iftttwall

Via Michael Snyder of The Economic Collapse blog,

After reading this article you might not ever view your electronic devices the same way again.  Last year, Hollywood released a biographical political thriller based on the life of Edward Snowden that had one particularly creepy scene.  In that scene, a government spook used a program to remotely activate the microphone and camera on a laptop, and by doing so he was able to watch a woman as she got undressed.  Sadly, as you will see below, this kind of thing is happening constantly.  Any digital device can potentially be accessed and used to spy on you even if it appears to be turned off.  And this is why Donald Trump needs to be so careful right now, because the intelligence community wants to take him down and they can literally use any digital device in his possession to try to gather dirt on him.  We have a “deep state” that is absolutely obsessed with watching, tracking and monitoring the American people, and something desperately needs to be done about this unconstitutional surveillance.  Now that Trump has become greatly upset about how the government was tapping into his phone calls, maybe something will finally get accomplished.

In an article that I just published on The Most Important News, I talked about the NSA’s brand new two billion dollar data storage facility in Utah that can store up to five zettabytes of data.  Secret “electronic monitoring rooms” embedded within the facilities of major communications companies across the United States send an endless flow of digital information to this facility, and most Americans have no idea that this is even happening.  The following comes from Wired…

Before yottabytes of data from the deep web and elsewhere can begin piling up inside the servers of the NSA’s new center, they must be collected. To better accomplish that, the agency has undergone the largest building boom in its history, including installing secret electronic monitoring rooms in major US telecom facilities. Controlled by the NSA, these highly secured spaces are where the agency taps into the US communications networks, a practice that came to light during the Bush years but was never acknowledged by the agency. The broad outlines of the so-called warrantless-wiretapping program have long been exposed—how the NSA secretly and illegally bypassed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which was supposed to oversee and authorize highly targeted domestic eavesdropping; how the program allowed wholesale monitoring of millions of American phone calls and email. In the wake of the program’s exposure, Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which largely made the practices legal. Telecoms that had agreed to participate in the illegal activity were granted immunity from prosecution and lawsuits.

Whistleblowers have come forward again and again to warn us about what was happening, but they have largely been ignored.  One of the most prominent whistleblowers was former NSA employee William Binney…

Binney left the NSA in late 2001, shortly after the agency launched its warrantless-wiretapping program. “They violated the Constitution setting it up,” he says bluntly. “But they didn’t care. They were going to do it anyway, and they were going to crucify anyone who stood in the way. When they started violating the Constitution, I couldn’t stay.” Binney says Stellar Wind was far larger than has been publicly disclosed and included not just eavesdropping on domestic phone calls but the inspection of domestic email. At the outset the program recorded 320 million calls a day, he says, which represented about 73 to 80 percent of the total volume of the agency’s worldwide intercepts. The haul only grew from there.

Can you imagine recording 320 million phone calls a day?

And that was at the beginning of the program – I can’t even imagine what the number must be these days.

But even if you aren’t using your phone government spooks can still potentially be listening to you.  The following comes from a CNN article entitled “How the NSA can ‘turn on’ your phone remotely“…

Government spies can set up their own miniature cell network tower. Your phone automatically connects to it. Now, that tower’s radio waves send a command to your phone’s antennae: the baseband chip. That tells your phone to fake any shutdown and stay on.

 

A smart hack won’t keep your phone running at 100%, though. Spies could keep your phone on standby and just use the microphone — or send pings announcing your location.

 

John Pirc, who did cybersecurity research at the CIA, said these methods — and others, like physically bugging devices — let the U.S. hijack and reawaken terrorists’ phones.

Unfortunately, these tactics are not just used against “terrorists”.

The truth is that these tactics are employed against anyone that the NSA is interested in, and in fact they could be listening to you right now.

Thanks to Edward Snowden, we have learned quite a bit about how the NSA takes over digital devices…

The latest story from the Edward Snowden leaks yesterday drives home that the NSA and its spy partners possess specialized tools for doing exactly that. According to The Intercept, the NSA uses a plug-in called GUMFISH to take over cameras on infected machines and snap photos.

 

Another NSA plug-in called CAPTIVATEDAUDIENCE hijacks the microphone on targeted computers to record conversations.

 

Intelligence agencies have been turning computers into listening devices for at least a decade, as evidenced by the Flame spy tool uncovered by Kaspersky Lab in 2012, which had the ability to surreptitiously turn on webcams and microphones and perform a host of other espionage operations.

So what can you do to prevent this from happening?

If you have external webcams and microphones, you can unplug them when they are not in use.

If you have a built-in camera, some have suggested covering the camera with a sticker.

And of course pulling out the battery entirely will prevent someone from taking over your phone when you are not using it.

But at the end of the day, it is going to be really hard to keep government spooks out of your electronic devices completely.  They have become extremely sophisticated at using these devices to get what they want, and they will literally go after just about anyone.

For example, just consider what they did to former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson.  In her recent book, she details a campaign of digital harassment that sounds like something out of a spy novel.  The following comes from the Washington Post…

The breaches on Attkisson’s computer, says this source, are coming from a “sophisticated entity that used commercial, nonattributable spyware that’s proprietary to a government agency: either the CIA, FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, or the National Security Agency (NSA).” Attkisson learns from “Number One” that one intrusion was launched from the WiFi at a Ritz Carlton Hotel and the “intruders discovered my Skype account handle, stole the password, activated the audio, and made heavy use of it, presumably as a listening tool.”

 

To round out the revelations of “Number One,” he informs Attkisson that he’d found three classified documents deep inside her operating system, such that she’d never know they were even there. “Why? To frame me?” Attkisson asks in the book.

If they can do all of that to Sharyl Attkisson, they can do it to Donald Trump too.

Trump needs to understand that the deep state is trying to destroy him, and that everything that he says and does is being monitored.

So until Trump can completely clean house at all of our intelligence agencies, he is going to have to be extremely careful 24 hours a day.

And let us hope that Trump is ultimately victorious in his struggle against the deep state, because the future of this nation is literally hanging in the balance.

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

It took less than 24 hours for republicans to strike back at James Comey’s unexpected revolt against Donald Trump on Sunday afternoon, when as the NYT first reported the FBI director had demanded that the DOJ reject Trump’s accusations it was wiretapping the Trump Tower (the DOJ has still not done so, and questions are still being asked why Comey himself did not do as he requested especially since any FISA court order would have come from the FBI).

Senator Chuck Grassley, the republican Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has opened a probe into allegations the FBI worked with the British spy who authored the controversial opposition research dossier – which at various points was funded by both an unnamed democrat and republican – on President Trump during the 2016 election.  In a letter to Comey, Grassley asked for records pertaining to any agreements the agency may have had with Christopher Steele. As a reminder, the former MI6 agent wrote an explosive memo on behalf of Trump’s political enemies alleging that the Russians had compromising information on the president.

Comey briefed Trump on the existence of the memo in a private meeting in January. Shortly after, several news organizations published the unverified allegations, which the White House denied; BuzzFeed controversially posted the whole memo, for which it has since been taken to court. 

In late February, The Washington Post reported that the FBI reached an agreement with Steele whereby the British spy would continue his investigation on behalf of the bureau.

“While Trump has derided the dossier as ‘fake news’ compiled by his political opponents, the FBI’s arrangement with Steele shows that the bureau considered him credible and found his information, while unproved, to be worthy of further investigation,” the Post, which has been spoon-fed every piece of leaked wiretapped information involving the Trump administration, reported at the time.

However, today Grassley pushed back and demand the FBI provide information relevant to its relationship with and use of the British spy, whose salacious allegations – among which an infamous golden shower scene involving hookers – have infuriated Trump and his allies.

“The idea that the FBI and associates of the Clinton campaign would pay Mr. Steele to investigate the Republican nominee for President in the run-up to the election raises further questions about the FBI’s independence from politics, as well as the Obama administration’s use of law enforcement and intelligence agencies for political ends,” Grassley wrote.

“It is additionally troubling that the FBI reportedly agreed to such an arrangement given that, in January of 2017, then-Director Clapper issued a statement stating that ‘the [intelligence community] has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions.’”

In his letter, Grassley asks for all records regarding Steele’s investigation, details of the agreement between the FBI and Steele, the FBI’s policies for using outside investigators, and whether the bureau has relied on any of the information Steele has provided in seeking warrants.

Grasley also wants to know how the FBI obtained a copy of Steele’s documents, whether it has additional documents that were not published by Buzzfeed, and whether any FBI activity was influenced by the Steele memo.

Among Grassley’s  list of questions comes what could be the most devastating of his inquiries, considering President Trump’s accusation that the Obama administration wiretapped his 2016 presidential campaign:

Has the FBI relied on or otherwise referenced the memos or any information in the memos in seeking a FISA warrant, other search warrant, or any other judicial process? Did the FBI rely on or otherwise reference the memos in relation to any National Security Letters? If so, please include copies of all relevant applications and other documents.

“National Security Letters” are one of the FBI’s most secretive instruments for obtaining information. They are frequently accompanied by powerful gag orders which forbid the recipient of the letter from discussing it.

We look forward to the FBI’s response in the matter, as the law enforcement organization, and its boss, scramble to prove to both republicans and democrats that it is not – as many allege – politically tainted beyond salvage.

via http://ift.tt/2mP5YHW Tyler Durden

President Trump’s weekend tweet storm about alleged wiretapping of his Trump Tower, apparently did not sit well with MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinksi.  Fighting back tears during her opening remarks this morning, Mika lamented that she has “lost hope completely” in President Trump’s competency and declared that “This presidency is fake and failed.”

“I had hope and an open mind and I have lost hope completely and my mind is closed.  This presidency is fake and failed.”

 

Meanwhile, the obviously flustered Mika struggled to even speak in a coherent manner in the following clip in which she declares that “we’re at a low point in American history.”

“I also don’t understand why the former head of Breitbart appears to be handing the President some fake news.  And the President is just riffing on it wildly.  With no sense that he is President of the United States.  No respect for the office.  And calling the former President of the United States unbelievable names.”

 

“We are at a low point in American history and I don’t know how anybody can defend this president, even if it’s their job. Like you’ve got to have a job after this. You’ve got to look in the mirror after this. Sarah Huckabee or whoever is speaking out next. You have to look in the mirror and think about this country after this is over. You need to think of the end game here, because there isn’t one at the rate we are going.”

 

And here are more great one-liners from the emotionally distraught Mika who says that Steve Bannon and his “dangerous far-right agenda” is “going to threaten everything.”

“It looks like he looking to deflect from something much bigger, probably pertaining to Russia at this point, who knows.”

 

“But the people close to him, the people guiding him, are so poorly serving him.  They are pushing a strange far-right agenda that is going to threaten everything.”

 

Thank you for the glorious start to the week, Mika.

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

Via Disobedient Media

Startling developments have revealed that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has moved beyond their original charter as a legal advocate for individual rights under the Constitution to actively taking an hand in training and organizing protest groups throughout the country. Their shift in focus came just over a month after reports emerged that George Soros was sinking tens of millions into the group through his affiliated organizations. Articles prominently featured by the ACLU announcing the shift towards actively organizing anti-government protests are authored by a former employee of Soros-funded groups. The startling shift indicates that the ACLU has decided to participate in Soros driven protest movements with the goal of subverting American democracy and driving regime change in the United States.

I. The ACLU Has Actively Begun To Assist In Protest Organization

The ACLU’s shift from their traditional mandate of legal advocacy appears to have occurred sometime in February 2017, with the announcement of People Power, a campaign consisting of what they described as “Resistance Training” to “take the fight against Donald Trump’s policies not just into the courts, but into the streets.” The training sessions are to be broadcast nationally via livestream. The shift appears to have been announced on February 24, 2017 in an article authored by the ACLU’s National Political Director, Faiz Shakir. Shakir apparently also runs the ACLU’s Reddit account, using it for an AMA (Ask Me Anything) session on Reddit to announce the rollout of People Power. In the session, Mr. Shakir explained that the campaign would consist of more than 1,500 events, to organize a “volunteer army to fight back” in what he described as “the fight of our lives.” Announcements of the campaign are also being astroturfed to multiple left leaning subreddits in an attempt to garner support.

II. Faiz Shakir Is A Former Employee Of Soros-Controlled Organizations, People Power Was Launched After Major Funding From George Soros

Preliminary investigation has uncovered facts which call into question the incentives behind the ACLU’s decision to become involved with political protest. Faiz Shakir, the author of the ACLU’s announcement of People Power, spent seven years working at the Center for American Progress and was a founding member and editor-in-chief of ThinkProgress.org. The Center for American Progress (CAP) was a project spearheaded by John Podesta with heavy funding from George Soros. ThinkProgress was founded by the CAP to serve as its blog and news outlet, alongside David Brock’s propaganda outlet Media Matters. Brock has recently come under fire amid revelations that his new organization, Shareblue, has improper ties to the Chinese government, organizations in the City of London, Mexico, Israel and multiple Middle Eastern states. Shakir also served as a senior advisor to Senator Harry Reid and as a senior adviser and director of digital media for Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi. His past associations with Soros-funded groups and prominent Democrat political figures raise questions about his apparent role spearheading the ACLU’s drive to become involved in training and equipping protestors.

The ACLU itself has received massive amounts of funding from George Soros. A February 6th, 2017 article from Zerohedge cited research from LifeZette and the Capital Research Center indicating that Soros’s Open Society Institute has sunk over $35 million into the ACLU alone and millions more to other liberal organizations directly involved in filing lawsuits against various policies of Donald Trump all around the country. The massive donation drive is part of Soros’ overall effort to “reshape the American justice system” by buying district attorneys in races across the country.

III. The ACLU’s Sudden Drive To Assist With Protest Organization Appears To Be Part Of A Wider Attempt By George Soros To Implement Regime Change In The United States

The presence of Soros and Democrat-aligned individuals who are closely involved with the ACLU’s sudden drive to assist with protest efforts and the major funding Soros has given to the ACLU seriously calls into question the ACLU’s People Power movement. Given Soros’ major support for other protest movements across the U.S. in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s defeat of his supported candidate Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election, the funds sunk into the ACLU appear to be part of a wider effort to effect regime change in the United States. Soros and his affiliated organizations have already faced backlash over the past year in multiple Eastern European countries amid accusations that he was meddling in their political processes and improperly seeking to influence public opinion. The People Power movement, in light of the involvement of Mr. Shakir and the major funding given to the ACLU by Soros serves in effect to further his overall goals of political control in the United States, irregardless of the purported good intentions behind it.

via http://ift.tt/2n7STFT William Craddick

Via Jeff Thomas of InternationalMan.com,

Recently, I was in a pharmacy and overheard the pharmacist say to someone, “There’s so much unpleasantness on the news these days, I’ve stopped watching.” The pharmacist has my sympathy. I’d love to be able to ignore the deterioration of the First World. It is, at turns, tedious, depressing, disturbing, and infuriating.

Unfortunately, we’re now passing through what, before it’s over, will be the most life-altering period in our lifetimes. As much as we’d like to behave like ostriches right now, we’d better keep our heads out of the sand and be as honest with ourselves as we can if we’re going to lessen the impact that these events will have on us.

I cannot emphasize too strongly the importance of a possible shortage of food. History is filled with examples of cultures that would endure most anything and still behave responsibly… but nothing causes greater, more unpredictable, or more violent behaviour in a people than a lack of food.

Interesting to note that whenever I converse with people on the finer points of the Great Unraveling, when I mention the words “famine” or “food riots,” even those who are otherwise quite comfortable discussing the subject tend to want to discount the possibility that these will be aspects of the troubles that are headed our way. For this very reason, I believe that we should shine a light on this eventuality.

The Present State of the Industry

In America, the food industry is not in good shape. Normally, the food industry relies on a low-profit/high-volume basis, leaving little room for error. Add to this fact that many business owners and managers in the food industry have given in to the temptation to build up debt over the years. Following the 2008 crash, many have been struggling to get on top of that debt. Inflation has made that task especially difficult. Some have been keeping their noses above water; others have gone under.

Hyperinflation

In future years, hyperinflation is a very real possibility. Historically, whenever a government creates massive debt and greatly increases the printing of currency, dramatic inflation, if not hyperinflation, results. Those businesses that are already on the ragged edge will find that when they’re paid, they cannot buy the same volume of goods for the same amount of dollars. This will be true throughout the entire food-supply chain. Of course, little inflationary blips are the norm in business, and businesses adjust to them. The problem comes when there are large increases that continue steadily over a period of months. When this occurs, we’ll see a greater frequency of food-supply businesses going belly up.

In a normal business climate, the failure of some businesses would aid the competition, as they would have new markets to take on, but if the remaining businesses are already having trouble, they will not be in a condition to expand. The disappearance of large numbers of providers will result in a failure of delivery to the next business down the chain. Nationwide, distribution will become inadequate. This, of course, will not be uniform. Some areas will suffer worse than others. Those types of areas that are already chronically problematic will be hit hardest.

Those who are the most likely to go down the earliest will be those who have the highest overheads and the lowest volume. Typically, these are the small stores—the ones on street corners in every city.

These stores are critical. If a supermarket in the suburbs experiences a shortage, purchasers may drive across town to another supermarket. Not so in the city. If a corner store has empty shelves, or worse, closes completely, the purchasers in that neighbourhood must walk to the next neighbourhood to buy, and they might not be welcome there if the people in that neighbourhood are already having problems with supply at their local store. Worse, should the second store also close, the number of purchasers is redoubled. When the shoppers from two stores arrive at the third store, physical conflict between shoppers is a near certainty.

Panic Sets In

Food panic doesn’t necessarily occur if a retailer carefully assesses his increased market and rations sales so that everybody gets a slightly lesser share. In fact, I’ve personally seen this work well in the event of a natural disaster in my home country. The panic does occur when the availability suddenly becomes non-existent (even for a brief time) and the shoppers are unsure when it will be resumed. In an inner city, this is exacerbated by three factors:

1. Shipments from suppliers become erratic and insufficient.

2. A significant increase in the number of shoppers cleans out the store.

3. Individual shoppers become unreasonably demanding.

This last factor, in any inner-city situation, is almost always responsible for the chaos that evolves into a riot. It works like this: A mother complains that there is no bread for her children to have a sandwich. Her husband becomes angry at the problem and goes down to the corner store, demanding a loaf of bread. The store manager says that he cannot release the bread until the next morning, when the neighbourhood knows they can each come and buy one loaf only. The man, becoming angrier, goes in the back and takes a loaf of bread. The manager resists and is shot.

The man, on his way out, grabs a carton of cigarettes and a couple of six-packs of beer for good measure. The store, now unmanaged, is looted. Those shoppers who are normally peaceful people begin to panic and realize that it’s time to grab what you can. In these situations, the food stores are generally cleaned out quickly. In a very short period of time, a full-scale riot may be in play. In most inner-city riots, the liquor stores are hit early on, then the appliance stores, and so on down the line.

But this is no ordinary riot. Unlike a riot triggered by, say, a TV news clip of some policeman beating a seemingly innocent man, the trigger is ongoing and, more importantly, it is not, at its heart, anger-based—it is fear-based. And it is self-perpetuating. Shipments are not resumed to a store that has no one running it. Worse, additional store owners close for fear that they’re next. The situation escalates very fast.

Enter the Cavalry

While the US and Europe have seen many riot situations and we can therefore study how they play out, a series of self-perpetuating riots has not taken place before. It’s likely that, within weeks, a national emergency would be declared, and rightly so. But how to deal with it?

Certainly, the president and state governors would quickly begin to work with wholesalers to ensure that food got to the cities (and any other locations that are also troubled). Needless to say, suppliers will refuse, stating that, in such a situation, they cannot get paid for any food that they deliver. Truckers will state that they cannot accept the danger that their drivers will be exposed to.

Politicians, feeling the pressure from their constituencies, will want to act decisively, even if their decisions prove ineffectual. In such cases, those politicians who are more conservative may decide to send in truckloads of food to be handed out for free, with the control of the Department of Homeland Security to (hopefully) keep order. Those politicians who are more liberal will believe that the right solution is to nationalise food supply in their states (and possibly nationally)—to take over the control of delivery.

As can be imagined, the results will vary from suburban situations in which the store staff are still in place and the provision of food at the retail level remains orderly, to inner-city situations in which trucks will be routinely ransacked. The evening news will show a clip of a “shopper” running down the street with a case of boxes of cornflakes while heads of lettuce roll on the pavement, some to be picked up, others to be trampled.

Meanwhile, at the other end of the supply chain, the wholesaler is trying to explain to the politicians that if he’s not paid in some way for the food he sends out, he simply cannot continue. Politicians (especially the more liberal ones), not understanding the workings of business, regard the businessman as simply being greedy and fail to understand that, without an orderly flow of money, business stops. The politicians place a temporary ban on all food containers being shipped overseas (even though the overseas customers may be the only truly reliable payers). The politicians advise the wholesalers that they will be paid “eventually.” If the money does not exist in the state’s treasury, some politicians may even promise future tax credits as payment. As a result, the supply of food breaks down on a major scale.

How It All Shakes Out

Historically, there’s nothing so chaotic as famine. As long as people have a crust of bread and as long as it arrives regularly, there’s a chance that events may be controlled. It’s the very unpredictability of supply that causes panic. And the greater the concentration of potential recipients, the greater the panic.

Small wonder that, when I speak to friends and associates about the Great Unraveling, this one facet often makes them recoil in a desire to avoid the subject entirely. Once this particular house of cards begins to fall, it will fall much faster than the economy in general, and the results will unquestionably be extreme. So, if the politicians are unlikely to effect a workable solution (at least in the short term), how does this all play out? After all, no famine lasts forever.

What historically happens during a famine is that chaos ensues for a period of time. Some people are killed in attempting to take food from the authorities who control the distribution. Other people are killed on their way home by others who want the food they are carrying. Others are killed in their homes when raided by those who are hungry. Still others die of starvation. It’s horrific to say, but, after a time, in such situations, famine becomes “the new norm” and, as illogical as it would seem, this is the turning point. Chaos eventually devolves into hopelessness and listlessness, and the panic disappears. Then, at some point, the lines of supply are slowly restructured, generally on a more limited scale than before.

Is there a timeline for the above to occur? This is for the reader to decide. Each of us will have some general picture in our heads regarding the likelihood and timing of a second crash in the stock market, the rapidity and degree of hyperinflation, and the many other aspects that make up the Great Unraveling of the economy.   

Therefore, those who accept that harder times are looming but would rather not consider the likelihood of food riots and famine would be advised to read the above article a second time and then begin to plan. Those who do not presently have “backdoor” situations in place may wish to set the wheels in motion and to internationalise themselves. One thing is certain: Once riot situations begin, there will not be enough time to plan.

*  *  *

You might think these food shortages and riots will only hit the inner cities. Maybe the chaos will simply pass you by… Unfortunately, that’s unlikely. In fact, your nice neighborhood could make you an easy target. The masses—and more critically, the government—may try to grab the money and resources you’ve diligently tucked away. The truth is there’s only one way to opt out of this kind of economic and social breakdown. It’s the absolute best way to protect yourself, your family, and your finances. But chances are you haven’t done it yet. That’s why New York Times best-selling author Doug Casey just released this critical video explaining how to prepare for and profit from the next financial crisis. It’s coming, whether you’re ready or not. Click here to watch it now.

via http://ift.tt/2lV8OHo Tyler Durden

Update: North Korea warned Monday that U.S.-South Korean military exercises, which it called "the most undisguised nuclear war maneuvers," are driving the Korean Peninsula and northeast Asia toward "nuclear disaster."

The North Korean ambassador to the United Nations, Ja Song Nam, said in a letter to the U.N. Security Council that the U.S. is using nuclear-propelled aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, nuclear strategic bombers and stealth fighters in the joint exercises that began Wednesday.

"It may go over to an actual war," Ja warned of the military drills, "and, consequently, the situation on the Korean Peninsula is again inching to the brink of a nuclear war."

The letter was sent a few hours after North Korea fired four banned ballistic missiles. Ja said the main reason North Korea is equipping itself "with nuclear attack capabilities" and strengthening its nuclear deterrent forces is in self-defense against what he called the U.S. "extreme anti-DPRK hostile policy and nuclear threats and blackmails as well as maneuvers to enforce its nuclear weapons."

*  *  *

As we detailed earlier, breaking its silence following the launch of four missiles into the Sea of Japan, three of which landed in Japanese territorial waters, official North Korean media has claimed that the mysterious nation held the missile launch as an exercise for strikes against US bases in Japan.

The drill was conducted by Hwasong artillery units of its Strategic Force, "tasked to strike the bases of the U.S. imperialist aggression forces in Japan," the Korean Central News Agency (KNCA) said.

AFP clarifies the intent of the test: North Korea says yesterday's missile launch was training exercise for strike on US bases in Japan

The drill was carried out by units of the KPA Strategic Force, state-controlled media outlet KCNA reported. The report didn’t indicate if any of the rockets were ICBMs.

Reuters additionally reports that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un supervised the ballistic missile launch personally (though scientists and technicians in the nuclear weapons and rocket research fields were among those attending the launch).

The test launches comes just days after an internal White House strategy review on North Korean options reportedly included the possibility of both military force and regime change to counter the country’s nuclear-weapons threat, the WSJ reports, a prospect that has some U.S. allies in the region on edge.

As AP reports, North Korea's latest volley of missile tests has added to pressure on a preoccupied Trump administration to identify how it will counter leader Kim Jong Un's weapons development. North Korea's march toward having a nuclear-tipped missile that could reach the U.S. mainland is among the pressing national security priorities President Donald Trump faces. He has vowed it "won't happen" but has yet to articulate a strategy to stop it. A wide array of options are on the table, but aggressive behavior by Pyongyang in response to U.S.-South Korean military drills that began last week could further shrink chances for diplomatic engagement. Upheaval in the administration has added to uncertainty in foreign capitals about how a new president lacking experience in government would handle a security crisis should one unfold.

The United States and Japan have requested a United Nations Security Council meeting on the launches, according to Reuters, which will likely be scheduled for Wednesday, diplomats said. The U.S. military on Monday left open the possibility of additional launch attempts.

"There were four that landed. There may be a higher number of launches that we're not commenting on. But four landed and splashed in the Sea of Japan," Navy Captain Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, told a news briefing.

Condemning the launches as further "provocative behavior," White House spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters the United States was taking steps to enhance defense against ballistic missiles, including deployment of a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery in South Korea. South Korea's acting President Hwang Kyo-ahn said Seoul would swiftly deploy the anti-missile system despite angry objections from China. A U.S. official said the system could be installed far earlier than an original fall target date.

*  *  *

So far no tweets from Trump on this as the sabre-rattling is getting very loud.

As a reminder, it was less than a month ago that scientists moved the world's doomsday clock to its closest to midnight in 64 years…

via http://ift.tt/2n7NLBD Tyler Durden

The CEO of Assurant appeared on Bloomberg TV to explain why demand for his services is likely to increase: the chief executive of the mobile phone insurer said he expects a surge in demand as carriers charge customers more to replace their devices. “If you think back five years ago, you as a consumer didn’t know how much that phone cost, you thought it was free or close to free,” Assurant’s Alan Colberg said Monday. “Now you’re paying $600, that’s a lot. So we’ve actually seen the attachment rate, or the number of people buying the product, going up a little bit in the last couple of years.”

He then proceeded to give Bloomberg his traditional sales pitch: Assurant is counting on growth at its business covering phones and appliances to help counter a decline in the segment that insures foreclosed homes for lenders. While improvement in the real estate market has limited the number of vacant homes, Colberg said there are still many cash-strapped consumers.

It is what he said next that caught our attention: “The reality is, half of Americans can’t afford to write a $500 check,” Colberg said. He spun that stunning statistic by saying that when US customers sign up for a cellular plan, they’re willing to buy protection in case “they lose that phone or something happens to it.”

In other words, there are millions of Americans who don’t have $500 in the bank but are willing to dish out more than that on a cell phone, and then are stupid enough to make monthly payments that ultimately end up being far higher than $500 to protect their purchase… which they clearly couldn’t afford in the first place.

* * *

That said, we decided to look into the CEO’s claim about the woeful state of US finances. What we found is that according to a recent Bankrate survey of 1,000 adults, 57% of Americans don’t have enough cash to cover a mere $500 unexpected expense. Turns out the CEO was right. And while that may appear dire, it is a slight improvement from 2016, when 63% of U.S. residents said they wouldn’t be able to handle such an expense.

The survey’s findings have shed light on how the so-called recovery of the past 8 years has skipped about half of the US population, which literally live paycheck to paycheck, and reflects a country in which many households continue to struggle with their basic finances more than seven years after the official end to the recession.

Putting the numbers in context: despite steady job growth during the Obama administration – which have been focused on minimum wage industries – wages have been predictably slow to recover, with the typical American household still earning 2.4% below what they brought home in 1999, when income peaked. Meanwhile, costs for essentials such as housing and child care have surged faster than the rate of inflation, placing stress on household budgets and making the accumulation of wealth, i.e., savings, impossible.

The bottom line:  About four out of 10 Americans said they had enough in savings to cover a surprise $500 expense. Another 21% said they would rely on a credit card, while 20% said they’d cut back on other expenses. Another 11% said they’d turn to family or friends for the money.

What is even more striking is that among Americans who earn more than $75,000 per year – a third more than the typical U.S. household earns – almost half also said they wouldn’t be able to cover a $500 surprise expense. Ironically, Millennials represent the generation most equipped to handle an emergency cost, with 47 percent saying they have enough in savings to cover one.

The Bankrate survey findings echoed research published last year by the Federal Reserve, which found that 46% of respondents said they would be challenged to come up with even less, or $400, to cover an emergency expense, and would likely borrow or sell something to afford it. When the Fed asked what types of emergency expenses Americans had actually faced in the last year, more than one out of five cited a major unexpected medical expense. The average expense: $2,782, or almost seven times higher than the Fed’s hypothetical $400 surprise bill.

How do cell phones fit in all of this? When it comes to reducing spending, dining out is the first place where consumers would cut back, with 6 out of 10 respondents saying they would eat out less. What is the “stickiest” expense? According to Bankrate, the least likely expense to face the chopping block are mobile phone plans, with the survey finding that only 35% said they would cut back on their wireless plans to save money.

In other words, Americans would rather be hungry than cell phone free. In retrospect, it may turn out be that Assurant’s CEO, whose business model is a big bet on human stupidity, just may have a goldmine on his hands.

 

 

via http://ift.tt/2n7Z4JI Tyler Durden

via http://ift.tt/2n7EWaK williambanzai7

Via Ron Paul of The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

History shows that, if individuals have the freedom to choose what to use as money, they will likely opt for gold or silver.

Of course, modern politicians and their Keynesian enablers despise the gold or silver standard. This is because linking a currency to a precious metal limits the ability of central banks to finance the growth of the welfare-warfare state via the inflation tax. This forces politicians to finance big government much more with direct means of taxation.

Despite the hostility toward gold from modern politicians, gold played a role in US monetary policy for sixty years after the creation of the Federal Reserve. Then, in 1971, as concerns over the US government’s increasing deficits led many foreign governments to convert their holdings of US dollars to gold, President Nixon closed the gold window, creating America’s first purely fiat currency.

America’s 46-year experiment in fiat currency has gone exactly as followers of the Austrian school predicted: a continuing decline in the dollar’s purchasing power accompanied by a decline in the standard of living of middle- and working-class Americans, a series of Federal Reserve-created booms followed by increasingly severe busts, and an explosive growth in government spending. Federal Reserve policies are also behind much of the increase in income inequality.

Since the 2008 Fed-created economic meltdown, more Americans have become aware of the Federal Reserve's responsibility for America's economic problems. This growing anti-Fed sentiment is one of the key factors behind the liberty movement’s growth and represents the most serious challenge to the Fed's legitimacy in its history. This movement has made “Audit the Fed” into a major national issue that is now closer than ever to being signed into law.

Audit the Fed is not the only focus of the growing anti-Fed movement. For example, this Wednesday the Arizona Senate Finance and Rules Committees will consider legislation (HB 2014) officially defining gold, silver, and other precious metals as legal tender. The bill also exempts transactions in precious metals from state capital gains taxes, thus ensuring that people are not punished by the taxman for rejecting Federal Reserve notes in favor of gold or silver. Since inflation increases the value of precious metals, these taxes give the government one more way to profit from the Federal Reserve’s currency debasement.

HB 2014 is a very important and timely piece of legislation. The Federal Reserve’s failure to reignite the economy with record-low interest rates since the last crash is a sign that we may soon see the dollar’s collapse. It is therefore imperative that the law protect people’s right to use alternatives to what may soon be virtually worthless Federal Reserve notes.

Passage of HB 2014 would also send a message to Congress and the Trump administration that the anti-Fed movement is growing in influence. Thus, passage of this bill will not just strengthen movements in other states to pass similar legislation; it will also help build support for the Audit the Fed bill and legislation repealing federal legal tender laws.

This Wednesday I will be in Arizona to help rally support for HB 2014, speaking on behalf of the bill before the Arizona Senate Finance Committee at 9:00 a.m. I will also be speaking at a rally at noon at the Arizona state capitol. I hope every supporter of sound money in the Phoenix area joins me to show their support for ending the Fed’s money monopoly.

via http://ift.tt/2n7tJXC Tyler Durden