Powerful M7.3 Earthquake Strikes Japan Off Coast Of Fukushima, Tsunami Warning Issued

A powerful earthquake, with a preliminary magnitude of 7.3 on the Richter scale has struck Japan, 156 miles from Tokyo, off the coast of ukushima, the site of the 2011 natural disaster and tsunami that resulted in the worst nuclear power plant disaster since Chernobyl.

Worst of all, a warning for a possible 3 meter Tsunami in Fukushima has been issued according to media reports.

  • JAPAN ISSUES WARNING FOR POSSIBLE 3M TSUNAMI IN FUKUSHIMA

The Tsunami is expected to hit Fukushima within minutes.

Developing.

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

“Record Highs” For Everyone…

One. Big. Squeeze…

 

Everything must be awesome…

  • Russell 2000 longest win streak since 2003 – new record high
  • Nasdaq new record high
  • S&P 500 new record high – 2,200 looms
  • Dow new record high – 19,000 looms

S&P and Dow are now up over 8% from the limit down lows of the election…

 

An opening dip was bought and stocks across the board hit new record highs (led by Nasdaq)…

 

VIX smashed near an 11 handle…

 

Small Caps are up 12 days in a row – the longest streak since 2003…

 

Breadth is terrible…

 

Post-Election, oil and stocks are up, gold and bonds not so much…

 

US Treasuries continue to underperform the other developed market bonds…

 

But the long-end outperformed once again today… 30Y yields dropped back below 3.00%

 

As the US Treasury curve continues to flatten drastically to 6 week lows..

 

Completely decoupled from bank stocks…

 

The USD Index declined after 10 straight days higher…

 

Chaos early in the day around the gold lqiuidity moment sparked some jiggery pokery in GBP and JPY…

 

Crude soared again on OPEC headlines, copper was green and gold managed a small gain from Friday's close…

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

About That “Fair Share”

Submitted by Simon Black via SovereignMan.com,

There are two words that kept coming up over and over again over the last 20+ months during the US Presidential circus: “fair share”.

Hardly a day went by without hearing that certain taxpayers “need to pay more of their fair share.”

It sounds really great, and given the voter statistics, this idea resonated with tens of millions of people. After all, who could possibly be against fairness?

When you dive into the numbers, however, the data doesn’t support this assertion at all.

According to IRS figures, households that earn more than $1 million annually, roughly 0.4% of all taxpayers, pay a total of $364 billion in federal income tax.

This amounts to roughly 27% of all the US federal individual income tax that’s collected.

So in other words, the top 0.4%, pays 27% of the total tax bill.

If you extend this analysis to the upper middle class, i.e. the top 24.5% of households earning more than $100,000 per year, the numbers are even more dramatic.

(Bear in mind this includes two spouses earning $50,000 each.)

This group of households earning between $100,000 up to $1 million contributes 50.4% of all US federal individual income tax.

Combined, the two groups, which comprise the top 25% of US taxpayers, pay nearly 80% of the total tax bill.

(In case you’re wondering, the bottom 50% of income earners contributes less than 5% to the total tax bill.)

This isn’t intended to be a slight against any income group; rather, I’m honestly wondering exactly how much these people consider to be “fair”?

Because it’s not intuitively obvious to me that sticking 25% of the people with 80% of the bill is “unfair.”

Now, the common refrain from the “fair share” crowd is that taxes go to fund our roads, schools, police departments, fire fighters, etc., and that rich people can afford to pay more.

But there’s a big problem with this logic.

All the benefits that people cite, from fire fighters to public schools, are typically funded at the state and local level… and paid for with state and local taxes. NOT federal tax.

Your federal tax dollars don’t fund local fire departments.

Instead you’re paying for a giant, bloated, federal bureaucracy that squanders tax revenue on some of the most obscene waste imaginable.

You paid $2 billion for the Obamacare website that didn’t work.

You paid $1 billion for the military to destroy $16 billion of perfectly good ammunition.

You paid $856,000 for the National Science Foundation to teach mountain lions how to run on treadmills.

And you paid an incalculable sum of money to drop bombs by remote control on innocent civilians and children’s hospitals in countries populated by brown people.

None of this money is going to fix the pot hole in front of your driveway.

But despite their argument being totally specious and unsupported by IRS data, the “fair share” cries grow ever louder.

Warren Buffett, a 0.01% guy himself, has been a loud voice claiming that wealthy people should pay more.

Buffett complains every year that he pays less tax as a percentage of his income than his secretary.

And this has created a popular belief that wealthy people pay very low tax rates.

Again, IRS statistics disprove this claim; the average tax rate for top income earners in the US is over 30%, versus 9.8% for the bottom half of income earners.

Moreover, there’s nothing stopping Warren Buffett from writing a bigger check to the US government.

If he feels so strongly about his “fair share,” he’s free to make a donation to pay down the national debt.

But he hasn’t done that. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Several years ago Warren Buffett pledged to leave nearly all of his wealth to the charitable foundation run by Bill and Melinda Gates.

And he donates billions each year to other charities.

Warren Buffett could have bequeathed his entire fortune to Uncle Sam.

But he didn’t. That’s because Buffett knows his money can do more good in the world by funding those private organizations instead paying for more federal waste.

And this statement is true whether you make $50 million per year, or $50,000.

Bottom line, it’s not evil for anyone to want to keep their hard-earned savings and income out of the federal government’s ignominiously wasteful hands.

Nor is it evil to take completely legal steps to reduce what you owe, no matter what the specious “fair share” crowd says.

(By the way, regardless of your income level, there are always options to reduce your tax bill.)

Taking these steps is totally sensible.

And if you’re like me and feel disgusted by much of the destruction that your federal taxes have funded, you might even feel a moral obligation to do so.

Do you have a Plan B?

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

A Day Trip to Dearborn, Michigan: New at Reason

For some quick perspective on topics that are flaring in the aftermath of the presidential election—American manufacturing, bigotry, the difference between coastal elite America and flyover country, the environment—one can do a lot worse than a quick day trip to Dearborn, Michigan, Ira Stoll writes.

On the day Stoll arrived in Michigan, midweek, rental cars were so scarce, because of “unusually high demand,” that the daily prices were more than his airfare from Boston. Was there big convention? A college football game? It turned out to be the opening day of deer hunting season with regular firearms.

“That explanation was so far outside the realm of what I had expected that I laughed aloud at the realization that I wasn’t in Boston anymore,” notes Stoll. “It wasn’t so clear if I was laughing at myself or at the hunters; what is clear is that college-educated journalists like me spent too much time this election cycle laughing at Trump voters and their regions of the country, and not enough time listening to them.”

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2fl2uYG
via IFTTT

Mayor de Blasio Vows To Make New York A Safe Space From “Excesses Of Trump”

Five days after meeting with president-elect Donald Trump in what was described as a “candid meeting”,  New York Mayor Bill de Blasio delivered what Bloomberg dubbed a “campaign-style rebuke to the President-elect” vowing to resist the “excess of Trump” including federal efforts to deport undocumented immigrants, push more aggressive police actions against minorities or remove health services from women and the poor.

De Blasio said he would sue to stop the federal government if the Trump administration went forward with a plan to require all Muslims to register in a database, the mayor said in a speech before hundreds of supporters on Monday denouncing many of Trump’s policies, said, “we will sue to block it.”

“We worry about a nation that was meant to be inclusionary becoming exclusionary,” de Blasio said. “We worry about deeper division. We worry about the negation of the American dream.”

The gathered crowd erupted in a round of applause after the mayor reminded the Queens-born President-elect “to remember where you come from.”

One day after President-elect Trump’s Chief of Staff Reince Priebus told “Meet the Press” the Trump administration wouldn’t rule a database out, though they weren’t planning it, de Blasio said “we will use all the tools at our disposal to stand up for our people,” he said.

Speaking in the same hall at Cooper Union where Abraham Lincoln gave a famous anti-slavery speech, de Blasio said it’s important for New York to be at the forefront of a burgeoning anti-Trump movement because this city has always been a beacon of opportunity all over the world.

He said we need to organize “issue by issue” with other Americans, and stressed that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was winning the popular vote by 1.5 million at last count.

He urged the crowd, which twice gave him a standing ovation, to “always be proud of our values.”

“The president-elect talked during the campaign about the movement that he had built. Now its our turn to build a movement, a movement of the majority,” he said.

The mayor also said that if Planned Parenthood funding is cut, “We will make sure women receive the health care they need” and would provide undocumented New Yorkers with expanded legal help if the government seeks to deport them. He also reiterated his pledge to not allow the NYPD to be used for deportations, and said that he would defy the Trump administration if it called on cities to ramp up stop and frisk policies for its police force.

The speech was the clearest sign yet that de Blasio intends to pitch his 2017 re-election effort holding himself and his city out as bulwarks against Trump administration policies. Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than 6-to-1 in New York City, where Hillary Clinton won close to 80 percent of the vote during the Nov. 8 election.

“He’s obviously running against Trump for re-election and there’s a double-edged sword here,” said George Arzt, a Democratic political consultant who served as press secretary to former Mayor Edward Koch in the 1980s. “While his poll numbers have been going up because of his attacks on Trump, in the final analysis, people will be asking ‘why isn’t he fixing this or fixing that?’ The mayoralty is all about delivering local services, and while he yearns for the national spotlight it’s a perilous game.”

As Bloomberg adds,De Blasio, 55, was buoyed by a Quinnipiac University poll last week that reported him well ahead in a hypothetical Democratic primary campaign. The poll showed the mayor with 47 percent approval, his best score since January. Still, 49 percent of the city’s voters feel he doesn’t deserve re-election, compared with 39 percent who say he does.

This comes despite allegations that have linked the mayor to at least five investigations into allegations that campaign donors received illegal favors such as government business. He has denied wrongdoing.

His past efforts to assume a national role as spokesman for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party have had mixed results. His attempt to build a coalition that would influence the presidential campaign fell flat after most candidates ignored him, and U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont took up his anti-Wall Street fight against income inequality in his campaign.

 

At the Democratic National Convention in July, de Blasio was relegated to a non-prime time speech, after fraying his relationship with Hillary Clinton by delaying his endorsement of her for months.

 

Back home, a continuing feud with Governor Andrew Cuomo and a failed effort to unseat state Senate Republicans has forced de Blasio to struggle to gain funds for city schools and affordable housing. Homelessness has increased on city streets, and reached record numbers of more than 60,000 in city shelters.

 

In his speech, de Blasio portrayed himself as the protector of the various constituencies upon which he built his 2013 election by the largest plurality ever for a non-incumbent. Those groups, he said, feel aggrieved and fearful in the aftermath of Trump’s election.

“To all of you, we will protect you,” the mayor said. “This is your home”, de Blasio concluded.

In short: de Blasio just promised to make New York a safe space for its residents from Donald Trump.

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

Liberals Don’t Really F**king Love Science

AntiGMOArindamBanerjeeDreamstimesDemocrats tend to fondly think of themselves as being members of “the party of science.” As evidence that the Republicans are “anti-science” they point to Republican skepticism about man-made climate change and the efforts by some local bible-believing conservatives to have creationism taught in public school biology classes. But as I have reported, there is plenty of anti-science to go around, especially if science is seen as telling partisans something that they don’t want to believe. Unfortunately when science intersects with public policy, it is all too often confirmation bias all the way down.

Over at the City Journal, John Tierney, a contributing science columnist for the New York Times, has written a terrific article, “The Real War on Science,” which he makes the case that “the Left has done far more than the Right to set back progress.” Tierney correctly observes lots of leftwing partisans forget that science is applied skepticism and instead treat “science” as a collection of dogmas. What dogmas? “The Left’s zeal to find new reasons to regulate has led to pseudoscientific scaremongering about “Frankenfoods,” transfats, BPA in plastic, mobile phones, electronic cigarettes, power lines, fracking, and nuclear energy,” summarizes Tierney. And let’s not forget Rachel Carson’s thoroughly debunked claim that exposure to trace amounts of synthetic chemicals is a major cause of cancer or the assertion the current average consumption of salt is a major cause of cardiovascular disease. Tierney is correct when he writes:

[T]he fundamental problem with the Left is what Friedrich Hayek called the fatal conceit: the delusion that experts are wise enough to redesign society. Conservatives distrust central planners, preferring to rely on traditional institutions that protect individuals’ “natural rights” against the power of the state. Leftists have much more confidence in experts and the state. Engels argued for “scientific socialism,” a redesign of society supposedly based on the scientific method. Communist intellectuals planned to mold the New Soviet Man. Progressives yearned for a society guided by impartial agencies unconstrained by old-fashioned politics and religion. Herbert Croly, founder of the New Republic and a leading light of progressivism, predicted that a “better future would derive from the beneficent activities of expert social engineers who would bring to the service of social ideals all the technical resources which research could discover.”

This was all very flattering to scientists, one reason that so many of them leaned left. The Right cited scientific work when useful, but it didn’t enlist science to remake society—it still preferred guidance from traditional moralists and clerics. The Left saw scientists as the new high priests, offering them prestige, money, and power. The power too often corrupted. Over and over, scientists yielded to the temptation to exaggerate their expertise and moral authority, sometimes for horrendous purposes.

Among the horrendous purposes cited by Tierney was the widespread support by leftists of eugenics in the first half of the 20th century. Tierney also describes how the social sciences have evolved into a Leftwing intellectual monoculture that deleteriously and comprehensively distorts the findings of social psychology, political science, anthropology, and sociology. For example, he notes that leftwingers think that genetic causes are just fine when it comes to explaining homosexuality, but totally taboo when differences between the sexes are discussed.

Tierney additionally delves into the confirmation biases that are rife in the debate over man-made climate change and how dissent from global warming dogma is treated by political leftists as damnable heresy.

The whole article is well worth your attention.

For some more background, see my article, “Are Republicans or Democrats More Anti-Science?

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2gD0AW7
via IFTTT

Moscow Accuses Ukraine Of “Flagrant Provocation” After 2 Russian Servicemen Kidnapped In Crimea

Shortly after Russia admitted that it was moving nuclear-capable rockets to the exclave of Kaliningrad in explicit retaliation for NATO encroachment on its borders, something it had not done until today, another old hotzone has flared up again when moments ago the Russian military reported that Ukranian security operatives have abducted two Russian servicemen in Crimea, and are attempting to press criminal charges against them, the Russian military is reporting.

Moscow considers the kidnapping a “flagrant provocation,” and is demanding the immediate release and return of Maksim Odintsov and Aleksander Baranov to Russia, according to Sputnik.

“We consider such actions by the Ukrainian security bodies against Russian citizens as another flagrant provocation and demand their immediate return to Russia,” a statement by the ministry’s press service said.

The ministry announced on Monday that the two soldiers were kidnapped on November 20, and taken across the border to the Nikolayev region of Ukraine with an apparent goal of pressing charges against them. They also expressed concern that authorities may use psychological and physical torture to coerce the two men into falsely confessing to crimes against Ukraine.

Crimea has long been a geopolitical “hotspot” ever since the Ukraine presidential coup, which resulted in a proxy civil war in the Donbas region and resulted in Crimea rejoining Russia after a 2014 referendum, one which however has not been accepted by western states, many of which still consider Crimea part of the Ukraine, even if they tacitly admit that it is now part of Russia.

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

US Treasury Risk Spikes To 3 Year High Versus Stocks

"Riskless" US Treasury bonds are at their riskiest relative to "risky" stocks since the summer of 2013's Taper Tantrum… and at the same time, bonds are 'cheapest' to stocks in over a year…

US Treasury bond risk is at its highest in 9 months as US equity risk hovers back near 2-month lows pushing the relative risk to its highest since Aug 2013…

In June 2011, July 2013, and July 2015, we saw the same spikes in bond risk vs equity risk… and each time, stocks collapse and stock vol surged very soon after.

And at the same time bonds are the 'cheapest' to stocks since Nov 2015 (before the last Fed rate hike)…

 

We are reminded of what SocGen said just a few years ago, 

The bond investor could have bought bonds 90% of the months since 1950 and avoided having a 20% drawdown or more, whilst the equity investor could have only invested in 40% of months to avoid such losses.

 

 

 

Extreme drawdown of 40% or more, even on a real basis, is almost unheard of in the bond market, but seen 17% of the time in equities. Yes bonds at around 2% offer miserable returns, but equities will always offer a higher probability of major losses and until we have an investor base that is able to take such losses, low yields and a systematic preference for bonds is likely to be with us for a while. Risk capital will also be in short supply – if you have it, better use it wisely.

As Boomers head into an uncertain retirement, we wonder whether this type of 'realistic' analysis will trickle-down to investor expectations and 401(k)s as the triangle of risk-reward-regret becomes more and more prescient every day.

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

India Uses Helicopters, Air Force Planes To Deliver Freshly Printed Cash

As India continues to struggle with a countrywide cash shortage as a result of the November 8 demonetization in which the government unexpectedly removed the highest denomination bills out of circulation and which has brought various mostly rural part of the cash-driven economy to a halt, the government is resorting to ever more novel solutions how to restock outlets with new, “clean” cash.

As the Times of India reports, authorities have managed to cut down the transportation time of cash from printing to the main distribution centers from 21 days to six and by using all modes of transport, including helicopters and Indian Air Force planes, to move the cash quickly. The government is hopeful that the situation will improve over the next week. With availability of cash improving in urban areas, the government is concentrating on rural areas.

While even tenured economists have predicted that the short-term may lead to a shock for the Indian economy, senior government sources are hopeful that the level of economic activity should climb back to normal levels by January 15. Referring to any “windfall” from the decision to demonetise 500- and 1,000-rupee notes, sources said any gains could be used for recapitalisation of banks, building infrastructure and purchasing advanced weapons systems for the armed forces.

“RBI may transfer higher dividend or there could be a special dividend,” the sources said. There is a probability of the government getting a “windfall” as a significant portion of the notes may not come back. This will reduce the liability of RBI and increase its ability to pay higher dividend. “Even in 1978 when the government resorted to demonetisation, 20% of the notes did not come back,” the sources said.

They said they would not like to speculate about the number of notes that may not come back into the system.

Meanwhile, logistical challenges have emerged. The Indian newspaper writes that according to sources, Rs 2,000 notes could not be put in the tray meant for Rs 1,000 notes as the recalibration required both hardware and software changes.

Finally, while there has been much speculation just why India engaged in this shock “purging” of the shadow economy, here is the explanation from Ravi Bansal, JB Fuqua Professor of Finance and Economics at Duke University

As you know, India demonetised. Several billion dollars worth of rupees will essentially vanish from the shadow (black) economy, due to the very tight window to convert the black money to some other valued asset. Let’s assume $50 billion worth of rupees are destroyed because they cannot be converted to alternative assets like gold or some other hard currency; this essentially is wealth tax on the holders of black money. What is remarkable, and less understood, is that it also writes-down (lowers) the debt of the government by the amount of notes destroyed by the demonetisation. If roughly 25 percent of the notes are not converted then the debt write-off is about $50 billion. That is about 2.5 percent of the Indian GDP!

In other words, the Indian “demonetization” was merely a quick and easy way to eliminate some tens of billions of sovereign debt, while at the same time “cleansing” the economy of cash whose source can not be documented. It is likely that should India’s experiment prove to be successful, it will be followed in many more cash-rich nations.

via http://ift.tt/2gD01eU Tyler Durden

Martin Armstrong Warns “Rising Civil Unrest In America Is Highly Dangerous For The Future”

Submitted by Martin Armstrong via ArmstrongEconomics.com,

The American Revolution was inspired by one book entitled Common Sense by Thomas Paine.

Paine-Common Sense

We even find British political tokens with the saying “END OF PAIN“, which was obviously a pun on his name.

end-of-paine

He was demonized by the British as the man who inspired the Revolution. According to this intense studies of the Continental Army at Valley Forge, the average age of George Washington’s soldiers in 1777 was between 20 and 25. That was the average because the youth who joined were 16 to 18. The last verified surviving American veteran of the war was John Gray of Virginia who joined the Continental Army at the age of just 16 in 1780.

George Washington himself wrote: that “to place any dependence upon militia is assuredly resting upon a broken staff.” Of the New England militia, Washington wrote, “Their officers generally speaking are the most indifferent kind of people I ever saw.” Militia privates ignored commands issued by officers of the Regular Army, which disturbed Washington. The common age of a Continental soldier was quite young. One historian found that in nine New Jersey towns nearly 75% of boys who were just fifteen and sixteen. There are accounts of people such as artilleryman Jeremiah Levering who entered the service at twelve or thirteen, and hundreds more under the legal age of sixteen served in all services. Thousands more were under twenty. It was the youth who are inspired and do not appreciate the tragedy of war.

what-is-to-be-done-lenin

If we look at the Russian Revolution, again we find a critical book that was at the root of the split entitled What is to be Done?  Lenin wrote this work while serving a sentence of exile. The book was first published in Germany during 1902, but it was outlawed for publication and distribution in Russia. Lenin totally rejected the standpoint that the “proletariat” who he regarded as workers or working-class people collectively. This class in Roman times were called the plebeians. The proletariat, Lenin argued, was being driven spontaneously to revolutionary Socialism by capitalism itself, which he further contended had predisposed the workers to the acceptance of of Marxism.

Lenin also took the position that the case for workers will not spontaneously become Marxists simply by fighting battles over wages with their employers. Lenin argued that Marxists needed to form a political party to publicize their ideas and persuade workers to become Marxists. Lenin then took a step further arguing that to understand politics you must understand all of society, not just workers and their economic struggles with their employers. Therefore, to move the workers to become political and to become Marxists, they needed to learn about all of society, not just their own small corner of within it.

This is very important to understand because this is the same precise formula in operation today among the American youth. They are not the “workers” for most are simply students. They would not respond the the traditional class struggle of the early 20th century when the industrial revolution was just beginning and the confrontation between workers and employers were a major battle. Lacking that sort of class-struggle amount children who are not even employed, can only be accomplished precisely as Lenin argued, only from without. They would not spontaneously respond to poor working conditions since they do not work. The sphere from which a revolution can arise becomes possible only by obtaining knowledge is the sphere of interrelations between all classes on a theoretical basis. They do not understand the principle that Wall Street raises money to fund small business helping them grow to create jobs and the economy. Instead, the bankers engaged in proprietary trading are viewed as “Wall Street” when in fact they are simply speculators who bribe politicians.

Lenin also made it clear that a revolution would only be achievable by the strong leadership of one person or a select few over the masses. Lenin set forth that once the revolution had successfully overthrown the government, this individual leader must release power, to allow socialism to fully encompass the nation. Lenin’s view of a socialist intelligentsia demonstrated that he was departing from Marxist theory in this regard. Lenin agreed with the Marxist idea of eliminating social classes creating the idea of a French commune from where Marx derived his theory, but Lenin saw a ruling class should maintain control creating distinctions between those in politics and the people not much different from our Western political classes. Lenin did not effectively support the Marxist theory of a  classless society. The party split of Bolsheviks (majority) and Mensheviks (minority) in 1903, the differences originally began to surface with the publication of What is to be Done? Mensheviks generally tended to be more moderate and were more positive towards the liberal opposition and the dominant peasant-based Socialist Revolutionary party whereas the Bolsheviks saw the need for a strong political ruling class.

As discussed in What is to be Done?, Lenin clearly believed that a rigid political structure was necessary to effectively initiate a formal revolution and to maintain it. This idea was met with opposition from his once close followers including Julius Martov, Georgy Plekhanov, Leon Trotsky, and Pavel Axelrod. Plekhanov and Lenin’s major dispute arose addressing the topic of nationalizing land or leaving it for private use. Lenin wanted to nationalize everything to aid in collectivization to be centrally controlled by the political class. Plekhanov thought worker motivation would remain higher if individuals were able to maintain their own property, which was true.

empires-3rdcentury

The average party member was very young and that was the entire key to brainwash the youth who had no experience in life to understand their were really surrendering personal values and freedom to the political class as they are doing once again in the United States. In 1907, 22% of Bolsheviks were all under 20, with a staggering 37% were all just 20–24. Only about 16% were between the ages of 25 to 29. Therefore, 75% of the Bolsheviks were under 30 years old. The total membership was 8,400 in 1905, rising to 13,000 in 1906 and 46,100 by 1907.

POSTUMUS-AR-Restoration

Therefore, beware of the youth. They are easily influenced and will have little regard for life for they will see themselves throughout history as the great reformers. They will not listen to Trump nor will they give him a chance for the majority of newspapers and mainstream media will attack Trump at every possible opportunity since they are bought and paid for by the establishment.

We are witnessing the second American Revolution in its infancy. The United States will break apart as was the case with Rome. Note the reverse of the the first Gallic Emperor Postumus (259-268AD). He is raising the female symbol of Gaul promising restoration of the norm – sound familiar? CHANGE!

George Washington became president on February 4th, 1789. The beginning of the Decline & Fall of the United States began with the swearing in of Obama 224 years later – January 20th, 2013. The peak in government came with 2015.75 insofar as the visible “confidence” in government. The first opportunity where the United States will break apart will be 23 years from 2013 and that will perhaps by the Pi target from the 2032 high – 3.14 years later bringing us to 2036.

We should then see the shift of the financial capital of the world to Asia with the rise of both India and China. The seed of this breakup are being planted right now by both Obama and Hillary. Their Marxist philosophies were what destroyed both China and Russia. They are directly responsible for the collapse in world GDP growth. The refugee invasion into Europe is akin to the invasion of the barbarians into the Roman Empire. Both groups had little respect for the culture and open contempt for much of it. They are not interested as a whole in adopting the European culture, they are intent upon imposing their own upon Europe. The great divide in the United States will get much worse and Hillary will be the spokesperson to lead the nation into socialist chaos.

Centralized government is the doom of humankind. It is people like Hillary and Obama who have, as Thomas Paine observed, “confounded society with government, as to leave no distinction between them.” Their goal is to eliminate personal freedom and impose their doctrine by sheer force. The Puritans imposed the same policies in England after their revolution they called “Glorious” after beheading the king. They made it a felony to kiss your wife in public, outlawed sports because it led to cursing, outlawed plays for they were filled with lies, and outlawed Christmas because you should be praying not giving gifts and partying. (see Roots of Evil). Whenever one group thinks it has the right to impose its philosophy upon the whole, civil war breaks out historically.

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