Feed Aggregator Page 585
Rendered on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:30:08 GMT
Rendered on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 13:30:08 GMT
via by Tyler Durden on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:42:31 GMT
Donald Trump's sole Silicone Valley supporter, Peter Thiel, has been notoriously media shy (recall he personally funded the destruction of Gawker for "outing" him), so when the NYT's Maureen Dowd posted an extensive interview with the Paypal cofounder and first Facebook investor, many were were curious to get some insight into his thinking. In the interview, Thiel spoke candidly about how he views the world, just a week before Trump's inauguration, and while he touched on many topics, some that stood out to us were the following.
On why rich people and hedge fund managers changed their opinion of Trump virtually overnight:
“Somehow, I think Silicon Valley got even more spun up than Manhattan. There were hedge fund people I spoke to about a week after the election. They hadn’t supported Trump. But all of a sudden, they sort of changed their minds. The stock market went up, and they were like, ‘Yes, actually, I don’t understand why I was against him all year long.’”
It remains to be seen what "they" think of Trump once the market suffers its next correction.
Theil also discussed Apple, and when asked if the age of Apple is over, he confirmed:
"We know what a smartphone looks like and does. It’s not the fault of Tim Cook, but it’s not an area where there will be any more innovation."
Speaking about the Billy Bush sex tape, Thiel said that Silicon Valley is "hyper-politically correct about sex" simply because "people there just don't have that much sex."
“On the one hand, the tape was clearly offensive and inappropriate. At the same time, I worry there’s a part of Silicon Valley that is hyper-politically correct about sex. One of my friends has a theory that the rest of the country tolerates Silicon Valley because people there just don’t have that much sex. They’re not having that much fun.”
Some other key highlights from the interview, courtesy of BI.
On reconciling being gay with the perception that Trump's administration will pursue an anti-LGBT agenda:
“You know, maybe I should be worried but I’m not that worried about it. I don’t know. People know too many gay people. There are just all these ways I think stuff has just shifted. For speaking at the Republican convention, I got attacked way more by liberal gay people than by conservative Christian people.
On the concerns that Trump might provoke a war with his Twitter account:
“A Twitter war is not a real war."
On whether Russia is behind the hacks on the Democratic National Committee:
“There’s a strong circumstantial case that Russia did this thing. On the other hand, I was totally convinced that there were W.M.D.s in Iraq in 2002, 2003.”
On Twitter's role in the election:
“I think the crazy thing is, at a place like Twitter, they were all working for Trump this whole year even though they thought they were working for Sanders.”
On Hillary Clinton's weakness:
"“If you’re too optimistic, it sounds like you’re out of touch. The Republicans needed a far more pessimistic candidate. Somehow, what was unusual about Trump is, he was very pessimistic but it still had an energizing aspect to it.”
On whether or not he'll regret his role in Trump's election:
“I always have very low expectations, so I’m rarely disappointed,” he says.
Finally, he confirmed there will be no slot for him in the Trump administration:
I want to stay involved in Silicon Valley and help Mr. Trump as I can without a full-time position.
Much more in the full interview (and appendix) which can be read at "Peter Thiel, Trump’s Tech Pal, Explains Himself"
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:31:00 GMT
The sporting goods retailer surged as rivals declared bankruptcy, and it took advantage.via by Tyler Durden on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:02:09 GMT
Early on Thursday morning, in a 51-48 vote, the Senate took the first concrete step toward dismantling Obamacare, when it voted to instruct key committees to draft legislation repealing Barack Obama's signature health insurance program. Republicans needed a simple majority to clear the repeal rules, instructing committees to begin drafting repeal legislation, through the upper chamber, with the vote falling largely along party lines.
Rand Paul was the lone Republican to vote against the budget resolution because it didn’t balance. Paul said in a statement after the vote that while he supports nixing ObamaCare "putting nearly $10 trillion more in debt on the American people’s backs through a budget that never balances is not the way to get there."
Meanwhile, no Democrat supported the repeal rules. Instead, Democrats rose one by one from their seats on the Senate floor in protest to state why they were voting against the resolution. In dramatic fashion, Bernie Sanders warned that if the GOP resolution moved forward Americans would die.
"Up to 30 million Americans will lose their health care with many thousands dying as a result," he said. "Because when you have no health insurance and you can't go to a doctor or a hospital, you die."
Sanders also mocked the Republican effort saying the GOP have never united around an alternative to Obamacare. "They want to kill ACA but they have no idea how they are going to bring forth a substitute proposal," declared Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
Dianne Feinstein who had surgery to install a pacemaker, missed the hours-long "vote-a-rama" session that began Wednesday evening. Lawmakers were able to use the hours-long voting block to force a vote on any amendment to the budget resolution. Some 180 amendments were filed.
As the Hill adds, the late-night passage of the budget resolution comes despite deep divisions on when and how to replace ObamaCare, which were on full display. Lawmakers spent more than six hours on the Senate floor and voted on more than 19 amendments, none of which were successfully added to the resolution.
But Republicans managed to avoid what was expected to be the top fight of the night, when a group of five GOP senators dropped their push to delay the ObamaCare repeal legislation. Lawmakers had wanted to push the deadline for committee repeal proposals from Jan. 27 to March, which they argued was needed to give lawmakers extra time to lock down details on a replacement bill and work with the incoming Trump administration about next steps.
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), one of the Republicans backing the amendment, said the decision was a result of a "very thoughtful discussions" within Republicans and recognizing that the Jan. 27 date is a "placeholder."
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) added that "we have assurances from leadership that this date is not a date that is set in stone."
But Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), McConnell's deputy, had warned that pushing back the date could create a "jam" on the Senate floor with GOP lawmakers wanting to tackle an ambitious agenda with President-elect Donald Trump's first 100 days.
The resolution now goes to the House of Representatives, which is expected to vote on it this week. Scrapping Obamacare, albeit without a ready replacement, has become a top priority for most Republican majorities in both chambers and Republican President-elect Donald Trump. Republicans have said that the process of repealing Obamacare could take months, while developing a replacement plan could take far longer, according to Goldman as much as two years. However, they are under pressure from Trump to act fast; he said on Wednesday that the repeal and replacement should happen "essentially simultaneously." It remains unclear just how that will happen.
Trump said during a press conference on Wednesday that repeal and replace legislation would occur near simultaneously if not at the same time. “It'll be repeal and replace. It will be essentially, simultaneously. It will be various segments, you understand, but will most likely be on the same day or the same week, but probably, the same day, could be the same hour,” he said.
At the same time, Democrats continued to warn that if Republicans break ObamaCare they will own any political backlash and roil the insurance market. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) appealed to Republicans earlier Wednesday, urging them to back down from the healthcare fight. "If Republicans go forward with this plan, they may mollify their base, but they will ostracize and hurt the American people, and ultimately lose in the court of public opinion," he said.
Democrats forced votes on a myriad of amendments aimed at blocking legislation that would "make America sick again," a new Democratic slogan on the GOP plan to repeal ObamaCare without a replacement.
Some 20 million previously uninsured Americans gained health coverage through the Affordable Care Act, as Obamacare is officially called. Coverage was extended by expanding Medicaid and through online exchanges where consumers can receive income-based subsidies. On the other hand, premiums for Obamacare members have exploded in recent year, leading to widespread anger among middle-class Americans.
* * *
The resolution approved Thursday instructs committees of the House and Senate to draft repeal legislation by a target date of January 27. Both chambers will then need to approve the resulting legislation before any repeal goes into effect. Senate Republicans are using special budget procedures that allow them to repeal Obamacare by a simple majority; this way they don't need Democratic votes. Republicans have a majority of 52 votes in the 100-seat Senate; one Republican, Senator Rand Paul, voted no on Thursday.
Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010 over united Republican opposition. Democrats say the act is insuring more Americans and helping to slow the growth in healthcare spending. But Republicans say the system is not working. The average Obamacare premium is set to rise 25 percent in 2017.
via Motley Fool Headlines by on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:12:00 GMT
The tech company hasn't gotten much love from investors in the last year, but that could change soon.via by Tyler Durden on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:36:45 GMT
Risk assets declined across the globe, with European, Asian shares and S&P 500 futures all falling, while the dollar slumped against most currencies after a news conference by President-elect Donald Trump disappointed investors with limited details of his economic-stimulus plans, and the Trumpflation/reflation trade was said to be unwinding.
"The risk was always that a president like Trump would end up upsetting that consensus (of faster U.S. growth, stronger dollar) view by introducing more political uncertainty," said asset manager GAM's head of multi-asset portfolios Larry Hatheway.
The biggest mover, and perhaps the key driver of risk since the election, was the dollar which tumbled as much as 0.8%, falling below its 50DMA for the first time since the election, and back to where it was during the December 14 Fed rate hike announcement, while Treasuries gained alongside commodities, as Donald Trump’s press conference sent a wake-up call to the market about exalted expectations for fiscal stimulus in the U.S.
"Overall, investors are wary ahead of Trump's inauguration – a case of buy the talk (Trumpflation), but sell the news," analysts at Societe Generale said in a note.

However while negative for the US, that Trump did not mention possible tariffs against Chinese exports, was a relief for Asian share markets that have feared the outbreak of a global trade war.
The lack of detail about a potential stimulus also put safety plays such as bonds and gold back in favor, cooling bets that have built in recent months on significantly higher global inflation and series of U.S. interest rate hikes. It was enough to send the dollar tumbling back below 114 yen for the first time in five weeks and brought some welcome relief to Brexit-bruised sterling and Turkey's lira, which has been badly beaten up this year. The USD/JPY broke below the prior session low of 114.25 to reach its weakest level in a month as broad assets position adjustments after recent rally continues to lower the pair’s range, said Satoshi Okagawa, senior global market analyst at Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. in Singapore. Eventually the pair slid as low as 113.77 shortly after the European open before rebounding to just above 114.
The euro was back at $1.0650 for the first time in a month, shaky sterling climbed above $1.22 and Sweden's crown hit a four-month high and cracked its 200-day moving average against the euro after pacy inflation data. It was also bliss for bond markets that have been in reverse since Trump's election fuel led bets on higher U.S. interest rates that tend to set the bar for global borrowing costs.
Gold spiked on the weak dollar, rising above $1,200 since November 23, and at the 38.2% Fibonacci of the Trump-Led slide.
With all eyes on the dollar, the U.S. currency slumped against most major and the 10-year Treasury yield touched the lowest since November as Trump’s first press conference since his election victory gave no details on policy.
European stocks headed for their lowest close since the end of 2016 and drugmakers across the globe sold off. Turkey’s currency climbed for the first time in six days as the nation’s central bank tightened lira liquidity. Gold advanced to a seven-week high and industrial metals rallied. The Stoxx Europe 600 Index lost 0.5 percent and the FTSE 100 fell 0.2 percent, halting a record streak of gains. Health-care shares headed for their biggest drop since November, deepening losses that began late yesterday.
As Bloomberg, and virtually everyone else has pointed out many times already, Trump’s press conference left investors with few specifics on the timing and scope of planned policies from infrastructure spending to trade pacts. Since his victory, the dollar and global equities have rallied, while bonds sold off, on bets inflation would pick up with growth. Health-care stocks were pressured Thursday as Trump said he’d force the pharmaceutical industry to bid for government business in the world’s largest drug market.
“Markets are disappointed by a lack of detail around the much touted stimulus plans,” said Michael McCarthy, Sydney-based chief market strategist at CMC Markets Plc. “There is a growing fear that recent positive moves are based on bombast, and could unravel very quickly.”
"The news conference was a far cry from the market friendly, pro-growth "presidential" comments that Trump delivered at his acceptance speech," wrote analysts at Westpac, adding it left a "veritable laundry list" of questions unanswered.
Futures on the S&P 500 Index fell 0.3 percent. The underlying gauge increased 0.3 percent on Wednesday, staging an afternoon rally and recouping losses of as much as 0.4 percent.
In rates, the benchmark 10-year Treasury yield fell five basis points to 2.32 percent, touching the lowest level since Nov. 30. German 10-year yields dropped three basis points to 0.29 percent, while those in the U.K. slid five basis points to 1.29 percent.
Bulletin Headline Summary from RanSquawk
Market Snapshot
Top News
Looking at regional markets, we start in Asia where stock markets traded lower across the board to shrug off the positive lead from Wall Street as Trump's press conference led USD lower and as the surge in oil markets lifted the energy names. Nikkei 225 (-1.2%) underperformed on a firmer JPY as USD/JPY broke below 115.00, while comments in the US session from Trump criticising the healthcare sector led the pharmaceutical sector lower by around 3%. ASX 200 (-0.1%) pared early gains despite higher commodity prices, as a second day of double digit loss for Bellamy's and near 2% declined in the health care sector weighed the index. In China, Shanghai Comp (-0.6%) and Hang Seng (-0.4%) were lower amid a lack of news-flow and yet another reserved liquidity operation by the PBoC. 10yr JGBs traded marginally higher amid the risk averse tone in the region, while the curve flattened amid outperformance in the long end.
Top Asian NEws
All of the major European bourses trade in the red this morning with many analysts stating that President elect Trumps failure to mention any fiscal spending plans could be the main reason for the subdued sentiment. In company specific news, Tesco (-2.3%) shares are trading soft after broad sector strength earlier in the week. Elsewhere, Healthcare shares have been hit this morning after Trump stated that healthcare companies should be allowed to get away with charging extortionate prices. Luxury names have been trading well with Burberry (+1.3%) trading higher in sympathy with Richemont (7.6%) who reported a strong set of earnings pre-market. In Fixed income markets, Bunds opened higher in tandem with their US counterparts performance overnight, although prices have pulled away from best levels as markets take the opportunity to book profits. Elsewhere, supply from Europe has come in the form of Italian BTPs and a UK 2025 Gilt auction with UK paper relatively unfazed by a firm b/c of 2.52 and small yield tail.
Top European News
In currencies, there have been some sweeping moves in the USD this morning, and all spurred by the lack of substance in yesterday's press conference by president elect Trump. This is all the talk at the moment, so there is everything to suggest that this may continue to a modest degree, with USD dip buyers likely to limit and significant moves from current pullback levels. USD/JPY has taken out 114.00, but still looks vulnerable to a deeper correction which sees the potential for 113.00 base on the charts. Support from here stretches down to 111.45-50 before we can start talking of a reversal. This is very much the case in EUR/USD, where sellers have come in around 1.0650-60, but the risk for a move to 1.0700-1.0800 remains as rising EU inflation raises the prospect on greater consideration of (ECB) tapering. GBP has also benefitted from the turn in the USD as we have seen 1.2300 tipped in Cable this morning. Brexit related fears will keep a lid on any major recoveries — especially against the USD — as yield differentials also dictate. EUR/GBP price action will also reflect a clearer picture, but sentiment USD based for now. USD/CAD is now threatening a move on 1.3000 on the downside, with Oil prices having held up well over the last 24 hours. The Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index, a gauge of the greenback against 10 major peers, fell 0.8 percent at 10:01 a.m. London time. It’s flat since the Fed’s rate decision on Dec. 14.
In commodities, the big mover in the commodity complex is Gold, taking out USD 1,200 as the USD was hit hard during president elect Trump's ineffective press conference yesterday. Resistance levels here into the mid USD1200's worth noting as USD dip buyers likely. Oil prices have performed well in the last 24 hours, and indeed over last night's key events. WTI above USD50.00 looks comfortable for now. Base metals mixed, but stable despite the lack of focus on infrastructure spending in the US. Anticipated China demand supports Copper which added 2.2% to $5,842 a metric ton, the highest in a month after Indonesia confirmed a halt to concentrate exports. Zinc rose 2.1 percent and nickel gained 1.5 percent. U.S. natural gas rose 3% to $3.32 per million British thermal units as a Bloomberg survey showed inventories probably fell by 141 billion cubic feet last week. U.K. natural gas rose 1.3 percent to 56.70 pence a therm, a fourth day of gains amid forecasts for cold weather.
Looking at today’s calendar, in the US the data docket contains the import price index reading for last month, last week’s initial jobless claims and the December monthly budget statement. Away from the data we’ll get the latest ECB minutes from last month’s policy meeting as well as a number of Fed speakers including Harker, Evans and Lockhart at 8.30am GMT, Bullard at 1.15pm and Kaplan at 1.45pm.
* * *
US Event Calendar
Government Calendar
DB's Jim Reid concludes the overnight wrap
Morning from Zurich. I listened to President-elect Trump's press conference on Bloomberg radio yesterday while on the tarmac waiting to take off from Oslo to Copenhagen. I must admit that whilst there was nothing much of substance for financial markets to take from it there's no doubting it was compelling stuff and it was one of the rare times I really didn't want a flight to take off and lose signal. I've never known anything like it from an incoming or sitting leader anywhere in the world. For a start you don't often have cheering and clapping at a press conference which came from a contingent of Mr Trump's supporters at the event. We also had a fierce exchange between the future President and a CNN reporter who was refused a question due to his organisation's reporting of Trump's alleged relationship with Russia.
We also learnt that Mr Trump turned down $2 billion last week from a Dubai developer and also a discussion over his trip to Russia to work on Miss Universe. Not the everyday stuff of governmental press conferences but when you see some of the bland stage managed versions around the world who is to say it's the wrong approach.
There was also a very brief mention of a “major border tax on companies leaving the US” and that Obamacare will be repealed and replaced “almost simultaneously” but overall markets were disappointed at the lack of substance around policy in particular. This was most apparent in FX where the US Dollar index finished the day -0.23% (and is down another -0.22% this morning) but was actually down as much as -1.62% from the intraday high at one stage. Over in rates 10y Treasury yields were down close to 5bps at one point, touching an intraday low in yield of 2.327%, before paring that move late into the close to finish more or less unchanged around 2.373%. Meanwhile equity markets posted modest gains but in reality were propped up by the +2.81% rebound for WTI Oil – despite some bearish inventory data - which helped the energy sector to outperform. Indeed the S&P 500 closed +0.28% and the Dow +0.50% but healthcare names took a bit of hit with Trump critical of drug pricing and saying that the industry needs “more competitive drug bidding” and that its currently “getting away with murder”. The Nasdaq Biotech index tumbled -2.96% as a result and had its worst day since October 11th.
Elsewhere Gold (+0.31%) notched up yet another gain however base metals generally eased off following the recent strong run. The European session had been a bit of a sideshow prior to Trump but markets still generally closed a touch firmer with the Stoxx 600 finishing +0.23%. The FTSE 100 (+0.21%) also notched up another gain and in doing so marked the first time the index has ever closed higher for 12 days in a row. That also coincided with Sterling at one stage touching a new 3-month low of $1.2039, before bouncing back into the close. The latest leg lower came as Governor Carney spoke and warned that Brexit could “amplify” four other dangers to the UK economy including the current account deficit, further weakness in Sterling, mounting consumer credit and a weaker commercial property market. On a related note, Scotland’s Nicola Sturgeon was dealt a bit of a blow yesterday after senior Norwegian politicians argued that it would be impossible for Scotland to move to a ‘Norway-style’ model for staying in the single market while also remaining part of the UK.
This morning in Asia it’s been another mixed start for markets. Most notable has been the decline for Japanese equities with the Nikkei (-1.26%) and Topix (-1.22%) tumbling with the healthcare sector and particularly those names with revenue exposure in the US notably underperforming following Trump’s comments about the sector. The Yen has also rallied about 2% since Trump spoke, which is also weighing. Meanwhile the Hang Seng (-0.33%) is also weaker, while the Shanghai Comp (+0.20%) and Kospi (+0.12%) are posting modest gains. The ASX is little changed.
Moving on. Yesterday we published our first Euro HY strategy monthly of the year. Since we published our 2017 Credit Outlook in late November we have seen some fairly impressive moves for EUR HY credit spreads. At this time we have no intention of changing our FY spread forecasts but given the strength of these moves we assess the implications for potential returns in 2017. At the time of the outlook our spread and default rate forecasts indicated that, whilst low, both excess and total returns should still be positive for 2017. Unsurprisingly given the positive performance in December and at the start of January we are now at a starting point where returns are likely to be negative for the coming year. Around -0.4% in terms of excess returns and -1.3% in total returns. We continue to think the intra-year range could be large for spreads and think there will be a better entry point into EUR HY than current levels even if this is not immediate. Please email Nick.Burns@db.com if you haven't received it.
Also yesterday we published a Credit Bite "Moody's Default Rates Tracker" (https://goo.gl/gCc5pU) detailing the agencies' latest 12-month-trailing high-yield default rates and their forecasts for the next 12 months. The default rate was 2.08% in Europe, 5.65% in the US and 4.41% globally. The baseline forecast for the next 12 months is 2.1% for Europe, 3.8% for the US and 3% globally
In our 2017 Outlook, we forecast 2.5% for Europe (https://goo.gl/BkHYrJ) and our US colleagues predict 5% for the US having revised down their earlier 7.25% forecast (https://goo.gl/3tWmf4). This is broadly in line with Moody’s view of a continued benign default environment in Europe and peaking of US defaults in the course of the year, although our US colleagues remain more cautious. Before we wrap up, in terms of the economic data yesterday the only releases of note came from the UK. Both industrial production (+2.1% mom vs. +1.0% expected) and manufacturing production (+1.3% mom vs. +0.5% expected) surprised to the upside, while the November trade deficit was reported as widening a little bit more than expected (to £12.2bn vs. £11.1bn expected). Carney also acknowledged yesterday that “the recent data would be consistent with a further upgrade of the forecasts” of the Bank.
Meanwhile over in Italy the Italian Constitutional Court rejected a request by the largest Italian union to force a referendum to overturn the core of the labour reform introduced by Renzi’s government in 2015, including the rejecting of the easing of redundancy rules for new hires. The ruling should come as some relief to new PM Gentiloni.
Looking at today’s calendar the only notable data due out in Europe this morning is the final revision to the December CPI report in France, Euro area industrial production in November and Germany’s first estimate of calendar year 2016 GDP growth. Over in the US the data docket contains the import price index reading for last month, last week’s initial jobless claims and the December monthly budget statement. Away from the data we’ll get the latest ECB minutes from last month’s policy meeting as well as a number of Fed speakers including Harker, Evans and Lockhart at 1.30pm GMT, Bullard at 6.15pm GMT and Kaplan at 6.45pm GMT.
via Wise Bread by Sarah Winfrey on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:00:08 GMT
Ugh. We've all had terrible, no good, very bad days at work. And they are the worst, if only because you can't just go home, crawl into bed, and wait for the whole thing to be over. Nope. When you have a bad day at work, you have to stay there. You have to keep going, keep being productive, keep...via Motley Fool Headlines by on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 11:22:00 GMT
Low-income seniors and disabled workers often face financial challenges. Thankfully, there's a tax credit that might help.via by Tyler Durden on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 10:30:57 GMT
While we learned earlier that John McCain was responsible for handing over the 35-page "dossier" of compromising, if arguably fake, revelations about Trump's connections to Russia over to the FBI, the identity of the actual creator, who was said to be an ex-British intelligence service, remained a mystery.
No longer.
Courtesy of the WSJ, we now know his name: the former MI-6 officer, now working for a private security-and-investigations firm "who produced the dossier of unverified allegations about President-elect Donald Trump’s activities and connections in Russia" is Christopher Steele, a director of London-based Orbis Business Intelligence.... and before readers google him, beware, there is a male gay porn star with the same name, who may or may not be into "golden showers."
The real Chris Steele is profiled below, courtesy of LinkedIn.

Steele, 52 years old, is one of two directors of Orbis, along with Christopher Burrows, 58.
Burrows, reached at his home outside London on Wednesday, said he wouldn’t “confirm or deny” that Orbis had produced the report. A neighbor of Mr. Steele’s said Mr. Steele said he would be away for a few days. In previous weeks Mr. Steele has declined repeated requests for interviews through an intermediary, who said the subject was “too hot.”
According to Steele's LinkedIn profile, at least before he scrubbed it, he was a counselor in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, with foreign postings in Brussels and New Delhi in the 2000s. The Foreign Office declined to comment to the WSJ. Furthermore, the LinkedIn profile for Mr. Steele doesn’t give specifics about his career, however notes that intelligence officers often use diplomatic postings as cover for their espionage activities. That, or they are dumb enough to actually reveal where they are stationed.
Some more details courtesy of the WSJ:
Orbis Business Intelligence was formed in 2009 by former British intelligence professionals, it says on its website. U.K. corporate records say Orbis is owned by another company that in turn is jointly owned by Messrs. Steele and Burrows. It occupies offices in an ornate building overlooking Grosvenor Gardens in London’s high-end Belgravia neighborhood.
The firm relies on a “global network” of experts and business leaders, provides clients with strategic advice, mounts “intelligence-gathering operations” and conducts “complex, often cross-border investigations,” its website says.
The dossier consists of a series of unsigned memos that appear to have been written between June and December 2016. Beyond creating the document, Mr. Steele also came up with a plan to get the information to law-enforcement officials in the U.S. and Europe, including the F.B.I., according to a person familiar with the matter.
The WSJ adds that "the author of the report had a good reputation in the intelligence world and was stationed in Russia for years, said John Sipher, who retired in 2014 after 28 years in the CIA’s clandestine service, where he specialized in Russia and counterintelligence."
Private-intelligence firms like Orbis have a growing presence. Major corporations use them to conduct due diligence on potential business partners in risky areas, but quality control can be loose when it comes to high-level political intrigue, according to executives of private intelligence companies. It appears they are also used to create smear campaigns (for lots of money one assumes) targeting potential presidential candidates, not to mention president-elects.
As for the fundamental question, are the memos in the Trump dossier real, here is the answer:
Andrew Wordsworth, co-founder of London-based investigations firm Raedas, who often works on Russian issues, said the memos in the Trump dossier were “not convincing at all.”“It’s just way too good,” he said. “If the head of the CIA were to declare he got information of this quality, you wouldn’t believe it.”Mr. Wordsworth said it wouldn’t make sense for Russian intelligence officials to expose state secrets to an ex- former MI-6 officer. “Russians believe once you are an agent, you’re an agent forever,” he said.
Yes, a rational person wouldn't believe it, but BuzzFeed and other fake news outlets certainly would.
via Wise Bread by Paul Michael on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 10:30:33 GMT
Every year, you will have that one meeting that can have a massive impact on your career, your finances, and your future. It's your annual review. While some people see it as a necessary evil, or approach it as "going through the motions," it should be thought about carefully. What you...via Wise Bread by Amy Lu on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 10:30:27 GMT
Welcome to Wise Bread's Best Money Tips Roundup! Today we found articles on ways to use hashtags effectively, websites that will help save you tons of money, and ways to improve your to-do lists. Top 5 Articles 11 Easy Ways To Use Hashtags Effectively — Hashtags originated on Twitter, but...via Wise Bread by Andrea Cannon on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 10:00:18 GMT
There’s nothing worse than trying to clean up a spill only to have the paper towel shred and disintegrate on the spot. That’s why we’ve found some of the best paper towels on the market, so you can count on it to clean up even your worst spills. What Is a Paper Towel? Paper...via Wise Bread by Mikey Rox on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 10:00:11 GMT
It's no secret that a variety of factors can affect your health care costs. For example, people who smoke usually pay more for health insurance, and an unhealthy lifestyle can increase the risk of chronic illnesses and lead to more trips to see the doctor. But among the many factors triggering...via Wise Bread by Christina Majaski on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 09:30:11 GMT
Link for teaser title: http://www.wisebread.com/choose-the-best-travel-rewards-credit-card-with-this-gu... With so many rewards cards available, it can be difficult choosing the...via by Tyler Durden on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 09:00:00 GMT
Submitted by 720Global's Michael Lebowitz via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,
In 1930, Herbert Hoover signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act into law. As the world entered the early phases of the Great Depression, the measure was intended to protect American jobs and farmers. Ignoring warnings from global trade partners, the new law placed tariffs on goods imported into the U.S. which resulted in retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods exported to other countries. By 1934, U.S. imports and exports were reduced by more than 50% and many Great Depression scholars have blamed the tariffs for playing a substantial role in amplifying the scope and duration of the Great Depression. The United States paid a steep price for trying to protect its workforce through short-sighted political expedience.
On January 3, 2017 Ford Motor Company backed away from plans to build a $1.6 billion assembly plant in Mexico and instead opted to add 700 jobs at a Michigan plant. This abrupt reversal followed sharp criticism from Donald Trump. Ford joins Carrier in reneging on plans to move production to Mexico and will possibly be followed by other large corporations rumored to be reconsidering outsourcing. Although retaining manufacturing and jobs in the U.S. is a favorable development, it seems unlikely that these companies are changing their plans over concerns for American workers or due to stern remarks from President-elect Trump.
What does seem likely? Big changes in trade policy occurring within the first 100 days of Trump’s presidency. The change in plans by Ford and Carrier serve as clues to what may lie ahead and imply a cost-benefit analysis. In order to gain better insight into what the trade policy of the new administration may hold, consideration of cabinet members nominated to key positions of influence is in order.
As we close in on Trump’s inauguration, his cabinet and team of advisors is taking shape. With regard to global trade, there are three cabinet nominations that most capture our attention:
Donald Trump said that Mr. Lighthizer will work “in close coordination” with Wilbur Ross and Peter Navarro. The bottom line is that these three advisors have strong protectionist views and generally feel that China, Mexico and other nations have taken advantage of America.
On October 22, 2016 in Gettysburg Pennsylvania, Donald Trump delivered a litany of goals that he hopes to accomplish in his first 100 days of office. Within the list are seven actions aimed at protecting American workers. Four of them deal with foreign trade. They are as follows:
These four proposals and other trade-related rhetoric that Donald Trump repeatedly stated while running for president suggest that he will take immediate steps to level the global trade playing field. At this point, it is pure conjecture what actions may or may not be taken. However, the article, “We need a tough negotiator like Trump to fix U.S. trade policy”, penned by Peter Navarro and Wilbur Ross from July 2016 offers clues.
In the article, Navarro and Ross took the World Trade Organization (WTO) to task for being negligent in defending the United States against unfair trade. Additionally, they note the WTO “provides little or no protection against four of the most potent unfair trade practices many of our trade partners routinely engage in — currency manipulation, intellectual property theft, and the use of both sweatshop labor and pollution havens”.
They also note that the U.S. does not have a Value-Added Tax (VAT). Heavily used in the European Union and much of the rest of world, a VAT is a tax imposed at various stages of production where value is added and/or at the final sale. The tax rate is commonly based on the location of the customer, and it can be used to affect global trade. Manufacturers from countries with VAT taxes frequently receive rebates for taxes incurred during the production process. Because the U.S. does not have a VAT, the WTO has denied U.S. corporations the ability to receive VAT rebates. In fact, the WTO has rejected three congressional attempts to give American companies equal VAT rebate treatment. By denying VAT rebates the WTO is “giving foreign competitors a huge tax-break edge.”
It is possible that, within weeks of taking office, President-elect Trump may threaten to leave the WTO. In what is likely a negotiating tactic, we should expect strong proposals from Trump and his team with the goal of forcing the WTO to alter decisions more to the favor of the United States. Among the actions the Trump administration may take, or threaten to take, is the pulling out of prior trade agreements and/or establishing tariffs on imports into the United States. Because of its efficiency and simplicity, border tax adjustments, which are similar to VAT, seem to be a more logical approach as they would effectively assess a tax on importers of foreign goods and resources without affecting exporters. Border tax adjustments seem even more plausible when considered in the context of a recent Twitter message that Donald Trump posted: “General Motors is sending Mexican made model of Chevy Cruze to U.S. car dealers-tax free across border – Make in U.S.A. or pay big border tax!”
Although it remains unclear which approach the Trump trade team will take, much less what they will accomplish, we are quite certain they will make waves. The U.S. equity markets have been bullish on the outlook for the new administration given its business friendly posture toward tax and regulatory reform, but they have turned a blind eye toward possible negative side effects of any of his plans. Global trade and supply chain interdependencies have been a tailwind for corporate earnings for decades. Abrupt changes in those dynamics represent a meaningful shift in the trajectory of global growth, and the equity markets will eventually be required to deal with the uncertainties that will accompany those changes.
If actions are taken to impose tariffs, VATs, border adjustments or renege on trade deals, the consequences to various asset classes could be severe. Of further importance, the U.S. dollar is the world’s reserve currency and accounts for the majority of global trade. If global trade is hampered, marginal demand for dollars would likely decrease as would the value of the dollar versus other currencies.
From an investment standpoint, this would have many effects. First, commodities priced in dollars would likely benefit, especially precious metals. Secondly, without the need to hold as many U.S. dollars in reserve, foreign nations might sell their Treasury securities holdings. Further adding pressure to U.S. Treasury securities and all fixed income securities, a weakening dollar is inflationary on the margin, which brings consideration of the Federal Reserve and monetary policy into play.
Investors should anticipate that, whatever actions are taken by the new administration, America’s trade partners will likely take similar actions in order to protect their own interests. If this is the case, the prices of goods and materials will likely rise along with tensions in global trade markets. Retaliation raises the specter of heightened inflationary pressures, which could force the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates at a faster pace than expected. The possibility of inflation coupled with higher interest rates and weak economic growth would lead to an economic state called stagflation. Other than precious metals and possibly some companies operating largely within the United States, it iummaryc or global assets that benefit. d to envision other assets lation, higher interest and stagnant economic growth would lis hard to envision many other domestic or global assets that benefit from a trade war.
We like to think that the lessons from the Great Depression would prevent a trade war like the one precipitated by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff act. We must realize, however, that nationalism is on the rise here and abroad, and America will soon have a president that appears more than willing to take swift and aggressive action to ensure that it is not taken advantage of in the global trade arena.
It is premature to make investment decisions based on rhetoric and threats. It is also possible that much of this bluster could simply be the opening bid in what is a peaceful renegotiation of global trade agreements. To the extent that global growth and trade has been the beneficiary of years of asymmetries at the expense of the United States, then change is overdue. Our hope is that the Trump administration can impose the discipline of smart business with the tact of shrewd diplomacy to affect these changes in an orderly manner. Regardless, we must pay close attention as trade conflicts and their consequences can escalate quickly.
via by Tyler Durden on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 08:00:00 GMT
Good news for globe-trotting Americans: most countries around the world are free or very cheap to get in to. But, as this map from HowMuch.net shows, some countries do charge through the nose for a visa. And it's not the ones you would expect.
First, let's get a persistent myth out of the way, the one that says Americans don't travel overseas. That so-called fact is proven by an oft-cited statistic: only 10% of U.S. citizens – or thereabouts – have passports. Wrong! According to the State Department, the actual figure is closer to 46%. And that corresponds to more than 131 million American passport holders.
And that passport is all you need to gain entry in most countries. The official at the border will stamp one of the pages at the back of your booklet and off you go, to explore other climes and cultures. But quite a few nations are not satisfied with passports alone. They require a visa – and to obtain that visa, you must pay. Sometimes you can purchase it on arrival, often you must get it at the embassy or consulate of your destination country. So, who wants how much?

Entry into Europe is completely free for U.S. citizens, from Monaco to Moldova, from Liechtenstein to Lithuania, from the UK to Ukraine. And just about anywhere nearby or in between. With a few exceptions.

Free entry is a lot rarer in Asia, but there is still plenty of choice.

Africa is a mixed bag, visa-price-wise. Some of the continent's most fabled and popular holiday destinations can be visited free of charge. Island paradises such as the Seychelles and Mauritius. Fabulous South Africa and its neighbors Lesotho, Swaziland and Namibia. Northern African dream destinations Morocco and Tunisia. Senegal in West Africa.
So what about Oceania?


For Americans, it is a bit cheaper to stay closer to home, even if you discount the air fare. You have to travel pretty far on the American continent to find a country that wants money for your visit. It's a pretty short list, even across the entire hemisphere:
Some of the visa fees come across as deliberately dissuasive – Saudi Arabia nor Bhutan seem keen on becoming major tourist destinations. In general, the richer countries are visa-free, while the poorer ones charge higher fees, no doubt not in an attempt to keep out visitors, but to fill the state coffers. That should not keep away the determined visitor: all things considered, none of the fees is prohibitive, especially considering the fact that higher visa fees are likely to be offset by the lower cost of living in most of those destinations.
via by Tyler Durden on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 07:00:00 GMT
It is difficult to say exactly how, or when, the next collapse will be triggered, but, as SHTFPlan.com's Mac Slavo notes, of course all the conditions are ripe for it.
What can be certain is that the technocrats intent on controlling the future are already engineering the post-collapse society. Many of the Davos elite have been pushing “universal basic income” for all countries across the globe, and are leading people not only into a digital grid where cash is banned, but also into a society where private property and ownership are outlawed.
They are designing a future in which you must borrow or rent everything you need from corporations or the government, if you are allowed to have them at all.
What does the future hold for average people?
Feudalism.
And they’ll welcome it with open arms, convinced that they are embracing a smart, fair system that eliminates poverty. The greed, entitlement, and lack of ambition that seems inherent in many people today will have them slipping on the yoke of servitude willingly.
Here’s what I mean.
Have you ever been around people who say things like,
“I can’t afford it, but I deserve it…”
“Having [fill in the blank with a material object] is a basic right…”
“Losing that right is okay with me because it’s for the greater good.”
But the thing is, what we “deserve” is the right to pursue our dreams freely.
No one owes us anything other than that.
A lot of people disagree with that list of rights.
They feel like they deserve a living just for drawing breath. As Gawker’s headline reads, “A Universal Basic Income Is the Utopia We Deserve.”
The idea of a universal basic income for all citizens has been catching on all over the world. Is it too crazy to believe in? We spoke to the author of a new book on the ins, outs, and utopian dreams of making basic income a reality.The basic income movement got a significant boost this week when the charity GiveDirectly announced that it will be pursuing a ten-year, $30 million pilot project giving a select group of Kenyan villagers a basic income and studying its effects. As an anti-poverty solution, universal basic income appeals to impoverished people in Africa, relatively well-off Scandinavians, and Americans automated out of their jobs alike.
Sure, money for nothing sounds great on the surface.
But what would the real result of a Universal Basic Income be?
Feudalism. Serfdom. Enslavement.
UBI would fast track us back to the feudalism of the Middle Ages. Sure, we’d be living in slick, modern micro-efficiencies instead of shacks. We’d have some kind of modern job instead of raising sheep for the lord of the manor.
But, in the end, we wouldn’t actually own anything because private property would be abolished for all but the ruling class. We’d no longer have the ability to get ahead in life. Our courses would be set for us and veering off of those courses would be harshly discouraged.
People will be completely dependent on the government and ruling class for every necessity: food, shelter, water, clothing. What better way to assert control than to make compliance necessary for survival?
(If you’re like me and a life of serfdom is not the future you want, you have to take your independence into your hands. Go here for a bundle of self-reliance downloads, absolutely free, to help you do just that.)
Here’s a quick glimpse at peasant life in the Middle Ages, for comparison’s sake.
The period of history from the 5th to the 15th century was known as the Middle Ages. During this time, the law of the land in Europe was the “feudal system.” This system was the manner in which the upper 10% (the nobility) controlled the lower 90% (the serfs or peasants).
It is estimated that just over 90% of the population of Europe were peasants. Most peasants were basically slaves. They were provided with a small shelter on an inferior piece of land and the “protection” of the noble in charge of that area. In return, they worked for the estate, farming the land with no recompense, paying taxes and having no control over their lives. Some peasants were “free” and had small businesses: blacksmiths, carpenters, bakers, etc. They paid for the protection of the “Lord” with money, goods, and services.
Peasants had few rights. They could be taxed at any time, were obligated to use (and pay for) services of the manor like mills or large ovens, and had to request permission for marriages, change of locations or educating their children.
Each year, the peasant was required to give the best part of his harvest to the lord of the manor. The peasants were not allowed to own things that made their lives easier, like oxen or horses, for example. A peasant did not own the land on which he lived and was therefore obligated to live where he was told, grow what he was told, and farm in the manner in which he was told. They were not allowed to hunt on the lord’s land – poaching was an offense punishable by death. They were not permitted to cut trees for firewood but forced to gather fallen branches to stay warm. A peasant was not allowed to have real, effective weapons – those were reserved for the armies of the nobility, to keep the peasants in line and immediately quell any quest for dignity and independence.
Most of the peasants seemed content with the arrangement because they received security and safety from the Lord. He was obligated to protect them from marauders and barbarians and provide enough land for subsistence. (Learn more about feudalism here.)
People will be trapped into servitude because they feel entitled to a lifestyle.
Over the past years, the education has drummed a sense of entitlement into students. And now, world leaders are counting on using that feeling of entitlement to march society willingly right into a tiny gilded cage.
The World Economic Forum is held yearly in Davos, Switzerland. It is at this meeting where a couple thousand of the world’s top economic and political leaders meet to plot our future.
If you think I’m crazy for the comparison between UBI and serfdom, wait until you see this year’s vision for our future.
Ida Auken, a Danish politician who is a contributor to the World Economic Forum, doesn’t believe we should own things. She doesn’t stop at personal possessions, though. She believes we should eschew privacy in our homes, that cash is unnecessary, and that even our thoughts and dreams are not really ours. You can read about her idea of a perfect future in an article for the Annual Meeting of the Global Futures Council titled “Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better.”
In her article, Auken idealizes feudalism, and the kinds of people who believe they “deserve” certain entitlements, like the UBI will welcome this loss of individuality and freedom with open arms.
Watch the video below. I couldn’t make this up if I tried.
For more information about a futuristic feudal society, watch the documentary Obsolete, available for free with an Amazon Prime membership.
via Wise Bread by Amy Lin on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 06:27:48 GMT
Link for teaser title: http://www.wisebread.com/bestdeals/today Set of 5 Luxury Wooden Suit Hangers, today at 60% OFF!, and more... SAVE on your purchase of Nicefeel Water...via by Tyler Durden on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 04:55:00 GMT
Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,
The globalists seem to have an overarching obsession with data collection. As we have seen with revelations from multiple government whistle-blowers, the establishment spends most of its time, energy and manpower collecting information not just on known threats to their supremacy, but information on EVERYONE through FISA-based surveillance protocols. This is because the establishment sees every individual as a potential threat.
Thus, the system, without warrant, is programmed to collate data from everywhere, not necessarily to be analyzed on the spot, but to be analyzed later in the event that a specific person rises to a level that poses legitimate harm to the globalist power structure.
There was a time not long ago when this notion was considered “conspiracy theory” by the mainstream, but with multiple exposures from Wikileaks to Edward Snowden it is now common knowledge that the government (and the globalists) spy on us en masse. However, I do not think that many people understand the greater implications or uses for this full spectrum surveillance. This is why you sometimes hear the argument that “if you aren’t doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about…”
The truth is, mass surveillance is not done merely for the sake of surveillance, and it is certainly not undertaken for the sake of public safety. There is a greater purpose, and it is something the elites crave dearly — the purpose of total and PREDICTIVE information awareness.
The establishment is not just hoping to observe our present behavior in detail. No, they hope to use today’s data to predict our behavior tomorrow, and at this very moment, they are extremely close to achieving their goal.
Lets examine some of the methods they use in the pursuit of this goal…
Internet Macro-Analytics
Web analytics are used by almost everyone with a website of their own, and Google is a primary source for this data. Through analytics you can easily measure web traffic for a particular site, but also where in the world the traffic is coming from, how long these people are staying on your site, how many of them are new visitors versus regular visitors, how your traffic has increased or decreased over a span of months or years, etc, etc. That said analytics are not just useful to someone with a web-based business or a blog, they are very useful to the establishment. Why? Because they allow the establishment to view the behavior of most of a population at any given time.
In fact, Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google, is notorious for opening his big mouth and letting slip some of the finer intricacies of the establishment’s information war. In 2010 in a videotaped interview with The Atlantic, Schmidt said this:
“With your permission, you give us more information about you, about your friends, and we can improve the quality of our searches. We don’t need you to type at all. We know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less know what you’re thinking about.”
Now, this statement from Schmidt is not entirely true. The use of analytics to know the thought processes of the individual person is nonsensical because, first, individuals can be highly erratic and unpredictable due to emotion, intuition and abrupt changes in psychological dynamic. The elites do not know what you are thinking, yet.
That said, they do have the tools at their disposal to use what I would call “macro-analytics,” a widely encompassing view of internet traffic, to predict GROUP behavior.
The ability to track the web habits of an entire population allows the elites to see shifts in social consciousness in real time. For example, I believe this very method was used to predict the shift of the U.S. population and parts of Europe towards a more conservative or “populist” ideal in 2016. Because of this the elites have acted accordingly.
Instead of attempting to stop the social changes of the group, they have allowed conservative and sovereignty movements to attain a certain level of political power, while also setting those same movements up for epic failure in the next couple of years. I also predicted this move by the elites in advance before the Brexit Referendum (I will go into more detail on this in my next article).
The point is, the elites do not necessarily need to spend the incredible amount of energy required to spy on each individual. When people form into ideological groups their behavior becomes much easier to predict. Through macro-analytics, the establishment can simply watch the traffic numbers of conservative and liberty sites to see how quickly a population is adopting that mindset, or abandoning it. They can read these social movements in advance and move to intercept or co-opt.
Even if everyone in a given population found a way to use the web anonymously, this would do nothing to prevent the establishment from collecting wider analytic data and traffic data.
The best strategy for defusing this weapon at the fingertips of the elites would be a decentralized internet; an internet in which analytics are not collected or cannot be collected. Whether this can be done using existing internet infrastructure or if it would require the freedom minded to start all over from scratch, I do not know. All I know is that while the existing system is indeed useful to liberty advocates as a means to spread information and to counter disinformation, it is also highly useful to the elites as a means to view and predict mass behavior. It is a trade-off, and it is hard to say who is getting the better part of the trade.
For the establishment, though, the internet is quickly becoming, for all intents and purposes, the all seeing eye.
Human Integration With The Internet
Here is where Eric Schmidt’s claim of Google “knowing what you are thinking” could actually come true. Yet another statement from Schmidt in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter breaks down exactly what a human integration with the web might entail:
“There will be so many IP addresses… so many devices, sensors, things that you are wearing, things that you are interacting with that you won’t even sense it. … It will be part of your presence all the time. Imagine you walk into a room, and the room is dynamic. And with your permission and all of that, you are interacting with the things going on in the room.”
Note that Schmidt keeps bringing up the idea that they will have your “permission” to watch your life and actions in such vivid detail. The elites love the idea of consent, but see consent as an unconscious act. Meaning, they take joy in tricking people into consenting to their own slavery through misinformed participation. Surely, if the average person knew the extent to which their information would be used by the establishment against them they would not consent to a thing. But the elites figure that your ignorance and participation is enough for them.
Case in point, the “internet of things” which Schmidt is describing, is already here.
Not only can spy agencies tap into your web activity and your computer microphone and webcam, but also your cell phone activity. This includes the ability to use cell phone GPS to track every move you make in real time. But cell phones can also be activated while turned off (as long as they have battery power), and your conversations can be recorded while you are none-the-wiser.
The cell phone is also a powerful tool for video surveillance. Cell phone makers are now getting ready to equip products with facial recognition software, allowing organizations like the NSA to not only track you with your own cell phone, but also track you through OTHER people’s cell phones if they happen to capture your face in their own phone camera. Imagine a world in which the elites have eyes everywhere because nearly everywhere you go someone is holding a cell phone with biometric software.
New products are even more invasive. Amazon’s latest “Echo” technology, featuring “Alexa,” an app which allows the Echo to interpret your commands via microphone and talk back to you, is essentially a highly sensitive listening device (with digital speech interpretation) which people are paying good money for and willingly centralizing in their homes. This is so Orwellian it is astonishing.
Though Amazon claims the Echo only records audio for 60 seconds at a time and has refused to give data to the government in two separate instances for use in court prosecutions, the fact is that Amazon does have the data. And, if Amazon has access, then the NSA has access. It is foolish to assume otherwise. The federal pursuit of warrants to gain the data for use in court cases is nothing more than a show designed to normalize the practice of exploiting these devices and make the idea more palatable to the public. If the data can be used to solve a crime, then how can such surveillance be bad, after all?
What Schmidt envisions, and I think what the globalists envision, are millions of households filled with devices like the Echo. Not only this, but they also envision every human being reliant on the “internet of things” every moment of every day. They want a world in which you can’t accomplish any necessary activity without interacting with the network. They want a world in which everything you say and do is recorded and modeled and profiled. We are not quite there yet, but we are not far off, and if such a world comes to pass, then the elites will, in a sense, be able to predict individual thought and behavior.
Countering The Surveillance Grid
In my next article I will be outlining more methods for countering establishment intrusions into your life. Not only that, but I will also be explaining how you can turn the tables and predict the behavior of the elites.
In the meantime, the best solution to the problem is to distance one’s self from the grid wherever possible. This means doing simple things, like leaving your cell phone at home when it is not really necessary. I grew up in an era without cell phones. Trust me, we got by just fine without them.
It also means being more present-minded on the technology in your home and what it does. Do you really need your webcam overlooking your house all day long? Does your computer really need to be operating every second? Do you really need to take pictures of your entire life and post them on Facebook? Can you not limit your desire for every new gadget that happens to come along?
Humanity needs a healthy distance from technology. This doesn’t mean we go back to using a horse and buggy, but it does mean there is wisdom in moderation. Mass surveillance potential by the establishment is not just a threat to people who might be “up to no good”; it is a threat to everyone. For the ability to predict a population’s behavior makes that population highly controllable. NO ONE is morally benevolent enough to be trusted with that kind of power. Anyone deliberately seeking to obtain such power should be treated with the utmost suspicion. Only the worst of men desire the means to intrude on the lives and minds of men.
via by The_Real_Fly on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 04:48:40 GMT
Democrat shill, Chuck Todd, cannibalized the liberal media tonight by ripping into the Editor in Chief of Buzzfeed, Ben Smith, for publishing a 35 page dossier of laughable content, such as germaphobe Trump having Russian hookers urinate on him, or an irate Donald yelling at Ivanka to respond to her mother, whilst devouring a plate of chicken tenders, saying that if she didn't her Mother would perish in a horrible accident.

Over the past day, all of the actors involved in leaking the 'dossier' to the public have been discredited and humiliated -- from John McCain to the CIA and of course to the Buzzfeed reporter, Rick "I'm a spy" Wilson -- who published the trite piece of offal -- hoping it would derail Trump's presidency and give solace to the cadre of his fellow Never Trumpsters, who've been waiting for the opportunity to discredit and rid themselves of his orangeness.
Unfortunately, for him and his ilk, there are consequences to publishing lies about the President elect of the United States, especially when done in a manner that garnered world wide exposure, galvanizing all of the snowflakes to unite and form into a maniacal Snow Demon set out to devour and crush President elect Donald J. Trump.
Once again, The Donald has proved to be resilient, admonishing his enemies , taking a flame thrower to them -- effectively reducing them to a small, sad, pond of liberal misery to be pissed upon whenever he's in the mood for golden showers.
Todd eats Smith.
Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com
via by Tyler Durden on Thu, 12 Jan 2017 04:30:00 GMT
2016 was a record breaking year for the city of Chicago, unfortunately just not in any positive ways. Throughout 2016 we noted several grim milestones that plagued the Windy City: the deadliest month in 23 years, the deadliest day in 13 years, 4,300 people shot...the list goes on and on. And, as we noted a couple of weeks ago, when it was all said and done Chicago was thought to have recorded around 762 murders in 2016 (see "Chicago Violence Worst In 20 Years: 'Not Seen This Level Of Disrespect For Police Ever'"). To put those numbers into perspective, Chicago recorded over 20% more murders in 2016 than New York and Los Angeles combined, despite having a fraction of the population.
And as bad as all those figures are, according to the Cook County Medical Examiner’s office, the actual number of homicides recorded in Chicago in 2016 were even higher than the official police data would suggest. The discrepancy is largely due to the fact that the Medical Examiner's office tallies “homicides” while the official police data tracks “murders," which exclude intentional killings that are deemed "justified" (e.g. police shootings). So while the official police data suggests there were 762 murders in 2016 the county numbers reflect 812 homicides including all of the "justified" killings.
The record-setting violence in Chicago is even worse than announced as new evidence shows the city suffered 50 more homicides last year than the numbers publicly reported in the past week.
The city posted a decades-high homicide count of 812 in 2016, per the Cook County Medical Examiner’s office. That’s 15% greater than the 762 murders reported by the city's police department.
The discrepancy is largely due to the fact that the county tallies “homicides” while the police number counts “murders.” Murders are defined as violent acts subject to criminal prosecution. Homicides, according to the medical examiner, include instances “when the death of a person comes at the hand of another person. This does not imply that all homicides are murders that would be subject to criminal prosecution.”
The city police count is also lower because it excludes violent, intentional deaths if the act is deemed justified, including police killings of residents.
Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of Chicago's homicides came a result of gunshot wounds while ~80% of the victims in Cook County were African American.
Gun violence is the leading cause of death for victims of homicide in Chicago with 725 decedents being felled by at least one gunshot wound.
African Americans also bore the brunt of the violence in Cook County, which includes Chicago. They accounted for 710 of the county-wide total of 915 (88% of which occurred in the city). Men comprised 90% of the homicide victims in the county.
On a positive note, after a violent opening weekend to the year (see "3 Killed, 27 Wounded As Chicago Opens 2017 With A String Of Murders"), shootings and murders over the past week seem to be much lower than the run-rate for most of December. Per HeyJackAss!:
And while we would like to hope the recent data points to a less violent 2017, the collapse in shootings seems to be perfectly correlated with a 5-day period of frigid temperatures that likely kept Chicago's violent youth indoors for a few days.