‘Nothing Illegal In Trump-Zelensky Call’: NSC Official Tells Impeachment Inquiry

‘Nothing Illegal In Trump-Zelensky Call’: NSC Official Tells Impeachment Inquiry

A top National Security Council official who was present on a July 25 phone call between President Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodomyr Zelensky, Tim Morrison, told House investigators on Thursday that he does not believe anything illegal was discussed, according to The Federalist.

Tim Morrison

I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed,” said Tim Morrison, former NSC Senior Director for European Affairs who was on the July 25 call between the two leaders.

Morrison also testified that the transcript of the phone call which was declassified and released by the White House “accurately and completely reflects the substance of the call.”

Morrison testified that Ukrainian officials were not even aware that certain military funding had been delayed by the Trump administration until late August 2019, more than a month after the Trump-Zelensky call, casting doubt on allegations that Trump somehow conveyed an illegal quid pro quo demand during the July 25 call.

I have no reason to believe the Ukrainians had any knowledge of the [military funding] review until August 28, 2019,” Morrison said. That is the same day that Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the chief anti-Trump inquisitor in the U.S. House of Representatives, disclosed on Twitter that funding had been held up. Politico also published a story that day, sourced to anonymous leaks, that military funding had been temporarily held up. –The Federalist

Notably, Morrison quit the day before his testimony.

Last week, Morrison was named during testimony earlier this month by William Taylor, Trump’s top envoy to Ukraine, according to Politico.

William Taylor

As we reported earlier today of Morrison, following the call, Morrison informed Taylor that it “could have gone better,” and that Trump suggested Zelensky and his staff meet with Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr.

Morrison’s hawkish views align with those of Bolton and he has been described as a creature of process by some close to him.

Bolton always told those who worked for him that process was their protector and sometimes you have to listen to the person elected — advice Morrison adopted, sources said.

Morrison is a lifelong Republican described as a Reaganite and is referred to as “‘Bolton’s Bolton, he is really hard right,” according to one source familiar with Morrison. –CNN

“The NSC process does not allow anything that isn’t legal. It just, it would never get to the President. Certainly not any process that Tim was ever a part of,” said one source close to Morrison. “A piece of paper does not get to the national security adviser without first going through the lawyers, much less to the President.”

Taylor also said that Morrison witnessed Trump Ally Gordon Sondland convey a quid pro quo arrangement;

Taylor also described a conversation in which Morrison relayed word from Sondland that Trump had told Sondland directly that Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky should publicly announce the investigations.

House impeachment investigators are exploring whether Trump conditioned nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine — and a White House visit for Zelensky — on Ukraine’s willingness to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, as well as a debunked theory that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 U.S. elections.

Taylor told lawmakers that Morrison relayed concerns about Trump’s posture toward Ukraine to then-national security adviser John Bolton and to NSC lawyers. –Politico

According to Morrison, the national security process worked as designed.

“I am pleased our process gave the president the confidence he needed to approve the release of the security sector assistance,” he said, adding “I am proud of what I have been able, in some small way, to help the Trump administration accomplish.”

Earlier Thursday, House Democrats (all but two) approved impeachment procedures against President Trump. No Republicans voted for the measure.


Tyler Durden

Thu, 10/31/2019 – 13:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2putbSG Tyler Durden

Will OPEC+ Declare War On U.S. Shale?

Will OPEC+ Declare War On U.S. Shale?

Authored by Irina Slav via OilPrice.com,

It’s that time of the year again, the final OPEC+ meeting of 2019 has been scheduled and is ready to take place in December. Geopolitical tensions in the Middle East are running high and so are worries about the balance between supply and demand. The top concern, however, is whether the production cuts agreed last December will be extended or deepened once again.

Russia is, of course, in the spotlight. The world’s second-largest oil producer has made it a habit of demonstrating reluctance about any final commitment until the last moment when it agrees to cut. This time is no exception.

Russia’s Deputy Energy Minister Pavel Sorokin this week told TASS in an interview it was too early to discuss deeper cuts. The news immediately ignited the not-too-dormant worry of traders that Russia could play OPEC and leave the cuts altogether—a not too far-fetched scenario given Russian oil companies’ general negative attitude towards the cuts. If the OPEC+ events from the last three years are any indication, Russia will not leave the cuts but may well use the meeting to politically maneuver.

But it’s not just Russia. Nigeria earlier this month struck a deal with OPEC that will allow it to produce more oil even under a production cut regime. Reuters reported the news citing unnamed OPEC officials and noting that the decision was not made public. This development raises one important question: how long before other OPEC members ask for similar special treatment?

Besides Nigeria, there are at least two OPEC members that want to boost their oil production: Iraq and Libya.

  • Libya has been exempted from all production cut agreements so far and, as its National Oil Corporation chairman Mustafa Sanalla said in July, it must remain exempt from any future cuts as well. Libya plans to increase its oil output to 1.6 million bpd from the current 1.3 million bpd.

  • Iraq is taking part in the cuts, but grudgingly, and it shows: OPEC’s number-two exporter has consistently failed to stay within its production quota. Yet overall compliance continues to excel because of the forced production declines in sanction-stricken Venezuela and Iran.

So, the obvious question is how long and how much OPEC+ will decide to cut. But there’s a less obvious one that was put forward by Bloomberg’s Julian Lee: why cut at all instead of turning the taps all the way back to maximum production?

Lee argued in a recent commentary that Saudi Arabia, for one, would benefit a lot more from a maximum-production approach than an extension of the cuts. U.S. shale oil growth is already slowing down because of international prices. If Saudi Arabia and its allies decide to reverse their price control approach, it will crash and burn.

Of course, as prices crash so will the Saudi dream of a $2-trillion valuation for Aramco, whose IPO is reportedly scheduled for a couple of days after the OPEC+ meeting. This means the otherwise perfectly reasonable scenario put forth by Lee and others is unlikely to play out. What is most likely to happen is either a preservation of the status quo or an agreement to extend the current cuts further into 2020.


Tyler Durden

Thu, 10/31/2019 – 13:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2NsQbt5 Tyler Durden

Anti-Trump CIA Whistleblower Invited ‘Meddling’ DNC Operative To Obama White House In 2015

Anti-Trump CIA Whistleblower Invited ‘Meddling’ DNC Operative To Obama White House In 2015

A partisan CIA officer who secretly worked with Rep. Adam Schiff’s Democratic staff before submitting a second-hand whistleblower complaint has been revealed as Eric Ciaramella – who previously worked in the Obama administration with former VP Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan.

Eric Ciaramella as a Connecticut prep student in 2004

While his attorneys have declined to confirm that the 33-year-old Ciaramella (pronounced char-a-MEL-ah) is the whistleblower, RealClearInvestigations Paul Sperry on Wednesday reported that his name has been “raised privately in impeachment depositions,” and is an “open secret inside the Beltway.”

“Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington Post knows. The New York Times knows. Congress knows. The White House knows. Even the president knows who he is,” said former CIA analyst and Trump national security adviser Fred Fleitz, who added “They’re hiding him because of his political bias.” 

He was accused of working against Trump and leaking against Trump,” said one former NSC official on condition of anonymity.

Sperry’s revelations:

  • Ciaramella, a registered Democrat and Obama White House holdover, helped initiate the Russia “collusion” investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.”
  • Ciaramella was detailed over to the National Security Council from the agency in the summer of 2015, working under Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser. He also worked closely with the former vice president.
  • He worked with DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa – inviting her to the White House. Chalupa, “a Ukrainian-American who supported Hillary Clinton, led an effort to link the Republican campaign to the Russian government,” writes Sperry (which has been documented by Politico and journalist Lee Stranahan). “He knows her. He had her in the White House,” said one former co-worker, who requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.

Michael Avenatti, Alexandra Chalupa

  • Documents confirm the DNC opposition researcher attended at least one White House meeting with Ciaramella in November 2015.  She visited the White House with a number of Ukrainian officials lobbying the Obama administration for aid for Ukraine.
  • Biden’s office invited Ciaramella to an October, 2016 state luncheon hosted for Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. “Other invited guests included Brennan, as well as then-FBI Director James Comey and then-National Intelligence Director James Clapper.

The Federalist‘s Sean Davis adds: “Eric Ciaramella also needs to testify under oath why he invited a rep for Ukrainian oligarch and Clinton Foundation donor Victor Pinchuk to the White House the same day that oligarch’s representative met with Steele dossier leaker David Kramer.”

In October, the Washington Post gave House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) four Pinocchios for lying when he said “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower,” when in fact Ciaramella consulted with Schiff’s panel – which directed him to a Democrat attorney to file a second-hand complaint that President Trump had pressured Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky into investigating former Vice President Joe Biden and other matters.

Notably, Schiff hired two of Ciaramella’s closest allies at the NSC – also Obama holdovers.

Ciaramella, held over into the Trump administration, headed the Ukraine desk at the NSC – transferring into the West Wing in June 2017.

He hired one, Sean Misko, in August — the same month the whistleblower complaint was filed.

During closed-door depositions taken in the impeachment inquiry, Misko has been observed handing notes to the lead counsel for the impeachment inquiry, Daniel Goldman, as he asks questions of Trump administration witnesses, officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings told RealClearInvestigations.

“He was moved over to the front office” to temporarily fill a vacancy, said a former White House official, where he “saw everything, read everything,” according to Sperry’s report.

The official added that it soon became clear among NSC staff that Ciaramella opposed the new Republican president’s foreign policies. “My recollection of Eric is that he was very smart and very passionate, particularly about Ukraine and Russia. That was his thing – Ukraine,” he said. “He didn’t exactly hide his passion with respect to what he thought was the right thing to do with Ukraine and Russia, and his views were at odds with the president’s policies.”

So I wouldn’t be surprised if he was the whistleblower,” the official said.

In May 2017, Ciaramella went “outside his chain of command,” according to a former NSC co-worker, to send an email alerting another agency that Trump happened to hold a meeting with Russian diplomats in the Oval Office the day after firing Comey, who led the Trump-Russia investigation. The email also noted that Russian President Vladimir Putin had phoned the president a week earlier. –RealClearInvestigations

No wonder Democrats are holding their impeachment proceedings in secret!

Read the rest of Sperry’s report here.


Tyler Durden

Thu, 10/31/2019 – 12:56

Tags

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2WtLAeo Tyler Durden

How QE Has Radically Changed The Nature Of The West’s Financial System

How QE Has Radically Changed The Nature Of The West’s Financial System

Authored by Ramin Mazaheri via The Saker blog,

Because they are so ensconsed in their little bubble and because they profit so much from maintaining the status quo, Western mainstream media pundits don’t – or perhaps can’t – admit how Quantitative Easing policies have so quickly and so radically changed the financial system of the West and their satellites.

I imagine that most everyone reading this is already aware of what has transpired economically across the West over the last decade:

  • Elite-class asset (stuff rich people own – stocks, real estate, financial derivatives, luxury goods, etc.) prices have ballooned to pre-2008 levels.

  • Debt (which is, of course, another elite-owned asset), mainly to pay for banker bailouts and their usurious interest levels, has ballooned national accounts to incredible levels.

  • The “real” economy has only weakened, as proven by endemic low economic growth across the West and Japan.

As a pro-socialist who has no faith that capitalism seeks anything but inequality, I believe that creating and compounding these issues has been the unstated goal of Western policy over the last decade. But that’s not the main point: what cannot be denied is that those ARE the economic results of the West’s “easy money” policies – i.e., QE and ZIRP (Zero percent interest rate policy) for the 1%, and austerity for the 99% (all coins have two sides).

Similarly, I imagine that everyone reading this is generally aware of what will happen should the West stop easy money: obviously, once artificial demand is no longer being fabricated then these assets will plummet in value, with huge ripple effects in the “real” economy. The West will be right back to dealing with most of the same toxic assets they had back in 2007, but now compounded by a decade of more debt, more interest payments, and a “real” economy which was made weaker via austerity.

None of that is really “news” to a smart reader… but it is “news” to many dumb journalists.

This 10-part series uses as its jumping-off point the 2018 book Collusion: How Central Bankers Rigged the World by Nomi Prins, a former Wall Street executive who saw the light and is now informing on the crimes of Western imperialism-capitalism. Prins gives a thorough and chronological account of central banker doings in key areas – Mexico, China, Brazil, Japan and Europe – ever since US banker crimes set off the Great Recession in 2007. The essence of her thesis is that the US orchestrated collusion among the central bankers of many of the G20 economies and the Eurozone primarily in order to save busted US banks, and then also to maintain the 1%-enriching neoliberal policies of QE, ZIRP and no-strings attached bailouts.

What Prins keenly demonstrates is that since 2007 Western nations have continuously handed off the baton of QE and ZIRP between each other.

By coordinating on that policy, central bankers have effectively kept the 1% so awash in easy money and inflating assets that the 1% no longer cares that central bankers in a foreign country are manipulating the government where they live. This is what “globalisation” truly means in capitalism; it is very different from the socialist concept of internationalism.

It’s very simple for Prins to prove the G20 central banker collusion via the one thing the Japanese didn’t think of first (they created both QE and ZIRP) – temporary bilateral liquidity swap lines. It sounds complicated but it is easy to explain, and easy to understand their impact:

At the start of the crisis the US pushed the G7 banks, Switzerland and Scandinavia, and then other G20 banks, to create lines of credit with each other which allow them to move money to any place/nation where there is the mere potential of a volatile event which could create a negative impact on the stock or currency markets. This represents hundreds of billions of (taxpayer) dollars which essentially ensures that stock & currency markets never have to feel pain again: whether it is bad concrete economic data, or Fukushima, or Brexit – any major dip is now met with artificially created money which will fortify the position of the 1%.

These can be thought of as the junior versions of QE, and are no longer “temporary” – bilateral liquidity swaps are now a permanent feature of the Western banking system. Therefore, it doesn’t matter where new money is printed, only that it IS printed – it will go to prop up the 1%’s markets anywhere the West has its tentacles.

Thus, there is no real “market force” anymore – “just central banker force”. Their only goal is to perpetuate the status quo, not to improve the status quo, which is of course the essence of right-wing/anti-socialist/conservative ideologies.

There are no debt swaps for when you or I lose our job, but the 1% are “too big to fail”. However, what is even bigger than debt swaps are governments.

It’s not the inflated numbers but the source of the credit which is scary: the bond market

Prins quotes Bank of England leader Mark Carney in 2015 to illustrate this point:

As I wrote to G20 Leaders, the structure of (the) financial system has changed significantly since the crisis. Virtually all of the net credit since the crisis has been from the bond markets and the size of assets under management has increased by 60% to $74 trillion.

Those numbers are staggering. The 2017 estimate for worldwide total GDP was around $75 trillion. Global QE had reached $12 trillion in 2016.

These numbers are so significant that basically every single human should grasp what QE means, and yet how very little media ink is spilled explaining the scope, reach and everyday impact of easy money policies?

Carney pointed out that the West’s financial system has been dramatically deformed, and that the most urgent issue is the bond markets, and for obvious reasons:

The biggest actor in any system is not the “invisible hand”, nor the most talented CEO, nor the richest family – it is the government.

Just as the Pentagon is the world’s largest employer, just as the government employees’ union is always any nation’s largest union, just as the Chinese Communist Party (which is inextricable from their government) is running their economy, just as the Iranian government controls a greater percentage of their economy than even Cuba’s government – I could point to any nation and show that the government is the primary economic actor (with the exception of tiny tax haven nations). This is based on the answer to the questions: what is done by the government with money received by taxation and produced via printing?

This acknowledgment that – as long as there are taxes and printed money – the government must always, inescapably be the biggest actor is actually the very foundation of socialism, which posits that these two government powers can be used as tool of liberation for the average person and not as a tool used by the 1% to oppress. That is what makes socialist systems inherently different from aristocratic (or bourgeois/liberal/West European) and other oligarchical systems.

Far-right neoliberalism is a modern ideology – give credit where it is due – and thus they acknowledge this hugely positive role government can play… which is expressly why their dogma also insists on gutting government powers in order to prevent interference with the whims and happiness of the 1%.

However, QE does not represent anyone’s “government policy” – it represents the apex of “anti-government policy”. Nobody voted for QE, and it would never survive a popular and free vote. Western central banks are all independent from their government (in socialist dogma, there is a big fat “LOL” to that notion), and many governments rail against the policy of their own central banks!

Clearly, QE is a policy which has been undertaken via entities which are not at all subject to (Western, bourgeois, liberal, already-quite limited) governmental oversight. QE in Europe, for example, has the ECB ostensibly acting as the banker of the Eurozone’s citizens yet its client has not at all been national governments or the national taxpayer – it’s only client is multinational private banks. Thus, the ECB has not been working to protect national governments, but instead clearly subverts those interests to those of the 1%.

Nice system y’all got in the West….

No central banker will ever be tried for collusion, much less blamed in the Western press no matter how bad their results are, just as no incoming US Fed chief has ever lost their rubber stamp legislative vote. The penultimate paragraph of Prins’ book gives the key reality:

Yet in the inevitable financial crash – these conjurers (of so much newly-printed money) will not be blamed. Or monitored. They are simply doing their jobs, even if those jobs have shifting definitions and nebulous goals.”

Back to the key point: We cannot forget that over the past decade these suddenly-arriving monies have been instrumental in propping up the government bond market, especially in the Eurozone. Governments cannot operate without paying salaries, and to do that they need to borrow money or print it. Insanely, QE has taken printed money and given it to banks so that banks could give it back to central banks in the form of buying national bonds: no value was created, yet so much was lost for the People.

Socialist or capitalist, we cannot argue what ARE the results: QE thus represents the ultimate economic victory of the “rentier” – he or she who adds no value, but only parasitically extracts value. Western economic-political ideology truly means giving private, self-interested bankers the ability to extract an endless flow of parasitic interest payments, and all because Western neoliberalism refuses to allow the government to play their logically dominant role in directly shepherding the economy.

Everybody should have known that European Central Bank QE was a fraud at least by 2015, when Greek banks were excluded from the bond buying party.

That was incredibly comic-tragic, because it showed how there was absolutely no solidarity in the Eurozone and the pan-European project, nor any common sense, nor any desire to really improve things – only the desire to make the rich even richer.

The simple math is: Central bankers resorted to QE because private banks had lost faith in each other, thus they roped in central banks to accept all the risk and losses. But the question which no one can answer is: So what happens when private banks lose faith in central banks?

The answer is: necessarily even more chaos than 2008, because even if Western central banks are “independent” from the government in neoliberal practice, they still have the full credit and powers apportioned to the government.

Thus, we no longer just have a “subprime bank” or a “subprime loan” crisis – the West has added a “subprime central bank” crisis for themselves as well, which is essentially the same as saying a “subprime government” crisis.

That’s why I wrote a 7-part series on QE back in September 2017, when I was sure they could not extend it more than one time. Little did I guess that QE could become permanent policy. The thesis of that series remains valid and the same in 2019:

Capitalism assures us that profit will be found at any cost by the 1% class – there is no sense of morality, only greed, backstabbing, bloodsucking, treason, laziness, covetousness, etc. National governments and the local banks and industries they support, and even partially own, are all risky bets which have only gotten riskier – do you think bond investors want to lose their money on them? When the government intervention of QE and ZIRP stop (i.e., free profit for banks) then banks will have to risk their own money to buy national bonds. This means no more playing nice: they will go back to doing what they began doing in 2011 – squeezing their profit out of the national bond markets, because globalised capital means no nation matters anymore.

Prins’ book gives us the chronological doings and details in Western countries which further supports this thesis.

Thus, the paradoxical non-conflict between government and bank in neoliberalism will eventually come to an even greater head than it did in 2012, when the Eurozone was about to split up and the true seed of Brexit was clearly set. The West’s refusal to cut out the middleman, the rentier, the parasite – which is what socialism does – means they will get bloodsucked to death.

The death of a corporation or a bank is not fatal to a nation, but the death of a government – a government which cannot borrow or print money, as in the Eurozone – will be fatal. Or maybe you believe QE really can be permanent?

When did QE go wrong?

“The FED didn’t just ‘save’ the US financial system, it altered the flow of capital everywhere,” writes Prins.

The problem – or rather the failure – of QE became evident with the internationally-condemned 3rd round of QE by the US.

In the US QE 1 was money to buy bad mortgage assets in November 2008. What I call “QE 1.5” came 4 months later, to buy debt securities in the credit markets. QE 2 was in November 2009 – $600 billion of longer-term US Treasury securities. QE 4 only arrived this month – the delay is explained by Prins’ title: collusion in easy money policies among many G20 nations.

QE was obviously misdirected to the wrong classes from the very start, but in 2012 QE 3 generated a lot of international anger from developing countries. I will explain their reasons shortly, but the primary reason is one which gets at the heart of the fact that capitalism can never evolve positively – the emperor has no clothes… (probably because “emperor-ship” is unmodern and immoral, and whoever heard of a “socialist emperor?”):

“None of the core central bankers knew what else to do. They believed or wanted to believe in their own hype and power – that they could save economies through the right combination of QE, intervention, and lending money cheaply to big banks and corporations, and that somehow this would trickle down into the real economy people live in day to day. They could not admit that their economies had been crippled by the US financial crisis and that the collusion of the Fed with allied central banks perpetuated risk in a grand conjured-money scheme.”

It is no coincidence that 2012 was the year of the European Sovereign Debt crisis. That was when it became clear to money managers that problems: were huge and getting huger; were already proven to dramatically exist, but were now additionally being proven that the decisions of 2007-12 had not fixed them; that these problems could not be resolved in a neoliberal system of economics; were merely being money-papered over; and that governments were going to go bust from all the debt, printing and interest charges.

Prins is correct, but she also lets the 1%ers off the hook – QE 3 is when the 1% fully usurped governments (and their inherent duty to serve the People) in order to keep funding their lifestyle and to indebt others. This is a failure inherent in capitalism – and not just the neoliberal variant – simply writ on a 21st century, multinational, digital scale.

Again, neoliberalism is a modern ideology – hats off to them for not living in the past. German Nazism was also a modern creation – clearly, “modernity” is not the highest virtue….

But Prins is correct that – because they reject socialist regulations, planning and ideals – the central bankers simply would not, could not, do anything else.

With QE 3 in 2012 the savvy observers in the developing world saw what QE and ZIRP also served as: a way to create easy money for Western bankers to buy up foreign assets and to entrap developing countries with unsustainable loans. That is something I imagine you have never read even a single time in a Western media – anti-Western accusations of “collusion” is merely called “business sense” in the West, after all. The unexplored, negative consequences which QE has wreaked on the non-QE world are detailed in Parts 3 and 4.

QE3 was when QE showed its true colors: several years of it had not fixed anyone’s economy. And because the QE system cannot be stopped without revealing that fact, the US decided it will get their allies to print as much as they can while they can in order to enrich their 1% chums and to ensnare foreigners via the free capital flows required in globalisation.

In 2012 (and at other times, as well) we assumed that a government’s bankruptcy – Greece, Italy, Spain, etc. – would end the QE game. However, QE has gone on so long that many predict that Germany’s private Deutsche Bank will be the bankruptcy which restarts economic chaos. And why not? Major private banks are still just as rotted out with un-shed-able assets as they were 10 years ago. Non-austerity policies likely could have saved some of these failed investments and improved the state of these stupid loans, but….

What is certain is that when government bond rates go back to floating on market rates instead of on the air of QE, that’s when chaos is sure to hit… and that’s why governments cannot end QE. 2019 is no different from 2017.

Conclusion: QE can’t end, and it could have been so much better

The amazing thing is not the idea of QE, but how stupid the West has been about it: if they had been smarter, then they could have purchased a golden future for their societies – instead they bought fancy paintings you can find images of for free online.

QE could have been a chance to smash neoliberalism forever by proving what we all know: the government must have a major role in the economy – why empower the parasitical middleman? That is a question asked by every hard-working farmer for quite some time…

The good news is: not everyone takes part of the West’s financial system. Iran, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea and even – though many are loath to admit it – China. All these nations may trade with foreign nations, but that doesn’t mean their own domestic economies are based upon the exact same neoliberal capitalist principles as the US and Eurozone.

It is the goal of neoliberal/globalisation propaganda to deny that reality.

QE has changed the Western economic system because their central banks have become the toxic asset-owner which has become “too big to fail”:

“Even if fabricated money wasn’t achieving its stated purpose of real economic growth, taking it away would invoke chaos on the financial system. That was a possibility that central bank leaders did not want to risk, not on their watch.”

The reason we have had QE Infinity is because no central banker will be the one to end to QE. To do so would be to say: “I have been a fool – a capitalist banker. Let’s switch to socialism.”

What about journalists? Asking them to successfully campaign against 1%-er easy money/99%er austerity seems very difficult in the West, where the vast majority of the media has been foolishly privatised. I have never seen any honest series in The New York Times or any other top media regarding the obvious failure of QE and far-right economics. The best they can do is to blame an individual politician for cutting this government service or raising that single tax on the 99% – mostly they prefer to blame people who rail against capitalist globalisation, like the Yellow Vests. Of course, the monthlong tactic has been to ignore the Yellow Vests entirely….

That leaves us with only citizens: “Citizens were caught in a vortex between unpopular and ineffective policies. Governments seemed to forget they existed, while central bankers did not even pretend to be concerned.”

Perhaps Western citizens are, in their own mind, truly painfully living in a vortex created by right-wing forces? I feel certain that the source of this would not be primarily caused by their culture, history or religion, but in their current West European/liberal/bourgeois political systems.


Tyler Durden

Thu, 10/31/2019 – 12:43

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2oyBGvr Tyler Durden

Why the Middle Class is Better Off Than You Think

“A lot of people think the middle class is dead, dying, hollowed out,” says Russ Roberts, an economist at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and host of the podcast Econtalk. “And that’s a view that’s held now increasingly by not just the left…but by conservatives, Republicans, [and] economists across the spectrum.”

But is it true? Roberts says that many of the leading studies that support this claim offer “a misreading of the data, or at least an incomplete reading of the data, [ignoring] a much fuller story of opportunity and progress.”

In this video, Roberts offers some examples of the assumptions that economic researchers have made, leading them to offer an incomplete picture of American prosperity. He argues that the middle class has fared much better since the 1970s than most people think.

Produced by John Osterhoudt. Camera by Todd Krainin.

Photo credit: Sen. Sanders—Michael Brochstein/Sipa USA/Newscom

Photo credit: Skyline Drawing—ID 46457018 © Vladimir Yudin | Dreamstime.com

Photo credit: Farm House—ID 137745545 © iigraphics | Dreamstime.com

Photo credit: Suburban Aerial Photo—ID 82905318 © Bryan Roschetzky | Dreamstime.com

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2JCjbh6
via IFTTT

Federal Judge Orders Georgia Sheriff To Stop Ritualistically Humiliating Registered Sex Offenders on Halloween

It’s Halloween, which means it’s time to panic about the threat allegedly posed by candy-distributing sex offenders. This week a federal judge in Georgia threw some cold water on such fearmongering, ruling that Butts County Sheriff Gary Long may not force three registered sex offenders to post signs warning trick-or-treaters to stay away from their homes.

Last October, Long’s deputies “placed signs in front of every registered sex offender’s house to notify the public that it’s a house to avoid.” The signs, identified as “a community safety message from Butts County Sheriff Gary Long,” read: “Warning! No Trick-or-Treat at This Address!!”

The deputies also left a notice on the front door of each targeted home, saying a “Halloween Safety sign has been placed in front of your residence by Order of Sheriff Gary Long. This order is due to a registered Sex Offender is registered to be living at this address with the Butts County Sheriff Office.” It added that “THIS SIGN IS PROPERTY OF THE BUTTS COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE SHERIFF GARY LONG,” and “IT SHALL NOT BE REMOVED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE BUTTS COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE.” Residents who objected were threatened with arrest, and they were forbidden to post any countervailing messages of their own.

Long tried to repeat the stunt this year, but he was stymied by a federal lawsuit that three Butts County residents, Christopher Reed, Reginald Holden, and Corey McClendon, filed last month. They argued that deputies were illegally trespassing on their property to put up the signs, which are not required by state law. The plaintiffs also said the signs were a form of constitutionally prohibited compelled speech that caused “anxiety, embarrassment and humiliation.”

U.S. District Judge Marc Treadwell found the claims compelling enough to issue a preliminary injunction against Long’s signs on Tuesday. “The Defendants have provided no evidence showing that the Plaintiffs have posed or will pose any threat to children trick-or-treating on Halloween, and Holden and McClendon testified that they planned to shut off their lights and not answer the door on Halloween, just as they have in years past,” Treadwell wrote. “On the other hand, the public interest always is served when citizens’ constitutional rights are protected, including sex offenders’.”

Treadwell noted that Reed, Holden, and McClendon are required to register with the sheriff’s office “because many years ago they committed offenses that fall within the State of Georgia’s definition of sex offenses.” Yet “they have served their terms of imprisonment and have, as far as the law is concerned, paid their debts to society.” Treadwell added that “by all accounts, they are rehabilitated” and “live productive, law-abiding lives.” Furthermore, the state, under its system for classifying sex offenders, “has not determined that they pose an increased risk of again committing a sexual offense.” Hence “the Sheriff’s decision is not based on any determination that the Plaintiffs are dangerous.”

Treadwell noted that “the Defendants have not cited any evidence or authority indicating that they may use the right-of-way in front of the Plaintiffs’ homes for their speech.” He concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail in their claim that the signs violated their First Amendment rights by forcing them to participate in speech to which they object.

“By requiring the Plaintiffs to display these signs, Sheriff Long and his deputies are requiring the Plaintiffs to effectively endorse or adopt, or at least acquiesce in, his message, not theirs, because the only message Sheriff Long will allow is his,” Treadwell said. “The Defendants plan to compel the Plaintiffs to promote Sheriff Long’s speech. These facts are sufficient to demonstrate that the Plaintiffs are substantially likely to show that the Defendants will burden the Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.”

Treadwell noted that “the question the Court must answer is not whether Sheriff Long’s plan is wise or moral, or whether it makes penological sense.” Rather, “the question is whether Sheriff Long’s plan runs afoul of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It does.”

Treadwell nevertheless declined to issue a broader injunction on behalf of all 54 registered sex offenders in Butts County. “Although, as a practical matter, it might be
assumed that anyone would object to such a message from law enforcement in front of their homes, the Court is not comfortable making that assumption as a foundation for injunctive relief,” he wrote. “Moreover, different circumstances could exist with regard to particular registrants.”

In a message on Facebook, Long said he would abide by the judge’s order but maintained that he was simply trying to “protect the public, especially the children.” Last year, however, Long conceded that the risk supposedly addressed by his signs was slight. “I’m not trying to humiliate ’em or anything like that,” he told CBS News. “Let’s face reality: We have a greater chance of children getting run over by a car [on Halloween] than being a victim of sexual assault by a repeat offender. But at the end of the day if, in fact, we had a child that fell victim to a sexual assault, especially by a convicted sex offender, I don’t think I could sleep at night.”

Last year Lenore Skenazy noted that “a thorough study of 67,000 cases of child molestation found zero increase in sex crimes against children on Halloween.” The authors of that 2009 study, reported in the journal Sexual Abuse, observed that “states, municipalities, and parole departments have adopted policies banning known sex offenders from Halloween activities, based on the worry that there is unusual risk on these days.” Yet their analysis of cases involving sex crimes against children committed by people other than relatives found “no increased rate on or just before Halloween.” Furthermore, “Halloween incidents did not evidence unusual case characteristics.” The researchers concluded that “these findings raise questions about the wisdom of diverting law enforcement resources to attend to a problem that does not appear to exist.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2oy3m3x
via IFTTT

Why the Middle Class is Better Off Than You Think

“A lot of people think the middle class is dead, dying, hollowed out,” says Russ Roberts, an economist at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and host of the podcast Econtalk. “And that’s a view that’s held now increasingly by not just the left…but by conservatives, Republicans, [and] economists across the spectrum.”

But is it true? Roberts says that many of the leading studies that support this claim offer “a misreading of the data, or at least an incomplete reading of the data, [ignoring] a much fuller story of opportunity and progress.”

In this video, Roberts offers some examples of the assumptions that economic researchers have made, leading them to offer an incomplete picture of American prosperity. He argues that the middle class has fared much better since the 1970s than most people think.

Produced by John Osterhoudt. Camera by Todd Krainin.

Photo credit: Sen. Sanders—Michael Brochstein/Sipa USA/Newscom

Photo credit: Skyline Drawing—ID 46457018 © Vladimir Yudin | Dreamstime.com

Photo credit: Farm House—ID 137745545 © iigraphics | Dreamstime.com

Photo credit: Suburban Aerial Photo—ID 82905318 © Bryan Roschetzky | Dreamstime.com

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2JCjbh6
via IFTTT

Voters In Key Battleground States Oppose Impeachment: Polls

Voters In Key Battleground States Oppose Impeachment: Polls

New polling from several 2020 battleground states reveal that more people oppose than support using impeachment to remove President Trump from office, according to The Hill, which describes the results as “a potential danger sign for Democrats.”

Voters in Wisconsin and Florida – two key states which Trump won in 2016, oppose impeachment. Of note, Wisconsin turned red for the first time in decades, while Florida flipped red again after Obama won the state twice.

In the swing states of Arizona and New Hampshire, most voters similarly oppose impeachment.

A New York Times–Siena College battlegrounds poll released Wednesday found that majorities in Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona and Florida oppose removing the president from office through impeachment. Majorities or pluralities do support an investigation of Trump, however.

Trump’s reelection campaign is emboldened by the polling, which it believes shows that Democrats are running against public opinion in the states that matter the most. –The Hill

We’ve known for a long time that everybody in California and New York want Trump to be impeached, they’ve wanted that since the day he came into office,” one Trump campaign official told The Hill, adding “But in these states where the election is really going to be fought, we’re seeing that voters oppose impeachment, and there’s an intensity to that opposition.

Meanwhile, FiveThirtyEight’s impeachment polls tracker reveals that 51% of voters across the country support the House impeachment inquiry vs. 42% who don’t support it. 47.6% of voters support impeaching and removing Trump vs. 43.4% who oppose it.

According to the report, “some Republicans believe those surveys are overly weighted by left-leaning independents in states that won’t matter in 2020” – a theory which may hold water given the polling in swing states.

A Marquette University Law School survey of Wisconsin released last week found 46 percent supporting the impeachment inquiry, but 49 percent opposed. Just 44 percent say Trump should be impeached and removed from office, compared to 51 percent opposed.

And in Wisconsin, support for impeachment is far lower among independent voters. Just 35 percent of independents in Wisconsin say the impeachment hearings are warranted, and 33 percent say Trump should be impeached and removed from office.

Trump won Wisconsin by about 23,000 votes in 2016, in part because late-breaking undecided voters went his way. He was the first GOP presidential candidate to win the state since 1984. –The Hill

“On average, the national polls are showing slightly more support for the impeachment hearings and removal than Wisconsin is,” said Charles Franklin, who ran the Marquette University poll. “Independents are a little more reluctant to support impeachment at this point, although that could change as the evidence continues to roll out.”

New Hampshire polling, meanwhile, also reflects lower support for impeachment vs. national numbers, after a CNN-University of New Hampshire survey found that 42% support impeaching and removing Trump, while 51% are opposed. Notably, Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire by fewer than 3,000 votes.

And in Arizona, where Trump won by 3.6% over Clinton, an Emerson College poll finds that 50% of respondents oppose impeachment, while 44% support it.

Still, while voters in key swing states may oppose impeachment – the sheer number who do in the first place is concerning according to some Republicans.

“It’s not a good thing that bare majorities oppose removing Trump from office in these key states,” one GOP pollster told The Hill. “Removing the president from office should be a really big deal, almost unthinkable, and reserved for the biggest scandals or wrongdoing. So only eking out 51 percent or 52 percent opposition in these states isn’t good.”

“That said, these numbers definitely show that there’s lots of room for Democrats to handle this badly and hand Trump a second term,” they added.

These data show that there’s still a lot of skepticism that Democrats have proven their case or are doing this for factual reasons rather than for purely partisan reasons. Right now, Trump’s numbers in these swing states aren’t good. He trails basically any Democrat. But Democrat over-reach on impeachment could give him a message to turn that around.


Tyler Durden

Thu, 10/31/2019 – 12:19

Tags

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/36oHsAL Tyler Durden

Record Low Temps, Up To 50 Degrees Below Normal, Threaten To Wreck Rest Of Harvest Season

Record Low Temps, Up To 50 Degrees Below Normal, Threaten To Wreck Rest Of Harvest Season

Authored by Michael Snyder via The End of The American Dream blog,

It isn’t supposed to be this cold in October.  The official start of winter is still almost two months away, and yet the weather in much of the western half of the country right now resembles what we might expect in mid-January.  All-time record lows for the month of October are being set in city after city, and this extremely cold air is going to push into the Midwest by the end of the week. 

Temperatures in the heartland will be up to 50 degrees below normal, and unfortunately about half of all corn still has not been harvested.  Due to unprecedented rainfall and extreme flooding early in the year, many farmers faced extraordinary delays in getting their crops planted, and so they were hoping that good weather at the end of the season would provide time for the crops to fully mature and be harvested.  Unfortunately, a nightmare scenario has materialized instead.  A couple of monster snow storms have already roared through the Midwest, and now record low temperatures threaten to absolutely wreck the rest of the harvest season.

When temperatures get significantly below zero for more than a few hours, scientists tell us that it will kill standing corn

A significant freeze (28°F or colder for a few hours) will kill the whole plant, and any frost will act to defoliate plants, resulting in diminished grain filling for the seeds, especially on the upper half of the plants.

And right now we are facing a crisis because less than half of all U.S. corn has been harvested.

In fact, according to the latest USDA Crop Progress Report just 41 percent of all U.S. corn has been harvested so far…

In its weekly Crop Progress Report, the USDA pegged the U.S. corn harvest at 41% complete, below the trade’s expectation of 48% and below a five-year average 61%.

Minnesota is behind the most regarding picking corn: 22% vs. a 56% five-year average.

So when I used the term “nightmare scenario” earlier, I was not exaggerating.

The low temperatures that we have seen this week are hard to believe.  According to USA Today, the temperature in one community in Utah actually hit 45 degrees below zero on Wednesday…

Subzero cold was recorded as far south as the Grand Canyon on Wednesday morning, the Weather Channel said. Big Piney, Wyoming, plunged to minus 24 degrees before sunrise Wednesday.

Notorious cold spot Peter Sinks, Utah, dipped to an incredible minus 45 degrees early Wednesday. This appeared to be the coldest October temperature on record anywhere in the Lower 48 states, according to Utah-based meteorologist Timothy Wright.

That is seriously cold.

And we have also seen many other all-time October lows in cities all across the western half of the country…

-Bozeman, Montana: minus 14 degrees (Oct. 29 and 30)

-Casper, Wyoming: minus 8 degrees (Oct. 29 and 30)

-Grand Junction, Colorado: 12 degrees (Oct. 30)

-Livingston, Montana: minus 12 degrees (Oct. 29)

-Rawlins, Wyoming: minus 20 degrees (Oct. 30)

-Rock Springs, Wyoming: minus 6 degrees (Oct. 30)

-Salt Lake City: 14 degrees (Oct. 30)

We have never seen anything like this during the month of October ever before.

In Denver, they have actually set record lows for three days in a row

The temperature in Denver officially dropped to 3 degrees above zero early Wednesday morning. It was cold enough to shatter the previous record low for October 30 by 4 degrees. It was our third record temperature in 3 days and one more record is expected Thursday morning.

It is strange that so much of the nation is experiencing such bitterly cold weather while much of California is being burned to a crisp by horrific wildfires.

But this continues a theme that we have been tracking all year.  Everywhere we look there have been bizarre weather extremes, and many expect that to continue into the winter season.

This week, even “warm weather cities” are experiencing extremely cold temperatures.  For example, the forecast called for a record low of just 19 degrees in Albuquerque, New Mexico on Thursday morning…

Thursday morning in Albuquerque is expected to have a record low temperature of 19 degrees. It will feel like 11 degrees with the wind chill. The current record low for Oct. 31 in the city is 21.

According to the National Weather Service, locations from Albuquerque southward, including east central and southeast New Mexico, “have not seen temperatures this cold since February.”

But the real damage will be done as this extraordinarily cold air moves into the Midwest.  According to USA Today, we could see temperatures “30 to 50 degrees below normal” in the central plains…

High temperatures Wednesday were forecast to be 30 to 50 degrees below normal across Colorado, Texas and the central Plains, according to meteorologist Ryan Maue of BAM Weather.

Right now, much of the Midwest is currently covered by snow.  This has prevented a lot of farmers from being able to harvest their crops, and now devastatingly cold air is moving in.

It is likely that the crop losses in many areas will be severe.  And considering what is going on elsewhere in the world right now, this is something that we cannot afford.

Despite all of our advanced technology, farmers are still deeply dependent on good weather, and if farmers do not grow our food we do not eat.

This was already going to be an absolutely abysmal year for U.S. agriculture, and now this snap of record cold weather is going to be the nail in the coffin for many U.S. farmers.

Without a doubt, this is an incredibly important story, and I will continue to keep you updated as I learn more.


Tyler Durden

Thu, 10/31/2019 – 12:00

Tags

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2JShn3N Tyler Durden

Federal Judge Orders Georgia Sheriff To Stop Ritualistically Humiliating Registered Sex Offenders on Halloween

It’s Halloween, which means it’s time to panic about the threat allegedly posed by candy-distributing sex offenders. This week a federal judge in Georgia threw some cold water on such fearmongering, ruling that Butts County Sheriff Gary Long may not force three registered sex offenders to post signs warning trick-or-treaters to stay away from their homes.

Last October, Long’s deputies “placed signs in front of every registered sex offender’s house to notify the public that it’s a house to avoid.” The signs, identified as “a community safety message from Butts County Sheriff Gary Long,” read: “Warning! No Trick-or-Treat at This Address!!”

The deputies also left a notice on the front door of each targeted home, saying a “Halloween Safety sign has been placed in front of your residence by Order of Sheriff Gary Long. This order is due to a registered Sex Offender is registered to be living at this address with the Butts County Sheriff Office.” It added that “THIS SIGN IS PROPERTY OF THE BUTTS COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE SHERIFF GARY LONG,” and “IT SHALL NOT BE REMOVED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE BUTTS COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE.” Residents who objected were threatened with arrest, and they were forbidden to post any countervailing messages of their own.

Long tried to repeat the stunt this year, but he was stymied by a federal lawsuit that three Butts County residents, Christopher Reed, Reginald Holden, and Corey McClendon, filed last week. They argued that deputies were illegally trespassing on their property to put up the signs, which are not required by state law. The plaintiffs also said the signs were a form of constitutionally prohibited compelled speech that caused “anxiety, embarrassment and humiliation.”

U.S. District Judge Marc Treadwell found the claims compelling enough to issue a preliminary injunction against Long’s signs on Tuesday. “The Defendants have provided no evidence showing that the Plaintiffs have posed or will pose any threat to children trick-or-treating on Halloween, and Holden and McClendon testified that they planned to shut off their lights and not answer the door on Halloween, just as they have in years past,” Treadwell wrote. “On the other hand, the public interest always is served when citizens’ constitutional rights are protected, including sex offenders’.”

Treadwell noted that Reed, Holden, and McClendon are required to register with the sheriff’s office “because many years ago they committed offenses that fall within the State of Georgia’s definition of sex offenses.” Yet “they have served their terms of imprisonment and have, as far as the law is concerned, paid their debts to society.” Treadwell added that “by all accounts, they are rehabilitated” and “live productive, law-abiding lives.” Furthermore, the state, under its system for classifying sex offenders, “has not determined that they pose an increased risk of again committing a sexual offense.” Hence “the Sheriff’s decision is not based on any determination that the Plaintiffs are dangerous.”

Treadwell noted that “the Defendants have not cited any evidence or authority indicating that they may use the right-of-way in front of the Plaintiffs’ homes for their speech.” He concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail in their claim that the signs violated their First Amendment rights by forcing them to participate in speech to which they object.

“By requiring the Plaintiffs to display these signs, Sheriff Long and his deputies are requiring the Plaintiffs to effectively endorse or adopt, or at least acquiesce in, his message, not theirs, because the only message Sheriff Long will allow is his,” Treadwell said. “The Defendants plan to compel the Plaintiffs to promote Sheriff Long’s speech. These facts are sufficient to demonstrate that the Plaintiffs are substantially likely to show that the Defendants will burden the Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.”

Treadwell noted that “the question the Court must answer is not whether Sheriff Long’s plan is wise or moral, or whether it makes penological sense.” Rather, “the question is whether Sheriff Long’s plan runs afoul of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It does.”

Treadwell nevertheless declined to issue a broader injunction on behalf of all 54 registered sex offenders in Butts County. “Although, as a practical matter, it might be
assumed that anyone would object to such a message from law enforcement in front of their homes, the Court is not comfortable making that assumption as a foundation for injunctive relief,” he wrote. “Moreover, different circumstances could exist with regard to particular registrants.”

In a message on Facebook, Long said he would abide by the judge’s order but maintained that he was simply trying to “protect the public, especially the children.” Last year, however, Long conceded that the risk supposedly addressed by his signs was slight. “I’m not trying to humiliate ’em or anything like that,” he told CBS News. “Let’s face reality: We have a greater chance of children getting run over by a car [on Halloween] than being a victim of sexual assault by a repeat offender. But at the end of the day if, in fact, we had a child that fell victim to a sexual assault, especially by a convicted sex offender, I don’t think I could sleep at night.”

Last year Lenore Skenazy noted that “a thorough study of 67,000 cases of child molestation found zero increase in sex crimes against children on Halloween.” The authors of that 2009 study, reported in the journal Sexual Abuse, observed that “states, municipalities, and parole departments have adopted policies banning known sex offenders from Halloween activities, based on the worry that there is unusual risk on these days.” Yet their analysis of cases involving sex crimes against children committed by people other than relatives found “no increased rate on or just before Halloween.” Furthermore, “Halloween incidents did not evidence unusual case characteristics.” The researchers concluded that “these findings raise questions about the wisdom of diverting law enforcement resources to attend to a problem that does not appear to exist.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2oy3m3x
via IFTTT