time for SPRING'S AUG - 22 = Hawaii Braces FoM-44 Cyanide r Powerful Cat 4 Hurricane, Could See Direct Hit & Tanker W/19 Disappears In Pirate Waters Off Africa & WEAKENING THE DOLLAR CONTROL DEFICIT &

THE SAVAGE INTEL...  
FELLOW AMERICANS, I'VE JOINED FORCES WITH IKE, WE NEEDED SOME LEADERSHIP 
Enlarge this image

 IKE HERE, WE , NEED TO STAND TOGETHER TO HELP THIS REPUBLIC!
HOSTILES HAVE TAKEN MANY OF THE OFFICES AND FORCE THEIR WILL ON AMERICA, IT'S PEOPLE AND THE REST OF THE WORLD!! COME TOGETHER AGAINST THIS COMMON ENEMY!!
THIS IS GOD'S EARTH! AND THIS COUNTRY WAS BLESSED BY GOD OUR HEAVENLY FATHER!
I'M ASKING ALL OF YOU TO PRAY TO HIM THROUGH OUR ANNOINTED SAVIOR YESHUA (JESUS) AND ASK FOR HELP IN THWARTING THIS EVIL AND THE MINIONS THAT BRING DESTRUCTION FOR THIS ENTIRE PLANET!
BE VOICEFUL AND STAND TOGETHER! 

GOD BLESS Q=17, PRESIDENT TRUMP & PATRIOTS!
 

1. Hawaii Braces For Powerful Cat 4 Hurricane, Could See Direct Hit


2. Tanker With 19 On Board Disappears In Pirate-Infested Waters Off Africa
  

3. Existing Home Sales Tumble As Home-Buying Sentiment Hits Lehman Lows
 

4. The "National Emergency Loophole": How Trump Could Intervene In The Market To Crush The Dollar
   


5. Two M-44 Cyanide bomb devices KILL DOG AND SICKEN BOY 14, Dept of Ag SAY NOT RESPONSIBLE!!!
    

6. Jon Rappoport: "The secret circle that controls governments"
  







  

#2
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-22/tanker-19-board-disappears-pirate-infested-waters-africa

Tanker With 19 On Board Disappears In Pirate-Infested Waters Off Africa

A tanker with 19 crew members on board is feared to have been hijacked after it went missing in pirate-plagued waters off Gabon in West Africa

#4
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-22/national-emergency-loophole-how-trump-could-intervene-market-crush-dollar

The "National Emergency Loophole": How Trump Could Intervene In The Market To Crush The Dollar




by Tyler Durden
Wed, 08/22/2018 - 11:45

ReddiEmailPrint


Following a series of attacks on the Federal Reserve's rate hike policy and complaints about the strong dollar, some Wall Street observers are saying the possibility that Trump himself will launch a sustained campaign to weaken the dollar as a way to reduce the U.S. trade deficit can no longer be dismissed.
While a strong-dollar policy has been a cornerstone for successive U.S. administrations, Trump - like with many other things - has shown a penchant for upending the currency status quo. Since taking office in 2017, he has routinely talked about wanting a weaker dollar to support U.S. manufacturing. Additionally, Trump's administration has been lukewarm toward America’s traditional strong-dollar stance.
As Bloomberg notes in a Wednesday article, in recent months Trump has further stepped up the rhetoric as the dollar has bounced off its lows. In an interview published by Reuters this week, Trump once again accused China and the European Union of manipulating their currencies. Last Friday, he also complained to wealthy Republican donors that he was “not thrilled” with the Federal Reserve’s interest-rate increases under Chairman Jerome Powell, which have boosted the dollar.
[url=https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/trump dollar hits.jpg?itok=zv9ykE25][/url]
As a result, after a flurry of tweets in which Trump complained that the dollar is blunting America’s “competitive edge,” Wall Street has started to pay attention: in a report this month, JPM's chief US economist, Michael Feroli, wrote in a report this month that he can’t rule out the possibility the administration will intervene in the currency markets to weaken the greenback. Both Deutsche Bank and OppenheimerFunds echoed the view, saying dollar intervention was no longer far-fetched.
Zach Pandl, co-head of global FX strategy at Goldman Sachs, recently said that "we haven’t had a deliberate effort to weaken the U.S. dollar perhaps since the Plaza Accord in 1985, so it is very unusual and against established practice over the last several decades. A deliberate policy to pursue a weaker currency could cause foreign investors to shy away from U.S. assets -- including Treasury bonds -- raising interest costs for domestic borrowers."
In a note from Nomura's Richard Koo, the strategist asks "how President Trump might respond if uncertainty did worsen, raising the likelihood of a slowdown in the US economy" and answers that "one possibility is that the administration would shift from tariffs, which require a separate staff to handle exemption requests for each product category, to the use of exchange rates, which would allow simultaneous adjustments to prices for all imported products."
Here is why Koo is confident that it is only a matter of time before Trump directly intervenes in the FX market:

Quote :

A protectionist policy that must be individually tailored to each product category requires large numbers of administrative staff, and a period must be established during which companies can apply for exemptions. Exchange rate-based adjustments, on the other hand, entail no such costs.
In that sense, the more problematic administrative delays become and the more industry opposition mounts, the greater the likelihood that President Trump will replace tariffs with exchange rates as his main tool for addressing US trade imbalances.

[size]
The loudest warning to date that Trump could rock the currency world has come from Charles Dallara, the former U.S. Treasury official who was one of the architects of the Plaza Accord, the 1985 agreement between the U.S. and four other countries to jointly depreciate the dollar. "The trade debate will increasingly include the currency issues," he told Bloomberg "It’s inevitable."
As Bloomberg adds, a shift to a more protectionist and interventionist policy, à la 1985, would not only reverberate across the $5.1 trillion-a-day currency market and undermine the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency, but could also weaken demand for U.S. assets.
But can Trump really intervene unilaterally in the currency market, and what tools does the president have at his disposal if he wanted to go beyond mere talk?
The most direct choice for Trump would be to order the U.S. Treasury (via the New York Fed) to sell dollars and buy currencies like the yen and euro using its Exchange Stabilization Fund, according to Viraj Patel, an FX strategist at ING. But because the fund only holds $22 billion of dollar assets, the impact would likely be minimal. Any direct intervention that is larger and more ambitious in scope would also require congressional approval, he said quoted by Bloomberg.
Then there is the nuclear option: according to Patel there is one loophole Trump could exploit to get around the fund’s constraints and bypass Congress altogether: by declaring FX intervention a “national emergency.” He could then force the Fed to use its own account to sell dollars.
[/size]

Quote :

Such a move would be a long shot by any stretch of the imagination, but with Trump invoking national security to impose tariffs, Patel says he can’t “completely rule out” the possibility.

[size]
Such a move would certainly roil the market and potentially lead to a USD crash, not only due to Trump's intervention but due to the sudden collapse in faith in the global reserve currency; the result would be a flood of Treasury sales from global custodians around the globe who currently hold over $6 trillion in US Treasuries. To be sure, Trump’s persistent jawboning of the dollar may already be having an adverse effect on foreign demand for U.S. assets. While overall demand at auction has been up and down this year, foreign holdings of Treasuries have slumped to an almost 15-year low of 40%, forcing domestic investors to become the marginal buyer of US Treasurys. China, the largest overseas creditor, has pulled back this year. Japan, the second biggest, has reduced its share to the lowest level since at least 2000.
[url=https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/foreign holdings US paper.jpg?itok=DMck3gjZ][/url]
A less extreme, and more plausible, option would be for the Trump administration to include currency clauses in any new trade deals, like it did with the updated U.S.-South Korea trade agreement in March, although enforcement would be complicated and the implementation lengthy.
There is also the suggestion of a global accord on currencies, broached in the past by White House trade adviser Peter Navarro, however the chances of a multilateral agreement on the dollar are remote. Plus, there’s always the threat of retaliation by other nations if the U.S. goes it alone.
While it remains unclear what Trump will do, keep a close eye on China, where the yuan has tumbled nearly 10% since April, when the trade war with Beijing started in earnest.  The magnitude of the decline, the fastest since the 1994 devaluation, boosted speculation the People’s Bank of China is deliberately weakening the yuan to offset the tariff impact.
Even though China has denied it is "weaponizing the Yuan", many are skeptical, and Trump is among them: which is why the president has criticized the country for taking advantage of the U.S. by keeping its exchange rate artificially low. (However, Trump has not gone so far as to officially brand China a currency manipulator in the twice-yearly review of international foreign-exchange policies published by the Treasury).
Trump's single focus on the Yuan may explain why Beijing has pulled all stops to prevent the currency from sliding below the 'redline' of 7.00 vs the dollar (alternatively it is preparing to devalue further if and when Trump launches the next $250BN in tariffs he has warned he would). Stephen Jen of Eurizon SLJ Capital has warned that Trump may be quick to retaliate in the FX markets if it suspects that China is "playing games with its currency," which may have disastrous effects on demand for U.S. assets.
"If you’re an international portfolio manager with 30 percent of your exposure to the U.S., and you know the currency will be guided meaningfully lower as a policy tool, why would you be investing here?” he said. "The Trump administration needs to be very, very careful with its dollar policy." This was most vividly on exhibit during the Fed's QE phase when Guido Mantega, then Brazil's finance minister, siad the Fed was throwing "money from a helicopter" and "melting" the dollar.
Ironically, it is the stronger dollar that is crippling emerging markets now.
Whether or not Trump intervenes, however, Dallara is bracing for more turbulent times:
"I’ve lived through a lot of market gyrations in my career,” he said. “And I have an uneasy feeling that I can’t validate by data that tensions are going to, at some point, emerge into volatile market dynamics. This is a risk."[/size]

#5
https://www.idahostatesman.com/latest-news/article217151810.html


File - This March 16, 2017, file photo released by the Bannock County Sheriff’s Office shows a cyanide device in Pocatello, Idaho, The cyanide device, called M-44, is spring-activated and shoots poison that is meant to kill predators. The U.S. government says an Idaho boy and his parents are to blame for any injuries to the boy claimed in a lawsuit contending he was doused with cyanide by a predator-killing trap a federal worker mistakenly placed near their home. The U.S. Department of Justice in documents filed Monday, Aug. 20, 2018, in U.S. District Court says any injuries were caused by the negligence of the parents and child, and the lawsuit should be dismissed. (Bannock County Sheriff’s Office via AP, File) AP

LATEST NEWS

US denies liability after boy is sprayed by its cyanide trap

BOISE, IDAHO August 22, 2018 03:14 PM
Updated 1 hour 13 minutes ago
The U.S. government said an Idaho family is to blame for any injuries it alleges a boy received after he was doused with cyanide by a predator-killing trap that a federal worker mistakenly placed near their home.
Any injuries were caused by the negligence of the parents and child, the U.S. Department of Justice said in documents filed Monday in U.S. District Court, and asked for the family's lawsuit to be dismissed.

ricultureMark and Theresa Mansfield of Pocatello sued in June seeking more than $75,000 in damages and more than $75,000 for pain and suffering.
They say their son, Canyon Mansfield, was playing with his dog in March 2017 when the then-14-year-old triggered the trap that the U.S. Department of Agriculture placed to kill coyotes. The dog died, and the teen still has headaches from the poison, the lawsuit said.
In its response, the government "expressly denied" any "alleged negligence by defendant or its agencies or employees."
The devices, called M-44s, are embedded in the ground and look like lawn sprinklers but spray cyanide when they are set off. They are meant to protect livestock but sometimes kill pets and injure people.
The traps drew increased scrutiny after The Associated Press reported that the teen was injured months after the government decided to stop using the devices on federal lands in Idaho.
The lawsuit contends that an Agriculture Department worker acknowledged to law enforcement officials placing the trap in error on land managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The court document filed by the Justice Department does not acknowledge such an error.
It responded to an emailed inquiry from The Associated Press on Wednesday by asking for an outline of questions but didn't respond to those questions.
The agency said in court documents that "defendant admits that two M-44 devices placed by (a federal) employee were discharged in the incident involving CM and his dog."
The lawsuit mentions only one M-44 activating, and law enforcement officials who responded last year didn't mention additional devices discharging.
The reason for the discrepancy is not clear. The Justice Department didn't respond to that question.
The lawsuit describes the boy encountering the device and says he thought it looked like a sprinkler head.
"When he reached down and touched the pipe, it exploded with a loud bang, knocking CM to the ground and spewing an orange powdery substance," the lawsuit says.
The Justice Department throughout its response disputes that there was an explosion, noting that M-44s are spring-activated and contain no explosive material.
Reed Larsen, an attorney for the Mansfields, didn't return calls left his office and his cellphone.
In a separate but related lawsuit by environmental and animal welfare groups, U.S. officials in March agreed to complete a study on how two predator-killing poisons could be affecting federally protected species.
A settlement requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to complete consultations with the Environmental Protection Agency by the end of 2021 on the poisons that federal workers use to protect livestock on rural lands. One of the poisons is the cyanide used in M-44s.
Andrea Santarsiere, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, which is involved in the settlement and ultimately hopes to get M-44s banned entirely, said the federal government's response to the Mansfield lawsuit was disappointing.
"Rather than apologize for having a poisonous device on public lands that injured a young boy and killed his dog, the government instead is using a tactic to blame the boy," she said.