Congress. You have tremendous power to influence the world around you each and every day. Don’t let the seemingly little, but consequential, daily opportunities pass you by unconsciously. Everything we do matters.

Once you recognize your true power, you start to realize the current world is designed to prevent you from figuring it out. In fact, much of our media and culture is designed to make us feel small, inferior, weak, scared and insecure. We’re endlessly encouraged to obsess about the bread and circus spectacles that are Presidential elections, with the implication that voting for some new fraud every four years is the highest manifestation of our duties as citizens. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth.

No billionaire or political “rising star” is going to sweep down and save you, the country, or the planet. It’s up to us to do that, and until we stop being lazy and admit this, we’ll continue to fall for conmen and women who offer fairytales visions of imminent salvation via a centralized and monumentally corrupt Washington D.C.

The point is we need to first work on ourselves and then take it from there. A conscious people will not just bring forth liberating innovation, a conscious people will also understand that political change comes from the ground up, not from the top of the pyramid. Thinking otherwise is actually insane. Paradigm level change will never come from a place as deranged and corrupt as Washington D.C. Forget getting the “right people” in office and instead get to work at the local level.

I like to highlight the issue of cannabis because it’s extremely instructive. Thanks solely to the will of the people, 9 states have now made cannabis fully legal, and it’s been decriminalized in another 13 states.

This represents a historical achievement that would’ve appeared inconceivable 20 years ago. Most importantly, it was led by the people themselves in Colorado and Washington, where citizens directly voted to legalize it via public referendum in 2012. Significantly, the federal government played no role whatsoever. If anything, that centralized, corrupt bureaucracy has been actively holding things back, as we saw in 2016, when the DEA denied two petitions to reschedule marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

Bottom line, Washington D.C. won’t be the wellspring of anything decent or beneficial, so stop indulging in such fantasies. Rather, we need to change as individuals and then drive meaningful improvement at the local level. Cannabis is just one high profile example of how much power the people can exert if we get organized and demand change. In fact, legalization has been such a success 65% of the U.S. population (including a majority of Republicans) now think cannabis should be legal. It’s become such a clear cut issue at this point even a federal fossil like Jeff Session is essentially powerless to stop it. Take the lessons learned from the huge success of the cannabis legalization movement and apply them everywhere.

The point of this piece is to emphasize that we the people actually possess a lot of power. We relinquish that power by indulging in these silly games of looking for a decent politician to vote for. Even if we got one, D.C. is so entirely corrupt and entrenched with nefarious interests, a well-meaning person doesn’t stand a chance. The solutions to our problems will never come from the top, so please let that fairytale go.

In reality, the true power resides in each and every one of us. Let’s start using it.

In case you missed them:

Four Pillars for a Better Future: Knowledge, Consciousness, Innovation, Local Action – Part 1

Four Pillars for a Better Future: Knowledge, Consciousness, Innovation, Local Action – Part 2

*  *  *

If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron, or visit our Support Page to show your appreciation for independent content creators.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2ni7lh2 Tyler Durden

Authored by Jean Marc Manach via The Intercept,

The National Security Agency maintains a page on its website that outlines its mission statement. But earlier this month, the agency made a discreet change: It removed “honesty” as its top priority.

Since at least May 2016, the surveillance agency had featured honesty as the first of four “core values” listed on NSA.gov, alongside “respect for the law,” “integrity,” and “transparency.” The agency vowed on the site to “be truthful with each other.”

On January 12, however, the NSA removed the mission statement page – which can still be viewed through the Internet Archive…

 

And replaced it with a new version…

 

Now, the parts about honesty and the pledge to be truthful have been deleted. The agency’s new top value is “commitment to service,” which it says means “excellence in the pursuit of our critical mission.”

Those are not the only striking alterations.

In its old core values, the NSA explained that it would strive to be deserving of the “great trust” placed in it by national leaders and American citizens. It said that it would “honor the public’s need for openness.” But those phrases are now gone; all references to “trust,” “honor,” and “openness” have disappeared.

The agency previously stated on its website that it embraced transparency and claimed that all of its activities were aimed at “ensuring the safety, security, and liberty of our fellow citizens.” That has also been discarded.

The agency still says it is committed to transparency on the updated website, but the transparency is now described as being for the benefit of “those who authorize and oversee NSA’s work on behalf of the American people.”

The definition of “integrity” has been edited, too. The agency formerly said its commitment to integrity meant it would “behave honorably and apply good judgment.” The phrase “behave honorably” has now been dropped in favor of “communicating honestly and directly, acting ethically and fairly and carrying out our mission efficiently and effectively.”

The new list of values includes the additions “respect for people” and “accountability.” But the section on respecting people is a reference to diversity within the NSA workforce, not a general commitment to members of the public. Accountability is defined as taking “responsibility for our decisions.”

The one core value that remains essentially unchanged is “respect for the law,” which the agency says means it is “grounded in our adherence to the U.S. Constitution and compliance with the U.S. laws, regulations and policies that govern our activities.”

 

In response to questions from The Intercept on Tuesday, the NSA played down the alterations. Thomas Groves, a spokesperson for the agency, said: “It’s nothing more than a website update, that’s all it is.”

via RSS http://ift.tt/2nnWDog Tyler Durden

What was today’s most important diplomatic meeting, was also the least publicly discussed. And judging by the information blackout in its aftermath, that’s just what the organizers intended.

Very few details have emerged from the lengthy Moscow talks between Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu, the duo’s seventh face to face meeting in two years, in which the two leaders who are currently reshaping the middle east in the power vacuum left by the US, were expected to discuss military cooperation on Syria and Iran’s influence in the region.

The information fog after the meeting was so dense there wasn’t even a brief blurb on either Bloomberg or Reuters what the two spoke about in private; alternatively – and may this be a lesson for Trump – this is the intended outcome when there are no leaks.

The meeting came less than a week after Netanyahu met US President Donald Trump in Davos, and he said that he spoke with the Russian leader about the same issues concerning Syria and Iran that he spoke about with Trump. Both men, he said, “understand” Israel’s positions.

Netanyahu was also accompanied by the head of Military Intelligence Maj.-Gen. Herzi Halevi, and Putin brought Russia’s Defense Minister Sergey Shoygu to the talks.

With the Russian army just across the border in Syria, Netanyahu said that these meetings with Putin – and the type of cooperation that has developed between the defense establishments of both countries – is critical “so we don’t clash.” In addition, he said these meetings are also important because they allow the two sides to frankly tell the other about their positions.  “In light of the changing situation, our policies also change,” Netanyahu said, adding that he relays to Putin Israel’s positions as “clearly and truthfully” as possible.

Netanyahu and Putin met for some 90 minutes privately, and also held talks on bilateral issues with their wider staffs. Netanyahu said the discussions were “concrete,” not “theoretical.”

Netanyahu said he and Putin talked about various “scenarios of escalation” in the region, and how they can be dealt with. Netanyahu said that with the Mideast at a crossroads, there is an opportunity to stabilize Syria and Lebanon, but that there is one actor – Iran – which is trying to do the opposite.

The prime minister said he raised the issue of the Iranian nuclear deal, and he told Putin that if changes were not made to the deal, then it was likely that the US would walk away from it.

* * *

Russia’s president and the Israeli prime minister met at the Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center in Moscow, where the two leaders took part in the opening of an exhibit to mark International Holocaust Remembrance Day call called “Sobibor: Victorious over Death,” which is dedicated to the 1943 uprising in the Nazi extermination camp. The exhibit tells the story of Alexander Pechersky, a Red Army officer who led a successful breakout from the camp.

Putin said that memory of the Holocaust is “a warning against any attempt to jump on the idea of global domination, to announce, build or assert one’s grandeur based on racism, ethnic or any other supremacy. Russia categorically rejects any such attempt.”

Commenting on the meeting, the Russian president’s aide Yuri Ushakov vaguely told reporters that Putin and Netanyahu discussed a number of bilateral and regional issues, as well as the process of reconciliation in Syria. The Syrian National Dialogue Congress, currently taking place in Sochi, was also among the topics discussed, the Russian official said, without providing any details.

Senior Israeli official Ze’ev Elkin, who came to Moscow alongside Netanyahu, said the meeting between the two leaders was “very fruitful and lasted longer than it was planned” adding that meetings between Putin and Netanyahu have “contributed greatly to the security of our country.”

* * *

There was some additional coverage in the Israeli local press, with Jerusalem Post  which quoted Netanyahu saying that “if Iran is not stopped from entrenching itself militarily in Syria or turning Lebanon into a factory for precision missiles aimed at Israel, then Israel will stop it.” Speaking with Israeli reporters via a conference call after the meeting, Netanyahu said the discussions took place at a “watershed” moment.

“Will Iran entrench itself in Syria, or will this process be stopped?” Netanyahu said. “I made clear to Putin that we will stop it if it doesn’t stop by itself. We are already acting to stop it.”

The prime minister said he also spoke with Putin about the threat of Iran manufacturing precision weapons in Lebanon, something Jerusalem views as “a grave threat.” Netanyahu said he told Putin that “also here, if we need to act, we will act.”

The Israeli prime minister revealed some of the topics he discussed with Putin in a recorded statement posted on Twitter.

סיימתי עכשיו שיחות מעמיקות וטובות עם נשיא רוסיה, ולדימיר פוטין. אמרתי לו שישראל רואה בחומרה שתי התפתחויות:

1. הניסיון של איראן להתבסס צבאית בסוריה.
2. הניסיון של איראן לייצר בלבנון נשק מדויק נגד מדינת ישראל.

הבהרתי לו שאנחנו לא נסכים לאף אחת מההתפתחויות הללו ונפעל בהתאם לצורך pic.twitter.com/Goinf2ymG7

— Benjamin Netanyahu (@netanyahu) January 29, 2018

Netanyahu said he told the Russian president about his concerns of “Iranian attempts to create military bases in Syria,” and of Tehran’s alleged attempts to place “high-precision weapons” in Lebanon to target Israel. Tel Aviv firmly opposes such actions and will act on its own if the international community won’t handle the issue, he warned Putin. The reaction of the Russian president to these statements, however, remained a mystery.

In parting, Putin gave Netanyahu as a gift a letter the German industrialist Oskar Schindler, who save some 1,200 Jews during the Holocaust, sent to his wife.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2rNU989 Tyler Durden

Authored by James Bovard, op-ed via The Hill,

When Robert Mueller was appointed last May as Special Counsel to investigate Trump, Politico Magazine gushed that “Mueller might just be America’s straightest arrow — a respected, nonpartisan and fiercely apolitical public servant whose only lifetime motivation has been the search for justice.” Most of the subsequent press coverage has shown nary a doubt about Mueller’s purity.

But, during his 11 years as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Mueller’s agency routinely violated federal law and the Bill of Rights.

Mueller took over the FBI one week before the 9/11 attacks and he was worse than clueless after 9/11. On Sept. 14, 2011, Mueller declared, “The fact that there were a number of individuals that happened to have received training at flight schools here is news, quite obviously. If we had understood that to be the case, we would have — perhaps one could have averted this.” Three days later, Mueller announced: “There were no warning signs that I’m aware of that would indicate this type of operation in the country.” His protestations helped the Bush administration railroad the Patriot Act through Congress, vastly expanding the FBI’s prerogatives to vacuum up Americans’ personal information.

Deceit helped capture those intrusive new prerogatives. The Bush administration suppressed until the following May the news that FBI agents in Phoenix and Minneapolis had warned FBI headquarters of suspicious Arabs in flight training programs prior to 9/11. A House-Senate Joint Intelligence Committee analysis concluded that FBI incompetence and negligence “contributed to the United States becoming, in effect, a sanctuary for radical terrorists.” FBI blundering spurred the Wall Street Journal to call for Mueller’s resignation, while a New York Times headline warned: “Lawmakers Say Misstatements Cloud F.B.I. Chief’s Credibility.”

Source: michaelpramirez.com

But the FBI was off and running. Thanks to the Patriot act, the FBI increased by a hundredfold — up to 50,000 a year — the number of National Security Letters (NSLs) it issued to citizens, business, and nonprofit organizations, and recipients were prohibited from disclosing that their data had been raided. NSLs entitle the FBI to seize records that reveal “where a person makes and spends money, with whom he lives and lived before, how much he gambles, what he buys online, what he pawns and borrows, where he travels, how he invests, what he searches for and reads on the Web, and who telephones or e-mails him at home and at work,” the Washington Post noted. The FBI can lasso thousands of people’s records with a single NSL — regardless of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable warrantless searches.

The FBI greatly understated the number of NSLs it was issuing and denied that abuses had occurred, thereby helping sway Congress to renew the Patriot Act in 2006. The following year, an Inspector General report revealed that FBI agents may have recklessly issued thousands of illegal NSLs.  Shortly after that report was released, federal judge Victor Marrero denounced the NSL process as “the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values.”

Rather than arresting FBI agents who broke the law, Mueller created a new FBI Office of Integrity and Compliance.  The Electronic Freedom Foundation, after winning lawsuits to garner FBI reports to a federal oversight board, concluded that the FBI may have committed “tens of thousands” of violations of federal law, regulations, or Executive Orders between 2001 and 2008.

Mueller was a front-and-center Bush cabinet member when the president, scorning a unanimous 1972 Supreme Court ruling, decided he was entitled to impose warrantless wiretaps on Americans. At an April 2005 Senate hearing, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) asked Mueller: “Can the National Security Agency, the great electronic snooper, spy on the American people?” Mueller replied: “I would say generally, they are not allowed to spy or to gather information on American citizens.”       

Mueller presumably knew his answer was at least misleading if not blatantly deceptive. Nearly nine months later, the New York Times revealed that Bush had unleashed NSA to illegally wiretap up to 500 people within the U.S. at any given time and peruse millions of other Americans’ emails. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales responded to the uproar by asserting that “the president has the inherent authority” to order such wiretaps. Mueller had no trouble with that dictatorial doctrine – even though the same claim spurred one of the articles of impeachment crafted against President Nixon.

Mueller’s biggest coup against privacy occurred with Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which entitles the FBI to demand “business records” that are “relevant” to a terrorism or espionage investigation. In 2011 testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mueller “suggested the FBI interpreted (Section 215) narrowly and used it sparingly,” the ACLU noted. But Mueller was the point man for the Bush administration’s bizarre 2006 decision (perpetuated by Obama) that all Americans’ telephone records were “relevant” to terrorism investigations. Several times a year, Mueller signed orders to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, swaying it to continually renew its order compelling telephone companies to deliver all their calling records (including time, duration, and location of calls) to the National Security Agency.

On June 5, 2013, leaks from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden blew the lid off this surveillance regime. Federal judge Richard Leon slammed that records roundup as “almost Orwellian… I cannot imagine a more indiscriminate and arbitrary invasion than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval.”

Mueller sought to dampen the Snowden uproar by testifying to Congress that the feds could not listen to Americans’ calls without a warrant for that “particular phone and that particular individual.” But NSA employees had broad discretion to vacuum up Americans’ info without warrants, and NSA’s definition of terrorist suspect was so ludicrously broad that it includes “someone searching the web for suspicious stuff.”

If Mueller’s team finds clear evidence that Trump colluded with Russia in his 2016 presidential campaign, any abuses Mueller sanctioned as FBI director will be irrelevant.

But if Mueller’s case relies on his halo instead of smoking guns, then Americans should pay more heed to Mueller’s record than to his press clips.

Gravitas is no substitute for fidelity to the Constitution.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2DXEnw9 Tyler Durden

Rear Admiral (Retired) Professor Shaul Chorev has warned The Jerusalem Post that Israel’s Navy should start preparing its forces for a possible conflict on the open waters with Hezbollah, a militant group based in Lebanon. Chorev warns the rogue terrorist group is about to unleash missiles and suicide ships targeting Israeli strategic assets on the Mediterranean Sea.

“Hezbollah will not need to equip themselves with ships like Israel, but we must assume they will use asymmetric warfare to challenge Israeli technology like land-to-sea missiles or suicide ships like you see in Yemen,” said Chorev, a former Deputy Chief of Naval Operations; Commanding Officer of the Haifa Naval Base and Commanding Officer of an Israeli Naval Flotilla, at the geostrategy conference jointly organized by Haifa University’s Research Center for Maritime Policy & Strategy (HMS) and the Chaikin Chair for Geostrategy.

Chorev explains while it is not in Hezbollah’s interest to start a conflict with Israel, “when you look at their strategy, it is clear that they will target Israeli strategic assets.”

“The next war with Hezbollah could see a focus on the sea,” he added.

Chorev’s warning comes after the Israeli Navy and the Air Force’s air defense corps conducted successful tests of the Iron Dome system mounted on the rear of a Sa’ar 5 corvette warships. The Israel government recognizes that 90% of the country’s imports arrive by sea, and it would be prudent to start preparations in defending shipping lanes against enemy incursions.

Other Senior naval officers tell The Post that Iran is behind the rapid armament of Hezbollah, who will ultimately wage war against Israel on other battlefields, such as the Mediterranean Sea.

“Israeli strategic assets. Senior naval officers have told The Post that Hezbollah is a “clear and major enemy,” which continues to grow in terms of battlefield experience and their arsenal of advanced weaponry from Iran, and which has expanded its presence in the eastern Mediterranean due to the civil war in Syria.” 

“Iran – which supports the Assad regime in Syria – participates in the war alongside Russia and has exploited the situation in order to upgrade its status in the region to almost that of a regional superpower,” Chorev wrote in a note.

Iran “is on the verge of reaching the Mediterranean, including the use of Syrian ports by the Iranian navy,” he added.

“Iranian ports in the Eastern Mediterranean are a real risk for Israel,” Chorev stated, stressing that US and Russia must be persuaded to stop the Iranian navy from gaining a foothold in Syria.

 

Further, Chorev believes a maritime war between Israel and Lebanon is highly possible on the Mediterranean Sea. The trigger for the conflict could be a resource war in the heavily dispute waters that covers a triangle of 800sq km (shown above), which is rich in natural resources like gas and oil. Chorev warns since Hezbollah is headquartered in Lebanon and tensions between both countries are rising. The two enemy states are due for an upcoming clash on the Mediterranean.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2npEaYC Tyler Durden

Thank goodness the grand halls of America’s educational establishments can turn out such open-minded individuals…

 

President Donald Trump will give his first State Of The Union address to the nation tomorrow evening, and as  Campus Reform found, critics of Trump have already begun to express displeasure with his actions in the days leading up to the speech, leading some to wonder whether this opposition is substantive, or rooted in a distaste of Trump as a person.

Wanting to find out, Campus Reform headed to New York University to ask students their opinions of President Trump’s State of the Union.

The only problem for them was that the speech would not take place for another seven days…

Would that stop them from giving strong, condemnatory opinions on the speech?

Source: Campus Reform

 

 

via RSS http://ift.tt/2FrUSOt Tyler Durden

A recent Statistics Canada report confirms price deflation has hit the marijuana industry in an even more significant way than expected, as a downward slide in prices puts a squeeze on profits for producers in the soon-to-be-legal market.

According to data published last Thursday by Statistics Canada, the annual change in the average cost per gram declined 7.7 percent in 2017 verse the prior year, this is the most significant decline in more than a decade, as the Trudeau administration prepares for legalization as soon as July.

Bloomberg believes the decline in prices is not a force of demand, but more on the oversupplied side.

“Falling marijuana prices will indeed pose a challenge” to producers, said Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Kenneth Shea. Companies can adapt by creating strong brands and other services such as helping customers choose the right strain.

“In Colorado, they have learned to diversify and add more value to the equation,” he added.

Statistics Canada found that prices have declined to CAD$7.43 per gram, after topping at CAD$12 in 1989. For the math whizzes, prices have dropped 38 percent in almost three decades.

Producers are flooding the market with cheap marijuana contributing to the bearish sentiment around price. As producers ramp up output, the large amounts of marijuana will continue to drag prices down further inducing a steady decline in prices for the next several years.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation referenced a Canaccord Genuity report specifying that the long-term trend in per gram prices are projected to be lower for the next eight to ten years.

The Trudeau administration has said it over and over: marijuana legalization seeks to displace the illicit cannabis market and keep the profits out of the criminals hands and into the government coffers. By doing so, Trudeau is attempting to create a safer market with more reasonable access to marijuana for Canadians, but at the same time, his administration continues the deflationary trend in prices. Could the decline in prices be the spark which pops the Candian marijuana bubble.

Legalizing & regulating marijuana = less money to organized crime, and harder access for kids. #TLMEP

— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) October 12, 2015

via RSS http://ift.tt/2Frkivn Tyler Durden

How difficult will it be for central banks to normalize monetary policy in practice, and what will be the consequences of such policies for investors assuming that the central banks’ commitment to balance sheet reduction is maintained?

The answer, according to Chris Wood’s new Grizzle.com blog, is ominous:

This is unchartered territory.

The only precedent for the scale of the central bank balance sheet expansion of the past nearly 10 years was during World War II, with government debt and government guaranteed assets now accounting for at least as large a share of central bank balance sheets as during World War II.

Clearly, Wood explains, the purpose of such central bank balance sheet expansion in the 1940s was to assist the fiscal authorities in financing a war.

Which made us wonder, what ‘war’ are authorities financing this time?

The answer is simple – a war against reality!

The real aim, so far as Wood is concerned, has been to stop debt liquidation and thereby prevent the creditor classes, be they bankers or bond owners, from losing money.

…

As Wood notes, the biggest risk to world stock markets, and asset prices in general, in 2018 is that G7 central banks (led by the Federal Reserve) are finally attempting to normalise monetary policy nine years after the American central bank commenced quantitative easing in December 2008, in the midst of the so-called “global financial crisis”.

…

This raises the critical issue of central bank credibility. For the risk raised by the Fed’s attempt to normalize is that a stock market downtown may force it to reverse course; and with such a reversal there is a much greater risk of a resulting loss of central bank credibility.

This is because markets may conclude that central banks will never be able to exit so-called unorthodox monetary policy.

Read the full article here…

via RSS http://ift.tt/2El9AqT Tyler Durden

Two days after we reported that Turkey valiantly demanded that US forces vacate military bases in the Syrian district of Manbij, when Turkey’s foreign minister Melet Cavusoglu also said that Ankara is calling upon the US to cease any and all support to Syrian Kurdish forces and militias, not surprisingly the US refused, and on Monday a top American general said that US troops will not pull out from the northern Syrian city of Manbij, rebuffing Ankara demands to withdraw from the city and risking a potential confrontation between the two NATO allies.

Speaking on CNN, General Joseph Votel, head of the United States Central Command, said that withdrawing US forces from the strategically important city is “not something we are looking into.”

Last week Turkish troops crossed into Syria in an push to drive US-backed Kurds out of Afrin. As part of the Turkish offensive, which is grotesquely code-named ‘Operation Olive Branch’, president Erdogan warned that the offensive could soon target “terrorists” in Manbij, some 100km east of Afrin.

“With the Olive Branch operation, we have once again thwarted the game of those sneaky forces whose interests in the region are different,” Erdogan said in a speech to provincial leaders in Ankara last week. “Starting in Manbij, we will continue to thwart their game.”

But not if the US is still there, unless for the first time in history we are about to witness war between two NATO members. And the US has no intention of moving.

Colonel Ryan Dillon, spokesperson for the US-led coalition, told Kurdish media on Sunday that American forces would continue to support their Kurdish allies – despite Erdogan’s threats.

“Turkey knows where our forces are in Manbij, and what they are doing there, and why they are there –to prevent any kind of escalation between the groups who are in that area,” Dillon told Rudaw TV. “The Coalition will continue to support our Syrian Democratic Forces in the fight against ISIS. We have said this all along, and we have said this with the Kurdish elements of the SDF. We will provide them equipment as necessary to defeat ISIS.”

However, in an apparent miscommunication, US NatlSec Adviser H.R. McMaster said a day earlier that the United States would no longer provide weapons to YPG fighters or the Democratic Union Party (PYD) – sending mixed messages about Washington’s relationship with the Kurds.

US army vehicles north of Manbij city, in Syria’s Aleppo province

The latest Turkish offensive in Syria has further strained the already contentious relationship between Washington and Ankara. A White House spokesman remarked last week that the operation “risks conflict between Turkish and American forces” in Syria. In an unprecedented step, last week the Turkish presidency went so far as to correct the White House readout of the phone conversation between Trump and Erdogan, explicitly accusing Trump of lying.

The Afrin campaign follows Erdogan’s vow to “strangle” the US-backed Border Security Force (BSF) in Syria. As discussed previously, the US-led coalition announced in January that it would help create the 30,000-strong BSF, half of which would be comprised of the Kurdish-dominated SDF.

Meanwhile, confirming that Turkey has no intention of backing down, and if anything will keep pressing on assuring an armed confrontation with the US is inevitable, Jenan Moussa with Arabic Al Aan TV, reports that “a huge story is developing right now.” Namely, that a big Turkish army convoy including APCs drove thru HTS controlled Idlib in Syria heading towards AlEis, a rebel controlled frontline with Syrian gov forces &allies. Turkish army convoy was escorted whole time by Al-Qaeda linked HTS group.”

1/ Huge story developing right now. Big Turkish army convoy including APCs drove thru HTS controlled Idlib in Syria heading towards AlEis, a rebel controlled frontline with Syrian gov forces &allies. Turkish army convoy was escorted whole time by AlQaeda linked HTS group. @akhbar pic.twitter.com/1cdRYwu8xC

— Jenan Moussa (@jenanmoussa) January 29, 2018

4/ I just made this map. Have a look at it in order to better understand the situation. The Turkish army convoy has stopped around Kafr Halab. The Russians are bombing &Syrian regime is shelling area around Al-Qammari. The convoy is intended for Al-Eiss so it can’t pass. @akhbar pic.twitter.com/XzkdudigKR

— Jenan Moussa (@jenanmoussa) January 29, 2018

5/ Here is another video of the Turkish army convoy when it was still driving earlier through Idlib before the Russians started bombing the route. I am just sharing it so you know how big this convoy is. @akhbar pic.twitter.com/iaOBR8Se0Q

— Jenan Moussa (@jenanmoussa) January 29, 2018

And some additional starting details, according to Moussa, who notes that Russian planes were in the sky as the Turkish convoy drove through HTS controlled Idlib province. They even bombed 15 KMs away from the convoy. “So big question now: Is the Turkish convey moving with the approval or in defiance of the Russians?”

For now the answer appears to be no:

Seems for now the Russians are not going to allow the Turkish army convoy to pass. I am hearing from one source on the ground that the convoy will go back in the direction of Turkey. I am in touch with sources on the ground in Idleb & will update as news develops.

Due to nearby Russian bombing &Syrian shelling, witnesses on the ground now say that the Turkish military convoy has basically turned off its lights and is waiting in the area. We are trying to find out if they will turn back or continue advancing despite warnings.

Will Erdogan be crazy enough to start a regional battle against both the US and Russia at the same time on Syrian soil, or will Russia flip and side with Turkey in its “defensive offensive” yet as it careens to a military confrontation with US troops? We expect to find out in the immediate future.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2rP7rRR Tyler Durden

What mutant do you get when you combine a hawk with a swan? According to a nervous Wall Street, the answer will be revealed on Wednesday, Janet Yellen’s final FOMC meeting as Fed Chair, when her swan song statement is expected to send a distinctly more hawkish signal than in December, by observing a more upbeat economic assessment and higher inflation measures, an outcome which could send short-dated yields spiking, lead to further curve flattening, and as for what it does to the beaten down dollar is anyone’s guess, especially if a determined hawkish bias by the Fed is seen as an accelerant to the next US recession.

And the uncertainty on what terms Yellen parts is leading to at least some indigestion among Wall Street analysts, starting with Goldman whose summary take we present below:

At Janet Yellen’s final FOMC meeting next week, we expect the FOMC to issue a generally upbeat post-meeting statement that includes an upgrade to the balance of risks and a slightly hawkish rewording of the inflation assessment. Taken together, we believe the tone of the statement will be consistent with a hike at the March meeting, barring a sharp weakening in economic conditions.

We think Fed officials will view the economic activity data released since the December meeting as broadly encouraging, particularly the strong holiday-shopping season and the related 3.8% increase in Q4 consumer spending.

And with tax reform now signed into law, financial conditions easing further, and the negative effects of the hurricanes clearly in the rear-view mirror, we believe most Committee members will view the growth outlook in an increasingly favorable light. Indeed, reflecting these considerations, we are increasing our own GDP growth forecasts for Q1, Q2, and Q3 by 0.25pp each (to +2.5%, +3.25%, and +3.0%, respectively; qoq ar).

Perhaps more importantly, inflation readings have firmed recently, and based on the Q4 GDP report, core PCE inflation likely ended the year a quarter-point above its August bottom. Of course, inflation still remains below target. But we think many Committee members will view the core inflation rebound in recent months as additional evidence that last year’s shortfall largely reflected temporary, idiosyncratic factors.

We also expect an upgrade to the balance of risks section, with the risks to the economic outlook changed from “roughly balanced” to “balanced.” In our view, the “roughly balanced” verbiage in the December statement was already somewhat stale, particularly when viewed in the context of the minutes’ upbeat growth commentary and risk assessment. Public remarks since that meeting bolster the case for an upgrade, and by our count, at least half of the Committee has recently referenced upside risks to growth. That being said, we expect the “closely monitoring” inflation language to remain.

Goldman is not alone in its concerns about a hawkish statement.  As Bloomberg notes, BofA, Credit Suisse and RBC say Fed may tweak description of market-based measures of inflation compensation to reflect recent move higher; economic assessment also “should get a slight mark-up from an already robust characterization,” RBC’s Michael Cloherty and Tom Porcelli say

Investors are still underestimating how much Fed could lift rates over time based on inflation, which along with other factors will push 10Y UST yield higher, according to Oliver Jones of Capital Economics.

Incidentally, for those keeping track, Market-implied odds of a hike are almost zero for Wednesday and 84% for March.

Here is what the rest of Wall Street thinks, courtesy of Bloomberg:

RBC (Cloherty, Porcelli, others)

• While FOMC meeting might seem uneventful, statement will get important tweaks that make it “much more hawkish” than in December, including an upgraded assessment of household spending and less- dovish inflation language
• “The market has been very sensitive to anything related to the inflation outlook,” and a change could get “a notable reaction”
• A wild card is whether FOMC acknowledges some shift in balance of risks following passage of tax cuts

Credit Suisse (James Sweeney, others)

• Fed is likely to keep fed funds rate target unchanged at 1.25%-1.5% and leave risk assessment as “roughly balanced”
• “We do not anticipate meaningful changes to the statement,” yet wording on market- based measures of inflation compensation will likely acknowledge recent pick-up in inflation breakevens

BofA (Michelle Meyer)

• Fed statement should send modestly hawkish signal as Jerome Powell prepares to take over as chair and more hawkish regional Fed presidents become voters this year
• Policy makers will likely stay on path of gradual normalization, with three hikes each in 2018 and 2019 and risk skewed toward a fourth hike by year-end; BofA also sees risk that FOMC hints that fiscal stimulus can boost growth

Capital Economics (Oliver Jones)

• Investors are underestimating how much Fed will hike, given likelihood of higher core inflation within months; this is a key reason why 10Y UST yield will rise
• Other factors that may put upward pressure on yields include higher federal deficit as result of tax reform, shrinking Fed balance sheet, and tighter/less expansionary monetary policy outside the U.S.
• “Although we are skeptical of claims that yields are about to surge, this all suggests to us that they will end the year a bit higher than they are at present”

Banque Pictet (Thomas Costerg)

• Moderately hawkish hints that could be in FOMC’s statement include an upgrade of Fed’s outlook to “balanced” from “roughly balanced” and a mention of recent pick-up in market-based inflation expectations
• Statement could also reflect the view that Fed is raising its expectations about impact of tax cuts on U.S. growth
• Dropping any mention of the central bank monitoring global economic and financial developments would be another slightly hawkish sign

Deutsche Bank (Brett Ryan, others)

• Statement will largely reinforce market’s pricing of three rate hikes this year, with next increase “all but certain to come in March”
• Of this week’s data releases, personal income and consumption released Monday “will be foremost in FOMC members’ minds”
• While policy makers won’t have January NFP data, they’ll get a sense of last month’s hiring trend with Wednesday’s ADP private employment survey; equally important will be Wednesday’s 4Q 2017 employment cost index

JPMorgan (Michael Feroli)

• Statement should include upbeat economic assessment similar to prior two statements; reference to post-hurricane disruptions will probably be dropped
• “We would be surprised if there were a mention of fiscal policy,” though there’s a hawkish risk that easy financial conditions will be mentioned
• While one could make a case that risks are now tilted to the upside, FOMC will “choose the safe path” and leave balance-of-risks assessment unchanged; Fed hasn’t altered market’s expectations for quarterly rate hikes despite growth, inflation and financial conditions moving in a direction that calls for more tightening

MUFG (Chris Rupkey)

• “The 800-pound gorilla in the room” of FOMC’s meeting is the market’s 80% odds of a March hike
• It will be interesting to see if the Fed puts any “heads-up” language in statement about March; Powell is a “no nonsense lawyer” who may not favor such a “nod-nod, wink-wink”

Morgan Stanley (Ellen Zentner, Matthew Hornbach, others)

• “We can hit the snooze button into the March meeting,” given data that’s largely in line with FOMC’s December outlook and markets already pricing in a rate hike in two months
• No change in policy seen and “very little” change to the statement expected
• TIPS market will see Fed’s acknowledgment of recent inflation developments “as a mere rubber stamp on already known information”
• If Fed paints a more optimistic picture on inflation, front-end breakevens will widen and breakeven curve should flatten; however, this is “not our base case”

* * *

Finally, going back to Goldman, this is what a hypothetical, and redlined, hawkish January FOMC statement would look like according to the vampire squid:

Expected Changes to January FOMC Statement

Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in November December indicates that the labor market has continued to strengthen and that economic activity has been rising at a solid rate. Averaging through hurricane-related fluctuations, job Job gains have been solid, and the unemployment rate declined further remained low. Household spending has been expanding at a moderate rate strengthened, and growth in business fixed investment has picked up in recent quarters. On a 12-month basis, both overall inflation and inflation for items other than food and energy have declined this year and are running below 2 percent. Market-based measures of inflation compensation have risen recently but remain somewhat low; survey-based measures of longer-term inflation expectations are little changed, on balance.

Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to foster maximum employment and price stability. Hurricane-related disruptions and rebuilding have affected economic activity, employment, and inflation in recent months but have not materially altered the outlook for the national economy. Consequently, the Committee continues to expect that, with gradual adjustments in the stance of monetary policy, economic activity will expand at a moderate pace and labor market conditions will remain strong. Inflation on a 12‑month basis is expected to remain somewhat below 2 percent in the near term but to stabilize around the Committee’s 2 percent objective over the medium term. Near-term risks to the economic outlook appear roughly balanced, but the Committee is monitoring inflation developments closely.

In view of realized and expected labor market conditions and inflation, the Committee decided to raise maintain the target range for the federal funds rate to at 1-1/4 to 1‑1/2 percent. The stance of monetary policy remains accommodative, thereby supporting strong labor market conditions and a sustained return to 2 percent inflation.

In determining the timing and size of future adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate, the Committee will assess realized and expected economic conditions relative to its objectives of maximum employment and 2 percent inflation. This assessment will take into account a wide range of information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial and international developments. The Committee will carefully monitor actual and expected inflation developments relative to its symmetric inflation goal. The Committee expects that economic conditions will evolve in a manner that will warrant gradual increases in the federal funds rate; the federal funds rate is likely to remain, for some time, below levels that are expected to prevail in the longer run. However, the actual path of the federal funds rate will depend on the economic outlook as informed by incoming data.

Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were Janet L. Yellen, Chair; William C. Dudley, Vice Chairman; Thomas I. Barkin; Raphael W. Bostic; Lael Brainard; Patrick Harker; Robert S. Kaplan; Loretta J. Mester; Jerome H. Powell; and Randal K. Quarles; and John C. Williams. Voting against the action were Charles L. Evans and Neel Kashkari, who preferred at this meeting to maintain the existing target range for the federal funds rate.

via RSS http://ift.tt/2DXff8U Tyler Durden