Monday, June 1, 2015
President Barack Obama’s evolution to wholeheartedly support same-sex “marriage” has turned a new leaf, as he used a five-year-old’s letter posted on social media last week to champion his administration’s aggressive homosexual agenda.
Tweeting a letter to the president recently written by Yasmeen, her five-year-old niece, the girl’s aunt publicized her message for the world to see.
“A letter from my 5 year old niece,” the aunt posted on her Twitter account. “Right out of the mouths of babes!”
In the letter heralded by her aunt, Yasmeen asked Obama to “stop war” before urging him to forward his agenda to expand same-sex marriage to all Americans in every state.
“[P]lease give a speech to tell everyone that can marry who they want," Yasmeen pleaded to the president in her personal note made public.
Using the young and the innocent
Elated to see his LGBT “civil rights” campaign reach the youth generation all the way to preschool, Obama seized the moment to strategically promote his marriage-for-all agenda — the month before the United States Supreme Court rules on whether “gay” marriage will be legal in all 50 states.
In response to Yasmeen’s prompt for the president to be more vocal in promoting same-sex marriage for all in his speeches, Obama Tweeted his appreciation for her being on board with his campaign.
“Tell your niece I really like her letter,” Obama posted on his presidential Twitter account on May 22 just hours after the post from Yasmeen’s aunt. “Couldn’t agree more!”
‘Gay’ agenda fast forward
Obama’s progression to become what many in the LGBT community dub as “the first gay president,” has been evident during both his terms in the White House.
One year before announcing his evolution to support “gay” marriage, Obama , Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen sent a certification to Congress in 2011 to officially repeal former President Bill Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” to normalize homosexual behavior in the U.S. Armed Forces.
Not long after being elected to serve his second term in office, Obama made it clear to Americans that redefining marriage from coast to cast as a top priority of his administration. His administration has taken action since then to fast-track America’s acceptance of the controversial and unbiblical practice — oftentimes inciting state officials to break the law to promote its cause.
“[F]ormer Attorney General Eric Holder told state attorneys general that they could ignore state laws promoting actual marriage, and Obama has said that federal contractors must provide the same benefits to "married" same-sex couples that they provide to married heterosexual couples,” LIfeSiteNews.com reports.
Just last month, Obama signed an executive order to christen gender-neutral restrooms in the White House as a statement of its full-fledged support of the LGBT agenda.
When Obama took office in January 2009, only one state — Massachusetts — legalized same-sex marriage. Today, more than a year away from the end of the president’s second term, 37 states have legalized the controversial unions.
However, this rapid acceptance of same-sex marriage is not fast enough for the Obama administration, as White House officials are fully behind Supreme Court Justices who are looking to legalize the unions in all 50 states — an anticipated decision that is slated for next month.
Just last week, Ireland became the 20th nation in the world to legalize same-sex marriage nationally, with Greenland close behind in its wake, becoming the 21th country to allow the highly contended unions nationwide. In the end of June, advocates of homosexual behavior are hoping that the U.S. will be number 22.
Credit to OneNewsNow
There has been a lot of talk about things that are going to happen in September, but something that has been almost totally overlooked is the fact that the UN Security Council is likely to be voting on a UN resolution which will establish a Palestinian state at that time. Right now, France is working on a proposed resolution which would give formal UN Security Council recognition to the Palestinians, would declare that a divided Jerusalem is the capital of both Israel and a Palestinian state, and would set the 1967 borders as the baseline for future negotiations which would establish the final borders between the two nations. It is being reported that France will submit this resolution for a vote after the 70th session of the UN General Assembly begins on the 15th of September. At this moment, 136 nations have already recognized a Palestinian state, but the United States has always blocked recognition by the UN Security Council. This time may be different though, because there are quite a few indications that Barack Obama actually plans to back the French resolution in September. If that happens, and the UN Security Council approves this resolution, it is going to have enormous implications for all of us.
Not a lot of people understand that this is happening, so let’s take this step by step.
Back in March, the Wall Street Journal and other news sources reported that the French were working on a new Security Council resolution which will establish the parameters for a Palestinian state…
France will begin discussions in the coming weeks on a U.N. Security Council resolution that would set out the steps for a negotiated end of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land and a solution to the nearly 70-year-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict, France’s Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said on Friday.
According to the Times of Israel, this resolution will use the 1967 borders as the baseline for future border negotiations, and it sets Jerusalem as the capital city for both states…
France sees a window of opportunity after Israel’s elections to get the United States on board with a new push for Mideast peace, and is preparing a draft UN Security Council resolution in about 12 days, according to French diplomatic officials.The draft would define the pre-1967 frontier as a reference point for border talks but allow room for exchanges of territory, designate Jerusalem as capital of both Israel and a Palestinian state and call for a fair solution for Palestinian refugees, one official told The Associated Press on Tuesday.
And according to WND, the proposed French resolution draws heavily from a UN resolution which established a partition plan for the land of Israel back in 1947…
The French draft is said to be based on U.N. Resolution 181, dating back to Nov. 29, 1947, which provided for the establishment of two separate states. Called the partition plan, Israel accepted the deal, but the Arab governments rejected it and went to war against Israel. It would have created an independent Palestinian state on 52 percent of historic Palestine.The current proposal is said to call for an independent state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, creating a Palestinian state on 22 percent of the area.“We don’t and we won’t give up on this,” said Francois Delattre, French ambassador to the U.N.
So when will this new resolution be brought to a vote at the UN?
According to Haaretz, the French hope to submit their plan for a vote when the new General Assembly session begins in September…
The proposed French resolution will only be tabled after the June 30 deadline set for the nuclear negotiations with Iran. The intention is to bring it to a vote in the Security Council during the General Assembly session in New York in September.
If you understand what I am saying and you are able to put all of the pieces together, you probably just had a “whoa moment”. It would be hard to overstate just how important this is.
As I mentioned above, up until now the U.S. has always blocked any attempts to get the UN Security Council to recognize a Palestinian state.
But now that Barack Obama is completely and totally fed up with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, that could be changing. The following is a pretty good summary of where things stand today…
White House spokesman Josh Earnest pledged on May 12 that following “the comments made by the prime minister in the closing days of his election,” the United States would change its approach toward promoting a solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Earnest was referring, of course, to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s comment that a Palestinian state will not be established as long as he is prime minister. The most likely assumption, based on Earnest’s words, was that the president will replace his indulgence of Netanyahu’s procrastination on the process with support for proposals for resolving the conflict. Among other things, the new approach appears to include a freeze of the US veto at the UN and its institutions until such time as Israel deigns to extract the two-state negotiations from the freezer.
If the United States does not veto the French resolution later this year, it will almost certainly pass. So right now, the only thing standing in the way of a Palestinian state is Barack Obama. And considering the fact that he is probably the most anti-Israel president in our history, that is a very sobering thought.
Publicly, Obama is being very coy about what he plans to do. But privately, it appears that he has already made up his mind. In fact, Debka is reporting that Obama has given France a “green light” to move forward with this resolution…
US President Barack Obama did not wait for Binyamin Netanyahu to finish building his new government coalition by its deadline at midnight Wednesday, May 6, before going into action to pay him back for forming a right-wing cabinet minus any moderate figure for resuming negotiations with the Palestinians.Banking on Netanyahu’s assertion while campaigning for re-election that there would be no Palestinian state during his term in office, Obama is reported exclusively by our sources to have given the hitherto withheld green light to European governments to file a UN Security Council motion proclaiming an independent Palestinian state.
In addition, Debka is also reporting that officials from the Obama administration have actually traveled to France to help draft this new UN resolution…
To show the administration was in earnest, senior US officials sat down with their French counterparts in Paris last week to sketch out the general outline of this motion. According to our sources, they began addressing such questions as the area of the Palestinian state, its borders, security arrangements between Israel and the Palestinians and whether or not to set a hard-and-fast timeline for implementation, or phrase the resolution as a general declaration of intent.Incorporating a target date in the language would expose Israel to Security Council sanctions for non-compliance.
And like I discussed earlier, we are not likely to see any action taken on this resolution until the new session of the UN General Assembly begins on September 15th.
Global leaders probably hope that this plan will bring peace.
But it won’t. In fact, it will just greatly inflame tensions in the region.
In the end, I believe that this “peace plan” will only lead to more war.
Credit to End of the American Dream
Obama’s Justice Dept. is proposing new firearm regulations, including more restrictions on gun ownership.
“It’s clear President Obama is beginning his final assault on our Second Amendment rights by forcing his anti-gun agenda on honest law-abiding citizens through executive force,” Luke O’Dell, the vice president of political affairs at the National Association for Gun Rights, told The Hill.
In particular, the Justice Dept.’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) wants to revive a 1998 proposal that would ban those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from owning a gun.
“That could be a person who spanked his kid, or yelled at his wife, or slapped her husband,” Michael Hammond, legislative counsel for the Gun Owners of America, stated.
The ATF also wants to revoke gun rights from those the government declares “mentally unfit,” which is easy to do because the official diagnostic system for mental disorders in the U.S., the DSM-5, is so broad that almost every form of human behavior can be “diagnosed” as some type of mental illness.
For example, in 2012 the Department of Veteran Affairs sent out letters to veterans stating that based on “evidence,” their “competency” was under review and if the bureaucrats decided to rate the veterans “incompetent,” they would be prohibited from “purchasing, possessing, receiving or transporting a firearm or ammunition.”
“The letter provides no specifics on the reasons for the proposed finding of incompetency; just that is based on a determination by someone in the VA,” Constitutional attorney Michael Connelly, J.D. wrote on the subject.
The National Rifle Association warned that such regulations “creates disincentives for those who need mental health treatment to seek it, increasing whatever risks are associated with untreated mental illness.”
“A person who experienced a temporary reaction to a traumatic event or who has trouble handling household finances may well be treated the same as a violent psychopath,” the NRA said.
Other proposed regulations include rules on firearm storage and restrictions on so-called “high-power” pistols, but it’s not yet clear how the administration will define them.
Even if the proposed rules are not enacted, the federal government is using them to test the public’s reaction to see what it can get away, as was the case with the ATF’s recently proposed AR-15 ammo ban the agency later dropped.
The ATF was trying to ban M855 AR-15 ammunition popular with sport shooters back in Feb. by declaring it “armor piercing,” despite the ammo containing lead which exempts it from the classification according to law.
To be considered “armor piercing” under 18 U.S.C. 921 (a)(17)(B), a bullet must have an entirely metal core or have a jacket weighing more than 25% of its weight, which wouldn’t include M855 rounds because their bullets are partly lead.
“While M855 has carried the exemption from a 1986 prohibition on manufacture, importation and sale, (but not possession) of ‘armor piercing’ rounds, it’s clear from the definition that it should have never needed to be ‘exempted,’” Bryan Black of Itstactical.com wrote.
The ATF backed away from the proposed ban a few weeks later.
“They will propose something so onerous and outrageous, that it manages to inspire outrage across the country,” journalist Joshua Krause wrote. “They will then back away from the plan, while trying to preserve as much of their effort as possible; a ‘tactical withdrawal’ if you will.”
“If even one segment of legislation, regulation, or executive order survives the public’s backlash, then they’ve still made some progress. In this case, they won’t succeed in banning this ammunition, but they will come back with something less concerning; they will say ‘be reasonable, let’s meet halfway on the issue.’”
Credit to Infowars
ISIS released an audio message which it claims is from its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The message was posted on jihadist websites. The message urges all Muslims to carry guns and fight on behalf of the “caliphate.”
The ISIS leader also had a veiled message for the last several U.S. presidents.
“O Muslims, Islam was never for a day the religion of peace. Islam is the religion of war,” the voice purporting to be Baghdadi said. He called upon Muslims around the world to either make their way to the Islamic State or “fight in his land, wherever that may be,” according to the news site Vocative.
The voice on the audio allegedly sounds like al-Baghdadi’s, which is significant because he has not been seen or heard from in months. There have been rumors that al-Baghdadi was killed in a drone strike in November.
“There is no excuse for any Muslim not to migrate to the Islamic State,” the message continues, informing all Muslims that joining the fight “is a duty on every Muslim. We are calling on you either to join or carry weapons wherever you are,” the voice, purportedly of al-Baghdadi, insists.
The message was issued by ISIS’s al-Furqan media outlet and posted on several jihadi sites.
Although the message was audio and not visual, the voice that sounds like al-Baghdadi’s mentions the air campaign against the Houthi rebels in Yemen, which is led by the Saudis. Those airstrikes began in late March, which suggests that it is a recently made message.
Credit to jewishpress.com
The Health Report: Essential Oils and Your Health
"The Fed Has Been Horribly Wrong" Deutsche Bank Admits, Dares To Ask If Yellen Is Planning A Housing Market Crash
The reason why Zero Hedge has been steadfast over the past 6 years in its accusation that the Fed is making a mockery of, and destroying not only the very fabric of capital markets (something whichCitigroup now openly admits almost every week) but the US economy itself (as Goldman most recently hinted last week when it lowered its long-term "potential GDP" growth of the US by 0.5% to 1.75%), is simple: all along we knew we have been right, and all the career economists, Wall Street weathermen-cum-strategists, and "straight to CNBC" book-talking pundits were wrong. Not to mention the Fed.
Indeed, the onus was not on us to prove how the Fed is wrong, but on the Fed - those smartest career academics in the room - to show it can grow the economy even as it has pushed global capital markets into a state of epic, bubble frenzy, with new all time highs a daily event across the globe, while the living standard of an ever increasing part of the world's middle-class deteriorates with every passing year. We merely point out the truth that the propaganda media was too compromised, too ashamed or to clueless to comprehend.
And now, 7 years after the start of the Fed's grand - and doomed - experiment, the flood of other "serious people", not finally admitting the "tinfoil, fringe blogs" were right all along, and the Fed was wrong, has finally been unleashed.
Here is Deutsche Bank admitting that not only the Fed is lying to the American people:
Truth be told, we think the Fed is obliged to talk up the economy because if they were brutally honest, the economy what vestiges of optimism remain in the domestic sectors could quickly evaporate.
But has been "horribly wrong" all along:
At issue is whether or not the Fed in particular but the market in general has properly understood the nature of the economic problem. The more we dig into this, the more we are afraid that they do not. So aside from a data revision tsunami, we would suggest that the Fed has the outlook not just horribly wrong, but completely misunderstood.... the idea that the economy is “ready” for a removal of accommodation and that there is any sense in it from the perspective of rising inflation expectations and a stronger real growth outlook is nonsense
And the kicker: it is no longer some "tinfoil, fringe blog", but the bank with over €50 trillion in derivatives on its balance sheet itself which dares to hint that in order to make a housing-led recovery possible, the Fed itself is willing to crash the housing market!
... if the single objective was to reduce inflation, regardless of where it came from, then crashing the housing market is certainly one way of going about it.... The dilemma for the Fed is of course that it is precisely the decision not to crash the housing market by doing extraordinary stimulus in the first place that has led to the current outcome of weak ex housing demand and strong housing inflation. The decision is akin to embracing financial repression as an alternative to the uncertainty of asset price deflation and a debt default cycle.If we could reset house prices 30 percent lower and fast forward a few years, the economy would probably be meaningfully more dynamic but it is those few years that might be hairy and no one let alone the Fed would likely stomach the risks.
Here is the full note from Deutsche Bank which we expect every other primary dealer to copycat in the coming weeks and months now that the truthamong the "very serious people" is finally out.
* * *
At issue is whether or not the Fed in particular but the market in general has properly understood the nature of the economic problem. The more we dig into this, the more we are afraid that they do not. So aside from a data revision tsunami, we would suggest that theFed has the outlook not just horribly wrong, but completely misunderstood. And here’s why.
For many years we have focused on the poor supply side dynamics of US growth and more recently have recognized it as much a global phenomenon when it comes to productivity. And as we know supply always equals demand so invariably there is some “disappointment” in demand side metrics. What we haven’t dwelt on much is whether demand creates supply or, as in Say’s world, does supply create demand. It is very easy to see through the latter’s linkages.
Companies have to meet a given demand say but choose to use cheap labor rather than invest for productivity. Productivity may be weaker for longer. Perhaps there is a lack of innovation so a lesser requirement to invest. Perhaps there’s greater depreciation so investment spend may be less impressive on a net basis. Since it takes a while for wages to pick up (need to be nearer full employment), demand doesn’t really strengthen much. Global issues may depress pricing, so this is an additional constraint for the investment outlook.But over time the hope is that under an accommodative monetary policy, full employment is reached, wages rise and companies are encouraged to substitute capital for labor thus boosting productivity and there is a virtuous cycle of rising demand, strengthening expected returns on investment so encouraging still stronger growth.
It is not clear that pricing power returns but the profit cycle is supported nevertheless through higher productivity. Now it could be debated that this is just as much about demand driving supply in the sense of the investment cycle. At least though in the context of weak underlying demographics, initially sluggish associated demand plus the lack of innovation explaining weak investment and productivity, it can also be a supply led story.
However there is also a whole different demand side angle to this that is less to do with the wage-productivity nexus but more to do structural weak consumer demand and the hangover from the housing crisis. This of course will tie out to weaker productivity and therefore weaker wages as well. It starts with the recognition that since the crisis or at least a few years after the initial rebound, consumer demand is decidedly weaker than it was pre crisis.
As we highlighted last weak using log real retail sales we can observe a distinct weakening in the post crisis trend, especially in the past couple of years that’s worth almost up to 1 percent. Taking a broader look at consumption, the weakness however is even more protracted in housing services and especially in owner occupied housing. The latter is particularly important because it is the germ of demand for other consumption. Owners typically will furnish their home, buy more “stuff”, maintain the property through other services more aggressively etc. than say tenants. The “multiplier” effects of home ownership are almost certainly stronger than for tenant homes, controlling for age etc. It is therefore concerning that while household formation may be rising, homeownerships rates are still falling.
What is then striking of course is that if housing consumption is unusually weak, why are housing components of inflation so strong? As the charts show it is quite striking that overall housing inflation in the PCE is almost 3 percent year over year (2.7 percent for owner occupied component) but for owner occupied housing consumption it is the most chronically divergent weaker than all other major consumption categories. Tenant home consumption is in line with trend despite also having a very strong deflator. Effectively we can think of housing as being in “stagflation”.
Of course the obvious conclusion is that it is precisely because owner occupied housing is expensive in absolute terms that there is limited consumption in absolute terms that drives rental consumption relatively higher with also higher rents. The imputed rental for owner occupied housing comes from an adjusted rental series for tenancies so the results are consistent i.e. expensive rents and owner occupied, trend consumption for tenant housing consumption and below trend for owner occupied. In turn this then spills over into below trend for consumption ex housing. Note that weak consumption ex housing then also implies weak inflation in those sectors.
The actual numbers are impressive. Owner occupied consumption in the PCE is almost half the trend since 2010 compared with the whole sample period 1990-2015q1. Annualized it is growing around 0.8 percent compared with over 2.5 percent for the whole period. It represents around 11 percent of total consumption, so alone shaves 0.1 to 0.15 percent off the trend realized real GDP growth. For the rest of consumption, including the other components of housing the trend is better but still disappointing since 2010. It drops from around 3 percent to 2.4 percent so in GDP terms effectively shaving 0.4 to 0.5 percent from trend GDP. Note that for tenant housing the trend is stronger, as we would expect but quite volatile. Currently running around 2.6 percent versus the whole sample trend of only 1.8 percent. However, interestingly recently the rental trend seems to be a little weaker, suggesting high rents themselves are exerting a downward pressure on housing consumption.
There are other interesting observations to note. For example, goods PCE alone isn’t too far off trend but is a little lower, around 3.2 percent versus 3.6 percent for the whole sample, while healthcare consumption is bang on an unchanged trend.
The next charts show the housing and inflation ex housing deflators. Core CPI ex shelter is pretty much still at post crisis lows, less than 1 percent year over year. Consistent with the PCE analysis above, the PCE ex housing the deflator is zero. The deflator ex housing, ex energy is less than 1.2 percent year, but falling. The housing deflators, in line CPI housing and OER are close to 3 percent year over year.
This brings us to the crux of the analysis. If the inflation “problem” or risk is in housing but the weakness in demand also stems from housing, what on earth is the Fed, or anyone for that matter, thinking in terms of the logic for removing accommodation? The inflation problem is not being created by excess demand for housing i.e. a housing boom because that would show up in terms of excess demand for consumption ex housing. Instead it is the quirky result of owner occupied housing being too “expensive” relative to rental housing which pushes up overall housing inflation via rents.
Of course if the single objective was to reduce inflation, regardless of where it came from,then crashing the housing market is certainly one way of going about it; but it would only work if it forced homeowners to sell their homes and become renters, assuming house prices did actually fall in the process. Simply keeping house prices elevated and having new supply come onto the market even if it all goes into the rental sector won’t necessarily help if house prices are lofty since rents may stay robust. This is effectively what has been going on anyway.
The dilemma for the Fed is of course that it is precisely the decision not to crash the housing market by doing extraordinary stimulus in the first place that has led to the current outcome of weak ex housing demand and strong housing inflation. The decision is akin to embracing financial repression as an alternative to the uncertainty of asset price deflation and a debt default cycle. If we could reset house prices 30 percent lower and fast forward a few years, the economy would probably be meaningfully more dynamic but it is those few years that might be hairy and no one let alone the Fed would likely stomach the risks.
The alternative is to accept elevated house prices as a byproduct of the stimulus and look to the supply side of housing to address high rents. If we consider housing completions as our supply of housing variable, it is clear that the only thing that really correlates with new supply is the change in the debt income ratio of the household sector. Balance sheet expansion is good for housing supply. Importantly, affordability doesn’t just have no relationship with, but if anything, is inversely correlated with supply. Housing affordability does not solicit new supply.
Higher house prices do solicit some new supply, although there is a very large gap now in that supply has been very slow to respond to higher prices. The real issue is that housing supply is linked to household balance sheet expansion- proxied by the change in the debt income ratio. Since this has been growing slowly, so has supply been slow to come back on tap. Households are still feeling balance sheet constrained.
So that leaves two policy choices. One is to wait much longer for supply to catch up with elevated house prices but “hope” that prices don’t become further elevated. (We can give a nod to the financial stability camp; there is a case for no more QE and maybe at some point the odd rate hike). The second would be to wait longer for further improvements in the debt income ratio i.e. the propensity for households to resume some re-leveraging. Now of course that can come from stronger incomes but there seems to be a little of a catch- 22 embedded in that. The other, is to give some regulatory relief to encourage more mortgage lending, even rolling back on the 80 percent LTV formula for example. However that is about as likely as getting a GDP forecast correct.
Either way, the idea that the economy is “ready” for a removal of accommodation and that there is any sense in it from the perspective of rising inflation expectations and a stronger real growth outlook is nonsense. There is some logic in giving up on expecting normalization to previous growth trends as a prelude to any rate rise (Yellen’s 2.5 percent threshold). This is reflected in what was then but not now a stronger supply side economy and a matching demand side, consistent with a greater share of consumption in owner occupied housing. But then rates are naturally very constrained in the normalization process and type 2 errors abound if the objectives of any lift off are not clearly understood. Note that Yellen’s 2.5 percent seems low in that all you need on a year over year basis is 2.5 percent quarterly growth for 2015h2 based on the Atlanta Fed’s current tracking for q2 GDP. However if the above analysis is right, this may still be too high. Moreover, note that for the past five years 2 ½ percent has been somewhat elusive anyway with the average through to 2015q2 being 2.2 percent and only above 2 ½ percent 9 out of 22 quarters, albeit 4 of them in the last 8 quarters. But please let’s not call this transitory! (Truth be told, we think the Fed is obliged to talk up the economy because if they were brutally honest, the economy what vestiges of optimism remain in the domestic sectors could quickly evaporate).
Meanwhile in the medium term it is possible that if there is an exogenous positive productivity shock, consumption ex housing trend can bump higher, perhaps even bumping owner occupied consumption higher too via the improved debt income dynamic. Though, our indicators suggest that too is still not on the horizon.
In general the Fed is necessarily bound to do very little, if anything. And if they insist on tying policy blindly to ill defined expectations on say inflation or full employment, the danger of a gross policy error builds. In the extreme imagine that core CPI was 2 ½ percent but it was all in housing inflation at 4 percent with full employment would they really think it a good idea to remove all “accommodation” with rates at 2 -3 percent. The scary thing is some people would say yes. The scarier thing would be the resulting economic crisis.
Deutsche Bank continues, but this is the punchline. And all of this, of course, is or at least should be well known to Zero Hedge readers. As for the key message here is, it is simple: it is not just the "fringe blogs" who are telling the truth anymore, it is now the turn of the "very serious people", and as everyone knows, once one dares to call the emperor naked, soon everyone else does. Which, incidentally, would be the final disaster for the Fed, which for the past several years has had just two things: a printer and "credibility"... if only among the "very serious people."
Now, the latter is about to evaporate. Which means all the Fed will soon have is a printer, which it will have no choice but to operate on turbo until such time as the residents of the Marriner Eccles building are driven out by angry, if armed, citizens.
And perhaps just to confirm once again we were right all along, in yet another amusing incident involving a Federal Reserve economist, yesterday none other than St. Louis Fed's David Andolfatto, in an oddly defensive moment, had this to tweet yesterday:
David, of course, is the same St. Louis Fed career economist who in November accused Zero Hedge of being "dickheads", something for which he promptly apologized thereafter.
Our response to the St. Louis Fed economist is simple:
No Just yhe collapse of the US. economy
The problem for Andoflatto, and his equally clueless peers across the US central planning bureau also known as the Fed, is that what has been obvious to us from day one, is finally spreading among the very people whom the Fed decided to bail out while crushing the middle class it was supposed to protect.
As for Andolfatto's latest tweet faux pas, hepromptly deleted it. Because that's how the Fed rolls.
Credit to Zero Hedge