The Dunning-Kruger effect is the idea that low-ability people tend to suffer from illusory superiority. The phenomenon, first studied by David Dunning and Justin Kruger, says that people who know the least tend to overvalue their own competence, and tend to believe that they are experiencing some sort of upper-echelon level of thinking.
While the original study was conducted in 1999, we witnessed what appeared to be the Dunning-Kruger effect in action this past Tuesday on the floor of the Idaho House of Representatives.
And while it’s only March, we also have identified the front-runner for our “Aurophobe of the Year” award. (Aurophobia is the irrational fear of gold.)
During the March 14th floor debate on Idaho’s House Bill 206, a measure that promotes sound money by removing Idaho income taxation from precious metals, Democrat Representative Mat Erpelding — the House Minority Leader — couldn’t help himself and had to share his two cents, even after asserting that he had no opinion on the bill (but then voted against it).
The quote itself is shockingly obtuse and ignorant:
I do have an opinion of facts and facts are somewhat important… and if we say that gold is going to protect us from inflation, I want to point out that in 1868 gold was $27 an ounce and today gold is $1,218 an ounce… so you can’t say gold is going to protect us from inflation when you have that type of a price range over the last hundred years… So i just want to point out that facts are important.
Yes, that actually happened and here’s the video to prove it:
The bizarre diplomatic scandal that erupted over the weekend, after the Netherlands banned several prominent Turkish politicians from organizing and participating in pro-Erdogan rallies just days ahead of the Dutch general election where immigration will be perhaps the most important topic, and which prompted numerous accusations of "nazism" and "fascism" by Turkey"s president Erdogan, appeared set to escalate further on Monday when the Turkish cabinet is expected to consider imposing sanctions on the Netherlands in a deepening row with the country"s NATO ally. Cited by Reuters, one minister said punitive measures were likely.
A government source told Reuters that sanctions were expected to be discussed when the cabinet of ministers meets at 7 pm (1600 GMT). Ankara"s minister for EU Affairs, Omer Celik, said sanctions were likely. "We will surely have sanctions against the latest actions by the Netherlands. We will answer them with these," Celik said.
In addition to economic measures, sanctions could affect cultural activities, and military and technological cooperation. "When the sanctions are imposed, what we need to be careful about is being realistic. We are not completely closing the windows," the source said. "However, we want to show that what has been done to Turkey will have a response." He said certain cultural activities may be cancelled and the re-evaluation of military and technological cooperation was also on the table.
Earlier, Turkey summoned the Dutch charge d"affaires on Monday to complain about the ban - imposed due to fears of unrest and distaste at what the Netherlands sees as an increasingly authoritarian tone from Erdogan - and the actions of Rotterdam police against Turkish protesters over the weekend, foreign ministry sources said. As we reported on Sunday Dutch police used dogs and water cannon to disperse hundreds of protesters waving Turkish flags outside the consulate in Rotterdam. Some protesters threw bottles and stones and several demonstrators were beaten by police with batons, a Reuters witness said. Mounted police officers charged the crowd.
"The Turkish community and our citizens were subject to bad treatment, with inhumane and humiliating methods used in disproportionate intervention against people exercising their right to peaceful assembly," a statement attributed to ministry sources said.
As further reported over the weekend, President Erdogan, who is seeking support from Turks in a referendum on boosting his powers, accused the Dutch government of acting like "Nazi remnants" and said it should face sanctions for barring his ministers from addressing expatriate Turks to drum up votes. The row marks another low point in relations between Turkey and Europe, further dimming Ankara"s prospects of joining the bloc. It also comes as Turkey is caught up by security concerns over militant attacks and the war in neighboring Syria.
Some 400,000 Turkish citizens live in the Netherlands and an estimated 1.5 million Turks live in Germany.
Commenting on the Turkish official visits, the Dutch government said the visits were "undesirable" and it would not cooperate in their campaigning. According to polls, it is set to lose about half its seats in elections this week as the anti-Islam party of Geert Wilders makes strong gains. Monday was the third time the Dutch envoy had been called in since Saturday over the row. The Dutch ambassador is on leave and the Turkish foreign ministry says it does not want him back "for some time".
For now, economists do not anticipate a major fallout from the diplomatic scandal. Ozgur Altug, chief economist at BGC Partners in Istanbul, said at this stage he did not foresee the row having serious short-term economic consequences. Still, with Dutch direct investment in Turkey amounting to $22 billion, making the Netherlands the biggest source of foreign investment with a share of 16%, there is a substantial risk of escalating retaliation which could impact the deteriorating Turkish economy which recently posted double digit inflation.
"If the tension escalates and if countries start imposing sanctions against each other, it might have serious implications for the Turkish economy," Altug said.
Turkish exports to the Netherlands totalled $3.6 billion in 2016, making it the tenth largest market for Turkish goods, according to the Turkish Statistical Institute. Turkey imported $3 billion worth of Dutch goods in 2016.
Additionally, Reuters notes that Dutch visitors are important to Turkey"s tourism industry, which was hit hard in 2016 by security fears due to attacks by Islamic State and Kurdish militants. Some 900,000 Dutch people visited Turkey last year, down from 1.2 million a year earlier.
Ankara has given the paramaters it seeks to de-escalate: it is is seeking an official written apology for the treatment of its family minister and diplomats in Rotterdam, the Turkish foreign ministry sources also said. However, as noted on Sunday morning, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte has said it is Erdogan who should apologize for comparing the Netherlands to fascists and Nazis, adding that Turkey was acting "in a totally unacceptable, irresponsible manner". NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg called on Turkey and the Netherlands to defuse the row.
Meanwhile, assuring that the scandal is likely to get worse before it gets better, a front page headline in the pro-government Aksam newspaper place a photo of a police dog biting the thigh of a man during Saturday night"s protest in Rotterdam, above which it placed the headline "Nazi Dogs."
Social division is an undeniable reality of human existence; it is also not necessarily a negative aspect of human existence. The moment a society is forced or manipulated into blindly agreeing on everything is the moment that society begins to die and the future of mankind in general becomes rather bleak. Ideas need to be tested, they need to be scrutinized and they need to be verified, perpetually. That said, there are right ways and wrong ways of doing this.
Diving into a culture of zealotry is certainly the WRONG way. Zealotry requires a religious-like idolization of a particular idea or philosophy; it requires unverified faith and an unwavering devotion. Once people become zealots, they cannot be reasoned with, they cannot be debated, they cannot be dissuaded. They are, for all intents and purposes, automatons with only one mission — to spread their beliefs by any means necessary. They do not care about being right, they only care about “winning.” Because, in their minds, their position is unassailable. They are righteous, and thus, the ends will always justify the means.
The culture of the Left in the U.S. is beginning to embrace zealotry and the path can only get more ugly from here. This is evident not only in the violent behavior of more vocal groups like Antifa, but also in the lack of self criticism by many on the left that would consider themselves more moderate. There are very few voices among liberals and “progressives” today that are openly admonishing the counterproductive and thuggish actions of their more extreme members (this includes not only Antifa, but other groups like Black Lives Matter). In many cases, “moderate” leftists even cheer such actions.
There is this notion among some in the Liberty Movement that to even point out this dynamic is irresponsible because it only reinforces the concept of the false left/right paradigm. Most of these people I find are very new (newbies) to the Liberty Movement and don’t really understand what the false left/right paradigm is. When we talk about the Left and the Right as an illusion, we are talking about the elites who sit at the TOP of the sociopolitical sphere. Meaning, the elites have no loyalties to concepts on either the left or the right in politics. In fact, they often switch back and forth like chameleons depending on what they want from the public at the time. They have their own agenda which does not include the rest of us.
To be clear, I was just as much against the fake conservatism of George W. Bush as I was against the fake liberalism of Barack Obama.
This false paradigm does not, however, apply to regular citizens. The further away you get from the top of the pyramid, the more people tend to legitimately associate closer to one philosophy or the other. In times of crisis and uncertainty, these divisions become more pronounced. This is reality. Anyone who argues that there is no left/right paradigm when it comes to the average citizen has no idea what they are talking about.
So, now that we have acknowledged that the problem exists, lets examine it more in depth...
The Problem
All one needs to do is observe the attitudes, insane demands and criminality of hardcore leftists in the past year to see that at least one side of the paradigm cannot be salvaged. They are a lost cause.
This is a prime example of how it is impossible to win an argument when your position is fundamentally illogical. In most cases, these protesters can’t even specify their reasons for protesting, and they don’t really care to examine why they do what they do. They only know that their ideology is not being represented in totality. They are unsuccessful at debating their ideas coherently and don’t have the intelligence to convince others that they are correct. They aren’t going to give up simply because they are wrong, so, their only other option is to slander the character of those who disagree, attack them physically and disrupt their ability to speak freely.
Keep in mind, there is no moral conundrum for zealots. They believe they are completely justified in what they do because the other side represents a “greater evil.” Labeling their opponents as “fascists” is a get-out-of-conscience-free card for them.
It is important to note that we are not quite at the moment of crisis yet, but I would consider 2017 a turning point. This is where our (conservatives and sovereignty champions) decisions now could affect the future for decades to come. I suspect that as we move closer to summer and warmer weather, riots designed to cancel conservative speaking events (and random riots with no specific purpose) will expand tenfold. Leftists seem to be more active in warmer weather (there is a reason most of them live near the coasts).
All American citizens, regardless of their political leanings or personal ideals, have a right to speak and the right to listen to those speaking. All American citizens also have a right to redress grievances. This includes leftists. That said, it is important to make a distinction here — NO ONE has the right to silence speech in public spaces in the name of “activism,” and this is where the Left has gone off the rails. My right to speak and be heard is protected; their “right” to silence me is not protected.
There is a line here that cannot be crossed. Conservatives must be allowed free speech in public places, and leftists must be allowed to protest in public places as long as that protest is PEACEFUL. Once an individual or group uses force to silence speech, they have given up the moral high ground.
I recognize that there are paid provocateurs operating among liberal protesters and that this likely contributes to higher chances of violence and the madness of mobs. The presence of elitist money among leftist groups has been exposed on numerous occasions in reference to George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, which admitted to injecting $33 million dollars into the Ferguson protests (riots). WashingtonCAN! (another Soros-funded group) put out a Craigslist ad in Seattle offering to pay people $15-$20 an hour to “organize” anti-Trump rallies. WashingtonCAN claims this was merely an ad to hire “phone solicitors,” but they do in fact help organize protests, and nowhere in the ad is phone solicitation mentioned. I do not think it is a stretch to suggest that these paid "organizers" are present at protests, nor do I think it is a stretch to suggest that they are contributing to the mob mentality.
This should be taken into account as well. There are moments in any high-tension protest where the mob can be swayed to remain peaceful or to break out into thuggery. Usually, if the mob sees a few people getting away with violent attacks, this gives them license to unhinge as well.
Is the proper response to crush all leftist protests simply because of the violence of a handful? No. The key is to disrupt individual provocateurs before they can entice the mob to forget themselves. Normally, this would be the job of police on the scene, but as I’m sure many of you have noticed recently (Berkeley being a prime example), the police have been reticent to intervene in a tactically intelligent manner, depending on what municipality they are operating. It seems that when it comes to state and local law enforcement there are only two modes of response, either they are mostly hands off, or, they go full crackdown.
The issue that needs to be considered is when police or the federal government do initiate a full crackdown on all protests. Will conservatives cheer the measure?
To give some historical perspective, the Antifa movement, for example, is nothing new. It is an odd plagiarism of the “Anti-Facist” movements in Europe during the 1920s. Antifa was essentially an offshoot of communist movements in Italy opposed to the rise of Benito Mussolini, but it then spread to other European nations. It was in fact the belligerence of communist groups that actually inspired public support for fascist leaders like Mussolini and Hitler. As common people grew fearful of a monstrous Bolshevik-style revolution, the only other option offered to them was fascism, which at the time appeared to many to be a saving grace.
Of course, it was not, and totalitarianism in the name of defeating the communists only led to atrocities equal to communist dictatorships. This is what I call a “morally relativistic choice;” a catch-22 that is usually engineered, forcing the populace to pick between the “lesser of two evils.”
There are those who might argue that there is little chance of a similar development in America today, but consider this — conservatives movements were prodded and harassed for eight years by a constitution-trampling president who originally claimed he was going to undo the trespasses of the constitution-trampling president before him. This took place while leftist organizations imposed thought control and political correctness on us with relative glee. Conservatives have been organizing, training and arming themselves for nearly a decade in the event that globalist and Marxist ideologies take one more inch of rope, the expectation being that Hillary Clinton would attempt to take a mile.
Now, with Trump in office, we are a hammer looking for a nail.
This is what the left simply does not grasp. We are certainly not fascists now, but with continued violence from the left something in the collective conservative mind will eventually snap. My suspicion is that this is exactly what elites like George Soros want. They are using the left as sacrificial pawns in order to goad conservatives into going nuclear.
There are millions of conservatives coming home from work right now, sitting with their families, and seeing news each day filled with leftist protesters trampling all over conservative events and in many cases getting away with it. These conservatives are becoming more and more angry; more and more willing to embrace an ends justify the means reaction. Ultimately, they may very well support a full spectrum government stranglehold on protests and the speech of those we disagree with. This will make us the villains of our little period in history, and this is something I would like to avoid.
So, the question is, how do we counter violent leftists like those in Antifa without abandoning our constitutional principles? Lets talk about solutions...
The Solution
There is a school of thought that suggests we should stand back, let the mobs tire themselves out and in this way we avoid “escalation.” I would point out that the Left has been escalating matters quite expertly without our intervention. When you have elitist funded organizations generating momentum at a constant pace, it is hard for me to back the notion of complete pacifism. On the other hand, moderation and an even hand rule the day.
Countering leftist mobs requires a scalpel, not a bulldozer, metaphorically speaking.
Conservatives are less likely to support police state intervention if they see that leftist attacks are already being countered in a rational way. I would argue that this could be done by limited groups of civilian volunteers (around 50-100 men strong), without any government involvement, acting as security for speakers and the attendees of events.
These people would have to be highly vetted — no criminal background, no background of mental instability or psychotropic usage, a professional demeanor, absolutely no ties to federal agencies, no propensity to be ruled by emotion, no stolen valor, etc. etc. They would also have to be physically capable.
Members would need previous training as well as updated training in self-defense and riot response, as well as defusing confrontation. They would have to be invited by the event organizers in question and their goal would be to defend attendees from violence in a non-lethal manner. Their purpose cannot be to stop a protest from happening, only ensuring that protesters do not overstep their bounds and harm others.
Of course, the immediate accusation that will be used is that this kind of organizing is simply the formation of “brownshirts” for Trump. This is why a security group of this caliber would have to also be willing to offer their services to ANY speaker or event, regardless of political affiliation. It cannot be exclusively about Trump. If a mob of conservatives were threatening to use violence to shut down a liberal speaker, then the group would have to be willing to protect those people as well. I don’t see any examples of this happening anywhere, but again, the group’s concerns must focus on free speech and those that are trying to squash it, regardless of who they are.
This civilian security organization would require funding at a grassroots level through donations from regular people. Large sums of cash from major political donors or non-profit foundations could not be accepted. The group would have to be beholden to no one. It would also need to be separate from any already existing organization and function as its own animal in order to prevent conflicting goals.
Donations would be needed to fund travel and food expenses for volunteers, as well as some protective gear, the cost of initial training, the expense of background checks as well as legal defense. This organization would have to be limited in size to prevent confusion and a lack of structural discipline. I suspect that such a venture would start small, and truly qualified people would be limited in the beginning anyway.
I am willing to coordinate this effort with others depending on the level of enthusiasm that is generated and if donations are adequate. I am ready to help provide training for those who pass the vetting process. Interested parties can contact me at: brandon@alt-market.com
I am also willing to be present and in harms way at every single event that requires a security response.
I have looked into money raising avenues like Kickstarter, but I believe strongly that these websites will not allow crowdfunding for this venture for political reasons. If there is a strong response to this idea, I will post regular updates to Alt-Market.com on money raised as well as progress made.
It is entirely possible that I will not be able to find the support needed to make this volunteer venture happen. I can only present the concept and hope that people agree with it. Make no mistake though, if I do not do it, someone else eventually will. It is vitally important that these people are found trustworthy and have a track record of supporting Constitutional principles as well as a track record of competence. Anyone that arrives on the scene from nowhere should not be trusted. Anyone looking merely for notoriety and celebrity should not be taken seriously. Anyone looking to start a confrontation rather than prevent one should be dismissed. We cannot allow ourselves to become what the left accuses us of being. This is a time for extreme caution, and quiet professionalism.
Donald Trump announced Saturday afternoon that he will not be attending the annual White House Correspondents" Association dinner in Washington, D.C.
One day after the White House announced it had barred CNN, The New York Times, Politico and several other major media outlets from a media "gaggle" in the White House leading to angry protests from the press and several threats of boycotts of future media briefings, in a tweet the president said he will pass on the journalism scholarship benefit dinner in April traditionally attended by major media outlets, celebrity guests and the president and vice president.
"I will not be attending the White House Correspondents" Association Dinner this year. Please wish everyone well and have a great evening!" he wrote on Twitter.
I will not be attending the White House Correspondents" Association Dinner this year. Please wish everyone well and have a great evening!
His refusal to attend comes amid reports that media outlets like CNN and MSNBC have been considering skipping the event at the Washington Hilton. Trump"s move comes in the heat of his ongoing battle with the media, which he has labeled the opposition party and "fake news."
Trump isn"t the only one canceling on one of Washington"s biggest press nights. Bloomberg, The New Yorker and Vanity Fair previously canceled their after-parties. As Axios notes, some have questioned whether the event will still go on as planned, but news organizations" strong interest in tickets for the April 29 dinner suggests that the night will remain sold out, as always.
Various prominent political correspondents promptly responded to Trump"s announcement:
The dinner, a major fundraiser for an organization that represents the free press covering the WH, will go on--and be a success, I"m sure. https://t.co/i9dhTZ6ja7
Trump"s decision to decline @WHCA invite to dinner, which is April 29 at Washington Hilton, comes day after controversy over pooled gaggle. https://t.co/Ny5XiiH9Gk
A high-profile comedian usually hosts the event in which the president is roasted by the comedian and the president roasts the media. The annual dinner began in 1920, and was scheduled to take place on April 29 at the Washington Hilton.
In March 1933, the Enabling Act was passed by the Reichstag, Germany’s parliament. Its purpose was to provide Chancellor Adolf Hitler with the ability to bypass the Reichstag. It allowed him (amongst other measures) emergency powers to legally wage pre-emptive war without any further parliamentary or presidential approval, or even discussion.
In January 2017, H.J. Res 10 was introduced to the US House of Representatives. Its intent was simple and straightforward:
This joint resolution authorizes the President to use the U.S. Armed Forces as necessary in order to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
Introduced by Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL), the bill seeks to give the president unilateral authority to legally wage pre-emptive war without any further Congressional approval, or even discussion.
So, is it possible that the US is following a similar path to that of 1930’s Germany? Well, let’s look a bit closer and see.
During his campaign, Mister Trump was very vocal with regard to his sentiments toward Iran and, since his inauguration, has famously put Iran “on notice.”
He has the full support of his chief advisers on this issue. His national security adviser, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, and his defence secretary, Gen. James Mattis, have both recently accused Iran of being the world’s leading “state sponsor of terrorism.” New head of the CIA, Mike Pompeo, also favours invading Iran.
On the other side of the fence, Ayatollah Khamenei has behaved with traditional Iranian braggadocio, saying of Mister Trump,
We actually thank this new president… What we have been saying for more than 30 years about the political, economic, moral, and social corruption within the US ruling establishment, he revealed during the election campaign and after the elections.
With each side goading the other, both sides seem to be as eager to “get into the ring” as Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier were in 1971’s “Fight of the Century.”
So, will the match take place? Well, it appears that the sabre-rattling has become more serious of late and, unless one side chooses to back down, war could occur early in the Trump presidency. Ironically, for Mister Trump, this could be a good thing, as the US has never been more divided with regard to its support of its president. However, in times of war, party rhetoric dies down considerably and nations rally round their leader.
I have previously described Mister Trump with the medical term “productive narcissist,” as he is a textbook example. Were I an American citizen, any criticism of Mister Trump would likely label me a liberal, which I am not. But, at the present time, Americans are so divided that they are expected by their peers to be “pro-Trump” or “anti-Trump,” with little allowance for objective observation.
If my psychological assessment is correct, Mister Trump could be predicted to not only pursue conflict with Iran, but revel in it. Certainly, the conflict would result in his becoming the most focused-on man on earth. An EU breakup, collapsing economies, failing currencies, and bank confiscations would all take a back seat to the main event: the fight of the century, as Mister Trump and the Ayatollah step into the ring.
Unfortunately, war, as attractive as it often is to political leaders, tends not to work out as well as expected. It tends to be more prolonged and more devastating than any leader ever anticipates.
First, each protagonist tends to underestimate the ability of the other to wage war successfully. Second, he tends not to take into account whom his opposite number can count on for support. This is especially significant with regard to the upcoming contest, as both Russia and China have declared their support for Iran. It’s unlikely that the US, even if it were to gain the support of the EU, could take on both these nuclear powers. In addition, the EU may well be on the verge of collapse. Individual European countries have sought to increase their trade with the Russians even as the US has sought to implement sanctions against them.
Further, as I have often stated, “Any country that is considering waging war against another country should first consider that the loser is almost always the country that runs out of money first.”
The US is at present more greatly in debt than ever before in its history and can ill afford to dive into a war that is almost certain to become a world war.
The last time the world was this close to a world war was in 1962, when US President John Kennedy wrestled with the Cuban Missile Crisis. At that time, the military Joint Chiefs of Staff advised an all-out attack. Mister Kennedy, thankfully, took a backward step and appealed to Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev to do the same. Mister Khrushchev agreed, and the world was saved from nuclear war by two men who had the sense to calm down and back off.
So, some fifty-odd years later, will we be so fortunate? The US President appears to approach aggression with gusto. A lover of challenges, he appears quite willing to put on the gloves and to do so soon.
Another difference between 1962 and 2017 is that, back then, most Americans wanted no part of warfare, having lived through World War II. Today, with the help of the media, the average American not only believes in “American exceptionalism,” but has been programmed to believe that Russian President Putin is a highly aggressive leader who needs to have his wings clipped. If anything, Mister Putin is, in fact, more the diplomat than his predecessor, Mister Khrushchev, and has exhibited a desire to tone down the ongoing vitriol from the West.
Effectively, the US media and many Americans are already filling up the grandstands before the Fight of the Century has even been announced. At present, only two small acts remain necessary to bring about the match.
The first would be the passage of H.J. Res 10, which, as it has been proposed by a Democrat, is likely to gain support by the left as well as the right. After that, all that would be necessary would be a decision from a president who, if appearances are correct, is seeking his place in history as “the Great Man.”
Hopefully, sanity will prevail, but the odds don’t seem to support that possibility.
Indeed, the UK, US, and allied military forces are about to undertake operation “Unified Trident,” a joint exercise in the Persian Gulf, intended to simulate a military confrontation with Iran. (Iran most certainly will not look upon this as mere “games.”)
It’s always wise to hope for the best but assume the worst. If H.J. Res 10 does pass, the reader would be advised to begin his plan as to where he wants to be if a world war erupts. He should bear in mind that, in the two previous world wars, many countries did not participate and relative calm existed in many places in the world. The same promises to hold true this time around.
* * *
In the months ahead, a fight with Iran pitting the US against Russia and China in a full-blown world war is a real possibility. But, unfortunately, “collapsing economies, failing currencies, and bank confiscations” are virtual certainties.
Armed with the right knowledge, you can sidestep this chaos. We recently released an urgent video with all the details. Click here to watch it.
One day after Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told US NATO allies they will have to pay up and meet their mandatory quota of 2% of GDP (which only 5 nations currently satisfy, among them the US and Greece), on Thursday the Pentagon"s new chief also had some bad news for Russia when he rejected any kind of military collaboration with Russia, despite previous calls by Putin for the West to work with his country on Syria and other issues.
Quoted by the WSJ, Mattis said at NATO"s Brussels headquarters that “We are not in a position right now to collaborate on a military level” adding that “our political leaders will engage and try to find common ground or a way forward where Russia, living up to its commitments, will return to a partnership of sorts, here with NATO.” Prior to the meeting, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu expressed hope for cooperation but warned that “attempts to build a dialogue from a position of strength with regard to Russia are hopeless.”
Mattis’s remarks came after Mr. Putin made a plea for the alliance and other nations to cooperate with Russia. “It’s in everyone’s interest to resume dialogue between the intelligence agencies of the United States and other members of NATO,” said Mr. Putin, addressing Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) on Thursday.
The sudden chill in US-Russian relations is understandable: the Trump administration remains in turmoil over questions about the extent of Trump administration contacts with Russia, and tensions have been rising.
Elsewhere, as reported previously, the top US general, Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is scheduled to meet his Russian counterpart, Gen. Valery Gerasimov, in Baku, Azerbaijan. The meeting will mark the highest-level military contact between Washington and Moscow since 2014. Shoigu added that the Russians “await clarification of the position of the Pentagon” at the Baku meeting.
Of particular interest will be any discussion between the US and Russia on the topic of NATO expansion.
NATO has been pursuing a multinational force on its eastern flank as a deterrent over Moscow’s aggression in the region. Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said the allies didn’t want to isolate Russia but still wanted “a firm predictable approach, including credible deterrence.”
He announced that alliance defense ministers had approved a plan to bolster its naval forces in the Black Sea, which is bordered by Russia, Ukraine, Turkey and other countries, and would improve military intelligence in the area.
Mr. Stoltenberg said the alliance’s standing maritime fleets would make more frequent visits to the Black Sea and step up military exercises. “It will be measured, it will be defensive and it will be no way aim at provoking a conflict or escalating tensions,” Mr. Stoltenberg said.
Understandably, Russia has taken frequent issue with operations in the Black Sea by naval vessels from nations that don’t border it.
Also of note, Russia’s military intervention in Syria on behalf of President Bashar al-Assad in late 2015 also caused friction between the U.S. and Russia, although both sides agreed to establish military communication to reduce the risk of incidents in the skies over Syria. As the WSJ further adds, "The meeting in Baku is expected to focus on a proposal pushed by senior uniformed officers at the Pentagon to improve that system. Gen. Dunford has pushed the plan, which would elevate the military contacts to a the three-star general level. Currently, the two militaries communicate by phone at the colonels’ level to share information about where each is operating.
The plan has been floated for months, but went nowhere under Defense Secretary Ash Carter, who was wary of higher level coordination with the Russian military. The proposal wouldn"t likely mean the U.S. and Russian militaries would coordinate with each other or share intelligence. The system is thought to have worked well, but has had some problems. The U.S. mistakenly hit Syrian forces in Deir Ezzour rather than Islamic State targets after a Russian colonel couldn"t immediately locate his American counterpart on the phone.
With US-Russian relations about to be scrutinized in the US, keep a close eye on the diplomatic exchanges between the two countries for hints on whether another chill is about to fall between D.C. and Moscow.
Just one week in office, President Trump is already following through on his pledge to address illegal immigration. His January 25th executive order called for the construction of a wall along the entire length of the US-Mexico border. While he is right to focus on the issue, there are several reasons why his proposed solution will unfortunately not lead us anywhere closer to solving the problem.
First, the wall will not work. Texas already started building a border fence about ten years ago. It divided people from their own property across the border, it deprived people of their land through the use of eminent domain, and in the end the problem of drug and human smuggling was not solved.
Second, the wall will be expensive. The wall is estimated to cost between 12 and 15 billion dollars. You can bet it will be more than that. President Trump has claimed that if the Mexican government doesn’t pay for it, he will impose a 20 percent duty on products imported from Mexico. Who will pay this tax? Ultimately, the American consumer, as the additional costs will be passed on. This will of course hurt the poorest Americans the most.
Third, building a wall ignores the real causes of illegal border crossings into the United States. Though President Trump is right to prioritize the problem of border security, he misses the point on how it can be done effectively and at an actual financial benefit to the country rather than a huge economic drain.
The solution to really addressing the problem of illegal immigration, drug smuggling, and the threat of cross-border terrorism is clear:
remove the welfare magnet that attracts so many to cross the border illegally, stop the 25 year US war in the Middle East, and end the drug war that incentivizes smugglers to cross the border.
The various taxpayer-funded programs that benefit illegal immigrants in the United States, such as direct financial transfers, medical benefits, food assistance, and education, cost an estimated $100 billion dollars per year. That is a significant burden on citizens and legal residents. The promise of free money, free food, free education, and free medical care if you cross the border illegally is a powerful incentive for people to do so. It especially makes no sense for the United States government to provide these services to those who are not in the US legally.
Likewise, the 40 year war on drugs has produced no benefit to the American people at a great cost. It is estimated that since President Nixon declared a war on drugs, the US has spent more than a trillion dollars to fight what is a losing battle. That is because just as with the welfare magnet, there is an enormous incentive to smuggle drugs into the United States.
We already know the effect that ending the war on drugs has on illegal smuggling: as more and more US states decriminalize marijuana for medical and recreational uses, marijuana smuggling from Mexico to the US has dropped by 50 percent from 2010.
Finally, the threat of terrorists crossing into the United States from Mexico must be taken seriously, however once again we must soberly consider why they may seek to do us harm. We have been dropping bombs on the Middle East since at least 1990. Last year President Obama dropped more than 26,000 bombs. Thousands of civilians have been killed in US drone attacks. The grand US plan to “remake” the Middle East has produced only misery, bloodshed, and terrorism. Ending this senseless intervention will go a long way toward removing the incentive to attack the United States.
I believe it is important for the United States to have secure borders, but unfortunately President Trump’s plan to build a wall will end up costing a fortune while ignoring the real problem of why people cross the borders illegally. They will keep coming as long as those incentives remain.
With the topic of infrastructure investing dominating today"s newsflow after the NYT report that Democrats would support Trump if he endorsed their propsed list of some $1 trillion in infrastructure projects, which would create as many as 15 million jobs, the Kansas City Star and The News Tribune have compiled a presentation - based on internal White House documents - of about 50 infrastructure projects nationwide which comprise the "priority list" for US infrastructure projects in the coming years.
As McClatchy reports, the documents, circulated within the congressional and business communities, offer a first glimpse at which projects around the country might get funding if Trump follows through on his campaign promise to renew America’s crumbling highways, airports, dams and bridges.
Among the potential projects are a new terminal for the Kansas City airport, upgrades to Interstate 95 in North Carolina and the construction of a high-speed railway from Dallas to Houston. The document obtained by the Star proposes funding the projects as public-private partnerships, with half the money coming from private investment.
The priority list of “Emergency & National Security Projects" was put together by the Trump team, a senior congressional aide told Kansas City Star. It includes cost estimates and job impact numbers. According to the source, it is not clear whether that document is a draft or a final version.
The National Governors Association circulated a similar list as a spreadsheet among state officials in December, requesting further suggestions. All but two projects on both lists are the same. Some projects that governors suggested — in California and Washington state in particular — do not yet appear on either list. The governors’ association has received 43 responses from states and territories so far, said Elena Waskey, a spokeswoman for the association.
“The total number of projects is more than 300,” Waskey said. “We are working to convene information for as many states as possible that we will then forward to the administration.” The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
Among the projects listed is a $10 billion proposal to replace the nation’s radar-based air traffic control system with one called NextGen, based on satellites. The document projects the project could create 2,300 direct jobs.
For those concerned about partisan bias among the proposed projects, here are some stats: in some states, such as Missouri, more than one project is listed, while others states appear to have come up empty. Neither document lists any projects in Kansas, for example. The National Governors Association asked governors’ offices last month for input on a preliminary list of infrastructure projects compiled by the Trump team, said Jaime Smith, a spokeswoman for Washington’s Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee.
“They seek examples of priority infrastructure projects that might be incorporated into a future infrastructure investment program,” said the letter from the governors’ association, dated Dec. 16. “Specifically, the transition team is looking for 3 to 5 project suggestions from each state that they would vet for inclusion in a new program.” The letter said the vetting would be done by a bipartisan infrastructure commission overseeing investments.
“The initial spend on these projects for 2017 is expected to be $150 billion, and the transition team hopes that this type of project will be continued over the next 2 years,” according to the letter. The letter also noted that any contributions governors made would not be binding, and that this was “just an initial information-gathering request.”
Once the Trump administration officially took office, the letter said, “there will be a more formal process for states to submit information. Projects will be chosen through a more formal process as well.” The projects have to meet specific criteria:
A national security or public safety “emergency.”
“Shovel-ready,” with at least 30 percent of initial design and engineering work complete.
Direct job creator.
Project with the potential for increased U.S. manufacturing.
The governors’ association letter included a list of projects already being vetted, with the request that governors use it as a model for submissions.
The summary list of 50 proposed projects is below:
California"s Democratic governor Jerry Brown’s office sent nine examples of big shovel-ready projects in California, including the Sacramento River Bank Protection Project and Bay Area Commuter and Freight Projects. That preliminary list appears to be similar to the document obtained by McClatchy’s Star, with two differences: The preliminary list includes the Alaska Pipeline & LNG Project instead of the Texas Central Railway and it lists the Fort Mojave Solar Project instead of the Howard Street Tunnel.
Both the preliminary list and the more detailed document obtained by the Star include a new terminal for Kansas City International Airport. The detailed document says the project would cost $972 million and generate 1,000 jobs. The Kansas City airport is one of three airport projects on the Trump team’s document. The others are expansions of the Lambert-St. Louis International Airport and the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.
“The business case for a new terminal was bolstered after Southwest and the other airlines told the City Council on April 26 that they would finance the nearly $1 billion new terminal, to be built where Terminal A is now,” reads the document’s description for KCI, which lifts word-for-word a passage in a June 24 article in The Star. In North Carolina, the I-95 project would provide urgent improvements to one of the oldest sections of the busiest interstate in the nation, according to the document. The cost is listed at $1.5 billion, and the project would produce an estimated 5,400 jobs, the document says.
The 250-mile high-speed railway in Texas would enable commuters to travel between Houston and Dallas/Fort Worth in less than 90 minutes, according to the document. It is a $12 billion proposal that would create 40,000 direct jobs, the document says.
Other proposals include I-395 reconstruction in Florida and a Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery and Storage Project designed to conserve billions of gallons of renewable groundwater in California’s Mojave Desert.
The full presentation of 50 proposed projects is below (link)
A truck rammed into a group of Israeli soldiers who were disembarking from a bus in Jerusalem on Sunday, killing four people and wounding 15 others, AP reported citing Israeli police and rescue services said.
Police spokeswoman Luba Samri said the truck veered off course and rammed into the group on the street at the Armon Hanatziv promenade overlooking the walled Old City of Jerusalem. She said the attacker was shot dead after the attack.
The attack took place in East Jerusalem at the Armon Hanatziv promenade
Police units at the scene of truck ramming attack in Jerusalem. A number of people critically wounded. Police looking into the Terrorists id pic.twitter.com/HFLhF8m9iN
Israel"s rescue service MDA said the four casualties were in their 20s and included three women and a man. Of the 15 wounded, one was in serious condition. Paramedic Chen Lendi Sharon was among the first to arrive on the scene and described 10 bodies trapped beneath the truck.
“It is a terrorist attack, a ramming attack,” a police spokeswoman said on Israel Radio according to Reuters.
An Israeli bus driver who witnessed the incident said on the radio the truck plowed into a group of soldiers, and that they fired on the driver, who reversed direction and ran over them again.
"They shot him, until they neutralized him," said the bus driver, who gave his name only as Moshe. Israeli TV stations said the driver was killed, and footage showed bullet holes in the truck"s windscreen.
Israel"s police chief Roni Alsheich told reporters the attacker was from an Arab neighborhood in east Jerusalem and forces had no advance warning. He refused to elaborate and a gag order was placed on further details pending an investigation.
According to a Times of Israel reporter, Hamas"s Qassam brigades say Jerusalem attacker, Fadi al-Qanbar, was a released prisoner. Call him a "Mujahid."
Hamas"s Qassam brigades says Jerusalem attacker, Fadi al-Qanbar, was a released prisoner. Call him a "Mujahid." https://t.co/FvcdAzstZK
The Sunday attack, reminiscent of the recent truck-ramming at the Berlin Christmas market which took place in December and was perpetrated by an ISIS-supporter, would rank as one of the deadliest in a more than yearlong wave of Palestinian shooting, stabbing and vehicular attacks against Israelis that had slowed of late. Sunday"s incident marks the first Israeli deaths in three months.
Since September 2015, Palestinian attackers have killed 40 Israelis and two visiting Americans. During the same time, 230 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli fire.
Israel says most of the Palestinians killed were attackers while the rest died in clashes. The Palestinians and rights groups have accused Israel of using excessive force in some confrontations.
Israel says the violence is driven by a Palestinian campaign of incitement, while Palestinians say it"s the result of nearly 50 years of Israeli occupation and dwindling hopes for an independent state
The market reaction to the Trump Presidency win has been excessive to say the least.
Trump won’t take office until January 20th 2017. And he will likely not be able to engage in any of his proposed reforms until this time next year (it’s possible he might be able to ram through a few bills via “reconciliation” in Congress, but the odds are likely that any major reforms will take a year).
And yet, the financial media are abuzz with the idea that somehow GDP growth of 5% is going to hit in January. And investors are acting as if they believe this!
Let’s run through Trump’s proposals quickly.
1) Tax Reform: Trump wants to simplify the tax code, lower the corporate tax rate and offer multinationals the ability to repatriate their offshore cash with a one-time tax charge of 10%.
Long-term, all of these moves are positive for the US economy. They will increase competitiveness and will allow large firms to put more money to work in the US.
However, NONE of these items will have a major impact on the markets. Yes, a lower tax rate opens the door to greater corporate profits… but:
a. As Tom Lee noted on CNBC, NO ONE gets excited about investing in a company because said company is going to be paying less in taxes.
b. Any benefits from tax reform would take at a minimum six months and possibly a year to really begin trickling into corporate results.
c. More importantly, most large corporations are already paying little if any taxes due to various gimmicks and loopholes. The Government Accountability Office found that in 2012 more than 43% of large corporations (those with $10 million in assets or more) paid no corporate income tax.
2) Deregulation/Infrastructure Spending/ etc.: None of these will likely be implemented until late 2017. A large-scale stimulus is a controversial measure that might not get through Congress. Even if it did, we already know such policies have minimal effect on GDP particularly late in an economic cycle (Bush’s Stimulus act of 2008 and Obama’s Stimulus of 2009).
My point with all of the above is that any policies Trump implements will have minimal impact on stocks in the short-term. They CERTAINLY do not warrant the absolute mania we are currently experiencing in the stock market.
Meanwhile, China, the second largest economy in the world, is on the verge of a banking crisis.
In the last three weeks, China has:
1) Been forced to issue emergency loans to financial firms.
2) Halted trading in its bond market multiple times.
3) Has aggressively defended the Yuan.
The fact is, stocks are poised for a sharp correction (at least) based on what"s happening in China...
Another Crisis is brewing… the time to prepare is now.
If you"ve yet to take action to prepare for this, we offer a FREE investment report called the Prepare and Profit From the Next Financial Crisis that outlines simple, easy to follow strategies you can use to not only protect your portfolio from it, but actually produce profits.
We made 1,000 copies available for FREE the general public.
The Council on Foreign Relations yesterday released its annual Preventive Priorities Survey, which evaluates ongoing and potential conflict flashpoints based on their likelihood of occurring in the coming year and their impact on U.S. interests.
A NATO-Russia confrontation has been deemed a top risk by by the CFR survey, conducted by foreign policy experts. This placed it alongside the risk of a nuclear crisis with North Korea, a highly disruptive cyberattack, and a severe terrorist attack on the US among the events with the highest impact on the US.
The likelihoods for the biggest potential conflicts coming true were split into two groups – those with a moderate likelihood of happening, but causing a high impact; and those with a high likelihood of happening, but causing a moderate impact.
Unlike prior years, in 2017 no scenario was deemed both highly likely and highly impactful to U.S. interests, a change from last year when an intensification of Syria’s civil war was considered the most urgent threat. Respondents still considered a worsening of Syria’s civil war to be highly likely in 2017, but downgraded its impact on U.S. interests from high to moderate.
The survey identified the following seven "top tier" conflicts in 2017:
Impact: High; Likelihood: Moderate
deliberate or unintended military confrontation between Russia and NATO members, stemming from assertive Russian behavior in Eastern Europe
severe crisis in North Korea caused by nuclear or intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) weapons testing, a military provocation, or internal political instability
highly disruptive cyberattack on U.S. critical infrastructure
mass casualty terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland or a treaty ally by either a foreign or homegrown terrorist(s).
Among the less impactful risks, the CFR noted the following:
Impact: Moderate; Likelihood: High
increased violence and instability in Afghanistan resulting from a continued strengthening of the Taliban insurgency and potential government collapse
the intensification of violence between Turkey and various Kurdish armed groups within Turkey and in neighboring countries
the intensification of the civil war in Syria resulting from increased external support for warring parties, including military intervention by outside powers
Four conflicts were downgraded to lesser priorities in 2017. These include political instability in European Union countries stemming from the refugee crisis, the fracturing of Iraq caused by sectarian violence and the Islamic State, increased tensions between Israelis and Palestinians, and the political breakup of Libya.
The CFR’s Center for Preventive Action (CPA), which conducted the survey, believes that if any escalation – intended or accidental – takes place alongside Russia-NATO borders, it will stem “from assertive Russian behavior in Eastern Europe”, avoiding the Russian version of things according to which it would be a provocation by Baltic NATO members, whether it be renewed force buildups or mass-scale military exercises.
The potentiality of a North Korea crisis is thought to be exacerbated by an escalation in intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) testing by Pyongyang, as well as a risk of internal conflict. Alongside Russia and North Korea, in the moderately-likely-but-highly-impactful category, the experts placed a mass-casualty terrorist attack on the United States or an ally (by both foreign and domestic terrorists) and a crippling cyberattack.
Four conflicts were downgraded to lesser priorities in 2017. These include political instability in European Union countries stemming from the refugee crisis, the fracturing of Iraq caused by sectarian violence and the Islamic State, increased tensions between Israelis and Palestinians, and the political breakup of Libya. However, the same could not be said for risks associated with ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan, where the Taliban insurgents now control a third of the country; and the Turkish-Kurdish fight, which continues to be a cross-border conflict. Both possibilities have been projected to have a moderate impact on US interests, yet almost certainly likely to take place.
The biggest wildcard, however, remains Trump, and how he will respond to rising geopolitical crises: “With a new presidential administration assuming office, it is important to help policymakers anticipate and avert potential crises that could arise and threaten U.S. interests. Our annual survey aims to highlight the most likely sources of instability and conflict around the world so that the government can prioritize its efforts appropriately,” said Paul B. Stares, General John W. Vessey senior fellow for conflict prevention and CPA director.
