Live Stream From St. Martin As Hurricane Irma Barrels Overhead

This morning we reported that the small Caribbean island of St. Martin has been one of the first casualties of the "monstrous" Hurricane Irma, after the French government said that the four "most solid" buildings on the Caribbean island were destroyed by Irma.

French interior minister Gerard Collomb told reporters said that "the four most solid buildings on the island have been destroyed which means that more rustic structures have probably been completely or partially destroyed." The French government also said that there are electrical blackouts and widespread flooding on the islands of St Barthélemy and St Martin.

Now, to get a sense of just how powerful this storm is, here is a live feed from St. Martin showing "devastating images" as Hurricane Irma barrels overhead with maximum sustained winds of over 185 mph.

Macron Approval Rating Crashes Twice As Fast As Trump's

It appears that Trump is no longer the president with the fastest plunge in his approval rating: that honor has now fallen to France"s Emanuel Macron, who since his dramatic victory in the May 7 presidential election, has seen his popularity plummet, and according to a a new poll conducted by Ifop for Le Journal du Dimanche, most French voters are now dissatisfied with Emmanuel Macron’s performance, a dramatic decline for the president who basked in a landslide election victory less than four months ago.

The poll showed Macron’s “dissatisfaction rating” soaring to 57%, from 43% in July. At the same time, those satisfied with Macron tumbled from 54% in July (and 62% at election) to just 40% in August, a stunning 22% drop over three months...  which is twice as fast as Donald Trump"s fall from grace. According to Gallup, on Inauguration Day, 45% of Americans said they approved of Trump and since then, the number has declined by 11% to 34%, which again is only half as bad as Macron popularity plunge. The Ifop poll also showed the cumulative drop in Macron’s popularity ratings since May was far bigger than that of previous Socialist president Francois Hollande over the same period, who is best known for achieving the lowest approval record of any recent French president on record. As such, one wonders how Macron"s approval rating in a few short years can even be positive.

Quoted by Reuters, French government spokesman Christophe Castaner said the ruling party was going through a "tricky time", but added that displeasing some people was a price worth paying if the government wanted to push through reforms. The only problem is the government will most likely not be able to push through reforms, even as Macron"s approval continues its sharp descent. Cartaner also told BFM TV that “yes, we are encountering difficulties, but you cannot just spend your time only looking at polls when you’re in government. We are there to transform the country. Our country needs us to take risks, and we are taking risks." Spoken like a true megalomaniac.

As for Macron -  who is currently midway through a schedule of official visits to various European capitals and who most recently got into a violent feud with Poland when he criticized the Warsaw government for its "non-European ideals" to which Polish PM Beata Syzdlo slammed "arrogant" Macron saying "you won"t rule Europe" - has suffered a number of setbacks since being elected, including tough debates in parliament over labor reform, a standoff with the military and cuts to housing assistance. Then, just last week, Macron became the target of social media scorn and humor, while political opponents criticized the president when it emerged he spent €26,000 ($31,000) on makeup during his first 100 days in office and his office also backed down on plans to give his wife a formal, paid role after a public backlash.

In any case, the latest polling is terrible news for the young new president who was expected to inspire his country with hope and confidence yet appears to be doing just the opposite: Bernard Sananes, head of French polling company Elabe, said the latest survey could encourage Macron’s political opponents, after his party won a commanding majority in parliament.

“It could mean, for the government, that the opposition mobilizes itself again,” Sananes told BFM TV.

It wasn"t just Macron: the poll also showed a steep drop in approval for Prime Minister Edouard Philippe, with 47% expressing satisfaction with him - down 9% from last month.

As Reuters adds, Macron - France"s youngest leader since Napoleon - faces a big test next month when the far-left CGT trade union leads a rally to protest against plans to deregulate the jobs market. "Now is the key time, with the labor executive orders to be presented," said Francois Savary, chief investment officer at Geneva-based investment firm Prime Partners, who has an "underweight" position on French equities.

An Angry, "Irritated" Italy Loses Patience With Macron Over Migrants, Libya

One week after the latest Ifop poll showed that French president Macron"s approval rating tumbled by 10 points in his third month, with only Jacques Chirac sliding more from his May 1995 election to July of that year according to Journal du Dimanche...

... the young president"s troubles are spilling outside France"s borders, and as VoA reports, even as Merkel"s political infatuation with Macron grows by the day, Italy is quickly falling out of love with Macron as  irritation with France’s president is mounting in Rome. At the center of the rising tensions is Italy displeasure with how Europe is handling the country"s refugee crisis: tensions have crept into diplomatic relations between France and the government of Paolo Gentiloni, prompted by Macron’s response to Italian pleas for more European assistance with the mainly sub-Saharan migrants crossing the Mediterranean in record numbers and his largely uncoordinated diplomatic intervention in the past week over the Libya crisis.

On Tuesday, Macron oversaw a meeting in Paris of the leaders of two of war-torn Libya’s rival factions to discuss a political power-sharing deal to reunite the fractured north African country.

President Macron meets Italian PM Paolo at the Elysee Palace in Paris, May 21, 2017

Italy is furious that the meeting between the head of the U.N.-backed government of Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj  - which has failed to assert authority even in the Libyan capital Tripoli - and General Khalifa Haftar - a warlord who largely controls the east of the lawless country - was not coordinated with the Italian government. As a result, Gentiloni’s ministers took the unusual step of openly criticizing the French president this week, voicing frustrations with Macron’s efforts, which they argue distract from a coordinated U.N. and European Union effort to engineer a political deal in Libya between three rival governments and dozens of militias. 

“There are too many open formats in Libya, too many mediators, too many initiatives,” Italy’s foreign minister, Angelino Alfano, told the Italian newspaper La Stampa.

Alfano and other ministers have been dismissive of the progress the Elysee Palace claimed to have made in the search for a deal in Libya. According to the French government, al-Sarraj and Haftar have committed to a cease-fire as well as to a continued political dialogue in an effort to achieve national reconciliation. The Italians also believe that Macron has fallen into a trap set by General Haftar, who has refused to accept the legitimacy of Fayez al-Sarraj’s government. Italian officials complain that the Macron-brokered meeting helps to legitimize Haftar, whom they see as a warlord and a strongman-in-the-making.

Separately, officials in the Italian capital say Italy is far more of a "front-line" state when it comes to Libya and suffers more immediate impact than France when it comes to political developments on the other side of the Mediterranean, which is why they have been infuriate by France"s brash overtures to take the lead on political negotiations with the civil war-torn state, and have also accused Macron of brashness in waiving off Italian objections, arguing he’s being too high-handed.

It isn"t just Italy.

Accusations of Macron"s high-handedness were also echoed in France, on his approach to a range of issues, domestic and foreign, with one retired general, Vincent Desportes, accusing Macron of “juvenile authoritarianism.”

As VoA adds, Macron’s Libya diplomacy is just one irritant in increasingly tension-filled Franco-Italian relations, in which Macron has been also accused of duplicity and hypocrisy in his diplomatic conduct with Italy. In May, after meeting Gentiloni in Paris, Macron announced: “we have not listened enough to Italy’s cry for help on the migration crisis.” But Macron’s position since hasn’t changed much from Francois Hollande, his predecessor in the Elysee Palace, to the Italian government’s rising anger.

Aside from Libya, an even more pressing issue for Italy has been the ongoing pleas for burden-sharing when it comes to the country"s migrant wave, pelase which have so far fallen on deaf ears among other EU nations. Meanwhile, Italy’s refugee centers and shelters have reached their capacity of 200,000. So far this year nearly 100,000 asylum seekers have crossed the Mediterranean from Libya — a 17 percent increase over the same period last year — and with months more of good weather, another 100,000 asylum seekers are likely to land at Italian ports.

Pointing the finger explicitly at Paris, Italy’s deputy foreign minister, Mario Giro, this month complained, “it doesn’t seem like France wants to help us concretely.”

Italy has reason to be angry: French police have been blocking hundreds of migrants on the Italian side of the border at Ventimiglia from entering France; the French government is refusing to allow asylum seekers rescued in the Mediterranean from landing at French ports and, like nearly every other EU country, France hasn’t come anywhere near meeting its quota of migrants as agreed to under a 2015 EU refugee relocation scheme, even as the EU sues to force Poland, Hungary And Czech Republic to accept more refugees.

Adding insult to injury, earlier in July, Macron talked of distinguishing between war refugees and economic migrants, indicating that France won"t admit any asylum-seekers who are just escaping poverty and hunger. But that doesn’t help Italy as it tries to cope with a mounting influx of mainly economic migrants, who, under EU rule, it has little alternative but to admit, at least for processing and to save lives.

Paris has also scorned an Italian proposal for an EU military mission to monitor and interdict migrants along Libya’s southern border. Italians question why a large French military mission in Niger isn"t being used to disrupt migrant trafficking when it is right by the main route being used by smugglers and would-be asylum seekers traveling north.

Last month, the European Parliament’s most senior left-wing politician, Italian Gianni Pittella, launched a scathing attack on Macron after French police frogmarched back into Italy more than 100 migrants who’d crossed into France.

“The situation is shameful. Italy and the Italians are being abandoned, they’re being expected to deal with all these migrants on their own with no support,” he said.

And even as he loses the support of Europe"s periphery, and certainly the nation which recently surpassed Germany as the largest sovereign debtor in Europe, for now Macron"s precarious political stance is propped up - if only in the diplomatic arena - by Angela Merkel"s (so far) unquestioned admiration and support. Should Macron lose that, however, it may be time to start worrying about the next French presidential election.

The French Government Built A Migrant Shelter In This Small Town – Residents Responded By Building A Wall Around It

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

When most people consider how many migrants have entered Europe in recent years, they probably assume that the whole continent is a beacon of tolerance and love for foreigners who are seeking a better way of life. But a more accurate picture of Europe would suggest that the only thing most Europeans are tolerant of, is their corrupt governments who aren’t willing to close the borders. That tolerance is quickly wearing thin however, as most Westerners reject the migrants, who are burdening the social fabric of their communities.

Which would explain a recent incident in the French town of Séméac, where the government recently bought a hotel in the hopes of turning it into a migrant shelter.

Protesters in a town in southwest France have built a nearly-two-metre-high wall around the entrance to a disused hotel to try to prevent it being turned into a migrant shelter.

Working under cover of darkness, a few dozen residents of Semeac in the Pyrenees mountains erected a wall 18 metres (60 feet) long and 1.8 metres high barring access to the Formule 1 hotel, a spokesman for the group confirmed.

“We not against taking in migrants,” Laurent Teixeira told AFP. “But you have to take account of the citizens.”

The locals are frustrated with the government for not being transparent with the public, and not really having a plan for the migrants. The French government is currently under pressure to establish as many shelters as they can, in anticipation of another spike in migration later this summer.

Teixeira accused the authorities of failing to consult residents about the project to turn the former budget hotel into a shelter for up to 85 migrants.

“Nothing is planned for the migrants’ daily life,” he said, arguing that schools and other public services in the town of 5,000 people would be unable to cope with the newcomers.

Protester Hugo Lacoue, a tobacconist, said he was opposed to migrants being hosted in a suburban neighbourhood.

But it’s safe to say that those aren’t the only reasons why these French villagers are concerned about the migrant shelter. The politically correct media in that country probably wouldn’t publish the fears that are really on the minds of these people.

Like the fact that rapes and other violent crimes are skyrocketing in countries that have accepted the migrants with open arms.

Or that the countries which haven’t brought in so many migrants don’t have any terrorist attacks.

Or that migrant shelters often devolve into drunken riots where refugees burn down their own shelters, and assault police officers and their fellow refugees. Surely, that’s not something that this small town is equipped to deal with.

But most importantly, the media will never report on the fact that walls really do work.

A Month Of Multiculturalism In France: June 2017

Authored by Soeren Kern via The Gatestone Institute,

• "I am in fundamental disagreement with these left-wing people who do everything to dissociate fundamentalism from Islam. Islam has been radicalized for fifty years. On the Shiite side, there was Imam Khomeini and his Islamic revolution. In the Sunni world, there was Saudi Arabia, which used its immense resources to finance the spread of this fanaticism of Wahhabism. But this historical evolution took place within Islam and not outside. When the people of the Islamic State attack, they do it by saying "Allahu Akbar." So how can we then say that this has nothing to do with Islam? It must be stopped." — Sir Salman Rushdie, author of the novel The Satanic Verses, who has been hunted to be killed by Muslim extremists for nearly 30 years.


• Residents of the Paris suburb of Mée-sur-Seine complained that a mosque was blasting prayers on outdoor loudspeakers well beyond midnight each night during Ramadan. Mourad Salah, a local Muslim leader, said the city council was to blame for the noise because of its failure to provide Muslims with a larger mosque: "The ball is in the mayor"s court. Until we have a place of prayer worthy of the name, with a greater capacity, things will be difficult."


• An online petition — "Women: An Endangered Species in the Heart of Paris" — accused Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo of allowing a large swathe of the city to become a no-go zone for women. Every night, hundreds of migrants from Africa and the Middle East line the pavements to form an intimidating gauntlet for women walking from the Gare du Nord and Gare de l"Est railway stations to their homes, the petition said. Shouts of "bitch" and "dirty whore" are common.

June 1. Saber Lahmar, a 48-year-old Algerian who has lived in Bordeaux since his release from Guantánamo Bay in 2009, was charged with "terrorist association" and placed in pre-trial detention. He is suspected of providing financial, logistical and doctrinal aid to French jihadists who were planning to travel to Iraq and Syria. Lahmar was arrested in Bosnia in 2001 after being accused of plotting to bomb the American embassy in Sarajevo. In November 2008, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon ordered Lahmar to be released from Guantánamo because there was insufficient reason to hold him. In December 2009, Robert C. Kirsch, a lawyer at the firm of WilmerHale, which represented Lahmar in federal court, said: "We are grateful for the courage and generosity of the French people and government, and for the ongoing effort by President Obama... which will now give Mr. Lahmar a chance to rebuild his life in France."

June 1. A group of prominent intellectuals accused French authorities of covering up the April 4 murder of a Jewish woman by her Muslim neighbor. Kobili Traoré a 27-year-old Malian Muslim, tortured 66-year-old Sarah Halimi and threw her out of her third-story apartment. The letter criticizes the Paris Prosecutor"s Office for omitting hate crime charges from a draft indictment against Traoré. They cited a recording of the incident made by another neighbor. In it, Traoré can be heard shouting "Allahu Akbar" and calling Halimi "dirty Jew" to her face. Some observers believe the authorities covered up Halimi"s murder to prevent it from helping Marine Le Pen"s presidential campaign.

June 2. The mayor of Nice, Christian Estrosi, banned Noorassur, a local insurance broker, from hanging a sign with the words "Islamic finance" because it "poses a high risk of disturbing public order." Estrosi said the sign was placed in close proximity to the Promenade des Anglais, the site of the July 14, 2016 jihadist attack. He said that there was a risk to both the staff and the customers and that passersby might see the sign as a provocation. Noorassur"s founder, Sonia Mariji, filed a lawsuit against the city. "Islamic finance is not incompatible with the Republic," she said. "I am a fruit of the Republic." Her lawyer accused Estrosi of "conveying the idea that Islamic finance is linked to Islamist terrorism."

June 6. Farid Ikken, a 40-year-old Algerian, attacked a police officer in front of the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. Government spokesman Christophe Castaner said the hammer attack was an "isolated act." Ikken was later charged with "attempted murder in connection with a terrorist enterprise." Prosecutor François Molins said that Ikken was radicalized through Islamic State propaganda he found on the internet. Molins also confirmed that Ikken, who had recorded a video pledging allegiance to the Islamic State, was a former journalist who was legally living in France as a student working on his doctoral thesis.

A policeman stands guard near Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris, France, on June 6, 2017, after Farid Ikken, a 40-year-old Algerian, attempted to murder a police officer at the site. (Photo by Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images)

June 8. In an interview with L"Obs, British Indian author Sir Salman Rushdie, the object of an Islamic death sentence for alleged blasphemy in his 1988 best-selling novel The Satanic Verses, blamed European leaders for refusing to see the reality of the origins of jihadism:

"I am in fundamental disagreement with these left-wing people who do everything to dissociate fundamentalism from Islam. Islam has been radicalized for fifty years. On the Shiite side, there was Imam Khomeini and his Islamic revolution. In the Sunni world, there was Saudi Arabia, which used its immense resources to finance the spread of this fanaticism of Wahhabism. But this historical evolution took place within Islam and not outside. When the people of the Islamic State attack, they do it by saying "Allahu Akbar." So how can we then say that this has nothing to do with Islam? It must be stopped."

June 11. Three more men were charged with involvement in supplying the weapon that Karim Cheufri used to kill police officer Xavier Jugelé in Paris on April 20. A total of four suspects have been charged with directly or indirectly helping Cheufri, who was shot dead after killing Jugelé and wounding two other police officers on the Champs-Elysées.

June 13. President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Theresa May announced an anti-terror action plan to remove jihadist propaganda from the internet. The action plan includes exploring the possibility of legal penalties against social media companies if they fail to remove unacceptable content from their networks.

June 14. The mayor of Mandelieu-La-Napoule, Henri Leroy, called on the fashion chain Hennes & Mauritz (H&M) to prohibit sales personnel from wearing Islamic headscarves. He said he had received repeated complaints from shopkeepers and local citizens who are "embarrassed by the religious attire of your employees." He added: "I think it is useful to remind you that the municipality is attached to Republican values and to religious neutrality." Feïza Ben Mohamed, a candidate in the local elections in the Alpes-Maritimes department accused Leroy of "Islamophobia" and of engaging in a "shameful polemic."

June 18. Marine Le Pen, leader of the anti-EU, anti-immigration National Front party, won a seat in parliament for the first time. Overall, her party won only eight seats in the 577-seat National Assembly, dashing her hopes of becoming the main opposition to President Emmanuel Macron. Le Pen blamed France"s electoral system and called for proportional representation. "It"s a scandal that our party that won 7.6 million votes in the first round of the presidential election and three million more in the second round, cannot form a group in the French parliament," she said.

June 19. Adam Lofti Djaziri, a 31-year-old jihadist from the Paris suburb of Argenteuil, was killed when he rammed his car, laden with guns and gas canisters, into a police van on the Champs-Elysées. Police said Djaziri had meant to turn his vehicle into a car bomb but it failed to explode. No one else was injured in the attack. Djaziri had mailed a letter to his family just before the attack saying he had wanted to travel to Syria but that he had been stopped from doing so "by apostates against the Islamic State." It later emerged that although Djaziri had been on a jihadist watchlist, he had legally been allowed to purchase firearms.

June 20. A Polish truck driver was killed when he crashed into the back of another truck that had been stopped by migrants on a highway near Calais. The migrants had placed barriers consisting of tree trunks and other large objects to slow down three trucks headed for Britain in an attempt to stow away in them. Four migrants — two Afghan adults and two Eritrean minors — were charged with manslaughter, impeding traffic and endangering lives. Polish Interior Minister Mariusz Blaszczak asked French authorities to "take action to guarantee the security of Polish truck drivers in the Calais region."

June 22. President Emmanuel Macron"s government introduced new anti-terrorism legislation that would give French authorities greater powers to act to protect an event or location thought to be at risk from attack, without first having to seek permission from the courts. The draft law would also allow mosques thought to be promoting extremism to be shut down for up to six months. Prime Minister Edouard Philippe argued it struck the "right balance" between respecting freedoms and reinforcing security. Rights groups including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch said the legislation would enshrine into law draconian powers allowed under the state of emergency, which has been in place since the November 2015 jihadist attacks in Paris.

June 22. A special anti-terror tribunal in Paris sentenced 18 members of a jihadist network to between one and 28 years in prison for a grenade attack on a Jewish grocery store in the Paris suburb of Sarcelles in September 2012. The "Cannes-Torcy cell," named after the towns where its members were based, was accused of having planned several other attacks before the network was dismantled in 2012. During the hearing at a special anti-terror tribunal, the cell was described as "the missing link" between the self-proclaimed al-Qaeda militant Mohamed Merah — who murdered three Jewish children and a teacher in an attack at their school in Toulouse in 2012 — and the network that attacked the Bataclan concert hall in November 2015.

June 22. Residents of the Paris suburb of Mée-sur-Seine complained that a mosque was blasting prayers on outdoor loudspeakers well beyond midnight each night during Ramadan. "The loudspeaker was used for the many faithful praying on the sidewalk because the mosque is too small," according to Le Parisien. Mourad Salah, a local Muslim leader, said the city council was to blame for the noise because of its failure to provide Muslims with a larger mosque: "The ball is in the mayor"s court. Until we have a place of prayer worthy of the name, with a greater capacity, things will be difficult."

June 23. Five jihadists were sentenced to a combined 25 years in prison for associating with the Islamic State. The men, all in their 20s, had been recruited by Omar Diaby, a French national of Senegalese descent known for funneling fighters to Syria. Ali Abzouzi and Luck Manodritta were sentenced to six and eight years in prison, respectively. The two had spent several months in Syria in 2013 and 2014. Two others, Cedric Belly and David Assila, were given four years in prison including two-year suspended sentences for having attempted to join the others. The court also handed a three-year jail sentence to Magomed Bagaiev for helping a young woman prepare to leave for Syria. Diaby, also known as Omar Omsen, is believed to have recruited around 50 French jihadists to fight to Syria.

June 24. Interior Minister Gerard Collomb rejected calls from charities for the construction of a new migrant camp in the northern port of Calais, where hundreds migrants have once again gathered in hopes of crossing the English Channel to Britain. In October 2016, French authorities bulldozed a migrant camp known as "The Jungle," but aid agencies say about 400-600 migrants are now sleeping rough on streets. Collomb said: "We don"t want to create a gathering point where numbers would swell back up to 7,000 over time. That would not be tolerable, for the migrants, the residents of Calais and for economic life."

June 26. An online petition — "Women: An Endangered Species in the Heart of Paris" — accused Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo of allowing a large swathe of the city to become a no-go zone for women. Every night, hundreds of migrants from Africa and the Middle East line the pavements to form an intimidating gauntlet for women walking from the Gare du Nord and Gare de l"Est railway stations to their homes, the petition said. Shouts of "bitch" and "dirty whore" are common. The petition was launched by a woman called Laurence who said:

"As a woman you start adopting defensive measures. You don"t go here or there. Avoid certain routes. Take your kids to school another way. I stopped going to my tobacconist and some cafes because suddenly there were only men inside. I have to ask the teenage drug dealers politely to step aside in the foyer just so I can get to my own front door.... You get used to averting your eyes from streams of urine and pools of spittle...to lowering your head... to walking alone... to feeling fear, great, great fear because you dared to speak out."

Pierre Liscia, a conservative councilor, said that city officials were concerned that the lawlessness might derail the Paris bid for the 2024 Olympics:

"The cynical thing is that last month a vast clean-up operation was launched when the Olympic committee came to visit for an inspection ahead of the Games. They moved out 1,600 people in 24 hours. I find it contemptible that the mayor"s office acted only when there was media attention."

Mayor Hidalgo has repeatedly denied that there are no-go zones in Paris, and in January 2015 she threatened to file a lawsuit against Fox News for "harming the honor of Paris" after it reported that such zones exist.

June 27. The trial began of Beatrice Huret, a 45-year-old former supporter of France"s anti-immigration National Front party, for helping to smuggle her Iranian migrant lover across the English Channel to Britain. Huret met 37-year-old Mokhtar while volunteering at the now-demolished "Jungle" migrant camp in Calais. In June 2016, she purchased a small boat for 1,000 euros which Mokhtar and two friends used to cross the Channel. The boat capsized en route but the trio arrived safely after being rescued by the British coastguard. Huret was subsequently arrested and charged with being part of a migrant smuggling network. Since then, the couple have kept up their relationship, with Huret regularly visiting Mokhtar in the northern English city of Sheffield, where he obtained a work permit. Huret, who has a 19-year-old son, said: "I am prepared to give up my life for him. The only thing that would bother me is that I would no longer be able to see Mokhtar if I"m in jail."

June 27. The mayor of Lorette, Gerard Tardy, banned burkinis and other Muslim clothing at a new outdoor swim park. The regulation states:

"Monokinis, burkinis, partial veils or veils which totally conceal the face, or a combination thereof, are prohibited on the beach. Any breach of this provision will lead to the immediate expulsion (which may cover the entire swimming season) of the offenders by security or, if necessary, by the police."

Aldo Oumouden, spokesman of a mosque in Saint Étienne, responded:

"France is multicultural and banning the veil at this facility is an attack on the individual freedom of Muslims and does not even distinguish between burkini and headscarf. How is it that the veil is aggressive or dangerous for the population? It does not represent any health problem, and there is no interference with the freedom of others. Does Mayor Tardy not realize that this decision will further stigmatize Muslims? It is not only unnecessary but also devastating for community harmony."

June 28. Human Rights Watch (HRW) said that new counter-terrorism legislation proposed by the French government will fuel prejudice against Muslims. President Emmanuel Macron wants the legislation to replace temporary emergency powers in place since jihadists attacked Paris in 2015. HRW said:

"As the text stands, the law could, for instance, be used arbitrarily to prohibit any meeting at which ideas or theological concepts associated with conservative interpretations of Islam, such as Salafism, are expressed regardless of whether there is any demonstrable connection to criminal activity. Poorly worded laws that are likely to lead to closing solely Muslim places of worship may also help feed anti-Muslim rhetoric and prejudice prevalent in wider society."

June 29. The mayor of Chevigny-Saint-Sauveur, Michel Rotger, banned halal menus in school canteens. "Under the principle of secularism, a single menu is proposed. No substitute meals will be provided except in case of food allergies," he said. "I am applying the recommendation of the Association of Mayors of France (AMF)," he added. The AMF recently published a guide for "secular best practices" which criticized "denominational menus" in canteens. "We are putting in place an operation so that children eat everything and that what is offered is balanced," Rotger said. "There is too much waste, and we will teach them to eat meat, be it poultry or pork." Muslim groups have vowed to fight the ban in court.

June 30. A new mobile app — "No-Go Zone" — appeared in the Google App Store. The app warns people if they are in a Paris no-go zone, and provides live alerts of thefts and sexual assaults in the city. The app description reads: "Whether you are staying in an unknown location, looking for a safe place to live, on your way to a specific location then No-Go Zone allows you to reduce any risk of aggression, theft, harassment or incivility."

Which Is Worse? America Or France?

Authored by Bonner & Partners" Bill Bonner, annotated by Acting-Man"s Pater Tenebrarum,

French Fraud

“Which is worse? America or France?” The question must be put in context. We were invited to dinner with local farmers last night. Jean-Yves and Arlette live in a modest house in the nearby town – an efficient and cozy place built about 25 years ago. They’ve added a solarium to the back, where we had dinner.

FAF – French-American Friendship. These days it’s a “which is worse” competition… [PT]

Arlette operates a dairy farm left to her by her parents. Jean-Yves runs a cattle and cereal farm that was in his family. A son and his wife moved into the farmhouse in Jean-Yves’ place. Anticipating retirement, he and his wife moved into town.

“You have Trump. But we have Macron,” Jean-Yves said. On balance, France probably comes out ahead on that score. Macron is young, smart, and good-looking.

“Yes, but he is a fraud,” Jean-Yves continued. “He claims he will change things. But he is mainstream. Besides, I don’t think he can change things even if he wanted to.”

Over the years, we’ve commented on many public figures here at the Diary. We can’t remember one we didn’t consider a fraud in some way. And so far, we don’t think we were wrong about any of them.

French President Emmanuel Macron is hardly an outsider or a rebel. He is a graduate of France’s elite École Nationale d’Administration. And he was finance minister under the previous president. So entrenched and unyielding is the French bureaucracy – France’s Deep State – that it would take a real firecracker to change it. Mr. Macron is not that kind of a guy.

The French Macronite. G.W. Bush said it first by the way: “We know that human beings and fish can co-exist peacefully.” Thanks to Macron we now know why: they’re practically brothers and sisters. And don’t forget the trees, with their deep roots. Just don’t cross the French bureaucracy or try to actually do something useful, like working. They’re going to punish you, whether you’re a brother, a sister, or a fish with aspirations to the universal. Your best option is probably to try and become part of that which escapes them… unless you like nightmares of course. [PT]

“I wanted to get someone to work on the gardens,” Elizabeth explained.

“So I called a guy who has a lawn maintenance company. He said he would cut the grass. But he won’t cut down the trees because that would have to be subcontracted, and that would put his revenues over the allowable level.”

“You mean he’s not allowed to make more money?”

“That’s right. If he makes more than a certain amount, he’s required to reorganize his business… and apparently, that’s a nightmare. There must be people in Paris who are spending their time thinking of ways to make it difficult for people to do business.”

“Nightmare?” Jean-Yves interjected.

“Farming is a nightmare in France. We work seven days a week… because we can’t get anyone to help. Or more specifically, we don’t dare get anyone to help. Because if we hire someone, it’s almost impossible to fire him.”

“It’s worse than that,” Arlette added.

“Farming is so hard… with so many directives from the government – from bureaucrats who’ve never actually seen a cow – that young people don’t want to do it. I don’t blame them. I know what’s going to happen.”

Typical sleep period of a French farmer’s wife, captured by John Henry Fuseli back in 1781. Plus ça change…  According to a Wikipedia entry, scientific research helpfully suggests that “nightmares may have many causes”. The French bureaucracy is apparently one of them. [PT]

This Too Shall Pass

In France, half the people work hard; the other half try to stop them. But the typical French family is more prudent than its American counterpart. It’s seen governments come and go.

The Third Republic fell in 1940. The Fourth Republic fell in 1958. The Fifth Republic will probably fall in the coming financial crisis. French currencies come and go, too.

When we first visited, many years ago, it had only recently replaced the old franc with the new franc – worth 100 old francs. “That loaf of bread will be 500 francs,” a baker might tell you. Then, in 2000, the French ditched the franc for the euro.

There is one thing French governments have been really good at ever since the French Revolution: utterly destroying the value of the currency in the shortest time possible. They may be complete bunglers otherwise, but they are definitely world class experts  with respect to this particular task. There were occasional attempts to become responsible by anchoring the franc to gold, but these periods obviously didn’t last very long. Nowadays investors can no longer make small fortunes out of big ones by investing in the French franc, but Mario Draghi’s ECB is eagerly trying to recreate this excellent opportunity by running its printing presses with the utmost alacrity. [PT] – click to enlarge.

The French know something Americans don’t: This too shall pass. It has made them cautious. Consumption, especially the conspicuous kind, is not as appreciated here as in the United States. There are fewer malls. Fewer ways to spend money. And less credit.

The government is about as insolvent in France as in the U.S. But the average family carries less debt. France also has another big advantage. It may have a large and costly welfare state, but it has only a small warfare state. The French military still meddles overseas, but on a small scale.

French government debt as a percentage of GDP is actually slightly below the US public debt-to-GDP ratio. It is light years from the 60% ratio stipulated by the Maastricht treaty though and its magnitude is probably already beyond the point of no return by now, as long term economic growth typically collapses once the debtberg becomes this large. Besides, the French economy has been regulated and taxed to death anyway. [PT] – click to enlarge.

The scale of America’s meddling, on the other hand, is colossal. The annual cost of its wars, military spending, foreign aid, and various security agencies and initiatives is almost $1 trillion… and rising.

Here’s President Trump explaining recently to evangelical media mogul Pat Robertson why Vladimir Putin was more likely to favor Hillary Clinton over him in the 2016 election:

“It’s something that you don’t like talking about, but again we are the most powerful country in the world, and we are getting more and more powerful because I’m a big military person.”

 

Big Military Person, Field Marshal Donald Trump and the US debtberg side by side. This is not a combination that inspires much confidence (mind, we are still glad that war harpy Hillary was deflected by the deplorable voter horde). [PT] – click to enlarge.

Win-Lose Spending

Any military spending you don’t need to defend the country is wasted… at best. Since the U.S. faces no serious enemies, most of its empire budget contributes nothing to either prosperity or security.

It is win-lose spending – from the pockets of the plain people to the pockets of the rich and powerful. Perhaps the Deep State insiders are grateful; perhaps not. It is a shame the president doesn’t read history. At least then he’d put an ironic fillip on the “big military person” phrase.

He would know that every “big military person” in the past – from Bonaparte to Tojo – was either an embarrassment to his country or a disaster… and often both. Excess military spending almost always leads to adventurism, war, and catastrophe.

France… the U.S. Which is worse? It is hard to say.

Is Radical Islam Horrifying The West Into Paralysis?

Authored by Giulio Meottie via The Gatestone Institute,

• German Chancellor Angela Merkel"s refugee policy was not a masterpiece of humanitarian politics; it was dictated by the fear of television images spread all over the world.


• Even the suffering of our enemies disturbs us, in the humanitarian culture of the West. We are therefore increasingly amenable to policies of appeasement, censorship and retreat in order not to have to face the possibility of such horribleness and actually having to fight it. That is why radical Islam has been able to horrify the West into submission. We have paralyzed ourselves. We censor the cartoons, the graphic photos of the terrorists" victims and even the faces and names of the jihadists. The Islamic terrorists, on the other hand, are not publicity-seekers; they are soldiers ready to kill and die in the name of what they care about.


• Images, as in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, are published only if they amplify the West"s sense of guilt and turn the "war on terror" into something more even more dangerous than the jihad causing the war. The result is to erase our enemy from our imagination. This is how the "war on terror" has become synonymous with lawlessness throughout the West.

September 2015. Thousands of Syrian migrants crossing the Balkan route were heading toward Germany. Chancellor Angela Merkel was on the phone with Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière, talking about a number of measures to protect the borders, where thousands of policemen were secretly located along with buses and helicopters. De Maizière turned for advice to Dieter Romann, then head of the police. "Can we live with the images that will come out?" de Mazière asked. "What happens if 500 refugees with children in their arms run toward the border guards?"

De Maiziére was told that the appropriate use of the measures to be taken would have be decided by the police on the field. When de Maizière relayed Romann"s response to the Chancellor, Merkel reversed her original commitment. And the borders were opened for 180 days.

"For historical reasons, the Chancellor feared images of armed German police confronting civilians on our borders," writes Robin Alexander, Die Welt"s leading journalist, who revealed these details in a new book, Die Getriebenen ("The Driven Ones"). Alexander reveals the real reason that pushed Merkel to open the door to a million and a half migrants in a few weeks: "In the end, Merkel refused to take responsibility, governing through the polls." This is how the famous Merkel"s motto "Wir schaffen das" was born: "We can do it."

According to Die Zeit:

"Merkel and her people are convinced that the marchers could only be stopped with the help of violence: with water cannons, truncheons and pepper spray. It would be chaotic and the images would be horrific. Merkel is extremely wary of such images and of their political impact, and she is convinced that Germany wouldn"t tolerate them. Merkel once said that Germany wouldn"t be able to stand the images from the dismal conditions in the refugee camp at Calais for more than three days. But how much more devastating would images be of refugees being beaten as they try to get to Austria or Germany?"

Merkel"s refugee policy was not a masterpiece of humanitarian politics; it was dictated by the fear of television images spread all over the world. In so many key moments, it is the photograph that dictates our behavior: the image that dishonors us, that makes us cringe in horror.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel"s refugee policy was not a masterpiece of humanitarian politics; it was dictated by the fear of television images spread all over the world. In so many key moments, it is the photograph that dictates our behavior: the image that dishonors us, that makes us cringe in horror. (Photo by Adam Berry/Getty Images)

Now, the main German sentiment that seems to be driving public opinion and politics is a dramatic sense of guilt. It is a "secular sin", according to a new book by German sociologist Rolf Peter Sieferle that is topping the German bestseller list, "Finis Germania".

The behavior of Germans during the current migrant crisis, however, is symbolic of a more general Western condition.

On April 30, 1975, the fall of Saigon was part of a war fought and lost by the United States as much on television as in the Vietnamese forests and rice paddies. It ended with the the escape of helicopters from the rooftop of the US embassy.

In 1991, the imagery of the "highway of death" of Saddam Hussein"s bombed army of thugs fleeing a plundered Kuwait also shocked the public in the West, and led to calls for an immediate cessation of the fighting in Iraq and Kuwait. The result was that Saddam Hussein"s air force and Republican Guard divisions were spared; during the "peace" that followed, it was these troops who butchered Kurds and Shiites.

The photograph of a dead American soldier dragged through the streets of Mogadishu after the "Black Hawk Down" incident pushed President Bill Clinton to order a shameful retreat from Somalia. That photograph also led the US Administration to rethink and cancel plans to use US troops for United Nations peace operations in Bosnia, Haiti and other strategic points. General David Petraeus would describe America"s engagement in Afghanistan as a "war of perception".

Even the suffering of our enemies disturbs us, in the humanitarian culture of the West. We are therefore increasingly amenable to policies of appeasement, censorship and retreat, in order not to have to face the possibility of such horribleness and actually having to fight it.

That is why radical Islam has been able to horrify the West into submission. We have paralysed ourselves. We censor the cartoons, the graphic photos of the terrorists" victims and even the faces and names of the jihadists. The Islamic terrorists, on the other hand, are not publicity-seekers; they are soldiers ready to die and kill in the name of what they care about.

This week, the German media was shocked by the revelation that the German air force will probably come under fire during its Syrian mission. "Endangering German soldiers!" -- with an exclamation point -- wrote Bild, the largest-selling newspaper in Germany. The statement exposed the anxiety of what John Vinocur of the Wall Street Journal called a "country where the army and air force basically do not fight". A pacifist Germany is now a source of trouble also for its own neighbors, such as Poland. "For centuries, our main worry in Poland was a very strong German army", said former Polish Defense Minister Janusz Onyszkiewicz. "Today, we"re seriously worried about German armed forces that are too weak."

The Western establishment censors images of our enemies" crimes while giving prominence to our "guilt". The French government censored the "gruesome torture" of the victims at the Bataclan Theater, who were castrated, disemboweled and had their eyes gouged out by the Islamist terrorists. It was a mistake: it was in the public interest to know exactly what enemy we are facing.

The FBI and Department of Justice released a transcript of the Orlando jihadist"s 911 call, but omitted all reference to the terror group ISIS and to Islam. These authorities did not want the public to know that Omar Mateen identified himself as an "Islamic soldier".

The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance then told the British press it should not report when terrorists are Muslim.

The CEO of Twitter, Dick Costolo, suspended accounts that showed photographs of the beheading of John Foley, along with other Islamist beheadings and savagery. But Twitter did not mind being flooded by images of a little dead boy, Alan (Aylan) Kurdi on a beach.

The mainstream media in the US fought hard to lift the photo ban on military coffins during the war in Iraq. Its goal, apparently, was to humiliate and intimidate the public, to lower the support for the war.

Images, as in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, are published only if they amplify the West"s sense of guilt and turn the "war on terror" into something more even more dangerous than the jihad causing the war.

Amnesty International"s Secretary General, Irene Khan -- referring to concentration camps in the Soviet Union, where millions of people perished -- infamously called Guantanamo "the Gulag of our time". The result is to erase our enemy from our imagination. This is how the "war on terror" has become synonymous with lawlessness throughout the West.

Ten years ago, after the brave surge in Iraq, US soldiers discovered Al Qaeda"s torture chambers. No one -- not ABC, not CBS, not the New York Times -- published one photo of them; they just filled our eyes with naked bodies at Abu Ghraib.

We are utopian technophiles and, contrary to the traditional Western view that we are flawed human beings in a tragic world, we now believe in Mark Zuckerberg"s brave new world where no one should ever suffer and everyone should be happy and peaceful all the time. That is an exorbitant dream. For a short time we can afford it, as with Angela Merkel and Europe"s migrant crisis. Unfortunately, that fantasy will not last. The conflicts at our gates, together with our aversion to making hard choices, will exact a far higher price.

French Bond Investors Skeptical That Election Risk Is Over

Bond investors are far from convinced that the risks surrounding the French election are over despite the broader market exuberance following the outcome of the first round.

French 2Y yields have only corrected about half of the risk premium over German 2Y yields since the election (and in fact are widening out today)

Furthermore, as Bloomberg details, open interest, a measure of the number of contracts outstanding, has dropped only 10 percent so far this week even as French government bond futures surged after the race for presidency narrowed to Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen.

A decline in open interest amid a rally in an asset typically suggests short-covering rather than new positions being added... but the modest size of the drop suggests few investors are relieved enough to pile back into "still cheap" OATs.

To Frexit or Not to Frexit, Report 23 April, 2017

This was also a holiday-shorted week.

As we write this, the big news comes from the election in France. The leading candidate is a banker named Emmanuel Macron, with about 24% of the vote in a 4-candidate race. The anti-euro Marine Le Pen came in second with just over 21%. From the sharp rally in the euro, which was up about 2% at one point, we assume that observers believe the odds of France leaving the euro have just gone down.

Of course, France (and the other European countries) faces a false alternative (well they ought to consider Keith’s gold bonds proposal, but that is not on the table). Staying with the euro means ongoing wealth destruction, and a downward slope that leads to nowhere good. However, that raises the question. What would happen if they were to try to leave?

We believe that no matter which theory prevails, and what measures are taken by les dirigistes (central planners), all roads lead to an accelerated default of trillions in bad credit. To understand why, consider the balance sheets of the banks and other financial intermediaries in France.

Suppose the new French franc goes down relative to the euro (we won’t address here whether it is likely to go up or down). This means that any French entity who had borrowed from a bank in Germany or Italy or Spain now sees its liabilities spike up relative to its assets which are now redenominated in francs. It would not take that much leverage or a very large decline in the franc to cause some major bankruptcies. The initial round of bankruptcies could cascade causing yet other bankruptcies in a highly interconnected financial system.

On the other hand, suppose the franc rises. Then the French banks get hit the other way. Their euro-denominated assets outside France are going down, but their domestic liabilities to depositors and bondholders are firm.

A regime of floating currencies sounds good in Milton Friedman’s argument about being an easy way to adjust wages downwards which are otherwise sticky. However, an actual currency revaluation means a wealth transfer from parties A, B, and C to parties X, Y, and Z. That may seem to be good for the latter, until you realize that they are creditors of the former. And the former were already leveraged, and already surviving on thin margins compressed after decades of falling interest rates. There is scant capital to absorb such a shock.

Then there is the question of who will buy French government or corporate bonds? No matter how you slice it, inserting a new currency into a block that currently has one adds friction, which means trade and production will further slow. The market will shrink (and this could in itself push some marginal corporations under).

And there are other serious problems. One is the intra-euro balances. Will these be redenominated? Another is the political response by the European Central Bank and the members of the European Union. What will they do? Will they try to shut off funds flowing to and from France? It would be naïve to assume there will be no response, and France will get away with it consequences-free.

The euro patient may have cancer, and the cancer may be terminal. But that does not mean blowing up the patient with dynamite is going to help.

Of course, traders want to know how this will affect gold and silver. As we write this, we see that silver went down 30 cents before rallying back up to where it closed on Friday. Gold went down about $20, and then half way back up.

At this point, we are not sure if the metals are supposed to go up because more printing. Or go down because the euro constrains France from printing. Or silver at least should go up because the economy is going to be better with France remaining in the Eurozone. Or go down because the ongoing malaise will only progress as it has been. Or some other logic… and the price gyrations this evening show that traders don’t agree either.

Of course in an actual credit default (i.e. deflation) one may choose to hold paper, as there is a shrinking quantity of it. But the problem is that one may find that the shrink comes out of your balance! We think it may be better to sell the paper and hold money (gold or silver) as money cannot default, unlike credit.

In any case, we are interested in watching what the fundamentals of the metals are doing. We will take a look at the graphs below, but first, the price and ratio charts.

The Prices of Gold and Silver

Next, this is a graph of the gold price measured in silver, otherwise known as the gold to silver ratio. It had a major move up this week. That is, the price of gold didn’t change much, but that of silver fell from $18.49 to $17.91.

The ratio made a fresh high (you would have to go back before the new year to see this level). So we drew in a line showing this level going back many months. We are not too focused on charts, preferring to understand the fundamentals, but in a case like this we think it’s worth looking.

The fundamentals are well above the current market level. If prior peaks are an indication, there may be a spot of resistance at 72.5 (+0.8 above Friday’s close) and another at 73.25. If the ratio should go over these levels, then it may go all the way to its fundamental level (discussed below).

The Ratio of the Gold Price to the Silver Price

For each metal, we will look at a graph of the basis and cobasis overlaid with the price of the dollar in terms of the respective metal. It will make it easier to provide brief commentary. The dollar will be represented in green, the basis in blue and cobasis in red.

Here is the gold graph.

The Gold Basis and Cobasis and the Dollar Price

The scarcity (i.e. the cobasis, the red line) fell slightly this week. This occurred as the price of gold fell a few dollars (i.e. the price of the dollar, which is the mirror image, rose).

Therefore, it should be no surprise that our calculated fundamental price fell a few bucks, to just under $1,290.

Now let’s look at silver.

The Silver Basis and Cobasis and the Dollar Price

In silver, the price fell a lot. So we are not surprised to see that the basis fell and cobasis rose (i.e. abundance dropped and scarcity increased). Some speculators definitely got flushed. However, the question is how many and how much?

Our calculated fundamental price of silver fell over 50 cents, down to $15.92. This is quite a lot in two weeks (recall that it had been over $16.80 on April 7).

Our calculated fundamental gold-silver ratio is now up to about 81. Frexit or no Frexit, is not the question. The question is ratio to hit or not to hit 80.

© 2017 Monetary Metals

Trump & The Candlemakers' Petition

Authored by Jeff Thomas via InterernationalMan.com,

French economist Frédéric Bastiat was a man far ahead of his time. He was a “classical liberal,” which today would identify him as a libertarian. He expanded upon the free-market argument set forth by Adam Smith in 1776.

In 1845, the French government levied protective tariffs on scores of items, from sewing needles to locomotives. The intent was to protect French industries from companies outside France that could produce the goods more cheaply.

The reaction from Mister Bastiat was to publish “The Candlemakers’ Petition,” a satirical proposal to the government that was intended to help them see the nonsense of protective tariffs.

The petition was presented as having been sent by “the Manufacturers of Candles, Tapers, Lanterns, Sticks, Street Lamps, Snuffers, and Extinguishers, and from Producers of Tallow, Oil, Resin, Alcohol, and Generally of Everything Connected with Lighting.”  

Their plea to the Chamber of Deputies was that the government pass a law “requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull’s-eyes, deadlights, and blinds—in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses.”

Mister Bastiat’s satirical petition did an exemplary job of exposing the tendency of governments to pander to special interest groups to the detriment of everyone else.

Throughout the ages, protective tariffs have been created for this purpose and, historically, they work only briefly, if at all.

In 1930, the US introduced the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which raised tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods. Not surprisingly, the source countries for those goods retaliated by passing their own tariffs against the importation of American goods.

The net effect, in addition to the new laws cancelling each other out, was that free trade took a major hit. Consumers in all countries affected had less access to a variety of goods, and the GDP of each nation suffered as overseas orders dried up.

Of course, the justification for Smoot-Hawley was that the US had suffered a stock market crash and the demand to protect surviving businesses was considerable. It’s not surprising, then, that whenever a given country finds itself in an economic squeeze, industry leaders shout “foul!” and governments appease them with tariffs.

Again, not surprisingly, we observe the tariff question rearing its ugly head today, most visibly in the US, where new President Donald Trump has vowed to place tariffs on a number of countries, most notably on Mexico (20%) and China (a whopping 45%).

As is always the case when a government declares it will create a dramatic tariff, those who impose it look no further than the immediate effect—that of limiting importing goods to protect domestic industry. The immediate secondary effect is that goods from those countries suddenly become far more expensive, and domestic industry is either unable to produce the goods at all, or at best, it must do so at a much higher price.

At present, Chinese goods amount to 19% of American imports and Mexican goods amount to 12%. With nearly a third of all goods purchased by Americans during a difficult economic period increasing dramatically in price, the impact to the cost of living can be expected to be substantial. If the tariffs are extended to other jurisdictions, as in 1930, a few domestic industries would enjoy a brief period of benefit, but the population (and eventually all industry, through knock-on effects) would be heavily impacted.

So, why on earth are political leaders so quick to impose tariffs? Well, don’t forget: Tariffs are paid to the government. Any government that’s facing revenue problems will be tempted to go for a quick injection of revenue, even if it will ultimately be destructive. Regardless of how much damage tariffs do to the people of a country, tariff revenue is like manna from heaven for governments.

Of course, the revenue source tends to dry up before long as, ultimately, tariffs are destructive to free trade. Most tariffs are either abolished or at least lowered at some point. In the meantime, they’re like plaque in a body’s arteries, creating a sclerotic effect on the economy. Invariably, they’re a heavy price for a country to pay for a brief period of additional revenue that political leaders may squander.

But, understandably, the temptation is great for any government and, since memories tend to be short, governments can serially con the public into another round of protectionism every generation or so.

Returning once again to Mister Bastiat’s satirical petition, his final paragraph stated,

Make your choice, but be logical; for as long as you ban, as you do, foreign coal, iron, wheat, and textiles, in proportion as their price approaches zero, how inconsistent it would be to admit the light of the sun, whose price is zero all day long!

On the surface, tariffs sound like a good idea, but in reality, they’re veritable icebergs of economic destruction. Two principles should always be considered when musing on a tariff:

1. 
   

   Tariffs (protectionism) never benefit a nation. They do, however, often increase the revenue received by the imposing government.

   
   


2. 
   

   The more a people pay for products, the lower their standard of living.

   
   

It’s hard to overstate how much US consumers rely on cheap goods from countries like China and Mexico. But even without the Trump tariffs, many can already feel their once nice standard of living slipping away.

That’s because the US is on the cusp of an unprecedented economic storm—and we’re already feeling the raindrops.

*  *  *

New York Times best-selling author Doug Casey and his team put together this groundbreaking video showing you how to build a financial shelter to protect yourself and your family. Click here to watch it now.

Merkel's Migrant Deception

Authored by Vijeta Uniyal,

• As it now turns out, Hungary"s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán was right about a "secret deal" all along.


• In a government report published last month by the German newspaper Rheinische Post, experts recommended an annual intake of up to 300,000 migrants a year for the next 40 years, to counter lower German birth rates.


• As they embark on a bizarre social engineering project on a continental scale, members of Germany"s political class evidently do not see the need to consult even their own electorates. Instead, they apparently believe in creating irreversible facts on the ground, and giving voting rights to migrants permanently residing in Germany.

"Never believe anything until it has been officially denied," people use to say in days of the Soviet Union. Today, the same seems to be true for the European Union"s migrant policy. When German Chancellor Angela Merkel engineered the EU-Turkey deal on migrants, it was widely described by the European politicians and the media as a "breakthrough". Merkel and other EU leaders agreed on offering a down payment of €3 billion to the regime of Turkey"s President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in return for its promises to "stem migrant flows".

In December 2015, nearly four months before the EU-Turkey agreement was even formalized, Hungary"s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán accused Chancellor Merkel of working on a "secret deal" with her Turkish counterparts. President Orbán was quite specific in his claims, apparently certain that Berlin would soon reveal the details to the public.

"Beyond what we agreed with Turkey in Brussels there"s something that doesn"t figure in the agreement," President Orbán said in December 2015. "We"ll wake up one day -- and I think this will be announced in Berlin as soon as this week -- that we have to take in 400,000 to 500,000 refugees directly from Turkey."

President Orbán was ridiculed for his claims. European Commission Vice President Frans Timmermans dismissed President Orbán"s allegations of a secret deal with Turkey as "nonsense".

Bloomberg News reported the German and French outrage to President Orbán"s allegations at that time:

"France and Germany are working together to manage the flow of migrants, which is a challenge to everyone," French government spokesman Stephane Le Foll told reporters in Paris on Wednesday. "Last weekend the union reached an agreement with Turkey," and Orban should be aware of the details since he was there, Le Foll said.

A German government official, requesting anonymity because EU-Turkey talks are ongoing, said Orban"s claim that Germany made a secret deal is false.

As it now turns out, PM Orbán was right about a "secret deal" all along. According to the latest revelations made by the German newspaper Die Welt, Chancellor Merkel, along with Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, had agreed to accept 150,000 to 200,000 Syrian migrants from Turkey into the EU without consulting other European member states.

Pictured above: German Chancellor Angela Merkel meets with Turkey"s President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Ankara, on February 3, 2017. (Image source RT video screenshot)

Die Welt reported on March 13, 2017:

Contrary to previous information, German Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) and Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte made concrete commitments on a legal refugee quota during the negotiations on the refugee deal between the EU and Turkey. Merkel and Rutte promised directly to bring in 150,000 to 200,000 Syrian refugees to Europe from Turkey each year...

The plan agreed upon by Merkel, [Turkey"s Prime Minister] Davutoglu and Rutte was presented the following day as an unexpected suggestion by Turkey. The heads of the state and governments agreed on a "voluntary intake due to humanitarian reason" in the final document of the summit.

The exact number was not revealed to the European [leaders] by Merkel, Davutoglu or Rutte. The three heads of government reached an understanding on the number 150,000 to 250,000 through a gentleman"s agreement. This has been confirmed by several individuals involved in the negotiations.

There is a plausible reason why Merkel and Rutte are still hiding these migrant figures from the public. Both Rutte and Merkel have to face their voters this year and are looking at a real prospect of anti-mass immigration parties making strong gains in the March and September general elections respectively.

Regardless of any secret dealings, however, the idea of importing hundreds of thousands of migrants into Europe fits seamlessly into what seems to be Merkel"s agenda of transforming the German and European demography.

In September 2015, before the migrant crisis could even fully unfold, Germany"s Vice-Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel declared that country could absorb up to 500,000 migrants each year.

In a government report published last month by the German newspaper Rheinische Post, experts recommended an annual intake of up to 300,000 migrants a year for the next 40 years, to counter lower German birth rates. According to these official estimates, Germany will have to take in 12 million migrants to keep the current size of the German population -- 82 million -- stable through 2060.

As they embark on a bizarre social engineering project on a continental scale, members of Germany"s political class evidently do not see the need to consult even their own electorates. Instead, they apparently believe in creating irreversible facts on the ground. They are even proposing a contingency plan to thwart a potential backlash from the population. In case of any future national referendum, Germany"s Federal Commissioner for Refugees and Migrants, Aydan Özoguz, recommends giving voting rights to migrants permanently residing in Germany.

Considering the ironclad support for Merkel"s "Refugees Welcome" policy in the German media and across the political establishment, there seems to be a consensus within Germany"s political establishment to keep the floodgates of mass-migration open, no matter how high the price.

For Merkel and Germany"s political elite, the victims of Islamist terror attacks across Germany or the hundreds of women who were sexually assaulted in Cologne"s central square on New Year"s Eve are merely roadkill on the Autobahn leading to their promised multicultural paradise.

Wikileaks Exposes CIA Involvement In French 2012 Presidential Election

In a move that is sure to unleash a fresh firestorm of accusations that Russia is interfering in the upcoming French elections, Wikileaks has has released three classified CIA "tasking orders" revealing details of a seven-month long spying campaign and involvement by the agency ahead of the 2012 French presidential election.

The 7 pages of documents reveal that all major French political parties "were targeted for infiltration by the CIA"s human ("HUMINT") and electronic ("SIGINT") spies in the seven months leading up to France"s 2012 presidential election."

RELEASE: CIA espionage orders for the last French presidential electionhttps://t.co/ARd8alUjMS #CIAFrance pic.twitter.com/15Q5ojw4L4

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) February 16, 2017

The latest set of revelations are contained within three CIA tasking orders published as context for its forthcoming - and cryptic - CIA Vault 7 series.

Named as targets are the French Socialist Party (PS), the National Front (FN) and Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) together with current President Francois Hollande, then President Nicolas Sarkozy, current round one presidential front runner Marine Le Pen, and former presidential candidates Martine Aubry and Dominique Strauss-Khan.

According to Wikileaks, the CIA operation initially ran for 10 months from November 21, 2011, to September 29, 2012, and continued after the April-May 2012 French presidential election and into the formation of the new government.

Specific instructions tasked CIA officers to discover Sarkozy"s private deliberations "on the other candidates" as well as how he interacted with his advisors. Sarkozy"s earlier self-identification as "Sarkozy the American" did not protect him from US espionage in the 2012 election or during his presidency.

The CIA assessed that President Nicholas Sarkozy"s UMP party was not assured re-election and ordered officers to find out Sarkozy"s private deliberations "on the other candidates" as well as how he interacted with his advisors, according to the documents. The agency also reportedly outlined orders specific to the UMP (Union for a Popular Movement), including obtaining the party’s “Strategic Election Plans" and gleaning private thoughts within the party on Sarkozy’s campaign strategies.

RELEASE: Full text of CIA orders targetting French presidential election including Hollande, Sarkozy & Le Pen https://t.co/BUrH14uePb pic.twitter.com/I4TDfbCvYA

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) February 16, 2017

As part of the disclosures, the espionage order for "Non Ruling Political Parties and Candidates Strategic Election Plans" which targeted Francois Holland, Marine Le Pen and other opposition figures requires obtaining opposition parties" strategies for the election; information on internal party dynamics and rising leaders; efforts to influence and implement political decisions; support from local government officials, government elites or business elites; views of the United States; efforts to reach out to other countries, including Germany, U.K., Libya, Israel, Palestine, Syria & Cote d"Ivoire; as well as information about party and candidate funding.

Significantly, two CIA opposition espionage tasks, "What policies do they promote to help boost France"s economic growth prospects?" and "What are their opinions on the German model of export-led growth?" resonate with a U.S. economic espionage order from the same year. That order requires obtaining details of every prospective French export contract or deal valued at $200m or more.

The opposition espionage order also places weight on obtaining the candidates" attitudes to the E.U"s economic crisis, centering around their position on the Greek debt crisis; the role of France and Germany in the management of the Greek debt crisis; the vulnerability of French government and French banks to a Greek default; and "specific proposals and recommendations" to deal with "the euro-zone crisis".

According to Wikileaks, the CIA espionage orders published today are classified and restricted to U.S. eyes only ("NOFORN") due to "Friends-on-Friends sensitivities". The orders state that the collected information is to "support" the activities of the CIA, the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA)"s E.U section, and the U.S. State Department"s Intelligence and Research Branch.

The newly released documents can be downloaded here.

Amid Political Turmoil, Europe Pulls Bond Issues

Despite solid investor appetite for riskier, corporate bonds, it appears that political uncertainty across Europe is startng to create problems for the region"s so-called "safest" borrowers. As Bloomberg reports, France’s government-linked development agency postponed a $1 billion bond sale this week, citing market volatility, while a junk-rated shipping company managed to increase the size of its sale.

In a week dominated by bond sales from sovereign and financial issuers, corporate borrowers accounted for three of the four most subscribed deals. Molnlycke Holding AB tops the list, as the surgical product maker’s first debt sale since 2015 pulled in bids nearly 5.4 times the 500 million-euro ($532 million) issue. Investors also clamored to buy Ryanair Holdings Plc’s first bonds since 2015, which it sold two days after reporting earnings.

But while junkier issuers are in great demand, the safest borrowers are in trouble...

Agence Francaise de Developpement received insufficient orders because of investor concern that the notes would suffer in line with French government bonds amid the country’s fragmented presidential election, according to head of treasury Bokar Cherif.

AFD, which holds the third-highest investment-grade rating and provides funding for sustainable projects in developing countries, may wait until after elections in April and May to resume the sale, Cherif said in a phone interview. It’s rated AA at S&P Global Ratings and Fitch Ratings.

“The performance of our notes is completely pegged to the French sovereign,” Cherif said. “Investors are trying to get a grasp of the political situation in France. The only thing we can really do is acknowledge that there are worries and take them into account in our plans.”

Some top-rated borrowers are vulnerable to price swings in sovereign debt because their fortunes are so closely linked to underlying rates. The threat of an anti-establishment president in France, along with elections from Germany to the Netherlands, potential deadlock in Italy and Britain’s negotiations to exit the European Union may damp investor demand for the highest-rated notes at the same time as the European Central Bank prepares to curtail its purchases.

“There’s a lot of known political risk in Europe this year,” said Roger Webb, a London-based investment director at Aberdeen Asset Management Plc, which manages about 303 billion pounds ($381 billion).

“We shouldn’t be surprised if there are periods during the year when deals get pulled because the underlying government bond market is particularly volatile.”

The core of Europe is starting to diverge as policy uncertainty soars and "whatever it takes" fades...

“It’s quite surprising that a borrower that’s that high quality would feel the need to pull back,” said Gordon Shannon, a money manager at TwentyFour Asset Management in London, referring to AFD. “It’s a big signal to the stress that’s starting to build here.”