DOJ Tells Congress It Will Work “Expeditiously” To Review Huma’s Emails… There Is Just One Problem

Now that the FBI has obtained the needed warrant to start poring over the 650,000 or so emails uncovered in Anthony Weiner’s notebook, among which thousands of emails sent from Huma Abedin using Hillary Clinton’s personal server, moments ago the Us Justice Department decided to also finally join the probe, and as AP reported moments ago, it vowed to dedicate all needed resources to quickly review the over half a million emails in the Clinton case.

In the letter to Congress, the DOJ writes that it “will continue to work closely with the FBI and together, dedicate all necessary resources and take appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible,” assistant attorney General Peter J. Kadzik writes in letters to House and Senate lawmakers.

So far so good, even if one wonders just how active the DOJ will be in a case that has shown an unprecedented schism between the politically influenced Department of Justice and the FBI.

And yet, something felt odd about this.

Kadzik… Kadzik… where have we heard that name?

Oh yes. Recall our post from last week, “Clinton Campaign Chair Had Dinner With Top DOJ Official One Day After Hillary’s Benghazi Hearing” in which we reported that John Podesta had dinner with one of the highest ranked DOJ officials the very day after Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi testimony?

It was Peter Kadzik.

In other words, the best friend of John Podesta, Clinton’s Campaign char, at the DOJ will be in charge of a probe that could potentially sink Hillary Clinton.

For those who missed it, this is what we reported:

The day after Hillary Clinton testified in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi last October, John Podesta, Hillary’s campaign chairman met for dinner with a small group of well-connected friends, including Peter Kadzik, who is currently a top official at the US Justice Department serving as Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs.

 

The post-Benghazi dinner was attended by Podesta, Kadzik, superlobbyist Vincent Roberti and other well-placed Beltway fixtures. The first mention of personal contact between Podesta and Kadzik in the Wikileaks dump is in an Oct. 23, 2015 email sent out by Vincent Roberti, a lobbyist who is close to Podesta and his superlobbyist brother, Tony Podesta. In it, Roberti refers to a dinner reservation at Posto, a Washington D.C. restaurant.  The dinner was set for 7:30 that evening, just one day after Clinton gave 11 hours of testimony to the Benghazi Committee.

 

Podesta and Kadzik met several months later for dinner at Podesta’s home, another email shows. Another email sent on May 5, 2015, Kadzik’s son asked Podesta for a job on the Clinton campaign.

As the Daily Caller noted, the dinner arrangement “is just the latest example of an apparent conflict of interest between the Clinton campaign and the federal agency charged with investigating the former secretary of state’s email practices.” As one former U.S. Attorney tells told the DC, the exchanges are another example of the Clinton campaign’s “cozy relationship” with the Obama Justice Department.

The hacked emails confirm that Podesta and Kadzik were in frequent contact. In one email from January, Kadzik and Podesta, who were classmates at Georgetown Law School in the 1970s, discussed plans to celebrate Podesta’s birthday. And in another sent last May, Kadzik’s son emailed Podesta asking for a job on the Clinton campaign.

“The political appointees in the Obama administration, especially in the Department of Justice, appear to be very partisan in nature and I don’t think had clean hands when it comes to the investigation of the private email server,” says Matthew Whitaker, the executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, a government watchdog group.

“It’s the kind of thing the American people are frustrated about is that the politically powerful have insider access and have these kind of relationships that ultimately appear to always break to the benefit of Hillary Clinton,” he added, comparing the Podesta-Kadzik meetings to the revelation that Attorney General Loretta Lynch met in private with Bill Clinton at the airport in Phoenix days before the FBI and DOJ investigating Hillary Clinton.

Kadzik’s role at the DOJ, where he started in 2013, is particularly notable Kadzik, as helped spearhead the effort to nominate Lynch, who was heavily criticized for her secret meeting with the former president.

It gets better because, as we further revealed, if there is one person in the DOJ who is John Podesta’s, and thus the Clinton Foundation’s inside man, it is Peter Kadjik.

Kadzik represented Podesta during the Monica Lewinsky investigation. And in the waning days of the Bill Clinton administration, Kadzik lobbied Podesta on behalf of Marc Rich, the fugitive who Bill Clinton controversially pardoned on his last day in office. That history is cited by Podesta in another email hacked from his Gmail account. In a Sept. 2008 email, which the Washington Free Beacon flagged last week, Podesta emailed an Obama campaign official to recommend Kadzik for a supportive role in the campaign. Podesta, who would later head up the Obama White House transition effort, wrote that Kadzik was a “fantastic lawyer” who “kept me out of jail.”

screen-shot-2016-10-25-at-11-57-45-am

Podesta was caught in a sticky situation in both the Lewinsky affair and the Rich pardon scandal. As deputy chief of staff to Clinton in 1996, Podesta asked then-United Nations ambassador Bill Richardson to hire the 23-year-old Lewinsky. In April 1996, the White House transferred Lewinsky from her job as a White House intern to the Pentagon in order to keep her and Bill Clinton separate. But the Clinton team also wanted to keep Lewinsky happy so that she would not spill the beans about her sexual relationship with Clinton.

Richardson later recounted in his autobiography that he offered Lewinsky the position but that she declined it.

Podesta made false statements to a grand jury impaneled by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr for the investigation. But he defended the falsehoods, saying later that he was merely relaying false information from Clinton that he did not know was inaccurate at the time. “He did lie to me,” Podesta said about Clinton in a National Public Radio interview in 1998. Clinton was acquitted by the Senate in Feb. 1999 of perjury and obstruction of justice charges related to the Lewinsky probe. Kadzik, then a lawyer with the firm Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky, represented Podesta through the fiasco.

Podesta had been promoted to Clinton’s chief of staff when he and Kadzik became embroiled in another scandal.

Kadzik was then representing Marc Rich, a billionaire financier who was wanted by the U.S. government for evading a $48 million tax bill. The fugitive, who was also implicated in illegal trading activity with nations that sponsored terrorism, had been living in Switzerland for 17 years when he sought the pardon. To help Rich, Kadzik lobbied Podesta heavily in the weeks before Clinton left office on Jan. 20, 2001. A House Oversight Committee report released in May 2002 stated that “Kadzik was recruited into Marc Rich’s lobbying campaign because he was a long-time friend of White House Chief of Staff John Podesta.”

The report noted that Kadzik contacted Podesta at least seven times regarding Rich’s pardon. On top of the all-hands-on-deck lobbying effort, Rich’s ex-wife, Denise Rich, had doled out more than $1 million to the Clintons and other Democrats prior to the pardon. She gave $100,000 to Hillary Clinton’s New York Senate campaign and another $450,000 to the Clinton presidential library.

Kadzik’s current role

In his current role as head of the Office of Legislative Affairs, Kadzik handles inquiries from Congress on a variety of issues. In that role he was not in the direct chain of command on the Clinton investigation. The Justice Department and FBI have insisted that career investigators oversaw the investigation, which concluded in July with no charges filed against Clinton.

But Kadzik worked on other Clinton email issues in his dealings with Congress. Last November, he denied a request from Republican lawmakers to appoint a special counsel to lead the investigation.

In a Feb. 1, 2016 letter in response to Kadzik, Florida Rep. Ron DeSantis noted that Kadzik had explained “that special counsel may be appointed at the discretion of the Attorney General when an investigation or prosecution by the Department of Justice would create a potential conflict of interest.”

DeSantis, a Republican, suggested that Lynch’s appointment by Bill Clinton in 1999 as U.S. Attorney in New York may be considered a conflict of interest. He also asserted that Obama’s political appointees — a list which includes Kadzik — “are being asked to impartially execute their respective duties as Department of Justice officials that may involve an investigation into the activities of the forerunner for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.”

It is unknown if Kadzik responded to DeSantis’ questions.

Kadzik’s first involvement in the Clinton email brouhaha came in a Sept. 24, 2015 response letter to Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley in which he declined to confirm or deny whether the DOJ was investigating Clinton. Last month, Politico reported that Kadzik angered Republican lawmakers when, in a classified briefing, he declined to say whether Clinton aides who received DOJ immunity were required to cooperate with congressional probes.

Kadzik also testified at a House Oversight Committee hearing last month on the issue of classifications and redactions in the FBI’s files of the Clinton email investigation.

* * *

And now it seems that Kadjik will be in charge of the DOJ’s “probe” into Huma Abedin’s emails. Which is why we are a little skeptical the DOJ will find “anything” of note.

Peter Kadzik, with lobbyist Tony Podesta, brother of John Podesta.

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

The Clinton Collapse – Only The Deep State Is So Precise

Submitted by Charles Hugh-Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

The Deep State's most prescient elements must derail Hillary's campaign to clear a path to Trump's executive team.

Back in August, I asked Could the Deep State Be Sabotaging Hillary? I think we now have a definitive answer: "These blast points on Hillary's campaign… too accurate for the Mainstream Media. Only the forces of the Imperial Deep State are so precise."

The Mainstream Media is presenting the FBI investigation as a "lose-lose" situation for embattled FBI Director Comey. If Comey remained quiet until after the election, he would be accused of colluding with the Clinton campaign and its allies in the Department of Justice (sic).

But in going public, he stands accused by Democrats of "intervening in an election," i.e. raising doubts about Hillary's judgement and veracity days before Americans go to the polls.

Another narrative has Comey's hand forced by the threat of disgusted FBI agents leaking information that would show the FBI caved into political pressure from the Democratic Party and Clinton campaign to keep relevant material out of the public eye until after the election.

I submit another much more powerful dynamic is in play: the upper ranks of the Deep State now view Hillary as an unacceptable liability. The word came down to Comey to act whether he wanted to or not, i.e. take one for the good of the nation/Deep State/Imperial Project.

As a refresher: the Deep State is the unelected government (also called the invisible or shadow government) that is not as monolithic as generally assumed.

The neo-conservative globalists who want Hillary to continue pushing their agenda are the more visible camp, but another less visible but highly motivated camp realizes Hillary and her neo-con agenda would severely damage the nation's security and its global influence. It is this camp that is arranging for Hillary to lose.

The consensus view seems to be that the Establishment and the Deep State see Trump as a loose cannon who might upset the neo-con apple cart by refusing to toe the neo-con line.

This view overlooks the reality that significant segments of the Deep State view the neo-con strategy as an irredeemable failure. To these elements of the Deep State, Hillary is a threat precisely because she embraces the failed neo-con strategy and those who cling to it. From this point of view, Hillary as president would be an unmitigated disaster for the Deep State and the nation/Imperial Project it governs.

Whatever else emerges from the emails being leaked or officially released, one conclusion is inescapable: Hillary's judgement is hopelessly flawed. Combine her lack of judgement with her 24 years of accumulated baggage and her potential to push the neo-con agenda to the point of global disaster, and you get a potent need for the Deep State's most prescient elements to derail her campaign and clear a path to Trump's executive team.

Once this path is clear, the management of Trump's executive team can begin in earnest, a management process aimed at disengaging the nation and its global Empire from neo-con overreach.

If you think this scenario is "impossible," let's see how the election plays out before deciding what's "impossible" and what's inevitable.

*  *  *

Join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

My new book is #8 on Kindle short reads -> politics and social science: Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform ($3.95 Kindle ebook, $8.95 print edition) For more, please visit the book's website.

via http://ift.tt/2fxPe4m Tyler Durden

Trump Won’t Pay Polling Firm, CNN and Brazile Parted Ways, Chicago Has Deadly Weekend: P.M. Links

  • Trump, Clinton, ObamaDonald Trump’s campaign is disputing more than $750,000 it owes to a polling firm and is declining to pay it.
  • CNN has cut ties with Donna Brazile after emails released by Wikileaks showed her apparently sending the campaign likely questions for Hillary Clinton before the second debate. CNN, though, also denies having given Brazile any advance information. Brazile actually resigned earlier in the month, but this is all coming out now.
  • The White House says it does not believe FBI Director James Comey is trying to influence the election with his Friday announcement of discovering more potentially relevant emails in the Hillary Clinton investigation.
  • A source told CNBC that Comey didn’t want to identify Russia as the source of hacking intended to influence America’s presidential election so close to the election.
  • A judge ruled today that the audio recordings of the 911 calls by Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen must be made public.
  • This weekend was Chicago’s deadliest of the year: 17 people were fatally shot.
  • The Pirate Party in Iceland underperformed the polls over the weekend and came in third place in the country’s election, but still improved and may gain seven seats in the parliament. The tech-oriented party has libertarian leanings in a lot of areas connected to civil and individual rights (free speech, intellectual property reform, ending the drug war, et cetera). But I’ve also been told by several Icelandic libertarians that they are more inclined toward the direction of left-wing government central planning and control of economic issues than libertarians would generally support.
  • Police in Montreal snooped on a journalist’s phone in order to identify his sources. The sources were apparently leaks from within the police department connected to stories where police were alleged to have fabricated evidence in drug and gang arrests.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don’t forget to sign up for Reason’s daily updates for more content.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2eV2jRA
via IFTTT

Election Pits Crooked Hillary Against Saint Hillary: New at Reason

Crooked Hillary is the one that has been on front pages lately. She is, of course, a character that many who lived through the first Clinton presidency remember plenty well. The one who made $100,000 in ten months in 1978 and 1979 trading cattle and hog future contracts. The one whose Rose Law Firm billing records were mysteriously discovered in the White House residence in 1996 after two years in which they had disappeared while congressional investigators had subpoenaed them.

But if Crooked Hillary is in danger of losing the election, or of sabotaging her own chances of a successful presidency if she wins, it’s Saint Hillary who is on the verge of winning a historic victory, Ira Stoll writes. If you are having a hard time dredging her image up from the depths of your memory, try clicking on the cover of The New York Times magazine from Sunday, May 23, 1993, which featured a striking image of Clinton dressed in pure, angelic, white, a three-strand pearl necklace around her throat. The Times magazine cover promoted an article by Michael Kelly headlined “Saint Hillary.”

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2eV1M28
via IFTTT

The Real October Surprise: Stocks, Bonds, Gold, & Oil All Dump As The Dollar Jumps

Anyone else feel like this?

 

On the month, everything ended in the red

  • Bonds worst month since Feb 2015
  • Stocks worst month since Jan 2016
  • USD Index best month since Nov 2015

This is the first time since Aug 2015 (and the china devaluation crash) that stocks and bonds both closed red on the month. Note that Oil, Bonds, and Gold just happened to all end down around 3.3% on the month…

 

Which is interesting since the USD Index rose 3.1% on the month… its best month since Nov 2015…

 

Risk-Parity deleveraging was the key factor with the funds suffering their worst month since Nov 2015…

 

And a surge in December rate hike odds…

*  *  *

Since Comey dropped his bombshell, bonds & bullion are bid, stocks and oil are not…

 

Stocks scrambled back to unch on the day (with Trannies surging as crude plunged) but faded into the close…

 

S&P remains on the cliff edge…

 

VIX ended the month above 17 (highest monthly close since Feb)… The closing ramp has disappeared…

 

After 5 straight down days, VIX is now up 5 straight days…

 

The USD index was very modestly higher on the day with Cable strength (Comey staying) offset buy weakness in the other majors…

 

Treasury yields fell on the day (flattening with 30Y -3bps)…

 

Leaving the 10Y yield back at 5 month highs…

 

Crude was ugly on the day as copper and silver gained most (and gold inched higher)…

 

WTI Crude crashed to a $46 handle…

via http://ift.tt/2fo6SrX Tyler Durden

CNN Decries “Fake News” Websites (Then Stealth Edits Its Own Article)

There is a plague of "fake news" apparently, and CNN is here to help you 'dear voter' see through the deception to the Clinton-campaign-confirmed narrative you should be paying attention. While it not enough that we have pointed out CNN's numerous questionable actions (here, here, and here), along with today's news of Donna Brazile's resignation, but just this weekend CNN was caught 'stealth editing' false claims made against Trump. Fake news indeed…

It's time for a new rule on the web according to CNN's Brian Stelter: Double, no, triple check before you share. Especially if it seems too good to be true.

Why? Look no further than Donald Trump's Twitter account. Trump claimed Sunday morning that "Twitter, Google and Facebook are burying the FBI criminal investigation of Clinton."

 

Not only was there no proof of this, but it was pretty easy to disprove. The FBI email inquiry was at the top of Google News; FBI director James Comey's name was at the top of Facebook's "trending" box; and Twitter's "moments" section had a prominent story about the controversy.

 

Nevertheless, Trump's wrong-headed "burying" claim was his most popular tweet of the day. About 25,000 accounts retweeted it and almost 50,000 "liked" it, helping the falsehood spread far and wide.

 

The rise of social media has had many upsides, but one downside has been the spread of misinformation. Fake news has become a plague on the Web, especially on social networks like Facebook. As I said on Sunday's "Reliable Sources" on CNN, unreliable sources about this election have become too numerous to count.
So that's what I recommended a "triple check before you share" rule.

 

New web sites designed to trick and mislead people seem to pop up every single day. For their creators, the incentives are clear: more social shares mean more page views mean more ad dollars.

 

Trump may have gotten the idea from an inaccurate Zero Hedge blog post alleging a "social media blackout." The blog post contained false information.

However, Stelter has one small problem, Fox's Maria Bartiromo proved this "bias" live in real-time when she confirmed that social media sites most trending headlines did not include the FBI emails…

So either Fox is another "fake news" site, or – in this case – Stelter is wrong?

But then CNN tried to catch Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump in a heavily compromising position over comments he made at a rally in Colorado. However, as Mediaite.com reports, there was only one catch – Trump didn’t say what they thought he said. And, when the network realized the mistake, they tried to stealthily cover it up.

In the original article, they highlighted Trump saying the following:

 

“If you go to university center, they’ll give you a new ballot, they’ll void your old ballot, in some places they do that four or five times, so by tomorrow, almost everyone will have their new ballots in.”

 

Yeah, that’s pretty damning, right? It sure as hell seems like the GOP candidate is pressing his followers to try to cast multiple ballots. Yet, it takes away the context, in which Trump says that they won’t do that.

 

Here is what he actually said.

 

“If you go to university center, they’ll give you a new ballot, they’ll void your old ballot. They’ll give you a new ballot, and you can go out and make sure it get’s in. Now in some places, they do that four or five times, but we don’t do that. So by tomorrow, almost everyone will have their new ballots in.”

 

More, it appears that Trump is questioning the system itself, much as he has done throughout the past few weeks where he’s complained about voter fraud and a “rigged” election.

 

Somewhere along the way, someone must have noticed this at CNN and stealth edited the piece, changing the entire quote. It now reads as follows:

 

“They’ll give you a ballot, a new ballot. They’ll void your old ballot, they will give you a new ballot. And you can go out and make sure it gets in,” Trump said.

Registered voters in Colorado automatically receive a ballot in the mail, but can request a new ballot or vote in person if they have not yet mailed in a completed ballot.

“In some places they probably do that four or five times. We don’t do that. But that’s great,” Trump said Sunday, appearing to hint at the possibility of voter fraud in Colorado, a rare prospect Trump has continued to hammer on the stump.

 

 

At 10:10 PM last night: CNN deleted the tweet (which had been retweeted 926 times) around 10:07 PM ET. The tweet was up for over two and a half hours. Below is a screenshot of it…

 

*  *  *

So we agree with Stelter – be very careful on the web of "fake news" – it's everywhere in the mainstream.

 

via http://ift.tt/2f24RAn Tyler Durden

Valeant Plunges On BBG Report Former CEO, CFO Are Focus Of Criminal Probe For Accounting Fraud

While details are still lacking, moments ago Valeant stock plunged on a Bloomberg report that the Ex-CEO and ex-CFO are the target of a criminal probe due to accounting fraud.

According to Bloomberg, U.S. prosecutors are focusing on Valeant Pharmaceuticals’ former CEO and CFO as they build a fraud case against the company that could yield charges within weeks, according to people familiar with the matter, Bloomberg News reports.

On the news, VRX stock, which has had many aborted attempts to break solidly above the $20 level, just got dragged back in the teens.

Developing.

via http://ift.tt/2fxBIO7 Tyler Durden

Pill-Induced Abortions on the Rise in America. Why That’s a Good Thing

A growing percentage of legal abortions in America are being induced via drugs, not surgery, with 43 percent of abortions at Planned Parenthood clinics relying on this method in 2014. That’s up from 35 percent in 2010, according to a Reuters analysis of clinic data. And in states without strong legal restrictions on abortion pills, the rates relative to surgical abortion were even higher. In Michigan, they comprised 55 percent of all abortions and in Iowa, 64 percent.

The two medications used for drug-induced abortions in America—mifepristone and misoprostol—were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 16 years ago. “The method was expected to quickly overtake the surgical option, as it has in much of Europe,” Reuters notes. “But U.S. abortion opponents persuaded lawmakers in many states to put restrictions on their use.”

Most of these state restrictions have been rooted in religion, ideology, and politics rather than good-faith concern for women’s safety. Taking mifepristone and misoprostol to terminate a pregnancy—aka medical abortion (in contrast with surgical abortion)—has been found just as safe if not safer than surgical abortion, and it doesn’t require a woman to be put under anesthesia or undergo an invasive procedure. Even more revolutionary, this sort of abortion doesn’t require—at least not for medical reasons—a visit to a hospital or any sort of specialized abortion clinic, nor the employ of a specialized doctor. After a basic health check-up and an ultrasound to determine gestational age (the pill regimen is only recommended and approved up to 10 weeks pregnancy), the whole process involves ingesting one pill and, within the next 72 hours, ingesting another pill.

This isn’t to say medical abortion is an easy process for women, who report extreme cramping, nausea, and other difficulties for a few hours to a few days after taking the pills. But it is, for many women, easier than obtaining a surgical abortion, with one of the biggest benefits being that it can cost significantly less. This, combined with its ability to take place outside a special health facility, makes it much more accessible to rural and low-income women. And increased accessibility may lead, in turn, to earlier pregnancy terminations.

Since medical abortion has been legal in the U.S., the percentage of abortions performed in the first six weeks gestation has grown significantly. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the percentage of U.S. abortions occurring within the first six weeks of pregnancy rose 24 percent between 2003 and 2012. Meanwhile, the percentage of abortions occurring at or after 13 weeks remained relatively unchanged. This means the biggest shift was from abortions occurring between weeks six and 13 toward those occurring between weeks one and six.

This doesn’t necessarily mean medical abortions drove the shift to earlier abortions, but it is one plausible (partial) explanation, given the simultaneous growth in medical abortions as a share of overall (and especially early-term) procedures. Between 2001 and 2011, medical abortions went from 6 percent of all abortions to 23 percent, according to the CDC’s most recent report.

Some have worried that the increased availability of abortion drugs has or will lead to an increase in the total number of abortions that occur in America. But so far, these fears seem to be unfounded: between 2002 and 2011, the total number of U.S. abortions decreased 13 percent, according to the CDC. The abortion rate—the number of abortions per every 1,000 women ages 15- to 44-years-old—was also down, by 14 percent, to 13.9 abortions per 1,000 women. And this rate is down from nearly 30 abortions per 1,000 women in 1980.

The bottom line is that U.S. women are both getting fewer abortions and, when they do, having them earlier in their pregnancies. And a big part of the latter may be due to drug-induced abortion. But many state legislatures have passed or tried to pass laws strictly limiting where, when, and how it could be prescribed and administered, including insisting the pill must be prescribed in a building that meets the requirements for ambulatory surgical centers, banning partial-telemedicine appointments, and requiring doctors to use an outdated protocol that meant more medication and more in-person clinic visits than necessary. These are efforts that should be opposed by not just abortion-rights activists or the radically pro-choice but anyone who believes abortion should be legal in the first trimester at least, believes medical policy should be driven by science not religion, and/or wants to encourage women who do choose abortion to do so as early as possible.

There has been some good news on this front lately. Earlier in 2016, the FDA finally revised its outdated guidelines for prescribing the mifepristone and misoprostol regimen. Under the new rules, doctors can prescribe the abortion pills up to 10 weeks or pregnancy, among other things. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said it was “pleased that the updated F.D.A.-approved regimen for mifepristone reflects the current available scientific evidence and best practices.”

Reuters suggests that drug-induced abortions likely make up a larger percentage of U.S. abortion procedures (at Planned Parenthood and elsewhere) since the FDA change, which took place after the most recent Planned Parenthood data was collected. “In three states most impacted by that change – Ohio, Texas and North Dakota – demand for medication abortions tripled in the last several months,” Reuters found from talking to clinics, state health departments and Planned Parenthood affiliates in these states.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2f63G0B
via IFTTT

Saudi Finance Minister Al Assaf Fired On Royal Orders

While mostly taking place behind the scenes, it has been a rather calamitous month for developments in Saudi Arabia: one day before the record, inaugural  $17.5 billion Saudi bond priced, news broke that for the first time, a member of the Saudi Royal Family, had been executed for murder in what until then had been an unprecedented fall from grace for a member of the chosen royal elite.

The very next day, as virtually everyone in the bond market knows, Saudi Arabia priced a massively oversubcribed – the first of its kind – international bond issue, taking advantage of rising oil prices on the back of Saudi jawboning about an OPEC production freeze deal which now appears unreachable (oil is down 4% as of this moment). The deal was seen by most as a major success for the Kingdom, one whose proceeds the local authorities had started to spend just as soon as the wire transfers were executed to get thousands of government staffers back to work.

So it is perhaps quite surprising that less than 2 weeks after this historic bond sale, moments ago we learned thatthe long-serving Saudi finance minister had been relieved of his post on Royal orders.

As Al Jazeera reports, Saudi Arabia’s King Salman Bin Abdulaziz issued a Royal decree to appoint Mohammed Al-Jadaan as the new finance minister on Monday to replace Ibrahim Abdulaziz Al-Assaf.

Saudi Arabia’s Finance Minister Ibrahim Abdulaziz Al Assaf speaks to the media

Jaddan had previously been the chairman of the Saudi Capital Market Authority. He replaces Ibrahim Alassaf, who has been  appointed minister of state and a member of the council of ministers, according to the royal decree.

While details of the transition are scarce, and it is unclear how Al-Assaf displeased the Saudi King, this is further evidence that a major power struggle is taking place behind the scenes, and whereas the terminated finmin should have been commended for his bond sale, the fact that he is being punished suggests that there is significiant infighting in the royal family, which will likely result in even more financial and political fallout for Saudi Arabia in the coming year, especially if oil continues its recent decline.

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

When It Comes To Household Income, Sweden & Germany Rank With Kentucky

Submitted by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

Last year, I posted an article titled "If Sweden and Germany Became US States, They Would be Among the Poorest States" which, produced a sizable and heated debate, including that found in the comments below this article at The Washington Post. The reason for the controversy, of course, is that it has nearly reached the point of dogma with many leftists that European countries enjoy higher standards of living thanks to more government regulation and more social benefits. What the data really suggests, however, is that even after social benefits are incorporated into the income data, the median American still has a higher income than most European countries. 

Since I published that analysis last October, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) based in Paris has updated the numbers. Here is the ranking straight fom the latest "Society at a Glance" report from the OECD:

The comparisons were based on a measure of income known as "annual median equivalized disposable household income." The measure attempts to take into account the realities of taxes and social benefits, and thus provide a more practical estimate for differences in household income among countries. The data is also adjusted for purchasing power parity, which means it's taking differences in purchasing power in different countries into account. Moreover, median income is more helpful when there may be large income inequalities at work. Use of a median measure instead of an average reduces the effect of a small number of extremely rich people skewing up the numbers. 

In the updated measure, we can see that the United States is in fourth place behind Luxembourg, Norway, and Switzerland. The US comes in at $29,100, while Luxembourg's median income level is at 36,400. 

The US's median income is 79% the size of Luxembourg's while Sweden's median income (to name one often-touted example) is 83% the size of the US's. 

These comparisons are only at the national level, of course, and one of the largest problems with comparing the US to other countries, is that the US is much larger than every European country. This is true even of Russia, which has less than half as many people as the US. 

Many countries — especially the smaller ones, including all the Scandinavian countries — are composed of only a handful of metropolitan areas, often with fewer than ten million people. The US, by contrast is very large, and very diverse in terms of geography and demographics. The US has more than 320 million people. Consequently, any statistic for the "United States" ends up burying within it the often-sizable differences from state to state and from metro area to metro area. 

For example, if we adjust state incomes to match up with our disposable income measure, we find there can be notable differences from state to state. While it's true that the wealth and income differences have become much smaller since the 1940s, gaps remain: 

To incorporate individual states into the analyis,  I have looked at how the Census Bureau's median income for each state stacks up against the US median income overall. I've then adjusted the OECD measure to be proportional to that.http://ift.tt/2faqXwQ….) New Hampshire, for example, was 1.3, reflecting the fact that the median income in NH is higher than that of the US overall. The same calculation produces a result of .77 for Mississippi. I then took these same values for all states and multipled by the OECD disposable-income value of $29,100 for the United States overall. So, NH was 29,100 * 1.3 which equals 39,350. In Mississippi, the calculation is 291,00 * .77 which equals 22,535. “>1

While it is a rather crude means of adjusting the data, can see that the result is plausible. A wide variety of other measures of state-level wealth routinely put Massachusetts — for example — above national levels, while measures of Arkansas put it below national levels.  

The next step, then, is to compare these values to the OECD's values for each country. Obviously, any country with a disposable income measure above that of the US overall will find itself with an income level above most US states. At the same time, a country with a disposable income measure below that of the US overall is likely to find itself ranked below many US states. 

When we graph them all together we find: 

The US overall is the red bar and all US states are blue bars. This provides us with a sense of how foreign countries would compare were these places part of the US. Were Norway a US state, it would rank between Delaware and California, which are among the US's more urbanized and wealthy states. Sweden and Germany, on the other hand, place closely to Kentucky, which is sixth from the bottom for US states in terms of median income. 

Last year, similar analysis showed that Sweden ranked 12th from the bottom. The analysis used in that article was somewhat more complicated in which I attempted to adjust the cost of living, in very cheap-to-live states like Arkansas, to account for the fact that these places were far less expensive than most areas of Western Europe. Theoretically, that should have increased the real median incomes in cheaper states.  This time, I have opted for a simpler analysis with no adjustment for cost of living, and have taken the OECD median income numbers straight from their publications without any of my own adjustments for purchasing power parity. 

Nevertheless, the slight change in method produced no large changes in the result. Sweden and Germany do rank lower this time around, although the overall result is simply that most European countries — aside from the wealthiest small countries like Switzerland and Norway — fall within the bottom third of the United States. When making comparisons, however, it is best to not read too much into difference of a mere few hundred dollars. For example, all states and countries in the $24,000 range (i.e., Belgium, Sweden, Montana, South Carolina) should all simply be regarded as more-or-less alike. The difference between Colorado and Canada, on the other hand, is a sizable gap of more than $7,000. 

As with the last time I published this analysis, there is no doubt that many defenders of the European interventionist states will protest that income is not the only measure of the standard of living. This is true enough. Income data cannot capture the realities of comparing living standards all by themselves. Income measures, are, however, certainly more objective than many living-standard measures such as feelings of happiness or well being, which are often put forward as important for making comparisons between countries. 

Certainly, one of the more important measures to be considered in light of income data is the household wealth data. By this measure, we do indeed find that many countries report higher household wealth than the US. I discuss many of the details here in "Why Do Americans Have Such High Incomes and So Little Savings?" However, even in that case, household wealth in the US comparable to that found in Germany, Denmark, and Spain. In other words, those countries are characterized by both income levels and wealth levels that fall below that found in the US overall. 

While there are indeed many quality-of-life aspects that make the Western European welfare states attractive, this analysis shows that it cannot be said that it is self-evident that the standard of living throughout Western Europe is higher thanks to the region's presumably lavish welfare states.

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