China Accused Of “New Colonialism” With $60 Billion Investment In Africa

Speaking at the opening of a major conference with African leaders, Chinese President Xi Jinping proposed $60 billion in financing for projects in Africa in the form of assistance, investment and loans. Xi also said that Beijing is willing to write off Chinese interest-free loans due by the end of 2018 for the most impoverished African nations as China furthers the effort to complete the “One Belt, One Road” initiative on the continent, or as others called it “new colonialism.”

China’s ambitions for Africa are hardly new, and were discussed here over 6 years ago for the first time in “The Beijing Conference”: See How China Quietly Took Over Africa

And while back then few noticed, this time the western media was quick to label the latest round of Chinese financing a “debt trap”, to which a top Chinese official responded on Tuesday saying Beijing is helping Africa develop, rejecting criticism it is loading African countries with unsustainable financial burdens.

President Xi told African leaders that China’s investments on the continent have “no political strings attached”

Over the last five years, China’s outreach for economic development in Africa has created new trade routes, investments, and increased political ties. More recently, many African counties have asked China to restructure their debts, which has served as a wake-up call for Beijing.

“If we take a closer look at these African countries that are heavily in debt, China is not their main creditor,” its special envoy for Africa, Xu Jinghu, told a news conference Tuesday, she added, “it’s senseless and baseless to shift the blame onto China for debt problems.”

As Xi completes his grand vision of the “One Belt, One Road” initiative, China pledged billions of dollars of infrastructure investment in countries along the old Silk Road, linking it with a network of countries in Europe, Asia, and Africa. Jinghu said China would use feasibility studies to select new projects that aid African countries the most and steer clear of debt or financial woes.

“We need to take into account the fluctuations of the international economic situation, which has raised the cost of financing for these African countries, and most of them depend on exporting raw materials, the price of which, on the international market, has been falling,” said Xu, adding that the toxic debt buildup in Africa is part of a much larger trend somewhat separate from China.

Xi made no mention of the political and debt concerns that overshadow some BRI projects. But Chinese officials previously have rejected accusations that projects leave host countries too deeply indebted to Chinese lenders.

“China’s investment in Africa comes with no political strings attached,” Xi said. “China does not interfere in Africa’s internal affairs and does not impose its own will on Africa.”

The Xinhua News Agency also published an op-ed denying claims that China was an “economic predator” in Africa, plundering natural resources and dragging it into a debt crisis, were “as false as they are sensational.”

“Chinese loans to Africa have a lower interest rate and longer repayment period compared to the market average, and these concessional loans are primarily used to build infrastructure.”

During a speech at the summit South African President Cyril Ramaphosa on Monday delivered a stinging rebuttal to criticism of China’s development aid in Africa. Mr Ramaphosa said the meeting “refutes the view that a new colonialism is taking hold in Africa, as our detractors would have us believe”.

Deborah Brautigam, an expert on China-Africa relations at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, said the total loans Xi pledged this year is equivalent to 2015’s total loan value. Brautigam said loan values are smaller this year, as there is more concessionary assistance than before.

“(China’s) debt relief policies have not changed,” she said in a note, adding that the write-off covered a modest part of Chinese finance in Africa.

Former Chinese deputy commerce minister Wei Jianguo, published a piece Tuesday for the China Going Global Thinktank — indicating that Washington seeks to constrain China as the country continues to expand “One Belt, One Road” initiative in Africa — threatening the Western world.

“I hope that in the next five years China-Africa economic and trade cooperation will overtake China-U.S. trade. This is totally achievable.”

In another complication to China’s ambitions, we recently reported that trade infrastructure project along the “One Belt, One Road” could be hitting significant bottlenecks as some countries have sounded the alarm regarding massive debt loads their governments are incurring for infrastructure projects.

The Center for Global Development, a nonprofit think tank based in Washington that focuses on international development, discovered “serious concerns” about the sustainability of the sovereign debt in eight countries receiving infrastructure project funds from Beijing. Those were Pakistan, Djibouti, Maldives, Mongolia, Laos, Montenegro, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan.

For example, a $6.7 billion China-Laos railway project represents almost half of the Southeast Asian country’s GDP, according to the study.

Five-years into China’s debt-fueled economic expansion initiative across many countries in the Eastern Hemisphere, it seems that African countries along the “One Belt, One Road” could be running into a debt jam similar to countries in Asia.

In a major blow to China’s “colonial” ambitions, Malaysia recently canceled Chinese-financed projects worth more than $20 billion, saying they were unnecessary and would create an unsustainable debt burden. Deeply indebted Pakistan is also reportedly reconsidering some projects in the multi-billion dollar China-Pakistan Economic Corridor that is a key link in the BRI.

Which begs the question: if China can’t achieve close economic and geopolitical integration with key trade partners and sources of commodities using the carrot of cheap debt, how long until it takes out the stick?

via RSS https://ift.tt/2PJwAod Tyler Durden

“Informational Crime”: Saudi Arabia Threatens 5 Years Jail, $800K Fine For Posting Satire

Via TheAntiMedia.com,

The Saudi government announced this week it is further criminalizing dissentdeeming satire that “disturbs the public order” a crime in what amounts to an escalation of already existing practices despite recent claims the Kingdom has entered an age of reformation.

The government’s Public Prosecution tweeted Monday that using social media to commit an “informational crime” that “affects public order, religious values and public morals” will be punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of three million riyals, roughly $800,000.

The Kingdom has a well-established track record of forcefully silencing protest and dissent. It was the target of widespread condemnation when authorities imprisoned and flogged blogger Raif Badawi in 2015, as well as when it sentenced multiple youths to death over their participation in protests during the Arab Spring.

Last year, President Donald Trump and the U.S. government ignored pleas from rights groups to advocate on behalf of a student involved in those protests. He was on his way to study abroad in the United States when the Saudi authorities arrested him.

Women have also been arrested for fighting for their rights. Concern over women’s rights launched a public feud between the Saudi government and Canada after Ottawa’s government criticized the Kingdom’s crackdowns. This has resulted in further suppression of speech and protest. Since that incident, the Saudi government has persecuted the family of a Saudi blogger located in Montreal; after attempting to use the family to silence him—and after he refused to keep quiet—two of his brothers disappeared.

In light of claims of “reform” in Saudi Arabia, such as granting women the right to drive, the American media has fawned over the Kingdom.

Meanwhile, massive arms deals facilitated by both Trump and Obama have led directly to the deaths of children in Yemen as the Saudi government suppresses protest domestically. Despite the notion that U.S. ties with the Saudis are justified because the Kingdom has embraced modernity under the guidance of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the ongoing crackdowns on dissent suggest little has changed.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2M2apXP Tyler Durden

Trump On Possible Government Shutdown: “If It Happens, It Happens”

President Trump indicated on Wednesday that he would accept a government shutdown in order to press for funding for building more of the wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. “If it happens, it happens,” he said about the potential for a government shutdown when the current funding expires at the end of September.

Speaking to reporters ahead of a meeting with the Republican House and Senate leadership, Trump said that “if it’s about border security, I’m willing to do anything” even as lawmakers warn that a shutdown ahead of the November midterm elections would be politically perilous. “We have to protect our borders,” Trump added.

Trump has been pushing for a threefold increase in border wall funds for fiscal 2019, although some Republicans who have been noncommittal or skeptical about the increase, have taken a more favorable stance as the Sept. 30 deadline to fund the government approaches.

Earlier on Wednesday we reported that Trump is once again wielding threats of a “good” government shutdown as a cudgel to batter intransigent Democrats and Republicans who are standing in the way of his plans to build his promised wall along the US’s southern border.

Republicans

This isn’t the first time Trump has threatened a shutdown – and at this point in the game, with the outrageous allegation from Bob Woodward’s tell-all vying for dominance in the news cycle and Trump’s trade war contributing to the stress in emerging markets – the president might view a shutdown fight as an advantageous distraction ahead of the Nov. 6 midterm vote. But there’s also reason to believe the president could be sincere about this threat. After all, even his Republican allies in Congress have done seemingly everything in their power to avoid the issue of funding for the border wall.

Republican leaders have been eager to persuade the president to delay a showdown over border-wall funding until later in the year. Earlier Wednesday, House Speaker Paul Ryan indicated that the president understood a government shutdown wouldn’t be effective. As the WSJ notes, Congressional Republicans have worked to complete funding bills for most government departments by the time the current funding expires at end of this month, but would leave the Department of Homeland Security’s funding for later in the year.

Congress is also expected to pass a stopgap measure funding DHS and some other agencies at current funding levels until after the midterm elections.

However, given Trump’s unpredictability GOP leaders have been preparing for the worst-case scenario: That Trump puts his foot down and insists on the shutdown. If he does, lawmakers will have little recourse – unless they could muster the votes to override a presidential veto.

Finally, as this morning, we note that the spread between pre- and post-fiscal-year-end Treasury Bill yields is once again spiking, signaling the market is starting to price in some anxiety across that crucial dateline.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2wMbWfi Tyler Durden

Pat Buchanan: Balance Sheet Of The Forever War

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Unz.com,

“It is time for this war in Afghanistan to end,” said Gen. John Nicholson in Kabul on his retirement Sunday after a fourth tour of duty and 31 months as commander of U.S. and NATO forces.

Labor Day brought news that another U.S. serviceman had been killed in an insider attack by an Afghan soldier.

Why do we continue to fight in Afghanistan?

“We continue to fight simply because we are there,” said retired Gen. Karl Eikenberry who preceded Gen. Nicholson.

“Absent political guidance and a diplomatic strategy,” Eikenberry told The New York Times, “military commanders have filled the vacuum by waging a war all agree cannot be won militarily.”

This longest war in U.S. history has become another no-win war.

Yet, if the 14,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan were pulled out, the regime would fall, the Taliban would take over, and the massacres would begin.

So America stays in and soldiers on. For how long?

The 17th anniversary of 9/11, now imminent, appears a proper time to take inventory of our successes and failures in the forever wars of the Middle East into which America was plunged in this new century.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban presence is more pervasive in more provinces than at any time since the regime was overthrown in 2001.

In the seven-year Syrian civil war we helped to ignite by arming rebels to overthrow President Assad, the conflict appears headed for its largest, bloodiest and most decisive battle.

The Syrian army, backed by Russia and Iran, is preparing to attack Idlib province. Three million people live there and 70,000 rebels are encamped, including 10,000 al-Qaida fighters.

In a Monday tweet, President Donald Trump warned Syria against attacking Idlib, and warned Iran and Russia against joining any such attack: “The Russians and Iranians would be making a grave humanitarian mistake to take part in this potential human tragedy. Hundreds of thousands of people could be killed.” America and Russia both have warships in the Eastern Med.

National Security Adviser John Bolton has warned that Syria’s use of gas in Idlib would trigger a U.S. military response. This is an invitation for the rebels in Idlib to conduct a false-flag gas attack to lure U.S. air power to their side.

Monday in Damascus, the Iranian foreign minister said the time had come to eradicate the terrorist enclave in Idlib. If the Syrians, Russians and Iranians are not bluffing, and the U.S. warnings are serious, we may be headed for a U.S.-Russia clash inside Syria.

Yet, again, what vital interest of ours is imperiled in Idlib province?

On Monday, Saudi Arabia admitted to having made a mistake when, using a U.S.-made fighter-bomber, a school bus was attacked on Aug. 9, killing dozens of Yemeni children in that humanitarian horror of a war.

The Saudi campaign to crush the Houthi rebels and return the previous regime to power in Sanaa could never succeed were it not for U.S.-provided planes, missiles, bombs and air-to-air refueling.

We are thus morally responsible for what is happening.

In Libya, where we overthrew Moammar Gadhafi, rival factions now control Benghazi in the east and Tripoli in the west. August saw fighting break out in the capital, threatening the U.N.-backed unity government there.

In Iraq, which we invaded in 2003 to strip of weapons of mass destruction it did not have, and to bring the blessings of democracy to Mesopotamia, rival factions are struggling for power after recent elections saw pro-Iranian and anti-American forces gain ground.

Meanwhile, the Iranian currency is sinking as a November deadline approaches for Europe to choose between cutting ties to Iran or losing U.S. markets. While the Tehran regime has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz if its oil is denied access to world markets, it faces economic strangulation if it does not submit to U.S. demands.

When one adds up the U.S. dead and wounded from the wars we have launched since 2001 with the Arab and Muslim wounded, killed, orphaned, widowed, uprooted and turned into refugees, as well as the trillions of dollars lost, what benefits are there on the other side of the ledger?

Now we appear to be moving to confront Russia in Ukraine.

In an interview with The Guardian last week, U.S. special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker said Washington is ready to build up Ukraine’s naval and air defense forces, given Russia’s continued support for separatists in the Donbass. The administration is “absolutely” prepared to supply new lethal weaponry, beyond the Javelin anti-tank missiles delivered in April.

But if a Ukrainian army moves against pro-Russian rebels in Luhansk and Donetsk, and Russia intervenes on the side of the rebels, are we really prepared to come to the aid of the Ukrainian army?

President Trump has yet to withdraw us from any of the wars he inherited, but he has kept us out of any new wars — a record worth preserving.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2wNa72x Tyler Durden

Powerful Hurricane Florence Could Threaten US East Coast Next Week

Florence, which became the first significant hurricane (Category +3) of the 2018 Atlantic season, had maximum sustained winds of 130 mph, according to the National Hurricane Center (NHC). The powerful Category 4 storm is some 2,000 miles from the US coastline, but it is moving northwest at 13mph, will generate big swells in Bermuda starting Friday and could slam into the US East Coast next week.

Florence became a hurricane on Tuesday and immediately strengthened to a Category 4 hurricane on Wednesday afternoon.

“Florence defied all odds developing over not-so-hot water, dust on all sides, and strong upper shear. 5pm has her at a Cat 4 130mph.

This is from the NHC: “It should be noted that there is considerable model ensemble spread and run-to-run variability for Florence’s track beyond day 5. Given the large uncertainty at these time ranges, it is far too soon to speculate what, if any, impacts Florence may have on the U.S. East Coast next week. Regardless of Florence’s eventual track, large swells emanating from the hurricane will reach Bermuda beginning on Friday, resulting in life-threatening surf and rip currents on the island. Swells from Florence could also reach the U.S. East Coast by early next week,” said Mike’s Weather Page.

The latest computer models show the menacing hurricane coming dangerously close to the East Coast next week. While it is too early to forecast the exact path, some models show a recurve out to sea. By the end of this week, meteorologists will have a better grasp on the storm’s bearings.

“Very concerning shift in the EPS ensemble guidance with Hurricane Florence … must now seriously consider this storm a U.S. landfall threat. Still considerable uncertainty about a possible / hopeful turn away from the coast out to sea. Continue to monitor thru the weekend,” tweeted Ryan Maue, Meteorologist @weatherdotus.

“Latest idea from the European ensemble tell us a lot: we have much more to figure out before solving the track mystery that is Florence,” tweeted Ed Vallee, Meteorologist @Valleewx.

“Group of simulations from European (red) and American (blue) models indicate there is some chance Hurricane Florence is a problem for the East Coast in 7 or 8 days. It could turn out to sea, too. For now, we just watch,” tweeted Capital Weather Gang.

While there is much uncertainty surrounding its trajectory — the models’ overwhelming show the East Coast could be in Florence’s crosshairs in the next 8 to 10 days. Even if Florence curves out to sea, models show numerous other systems developing right behind it, which indicates that hurricane season is nearing its peak. From now until early November, this is the timeframe for the conditions that fuel powerful storms.

The focus on Florence comes less than 24-hours after Tropical Storm Gordon made landfall late Tuesday near the Alabama-Mississippi border, leaving one person dead and ushering wicked weather across the western South and the Midwest.

While it is certainly not time to press the panic button — within the next several days, meteorologists will give a more accurate model of where Florence is headed. Maybe Florence is headed to Washington, D.C. to drain the swamp?… 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2oKJlU8 Tyler Durden

Ken Rogoff Exposes The Regional Costs Of Venezuela’s Collapse

Authored by Ken Rogoff via Project Syndicate,

The refugee crisis generated by the country’s economic implosion is comparable to that in Europe in 2015. In response, US President Donald Trump has floated the idea of military intervention, when what the US should be doing is increasing financial and logistical aid to Venezuela’s neighbors.

As Venezuela’s great experiment with “Bolivarian” socialism implodes, it is creating a humanitarian and refugee crisis comparable to Europe in 2015. Traveling by bus, boat, and even on foot through treacherous terrain, around one million Venezuelans have fled to Colombia alone, and another two million are estimated to be in other, mostly neighboring, countries.

There, they often live in desperately unsafe conditions with little food and no medicine, sleeping anywhere they can. So far, there are no United Nations refugee camps, only modest aid from religious organizations and other NGOs. Hunger and disease are rampant.

By and large, Colombia is doing its best to help, providing care to those who show up at hospitals. And its large informal economy is absorbing many refugees as workers. But with a per capita GDP of only around $6,000 (compared to $60,000 for the United States), Colombia’s resources are limited. And the government must also urgently reintegrate some 25,000 FARC guerillas and their families under the terms of the 2016 peace treaty that ended a half-century of brutal civil war.

Colombians have been sympathetic to their neighbors in part because many remember that during the FARC insurgency and related drug wars, Venezuela absorbed hundreds of thousands of Colombian refugees. Moreover, during Venezuela’s boom years, when oil prices were high, and the socialist regime had not yet decimated production, several million Colombians were able to find work in Venezuela.

But the recent tsunami of Venezuelan refugees is causing massive problems for Colombia, beyond the direct costs of policing, ensuring urgent medical care, and providing other services. In particular, the influx of Venezuelan labor has put significant downward pressure on wages in Colombia’s informal sector (including agriculture, services, and small manufacturing business) – and just when the government was hoping to raise the minimum wage.

The first waves of Venezuelans included many skilled workers (for example, chefs and limousine drivers) who could reasonably hope to find gainful employment quickly. But more recent refugees have been predominantly uneducated and unskilled, complicating the government’s efforts to improve the lot of Colombia’s own underclass.

The long-term problems may be even more severe, with diseases that were once under control, such as measles and AIDS, running rampant among the refugee population, which intermingles easily with the culturally similar Colombians. More forward-looking Colombian leaders, including the new president, Iván Duque, argue privately that humane and decent treatment of Venezuelan refugees will benefit Colombia in the long run, after the regime falls and Venezuela again becomes one of Colombia’s largest trading partners. But no one knows when that will come.

What is known is that after many years of catastrophic economy policy, starting under the late president, Hugo Chávez, and continuing under his successor, Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela’s regime has squandered an inheritance that includes some of the world’s largest proven oil reserves. The country’s income has collapsed by a third, inflation is on track to hit one million percent, and millions are starving in a country that ought to be reasonably well off.

One might think there would be a revolution, but so far Maduro has been able to keep the military on the regime’s side in part by granting it license to run a massive drug-trafficking operation that exports cocaine around the world, particularly to Europe and the Middle East. And, unlike oil exports, which are encumbered by massive debts to China and others, the proceeds from the illegal drug exports are by nature unencumbered, except in rare instances of seizure.

Sadly, many on the left around the world (for example, British opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn) were willing to turn a blind eye to the brewing disaster, owing, perhaps, to a knee-jerk impulse to defend their socialist brethren. Or, worse, perhaps they actually believed in the chavista economic model.

Altogether too many left-leaning economists (including some who ultimately worked on the 2016 presidential campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders in the US) were diehard supporters of the Venezuelan regime. There were also opportunistic enablers, including Goldman Sachs (with its ill-considered purchase that propped up Venezuelan bond prices), and some on the right, such as the inauguration committee for US President Donald Trump, which accepted a large donation from Citgo, the US-based subsidiary of Venezuelan oil company Petróleos de Venezuela.

In recent weeks, Maduro has put in place a half-baked plan to stabilize the currency, issuing new bills supposedly backed by the government’s cryptocurrency, which is like building a house of cards on a garbage dump. Whether or not the new currency takes root, we can be sure that the Venezuelan military will continue to conduct its operations in $100 bills.

In response to the domestic and regional crises generated by the Maduro regime, the US has put in place severe trade and financial sanctions, and Trump has reportedly floated the idea of invading Venezuela. American military intervention is of course a crazy idea, and even the many Latin American leaders who desperately want to see the regime go would never support it.

But the US can and should greatly step up financial and logistical aid to help neighboring states deal with the overwhelming refugee problem. And it is not too soon to start planning for reconstruction and repatriation of refugees after Venezuela’s brand of socialism – or, more accurately, oil and cocaine clientelism – finally comes to an end.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2NRDZRC Tyler Durden

Trump Orders NYTimes To Reveal Op-Ed Source For “National Security” Purposes

Time to get the lawyers involved…

A clearly fuming President Trump has escalated his fight with The New York Times following tonight’s anonymous White-House-insider op-ed.

Trump begins by questioning whether a source actually exists: “Does the so-called “Senior Administration Official” really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source?”

And then comes over the top by playing the “Nation Security” threat card, demanding they hand over the source: “If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!”

We can only imagine the level of liberal media mania this will cause.

While we are waiting for NYTimes’ response, CNN has put together the Top 12 potential sources of the op-ed  based on what we know about the various factions, likes, dislikes, motivations and ambitions within the Trump administration. These are in no particular order.

Don McGahn

We know the White House counsel is a short-timer — planning to leave in the fall. We also know that McGahn has clashed with Trump repeatedly in the past — refusing Trump’s order to fire special counsel Robert Mueller. And McGahn has already shown a willingness to look out for the broader public good, sitting down for more than 30 hours with special counsel Robert Mueller’s team to aid their investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Dan Coats

The Director of National Intelligence is very much a part of the long-term Washington establishment, having spent not one but two stints in the nation’s capital as a senator from Indiana. Coats has also shown a tendency to veer from the Trump songbook. Informed of Trump’s plans to invite Russian president Vladimir Putin for a summit in the United States this fall, Coats said “That is going to be special” — a line that drew the ire of the President.

Kellyanne Conway

I think it is uniquely possible that someone willing to pen an op-ed this bold and critical of Trump — and in the paper he hate-loves more than any other — might take significant measures to cover their tracks. And Conway is someone who has survived for a very long time in the political game. And not by being dumb or not understanding which way the wind blows. Plus, there is the X-factor of her husband — George — whose Twitter feed regularly trolls Trump.

John Kelly

The chief of staff has clashed repeatedly with the President and seems to be on borrowed time. Kelly sees his time in the job as serving his country in the only way left to him. Might he view exposing Trump in this way as a last way to be of service?

Jeff Sessions

Sessions sticks out as a possibility for a simple reason: He’s got motive. No one has been more publicly maligned by Trump than his attorney general. Trump has repeatedly urged Sessions to use the Justice Department for his own pet political concerns. And this week, Sessions found out that Trump has referred to him as “mentally retarded” and mocked his southern accent, according to a new book by Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward. Sessions is also someone who spent two decades in the Senate prior to being named attorney general by Trump after the 2016 election.

James Mattis

The defense secretary has been Trump’s favorite Cabinet member. But the quotes attributed to Mattis in Woodward’s book are VERY rough on Trump, though Mattis quickly denied that he ever said them. And if anyone has less to lose than Mattis — he is a decorated military man serving his country again — it’s hard to figure out who that would be. Plus, Mattis is an ally of John Kelly (see above) and Rex Tillerson, the former secretary of state that Trump ran out on a rail.

Fiona Hill

Hill, a Russian expert who joined the Trump administration from the Brookings Institute, a DC think tank, might have reason to so publicly clash with Trump. She is far more skeptical about Russia’s motives than Trump — and was notably left out when Trump and Putin huddled on the sides of the G20 meeting in Germany in 2017. She was a close adviser to national security adviser H.R. McMaster, who was removed from the White House. And, she was also reportedly mistaken for a clerk by Trump in one of her earliest meetings with him on Russia.

Mike Pence

The vice president is all smiles, nods and quiet, deferential loyalty in public. Which of course means that he has the perfect cover to write something like this in The New York Times. Pence is also ambitious — and there’s no question he wants to be president. But would taking such a risk as writing this scathing op-ed be a better path to the White House than just waiting Trump out?

Nikki Haley

The United Nations ambassador is, like Pence, one of Trump’s favorites. She is also, however, someone deeply engaged on the world stage and a voice of concern when it comes to how the President views Russia and Putin. Haley, again like Pence, is ambitious and has her eye on national office. Would this service that goal?

Javanka

The combination of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump — Javanka! — writing this op-ed would be right out of a soap opera. But that is sort of a perfect way to describe the Trump administration, right? Ivanka Trump said she would work to make her voice heard to her father, but there’s little evidence he’s listened much to her or her husband. Might this be a bit of revenge?

Melania Trump

To be clear, I don’t think the first lady did this. But her willingness to send messages when she is unhappy with her husband or his administration is unmistakable. (“I really don’t care. Do U?”) And, if you believe this administration and Trump are governed by reality shows rules, then Melania writing the op-ed is the most reality TV thing EVER.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2NOWvdv Tyler Durden

Green Beret Sniper And His “Military Friends” Are “Pissed” Over Kaepernick Nike Ad

Legendary Green Beret sniper and ex-UFC star Tim Kennedy says he’s boycotting Nike following their decision to spotlight former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick – as many in law enforcement and the military have taken offense to the ad’s tag-line of “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.” 

Kennedy – who is currently participating in a military school course at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, told TMZ that Nike’s ad is disrespectful to the US flag as well as to the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces.

“When I walked into the team room this morning, there were some people who were fuming,” Kennedy tells TMZ Sports … “I’m not gonna speak for them, but there was no one happy about it.” –TMZ

Kennedy says that every member of the special forces in his team room had lost at least 10 friends who had “sacrificed everything.” 

“You can’t go around that room [in Fort Bragg] and not ask a guy if he could list on his two hands friends that have died from Special Forces,” said Kennedy, adding “I’m talking about REAL heroes and I’m surrounded by a bunch of them right now.”

Kennedy and his military friends aren’t the only group to take offense to Nike’s ad; the National Fraternal Order of Police has issued a press release, which reads in part: 

“Since 2016, 381 cops have been killed in the line of duty. They believed in something and sacrificed everything as did the families they left behind. All of the men and women in law enforcement believe in something and are prepared to sacrifice everything.” 

Perhaps Nike founder Phil Knight, who wouldn’t comment on Nike’s notorious child labor sweatshops, can opine on why they chose an anti-American spokesman? 

via RSS https://ift.tt/2MQK0ln Tyler Durden

Illegal Immigrant Students Now Allowed On California College Boards

Authored by Grace Gottschling via Campus Reform,

California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill into law that allows illegal immigrant students to hold elected positions on California college boards as long as they qualify for in-state tuition.

The bill, AB1887, was signed on Aug 24 and permits students, who are illegally residing in the United States, to “serve on any board or commission […] that relate to public elementary and secondary education and that includes members who are pupils or minors,” provided they are eligible for in-state tuition or are otherwise exempt from paying non-resident tuition.

In California, students qualify for in-state tuition, also known as resident tuition, provided they have resided in the state for over a year prior to admission. Non-California resident students,  including illegal immigrants, may be eligible for an exemption if they meet certain requirements, such as attending a California high school or community college for a minimum of three years, according to California Education Code 68130.

“To allow students who are currently ineligible, but would be made eligible by this act in time for appointment, and students who do not have lawful immigration status or qualify as being exempt from paying nonresident tuition to proceed in the appointment process, it is necessary for this act to take effect immediately,” the legislation, which was deemed an “urgency statute,” states.

The bill amended a law which previously restricted positions of civil office to adult California residents, including illegal immigrants. The revisions that have taken effect also allow California college students who are under the age of 18 to hold civil office within California public colleges.

Associated Student, Inc. (ASI), a student advocacy group that focuses on “high-quality service and representation” and inclusivity among the California student body, supported the bill.

“The student who was the voting student trustee last year was a DACA student,” ASI President Noel Mora, told The State Hornet. “He would have been the last undocumented and DACA student to be able to serve on the [California State University] board of trustees as a student.”

via RSS https://ift.tt/2PGiAeF Tyler Durden

1 In 5 Americans Would Take On Debt To Afford The New iPhone

Apple may be bracing to ship 20% fewer iPhones later this year after its newest models, specs of which leaked earlier this week, finally hit the market, but that doesn’t mean the cultural cache of owning an iPhone has in any way diminished. While reports of a decline in component orders earlier this year could be chalked up to market saturation or the higher price point (consumers could be asked to shell out as much as $1,400 for the most expensive new models, according to reports that have been circulating since before last year’s launch), an interesting new survey by WalletHub revealed that many American handset owners simply don’t care about the price.

Indeed, at a time when total household debt is hitting one record after the next and revolving credit is soaring, nearly 28 million Americans believe that owning the newest iPhone is worth racking up debt. According to WalletHub’s 2018 Credit Score and iPhone survey, this view is particularly prominent among millennials. More than 18% of respondents under the age of 45 said it would be worth going into debt for the phone, compared with 5% of those who are more than 45 years old.

Despite the deluge of debt being incurred by the American consumer, credit scores remain generally high (unsurprising considering the robust Trump-era economy). Thanks to this trend, millions of consumers can access financing plans that will help them purchase new phones, ensuring a bump to device sales for the first company publicly traded in the US to reach $1 trillion market cap.

Apple

Here’s a summary of some of the study’s key findings (courtesy of WalletHub):

5X more millennials say the new iPhone is worth going into debt for than baby boomers.
 
29% of cell phone shoppers don’t know they could be in for a credit check.
 
Nearly 187 million Americans trust Apple and Google more with their personal data than the government.
 
19% of people would rather have unlimited phone data than an excellent credit score.
 
44% of millennials believe their cell phone has a bigger impact on their life than their credit score.

While overextending one’s debt burden (particularly if the item is purchased using a high-interest revolving credit line) is never a good idea, it’s particularly dangerous during periods of rising interest rates – as borrowers who agreed to risky adjustable-rate mortgages during the Bush era will no doubt remember. But maybe we’re looking at it backwards: Perhaps consumers should be grateful that Apple hasn’t decided to hike the price up even more. After all, the iPhone is “enormously underpriced,” according to the world’s third-richest man. 

All of this begs the question: Would Warren Buffett still be buying Apple stock if he didn’t expect the company would soon buy it back from him at a premium?

via RSS https://ift.tt/2MOWBpd Tyler Durden