iftttwall

A massive Truck bomb shook the center of Kabul, killing at least 80 and injuring up to 400 civilians on Wednesday. Attacks against civilians have been on the rise in recent years, causing more than 11,400 deaths and injuries in 2016, according to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA).

You will find more statistics at Statista

As Statista's Dyfed Loesche notes, the figure has almost doubled compared to 2009.

“This appalling conflict destroys lives and tears communities apart in every corner of Afghanistan. Real protection of civilians requires commitment and demonstrated concrete actions to protect civilians from harm and for parties to the conflict to ensure accountability for indiscriminate and deliberate acts of civilian harm.”

-Tadamichi Yamamoto, United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Afghanistan, Kabul, February 2017.

 

“Children have been killed, blinded, crippled – or inadvertently caused the death of their friends – while playing with unexploded ordnance that is negligently left behind by parties to the conflict. Women continue to be brutally punished in parallel so-called ‘justice’ processes while religious minorities are targeted as they pray in their mosques. The consequences of each act of violence ripple through families and entire communities that are left broken, unable to sustain themselves and largely failing to obtain any semblance of justice or reparation. After nearly 40 years of constantly evolving armed conflict in Afghanistan, a Daesh franchise has now surfaced as an additional, deadly component. It is about time the various parties to the conflict ceased the relentless commission of war crimes and thought about the harm they are doing to their mothers, fathers, children and future generations by continuing to fuel this senseless, never-ending conflict.”

-Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva, February 2017.

Especially in conflicts like in Afghanistan, where the warring factions do not all wear uniforms, most notably the Taliban, it can be hard to make a clear distinction between civilians and non-civilian combatants.

via http://ift.tt/2sFMV1z Tyler Durden

Authored by Robert Parry via ConsortiumNews.com,

Hillary Clinton has grown even more insistent that she was not at fault for her stunning election defeat last November, claiming that 1,000 Russian “agents” and their American collaborators were a decisive factor, a bizarre twist that further locks the Democrats into their evidence-light “Russia-gate” obsession.

In comments at a California technology conference on Wednesday, Clinton also repeated one of her favorite falsehoods – that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously concluded that Russia hacked Democratic emails and ran a covert influence campaign against her.

Referring to a report released by President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence (DNI) on Jan. 6, Clinton asserted that “Seventeen agencies, all in agreement, which I know from my experience as a Senator and Secretary of State, is hard to get. They concluded with high confidence that the Russians ran an extensive information war campaign against my campaign, to influence voters in the election. They did it through paid advertising we think; they did it through false news sites; they did it through these thousand agents; they did it through machine learning, which you know, kept spewing out this stuff over and over again. The algorithms that they developed. So that was the conclusion.”

But Clinton’s statement is false regarding the unanimity of the 17 agencies and misleading regarding her other claims. Both former DNI James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan acknowledged in sworn testimony last month that the Jan. 6 report alleging Russian “meddling” did not involve all 17 agencies.

Clapper and Brennan stated that the report was actually the work of hand-picked analysts from only three agencies – the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation – under the oversight of the DNI’s office. In other words, there was no consensus among the 17 agencies, a process that would have involved some form of a National Intelligence Estimate (or NIE), a community-wide effort that would have included footnotes citing any dissenting views.

Instead, as Clapper testified before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on May 8, the Russia-hacking claim came from a “special intelligence community assessment” (or ICA) produced by selected analysts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, “a coordinated product from three agencies – CIA, NSA, and the FBI – not all 17 components of the intelligence community,” the former DNI said.

And, as Clapper explained, the “ICA” was something of a rush job beginning on President Obama’s instructions “in early December” and completed by Jan. 6. Clapper continued: “The two dozen or so analysts for this task were hand-picked, seasoned experts from each of the contributing agencies.”

However, as any intelligence veteran will tell you, if you hand-pick the analysts, you are really hand-picking the conclusion since the agency chiefs would know who was, say, a hardliner on Russia and who could be trusted to deliver the desired product.

On May 23, in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, former CIA Director John Brennan confirmed Clapper’s account about the three agencies involved.

“It wasn’t a full inter-agency community assessment that was coordinated among the 17 agencies, and for good reason because of the nature and the sensitivity of the information trying, once again, to keep that tightly compartmented,” Brennan said.

In other words, Clinton’s beloved claim that all 17 intelligence agencies were in agreement on the Russian “hacking” charge – an assertion that the “fact-checking” group Politifact has certified as “true” and that has been repeated endlessly by the mainstream U.S. news media – is not true. It is false. Gee, you might even call it “fake news.”

The Mysterious ‘Agents’

But Clinton’s false claim about the intelligence consensus was not her only dubious assertion. Her reference to the 1,000 Russian “agents” is not contained in the Jan. 6 report, either. It apparently derived from unconfirmed speculation from Sen. Mark Warner, D-Virginia, who mentioned this claim at a news conference on March 30, admitting that he didn’t know if it was true.

Warner, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said:

“We know about the hacking, and selective leaks, but what really concerns me as a former tech guy is at least some reports – and we’ve got to get to the bottom of this – that there were upwards of a thousand internet trolls working out of a facility in Russia, in effect taking over a series of computers which are then called botnets, that can then generate news down to specific areas.

 

“It’s been reported to me, and we’ve got to find this out, whether they were able to affect specific areas in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, where you would not have been receiving off of whoever your vendor might have been, Trump versus Clinton, during the waning days of the election, but instead, ‘Clinton is sick’, or ‘Clinton is taking money from whoever for some source’ … fake news.”

Of course, many stories about Clinton being sick or her taking money from special interests weren’t “fake news.” In late 2012, she suffered from a blood clot and – during the 2016 campaign – she was staggered by a bout of pneumonia. She also was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches to Wall Street and other groups.

Warner didn’t specify where his information about the “trolls” came from but it paralleled a claim by freelance journalist Adam Chen who asserted in a podcast with Longform that Russian “trolls” began writing favorably about Trump in late 2015. (The CIA/FBI/NSA report also apparently alluded to the same report without mentioning the name of the journalist or specifying the number of alleged “trolls.”)

“I created this list of Russian trolls when I was researching,” Chen said, referring to a 2015 reporting project that he turned into a rather thinly sourced New York Times Magazine article accusing a Russian oligarch of funding a professional “troll” operation in St. Petersburg, Russia. “I check on it once in a while, still. And a lot of them have turned into conservative accounts, like fake conservatives. I don’t know what’s going on, but they’re all tweeting about Donald Trump and stuff.”

Although such “troll” and “hacking” complaints are treated as a one-way street – coming only from the evil Russians – the reality is that U.S. intelligence agencies, their allies and U.S.-government-funded “non-governmental organizations” have mounted similar operations against Russia and other targets.

It is always difficult to nail down precisely where such operations are originating, but the Russians have cited previous cases of malicious hacking aimed at senior officials, including Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev, whose accounts were hacked in 2013 and 2014 including publication of a false resignation and a confession of wrongdoing.

In 2015, the “Panama Papers,” a vast trove of documents purloined from a Panamanian law firm, became an investigative project that involved a USAID-funded news outlet and led to attacks on President Vladimir Putin for corruption even though his name did not appear in the documents.

So, this high-tech spy-vs.-spy game – if that’s what it is – does not appear to be originating entirely from the Russian side of the street. But the U.S. intelligence community is not going to divulge what it knows about the attacks against Russia, only what it can “assess” about Russia’s possible attacks against Western targets.

No Self-Criticism

Neither, of course, are Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party eager to engage in a serious self-criticism about how they managed to blow an extremely winnable race against an extraordinarily flawed candidate in Donald Trump. Rather than look at their own missteps and misjudgments, they are presenting themselves as innocent victims.

In Wednesday’s interview – after misrepresenting what the Jan. 6 report actually said – Clinton suggested that the Trump campaign must have colluded with the Russians in “weaponizing” the data.

“How did they know what messages to deliver?” Clinton asked. “Who told them? Who were they coordinating with, or colluding with? … [The Russians] were conveying this weaponized information and the content of it. … So the Russians — in my opinion and based on the intel and the counterintel people I’ve talked to — could not have known how best to weaponize that information unless they had been guided. … Guided by Americans and guided by people who had polling and data information.”

Although Clinton lacked any proof of this convoluted accusation, she cited as her “best example” the fact that “within one hour, one hour of the ‘Access Hollywood’ tapes being leaked [in which Trump was caught boasting about groping women], within one hour, the Russians — let’s say WikiLeaks, something — dumped the John Podesta emails.”

However, if you changed the context of this claim slightly – and made a similar jump in logic – you would surely be labeled a nutty conspiracy theorist, but instead Clinton has drawn nods of agreement for this wholly unsubstantiated speculation.

Yet, besides blaming the Russians and WikiLeaks for her loss, Clinton spread the blame even wider, for instance, to The New York Times for focusing too much on her decision to use a private email server while Secretary of State – “they covered it like it was Pearl Harbor” – and for the Times’ Nate Silver publishing optimistic odds on her chances for victory. “I also think I was the victim of a very broad assumption I was going to win,” she said.

Clinton also placed blame on the Democratic National Committee for lacking money and sophisticated technology. “I get the nomination. So I’m now the nominee of the Democratic Party. I inherit nothing from the Democratic Party,” she said. “I mean it was bankrupt; it was on the verge of insolvency; its data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong. I had to inject money into it.”

Yet, when Clinton was asked about some of her own “misjudgments,” she slipped back into the defensive posture that contributed to her troubles as a presidential candidate. For instance, regarding why she gave lucrative speeches to Goldman Sachs between her time leaving the State Department and announcing her White House run, she answered coyly, “They paid me.”

When pressed on the point, Clinton retreated behind the sanctity of the 9/11 terror attack and the issue of women’s rights. Reminded that “you’re not somebody who needed that money for the next week’s shopping, and you knew you might run, so why do it?” – she responded:

“The most common thing that I talked about in all those speeches was the hunt for Bin Laden. You know, that was one of the central missions that I felt from the time the towers fell on 9/11 as a Senator from New York.”

Then, Clinton added, “you know, men got paid for the speeches they made. I got paid for the speeches I made. And it [the paid-speech issue] was used, and I thought it was unfairly used.”

Blocking Witnesses

So, while the Democrats dig themselves deeper into the so-far empty pit of blaming Russia for their electoral disaster, the Russia-gate investigation continues to take on other curious aspects, such as an unwillingness to hear from some of Donald Trump’s advisers who have been named in accusations and who have volunteered to testify publicly.

On Wednesday, Carter Page, a Navy veteran and businessman who had lived in Russia, announced that his plans to defend himself in testimony next week before the House Intelligence Committee had been placed on hold by the Democrats.

Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the ranking Democrat on the committee and a major sparkplug powering the investigation, offered a curious denial of Page’s complaint while confirming the truth of it.

The New York Times, which has been another advocate for blaming Russia, phrased the postponement of Page’s testimony as if Page were the unreasonable one, reporting:

“Representative Adam Schiff … dismissed accusations from Carter Page, another Trump adviser who is under scrutiny, that the committee is preventing him from testifying. Mr. Schiff …. said the investigation would first review relevant documents before interviewing witnesses.”

In other words, Page, who has been portrayed via intelligence leaks to the news media as essentially a traitor, won’t be given the opportunity to defend his reputation until Schiff and the other Democrats decide the time is ripe.

Yet, it’s not as if the House Intelligence Committee has not taken public testimony about Russia-gate. For instance, former CIA Director Brennan was allowed to speak indirectly about Page and other possibly treasonous Americans amid media reports naming Page as one of those suspected Russian “agents.”

Normal investigations grant the people under attack at least the opportunity to defend themselves and their reputations in a timely fashion, rather than make them live under the cloud of suspicion without having a chance to state their case.

If their sworn testimony is later undermined by evidence developed by investigators, the witnesses can be called back and called out on possible perjury. So, it’s not as if Schiff and the other Democrats are surrendering prerogatives by letting Page testify now rather than later. Indeed, Page would be putting himself in legal jeopardy if he is caught lying.

Even the Republican-driven “Benghazi investigation,” which also had the look of an over-the-top “witch hunt,” gave Secretary of State Clinton and other Obama administration officials multiple opportunities to explain their response to the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate.

But, so far, a similar courtesy has not been extended to the targets of the Russia-gate investigation.

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

Citigroup Chief Economist Willem Buiter says Australia is experiencing “a spectacular housing bubble” that needs to be addressed with tougher regulatory measures – something we’ve noted time and time again.

A shortage of housing, coupled with record-low interest rates, has made Sydney the world’s most second-most expensive property market. The city’s home prices jumped 16% in the 12 months through April, stoking record household debt and putting home ownership out of the reach of many.

"It had better be focused on immediately, to try and tether a soft housing landing,” Buiter told reporters in Sydney Wednesday, according to Bloomberg. “Clearly if these things are not managed well they can be a trigger for a cyclical downturn.”

Australia’s biggest banks have been tightening their lending standards under pressure from regulators, making home loans for investors and interest-only mortgages more expensive, Bloomberg reported.

The Reserve Bank of Australia, which has cited the east-coast property markets and their impact on financial stability as a key concern, is in a tough spot. While it’s reluctant to cut the benchmark interest rate from 1.5 percent and stoke prices even higher, lifting borrowing costs would place a greater burden on households saddled with debt already at 189 percent of gross domestic product, Bloomberg reported.

Investors, for their part, are starting to come around to the dangerously overvalued nature of Australian stock and housing markets. Earlier this week, Australian asset manager Altair Asset Management made the extraordinary decision to liquidate its Australian shares funds and return "hundreds of millions" of dollars to its clients according to the Sydney Morning Herald, citing an impending property market "calamity" and the "overvalued and dangerous time in this cycle".

Parker said he wanted "to make clear this is not a winding up of Altair, but a decision to hand back client monies out of equities which I deem to be far too risky at this point."

"We think that there is too much risk in this market at the moment, we think it's crazy," Parker said with a candidness few of his colleagues are capable of, at least when still managing money.

"Valuations are stretched, property is massively overstretched and most of the companies that we follow are at our one-year rolling returns targets – and that's after we've ticked them up over the past year. Now we are asking 'is there any more juice in these companies valuations?' and the answer is stridently, and with very few exceptions, 'no there isn't'."

Parker outlined a list of "the more obvious reasons to exit the riskier asset markets of shares and property". These include:

• the Australian east-coast property market "bubble" and its "impending correction";
• worries that issues around China's hot property sector and escalating debt levels will blow up "later this year";
• "oversized" geopolitical risks and an "unpredictable" US political environment;
• and the "overvalued" Aussie equity market.

But, to Parker, it was the overheated local property market that was the clearest and most present danger. "When you speak to people candidly in the banks, they'll tell you very specifically that they are extraordinarily worried about the over-leverage of the Australian population in general," he said. He flagged how exposed the country's lenders were to a correction.

"If they get a property downturn anything similar to 1989 to 1991 then they are going to have all sorts of issues," Parker said.

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

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

The Japanese are no longer taking any chances against the rogue North Korean regime and Kim Jong-Un’s insistence on the continued testing of ballistic missiles. Japan is now participating in more frequent evacuation drills in the event that they are attacked by North Korea.

Although drills of this type aren’t the first in Japan this year, they are increasing in frequency. Sunday’s evacuation drill in the town of Abu, Yamaguchi prefecture, is showing how concerned the Japanese are about a potential North Korean attack. The town of about 3,500 people some 760 km (475 miles) west of Tokyo involved a simulated North Korean missile attack. And more Japanese towns and cities are taking steps to brace for what they hope will never happen.

North Korea has been increasing the number of its missile test launches in recent months. Launching 12 so far this year and three last month, with many splashing into the Sea of Japan, the Japanese are rightly concerned. Some of North Korea’s missiles have even landed inside Japan’s exclusive economic zone, which extends up to 200 miles from its shores.

Tokyo has repeatedly condemned the test launches, which are in violation of United Nations resolutions, yet it’s become clear that North Korea’s volatile leader, Kim Jong-Un doesn’t care about the rules imposed upon him. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s government earlier this year instructed municipalities to hold evacuation drills, heightening a sense of urgency among the public. Although security experts in Japan have said that the drills won’t save everyone, they could save some, and that’s better than not having a plan.  “It’s hard to say how many people will be saved and how much effect it will have. But, with awareness raised and basic procedure understood, the survival rate will definitely be higher,” retired Vice Admiral Yoji Koda said.

The Japanese government is actively attempting to help the public prepare for the worst by putting on its website a list of tips in case a missile lands in Japanese territory. The tips include “take shelter in a robust building nearby” and “move away from windows or, if possible, move to a room without windows.”  The government has previously stated that the Japanese public would only have ten minutes to react if North Korea launches a missile their way – minus the few minutes it would take for the government to alert the public to the attack.

The preparation by Japan is due to the short window of opportunity should North Korea attack the island nation. The Japanese in range of the so far hypothetical missile would have very little time to seek refuge, and the loss of life could be staggering. With schoolchildren also taking place in these drills, it’s safe to say that the Japanese are concerned, but not willing to take chances, especially on towns on Japan’s western coast.

Being prepared is going to help the Japanese in the event of an attack. Although Japan is refusing to panic, they also want to be prepared.  It is important to mention, however, that North Korea has not specifically threatened the Japanese, yet.  But many believe that a North Korean missile program is a threat to the nation.

via http://ift.tt/2rUq3yT Tyler Durden

By Chris at http://ift.tt/12YmHT5

Today I’ve got something very personal to share with you, but first…

Scan a few social media feeds and you’ll be forgiven for believing that those around us make more money than Carlos Slim on a good day, holiday regularly at the Ritz, and their kids (if they are fortunate enough to have any) are complete angels who, when not helping old people across the street are placing first in Badminton, or tennis, or swimming, or all of the above. Oh, and by the way, they just beat AlphaGo at chess.

Their wives or husbands love… no, adore them, never argue, and when they’re not at their perfect 3-day-a-week job, are found hobnobbing with God herself. The image is perpetuated because that’s all we see. Perfect lives, perfect people. Plastic!

It’s grand fiction, and the older I get the lower my tolerance threshold for such nauseating twaddle. I don’t typically talk about this stuff. After all, this is an investment blog.

Today’s different as I will share with you something very personal. The kind of information I NEVER share, and I’m going to ask for your help.

A long time ago I looked at this rapidly changing world and thought to myself, “Well, Chris this has massive implication. Some good, some downright terrifying.”

I chose to participate at a certain level, this blog being a reflection of that.

The only thing you’ll find on the net are my thoughts on finance. Nothing about my family, no pictures, no comments, nothing.

The Internet is a tool, not unlike a shovel. You can use it to dig a great big hole to plant a new tree or you can allow some lunatic to club you over the head with it. It’s a personal decision, which I feel is backed up daily when I see things such as this:

Show us your tweets: US unveils nosy new visa questionnaire

© John Moore / AFP

Protecting your data and your secrets is something not 1 in 10 seem to give a damn about and that worries the socks of me.

For the many nefarious parties out there it’s like open season for vultures feeding on a carcass and we’re the carcass.

Wannacry won’t be the last offensive in the war to access your data, and don’t get me started on the threat of governments. Obviously, you can and should use the many measures you can take to mitigate the threat. A Google search will reveal much though simply using a VPN and NOT putting out sensitive information in the first place is plain common sense.

Instead of shying away from putting out personal information as I’ve always done, today I’m opening up a slice of my personal life in the hope that it can help someone: my brother.

As I said… the Internet can be used to do good, to share valuable information (something I try to do each week on this blog). But just as easily as it can threaten us when used without thought.

Today, I want to ask you please to put it to good use and to use every social media channel you have at your disposal to help me.

Your Chance to Help

In September of 2013 my brother’s son, Mathieu-Pierre Etienne Macintosh (date of birth: 1 April 2004) was taken to France from Sydney, Australia by his mother, Christine Etienne. This was to be for a short 6 week trip to visit family. Mathieu was never returned – abducted by his mother who suffers from mental illness.

In 2014, a court case under the Hague Convention on Child Abduction was held in France and Mathieu was ordered to be returned home to Australia to be with his father. When this verdict was handed down Mathieu promptly vanished with his mother. Mathieu is currently listed as a missing person on Interpol here.

We believe Mathieu and his mother are hiding in France or Belgium, specifically in Poperinge or Ghent where we detected the most activities in accessing the Facebook page “Please help find Mathieu-Pierre”.

Here is the abducted child alert Europe page, and below is an aged photo of Mathieu.

My brother was recently featured on Australian news channels SBS and Ten News. Matthieu is listed on the Australian Federal Police missing persons site, and I’ve posted a video interview with my brother on the Capitalist Exploits Facebook page.

Here are some additional links to recent media coverage regarding the search of Mathieu: The Sydney Morning Herald, The Canberra Times, The Huffington Post, and the Daily Mail.

So today I’m asking you… please, can you use all social media you can get your hands on and get this message out to EVERYONE you know.

People in your network may not know but they in turn have many people in their networks.

Certainly there are people out there, particularly those in Europe, who do know where Matt is. The worst that can come of it is that we’re exactly where we are today. Spending hundreds of thousands of dollars without success… trying desperately to find Matt.

It will take you just a few minutes and the reward payoff could be something that quite frankly can’t be priced. After all, what is the price of getting your son back?

Again, please share this article with everyone you know.

Yours sincerely,

Chris

“The abduction of a child is a tragedy. No one can fully understand or appreciate what a parent goes through at such a time, unless they have faced a similar tragedy. Every parent responds differently. Each parent copes with this nightmare in the best way he or she knows how.” — John Walsh

via http://ift.tt/2sFv9eO Capitalist Exploits

Amid widespread international condemnation, U.S. President Donald Trump has announced that he is pulling the United States out of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. The leaders of France, Germany and Italy have issued a joint statement saying they regret the decision while affirming their commitment to continuing the global fight against climate change. Senior Republicans and coal industry officials have backed the president's decision, however.

But as Statista's Niall McCarthy notes, according to a 2015 Pew Research Center survey, 86 percent of people in Brazil and 76 percent of people in India consider global warming a very serious problem. In the U.S., on the other hand, only 45 percent of respondents were seriously concerned.

You will find more statistics at Statista

There is also a massive gulf in perception among Democrats and Republicans.

Pew's polling found that 68 percent of Democrats think global warming is a very serious problem compared to just 20 percent of Republicans, a level of concern similar to respondents in Poland and China.

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

As one of the more inept tentacles of the deep state, CNN was just caught staging Fake News in the aftermath of the ISIS claimed London attacks which claimed 7 lives and injured 48.

While ISIS supporters are celebrating the attacks, MSM propagandists are hard at work pushing the “religion of peace” narrative – trotting out hijabbed women and a child to hold signs expressing Muslim outrage at the terrorist attacks.

This wasn’t an ‘organic’ protest against terrorism. These Muslims didn’t just take it upon themselves to print glossy signs and show up. Instead, CNN staged their outrage.

Check it out…

CNN caught staging news!

They even brought “peace group” printed out papers and props.

Video courtesy of @markantro http://pic.twitter.com/jkxf3nb2W9

— Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich) June 4, 2017

AP used the #FakeNews pictures:

London’s Borough neighborhood offers safety and a place to sleep for hundreds amid the chaos of terror attack. https://t.co/Bz6egjzA9a

— The Associated Press (@AP) June 4, 2017

FAKE media.

BBC refuses to air tape of terrorists saying “this if for Allah”.

CNN stages Muslim anti-ISIS protest.

We are being conned.

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) June 4, 2017

via http://ift.tt/2sFqqtM ZeroPointNow

In perhaps the day's least-surprising headline, ISIS has claimed responsibility for the London terror attack through its Amaq 'news agency'.

1) Breaking: #ISIS' #Amaq claims attacks in #London carried out by #ISIS fighters, according to its sources #LondonAttacks http://pic.twitter.com/iivyCTSbwQ

— Warbahinta Beerdhiga (@Beerdhiga) June 4, 2017

A statement on the group's propaganda outlet said a “detachment” of its fighters had carried out the atrocity, in which seven people were killed and 48 were wounded.

As The Independent reports, Amaq's statement quoted 'sources', a phrase usually used for attacks inspired, rather than directly commissioned, by ISIS.

The group, which also claimed responsibility for the Manchester attack two weeks ago, has called on its followers to carry out increased terror attacks around the world during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Detailed instructions have been issued via propaganda magazines, videos and social media on how to launch mass casualty attacks using vehicles and knives.

The New York Times notes that the length of time it took to make claim, coming a little more than 24 hours after the deadly rampage, was longer than normal for a group that typically takes around 12 to 15 hours, including after the Manchester bombing. Analysts said the Islamic State considers anyone whose actions were inspired by the group to essentially be a member.

“This is how ISIS decentralizes its terrorism,” said Laith Alkhouri, a director at Flashpoint, a business risk intelligence company in New York that tracks militant and cyber threats. “As of now, there’s no indication that ISIS orchestrated or directed these attacks.”

Prior to the group's claim, The Independent’s Middle East correspondent Patrick Cockburn suggested the London attack was an attempt by ISIS to prove it is still a major force following major losses in Iraq and Syria.

via http://ift.tt/2s7zeM8 Tyler Durden

America’s biggest as of 2016 generation, the Millennials, has a heavy burden on its collective 150 million shoulders: its task is to not only step in as a buyer of stocks once the baby boomers begin selling in bulk, but to also provide the much needed support pillar for the recovery of the US housing market. In fact, there have been countless “bullish” housing market theories built upon the premise that sooner or later tens of millions of young American adults will emerge from their parents’ basements, start a household, and buy a house.

So far that theory has not been validated. One simple reason is that Millennials simply can’t afford to buy a house. As we reported last week, a study from Apartment List showed that nearly 70% of young American adults, those aged 18 to 34 years old, said they have saved less than $1,000 for a down payment. This is similar to what a recent GoBanking Survey found last year, according to which 72% of “young millennials”- those between 18 and 24 years old – had $1,000 in their savings accounts and 31% have $0; a sliver (8%) have over $10,000 saved. Of the “older millennials”, those between 25 and 34, 67% had less than $1,000 in their savings accounts, 33% have nothing at all, and 15% had over $10,000.

So does that mean that Millennials can simply be written off as a potential generation of homeowners, and if so, what are the implications for the broader housing market?

That’s the question BofA economist Michelle Meyer asked on Friday, although she phrased it in the proper context: “Is it [still] cool to buy a home.”

To our surprise, Meyer found that while the homeownership rate among young adults has plunged to a record low, helping to explain the slow recovery in single family homebuilding, and confirming empirical observations that Millennials have largely been a ‘renter’ generation, by Bank of America’s calculations, the Millennial generation can afford to buy a home – at least in terms of making the monthly payments. While we – and many others would dispute that – BofA does make some other interesting observations, namely that lifestyle changes, including delayed marriage and childrearing, have led to fewer homeowners and a tendency to live close to city centers. Well, if it’s not money it’s clearly something else. Let’s dig in.

First, here is BofA on a rather trivial, if critical topic: “the importance of the youth”

In order to understand the future of the housing stock, it helps to get a grasp on the growth in population, which is a function of immigration and the rate of births/deaths. The Census Bureau is projecting population growth of 0.8% annually over the next decade and 0.7%, on average, through 2036, showing continued slowing from the 0.9% average last decade. Perhaps even more important, however, is the age composition, with a particular focus on young adults who are the drivers of household formation. There are currently 75 million individuals considered to be Millennials, making up the largest generation. The average age is 27.5, implying that there is a large cohort of young adults coming to age (Chart 1). In theory, this should underpin growth in homeownership. But, it is complicated – we have to understand the ability of Millennials to afford housing and the desire to become homeowners vs. renters.

Can they afford to buy?

The first question to ask is whether the younger generation can afford to buy a home. We turn to the National Association of Realtors (NAR) affordability index which is a ratio between median family income and the qualifying income for a mortgage as a function of median existing single-family home prices and mortgage rates. According to this measure, homeownership is still very affordable relative to history. What about for young adults? Following the NAR’s methodology, we compute an affordability measure for the 25-34 year old age cohort using median household income data from the Census Bureau. Our computed index only goes to 2015 given data limitations, but we extrapolate forward (Chart 2). We find that housing is still affordable for young adults, although not to the extent it is for the overall population. The gap in affordability between the overall population and young adults has widened over the years. That said, the affordability index for young adults is still above the historical average for the aggregate, implying that housing is generally affordable.

So what seems to be the problem? One obstacle is being able to make the downpayment. The NAR measure assumes a 20% down payment, which is a high hurdle for young adults– remember that the bulk of the current 25-34 year old cohort started their careers during the financial crisis and early stages of the recovery, when the economy and labor market were fragile. Plugging in a lower down payment of 10% and the situation looks worse due to increased principal and interest payments. With a 10% downpayment, the index would be at 125.2 in 2015, which is 11% lower than the standard 25-34 year old index and 25% lower than the broad NAR index.

Another challenge is the ability to take on a mortgage loan given high student debt. According to the NY Fed’s credit panel, total outstanding student debt has reached $1.3 trillion, a substantial increase from the $260bn level in 2004. According to the NAR’s Generational Report, nearly 50% of homebuyers under the age of 36 noted that student debt delayed their home purchase, making it harder to afford the downpayment. And, of course, there is the challenge from tighter credit standards which has made it more difficult to achieve homeownership.

But do they want to buy?

Addressing whether Millennials can afford to buy is only one part of the story. We need to understand if they actually want to buy. The homeownership rate has tumbled at a faster rate for 25-34 year olds than for other generations which we do not think can be explained by affordability metrics (Chart 3). We think it also owes to lifestyle changes. Maybe there is something to the stories about Millennials preferring to spend money on avocado toast instead of their home?

The shopping cart of young adults

Using data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey, we can look at the evolution of the consumer basket over time for those aged 24-35 (Table 1). Relative to the peak of the housing bubble in 2004, there has been a decline in the share of dollars spent on owned shelter and an increase in spending on renting. It also seems that this age group is spending more on healthcare and household operations, which include services paid to keep their household running efficiently (think cleaning). This has come at the expense of spending on apparel, transportation and groceries. The young adult in 2004 has a difference shopping cart than one today.

The single life

The change in spending patterns could reflect the fact that young adults are not only less likely to be homeowners, but they are less likely to be married or even live independently. Instead, this age group is living with parents or other relatives more than in the past (Chart 4). This adjustment in living arrangements has been ongoing for years but the Great Recession seemed to have speed up the trend. Today only 55% of those aged 25-34 live with a spouse/partner compared to over 80% in 1967. Life events such as getting married or having children are typical triggers to buying a home. The longer this age group lives with parents or independently, the more homeownership will be delayed.

City slickers

We have also seen a shift toward urban centers and away from rural areas over the years. This goes hand-in-hand with a decline in homeownership for young adults. Interestingly the share of young adults living in the suburbs has been fairly steady at around 41% (Chart 5). Moreover, it appears that there is a flocking toward the major cities, specifically in the city centers which are close to transit, workplaces and restaurants. City centers typically have more rental properties than the suburbs. But we also see greater home sales close to city centers than in the past. According to BuildZoom, new home sales within 5 miles of the centers of the 10 most densely cities have exceeded 2000 levels but if you go another 10 miles out, sales are about 50% below 2000 levels.

There are both cyclical and secular forces behind the drop in the homeownership rate for young adults. While young adults can generally afford housing, there are other constraints including the ability to make a large enough downpayment and tighter credit standards. Lifestyle changes are partly to blame.

BofA’ troubling conclusion: “These dynamics won’t change in the medium-term which should translate to a lower equilibrium pace for single family housing starts.”

via http://ift.tt/2qVCy8L Tyler Durden

Via SovereignMan.com,

What happened:

We always recommend not teaching your girlfriend’s dog to salute Hitler, but defend the right to do so for those whose idea of comedy is not clever enough to rise above shock humor.

No, not because we support Nazis, but because we support free speech, including offensive speech, and distasteful jokes.

A Scottish YouTuber was arrested for making a video in which he “pranks” his girlfriend by teaching her adorable little dust mop dog to mimic Nazi gestures, and react to videos and phrases involving Hitler and anti-Semitism.

He was charged with publishing offensive material online, under the Communications Act of 2003, which criminalizes improper use of electronic communications.

His trial was set for last Monday but has been delayed for the second time. He faces a year in prison, and a fine.

What this means:

Again, the timing of events makes one wonder if the delay of the trial is simply to let public anger cool down before making an example out of the man.

The man’s guilt and sentence will be decided by one judge without a jury.

So basically, the government gets to decide what is offensive, and punish people for “hate speech.”

Think about the ridiculous amount of power that one man has. It comes down to a judge deciding what will constitute unprotected speech, with no checks on his power.

Think about all the people that could be imprisoned in America, on the left and the right, for the opinions they voice about government officials. The political discourse is pretty full of hate.

For example, certain celebrities (who won’t be named to avoid playing into their game) perform clearly hate filled, offensive publicity stunts involving political figures. Even though 99.9% of these cases are pathetically obvious self serving attempts at publicity, their immaturity must be allowed in order to protect actually important free speech, which may otherwise be grouped with sad and transparent attempts to gain notoriety.

And as unfortunate as that is, it is even more terrifying to consider the precedents of western governments in trampling the right to say what you want.

If we don’t defend the right to be offensive now, it will