California Governor To Trump DOJ: ‘This Is An Act Of WAR’

California Governor Jerry Brown said that the lawsuit filed against California by the Department of Justice (DOJ) over recently passed state laws was an “act of war.” During a press conference with the California attorney general on Wednesday, Brown looked every bit the easily offended liberal.

The DOJ filed a lawsuit against the state of California on Tuesday, which alleged three recently passed California laws deliberately interfered with federal immigration policies.

Upset that he has to follow others’ rules while making California almost unbearable with the number of rules, laws, and regulations he demands the residents of the Golden State adhere to, Brown became the offended hypocrite everyone knew he was.

“You called this an act of war from the federal government,” a reporter began asking Brown. Brown immediately looked confused. “An act of war? That’s pretty strong. But I reincorporate that comment,” Brown responded.

In the video below, you can hear Brown say that California and the federal government are now going to war with each other. With the states attorney general, Xavier Becerra by his side, Brown declares “this is basically going to war against the state of California.”

“No, we are state of laws,” Brown answered. “We want to observe the law now. The [U.S.] attorney general has basically thrown the gauntlet down and done it in a highly politicized way. Yeah, this is a very aggressive act on the part of the Trump administration, and it’s not right, and it won’t stand. And as I say, I’m sure this lawsuit will last has more longevity than the Trump administration itself,” Brown concluded.

Attorney General Becerra the gets a moment to speak as well, and with a straight face, says “here in California, we respect the law and the Constitution. We expect the federal government to do the same.”

Try not to choke on the hypocrisy.

20 States Sue The Federal Government To ABOLISH Obamacare

A coalition of 20 states has come together to sue the federal government over Obamacare. The states say that the law is no longer Constitutional and it should be abolished.

Without the individual mandate (a provision in the Obamacare law that demanded all Americans buy health insurance that the government deemed acceptable or pay a fine) which has been removed, the law is supposedly unconstitutional. Often called the “teeth” of the Obamacare law, the individual mandate was highly controversial and should have never been shoved down the throats of people anyway.

According to Reuters, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel are leading the charge of 20 states standing up to the federal government. The lawsuit said that without the individual mandate, which was eliminated as part of the Republican tax law signed by President Donald Trump in December, Obamacare was unlawful. “The U.S. Supreme Court already admitted that an individual mandate without a tax penalty is unconstitutional,” Paxton said in a statement. “With no remaining legitimate basis for the law, it is time that Americans are finally free from the stranglehold of Obamacare, once and for all,” he said.

Texas and Wisconsin were joined in the lawsuit by 18 other states including Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Utah and West Virginia. It was filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Texas.

“Obamacare was always designed to fail in order to usher in something worse,” says Melissa Dyke at Truthstream Media. But what could possibly be any worse than Obamacare? “Government-run, single-payer, socialist healthcare,” says Dykes.  And the evidence is in the leaked Podesta emails up on Wikileaks.

A Democrat supporting Republican legislation to destroy Obamacare on purpose. How many millions have they raked in on this deal and bilked the American people for in Obamacare penalties because they can’t afford the “affordable” health care? And the American people will look at this like a “victory” when it does unravel, even though it has been the plan all along. –The Daily Sheeple

It’s still difficult to comprehend that in the “land of the free” the federal government could, for any reason, tax and individual for NOT buying something. And we wonder why we’re constantly sliding down on the freedom index.  (The US is at #17 by the way, meaning 16 other countries have more freedom than those residing here do.) And the country had to claw their way to the #17 spot after being 7 places below that the year before.

Jesus Was Born In A Police State

Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

The Christmas narrative of a baby born in a manger is a familiar one.

The Roman Empire, a police state in its own right, had ordered that a census be conducted. Joseph and his pregnant wife Mary traveled to the little town of Bethlehem so that they could be counted. There being no room for the couple at any of the inns, they stayed in a stable, where Mary gave birth to a baby boy, Jesus.

Unfortunately, Jesus was born into a police state not unlike the growing menace of the American police state. And when he grew up, Jesus did not shy away from speaking truth to power. Indeed, his teachings undermined the political and religious establishment of his day. He was eventually crucified as a warning to others not to challenge the powers-that-be.

Yet what if, instead of being born into the Roman police state, Jesus had been born and raised in the American police state?

Rather than traveling to Bethlehem for a census, Jesus’ parents would have been mailed a 28-page American Community Survey, a mandatory government questionnaire documenting their habits, household inhabitants, work schedule, etc.

Instead of being born in a manger, Jesus might have been born at home. Rather than wise men and shepherds bringing gifts, however, the baby’s parents might have been forced to ward off visits from state social workers intent on prosecuting them for the home birth. One couple in Washington had all three of their children removed after social services objected to the two youngest being birthed in an unassisted home delivery.

Had Jesus’ parents been undocumented immigrants, they and the newborn baby might have been shuffled to a profit-driven, private prison for illegals where they would have been turned into cheap, forced laborers for corporations such as Starbucks, Microsoft, Walmart, and Victoria’s Secret.

From the time he was old enough to attend school, Jesus would have been drilled in lessons of compliance and obedience to government authorities, while learning little about his own rights. Had he dared to step out of line while in school, he might have found himself tasered or beaten by a school resource officer, or at the very least suspended under a school zero tolerance policy that punishes minor infractions as harshly as more serious offenses.

Had Jesus disappeared for a few hours let alone days as a 12-year-old, his parents would have been handcuffed, arrested and jailed for parental negligence.

From the moment Jesus made contact with an “extremist” such as John the Baptist, he would have been flagged for surveillance because of his association with a prominent activist, peaceful or otherwise. Since 9/11, the FBI has actively carried out surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations on a broad range of activist groups.

Jesus’ anti-government views would certainly have resulted in him being labeled a domestic extremist. Law enforcement agencies are being trained to recognize signs of anti-government extremism during interactions with potential extremists who share a “belief in the approaching collapse of government and the economy.”

While traveling from community to community, Jesus might have been reported to government officials as “suspicious” under the Department of Homeland Security’s “See Something, Say Something” programs.

Rather than being permitted to live as an itinerant preacher, Jesus might have found himself threatened with arrest for daring to live off the grid or sleeping outside. In fact, the number of cities that have resorted to criminalizing homelessness by enacting bans on camping, sleeping in vehicles, loitering and begging in public has doubled.

Viewed by the government as a dissident and potential threat to its power, Jesus might have had government spies planted among his followers to monitor his activities, report on his movements, and entrap him into breaking the law. Such Judases today—called informants—often receive hefty paychecks from the government for their treachery.

Had Jesus used the internet to spread his radical message of peace and love, he might have found his blog posts infiltrated by government spies attempting to undermine his integrity, discredit him or plant incriminating information online about him. At the very least, he would have had his website hacked and his email monitored.

Had Jesus attempted to feed large crowds of people, he would have been threatened with arrest for violating various ordinances prohibiting the distribution of food without a permit. Florida officials arrested a 90-year-old man for feeding the homeless on a public beach.

Had Jesus spoken publicly about his 40 days in the desert and his conversations with the devil, he might have been labeled mentally ill and detained in a psych ward with no access to family or friends.

Without a doubt, had Jesus attempted to overturn tables in a Jewish temple and rage against the materialism of religious institutions, he would have been charged with a hate crime. Currently, 45 states and the federal government have hate crime laws on the books.

Rather than having armed guards capture Jesus in a public place, government officials would have ordered that a SWAT team carry out a raid on Jesus and his followers, complete with flash-bang grenades and military equipment. There are upwards of 80,000 such SWAT team raids carried out every year.

Had anyone reported Jesus to the police as being potentially dangerous, he might have found himself confronted—and killed—by police officers for whom any perceived act of non-compliance (a twitch, a question, a frown) can result in them shooting first and asking questions later.

Charged with treason and labeled a domestic terrorist, Jesus might have been sentenced to a life-term in a private prison where he would have been forced to provide slave labor for corporations or put to death by way of the electric chair or a lethal mixture of drugs.

Either way, as I show in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, whether Jesus had been born in our modern age or his own, he still would have died at the hands of a police state.

Remember, what happened on that starry night in Bethlehem is only part of the story. That baby in the manger grew up to be a man who did not turn away from evil but instead spoke out against it, and we must do no less.

Ron Paul Blasts Congress" Political And Personal Immorality

Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

Many Americans have been shocked by recent revelations of the extent of sexual harassment in Congress.

However, no one should be too surprised that those who spend their lives defending and expanding the welfare-warfare state engage in immoral personal conduct.

It is only natural that an immoral system, like the welfare-warfare state, tends to attract individuals likely to practice personal immorality.

The welfare-warfare state is built on a foundation of taxation and fiat currency controlled by a secretive central bank. While some type of taxation may be necessary to fund the few legitimate functions of government, taking people’s money to fund a redistributive welfare state at home and a global empire abroad is nothing more than theft. The Federal Reserve’s erosion of purchasing power is also a form of theft.

The welfare-warfare state relies on violence. Every law preventing us from living our lives as we choose — whether forbidding us from working for below minimum wage, preventing us from smoking marijuana or drinking raw milk, telling private business owners who can and cannot use what restroom, or requiring us to purchase government-approved health insurance — rests on the threat of force being used against those who refuse to obey.

The warfare side of the welfare-warfare state is obviously rooted in violence. War inevitably leads to deaths, including the deaths of innocents. A permanent warfare state is also the quickest way to lose our liberties. This is why the Founding Fathers counseled against standing armies and foreign entanglements.

The neocons and “humanitarian interventionists” who control our foreign policy have disregarded the wisdom of the Founders. They actually promote endless wars not to protect our security but to promote “democracy” and “universal human rights.” They are impervious to evidence of the failure of military interventions to achieve these goals and indifferent to the human and fiscal costs of endless war. They dismiss the loss of innocent lives — including the deaths of children — as unavoidable “collateral damage,” while using their influence in the media to spread pro-war propaganda. They also smear their opponents as aiding America’s enemies and sympathizing with terrorists.

No one holding political power wants to admit the system he supports is immoral and a failure. Therefore, defenders of the welfare-warfare state rely on lies and deceptions. They ignore all evidence of the failure of big government to accomplish its ends, instead pretending they can fix the system with a few reforms. They also work with allies in the media to promulgate the lie that without the welfare state the masses would remain poor and uneducated, and without the warfare state we would be overwhelmed by those who hate us for our freedoms. They never mention that many foreigners hate America because of the suffering caused by our hyper-interventionist foreign policy.

The welfare-warfare state is built on violence and deceit.

It is thus inevitable that many of those participating in this immoral system will combine their immoral politics with immoral personal conduct. Hopefully the revelations of sexual misconduct among the welfare-warfare state’s Capitol Hill and media defenders will lead more Americans to question the morality and the wisdom of allowing the federal government to run the world, run the economy, and run our lives.

Ron Paul Just Exposed How the New ‘Tax Cuts’ Will Actually ‘Hammer’ the Middle Class

Former Texas Congressman Ron Paul is calling out Congress for celebrating ostensible tax cuts—that will hammer middle-class Americans.

US Military Rushes To Study Blockchain As "Hybrid Wars" Loom

President Trump signed into law the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act on Tuesday, a $700 billion defense policy bill that mandates for a “briefing on cyber applications of blockchain technology.” Language within the bill is part of a much wider effort to modernize the United States military, before decades of hybrid wars breakout (see: US Army Is Preparing For Decades Of Hybrid Wars.)

The blockchain study, according to the bill text (Sec.1646), will create “an assessment of efforts by foreign powers, extremist organizations, and criminal networks to utilize such technologies;…[and] an assessment of the use or planned use of such technologies by the Federal Government and critical infrastructure networks.”

Further, the study is to be delivered to Congress “not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this act.”Coin Desk adds while the study is set to be prepared by the Department of Defense, the final report could include input from other federal agencies and departments.

Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the heads of such other departments and agencies of the Federal Government as the Secretary considers appropriate, shall provide to the appropriate committees of Congress a briefing on the cyber applications of blockchain technology.

So you ask, what is blockchain? And why would the Department of Defense be interested in this technology?

Coin Desk further notes,

And though it constitutes a minor element in major funding law, the measure, proposed by Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, could help spur investigation into possible blockchain uses within the U.S. government, some observers say.

 

“Blockchain was clearly one of the technological capabilities that Congress meant for agencies to look at, and what they were trying to do was create dollars with some flexibility to them so that agencies would have their own discretion on what they invest in,” Trey Hodgkins, senior vice president of public sector at the Information Technology Industry Council in Washington, D.C., told CoinDesk last month.

And lastly, a 2016 military doctrine from the United States Airforce (USAF) outlines the future importance of blockchains in cyber defense systems,

The ability of the USAF to prevail in the highly contested environment of 2040 will be dictated by its ability to defend cyber-enabled systems, and the data within them, from compromise and manipulation. Yet contemporary cyber defense is faltering, and incremental improvements seem unlikely to overcome an exponentially growing cyber threat. Thus, an entirely new model for cyber defense strategy is needed.

 

Blockchains are a new information technology that inverts the cyber security paradigm. First, blockchain networks are trustless; they assume compromise of the network by both insiders and outsiders. Second, blockchains are transparently secure; they do not rely on failure-prone secrets, but rather on a cryptographic data structure that makes tampering both exceptionally difficult and immediately obvious. Finally, blockchains networks are fault tolerant; they align the efforts of honest nodes to reject those that are dishonest.

 

As a result, blockchain networks not only reduce the probability of compromise, but also impose significantly greater costs on an adversary to achieve it. The Air Force should research and develop blockchain technology and leverage it for national defense.  

If America wants to maintain her empire, she better adopts blockchain technologies, as what it appears to be the future strategy of the Department of Defense.

How Government Inaction Ended The Depression Of 1921

Authored by Lew Rockwell via Mises Canada,

As the financial crisis of 2008 took shape, the policy recommendations were not slow in coming: why, economic stability and American prosperity demand fiscal and monetary stimulus to jump-start the sick economy back to life. And so we got fiscal stimulus, as well as a program of monetary expansion without precedent in US history.

David Stockman recently noted that we have in effect had fifteen solid years of stimulus — not just the high-profile programs like the $700 billion TARP and the $800 billion in fiscal stimulus, but also $4 trillion of money printing and 165 out of 180 months in which interest rates were either falling or held at rock-bottom levels.

The results have been underwhelming: the number of breadwinner jobs in the US is still two million lower than it was under Bill Clinton.

Economists of the Austrian school warned that this would happen. While other economists disagreed about whether fiscal or monetary stimulus would do the trick, the Austrians looked past this superficial debate and rejected intervention in all its forms.

The Austrians have very good theoretical reasons for opposing government stimulus programs, but those reasons are liable to remain unknown to the average person, who seldom studies economics and who even more seldom gives non-establishment opinion a fair hearing. That’s why it helps to be able to point to historical examples, which are more readily accessible to the non-specialist than is economic theory. If we can point to an economy correcting itself, this alone overturns the claim that government intervention is indispensable.

Possibly the most arresting (and overlooked) example of precisely this phenomenon is the case of the depression of 1920–21, which was characterized by a collapse in production and GDP and a spike in unemployment to double-digit levels. But by the time the federal government even began considering intervention, the crisis had ended. What Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover deferentially called “The President’s Conference on Unemployment,” an idea he himself had cooked up to smooth out the business cycle, convened during what turned out to be the second month of the recovery, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).

Indeed, according to the NBER, which announces the beginnings and ends of recessions, the depression began in January 1920 and ended in July 1921.

James Grant tells the story in his important and captivating new book The Forgotten Depression — 1921: The Crash That Cured Itself. A word about the author: Grant ranks among the most brilliant of financial experts. In addition to publishing his highly regarded newsletter, Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, for more than thirty years, Grant is a frequent (and anti-Fed) commentator on television and radio, the author of numerous other books, and a captivating speaker. We’ve been honored and delighted to feature him as a speaker at Mises Institute events.

What exactly were the Federal Reserve and the federal government doing during these eighteen months? The numbers don’t lie: monetary policy was contractionary during the period in question. Allan Meltzer, who is not an Austrian, wrote in A History of the Federal Reserve that “principal monetary aggregates fell throughout the recession.” He calculates a decline in M1 by 10.9 percent from March 1920 to January 1922, and in the monetary base by 6.4 percent from October 1920 to January 1922. “Quarterly average growth of the base,” he continues, “did not become positive until second quarter 1922, nine months after the NBER trough.”

The Fed raised its discount rate from 4 percent in 1919 to 7 percent in 1920 and 6 percent in 1921. By 1922, after the recovery was long since under way, it was reduced to 4 percent once again. Meanwhile, government spending also fell dramatically; as the economy emerged from the 1920–21 downturn, the budget was in the process of being reduced from $6.3 billion in 1920 to $3.2 billion in 1922. So the budget was being cut and the money supply was falling. “By the lights of Keynesian and monetarist doctrine alike,” writes Grant, “no more primitive or counterproductive policies could be imagined.” In addition, price deflation was more severe during 1920–21 than during any point in the Great Depression; from mid-1920 to mid-1921, the Consumer Price Index fell by 15.8 percent. We can only imagine the panic and the cries for intervention were we to observe such price movements today.

The episode fell down the proverbial memory hole, and Grant notes that he cannot find an example of a public figure ever having held up the 1920–21 example as a data point worth considering today. But although Keynesians today, now that the episode is being discussed once again, assure everyone that they are perfectly prepared to explain the episode away, in fact Keynesian economic historians in the past readily admitted that the swiftness of the recovery was something of a mystery to them, and that recovery had not been long in coming despite the absence of stimulus measures.

The policy of official inaction during the 1920–21 depression came about as a combination of circumstance and ideology. Woodrow Wilson had favored a more pronounced role for the federal government, but by the end of his term two factors made any such effort impossible. First, he was obsessed with the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles, and securing US membership in the League of Nations he had inspired. This concern eclipsed everything else. Second, a series of debilitating strokes left him unable to do much of anything by the fall of 1919, so any major domestic initiatives were out of the question. Because of the way fiscal years are dated, Wilson was in fact responsible for much of the postwar budget cutting, a substantial chunk of which occurred during the 1920–21 depression.

Warren Harding, meanwhile, was philosophically inclined to oppose government intervention and believed a downturn of this kind would work itself out if no obstacles were placed in its path. He declared in his acceptance speech at the 1920 Republican convention:

We will attempt intelligent and courageous deflation, and strike at government borrowing which enlarges the evil, and we will attack high cost of government with every energy and facility which attend Republican capacity. We promise that relief which will attend the halting of waste and extravagance, and the renewal of the practice of public economy, not alone because it will relieve tax burdens but because it will be an example to stimulate thrift and economy in private life.

 

Let us call to all the people for thrift and economy, for denial and sacrifice if need be, for a nationwide drive against extravagance and luxury, to a recommittal to simplicity of living, to that prudent and normal plan of life which is the health of the republic. There hasn’t been a recovery from the waste and abnormalities of war since the story of mankind was first written, except through work and saving, through industry and denial, while needless spending and heedless extravagance have marked every decay in the history of nations.

Harding, that least fashionable of American presidents, was likewise able to look at falling prices soberly and without today’s hysteria. He insisted that the commodity price deflation was unavoidable, and perhaps even salutary. “We hold that the shrinkage which has taken place is somewhat analogous to that which occurs when a balloon is punctured and the air escapes.” Moreover, said Harding, depressions followed inflation “just as surely as the tides ebb and flow,” but spending taxpayer money was no way to deal with the situation. “The excess of stimulation from that source is to be reckoned a cause of trouble rather than a source of cure.”

Even John Skelton Williams, comptroller of the currency under Woodrow Wilson and no friend of Harding, observed that the price deflation was “inevitable,” and that in any case “the country is now [1921] in many respects on a sounder basis, economically, than it has been for years.” And we should look forward to the day when “the private citizen is able to acquire, at the expenditure of $1 of his hard-earned money, something approximating the quantity and quality which that dollar commanded in prewar times.”

Thankfully for the reader, not only is Grant right on the history and the economics, but he also writes with a literary flair one scarcely expects from the world of financial commentary. And although he has all the facts and figures a reader could ask for, Grant is also a storyteller. This is no dry sheaf of statistics. It is full of personalities — businessmen, union bosses, presidents, economists — and relates so much more than the bare outline of the depression. Grant gives us an expert’s insight into the stock market’s fortunes, and those of American agriculture, industry, and more. He writes so engagingly that the reader almost doesn’t realize how difficult it is to make a book about a single economic episode utterly absorbing.

The example of 1920–21 was largely overlooked, except in specialized treatments of American economic history, for many decades. The cynic may be forgiven for suspecting that its incompatibility with today’s conventional wisdom, which urges demand management by experts and an ever-expanding mandate for the Fed, might have had something to do with that. Whatever the reason, it’s back now, as a rebuke to the planners with their equations and the cronies with their bailouts.

The Forgotten Depression has taken its rightful place within the corpus of Austro-libertarian revisionist history, that library of works that will lead you from the dead end of conventional opinion to the fresh air of economic and historical truth.

"Somebody Screwed Up" - House Must Vote Again On Tax-Reform Plan After Procedural Snag

Update: In an interview with MSNBC"s Chuck Todd, Louisiana Senator John Kennedy offered the most honest explanation yet for the Senate Parliamentarian finding that three provisions in the final Trump tax bill violate Senate budget rules - meaning that the House will need to hold another vote on the bill.

"Somebody screwed up," Kennedy said.

Still, Kennedy reiterated that observers shouldn"t read too much into the delay. Republicans have been scrambling to put the bill together and pass it before the end of the year - a notably tight deadline. Some exhausted staffer was probably responsible for the oversight, he suggested.

"We have the votes, we"ll have the votes tomorrow. If necessary, we"ll have the votes the day after that," Kennedy said on MSNBC.

The Senate is still expected to vote on the bill Tuesday night after removing the offending provisions.

* * *

In an embarassing reversal of what House Republicans had celebrated as a done deal, the House will need to vote again on the final version of the tax reform plan passed earlier this afternoon. The second vote is the result of a technicality in one of the bill"s provisions. According to Bloomberg, the Senate parliamentarian found three provisions in the final bill that violate the Byrd Rule, and the Senate will have to strip them from the bill before passing it, according to Bernie Sanders, the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, and Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, who had earlier hinted that he was looking into possible Byrd Rule violations.

Then the House will need to hold a second vote on the newly modified bill.

“It is our intention to raise a point of order to remove these provisions from the conference report and require the House to vote on this bill again," Sanders said. The House now expects to take another vote on the tax bill tomorrow morning, according to email from majority leader’s office; that vote would clear the bill for Trump’s signature, assuming the Senate passes the bill with the required changes later this evening.

According to the Byrd Rule, lawmakers can challenge provisions in a bill if they would significantly add to the deficit. Democrats have identified three such provisions.

Republicans brushed off the delay as a minor inconvenience. Kevin Brady, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said they weren"t a big deal. However, Brady told CNBC that it"s unclear how this will impact the vote on the stopgap spending bill that must be passed before Friday at midnight or the federal government will enter a Christmas shutdown.

One of the provisions is related to a detail in the bill that would benefit a private college in Kentucky. Another would allow families to use tax-advantaged 529 accounts for home-schooling expenses, according to the Associated Press.

"Members are advised that we expect Senate Democrats to insist on a Byrd Point of Order on the Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 1, which is likely to be sustained," said guidance from House Majority Whip Steve Scalise"s (R-La.) office, which was sent to GOP lawmakers, according to the Hill.

"As such, Members are further advised that an additional procedural vote on the Motion to Concur is expected tomorrow morning, which will clear the bill for President Trump’s signature," his office added.

The second vote will likely take place on Wednesday, and is expected to pass, according to CNBC. However, the chance that the wheels could fall off at the last minute can never be ruled out.

Earlier, the House approved the tax plan in a 227-203 vote with 12 Republicans joining all the Democrats in opposition.

House Democrats Asked To Vote Against Stopgap Spending Bill

Update: In what could be a serious problem for Ryan and the rest of the GOP leadership, Democratic leaders in the House have asked their members to vote against the Republican continuing resolution bill as it stands.

 

.@WhipHoyer says House Democrats are being asked to vote against the stopgap-defense-disaster spending package.

“We are asking our members to vote no. If Republicans want Democrats’ votes, they need to work with us on a serious compromise.”

— Jennifer Shutt (@JenniferShutt) December 19, 2017

 

* * *

House Republicans have decided to attach provisions reauthorizing a popular child health-insurance program and allocating an unprecedented $81 billion in disaster-aid spending to a continuing resolution that would keep the federal government funded until Jan. 19, Politico reported Tuesday, citing anonymous Congressional aids.

House Speaker Paul Ryan disclosed the new strategy in a GOP conference meeting Wednesday morning.

 

NEWS— Ryan tells House Republicans he will attach the $81 billion supplemental disaster spending bill to the stopgap bill to keep the government open.

— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) December 19, 2017

 

Funding for the federal government is set to run out on Friday at midnight, and Republican leaders have been preoccupied with tax reform and unable to focus on averting a shutdown and the myriad other legislative priorities that demand action before Congress enters recess.

By combining all the measures into one bill, Ryan will likely attract the support of Democrats in Florida, Texas, Louisiana, California and other states affected by this year’s natural disasters, who probably wouldn’t risk being seen opposing badly needed funding for their home states.

However, as the Hill explained earlier, even with CHIP and disaster aid attached to the House bill, averting a shutdown is far from assured. Indeed, Ryan is standing by a measure in the bill that would authorize spending for the Pentagon through September. That provision is incredibily unpopular with Democrats, whose votes Senate Republicans will need to overcome a filibuster.

Eight Democratic votes are needed in the senate to overcome a fillibuster. However, when it comes to locking in a year’s worth of defense spending, Ryan is facing a dilemma. Eliminating the provision could alienate conservative Republicans who might band together to oppose the bill. But cutting the defense-spending provision would likely attract Democratic votes.

Forty-four Democrats signed onto a letter vowing to oppose a combination CR–defense omnibus bill because of concerns about prioritizing defense spending over domestic programs.

Another issue likely to become a problem in the senate is reauthorizing the Obamacare subsidies that Trump cancelled back in October - a decision that has prompted participating insurers to warn of more premium hikes.

Susan Collins, a moderate Republican who was one of the last senators to throw her support behind tax reform, could be an obstacle for the spending bill. Once the CR reaches the senate, Republicans might try to attach the ObamaCare fixes that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell promised Collins in exchange for her vote on tax reform. However, conservatives like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz could try and block the bill from passing if these measures are added. Indeed, observers will be watching to see if McConnell breaks his promise to Collins, who could continue to create serious headaches for the leadership given their thin majority.
 

FX Weekly Preview: Dollar Squeeze A Growing Concern, But Longer Term Bears Likely To Temper It

Submitted by Shant Movsesian and Rajan Dhall MSTA

from fxdailyterminal.com

Over the past week, the argument that the tax reform aimed at corporates specifically could prompt a period of USD repatriation - much like an amnesty - has been growing in sentiment, and whether one believes in this, remains an upside risk we shouldn"t ignore.  Since the Fed"s much anticipated rate hike, we have seen a moderate hit on the USD reversed in full, but put in perspective, the overall ranges traded so far have been modest to say the least.  We also shouldn"t ignore the time of year, where liquidity is not at its best, though has been enough to send the major indices on Wall Street to new record highs.  There was a time this would have sent USD/JPY soaring, but it hasn"t, but times have changed and most of us can see that global growth reflected in the stock markets is a far cry from that seen through wage growth and inflation. 

There has also been some focus on cross currency basis, turning negative to further signal year end USD demand and into early 2018, which can be tied-in in part to the repatriation story above.  Some will attribute it to regulatory pressures in Europe (derivatives market) as well as Japan, and although immeasurable for the most part, is a risk worth noting given our focus for the week ahead. 

As such, we look for concurrent moves in EUR/USD and USD/JPY, with a move in the former through 1.1700 likely to correspond with a USD/JPY push for 113.50-114.00 again.  Once again, in light of the illiquid period ahead, these are merely risks we are highlighting, and given where the respective spot rates ended up on Friday night, it is noteworthy risk at this stage. 

Through 1.1700, EUR/USD will test the band of support seen in the 1.1650-1.1550 area, where the longer term interest based on the Euro zone recovery continues to carry favour.   Based on the rising PMIs in Germany and other leading states, notably France, few can argue that there is momentum here, but this is largely priced in for now as we can see in some of the relative performance in the cross rates.  Even a supported EUR/CHF rate is struggling at 1.1700. 

In the final week into Christmas, we should see the EU wide inflation reading for Nov confirmed at 1.5% while the German IFO survey will likely continue with a healthy business climate.  Italian industrial production and orders later in the week will give us some insight into whether the rest of Europe is keeping up pace, but all of the above - as we have already alluded to - will do little to materially better the EUR position for now.

USD/JPY in the meantime survived the short lived post FOMC sell off, in a move which was seemingly pre-empted as "dovish hike fade", but that lasted for all of a day at best.  We held 112.00 on the downside, with 111.50-60 the strong base lower down, and despite the longer term bias for USD weakness and a return through 110.00 at some stage, the consolidation phase looks set to continue with 114.00-115.00 yet to be retested in any substantial way. 

The BoJ meeting towards the end of the week will again maintain current policy stance aimed at getting inflation back to 2.0% target, so the only interesting potential is of any dissenters to the persistent asset purchasing and an eventual unwind.  Domestic data is improving, albeit slowly, but the central bank have their mandate - the markets have their own take, and it is one which looks likely to test the BoJ"s tolerance for JPY strength at some point down the line.  When rather than if!

In the UK, GBP looks capped now that the EU-UK passage to the round of talks on trade have been secured.  Once again, the agreements made to facilitate this are nothing more than a "statement of intent" - as David Davis put it - so we are now at the crux of the negotiation, and this should start to weigh on some of the (blind) optimism which has driven GBP to better levels across the board.  To temper this, we are not advocating a return to the doom and gloom scenario, rather some moderation which would put Cable back to levels closer to 1.3000-1.3100 rather than creating a platform for a move through 1.3500-1.3600 for 1.4000 as some have suggested.  It is all sentiment here for now.

EUR/GBP has found good support in the mid 0.8700"s, but we also see limited scope for an aggressive push through 0.9000 unless Brexit cordiality breaks down completely.  On the UK economy, notable was the lack of positive response to the bumper spending results seen for Nov.  Naturally there will be a discounting factor in pre Xmas buying incorporating the Back Friday sales, and next year"s numbers will make for a far better reading on consumer appetite and more importantly disposable income.  The final Q3 GDP print is the only notable data point next week including business investment numbers. 

We also saw some reprieve for the AUD and NZD last week, with both consistently getting hammered into their recent lows with very little breathing space.  NZD had recovered first, again, largely down to over-exhaustion and traders throwing the towel in, so suggestions that the market have eased up on their bearish sentiment on the new coalition government look a little premature, not to say "convenient" at this stage.   This is not to say that the recovery does not have a little more to run, and could be generated through the EUR and GBP crosses, with over-extensions here - much in the same way as we have seen in EUR/AUD and GBP/AUD - redressed into year end at least. 

Lots of data in NZ next week, with more business confidence surveys (ANZ), current account and trade all leading up to Friday"s Q3 GDP number. 

Little in the way of stats to consider in Australia, so markets will focus on the RBA minutes and what the central bank take is on the economy.  With bearish sentiment emanating on low wage growth, low inflation and high household debt, the AUD got a welcome boost from a 60k+ rise in jobs, which keeps hopes alive for the Phillips Curve kicking in.  Little evidence of that in the US, but hope is hope and the AUD has weakened enough for now, with 0.7500 proving a strong base.  AUD/NZD is now the one to watch, where we took out pre 1.0900 demand, but the late Sep lows ahead of 1.0800 remain intact as yet.

CAD traders have some hard data to feed on rather than hang on every speech and reported rhetoric from the BoC.  Accused of a hard turnaround from the post rate hike hawkishness, the market was once again wrong-footed on governor Poloz"s statements this week, who stated that he saw the need for less stimulus going forward.  The CAD push up was brief however, and found fresh buyers looking for an eventual push through 1.2900 based on the retrenchment in CAD rates.  The jobs report for Nov was strong however, and if CPI, retail sales and ultimately GBP can can improve on the moderate expectations (0.2% growth seen for Oct), then perhaps USD/CAD can survive a push on the heavily offered 1.2900-1.3000 area.  Fear of long(s) liquidation by some banks suggest this could facilitate a move through the above mentioned area, but this assumes intent, which again, is immeasurable.  We could also say this about strong positioning in the market for (long) EUR"s!

Russia"s Military Withdrawal Will Prompt President Assad To "Compromise"

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Oriental Review,

Russia has every right to withdraw most of its Aerospace Forces from Syria following Daesh’s defeat, with one of the most immediate consequences of this move being that it will prompt President Assad into a “political compromise” with the “opposition”.

President Putin’s surprise visit to Syria saw the Russian leader announce the large-scale withdrawal of his country’s Aerospace Forces from the Arab Republic, signifying that Moscow truly believes that Daesh is defeated and that its original mission in Syria has been accomplished. It needs to be reminded that Russia’s 2015 anti-terrorist intervention was initiated by the need to destroy this international terrorist threat, although other more locally active terrorist organizations were also targeted for elimination in the course of events as well.

Contrary to some of the expectations and misleading inferences shared across a few Alt-Media platforms since that time, Russia did not get involved in Syria in order to “save Assad”, but to protect the constitutional order of the state and prevent its Libyan-like fall to terrorists. To this end, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov even once remarked that “Assad is not our ally, by the way. Yes, we support him in the fight against terrorism and in preserving the Syrian state. But he is not an ally like Turkey is the ally of the United States”, further driving home this point in an unforgettable way.

Now that Daesh is defeated, there’s no “official” reason for Russia’s military forces to remain actively deployed in Syria, although President Putin was clear that they’ll still continue to remain hosted in the two bases that Moscow has in the country and won’t hesitate to act if the terrorists suddenly return. It’s at this point where it’s important to clarify what Russia means by “terrorists”; unlike Damascus, Moscow’s interpretation of this term doesn’t extend to the armed “moderate opposition rebels” that are partaking in the parallel international peace processes of Astana and Geneva.

This is a crucial difference in understanding because it determines the legitimate scope of Russia’s anti-terrorist assistance to the Syrian Arab Army (SAA). Although Daesh is defeated, the whole northeast of the country beyond the Euphrates is under the control of the Kurdish-led “Syrian Democratic Forces” (SDF) who are stubbornly intent on “federalizing” the remaining two-thirds of the country with American support. Likewise, there are already four “de-escalation zones” (DEZ) active in the rest of Syria, which essentially function to separate the SAA from the armed “opposition” in these places.

President Assad once famously promised to liberate “every inch” of Syria, but there’s no way that he’ll be able to free those parts of the country now unless he “compromises” with his opponents. In hindsight, this might be why President Putin said during last month’s Sochi Summit with his Iranian and Turkish counterparts that “It is obvious that the process of reform will not be easy and will require compromises and concessions from all participants, including of course the government of Syria.” Russia won’t ever target the “moderate opposition rebels” that it signed DEZ deals with and invited to Astana, so Damascus will be compelled to “compromise” with them if it wants to reassert its authority over the territory that they presently occupy.

The same situation applies for the PYD-YPG Kurds, too. The 2000 US troops in northeastern Syria and 10 American bases there make it impossible for the SAA to militarily reintegrate this region, thus necessitating some sort of “decentralization” deal likely modelled off of the one that’s included in the Russian-written “draft constitution” and possibly seeing DEZs (which the Kurdish-controlled third of the country might eventually be designated) transformed into “decentralization” units. The SAA’s Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Hezbollah allies won’t be of much help in any forthcoming liberation operation that Damascus might secretly be planning in these regions because they lack the pivotal airpower of Russia’s Aerospace Forces, which was responsible for turning the tide of war in the first place in late 2015.

They’d also be violating the DEZs that Moscow worked so hard to establish, likely earning each of them a sharp rebuke from Russia behind closed doors or even in public if the situation was serious enough to “warrant” it. President Putin is adamant that the War on Syria begins transitioning from the military theater to the political one, using his proposed “Syrian National Dialogue Congress” as the template for proceeding to the next step, and he will do whatever is reasonably possible within his and his country’s power to ensure that this happens.

The refusal of Russia to get militarily involved in what it officially views as the “civil war” dimension of the conflict between Damascus and the armed “moderate opposition rebels” following its victory in the international one between the SAA and Daesh suggests that Moscow will now intensify all of its diplomatic efforts towards reaching a “political solution”. There are a few reasons behind all of this, but they can broadly be categorized by domestic and international imperatives that share a common pragmatism.

On the home front, President Putin is delivering on the promise that he made to his countrymen to win their War on Terror, having done so in only a third of his term (~2 years) and without dragging it on indefinitely like the US has done for over 8 times as long. Neither he nor his voters want to see Russia embroiled in what they always fear could become an Afghan-like quagmire by continuing military operations during what they believe to now be a solely “civil war” context. In addition, downscaling Russia’s involvement in Syria could allow the federal government to redirect hundreds of millions of dollars to domestic projects during President Putin’s expected fourth term, which boosts his populist credentials during this election season.

The other reason behind why Russia will probably focus mostly on diplomatic initiatives at this time is because of the role that this intricate process can play in promoting Moscow’s 21st-century “balancing” act in becoming the supreme stabilizing force in the Eurasian supercontinent. By withdrawing most of Russia’s Aerospace Forces from Syria and thereby creating the conditions whereby President Assad is prompted into making “political compromises” as a result, Russia expects to enhance its strategic relations with Turkey, the Kurds, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, all with an eye on furthering the prospects of the emerging Multipolar World Order in this pivotal location at the tri-continental crossroads of Afro-Eurasia.

Furthermore, by withdrawing right after accusing the US of provocative in-air maneuvers over Syria, Russia is extending an “olive branch” of “goodwill” to its Great Power rival and signaling that it’s eager as always to normalize relations if Washington is ready to reciprocate. The much-sought-after and so-called “New Détente” could finally make progress if Russia and the US reach a “gentlemen’s agreement” with one another over the fate of the Syrian Kurdish “federalists”, as appears to already somewhat be the case with both of them encouraging their on-the-ground partners of the SAA and SDF respectively to refrain from crossing the Euphrates River border between them.

Bearing all of the above in mind, the implications of Russia’s announced military withdrawal from Syria are much larger than simply signifying Daesh’s defeat, but point to a thought-out and far-reaching plan to prompt President Assad into making “political concessions” to the “opposition” as a means of enhancing Russia’s overall “balancing” role in the Mideast, all for the “greater good” of multipolarity. While there’s hope that this process could also yield a breakthrough in relations with the US, such expectations should understandably be tempered by the reality of the “deep state’s” War on Trump, though the prospects of “constructive” US-Russian interaction via the Syrian Kurds – particularly in the event that they succeed in “institutionalizing” their self-declared “federation” in northeastern Syria – shouldn’t be overlooked.

These Are The 30 Biggest Risks Facing Markets In 2018

Once upon a time, Wall Street analysts had just two things to worry about: interest rate risk and corporate profits - virtually everything else was derived from these.  Unfortuantely, we now live in the new normal, where central banks step in every time there is even a whiff of an imminent market correction (as BofA explained last week), and the result is that nobody know what is and what isn"t priced into the market any more, simply because the market in the conventional sense of a future discounting mechanism no longer exists (as Citi explained earlier this summer).

Which is why, paradoxically, even as the VIX slides to record lows, the number of things to worry about on Wall Street grows longer and longer. In fact, according to Deutsche Bank"s Torsten Slok, there are no less than 30 material risks investors should beware in the coming year, ranging from a U.S. equity correction to a reversal of Brexit to Irish presidential elections, to a "Bitcoin crash," rising inflation, danger from North Korea and results from special counsel Robert Mueller"s probe.

The risks should be thought of “not only as potential VIX-boosters but also as potential sources of faster or slower growth than what we have in our baseline forecast,” Slok explained in his note, which also shows that even without a major risk materializing, the GDP rebound of 2017 is unlikely to persist.

As for the recent surges and drops in Bitcoin, "you wonder where prices will even be by the end of 2017," Slok said during an appearance on CNBC"s Trading Nation broadcast.

Predicting that price swings of the cryptocurrency will remain an issue in 2018, Slok said questions about Bitcoin regulation, transparency and disclosure issues remain unanswered. "It"s mainly because it is something that I think financial markets so far have been discounting as a small issue," Slok said. "We do worry a bit that it could become more systemic, in particular, if the current trends continue into 2018."

But the Deutsche Banker"s biggest worry is understandably a spike in inflation in the coming months. Low national unemployment, growth projections for the nation"s gross domestic product, and other financial measures signal a potential rise, Slok said. As we have reportedly previously, virtually every bank from BofA to Goldman to Barclays has warned that their optimistic forecasts are null and void if inflation in the coming months spikes, forcing the Fed to tighten monetary conditions at a faster pace.

On the geopolitical front, U.S. and global uncertainty about North Korea"s test launches of ICBMs capable of reaching the U.S. mainland and other potential targets could roil financial markets. Slok cited fear that we could have a "further escalation of the situation."

The bank"s worry list, in random order and featuring both upside and downside concerns for financial markets, questioned whether Jerome Powell, the incoming Federal Reserve chairman, will be "politically driven or driven by the incoming data."

Other risks include tests for the Fed"s near chair, the potential replacement of BOJ"s head Haruhiko Kuroda, the ECB announcing its QE exit in Q2, housing bubble bursts in Canada, Australia, Sweden or Norway, a correction in the U.S. stock market where there is a mismatch between valuation and fundamentals, a harder landing than expected for China as economic growth there slows, and many other risks which would all weigh on financial markets.

"Are markets ready for even a small correction?” the Deutsche Bank strategist asked rhetorically, reminding his reads that there has not been one for "a long time."

The full list of 30 risk factors is below.

These 8 Places Around The World Are Actively Preparing For Nuclear War

Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blog,

Everywhere, it seems like officials are actively preparing for the possibility of nuclear war.

Tensions are high in practically every corner of the world but somehow, despite the proliferation of imminent threats, many people are still blithely unaware of the hell that could be unleashed.

Due to tensions between the US and North Korea, the world is frantically preparing for the possibility of a nuclear attack. The US, China, Russia, North Korea, and South Korea have all shown force with bombers and destroyers, and it seems that it will only be a matter of time before one incident sparks a cascading explosion.

The governments of these 8 places are making preparations, but they’ll be to little avail if people don’t participate and just expect to be rescued.

1) South Korea

In South Korea, their government has urged citizens to get prepared for war, and prepping is becoming mainstream for North Korea’s nearest neighbor and sworn enemy.

The government of South Korea is making every effort to turn its citizens into a country of survivalists. With the ever-increasing threats from the North, South Korean preppers are becoming mainstream, instead of a quirky fringe element…

The South Korean President isn’t taking this lying down. “In case North Korea undertakes provocations against us or our ally, we have the power to destroy (the North) beyond recovery.” This threat most likely will not please the Dear Leader of North Korea, so it’s probably safe to predict even greater hostilities on the horizon.

The South Korean Ministry of Public Administration and Security has issued guidelines for a variety of attacks to their citizens due to the ever-increasing risk of an attack by North Korea…

…An article published in the South Korean Times states, “The number of doomsday pessimists is rapidly growing here, as is shown from the number of relevant YouTube videos and their views.”

The article goes on to describe a video by a popular female comedian that teaches watchers how to create a bug-out bag. But that’s not all. South Korean preppers are becoming mainstream. (source)

2) China

A Chinese newspaper from an area that shares a border with North Korea published a series of articles advising people how to prepare for a strike.

Bloomberg summarized the advice:

The Jilin Daily — the government newspaper of Jilin province on North Korea’s northeastern border — published articles on page 5 explaining how nuclear weapons work and the damage they cause. The paper used cartoons to offer advice on what residents can do about radiation exposure and provided instructions on how to respond during an attack.

One article listed essential items for emergency kits, including fire extinguishers and breathing masks. Another warned that air raids could mean nuclear, chemical and biological attacks, and used the 1945 atomic bombing of Hiroshima as an example.

The cartoon images illustrated how residents should clean their bodies, boots, and coats after being exposed to radiation. They suggested taking iodine tablets if there is radiation nearby. (source)

3) Japan

Millions of people in Japan have taken part in (or soon will) nuclear attack evacuation drills, and the Prime Minister is urging local authorities to designate the best sturdy, underground sites to be used as potential shelters.

…Tokyo isn’t the first city to conduct these types of large-scale drills: Towns facing the Korean Peninsula have conducted similar drills in recent months. 

The national and city governments are to carry out a series of exercises between January and March to prepare for a potential attack on Tokyo, the Sankei Shimbun newspaper reported, the first time that a major Japanese city will have carried out responses to a simulated attack.

Towns facing the Korean Peninsula have in recent months conducted similar drills, with residents instructed to seek shelter in response to sirens warning of an imminent missile strike.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has called on local governments throughout the country to identify underground facilities or buildings that are sufficiently sturdy to withstand a missile attack and to designate those facilities as shelters. source()

But it isn’t just Asia that is preparing for the possibility of a nuclear strike.

4) Australia

Australia recently received a warning from North Korea, calling the country a “vassal” of the United States.

A spokesman for the North Korean Foreign Ministry told the country’s state-run Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) [said] that Australia’s support for the United States in opposing North Korea was a “suicidal act.”

 

“Australia will be unable to avoid a disaster if it keeps toeing the US line of military, economic and diplomatic pressure upon the DPRK despite its repeated warnings,” the Foreign Ministry spokesman was quoted as saying.

 

“It should be prudent in speech and conduct with its own principle, instead of blindly following the US’ policy of aggression, and realize that working to develop friendly relations with other countries is the best way to its security.” (source)

The minister for defense personnel, Dan Tehan, said that they “will not be cowed” by North Korea’s threats.

5) Hawaii

Hawaii recently tested their nuclear sirens that have not been used since the 1980s. The island is the closest American state to Hawaii, which makes it geographically vulnerable.

But here’s the bummer about the siren test. They were going for 20 whole minutes and hardly anyone even noticed them.

It’s hoped that the 385 sirens dotted around Hawaii will give residents and tourists a 20-minute warning if North Korean nuclear missiles are inbound.

But the sirens, which have been silent since the Cold War, were barely heard in the busy tourist areas of Waikiki, where most people obliviously went about their day.

…Disturbed by the underwhelming results of the tests, officials are now investigating whether the sirens were operating as they are supposed to. (source)

One of my dearest friends lives in Hawaii and has attended the nuclear preparedness meetings that have been held on Maui. According to her, hardly anyone shows up. No one is interested.

With that in mind, one must wonder if the issue with the lack of response to the nuke siren is one of decibels or one of cognitive dissonance.

6) Guam

As a US territory and the closest to North Korea, Guam could find itself in the crosshairs. Officials have issued guidelines to all its residents to prepare them for the possibility of a nuclear strike. (Here’s a link to the fact sheet.)

There’s some excellent advice, such as:

• “Make a list of potential concrete shelters near your home, workplace or school.”


• “Do not look at the flash or fireball — It can blind you.”


• “Lie flat on the ground and cover your head. If the explosion is some distance away, it could take 30 seconds or more for the blast wave to hit.”


• “When possible, take a shower with lots of soap and water…do not scrub or scratch the skin.”


• “Do not use conditioner in your hair because it will bind radioactive material to your hair.”

7) The US Mainland

Here on the mainland, California is making preparations, but one notable factor is that residents should not expect help from the government any time soon should such a catastrophe occur. (This, of course, is something that preppers have known for a long time and is clearly evidenced in the slow response to Puerto Rico.)

It also warns of the difficulties government authorities would likely encounter in dealing with the aftermath of a blast. The public will need to evacuate, the report says, but with “limited understanding of radiation risks, they will experience high anxiety and may be non-compliant…”

“…The consequences of a nuclear attack in Southern California would be catastrophic,” the report says. “Nonetheless, government entities and first responders are expected to remain operational to preserve human life, maintain order, and aid in the recovery process.”

The report, which is largely directed at local, state, and federal agencies and first responders located in the Los Angeles region, notes that the federal government will likely be of limited help immediately after a nuclear blast.

“[T]here will be no significant federal assistance at the scene for 24-72 hours following the attack,” the bulletin says. (source)

The Pentagon is planning missile defense bases along the coast.

Congressman Mike Rogers, who sits on the House Armed Services Committee and chairs the Strategic Forces Subcommittee which oversees missile defence, said the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) was aiming to install extra defences at West Coast sites.

“It’s just a matter of the location, and the MDA making a recommendation as to which site meets their criteria,” the Alabama Congressman and Republican said.

When asked about the plan, MDA Deputy Director Rear Admiral Jon Hill said in a statement: “The Missile Defense Agency has received no tasking to site the Terminal High Altitude Air Defense System on the West Coast.”

The MDA is a unit of the US Defense Department. Congressman Rogers did not reveal the exact locations the agency is considering but said several sites are “competing” for the missile defense installations. source()

The goal, of course, is to shoot down the missiles before they can land in the United States and cause untold damage and death tolls. It may not be that easy though. Alarmingly, several experts have raised concerns about our ability to shoot down nukes before they hit.

8) Russia

Russia has been preparing for nuclear possibilities for quite a while now. Last year, it was reported that Russia was building fallout shelters all over the country and that 40 million citizens participated in a defense drill shortly before the US election, when tensions were running high over Syria.

But it didn’t end with the election because now Russia is up to its eyeballs trying to defuse the US/North Korea situation. Russian president Vladimir Putin recently received a letter from Kim Jong Un that stated they could launch an attack on the US “at any day” and could reach the mainland.

As well, Russia has voiced concerns about the animosity with NATO and recently drilled for the possibilities of nuclear or biological attacks. Russia has alleged that the US and Europe are developing nuclear weapons use procedures at their borders.

Preparing for a scenario in which Russia was attacked by “weapons of mass destruction by a hypothetical enemy,” soldiers were deployed in hazmat suits and gas masks.

Units specializing in chemical weapons were deployed in the Krasnodar and Stavropol regions, while at least 100 personnel in the neighboring Rostov region launched a parallel decontamination drill on Monday. It followed similar exercises held by Russian overseas troops in nearby Armenia over the weekend.

Also deployed were mobile laboratories and radioactive- and chemical-tracing reconnaissance vehicles capable of quarantining, assessing and potentially eliminating a chemical or nuclear threat. 

In recent weeks, Russia’s nuclear-capable forces practiced missile launches and flyovers in apparent offensive measures for a conflict scenario. (source)

Here is what would happen if a 10 kiloton nuclear strike occurred.

As I have written numerous times, if you aren’t at Ground Zero, a nuclear strike is very survivable. It isn’t one of those situations like The Road, where the whole world is a nuclear wasteland and people start eating each other to survive.

(This is an excerpt from my article, How to Prepare for a Nuclear Attack.)

Contrary to popular belief, a nuke won’t kill everyone within hundreds of miles. If you aren’t in the immediate blast radius, a nuclear strike is absolutely survivable.

The one-mile radius around the blast will be virtually unsurvivable. Within two miles, people will suffer 3rd-degree burns from the intense wave of heat.

If you are within two miles of the blast, the winds will be coming at about 600 miles per hour. This will take down buildings and cause a tremendous amount of pressure. Some experts recommend that you keep your mouth open to try and reduce the pressure on your eardrums. Looking at the blast could cause permanent blindness.

According to the DHS (source), 10 kilotons is the approximate size of nuclear weapon we could expect.

• Nearly everyone within a half-mile radius of the point of impact would die and most of the buildings would be demolished. This would be considered Ground Zero.


• The area within the next half mile would suffer extensive damage, fires, and serious injuries.


• Areas within three miles could see minor injuries to people and slight damage to their homes.


• The fallout would kill even more people. According to the DHS:


• Within 10 to 20 miles of the explosion, radioactive exposure would cause nausea and vomiting within hours and death without medical treatment.


• But for those near enough to the blast, experiencing more than 800R of radiation, not seeking shelter immediately would cause deaths with or without medical treatment, the study found.


• People would not be able to evacuate this area as fallout would arrive within just 10 minutes.

People upwind of the strike and outside the 20-mile radius would be unlikely to suffer any effects. People downwind would need to take shelter. Deaths from cancer that is related to the fallout could occur for many years after.

With all of these governments spending oodles of money trying to prepare their citizens for the unthinkable, it would be extremely wise to get ready, just in case.

You’ll need to plan to hunker down for 14-21 days. That means you’ll need food, a way to cook it, water, sanitation supplies, and other essentials to last for that amount of time. You should invest in a potassium iodide supplement to stave off the possibility of thyroid cancer. (Learn how to use them in this article with a printable version.)

*  *  *

In times like this, it’s more essential than ever to keep well-informed. (Sign up here for my daily emails and follow my website, Preppers Daily News.) Most importantly, go to this article to learn in-depth what you should do to prepare for the possibility of a nuclear attack. If the missiles are in the air, it’s far too late.