Authored by Michael Snyder via The End of The American Dream blog,

Should we just go ahead and give free needles and free crack pipes to everyone in America?  After all, if New York City and Los Angeles plan to solve their raging drug problems by handing out free drug paraphernalia to addicts, perhaps we can solve our nationwide drug crisis the same way.  Let’s make the entire country one big “harm reduction zone” and then everything will return to normal, right? 

Unfortunately, that is not the way that the real world works.  If you give addicts what they need, they will thank you.  And then they will go ahead and do drugs right in front of you.

I don’t know why politicians can’t understand that this sort of approach is doing far more harm than good.  On Monday, New York City unveiled their new vending machines which will allow addicts to get drug paraphernalia for free…

Big Apple officials unveiled a street vending machine Monday that covers it all when it comes to catering to drug-users, offering free handy paraphernalia such as crack pipes and lip balm — and also Narcan for overdoses.

The vending machine, one of four set to be placed in some of the city’s most drug-infested neighborhoods, swaps out what would be more typical offerings such as candy bars and potato chips for the drug-related freebies to try to combat the surge in overdoses in the five boroughs, city Health Department bigs said.

The pipes that come with the “safer smoking” kits can be used to smoke both crack and crystal meth.

At least they are versatile.

Needless to say, addicts are quite enthusiastic about the new program.  In fact, the first vending machine was completely empty less than 24 hours after it was unveiled…

New York City’s first public health vending machine giving out free crack pipes, condoms and Narcan, an overdose-reversing drug, was already empty less than 24 hours after being unveiled by officials.

But eager city officials determined to keep residents in rich supply of clean drug apparatus were quick to revisit the site on Tuesday afternoon with more.

Elan Quashie, the Opioid Overdose Program Director at Services for the Under Served, said: ‘We’re going to restock every day. Probably multiple times a day.’

Are they really planning to restock the machine “multiple times a day”?

I find that hard to believe, because I have never seen such a high level of customer service from government bureaucrats anywhere that I have ever lived.

It turns out that Los Angeles County has a similar program.

But instead of vending machines, social workers actually go around and give “supply kits” to addicts that contain “glass pipes, needles, fentanyl test strips and naloxone”…

Los Angeles County’s Harm Reduction Program has drawn attention for its controversial approach to tackling the fentanyl epidemic.

As part of the program, outreach workers distribute harm reduction supply kits containing glass pipes, needles, fentanyl test strips and naloxone, a drug used to counteract an overdose.

The program comes at a significant cost to taxpayers, with the county spending over $31 million this year, a sharp increase from the previous year’s approximately $5 million expenditure.

That sounds like quite a good deal for the addicts.

But what about the rest of us?

In order to fund their addictions, the addicts have to steal stuff.  Retailers have become a primary target, and a new bill that has been going through the California legislature would actually “ban retail staff from stopping thieves stealing from their stores”…

Lawmakers in California are hoping to push through controversial legislation that would ban retail staff from stopping thieves stealing from their stores.

Senate Bill 553, which was submitted by State Senator Dave Cortese, has been passed by the State Senate and will now progress to policy committees in the State Assembly. Cortese hopes the proposed law will prevent workplace violence and protect staff from being forced by their employers to step-in during robberies. But some store bosses are furious about the plans, with the California Retailers Association mocking the move as an open invitation for thieves “to come in and steal.”

Seriously?

It is already ridiculously easy to shoplift in California, and the politicians want to make it even easier?

Are they insane?

The theory is that there will be fewer violent confrontations if the crooks are just allowed to do whatever they want.

Of course the overworked and overwhelmed police rarely get there in time either.

And the few thieves that are caught are let go with just a slap on the wrist as long as they keep their shoplifting under a certain dollar amount.

California is getting dangerously close to legalizing shoplifting, and I am sure that is what many of the politicians would like to see.

But if you use the wrong pronoun or make an “offensive” statement on social media, that could get you into really big trouble.

All over the western world, authorities are really cracking down on such “crimes”.  In fact, a new law in Australia would put people in prison for up to three years for making “offensive” statements on social media…

A sweeping law could see Australians jailed for three years for posting what’s deemed ‘offensive’ on Facebook in an attempt to protect minority groups.

Queensland’s Labor government has introduced a bill that would dramatically increase the maximum prison sentence for racist, anti-gay, anti-trans or seriously bigoted statements.

Making such statements already carry a maximum six-month jail term, but that would be increased to three years under the new bill.

This is where the entire western world is going.

Drug addicts, thieves and violent criminals are now considered to be “victims” that must be treated with compassion, but those that express “offensive” views on social media are considered to be a massive threat to “democracy” and must be dealt with ruthlessly.

We live in a society that has been completely turned upside down, and it is only going to get worse in the years ahead.

Once upon a time we were the greatest society on the entire planet, but now we have become a bad joke to the rest of the world.

Is there still any hope that we could turn things around even at this late hour?

*  *  *

Michael’s new book entitled “End Times” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can check out his new Substack newsletter right here.

JPMorgan hit back against the US Virgin Islands this week, which is suing the bank over its relationship with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein – accusing the former USVI governor and first lady of accepting a gift in the form of tuition for Skidmore College. Of note, the former USVI governor’s wife, Cecile de Jongh, acted as Epstein’s office manager.

Cecile de Jongh, wife of then-USVI Governor John de Jongh Jr., sent Epstein an August 2011 email with the subject line “Please Approve,” attaching a $25,000 tuition bill for Skidmore, a private liberal arts college in Saratoga Springs, New York. The email is among dozens of previously sealed documents the bank filed late Wednesday in Manhattan federal court. –Bloomberg

The move is part of an “unclean hands” defense by the bank.

In May the bank accused de Jongh, of acting as his “primary conduit for spreading money and influence throughout the USVI,” however the emails revealed in Wednesday’s filing provide additional context in terms of the relationship between Epstein and the USVI first family.

The filing also reveals that JPMorgan intends to defend this to the end despite announcing on Monday that it had agreed to settle with a group of Epstein accusers for $290 million.

The USVI, meanwhile, has asked the judge in the case to stop JPMorgan from asserting this “unlclean hands” defense, as they claim it doesn’t apply to government actors.

JPMorgan claims that the tuition paid for de Jongh’s children boosted her 2009 overall compensation as an office manager to $200,000. The bank claims that in return for the tuition, de Jongh provided Epstein access to the USVI’s political elite – who extended tax benefits and allowed him to take part in crafting laws that might affect him.

In one email exchange from May 2011 between Epstein and de Jongh, the two discussed the USVI’s plans to update its sex offender registry laws, as it directly impacted the convicted pedophile due to his 2008 conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution.

“Maybe we should distinguish between offenders and predators,” Epstein wrote, suggesting that the USVI might revise the law to more narrowly apply to a category of sex offenders he didn’t consider himself part of. Epstein also suggested a provision for waivers from the requirements of the revised law, which “should be broader” to avoid affecting his business and his privacy.

It’s not clear how widely the email was shared, though de Jongh’s reply asked if Epstein wanted to wait for other people to respond. She later wrote that the matter “needs to be settled” in a few days because the attorney general needed to submit something by the end of the month.

…

According to JPMorgan, Epstein wasn’t happy with the law that passed in June 2012, and de Jongh promised she would find ways for him to get around the restrictions. According to the emails released Wednesday night, the two expressed frustration that a USVI politician identified only as “Russell” had betrayed them. -Bloomberg

“I know this was a horrible week and I am really sorry about how things panned out,” de Jongh wrote to the disappointed Epstein. “Not being able to take someone at their word is incredibly frustrating,” she continued in a likely reference to her husband.

De Jongh also allegedly helped Epstein obtain student visas for young women by arranging their enrollment at the University of the Virgin Islands, according to the report.

“Did the ladies enroll?” she wrote Epstein in June of 2013. “It is not too late for the fall semester? As we discussed, they need to go down and enroll and show the ability to pay.”

What’s more, emails show USVI officials panicking after Epstein’s 2019 arrest for sex trafficking.

“I personally think the questions are opening us up to public scrutiny,” wrote USVI official Margarita Benjamin.

Authored by Sheramy Tsai via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A mounting wave of throat and mouth cancers is sending ripples through the medical community. Adults above the age of 45 are at the epicenter of this health alarm, as their vulnerability to the illness is becoming starkly evident. Dr. Matthew Old, head and neck surgeon at The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, points directly to human papillomavirus (HPV) as the main catalyst of this surge.

The stark reality is that nearly 55,000 Americans are diagnosed with mouth or throat cancer each year, and this number is unfortunately climbing. In a spotlight study from JAMA Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, a surge of more than 3 percent in yearly oropharyngeal cancer cases has been underscored, chiefly among white males above the age of 65.

Older adults grappling with oropharyngeal cancer are now being seen as the new face of the HPV epidemic. Current trends paint a sobering picture, with medical experts cautioning that this particular cancer could soon rank among the top three affecting older adults in the United States. Even more concerning is that it may even become the most common cancer in this age group within the coming decade, signaling a significant public health concern on the horizon.

Unraveling HPV and Its Role in the Surge of Cancer Rates

HPV is a sprawling family of more than 100 related viruses. It’s typically characterized as a sexually transmitted disease. It is passed along through intimate contact with others, whether skin-to-skin or oral.

While these viruses have garnered a reputation as significant contributors to the prevalence of cervical cancer, they cast a wider shadow than previously recognized. High-risk HPV is emerging as a considerable driving force behind head and neck cancers, notably those affecting the mouth, base of the tongue, and throat—the swath of conditions commonly categorized as oropharyngeal cancers.

Remarkably, an encounter with HPV is a shared experience for many of us. By the age of 45, approximately 80 percent of people will have encountered HPV. However, not everyone who comes into contact with the virus will face cancer down the line. The spotlight falls on specific strains—particularly HPV 16 and HPV 18. Known as the ‘high-risk’ duo, these strains have a notorious correlation with various cancer types.

As explained by the American Cancer Society, HPV manufactures two key proteins, E6 and E7. These proteins have the ability to switch off important genes that generally help to keep cell growth in check, namely Rb and p53. When HPV makes itself at home in the throat, these proteins run rampant, potentially setting the stage for abnormal cell growth that has the potential to lead to cancer.

The chances of developing oropharyngeal cancer are linked strongly to one’s sexual history—specifically the number of lifetime partners with whom oral sex was practiced. A 2021 study in the medical journal Cancer sheds light on these startling connections. Those who have had oral sex with five or more partners in their lifetime face a risk of HPV-related cancer that’s 2.5 times greater than individuals with fewer partners. Shockingly, this risk jumps to 4.3 times higher for those with 10 or more partners.

HPV’s Dormant Threat and Its Impact on Cancer Risk

Studies indicate that the body’s immune system is able to purge most HPV infections within a couple of years. Yet, in about 1 in 10 cases, the virus plays a longer game, laying low within the body for many years, sometimes even decades.

In these instances, after the initial contact and infection, the virus turns into a silent invader. It lays dormant, showing no noticeable symptoms nor causing health issues, until it springs back to life, potentially manifesting as cancer many years down the line. This period of dormancy is why HPV-related cancers are often diagnosed in middle-aged adults, despite the initial infection likely occurring much earlier in life.

Scrutinizing the Vaccine’s Role in the HPV Cancer Landscape

Some medical experts attribute the significant rise in HPV-related cancers to lack of immunization; While others have an opposite view.

“We have a long way to go in educating the public about the importance of HPV vaccination in youth, and of the risk factors and warning signs of HPV-related cancers for adults who did not have an opportunity to get vaccinated in childhood,” Old said. “Data increasingly show this is a powerful tool to prevent cancers later in life.”

HPV is a risk factor for both men and women, experts say.

The HPV vaccine, typically administered in two doses to those aged 9 to 14 and three doses to those aged 15 to 26, is a preventive measure against the virus. In October 2018, the FDA expanded use of the vaccine to include women and men aged 27 through 45.

Since introducing the HPV vaccine, strides have been made in controlling HPV infections and cervical pre-cancers. Vaccines have demonstrated a high level of effectiveness, between 90 to 98 percent, in combating the rapidly growing, abnormal cells that could potentially lead to cancer.

A 2021 systematic review of nine studies involving 48,777 participants found a significant decrease in vaccine-type oral or oropharyngeal HPV infections among those vaccinated, with a relative prevention percentage of around 83 percent and nearly all participants developing HPV-16 IgG antibodies in oral fluids post-vaccination, indicating a potentially strong protective effect.

However, the vaccine may not provide the comprehensive solution or panacea anticipated. Research spearheaded by the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health proposes that HPV vaccination for individuals above the age of 26 might not be the most financially sensible approach. The study indicates that the health benefits tend to diminish with age while the expense attached considerably surpasses the quality-adjusted life years acquired, questioning its cost-effectiveness.

“Our study found that the added health benefit of increasing the vaccination age limit beyond 26 years is minimal, and that the cost-effectiveness is much lower than in pre-adolescents, the target age group for the HPV vaccine,” Jane Kim, K.T. Li professor of health economics and lead author of the study, said in a statement.

Read more here…

By Kathie Rothman of WRAL Tech Wire

While their parents belonged to the “Greatest Generation,” Gen X may soon be carving out a reputation as the “Broke Generation.”

A recent survey conducted by Clever Real Estate polled 1,000 Gen Xers born between 1965 and 1980 to find out how they fare when it comes to personal finances and the road to retirement. A staggering 56% of Gen Xers said they have less than $100,000 saved for retirement, and 22% said they have yet to save a single cent.

While the desire to retire may be there, the money just isn’t. A whopping 64% of respondents said they stopped saving for retirement not because they don’t want to but because they simply can’t afford to.

The reasons for the lagging savings varied, with many citing poor economic conditions and backbreaking student debt as retirement roadblocks. With the eldest members well into their 50s, the reality is that Gen Xers are facing a retirement crisis, and unless they take action now, they won’t be able to retire comfortably, if at all.

Early Financial Setbacks Have Gen X Behind

One of the main reasons why Gen Xers have yet to save enough for retirement is that they have faced several financial challenges throughout their lives. A majority entered the workforce during the recession of the early 1990s, which made it difficult to secure stable jobs and earn decent wages.

They also faced significant student loan debt, with the average amount owed being a whopping $43,438 per borrower. Generation X holds 38.8% of the $1.63 trillion in federal student loan debt, more than any other generation.

Gen Xers have also been hit hard by the housing crisis, many of them purchasing homes at the market’s peak in the mid-2000s. When the market crashed, many of these homeowners found themselves with properties worth less than what they had paid for them, leaving them with negative equity. They could not sell their homes or refinance their mortgages, making it difficult for them to save for retirement.

Additionally, many Gen Xers have not taken advantage of retirement savings plans like 401(k)s and IRAs. According to the Clever Survey, 64% of Gen Xers are saving 10% or less of their monthly income for retirement. Experts recommend that workers save a minimum of 10-15% of their pre-tax income each year for retirement, including any employer match.

Historic Inflation Adds Mounting Pressure

Of all the significant events in their lifetime, Gen Xers say the current inflation crisis has had the most impact on their financial situation, surpassing the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2008 recession.

More than two-thirds of Gen Xers (69%) report that inflation has negatively impacted their retirement plans, and 40% say they have no confidence that they can afford retirement at all.

A Large Majority of Gen X Is in Debt

No matter what your yearly income may be, it’s tough to devote any money to retirement savings when you carry a significant amount of debt. When discussing what prevents them from helping their future selves, 80% of the Gen Xers surveyed said they were carrying some form of debt, with 52% indicating they have at least $10K in non-mortgage, typically credit card debt.

Gen Xers are pinched between two generations. They have to care for their parents from the aging Baby Boomer generation while still shelling out money to help their adult children from the Millennial generation.

Tack on personal expenses, and it’s easy to see why these middle-aged Americans are far from the career finish line.

A little more than three weeks after China’s cyberspace regulator announced that Micron Technology, America’s biggest maker of memory chips, possesses “serious network security risks” and will be banned from critical infrastructure projects in the world’s second-largest economy, the chipmaker said on Friday it was committed to investing hundreds of millions of dollars in its high-tech manufacturing facility in the Chinese city of Xian.

Micron made the announcement on the WeChat social media app earlier this morning. It said it would invest 4.3 billion yuan ($603 million) over the next few years in upgrading its chip packaging and testing equipment at the Xi’an factory. 

The investment adheres to Micron’s concept of global packaging and testing, and will enhance the company’s flexibility in manufacturing a variety of product portfolios in Xi’an, enabling Micron to directly operate its packaging and testing business in the Xi’an factory.

The new plant announced this time will introduce a new production line for the manufacture of mobile DRAM , NAND and SSD products to strengthen the existing packaging and testing capabilities of the Xi’an plant . Micron has been preparing for the project for some time and has already started the qualification work for the production of mobile DRAM in Xi’an.

Micron President and CEO Sanjay Mehrotra stated Micron has been “rooted in China” for decades and has “established a deep relationship with customers.” He said this “investment project demonstrates Micron’s commitment to China’s business and Chinese team members. An unwavering commitment.” 

Micron decided to invest in its Chinese factory weeks after the country’s cyberspace regulator said it would bar its chips from “critical infrastructure” over cybersecurity concerns. 

At the same time, Micron also warned that about half of its sales tied to China-headquartered clients may be affected by the probe being carried out by the Chinese government, representing a “low-double-digit percentage” of its global revenu, Bloomberg reported.

“Micron is working to mitigate this impact over time and expects increased quarter-to-quarter revenue variability,” the company said in the filing. Micron’s shares fell 1.6% on the news.

Tech has become a battlefield over national security for Washington and Beijing. The US has blacklisted Chinese tech firms and limited advanced semiconductor manufacturing equipment to flow to the country to stall Chinese chip development as the Biden administration ramps up domestic chip factories. 

Even though there’s a lot of uncertainty between China and the US, Morgan Stanley recently told clients, “The reality is that a complete decoupling of the US economy from China is neither possible nor desirable.” 

Why is that? One look at the supply chain map below will explain why.

Authored by Alex Kimani via OilPrice.com,

• After peaking at $17.1 trillion in 2020, ESG assets in the United States dropped sharply to just $8.4 trillion in 2022.

• Oil and gas companies are pushing back against activist proposals in their boardrooms.

• Last week, CEO Darren Woods urged regulators to stop focusing on certain energy sources.

Over the past decade, green and socially-responsible investments, aka ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) investing, have emerged as one of the biggest investment megatrends in modern times. For years, trillions of dollars in new global funds flowed into the market each year, with UBS predicting that carbon-reducing tech would hit $60 trillion of investment by 2040 in the U.S. 

Unfortunately, the ESG boom now appears to be languishing in investment purgatory. After peaking at $17.1 trillion in 2020, ESG assets in the United States dropped sharply to just $8.4 trillion in 2022, and the bleeding continues. In the current year, no less than four ESG funds have been liquidated: SPDR Bloomberg SASB Corporate Bond ESG Select ETF (RBND), SPDR Bloomberg SASB Emerging Markets ESG Select ETF (REMG), SPDR Bloomberg SASB Developed Markets Ex US ESG Select ETF (RDMX) and the Invesco US Large Cap Core ESG ETF (IVLC). 

Meanwhile, their surviving peers continue to record large capital outflows: In the first five months of the year, seven popular ESG focused funds have cumulatively recorded outflows to the tune of $8.35B. 

• iShares ESG MSCI USA ETF (NASDAQ:ESGU) -$7.24B

• iShares MSCI USA ESG Select ETF (NYSEARCA:SUSA) -$287.16M

• iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (NASDAQ:ICLN) -$417.97M

• First Trust NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index Fund (QCLN) -$115.69M

• Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) -$243.94M

• Vanguard ESG U.S. Stock ETF (ESGV) -$30.32M

• iShares ESG Aware MSCI EAFE ETF (ESGD) -$14.34M.

Talking points around ESG have also dwindled markedly: According to FactSet, just 74 companies in the S&P 500 cited the term “ESG” during their latest earnings conference call transcripts, less than half the 156 times the term was cited in 2021 Q4 earnings conference calls.

A similar trend has also been observed across the rest of the world, including in Europe where ESG standards are much stricter.

Shifting Sentiment

The year 2021 proved to be a watershed moment for oil and gas companies in the global transition to clean energy, with Big Oil losing a series of boardroom and courtroom battles in the hands of hardline climate activists.

In May 2021, ExxonMobil lost three board seats to Engine No. 1, an activist hedge, in a stunning proxy campaign. Engine No. 1 demanded that Exxon needs to cut fossil fuel production for the company to position itself for long-term success. “What we’re saying is, plan for a world where maybe the world doesn’t need your barrels,” Engine No.1 leader Charlie Penner told the Financial Times. Engine No. 1 enjoyed a stunning victory thanks to support from BlackRock Inc. (NYSE: BLK), Vanguard and State Street who all voted against Exxon’s leadership.

Related: 

Next was its close peer Chevron Corp. (NYSE:CVX) with no less than 61% of Chevron shareholders voting to further cut emissions at the company’s annual investor meeting and rebuffing the company’s board which had urged shareholders to reject it. 

Finally, a Dutch court ordered Shell Plc (NYSE:SHEL) to cut its greenhouse gas emissions harder and faster than it had previously planned. Never mind the fact that Shell had already pledged to cut GHG emissions by 20% by 2030 and to net-zero by 2050. The court in The Hague determined that wasn’t good enough and demanded a 45% cut by 2030 compared to 2019 levels. The past two years have been especially challenging for Shell shareholders after the company announced a major dividend cut with the quarterly dividend falling to 16 cents from 47 cents, the first dividend cut since WW11. Meanwhile, the company’s debt had ballooned massively from $1bn in 2005 to $73bn in 2020.

Luckily for these oil and gas supermajors, last year, investor sentiment shifted in their favor.

In May 2022, Exxon recorded a major victory after its shareholders supported the company’s energy transition strategy at the annual general meeting. Only 28% of the participants backed a resolution filed by the Follow This activist group urging faster action to battle climate change; a proposal calling for a report on low carbon business planning received just 10.5% support while a report on plastic production garnered a 37% favorable vote.

Following in the footsteps of its larger peer, in June, Chevron shareholders voted against a resolution asking the company to adopt greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets, indicating support for the steps the company already has taken to address climate change.

Just 33% of shareholders voted in favor of the proposal, according to preliminary figures disclosed by the company, a sharp turnaround from last year when 61% of shareholders voted to support a similar proposal.

Last week, CEO Darren Woods urged regulators to stop focusing on certain energy sources, such as renewable energy, to save the climate, warning that it would be a “huge mistake to be picking winners and losers and focusing on specific technologies”. Instead, “we need to look more broadly and let the markets figure out which solutions deliver the most emissions reductions at the lowest cost,” Woods told Nicolai Tangen, the CEO of Norway’s Wealth Fund, one of the largest mutual funds in the world, on his podcast. An attempt to move away from oil and gas immediately, with unchanged global demand, could be disastrous for clean energy, Woods suggested, adding that if we produce less LNG, for example, something else–like coal–would have to step in to fill the demand gap. 

According to Woods, Europe should follow the U.S. approach to climate policy, arguing that the continent risks driving companies away by regulating too hard. Woods told Bloomberg that one of the most important things the Americans (and ExxonMobil) are doing is developing technologies to capture and store carbon

Overall, it appears that overcoming carbon-lock is proving to be a much more formidable task than earlier thought.

Former New York Mayor, notorious socialist Bill de Blasio, was ordered to pay almost a half-million dollars by the city Conflicts of Interest Board for using taxpayer money for his security detail during his short-lived run for president in 2019, Bloomberg first reported.

De Blasio, who served two catastrophic terms through 2021 and like any good socialist, left NYC in a state of disrepeair and soaring crime, campaigned briefly as part of a presidential bid that saw him reach 1% in some polls before ultimately dropping out. During his travels, he used city funds to pay expenses for members of the New York Police Department who served as the security detail for his family, clearly enjoying the role of wannabe socialist dictator, and with just the right amount of popular support.

This racked up $319,794.20 in travel costs, including airfare, car rentals, hotel stays and meals, said the COIB, which ordered him to repay the costs. The board also fined the former mayor $155,000 for the misuse of resources, the largest fine in its history, according to a statement Thursday, which said de Blasio “disregarded the board’s advice.”

According to Bloomberg, De Blasio, 62, used city funds to pay the security details’ expenses despite receiving an explicit order from COIB on May 15, 2019, that such expenses weren’t allowed. The board told de Blasio that while the city could pay the costs of NYPD officers’ salaries and overtime while they were serving on the mayor’s detail, using city money to pay for the extra travel expenses for his presidential campaign constituted using “city resources for a non-city purpose.”

The board also said “using an official position for financial gain or ‘personal or private advantage’” was in violation of the city’s charter. That did not stop the corrupt socialist, however.

The day after receiving the opinion, May 16, 2019, de Blasio formally embarked on his catastrophic presidential campaign, in which not even hardened communists indicated a desire to vote for De Blasio.

Hillariously, an attorney for de Blasio said in a statement that the former mayor will file a lawsuit in response to the board’s decision, to stop it from taking effect.

“COIB’s action — which seeks to saddle elected officials with security costs that the city has properly borne for decades — is dangerous, beyond the scope of their powers, and illegal,” Andrew Celli, de Blasio’s attorney, said in the statement.

This wasn’t the first time the grifting ex-mayor was caught abusing funding: last month, he was fined $53,100 by the Federal Elections Commission for improperly routing large sums of money to his presidential campaign from a pair of state and federal political action committees he had created.

In 2016 and 2017, he was the subject of dual probes by both the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and the Southern District US Attorney’s Office for his fundraising practices. According to Bloomberg, the Manhattan DA examined whether de Blasio had tried to circumvent state election donation limits by routing donations to county committees. De Blasio was never charged (after all, the two belong to the same political party), but former District Attorney Cy Vance Jr. admonished the mayor in a letter announcing the closure of the investigation, saying that the transactions “appear contrary to the intent and spirit of the laws that impose candidate contribution limits, laws which are meant to prevent ‘corruption and the appearance of corruption’ in the campaign financing process.”

The US Attorney’s Office scrutinized whether de Blasio had granted favors in exchange for donations to his political nonprofit and mayoral campaign but also ultimately decided not to bring charges. In a letter announcing the closure of the investigation, then-acting U.S. Attorney Joon Kim said the office had decided not to charge the mayor despite finding multiple occasions on which de Blasio and his representatives sought donations from people who wanted “official favors from the city, after which the mayor made or directed inquiries to relevant city agencies on behalf of those donors.”

Authored by Simon White, Bloomberg macro strategist,

Equities face a short-term risk from overbought conditions, coinciding with the impulse from Fed reserves slowing.

Nothing moves in a straight line. Even though there are reasons to believe the medium-term positive trend in the S&P is intact, there are some short-term risks to be aware of.

So far, the liquidity drain from new sovereign issuance has not been as bad as feared as the Treasury has sugared the pill by tilting their issuance towards bills.

The Treasury also has not built back up its account at the Fed (the TGA) too aggressively.

Nonetheless, when it comes to reserves, it is not their change, but the change of their change (the impulse) that is more meaningful for equities. On that basis, equities are facing some short-term vulnerability.

There has been a deluge of Treasury issuance this month after an agreement on the debt ceiling was reached. Total issuance so far in June and slated for next week comes to over $800 billion. However, 85% of the ~$800 billion has been or will be in bills, with the remainder in notes and bonds.

Bills should have less of a negative impact on liquidity as it is money market funds (MMFs) that typically buy them. MMFs seem to have been drawing down on the RRP facility to do so – taking advantage of more attractive bill yields – which overall has a neutral impact on liquidity. (As an aide, it was therefore good fortune for markets the Fed was so hawkish at this week’s FOMC meeting, even though they did not raise rates.)

In fact, over the last four weeks, MMFs look to have drawn down on the RRP more than enough to compensate for any loss of bank deposits to MMFs. The drop in the RRP has been sufficient to allow the Treasury to add to the TGA and still leave reserves higher over the last four weeks.

But as mentioned above, it is the change of the change in reserves that matters for stocks, and that is falling. Coming at a time when the S&P is looking overbought, this suggests that exercising some caution is warranted in the coming weeks.

Call skew has been rising relative to put skew as speculation heats up, leading to hedgers selling calls to buy downside protection via puts.

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

A bipartisan group of US lawmakers introduced a piece of legislation on Thursday that would give President Biden the power to confiscate frozen Russian Central Bank assets and send them to Ukraine.

The Rebuilding Economic Prosperity and Opportunity (REPO) for Ukrainians Act was introduced in both the House and the Senate. According to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the legislation would “provide additional assistance to Ukraine using assets confiscated from the Central Bank of the Russian Federation and other sovereign assets of the Russian Federation.”

The US Justice Department has authorized the transfer of some private Russian assets to Ukraine, but taking funds from the Russian Central Bank would mark a significant escalation of Washington’s economic war against Moscow.

Hundreds of billions of dollars in Russian Central Bank assets have been frozen by the US and its allies.

The legislation would also instruct President Biden to “work with allies and partners to establish an international compensation mechanism to transfer confiscated or frozen Russian sovereign assets to assist Ukraine.”

European countries have been discussing the idea of using Russian assets to provide more funds for Ukraine, including investing the assets and sending Kyiv the returns.

The bill would also give the State Department “additional resources to work with partners and allies abroad toward the goal of confiscation of additional Russian sovereign assets in other countries.”

The House version of the bill was introduced by Reps. Michael McCaul (R-TX), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Joe Wilson (R-SC), Thomas Kean Jr. (R-NJ), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN), and Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL). In the Senate, the legislation was led by Senators Jim Risch (R-ID) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

“It’s a ‘New Bull Market’!” Over the past few days, the call of a new bull market has plastered headlines and media commentary. To wit:

“The S&P 500 rallied Thursday to end the day in a bull market, marking a 20% surge since its most recent low, reached on October 12, 2022. That brings to end the bear market that began in January 2022.” – We’re In A New Bull Market, CNN

Or this:

“Despite the Fed hiking rates, shrinking their balance sheet, and inflation at 9%, much of the financial media and market gurus have determined that the bear market is over and a new bull market has started. As shown, as the market surged, so did the number of articles discussing a new bull market.”

Here is the issue.

That second quote was from our weekly newsletter on August 6th, 2022.

At that time, the market had surged more than 20% from the June lows, triggering a bull market’s arbitrary level. The media quickly jumped on board to proclaim the bear market dead. Furthermore, that market completed a 50% Fibonacci retracement from the lows (it retraced half of the previous decline), historically suggesting markets perform better over the next 12 months.

“Since WWII, every time the S&P recovered 50% of the bear market price decline, while the 500 may have re-tested the prior low, it never set a lower low,” Sam Stovall, Chief Investment Strategist at CFRA Research

The problem, then, is the bear market was not over, and during the next couple of months, as shown, the market set new lows.

The lesson here is that just because the technical indicators suggest a new bull market has started does not necessarily mean it has. However, there is an essential difference between then and now.

As shown, the market rallied more than 20% from the lows and completed the 50% retracement, but the market was trading BELOW the 200-day moving average. Such suggested that the market was in a bear market, and rallies to the 200-DMA were potential opportunities to reduce exposure rather than increase it.

Currently, it is a different technical setup.

Bear Markets Versus Corrections

We previously discussed that the 2020 and 2022 declines were not “bear markets.”

Instead, they were “corrections” within an ongoing bull market. To wit:

“What defines a bear market? To answer that question, let’s agree on a basic definition.“

• A bull market is when the market price trends higher over a long-term period.

• A bear market is when the previous positive trend breaks and prices trend lower.

“The chart below provides a visual of the distinction. When looking at price “trends,” the difference becomes apparent and valuable.“

This distinction is essential to understanding the difference between “corrections” and “bear markets.”

• “Corrections” occur over short time frames, do not break the prevailing trends, and quickly resolve by reversing to new highs.

• “Bear Markets” are long-term affairs where prices grind sideways or lower over long periods as valuations revert.

The price decline in March 2020 was unusually swift using monthly closing data. However, that decline did not break the long-term bullish trend. It also quickly reversed to new highs, suggesting it was a “correction.”

Likewise, the decline in 2022 did not significantly test the long-term uptrend or revert valuations. Such also suggests it was a correction and not a bear market.

In both cases, the market was so stretched above the long-term bullish uptrend those 20% plus corrections were needed to reverse those deviations. The decline was not significant enough to break the bullish rising price trends.

Another way to view bear markets, corrections, or new bull markets, is by utilizing longer-term moving averages. The 40- and 200-week moving average provides a better view of price trends. When the market trades above the 40-week moving average (WMA), markets tend to be bullish. Breaks of the 40-WMA often set up a test of the longer-term bullish market trend defined by the 200-WMA. Breaks of the 200-WMA, as in 2008, represent a bear market.

It is hard to suggest that we are in a “new bull market” when the bullish price trend from the 2009 lows remains intact. However, there is a difference between the 20% rally in 2022 and the current rally in 2023.

It’s Different This Time

While we are not in a new bull market, there is a difference between the current bullish rally and 2022. As noted, the 20% rally in 2022 rallied to the 200-DMA and failed at that resistance. The difference currently is that the market is trading well above the 200-DMA with a “bullish golden cross” of the 50-DMA above the 200-DMA. The technical backdrop is significantly different than that of 2022 and suggests that stocks will likely continue to trade higher in the coming months.

However, that does NOT mean we won’t have corrections along the way.

While markets are certainly in a more bullish trend, the recent surge in exuberance, as noted on Tuesday, is noteworthy.

“The current chase for stocks related to “artificial intelligence” has undoubtedly grabbed everyone’s attention. Retail investors are jumping back into the markets with both feet for the first time since last year.” – Is A.I. The New Dot.com?

“The shift from bearish to bullish sentiment has been steady since the beginning of March. However, recently, there was an apparent capitulation as bearish investors turned bullish. As the market climbed, the “Net Bullish Ratio” (bullish, less bearish investors) of retail and professional investors turned sharply higher in recent weeks. While not at levels usually associated with market peaks, the sharp turn higher suggests a capitulation by the bears. “

The critical point of that turn in exuberance is this:

“However, while that turn in bullish sentiment is not yet to more extreme levels, it is often the sign of the end of a rally rather than the beginning of one.“

Getting A Bit Extended

Another indication we may be closer to a correction in the market is the deviation from the longer-term moving averages. Corrections occur when the market begins to climb more than 10% above its long-term mean. Such is logical given that the “mean,” or average, price over a long period suggests that prices trade above and below that level. Therefore, moving averages provide a “gravitational pull” on prices. The more deviated from that longer-term mean, the stronger the pull on prices to correct back to that mean.

Currently, the S&P 500 is trading 10% above its 200-DMA.

Because of the chase of technology stocks this year, the Nasdaq is more egregiously stretched and is nearing a 20% deviation.

While such does not mean that markets won’t eventually move higher, in the near term, these deviations, combined with rising exuberance, suggest a near-term correction is likely.

Given that the market is clearly in a bullish trend, the 50-DMA has crossed above the 200-DMA, and the sentiment is improving, any support pullback will be a buying opportunity for investors to gain further exposure. While this is not a new bull market, the continuation of the existing bull market remains intact currently.

Can something change? Absolutely.

If it does, markets will begin to break support, the bullish price action and sentiment will reverse, and it will suggest that investors become more defensive again.

But for now, the bulls control the narrative, and the bears are being forced back into the market.

It is different this time.