Financial Intelligence Report
October 19 , 2016
The Panic
Last weekend I sent out a letter suggesting things you might want to do to prepare for the chance that Hillary becomes the next President. I guess most of the thrust of the letter was suggesting that if you had ever wanted to own a firearm, now is the time to get it done. I then outlined a few things that you could look at.
Well I had NO idea the uproar that little suggestion created. I got no less than 67 Emails asking "what gun? What caliber? What ammo? Home defense or carry? Etc. etc. " it went on and on. I was shocked in a way, but the realized that so many people really did understand how serious this is. People are in a panic.
I see it daily. My friends own guns shops. I'm sort of a silent partner in a company that trains people in the use of weapons and let me tell you something... Business is BOOMING. Weapon sales are through the roof. Everyone feels that they'd best get their guns now while they still can and I've personally never seen anything like it. Many is the day that people are 3 deep at the counter.
There are TWO things that I believe we are going to lose if "the machine" takes the office. 1) of course is our right to bear arms. Now let me preface that. I think that like many European nations, you'll be allowed to own ONE weapon that is designed specifically for hunting and you're stock of ammunition will be monitored. But as far as defensive weapons, handguns, AR's, etc.... I think she'd go to work on day one to begin the ban. Yes she might have to wait for a Supreme Court appointment to actually over ride the 2nd amendment, but she'd start the process ASAP.
The second thing I think we'll lose is the freedom of speech. Hillary has already stated publicly that she doesn't think alternative news outlets like Drudge or Alex Jones should be allowed to exist. But she's not alone folks. Obama has endorsed the same ideas. Consider the following statement concerning the Internet and alternative news sources....
"We are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to," Obama said at an innovation conference in Pittsburgh.
"There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard, because they just don't have any basis in anything that's actually happening in the world," Obama added.
"That is hard to do, but I think it's going to be necessary, it's going to be possible," he added.
"The answer is obviously not censorship, but it's creating places where people can say 'this is reliable' and I'm still able to argue safely about facts and what we should do about it.
WOW. Are you with me here? This is Obama saying that the Internet is the wild west, and that some form of curating process has to be installed that passes basic "truth" tests. Well that's a bit problematic don't you think? Because who's the person that's going to say what is and isn't truth? Bill Clinton looked at us and said "I did not have sexual relations with that girl". Was that the truth? No, we found out later that indeed he had. ( along with so many others)
Obama told us "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor". So if that was a "Fact" on one of their newly created "curated fact sites" would it not be false? It would.
Let me put it like this. Every criminal accused for a crime pleads not guilty. He preaches his side, the State preaches their side and "someone" has to decide what is the truth. That usually comes down to a judge or a jury. So who would be the judge and jury that would decide what is true or what isn't true on a controlled web base? I'd guess it would be people with an agenda. Basically if your view didn't support the official stance, it would be marked as false. A lie. Disregarded.
So, Hillary has stated that she doesn't think alternative sites should be allowed, and Obama has said something has to be done .... There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard, because they just don't have any basis in anything that's actually happening in the world," Obama added.
Again I ask, didn't Hillary tell us there were NO confidential Emails on her server? She did. Didn't James Comey of the FBI say there was? He did. So the FACT is that there were. Now it gets interesting. The rule concerning if having State Confidential Email on a non state sanctioned server doesn't say a word about "intent" it just says that if you have it, you've broken the rules and must be punished. That's a fact. Yet she's not been punished.
So it is evident that what Hillary and Obama want is NOT the abolishment of sites that post things that aren't fact....what they want is the abolishment of sites that bring up anything that goes against the official narrative. Your opinion? Garbage and should be banned. Don't like the direction Government is going? Too bad, banned. Question authority? Banned. What they want is State propaganda, 24/7.
Just this week, RBS of the UK came out of the clear blue and shut down the accounts of RT, the English version of the popular Russian news outlet. This is from the New York Times online...
RT presents itself as an independent and credible alternative to mainstream Western media, but its broadcasts repeatedly show the West as a sea of chaos. Ofcom, the British broadcast regulator, has singled out RT repeatedly for its lack of impartiality.
RT's defense has been that its viewers expect alternative viewpoints.
RT portrays itself as an independent alternative voice. It trumpets the slogan "Question More," yet generally sticks to the same major news that CNN or the BBC is covering.
The difference is less in subject matter than in tenor: On RT, the West is portrayed as grim, divided, brutal, decadent, overrun with violent immigrants and unstable. The network tends to make favorable remarks about Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee for president; the former CNN host Larry King, who now appears on RT, scored a rare direct interview with Mr. Trump in September.
Isn't it interesting? They can spin this any way they want, but the fact is that more people were tuning into RT than into the BBC which many just consider state propaganda now. So the "West" decided they can't do banking with this renegade and coughed up lame excuses such as "maybe there's dirty illegal money from the Kremlin" in their accounts. Give me a break. What got their panties bunched up was that RT saw that Trump was talking peace and dialog with Russia. That goes against the "machine."
Two things in my mind make the US as unique as it is. Freedom of speech and the 2nd amendment. The Freedom to ask any question, state any opinion and calmly disagree with someone else, along with the "right" to keep arms is pretty unique in the world. Now we see forces that continue to bear down on both.
People that are awake, that don't have their faces glued to Kardashians butt, or their iphone all day or don't masquerade as some social justice warrior, understand what's happening and they're in a soft panic. They should be. The loss of opposing views and the loss of our right to bear arms and protect our homes is definitely on the table folks.
Sure there's big issues that face us. Robots for instance. Say what you will, but society has to change because robots aren't going to go away and our work force is going to have to change. Employment is a big problem, Medical is a massive problem. Wages are a problem. The cost of living is a problem. There's hundreds of them. Every one of them needs to be addressed and looked at with fresh eyes. But if we are contorted into some quasi socialist nation, these will pale in the face of what else will come down the pike. Just the thought of what can happen at the Supreme Court is enough to scare the heck out of most.
I understand the panic.
The Market...
As of today the market had not put in two updays in a row for all of October. So considering that Tuesday they managed a green day across the board, it was interesting to speculate on whether we'd finally get two in a row.
Considering we're deep into earnings season, the latest 'hope" has come out of the banks, as most of them have posted pretty good results. But it isn't all rainbows and kittens as there's a lot of industry that's still telling us that they're struggling.
I tend to think that fundamentals really aren't that terribly important right now. For the past several months the market has been crawling sideways in a loosely defined range of 2120 to 2190. We tend to fade down near the lower boundary, like on Sept 12 - 15 and then "boom" they jam it higher. Likewise on October 13 we faded during the day, fell under 2120, only to see them rush in and jam the market higher late in the day. They simply don't want to let that level fail.
So we had indeed done it. We finally put two up days in a row together. But let me say it wasn't impressive. After being up over 90 points at one time today, we ended the day with the DOW up just 40 and the S&P up 4. That's considerably off the morning highs.
Tonight is the 3rd and final Presidential debate. I have to imagine there's going to be fireworks, especially after the incredible Okeefe video showing prominent DNC/Move/Citizens honcho's telling undercover reporters how they hire thugs to disrupt Trump rallies, so they can capture on film a Trump supporter doing something physical. If Trump brings that video up, it's going to shock a lot of people that didn't hear of it, because other than Hannity it has been blacked out of the main stream media. So most don't know it exists.
The market DOES respond to what's happening in this race, so tomorrow could be quite the interesting session. With the low volume today and the lackluster performance of the market, I wouldn't be surprised to see a red day tomorrow. Play cautious folks.
