Daily Archives: January 21, 2019

January 21 The Test of Faith

Scripture Reading: James 1:2–8

Key Verse: James 1:12

Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him.

Most of us know the story of Joseph and the depth of his faith. Genesis 39–50 records the events of his life and how God provided emotional strength for him to rise above discouragement. The principle involved in Joseph’s life is one of extreme faith.

He didn’t enjoy being sold into bondage. Like any of us, he probably fought feelings of rejection, loneliness, and fear. He had worshiped and trusted God. Yet he ended up in a foreign land with no immediate hope of returning home to his family. Even there, Joseph held fast to his conviction—God had a plan for his life. He had been given a vision, and he refused to fall prey to sin and discontentment.

Each of us will face times of trial and discouragement. But it is here among life’s darker moments that God exposes the depth of our faith.

For the psalmist to write about his victorious journey through the valley of the shadow of death, there had to be a valley experience. For Joseph to testify to God’s faithfulness, there had to be an Egyptian encounter. For you to affirm the eternal love and strength of God, there must be a test of faith in your life as well. Remember, God will never abandon you. Just as He was with Joseph, He is with you—forever!

Precious Lord, despite the feelings of rejection, loneliness, and fear that sometimes flood my soul, I know You have a plan for me. Through all my trials, expose and then strengthen the depth of my faith.[1]


[1] Stanley, C. F. (1999). On holy ground (p. 22). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Morgan Stanley: “A Retest Of The December Lows Is Coming On Scary Fundamental News”

Last week, Morgan Stanley’s chief US equity strategist, Michael Wilson, doubled down on his reputation as one of Wall Street’s biggest bears, when having predicted much of the market turbulence in 2018 – which most of his peers missed – he again warned that with (1) valuations still too high and (2) earnings downside even greater than what has been priced, he expects some further deterioration in US economic data, and thinks “the S&P 500 will suffer a re-test of the lows we experienced in December, but on less negative momentum and better breadth.

Fast forward to this weekend, when in Morgan Stanley’s “Sunday Start” note, Wilson triples down on his warning, and urges clients to cash out of stocks ahead of an imminent retest of the 2018 lows.

We republish his note “Wait for the Retest” below, with highlights.

2019 has begun as strongly as 2018 ended badly. After the worst December since 1931, we’re on track for one of the best Januarys ever, with the MSCI All Country World Index up 4.5% and every region participating. Unfortunately, we don’t think this will hold up because the things we, and the market, have been worrying about for the past six months are now taking shape and turning out to be worse than we expected in some cases.

Specifically, economic growth is decelerating sharply and corporate earnings are being revised lower at a rate we haven’t seen since the global recession in 2015-16. Speaking of earnings, 4Q reporting season began last week. While it’s way too early to draw any conclusions, the EPS beat rate so far for the S&P 500 is only +0.75% – the lowest since 2016. As usual, financials have dominated the first week of reporting season, and this quarter the results are essentially coming in line with expectations which, in today’s world of managed earnings, amounts to a miss. Despite these weak results, financials were the best-performing sector on the week, both in the US and globally.

After a stretch of terrible performance in a stock or an index, positive price action on bad news can often be a strong buy signal, as it suggests the bad news is already in the price. In fact, it’s something I’ve been waiting for to get more constructive and blow the all-clear whistle for US equities more broadly. However, I can’t help but think that from this perspective, the strength in financials might be a bit of a trap. First, US financials were one of the worst performers last year, reaching their lowest valuations since 2011, a time when it wasn’t clear whether many of these companies would survive. In short, more was “in the price” for financials by the end of 2018 than perhaps any other sector. Second, earnings revisions have not yet troughed, in our view, and many companies have yet to report whose stocks are not pricing in bad results. Finally, the deterioration in the economic data is accelerating, thanks to the US government shutdown, ongoing trade uncertainty, unsuccessful Brexit negotiations and continued Fed balance sheet reduction.

Back in September, our call for a 2019 earnings recession in the US was out of consensus. But now that stocks have corrected and earnings are being revised lower, others are beginning to embrace our view and clients are starting to ask what the chances are that this turns into an economic recession. Our response has been that it doesn’t really matter to us because an earnings recession is the same thing to the market and it essentially got priced in this past December. I don’t know of a single prognosticator calling for an economic recession, but if that view gains traction, it’s likely to be a buying opportunity, not a time to sell.

The moment of recognition by the consensus of either bad or good news is typically the time for investors to go the other way. As an example, think about last year’s euphoria around tax cuts. The consensus got excessively bullish in January, precisely the wrong time. I think we could be setting up for the exact opposite situation this year as the negative news flow reaches a peak.

December’s sell-off was scary, with a large majority of stocks pricing in a recession and breaking support on very high volume. Some of this was due to poor Fed communication and tight year-end liquidity, but we also think the market was coming around to our view on earnings recession risk. In technical terms, this was a momentum low. Typically, the market needs to revisit that low on price but with less momentum to mark a definitive buying opportunity. We call that a retest, and it usually happens when the bad things the market has been worrying about become so glaring that they’re in every headline.

We think this time is no different and expect to see a retest as economic and earnings data deteriorate while concerns linger around the trade deadline and the Fed’s balance sheet reduction. Our advice is to lighten up here as the market rallies and wait for a retest of the December lows on what may seem like scary fundamental news, mixed in with more political theatre. In addition, we think the stocks that have been hit the hardest will prove to be the best buys as the rolling bear market turns into a rolling bottom. Think of it as a First-In, FirstOut (FIFO) process. Indeed, the recent strength in higher-beta stocks like financials, homebuilders and energy means they fit the bill.

We just think you’ll get a better chance to buy them lower, along with most other stocks.

Source: Morgan Stanley: “A Retest Of The December Lows Is Coming On Scary Fundamental News”

With Radical Muslims – Israel Hating Representatives in the House – the Possibilities are Frightening

Absolute Truth from the Word of God

Have you seen some of  the various videos about Rashida Tlaib since she was elected to our House of Representatives?

From timesofisrael.com

Wiesenthal Center slams Muslim lawmakers for anti-Semitic, anti-Israel remarks

The Jewish human rights group writes to Nancy Pelosi to complain about ‘extreme’ comments from newly elected Democrats Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar

The Simon Wiesenthal Center wrote to House speaker Nancy Pelosi on Friday to complain about comments made by two freshman Muslim Congresswomen, labeling them “extreme anti-Israel and anti-Semitic statements.”

The Jewish human rights group singled out Michigan Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib for comments she made earlier in the month questioning the loyalty of lawmakers who were pushing a bill that would protect states that penalize Israel boycotters.

Tlaib, in a January 6 tweet, attacked a Senate bill initiated by Senator Marco Rubio and Senator James Risch, an Idaho Republican, that incorporates four Middle East-related bills that languished in…

View original post 965 more words

‘Fake news’ is okay if it’s about #RussiaGate: Top 7 fake ‘collusion’ stories the media pushed

BuzzFeed’s ‘bombshell’ claim last week that Donald Trump told ex-lawyer Michael Cohen to lie to congress is just the latest in a long line of ‘Russiagate’ stories that have later turned out to be false.

But BuzzFeed’s rubbished article is part of a phenomenon of what could be termed ‘acceptable fake news’ — fake news that gets a pass from the media because it serves a certain narrative. In this case, it furthers the ‘Russiagate’ narrative, which the mainstream media has been pushing breathlessly for two years. Lacking hard proof that Trump ‘colluded’ with Russia to win the 2016 election, they have clung to anything shred of fake evidence they can find.

Last week, one astute Twitter user compiled a list of a whopping 42 Russiagate stories which were billed as bombshells but which ended up needing to be retracted or corrected. Here are seven of the most scandalous instances.

I’ll start a thread here to count them (I had started one for a CounterPunch article more than a year ago, but gave up partly because the list just kept growing as I tied to write). So:

— Doug Johnson Hatlem (@djjohnso) January 19, 2019

1. MSNBC pushed line that WikiLeaks released ‘fake’ Clinton emails

When WikiLeaks published the emails belonging to Hillary Clinton aide John Podesta in 2016, MSNBC sought to actively encourage its viewers to believe the emails were doctored by Russia.

They based that spurious claim on the fact that a fake transcript of a Clinton speech to Goldman Sachs was drifting around Twitter. The fake transcript had not been published by WikiLeaks, however. Rather, it was the creation of a pro-Clinton troll who had intended to trick Trump supporters into believing it was real so he could later embarrass them for their gullibility. MSNBC reporters who used the fake Twitter transcript to tarnish WikiLeaks’ authentic documents never corrected their false claims.

2. WaPo claims Russia ‘hacked’ the Vermont power grid

In one of the most infamous cases of a botched Russia-related story, the Washington Post claimed that Russia had hacked the Vermont power grid. In its zeal to deliver bombshell proof that Russia was attempting to attack the US, the Post reporters didn’t even bother to contact the utility company which could have told them that there had been no hacking or penetration of the power grid at all The post admitted later in an editor’s note that the story was fake.

3. CNN fires three journalists over botched story

It’s not often journalists who publish fake Russia-related ‘bombshells’ face real consequences, but last June, three CNN journalists, including the executive editor of a shiny new ‘investigative’ branch had to resign following the retraction of a false story which claimed Congress was investigating a Russian investment fund “with ties” to Trump’s team. The story quoted a single anonymous source and CNN later admitted that its reporters failed to follow “some standard editorial procedures” before publishing it.

10. A CNN Russia/Trump story based on a single anonymous source had to be retracted and led to the resignation of three CNN journalists. https://t.co/Im5VIrx02U

— Doug Johnson Hatlem (@djjohnso) January 19, 2019

4. Oops? CNN gets date on email wrong, causes mass panic

In a rush to prove that the Trump campaign had advance knowledge of and access to hacked DNC emails published by WikiLeaks, CNN (again) got the date of an email wrong. CNN claimed “multiple” sources had told them the email about the documents had been sent to the Trump campaign on September 4, but in reality, it had been sent on September 14 — a day after the WikiLeaks documents were made public — not, as CNN had claimed, nine days before.

I still think the single worst humiliation was when CNN screamed EXCLUSIVE!!!: Trump Jr. had advanced access to the WikiLeaks archive, & MSNBC’s @KenDilanianNBC claimed he “independently confirmed” this, all based on a wrong email date – they still haven’t explained that. But….

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) January 19, 2019

5. ABC’s dud on Michael Flynn and ‘contact’ with Russians

Veteran ABC journalist Brian Ross was suspended after reporting last December that Trump had ordered former adviser Michael Flynn to contact Russian officials during the presidential campaign. It turned out, Trump had made this request of Flynn after he had won the election — not an unusual request for someone about to become the president of the US. Ross left ABC for good a while later after a career littered with embarrassing reporting blunders.

BREAK: ABC has suspended @BrianRoss for 4 weeks without pay for going to air with inaccurate story that said candidate Trump (instead of President-elect Trump) had told Flynn to contact the Russians pic.twitter.com/eanGzSGeYn

— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) December 2, 2017

6. Russian supersonic tech or…crickets?

MSNBC reported last year that Russia was likely responsible for a supersonic attack on US diplomats stationed in the Cuba embassy. One ‘expert’ appeared on the channel stating that possible Russian “sophisticated microwaves” targeted the diplomats, while a reporter claimed Russian guilt had been “backed up” by interceptions of Russian communications. Meanwhile, intelligence sources told the New Yorker that no such evidence existed. When the Associated Press later released an audio recording, two US scientists deciphered that the sounds the diplomats had heard were more than likely the sounds of a species of Caribbean crickets during mating season.

Remember when the US media credulously repeated the Reagan administration’s claims about Soviet “yellow rain” chemical warfare in Afghanistan & elsewhere? It turned out to be bee crap. Now Americans in Cuba are being attacked by crickets. https://t.co/jNraU3iGa6 by @ggreenwald

— Jon Schwarz (@schwarz) January 21, 2019

7. Guardian claims Manafort had ‘secret meetings’ with Assange

WikiLeaks raised more than $55,000 in donations to sue the Guardian after the British newspaper published a story alleging (without corroborated evidence) that Julian Assange had held secret meetings with former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort at the Ecuadorean embassy in London, where Assange has been living since 2012. The story which WikiLeaks claims is completely false — and which has also been questioned by other journalists — was written by Luke Harding, a Guardian reporter who has been accused before of fabricating stories and who went AWOL after the report was received with serious skepticism.

7/ In less than 48 hours, we went from “MANAFORT SECRETLY MET WITH ASSANGE 3 TIMES IN THE EMBASSY” (Guardian) to “MAYBE THE RUSSIANS TRICKED THE GUARDIAN INTO PUBLISHING A FALSE STORY” (Politico’s CIA writer). Next: why do people not trust news outlets??? It’s so unfair!

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 28, 2018

Unfortunately, the regularity with which these Russiagate stories have turned out to fake still hasn’t raised any red flags with establishment journalists, who seem more eager to bolster a narrative than to uncover actual facts.

Source: ‘Fake news’ is okay if it’s about #RussiaGate: Top 7 fake ‘collusion’ stories the media pushed

Senate to Investigate Obama-Era Scandals, Democrats Furious

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham just announced that the Senate Judiciary Committee is going to be investigation Obama-era scandals, and Democrats are furious, as The Hill reports:

New tensions are flaring on the Senate Judiciary Committee over plans by newly minted Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to dig into Obama-era scandals.

Graham, a close ally of President Trump’s, has outlined several areas he wants to probe now that he has the Judiciary Committee gavel.

They include the FBI’s handling of its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server and the FISA warrant applications targeting former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), asked about Graham’s plans, started laughing and compared it to the “thrilling days of yesteryear.”

“This is going to be like the History Channel it turns out. Instead of taking a look at the current issues, Lindsey Graham wants to go back and answer important questions about the Bermuda Triangle and Hillary Clinton,” Durbin told The Hill.

Durbin said he “concerned” about Graham’s plans but quipped that “you know there is that question about Jimmy Carter which he probably wants to ask.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), another member of the panel, said maybe Graham should “investigate Benghazi some more too”— an apparent reference to a years-long House probe that Democrats considered a political stunt.

Good for Lindsey Graham!

You know you’re on the right track when the Democrats get furious about what you plan to do.

Graham told reporters earlier this month that he would do a “deep dive into the FISA issue” as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. And he told Fox News last month that he believed the FBI “phoned in” the Clinton probe and were “in the tank” for the Democratic presidential candidate.

“There’s a certain unevenness here about how you investigate campaigns,” Graham said, adding that he believed there was “100 percent” a double standard between how the bureau handled the investigation into Clinton compared to investigating the Trump campaign.

Graham also said late last year that he would “totally” investigate the FBI’s handling of its investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and Clinton’s email. He added separately last month that he would “get to the bottom of” the FISA warrant applications against Page and that he wanted to have an “an in-depth discussion” with Comey.

Asked about his investigation plans and the criticism from Democrats, a spokeswoman for Graham pointed to a pair of tweets from the GOP senator on Friday where he doubled down.

Graham described as “stunning” a Fox News report that Justice Department official Bruce Ohr discussed his views on a controversial research opposition dossier on Trump with individuals now on special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe.

“These purported revelations will NOT get a pass in Senate Judiciary Committee,” Graham added.

Hopefully the Senate investigation is able to gain access to documents that the House was unable to obtain due to FBI stonewalling.

American politics will be forever tainted until the true story of the Obama administration’s nefarious misdeeds is told.

Let the games begin!

Source: Senate to Investigate Obama-Era Scandals, Democrats Furious

01/21/2019 — Wretched

WR2019-0121

•Your questions answered by Phil Johnson
•Should we remove bad rulers?
•What does Phil think of Young Life?
•Was Phil unfair to Bill Weise?
•When can I leave a biblical church?
•John MacArthur criticizes Anemic Preaching
•Were backslidden college students ever saved?

Download Now (right click and save)

via 01/21/2019 — Wretched

Federal Reserve Confesses Sole Responsibility For All Recessions

Authored by David Haggith via The Great Recession blog,

In a surprisingly candid admission, two former Federal Reserve chairs have stated that the Federal Reserve alone is responsible for creating all recessions in the United States.

First, former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke said that

Expansions don’t die of old age. They get murdered.

– MarketWatch

To clarify this statement, former Chair Janet Yellen placed the murder weapon in the Fed’s hands:

Two things usually end them… One is financial imbalances, and the other is the Fed.

Think that through, and you quickly realize that both of those things are the Fed. Is there anyone left standing who would not say the Fed’s quantitative easing in the past decade was the biggest cause of financial imbalances all over the world in history? Moreover, whose profligate monetary policies led to the Great Financial Crisis that gave us the Great Recession?

So, the Fed loads the gun with financial causes and then pulls the trigger. In fact, I think it would be hard to find a major financial imbalance in the US that the Fed did not have a hand in creating or, at least, enabling. Therefore, if those are the only two causes, then it is always the Federal Reserve that causes recessions by its own admission.

And, yet, those Fed dons look so pleased with themselves.

Yellen went on to say that when the Fed is the culprit, it is generally because the central bank is forced to tighten policy to curtail inflation and ends up overplaying its hand. (She didn’t mention that the Fed’s monetary policy may have a hand in creating financial imbalances.)

Exactly, nor did she mention that the inflation they were “forced” to curtail always happens because of financial imbalances the Fed created or enabled. That is why I call our expansion-recession cycles, rinse-and-repeat cycles. Therefore, the Fed is only forced by its own ill-conceived actions. First you have to create the imbalance, which causes the economy and stocks to inflate, then you have to pull the trigger to shoot that down by tightening into a recession, which the Fed always does:

Bernanke elaborated on Yellen’s point, accusing the central bank of, in essence, murder. It takes an aggressive act on the part of the monetary authority to bring an expanding economy to a halt and cause it to shift into reverse.

Yellen and Bernanke were speaking at the annual meeting of the American Economic Association in Atlanta earlier this month in the company of current Fed Chair Jerome Powell.

As I demonstrated in my two earlier articles this week (“Does Inverted Yield Curve Indicate Recession?” and “What is an inverted yield curve and what does it mean?“), the Fed carries out this act of econocide by getting the yield curve to invert via its forced interest changes. As shown in those articles, every recession has been immediately preceded by a Fed-created inversion of the yield curve — the Fed’s smoking gun.

The Fed Fix Is Almost In

As noted in those articles, today’s yield curve has already slipped into its penultimate inversion. First (on December third), three-year notes started paying more interest than five-year notes. (The five-year was at 2.83% interest, while the three-year hit just over that at 2.84%.) In essence, investors were betting the economy would be a tad better in five years than it would in three.

Within a matter of weeks, the three-year notes were paying more than seven-year notes. Then, just about Christmastime, they started paying more than eight-year notes, inverting the yield curve even further out. The orange recession indicator light comes on when they take the next step of paying more than ten-year notes; and above that we go full recessionary red! The first three came all within in a month, so the rest may come just as quickly.

In fact, we’re so close that one more rate increase by the Fed could pull the trigger. This is why Powell can be so reassuring about pulling back soon on targeted interest-rate increases. He knows he’s already operating with a hair trigger because of the Fed’s other tightening action in rolling bonds off of its balance sheet.

Like a skilled sharp-shooter, Powell recently said the Fed is “watching and waiting” before it pulls the trigger with its next rate increase. At the same time, he suggested his balance-sheet reduction won’t end for awhile (and, of course, the Fed knows that its balance sheet reduction is skewing the yield curve faster than the Fed’s targeted interest-rate increases.

I’ve said before that those interest-rate increases are now just playing verbal catch-up to what the balance sheet reduction is doing in the open market. In other words, the balance sheet reduction is pulling the Fed’s targeted interest rates up, regardless of what is says, so it is pressed to state it intends an increase just to keep up with the effects of balance-sheet reduction. Last summer the Fed tactic admitted this when…

The Fed raised the target range for its benchmark rate by a quarter point to 1.75 percent to 2 percent, but only increased the rate it pays banks on cash held with it overnight to 1.95 percent. The step was designed to keep the federal funds rate from rising above the target range. Previously, the Fed set the rate of interest on reserves at the top of the target range. –Bloomberg

In other words, the Fed had to change the way it calibrates some interest rates because other factors than their change in their stated target rate were driving rates up. In order to keep bank demand for Fed funds from pushing the rate above 2%, the Fed set its stated rate at 1.95% to create some headroom. That’s explained as…

Officials have said that, as they drain cash from the system by shrinking the balance sheet, a rise in the federal funds rate within their target range would be an important sign that liquidity is becoming scarce…. The increase appears to be mainly driven by another factor: the U.S. Treasury ramped up issuance of short-term U.S. government bills, which drove up yields on those and other competing assets, including in the overnight market.

And that is what is now happening, but they are still planning to keep tightening by reducing their balance sheet. What is not said there is that the major reason the US Treasury is ramping up its issuance of government bills is that the Fed’s unwind is forcing them to refinance maturing bills on the open market as the Fed now refuses to refi those bills. I’ve maintained for a couple of years that the unwind will drive up other interest rates, causing problems throughout the economy.

Gunsmoke And Mirrors

So, the Fed’s recent talk about reducing the number of rate increases in the Fed’s interest target is slight of hand because the Fed’s unwind is doing the heavy lifting here, driving up rates faster than the Fed changes its stated target rate. Powell assures everyone the Fed will slow down its interest-rate increases, even as the Fed pushes right ahead with its balance-sheet unwind, which is doing the most to invert the yield curve.

Powells only defense against concerns expressed about balance-sheet reduction was…

“We are looking carefully at that, and the truth is, we don’t know with any precision,” Fed Chairman Jerome Powell told reporters on Wednesday when asked about the increase. “Really, no one does. You can’t run experiments with one effect and not the other.”

Not too reassuring to hear the Fed Head say no one really has any idea what impact its balance-sheet unwind will have on other interest rates. Does the Fed not know, or does the Fed just not want to say what it does know?

For additional cover as to whether the yield-curve inversions the Fed creates will cause a recession this time as they did in all previous times, Yellen, protested, as I noted in an earlier article this week, that this time is different:

Now there is a strong correlation historically between yield curve inversions and recessions, but let me emphasize that correlation is not causation, and I think that there are good reasons to think that the relationship between the slope of the yield curve and the business cycle may have changed.

It’s not every day that the Fed admits total culpability for the death of every expansionary period. Nor that it admits that the inflation its expansionist monetary policies create force it to become the culprit. Nor that it routinely overplays its hand.

Apparently, the Fed Heads are so comfortable with all of this (hence the smarmy looks in their photos above) that the economic murderers can confess in broad daylight every murder they are responsible for with complete impunity, even as they tell you where the bodies are buried. However, because they still have their next economic massacre to commit right before your eyes and don’t want you to stop them, they wish to assure you that “we can’t possibly know what will happen” now or “this time is different. Things have changed.”

The words “I can’t know what will happen” when a gunslinger is twirling his cocked and loaded pistol with his finger on the trigger, should not give you comfort.

Perhaps all these confession now will enable them to smile even bigger when the slaughter is over, and they know they did it this time in broad daylight.

Of course, there is one major difference this time. In all previous times, the Fed didn’t have the most massive balance-sheet unwind pushing interest rates all around so it had to rely more on its conventional tool of incremental changes in the its targeted interest rate. The new existence of that big gun mean it can who you it is putting away the little gun to disarm you because it has a cannon pointing at you from just inside the woods to your left. Thus, Powell said disarmingly,

More rate hikes wasn’t a pre-set plan and the forecast of two moves was conditional on a “very strong outlook for 2019.” – MarketWatch

In other words, keep your eye on the rate hikes I keep talking about (the little gun), not on the big balance sheet reductions that we put on autopilot so we don’t have to talk about them. Like a great hunter, Powell said the Fed can be patient.

Some analysts believe the Fed’s runoff of its balance sheet is hurting financial markets and want the central bank to end the program.

Gee, ya think? A runoff that intends to force the US government to refinance an additional $2 trillion over the next 3-4 years on the open market might be hurting financial markets more than a quarter-point increase in the Fed’s interest target every few months?

One analyst who disagrees with Powell is Peter Boockvar, chief investment officer at Bleakley Advisory Group:

“It’s no coincidence that accidents begin to pick-up the deeper you get into tightening … QE inflated markets to very high valuations. It’s wishful thinking to believe QT isn’t going to have an impact.”

By shrinking its balance sheet, the Fed is draining the liquidity that sent stocks booming. – CNN

Some of the Fed’s colleagues at other central banks also agree and express concern about what this will do to them:

Last month, Irjit Patel, the governor of the Reserve Bank of India, pleaded with the Fed to slow plans to shrink its balance sheet. If the Fed doesn’t shift course, “a crisis in the rest of the dollar bond markets is inevitable,” he wrote in an op-ed in the Financial Times.

Other Fed members are just as aware of the Fed’s institutional murder rates as Bernanke and Yellen. St. Louis Fed President James Bullard told the Wall Street Journal this month that a recessionary risk is being telegraphed by what is now happening in the yield curve and that the Fed is causing the flattening of the curve toward inversion. So, these guys all appear to be well aware of what they are doing.

However, to maintain the distraction, Bullard also said,

In separate remarks to reporters …. he was open to a revisiting the balance sheet runoff but doesn’t think it is damaging markets as some argue. Bullard [said] that if the balance sheet runoff was impacting bond market as some suggest, then yields would be moving higher instead of the steady decline seen since November.

The latter would be happening, except that money has been pouring rapidly out of stocks and into bonds due to the rate increases the unwind created in September and October. What he ignores is the fact that rate increases were so substantial they sucked massive amounts of money out of the stock market in a flood of capital flight because all of a sudden treasury interest looked quite enticing. That, of course, pushed those rates down some in November.

So, “Nothing to see there, folks. Keep your eye on the little gun; and, oh, did we tell you that we have murdered every economic expansion in history?”

Who’s your daddy?

Now that we’ve heard the confessions from the murderers and have experienced the diversions that will allow the next murder to happen as much in plain sight as the confessions just happened, let’s look at the case from another angle: What has been keeping the stock market alive and hopping over the past decade?

Let me lay out evidence that it is clearly the Fed.

Exhibit A: What turned around the market’s major crash in 2009? The Fed’s QE1. Does anyone think the market would have turned around without that massive intervention? Was that intervention with hundreds of billions of dollars mere window-dressing, or was it the greatest financial intervention to a financial crisis the world had ever seen?

Exhibit B: What turned the market around the next time it “corrected” as soon as QE1 ended? Was it not instant QE2? More hundreds of billions of dollars?

Exhibit C: What saved the market when Republicans played roulette with the nation’s credit rating in the summer of 2011 and shot themselves in the foot politically when Standard & Poor’s gave the nation its first credit downgrade before Republicans even had the chance to let the nation default? Was it not the immediate promise of an ever bigger, indefinitely ongoing new kind of QE called Operation Twist, which morphed into QE3?

Exhibit D: Then, when markets tumbled in 2015 and 2016, because the Fed was backing off from monetary stimulus, their colleagues in other countries jumped in with their own QE. More than $5 trillion worth in 2016! All told, the world’s central banks have pumped in $15 trillion since then.

But now they are all stopping!

Exhibit E: The prosecution presents a full picture of all central-bank stock salvation:

The Fed may claim that it does not attempt to rescue markets and that it looks only at economic indicators, yet somehow every time the market took a major plunge in the graph above, the Fed was instantly on the scene with a new invention of monetary stimulus in massive doses. Of course, “correlation is not causation.” Correlation is pretty interesting, though, especially when it happens at every plunge, except the one at the top that is plunging much further than any other time on this graph … because one thing IS different: No one is stepping in with salvation this time.

If the Fed has been the salvation of the market again and again, lifting it higher and higher, what happens if the Fed and other CBs let the stock market drop? Do you think they won’t do that? The highest authorities in the Fed just told you they did it every other time. First, they create massive “financial instability,” as Yellen said, otherwise known as “bubbles,” which grow due to the Fed’s infinite capacity to create monetary stimulus. They let these grow until inflation finally “forces” them to tighten until they crash them.

The prosecution presents Exhibit F:

This one is the Fed and all its major partners in crime. When did stock markets start to plunge all over the world? Wasn’t it as soon as global QT started to reverse at the end of that graph in 2018? Ah, but “correlation is not causation.” Except that it kind of is when you keep finding correlation everywhere you turn.

If the defense wants to argue the US market is not utterly dependent on the Fed’s constant protection, let me ask, “What did the market do in September of 2018 when the Fed removed one little word from its market-soothing speeches? Accommodative. Just as it watched its balance sheet-reduction up to full rewind speed.” It took its biggest plunge by far in the entire ten-year recovery period. As nearly everyone was saying, nothing bad suddenly emerged in the economy. All that changed was the Fed to merely implying it would be less accommodative to market concerns as it moved to full unwind.

If you still think the Fed isn’t going to kill the economy this time, I have one more question for you: When was the last time the Fed raised rates in the middle of a major market “correction?” How about never. Yet, now it is raising rates and reducing money supply via balance-sheet reduction at the same time that it hints it is removing accommodation.

But balance-sheet reduction doesn’t matter, right?

“We don’t believe that our issuance [new bond to replace those rolling off the balance sheet] is an important part of the story of the market turbulence that began in the fourth quarter of last year. But, I’ll say again, if we reached a different conclusion, we wouldn’t hesitate to make a change,” Powell said. “If we came to the view that the balance sheet normalization plan — or any other aspect of normalization — was part of the problem, we wouldn’t hesitate to make a change.” – MarketWatch

In other words, “Don’t look at the big gun. Nothing to see there.” Said the people who have just told you that none of their expansions ever ended until they murdered it!

Does the Fed have motive?

Don’t ask me why the Fed will kill its own recovery. It is enough that it admits it always does. So, I’ll leave determining which of the many possible “why’s” up to you. Maybe the Fed will cop an insanity plea and say that even it doesn’t know why it does the things it does. Whatever their actual motive, this sure has the Fed’s unswerving M.O. all over it. It has their fingerprints and their multiple confessions of guilt.

Still, let me lay out a couple of motives that are popular among those many people attribute to the Fed just to show there are plenty of possible motives out there:

Maybe the Fed’s member banks, who own and run the Fed (as its only shareholders and as governing board members who have huge influence over who the additional government-appointed board members are), like to repossess things. That would be a motive.

Or maybe they want to create a new cashless, digital, global monetary system. That would be a motive.

Or maybe, if they can crash things as perennially as Japan has done for score or more of years, they can get permission to start buying stocks directly, and use their infinite money supply, as Japan, has done to take major ownership in all the stocks of the nation.

Numerous conspiracy theories spend entire books making a strong case for different motives. I won’t land on one, but will note that all that matters is that there are plenty of motives to choose from.

Sure, Yellen protested that “correlation isn’t causation,” but, on the other, she admitted causation by saying that, when the Fed is the culprit, it is generally because the central bank is forced to tighten policy to curtail inflation — inflation that only the Fed causes by creating trillions of dollars monetary stimulus. There only struggle this time to stay within their M.O. is that they have failed to create inflation in the general economy that they are supposed to govern. Maybe that is why they have pushed the expansion into the longest in history because they are obsessed with following their usual M.O., and inflation didn’t cooperate this time to “force” them to tighten into recession (their cover story).

So, we have multiple confessions of murder by known Fed ringleaders. We have numerous pieces of circumstantial evidence that support their confessions. We have many possible motives. And, even the fact that the Fed continued pushing expansion longer than it has with more and more rounds of QE can be explained by its M.O. How many times has the Fed said they don’t understand why they couldn’t get inflation to rise to their 2% target for years. They could hardly claim inflation concerns when everyone knew CPI was under the target they’ve always said they want. Now it’s there. So, everything is in place.

I rest my case.

Source: Federal Reserve Confesses Sole Responsibility For All Recessions

The KKK, Black Genocide and Abortion They Are All Connected Says Day Gardner, President of National Black Pro-Life Union

In 1865, the Civil War ended and the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution officially abolished slavery. That same year, a group of Democrat ex-Confederate soldiers formed the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). They were domestic terrorists that sought to overthrow the Republican state governments in the South during the Reconstruction Era by using violence and intimidation against freed former slaves and their white supporters. They prevented African-Americans from voting, getting an education, competing for jobs, or owning property.

A year later, the Civil Rights Act conferred citizenship and equal rights, guaranteed due process and equal protection under the law for all citizens.

From 1870 to 1895, many blacks, as members of the Republican Party, gained elective office throughout the nation, but outbreaks of violence against blacks especially in the South persisted.

By 1915, four million blacks had traveled north in what is called the Great Migration. They sought better jobs and wanted to escape escalated racism and violence occurring in the South. America’s northern cities overflowed with freed slaves and their extended families.

Former farmers and field workers became bell hops, butlers, maids, doormen, cooks, and nannies–they shined shoes and cleaned toilets. By 1920, African American writers, poets and artists emerged in a period of creativity known as the Harlem Renaissance. Black people worked hard–starting businesses, buying homes, securing better education and began to realize the American Dream came not only in white–but in beautiful shades of black as well.

Meanwhile, the KKK raged a lynching war on blacks in the south while Margaret Sanger and friends devised an evil plan of their own. Sanger was a staunch believer in eugenics, “race hygiene.” Her book, The Pivot of Civilization, {1922} contained her solution to the negro problem. She touted sterilization of “genetically inferior races” which she called “human weeds.”

Since blacks were known to be blessed with large families, Sanger’s plan had to include limiting the growth of the black population by eliminating our children.

Sanger associated with known racists who shared her belief that America would be a better place without black people. She emerged a speaker at a KKK rally in Silver Lake, New Jersey, in 1926.

In 1939, Sanger initiated the NEGRO PROJECT, a simple plan–get rid of black people through abortion and sterilization. She knew that some blacks would figure out her sinister plot, so she decided to “pay” clergy and charismatic members in the black community to deliver the deceptive message to their congregations and neighborhoods.

In a letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, Sanger wrote: “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the negroes is through religious appeal. We don’t want word to go out that we want to exterminate the negro population. The minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Sanger did her homework! She knew we were a culturally religious body of people and she knew that for blacks, at that time, the church was our meeting place –our town hall. The bottom line is that she used black people to destroy black communities in the same way Satan used Judas to deliver JESUS.

Today, black ministers, politicians, and community organizers are still “hired” to support Margaret Sanger’s form of ethnic cleansing. With full knowledge of how abortion is decimating the black community, they, like Judas, have sold their souls for “30 pieces of silver.”

Margaret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in America. It’s a billion dollar-a-year abortion business that thrives on blood money for slaughtering children, especially black children. Abortion mills continue to set up camp in minority neighborhoods delivering Margaret Sanger’s big lie message. The lie that says if you are a poor, black woman or girl you will have a better life — a more successful life with fewer children. The lie insinuates that killing an unborn baby is no big deal, especially a black baby which tends to be viewed as a burden on society and therefore less worthy of life.

Until Margaret Sanger’s death in 1966 she pushed the ideals she started decades earlier. It makes one wonder why almost nothing has changed in urban areas largely populated by poor blacks and other minorities. Our inner cities have poor schools, high crime, high unemployment and broken families yet, their elected officials stay focused on funding abortion on demand. Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood still does big business slaughtering black babies in inner city abortion mills. For instance, in New York City, the abortion rate in the black community is at 60%, which means more black babies are aborted than are born.

The KKK brutally killed about 3,500 black people since it began in 1865, Sanger’s Planned Parenthood is responsible for 19 million black deaths since 1973.

The Bible tells us every child is a God-given gift, a reward and a heritage, therefore all are worthy of life. The truth is ALL lives matter!

We must remember why the killing began–and then vow in JESUS’ name to end it.

Source: The KKK, Black Genocide and Abortion They Are All Connected Says Day Gardner, President of National Black Pro-Life Union

Ex-Obama border chief defies Dems to warn that border situation is a ‘real crisis’ that needs a wall

(Image: screenshot)

It seems Fox News Channel once again proved there are credible voices in favor of building President Donald Trump’s border wall.

The network gave former Obama administration Border Patrol chief Mark Morgan another chance to explain the effectiveness of border walls like the one Trump is calling for.

https://www.mrctv.org/embed/536357

Morgan noted on “Fox and Friends” Saturday that the situation at the southern U.S. border is, in fact, a “real crisis,” discussing reports of hundreds of illegal immigrants digging a tunnel recently under an existing Arizona barrier.

“We can put that talking point to bed,” Morgan told host Ed Henry, referring to claims by Democrats that the president has “manufactured” the crisis at the border. He went on to criticize current U.S. laws that appear to give migrants an incentive to illegally cross the border.

“We actually are enabling and providing an incentive to these migrants to actually come here illegally,” he said. “Our asylum laws are broke, and we have really bad court decisions like Flores that have educated these immigrants — that they know that once they set one foot on American soil, that they’re going to be allowed into our country.”

“What is their incentive to come to the points of entry and try it legally when they can circumvent that system, and once they hit American soil a couple of days, they’re allowed in our country never to be heard from again?” Morgan asked.

He admitted that even though he worked under former President Obama, and was removed from his position soon after Trump took office, he has decided to break his “silence” on the need for a border wall, backing Trump’s stand.

“That’s actually why I have broken my silence because the things that are being said like, for example, like the wall is ineffective or the wall is immoral,” he said, referring to comments made by Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. “Those are not only false but disingenuous arguments.”

“Again, go back — go to San Diego, Nogales, El Paso. Everywhere where that wall is part of a multi-layer approach of infrastructure, technology, and personnel, it’s worked,” he told Henry.

Although no one has asserted that the wall structure is “perfect” or “can’t be defeated,” Morgan said, “something that’s 90 percent effective” is ” a pretty good start.”

Source: Ex-Obama border chief defies Dems to warn that border situation is a ‘real crisis’ that needs a wall