by Penny Starr, Breitbart:
All three lawmakers have been accused of sexual misconduct, including unwanted sexual advances and groping, and, in Barton’s case, texting explicit messages and a photo of himself naked.
Some of the women who will be at the National Press Club in D.C. have been speaking out for years about former president Bill Clinton assaulting or abusing them, including Juanita Broaddrick (who said Clinton raped her), Paula Jones (whose suit against Clinton for sexual harassment was settled before a trial) and Leslie Millwee, (who said she was stalked and assaulted three times by Bill Clinton while she was a TV reporter in Fort Smith, Arkansas.
Melanie Morgan, a radio talk show host and co-founder of Media Equalizer, which organized the Media Equality Project and Wednesday’s event, will share her experience with Franken.
Morgan told Breitbart News that she met Franken in 2000 at a roundtable discussion about the federal budget. She said he got in her face several times and then, after getting her phone number from a producer of the event, Franken called here repeatedly.
“I felt very threatened, very intimidated by his behavior,” said Morgan, who finally stopped the harassment after she told Franken she was going to contact the police.
“He completely freaked me out,” Morgan said. And that’s also what resonated with her after hearing radio talk show host Leann Tweeden’s story about Franken groping her when she was sleeping and force kissing her while they were taking part in a USO trip abroad.
“I knew in that moment that her story was true,” Morgan said.
Franken offers second apology but still doesn’t remember groping women, or acting inappropriately. WTH? Maybe seeing some of us in person will help jog his failing memory @MediaEqualizer @seanhannity @SScalpings
— Melanie Morgan (@MelMorgan1350) November 27, 2017
“Dozens of women and other victims of sexual harassment are joining together this Wednesday with this message: #ShowUsTheList of representatives or staffers who received taxpayer-funded pay-outs,” the press release announcing the protest and press conference said.
The Media Equality Project wants to confront these abusers and hold them accountable.
Read More @ Breitbart.com
by Bill Holter, JSMineset:
So many have contacted me recently regarding Andy Hoffman’s sudden flip flop on silver that I feel it necessary to comment publicly. To be clear, this is not a “hit piece” on Andy, rather using logic and common sense I hope it is some comfort for those worried. I believe what and “how” Andy has acted can be classified as irresponsible for several reasons.
First, as many of you know, I was a branch manager for AG Edwards, my last 12 years as a branch manger. I took fairness, honesty and “the law” very seriously. I was a broker for 23 years and never had any type of legal proceeding or settlement ever brought against me or any of my brokers. As a branch manager I was ultimately responsible for everything. If anything goes wrong in a brokerage office, the manager will end up being charged with failure to supervise. One area of great importance is “correspondence”. The BM must initial (yes by hand back then as it is now all electronic) all incoming and outgoing correspondence.
I tell you the above because for the first year or so with Miles Franklin, Andy would send his work to everyone (me included) before it was posted. As is my nature, I read it with an eye toward truth and also “liability”. There were quite a few instances where Andy wrote some things I believed were either wrong, not appropriate or even libelous. At first I wrote to Andy pointing out my concerns but was met with anger. Then I decided to give David and Andy Schectman a heads up with things I believed would pose a problem. There were two article in entirety that fortunately (in my opinion) were not published. My “suggestions” became a problem to the point we were both told not to interact with each other. Andy was then assigned his own editor.
The above is for reference because I still think like a branch manager. In the securities business there is law prohibiting “front running” (though major house and HFT’s do it all the time). Basically what the law says is this; if you are going to act on something, you must advise your clients before doing so. This makes sense and would seem like the right thing to do even (especially!) in the world of “handshakes”. The “way” and timing of the how Andy informed the public is very disappointing to me and does not pass muster in my book.
As far as the “what” he informed us of, everyone is entitled to their opinions even if it defies logic. I won’t go into the Bitcoin argument here but you can listen as JSMinest host’s Bix Weir and Clif High to discuss this weekend. Selling ANY precious metals to purchase Bitcoin in my opinion is foolishness defined. As for moving from silver to gold, because “gold is the metal of Kings and not believing storing hundreds of pounds of silver is anything the public should do waiting for the gold silver ratio to tighten” …this is ridiculous!
Andy has for years written and spoken of the wisdom of holding precious metals …and in particular silver. He used sound logic and hammered away at the “ratio” as being a core reason to favor silver, and for good reason. I cannot explain his reasoning other than reading into his statement regarding “weight”. Storing silver is more difficult than gold but can be easily done using one or more private vaults. Telling us that “gold is the metal of Kings” does not mean anything to me nor does it relate to “value”? The fact is, silver is THE cheapest or most undervalued asset on the planet. You can google that statement and find many articles explaining this. Moving from silver and into gold with ratio of 75-1 defies any and all logic I am aware of!
Read More @ JSMineset.com
by Michael Krieger, Liberty Blitzkrieg:
I want to really think differently than the very consistent liberal-media line of, Well if they just knew better they would vote differently. They’re under-informed, they’re under-educated. I think it really misunderstands something, which is that, just because people are not acting rationally in accordance with what you think is rational, doesn’t mean that they’re not acting rationally. And I think there’s perfectly rational voter behavior in voting for Trump. For economic reasons and social reasons.
Life is getting worse. You are less comfortable in your own house, in your own town, in your own skin. Your outlook for the future is worse with every passing year. And you conscientiously voted for people through this entire time. So it is actually an established fact that the system did not work for you. This representative democracy thing. And so you go and lob a grenade at it, when the grenade becomes available. And that is rational.
– From the excellent interview of Masha Gessen via The Atlantic
In yesterday’s post, I discussed the future opportunity and danger presented by that large mass of the American public that self-identifies as part of “the resistance.” Before I continue, we should revisit a few of the key points made. For example:
With Trump’s election, the mask is finally off. Even Trump supporters admit that his election was a reaction to how corrupt and fraudulent our economy and society had become during the 21st century — first under Bush and then Obama. Independents such as myself, despite finding Trump revolting and dangerous, tend to agree with this assessment.
The only significant group of people who simply refuse to admit this fact are those who proudly proclaim themselves to be part of “the resistance.” Many of them thought everything was going just fine for the country while Obama was President simply because things were going well for them, which is just human nature. If things are going fine for you on a individual level, there isn’t much incentive to peek behind the curtain and question what’s really going on. You’re simply too busy feeling good about yourself and focusing on getting ahead. I know because I’ve been there.
It’s tempting to just write these people off as useful idiots being easily corralled into the vicious arms of neocons and deep state psychopaths following the emotional trauma inflicted upon their psyche by the election of Donald Trump. It’s tempting to do that, because in many ways that’s a fairly accurate description of what’s going on, but I want to try to be less judgmental right now. When thinking back to the early days of my awakening, I remember how malleable my mind was to all sorts of influences, both positive and negative. This is what happens to people when your entire worldview is suddenly shattered or disrupted. Human nature is to look for an alternative narrative that can help you once again make sense of the world. Unfortunately for most card-carrying members of “the resistance,” nefarious characters within corporate media and U.S. intelligence agencies were ready with a comforting narrative which gave them permission to avoid confronting reality: Russia did it.
We should not write off our fellow humans simply because they voted for Trump, or because they foolishly embraced some delusional conspiracy which blames Russia for everything. There are tens of millions of very decent people within both these groups who genuinely care about the country and making things better. We must never forget that convincing one group of voters to hate and dehumanize another group of voters serves the interests of the power structure and no one else. People have been successfully manipulated into thinking that their fellow citizens with essentially zero power are the real enemy as opposed to the oligarchs who actually destroyed and pillaged the country. This is why I focus pretty much all my posts on the bigger picture and direct my energy to calling out those with actual power. If you spend your entire day fuming about how stupid Trump voters are, or how “the resistance” are just a bunch of brainwashed useful idiots, you’re being intentionally played by those who’re really in power.
As discussed yesterday, Trump’s election caused a mental breakdown across a wide swath of the U.S. population. This happened because millions upon millions of people thought things were going just fine under Obama, simply because things were going fine for them. The corporate media and discredited neocons/neoliberals working in tandem with U.S. intelligence agencies immediately saw this crisis for the opportunity it was. They could present themselves as leaders of “the resistance” and blame Trump’s rise on Russia. This way demoralized, yet financially successful, Hillary Clinton voters could continue to tell themselves the same comforting tale that everything’s inherently fine in this country were it not for Russia. You couldn’t come up with a more perfect narrative for the rejected status quo to use in order to reestablish its authority if you tried. Unfortunately, it’s largely worked thus far.
Sounds depressing, I know. Nevertheless, just because it’s worked so far, doesn’t mean it’ll work forever. One of the key points I highlighted in yesterday’s piece is that people are very vulnerable to manipulation and bad ideas in the immediate aftermath of any trauma that comes with one’s worldview being shattered. People tend to look for grand enemies in the face of such distress, whether that be the Rothschilds, the Illuminati or Vladimir Putin. It’s all the same in the end. This isn’t to say I deny the existence of extremely rich and powerful people in the world who wield tremendous influence in world affairs, I certainly think there are. Rather, it’s to say that human beings often times get so caught up on grand conspiracy theories they do nothing to change the world around them. This leads them to just sit around shivering in fear warning everyone around them about the masters pulling the strings, and how these forces are unstoppable.
Read More @ LibertyBlitzkrieg.com
by Derrick Broze, Activist Post:
In one of the most important Fourth Amendment battles of the digital age, the Supreme Court is preparing to tackle a case involving law enforcement accessing cellphone records without a warrant.
On Wednesday the US Supreme Court is scheduled to address the case of Carpenter v. United States to determine whether or not law enforcement should be required to obtain a warrant before accessing the cellphone records of an individual. The case deals with a set of armed robberies that took place between December 2010 and March 2011. Several men worked together to rob RadioShack and T-Mobile stores in the Michigan and Ohio areas, stealing cell phones and holding store employees and customers hostage in the process.
A couple of the men were arrested and quickly confessed afterwards. However, one man remained at large. With one of the suspect’s phones in their possession, the FBI gained access to”transactional records” from various wireless carriers for 16 different phone numbers contained within the phone. These records contained all the location info and call records made to and from the phone. Using the “cell-site records” pulled off the phone, the FBI was able to locate and arrest the final suspect, Timothy Carpenter. He was charged and convicted by a jury of aiding and abetting robbery that affected interstate commerce, and aiding and abetting the use or carriage of a firearm during a federal crime of violence. Carpenter now faces life in prison for his crimes.
The FBI gained access to the cell-site records using provision set forth by the Stored Communications Act, which was passed in 1986 to deal with the protection of information stored digitally. The Act allows the government to force a third-party service provider to provide customer information under the so-called “third-party doctrine,” which states that individuals lose their expectation to privacy when they voluntarily provide private info to email, Internet, and cell phone providers. This lower barrier for accessing personal information allowed the FBI to gain access to the suspect’s cell phone data with a judge’s approval, but without a warrant based on probable cause. This is because the SCA only requires that there are “reasonable grounds” to suspect that the contents of a phone or other electronic communication device will be relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.
Carpenter has appealed the decision stating that the FBI failed to acquire a warrant before accessing the cell-site records. Earlier this summer the Supreme Court decided they would rule on the matter. The Supreme Court blog states that the issue at hand is, “Whether the warrantless seizure and search of historical cellphone records revealing the location and movements of a cellphone user over the course of 127 days is permitted by the Fourth Amendment.”
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures[.]” This means the government should only violate these rights upon issuance of a warrant. The government is expected to argue that the SCA supports its decision to obtain the service provider’s location information without a warrant because the information does not reveal the actual contents of communications on the cell phone. In response, Carpenter’s attorneys will likely argue for Fourth Amendment protections and use the case of Riley v. California, which found that warrantless search and seizure of digital contents of cell phones during an arrest in unconstitutional because cell phones hold vast amounts of personal information. Carpenter’s team will attempt to convince the judges that cell phones are completely intertwined with the average American’s life and should be protected.
Carpenter has received support from civil liberties group like the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 19 other media organizations that have called on the Supreme Court to overturn the guilty verdict and require the government to acquire warrants to access cellphone location data.
Read More @ ActivistPost.com
by Patrick Buchanan, Real Clear Politics:
Why would Christian conservatives in good conscience go to the polls Dec. 12 and vote for Judge Roy Moore, despite the charges of sexual misconduct with teenagers leveled against him?
Answer: That Alabama Senate race could determine whether Roe v. Wade is overturned. The lives of millions of unborn may be the stakes.
Republicans now hold 52 Senate seats. If Democrats pick up the Alabama seat, they need only two more to recapture the Senate, and with it the power to kill any conservative court nominee, as they killed Robert Bork.
Today, the GOP, holding Congress and the White House, has a narrow path to capture the Third Branch, the Supreme Court, and to dominate the federal courts for a decade. For this historic opportunity, the party can thank two senators, one retired, the other still sitting.
The first is former Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.
In 2013, Harry exercised the “nuclear option,” abolishing the filibuster for President Obama’s judicial nominees. The Senate no longer needed 60 votes to confirm judges. Fifty-one Senate votes could cut off debate, and confirm.
Iowa’s Chuck Grassley warned Harry against stripping the minority of its filibuster power. Such a move may come back to bite you, he told Harry. Grassley is now judiciary committee chairman.
And this year a GOP Senate voted to use the nuclear option to shut down a filibuster of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, who was then confirmed with 55 votes.
Yet the Democratic minority still had one card to play to block President Trump’s nominees — the “blue slip courtesy.”
If a senator from the state where a federal judicial nominee resides asks for a hold on proceedings, by not returning a blue slip, the judiciary committee has traditionally honored that request and not held hearings.
Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota used the blue slip to block the Trump nomination of David Stras of Minnesota to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Franken calls Stras too ideological, too conservative.
But Grassley has now decided to reject the blue slip courtesy for appellate court judges, since their jurisdiction is not just over a single state like Minnesota, but over an entire region.
Thus have the skids been greased for a conservative recapture of the federal judiciary unseen since the early days of FDR.
Eighteen of the 179 seats on the U.S. appellate courts and 119 of the 677 seats on federal district courts are already open. More will be opening up. No president in decades has seen the opportunity Trump has to remake the federal judiciary.
Not only are the federal court vacancies almost unprecedented, a GOP Senate and Trump are working in harness to fill them before January 2019, when a new Congress is sworn in.
If Republicans blow this opportunity, it is unlikely to come again. For the Supreme Court has seemed within Republican grasp before, only to have it slip away because of presidential errors.
Nixon had four nominees to the Supreme Court confirmed and Gerald Ford saw his nominee, John Paul Stevens, unanimously confirmed. But of those five justices confirmed from 1969 to 1976, Stevens and Harry Blackmun joined the liberal bloc, and Chief Justice Warren Burger and Lewis Powell voted for Roe v. Wade.
Of Reagan’s three Supreme Court nominees confirmed, Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy cast crucial votes in 5-4 decisions to defeat the strict constructionists led by Antonin Scalia.
George H.W. Bush named Clarence Thomas to the court, but only after he had elevated David Souter, who also joined the liberal bloc.
Hence, both Trump, by whom he nominates, and a Republican Senate, with its power to confirm with 51 votes, are indispensable if we are to end judicial dictatorship in America.
And 2018 is the crucial year.
by Tom Knighton, Bearing Arms:
Guns really are a key part of the fabric of American life. They’re so much a part of it that on Black Friday, the busiest shopping day of the year when people mob stores for the best deals on televisions and other consumer electronics, Americans bought enough guns to equip the United States Marine Corps.
Ain’t it great to be an American?
According to the FBI, over 200,000 background check requests associated with the purchase of a firearm were submitted to the agency on Black Friday, marking a new single-day record. The previous record was set on the day after Thanksgiving in 2016. In both 2017 and 2016, enough guns were potentially purchased on Black Friday to arm every active duty Marine.
USA Today reported that, in total, the FBI states they fielded 203,086 requests during the 24-hour period associated with Black Friday, decimating the previous 2016 record of 185,713.
The background checks are required for firearms purchases from federally licensed dealers, so the number does not necessarily reflect the actual number of sales that took place.
In some cases, a single background check could be associated with more than one gun purchase if a shopper decided to buy more than one during a single trip. Additionally, not all who apply are ultimately approved, so some applications would not result in a purchase.
It’s also worth noting that 20 states have provisions where a background check isn’t necessary with a valid concealed carry permit. This is guidelines from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives who note that permit holders have already undergone an extensive background check and lose their permits if they become ineligible to buy guns.
While gun grabbers are undoubtedly furious over these numbers, it’s not really surprising. The recent push for gun control by gun control-loving liberal politicians has many concerned about the future of their firearms. Whenever that happens, gun sales surge.
The truth is, Americans tend to frown on people telling them they can’t or shouldn’t do something they want to do. Doing so only encourages them to go ahead and do pull the trigger, so to speak. They will invariably proceed to do the very thing the elites don’t want them doing.
There’s a reason gun sales were so massive during the Obama administration. Even though he said he knew he didn’t have the votes for gun control during the campaign, we all knew that he wanted to disarm the American public. In fact, simply by saying he didn’t have the votes he gave away his clear intention. After all, you only worry about the votes when you’re talking about something you want to do.
Read More @ BearingArms.com
by Karl Denninger, Market Ticker:
Let’s assume I’m an ISP.
We’ll use nice round numbers to make this easy.
Let us assume I have 1Gbps of transport available to me on my network. I sell service with “speeds” of 10 Mbps and put connections through a “traffic shaper” that delivers “up to” 10Mbps for each customer.
I sell 500 of these connections in your neighborhood. I do this because I know, with a good degree of certainty (because I modeled it over the period of several months or years) that your average use as a home user will be under 2Mbps all the time, with occasional higher bursts.
Since 2Mbps x 500 = 1Gbps, I can support this userbase. If you run a “Speed Test” you will usually get the full 10Mbps that you bought. In rare circumstances you may not. If I have my traffic shaper implement a “fairness algorithm” I can prevent anyone from being “starved” entirely — but it is simply impossible for me to deliver 5Gbps (that is, 10Mbps to every one of my 500 customers at once) as that’s 500% of what my network is capable of doing!
All is well for quite a while.
Then along comes some new and innovative service. The “new and innovative service” charges $10/month (my Internet service to you costs $50/month, so I am collecting a total of $25,000 a month in revenue.)
But, that “new and innovative service” requires that you pull down 5Mbps for the entire time you are using it, and it requires that there be no jitter at all to work (in other words the 5Mbps has to be delivered from the time you start using it until you finish without exceptions, or your user experience will be unacceptable.) In addition the rest of your household use will still be there, so that 5Mbps requirement is additive to the 2Mbps I already modeled on an average basis.
Now let us assume this “new and innovative service” becomes wildly popular and half the people on my network subscribe to it.
Suddenly my 2Mbps model is no longer any good. It is now, for 50% of my customers during the 6:00 PM to 11:00 PM hours, 7Mbps.
My former network build-out required that I be able to deliver 1Gbps reliably.
Suddenly I need to deliver (250 * 7) + (250 * 2) or 2Gbps — twice as much — or everyone screams and calls me a schmuck, swear that I run a terrible ISP and more.
The facts are — and I am speaking as a former ISP CEO and guy who has built networks for a living for roughly 30 years — that attempting to “over commit” a network by 100%, that is, demand twice what it is capable of delivering, doesn’t cause everyone to get half of what they want. Due to how TCP works and the retries that are generated when buffers overflow everyone (not just the people who want to watch streaming) will get very close to nothing at all. Some modern operating systems will attempt to “throttle back” their demanded bandwidth in an attempt to maintain operation but not all, and consumer devices such as cellphones, tablets, desktop and laptop computers, especially older ones, are some of the worst in this regard.
Let’s assume (for simplicity) the following breakdown of my expenses monthly (simplified but good enough to make the point):
Your “demand” for that “new an innovative service” just doubled that first $10,000 line; it goes to $20,000. In order to prevent you from destroying my network’s performance for everyone I must spend the additional $10,000 yet “net neutrality” says I cannot charge those who caused this expense more money nor can I “rate-shape” or block the source — even though they are in fact economic and network terrorists in that they know that they’re stealing their infrastructure costs from others and in fact designed their business model to do so on purpose.
I am now losing $7,500 a month. I have been forced to spend the $10 large by an outside firm I have no contract with or control over because if I don’t my network has unacceptable performance for everyone. Again, that outside firm solicited people to buy their service knowing that this would happen because they believe they can force me to EAT that additional $10,000 in cost.
Worse, the faster I grow my customer base or the more people adopt this “new service” the more money I lose because my loss is a percentage, not a dollar amount!
I thus have only the following options available to me if I wish to remain in business:
1. Charge the “new and innovative service” for the performance it demands from my network that is beyond what was reasonably engineered for. In other words they get charged a “tariff” to the extent they force network operation beyond engineered limits, and if they refuse then I shape their traffic so it conforms to both what my network was designed for and what nearly all other services on the Internet fit within. This is something said “new and innovative” service might be able to mitigate. For example Netflix could be “unlimited” to the customer only if you queued what you wanted to watch the night before, allow it to transfer the data to your computer or phone when everyone is sleeping on a rate-limited basis and thus there’s no excess load impact on me as an ISP. If you instead demand to watch now, and “now” is in the evening hours, you pay a buck an hour to Netflix (and Netflix pays the ISP that, less the handling costs) for your decision to impose the load at that particular time. Note that if I charge back the $10,000 then Netflix is forced to raise its prices to $50 from $10 since the additional $40 in hard cost they tried to shove off on me per-customer gets thrown back at them. How many customers does Netflix have at $50/month? NONE!
2. Charge the user directly for the “burst” traffic on a metered basis. In other words you have a 10Mbps link but if you consume a lot of data during “busy” periods you will get hit with a “demand” charge. This is how the electric utilities work for commercial customers; you have a base charge and then a “demand” charge that applies to your heaviest power demand during periods of heavy use. That charge is large because it is intended to recover the expense of being able to meet your extraordinary demand for electricity. The market has deemed #2 unacceptable, period; note that the government is able to force this billing paradigm in the commercial power delivery mark
et (and in a few areas in the residential market too) because electrical service is a government-granted monopoly.
3. Charge everyone irrespective of their use of said new service — or not. In other words I now have to be able to deliver the 2Gbps as an ISP but I can’t charge on a differential basis for it based on who’s making me purchase the additional capacity so I am now forced to charge everyone 25% more whether they use the new and innovative service or not. In this case you pay for your neighbor’s decision to subscribe to Netflix. As a cable company I might get that from you in higher internet prices or higher cable TV prices but I have to get another $20/month from you somehow. If you’re wondering why $200 cable+internet monthly bills are now rather common and it’s damn hard to get both under $100 a month even with basic cable, maybe you will finally realize that you screwed yourself with all your insane screaming because this is why it happened.
Net Neutrality effectively forced the ISP to do #3 — Hastings got his $200 stock price because you have been robbed whether you are a Netflix subscriber or not.
Oh by the way, it’s not just Netflix. It’s also Amazon (with their Prime Video), Hulu (their subscription service), Youtube “Red”, Disney’s newly-announced service coming online soon, MLB’s “streaming” service and hundreds of new services yet to be developed and marketed.
Read More @ Market-Ticker.org
by Adam Taggart, Peak Prosperity:
At Peak Prosperity, we strive to help people advance in three key areas: Knowing, Doing and Being.
But Knowing? That’s the essential first part to master. Without sufficient understanding and insight to guide you, any action you take is merely groping in the dark.
That’s why Chris and I spend the majority of our time info-scouting: following the data and analyzing where macro trends are likely to head next given the latest developments.
We dedicate so much time and energy to this because it’s not the domino that’s falling today that matters. What’s much more important is: Which dominoes will fall tomorrow as a result?
And make no mistake, the pace of falling dominoes is accelerating. From the geo-politically destabilizing regime change in Saudi Arabia, to the ending of the central bank liquidity bubble, to the largest species extinction wave in millennia, to the bursting retirement dreams of the Baby Boomer generation, to the fast-worsening net energy predicament — change is afoot. The relative calm of the false ‘recovery’ that the world’s central planners engineered in response to the Great Financial Crisis has reached its terminus.
Now, more than ever in recent years, understanding where events are headed next is critical to preserving your wealth and well-being.
Being keenly aware of this, Chris and I have been working for months on solving the question: How can we better arm people with the insights and answers they need to take informed action in their lives?
We’ve combed through reams of reader feedback, listening to what folks are hungriest for. And we eventually noticed an important theme that kept recurring. So many of you have said to us: I just wish I could sit down with you guys and pick your brains for an entire day about all this…
And that’s why we designed the new Peak Prosperity Summit experience.
It’s an intimate 6-hour discussion, primarily focusing on our forecasts for the Economy and the financial markets, with special emphasis on the biggest threats that could trigger a correction, as well as the key indicators Chris and I are watching most closely. Detailed updates on the Energy & Environment sides of the story are also provided.
But it’s not a 1-way presentation. The Summit is intentionally formatted to be a fluid conversation, where participants can guide the discussion in whatever direction they care about most. Every Summit is unique in that the material is customized in real-time to the specific personal needs of the audience members.
In fact, asking us about your personal situation is not only allowed, but encouraged. This is your chance to get your most burning questions answered — don’t waste it!
We ran our first pilot Summit in October in New Orleans and the results were very good. Here’s an example of the feedback we received from participants:
I was fortunate to be one of the participants at the first Summit held in New Orleans this past month. All I can say is that meeting and listening to Chris and Adam present in real time was a real treat. I would recommend it to all of our “tribe”. I was pleasantly surprised at how engaging both Adam and Chris were to all of us participants . Not only was it a great opportunity meeting face to face with the Peak Prosperity Leaders, but also meeting “like minded” folks from all over and hearing their stories and interests…
So now we’re taking this successful model on the road.
Over 250 of you have taken the recent survey in which we asked 1) How interested are you in attending a Summit?, and 2) What cities would you like us to offer the next Summit in?
Over two-thirds of respondents expressed High/Very High interest in participating.
And as for cities, while there’s clear demand in more than a dozen major US metropolitan areas, the west coast cities of San Francisco, Portland and Seattle scored highest. So Chris and I have publicly committed to traveling to each of those cities in January 2018 to hold our next three regional Summits.
But what about everybody else?
Well, we for certain don’t want folks to feel disadvantaged simply because they don’t happen to live in the US Pacific Northwest. That’s why we’ve decided to hold an online Peak Prosperity Summit. And we’re doing it beforethe west coast ones.
We’ve scheduled it for Saturday, December 9th, from 11am-5pm EST.
Yes, it’s coming up fast. And yes, the holidays are approaching soonafter. But Chris and I are willing to press to make it happen this quickly if folks truly want it to.
Those of you we’ve talked to have told us having this information now is valuable, so that you can use it to make decisions over the holiday break in order to start the New Year well-prepared. We think that makes a lot of sense.
So, if that resonates with you, sign up for our upcoming online Summit by clicking the blue button below. If enough people register, we’ll make it happen on Dec 9th. If not, we’ll move it to sometime in early 2018.
Read More @ PeakProsperity.com