Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Invisible Vortex Filmed In Full Spectrum


BP's Stunning Warning: "Every Oil Storage Tank Will Be Full In A Few Months"


It was just last week when we said that Cushing may be about to overflow in the face of an acute crude oil supply glut.

“Even the highly adaptive US storage system appears to be reaching its limits,” we wrote, before plotting Cushing capacity versus inventory levels. We also took a look at the EIA’s latest take on the subject and showed you the following chart which depicts how much higher inventory levels are today versus their five-year averages.

graph of difference in inventory levels as of January 22, 2016 to previous 5-year average, as explained in the article text

Finally, we went on to present two alarm bells that offer the best evidence yet that inventories are reaching nosebleed levels: 1) some counterparties are experiencing delays in delivering crude due to unspecified "terminalling and pump" issues (basically, it’s hard to move barrels around at this point because there’s so much oil sitting in storage); 2) the cash roll is negative.

On Wednesday, BP CEO Robert Dudley - who earlier this month reported the worst annual loss in company history - is out warning that storage tanks will be completely full by the end of H1. "We are very bearish for the first half of the year," Dudley said at the IP Week conference in London Wednesday. "In the second half, every tank and swimming pool in the world is going to fill and fundamentals are going to kick in," he added. "The market will start balancing in the second half of this year.”

Maybe. Or maybe excess supply will simply be dumped on the market once all the "swimming pools" are full.

If that happens, don't be surprised to see crude crash into the teens as attempts to clear and dump excess inventory spread like wildfire across the market.

Earlier this week, the IEA called any respite for crude prices "a false dawn." Here's why (via The Guardian):

  • a deal between Opec and other oil producing countries to cut production is unlikely
  • with Iran increasing production in preparation for the lifting of sanctions, Opec’s production could rise as strongly this year as in 2015
  • there is little prospect falling prices encouraging a pick-up in the rate of demand for oil
  • the US dollar is likely to remain strong, limiting the scope for falls in the cost of imported oil
  • the predicted large fall in US shale production is taking a long time to materialise

So buckle up, because the collapse in the world's most financialized of commodities has further to go, and once the entire US shale space goes bankrupt, it will emerge debtless only to start drilling and pumping anew prompting the Saudis to continue to ratchet up the pressure in an endless deflationary merry-go-round. We close with a quote from the IEA:

"We suggest that the surplus of supply over demand in the early part of 2016 is even greater than we said in last month’s oil market report. If these numbers prove to be accurate, and with the market already awash in oil, it is very hard to see how oil prices can rise significantly in the short term. In these conditions the short-term risk to the downside has increased.” 

Profit At World's Largest Shipping Company Plunges On Collapsing Global Trade, Sinking Crude Prices

Back in November, Nils Smedegaard Andersen, CEO of Maersk, the world’s largest shipping company, gave the world a reality check when it comes to global growth and trade.

“The world’s economy is growing at a slower pace than the International Monetary Fund and other large forecasters are predicting” Andersen told Bloomberg. "We believe that global growth is slowing down [and that] trade is currently significantly weaker than it normally would be under the growth forecasts we see."

That amounted to a harsh indictment of the IMF’s “built in optimism bias” (to quote HSBC), a bias which leads the Fund to perpetually revise down its estimates for global growth once it’s no longer possible to deny reality. “We conduct a string of our own macro-economic forecasts and we see less growth - particularly in developing nations, but perhaps also in Europe,” Andersen added. “Also for 2016, we’re a little bit more pessimistic than most forecasters."

His comments came on the heels of a quarter in which Maersk’s profits fell 61% Y/Y. On Wednesday, we got the latest numbers out of the shipping behemoth and the picture is most assuredly not pretty.

For 2015, profits fell a whopping 84% to $791 million from $5.02 billion in 2014. Analysts were looking for a profit of $3.7 billion.

For Q4, the net loss came in at $2.51 billion, far worse than the Street expected. Shares of Maersk fell sharply in repsonse.

Not helping matters was Maersk's oil unit, which took a $2.5 billion impairment charge. "Given our expectation that the oil price will remain at a low level for a longer period, we have impaired the value of a number of Maersk Oil’s assets," Andersen said. The company needs $45-55 a barrel to break even. Obviously, we're a long way from that.

The outlook for Maersk Line - the company's golden goose and the world's largest container operator - racked up $182 million in red ink last quarter and the outlook for 2016 isn't pretty either. The company now sees demand for seaborne container transportation rising a meager 1-3% for the year. "Freight rates in 2015 averaged a monthly $620 a container on the key Asia to Europe trade route, with the break even level at more than $1,000," WSJ notes. "In February the cost of moving a container from Shanghai to Rotterdam fell to $431, according to the Shanghai Containerised Index, barely covering fuel costs."

"Guidance," Citi wrote in a note this morning, "implies no respite for 2016":
"2016 guidance for an underlying net profit significantly below 2015 (US$3.1bn) vs. US$3.4bn consensus. Maersk Line significantly below 2015 (US$1.3bn); Maersk Oil a negative underlying result (breakeven at an oil price US$45-US$55); APMT flat and lower in other divisions. Heavy CAPEX continues at c.US$7bn. We expect consensus to reflect guidance."
"Maersk Line expects an underlying result significantly below last year as a consequence of the significantly lower freight rates going into 2016 and the continued low growth with expected global demand for seaborne container transportation to increase by 1-3%," the company said in its annual report out Wednesday.

Here's a look at how swings in crude and freight rates affect the company's bottom line:
Addressing the global deflationary supply glut, the company said it's being "severely impacted by a widening supply-demand gap". "The demand for transportation of goods was significantly lower than expected, especially in the emerging markets as well as the Group’s key Europe trades, where the impact was further accelerated by de-stocking of the high inventory levels," Maersk noted. "In 2015, global economic conditions remained unpredictable and our businesses and long-term assets were significantly impacted by large short-term volatility."

Right. So as we've said on too many occasions to count, global growth and trade has simply flatlined and one look at the Baltic Dry certainly seems to suggest that there's no "recovery" anywhere on the horizon. Indeed we learned last month that in November, US freight volumes suffered their first Y/Y decline since 2012 and before that, the recession.

So once again, central bankers had better learn how to print trade or else it will be time to start "liquidating" excess inventory. And we mean "liquidating" in the most literal sense of the word...


Liberty Activists And ISIS Will Soon Be Treated As Identical Threats

This article was written by Brandon Smith and originally published at
Many of us saw it coming a long time ago — increasing confrontation between liberty proponents and the corrupt federal establishment leading to increasing calls by political elites and bureaucrats to apply to American citizens the terrorism countermeasures designed for foreign combatants. It was only a matter of time and timing.

My stance has always been that the elites would wait until there was ample social and political distraction; a fog of fear allowing them to move more aggressively against anti-globalists. We are not quite there yet, but the ground is clearly being prepared.

Economic uncertainty looms large over our fiscal structure today, more so even than in 2008. Global instability is rampant, with Europe at the forefront as mass migrations of “refugees” invade wholesale. At best, most of them intend to leach off of the EU’s already failing socialist welfare structure while refusing to integrate or respect western social principles. At worst, a percentage of these migrants are members of ISIS with the goals of infiltration, disruption and coordinated destruction.

With similar immigration and transplantation measures being applied to the U.S. on a smaller scale (for now) the ISIS plague will inevitably hit our shores in a manner that will undoubtedly strike panic in the masses. I believe 2016 will be dubbed the “year of the terrorist,” and ISIS will not be the only “terrorists” in the spotlight.

While scanning the pages of mainstream propaganda machines like Reuters, I came across this little gem of an article, which outlines plans by the U.S. Justice Department to apply existing enemy combatant laws used against ISIS terrorists and their supporters to “domestic extremists,” specifically mentioning the Bundy takeover of the federal refuge in Burns, Oregon as an example.

“Extremist groups motivated by a range of U.S.-born philosophies present a “clear and present danger,” John Carlin, the Justice Department’s chief of national security, told Reuters in an interview. “Based on recent reports and the cases we are seeing, it seems like we’re in a heightened environment.”
“Clear and present danger” is a vital phrase implemented in this statement from Carlin and he used it quite deliberately. It refers to something called the “clear and present danger doctrine or test,” a doctrine rarely used except during times of mass panic, such as during WWI and WWII. The doctrine applies specifically to the removal of 1st Amendment rights of free speech during moments of “distress.”

What does this mean, exactly? “Clear and present danger” is a legal mechanism by which the government claims the right not only to prosecute or destroy enemies of the state, but also anyone who publicly supports those same enemies through speech or writing.

Recently, the prospect of allowing the Federal Communications Commission to target and shut down websites related to ISIS has been fielded by congressional representatives. Many people have warned against this as setting a dangerous precedent by which the government could be given free license to censor and silence ANY websites they deem “harmful” to the public good, even those not tied to ISIS in any way.

Of course, overt hatred of Islamic extremism amongst conservatives is at Defcon 1 right now, and with good reason. Unfortunately, this may lead constitutional conservatives, the most stalwart proponents of free speech, to mistakenly set the stage for the erasure of free speech rights all in the name of stopping ISIS activity. The greatest proponents of constitutional liberties could very well become the greatest enemies of constitutional liberties if they fall for the ploy set up by the establishment.

The Reuters article outlines the future implications quite plainly:

The U.S. State Department designates international terrorist organizations to which it is illegal to provide “material support.” No domestic groups have that designation, helping to create a disparity in charges faced by international extremist suspects compared to domestic ones.

It has been applied in 58 of the government’s 79 Islamic State cases since 2014 against defendants who engaged in a wide range of activity, from traveling to Syria to fight alongside Islamic State to raising money for a friend who wished to do so.

Prosecutors can bring “material support” terrorism charges against defendants who aren’t linked to groups on the State Department’s list, but they have only done so twice against non-jihadist suspects since the law was enacted in 1994. The law, which prohibits supporting people who have been deemed to be terrorists by their actions, carries a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison.”

The Justice Department goes on to explain that they are “exploring” options to make “material support” charges more applicable to “domestic extremists.”

So what constitutes “material support?” Well, as mentioned earlier, John Carlin just told us. His use of the phrase “clear and present danger” denotes that 1st Amendment speech will be restricted, ostensibly because some speech will be labeled “material support” of terrorist organizations. The liberty movement, likely in the near future, is about to be outwardly defined by the establishment as a terrorist movement, and those who support it through speech will be designated as material supporters of said terrorism.

To be utterly clear, this could apply to any and everyone who promotes anti-government sentiments online, and will likely be aimed more prominently at liberty analysts and journalists. The argument for this move is rather humorous in my view — bureaucrats and others complain that it is “not fair” that Islamic terrorists are being treated more harshly than “white rural domestic extremists” and that material support laws should be enforced against everyone equally.

Yes, that’s right, the 1st Amendment is under threat because the Justice Department does not want to appear “racist.” At least, that is their public excuse…

I'm not sure whether it is depressing or hilariously ironic that the U.S. government (along with many other governments) is preparing the groundwork for prosecution of liberty activists for material support of terrorism when it is the government that has been proven time and again to be by far the most generous material supporter of terrorist organizations.

Will this all take place in a vacuum? Of course not. Something terrible is brewing. Another Oklahoma City-stye bombing, perhaps. Or a standoff gone horribly awry. The standoff in Oregon continues without Ammon Bundy and is about to get worse in the next week according to my information (you will see what I mean). The point is, the narrative is being finalized in preparation for whatever trigger events may be in store, and that narrative closely associates ISIS with liberty activists as being in the same category.

“As law enforcement experts confront domestic militia groups, “sovereign citizens” who do not recognize government authority, and other anti-government extremists, they also face a heightened threat from Islamic extremists like the couple who carried out the Dec. 2 shootings in San Bernardino, California.”

This is why I have consistently argued against giving any extra-judicial powers to our already bloated federal system. I am a staunch opponent of Islamic immigration and terrorism, but some people are so desperate to fight one monster that they are willing to give unlimited powers to another monster thinking it will give their minds ease. These people are fools, and they are putting the rest of us at risk.

If you want to fight ISIS, then fight them yourself. Do not give the same government that helped create ISIS and then deliberately transplanted them to Europe and the U.S. even more legal authority over our lives to supposedly “stop” ISIS. This would be absurd.

In the meantime, I would point out that regardless of how the federal government wishes to label us, the liberty movement could not be more different from the Islamic State:

1) We don’t enjoy covert funding and training from the government at large as ISIS does. (Though according to leftists, we all take our marching orders from the Koch Brothers).

2) Most of us were born in this country and are rather attached to it.

3) ISIS fights to dismantle traditional Western values. We fight to restore traditional Western values, and we will not only fight ISIS but also cultural Marxists and collectivists who share the same disdain for liberty.

4) Many of us are far better trained than ISIS goons, so if anything, we are a more severe threat to the enemies of free society. (We actually look down our sights when we shoot rather than hiding behind cars with the rifle over our head and squatting like a constipated dog. We can also operate their AK-47s better than they can).

5) We are as opposed to Sharia Law as we are to martial law. In fact, we see them as essentially the same unacceptable circumstance.

6) We don’t cannibalize our enemies. (Who would want to take a bite out of Henry Kissinger’s spleen?)

7) We might look down on the insane ramblings of today’s feminists, but at least we would not stone them, enforce female circumcision, then rape them, then throw acid in their faces, then slap a hijab on them and take away their driver’s licenses. So maybe, just maybe, we toxic masculine conservative barbarians aren’t as bad as they seem to think we are.

8) We understand that black pajamas are not the best camouflage, but ISIS may have better fashion sense than we do.

9) Our beards are all-American. Their beards are just plain creepy.

10) They fight to be martyred. We fight to win.

When all is said and done, who is the greater threat to you and your freedoms? A psychotic theocrat that has taken his religion so far into the forbidden zone that any evil, no matter how heinous, is justified through the circular logic of zealotry? The criminal government that funded that psycho, trained him, slapped a rocket launcher in his hands and then gave him a free plane ride to your favorite shopping mall? Or, some weirdo that stores lots of food and gas masks in his basement and every once in a while talks to you about 9/11? Come on, think about it…

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Trump Takes Sessions' Test - And Passes with Flying Colors!


Another Black Shot While in Police Custody!


Ted Cruz, Saying whatever You want to Hear


"Secondly, I believe we should expand
legal immigration, reduce the barriers, reduce the waiting periods and
I've introduced two amendments to significantly expand legal
immigration, to double the caps on legal immigration from 675,000 to 1.3
million and to increase temporary high skilled workers by 500%." - U. S. Senator Rafael Edwardo "Ted" Cruz

The Ted Cruz PsyOp - Even More Sinister than You Thought

Psychological Operations » (Psy Ops) are « tricks of war », like the Trojan Horse. Under the influence of General Edward Lansdale, the United States equipped their armies and the CIA with these special Psy Ops units, first of all in the Philippines, in Vietnam and against Cuba, then as permanent fixtures [1].

Psychological Operations are far more complex than propaganda, which is aimed only at deforming the perception of reality. For example, during the war against Syria in 2011, allied propaganda consisted of convincing the population that President el-Assad was going to abdicate, as President Ben Ali of Tunisia had done earlier. The Syrians therefore had to prepare themselves for a new régime. But in early 2012, a psychological operation planned on substituting false programmes on national TV channels which purported to show the fall of the Syrian Arab Republic, so that the population would offer no resistance [2].

Just as today, there exist mercenary armies like Blackwater-Academi, DynCorp or CACI, there also exist private companies specialised in psychological operations, like the British company SCL (Strategic Communications Laboratories) and its US subsidiary Cambridge Analytica. In the strictest secret, they have helped the CIA to organise the « colour revolutions » and are now branching out into the manipulation of the electoral public. Since 2005, they have been participating in the British Defense Systems & Equipment International (DSEI) exhibition, and sell their services to the highest bidder [3]. Concerning Syria, SCL worked in early 2011 in Lebanon, where it studied the the possibilities of manipulating the population community by communuity.

Psychological Operations and the electorate

In modern societies, the political authorities are chosen by election. That may range from a simple choice between pre-selected candidates – according to their personal qualities – to the designation of personalities who are offering a specific political project. In any case, the candidates have to rely on their militants or their employees in order to wage their campaign. We know that the winner is always the person who is able to gather the greatest number of militants. It is therefore necessary not only to fabricate a candidate, but also a party or a movement to support them. However, today’s electors hesitate to subscribe to an organisation, and employees are expensive. SCL came up with the idea of using behavioural techniques in order to fabricate a political party which would sweep its client to power. Its psychologists define the profile type of the sincere and manipulable militant, then collect the data from the target population, determine who best corresponds to their profile, and design the most efficient messages to convince them to support their client.

For the first time, this stratagem has just been implemented on a huge scale – in the United States, with Ted Cruz.

Ted Cruz’s campaign slogan – « TrusTed ».

Financing the operation

Robert Mercer, one of the principle donors to US public life, has indirectly paid more than 15 million dollars to SCL-Cambridge Analytica for them to handle Ted Cruz’s campaign [4].

Inventor of a vocal recognition software product, Mercer is today the boss of Renaissance, one of the top investment companies in the world. Between 1989 and 2006, his famous Medaillon fund made an average of 35 % profit per year, at the same time as designing a tax-evasion system for his clients [5].

Robert Mercer has never made any comment about his political opinions, and the US commentators don’t really know how to classify this « Republican ». No-one knows, for example, his position on social problems such as the right to abortion or gay marriage. At best, we know that he does not believe that climate change is caused by human activity, that he clearly opposes Hillary Clinton and his friend Donald Trump, and is close to John Bolton.

Source: Bloomberg

Source: The Guardian

How to cook bacon on the barrel of your gun.

The collection of personal data

In order to select citizens susceptible of becoming militants, SCL/Cambridge Analytica has secretly gathered documentation of millions of electors [6].

Doctor Aleksandr Kogan bought the data from Amazon, the US on-line sales giant, then paid approximately 1 extra dollar per client for a questionnaire to be sent to them via Mechanical Turk (MTurk). By accepting to identify themselves on Facebook, the internaut allowed MTurk access to his or her personal data – MTurk then compiled this data with Amazon’s information and transmitted them to SCL via Kogan’s company, Global Science Research (GSR). Despite the fact that Dr. Kogan assured The Guardian that he worked only on scientific research, and used only anonymous data, they are nonetheless today in the possession of SCL [7].

Within a few months, SCL had at its disposition a detailed data base on more than 40 million electors US – without their knowledge.

In 2008, the International Court of Justice decided to order the United States to revise the trial of a Mexican who had been found guilty without having been allowed consular legal assistance. However, Ted Cruz, then the Solicitor General of Texas, pleaded before the Supreme Court that a Federal State was not obliged to obey a foreign Court as long as the Treaty signed by Washington had not been transcribed into domestic law. He won, the United States denounced the additional protocol at the Vienna Convention, and the prisoner was executed.

The interpretation of personal data

Cambridge Analytica then proceeded with an evaluation of each profile according the OCEAN method, as follows :

« Openness » (appreciation of art, emotion, adventure, uncommon ideas, curiosity and imagination) ;

« Conscientiousness » (self-discipline, respect for obligations, organisation rather than spontaneity, goal-oriented) ;

« Extroversion » (energy, positive emotions, tendency to seek stimulation and the company of others, “go-getter”) ;

« Agreeability » (tendency to be empathetic and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic to others) ;

« Neuroticism » (tendency to feel unpleasant emotions easily, like anger, anxiety or depression, vulnerability).

For each subject, the study managed to establish a personality graph by using the 240 questions of the NEO PI-R tests – (’Neuroticism-Extroversion-Openness, Personality Inventory – Revised).

On this basis, SCL identified the individuals who constitute sincere, manipulable militants, and then elaborated personalised arguments to convince them.

One might think that personality studies developed without the subjects’ knowledge would be too approximate. And yet…

A brilliant lawyer, Ted Cruz defended the Ten Commandments monument installed at the Texas State Capitol . He drew up the mémoires of the attorneys general of 31 states, according to whom the ban on handguns violates the right to bear arms guaranteed by the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States. He also defended the recitation of the Oath of Allegiance to the flag of the United States, « One Nation Under God », in public schools.

Ted Cruz the candidate

The candidate who seeks to be swept into the White House, Ted Cruz, is an excellent lawyer, a brilliant orator and debater. Specifically, he has pleaded several times, successfully, before the Supreme Court of the United States. He is a libertarian rather than a conservative.

His father, the Evangelist pastor Rafael Cruz, is a Cuban immigrant who preaches that God gave men of faith the job of governing « America ». He claims that at the end of times, which is coming soon, God will give the wealth of evil men to the just [8].

Ted’s wife, Heidi Cruz,was the Director for South America to the National Security Council in the days of Condoleezza Rice. She then became vice-president of Goldman Sachs, tasked with the management of the fortunes of clients from the South-West US [9].

At the start of his Presidential campaign, Ted Cruz generated very few favourable opinions, and the Press commented on his unempathetic character. However, thanks to the help of SCL/Cambridge Analytica, he quickly formed a huge support group, and won the Republican primaries in Iowa.

In 1988, Ted Cruz spoke of his ideals in life : « Take over the world. World domination, rule everything, be rich and powerful, that sort of stuff ».

If he were to win the coveted place in the White House, it would prove that it is possible to subvert an electoral campaign by using the techniques of psychological operations.


[1] Edward Lansdale’s Cold War, Jonathan Nashel, university of Massachusetts Press, 2005.

[2] “NATO preparing vast disinformation campaign”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Olivia Kroth, Komsomolskaïa Pravda (Russia), Voltaire Network, 11 June 2012. “NATO PsyOp Against Syria Imminent”, Translation Roger Lagassé, Voltaire Network, 21 July 2012.

[3] “You Can’t Handle the Truth. Psy-ops propaganda goes mainstream”, Sharon Weinberger, Slate, September 2005.

[4] “The Man Who Out-Koched the Kochs”, Annie Linskey, Bloomberg, October 23, 2014.

[5] “Renaissance Avoided More Than $6 Billion Tax, Report Says”, Zachary R. Mider, Bloomberg, July 22, 2014.

[6] “Cruz partners with donor’s ’psychographic’ firm. The GOP candidate’s campaign is working closely with a data company owned by Cruz’s biggest donor”, Kenneth P. Vogel & Tarini Parti, Politico, July 7, 2015. “Cruz-Connected Data Miner Aims to Get Inside U.S. Voters’ Heads”, Sasha Issenberg, Bloomberg, November 12, 2015. “Cruz campaign credits psychological data and analytics for its rising success”, Tom Hamburger,The Washington Post, December 13, 2015.

[7] “Ted Cruz sing firm that harvested data on millions of unwitting Facebook users”, Harry Davies, The Guardian, December 11, 2015.

[8] “Ted Cruz’s Father Fires Up Campaign Rhetoric. Rafael Cruz’s Bible-laced speeches appeal to conservatives, but could alienate swing voters”, Janet Hook, Wall Street Journal, June 21, 2015. “Ted Cruz’s dad is even more frightening than Ted Cruz”, Robert Leonard, Salon, September 24, 2015.

[9] “Heidi Nelson Cruz, Ted’s Wife: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know”, Tom Cleary, Heavy, March 23, 2015. “Heidi Nelson Cruz: A Political Spouse Making Sacrifices and Courting Donors”, Steve Eder & Matt Flegenheimer,The New York Times, January 18, 2016.


"Secondly, I believe we should expand legal immigration, reduce the barriers, reduce the waiting periods and I've introduced two amendments to significantly expand legal immigration, to double the caps on legal immigration from 675,000 to 1.3 million and to increase temporary high skilled workers by 500%." - U. S. Senator Rafael Edwardo "Ted" Cruz

The Future You Choose


Overwhelming Majority of Americans Believe that Both Parties Are Too Corrupt to Change Anything … “This, In Fact, Is A Revolution”

Washington’s Blog

Why Americans Are Backing Trump and Sanders Over the Mainstream Candidates Backed By the Political Machines

We’ve previously noted that polls show that Americans are in a “pre-revolutionary” mood, that less than 1 in 5 Americans think that the government has the “consent of the governed”, that government corruption tops the list of Americans’ fears, and that 3 times as many Americans supported King George during the Revolutionary War than support our OWN Congress today.

You might assume that such statements are over-the-top … or that the results come from partisan pollsters.

But a group of Republican and Democratic pollsters and political strategists reviewed polling data last week, and revealed some stunning results:
  • 84% of all Americans believe political leaders are more interested in protecting their power and privilege than doing what is right
  • 81% percent believe the power of ordinary people to control our country is getting weaker every day as politicians of both parties fight to protect their own power and privilege
  • 80% believe the federal government is its own special interest primarily looking out for itself
  • 79% of all voters believe we need to recruit and support more candidates for office, at all levels of government, who are ordinary citizens, rather than professional politicians and lawyers
  • 78% believe that the Democratic and Republican Parties are essentially useless in changing anything, because both political parties are too beholden to special interests to create any meaningful change
  • 76% of Americans agree with the statement that America cannot succeed unless we take on and defeat the corruption and crony capitalism in our government
  • 75% believe that the US government is NOT working for the people’s best interest
  • 75% believe that powerful interests have used campaign and lobbying money to rig the system for themselves
  • 74% see the biased and slanted coverage of the media as part of the problem
  • 72% of Americans believe the U.S. has a two-track economy, where most Americans struggle every day, where good jobs are hard to find, and where huge corporations get all the rewards
  • 72% believe that the reason families in our middle class have not seen their economic condition improve for decades and economic growth is stalled is because of corruption and crony capitalism in Washington
  • 71% believe our government is not only dysfunctional, it is collapsing right before our eyes
  • 70% believe the government in Washington does not govern with the consent of the people
  • The majority – 56% – say they wish there were a third party with a chance of success to fight for their interests
  • Only 15% say the “values and principals of my political party are so important that I strongly prefer to vote for the candidates of my party…”
They concluded:
The country [is] in a prerevolutionary moment.
This election could mark the beginning of the end of two-party duopoly in the United States.
The people believe the real struggle for America is not between Democrats and Republicans, but between mainstream America and the ruling political elites of incumbent politicians, lobbyists, big business, big unions, big banks, big special interests and the big media.
The power elite asks, “When will this be over?” Although this is seen as a chaotic and temporary situation by most of the political and media establishment, our research shows a strong, evolving tidal wave of discontent and growing pressure for real and dramatic change.
Real change is what that the establishment fears most and fights hardest against. It is ultimately a losing battle.
This, in fact, is a revolution.

Monday, February 8, 2016

Donald Trump: America Is Currently in a ‘Jobs Recession,’ when ‘Bubble’ Pops ‘It’s Going To Be Ugly’


AP, Getty

by Matthew Boyle

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire — Billionaire and national 2016 GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump pushed back on the notion put forth by President Barack Obama that America is doing well economically.

In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News on Friday, Trump laid out how he believes the United States is currently in another recession—something that proves President Obama’s economic policies have failed, as have those of his GOP enablers in Congress.

“I think you’re sort of in a recession now, you’re certainly in a jobs recession now,” Trump said when asked to react to a new report from the Financial Times detailing the potential rising risk of a new recession. “We have millions of people out of work, and the jobs they have are bad jobs. We’re in a bubble. We’re in a bubble. The sad part is it may not pop now, it may pop two weeks into the new administration and the new administration will be blamed for it. One of those things, right? But we’re in a bubble and it’s going to be ugly.”

The Financial Times piece, written by John Authers, details how there is a rising risk of another major recession in the United States.

“The dollar is falling sharply, while the market bets ever more confidently that there will be no rate increases from the Federal Reserve in 2016,” Authers wrote. “This is driven by a rising belief that the U.S. could be slipping into a recession this year — a possibility that only a few weeks ago was regarded as negligible. In response, brokerages and investment banks have started to pump out research, trying to assess the risk of a recession. Almost universally, they conclude that the risks remain low — but that they are rising.”

In January, according to another report from CNBC, layoffs in the United States surged to a six-month high of 75,114. Asked to respond to that news, Trump said that it’s foreign nations like China, Japan, and Mexico—and Ireland, which is taking pharmaceutical giant Pfizer away from the United States now—that are to blame. Under a President Trump, he says, this job drain is going to be plugged. Trump said:

We’re going to bring our jobs back, we have to bring our jobs back. We’re losing our jobs to Mexico and China and Japan and every country. Everybody is taking our jobs. We have an open policy on losing jobs. And we have to bring our jobs back—the jobs we have, that phony 5.2 percent, the jobs that we have are terrible jobs. They’re considered bad jobs. We’re going to bring the jobs back, and it’s not even going to be hard. We’re going to lower taxes and get these companies to start coming back here. We’re losing companies. Pfizer is leaving now, you know, Pfizer, because taxes are too high. Many companies are leaving the United States—and I’m going to stop it. I will stop that very quickly.

On Friday morning, news broke from MarketWatch that U.S. exports fell in 2015 — the first time exports from the U.S. fell since the last recession — and that the U.S. trade deficit has risen 2.7 percent in December, 2015 alone.

“It shows you where we’re going,” Trump said in response to the breaking news. “We’re going in the wrong direction. We’re a debtor nation and we’re going to get worse and worse. We’re losing our jobs. We’re losing our businesses. They’re leaving. And I’ll stop it.”

The MarketWatch report painted a grim picture of the U.S. economy on the world stage.

MarketWatch’s Jeffry Bartash wrote on Friday morning:

The nation’s trade deficit rose 2.7% in December as exports fell again, capping the first year since 2009 in which U.S. exports have declined. The U.S. trade gap increased to a seasonally adjusted $43.4 billion from $42.2 billion in November, government data show. That was in line with the MarketWatch forecast. U.S. exports dipped 0.3% to $181.5 billion. They fell 4.8% in 2015 to mark the largest decline since the final year of the Great Recession. Exports have tumbled because of a weak global economy and a strong dollar that’s made American-supplied goods and services more expensive. The worsened trade picture contributed to slower U.S. economic growth in the second half of 2015.

Imports rose 0.3% to $224.9 billion in December. They decreased 3.1% in 2015, largely reflecting lower costs of imported oil. For the full year, the U.S. trade deficit climbed 4.6% to $531.5 billion compared with 2014.”

Trump’s interview with Breitbart News on this topic of the U.S. economy, his biggest strength because of his business background — and on trade and immigration policy, covered already in previous articles — came as President Obama painted a different picture about the U.S. economy on Friday. The official U.S. unemployment rate, numbers announced Friday show, fell to 4.9 percent as U.S. employers added 151,000 jobs.

Obama himself took a victory lap Friday, declaring that his policies have taken America back from the financial brink that loomed in the recession he rode into the White House.

“We should be proud of the progress we have made,” Obama said at the White House press briefing. “We have recovered from the worst economic crisis since the 1930s.”

But Trump doesn’t see it that way. He thinks America’s economy is on the brink of another crash and is warning people that his business acumen is what’s needed to fix it.

“I’ve employed tens of thousands of people over the years,” Trump replied when asked why he’s better to fix the broken economy than anyone else in either political party. “I’ve built an unbelievable company. You saw how good it is when I did my filings. I built an unbelievable company. I have done an amazing job with employment, with healthcare, with education for my employees. The greatest assets anywhere in the world. So what’s going to happen is—these politicians don’t know where to start. They don’t know about stopping companies from going out, leaving, like Pfizer. I will be the greatest jobs-producing president that God ever created. I’ll do a great job.”

"Secondly, I believe we should expand legal immigration, reduce the barriers, reduce the waiting periods and I've introduced two amendments to significantly expand legal immigration, to double the caps on legal immigration from 675,000 to 1.3 million and to increase temporary high skilled workers by 500%." - U. S. Senator Rafael Edwardo "Ted" Cruz

National Data: Immigrants Grab January Jobs At Double Americans’ Rate—New Illegals Surge Underway



Source: BLS Household Employment Survey;
American businesses added 151,000 jobs in January, sharply slower than December’s rate of gain but good enough to push unemployment to its lowest rate in eight years (4.9%.) Wages rose a robust 0.5%. Many economists attributed this to a “tightening” labor market, but there were other factors, including minimum wage hikes that kicked in in many states on January 1st.

The U.S. economy just witnessed the two best years of job growth—2014 and 2015, in that order—since 1999. But something doesn’t feel right. Real economic growth has been limping along at a 2.1% rate since the Great Recession ended. The problem: worker productivity is down. New workers are simply not producing as much as the older ones.

Mainstream economists attribute the productivity malaise to the shift of jobs out of manufacturing and mining, where capital per worker is high, to retail, health care, and other service industries that are notoriously labor intensive. Missing from the discussion: human capital—the capital embodied in education, work ethic, verbal skills, etc. An economy increasingly addicted to relatively cheap immigrant labor cannot hope to maintain worker productivity at historic levels.

The “other” employment survey, of Households rather than Employers, reported a whopping 615,000 job gain in January. This follows an equally impressive 485,000 gain the prior month.

And the news that you can only rely on to report: January saw a return to the long-term trend of immigrants displacing Americans in the workforce:

In January:
  • Total employment rose 615,000 up by 0.41%
  • Native-born employment rose by 495,000, up by 0.40%
  • Foreign-born employment rose by 120,000 – up by 0.47%

Native-born American workers have lost ground to their foreign-born competitors throughout the Obama years. We highlight this trend in our New American Worker Displacement Index (NVDAWDI) graphic:


January 2009 though January 2016

(Monthly employment index: Jan. 2009=100)

The New VDAWDI* (foreign-born/native-born) Foreign-born Employment Growth American Employment Growth
2010201220142010201220142016949698100102104106108110112114116118120JS chart by amCharts
Source: BLS Household Employment Survey;
Native-born American employment growth is the black line, immigrant employment growth is in pink, and NVAWDI—the ratio of immigrant to native-born American job growth—is in yellow. The index starts at 100.0 in January 2009 for both immigrants and native-born Americans, and tracks their employment growth since then.

From January 2009 to January 2016:

  • Foreign-born employment rose by 3.937 million, up 18.2%. The immigrant employment index rose from 100.0 to 118.2.
  • Native-born American employment rose by 4.386 million or by 3.6%. The native-born American employment index rose from 100.0 to 103.6
  • NVDAWDI (the ratio of immigrant to native-born employment growth indexes) rose from 100.0 to 114.0. (100 X (118.2/103.6))

Immigrant employment has risen 5.1-times faster than native-born employment (18.2% versus 3.6%) during the Obama years. In many unskilled occupations the job growth gap is far larger, owing to the disproportionate number of foreign-born workers in those fields.

The foreign-born share of total U.S. employment has risen relentlessly, albeit erratically, throughout the Obama years– see chart at top of column.

The foreign-born share of total employment rose ever so slightly in January, to 16.99% from 16.98% in December. In President Obama’s first full month in office (January 2009), 14.97% of all persons working in the U.S. were foreign-born.

In only 4 of the 85 months of Obama’s Presidency to date have immigrant workers accounted for a greater share of U.S. employment than they did last month.

January’s immigrant employment share was 2.02 percentage points above the level recorded at the start of Mr. Obama’s administration. With total employment now at 150 million, each percentage point translates to 1.5 million workers. This implies that Obama-era immigration may have pushed as many as 3.03 million (1.5 million times 2.02) native-born Americans onto the unemployment rolls.

A detailed snapshot of American worker displacement over the past year is seen in the “Employment Status of the civilian population by nativity” table published in the monthly BLS report:

Employment Status by Nativity, Jan. 2015-Jan. 2016
(numbers in 1000s; not seasonally adjusted)
Jan-15 Jan-16 Change % Change
Foreign born, 16 years and older
Civilian population 39,967 41,028 1,061 2.7%
Civilian labor force 26,073 26,681 608 2.3%
       Participation rate (%) 65.2% 65.0% -0.2% -0.3%
Employed 24,553 25,328 775 3.2%
Employment/population % 61.4% 61.7% 0.3% 0.5%
Unemployed 1,520 1,353 -167 -11.0%
Unemployment rate (%) 5.8% 5.1% -0.7% -12.1%
Not in labor force 13,894 14,347 453 3.3%

Native born, 16 years and older
Civilian population 209,756 211,369 1,613 0.8%
Civilian labor force 129,977 130,665 688 0.5%
       Participation rate (%) 62.0% 61.8% -0.2% -0.3%
Employed 121,999 123,710 1,711 1.4%
Employment/population % 58.2% 58.5% 0.3% 0.5%
Unemployed 7,978 6,956 -1,022 -12.8%
Unemployment rate (%) 6.1% 5.3% -0.8% -13.1%
Not in labor force 79,780 80,704 924 1.2%
Source: BLS, The Employment Situation – January 2016, Table A-7, February 5, 2016. PDF

From January 2015 to January 2016:

  • Foreign-born employment rose by 775,000 – a 3.2% advance – while native-born employment rose by 1,711,000 – up by 1.4%. Advantage immigrants
  • Labor-force participation (LFP) rates – a sign of worker confidence -fell for foreign-born workers and native-born alike; at 65.0%, however, the immigrant LFP is still well above that of natives, 61.8%. Advantage immigrants
  • Unemployment rates fell for both foreign-born and native-born; at 5.1%., the seasonally unadjusted unemployment rate for immigrants is 0.2 percentage point below the comparable rate for native-born. Advantage immigrants

And once again, the foreign-born population appears to growing faster than can be explained by legal immigration. The 12 month growth figure—1.1 million—is for immigrants of working age only. What about the population less than 16? What about the immigrants who die, or go home? If the net increase is 1.1 million, the gross increase—the number of new immigrants actually entering the country—must be significantly larger.

In other words, a new illegal alien surge is apparently underway. This week, Brandon Judd, president of the Border Patrol union, testified in Congress that the Obama Administration has recently ordered illegal aliens be released without orders to appear at any hearing at all. Judd commented: “We might as well abolish our immigration laws altogether.” [Immigration Agent: We’re Told To Release Illegal Immigrants Or Be Fired, by Taylor Tyler,, February 6, 2016.]

Obama has only a few months left to finish Electing A New People.

Edwin S. Rubenstein (email him) is President of ESR Research Economic Consultants.

"Secondly, I believe we should expand legal immigration, reduce the barriers, reduce the waiting periods and I've introduced two amendments to significantly expand legal immigration, to double the caps on legal immigration from 675,000 to 1.3 million and to increase temporary high skilled workers by 500%." - U. S. Senator Rafael Edwardo "Ted" Cruz

Sunday, February 7, 2016

Another "Isolated Incident" of Black on White Crime


Here are some other "isolated incidents"

The "Southfield Festival of Hope" just another excuse for more Black Mob Violence


Vicious 'knockout game' racial hate crime captured on camera

By Thomas Lifson @ AmericanThinker:

The rhetoric of victimization has progressed to the point where young black people apparently think they are free to assault other races, record the act, and post the videos to social media, with no consequences to follow. The fact that they are mistaken in that belief, and often apprehended, is cold comfort to the victims, singled out for attack because of race. The so-called knockout game (aka, polar-bearing, polar bear hunting, point ‘em out, and others) is a sign of our times.

The video below was taken in Paterson, NJ:

The videographer can be heard egging on the attacker. It is clear that both of them think that it is fun to hurt people and feel no hint of empathy. Complete dehumanization of “the other” (a favorite concept that the left uses to disparage white people).

Once the video became public, the local police vowed action and according to

A city teen faces charges and another teenager was being sought for their roles in unprovoked attack that was recorded in a video widely shared on social media, authorities said Saturday night. (snip)

The attacker faces charges of aggravated assault and endangering an injured victim, the police director said. He was at large.

The other boy, a 16-year-old, recorded the brutal attack and was heard on the video egging on the attacker, [Paterson Police Director] Speziale added.

#blacklivesmatter is committed to the view that blacks are victims, period, and the media largely reinforce this view. But the crime statistics indicate that for inter-racial violence, blacks are overwhelmingly in the role of perpetrators compared to the role of victims.