++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
U.S decides to abandon Obama's policy regarding Israeli settlements. (See 1 and 1a below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is now a fourth branch of government! (See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bloomberg recants and decides now that he is running for the presidency he should not have been so frisky. (See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chick - Fil - A chickens out and that is sad.
When I was in Military school the company's first outlet was called the Dwarf House and was located near GMA in College Park. When I had time off and money I would go there for a sandwich. That was over 73 years ago. The family are devout Baptists, have made a remarkable success and are very generous. It is a tragic shame, in order to expand in a nation once known for freedom, they believed in order to expand they had to cave on their principles. (See 4 below)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Value investing making a comeback and seems on firm ground. My portfolio, except for energy positions, has come alive and even some selected stocks have done well like Crisper, a bio-tech company.
My financial stocks have been doing well, so have selected food stocks and even Qualcom, which made it's first presentation in three years. I recently bought B&G Foods (BGS) and am willing to speculate on an earnings recovery and maintenance of it's dividend. (See 5 below.)
I still believe the markets ebbs higher.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DORIS
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
In major shift, US says settlements 'not inconsistent' with international law
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says White House has "carefully studied" US policy over the decades and has decided to reverse the Obama administration's approach. Move does not prejudice ultimate outcome of a negotiated settlement, he insists.
Almost three years after President Barack Obama's administration effectively endorsed a UN Security Council resolution that said Israeli settlements had "no legal validity," the US announced Monday that it was no longer party to this legal interpretation and considered the settlements to be compatible with international law.
"The Trump administration is reversing the Obama administration's approach toward Israeli settlements," Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said, rebuking Obama for abstaining in the December 2016 vote in the Security Council that determined Israeli settlement activity was a "flagrant violation of international law."
Pompeo said that "we will no longer recognize Israeli settlements as per se inconsistent with international law," noting that this conclusion was "based on the unique facts, history, circumstances presented by the establishment of civilian settlements in the West Bank."
The new policy means that the US would consider Israeli settlements to be irrelevant to the legal aspects of the peace process, restoring the policy that had been first adopted by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. As such, the US will view the settlements' future only through a political future, as determined by the two parties, rather than one that should be shaped through the courts.
The policy shift has been in the works for quite some time. President Trump himself has been involved in this policy shift. Pompeo and Ambassador to Israel David Friedman have worked out the details of this decision in recent weeks, culminating in this statement. Evangelical groups were also involved.
According to Pompeo, "US public statements on settlement activities in the West Bank have been inconsistent over decades. In 1978, the Carter Administration categorically concluded that Israel's establishment of civilian settlements was inconsistent with international law. However, in 1981, President Reagan disagreed with that conclusion and stated that he didn't believe the settlements were inherently illegal.
"Subsequent administrations recognized that unrestrained settlement activity could be an obstacle to peace, but they wisely and prudently recognized that dwelling on legal positions didn't advance peace. However, in December 2016, the Obama Administration, through Secretary Kerry, changed decades of this careful, bipartisan approach by publicly re-affirming the supposed illegality of settlements. After carefully studying all sides of the legal debate, this administration agrees with President Reagan. The establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not per se inconsistent with international law."
1a) West Bank settlements not illegal, US decides in historic US policy shift
By JERUSALEM POST STAFF
It was not immediately clear how the new policy would impact the future roll out of the Trump peace plan.
In a historic reversal of US policy, the Trump administration is set to announce on Monday that it does not view Israeli settlements in the West Bank as illegal. The policy change was set to be formalized in an official address by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Washington.
The decision, The Jerusalem Post has learned, came after a year-long review conducted by the State Department’s legal office. The team met with international law experts as well as officials from different governments to hear their opinions.
The review was prompted by the Obama administration’s decision to enable the passing of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 in December 2016, according to which settlement activity constitutes a "flagrant violation" of international law and has "no legal validity".
In 1978, the Carter administration concluded that the establishment of civilian settlements was inconsistent with international law but President Ronald Reagan overturned that stance in 1981. Until Obama, administrations recognized that settlement activity could be an obstacle to peace but mostly didn’t get caught up on legal positions.
The decision, The Jerusalem Post has learned, came after a year-long review conducted by the State Department’s legal office. The team met with international law experts as well as officials from different governments to hear their opinions.
The review was prompted by the Obama administration’s decision to enable the passing of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 in December 2016, according to which settlement activity constitutes a "flagrant violation" of international law and has "no legal validity".
In 1978, the Carter administration concluded that the establishment of civilian settlements was inconsistent with international law but President Ronald Reagan overturned that stance in 1981. Until Obama, administrations recognized that settlement activity could be an obstacle to peace but mostly didn’t get caught up on legal positions.
It was not immediately clear how the new policy would impact the future roll out of the Trump peace plan.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)Up Schiff Creek Without a Paddle
By Steve Martini
It is now apparent that there are four branches of the Federal Government; the executive, the legislative, the judicial, and the civil service. They are all co-equal, although the latter when combined with Democrats in Congress may be more equal than the others. This has become increasingly clear as a result of the on-going three-year campaign to remove the current President from office.
Democrats since Barack Obama, have asserted the right to control the executive branch at all times, no matter which party controls the White House. They have effectively done this by demanding through their agents in the mainstream media that any Republican appointee over an executive agency to which they crave control, must recuse him or herself upon even the most frivolous allegation as to a conflict of interest. In this way they took control of the Justice Department and the FBI following Trump's election as President. They also continued their control over the IRS long enough for people to forget what they had done there and for some statutes of limitations on some of the crimes committed to expire.
Democrats have also made clear that the doctrine of "recusal" as well as any penalties for conflicts of interest never apply to themselves under any circumstance. Witness their position regarding potential conflicts involving Joe Biden and his son Hunter as to foreign commercial activities in Ukraine, China and elsewhere. The same applies to alleged conflicts routinely engaged in by Hillary and Bill Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State during the Obama Administration. Democrats merely recite the words "these matters have been thoroughly reviewed and investigated" and all criticism is expected to immediately dissipate like steam on a sunny day.
Though you may not have noticed, Democrats in recent decades have also asserted a permanent right to control appointments to the Supreme Court as well as high level intermediate appellate courts no matter which party controls the White House. They have done this by routinely defaming any appointee with whom they disagree, and by using their agents in the mainstream media for this purpose. We have seen this with regularity over the past thirty years or more, ever since they succeeded in forcing Robert Bork to withdraw his name from nomination after he was appointed to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan. "Borking" as they say, has become great sport under the capitol dome. No doubt the next Republican nominee to the Supreme Court will be unmasked by Democrats as being "Jack the Ripper."
What is new in all of this is the Democrat Party's recent harnessing of the new civil service branch of the federal government. You didn't know that this exists? Well it does. These are political apparatchik's elected and appointed by no one, who may be invited by Democrats in Congress from time to time to undermine and remove a sitting President apparently whenever the Democrats think the time is ripe. We are now watching this play out on a daily basis in front of our eyes. A so-called mysterious "whistleblower" from the CIA whose identity and history of political bias is now known to most of the world, but whose name may not be uttered within the halls of Congress for fear of being struck by lightning.
This is in concert with a campaign of more than three years, during which time high executives of the FBI, the Justice Department, the CIA, the NIA, the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign sought to undermine first candidate Trump, and then President Trump by falsifying criminal allegations against him along with as many of his supporters as they could reach using intelligence agents of foreign governments. After all, what are allies for!
Now in case you're confused, this is not to be seen as foreign interference in a US election. Of course not. "It's all been thoroughly reviewed and investigated." Or on second thought, perhaps it shouldn't be. As John Brennan, the former Director of the CIA has said, "why don't we just leave it alone." Sorry John, it's too late.
I'm sure that if you don't like Trump, and many people don't, I suspect that you can condone these activities, turn a blind eye, yawn and tell the world that you're bored and don't wish to hear about it any longer. This is your privilege. After all you live in America, the ultimate paradise for fools. We can all jump into a warm caldron of water, turn the flame under it onto "high", and call it a hot tub. The fact of the matter is, that as a result of all of this, very shortly we're all going to find ourselves, our friends, and our families up "Schiff Creek" without a paddle.
There are reasons why people in Washington don't like The Donald, and those reasons may not square with your reasons. Most observers agree that there is little likelihood that Trump will be removed from office as a result of the current impeachment epidemic in the Capital. The problem is that if he is impeached the circus picks up and moves to the Senate. Then there will be a trial. Think of this as the ultimate, nuclear, log-rolling exercise in which Senators and their closest lobbying friends get to hand Santa their Christmas list.
Convening a trial and seeking anything that bears even the slightest resemblance to justice in the United States Senate, is like holding a religious revival in hell. You have a hundred demons each with their own agenda, and armed with a red-hot trident. They will be looking for ways to stick their individual forks in the behind of the President of the United States. Now before you start thinking that this is just fine by you, consider for a moment who is likely to pick up the check for this extravaganza. That's right, you and I. And it won't all be in the form of mere taxes. Trump has vowed to end the wars overseas, and if possible to bring the troops home. Whenever he has moved in this direction competing interests have tried to stop him. It's not just money. "Blood and treasure" are usually mentioned together for a reason.
When the trial convenes the only demons that Trump and his handlers are likely to care about will be the Republican demons. They already know that most of the Democrat devils will be voting to remove him from office. They have to. They've partaken of the radical cool-aide from the unthinking mob that has them scared witless. This means that Republicans will have a special holy day, an opportunity to lay hands upon the head of the President and perhaps nudge him in sensitive areas with their forks. If they want to leave troops on some distant battlefield for the next hundred years, or their friendly defense contractor has some boondoggle to peddle to the government, it will be the perfect time to pray about these matters. And foreign trade negotiations, let's not forget about foreign trade. After all it's not such a bad deal to sell America to China, not if Nike and Apple are allowed to peddle shoes and cell phones in Asia -- Is it? All Trump has to do is say no, and they can call a few more witnesses into the chamber. When the trial is over, The Donald will be able to write a sequel to "The Art of the Deal" -- "How I Got Rolled in the Rotunda".
Now it might be funny, except for the fact that we're the ones who are going to pay the price for all of this, the endless, unthinking, partisan gotcha games in Washington. Who cares if the economy crashes, if China eats our lunch, or if we are left to patrol the wastelands of the Middle East for the next millennium, just as long as the Democrats win in 2020. That's what really counts. Curing Trump Derangement Syndrome!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) Bloomberg’s ‘Stop and Frisk’ Apology
New York’s ex-Mayor turns his back on his own anti-crime policy.
As New York’s Mayor from 2002-13, Michael Bloomberg loved to brag that Gotham had become America’s “safest big city.” Part of its success, he said, was the New York Police Department’s “stop and frisk” policy, which took weapons off the street based on “reasonable suspicion.”
Critics called stop and frisk racist, which the Mayor forcefully denied. But now as he weighs a Democratic presidential campaign, he’s apologizing for the policy, if not exactly repudiating it. On Sunday at a black church in Brooklyn, Mr. Bloomberg said murder fell 50% on his watch. Without this drop, “some 1,600 more people would have been killed while we were in office,” most of them “young people, with lives so full of promise, from black and Latino communities.”
But by 2012-13, he added, stop and frisk was eroding support for the police, because “far too many innocent people were being stopped.” By the time he left office, Mr. Bloomberg said, “we had cut stops by 94%.” Thus the apology: “I now see that we could and should have acted sooner, and acted faster, to cut the stops. I wish we had—and I’m sorry that we didn’t.”
Hmmm. Mr. Bloomberg’s regret is that he didn’t realize more quickly, as murder halved, that stop and frisk wasn’t still needed? No mention of racism or the policy’s supposed illegality? This can’t be the big apology progressives crave.
It’s disappointing nonetheless for those who want a Democratic nominee willing to stand up to the politically correct left. Stop-and-frisk policing is a useful and lawful tactic in high-crime areas. If it was overdone in New York, part of the reason was falling crime and diminishing returns. Crime hasn’t gone up since the policy was largely ended, but that doesn’t mean it was ineffective in its heyday.
As for the law, federal Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled in 2013 that the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practices were unconstitutional and involved “indirect racial profiling.” But an appeals court pulled Judge Scheindlin from the case for having compromised “the appearance of impartiality.” Her ruling was stayed, and Mr. Bloomberg pledged to appeal. Successor Bill de Blasio ended the appeal upon taking office in 2014.
The shame of Mr. Bloomberg’s half-throated apology is that it lends credence to critics of successful policing, even as the “thin blue line” is under political assault in New York and beyond. Will Mr. Bloomberg next apologize for supporting charter schools?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4) Chick-Fil-A Caves to the Left. Abandons Salvation Army.
By Erick Erickson
Let’s get this out of the way — Chick-Fil-A is a private corporation that can do whatever it wants with its money. The problem is the chicken sandwich maker has caved to the progressive secular mob and, in the left scoring that win, Chick-Fil-A will embolden more of this.
Wall Street says the art of buying cheap stocks is making a comeback—for real this time.
4) Chick-Fil-A Caves to the Left. Abandons Salvation Army.
By Erick Erickson
Let’s get this out of the way — Chick-Fil-A is a private corporation that can do whatever it wants with its money. The problem is the chicken sandwich maker has caved to the progressive secular mob and, in the left scoring that win, Chick-Fil-A will embolden more of this.
Chick-Fil-A has been under attack by the left for its support of the Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. The groups have routinely been attacked as homophobic and anti-trans. The Salvation Army actually hires members of the Alphabet Gang1 and even offers insurance for married members of the Alphabet Gang.
Chick-Fil-A says it is ending its support of the Salvation Army because it wants to focus on fighting homelessness. I wonder if this was an intentional ploy from some within Chick-Fil-A to signal that this is a hostage situation. The Salvation Army is the largest nonprofit in America that fights homelessness. Chick-Fil-A claiming it must abandon the Salvation Army to fight homelessness is like saying the Navy must abandon bodies of water for dry land in order to float its ships. It makes no sense.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5) Value Stocks Are Back in Vogue, for Now
Money managers and individual investors step up buying of banks, manufacturers and other value stocks
By Michael Wursthorn
Wall Street says the art of buying cheap stocks is making a comeback—for real this time.
Money managers and individual investors this month stepped up their buying of shares of banks, manufacturers and other value stocks—often defined as companies whose shares trade at a low multiple of their book value, or net worth.
The renewed interest has pushed the S&P 500 Value index up 11% over the past three months, more than double the increase of its growth counterpart. The spurt of gains has lifted the value index ahead of the S&P 500 Growth index for 2019 and put it on pace for its strongest year since 2013.
This is by no means the first time investors have heralded a bounce back in value investing, only to quickly see the trade fizzle out. Value stocks have lagged behind shares of fast-growing companies throughout much of the decade long bull rally. The S&P 500 value index has risen 142% over the past 10 years versus 230% for large growth companies. (The S&P 500 has climbed 185% over that period).
Some investors and analysts argue this time is different.
Some investors and analysts argue this time is different.
Measures of investment sentiment have improved as fears of a recession have abated, corporate profits are expected to rebound, and trade tensions between the U.S. and China have shown signs of improving.
More important, value stocks are trading at some of their most attractive prices in years, analysts say.
Brian Belski, chief investment strategist at BMO Capital Markets, said the valuation gap between value and growth stocks hit an extreme level in mid-2018 and has grown further since then, helping make value stocks appear inexpensive again.
Analysts at Bank of America add that value stocks are trading at one of their cheapest levels relative to momentum stocks, which investors purchase because they have been rising. The only other times the discount was this steep was in 2003 and 2008, the bank said. Value stocks then outpaced momentum stocks by 22 percentage points and 69 points, respectively, over the next 12 months.
Price-to-earnings ratios, a measure of how expensive a stock is, for value- and growth-oriented sectors back up the disconnect. Financial stocks trade at 12.7 times their expected earnings over the next 12 months, around their five-year average, while industrial stocks trade at 17 times. That is below technology stocks and the broader index, which trade at 20.7 times and 17.7 times, respectively.
“Growth has crushed value over the past five years,” said Ronald Temple, head of U.S. equities at Lazard Asset Management. “But we reached a point where the valuation divergence between growth and value got extraordinarily high.”
Mr. Temple isn’t the only one who believes value is due for a comeback.
A recent Bank of America survey found more than a third of the 230 fund managers they polled said they expect value stocks to post better returns than growth stocks over the next 12 months. That is an increase of 21% from the October survey and the third-biggest month-over-month swing since 2007, the bank said.
Value stocks’ losses over the past two years have been “irrational,” Clifford Asness, co-founder of money-management firm AQR Capital Management LLC, said in a recent note to clients. Fundamentals didn’t worsen, but prices did, he said, as investors continued to focus on growth and momentum stocks. He added that value stocks’ slog in the first eight years of the rally was more justified.
The divergence grew wide enough that Mr. Asness said his resistance to adding more value stocks lessened.
“Unlike a few years ago, it is indeed time to ‘sin a little’ and up the value weight somewhat,” Mr. Asness said.
But value stocks can’t rally on price appeal alone, analysts and investors warned. Improving sentiment on the economy, trade and corporate profits helped nudge investors back into buying riskier assets in recent weeks. Those factors need to remain in place for a sustained rotation into value stocks.
“We were in a period of extreme economic uncertainty,” said Adam Agress, a portfolio manager who helps oversee Goldman Sachs ’ midcap value fund. “As people have gotten more comfortable with the outlook, they’ve rotated capital out of those defensive and growth sectors,” with investors more willing to load up on riskier assets, he said.
He added his fund recently bought shares of some transportation, semiconductor and gaming companies and sold utility, real estate and consumer-staple stocks.
“These are all industries that benefit from the economic outlook improving, but were priced for a high probability of a recession just a few weeks ago,” he said.
The recent turn of events has caught the attention of growth managers who are willing to blend the lines between the two investing styles. Lew Piantedosi, who manages Eaton Vance’s growth fund, holds big stakes in Amazon.com Inc., Google parent Alphabet Inc. and other growth stalwarts. But the fund also has stakes in JPMorgan and Bank of America.
“For a tactical growth manager, large U.S. banks are probably the best way to play the market if you don’t feel a recession is coming in the next 18 months,” Mr. Piantedosi said. “They’re the cheapest stocks around.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment