Today’s News 16th May 2018

  • Delhi Has The Worst Air Quality In The World

    World Health Organization report released on May 2 found that Delhi has the worst air quality in the world. India’s capital was found to have a heavy presence of PM10 particular matter – 292 micrograms per cubic meter.

    As Statista’s Niall McCarthy notes, the annual safe limit set by the WHO is 60.

    While 13 Indian cities are among the 20 most-polluted worldwide, the following infographic provides an overview of how Delhi compares to other major global cities…

    Infographic: Delhi Has The Worst Air Quality In The World  | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

  • What's Trump's Real Trade Target: China Or Europe?

    Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

    Do Trump’s endless trade volleys and sanctions have a clear target? Consider the possibility it’s the EU, not China.

    Out of the blue, and with open rebuke form Democrats and Republicans, Trump reversed sanctions on China.

    This was peculiar in and of itself, but his rationale raised more than a few eyebrows.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    All of a sudden. Trump is concerned about “too many jobs lost in China”!

    One can rationalize this is about Rotting Cherries, Spoiled Pork, and Car Inspections, but could it be there is more than meets the eye?

    Iran Sanctions

    Bloomberg reports Iran’s Door to the West Is Slamming Shut, and That Leaves China.

    China is “already the winner,’’ said Dina Esfandiary, a fellow at the Centre for Science and Security Studies at King’s College in London, and co-author of the forthcoming ‘Triple Axis: Iran’s Relations With Russia and China’.

    Turning East

    EU Disharmony

    CNBC says Trump’s Iran sanctions will aggravate the French-German discord on EU reforms.

    5,000 German Corporations Hit By Trump Policy

    One can rationalize this all away, but a translation from Spiegel Online underscores the key idea: Trump’s Policies Hit Nearly 5,000 German Companies.

    Sanctions on Europe. Not Iran

    Eurointelligence fills in some blanks.

    Over the last three days it gradually dawned on the Germans that Donald Trump’s sanctions against Iran are in reality sanctions against Europe, and Germany in particular. The combination of third-party sanctions and changes to US tax laws has led to a situation where a large number of German companies now have an overwhelming interest to shift their business to the US, according to Spiegel Online.

    FAZ notes that the helplessness of the German government is becoming increasingly evident, both economically and politically. The paper notes that even Angela Merkel is casting doubt on whether it is possible to maintain the Iran nuclear agreement after Trump’s decision.

    Goodbye Europe

    The cover of Der Spiegel this week this week, “Goodbye Europe” says it all.

    Politico reports Europe’s ultimate Trump strategy: Appeasement.

    Intent or Collateral Damage?

    China responded to Trump tariffs by inspecting fruit to the point it rotted, pork until it spoiled, and Ford autos in such a manner that it required disassembly. Trump changed tactics.

    It’s easy to make a case that the only thing Trump understands is force.

    It’s also possible Trump is totally clueless and he is ruled only by spur of the moment decisions.

    Finally, one can make a case that Trump’s true intent all along was to bust up EU solidarity and everything else is just a sideshow.

    It’s easy to make that case even though Occam’s Razor suggests the alternatives are more likely.

    Regardless, the EU’s roll over and play dead response to the sanctions is a sure loser for the EU and a sure winner for China.

    Ball in Play

    EU, the ball is in your court.

    Last week Merkel stated it’s time for “Europe to take its destiny into its own hands.”

    OK – Do it!

    Staring at the ball as it rolls over you does not win points.

  • Europe Is Seeking "Practical Solution" To Salvage Iran Deal

    Much to President Trump’s chagrin, The European Union’s top diplomat, Federica Mogherini, said on Tuesday that the bloc would seek avenues for protecting businesses operating in Iran – even as the US threatens to impose tighter sanctions on any company that dares to continue operating in Iran after the US has revived its economic sanctions.

    While it couldn’t provide any economic or legal guarantees to the Islamic Republic, Mogherini said they would find a way to keep badly needed investment flowing into Iran. A series of experts have been assigned to the issue, and they’re expected to propose a few options in the coming weeks.

    Mogherini

    Federica Mogherini

    “We are working on finding a practical solution,” Mogherini told a news conference.

    “We are talking about solutions to keep the deal alive,” she said, adding that measures would seek to allow Iran to keep exporting oil and for European banks to operate.

    The EU has already warned the US that it’s prepared to impose “counter-sanctions” if the US interferes with European firms who choose to maintain their business relationships in Iran, as President Trump threatened to do in a phone call with European leaders shortly before he announced the US’s withdrawal from the agreement, according to Reuters.

    Iranian President Hassan Rouhani surprised the other signatories of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action last week when he said Iran would continue to abide by the terms of the deal – for now, at least – and give the other signatories a chance to salvage it.

    Both Russia and China have expressed regret over the US’s decision. Both have vowed to maintain ties with Iran in accordance with the deal.

    Of course, Europe has an ulterior motive for safeguarding its relationship with Iran: Russia, Iran’s primary ally among the major world powers, remains the biggest supplier of energy to Europe, especially during winter.

    Though the US has extended a waiver for its steel and aluminum sanctions, growing trade tensions between the EU and the US are threatening to further erode their relationship.

  • Paul Craig Roberts: Is Putin's Strategy Finally Beginning To Work?

    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    I have explained Russian President Vladimir Putin’s Christian practice of turning the other cheek to Western provocations as a strategy to convey to Europe that Russia is reasonable but Washington is not and that Russia is not a threat to European interests and sovereignty but Washington is. By accommodating Israel and withdrawing from the multi-nation Iran nuclear-nonproliferation agreement, US President Donald Trump might have brought success to Putin’s strategy.

    Washington’s three main European vassal states, Britain, France, and Germany have objected to Trump’s unilateral action. Trump is of the opinion that the multi-nation agreement depends only on Washington. If Washington renounces the agreement, that is the end of the agreement. It doesn’t matter what the other parties to the agreement want. Consequently, Trump intends to reimpose the previous sanctions against doing business with Iran and to impose additional new sanctions. If Britain, France, and Germany continue with the business contracts that have been made with Iran, Washington will sanction its vassal states as well and prohibit activities of British, French, and German companies in the US. Clearly, Washington thinks that Europe’s profits in the US exceed what can be made in Iran and will fall in line with Washington’s decision, as the vassal states have done in the past.

    And they might. But this time there is a backlash. Whether it will go beyond strong words to a break with Washington remains to be seen. Trump’s neoconservative pro-Israel National Security Advisor John Bolton has ordered European companies to cancel their business deals in Iran. Trump’s ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell has ordered German companies to immediately wind down their business operations in Iran. The bullying of Europe and blatant US disregard of European interests and sovereignty has made Europe’s long vassalage suddenly all too apparent and uncomfortable.

    Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, previously a loyal Washington puppet, said that Europe can no longer trust Washington and must “take its destiny into its own hands.” 

    European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said that Washington’s leadership had failed and it was time for the EU to take over the leadership role and to “replace the United States.” Various French, German, and British government ministers have echoed these sentiments.

    The cover story of the German news magazine Der Spiegel, “Goodbye Europe,” has Trump giving Europe the middle finger.  The magazine declares that it is “Time for Europe to Join the Resistance.”

    Although European politicians have been well paid for their vassalage, they might now be finding it an unworthy and uncomfortable burden.

    Whereas I respect the virtue of Putin’s refusal to reply to provocation with provocation, I have expressed concern that Putin’s easy acceptance of provocations will encourage more provocations that will increase in intensity until war or Russian surrender become the only options, whereas if the Russian government took a more aggressive position against the provocations, it would bring the danger and cost of the provocations home to the Europeans whose compliance with Washington enables the provocations. Now it seems that perhaps Trump himself has taught that lesson to the Europeans.

    Russia has spent several years helping the Syrian Army clear Syria of the terrorists that Washington sent to overthrow the Syrian government. However, despite the Russian/Syrian alliance, Israel continues illegal military attacks on Syria. These attacks could be stopped if Russia would provide Syria with the S-300 air defense system.

    Israel and the US do not want Russia to sell the S-300 air defense system to Syria, because Israel wants to continue to attack Syria and the US wants Syria to continue to be attacked. Otherwise, Washington would call Israel off.

    Several years ago before Washington sent its Islamist proxy troops to attack Syria, Russia agreed to sell Syria an advanced air defense system, but gave in to Washington and Israel and did not deliver the system. Now again in the wake of Netanyahu’s visit to Russia we hear from Putin’s aide Vladimir Kozhim that Russia is continuing to withhold modern air defenses from Syria.

    Perhaps Putin believes he has to do this in order not to give Washington an issue that could be used to pull Europe back in line with Washington’s policy of aggression. Nevertheless, for those who do not see it this way, it makes Russia again look weak and unwilling to defend an ally.

    If Putin believes that he will have any influence on Netanyahu in terms of selling peace agreements with Syria and Iran, the Russian government has no understanding of Israel’s intent or Washington’s 17 years of war in the Middle East.

    I hope Putin’s strategy works. If it doesn’t, he will have to change his stance toward provocations or they will lead to war.

  • The Revolving Door Continues: Tesla Loses Two More Executives

    The hits just keep on coming for Tesla. Amidst a single day period where a record number of headlines were packed into about 24 short hours for Tesla – including a Morgan Stanley downgrade, news that the company would again be shutting down production of its Model 3 toward the end of the month and a Model S crash and ensuing fatality in Switzerland – even more news broke toward the end of the day today when it was reported that (surprise) two more executives, Arch Padmanabhan, the product director for Tesla’s stationary storage unit, and Bob Rudd, from Solar City, are leaving the company.

    It’s starting to feel a little bit like the movie Groundhog Day with the executive departure headlines. Reuters has noted all of the 2018 departures so far in this article. These two Tesla Energy employees join the ranks of other employees who hit the road this year:

    The list of executives who have departed the company over the last few years has been running at a relatively steady clip that usually winds up chalking up a couple of names every month or so – that looks to be accelerating. Bloomberg reported on today’s departures:

    Tesla Inc.’s energy unit has lost two major executives as CEO Elon Musk promises to reorganize the electric-car maker’s management team, according to people familiar with the matter.

    Arch Padmanabhan, the product director for Tesla’s stationary storage unit, and Bob Rudd, a former SolarCity vice president who led North American commercial and utility sales, have both left the company, said the people, who asked not to be identified because they aren’t authorized to speak publicly. Tesla didn’t immediately comment on the departures. Padmanabhan said he’s working on a new venture and declined to elaborate. Rudd couldn’t be reached for comment.

    Not unlike Doug Field, one of the only four executives listed on the company’s proxy who has apparently taken a leave of absence, Padmanabhan as also mysteriously left to “work on a new venture”. But recently executive departures have been happening at an astonishing rate:

    Matthew Schwall, Tesla’s primary contact with U.S. regulators, left to join Waymo, the self-driving-car company started by Google. Jim Keller, head of the driver-assistance system Autopilot, left last month for Intel Corp. Two top financial executives left in March, and sales chief Jon McNeil defected to Lyft Inc. in February. Musk told employees in an email on Monday that he’s “flattening” Tesla’s management structure to improve communication.

    Analysts and critics of the company continue to harp on the fact that Tesla has a revolving door of executives, with some attributing it to a possible toxic tone at the top. Other guesses for all of the executive departures include the company simply not having any type of operational clue as to what it’s doing. This would certainly explain the Model 3 factory line shut down which was reported today just hours after after it was reported by Electrek that the company could be producing 500 cars per day this week.

    Reuters notes that two sources confirmed that the next stoppage on the general assembly line at the Fremont, California, plant was scheduled for May 26-31.

    The production-challenged electric vehicle maker previously warned of 10 days of temporary shutdowns this quarter as the company addresses manufacturing problems that have delayed volume production of the Model 3 sedan, which is seen as crucial to Tesla’s long-term profitability, Reuters adds.

    This follows the previous production halt on April 17th to make “on-the-fly fixes”, as well as a prior stoppage in February.  The April shutdown, combined with the upcoming one, would add up to the planned 10 days of stoppages.

    Tesla has been struggling to find solutions to manufacturing bottlenecks on the new assembly line that produces the Model 3, a sedan intended for volume production. An over-reliance on robots has complicated that task, Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk has acknowledged.

    Musk, Tesla’s billionaire founder, told employees it was “quite likely” the company would reach a rate of 500 Model 3s per day this week, or 3,500 a week, automotive news website Electrek reported on Tuesday, citing an internal email. Musk also told staff to alert him of “any specific bottlenecks” on the production line.

    While Musk has said the planned stoppages are intended to give the company time to perform upgrades that will help it reach a goal of building 6,000 vehicles per week by the end of June, the market is becoming increasingly skeptical, especially since in order to meet the production goal of 6,000 cars per week by the end of July, Musk said last month that all Model 3 production would begin working around the clock.

    This came after yesterday’s news of a horrific fire in Switzerland which killed a man.

    In the same week in which a Tesla Model S erupted in flames after a “horrific” crash in Ft. Lauderdale, fatally trapping the two teenagers who died inside, while a second Model S rammed a stopped Salt Lake City firetruck at 60mph, mercifully without any fatalities, the Swiss tio.ch reports that yet another Tesla burst into flames after crashing on the A2 highway near the town of Bellinzona, killing a 48-year-old German driver who was trapped inside.

    According to the Swiss publication, the driver, a 48-year-old German motorist from Baden-Wurtermberg, lost control of the vehicle a few meters after the Monte Ceneri tunnel, crashing into the central guardrail, an accident that was remarkably similar to an October 2017 crash in Austria, in which a Model S also burned down, however without any fatalities.

    The car then overturned and caught fire, fatally trapping the driver.

    At this point the rate with which negative Tesla new stories are hitting the wire is almost comical and difficult to keep up with. While the stock traded lower today again, closing near $280 per share, the company still has an insane $50 billion valuation despite its bonds trading for about $.88 on the dollar at last check.

    At some point, if the company stock price catches down to the reality of what has been taking place at the company, these bumps in the road from executive departures could be looked at as the golden days.

  • Why The Empire Never Sleeps: The Indispensable Nation Folly

    Authored by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,

    Like the case of Rome before it, the Empire is bankrupting America. The true fiscal cost is upwards of $1.o trillion per year (counting $200 billion for veterans and debt service for wars), but there is no way to pay for it.

    That’s because the 78-million strong Baby Boom is in the driver’s seat of American politics. It plainly will not permit the $3 trillion per year retirement and health care entitlement-driven Welfare State to be curtailed.

    The Trumpite/GOP has already sealed that deal by refusing to reform Social Security and Medicare and by proving utterly incapable of laying a glove politically on Obamacare/Medicaid. At the same time, boomers keep voting for the GOP’s anti-tax allergy, thereby refusing to tax themselves to close Washington’s yawning deficits.

    More importantly, the generation which marched on the Pentagon in 1968 against the insanity and  barbarism of LBJ’s Vietnam War have long since abandoned the cause of peace. So doing, boomers have acquiesced in the final ascendancy of the Warfare State, which grew like topsy once the US became the world’s sole superpower after the Soviet Union slithered off the pages of history in 1991.

    Yet there is a reason why the end of the 77-year world war which incepted with the “guns of August” in 1914 did not enable the world to resume the status quo ante of relative peace and prosperous global capitalism.

    To wit, the hoary ideology of American exceptionalism and the Indispensable Nation was also, ironically, liberated from the shackles of cold war realism when the iron curtain came tumbling down.

    Consequently, it burst into a quest for unadulterated global hegemony. In short order (under Bush the Elder and the Clintons) Washington morphed into the Imperial City, and became a beehive not only of militarism, but of an endless complex of think-tanks, NGO’s, advisories and consultancies, “law firms”, lobbies and racketeers.

    The unspeakable prosperity of Washington flows from that Imperial beehive. And it is the Indispensable Nation meme that provides the political adhesive that binds the Imperial City to the work of Empire and to provisioning the massive fiscal appetites of the Warfare State.

    Needless to say, Empire is a terrible thing because it is the health of the state and the profound enemy of capitalist prosperity and constitutional liberty.

    It thrives and metastasizes by abandoning the republican verities of non-intervention abroad and peaceful commerce with all the nations of the world in favor of the self-appointed role of global policeman. Rather than homeland defense, the policy of Empire is that of international busybody, military hegemon and brutal enforcer of Washington’s writs, sanctions, red lines and outlawed regimes.

    There is nothing more emblematic of that betrayal of republican non-interventionism than the sundry hot spots which dog the Empire today. These include the Ukraine/Crimea confrontation with Russia, the regime change fiasco in Syria, the US sponsored genocide in Yemen, the failed, bloody 17-year occupation of Afghanistan, the meddling of the US Seventh Fleet in the South China Sea, and, most especially, the swiftly intensifying contretemps in Iran.

    As to the latter, there is absolutely no reason for the Empire’s attack on Iran. The proverbial Martian, in fact, would be sorely perplexed about why Washington is marching toward war with its puritanical and authoritarian but relatively powerless religious rulers.

    After all, it hasn’t violated the nuke deal (JPAOC) by the lights of any credible authority—-or by even less than credible ones like the CIA. Nor by the same consensus of authorities has it even had a research program for nuclear weaponization since 2003.

    Likewise, its modest GDP of $43o billion is equal to just eight days of US output, thereby hardly constituting an industrial platform from which its theocratic rulers could plausibly menace America’s homeland.

    Nor could its tiny $14 billion defense budget—which amounts to just sevendays worth of DOD outlays—inflict any military harm on American citizens.

    In fact, Iran has no blue water navy that could effectively operate outside of the Persian Gulf; its longest range warplanes can barely get to Rome without refueling; and its array of mainly defensive medium and intermediate range missiles cannot strike most of NATO, to say nothing of the North American continent.

    The answer to the Martian’s question, of course, is that Iran is no threat whatsoever to the safety and security of the US homeland, but it has run badly afoul of the dictates of the American Empire.

    That is to say, it has presumed to have an independent foreign policy involving Washington proscribed alliances with the sovereign state of Syria, the leading political party of Lebanon (Hezbollah), the ruling authorities (and US puppets) in Baghdad and the reining power in the Yemen capital of Sana’a (the Houthis).

    These are all deemed by Washington to be sources of unsanctioned “regional instability” and Iran’s alliances with them have been capriciously labeled as acts of state sponsored terrorism.

    The same goes for Washington’s demarche against Iran’s modest array of short, medium and intermediate range ballistic missiles. These weapons are palpably instruments of self-defense, but Imperial Washington insists their purpose is aggression—–unlike the case of practically every other nation which offers its custom to American arms merchants.

    For example, Iran’s arch-rival across the Persian Gulf, Saudi Arabia, has more advanced NATO supplied ballistic missiles with even greater range (2,600 km range). So does Israel, Pakistan, India and a half-dozen other nations, which are either Washington allies or have been given a hall-pass in order to bolster US arms exports.

    In short, Washington’s escalating war on Iran is an exercise in global hegemony, not territorial self-defense. What the proverbial Martian is really asking, therefore, is how did the Empire come about?

    How did the historic notion of national defense morph into Washington’s arrogant claim that it constitutes the “Indispensable Nation” which stands as mankind’s bulwark against global disorder and chaos among nations?

    As indicated above, Iran is just the case de jure of the Indispensable Nation in action. Yet the other hot spots of the moment are no less exercises in hegemonic aggression.

    Thus, Washington started the Ukrainian confrontation by sponsoring, funding and recognizing the February 2014 coup that overthrew a Russia-friendly government with one that is militantly nationalistic and bitterly antagonistic to Russia. It re-opened deep wounds that date back to Stalin’s brutal rein in Ukraine and Ukrainian collusion with Hitler’s Wehrmacht on its way to Stalingrad and back.

    So doing, it triggered the fear-driven outbreak of Russian-speaking separatism in the Donbas and the 96% referendum in Crimea to formally re-affiliate with mother Russia (which originally purchased it from the Ottomans in 1783).

    Even a passing familiarity with Russian history and geography would remind that Ukraine and Crimea are Moscow’s business, not Washington’s.

    Even more hideous is the rhetorical provocations and Seventh Fleet maneuvers ordered by Washington with respect to China’s comical sand castle building in the South China Sea. Whatever they are doing on these man-made islands, it is not threatening to the security of America—nor is there any plausible reason to believe that it is a threat to global commerce, either.

    After all, it is the mercantilist economies of China and East Asian that would collapse almost instantly if it attempted to interrupt world trade. That is, any theoretical red military shoe would first fall on the Red Suzerains of Beijing themselves because it is the hard currency earnings from its export machine that keep the Red Ponzi from collapsing and the Chinese people enthrall to their communist overlords.

    Needless to say, none of these kinds of interventions were even imaginable in the sleepy town of Washington DC just 100-years ago. But it’s baleful evolution from the capital of an economically focused Republic to seat of power in a globally mobilized Empire ultimately sprung from the Indispensable Nation heresy.

    So we intend to delve into the historic roots of that conceit in a multi-part series because it not only guarantees unending calamities abroad, but also an eventual fiscal and financial horror show at home.

    Indeed, so long as Imperial Washington is stretched about the planet in its sundry self-appointed missions of stabilization, “peacekeeping”, punishment, attack and occupation, there is zero chance that America’s collapsing fiscal accounts can be salvaged.

    The Indispensable Nation folly thus hangs over the rotten edifice of Bubble Finance like, in fact, a modern day Sword of Damocles.

    But Empire is a corrosive disease of governance. It eventually metastasizes into imperial arrogance, over-reach and high-handedness. Ultimately, like at present, it falls prey to the rule of bellicose war-mongers and thugs.

    John Bolton and Mike Pompeo are living proof of that.

    For the moment, however, make no mistake: Trump’s withdrawing from the nuke deal and pending re-imposition of maximum sanctions is an act of war by any other name.

    Yes, the feinschmeckers of the foreign policy establishment consider economic sanctions to be some kind of benign instrument of enlightened diplomacy—the carrot that preempts resort to the stick. But that is just sanctimonious prattle.

    When you hound the deep water ports of the planet attempting to block Iran’s oil sales, which are its principal and vital source of foreign exchange, or cut-off access by its central bank to the global money clearance system known as SWIFT or pressure friend and foe alike to stop all investment and trade—that’s an act of aggression every bit as menacing and damaging as a cruise missile attack.

    Or at least it was once understood that way. Even as recently as 1960 the great Dwight Eisenhower (very) reluctantly agreed to lie about Gary Power’s U-2 plane when the Soviets shot it down and captured its CIA pilot alive.

    But Ike did so because he was old-fashioned enough to believe that even penetrating the air space of a foe without permission was an act of war—- and that he did not intend, the CIA’s surveillance program notwithstanding.

    Today, by contrast, Washington invades the economics space of foreign nations with alacrity. In fact, the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) proudly lists 30 different sanctions programs  including ones on Belarus, Burundi, Cuba, Congo, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Venezuela, Yemen and Zimbabwe—along with  the more visible programs against the alleged malefactors of Iran, Russia and North Korea.

    These, too, are the footprints of Empire, not measures of a homeland defense befitting a peace-seeking Republic. That would cost around $250 billion per year, and would rely on an already built and paid for triad nuclear capacity for deterrence, and a modest Navy and Air Force for protection of the nation’s shorelines and air space.

    The $500 billion excess in today’s Trump-bloated national security budget of $750 billion is the cost of Empire; it’s the crushing fiscal burden that flows from the Indispensable Nation folly and its calamitously wrong assumption that the planet would descend into chaos without the good offices of the American Empire.

    Needless to say, we do not believe that the planet is chaos-prone absent Washington’s ministrations. After all, the historic record from Vietnam through Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran suggests exactly the opposite.

    More pointedly, the Indispensable Nation meme originates not in the universal condition of mankind and the nation-states into which it has been partioned, but in the one-time, flukish and historically aberrant circumstances of the 20th century that gave raise to giant totalitarian states in Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia, and the resulting mass murder and oppressions which resulted there from.

    But as we will outline in greater detail in Part 2,  Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany were not coded into the DNA of humanity—a horror always waiting to happen.

    To the contrary, they were effectively born and bred in April 1917 when the US entered what was then called the Great War. And it did so for absolutely no reason of homeland security or any principle consistent with the legitimate foreign policy of the American Republic.

    So you can put the blame for this monumental error squarely on Thomas Woodrow Wilson——-a megalomaniacal madman who was the very worst President in American history; and who took America into war for the worst possible reason—a vainglorious desire to have a big seat at the post-war peace table in order to remake the world as God had inspired him to redeem it.

    The truth, however, was that the European war posed not an iota of threat to the safety and security of the citizens of Lincoln NE, or Worcester MA or Sacramento CA. In that respect, Wilson’s putative defense of “freedom of the seas” and the rights of neutrals was an empty shibboleth; his call to make the world safe for democracy, a preposterous pipe dream.

    Indeed, the shattered world after the bloodiest war in human history was a world about which Wilson was blatantly ignorant. And remaking it was a task for which he was temperamentally unsuited—even as his infamous 14 points were a chimera so abstractly devoid of substance as to constitute mental play dough.

    Or, as his alter-ego and sycophant, Colonel House, put it: Intervention positioned Wilson to play “The noblest part that has ever come to the son of man”.  

    America thus plunged into Europe’s carnage, and forevermore shed its century-long Republican tradition of anti-militarism and non-intervention in the quarrels of the Old World. From that historically erroneous turn—there arose at length the Indispensable Nation Folly ,which we shall catalogue in the balance of this series.

    For now, suffice it to say that there was absolutely nothing noble that came of Wilson’s intervention.

    It led to a peace of vengeful victors, triumphant nationalists and avaricious imperialists—-when the war would have otherwise ended in a bedraggled peace of mutually exhausted bankrupts and discredited war parties on both sides.

    By so altering the course of history, Wilson’s war bankrupted Europe and midwifed 20th century totalitarianism in Russia and Germany.

    These developments, in turn, eventually led to the Great Depression, the Welfare State and Keynesian economics, World War II, the holocaust, the Cold War, the permanent Warfare State and its military-industrial complex.

    They also spawned Nixon’s 1971 destruction of sound money, Reagan’s failure to tame Big Government and Greenspan’s destructive cult of monetary central planning.

    So, too, flowed the Bush’s wars of intervention and occupation, their fatal blow to the failed states in the lands of Islam foolishly created by the imperialist map-makers at Versailles and the resulting endless waves of blowback and terrorism now afflicting the world.

    And not the least of the ills begotten in Wilson’s war is the modern rogue regime of central bank money printing, and the Bernanke-Yellen-Powell plague of bubble economics which never stops showering the 1% with the monumental windfalls from central bank enabled speculation.

    As to how all this transpired, stay tuned!

  • Brennan Was Feeding Obama Unverified Info From Steele Dossier, Contradicting 2017 Testimony

    Two former colleagues of ex-CIA Director John Brennan have contradicted his claim that the unverified “Steele Dossier” was not part of the US Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Russian interference in the 2016 election, reports Paul Sperry of RealClear Investigations.

    Central to the controversy is a statement by recently retired National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, who stated in a classified letter to Congress that the anti-Trump memos which made up the dossier did factor in to the IC assessment – which was reinforced in a CNN interview by James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence who said that the assessment was based on “some of the substantive content of the dossier,” and that the IC was “able to corroborate” certain dossier allegations. 

    In a March 5, 2018, letter to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, Adm. Rogers informed the committee that a two-page summary of the dossier — described as “the Christopher Steele information” — was “added” as an “appendix to the ICA draft,” and that consideration of that appendix was “part of the overall ICA review/approval process.”

    His skepticism of the dossier may explain why the NSA parted company with other intelligence agencies and cast doubt on one of its crucial conclusions: that Vladimir Putin personally ordered a cyberattack on Hillary Clinton’s campaign to help Donald Trump win the White House.RealClear Investigations

    What’s more, Brennan was feeding some of the dossier material to President Obama and passing it off as credible, reports Sperry.

    Brennan put some of the dossier material into the PDB [presidential daily briefing] for Obama and described it as coming from a ‘credible source,’ which is how they viewed Steele,” said the source familiar with the House investigation. “But they never corroborated his sources.” –RCI

    (Of note, some suspect Rogers warned Trump that he was being spied on shortly after the 2016 US election. You can read that analysis here.)

    Brennan testified in May 2017 to the House Intelligence Committee that the Steele Dossier was “not in any way used as the basis for the intelligence community’s assessment” of Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election – a claim he has repeated several times, including a February appearance on Meet the Press.

    Rogers said during testimony that while he was convinced that Russia wanted to harm Clinton politically, he wasn’t of the opinion that they wanted to help Trump, as his CIA and FBI counterparts claimed. The assessment “didn’t have the same level of sourcing and the same level of multiple sources,” Rogers said. 

    The dossier, which is made up of 16 opposition research-style memos on Trump underwritten by the Democratic National Committee and Clinton’s own campaign, is based mostly on uncorroborated third-hand sources. Still, the ICA has been viewed by much of the Washington establishment as the unimpeachable consensus of the U.S. intelligence community. Its conclusions that “Vladimir Putin ordered” the hacking and leaking of Clinton campaign emails “to help Trump’s chances of victory” have driven the “Russia collusion” narrative and subsequent investigations besieging the Trump presidency.RCI

    That said, the ICA did not in fact reflect the Intelligence Community’s concensus

    Clapper broke with tradition and decided not to put the assessment out to all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies for review. Instead, he limited input to a couple dozen chosen analysts from just three agencies — the CIA, NSA and FBI. Agencies with relevant expertise on Russia, such as the Department of Homeland Security, Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department’s intelligence bureau, were excluded from the process. –RCI

    On other words, the assessment of Russia’s interference was shielded from government experts who might be able to poke holes in the (literal) conspiracy theory. The House Intelligence Committee found that the ICA did not appropriately describe the “quality and credibility of underlying sources,” and that it was “not independent of political considerations.” 

    Furthermore, the report is missing any dissenting views whatsoever, as would normally be included.

    “Traditionally, controversial intelligence community assessments like this include dissenting views and the views of an outside review group,” said Fred Fleitz, who Real Clear Investigations reports worked as a CIA analyst for 19 years and helped draft national intelligence estimates at Langley. “It also should have been thoroughly vetted with all relevant IC agencies,” he added. “Why were DHS and DIA excluded?

    Fleitz suggests that the Obama administration limited the number of players involved in the analysis to skew the results. He believes the process was “manipulated” to reach a “predetermined political conclusion” that the incoming Republican president was compromised by the Russians.

    “I’ve never viewed the ICA as credible,” the CIA veteran added.

    A source close to the House investigation said Brennan himself selected the CIA and FBI analysts who worked on the ICA, and that they included former FBI counterespionage chief Peter Strzok.

    “Strzok was the intermediary between Brennan and [former FBI Director James] Comey, and he was one of the authors of the ICA,” according to the source. -RCI

    Strzok, of course, was reassigned to another department within the FBI after anti-Trump and pro-Clinton text messages were uncovered by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz. Strzok remains under investigation by the IG, while his FBI “lovebird” Lisa Page resigned (was fired) in early May. 

    Strzok spearheaded the FBI’s early investigation into Russian collusion with the Trump campaign in 2016 – until former FBI Director James Comey was fired, and his infamous “memos” suggesting obstruction kicked off special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. 

    Brennan swears the dossier was not used “in any way” as a basis for the ICA – explaining that he only “heard snippets” from the press in the summer of 2016. 

    Brennan’s claims are impossible to believe,” Fleitz asserted.

    “Brennan was pushing the Trump collusion line in mid-2016 and claimed to start the FBI collusion investigation in August 2016,” he said. “It’s impossible to believe Brennan was pushing for this investigation without having read the dossier.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  • Iraq Gets A Modern Political System: Low Turnout, Surging Populism, Potential Chaos

    Authored by John Rubino via DollarCollapse.com,

    Remember when Iraqis were first able to vote in national elections back in the 2000s, and huge numbers braved terrorist threats to go to the polls and celebrated afterwards? Their enthusiasm contrasted sharply with US elections where turnout was low and the voters that did show up tended towards ambivalence.

    But fast forward a decade and Iraqis seem to have figured out that in the modern world of hyper-indebtedness and overpopulation no politician can keep their promises and life might therefore not get better after all. So why bother voting – and if you do vote why not swing for the fences with out-of-the mainstream candidates willing to take on the establishment? From today’s Wall Street Journal:

    Firebrand Cleric Moqtada al-Sadr Gains in Iraqi Elections

    MOSUL, Iraq—Iraqi voters appeared to deal a blow to Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi in this weekend’s election, giving surprisingly strong support to an unlikely coalition of communists and followers of populist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr in partial preliminary results.

    Mr. Sadr, a firebrand whose militias once fought openly with U.S. forces and were implicated in sectarian bloodshed, has since entered the political mainstream. His new alliance with Iraq’s communists did well in a contest in which many Iraqis stayed home and those who did vote said they wanted to shake up a political status quo known for corruption and bad governance.

    With preliminary results counted in 10 of Iraq’s 18 provinces, Mr. Sadr’s coalition came in first in four of them, including the country’s most populous city, Baghdad, and was near the top in all of them, according to preliminary results.

    Mr. Abadi’s coalition didn’t come first in any of the provinces for which results were released, suggesting his chances of re-election may be slim even after his government led the country to victory over Islamic State last year. Neither Mr. Abadi’s coalition, seen as being implicitly supported by the U.S., nor Iran-backed groups were as successful as Mr. Sadr.

    What does this mean for Iraq?

    Probably the same thing recent elections mean for Italy, where a coalition of left and right-wing populists just formed a government with – to put it mildly – unpredictable consequences. Or for the US where a populist government is tearing up treaties and throwing allies into confusion (see US threatens European companies with sanctions after Iran deal pull-out). Or for that matter Argentina, where an ostensibly rock-solid business friendly government has failed to stabilize the financial system and is now begging the IMF for help to avert a currency collapse.

    Political/financial turmoil is simply the new normal in a world where debt has been allowed to explode, leaving only unpalatable choices. Picture a family that has maxed out a series of credit cards, car loans, student loans and mortgages to the point that interest eats the income that used to go to gasoline, food, and private school tuition for the kids. Then imagine the dinner table conversation as everyone gets the news that their necessities are being cut to cover the costs of the parents’ previous bad decisions.

    Now expand that emotional atmosphere to entire countries and you have modern political life.

    This wasn’t inevitable. It’s the more-or-less direct result of the US decision to break the final link between the dollar – and by implication all the world’s major currencies — and gold in 1971.

    A society with a currency on this trajectory is absolutely guaranteed to descend into chaos eventually.

  • Baltimore Police Commissioner Resigns After Admitting He Did Not File Taxes For Years

    Less than a week after the Department of Justice charged Baltimore Police Commissioner Darryl De Sousa with failure to file federal and state income taxes for three consecutive years, Baltimore’s top cop resigned on Tuesday after being suspended last Friday with pay.

    Baltimore Police Commissioner Darryl De Sousa Resigns After Being Charged With Failing To File His Taxes. (Source: The Baltimore Sun)

    “Today I received the resignation of Darryl De Sousa as Commissioner of the Baltimore Police Department and have accepted it,” Baltimore Mayor Catherine E. Pugh said in a statement, reprinted below:

    “I want to reassure all Baltimoreans that this development in no way alters our strategic efforts to reduce crime by addressing its root causes in our most neglected neighborhoods. This broad-based, grassroots approach – underpinned by the utilization of new crime-fighting technology – is working and will continue to be effective as indicated by the downward trend in violence. The Baltimore Police command staff is fully committed to bringing about the reforms to the practices and culture of the department that we are implementing and which are vital to ensuring the trust and confidence of all our citizens.”

    “As mayor, I will not let up in pursuing my top priority of making our City safe and our neighborhoods worthy of the lives of all residents.”

    According to Jayne Miller, an investigative reporter for WBAL, the mayor’s office has already started a national search for a new police commissioner, while deputy commissioner, Gary Tuggle serves as Interim-Commissioner.

    De Sousa’s downward spiral started last Thursday when he was charged with three misdemeanor counts of failing to file income taxes. Federal investigators said he “willfully failed to file a federal tax return” for tax years 2013, 2014 and 2015, while he was employed with the Baltimore Police Department.

    In a statement on Twitter, De Sousa admitted to failing to file his federal and state taxes, but within the statement, he did add that his 2016 taxes were filed, and 2017 had an extension.

    “While there is no excuse for my failure to fulfill my obligations as a citizen and public official, my only explanation is that I failed to sufficiently prioritize my personal affairs,” he said.

    “Naturally, this is a source of embarrassment for me and I deeply regret any embarrassment it has caused the Police Department and the City of Baltimore. I accept full responsibility for this mistake and am committed to resolving this situation as quickly as possible.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 3 President Gene Ryan said in a statement, “The men and women of the Baltimore Police Department are aware of the resignation of Police Commissioner Darryl De Sousa today. We are anxious to put these events behind us and hope that Mayor Pugh can quickly find a suitable replacement. Our members deserve consistency in their leadership; however, as they are all highly trained professional law enforcement personnel, they will stay fully mission focused in the interim.”

    De Sousa became Baltimore’s top cop in January, after Mayor Pugh fired ex-Commissioner Kevin Davis, citing a surge of violent crime after the 2015 Baltimore Riots.

    “I’m impatient,” Pugh said at a news conference in January. “We need more violence reduction. We need the numbers to go down faster than they are.”

    CNN explains how Baltimore was transformed into one of the most dangerous cities in America:

    “Baltimore had 343 homicides in 2017, according to the city’s police department. Baltimore had a rate of 51.4 homicides per 100,000 residents in 2016, well above Chicago’s 28.07 homicides per 100,000 residents and New York City’s 3.9 per 100,000 residents.

    Baltimore was the site of riots in April 2015 after 25-year-old Freddie Gray died in police custody. The Justice Department, under President Barack Obama, later issued a report saying that black residents were subject to disproportionate rates of stops, searches and arrests.

    Last year, several police officers with the now-defunct Gun Trace Task Force were indicted on federal racketeering charges of robbing people, claiming fraudulent overtime and filing false affidavits. Two officers were convicted and six other officers pleaded guilty to federal charges.”

    Meanwhile we hope that Baltimore is successful in its search for a top cop replacement, although we realize that finding that rare public servant who believes in paying their fair share while protecting and upholding the law is not going to be an easy task.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 15th May 2018

  • WHO Prepares For "Worst Case" As Congo Ebola Outbreak Spreads

    In the week since we first noted the new outbreak of Ebola in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the number of cases has risen by 50%, and The World Health Organization has now said it is preparing for “the worst case scenario.”

    The WHO has tallied 32 suspected or confirmed cases in the northwestern area of Bikoro, on the shores of Lake Tumbathe near the border with the Republic of Congo, including 18 deaths, between April 4 and May 9.

    The outbreak, declared by the DRC health ministry on Tuesday, is the DRC’s ninth known outbreak of Ebola since 1976, when the deadly viral disease was first identified in then-Zaire by a Belgian-led team.

    Scientists are greatly concerned that this outbreak in the remote Bikoro region will travel 175 miles to the city of Mbandaka – the capital of Equateur province and home to around 1.2 million residents.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    What’s worrisome is that the most recent WHO update says that there are two probably cases at Wangata – which is very close to Mbandaka.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Peter Salma, head of emergency response at the World Health Organization (WHO) said last week: “If we see a town of that size infected with Ebola, then we are going to have a major urban outbreak,” adding “We are very concerned, and we are planning for all scenarios, including the worst-case scenario.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The WHO is planning to send up to 40 specialists to the affected area over the next week or so, while Salma adds that the UN hopes to have a mobile lab up and running this weekend, similar to the one set up by the WHO. 

    The WHO and World Food Programme are also working to set up an ‘air-bridge’ to help bring in supplies, however, only helicopters can be used until an airfield is cleared to allow larger planes to land, Mr Salama added.

    The health body has released £738,000 ($1m) from its Contingency Fund for Emergencies to support response activities for the next three months. –Daily Mail

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    This marks the country’s ninth epidemic since the ebola virus was identified in 1976. When a small outbreak hit the DRC last year, eight people were infected and four died. In 2014, 66 were infected out of which 49 died – a 74% fatality rate. In the 2002-2003 outbreak, 90% of those infected died. That said, on average the disease kills around half of those who contract it. 

    Ebola, a haemorrhagic fever, killed at least 11,000 across the world after it decimated West Africa and spread rapidly over the space of two years.

    The pandemic was officially declared over back in January 2016, when Liberia was announced to be Ebola-free by the WHO.

    The country, rocked by back-to-back civil wars that ended in 2003, was hit the hardest by the fever, with 40 per cent of the deaths having occurred there.

    Sierra Leone reported the highest number of Ebola cases, with nearly of all those infected having been residents of the nation. -Daily Mail

    Experts say the DRC’s vast, remote terrain provides an advantage, as outbreaks often remain localized and easy to isolate. Bikoro, however, is not far from the Congo river – an essential waterway used for transport and commerce. Downstream lies Kinshasa and Brazzaville – the DRC’s capital. The two cities are home to a combined 12 million people.

    As such, neighboring countries are on high alert. Officials in Nigeria, Guinea and Gambia have incresaed screening measures along their airports and borders, measures which helped contain the virus during the West African epidemic that began in 2013. 

    Angola, Zambia, Tanzania, Uganda, South Sudan, Central African Republic, Rwanda, Burundi and the Republic of Congo – which border the DRC – have all been alerted.

    While Kenya, which does not border the country, has issued warnings over the possible spread of Ebola.

    Thermal guns to detect anyone with a fever have been put in place along its border with Uganda and at the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport. 

    Concerned health officials in Nigeria, which also does not border the DRC, have put similar measures in place to keep its population safe. -Daily Mail

    Scientists believe Ebola is most often passed to humans by fruit bats, however porcupines, gorillas, antelope and chimpanzees could also be carriers. It is transmitted between humans through blood, secretions and other bodily fluids (and surfaces) of those infected. 

    There is currently no “proven” treatment for Ebola, however dozens of experimental drugs exist – including a vaccine called rVSV-ZEBOV, which has reportedly protected nearly 6,000 people. 

  • US, Sweden, And Finland Boost Military Cooperation To Form New Alliance

    Authored by Alex Gorka via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    The US, Swedish, and Finnish defense ministers signed a trilateral Statement of Intent (SOI) to expand defense cooperation on all fronts. The signing ceremony took place in Washington on May 8. In 2016, the two Scandinavian nations finalized separate defense SOIs with America. Now they have signed a joint document to unify those previous agreements and enhance their interoperability.

    The Scandinavian visitors claimed this was just a starting point for a more mature relationship. The agreement emphasizes the countries’ combined joint exercises and streamlines the procedures that have been established to manage them.

    Other issues covered by the SOI include regular trilateral meetings at all levels, the exchange of information (including about weapons systems), increased practical interaction, cooperation in multinational operations, improved communications, and the promotion of the EU-NATO strategic partnership. The latter issue will transform the Scandinavians into a connecting link that will eliminate the chance of any European deterrent that could operate with any real independence from its North American “big brother.”  Washington wants to make sure that the PESCO agreement will not protect Europe’s defense industry from US companies.

    Sweden hosted the Aurora military exercise in September 2017, the largest such event on its soil. The US supplied most of the visiting troops. The American military has also taken part in a number of drills in Finland recently. That country will host a large-scale NATO exercise as early as 2020 or 2021. The US has already been invited. The militarization of the Scandinavian Peninsula is moving full speed ahead.

    The recently signed SOI actually transforms the bilateral agreements into enhanced trilateral cooperation.  For Stockholm and Helsinki, joining NATO is not an option for domestic political reasons. At least not for now. Instead, a new US-led defense alliance has emerged. 

    The increased tempo of exercises anticipates a larger US presence. It has far-reaching implications. With American military personnel rotating in and out of Sweden and Finland, any offensive action against one of those states would officially be an attack on a NATO member.  It would trigger a response as envisaged by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. Russia considers any American military presence there as provocative. The US is not a Scandinavian country. If an incident took place that resulted in a clash between Russian and US forces, the two Scandinavian nations would be pulled against their will into a conflict they may have nothing to do with. The American soldiers on their soil will never be under the control of their national commands. More US presence means less sovereignty and more risk.

    Actually, since they are EU members they don’t even need Article 5, because Article 42.7 of the EU treaty also contains a binding mutual-assistance clause. France invoked it after the 2015 Paris terror attacks.

    Last year Sweden and Finland joined the UK-led Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF).  All other participants in the nine-nation formation are NATO members. It means that in an emergency their armed forces will operate under NATO command, becoming parties to a conflict they could avoid if they were really neutral.   The two also cooperate with Washington through the Northern Group (NG), which consists of 12 countries, although Sweden and Finland are the only non-NATO participants. That organization holds its own dialog with the US. Another venue is the five-nation Nordic Countries group, that includes these two non-aligned members.

    In reality, Sweden and Finland have already joined NATO through other groups and agreements.   They did so informally, avoiding referendums and the relevant parliamentary procedures at home. This should be viewed as part of a broader picture. In early April, the first-ever US-Baltic States summit took place in Washington. It was an unprecedented event that somehow was kept out of the media spotlight. 

    The leaders of NATO’s “frontline states” called for a permanent US military presence in the region. They want that to be much larger than just American participation in multinational battalions. They are asking for a permanent presence on a much wider scale.  Washington, which already has forces deployed in Norway and Poland, is considering rotating American troops through the Baltic nations as well. Poland and the Baltic states are a focus of NATO’S bellicose preparations. One might as well forget about the 1997 Russia-NATO Founding Act (1997), which states that no substantial forces should be deployed in the proximity of the borders. That document has already been breached by NATO.

    The US guests have provided advice on how to promote American influence (they call it “democracy”) in Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine, the members of a newly formed anti-Russian alliance. and it’s not just the defense sector. Last year, Lithuania began importing liquefied natural gas (LNG) from America. Poland has also built an LNG terminal to expand the shipments of American gas to Europe, which compete with Russia’s energy supplies.

    The withdrawal from the Iran deal is not the only time a US position on an issue has been opposed by the leading European nations. There are many more points of disagreement. Old Europe is gradually creating an independent deterrent.  A rift between the EU and the US is deepening. But as one can see, Washington is building another pro-American alliance on the continent. It does not mean it will replace the North Atlantic alliance. Certainly not. On the contrary, it will strengthen the US position in the bloc.

    But aside from NATO, Washington also leads an informal alliance of “frontline states” that are intimidated by a nonexistent threat. The idea of the Russia bogeyman is being exploited by the US in order to reach its foreign-policy goals. Northern Europe is being turned into a hornet’s nest, with its good-neighbor policy gradually being replaced with confrontation that benefits the US but makes the region less secure. 

  • MH370 Solved? Experts Call It Suicide And "Premeditated Mass Murder" By Pilot

    While there has been no official government explanation to the MH370 flight mystery that dominated the news for months after it occurred, experts on Australia’s 60 Minutes have put together what seems to be the most sensible re-creation of events that could explain the mystery of the missing plane.

    Stunningly, experts agree that flight MH370 may have come down as an intentional act of mass suicide. The report was picked up by the Washington Post on Monday, who explained that “the plane’s 2014 disappearance and apparent crash were a suicide by the 53-year-old [pilot] Zaharie — and a premeditated act of mass murder.”

    “The thing that gets discussed the most is that at the point where the pilot turned the transponder off, that he depressurized the airplane, which would disable the passengers,” said Larry Vance, a veteran aircraft investigator from Canada. “He was killing himself. Unfortunately, he was killing everyone else onboard. And he did it deliberately.”

    Two of the most prominent mysteries of the flight were the lack of communication from the plane and a mysterious left turn that had yet to be explained. As the Washington Post describes, the plane’s communication was likely turned off on purpose…

    But the “60 Minutes” experts tried to answer one of the biggest questions surrounding the flight: How could a modern aircraft tracked by radar and satellites simply disappear?

    Because, they say, Zaharie wanted it to. And the veteran pilot, who had nearly 20,000 hours of flight experience and had built a flight simulator in his home, knew exactly how to do it.

    For example, at one point, he flew near the border of Malaysia and Thailand, crisscrossing into the airspace of both, Hardy said. But neither country was likely to see the plane as a threat because it was on the edge of their airspace.

    …and the “unexplained” left turn could have been the pilot looking to take one last glance of his hometown:

    Zaharie’s suspected suicide might explain an oddity about the plane’s final flight path: that unexpected turn to the left.

    “Captain Zaharie dipped his wing to see Penang, his home town,” Simon Hardy, a Boeing 777 senior pilot and instructor, said on “60 Minutes.”

    “If you look very carefully, you can see it’s actually a turn to the left, and then start a long turn to the right. And then [he does] another left turn. So I spent a long time thinking about what this could be, what technical reason is there for this, and, after two months, three months thinking about this, I finally got the answer: Someone was looking out the window.”

    “It might be a long, emotional goodbye,” Hardy added. “Or a short, emotional goodbye to his home town.”

    As for the silence on board, experts believe that the pilot depressurized the cabin on purpose, knocking everybody on board unconscious (who was not wearing an oxygen mask, which it is assumed the pilot would have been wearing). As the report put it, “that would explain the silence from the plane as it veered wildly off course: no mayday from the craft’s radio, no final goodbye texts, no attempted emergency calls that failed to connect.”

    The entire 60 Minutes piece can be viewed here.

    If this re-creation of events is accurate, the explanation for MH370 bears a striking resemblance to Germanwings Flight 9525, which crashed in 2015 as a result of the co-pilot deliberately bringing the plane down. French prosecutors noted that the co-pilot had locked the pilot out of the cockpit and deliberately crashed the plane just days after the incident took place in March 2015. The incident spawned outcries for better mental health screening and requirements for pilots:

    Aviation agencies around the world should draw up new rules requiring medical workers to warn authorities when a pilot’s mental health could threaten public safety, French investigators recommended Sunday after a yearlong probe into the Germanwings plane crash.

    The French investigation found that Germanwings co-pilot Andreas Lubitz, who had been treated for depression in the past, had consulted with dozens of doctors in the weeks before he deliberately crashed a jet into the French Alps on March 24, 2015, killing all 150 people on board.

    Again, this re-creation of MH370’s events were put together by aviation experts and not by any governmental agency, but the postulations seem to be one of the only plausible stories that, frankly, makes any sense. 

  • The "Vollgeld Initiative" – Switzerland's 'Once-In-A-Lifetime' Chance To Save The World

    Authored by Peter Koenig vie The Saker Blog,

    It’s called “Vollgeld Initiative” – in German, meaning more or less “Referendum for Sovereign Money”. What is “Sovereign Money”? – Its money produced only by the Central Bank, by the “Sovereign”, the government, represented by its central bank. Money created in accordance with the needs of the economy, as contrasted to the profit and greed motives of the banking oligarchy – what it is today; money creation at will, by private banking.

    The people of Switzerland are called to vote on 10 June 2018 whether they want to stop the unlimited, unrestrained money-making by the Swiss private banking system, and to return to the “olden days”, when money was made and controlled only by the Central Bank; and this not just in Switzerland, but in most countries around the globe. Switzerland is one of the few sovereign countries within the OECD, and possibly worldwide, that has the Right of Referendum written into her Constitution.

    With 100,000 valid signatures anybody can raise a referendum to amend or abolish a law, or to create a new one. – This is a huge privilege to Right a Wrong.

    Most Swiss and probably most westerners in general don’t even know that the loan or mortgage they get from their bank is no longer backed by the bank’s capital and deposits. How could they? Instead of being told the truth, they are being lied to, even by their own party and politicians. And that in the case of Switzerland, by nobody less than the CEO of the UBS, the largest Swiss bank. Just watch this short video (in German and Italian – 2 min)

    Lying is a felony, hence Mr. Sergio Ermotti, CEO of UBS, should be prosecuted. Unlikely to happen, though. What Mr. Ermotti in essence says in this interview is that loans are backed by deposits. This is directly contradicted by the Swiss National Bank and the German Bundesbank (Central Bank). They say that “today about 90% of all the money is accounting money, created by loans the banks make to enterprises and private citizens. Pretending that banks use deposits to make loans, is not true.” The latter part was specifically expressed by the German Bundesbank. – So, how come Mr. Ermotti, CEO of UBS, wouldn’t know that?

    Switzerland, fully embedded in the globalized western banking system, absorbed by it, has a chance to tell the world that the only way to control and get on top of the cycle of financial and economic crises is to reign-in the bottom-less money production – the debt-interest-profit driven banking system, a Ponzi scheme that cannot survive (financing debt with more debt); the abhorrent uncontrollable debt-profit cycle that has brought misery to humanity – just look at Greece. With money production controlled by the respective central banks, for example, in France and in Germany, the senseless indebting of Greece by German and French banks would not have been possible, in which case the troika’s (ECB, European Commission and IMF) so-called bail-outs, or ‘rescue packages’, would not have been possible either. Hence no doubling of Greece’s debt – and Greece would be well on her way to recovery.

    The point is that these too-big-to-fail banks have become also too big to control, and of course they do not want to be controlled. They have the (political) power to shed off any control. They want to continue creating debt, lending money not for economic development, but for profit of their shareholders. Banking for development has stopped a long time ago. The only banking for development is public banking, and that is almost non-existent – so far – in the west; except for North Dakota and soon New Jersey – and a number of other US States are considering public banking as a means of bringing back the true sense of banking – i.e. for economic development. But with the current FED-Wall Street bulldozer’s onslaught on the world, they are fighting against windmills – but even windmills are fallible.

    By and large, in the west it’s corporate banking for profit. And thanks to the public’s ignorance and disinterest, deregulation took place behind our backs.

    Did you know for example, that to become a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), a nation has to deregulate its banks – to put them on a platter at disposal of the globalized banking sharks? – Probably you didn’t. Such decisions are never publicized.

    Again, the Swiss with a Yes vote on 10 June could change this for themselves and send a signal to the rest of the world – suggesting to take back their financial, economic and monetary sovereignty – cutting the link to globalized usury banking that enslaves the poor in favor of the rich. Literally.

    Will Switzerland seize this unique opportunity to broadcast this powerful message to the (western) world? Saying in the clearest voice possible – enough is enough, we are going back to regulating our banking system, through ‘new-old’ legislation and through the only institution that really has the Constitutional power to create money – the Swiss National Bank?

    The Swiss, an enormous influence in international banking – good or bad – could become a trail blazer for a new economic model, to demonstrate how ell well an economy can run without following the global trend of unlimited money supply – which serves only the banks by indebting the nations and the people. They could put a halt to the seemingly out-of-control economic rollercoaster that brings only misery to people, unemployment, broken homes and businesses, decimated social safety nets, pensions health plans — they, the Swiss could put an end to it and become an economically and financially independent nation with a healthy economy for the wellbeing of the people – not of the banks.

    Will they? Will they grasp this once in a lifetime opportunity to break loose from the banking stranglehold?

    The Swiss people are the most indebted of the G20, with 127.5% of private debt as compared to GDP in September 2017. The trend is on the rise. The United States, where deregulation started in the 1990s under President Clinton before it became ‘globalized’, was number seven with 78.5% in September 2017. – According to an OECD 2015 report, mortgages account for 120% of GDP, by far the largest proportion of all OECD countries. – Do the Swiss know that? – Some probably do, but the majority most likely does not. Ever-so-often the Swiss National Bank (Central Bank) issues a routine warning about private and particular mortgage debt – as it is an ever-raising risk for highly indebted families. An economic crisis, loss of a job – and a family fails to meet mortgage payments – bingo, foreclosure. The same as in 2008, 2009 and going on.

    Well, do you know that in Switzerland first mortgages do not have to be amortized? In fact, banks encourage you not to repay your mortgage, but just keep paying interest. Many mortgages are passed on with the related real estate from generation to generation. So, you never really own your house. The bank does. And the bank earns the money on your house, as well as calls the final shots on what is to happen with your real property, in case it is being sold.

    “Free money” – as it could also be called, is money made indiscriminately without backing. It has many negative effects – the risk factor, as mentioned before – and the bubble effect on the housing market which in turn increases the risk for houseowners, because sooner or later bubbles burst. The only winners are the banks.

    Why can the banks just make mortgage loans without requesting amortization? – Because they are afloat with money. Because, of course, they just make money with loans – the 90% which are not central bank made money. And the more loans they have outstanding, the more interest they earn. They earn money for doing absolutely nothing. For a mouse-click. Interest accumulates on its own. And debt is today’s foremost tool to enslave people, nations, entire continents.

    This is what the Swiss could change by accepting this referendum, by Voting YES to Vollgeld. It would refrain banks from creating money and return the responsibility to the central bank, where it is to be located according to the Swiss Constitution. It would force banks to be more prudent in issuing mortgages and personal debt – it would provide for a more stable economy and for a financially less vulnerable personal life. It would gradually take some air out of the real estate bubble – a healthy feature for any society.

    Again, are the Swiss going to vote for what is best for them? – Probably not. – But why not? – Because they are subjected to an enormous anti “Sovereign Money” campaign by the banking and finance sector, by the ‘built-in’ lobby. Yes, built-in, because in Switzerland Parliamentarians have the right to represent as many corporations, banking and otherwise, in their Boards of Directors, as they please. Yes – this is another special feature of Switzerland, also unique among OECD countries. – How many Swiss are aware of this?

    Is it therefore a surprise that the Swiss are being utterly brainwashed to vote against their own interest? – As they have done so often in the past – and frequently to the utter surprise of neighboring countries.

    In addition – and this is where another feature of the Swiss Un-Democracy enters: The Swiss Federal Council, the Swiss Executive, takes for itself the privilege and right – I have no clue from where, it is nowhere written in the Constitution – to issue sort of an edict before every national vote or referendum – “advising” the people how they should vote. With a public that oozes of comfort, where consistently less than 50% go to the polls, largely because of disinterest, such a proclamation has a huge impact.

    In this case, the Swiss Government, its Executive, has already and already for a while repeatedly “advised” its populace to vote ‘no’ to the Vollgeld Initiative. And surprisingly every major party goes along with it, including the socialists and other left-leaning parties. Either they are brainwashed to the core by propaganda repeated at nauseam, indoctrinating the people how bad accepting the “Vollgeld Initiative” would be. How bad can be owning your “Sovereign Money”? – Can you imagine? – How much lie must go into such fake marketing?

    Or could it be that the Swiss are no longer ruled by Bern, nor has the Swiss Central Bank much to say about Swiss monetary policy, but they may be ruled by an international and globalized banking cartel that puts so much pressure on the Swiss government, that it could almost be interpreted as blackmail? – Why otherwise, would intelligent people advise and vote against their own and proper interests?

    *  *  *

    My dear Swiss compatriots, this is the chance of your lifetime. Do yourself a favor by voting YES to the “Vollgeld Initiative”. Not only will you do yourself and the Swiss economy a favor, by bringing the latter back to sovereign control, you would most certainly make world-headlines and, who knows, inspire the peoples of other countries, who are sick and tired of their enslavement by banks, to request that their Central Banks alone can make money – in the amount that corresponds to the needs of their economies – no longer according to the profit-and-greed requirements of the globalized banking oligarchy.

  • Used Needles Littering San Francisco Streets As Heroin Crisis Grips NorCal

    San Francisco residents are complaining about a record number of used and discarded syringes littering the streets, as a growing heroin epidemic grips Northern California. 

    The city distributes nearly 5 million needles each year through various programs aimed at reducing HIV and other health risks for drug users who might otherwise share needles. 

    The city distributes an estimated 400,000 syringes each month through various programs aimed at reducing HIV and other health risks for drug users. About 246,000 syringes are discarded through the city’s 13 syringe access and disposal sites. But thousands of the others end up on streets, in parks and other public areas… –AP

    While syringes discarded in public areas have become a nationwide problem amid a growing opium crisis, the problem in population-dense San Francisco (about 50 square miles) is much more noticeable given the city’s growing homeless population. Last year there were 9,500 requests by residents for needle pick-ups by the city. So far this year, there have been 3,700 requests. 

    Despite the needles strewn around the city, San Francisco officials have no plans to change their needle program.

    “Research shows that reducing access to clean syringes increases disease and does not improve the problem of needle litter,” said Barbara Garcia, director of the Department of Public Health.

    In response to the problem, Mayor Mark Farrell has hired 10 workers to go around the city picking up needles. 

    Meanwhile to the north, the coastal town of Eureka has been hit hard by the heroin epidemic which has spread throughout California’s rural north. 

    While the state as a whole has one of the lowest overall opioid-related death rates in the country, a sharp rise in heroin use across the rural north in recent years has raised alarms. In Humboldt County, the opioid death rate is five times higher than the state average, rivaling the rates of states like Maine and Vermont that have received far more national attention. –NY Times

    Eureka, with its sizeable homeless population, lack of affordable housing and a “changing, weakened economy that relies heavily on tourism” has been hit particularly hard. 

    Intravenous drug use has been a persistent menace across rural California for decades, but longtime drug users who once sought methamphetamine — which is also often injected — are increasingly looking to score heroin or opioid pills instead. An astonishingly high rate of opioid prescription in Humboldt County has bred addiction, officials said, and the craving is increasingly sated by a growing market for heroin. –NYT

    I’ve lost so many people to this,” said 46-year-old Stacy Cobine, a chronically homeless woman who has struggled with drug abuse.

    While Meth is still the drug of choice in Humboldt, Chief Deputy Coroner at the County Sheriff’s Department, Ernie Stewart, says he is certain that the county’s heroin-related overdoses are “way underreported,” and that meth and heroin abuse is affecting every type of person locally – not just the homeless. 

    And with such heavy use of opioids comes the trash…

    With the sharp increases in use and overdoses, syringe litter has become a significant flash point for the town’s middle-class residents, particularly because tourism is so important for Eureka and the surrounding region. The town’s homeless have borne the brunt of the blame and frustration. Many Eurekans described various shocking experiences, including witnessing injections on public streets. They worry that discarded syringes could threaten children and tourists playing in the area’s parks. –NYT

    Like San Francisco, Humboldt distributes clean needles to drug users through the Humboldt Area Center for Harm Reduction. Many residents blame the organization, founded in 2014 to combat the spread of hepatitis C, for the proliferation of needle litter. The exchange has given out close to one million clean syringes since 2017, while founder Brandie Wilson says her group gets around 94% of the used needles back. 

    “Our Hep C and mental health and drug use and homeless and opioid use issues, all of those are so intertwined with being rural, and with a culture of silence,” she said. “No matter where I looked, there was no help. There was no help.

    Another factor which many point to is the break-up of a major homeless encampment by Humboldt officials. 

    The needle litter problem intensified two years ago when the town removed a homeless encampment along the Palco Marsh where somewhere between 250 and 400 homeless people had been sleeping.

    City officials and health service workers had encouraged the town’s large homeless population for years to go there. The tent city, which was colloquially called Devil’s Playground, provided a place to sleep and to linger during the day, but it also saw severely unsanitary health conditions and, at times, violence. In 2016, the town decided to clear the camp to install a bike path along the water, and did not allow a new camp anywhere else. –NYT

    And while Humboldt County does what it can, many are pointing a finger at the state of California for not taking enough action.

    “The state is failing miserably, and you can quote me on that,” said Mr. Stewart, the deputy coroner. “The state is failing miserably across the board. They are not putting enough funding and resources toward rehabilitation.”

    Mike McGuire, who represents several Northern California counties including Humboldt in the State Senate, said that government leaders needed to be more proactive about expanding resources in rural parts of the state. He said rural Californians are “desperate” for more assistance.

    “Humboldt County is just a few hours up Highway 101,” he said, “but as an individual travels further north on the highway, it’s like you take a step back in time. We need to step up to the plate and provide rural counties with the tools they need to combat this crisis.”

    We’re just trying to figure out how to keep people alive while we wait for more treatment up here,” said Wilson.
     

  • Iran Sanctions: A Reminder Of How America Militarized The Financial System

    Authored by Tho Bishop via The Mises Institute,

    Only CNN was surprised by Donald Trump’s recent announcement that he was pulling the United States out of the Iran Deal negotiated by his predecessor. Following the same failed approach of the last Republican administration, the President opted for confrontation with the Iranian regime rather than uplifting more moderate factions within the country through trade. The decision has already increased tensions in the volatile region, with Iran and Israel exchanging fire in Syria.

    Meanwhile European leaders are meeting Iranian officials to try to design a way to bypass new American sanctions. Others have vocally attacked Trump’s actions and attacked the US playing the role of “economic policeman.”

    As French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said after the decision:

    Do we want to be vassals who obey decisions taken by the United States while clinging to the hem of their trousers? Or do we want to say we have our economic interests, we consider we will continue to do trade with Iran?

    According to reports, European officials are looking at a few different options to help salvage their economic relationship with Iran.

    One is by reviving “blocking statues” such as the ones the EU threatened in response to sanctions on Cuba, Libya, and Iran in the 1990s. The mechanism works similar to the anti-commandeering doctrine, ordering European officials to refuse to comply with US sanctions. As Reuters notes, blocking statues have “never been used and is seen by European governments more as a political weapon.” They were successful in the past because the Clinton Administration simply backed down, something that seems unlikely with President Trump.

    The other is to establish new financial institutions with no connection to the US financial system. Iran has already made the euro the official reporting currency for foreign exchange, so on the surface this seems like a viable alternative.

    The problem European decision makers face, however, is that the US has gone to great lengths to militarize the banking industry in recent years.

    As Richard Goldberg noted at Foreign Policy:

    [In 2010] Congress passed a new law leveraging America’s greatest strength against the fulcrum of global commerce with Iran: financial transactions.

    After years of blacklisting most financial institutions in Iran for their involvement in various illicit activities, Congress recognized that it also needed to punish third parties for doing business with these criminal enterprises. Thus, it declared that any foreign bank that maintained a correspondent banking relationship with a designated Iranian bank would forfeit its banking relationships in the United States.

    In 2011, the United States extended this prohibition to transactions conducted with the Central Bank of Iran and, in 2012, to transactions conducted in connection with a wide range of Iranian economic sectors and activities.

    No financial institution is going to want to risk being blackballed from the US banking system, no matter how firmly worded a blocking statute is. As such, the first proposed policy tool has little chance of success.

    Meanwhile, US lawmakers are already devising ways to go after European Central Banks should they seek to establish special financial institutions for Iranian trade. As the Weekly Standard reported, a memo is being passed around Capitol Hill stating that US policy makers should:

    Remind European governments that U.S. financial sanctions apply to all “foreign financial institutions,” which the Treasury Department has previously interpreted to include “central banks or foreign state-owned or -controlled banks,” not just private banks. Countries that consider shifting their payment processing from private institutions to central banks will put their financial systems at serious risk.

    Ironically the lack of real options in checking Trump actually vindicates the worldview Trump espoused as a presidential candidate. Just as Trump articulated an “America First” approach to foreign relations that prioritized “national interest” ahead of the schemes of “globalists,” Europe must identify ways to limit their dependence on the US financial system – or else indeed be reduced to de facto-vassal status to Washington. Just as political decentralization is the best way to achieve true self-determination, financial decentralization is the best way for nations to protect their own sovereign interests.

    Of course to really do so requires resetting the global monetary order.

    So long as the dollar enjoys its privileged position established by Bretton-Woods, the rest of the world is vulnerable to the US leveraging that against them.

  • US Futures Slide After China Data Disappointments

    China’s economic momentum appeared to slow from March’s data as while Industrial Production handsomely beat expectations, Retail Sales were below the lowest estimate and Fixed Asset Investment was the weakest since Dec 1999

    • Industrial output rose 7.0 percent in April from a year earlier, versus a projected 6.4 percent in a Bloomberg survey and 6 percent in March – highest since June 2017

    • Retail sales expanded 9.4 percent from a year earlier, versus a forecast 10 percent – equal lowest since Feb 06

    • Fixed-asset investment rose 7.0 percent year-on-year in the first four months, compared with an estimated 7.4 percent – lowest since Dec 1999.

    While the reports are supposedly among the first official readings unaffected by the Lunar New Year holiday – which skewed year-on-year comparisons for the first three months – we note that the economic surprise index for China shows the same seasonal pattern play out every year…

     

    While offshore yuan was unaffected, US equity futures took a leg lower as the China data hit, though the moves are modest for now…

    “Policy makers will likely become less concerned about slowing activity and monetary growth,” Goldman Sachs Group Inc. economists wrote in a recent note.

    “We expect the government to maintain its recent policy stance because inflation is likely to remain subdued and, more importantly, uncertainties related to trade remain high.”

    And as a reminder, Morgan Stanley economists recently write that the link between China’s credit impulse and the global economy “has now been broken” and justifies his answer as follows: 

    China’s tightening has not had a material impact on the growth cycle either in China or globally, even though its credit impulse began to weaken about 24 months ago. As deleveraging and adjustment headwinds recede, the recoveries in domestic demand in both DMs and EMs have emerged as additional global growth engines.

    Ahya uses the following chart to prove his thesis…

  • Google Employees Revolt, Refuse To Work On Clandestine AI Drone Project For The Pentagon

    Around a dozen Google employees have quit and close to 4,000 have signed a petition over the company’s involvement in a controversial military pilot program known as “Project Maven,” which will use artificial intelligence to speed up analysis of drone footage.

    Project Maven, a fast-moving Pentagon project also known as the Algorithmic Warfare Cross-Functional Team (AWCFT), was established in April 2017. Maven’s stated mission is to “accelerate DoD’s integration of big data and machine learning.” In total, the Defense Department spent $7.4 billion on artificial intelligence-related areas in 2017, the Wall Street Journal reported.

    The project’s first assignment was to help the Pentagon efficiently process the deluge of video footage collected daily by its aerial drones—an amount of footage so vast that human analysts can’t keep up. –Gizmodo

    Project Maven will use machine learning to identify vehicles and other objects from drone footage – with the ultimate goal of enabling the automated detection and identification of objects in up to 38 categories – including the ability to track individuals as they come and go from different locations.

    Project Maven’s objective, according to Air Force Lt. Gen. John N.T. “Jack” Shanahan, director for Defense Intelligence for Warfighter Support in the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, “is to turn the enormous volume of data available to DoD into actionable intelligence and insights.” –DoD

    The internal revolt began shortly after Google revealed its involvement in the project nearly three months ago

    Some Google employees were outraged that the company would offer resources to the military for surveillance technology involved in drone operations, sources said, while others argued that the project raised important ethical questions about the development and use of machine learning. –Gizmodo

    The resigned employees cited a range of frustrations, from ethical concerns over the use of AI in a battlefield setting, to larger concerns over Google’s overall political decisions. 

    The disgruntled ex-employees, apparently unaware that Google was seed-funded by the NSA and CIA, have compiled a master document of personal accounts detailing their decisions to leave, which multiple sources have described to Gizmodo.

    The employees who are resigning in protest, several of whom discussed their decision to leave with Gizmodo, say that executives have become less transparent with their workforce about controversial business decisions and seem less interested in listening to workers’ objections than they once did. In the case of Maven, Google is helping the Defense Department implement machine learning to classify images gathered by drones. But some employees believe humans, not algorithms, should be responsible for this sensitive and potentially lethal work—and that Google shouldn’t be involved in military work at all.

    Historically, Google has promoted an open culture that encourages employees to challenge and debate product decisions. But some employees feel that their leadership no longer as attentive to their concerns, leaving them to face the fallout. “Over the last couple of months, I’ve been less and less impressed with the response and the way people’s concerns are being treated and listened to,” one employee who resigned said. –Gizmodo

    Ironically, the development of Google’s original algorithm at Stanford was partly funded by a joint CIA-NSA program in which founder Sergei Brin created a method to quickly mine large amounts of data stored in databases. 

    “Google founder Mr. Sergey Brin was partly funded by this program while he was a PhD student at Stanford. He together with his advisor Prof. Jeffrey Ullman and my colleague at MITRE, Dr. Chris Clifton [Mitre’s chief scientist in IT], developed the Query Flocks System which produced solutions for mining large amounts of data stored in databases. I remember visiting Stanford with Dr. Rick Steinheiser from the Intelligence Community and Mr. Brin would rush in on roller blades, give his presentation and rush out. In fact the last time we met in September 1998, Mr. Brin demonstrated to us his search engine which became Google soon after.” –Nafeez Ahmed

    In their defense of Project Maven, Google notes that their AI won’t actually be used to kill anyone (just help the military ID targets to “service”). That isn’t good enough for workers and academics opposed to the use of machine learning in a military application. 

    In addition to the petition circulating inside Google, the Tech Workers Coalition launched a petition in April demanding that Google abandon its work on Maven and that other major tech companies, including IBM and Amazon, refuse to work with the U.S. Defense Department. -Gizmodo

    “We can no longer ignore our industry’s and our technologies’ harmful biases, large-scale breaches of trust, and lack of ethical safeguards,” the petition reads. “These are life and death stakes.”

    Over 90 academics in AI, ethics and computer science released an open letter on Monday, calling on Google to end its involvement with Project Maven and support an international treaty which would prohibit the use of autonomous weapons systems. 

    Peter Asaro and Lucy Suchman, two of the authors of the letter, have testified before the United Nations about autonomous weapons; a third author, Lilly Irani, is a professor of science and a former Google employee.

    Google’s contributions to Project Maven could accelerate the development of fully autonomous weapons, Suchman told Gizmodo. Although Google is based in the U.S., it has an obligation to protect its global user base that outweighs its alignment with any single nation’s military, she said. –Gizmodo

    “If ethical action on the part of tech companies requires consideration of who might benefit from a technology and who might be harmed, then we can say with certainty that no topic deserves more sober reflection—no technology has higher stakes—than algorithms meant to target and kill at a distance and without public accountability,” the letter states. “Google has moved into military work without subjecting itself to public debate or deliberation, either domestically or internationally. While Google regularly decides the future of technology without democratic public engagement, its entry into military technologies casts the problems of private control of information infrastructure into high relief.”

    We’re sure employees have nothing to worry about and their concerns are overblown – as Google’s “Don’t be evil” motto prevents them from ever participating in some scary program that could kill more innocent people than a Tesla autopilot.

  • Europe May Fold, But China And Russia See Opportunity

    Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    And we recently discovered, if it was not known before, that no amount of power can withstand the hatred of the many. 

    –  Marcus Tullius Cicero

    Although European leaders are talking a big game about keeping the Iran deal (JCPOA) alive following Trump’s unilateral withdrawal, there’s a good chance nations across the pond, especially the UK and France, will ultimately fold to U.S. demands. This is despite the fact these countries stand to lose far more economically than America. Acquiescing to U.S. imperial demands as submissive client states is simply what Europe does. On the other hand, China and Russia sense opportunity for major geopolitical gains and will not back down.

    Political leaders in China and Russia must be licking their chops at the short-sighted stupidity of Donald Trump’s decision to ditch the Iran deal. As mentioned in previous pieces, the Trump administration isn’t just saying the U.S. will sanction Iran from its end, but that it could leverage the global financial system and its dependency on the USD, to punish those who dare defy U.S. policy.

    As discussed in the recent post, The Road to 2025 (Part 3) – USD Dominated Financial System Will Fall Apart, this unilateral move against Iran is likely to be a key catalyst in the planet transitioning away from a financial system completely and totally dominated by the USD into a more multi-polar currency world. Trump’s essentially willing to trade away U.S. global geopolitical and financial dominance because he’s obsessed with taking out the Iranian regime.

    While Europe may not be willing to make a huge fuss about all this right now, its leaders, and more importantly its citizenry, know exactly what this means. As long as the global financial system is totally dominated and controlled from the U.S. via the USD, no country on earth can be truly sovereign, in terms of economic or foreign policy.

    In case you still aren’t getting how serious this is, let me point you to a few comments recently made by Russian leader Vladimir Putin:

    In comments to lawmakers on Tuesday after his inauguration for a record fourth term as president, Putin said a “break” from the U.S. currency is necessary to bolster Russia’s “economic sovereignty,” especially in light of recent penalties and what he called politically motivated restrictions on trade.

    “The whole world can see that the dollar’s monopoly is precarious and dangerous for many,” he said. “Our gold and currency reserves are being diversified, and we’ll continue to do that further…”

    Putin acknowledged this week that since oil trades in dollars, “we are thinking of what needs to be done to free ourselves from that burden.”

    Every world leader understands this, Putin’s just unique since he’s willing to come out and say it. It’s not just Russia though. People across the world have had just about enough of U.S. bullying and recognize USD dominance in the global financial system represents the key obstacle to overcome if they wish to avoid being pushed around forever.

    Chinese leaders tend to speak less bluntly, but actions speak louder than words and China clearly has no intention of leaving Iran. It understands that becoming more involved in the Iranian economy, not less, is where the huge geopolitical gains are to be found. As we learned from a recent fascinating Bloomberg article, Iran’s Door to the West Is Slamming Shut, and That Leaves China:

    To develop its $430 billion economy, Iran is being forced to rely on political allies in the east.

    Trade with China has more than doubled since 2006, to $28 billion. The biggest chunk of Iran’s oil exports go to China, about $11 billion a year at current prices…

    China is “already the winner,’’ said Dina Esfandiary, a fellow at the Centre for Science and Security Studies at King’s College in London, and co-author of the forthcoming ‘Triple Axis: Iran’s Relations With Russia and China’.

    “Iran has slowly abandoned the idea of being open to the West,’’ she said. “The Chinese have been in Iran for the past 30 years. They have the contacts, the guys on the ground, the links to the local banks.’’

    And they’re more willing to defy U.S. pressure as Trump slaps sanctions back on…

    Airbus Group SE’s contract for 100 jetliners, worth about $19 billion at list prices, was already held up amid financing problems, and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Tuesday that the export licensewill be revoked (Russian manufacturers could be the beneficiaries). Total SA has a contract to develop the South Pars gas field together with China National Petroleum Corp., but has signaledthat it would pull out if the U.S. re-imposes sanctions and it can’t win an exemption. In that event, Iran says, the Chinese partner would take over Total’s share…

    The Chinese have some workarounds that Europeans lack. There are many more Chinese companies with zero exposure to the U.S. And, since many of the Chinese businesses working in Iran are state-run, it’s relatively easy to set up special-purpose vehicles for bypassing U.S. regulations. “All they have to do is create a subsidiary that’s separate from the original entity, and they’re good to go,” said Esfandiary.

    Chinese businesses are also likely to be more flexible about how they’re paid, says Batmanghelidj, citing a transaction he’s aware of where the European company declined to be paid in bonds…

    China — along with Russia — is America’s main strategic rival, with big geopolitical ambitions. Central to them is a plan to crisscross Eurasia with a web of transportation and infrastructure links. Persia was on the old Silk Road, and Iran is at the heart of President Xi Jinping’s plans for a new one.

    Chinese companies are building or funding railway lines to the eastern city of Mashhad and the Gulf port of Bushehr, under deals signed in the past year worth more than $2.2 billion. India was supposed to be developing the strategic port of Chabahar on the Arabian Sea., but repeated delays have prompted Iranian officials to turn to China in the hope of speeding up construction.

    Much of Trump’s base supported him because they wanted the U.S. to focus on domestic issues as opposed to foreign adventurism. Ironically, he’s doing the exact opposite. Rather than tackling the country’s dilapidated infrastructure, continued theft by finance criminals and a completely rancid healthcare system, the national dialogue is now dominated by an embassy move to Jerusalem and heightened confrontation with Iran. I’m not sure what this is, but it’s certainly not “America First.”

    Many Trump supporters like to say he’s playing “3D chess,” but in the case of Iran he isn’t playing chess at all — he’s playing checkers. His infatuation with Israel and Saudi Arabia, coupled with a deep-seated disdain for Iran is blinding him, and opening up a historic opportunity for China and Russia to make major geopolitical gains. Europe’s trying to hang out on the fence and see who comes out on top, but the outcome of such a game should not be in doubt. The results will be crystal clear by 2025.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    I’ve written several detailed posts on this topic in recent weeks. Here are a few:

    Trump Pulls Out of Iran Deal – U.S. Determined to Become a Rogue State

    Part 1: The Road to 2025 – Prepare for a Multi-Polar World
    Part 2: The Road to 2025 – Russia and China Have Had Enough
    Part 3: The Road to 2025 –USD Dominated Financial System Will Fall Apart
    Part 4: The Road to 2025 – A Very Bright Future If We Demand It

    *  *  *

    If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron, or visit our Support Page to show your appreciation for independent content creators.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 14th May 2018

  • Moscow's "Eye In Turkey": Transfer Of S-400 Missiles Will Open Turkey To Russian Spying, NATO Warns

    The German language Der Spiegel magazine in a recent editorial attempted to sound the alarm of encroaching Russian influence in NATO connected with Russia’s advanced S-400 anti-aircraft systems.

    “The Turkish government wants to buy the state-of-the-art Russian S-400 anti-aircraft system. NATO considers this a serious provocation: the system is not only incompatible with the alliance’s existing defenses, but it could also expose secrets of the new US F-35 fighter jet to Russia, which Turkey also wants to buy,” according to a rough translation from the German. 

    Der Spiegel’s editorial was published at end of a week in which the NATO/US and Turkish relationship threatened to reach a breaking point. As we previously reported Turkish Prime Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu recently warned that Turkey would retaliate if a bill being pushed by House Republicans to block arms sales to Turkey becomes law.

    US lawmakers released details earlier this month of a $717 billion annual defense policy bill that included a provision to temporarily halt weapons sales to Turkey. During a subsequent interview with broadcaster CNN Turk, Cavusoglu criticized the measure, saying it was wrong to impose such a restriction on a military ally, alluding to the fact that Turkey has graciously allowed the US to use its Encirlik air base to launch its air strikes against ISIS (as well as against Turkey’s enemy the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad).

    “If the United States imposes sanctions on us or takes such a step, Turkey will absolutely retaliate,” Cavusoglu said. “What needs to be done is the U.S. needs to let go of this.”

    Will Turkey’s retaliation come in the form moving forward with installation of Russia’s S-400 missile system?

    While still a ways away from becoming law (and its unclear if President Trump, who has publicly praised Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan) the proposed US National Defense Authorization Act would block sales of “major” arms to Turkey until a report on the relationship between the US and Turkey (which is also a component of the law) is completed by the Pentagon.

    The implied target of the bill would be the 116 F-35 Lightning II fighters that Washington has promised to sell Ankara, of which 100 are almost ready to be delivered. The bill is in many ways a response to Turkey’s recent purchase of S-400 air defense systems from Russia. 

    And interestingly, NATO is now pushing the idea that Russia supplying a NATO member with the advance S-400 would open up Turkey to unprecedented access to Russian spies, especially as the system installation would require months of technical training and Russian-Turkish military-to-military cooperation. 

    The Der Spiegal editorial presents this “Russian exploitation of NATO weapons systems” point of view in its provocative article below is analysis and translation of select passages authored and submitted by Leith Aboufadel of Al-Masdar News.

    * * *

    For NATO, the supply of Russian S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems to Turkey is a real “provocation,” the German magazine Der Spiegel writes. The alliance fears that with the help of the S-400, Moscow will be able to find the strengths and weaknesses of the fifth-generation F-35 fighter jets that Ankara intends to purchase from Washington, the publication said.

    “Ironically, the S-400 is considered potentially the most dangerous enemy of a multi-functional fighter, which in the next few years will become the basis of the US Air Force and other countries,” Spiegel writes.

    As further reported, servicemen of NATO countries are wary of deliveries of Russian SAMs, since, in their opinion, they can become Moscow’s “eye in Turkey”. With the help of the S-400, Russia will be able to obtain all the data on the F-35 and other combat aircraft, the authors believe.

    In the opinion of the editorial board, the S-400 will also reduce the effectiveness of the stealth technology, which reduces the visibility of the F-35. As Spiegel writes, Russian ZRKs will be able to record onboard radar data, ground communication channels and radio communications, with the help of which the S-400 will “step by step study and locate allegedly invisible fighters.”

    “For the F-35 armament system, of which stealth technology and data transfer capabilities are critical, this would be a disaster,” the publication notes.

    In December last year, Turkey and Russia signed an agreement on the supply of the S-400 system. Ankara will buy two batteries of air defense systems, which will be serviced by Turkish personnel. The two sides also agreed on technological cooperation in the development of the production of anti-aircraft missile systems in Turkey.

    The United States, as well as NATO representatives, repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with the supply of S-400 to Turkey. US Assistant Secretary of State Wess Mitchell stated that the purchase of Russian SAMs could negatively affect the supply of American F-35s to Turkey.

  • If Europe Wants To Remain On The World Stage, It Must Resist Trump On Iran

    Authored by Patrick Cockburn via Counterpunch.org,

    “Iraq is at the muzzle of the gun,” says Ali Allawi, Iraqi historian and former minister, speaking of the increased turmoil expected to follow the US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement.

    It is not only Iraq which is in danger: an escalating confrontation between the US and Iran will affect the whole region, but its greatest impact will be in Syria and Iraq where wars have long been raging and Washington and Tehran are old rivals.

    The US will rely at first on the reimposition of economic sanctions on Iran to force it to comply with US demands and hopefully bring about regime change in Tehran. But, if this does not work – and it will almost certainly fail – then there will be a growing risk of military action either carried out directly by the US or through “green-lighting” Israeli airstrikes.

    Iran is for the moment reacting cautiously to Trump’s denunciation of the 2015 accord, portraying itself as the victim of arbitrary action and seeking to spur the EU states into taking practical steps to resist imposing draconian sanctions along the lines of those that were imposed before 2015. Even if this does not happen, it will be important for Iran that the Europeans should only grudgingly cooperate with the US in enforcing sanctions, particularly on Iranian oil exports.

    A problem for the US is that Trump has made the Iranian nuclear deal negotiated by Barack Obama the issue on which he will test the limits of US power which he had pledged to expand. But the agreement is internationally popular and is seen to be working effectively in denying Iran the ability to develop a nuclear device. The US is therefore becoming self-isolated, with full support only from Israel and Saudi Arabia, in the first weeks of a crisis that could go on for years.

    Already Trump’s determination to sink the deal forever has involved marginalising and humiliating France, Germany and UK. They had pleaded for it to be preserved but made more palatable to the US by separate agreements on ballistic missiles and other issues. Trump seems to have enjoyed the procession of European leaders from Emmanuel Macron to Boris Johnson asking for compromise, only to go away empty-handed.

    If the European leaders now go along with sanctioning Iran, there will be even less reason for Trump to take their views seriously in future. They have already seen their attempt to appease him on climate change fail to produce anything, so they either have to accept that they have less influence and a reduced role in the world or make a serious attempt to preserve the nuclear accord.

    But even if they do so, the US will be able to put intense economic pressure on Iran and its trading partners. Banks and companies are terrified of incurring the ire of the US Treasury and facing massive fines for even an unintentional breach of sanctions. Even if EU governments want their companies to go on investing in Iran, they may consider the risk too great.

    Sanctions are a powerful but blunt instrument, take a long time to work and usually do not produce the political dividends expected by those who impose them. The Iranian rial may fall and hyperinflation return to 40 per cent, but this will most likely not be enough if Iran returns to enriching uranium. It has already said that it is not going to keep abiding by its part of the nuclear agreement if it is not getting any of the economic benefits promised.

    What will the US do then? This is the crucial question for the Middle East and the rest of the world. Trump has just torpedoed any diplomatic solution to what he sees as the threat of Iran developing a nuclear bomb. The only alternative is a military response, but this would have to be more than a few days of intense airstrikes. Anything less than total war would not win for Trump the kind of results he says he wants.

    Iran may be weak economically, but politically and militarily it is in a strong position in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, the countries likely to provide the main arena for the coming crisis. In all three places it is Iran’s fellow Shia who are in control and see the US as an ally of the Sunni states in what is in large part a sectarian Shia-Sunni conflict.

    Has the Trump administration thought any of this through? The crisis is beginning to feel very much like that in the buildup to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Some of the same figures, such as the national security adviser John Bolton, are the very same neoconservatives who believed that invading and occupying Iraq would be an easy business. They sound as if they are bringing the same blend of arrogance and ignorance to their coming confrontation with Iran.

  • Hypersonic Weapons: The Perfect Tool For Asymmetrical Warfare

    Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    As recently confirmed in a debate at the Brookings Institute by the Commandant of the United States Marine Corps, General Robert Neller, “there are military areas in which the United States maintains a technological advantage [over Russia and China], others in which there is substantial parity, and others in which the United States is lagging behind, revealing a technological gap with its peer competitors.

    The last point applies to weapons systems designed to operate at hypersonic speed. Let us start with the simple and pragmatic definition offered by The National Interest of hypersonic vehicles and weapons:

    A hypersonic vehicle is one that moves through the atmosphere at a minimum speed of five times that of sound, or Mach 5. A hypersonic cruise missile travels continuously through the air employing a special high-powered engine. A hypersonic glide vehicle [HGV] is launched into space atop a ballistic missile, after which it maneuvers through the upper reaches of the atmosphere until it dives towards its target. Both vehicle types can carry either conventional or nuclear weapons.

    As we can see, we are speaking here about technological developments that require money and scientific structures of the highest level to achieve such significant and complex results. The difficulty of implementing systems of such complexity is very well explained by Defense Review:

    One of DR’s primary questions about the Russian and Chinese HAA/HGV [Hypersonic Attack Aircraft/Hypersonic Glide Vehicle] tech is whether or not the vehicles generate a plasma field/shield around it that can effectively camouflage the vehicle and/or disrupt an incoming high-powered laser beam, and thus avoid both detection and destruction during its flight. Russian scientists and military aircraft designers/developers have been experimenting with plasma field generation tech since the late 1970’s, so one would think they’re pretty far along by now. Oh, and let’s not forget China’s recent development of a new ultra-thin, lightweight “tunable” UHF microwave radar-absorbing stealth/cloaking material for both manned and unmanned combat aircraft and warships. The hits just seem to keep on coming. Its enough to drive a military defense analyst to drink.

    Another area of complexity concerns the communication between the hypersonic flight carrier and and its land-based components, especially if the re-entry vehicle is to be maneuvered remotely.

    The fundamental component in performing a hypersonic flight naturally lies in the engines, used to reach speeds higher than Mach 7. There are ongoing studies by all of these countries concerning scramjet engines, essential for the purposes of producing hypersonic weapons. By employing a scramjet engine, and mixing it with other technologies (jet engine or ramjet), one would enable the aircraft and missiles to reach hypersonic speeds, as Beijing’s Power Machinery Research Institute explains:

    The turbo-aided rocket-augmented ram/scramjet engine (TRRE), which uses rocket augmentation to aid the transition into the supersonic and hypersonic flight regimes, could be the world’s first combined cycle engine to fly in 2025, paving the way for hypersonic -space planes and single-stage space launchers.

    DARPA also explains the US point of view on this particular area of research:

    Advanced Full Range Engine program (AFRE) which is intended as a reusable hypersonic engine that combines an off-the-shelf jet engine with a dual mode ramjet engine.

    War Is Boring definitively clarifies the concept using simpler words:

    Turbojet? Ramjet? Scramjet? A turbojet spins a lot of blades to compress and heat incoming air. A ramjet moves so fast that the engine is already hot and compressed enough to ignite the fuel. A scramjet – short for “supersonic combustion ramjet”  is just that, a ramjet where the incoming air is moving at supersonic speeds.

    The world of hypersonic weapons is divided into four types: hypersonic cruise missiles, which are surface- or air-launched; hypersonic glide vehicles, brought to high altitude by missiles or jets, re-entering the atmosphere at very high speeds while maneuvering, and able to hit targets with conventional or nuclear bombs; hypersonic attack aircraft, which are vehicles that fly at hypersonic speeds and are capable of taking off and landing, and are therefore useful for surveillance purposes but potentially also for attack; and finally, hypersonic anti-ship missiles.

    Let’s examine them one by one, listing the current respective stages of research, development and testing of the countries in question.

    The first type of hypersonic weapons are the easiest to understand. Simply put, these are cruise missiles with scramjet engines that are capable of accelerating to hypersonic speeds.

    Hypersonic cruise Missiles (excluding anti-ship weapons available below) United States (testing phase)

    Russia/India (testing phase)

    • BrahMos-II is a hypersonic missile currently under development in India and Russia

    The most discussed weapon is the hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV). What exactly a HGV is can be explained as follows:

    HGVs are unmanned, rocket-launched, maneuverable aircraft that glide and “skip” through the earth’s atmosphere at incredibly fast speeds. Compared to conventional ballistic systems, HGV warheads can be much higher, lower altitudes and less-trackable trajectories. The defense systems approach leaves less time to intercept the warhead before it drops its payload.

    Glide Weapon/Hypersonic Glide Vehicle:

    United States (experimental phase)

    • For years, the US has worked on missiles that can be used as a Tactical Boost Glide (TBG) weapon, which is a rocket glider that can reach speeds of 20,921 kilometers per hour, or Mach 20, and then uses a scramjet/ramjet engine to perform maneuvers. Currently, the United States is in the research and development phase of experimenting with an Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW) known as the Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 (HTV-2)

    Russia (entering into service in 2019)

    • KH-47M 2 Kinzhal (Dagger). An air-launched, modified Zircon missile launched from a MiG-31.

    China (test phase)

    • DF-17/DF-ZF/WU-14 – Hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV) medium-range system, with a range of between 1,800 and 2,500 kilometers.

    As we can see, Russia is almost ready to start mass production of their HGVs, while the US is still in the early phase of experimentation, and China is already undertaking numerous tests.

    The most complicated factor with hypersonic technology concerns the Hypersonic Attack Aircraft (HAA), equipped with scramjet engines and able to attain hypersonic speeds, but with the added benefit of being able to take off and land. They are to be unmanned and can be used for surveillance or attack purposes.

    Hypersonic Attack Aircraft

    United States (unknown phase)

    • No known projects, much speculation about tests and scientific research. For example, the US military created in 1996 a program called SHAAFT. Now the US Military is working on a number of prototypes:

    Russia (testing phase)

    China (testing phase)

    • TENGYUN is a hypersonic aircraft powered during the first stage by a turbine rocket combined cycle (TRCC) engine, which then launches a reusable second-stage rocket to reach the stratosphere.

    Because scramjet technology, on which HAA systems rely, is still in its early phases of development, this weapon system is unlikely to see the light of day any time soon.

    Anti-ship missiles accelerate to hypersonic speed, allowing them to hit naval groups. As described below, this is because of a scramjet motor that gives such missiles their power:

    Anti Ship Missiles are believed to be a maneuvering, winged hypersonic cruise missile with a lift-generating center body. A booster stage with solid-fuel engines accelerates it to supersonic speeds, after which a scramjet motor in the second stage accelerates it to hypersonic speeds.

    Anti Ship Hypersonic Missiles:

    United States (Currently only possesses sub-sonic missiles)

    Russia (operational)

    China (testing phase)

    In the next article I will explain how Russia and China Gained a Strategic Advantage in Hypersonic Technology and why this could be a game changer in future war scenarios. 

  • HSBC Completes First Trade-Finance Deal Using Blockchain, Opening $9 Trillion Market For Mass Adoption

    Just a few hours after German online bank Bitbond announced it now allows users to transfer loan anywhere in the world using bitcoin and other cryptos , a move which we said would result in a rapid adoption of blockchain technologies within the bank-disintermediation space, the FT reported that in a somewhat parallel transaction, UK-based banking giant HSBC has completed the world’s first commercially viable trade-finance transaction using blockchain, in the process opening the door to mass adoption of the technology in the $9tn market for trade finance, a process which ironically culminates with traditional banks such as HSBC becoming disintermediated from the fund flows process, i.e., obsolete.

    HSBC said the blockchain trade, which processed a letter of credit for US food and agricultural group Cargill, had shown the platform was ready to be commercially adopted across the industry.

    In many ways the news will be welcome, especially when it comes to trade finance: traditionally one of the most convoluted and burdensome pillars of modern finance, one which has been deeply in need of disruption.

    As a result, the FT notes that the introduction of blockchain “is expected to shake up the centuries-old trade-finance industry, reducing the numerous documents and several days of processing needed for a single transaction to a paperless task that can be completed in hours.”

    And, as Vivek Ramachandran, head of innovation and growth for commercial banking at HSBC, said, “the next stage is actually encouraging as many participants as possible to sign up to the utility” adding that banks, shipping companies, ports and customs operations would have to take up the same technology before it could gain widespread usage. “We don’t envisage the platform as anything other than a utility.”

    Think of blockchain is to trade finance as DTCC was to old-school stock certificates (incidentally, blockchain is set to revolutionize DTC as well).

    In trading hubs around the world, banks such as HSBC still operate trade-finance floors filled with stacks of paper documentation for trade. Blockchain transactions will greatly reduce these operations in the coming years, Mr Ramachandran said. HSBC took in $2.52bn in trade-finance revenue last year, making it one of the world’s largest banks in the industry.

    In light of these numbers, it is understandable why HSBC wants to streamline its process even more, generating a far higher profit margin.

    Some more details on the historic blockchain-mediated letter of credit:

    The transaction for Cargill was for a shipment of soyabeans from Argentina to Malaysia last week. HSBC used the Corda blockchain platform, which was developed by technology consortium R3. Dutch bank ING, which has also adopted the technology, was a counterparty on the deal.

    Unlike previous test transactions, the one for Cargill could be replicated if the same counterparties were involved, Ramachandran said, showing that the technology is ready for commercial use.

    To be sure, HSBC was delighted with the outcome, and Ramachandran likened the advent of blockchain trade finance to the usage of standardized shipping containers, which were slowly but surely adopted by ships, ports, railways and trade companies over several decades to eventually become the primary mode for global shipping.

    And now the race is on for the next standardization protocal, which unless something far better emerges in the coming months, will be blockchain:

    In much the same respect, counterparties to trade finance — such as banks, ports and traders — must all adopt common platforms and standards for blockchain trade finance, something that Mr Ramachandran says will play out over the next five years.

    To be sure, there will be bottlenecks, and widespread adoption of the technology will still face challenges as companies and banks attempt to make their pilot projects fit in with the bustling world of global trade, said Gadi Ruschin, chief executive at Wave, an Israel-based start-up developing bill-of-lading products using blockchain. Many of the products currently under development around the would fail, he predicted.

    “The blockchain is only an enabling technology for different products and each product should be evaluated in many aspects before evaluating the chances for adoption — technology, regulations, cost of the service, security but the most important one is the product market fit,” Ruschin said.

    As discussed most recently three months ago, trade finance – its massive $9 trillion industry size notwithstanding – is just one of numerous fields ripe for disruptions and improvement; ultimately the broad reach of blockchain will impact no less than $100 trillion worth of goods and services; in this context, the fact that the market cap of the entire crypto universe (at just over $400 billion at this moment) is less than half the market cap of Apple, may be one of the biggest arbitrage opportunities in history.

  • The United States Of Beer

    Across the board, beer consumption in the United States has been slowly and steadily dropping since the early ’80s.

    However, as Visual Capitalist’s Nick Routley notes, that fact doesn’t tell the whole story. Trends around beer consumption are anything but uniform, and the industry is evolving rapidly thanks to the craft beer boom in cities throughout the country.

    BEER CONSUMPTION BY STATE

    Today’s infographic looks at regional beer consumption, as well as trends over the past half-decade.

    Courtesy of: Visual Capitalist

    PINTS OF INTEREST

    Beer is still the most popular alcoholic beverage in America, though that demand is not spread equally. Here are states and regions that stand out:

    Utah
    The Beehive State has unusually low levels of beer consumption for a couple of reasons. First, the state has a high population of Mormons (~60%), who mostly abstain from drinking alcohol. Secondly, Salt Lake City has unusual liquor lawsthat restrict the percentage of alcohol in beer to 4.0% ABV.

    Despite these barriers, Utah’s beer consumption grew by 2.8% between 2012 and 2017 – the sixth highest growth rate in the country.

    New Hampshire
    Another outlier, though in the opposite direction, is New Hampshire. The state has no sales tax, a fact that beer drinkers in Vermont, Massachusetts, and Maine are well aware of. It’s estimated that over 50% of the states alcohol sales are to out-of-state visitors. NH’s tax-free booze is such a big draw, that bootlegging has become a problem for states like New York.

    Pacific Northwest
    America’s West Coast – Oregon in particular – has been at the forefront of the craft beer revolution sweeping the country. Portland alone has over 100 craft brewers, and nearly double-digit growth in the past five years. In states like Oregon and Washington, demand shows no sign of slowing down.

    THE FULL LIST

    Here’s a complete table, that sums up beer consumption across the country, as per data from Wall St 24/7.

  • Iran And Syria: Why Regime Change In One Means Regime Change In Both

    Authored by Cailtin Johnstone via Medium.com,

    Probably the weirdest, dumbest, most annoying thing about writing on US foreign policy right now is the fact that regime change in Iran and regime change in Syria have been falsely spun into the illusion of two separate issues along partisan lines.

    People who are more aligned with America’s Democratic Party are a lot more opposed to the overthrow of the Iranian government and a lot more sympathetic to the idea of getting rid of Assad, and with those who are more aligned with the Republican party it’s the exact opposite.

    Partisan politics turn people into such drooling idiots. 

    Democratic Party-aligned Americans oppose Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran deal because it was Obama’s baby, while Republican-aligned Americans support it for the exact same reason. This is a deliberate provocation designed to enable crushing economic sanctions, which the US-centralized war machine always uses as a prelude to war, to weaken and destabilize the nation. Plan A will be for imperial intelligence agencies to stage a coup or fund a violent uprising in order to either throw Iran into impotent chaos or replace its government with a puppet regime (either one satisfies Plan A). Plan B will be something more direct.

    We’re seeing the reverse in Syria: Democratic Party-aligned Americans are virulently opposed to Assad because Russia is actively fighting on his side, and the Russiagate psyop has Democrats hating anyone who they suspect might have anything to do with Vladimir Putin. They also need to justify the fact that the Obama administration helped stage a premeditated violent uprising and flooded Syria with terrorists with the goal of destabilization or regime change. Trump supporters, meanwhile, oppose regime change in that nation largely because it’s a secular government besieged by violent deep state-funded jihadists.

    I am of course painting with a broad brush here; there are Democrats who oppose any kind of interventionism in Syria and there are Trump supporters who oppose it in Iran, but as someone who’s been writing about US-led interventionism in both countries I can say from experience that there is a clear partisan split in public sympathy for each of them. I’m getting liberals agreeing with me about Iran who’ve aggressively denounced my writings on Syria, and a bunch of conservatives who supported my Syria writings now loudly objecting to my writings on Iran. Which is absolutely insane, because it’s the same goddamn war.

    Iran and Syria are plainly allies. They are both longtime targets for regime change by neocon think tanks and western defense/intelligence agencies, and they are both being aggressively targeted by Israel and Saudi Arabia. It is very clear that the tightly allied nations on the side of the United States (which I call “the western empire” or the blob) view both nations in the same light. If you ignore the babbling narratives and just look at the behavior of the blob, it is clear that it is working against both nations as though they are a single entity.

    If the government of either Iran or Syria falls, it will either be replaced with a puppet government or allowed to collapse into a failed state, in either case unable to assist the other in defending itself from imperial regime change interventionism. Cheerleading for regime change in one nation is necessarily cheerleading for regime change in the other, and all the death, suffering and devastation that necessarily goes with it. You can’t install a puppet regime in one without facilitating the destruction of the other.

    Conservatives who support the longstanding neoconservative agenda of regime change in Iran: you are supporting regime change in Syria. You are supporting the installation of a government that will no longer assist Syria in fighting against the western-armed jihadist factions, and you are helping to ensure that Damascus falls to violent Islamist factions. Consenting to American regime change interventionism of any kind in Iran is an endorsement of the enemies that Assad is fighting in Syria.

    Liberals who support the longstanding neoconservative agenda of regime change in Syria: you are supporting regime change in Iran. You are supporting the collapse of a key Iranian ally which will no longer be there to help stave off the agenda to plunge Iran into chaos and terror. You are supporting the anti-Iranian agendas of warmongering neocons like Trump, Pompeo and Bolton.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Partisan minds may see Iran and Syria as two completely different situations, but the leaders of the western empire see them as one and the same. With the constantly fluctuating political leadership of Official Washington and the continued agendas of America’s permanent government, the unelected power establishment knows that if it takes out one nation it’s only a matter of time before it will be politically convenient to take out the other.

    Fox News babbles nonsense about freedom and democracy and Islamic fundamentalism in Iran, CNN babbles nonsense about Assad targeting civilians with barrel bombs and chemical weapons, but this has nothing to do with any of those things. This is about a transnational alliance of plutocrats and intelligence/defense agencies targeting all governments which don’t bow to its interests, with the ultimate goal of world domination. They target the weaker and smaller nations first in order to weaken their bigger allies, Russia and China, which are the ultimate target.

    A powerful group of plutocrats have built their kingdoms on a specific status quo, and they are therefore naturally opposed to rising governmental powers like China which threaten that status quo. These plutocrats have built up their power and influence to the point where they are able to use the governments in the western empire as weapons to attack, bully and subvert any potential geopolitical challengers of the status quo.

    That’s all this is. All the propaganda, all the nonsense about Mullahs and chemical weapons and Russian hackers, all the war and terror and suffering, is all because a few sociopathic individuals have been able to claw their way up the capitalist ladder to such a height that they can use governments to advance their insatiable power-grabbing agendas. Different political factions are being propagandized in different ways along their respective paths of least resistance into supporting these agendas, but as always the fake partisan divide always benefits the same group of depraved ruling elites.

    Oppose these elites by opposing interventionism across the board. It isn’t okay for a few wealthy oligarchs to use governments to destroy and subvert entire nations. It isn’t okay that governments which should be helping their people are instead stretched all across the globe bending over backwards to make sure a few plutocrats don’t get dethroned. It isn’t okay that oligarchic domination has taken precedence over the basic human impulse to survive and thrive. We must all cease consenting to this together, regardless of political ideology.

    *  *  *

    Internet censorship is getting pretty bad, so best way to keep seeing my daily articles is to get on the mailing list for my website, so you’ll get an email notification for everything I publish. My articles and podcasts are entirely reader and listener-funded, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypalor buying my new bookWoke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.

  • China's First Domestically-Built Aircraft Carrier Begins Sea-Trials

    It is all coming together, and the United States should be terrified.

    Late last month, we suggested that Beijing’s first domestically built aircraft carrier would begin sea trials “imminently.” Pictures and video from Dalian Shipbuilding Industry Company, located in Dalian, Liaoning province, China, the largest shipbuilding company in the country, showed the aircraft carrier, so far known as Type 001A (CV-17), preparing for its first independently powered foray at sea.

    In a new announcement from the Defence Ministry, the still-unnamed vessel (Type 001A) exited the port outside the Dalian shipyard at 5:30 am on Sunday morning — embarking on its first sea trial. A military strategist told the Global Times, “the trial will mainly test basic system functionality and carrier-based aircrafts will participate in combat trials after the carrier is formally delivered to China’s navy.”

    Images show China’s first domestically built aircraft carrier setting out for sea performance test on Sunday morning (Source: Global Times) 

    Images show China’s first domestically built aircraft carrier setting out for sea performance test on Sunday morning (Source: Global Times) 

    The video shows the aircraft carrier preparing to leave the port in Dalian on Sunday morning around 5:30 am. It took five tugboats about two hours to successfully spin the vessel around and head out to sea, as the ship disappeared in the fog at 7:30 am.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The first sea trial will primarily concentrate on testing core systems of the vessel, including power, communication, fire safety, and electro-mechanical, Song Zhongping, a military expert and TV commentator, told the Global Times.

    “Weapon systems and carrier-based aircrafts are unlikely to participate in the first sea trial, and combat capability tests will be carried out by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy after the carrier is formally delivered to the navy. Before this, its producer may need about six months to finish tests, which means the navy will receive the ship by the end of this year,” Song said.

    Chinese President Xi Jinping, recently spearheaded an ambitious modernization plan for the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN), including stealth bombers and fighter jetshypersonic vehicles, and anti-satellite missiles, as Beijing increases its presence in the heavily disputed South China Sea and around Taiwan, an island that it still considers its own.

    In early April, we described how Beijing assembled a massive show of naval force in the South China Sea — the largest in more than 600-years. Beijing’s maritime expansion comes as no surprise, as President Jinping is pushing for the One Belt One Road Initiative.

    The PLAN assembled all of its most advanced warships, aircraft carrier, aircraft, and nuclear submarines for a massive show of force in the South China Sea. State-run Chinese papers said the number of warships assembled “the largest of its kind in 600 years.” This is following the 14th-century fleet admiral Zheng He, whose large expeditions in Southeast Asia, South Asia, Western Asia, and East Africa — helped establish China’s power through expansion of the Maritime Silk Road during the Ming dynasty era.  

    The Type 001A is a conventionally-powered vessel and will be able to hold more planes than China’s only other aircraft carrier, called Liaoning.

    China’s PLAN has taken an increasingly aggressive role in 2018, with Liaoning and dozens of warships sailing through the South China Sea and around self-ruled Taiwan.

    While the United States Navy operates 19 aircraft carriers and plans to build a few more, Chinese state-run media has quoted military experts as saying Beijing needs at least six carriers. There are expectations that the Type 001A will enter the PLAN fleet as early as 2019, or at the latest by 2020.

    Washington and Beijing are sleepwalking into a tremendous collision, that ultimately could resort to a military conflict in the South China Sea.

  • A Beginners Guide To The Conflict In Yemen

    Authored by Stucky via The Burning Platform blog,

    Don’t have the time to do research on the Yemen conflict? Here ya go, as brief as we can make it…

    *  *  *

    TWO YEMENS

    – Yemen was a divided country for hundreds of years

    North Yemen gained independence from the Ottoman Empire when it collapsed in 1918

    – North Yemen was then ruled by a Zaydi Shiite Imam. Zaydi Shiism is a branch of Shiite Islam found almost exclusively in Northern Yemen.

    – in 1962 the military staged a coup against the Zaydi monarchy.

    – the conflict lasted several years and essentially became a proxy war between Egypt (who supported the military) and Saudi Arabia (who supported the royalists).  The war ended in 1970.   The royalists and Saudis lost.

    – Meanwhile, South Yemen gained its independence from British and Saudi rule in 1967.

    – South Yemen aligned itself with the Soviets (the only communist country in the Arab world).

    – North and South Yemen clashed for the next several decades

     

    TWO YEMENS RELIGIOUSLY

    ONE YEMEN under Ali Saleh (1990 -2011)

    – The Soviet bloc disintegrated which led to the merger of North and South Yemen  in 1990

    – The new ruler for unified Yemen was Ali Saleh, who prior was the ruler of North Yemen.

    – Civil war broke out in 1994.  South Yemen felt Saleh’s regime was marginalizing them.,  Saleh quickly squashed the opposition.

    – Saleh soon ran into more problems, this time right in North Yemen. Sheikh Hussein al-Houthi (1956 -2004) was a political and military leader.  He began a religious revivalist movement in the early 1990s.  His goal was to reassert traditional Zaydi Shiism which was losing ground to the fundamentalist Sunni (particularly Salafism) proselytizing supported by Saudi Arabia.  His followers and movement were called Houthis.

    – The Houthi movement eventually shifted from a religious bent to political. From wiki; — “In 2003 the Houthis’ slogan “The God is great, death to the US, death to Israel, curse the Jews, and victory for Islam”, became the group’s trademark.”  Between 2004 and 2010, there were six conflicts between Houthi rebels and Saleh’s government.

    – In September 2004, the Yemeni government announced that their military killed al-Houthi along with 20 of his followers. The Yemeni government creates a martyr.

    REVOLUTION!!  (2011 – 2014)

    – Inspired by the protests in Tunisia, tens of thousands of Yemenis took to the streets in January 2011, demanding Saleh’s resignation.  Saleh refused and many were killed.

    – But, Saleh is forced to bow to domestic and international pressure and signed an agreement to cede power.  In Feb 2012 his vice president, Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, takes over. The agreement was brokered by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Saudi Arabia, and United States.

    – The peace did not last long. Hadi lost control quickly.

    – There were al-Qaida attacks, the economy was tanking, southern Yemen wanted to secede again, and Houthi rebels were engage in brutal fighting with Hadi’s government. Attempts were made to broker a new constitution, but no one could agree on anything.

    – Yemen borrowed money from the IMF.  The IMF as part of the loan agreement demanded austerity measures. So, in 2004, Hadi announced cuts to fuel subsidies. The huge increase in fuel prices hit the mostly poverty stricken population very hard, and served to provoke the Houthi-backed protestors to further destabilize the government. Hadi rescinded the cuts, but the damage was done.

    HOUTHI RULE  (2014 – 2015)

    – Houthi rebels seize control of most of the capital, Sanaa, in September 2014.

    – Hadi signs a U.N.-brokered peace with the Houthis to form a new, more inclusive government within a month.

    – By January 2015 the Houthis reject the new government and constitution. They place Hadi under house arrest but, Hadi is able to escape to Aden.

    – In February 2015, the Houthis dissolved parliament and formed a new transitional government.

    – The GCC, United Nations, and United States quickly denounce the coup.

    – In March 2015 Houthis expand their military campaign. They’re able to take over large parts of the country. Hadi flees to Saudi Arabia.

    SAUDI INTERVENTION  (2015 – current)

    – Saudi Arabia is Sunni.

    – Yemen (the Houthi part)  is Shia.

    – Iran (Shia) supports Yemen.

    – Saudi Arabia hates Iran.

    – Yemen (Houthis) / Iran (Shia) were winning.

    – This was too much for the Sauds. So, they formed a military coalition with eight other Arab states.  But, the intelligence, arms, and logistical support came from the United States and England. The coalition began their airstrike campaign in March 2015 in order to defeat the Houtis and restore Hadi to power.

    – With overwhelming superiority in weapons, fire power, and support from the World’s Lone Superpower the Sauds thought the campaign would be over in a few short months. In over a year of bombing the coalition has made only minimal territorial gains.

    YEMENS TODAY

    – Yemen is functionally two countries, or governments; the Houthis in Sanaa, and Hadi in Aden.

    – all the various brokered peace talks have gotten nowhere

    – the Trump administration is siding with the Sauds, and wherever possible blaming the various war atrocities on Iran.  But, it is the coalition with bombs and airplanes, and there is zero doubt, as evidence exists, that coalition armaments have struck schools, hospitals, and civilian areas.

    – 75% of Yemenis need some kind of humanitarian assistance to meet basic needs, about 8 million are at risk of starvation, cholera is becoming an epidemic, Riyadh is even preventing fresh bottled water from entering the country  … the country meets every definition of a failed state.

    MY CONCLUSION

    “He [Esau] will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers.” —- Genesis 16:12

    The 5,000 year long conflict in the Middle East is not just between Jew and Arab.  It is also (and, probably, primarily) between Arab and Arab. Will things suddenly get better in 2018?  Sure, there have been periods of peace. But, it never lasts. Because Esau is a wild ass of a man. That’s not God talk. That’s history talk.

  • Futures Extend Gains On Trump's Trade-War Retreat, Dollar Sinks

    The Dollar and bond yields are lower as Sunday evening trading begins but US equity futures are up around 0.4% following President Trump’s apparent retreat from Chinese trade-wars, supporting the rescue of giant telecoms company ZTE..

    The Dollar Index is selling off modestly…

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 13th May 2018

  • Trump's Pyrrhic Victory: The US Opts For A Path That Can Only Lead To War

    Authored by Philip Giraldi via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    Nearly everyone loses by President Donald Trump’s decision on Tuesday to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) relating to Iran’s nuclear energy program and to reinstate the “highest level” of sanctions while also threatening secondary sanctions on any country that “helps” the Iranians.

    The whole world loses because nuclear proliferation is a disaster waiting to happen and Iran will now have a strong incentive to proceed with a weapons program to defend itself from Israel and the United States.

    If Iran does so, it will trigger a regional nuclear arms race with Saudi Arabia and Egypt undoubtedly seeking weapons of their own.

    Iran and the Iranian people will lose because their suffering economy will not now benefit from the lifting of sanctions and other economic inducements that convinced it to sign the agreement in the first place.

    And yes, even the United States and Israel will lose because an agreement that would have pushed back by ten or fifteen years Iran’s timetable if it were to choose to develop a weapon will now be reduced to a year or less. And the United States will in particular lose because the entire world will understand that the word of an American president when entering into an international agreement cannot be trusted.

    The only winners from the withdrawal are President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who will enjoy the plaudits of their hardline supporters. But their victory will be illusory as the hard reality of what they have accomplished becomes clear.

    Failure of JCPOA definitely means that war is the only likely outcome if Tel Aviv and Washington continue in their absurd insistence that the Iranians constitute a major threat both to the region and the world. A war that might possibly involve both the United States and Russia as well as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel would devastate the region and might easily have potential to escalate into something like a global conflict.

    The decision to end the agreement is based on American domestic political considerations rather than any real analysis of what the intelligence community has been reporting. Deep-pocketed Iran-hating billionaires named Sheldon Adelson, Rebekah Mercer and Paul Singer are now prepared to throw tens of millions of dollars at Trump’s Republican Party to help it win in November’s midterm elections.

    Those possessed of just a tad more foresight, to include the Pentagon and America’s European allies, have strongly urged that JCPOA be continued, particularly as the Iranians have been fully in compliance, but there is a new team in Washington. America’s just-confirmed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo did not exactly endorse the ludicrous Israeli claim made by Benjamin Netanyahu two weeks ago that Iran has a secret weapons of mass destruction program currently in place, but he did come down hard against the JCPOA, echoing Trump in calling it a terrible agreement that will guarantee an Iranian nuclear weapon. The reality is quite different, with the pact basically eliminating a possible Iranian nuke for the foreseeable future through degradation of the country’s nuclear research, reduction of its existing nuclear stocks and repeated intrusive inspections.

    The failure of the JCPOA is not about the agreement at all, which is both sound and workable. There is unfortunately an Israeli-White House construct which assumes that Iran is both out to destroy Israel, for which no evidence has been revealed, as well as being singularly untrustworthy, an odd assertion coming from either Washington or Tel Aviv. It also basically rejects any kind of agreement with the Iranian government on principle so there is nowhere to go to “fix” what has already transpired.

    The United States has changed in the past seventeen years. The promotion of policies that were at least tenuously based on genuine national interests is no longer embraced by either political party. A fearful public has allowed a national security state to replace a constitutional republic with endless war as the inevitable result. Presidents once constitutionally constrained by legislative and judicial balance of power have successfully asserted executive privilege to become like third world dictators, able to make war without any restraint on their ability to do so. If America survives, historians will no doubt see the destruction of the JCPOA as the beginning of something new and horrible, where the government of these United States deliberately made a decision to abandon a beneficial foreign treaty to instead opt for a path that can only lead to war.

  • "We Are Telling People To Plan For The Worst": Hawaii Braces For Explosive New Eruptions

    A little over a week after Hawaii’s Kilauea volcano erupted, The Big Island is now bracing for a series of explosive eruptions which could occur within days or weeks, hurling boulders the size of small cars, creating a giant ash cloud, and oozing even more of the hot magma which has already claimed at least 36 structures and forced thousands to evacuate. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Geologists believe the hardest hit by the new activity will be the Leilani Estates in the southwestern Puna district, around 20 miles south of Hilo where all 1,900 residents have already been evacuated. 

    We are telling people to plan for the worst. They should have a Plan A, a Plan B and a Plan C,” said county official Roann Okomura, who helps operate one of the evacuation shelters.

    As a lava lake at Kilauea’s summit drains inside the volcano, magma is running underground. It could burst to the surface as large, fast-moving and intensely hot lava flows and produce higher levels of toxic gases, Hawaiian Volcano Observatory scientist-in-charge Tina Neal said.

    In addition, Kilauea, one of the world’s most active volcanoes, threatens to begin a series of explosive eruptions within days or weeks that could form huge clouds of volcanic smog, or vog, and hurl boulders as big as small cars. –Reuters.

    What will take a turn for the worse in terms of hazard is if hotter, fresher magma makes it to the surface, and that could be what is coming,” Neal told a conference call on Friday. “Once a new batch of hotter, gassier magma makes it to the surface we might see larger, higher eruption rates.”

    Sixteen fissures have opened up on the eastern flank of Kilauea since its initial eruption eight days ago – oozing relatively cool, slow moving magma left over from a similar incident in 1955. Scientists now worry that fresh magma from deeper within the earth is about to come surging behind it

    In other words, what’s happened over the last eight days was just “cleaning out the pipes” so to speak. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Yesterday we reported on a series of powerful earthquakes which have hit The Big Island since it Kilauea began erupting. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    In Pahoa, the nearest village to Kilauea, some schools remained closed after the area was hit by a 6.9 magnitude earthquake on Friday, the biggest since 1975.

    Meanwhile, a new fissure opened up near the Puna geothermal power plant on Saturday, spattering lava less than a mile from the facility. There are still nearly 50,000 gallons of pentane stored at the siteaccording to Hawaii News Now.

    Compounding worries is a text message sent to residents of the southeast corner of the island by County authorities warning them of a wind change that would bring rising levels of sulfur dioxide gas, which can be fatal if inhaled in large quantities.

    Hawaii’s governor has warned that mass evacuations may be required as more fissures open in the ground and spew lava and gas into semi-rural residential areas on the east flank of Kilauea, one of the world’s most active volcanoes.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    President Trump issued a disaster declaration for Hawaii on Friday, announcing that federal funding had been approved for local recovery efforts in the affected areas. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    “Additional designations may be made at a later date if requested by the state and warranted by the results of further damage assessments,” the White House added in a statement.

    Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) chief Brock Long named deputy Federal Coordinating Officer Willie Nunn as the agency’s top official overseeing the relief efforts. 

    “As more fissures open and toxic gas exposure increases, the potential of a larger scale evacuation increases. A mass evacuation of the lower Puna District would be beyond current county and state capabilities, and would quickly overwhelm our collective resources,” Ige said.

    Federal assistance would be necessary to enable us to successfully conduct such large-scale operations.” 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  • The Deep State Mob Targets Nunes

    Authored by Julie Kelly via The Center for American Greatness,

    In an absurd tweet on Wednesday, Lawfare’s executive director suggested that Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) should be replaced as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    That wasn’t even the most moronic tweet in Susan Hennessey’s arsenal. She went on to warn how “the intelligence oversight system is based on trust. Without trust it is irretrievably broken. The [Intelligence Community] and [Department of Justice] don’t trust Nunes and he cannot perform his job functions.” Get that? The Intelligence Community and the Justice department—which have proven to be as political and devious as a Chicago ward boss—are the white hats and Nunes is the black hat.

    That is not ignorance on Hennessey’s part: it’s calculated deception.

    Fortunately, it’s unlikely that House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) will heed an unreasonable demand from a political partisan tied to the left-leaning Brookings Institution.

    But it does unveil the latest tactic of the Left (and some on the Right) to discredit and ultimately oust Nunes, the only Republican on Capitol Hill who appears to have his act together when it comes to exposing the players behind the Trump-Russia election collusion scheme.

    The Deep State Mob is continuing to squeeze the California congressman after he again threatened to impeach Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for ignoring congressional subpoenas and withholding crucial documents from Congressional investigators. Nunes has minced no words about how the Justice Department and FBI have been “stonewalling” his committee’s investigation for months. And as Nunes inches closer to revealing the stinking core of what is potentially the biggest political corruption scandal in U.S. history, the Deep State Mob is trying to close in on him first.

    Nunes and other House Republicans want to find out exactly how and why the FBI’s counterintelligence operation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government began in the summer of 2016, and what intelligence sources either aided or instigated that probe. The latest showdown, according to the Washington Post, is because Nunes has issued a subpoena demanding that the Justice Department provide information about an unnamed individual referenced in a classified letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions last month.

    While there are few details about the individual in question, the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel intimates that the person could have been a mole inside the Trump campaign:

    We know Nunes’s request deals with a “top secret intelligence source” of the FBI and CIA, who is a U.S. citizen and who was involved in the Russia collusion probe. We might take this to mean that the FBI secretly had a person on the payroll who used his or her non-FBI credentials to interact in some capacity with the Trump campaign.

    Strassel, who has been carefully covering this scandal, has a hunch of who the source is but couldn’t confirm it.

    The Justice Department is fighting Nunes’s request on the basis that any disclosure would “risk severe consequences, including potential loss of human lives, damage to relationship with valued international partners, compromise of ongoing criminal investigations and interference with intelligence activities.” While Justice officials met with Nunes and committee member Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) late Thursday, they did not allow them to see the information in question. Nunes indicated that he would continue to press the department to fulfill his request.

    Now Nunes’s foes are portraying him as a rogue actor – perhaps even a traitor – who is willing to see intelligence assets killed in order to carry water for President Trump. CNN national security analyst Asha Rangappa echoed the Justice Department’s warning that Nunes is risking lives to achieve political ends.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    In a one-two punch, Hennessey’s boss upped the attacks on Nunes during a discussion with former FBI Director James Comey on Friday. Benjamin Wittes, Lawfare’s editor and close Comey pal, rhetorically asked Comey, “what’s Devin Nunes gonna be able to tell his grandchildren? It’s a serious question. He is affirmatively acting in a fashion that some of us judged, you know, Edward Snowden very harshly for behaving in a fashion that puts at risk intelligence sources and methods when being told so by the senior levels of the Justice Department.” (Others have tried to get the “Nunes-Is-Literal-Snowden” trope going before. We’ll see if it finally takes off next week.)

    Comey, the consigliere of the Deep State Mob, anguished to his buddy about the lost values of the Republican Party: “This is my hope for the Republicans as a whole, that they realize that only a fool would trade the institutions and the values that actually unite us for the policy gains they think they’re getting from a president who is eroding and attacking those values.” Sounds like some sour grapes from the guy who lost his battle against Nunes to keep his memos secret.

    Fellow fired prosecutor Preet Bharara joined Comey in mocking Nunes this week. After a bogus storysurfaced that Nunes doesn’t read the intelligence information he receives, the former head of the DOJ’s Southern District of New York (yes, the same office assigned with investigating Trump lawyer Michael Cohen) tweeted this:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    But it’s not just the Deep State Mob on the Left that is after Nunes: Their soulmates in the smoldering political ash heap that is the neoconservative movement are speaking out, too. In an egregiously flawed assist in Commentary, Noah Rothman gives aid and comfort to the Deep State Mob, incredibly by making Nunes the bad guy. Rothman accuses Nunes of causing the trust breakdown in the House Intelligence committee, the same committee whose ranking member is the despicable leaker Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). Rothman smugly claims that “there is no impartial assessment of his tenure as House Intelligence Committee chair in which he comes off as a competent steward of American national security or capable of the dispassionate oversight of the institutions that safeguard U.S. interests at home and abroad.”

    Rothman suggests that even Trump doesn’t trust Nunes and that’s why the president (for now) has acquiesced to the Justice Department’s stonewalling on the source subpoena. He wrongly claims that Nunes recused himself from the investigation early on, then calls Nunes an “obstacle in the way of truth” who should be removed.

    Any close observer of the unfolding story of how the disaster of the Obama Justice Department exploited our most trusted federal agencies to hatch the Trump-Russia scheme is either on the floor laughing or smashing things at Rothman’s absurd accusation.

    The Deep State Mob wants to destroy anything and anyone associated with Trump, particularly those who are brave enough to incur their wrath to get to the truth on behalf of the American people. Nunes isn’t a traitor: He’s a hero.

  • Giuliani Inserts Foot In Mouth, Says Trump "Denied" AT&T Merger

    The ever-affable Rudy Giuliani has once again stuck his foot in his mouth regarding his old friend and new boss, Donald Trump.

    In a Friday interview with the Huffington Post, Giuliani – seemingly in an attempt to defuse the Michael Cohen “consultancy” scandal – claimed that Trump “denied the merger” between AT&T and Time Warner, despite long-standing protocol designed to keep DOJ decisions independent from the executive branch in order to keep the department free of political influence by the White House. Apparently the previous administration didn’t get the memo either.

    Giuliani’s statement comes on the heels of revelations that Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, accepted a $600,000 payment right after the inauguration for “insights” into President Trump’s thinking.

    The president had no knowledge of it.” Giuliani told the Post, adding “Whatever lobbying was done didn’t reach the president… He did drain the swamp … The president denied the merger. They didn’t get the result they wanted.

    Cohen received $600,000 from AT&T, $1.2 million from Swiss pharmaceutical giant Novartis and $500,000 from an investment bank affiliated with a Russian oligarch, all following Trump’s unexpected election win in 2016.

    Giuliani said Cohen’s business relationships did not contradict Trump’s campaign promises to end “pay-to-play” schemes and to “drain the swamp” because Cohen did not get for his newfound clients what they wanted. HuffPo

    Earlier in the week, AT&T said that they hired a company created by Cohen right after the inauguration – when it sorely needed government approval for the Time Warner deal, it hired a company created by Cohen in order to glean insights into the Trump administration.

    AT&T’s top Washington executive, Bob Quinn, said that Cohen didn’t conduct any lobbying work for them – while CEO Randall Stephenson told employees that hiring Cohen was “a big mistake” in an internal memo circulated on Friday. While not-so coincidentally according to NBC News, was AT&T’s Friday announcement of Quinn’s sudden retirement.  

    If in fact AT&T thought this would buy them an approval, one has to wonder if Cohen simply trolled AT&T for $600K and laughed all the way to the bank. They were about to acquire CNN after all – and in December of 2017 said they wouldn’t sell the network to satisfy a DOJ demand before trying to close the $85 billion deal.

    On the other hand – had AT&T agreed to sell CNN and the merger been approved, the Cohen payment would have the appearance of a successful “pay-for-play” deal.

    AT&T says it was contacted by special counsel Robert Mueller’s office in late 2017 and cooperated with the probe, according to the Wall Street Journal.

    Our reputation has been damaged,” wrote Stephenson in the Friday memo. “There’s no other way to say it – AT&T hiring Michael Cohen as a political consultant was a big mistake.”

    The FBI raided Cohen’s office, hotel and home last month amid an active federal investigation. Since the raid, there have been several mysterious leaks of information from various media outlets – such as the release of his bank records, or the claim that he arranged a $1.6 million payoff to a former Playboy model in late 2017 who says she was impregnated by a top Republican fundraiser, “according to people familiar with the matter” (96 hours after the raid).

    Elliott Broidy, a GOP donor, right, and his wife, Robin Rosenzweig (2014)

    Michael Cohen, whose office, home and hotel room were raided by federal agents this week, arranged the payments to the woman on behalf of Elliott Broidy, a deputy finance chairman of the Republican National Committee with ties to Mr. Trump, the people familiar with the matter said. Mr. Broidy, a Los Angeles-based venture capitalist, works on the Republican committee with Mr. Cohen, who is also a national deputy finance chairman. –WSJ

    Giuliani, the former mayor of New York and US Attorney of the office now investigating Cohen, assumed the lead on Trump’s private legal team handling the Mueller investigation in the hope of wrapping it up as soon as possible. He said on Friday that he doubts Trump would be able to speak with the special counsel investigation before his June 12 summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. 

    He said the fact that Cohen has become involved in the probe shows that Mueller has been unable to make headway on the idea of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. He blamed much of Cohen’s involvement on adult film actress Stormy Daniels and her new lawyer, Michael Avenatti. They have been trying to break a non-disclosure agreement she signed promising not to discuss an affair she said she had with Trump a decade ago in return for $130,000. –HuffPo

    Giuliani says that Cohen did nothing wrong. 

    “They’re buying his advice. It can turn out to be good or bad,” he said. “There’s a lot of people in Washington who are paid for their advice.” Which, of course, is the reason why Washington is just one giant “swamp” which Trump once upon a time vowed to drain.

  • An "Audible Gasp" Was Heard When The Chicago Fed Unveiled Its "Solution" To The Pension Problem

    Submitted by Mark Glennon of Wirepoints

    An audible gasp went out in the breakout room I was in at last month’s pension event cosponsored by The Civic Federation and the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. That was when a speaker from the Chicago Fed proposed levying, across the state and in addition to current property taxes, a special property assessment they estimate would be about 1% of actual property value each year for 30 years.

    Evidently, that wasn’t reality-shock enough. This week the Chicago Fed published that proposal formally. It’s linked here.

    It surely ranks among the most blatantly inhumane and foolish ideas we’ve seen yet.

    Homeowners with houses worth $250,000 would pay an additional $2,500 per year in property taxes, those with homes worth $500,000 would pay an additional $5,000, and those with homes worth $1 million would pay an additional $10,000.

    Is the Chicago Fed blind to human consequences? Confiscatory property tax rates have already robbed hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of Illinois families of their home equity — probably the lion’s share of whatever wealth they had.

    Property taxes in many Illinois communities already exceed 3%, 4% and even 5% of home values. Across Illinois, the average is a sky-high 2.67 percent, the highest in the nation.

    In south Cook County they already average over 5%. Most of those communities are working class, often African-American. The Fed says maybe you could make the tax progressive by exempting lower values, but that’s very difficult to do and, if you did somehow exempt the poor and working class, the bill pushed to the others would be astronomical.

    Those rates have already plunged many communities into death spirals, demanding an immediate solution, but the Chicago Fed apparently wants to pour on more of the accelerant.

    Don’t they understand that people won’t build on or improve property when property taxes are that high? When taxes are 3 percent to 6 percent, any value you add to your home is going to be taxed at that high rate forever. Have they never been to our communities with countless disrepaired, abandoned homes and commercial properties, which are the result?

    Get this, which is part of the Fed’s reasoning:

    “New taxes wouldn’t affect people thinking of moving to Illinois. While they would have to pay higher property taxes, that would be offset by not having to pay as much for their new homes. In addition, current homeowners would not be able to avoid the new tax by selling their homes and moving because home prices should reflect the new tax burden quickly.”

    In other words, just confiscate wealth from current owners because they will pay, whether they stay or not, through an immediate reduction in home value.

    This proposed tax would only address the five state pensions. What about the other 650-plus pensions in Illinois, particularly those for overlapping jurisdictions in Chicago which are grossly underfunded? The Fed was asked that at last month’s seminar and they, without explanation, said they didn’t bother to cover that.

    I’ve earlier met Rick Mattoon, one of the Chicago Fed authors of the proposal. He’s a smart, likeable guy who I thought had lots of interesting information. For the life of me, however, I can’t understand how he would put his name on this proposal.

    Property can’t leave, so seize it. That’s the basic idea.

  • Army's New Weapon: Special Goggles Allow Soldiers To Shoot Around Corners

    The United States Army recently awarded BAE Systems $97 Million in orders for new night vision goggles and thermal weapon sights for the Enhanced Night Vision Goggle III and Family of Weapon Sight-Individual (ENVG III/FWS-I) program. The all-in-one weapon sight system allows soldiers to acquire and eliminate enemy targets through a wireless connection that transmits the weapon’s crosshairs and surrounding imagery directly into the soldier’s goggles.

    BAE Systems ENVG III/FWS-I integrated system uses a wireless connection that transmits the weapon sight’s aim point and surrounding imagery directly into the soldier’s goggles. (Source: BAE)

    With both units wirelessly integrated, soldiers are on the verge of using weapon sight imagery and aim to point technology that can wirelessly transmit the gun’s sights to the soldier’s goggles with one click of a button – for a quick tactical edge during close combat warfare.

    In other words, soldiers are about to receive futuristic devices that replace traditional night vision goggles with integrated systems, and allow troops on the battlefield to “shoot around corners, see-through dense vegetation, and smoke, plus distinguish friend from foe,” said USA Today.

    “It is no longer just a night vision device,” said Army Col. Christopher Schneider, the project manager for the system that can be worn night and day. “The enemy cannot see we are targeting him until we pull the trigger.”

    BAE Systems promotional video titled: Own the night with ENVG III/FWS-I

    (By integrating night vision goggles and weapon-mounted thermal sights into one system, BAE Systems’ Enhanced Night Vision Goggle III and Family of Weapon Sight-Individual (ENVG III/FWS-I) solution makes darkness a tactical advantage for the dismounted soldier. (Source: BAE Systems via YouTube)

    “Aiming to provide the most technically advanced and lightweight solution possible, our goggles allow soldiers to quickly detect and engage targets for a tactical edge,” Marc Casseres, director of Precision Guidance and Sensing Solutions at BAE Systems, said in a recent BAE press release.

    “When fully integrated with the FWS-I weapon sight, the combined solution provides superior imagery and a target acquisition capability that can greatly increase mission success and survivability,” he added.

    The high-tech goggles are part of the United States Department of Defense (DoD) modernization program to keep the United States Armed Forces technologically ahead of China and Russia, which, in recent years, has shown they are quickly catching up. USA Today notes that the DoD has spent more than 17 years in Afghanistan and Iraq, as China and Russia have studied the various strategies and technologies deployed on the Middle East battlefield.

    “Our adversaries have been studying our strengths and our vulnerabilities and are developing capabilities to exploit those vulnerabilities,” Gen. Mark Milley, the Army’s chief of staff, warned in a speech last year.

    “They have steadily eroded our competitive advantage and are rapidly closing the capability gap that we have long enjoyed,” he added.

    A thermal sight on an M4 service rifle is connected wirelessly to the new night vision goggles attached to a soldier’s helmet. (Source: Jack Gruber, USA Today)

    Integrated situational awareness and thermal targeting system. (Source: BAE) 

    USA Today points out that America’s rapid modernization program is the most significant in five decades, as China and Russia’s technological advancements have alarmed U.S. military officials.

    “With U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan winding down, the Army has embarked on its largest modernization programs since the Vietnam War nearly five decades ago to overhaul its weapons, training and tactics.

    The post-Vietnam revamping transformed a large draft Army with discipline and other problems into a smaller all-volunteer fighting force equipped with modern weapons and better-trained troops.

    The problems are not as desperate now, but officials are worried about the progress that Russia and China have made. Technological breakthroughs are cheaper and happen faster than decades ago when America could count on its advantages in industry and technology to power the military

    “We still maintain overmatch, but they are closing the gap,” Army Undersecretary Ryan McCarthy said in a recent interview.

    McCarthy said that Army is in the process of establishing a Futures Command headquarters — based in an urban environment with close relationships to academic institutions and local industry. The Army wants a location that “will help us think differently and get more people from the country to help us solve problems,” he explained.

    At $23,000 a pop, the Army plans to field 36,000 FWS-Is and 64,000 ENGV IIIs to combat teams in the second half of 2018.

    A soldier with the advanced goggles will be able to fire an assault rifle around corners or above his or her head because of the wireless sights attached to the Picatinny rail of the weapon. The ability to field the goggles before the next war breaks out will be critical for urban warfare in densely populated cities.

    “We won’t be able to avoid the dense urban terrain or the megacities in the future,” said Maj. Gen. Maria Gervais, deputy commanding general of the Army’s combined arms center at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.

    War is coming. The Army is preparing.

  • Trump's Neocon Folly: Goodbye Nuke Deal, Hello Global Debt Crisis

    Authored by Tom Luongo,

    At least it is confirmed for us.  Donald Trump wants regime change in Iran.  His cancellation of the JCPOA was a decision born his myopia.  He has surrounded himself with people who reinforce his view and manipulate him via his vanity.

    And the price of implementing his current plan will be a global debt crisis which no one will escape.  The problem will be very few will see the links.

    He wants to remake America and the world in his image while undoing anything President Obama touched.  Most of this I’m wholly on board with.  Obama was a vandal.  So, however, were Bush the Lesser and Bill Clinton.

    We’re All Neocons Now

    We have a leaked (yeah, right) memo explaining this is the plan.  But, we didn’t need this if we were being honest with ourselves.  Nothing Trump has done since he’s been in office has been contra to this goal; overthrowing the theocracy in Iran.

    In fact, it has been a step-wise move in this direction with each decision he’s made.  Commentators I respect and have learned at the knee of still want to give Trump the benefit of the doubt.  Not me.

    It’s right there in plain text.

    Trump has capitalized on the insane Deep State opposition to his presidency to politicize this goal and get his base to ab-react for regime change, when he explicitly said that was off the table at his inauguration.

    If the Democrats and Merkel want to stay in the deal, then the deal must be bad.  Obama Bad, Trump Good.  Trump is Orange Jesus.  He knows stuff, man.

    What was a worry about Israeli influence in his administration in 2017 has now morphed into a call to duty to create chaos in Iran to assuage the American ego by saving the Iranian people from themselves.

    You have to hand it to these folks, they understand how to run a successful mass psy-op.  Beware the Master Persuader, as Scott Adams would put it, his skills can be put to any use.

    These men and their Deep State handlers/billionaire donors have had a strategic goal for decades, remake the Middle East for Israel and the Oil Complex, bottle up Russia and China.

    Donald Trump’s patriotism is revealed to be jingoism.  But, he made this clear in his speech to the U.N. last year.  At some point you have to put away childish things and face the world we’ve got.

    And that world is one of extreme uncertainty.

    Back to the Future

    As I said the other day, Trump wants to reset the clock back to 2012.  Bottle up Iran, cut its ties to the world.  Remove 1 million barrels of oil per day from the markets (for his Saudi weapons customers “Look!  Yuge JOBS!”). And bully our allies into getting the plan to atomize Syria back on track.

    But, it’s not 2012.  It’s 2018 and everything is different.  Iran has friends it didn’t have then.  Yes, there is local unrest and unhappiness which could grow.  The rial is falling like a rock, people in Iran can’t get dollars.  Not solely because Trump has cut them off from the dollar but because Iran has.

    It anticipated this move by him and the chaos of today turns into the de-dollarization of tomorrow.  These people still think destroying a national currency is the path to political change. It’s a dangerous gambit that doesn’t always work.

    It didn’t work with Russia in 2014/5.  It’s not working in Venezuela today. And if those countries have friends, China for Russia in 2015, Russia and others for Venezuela today, then the longer the regime stays in power once the worst of the crisis hits, the lower the probability regime change becomes.

    I told everyone last year the Saudi gambit to isolate Qatar wouldn’t work.  If they didn’t get regime change in Doha within two weeks, then the government would survive.  It has and now it is free to pursue whatever it wants, having finally bought a 19% stake in Russian state oil giant Rosneft.

    Trump has been signaling this moment for almost two years.  Do you think Russia, Iran and China have not been game-planning this?  When the attack on the ruble began in 2014, Putin did the unthinkable.  In doing so revealed his central bank’s disloyalty.

    By demanding to free-float the ruble, under objection from his economic advisor Alexander Kudrin and central bank President Elvira Nabullina, Putin stabilized the situation quickly.  Then he ordered the Bank of Russia to assist payment of more than $50 billion in Russian corporate debt denominated in dollars from central bank reserves.

    China opened up ruble/yuan swap lines to help funnel dollars into Russia.  The Bank of Russia had to abandon IMF-style austerity and serve Russian interests first rather than continue playing into the hands of U.S. hybrid war tactics.

    Iran has these people as its friends now.  They are committed to its survival.  They may not be committed to the IRGC staying in Syria post-ISIS/Al-Qaeda, but they are committed to an Iran aligned with them for the road ahead.  And that Road has a Belt attached to it.

    Because they know that if they lead the opposition to U.S. aggression, then they will gain allies over time.  In acting this way Trump is revealing the U.S. to be the repressive, messianic global oligarch of the world order it claims the Iranian Islamic Republic to be over its citizens.

    Everyone will get in line behind the Orange Emperor or suffer his wrath.  Why?  Because Bibi Netanyahu can’t sleep at night?  Get that psychopath a plushie and leave a night light on for pity’s sake.

    It also has an EU wanting to establish itself as a separate power from the U.S.  Angela Merkel and French Poodle Emmanuel Macron both want an independent EU foreign policy and a Grand Army of the EU to put down any internal rebellions.

    China can and will assist Iran in overcoming the sanctions.  So will Turkey, who did so in 2012. Will it be enough save the Islamic Republic?  Possibly.  If that happens will the U.S. get what it wants?

    Most probably not.  National Security Advisor and Certified Crazy Person John Bolton wants to put the Saudi-backed MEK (Mujahedeen-e-Khalq), a cult-like Sunni group with zero support in Iran.  You’ll hear in the coming days about how great these guys are.

    Just like U.S. NGO-backed Russian agitator Alexei Navalny is promoted in the Western press even though he can’t get 2,000 people to march in Moscow on the day of Putin’s inarguration.

    Sanctions Cut Both Ways

    Russia, ultimately, has the sanctions hammer in its control of the uranium market.  It’s also a major supplier of both titanium and aluminum.  The U.S. has never considered sanctioning the first two and it’s plan to sanction Rusal has been close to a disaster.

    Trump believes in the primacy of the U.S. threat both militarily and financially so much that he’s willing to project it everywhere and at everyone to get what he wants in Iran.  We thought he reluctantly signed those new sanctions last summer.  Nonsense.

    If so, he wouldn’t be using those new powers in ways that are the height of hubris.  Explicit in his threats to Iran and his demands that are, as Alexander Mercouris put it at The Duran yesterday, “so extreme that no sovereign state could ever accept them and retain its independence.”

    So, let’s again put away childish things and think that Trump will not take this to whatever point he thinks is necessary to get his desired outcome.

    But, in doing this he will upset world financial markets already fragile from a decade of QE and an explosion of cheap dollar-denominated debt.  The Fed is raising interest rates. Bond traders are resisting raising rates at the long-end of the U.S. Treasury yield curve, causing it to flatten dangerously.

    Trump wants a continued weaker dollar but geopolitical uncertainty creates dollar demand because so much of the world’s debt and trade is based in it.  For over a year Foreign Central Banks have been parking U.S. Treasury purchases with the Fed as the dollar weakened.

    Now that trend has firmly changed.

    The Dollar Debt Bomb

    Moreover, the ECB is trapped at the negative-bound.  Mario Draghi keeps telling everyone he has no Plan B.  He will keep being the marginal (or only) buyer of EU sovereign debt until the market finally pukes all over him.

    If Trump is serious about putting sanctions on any foreign entity that does any business with Iran then that will set off chain reactions around the globe.  It’s why I’m not sanguine about EU leadership standing up to Trump in the long run.

    But it’s a real opportunity for Merkel et. al. to establish a new pole in the proposed multi-polar world advocated by Putin and Chinese Premier Xi Jinping.

    The worry now is a technical breakout of the U.S. 10 year above 3.05%.  U.S./EU credit spreads   With the dollar strengthening low loan servicing costs become big quick.  Anyone who has/had an adjustable rate mortgage understands this viscerally.

    With China no long buying U.S. debt, it is free to funnel dollars to Iran through proxies and its own oil trade to keep things from escalating.  That lack of recycling of its trade surplus is part of what kept the dollar weaker longer.  Now that the dollar is rising, we can safely say that that effect has been over-run.

    China can and will put pressure on the Saudis by buying more Iranian oil.  Expect Iran now to cut it’s monthly tender price to undercut Saudi Arabia on a forward basis.  In 2012 U.S. sanctions made it difficult for shippers to insure oil shipments and that was part of the reason they were initially so successful.

    With the Fed tightening, reserves of the U.S. banking system are falling thanks to excess reserves being mobilized. The U.S. budget will strain from rising debt servicing costs, now above 8.6% of total outlay, compared to less than 8% this time last year.  Again this puts upward pressure on the dollar as foreign markets are starved of dollars.

    Next, Trump wants more balanced trade with China and Europe and he’s willing to guy global trade to do it.  But that also means a stronger dollar in the long run as debt still needs to be serviced while trade is falling.

    Again, fewer exported dollars while the budget deficit grows.  Emerging Markets are already suffering horrendous capital outflows.  Just wait until things actually get bad.

    Eurodollar markets have been drained of their liquidity in recent months as U.S. corporates repatriate funds and, like Apple, buy back their stock.

    All of this points to reaping a whirlwind of dollar strength, not weakness, which to me, looks like the spark of the global debt crisis the Fed delayed for over a year by not raising interest rates sooner.  It bowed to IMF pressure in 2014/15 to delay raising rates.

    And the world is not prepared for the dollar spiking 20 or 30% over the next year.  It is not prepared for a shift in risk assets stocks to bonds.  A spiking dollar will create a perfect storm of debt defaults that will unleash chaos which will topple governments (and not Iran’s).

    Trump will not react well to this, claiming, like all U.S. Presidents that China is manipulating its currency down to harm us.  That’s utter nonsense.  As I’ve laid out, Trump is creating the very whirlwind he’s trying to avoid.

    It’s why the DOW is holding above 24,000.  And why the euro is about to collapse.

    Survival is Winning

    So, here we are.  This is why I keep saying China, Russia and Iran’s best moves politically are to do nothing overt.  Iran was not the aggressor the other day.  That’s another of Bibi’s blatant lies.

    Russia looks weak by not responding to Israel’s spastic flailing the other day, but it knows that time is on its side.  The SAA/IRGC and Russian forces continue to destroy pocket after pocket of resistance in Syria.

    Putin will continue to hold his water, waiting for the opportune moment to reverse his opponent.  Russia’s limit has not been reached in Syria yet.  Putin always does this.  It drives his critics and his supporters crazy.

    It’s geopolitical judo and he’s the master at it.  And when that reversal comes and Israel has been thrown flat on its back, Trump’s only move will be to settle.  Why speculate on what he’ll do.  Just watch and wait it out.  The signs are all there.

    When that happens John Bolton will retreat farther into madness, hopefully he’ll throw himself off a building and put us all out of his misery.  Let’s hope someone’s iPhone captures it for posterity’s sake.

    After a brief spasm in the financial markets thanks to Trump’s insane aluminum tariffs, Russian equities and the ruble are rallying.

    In fact the MICEX Index just put in its all-time highest weekly closing price.  Its sovereign debt markets are stable and the yield curve is widening.  Capital is flowing into Russia despite horrific U.S. sanctions.

    This is the model for Iran’s resistance.

    Russia is winning the financial war of attrition and the stronger it gets the more it can support Iran in the long run alongside China.

    This is the limit of Trump’s unwillingness to update his worldview from 2003.  He’s held this view of Iran his entire life and surrounded himself with the ‘experts’ to take Iran out.  Even if the Mullahs fall, the backlash from the process whatever form it takes will set the global debt markets aflame, a bonfire of Trump’s vanity.

    *  *  *

    To support work like this and find out how you can de-stress your investment portfolio as we live through a period of global geopolitical strife sign up for my Patreon and subscribe to the Gold Goats ‘n Guns Investment Newsletter.

  • Kansas Police No Longer Allowed To Have Sex With People They Pull Over

    Kansas police are going to have to stop having sex with people they pull over for traffic violations, after Governor Jeff Colyer (R) signed a new bill into law on Thursday outlawing sexual relations “during the course of a traffic stop, a custodial interrogation, an interview in connection with an investigation, or while the law enforcement officer has such person detained,” according to the Kansas City Star

    Because there’s nothing quite like love at first sight…

    Prior to the measure, Kansas was one of 33 states where consensual sex between police and an individual they detained was not a crime, according to the star. A similar bill was passed in New York last month specifying that people in police custody are unable to consent to sex.

    The bill, introduced by Rep. Cindy Holscher (D) “helps the person who was detained in their neighborhood or stopped for a ticket, that type of thing,” she told The Star.

    Holscher said she was also moved by a case in New York where a teenager claimed she had been raped by two police officers in the back of their van, but no charges were filed because the officers claimed the sex was consensual and therefore legal.

    Kansas law previously said “there shouldn’t be sexual relations between police and persons in jail, but it didn’t say anything about if they had been stopped on the streets or were in their custody,” Holscher said. –The Star

    Kansas lawmakers say the new law was long overdue.

    “Those of us who have been there for a few years thought it was something that had already been taken care of in the law,” said Rep. John Carmichael, D-Wichita, an attorney and member of the Judiciary Committee.

    “She [Holscher] called me about this. I said, ‘You mean it’s not against the law?‘ She said, ‘No, it’s not,'” Carmichael said. “I checked with the revisor (of statutes) and it was not specifically against the law in Kansas.”

    Most officers are great guys and women who are working hard, but there’s always the one,” he added. 

    Indeed…

  • Correlations Flashing Yellow Light

    Submitted by Nick Colas of DataTrek Research

    Asset price correlations remain at elevated levels, even as US stocks stage a mid-quarter rally. Why? We attribute it to continuing macro concerns about everything from the price of oil to future Fed policy, geopolitics, and long-term interest rates. Bottom line: don’t let your guard down. Still high correlations + even a small market shock = much higher volatility.

    At a naïve level, outperforming the S&P 500 has been easy in 2018: overweight Technology as much as you dare and snip your holdings of everything else in equal measure. Tech is up 9.2% on the year versus the market’s 1.8% advance. If you are a value investor, large cap Energy would have done the trick. After some hair-raising volatility in February the group is now up 6.2% in 2018.

    In practical terms, there’s a big problem with that notionally easy recipe. The correlations between Tech and the S&P 500 have been +0.95 since February’s volatility. Yes, Tech’s strong fundamentals have helped tremendously (the group has been down on the year only 2 days since Jan 1). But in terms of portfolio diversification, it is a dud.

    Large cap Energy’s ties to the S&P’s performance are somewhat looser, which when combined with the recent surge in commodity prices helps explain its YTD outperformance. Its price correlation to the S&P has been below the average industry sector for the last two months (0.71/0.76 vs. 0.75/0.80), so capital looking for less-correlated price momentum has elbowed its way into the group.

    All this is important for one reason: correlations define the utility of capital markets for investors as much as simply making money in the market. “Beating” a rising market by taking on more risk is relatively simple. Managing returns in the context of risk and uncertainty requires access to investments that move differently from each other. The more options here, the better for both investors (who can put more capital to work) and the societies that uses their capital to grow and prosper.

    US stocks and global capital markets have not delivered much on this point since 2008, price performance notwithstanding. Sector correlations in the S&P 500 were uniformly high from 2009 – 2016, as were the price relationships between foreign developed/emerging equity markets to US stocks. Last year saw the first real declines, which we attribute primarily to the 2016 US elections only because the data clearly shows that cause-and-effect.
    This year has been a roller coaster for correlations as much as stock prices, with February’s volatility pushing up the former as much as they depressed the latter.

    Here are three points on the most recent correlation data, calculated through yesterday’s close:

    1. US sector correlations still remain much higher than 2017: Over the last 30 days, the price correlation for the average S&P sector to the market as a whole is 0.75. In 2017, it was 0.55. That’s the difference between an r-squared of 56% now to 30% last year. In other words, the daily move in the S&P 500 “explains” +50% of any sector’s one-day price action now versus just 30% last year.
    2. Current correlation levels give a better picture of investor uncertainty than current VIX readings, which have declined of late: Correlations always spike during periods of market volatility such as earlier this year, but unlike the CBOE VIX Index they don’t typically fall quickly after a shock. Unwinding correlations takes longer because they more accurately reflect market uncertainty about longer-term macro factors like Fed interest rate policy, geopolitical concerns, financial stability, and long term interest rates. The VIX captures 30 days of expected volatility, after all, not 30 months.
    3. It’s not just US sector correlations that remain high: International equities, both in developed and emerging economies, are still clustering in terms of daily price performance around the S&P 500. The correlation between the US equity market and the MSCI EAFE developed market index was 0.83 last month, down only modestly from the 0.92 – 0.95 readings of the last 3 months. MSCI Emerging Market equity correlations to the S&P 500 ran 0.80 last month, down from 0.88 – 0.91.

    Bringing this analysis home to three investment insights:

    1. Don’t be lulled into a sense of false security now that the VIX is back to 13 and everything feels more “Normal”. Still-high correlations mean even small shocks will quickly transmit through to equity markets. We remain positive on US stocks for 2018, but the correlation math is clear. This isn’t 2017, with industry groups charting their own path and smoothing out the market bumps.
    2. Financials and Energy stocks are better positioned than most groups to show both less-correlated and positive returns. Consider two of the largest macro market concerns today: rising oil prices and higher long term interest rates. Should those eventually crimp economic growth, the best equity hedge will come through exposure to these groups. In our last reader survey (dated 3/30), Financials and Energy were 2 groups DataTrek readers favored most (along with Tech). We continue to agree with that sentiment.
    3. For those with long investment horizons (5 years plus): the return of high correlations in 2018 after last year’s decline is an important signal. Most long run asset allocation models use decades of price correlations to arrive at recommendations for equity/fixed income/other portfolio weights. The last 10 years may look like an anomaly there, with high correlations caused by the Financial Crisis and its aftermath. What if, however, it is the new normal condition? If so, that would argue for greater allocations to alternative assets in order to achieve better diversification in the future.

    Bottom line: stocks seem to have found their footing but this correlation data says we’re not out of the woods.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 12th May 2018

  • The Worst Man In Modern History

    Authored by Alasdair Macleod via GoldMoney.com,

    It seems extraordinary that in defiance of all factual history and philosophical knowledge anyone should celebrate the bicentenary of the birth of Karl Marx. More than anyone, through wrong-headed ideas, he bears responsibility, indirectly admittedly, for the deaths of an estimated one hundred million people in the last century, and the severe suppression though economic and social servitude of fully one third of the world’s population. And if you also include those who have suffered under the yoke of Marxist-inspired modern socialism, the philosophy that says the state is more important than the individual, you could argue nearly the whole world is influenced by Marxian philosophy today.

    That might seem an extreme statement, but you only have to ask almost anyone anywhere, which do they consider is more important, the individual or the state, to see if this supposition is correct. The only explanation for the continued adoration of the man is that with such universal influence, there are bound to be legions of supporters remaining, ignorant of and blind to the reality. However, during his lifetime – he died in 1883 – he was hardly known. It wasn’t until the Russian revolution thirty-four years later that Marx began to be taken seriously.

    How did Marx achieve this powerful posthumous position? It was not through his economics, though they are often quoted and form the core principles of his Communist Manifesto, but through his philosophy, old ideas from forgotten men such as Hegel (1770-1831), which he rehashed into a socialist philosophy that is still accepted by many today, despite the accumulated evidence against it. The difference with Hegel is Hegel strove to establish that historical evolution would lead to increasing individual freedom, while Marx strove to prove the individual played no role in historical evolution.

    Hegel argued that all reality is capable of being expressed in rational categories and can be reduced to a synthetic unity by dialectic reasoning within a system of absolute idealism. In plain English, he concluded we all take our cue from our social and cultural surroundings and circumstances, and that they in turn are set by historical events. This became the basis for Marx’s extreme philosophy of class structure, which, in common with Hegel, denied any role to the independence of human thought.

    His philosophical stance was comprehensively set out in his book, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, published in 1859. The fundamental principle behind Marxism is stated early in the preface, where he defines his deduction from the Hegelian dialectic: “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.” In other words, social organisation takes precedence over the individual, and it therefore follows that the individual is subordinate to the social organisation.

    It follows from this logic, Marx argued, that the classes that formed on the back of material interests forces members of those classes to think and act in their narrow class interests and not independently in their personal interest, there being no such thing. For Marx, ideologies evolved on class lines, where the interests of the minority, the bourgeoisie, dominated. And as the bourgeoisie profits from the labour of the proletariat, it is in their interest to keep the proletariat suppressed. The accumulation of wealth in the hands of the bourgeoisie was entirely due to the exploitation of the proletariat.

    Marx’s world was a black and white one of haves and have-nots, the exploiters and the exploited. As Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804) had said, “If one man has more than necessary, another man has less”. The only way this apparent wrong could be righted would be through the collapse of the capitalist system, which led to these imbalances in the first place. The final solution was a classless society of the proletariat, handing them the means of production administered on their behalf by a revolutionary government.

    If proof was needed, it came for Marx in the increasingly disruptive economic slumps over the course of his lifetime. Slumps hit the proletariat hardest, leading to unemployment and starvation. Initially, Marx was convinced that with the slumps getting progressively worse, a communist revolution would eventually be triggered, and the socialists (i.e. Marx himself) would take command from capitalist governments on behalf of the proletariat. Unfortunately for Marx, this never happened, and he increasingly turned in favour of a violent revolution to hasten the ultimate solution, reflecting his growing impatience and desperation.

    Above all, Marx despised, even hated other socialists with an irrationality that can only have been fuelled by fear of competition. This hatred remains with us today, with communists loathing all forms of national socialism. Marx’s line of reasoning also freed him from criticism, because dissenters were always labelled bourgeoise, and were therefore dismissed as arguing on class lines. They were unmasked as bourgeoise, whatever their dissenting view, and therefore not qualified to comment on matters that affected the wider proletariat. The only answer was for the bourgeoisie to join the proletariat or to be made to do so, then their interests would be forcibly aligned.

    We cannot gloss over the inconsistencies here, where on the one hand the bourgeoisie can only pursue a rigid class interest, yet its members are capable of the independent interest required to migrate to another class. And we must also mention that Marx himself, along with his supporter Engels, was a member of his so-called bourgeoisie, so according to his own strict doctrine, was unable or unqualified to align himself to the proletarian interest.

    Marxian dogma was riddled with such inconsistences. Partly, this was due to the state of human knowledge at that time, and which formed the basis of any dialectical debate. Darwin contemporaneously proposed his evolutionary theory, pronouncing that humans evolved from the apes, and therefore were merely a higher form of animal, not a species apart favoured by God. This played neatly into Marxian philosophy.

    It was also before the development of psychology by Sigmund Freud and Josef Breuer. It was believed that all human brains were the same, just as we have other internal organs with specific functions within the corpus. The concept, that humans differed in their intelligence, their acuity, was unknown. Even mental illness was believed to be a disorder emanating from the body. To Marx the philosopher, drawing on Hegel’s dialectical approach, it could have seemed logical that we are all the same, and that the obvious social differences are down to our upbringing in one or the other class.

    He never defined class, which is too slippery a concept to pin down. Instead, he separated humanity into the exploited majority, the proletariat, and the minority that controls the proletariat, the bourgeoisie. He expected the proletariat to eventually rebel, forcing the bourgeoisie into the lower class, to be ruled over by a socialist administration. He believed that this would happen, because under capitalism, the impoverishment of the workers was inevitable, leading to a workers’ revolution. Yet, at the same time, he believed in the iron law of wages, most associated with David Ricardo. According to this law, wages were set by the availability of labour and the payments required to subsist. Higher wages than this basic level would lead to an increase in the availability of labour over time, while lower wages would reduce the labour pool. In this way, the cost of labour was expected to rebalance at a subsistence level. Labour was regarded as a simple commodity, whose supply was regulated by its demand. However, Marx’s belief in the iron law of wages is at odds with his supposition that the proletariat would be gradually impoverished. You cannot subscribe to both.

    Subsequent improvements in economic knowledge have disproved both theories anyway. Marx’s approach was to arrogantly assume workers are unthinking work-slaves, which they are not. They are individuals with individual aspirations, and as Freud and Breuer showed later, they have brains separate from the corpus, with individual mental abilities that govern the corpus. Marx even despised the trade unions of the day, arguing that striking for higher wages was colluding with members of the bourgeoisie by negotiating with them, when instead they should be seeking their destruction. His thinking had evolved from the proposition that the destruction of the bourgeoise class would occur naturally in time, to encouraging a violent class revolution to bring it about. Workers going on strike compromised both alternatives.

    Marx also cooked up a theory of dialectical materialism, a concept based on Hegelian dialectics and the materialist philosophy of Ludwig von Feuerbach (1804-72), whereby the material productive forces were meant to propel society through the class struggle towards socialism. Materialism, in this sense, is the doctrine that all changes are brought about by material entities, processes and events, and that all human ideas, choices and value-judgements can be reduced to material causes, which one day will be explained by the natural sciences.

    Marx, the man, and Engels, his financial backer, came from the bourgeoisie, and had nothing in common with the proletariat. Their motivation was fundamentally dishonest. After expecting the destruction of the bourgeoisie through an evolution out of capitalism, they actively sought a violent revolution, and there can be little doubt that they impatiently expected to emerge as the leaders of the new order. They despised other socialists, who were seen as rivals. Far more famous in Marx’s time was Ferdinand Lassalle (1824-64), who shared the basic Hegelian philosophy, but helped Bismarck defeat the liberals in Prussia. To Marx, this cooperation with a government was anathema, just as national socialism was to Marxists in the next century.

    To Marx, world communism could only have one leader and other socialists must be denounced. As von Mises wryly put it, the worst thing for a socialist is to be ruled by a socialist who is not your friend.

    Marx and Engels despised both nationalism and national socialism, because they sought a global revolution so there was no place for national characteristics or cooperation with governments. It was, in effect, their bid for world domination, cooked up in the reading room of the British Library. A decade after the Communist manifesto was published, Marx stopped advocating peaceful revolution, in favour of civil war in all countries to destroy the bourgeoise class. Marx and Engels sought to provoke and benefit from it. The plotting with Engels increasingly took that direction and Engels studied military science in preparation for his role as commander-in-chief.

    Despite Marx’s theories and subsequent plotting with Engels, Marxism was exposed by events, even from the outset, as a failure. In the years following the publication of the Communist Manifesto until his death in 1883, despite the boom and bust cycles following the middle of that century, the lot of the proletariat improved immeasurably. Something was going horribly wrong with Marxist predictions, and the chief architect had passed away into obscurity. He had, however, set the template for Lenin, who took up the Marxist banner with the Russian revolution thirty-four years later.

    We now know what happened, though much of it was kept from us until the Berlin Wall was dismantled. Just as Marx strove for a global communist revolution, destroying nation states as well as the bourgeoisie, Lenin had the same Marxian objective. It persisted into the post-war era, with the annexation of Eastern Europe, and persistent attempts to undermine Western Europe. Soviet spies were everywhere. Not only did we have the Cambridge five, and left-wing economics professors promoting socialism in the top universities, but even Harry Dexter-White, a very senior US Treasury official who founded the IMF and the World Bank, was a Soviet spy.

    Marx was a dead-beat plotter, who should have simply sunk into obscurity. But like Keynes in the following century, he made his half-truths sound eminently plausible. His training as a philosopher imparted a respectability to his theories. Even at his graveside, Engels eulogised him thus:

    “Just as Darwin discovered the law of development or organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc….”

    How can you not respect, even adulate a man expressed in these terms? You cannot say that a philosopher, who discovered the law of development of human history, who recognised that man needs food, water, shelter and clothing is wrong, or bad. This is in strict contrast with the title of this short essay, that Marx was the worst man in modern history. If it hadn’t been for developments long after his death, this epitaph would not be worth challenging. There have been far worse perpetrators of human misery in their lifetimes, with a roll call that goes back to the beginning of recorded history.

    No, the reason Marx was a thoroughly bad man, even evil, was he plotted not just the domination of one country, but the whole world by advocating the destructive forces of civil violence. He was a poor parody of a Bond villain. And as is the case with all socialists, he wanted total domination. You could take the view that he was a latter-day Don Quixote, delusional and mad, and that Engels was a sort of financial Sancho Panza without the wit. This would be incorrect. Marx was a failure as a philosopher, and instead of rethinking and recanting, he moved from a position of preparing himself for a leading role in what he saw as inevitable, to advocating violent social destruction.

    It was Marx’s wrong-headed philosophy that led to the deaths of a hundred million souls, perpetrated by those he inspired, as well as the enslavement of most of the population of the Eurasian land-mass. And if we are to identify his catastrophic error in the simplest terms, it was the brief sentence in the preface to his A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, referred to above. If instead he had correctly concluded that,

    “It is the consciousness of men that determines their existence, and not their social existence”

    the world would be a far better place today, with ordinary people free to have delivered economic progress to their fellow men and women without bearing the burden of Marx’s failed philosophies.

    He is my nomination for the worst man in the modern history of humanity, and we should remember this and only this on the bicentenary of his birth.
     

  • US Public Support For Iran Deal Reaches All-Time High

    Since the implementation of the Iran Deal, especially Conservative Americans have been in strong opposition to the lifting of sanctions against the Middle Eastern state.

    It had been one of Trump’s electoral pledges to either renegotiate or abandon the heavily criticized agreement between Iran, the members of the UN Security Council and Germany.

    As Iran rejected any renegotiations, the president soon favored to nix the agreement and reimpose sanctions, and this week President Trump officially withdrew from the Iran agreement. As Statista’s Patrick Wagner notes, through the so-called snapback mechanism, a whole battery of sanctions will immediately come into effect again.

    However, as this graphic shows, President Trump does not have a lot of public support for his decision…

    Infographic: U.S. Public Support for Iran Deal at All-Time High | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    Since its implementation, citizens increasingly favored the agreement, reaching an all-time high before Donald Trump abandoned it.

    Is this just more #RESISTance? We wonder just how many of those survey respondents know anything about the actual deal? And what suddenly accounts for the surge in support in the last few weeks?

  • Army Major Warns Don't Poke The Dragon, War With China Would Be An Unnecessary Disaster

    Authored by Major Danny Sjursen via AntiWar.com,

    The Non-Options: 4 Wars the Military Prepares for But Shouldn’t Fight: Volume II

    There’s nothing military men like more than obsessively training for wars they will never have to fight. The trick is not to stumble into a conflict that no one will win.

    Let’s everyone take a breath. Yes, China presents a potential threat to American interests in the economic, cyber, and naval realms. The U.S. must maintain a credible defensive and expeditionary posture and be prepared for a worst case scenario. What we don’t need is to blunder into a regional, or, worse still, all-out war with the Chinese dragon. Not now, probably not ever.

    And yet, in Washington today, and within the Trump administration in particular, alarmism seems the name of the game. This is risky, and, ultimately, dangerous. In his 2018 National Defense Strategy, Secretary of Defense Mattis, a known hawk, refers to Russia and China as “revisionist powers,” and announces that the US military must now pivot to “great power” competition. Look, I’m all for extricating our overstretched armed forces from the Middle East and de-escalating the never-ending, counterproductive “war on terror.” What doesn’t make sense, is the reflexive assumption that (maybe) dialing down one war, must translate into ramping up for other, more perilous, wars with nuclear-armed powerhouses like Russia or China.

    The usual laundry list of Chinese threats is well-known: China is (how dare they!) building a sizable blue-water navy and (gasp!) patrolling around sandy islands in the South China Sea. They conduct cyber-attacks (so do we) and steal intellectual property. They are planning a new “Silk Road” to integrate much of Eurasia into a China-centric trade and transportation system. No doubt, some of those items may be cause for measured concern, but none of the listed “infractions” warrants war!

    Bottom line: China, like Russia, possesses neither the capacity nor intent for global domination or the subjugation of the United States. Period.

    Let’s start with the capacity problem. China has a growing military. That is to be expected of one of the world’s top-two economies and a nation with more than 1 billion people. Don’t act so surprised. Still, China spends only one thirdas much as the US on defense. It has one leaky, outdated former Russian aircraft carrier and is building a few more. The US has about a dozen and our local Asian partners (India, Japan, Australia, and South Korea) – count another nine between them.

    China has 14 foreign powers – some hostile – on its land borders. One of those is Russia, with whom the Chinese have a long history of border disputes. The last thing the US should want to do is drive those two unnatural allies into each other’s arms with overly bellicose rhetoric and military posturing. Another Chinese neighbor is India, which is strengthening its own military and also has 1+ billion citizens (and a much higher birthrate than China).

    Then there’s the intent issue. China is not after global domination and no longer possesses a true internationalist communist ideology. It wants regionalsuperiority and a measure of global respect to make up for its perceived (and actual) embarrassment by European and American imperialists in the 19th and early 20th centuries. It wants a powerful trade block across Eurasia and a measure of control of its own “lake” – the South China Sea. Is that so unreasonable? The US has outright supremacy in its bordering seas, such as the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico and Eastern Pacific. The US military has even sponsored coups and conducted outright invasions of nearby islands that didn’t sufficiently march to Washington’s tune.

    Switch places with Chinese leader Xi Jinping for a moment. How would Trump(or Obama) respond, if the Chinese insisted they had a right to supremacy in the Caribbean? My guess: outright war.

    Finally, there are the reasons not to fight, the reasons why a war would be catastrophic for both sides. China is huge, both in landmass and population(of 1.3 billion!). We’ve all heard the (accurate) trope warning against starting a land war in Asia. There’s good reason for that. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is huge and is capable of bogging the relatively small, all-volunteer US military in a nightmarish quagmire.

    Nor could the US count on an easy projection of its naval and airpower into, say, the Taiwan Strait. China (and other competitors) have invested heavily in A2AD (Anti-Access, Area-Denial) systems that could thwart such attempts, inflict heavy casualties, or, at the least, maintain standoff. This would force the US military to preemptively escalate with attacks on Chinese homeland defenses. There is very little opportunity, therefore, to wage a limited war. Any fight with China will force the US”all-in” as a matter of course.

    Furthermore, China’s booming and growing economy is both its strength and a sort of financial doomsday device. The US, European, and Chinese economies are by now inextricably linked. Hot war means trade war; and that would likely result in a cataclysmic global financial collapse. The US military is the most well-funded and equipped force on earth. Still, the backbone and foundation of that military rests with the power of the US economy. A new crash and potential depression would permanently damage our economy (along with China’s, no doubt).

    Most importantly, China maintains an arsenal of at least 250 nuclear warheads. That’s a drop in the bucket compared to America’s 6000+ weapons, but more than enough to deter any serious invasion. Here’s the trick: never to fight a nuclear power, so long as it can be avoided. Anything else is insanity – ever heard of Nuclear Winter? Yea, it’s a real thing! The lesson: tread lightly, be cautious, and avoid unnecessary brinksmanship. That’s called statesmanship, something the US seems to have forgotten about these last 17 years.

    Truth is, most of this threat inflation is really about cooking the books to justify gross overspending and a profits bonanza for the military-industrial complex. That’s a concern in itself, because a $700+ billion military budget is unsustainable, requiring either tough cuts to domestic programs, increased taxes, a ballooning national debt – or all of the above.

    The real danger, though, is military brinksmanship. And the inescapable fog of war. It’s not impossible to imagine a dispute in the distant South China Sea (7000 miles from California) resulting in combat and casualties between the US and China. This could quickly escalate out of control. And remember, we both have loads of nuclear weapons!

    It’s time to realistically weigh US interests, display some humility and craft a sober strategy for the Pacific. The sea coast of China cannot forever remain an “American lake.” We would never accept a foreign power in the Caribbean and can’t expect China – with over a billion citizens and a growing economy – to cede their local waters to a distant American Navy in perpetuity.

    The US must appeal to local Asian partners based on our (ostensible) shared values of open trade and open society – a challenge to the more authoritarian Chinese value system. After all, soft power goes a long way, especially when all-out war is a non-option! That, of course, will require more consistency from the US We’ll have to walk the walk on our values and quit backing our “partners’” military campaigns – Saudis in Yemen, Israel in Gaza, etc. – when they often add up to veritable war crimes.

    Remember, we owe the Chinese a lot of money. That gives them leverage, but it also gives us leverage. They want to be paid back and Beijing knows it needs the American market for its goods. Besides, our economies are actually highly intertwined. XI doesn’t want a major war with the US He is playing the long game, a chess match as compared to our bumbling checkers!

    If there is a war in the Pacific with nuclear-armed China it will most likely not be of XI’s doing. Only American hubris can lead to what would inevitably be a disastrous war.

    Given our recent track record – an Icarus-syndrome par excellence – that seems frighteningly likely.

    *  *  *

    Read The Non-Options: 4 Wars the Military Prepares for But Shouldn’t Fight, Volume I

    Danny Sjursen is a US Army officer and regular contributor to Antiwar.com. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge. Follow him on Twitter at @SkepticalVet.

  • China Builds Warning System To Detect Earthquakes 3 Weeks In Advance

    China is building a monitoring system that will help it predict earthquakes up to three weeks in advance, according to a story in the Global Times, a mouthpiece for China’s Communist Party. The machinery will monitor for upcoming quakes by measuring “X-ray” or “CT scanners” which create an image of seismic activity.

    “The real-time image generated from sensors will help the public forecast earthquake of magnitude above 5.0 as easily as reading a meteorological cloud image,” the Global Times said.

    The technology will first be implemented in China’s Sichuan and Yunnan provinces in the country’s southwest, where some of China’s most devastating earthquakes have taken place. After that, it will then be rolled out across the country. Eventually, the sensors will be placed at 2,000 monitoring stations across the earthquake-prone region.

    China

    The equipment will monitor for “stress and energy dynamics” between eight and 20 kilometers underground, according to Dr Wang Tun. Typically, the most destructive quakes originate more than 8 kilometers below the earth’s surface. While China already has an early earthquake warning system, it only covers 650 million people – about half the country’s population – and can only detect quakes seconds before they occur by measuring so-called “P-waves”. During one recent quake in Chengdu, the capitol of Sichuan province, citizens received messages on their mobile phones some 71 seconds beforehand.

    Schools received the warnings some five to 38 seconds before the quake struck.

    Eventually, the current EEW system and the new more advanced system will work in tandem, because the new monitoring system can’t predict the exact timing of a quake, according to Wang.

    “And it only can tell a rough location instead of an exact site where the earthquake will occur.”

    The first station for the new system was unveiled in Wenchuan, Sichuan this past week. The town was the epicenter of a 7.9 magnitude quake that killed 80,000 people back in 2008.

  • Mapping Erik Prince's Private Mercenary Empire

    Authored by Ty Joplin via Albawaba.com,

    • Erik Prince is the modern architect of private military firms

    • His latest venture is in training security personnel in China

    • But he’s been all over the world, outsourcing militaries to cheap labor markets

    • Al Bawaba has provided a partial map to track Erik Prince’s activities over the years

    Erik Prince, the brain behind the infamous private military firm Blackwater, is now in China training security forces.

    Prince is partially responsible for modernizing the private army for the post 9/11 world, outsourcing militaries to cheap, specialized labor pools and skirting traditional regulations meant to ensure accountability for armed forces.

    His journey from hiring mercenaries to help bolster the U.S. occupation in Iraq to China is long, dizzying and includes stops around the world to train Colombian mercenaries to help make a private army for the U.A.E. and outfitting crop duster planes with missiles to be fired at Armenians.

    He has become a global figure, roaming between conflicts zones to sell various governments his expertise on private armies.

    To document his journey thus far, Al Bawaba has compiled a partial list of countries/regions in or for which he has done business.

     

    United States

    Prince’s trip around the world starts in the United States.

    Born in an affluent Michigan family, his family maintained deep ties to the Republican establishment and several conservative, religious organizations like American Values. His sister, Betsy DeVos, married into one of the most influence political families in the Midwest, the DeVos’s, and began helping to run the Republican party machine in Michigan.

    That marriage, which tied the Prince and DeVos family together, has given Erik unprecedented political access into the federal government. His list of close allies including Steve Bannon, U.S. President Donald Trump’s former chief strategist. His sister gives him a direct line of access to Trump himself.

    Erik became a Navy SEAL and then established his own private military firm in 1997, Blackwater.

    Once the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, Blackwater received billions in contracts from the U.S. government to help supplement the official mission with private boots on the ground, relatively free from accountability or laws from any particular government.

    Iraq

    Damaged and bloodied car in Nissour Square, Iraq, 2007 after the Blackwater massacre (AFP/FILE)

    Blackwater’s activities in Iraq are infamous and account for Prince’s self-imposed exile from the United States.

    Apart from harassing Iraqi civilians and running them off of roads with their armored personnel carriers, they also indiscriminately gunned down 14 innocent people in Baghdad in 2007, drawing an investigation and heavy criticism from media outlets around the world.

    The incident stands as a cautionary tale for when mercenary groups such as Blackwater are able to operate without sufficient legal or logistical oversight. Facing a wave of scrutiny, Prince left Blackwater and the firm changed its name twice (to Xe and then Academi) to escape the heat.

    Many thought they had seen the end of Erik Prince, but he resurfaced later at the helm of a different private military company.

    U.A.E.

    A satellite image of the camp in the U.A.E.  built to train Prince’s 800-member mercenary battalion (Google Earth/New York Times)

    In 2011, Erik Prince was appointed by the crown prince of Abu Dhabi to make a secret, private army. For this, he was paid $529 million.

    In documents obtained by the New York Times, the mission of this privately commissioned battalion included “intelligence gathering, urban combat, the securing of nuclear and radioactive materials, humanitarian missions and special operations ‘to destroy enemy personnel and equipment,’ and crown-control.

    Prince hired Colombians and nationals of other countries thousands of miles away to fill his ranks from two reasons. First, Prince was looking to pay them as little as possible. Second, they weren’t Muslims. Prince surmised that Muslims could not be trusted to kill other Muslims.

    A few years later in 2015, Saudi Arabia began its military intervention in Yemen and recruited a host of other Arab nations to join its coalition. Abu Dhabi’s crown prince, business partner to Erik Prince, Sheik Mohamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, signed up for the cause in order to destroy any creeping Iranian influence in the war-torn nation.

    Yemen

    Erik Prince and his U.A.E. private military firm helped recruit and train over 1,000 soldiers from Latin American countries. Then, their bodies started appearing on battlefields in Yemen.

    A single missile reportedly killed 45 mercenaries from the U.A.E.

    Prince’s initial battalion of 800 soldiers had blossomed into almost 2,000 specialized troops hired mostly from Latin America to do the U.A.E.’s business.

    Although officials say Erik Prince’s formal business role with the U.A.E. had ended several years before the intervention into Yemen, his corporate blueprint to partially outsource the U.A.E.’s military is doubtlessly still in use.

    The U.A.E. keeping and even expanding Prince’s blueprint for a private, outsourced army demonstrates just how influencial he and his mercenary business model has become.

    Azerbaijan

    A militarily-modified crop duster, called the T-Bird (LASA Engineering)

    After his stint in the U.A.E., Prince began doing more business with Chinese executives at the Frontier Services Group (FSG), which he heads.

    On this new enterprise, Prince said it “is not a patriotic endeavor,” rather, it is intended “to build a great business and make some money doing it.”

    Interestingly enough, Prince’s business with FSG took him to Azerbaijan, where he was paid by the government to help it deal with its Armenian problem. Armenians are concentrated into Azerbaijan’s Nagorno-Karabakh region, which seceded from Azerbaijan and formed a semi-recognized, de facto state.

    Azerbaijan called on Erik Prince and FSG to help it keep watch on the Nagorno-Karabakh region, also called the Republic of Artsakh. In response. Prince wanted to show the government two crop duster planes meant for agricultural use but refitted for military purposes. The planes were meant to be outfitted with state-of-the-art surveillance technology and were supposedly able to fire missiles.

    They never made it to Azerbaijan after an investigation shut the sale down.

    This is because the deal may have broken several laws. The Washington Post found that “executives were concerned that the company might be skirting U.S. law — known as International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) — requiring Americans to obtain special permits before defense-related technology can be transferred to foreign countries.”

    In response to this controversial arms trade, all but two Americans on the FSG executive board quit due to concerns that he was not serving U.S. interests. This has freed Prince to deal more closely with the Chinese.

    Eastern Africa

    FSG’s ‘focus region’ (Frontier Services Group)

    FSG’s public focus is on providing security and logistical help to eastern African countries such as South Sudan, Kenya, Somalia and the DRC.

    “When you want logistics done in Africa, you call DHL,” said Sean McFate, a former military contractor in Africa and current expert on mercenaries at the Atlantic Council. “When you want muscle, you call Erik Prince.”

    One of FSG’s ventures appears to help oust the extremist militant group, Al Shabaab, from southwest Somalia—an area it has largely controlled for years. “We have brought together strong international business leaders to team-up with talented Somali entrepreneurs to make development in South West Somalia a reality,” an FSG statement reads.

    “The project will include an integrated solution of air-land-sea logistics capabilities and advanced security management.”

    China

    FSG’s headquarters is in Hong Kong, and though it publicly states that its focus is on eastern Africa, FSG is now reported to be doing domestic work on behalf of the Chinese government.

    FSG is partially owned by CITIC, a Chinese-government own investment firm. CITIC is slowly taking more and more control of FSG and is reportedly already the dominant shareholder, meaning it has greater power than Prince to determine the company’s vision and business deals.

    “The Chinese are gradually taking more control” of the company. CITIC is now playing a larger role as Frontier’s dominant shareholder, said Xin who heads the International Security Defense College that trains security personnel and is overseen by FSG.

    “Prince’s share is decreasing. The Chinese are in charge, so it won’t matter.”

    One of FSG’s most recent missions has been to train thousands of security personnel in China’s northwest Xinjiang province, where millions of ethnically Turkic Muslims called Uyghurs live.

    Uyghurs are routinely targeted by the state due to continuous attempts by some to break away from China and form an independent state.

    Thousands of Uyghurs are part of an extremist group called the Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP), whose leaders are hiding in Pakistan and whose members have a heavy presence in Syria fighting against the Syrian regime.

    Human Rights Watch accused the Chinese government of “deploying a predictive policing program,” using massive surveillance technology and a web of high-tech surveillance cameras and compulsory data collection.

    They’ve also reportedly sent thousands of Uyghurs to Chinese ‘re-education’ camps.

    The Mercenary Prince

    Erik Prince (AFP/FILE)

    This list only details a few of Erik Prince’s ventures, and does not include an attempt by Prince to send thousands of mercenaries into Afghanistan and reform the political structure of the entire country to essentially be a colony for the United States.

    However, Prince has transformed battlefields everywhere and fundamentally altered the way governments construct security apparatuses.

    Iran is heavily reliant on outsourced Afghani mercenaries to be cannon fodder in the war in Syria. Russia is supplementing its own intervention into Syria with mercenaries hired by the state-backed Wagner Group who also sends troops to Ukraine. To beat back the nascent extremist group Boko Haram, Nigeria hired private, Apartheid-era security forces from South Africa to do the job.

    Thanks to Erik Prince, outsourcing military and intelligence labor is now the norm. 

    Currently Prince appears to be under investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, thanks to meetings he had arranged with a close aide to Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, Kirill Dmitriev in the Seychelles Islands, a place its own government explains is “the kind of place where you can have a good time away from the media.” The meeting was allegedley to set up a backchannel between Trump and Russia in order to facilitate clandestine communications.

    McFate told Al Bawaba that Prince’s use of mercenaries allows countries to enter into and escalate conflicts without having to report it to their citizens; his tactic gives governments “plausible deniability” to anything that the mercenaries do.

    According to Dr. P.J. Brendese, a professor at Johns Hopkins University and expert on democratic accountability, private military firms “have greater independence to exercise their own prerogatives and ‘we the people’ don’t get a say. That’s the most dangerous thing, because they’re profiting–their motivation is not God and country; their motive is money.”

  • Boston Dynamics Unveils "Terrifying" Robot That Can Run, Jump And Climb

    The robot uprising is right on schedule as evidenced by Boston Dynamics’ latest “nightmare inducing” videos of their autonomous creations. In one, their humanoid robot Atlas can be seen running through a field as if in hot pursuit of John Connor, while another video shows “spot mini” prancing around – going up and down stairs, ominously. 

    “During the autonomous run, SpotMini uses data from the cameras to localize itself in the map and to detect and avoid obstacles,” reads the video description.

    Once the operator presses ‘GO’ at the beginning of the video, the robot is on its own.”

    This can’t be good…

    And after suffering years of abuse at the hands of Boston Dynamics engineers, one wonders exactly what sentient future robots will think when they see this: 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Even Boston Dynamics founder, Marc Raibert, admitted that the robots are creepy in a February 2017 demonstration of a wheeled robot, saying “This is the debut presentation of what I think will be a nightmare-inducing robot if you’re anything like me.

    The company was sold by Google to Japanese tech conglomerate SoftBank for an undisclosed sum last year, and has not revealed its plans. Needless to say, Japan is now making robots that may or may not be able to be equipped with shoulder-mounted lasers and miniguns, and are most definitely kamikaze.

    Dear Boston Dynamics – do you want the Matrix? Because this is how you get the Matrix. 

  • We're All Trespassers Now In The Face Of The Government's Land Grabs

    Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

    We have no real property rights.

    Think about it. 

    That house you live in, the car you drive, the small (or not so small) acreage of land that has been passed down through your family or that you scrimped and saved to acquire, whatever money you manage to keep in your bank account after the government and its cronies have taken their first and second and third cut…none of it is safe from the government’s greedy grasp.

    At no point do you ever have any real ownership in anything other than the clothes on your back.

    Everything else can be seized by the government under one pretext or another (civil asset forfeiture, unpaid taxes, eminent domain, public interest, etc.).

    The American Dream has been reduced to a lease arrangement in which we are granted the privilege of endlessly paying out the nose for assets that are only ours so long as it suits the government’s purposes.

    And when it doesn’t suit the government’s purposes? Watch out.

    This is not a government that respects the rights of its citizenry or the law. Rather, this is a government that sells its citizens to the highest bidder and speaks to them in a language of force.

    Under such a fascist regime, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which declares that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation,” has become yet another broken shield, incapable of rendering any protection against corporate greed while allowing the government to justify all manner of “takings” in the name of the public good.

    Practically anything goes now.

    Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2005 ruling in Kelo v. City of New Londonentire neighborhoods have been seized and bulldozed to make way for shopping malls, sports complexes and corporate offices.

    Indeed, little has prevented the government from bulldozing its way through the Fifth Amendment in an effort to take from the middle and lower classes and fatten the coffers of the corporate elite.

    For instance, consider the government’s pipeline projects.

    All across the country, power companies have been given the green light to build massive gas and oil pipelines that crisscross the country, cutting through private and public lands, as well as unspoiled wilderness.

    “Yet despite oft-repeated claims by politicians and oil executives about the danger of relying on foreign oil, this U.S. petroleum renaissance never was designed to make America energy self-sufficient,” points out journalist Sandy Tolan. “A growing amount of that oil will end up in China, Japan, the Netherlands, even Venezuela.”

    So much for the public use, huh?

    These pipeline projects which are getting underway in a dozen states have stirred up a hornet’s nest of protests. Not all of the protests that have arisen in response to these pipeline projects hinge on environmental concerns. 

    Some of the protesters are landowners, simple farmers and homeowners who merely want the government and its corporate partners-in-crime to keep their grubby paws off their personal property.

    In Virginia, for instance, activists have taken to tree sitting—living for weeks on end in platforms suspended above the ground in trees—as a form of protest over the devastation that is being wrought by these pipelines.

    These acts of civil disobedience come at a costly price.

    Pipeline and forestry officials have been working hard to make life as difficult as possible for the protesters, allegedly blocking their access to food and water and medical supplies, shining floodlights into the trees at all hours of the night, creating ground disturbances to dislodge their nests, and urging the courts to levy heavy fines for each day that the work to clear the forests for the pipeline is delayed.

    Here’s what one resident of Roanoke, Va., wrote to me about the manner in which the Mountain Valley Pipeline is being inflicted on his community:

    Our small community has been invaded by private security and a fully militarized local police department. Mountain Valley Pipeline has begun cutting trees and has brought in private military contractors similar to what was used in North Dakota. They are basically using the power of government to steal this land for private profit. The residents and land owners of Bent Mountain now find themselves subject to arrest for walking in their own driveway, taking pictures of the pipeline companies ever-changing survey lines and path of destruction, or in more than one case, for confronting MASKED ARMED MEN ON THEIR PROPERTY IN THE DEAD OF NIGHT. One of my neighbors was accosted on his own back porch by police for photographing the MVP surveyors continually moving the corridor of their easement. I have even had armed private security trespassing on my property miles away in neighboring Floyd County.

    It takes a lot of gall to trespass onto someone’s private property, tear up their land, cut down their trees, pollute their air and water, prevent them from moving freely on their own property, threaten them with fines and arrests for challenging the intrusion, and then force them to pay (by way of taxes) to retain ownership of the property or sell it cheaply or at a loss so it can be torn down and used for some purpose that the government deems more beneficial to its bottom line.

    That’s how little respect the government has for our rights.

    Unfortunately, American taxpayers have become trespassers on their own property thanks to the government’s ongoing land grabs and utter disregard for property rights.

    More than 200 years after early Americans went to war over their right to life, liberty and property, “we the people” have been reduced to little more than serfs in bondage, indentured servants, and sharecroppers. And the lines between private and public property have been so blurred that private property is reduced to little more than something the government can use to control, manipulate and harass you to suit its own purposes, and you the homeowner and citizen have been reduced to little more than a tenant in bondage to an inflexible landlord.

    So where does that leave us?

    As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the battle to protect our private property has become the final constitutional frontier, the last holdout against our freedoms being usurped.

    After all, the American dream is about gaining sovereignty over one’s life and property. Without this sovereignty – this unshakeable guarantee of ownership and dominion, even over one’s own life – there can be no true liberty or freedom. 

  • Meanwhile, At A Bar In Tehran…

    Another (legacy deal) bites the dust…

     

    Source: MichealPRamirez.com

  • The 2017 Statistics Just Came Out… And The "War On Cops" Is Officially A Myth

    Authored Carey Wedler via TheAntiMedia.com,

    Though right-wing commentators continue to decry the ‘war on cops,’ the latest data released by the country’s top law enforcement undermines that alarmist narrative.

    According to the FBI’s annual Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted report, released this week, there were fewer police deaths in 2017 than in 2016. In 2016, 118 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty while in 2017, that number was 93.

    More telling is the type of death the officers suffered. Last year, 46 officers were killed “feloniously” on the job while 47 died in accidents. As the FBI’s press release noted, “Both numbers have decreased from 2016, during which 66 officers were feloniously killed and 52 were accidentally killed, for a total of 118 line-of-duty deaths.”

    The data is collected from “local, state, tribal, campus, and federal law enforcement agencies from around the country, as well as organizations that track officer deaths.”

    A closer look at the statistics reveals further just how nonexistent the war on cops actually is. Of the 46 officers feloniously killed on the job, five were ambushed (defined as “entrapment/premeditation” by the FBI) and 3 were victims of unprovoked attacks. Twenty-one died during “investigative or enforcement activities,” which include traffic stops, investigating suspicious persons, or tactical situations.

    In other words, they were killed doing the jobs they signed up to do (consider the popular refrain that ‘cops risk their lives’ — that’s part of the job description), though police officer does not even crack the top ten most dangerous jobs in the United States.

    The takeaway here is that while some officers die on the job – and that is unfortunate – the deliberate sentiment to kill officers simply because they are police officers is not on the rise.

    Thirty-five officers died in car accidents — more than four times the number killed by ambushes and unprovoked attacks (eight) — and according to the FBI, “of the 29 officers killed in automobile accidents, 12 were wearing seatbelts, and 15 were not,” though two of the officers not wearing seatbelts were sitting in parked cars.  Regardless, more officers died in car accidents while not wearing seatbelts (a violation of the laws they enforce, as it happens) than died as a result of flagrant attacks on their lives isolated from situational circumstances.

    Further, the total number of officers killed by accident far dwarfs the number killed in ambushes or unprovoked attacks, and the total is still greater than all law enforcement deaths recorded in the annual report.

    Further still, the number of cops killed feloniously was higher in 2016, 2014, 2012, 2011, 2010, and 2009 than it was last year, suggesting the rate of cop murders is subject to fluctuation and not consistently on the rise.

    In another relevant detail, zero federal law enforcement agents were killed in 2017. In 2016, one was killed.

    Despite the ongoing claims that police are under assault (as they continue to assault the public) — and despite congressional action to designate killing police officers a hate crime — for yet another year, this war on cops notion is proving to be nothing more than a myth.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 11th May 2018

  • Rome Has A Big Problem With Burning Buses

    Yesterday, a public bus caught fire on Rome’s Via del Tritone.

    The number 63 bus quickly become engulfed in flames but thankfully, the driver and passengers escaped unhurt. Interestingly, as Statista’s Martin Armstrong notes, the sight of a burning bus in central Rome is nothing new with people blaming Atac, the capital’s transport authority, for the unusual phenomenon.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    So far this year, nine buses have caught fire in the city while there were 22 incidents last year. In 2016, there were 14 in total.

    Infographic: Rome Has A Big Problem With Burning Buses  | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    The blazes have become so common that they even have their own social media hashtag – #flambus, which rhymes with Trambus, Atac’s previous name.

    Unions have said the buses suffer from a lack of maintenance and internal investigations have failed to stop the fires. Officials have also warned that Atac services are unsafe and there is a growing risk to travellers.

    La Repubblica has reported that preliminary investigations say the Mercedes Citaro bus suffered a short circuit before it became engulfed in flames.

  • When Washington Think Tanks Call For "Action" In The Balkans, Expect Trouble

    Authored by James George Jatras via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    Any time two prestige think tanks in Washington issue a report calling for US “action” in any region of the world, hold onto your hat – you can be sure that trouble is a-brewing. That’s doubly true if the call relates to the Balkans, the place where in the 1990s the post-Cold War pattern was set for American wars of choice and then taken on the road to Iraq, Libya, and Syria.

    On May 1, the über-establishment National Committee on American Foreign Policy and the East-West Institute jointly issued a report, “Time for Action in the Western Balkans.” As stated in the summary:

    ‘Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has been engaged in the Western Balkans to ensure a Europe that is “whole, free and at peace” and a reliable partner for dealing with global challenges. Our goal has been to stabilize the Balkans, and to enhance security throughout Europe, through the integration of the Western Balkans into trans-Atlantic structures. We have succeeded only in part.  Although the Western Balkans are better off now than they were in the 1990s, they are stagnating and risk instability as a result of three factors: deficient internal governance and weak economies, continuing tense relations between ethnic groups and neighboring states, and the malign influence of outside forces.’

    One is reminded of the famous quip by Mary McCarthy about Lillian Hellman: “every word she writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the.’  

    Perhaps that’s too harsh. Not every word in the summary paragraph is false. There is indeed a region in Europe known as the Balkans, and as the report notes, some countries lie in the western part of it: “Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia.” (Wait, there’s some fibbing here too. Kosovo is not a country, it’s an occupied province of Serbia. Nobody is quite sure what exactly Bosnia-Herzegovina is supposed to be. Why no Croatia, is it located in another part of Europe now?)

    Each sentence in the summary encapsulates a deception further elaborated in the main report. The following is a handy sentence-by-sentence explanation in normal, straightforward English:

    ‘Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has been engaged in the Western Balkans to ensure a Europe that is “whole, free and at peace” and a reliable partner for dealing with global challenges.’

    The phrase “whole, free and at peace” is ideological claptrap. It is reminiscent of the Soviet Union’s claims of advancing “peace, progress, and socialism.” No one can say precisely what the words really mean but they’re meant to evoke a favorable psychological and emotional response, especially – and ironically – the “peace” reference common to both formulations.

    The current phrase seemingly originated in 1989, even before the reunification of Germany or the breakups of Yugoslavia and the USSR, in remarks by George Bush the Elder, but only as “Europe whole and free.” The Orwellian addition of the words “and at peace” evidently occurred in 2001 under the peace-loving, NATO-expanding, and Iraq-invading Bush the Younger.

    Still, how does the expression relate to the United States’ being a “reliable partner for dealing with global challenges”? As summarized in 2014 by the Atlantic Council, another top-flight Washington think tank:

    ‘In 1989, with Central and Eastern Europe still dominated by the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact alliance, President George H. W. Bush, addressed the citizens of then-divided Germany with his vision for Europe’s future. He foresaw a united continent, built on a foundation of lasting security and shared values of democracy, freedom, and prosperity. That vision of a “Europe Whole and Free” became a cornerstone of President Bill Clinton’s foreign policy and of NATO’s “open door” policy for membership. At its 1999 Washington summit, NATO swept aside much of Europe’s Cold War division by welcoming three former foes – Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary – to the Alliance. Five years later [under George H.W. Bush], Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia joined NATO in the broadest enlargement of its history. In 2009 [under Barack Obama], the Alliance welcomed Albania and Croatia as members. [JGJ: Now, under Donald Trump add Montenegro in 2017.]

    ‘In 1993, the European Union established its “Copenhagen criteria,” the principles under which it would welcome new members, unifying most of the continent. This paved the way for the transformation of Central and Eastern Europe toward democracy, the rule of law, respect for fundamental human rights, and market economies. Austria, Finland, and Sweden joined the EU in 1995, followed on May 1, 2004 by eight Central and Eastern European countries (the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia), and two Mediterranean countries (Malta and Cyprus). Bulgaria and Romania became EU member states in 2007, and Croatia in 2013.’

    In other words, the phrase that never leaves the lips of establishment figures of both parties, from Bush 41 down to the present day, almost exclusively means one thing: expansion of NATO and the European Union. The corollary is isolation, exclusion, vilification, and encirclement of Russia.

    ‘Our goal has been to stabilize the Balkans, and to enhance security throughout Europe, through the integration of the Western Balkans into trans-Atlantic structures.’

    If tearing apart Yugoslavia by unilateral recognitions (Slovenia and Croatia, 1991; Bosnia-Herzegovina, 1992) and illegally bombing Serbia (1999) are examples of efforts to “stabilize” the Balkans, one shudders to think what a goal to destabilize would look like.

    The report also warns that “Kosovo and Bosnia have been recruiting grounds for radical groups in Syria and Iraq, and a potential staging area for radical incursions in Western Europe.” There’s no hint that the presence of these “radical groups” (What kind? Buddhist? Rastafarian?) has anything to do with earlier US/NATO/EU efforts to “stabilize” the areas in question by arming and funding jihadist fighters, including those affiliated with al-Qaeda.

    As for “trans-Atlantic structures” (a rough equivalent of another ideological buzzword, “Euro-Atlantic integration”), we’re back again to the inexorable expansion of NATO and the EU. It seems the goal of stabilization boils down to little more than making sure every country in the region eventually is under secure lock and key as a member of at least one and preferably both of the Brussels-based bureaucracies.

    Throughout the report, puzzlingly little attention is given to another certified Goodthink word, democracy Perhaps that’s because no regard is given to what people in the region really think or whether or not they want to join NATO or the EU under the conditions demanded. For example, despite polls showing pro-NATO sentiment in Montenegro was at best a bare majority, and more probably the minority position, the corrupt administration of Milo Đukanović in Podgorica and the NATO countries insisted on ramming membership through without risking a popular referendum. The same contempt for democracy is shown in the report’s recommendation that the unelected so-called “High Representative” of Somebody or Other should autocratically “use his powers to intervene, to include drafting and promulgating” a new election law for Bosnia-Herzegovina whether the benighted locals like it or not.

    Regarding Serbia, the report states: “NATO membership should remain an option for Serbia, but any U.S. expectations must be tempered by the historical legacy of NATO’s military operations in the region, as well as the likelihood of vociferous Russian opposition.” As euphemisms go, “the historical legacy of NATO’s military operations in the region” as a stand-in for “people resenting the aggressive alliance that bombed them” is hard to beat. Still, Serbs no doubt would be banging on NATO’s door if not for the machinations of those nasty Russians.

    As for the EU, the report urges the US to support Belgrade’s accession “while supporting the E.U.’s position that new members comply with its Russia policy and that Serbia will not join unless it recognizes Kosovo.”  Translation: Just roll over and die, and you’re in… maybe.

    ‘We have succeeded only in part. [JGJ: Such humility!] Although the Western Balkans are better off now than they were in the 1990s, they are stagnating and risk instability as a result of three factors: deficient internal governance and weak economies, continuing tense relations between ethnic groups and neighboring states, and the malign influence of outside forces.’

    Here it’s time to cut to the chase: “malign influence of outside forces” means Russia, Russia, Russia. The entire region, Serbia included, would long since have happily been absorbed by the NATO-EU Borg if not for Moscow’s malign meddling:

    ‘The U.S. and the E.U. should counter Russian interference by (i) re-affirming the continued opportunity for Western Balkan countries to join the E.U., NATO, or both, (ii) countering Russian media manipulation with objective alternative sources of information, and support for independent media [JGJ: Like those “independent” media controlled by western governments and George Soros fronts, one presumes], (iii) advancing the region’s cooperation with NATO and E.U. efforts to promote cyber-security [JGJ: You can never have too much NATO and EU!], and (iv) analyzing the extent to which other energy sources, including U.S. liquefied gas (LNG), can serve as exceptional alternatives to Russian energy [JGJ: According to the report, cheap Russian energy is a “potential threat to some countries in the region” providing “an opportunity for significant economic leverage” that could be “abused to achieve Russian geopolitical desires,” while by contrast expensive US energy is strictly nonpolitical].’

    To sum up, “action” means intensification of the same policies that not only have made a wreck of the Balkans for a quarter of a century but now have brought us a new Cold War and the renewed threat of another world war. But the only warning for American and western policy identified in the report is the “dangers of continued inaction” – we just haven’t been aggressive enough!

    Get ready for that to change.

    Alright, though – so what? This is just a report from a couple of nongovernmental, independent think tanks. Why does it matter?

    In Washington think tanks are far more dangerous than the kind of tanks that have gun turrets and caterpillar tracks. No less than the other organs of power, such as government agencies and the obedient corporate media, think tanks are an integral part of the governing establishment. Like government contractors (who provide a significant portion of think tank funding), think tanks almost exclusively represent the views of a few hundred certified “experts” sharing a remarkable uniformity of opinion regardless of party affiliation. These experts, who inhabit a closed loop of Executive Branch departments and agencies, Congress, media, contactors, think tanks, and NGOs, are responsible for the generation of policy initiatives and their implementation. It should also be noted that many of the most prominent NGOs themselves receive significant funding from government agencies and could more properly be termed “quasi-nongovernmental,” or QuaNGOs.

    The people who play key roles in the government and purportedly nongovernmental sectors like think tanks not only think alike, in many cases they are in fact the very same people who have simply switched positions within what could best be understood as a single, hybrid public-private entity that in recent years has come to be known as the Deep State. These sources of expert views also overwhelmingly dominate the content of news and information (for example, serving as media “talking heads” or publishing commentaries), ensuring that what the public sees, hears, and reads is in accord with the analytical papers issued by think tanks, Congressional reports, and official press releases. The result is a closed loop that is almost completely impervious to views regarded as “outside the mainstream” because they do not originate in or accord with the incestuous “consensus” that exists inside the loop.

    In short, think tanks like those cited above are an integral part of the ruling apparatus. Their policy recommendations in reports like “Time for Action in the Western Balkans” will be seriously heeded and put into action by the official organs of government. In fact, those recommendations very likely were solicited by the latter precisely for the purpose of providing rationales for a course of action already decided upon.

  • Second Seismologist Team Confirms North Korean Nuke Site Has Collapsed

    An international team of seismologists has now determined that North Korea’s Punggye-ri nuclear test site is essentially unusable following a catastrophic collapse in October that left more than 200 North Korean workers buried alive.

    Their findings confirm the work of a team of Chinese seismologists who published their work shortly before North Korean Leader NKim Jong Un declared that he would shutter the site as a gesture of friendship toward South Korea and the US.

    Space-based radar showed that after the initial impact of North Korea’s latest nuclear test in September last year, a much larger part of the Punggye-ri test site caved in over the following hours and days, according to a study published in Science magazine on Thursday. The study was conducted by researchers from Singapore, Germany, China and the U.S.

    “This means that a very large domain has collapsed around the test site, not merely a tunnel or two,” said Sylvain Barbot, one of the authors who is an assistant professor at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore.

    The research feeds into an international debate over the value of Mr. Kim’s commitment to close the test site in the run-up to last month’s inter-Korean summit and his meeting with President Donald Trump, expected this month or early next.

    Some US officials and experts see the closure as a significant concession while others argue that the site is unusable and its dismantling is therefore an empty gesture designed to gain leverage in negotiations with .

    Though it matters less now that Kim has honored the US’s request to release three American prisoners (and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s reportedly making headway in his quest to recover citizens who were kidnapped by the regime), the president and Japanese Prime Minister are still bracing for the talks to collapse (no pun intended).

    North

    Meanwhile, the study published Thursday echoed the findings of Chinese seismologists, who determined earlier this year that the site was basically unusable after a cavity inside the mountain where nuclear test were allegedly being carried out.

    The new study, which created three-dimensional images of the site, backs the Chinese researchers’ conclusion that a large part of the site can’t be used—while showing that the initial damage is “dwarfed” by the gradual collapse detected from space over the next few hours and days. That damage covers an area with a radius of 800 meters and a height of 400 meters, according to Mr. Barbot, who is also an adjunct professor at the University of Southern California.

    “These findings make us infer that a large part of the Punggye-ri test site is inoperable and that further test may require a substantial investment in the construction of another facility elsewhere,” he said.

    The most recent North Korean nuclear test, which was carried out in early September, caused an initial magnitude-6.3 earthquake, followed by a smaller quake roughly nine minutes later that was triggered by the collapse of damaged rock above the now-ruined cavity, the Chinese study said.

    North

    Despite the fact that Kim essentially started off negotiations with a lie by offering a false concession to the US, some officials and experts see Kim’s decision to close the site as an important concession – while others view it with suspicion – and see it as a sign that the North might be disingenuous.

    But regardless, with the date and location for the talks set (June 12 in Singapore), just like Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran deal – we won’t have a crystal clear view of what will come next.

  • Arms And Influence: How The Saudis Took Donald Trump For A Ride

    Authored by Ben Freeman and William D. Hartung via TomDispatch.com,

    It’s another Trump affair — this time without the allegations of sexual harassment (and worse), the charges and counter-charges, the lawsuits, and all the rest. So it hasn’t gotten the sort of headlines that Stormy Daniels has garnered, but when it comes to influence, American foreign policy, and issues of peace and war, it couldn’t matter more or be a bigger story (or have more money or lobbyists involved in it). Think of it as the great love affair of the age of Trump, the one between The Donald and the Saudi royals. And if there’s any place to start laying out the story, it’s naturally at a wedding, in this case in a tragic ceremony that happened to take place in Yemen, not Washington.

    On Sunday, April 22nd, planes from a Saudi Arabian-led coalition dropped two bombs on a wedding in Yemen. The groom was injured, the bride killed, along with at least 32 other civilians, many of them children.

    In response, the Saudis didn’t admit fault or express condolences to the victim’s families. Instead, they emphasized that their “coalition continues to take all the precautionary and preventative measures” to avoid civilian casualties in Yemen. This disconnect between Saudi rhetoric and the realities on the ground isn’t an anomaly — it’s been the norm. For four years, the Saudis and their allies have been conducting airstrikes with reckless abandon there, contributing to a staggering civilian death toll that now reportedly tops 10,000.

    The Saudis and their close ally, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), have repeatedly reassured American policymakers that they’re doing everything imaginable to prevent civilian casualties, only to launch yet more airstrikes against civilian targets, including schools, hospitals, funerals, and marketplaces.

    For example, last May when Donald Trump landed in Saudi Arabia on his first overseas visit as president, Saudi lobbyists distributed a “fact sheet” about the prodigious efforts of the country’s military to reduce civilian casualties in Yemen. Five days after Trump landed in Riyadh, however, an air strike killed 24 civilians at a Yemeni market. In December, such strikes killed more than 100 Yemeni civilians in 10 days. The Saudi response: condemningthe United Nations for its criticisms of such attacks and then offering yet more empty promises.

    Through all of this, President Trump has remained steadfast in his support, while the U.S. military continues to provide aerial refueling for Saudi air strikes as well as the bombs used to kill so many of those civilians. But why? In a word: Saudi Arabian and UAE money in prodigious amounts flowing into Trump’s world — to U.S. arms makers and to dozens of lobbyists, public-relations firms, and influential think tanks in Washington.

    Trump’s Love Affair with the Saudi Regime

    Saudi Arabia’s influence over Donald Trump hit an initial peak in his first presidential visit abroad, which began in Riyadh in May 2017. The Saudi royals, who had clearly grasped the nature of The Donald, offered him the one thing he seems to love most: flattery, flattery, and more flattery. The kingdom rolled out the red carpet big time. The fanfare included posting banners with photos of President Trump and Saudi King Salman along the roadside from the airport to Riyadh, projecting a five-story-high image of Trump onto the side of the hotel where he would stay, and hosting a male-invitees-only concert by country singer Toby Keith.

    According to the Washington Post, “The Saudis hosted the Trumps and the Kushners at the family’s royal palace, ferried them around in golf carts, and celebrated Trump with a multimillion-dollar gala in his honor, complete with a throne-like seat for the president.” In addition, they presented him with the Abdul-Aziz al-Saud medal, a trinket named for Saudi Arabia’s first king, considered the highest honor the kingdom can bestow on a foreign leader.

    The Saudis then gave Trump something he undoubtedly valued even more than all the fawning — a chance to pose as the world’s greatest deal maker. For the trip, Trump brought along a striking collection of CEOs from major American companies, including Marillyn Hewson of Lockheed Martin, Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, and Stephen Schwarzman of the Blackstone Group. Big numbers on the potential value of future U.S.-Saudi business deals were tossed around, including $110 billion in arms sales and hundreds of billions more in investments in energy, petrochemicals, and infrastructure, involving projects in both countries.

    The new president was anything but shy in claiming credit for such potential mega-deals. At a press conference, he crowed about “tremendous investments in the United States… and jobs, jobs, jobs.” On his return to the U.S., he promptly bragged at a cabinet meeting that his deal-making would “bring many thousands of jobs to our country… In fact, will bring millions of jobs ultimately.” Not surprisingly, no analysis was offered to back up such claims, but it’s already clear that some of these deals may never come to fruition and many of those that do are more likely to create jobs in Saudi Arabia than in the United States.

    Still, President Trump’s love affair with that country’s royals only intensified, leading to a triumphant U.S. visit last month by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the power behind the throne in that nation. He is also the architect of its brutal Yemeni war, where, in addition to those thousands of civilians killed thanks to indiscriminate air strikes, millions have been put at risk of famine due to a Saudi-led blockade of the country. But neither of these activities that, Democratic Congressman Ted Lieu has noted, “look like war crimes” nor Saudi Arabia’s abysmal internal human rights record drew a discouraging word from Trump or anyone in his cabinet. First things first. There were business deals to be touted — and so they were.

    Mohammed bin Salman’s visit to the White House took place on the very day that the Senate was considering a bill to end U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s Yemeni bombing campaign. While senators debated the constitutional authority of Congress to declare war and the human-rights impact of U.S. support for the Saudi war effort, Trump was boasting yet again about all those jobs that arms sales to Saudi Arabia would create, adding — in a sign of the total success of the Saudi charm offensive — that the relationship between the two countries “is now probably as good as it’s really ever been” and “will probably only get better.”

    The centerpiece of Trump’s meeting was a show-and-tell performance focused on how Saudi arms sales would boost American jobs. As he sang the praises of those Saudi purchases, he brandished a map of the United States with the legend “KSA [Kingdom of Saudi Arabia] Deals Pending” above a red oval that said “40,000 U.S. jobs.” Prominent among them were jobs in the swing states that put Trump over the top in the 2016 elections: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Florida. Score another point for Saudi influence in the form of Trump’s firm belief that his relationship with that regime will bolster his future political prospects.

    So the public courtship of Trump by the Saudi royals is already paying large dividends, but public flattery and massive arms deals are just the better-known part of the picture. The president has been heavily courted privately as well, both through personal connections and through an expansive lobbying operation, which it’s important to map out, even if there’s no administration show-and-tell on the subject.

    The Personal Courtship

    As a start — as has been widely publicized — Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and officially anointed point man on Middle Eastern peace (an outcome he is uniquely ill-equipped to deliver), has struck up a beautiful friendship with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Their relationship was solidified at a March 2017 lunch at the White House, followed by numerous phone calls and several Kushner visits to Saudi Arabia, including one shortly before the prince cracked down on his domestic rivals. Though that crackdown was publicly justified as an anti-corruption move, it conveniently targeted anyone who could conceivably have stood in the way of bin Salman’s consolidation of power. According to Michael Wolff in Fire and Fury, after bin Salman’s power play, Trump joyfully toldKushner, “We’ve put our man on top!” — an indication that Kushner had offered a Trump stamp of approval to the prince’s political maneuver during his trip to Riyadh.

    The friendship has clearly paid off handsomely for the Saudis. Kushner was reportedly the main advocate for having Trump make his first foreign visit to that country — over the objections of Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who felt it would send the wrong signal to allies about Trump’s attitudes towards democracy and autocracy (as indeed it did). Kushner also strongly urged Trump to back a Saudi-UAE blockade and propaganda campaign against the Gulf state of Qatar, which Trump forcefully did with a tweet: “So good to see the Saudi Arabia visit with the King and 50 countries already paying off. They said they would take a hard line on funding extremism and all reference was pointing to Qatar. Perhaps this will be the beginning of the end to horror of terrorism!”

    Trump later changed his mind on this issue — after learning that Qatar hosts the largest U.S. military air base in the Middle East and after Qatar launched a PR and lobbying offensive of its own. That small, ultra-wealthy state hired nine lobbying and public relations firms, including former Attorney General John Ashcroft’s, in the two months after the Saudi-UAE blockade began, according to filings under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Most notably, the Qataris agreed to spend $12 billion on U.S. combat aircraft just weeks after Trump’s tweet.

    Wherever Trump ultimately ends up on the campaign against Qatar (driven in part by a Saudi belief that its emir hasn’t sufficiently toed a tough enough line on Iran), Kushner’s role in the affair gives new spin to the old phrase “The personal is the political.” According to a source who spoke to veteran reporter Dexter Filkins, Kushner’s antipathy toward Qatar may have been driven in part by anger over its unwillingness to bail his father out of a bad Manhattan real estate investment with a massive loan.

    Another snapshot of the Saudi-UAE urge to get up close and personal with The Donald lies in the strange case of George Nader, a political operative and senior advisor to the UAE, and Elliott Broidy, who reportedly can get face time with President Trump as needed. Nader evidently successfully persuaded Broidy to privately press Trump to take positions ever more in line with Saudi and UAE interests on Qatar and in their urge to see Secretary of State Rex Tillerson head for the exit. Whether or not Broidy’s appeals were instrumental in Trump’s decisions, he can’t be faulted for lack of effort. His exploits underscore how far both countries are willing to go in their efforts to bend U.S. foreign policy to their needs and interests.

    In his campaign to win over Broidy, Nader gave him a cool $2.7 million to fund an anti-Qatar conference sponsored by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a sum that was also followed by more than $600,000 in donations for Republican candidates.

    The keynote speaker at that conference was House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, who then crafted a sanctions bill against Qatar and — miracle of miracles — shortly thereafter received a campaign contribution from Broidy. Wherever those funds came from, it strains credulity to believe that this was all coincidental. To sweeten the deal, Nader also dangled the prospect of major contracts for Broidy’s private security firm, Circinus. One deal with the UAE, for $200 million, has already been sealed, while a Saudi one is in the works. At this point, who knows whether any of this was illegal, but in the world of Washington influence peddling, what’s legal is often as scandalous as what’s not.

    The Lobbying Courtship

    If such deep connections between Saudi Arabia and the Trump administration sometimes seem to surface out of nowhere, they all too often stem from an extraordinarily influential, if largely unpublicized, Saudi lobbying and public relations campaign.

    Following the November election, the Saudis wasted no time in adding more firepower to their already robust influence operation in this country. In the less than three months before Trump was sworn in as president in January 2017, the Saudis inked contracts with three new firms: a Republican-oriented one, the McKeon Group (whose namesake, Howard “Buck” McKeon, is the recently retired chairman of the House Armed Services Committee); the CGCN Group, a firm well connected to conservative Republicans whose clientele also includes Boeing, which sells bombs to Saudi Arabia; and an outfit associated with the Democrats, the Podesta Group, which later dissolved after revelations about its work with Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager, and Russian banks under sanction.

    Before Trump even made it to Riyadh that May, according to an analysis of Foreign Agents Registration Act records, the Saudis signed contracts with six more public relations firms and then added two more immediately after severing diplomatic ties with Qatar in early June. All told, in just the first year of the Trump administration, the Saudis spent more than a million dollars monthly on more than two dozen registered lobbying and public relations outfits. The UAE was not far behind, boasting 18 registered lobbying and public relations firms in 2017, including more than $10 milliondollars that year alone that went to just one of them, the Camstoll Group.

    All this lobbying firepower gave those two countries an unparalleled ability to steer U.S. foreign policy on the Middle East. Among other avenues of influence, their campaign included a steady stream of propaganda flowing to policymakers about the war in Yemen.

    Large foreign lobbies of this sort also enjoy an even more direct path to influence through campaign contributions. While it’s illegal for foreign nationals to make such contributions in U.S. elections, there’s an easy workaround for that — just hire lobbyists to do it for you. Such firms and figures have, in the past, admitted to serving as middlemen in this fashion and are known to have sometimes given handsomely. For example, a study by Maplight and the International Business Times found that registered lobbyists working at just four firms hired by the Saudis gave more than half a million dollars to federal candidates in the 2016 elections.

    Another important avenue of influence for the Saudis and Emiratis: their financial contributions to Washington’s think tanks. The full extent of their reach in this area is hard to grasp because think tanks and other non-profits aren’t required to disclose their donors and many choose not to do so. However, an eye-opening New York Times exposé in 2014 revealed an expansive list of think tanks that received money from the Saudis or Emiratis, including the Atlantic Council, the Brookings Institution, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Middle East Institute. In the age of Trump, it’s a reasonable bet that it has only gotten worse.

    A War Alliance?

    There is more at stake in Washington’s present web of ties to those two lands than just business. The uncritical embrace of such reckless, extreme, and undemocratic regimes by President Trump and many members of Congress has far-reaching implications for the future of American foreign policy in the Middle East.

    Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has asserted that Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei “makes Hitler look good” and has suggested military action against Iran on a number of occasions. Add to this the prince’s successful efforts to keep the Trump administration on board in supporting his war in Yemen, plus Riyadh’s political interference in Qatar and Lebanon, and there is a real danger that Trump’s uncritical embrace of the Saudi regime could spark a regional war. The indiscriminate killing of Yemenis by the Saudi coalition, with the help of U.S. weapons, has already contributed to the world’s largest humanitarian crisis, while reportedly making the al-Qaeda franchise in Yemen “stronger than ever.”

    There is much concern in official Washington about Trump’s seemingly cavalier attitude towards longstanding U.S. alliances, but in the case of Saudi Arabia, a major change of course would undoubtedly be advisable. The least we can do is help make sure that the people of Yemen don’t fear for their lives at their own weddings.

  • Israel Deploys Tanks To Contested Border Region After Attacks On Syria

    After the Israeli military purportedly took out “all of the Iranian infrastructure” in Syria during a skirmish with Syrian and Iranian troops last night (a charge which Iran denies), the IDF has moved a line of tanks to the Golan Heights, the contested boarder area between Israel and Syria.

    Of course, one can’t help but wonder: Despite Israel’s claims that it isn’t planning any more strikes “unless provoked”, is the IDF preparing for a land invasion of Syria?

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    One could be forgiven for suspecting that this is exactly what’s happening.

    Tanks

    Tanks

    Tank

    Of course, the US “condemns the Iranian regime’s provocative rocket attacks from Syria against Israeli citizens, and we strongly support Israel’s right to act in self-defense,” according to a White House statement.

    It’s like they say…

    Iran

     

  • Escobar: The Art Of Breaking A Deal

    Authored by Pepe Escobar via The Asia Times,

    Donald Trump’s decision to leave the JCPOA will not open the path to an Iranian nuclear weapon

    Breaking the unwritten rules of global diplomacy, the Trump administration is now in violation of the multilateral Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or in plain language the Iran nuclear deal. Nuance is notoriously absent in what can only be described as a unilateral hard exit. 

    All suspended United States sanctions against Iran will be reinstated, and harsh additional ones will be imposed.

    It does not matter that the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, repeatedly confirmed Iran was complying with the JCPOA as verified by 11 detailed reports since January 2016. Even US Secretary of Defense James Mattis vouched for the stringent verification mechanisms.

    Facts appear to be irrelevant, though. The JCPOA is the Obama administration’s only tangible foreign policy success, so, for domestic political reasons, it had to be destroyed.

    President Donald Trump’s opening address to the “Iranian people” during his White House speech also does not cut it. The overwhelming majority of Iranians support the JCPOA, and counted on it to alleviate their economic plight.

    Moreover, Trump’s regime change advisers support the exiled People’s Mojahedin Organization, or MEK, which is despised beyond belief inside Iran.

    As a minor subplot, rational geopolitical actors are asking what sort of national security advisor would strategically “advise” his boss to blow up a multilateral, United Nations-endorsed, working nuclear deal? 

    To cut to the chase, the US decision to leave the JCPOA will not open the path to an Iranian nuclear weapon. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, who has the last word, repeatedly stressed these are un-Islamic.

    Regime change

    It will not open the path toward regime change. On the contrary, Iran hardliners, clerical and otherwise, are already capitalizing on their interpretation from the beginning – Washington cannot be trusted. 

    And it will not open the path toward all-out war. It’s no secret every Pentagon war-gaming exercise against Iran turned out nightmarish. This included the fact that the Gulf Cooperation Council, or GCC, could be put out of the oil business within hours, with dire consequences for the global economy. 

    President Hassan Rouhani, in his cool, calm, collected response, emphasized Iran will remain committed to the JCPOA. Immediately before the announcement, he had already said: “It is possible that we will face some problems for two or three months, but we will pass through this.”

    Responding to Trump, Rouhani stressed: “From now on, this is an agreement between Iran and five countries … from now on the P5+1 has lost its 1… we have to wait and see how the others react.

    “If we come to the conclusion that with cooperation with the five countries we can keep what we wanted despite Israeli and American efforts, Barjam [the Iranian description of the JCPOA] can survive.”

    Clearly, a titanic internal struggle is already underway, revolving around whether the Rouhani administration – which is actively working to diversify the economy – will be able to face the onslaught by the hard-liners. They have always characterized the JCPOA as a betrayal of Iran’s national interest.

    Following Rouhani, “others” reacted quickly. The European Union’s big three of Germany, France and Britain made it clear that trade and investment ties with Iran would not be sacrificed. Those views were echoed by the EU’s leading diplomat Federica Mogherini in a statement.

    Still, the key question now is how, in an interlinked global economy, European banks will be able to manage trade facilitation. 

    Diplomats in Brussels told Asia Times that the EU is already devising a complex mechanism to protect European companies doing business in Iran. This is something that has been discussed between Iranian and the EU3 diplomats.

    Yet in the event the EU3 capitulates, even with support from Russia and China, the JCPOA will be effectively over with unpredictable consequences. These would include Iran’s possible exit from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    On the crucial oil front, Gulf traders told Asia Times that even with new US sanctions, and the possibility of crude being priced way beyond the current US$70-a-barrel, up to 1 million barrels a day of Iranian oil would simply disappear from global markets.

    If the EU, which imports 5% of its oil from Iran, buckles under too much pressure, these exports will be relocated to Asian customers such as China, India, Japan and South Korea. 

    The US decision has also cast a shadow over the upcoming US-North Korea summit. The perception in Pyongyang – not to mention Beijing and Moscow – will be inevitable – the US can not be trusted.

    For all its faults, the JCPOA remains a complex, painstakingly designed multilateral agreement, which took 12 years of diplomacy to broker, and was sanctioned by the UN.

    Key hub

    The geopolitical consequences are massive. To start with, strategically, Washington is isolated. The only actors applauding the decision to rip up the deal are Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

    As Iran is a key hub of the ongoing Eurasia integration process, the trade-investment partnership with both Moscow and Beijing will be even stronger as Asia Times has reported.

    On the military front, nothing will prevent Russia from supplying Iran with S-400 missile systems or China with its “carrier-killers.”

    The JCPOA was a dizzyingly complex technical undertaking. In parallel, it is no secret the US establishment never got over the 1979 Islamic revolution. The privileged roadmap in the Beltway remains regime change.

    The real US objective – way beyond the JCPOA’s technicalities – was always geopolitical. And that meant stopping to Iran from becoming the leading power in Southwest Asia.

    That still applies as seen by the United States Central Command’s recent drive “to neutralize, counterbalance and shape the destabilizing impact Iran has across the region…” Or, in Trump terminology, to curtail Iran’s “malign activities.”     

    CENTCOM commander, Gen. Joseph Votel, went straight to the heart of the matter when he told the US House Armed Services Committee in February that “both Russia and China are cultivating multidimensional ties to Iran … Lifting UN sanctions under the joint comprehensive plan of action opens [the] path for Iran to resume application to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.” 

    In a nutshell, this betrays the entire project which is to thwart the Eurasia integration process, which features Russia and China as peer competitors aligning with Iran along the New Silk Roads. 

    Predictably, we are back to the late Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski’s book, The Grand Chessboard.    

    “…Potentially the most dangerous scenario would be an ‘anti-hegemonic’ coalition united not by ideology but by complementary grievances… a grand coalition of China, Russia, perhaps Iran… reminiscent in scale and scope of the challenge posed by the Sino-Soviet bloc, though this time, China would likely be the leader and Russia the follower,” he wrote. “Averting this contingency… will require US geostrategic skill on the western, eastern, and southern perimeters of Eurasia simultaneously.” 

    So, Trump has reshuffled the Grand Chessboard. Persians, though, happen to know a thing or two about chess.

  • Malaysia's Post-Election Maelstrom: What Happens Next?

    Malaysia’s 14th general election resulted in a surprise victory for an opposition coalition for the first time since Malaysia’s independence. In a stunning political comeback, 92-year-old Mahathir Mohamad – the former authoritarian leader – was sworn in as prime minister on Thursday.

    As AP reports, the election result is a political earthquake for the Muslim-majority country, sweeping aside the 60-year rule of the National Front and its leader Najib Razak, whose reputation was tarnished by a monumental corruption scandal, a crackdown on dissent and the imposition of an unpopular sales tax that hurt many of his coalition’s poor rural supporters.

    Mahathir, prime minister for 22 years until stepping down in 2003, was credited with modernizing Malaysia but was also known as a heavy-handed leader who imprisoned opponents and subjugated the courts.

    “We need to have this government today without delay,” Mahathir, 92, said before the ceremony. “There is a lot of work to be done. You know the mess the country is in and we need to attend to this mess as soon as possible and that means today.”

    Former premier Najib Razak, 64, said he accepted the “verdict of the people” and tweeted that he had “recently congratulated Tun Dr Mahathir on his appointment as the seventh prime minister,” and added, “I’m willing to help a smooth transition.”

    We are sure he is – as the specter of the 1MDB corruption debacle looms ever larger now, since, as The Australian reports, newly-elected Mahathir Mohamad has warned the man he toppled, Najib Razak, that he will have to “face the consequences” if he has done anything wrong over the theft of US$4.5bn ($6bn) from the country’s sovereign wealth fund, 1MDB.

    In a strong indication his government will reopen probes into 1MDB that were quashed by Mr Najib’s government, Dr Mahathir yesterday said “the law will be fully implemented in this country”.

    He also flagged investigation of a 55bn ringgit ($16.8bn) loan from China to fund Malaysia’s East Coast Railway Link secured by Mr Najib and linked by his opponents to the 1MDB debacle.

    John Lee, a former adviser to Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, said the anger against Mr Najib over 1MDB felt by educated Malaysians will leave Dr Mahathir with little choice but to restart investigations into the alleged theft — even though Mr Najib was a minister in Dr Mahathir’s government when both were members of UMNO.

    “He doesn’t have much to lose,” Mr Lee, a fellow at the US think tank the Hudson Institute, told The Australian. “If you kept it just to 1MDB, I think he will be safe. Certainly he couldn’t really assess the whole Malaysian political economy, because he set that up – the crony capitalism stuff.”

    London journalist Clare ­Rewcastle-Brown, who is wanted for arrest in Malaysia for coverage of the 1MDB scandal on her Sarawak Report website, said Malaysian authorities would investigate with “full force and vigour”.

    While he has denied wrong­doing, Mr Najib has been unable to provide a convincing explanation for how up to $US1bn passed through his bank account at ­Ambank, which is one-quarter owned by Australia’s ANZ. Before the poll, opposition figures led by lawyer Zaid Ibrahim, a former UMNO minister, were investi­gating a class action against ANZ over its alleged role in 1MDB.

    In court documents, the US Department of Justice claims almost $US30m filched from the fund was used to buy jewellery for Mr Najib’s wife, Rosmah Mansor.

    The alleged architect of the heist, Malaysian Jho Low, is accused of spending about $US9m on jewellery he gave to Australian model Miranda Kerr in 2014 — some of it handed over during a tryst aboard his yacht Equanimity, which he bought using money allegedly stolen from 1MDB.

    Millions allegedly found their way to Ms Mansor’s son, Riza Aziz, who used some of it to fund movies including Leonardo DiCaprio’s The Wolf of Wall Street.

    Australian Federal Police has restricted its probe to proceeds of crime, including property on the Gold Coast, reaped by those involved in siphoning money away from 1MDB.

    Asked whether Mr Najib would be prosecuted, Dr Mahathir said his coalition was “not seeking revenge… We do not want to punish people because they do not agree with us but the law will be fully implemented in this country.

    Of course, one glance at Malaysia’s bond, stock, and FX markets in the last 24 hours and one knows immediately that the surprise win has significant macro implications, mostly in fiscal policy according to Goldman Sachs.

    While Goldman does not see immediate implications for monetary policy in the near term, higher policy uncertainties, as well as typical post-election currency patterns, may point to near-term weakening in the MYR.

    Main points: Surprise win for an opposition coalition, for the first time in history, has significant macro implications

    Malaysia’s 14th general election resulted in a surprise victory by the opposition coalition, Pakatan Harapan (PH), led by former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad. The Election Commission reported that PH has won 121 seats in Parliament, over the threshold (of 112 seats) to form a government, compared with 79 seats for the incumbent Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition and remaining 22 seats from other smaller opposition parties (CNN, May 10, 2018; Exhibit 1).

    The election marks the first defeat for the ruling UMNO party and its coalition (BN as well as its predecessor, the Alliance) since Malaysia’s independence in 1957. Dr. Mahathir will likely be returning to the PM post after 15 years, but policy uncertainty may rise as Malaysia awaits its first major transition in government.

    Dr. Mahathir, who is 92 years old, served as the Prime Minister from 1981 to 2003, including during the Asian Financial Crisis and is well known for introducing capital controls together with a currency peg at 3.8 against the USD in September 1998.

    The surprise win bears significant macro implications in our view, mostly for fiscal policies (see our “Malaysia election–Fiscal and monetary policy implications“, Asia in Focus, April 19, 2018). One of PH’s 10 election pledges (to be fulfilled within the first 100 days of office) was the repeal of the goods and services tax (GST), to be replaced by the previous sales and services tax (SST). This could lead to net revenue losses, at least in the short term, in our view, given the relative efficiency of GST administration and the previous vulnerability of SST to collection loopholes. After its introduction in 2015, GST accounted for about 20% of total government revenues and 3.4% of GDP in 2016.

    Despite a possible revenue slippage from a GST abolishment, government spending needs may rise. As part of the 10 election pledges, PH also promised to raise the minimum wage with half of the increase subsidized by the government (and potentially follow through with subsequent hikes over next the five years to reach RM1500 per month from RM1000 currently in peninsular regions). More broadly, PH has called for more social spending and infrastructure development, as well as a possible revival of fuel subsidies. While details on the subsidy plan have not been disclosed, fuel subsidies cost some RM20bn (US$5bn, or around 2% of GDP) per annum before their abolishment in November 2014. Given that the government needs to operate under a public debt ceiling of 55% of GDP, not far from the current public debt level of 50.9% of GDP, more spending would imply some combination of tax hikes, improved tax administration, or a potential breach of the debt limit.

    Market implications

    1. MYR might see weakening pressures in the near term. The typical post-election pattern (of currency weakening) is a factor that could repeat this time as well. Fiscal implications of PH’s election promises, notably the GST repeal, reintroduction of oil subsides, and subsidized minimum wage hikes, could affect sentiments of bond investors although it remains to be seen how the election promises are implemented. While higher oil prices will help improve government revenues (about 0.2% of GDP for a $10/barrel increase of oil prices, in Ministry of Finance’s estimates), windfall energy revenues may not be sufficient to offset the pressure for larger fiscal deficits arising from the implementation of election promises. Foreign holdings of government securities increased to around 45% of the market at end-March 2018 up from 38% in April 2017, boosted by some US$7bn foreign inflows over the 12-month period (Exhibit 2).

    Therefore, bond yields and the MYR could be sensitive to fiscal news and broader sentiment on the new government’s policies; our USDMYR forecast is under review given the increased near-term uncertainties.

    2. Fiscal expansion at a time of above-potential growth (5.5-6.0% in 2018 in BNM forecastversus its potential growth estimate of 5.0-5.5%) could add to inflation pressures. A minimum wage hike, if implemented within the first 100 days of government formation as promised, should also show partial pass-through to consumer prices (as for example seen recently in the case of Korea). We maintain our view that the next 25bp policy rate hike will take place in 1H of 2019 given currently low core inflation and sequential moderation in growth later this year. That said, a possible rise in inflation expectations or significant weakening in the MYR could may tilt the BNM towards a more hawkish direction in the coming months.

    Finally, AP notes that Bridget Welsh, a Southeast Asia expert at John Cabot University in Rome, said it was hugely ironic that Mahathir, who damaged Malaysia’s democratic institutions with his strong-arm rule, has returned as its political savior.

    “It is not just a comeback,” she said. “It is about making amends about his mistakes and moving Malaysia forward.”

    We shall see…

  • WSJ: The FBI Hid A Mole In The Trump Campaign

    On Wednesday we reported on an intense battle playing out between House Intel Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (D-CA), the Department of Justice, and the Mueller investigation concerning a cache of intelligence that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein refuses to hand over – a request he equated to “extortion.”

    On Tuesday, the Washington Post reported that Nunes was denied access to the information on the grounds that it “could risk lives by potentially exposing the source, a U.S. citizen who has provided intelligence to the CIA and FBI.

    After the White House caved to Rosenstein and Nunes was barred from seeing the documents, it also emerged that this same intelligence had already been shared with Special Counsel Robert Mueller as part of his investigation into alleged Russian involvement in the 2016 US election.

    On Wednesday afternoon, however, news emerged that Nunes and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) would receive a classified Thursday briefing at the DOJ on the documents. This is, to put it lightly, incredibly significant.

    Why? Because it appears that the FBI may have had a mole embedded in the Trump campaign

    In a bombshell op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Kimberly Strassel shares a few key insights about recent developments. Perhaps we should start with the ending and let you take it from there. Needless to say Strassel’s claims, if true, would have wide ranging implications for the CIA, FBI, DOJ and former Obama administration officials.

    Strassel concludes: 

    “I believe I know the name of the informant, but my intelligence sources did not provide it to me and refuse to confirm it. It would therefore be irresponsible to publish it.”

    Authored by Kimberley Strassel, op-ed via The Wall Street Journal,

    About That FBI ‘Source’

    Did the bureau engage in outright spying against the 2016 Trump campaign?

    The Department of Justice lost its latest battle with Congress Thursday when it allowed House Intelligence Committee members to view classified documents about a top-secret intelligence source that was part of the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign. Even without official confirmation of that source’s name, the news so far holds some stunning implications.

    Among them is that the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation outright hid critical information from a congressional investigation. In a Thursday press conference, Speaker Paul Ryan bluntly noted that Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes’s request for details on this secret source was “wholly appropriate,” “completely within the scope” of the committee’s long-running FBI investigation, and “something that probably should have been answered a while ago.” Translation: The department knew full well it should have turned this material over to congressional investigators last year, but instead deliberately concealed it.

    House investigators nonetheless sniffed out a name, and Mr. Nunes in recent weeks issued a letter and a subpoena demanding more details. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s response was to double down—accusing the House of “extortion” and delivering a speech in which he claimed that “declining to open the FBI’s files to review” is a constitutional “duty.” Justice asked the White House to back its stonewall. And it even began spinning that daddy of all superspook arguments—that revealing any detail about this particular asset could result in “loss of human lives.”

    This is desperation, and it strongly suggests that whatever is in these files is going to prove very uncomfortable to the FBI.

    The bureau already has some explaining to do. Thanks to the Washington Post’s unnamed law-enforcement leakers, we know Mr. Nunes’s request deals with a “top secret intelligence source” of the FBI and CIA, who is a U.S. citizen and who was involved in the Russia collusion probe. When government agencies refer to sources, they mean people who appear to be average citizens but use their profession or contacts to spy for the agency. Ergo, we might take this to mean that the FBI secretly had a person on the payroll who used his or her non-FBI credentials to interact in some capacity with the Trump campaign.

    This would amount to spying, and it is hugely disconcerting. It would also be a major escalation from the electronic surveillance we already knew about, which was bad enough. Obama political appointees rampantly “unmasked” Trump campaign officials to monitor their conversations, while the FBI played dirty with its surveillance warrant against Carter Page, failing to tell the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that its supporting information came from the Hillary Clinton campaign. Now we find it may have also been rolling out human intelligence, John Le Carré style, to infiltrate the Trump campaign.

    Which would lead to another big question for the FBI: When? The bureau has been doggedly sticking with its story that a tip in July 2016 about the drunken ramblings of George Papadopoulos launched its counterintelligence probe. Still, the players in this affair—the FBI, former Director Jim Comey, the Steele dossier authors—have been suspiciously vague on the key moments leading up to that launch date. When precisely was the Steele dossier delivered to the FBI? When precisely did the Papadopoulos information come in?
    And to the point, when precisely was this human source operating? Because if it was prior to that infamous Papadopoulos tip, then the FBI isn’t being straight. It would mean the bureau was spying on the Trump campaign prior to that moment. And that in turn would mean that the FBI had been spurred to act on the basis of something other than a junior campaign aide’s loose lips.

    We also know that among the Justice Department’s stated reasons for not complying with the Nunes subpoena was its worry that to do so might damage international relationships. This suggests the “source” may be overseas, have ties to foreign intelligence, or both. That’s notable, given the highly suspicious role foreigners have played in this escapade. It was an Australian diplomat who reported the Papadopoulos conversation. Dossier author Christopher Steele is British, used to work for MI6, and retains ties to that spy agency as well as to a network of former spooks. It was a former British diplomat who tipped off Sen. John McCain to the dossier. How this “top secret” source fits into this puzzle could matter deeply.

    I believe I know the name of the informant, but my intelligence sources did not provide it to me and refuse to confirm it. It would therefore be irresponsible to publish it. But what is clear is that we’ve barely scratched the surface of the FBI’s 2016 behavior, and the country will never get the straight story until President Trump moves to declassify everything possible. It’s time to rip off the Band-Aid.

  • Baltimore Police Chief Darryl De Sousa Charged With Failing To File Taxes

    Baltimore Police Commissioner Darryl De Sousa acknowledged Thursday that he failed to file federal and state income tax returns for three consecutive years after the Department of Justice (DOJ) slapped him with three misdemeanor counts of failure to file taxes.

    In a statement published on Twitter, De Sousa said: “there is no excuse for my failure to fulfill my obligations as a citizen and public official, my only explanation is that I failed to sufficiently prioritize my personal affairs.”

    The DOJ charged De Sousa for not filing federal returns for tax years 2013, 2014 and 2015. In his statement, De Sousa did indicate he filed taxes for 2016 and received an extension for 2017.

    “Naturally, this is a source of embarrassment for me and I deeply regret any embarrassment it has caused the Police Department and the City of Baltimore. I accept full responsibility,” he added.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The Department of Justice said De Sousa could face as much as one year in prison and a $25,000 fine for each of the three counts.

    Greg Tucker, a spokesman for Mayor Catherine Pugh, said the mayor expressed confidence in De Sousa following the DOJ announcement of the charges.

    “He made a mistake in not filing his taxes for the years in question. He is working to resolve this matter and has assured me that he will do so as quickly as possible,” Pugh said in a statement.

    Pugh said she has “full confidence” in De Sousa and believes that “he will continue to focus on our number one priority of reducing violence.”

    According to The Baltimore Sun, “De Sousa earned $93,104 in 2013 when he is first accused of failing to file taxes. He earned $101,985 in 2014 and $127,089 in 2015.” In 2018, he could be earning as much as $210,000 per year, as he was recently promoted to commissioner.

    Official DOJ Charging Document: Baltimore Police Chief Darryl De Sousa charged with failure to file taxes 

    The Baltimore Sun said De Sousa became Baltimore’s top cop in January, after Mayor Pugh fired ex-Commissioner Kevin Davis, citing a surge of violent crime after the 2015 Baltimore Riots.

    De Sousa expressed himself as “a chess player,” but as we have found out — the DOJ had the winning piece with a checkmate. The Baltimore Sun details De Sousa’s climb up the Baltimore Police ladder, as his tenure with force has been more than two decades.

    “A personable commander, De Sousa easily won official confirmation to the commissioner position on a 14-1 vote by the Baltimore City Council — without debate — in late February. He is the first commissioner to come up through the ranks of the department since Frederick H. Bealefeld III, who served from 2007 to 2012. Davis and former commissioner Batts were hired from outside.

    During his rise through the department, De Sousa held various leadership roles, mostly in the patrol division. He was made a deputy commander of the Northeast District in 2008, then became the commanding officer of the same district in 2011. In 2012, he was appointed lieutenant colonel overseeing the neighborhood patrol division, then colonel and chief of patrol in 2013.

    De Sousa, 53, is a native of New York City but has lived in Baltimore since moving here to attend Morgan State University in 1983. When he was named to the department’s top position in January, De Sousa described himself as “a chess player” who has always been focused on the operational side of policing.”

    Lt. Gene Ryan, president of the local police union in Baltimore, said he was not at liberty to discuss the ongoing case, as he was not familiar with “any of the circumstances behind these charges.”

    “Obviously income taxes are a personal thing,” he said. “We will see how it pans out.”

    While the Baltimore Sun notes the police department usually suspends it officers accused of misdemeanors pending the outcome of the case, we will discover De Sousa’s fate shortly as Baltimore’s top cop. Stay tuned!

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 10th May 2018

  • Putting London's "Soaring" Homicide Rate In Perspective

    London has a problem with rising violent crime, that is unfortunately a fact.

    According to Metropolitan Police statistics, there was a 51 percent rise in murders from financial year 16/17 to 17/18. Picking up on the issue, U.S. President Trump said at an NRA rally on Friday that one particular hospital in the UK capital was “like a “war zone” due to knife attack victims. This though, as Statista’s Martin Armstrong notes, is a UK problem, and while the problem should absolutely not be played down, it is a problem on a UK scale, too.

    Infographic: London's homicide rate in perspective | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    Looking at the broader offense category ‘homicide’, London had a rate per 100,000 population of 1.8 in the twelve months ending March 31 this year (including eight deaths that were due to terrorism).

    On a U.S. scale though, and when comparing to the biggest cities there, this rate is low – lower than any of the 50 largest in the country, in fact. San Diego is the safest of the major U.S. cities, with a homicide rate of 2.2. New York had a rate of 3.4 in 2017. Looking to the top of the list, Baltimore has an astonishing rate of 55.8.

     

  • Has Europe Rebelled?

    Via Oriental Review,

    Washington’s current foreign-policy practice is a bit reminiscent of the golden era of the Ottoman Sublime Porte, in the sense that any visit by a leader of a vassal state is seen as nothing more than an opportunity for a public demonstration of his willingness to serve the great sultan or, in the modern context, to do the bidding of the master of the White House.

    The visitor must also wear a big grin and speak passionately about how happy he is to have been given the opportunity to kiss the Sultan’s slippers. Or, to put it in the language of today, to be impressed with the leadership of the US and personally inspired by the energy of the American president. The Washington establishment can’t wrap its head around any other configuration, and therefore in the present era of America’s ebbing hegemony, the ideal visitors to the White House are the presidents of Ukraine or the Baltic countries. The other heads of states that come to Washington, including EU leaders and even some African presidents, act like insolent upstarts, who — from the standpoint of imperial tradition — do not stand to attention, tend to offer their flattery without fervor or exuberance, and, most importantly, do not race off to fulfill the wishes of the leaders of the empire.

    Reception ceremony of the Conte de Saint Priest at the Ottoman Porte by Antoine de Favray 1767

    The meeting between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and US President Donald Trump on April 27, 2018 served only to confirm that Washington does not need allies who have their own national interests: all allies must be guided by the concept of the unipolar hegemony of the US. Anyone who is uncomfortable with this is relegated to the circle of those who are seen as unfriendly to the White House. The Washington Post makes it clear that Germany falls into this latter camp: “Angela Merkel is becoming Europe’s weakest link.

    That article points out how serious the differences are between the two countries’ ruling factions. Both Germany’s political elite, and as well as the German population as a whole, are characterized very disparagingly: “German passivity is deeply ingrained. Berlin’s political class lacks strategic thinking, hates risk and has little spunk. It hides behind its ignominious past to justify pacifism when it comes to hard questions about defense and security issues.” The general decrepitude of the Bundeswehr and its equipment are criticized and mocked in the discussion of Germany’s refusal to take part in the missile attack on Syria carried out by the US, Britain, and France. And then the article even alleges that Germany’s Syrian policy has actually abetted the wrong side by granting asylum to almost a million refugees fleeing that country, thus supposedly allowing Bashar al-Assad to continue fighting.

    In this context it becomes quite obvious that the specific issues that Merkel brought to the table in Washington were merely secondary concerns to her American partner. Germany’s Madam Chancellor had to traverse a distance of 10,000 kilometers to be granted a 20-minute conversation, from which it was clear that Trump had not altered his negative attitude toward questions so vital to the Germans as customs duties on steel and aluminum (set at 25% and 10%), Nord Stream 2, a loosening of the Russian sanctions for major German manufacturers, or the nuclear deal with Iran.

    Angela Merkel had a difficult choice to make. Either Berlin declares war on all of Washington’s opponents, or it is dismissed once and for all as the “weakest link,” with all the ensuing consequences. But the first option would be a blow to Germany’s national interests. It is not just its international trade that would take the hit, but also its energy projects and German public opinion. She was given to understand that otherwise Germany would fail to meet the White House’s criteria for the role of America’s main partner in Europe.

    Angela Merkel did not seem overly impressed. She sees the constraints that exist for her. The historical memory of the greatest defeat of the twentieth century still lingers. Hence the high level of wariness when it comes to invitations to join NATO’s military escapades. Nor has anyone there forgotten the 1980s, when Germany lived in intense fear of the USSR’s SS-20 missiles that could have incinerated that country in the blink of an eye. Germans have no desire to meekly toe the line of yet another US president, which could end up taking them back to those days.

    Apparently this is why the head of the German government seemed to have armored herself with the mantra of “don’t give anything to Trump” during the negotiations in Washington.

    If you look at things pragmatically, Trump needed to get a few concessions from Merkel. First of all, he needed the consent of the German chancellor to at least bring back the sanctions and hopefully to even agree to a war against Iran, because for the current Washington administration, a dissolution of the “Iran deal” and a subsequent war with Tehran is the biggest item on its foreign-policy agenda. Second, Trump had to “squeeze” Merkel on the issue of increasing Germany’s financial contributions NATO’s budget. According to the White House, Germany should be contributing 2% of its annual GDP to the alliance’s budget (or in other words, to the backlog of product orders for the US military-industrial complex). As Trump expressed it so poetically, “NATO is wonderful, but it helps Europe more than it helps us, and why are we paying the vast majority of the costs?” Third, the US needed to ensure that European leaders, and especially Merkel, capitulate in the tariff wars between the US and the EU, and, in a best-case scenario, to also secure the EU’s assistance in the trade war with China that Trump recently kicked off.

    Based on the results of the meeting, Washington received a polite refusal on all three points. Five years ago it would have been difficult to imagine this kind of situation, but now this is objectively the real-world state of affairs, and it is something that neither the political analysts in the US nor a significant faction of the European media class (which still views the European Union as a “big Puerto Rico”) can get used to. The significance of Puerto Rico is that it is a place outside the US borders, but that is in effect controlled from Washington, although it has no power to influence American policy. Incidentally, Washington’s official discourse in regard to the European Union has already undergone a radical transformation and, according to Trump himself, it seems that the EU was “formed to take advantage of the United States,” although prior to that the EU was painted in the official Western narrative exclusively in terms of its “ideals of freedom,” “protection of democracy,” and some kind of “pan-European destiny and values.”

    The essence of today’s transatlantic relationship can be seen in the contacts between Washington and Paris. Despite the White House’s high hopes for France to prove its loyalty to the alliance, its leaders have been just as firm as Germany’s in standing up for their own interests. This mindset was evident in the stance taken by President Emmanuel Macron, who was quoted by Bloomberg as saying “we won’t talk about anything while there’s a gun pointed at our head.” European leaders insist that any discussions take place with everyone on an equal footing, which Washington cannot indulge as a matter of principle. Even lower-level European officials are using their economic power to threaten the US. French Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire claimed, “One thing I learned from my week in the U.S. with President Macron: The Americans will only respect a show of strength.” Needless to say, one does not speak to a real global hegemon in such terms.

    No matter what the outcome of all the diplomatic and economic conflicts between the two shores of the Atlantic, it is already safe to say that Europe has broken free of Washington’s grip, and future relations between the US and the EU will become increasingly tense. We shall soon see whether Europe will take advantage of its current opportunity to reclaim the economic and political freedom that it lost at some point.

  • Did Putin Green-Light Tonight's Massive Israeli Strikes On Syria?

    Just off a 10-hour visit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, and less than a day after Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Wednesday he doesn’t expect Russia to act against Israeli forces as they continue exchanging fire with Syria. 

    It appears the meeting wrapped up at the very moments a major escalation began along the Golan Heights, with both Syria and Israel trading blame for an initial attack which quickly escalated into Israeli cruise missile launches and shelling on targets in southern Syria and notably, on Damascus itself.

    Putin and Netanyahu at the “Victory Day Parade” at Moscow’s Red Square on Wednesday. Image source: Reuters via Newsweek.

    The question remains, did Putin give Netanyahu the green light for tonight’s events? 

    If it wasn’t clear over the past weeks and months of unprovoked Israeli strikes on Syriaostensibly to roll back Iranian troop presencethen it should be very clear by now that Syria, Israel, and Iran are now in a state of war and all signs point to a continued intensification of the conflict. 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    And crucially, there’s currently no sign that Russia came to the aid of its close ally as rockets rained down on Damascus overnight.  Russia has routinely looked the other way while Israel has conducted, by its own admission, over one hundred major strikes on Syriamost of which have come after Russian intervention on behalf of Assad in 2015. 

    As Reuters reported late in the day Wednesday, Netanyahu told reporters just before departing Moscow: “Given what is happening in Syria at this very moment, there is a need to ensure the continuation of military coordination between the Russian military and the Israel Defence Forces.” The Russians and Israelis coordinate their actions through a direct military hotline intended to avoid accidental clashes which could lead to escalation between the two countries. 

    A reportedly “upbeat” Netanyahu further said, “”In previous meetings, given statements that were putatively attributed to – or were made by – the Russian side, it was meant to have limited our freedom of action or harm other interests and that didn’t happen, and I have no basis to think that this time will be different.”

    Thus it appears Israel may have been given a green light by Putin to engage targets in Syria, however, at this point it is unclear what limitations or restrictions Putin may have issued, if any at all.  

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Furthermore, the context and timing of the Putin-Netanyahu meeting suggests an increasingly cozy and warming relationship even as the crisis intensifies in Syria. According to Reuters:

    During his 10-hour Moscow visit, the Israeli leader attended, alongside Putin, annual Red Square celebrations of the anniversary of the end of World War Two. Israel recognizes the Russian date, May 9. Most Western powers mark it on May 8.

    “When the president of Russia invites the prime minister of the state of the Jews to stand alongside him at the parade symbolizing the Red Army’s victory over the Nazis, its liberation, also, of the (concentration) camps, of Jews and others – for Russia, that is very significant,” Israeli Intelligence Minister Israel Katz told the Ynet news site.

    Reuters also noted that Israel has not joined Western sanctions against Russia over the crisis in Ukraine and allegations that its intelligence services poisoned a Russian ex-spy in Britain.

    Meanwhile things are escalating in Syria by the hour and by the day.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Early unconfirmed reports suggest Syrian defense systems may have intercepted multiple Israeli rockets, while the pro-opposition media site SOHR says an air strike near Damascus killed at least 15 people, including eight Iranians. Reports have cited Syrian military sources which claim “dozens” of Israeli rockets downed by Syrian air defenses during the sustained attack.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    As we’ve reported, Israel is claiming to be acting against Iranian aggression, while Syria state media reports cite government officials as saying no Iranians have engaged Israel and are not in the areas of Israeli attacks.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Pro-government Al-Mayadeen reported that as of 3am (Damascus time) over 50 Rockets had been launched at Israel by Syrian forces, and journalists on the ground said Israeli aircraft engaged targets near Damascus while flying over the border area.

    And into the early morning hours massive explosions were still being reported around Damascus. 

  • Another Step Towards Collapse Of The Petrodollar

    Authored by Rory Hall via The Daily Coin,

    For the past year and half a major topic throughout the alternative press has been the new Chinese oil futures contract settled/priced in yuan. The fact that China is directly challenging the Federal Reserve Note, U.S. dollar, is quite a significant change. For those that have been paying attention this new futures oil contract is nothing more than the next step in China moving completely away from the Federal Reserve Note, and the “world reserve currency” system and towards a multi-polar world with several currencies being used for international trade.

    Ken Schortgen, Jr., The Daily Economist, recently penned an article about Nigeria approving a currency swap agreement with China, stating,

    It has been a little more than a month since China officially began offering oil futures contracts denominated in the Yuan currency, but early results continue to be positive for this contract to over time take more and more market share from the West and the Petrodollar.  And with Iran, Qatar, and even Venezuela having already agreed to buy and sell their oil in currencies other than the dollar, a new currency swap agreement signed on May 3 between Nigeria and China could mean that a fourth OPEC nation could also soon be leaving the Petrodollar.

    The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has signed a currency swap deal worth about $2.5 billion with the People’s Bank of China to provide adequate local currency liquidity for transactions between national businesses, The Punch newspaper reported on Thursday, citing a high-ranking official from the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). Sputnik News

    The Daily Economist

    While China pursued currency swaps as far back as 1997, during the “Asian financial crisis”, none of the agreements were ever activated. That all changed with the global financial meltdown in 2008. China began actively pursuing, and instituting, direct currency swaps and even went so far as to open “Renminbi Clearing Centers” around the world including Canada, the backyard of the U.S..

    Beyond the moderate progress in Asian regional financial cooperation, China has signed swap agreements with approximately 30 countries since 2008 (see Table 1). The People’s Bank of China (PBOC) stated that those swap agreements were intended not only to “stabilize the international financial market,” but also to “facilitate bilateral trade and investment.”

    CogitAsia

    The chart above, from CogitAsia, was produced in 2015 and does include Japan, Nigeria or France all of which are conducting direct currency swaps with China. All three nations bring something unique, economically speaking, to the table that will prove beneficial for both sides of the trade.

    China now has direct currency swaps with more than 30 nations, including some of the largest economies in the world, like Japan, France, Australia to name but a few. This is all part and parcel to circumventing the world reserve currency system which punishes other nations, while at the same time strengthens the U.S. economy. What’s terrible for the rest of the world is awesome for the U.S..

    China, along with a great many other nations, are ready for this system to change and balance the economic scale. When you announce to the world that your currency is someone else’s problem, the people that have the problem usually find a way to mend the problem and eliminate the situation creating the problem.

    Even the gloomiest pessimists accept that a steep dollar depreciation would inflict more suffering on China and other Asian economies than on the United States. John Snow’s counterpart in the Nixon administration once told his European counterparts that “the dollar is our currency, but your problem.”

    Snow could say the same to Asians today. If the dollar fell by a third against the renminbi, according to Nouriel Roubini, an economist at New York University, the People’s Bank of China could suffer a capital loss equivalent to 10 percent of China’s gross domestic product. For that reason alone, the P.B.O.C. has every reason to carry on printing renminbi in order to buy dollars. 

    NY Times

    This is exactly where we stand today.

    China, along with Russia, understand this scenario all too well. These two nations, along with 30+ other nations, are making moves to be rid of the problem known as the Federal Reserve Note, U.S. dollar.

    Once this “problem” is corrected the U.S. economy will change dramatically. Inflation, and according to some economist like John Williams of Shadow Stats, hyperinflation will reign down on the U.S. economy like the world has never seen or experienced before. At this juncture we can only hope cooler heads prevail and a major war doesn’t manifest to announce the coming change in our global monetary system.

     

  • Australia Bans Payments Over $10k, Unleashes "Mobile Strike Teams" In War On Cash

    As Australia struggles to maintain its unprecedented 104-quarter-long streak of uninterrupted economic growth, lawmakers are intensifying the country’s “war on cash” – ostensibly part of a crackdown on “criminal gangs” that are smuggling drugs and/or people into the island nation and companies that are trying to cheat their taxes.

    To wit, Australia’s government has introduced an economy-wide payment limit of $10,000 for transactions conducted in cash, which, according to News.au, will help (in the aussie slang) “keep dishonest tradies and businesses from rorting the system by taking cash in hand.”

    Treasury

    From July 1, 2019, cash payments of more than $10,000 made to businesses for goods and services will be banned as the Turnbull Government seeks to crack down on the $50 billion “black economy.”

    The law was purportedly inspired by instances of large purchases – yachts, sports cars and other luxury items – being made in cash and the tax not being reported.

    Perhaps the most – um – striking element of the proposal is the introduction of “mobile strike teams” to catch businesses engaging in the act of conducting an illicit cash transaction.

    Treasurer Scott Morrison said the Black Economy Standing Taskforce will be beefed up to detect people making sneaky cash transactions through a rigorous identification system and “mobile strike teams”.

    A black economy hotline will also be set up to allow people to dob in anyone who may be cheating the system.

    “Cash provides an easy, anonymous and largely untraceable mechanism for conducting black economy activity,” the response said.

    “Cash payments make it easier to under-report income and avoid tax obligations. This allows businesses transacting in cash to undercut competitors and gain a competitive advantage.”

    Meanwhile, Australia’s federal law enforcement are setting up a hotline for people to call in and “dob on their neighbors” who are violating the cash payments rule…

    A black economy hotline will also be set up to allow people to dob in anyone who may be cheating the system.

    “Cash provides an easy, anonymous and largely untraceable mechanism for conducting black economy activity,” the response said.

    “Cash payments make it easier to under-report income and avoid tax obligations. This allows businesses transacting in cash to undercut competitors and gain a competitive advantage.”

    …And the Australian taxation office is stepping up audits and upgrading its data analysis tools to help catch businesses that violate the law.

    It said the taskforce had identified examples of “large undocumented cash payments being made for houses, cars, yachts, agricultural crops and commodities,” which contribute to the $50 billion black economy and “hurt honest businesses.”

    The Australian Taxation Office will also carry out more audits and improve its data analytics in its effort to curb money laundering and criminal activity.

    The law is slated to take effect in 2019. After that, transactions involving businesses will need be routed through checks or electronic means. But transactions between individuals and financial institutions.

    The government will also overhaul how it handles the Australian Business Register, including possibly imposing more stringent requirements on renewing businesses’ operating licenses.

    This will be bad news for criminal gangs, terrorists and those who are just trying to cheat on their tax or get a discount for letting someone else cheat on their tax…

    It’s not clever. It’s not OK. It’s a crime.

    Australian lawmakers have backed the new system, which was introduced by the country’s Treasurer, Scott Morrison in his annual speech introducing his proposed national budget.

    In its response, the government said it agreed with or supported the majority of the recommendations, including potentially requiring wages to be paid into bank accounts, effectively outlawing cash-in-hand payments. Workers in the “gig economy” will also face greater scrutiny. The government said it was “encouraging the transition to a digital society.”

    Of course, while the government says its new system is targeted at criminals, we suspect there might be an ulterior motive: Given the rash of foreign investment that has propped up Australia’s housing and asset markets, the government is merely trying to stop a flood of capital from leaving the country – particularly now that rising interest rates in the developed world are making its bonds and currency less attractive by comparison.

  • Ebola's Back! Congo Outbreak Sees 21 Cases, 17 Deaths In Last Month

    Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

    The Democratic Republic of Congo has been alerted to an outbreak of Ebola.  In the past five weeks, there have been 21 cases of the infection reported, and 17 of those are now deceased.

    The government of the Democratic Republic of Congo declared the outbreak of Ebola hemorrhagic fever, a rare and deadly disease, on Tuesday, the World Health Organization reported.  

    The declaration of an outbreak came after laboratory results confirmed two cases of the disease in the province of Bikoro in the northwestern part of the country. Bikoro is situated on the shores of Lake Tumba near the border with the Republic of the Congo. The new cases were reported from a small health facility about 30 kilometers (19 miles) from Bikoro.

    The average case fatality rate for Ebola hemorrhagic fever is around 50%. The deadly virus most commonly affects people and nonhuman primates (monkeys, gorillas, and chimpanzees) and is caused by one of five Ebola viruses.

    “We will gather more samples, conduct contact tracing, engage the communities with messages on prevention and control, and put in place methods for improving data collection and sharing,” said Dr. Matshidiso Moeti, the WHO’s regional director for Africa.

    “WHO will work closely with health authorities and partners to support the national response.”

    Upon learning of the confirmed cases, the WHO alerted neighboring countries and set up its Incident Management System to fully dedicate staff and resources to the response. A government statement released Tuesday stated that the Ministry of Health has “taken all necessary measures to respond promptly and effectively to this new epidemic of Ebola in the DRC’s national territory.”

    Unfortunately, the DRC has a history with the Ebola virus. This is its ninth outbreak of Ebola virus disease since the discovery of the virus in the country in 1976. The last outbreak, in 2017, was quickly contained.  There are hopes that a quick response will all see this recent outbreak contained rapidly as well. WHO has also released $1 million from a contingency fund to support its activities in the containment efforts of this outbreak for the next three months.

    Speaking on behalf of the Democratic Republic of Congo Minister of Health, Lambert Matuku, the Minister of State and Labor, said, it is “a worrisome sanitary situation.”

  • Mastermind Behind 9/11 Attacks Wants To Chime In On Haspel CIA Confirmation

    The mastermind behind the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States wants to weigh in on the confirmation of CIA Director nominee Gina Haspel, offering to provide legislators with six paragraphs of testimony about his interrogations.

    Al Qaeda leader Khalid Shaikh Mohammed asked military judge James Pohl for permission to share “six paragraphs” of testimony about Haspel with the Senate Intelligence Committee. Mohammed was captured in 2003 and waterboarded by the CIA over 180 times, while Haspel ran a “black site” in Thailand in 2002 which employed enhanced interrogation techniques.

    On Monday, Mr. Mohammed submitted a request to the judge overseeing pretrial hearings in that case, Army Col. James Pohl, Colonel Poteet said. While the file is not public on the commissions docket, Colonel Poteet said it consisted of an expedited motion for permission to provide the information to the committee about Ms. Haspel.

    The motion, Colonel Poteet said, included an attachment, titled, “Additional Facts, Law and Argument in Support,” containing “six specific paragraphs of information” from Mr. Mohammed that his client thinks the Intelligence Committee should know. After Mr. Mohammed raised the idea, his defense lawyers agreed that the information was important, Colonel Poteet said.-New York Times

    Haspel came under fire in March, after reports in the New York Times and ProPublica reported Haspell’s involvement in the black site, as well as the decision to destroy 92 videotapes of the enhanced interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, a suspected al-Qaeda leader.  

    Mohammed joins Democrats in trying to sink Haspel’s nomination, after several Democratic senators have demanded that the Trump administration declassify more information about her role in the program. 

    This month, four Democratic senators on the Intelligence Committee — Kamala D. Harris and Dianne Feinstein, both of California; Ron Wyden of Oregon; and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico — wrote to Daniel Coats, the director of national intelligence, asking him to declassify all C.I.A. information related to Ms. Haspel’s involvement in the program before her hearing, since she, as acting director of the agency, has declined to do so on her own. –NYT

    On Monday the CIA delivered a set of classified documents to the Senate, describing Haspell’s 33-year career at the agency, “including her time in C.I.A’s Counterterrorism Center in the years after 9/11.” The files are available for every senator to read. 

    “I am not able to describe the information,” he said. He added that it came from Mr. Mohammed himself, not from files turned over by the government to defense lawyers about the treatment of their client in C.I.A. custody. –NYT

    The Department of Justice wrote several secret memos during the Bush administration which approved CIA “enhanced interrogation” techniques – including waterboarding.

    The memos were later withdrawn, and Congress enacted a law which limited interrogators to the techniques listed in the Army Field Manual. The CIA’s internal inspector General found that agency interrogators would sometimes overstep the outlined techniques provided to the Justice Department for legal analysis – while the Senate report concluded that the CIA lied to the White House and other administration officials over the use of such techniques – portraying them as more effective than they actually were.

    “The American people deserve transparency regarding the background of a nominee who will be asked to represent them, and their values, around the world,” wrote the Democratic senators seeking declassification of Haspel’s conduct, adding, “Without making this information available to the American people, Ms. Haspel’s nomination cannot be fully and properly considered by the Senate.

    Reactions have varied, though we were unable to find much support for Mohammed’s request from the left:

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

     

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  • Bernie's (Latest) Boondoggle

    Authored by Daniel Mitchell via International Liberty blog,

    When I wrote about “crazy Bernie Sanders” in 2016, I wasn’t just engaging in literary hyperbole. The Vermont Senator is basically an unreconstructed leftist with a disturbing affinity for crackpot ideas and totalitarian regimes.

    His campaign agenda that year was an orgy of new taxes and higher spending.

    Though it’s worth noting that he’s at least crafty enough to steer clear of pure socialism. He wants massive increases in taxes, spending, and regulation, but even he doesn’t openly advocate government ownership of factories.

    Then again, there probably wouldn’t be any factories to nationalize if Sanders was ever successful in saddling the nation with a Greek-sized public sector.

    He’s already advocated a “Medicare-for-All” scheme with a 10-year price tag of $15 trillion, for instance. And now he has a new multi-trillion dollar proposal for guaranteed jobs.

    In a column for the Washington Post, Robert Samuelson dissects Bernie’s latest vote-buying scheme. Here’s a description of what Senator Sanders apparently wants.

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wants the federal government to guarantee a job for every American willing and able to work. The proposal sounds compassionate and enlightened, but in practice, it would almost certainly be a disaster. …Just precisely how Sanders’s scheme would work is unclear, because he hasn’t yet submitted detailed legislation. However, …a job-guarantee plan devised by economists at Bard College’s Levy Economics Institute…suggests how a job guarantee might function. …anyone needing a job could get one at a uniform wage of $15 an hour, plus health insurance (probably Medicare) and other benefits (importantly: child care). When fully deployed, the program would create 15 million public-service jobs, estimate the economists. …the federal government would pay the costs, the program would be administered by states, localities and nonprofit organizations.

    As you might expect, the fiscal costs would be staggering (and, like most government programs, would wind up being even more expensive than advertised).

    This would be huge: about five times the number of existing federal jobs (2.8 million) and triple the number of state government jobs (5 million). …The proposal would add to already swollen federal budget deficits. The Bard economists put the annual cost at about $400 billion. …overall spending is likely underestimated.

    But the budgetary costs would just be the beginning.

    Bernie’s scheme would basically destroy a big chunk of the job market since people in low-wage and entry-level jobs would seek to take advantage of the new government giveaway.

    …uncovered workers might stage a political rebellion or switch from today’s low-paying private-sector jobs to the better-paid public-service jobs… The same logic applies to child-care subsidies.

    And there are many other unanswered questions about how the plan would work.

    Does the federal government have the managerial competence to oversee the creation of so many jobs? …Can the new workers be disciplined? …Finally, would state and local governments substitute federally funded jobs for existing jobs that are supported by local taxes?

    If the plan ever got adopted, the only silver lining to the dark cloud is that it would provide additional evidence that government programs don’t work.

    The irony is that, by assigning government tasks likely to fail, the advocates of activist government bring government into disrepute.

    But that silver lining won’t matter much since a bigger chunk of the population will be hooked on the heroin of government dependency.

    In other words, just as it’s now difficult to repeal Obamacare even though we know it doesn’t work, it also would be difficult to repeal make-work government jobs.

    So we may have plenty of opportunity to mock Bernie Sanders, but he may wind up with the last laugh.

    P.S. Regarding getting people into productive work, I figure the least destructive approach would be “job training” programs.

    Beyond that, I’m not sure whether make-work government jobs are more harmful or basic income is more harmful.

  • Here's How Much A Luxury Apartment Costs In America's Priciest Rental Markets

    From Brooklyn to San Francisco, developers have been on a high-end housing binge in recent years, with apartments considered “high end” sometimes accounting for more than 75% of all construction.

    But how much does it cost to live in a building with amenities that sometimes include a pool, 24-hour fitness and wellness centers, on-site theaters, rooms and cafes?

    Cities

    A recent study by RentCafe found that the national average rent in a luxury complex is around $1,640 per month, or about $490 more than an apartment in a less-fancy building.

    But of course, that price can vary wildly from city to city, even when they’re in the same state.

    Chart

    For the same price as a luxury studio in San Francisco, you can rent a luxury 3-bedroom apartment in San Diego. In 12 cities you can rent a luxury studio for under $1,200 per month, and in 11 cities $1,500 gets you a high-end two-bedroom.

    But in Manhattan, the most expensive market, a studio will run you $4,500.

    Here’s a breakdown of the cities from least expensive to most expensive, courtesy of RentCafe.

    * * *

    El Paso, Texas

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $976

    Price range: $852 (1-bed) to $1,194 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: -1.3%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $291

    2. Oklahoma City, OK

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,024

    Price range: $872 (studio) to $1,295 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: -0.9%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $368

    3. Las Vegas, NV

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,102

    Price range: $838 (studio) to $1,322 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +18.4%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $284

    4. Louisville, KY

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,123

    Price range: $832 (studio) to $1,500 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +4.9%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $3125.

    5. Memphis, TN

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,134
    Price range: $988 (studio) to $1,476 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +8.8%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $486

    6. Phoenix, AZ

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,154

    Price range: $999 (studio) to $1,378 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +16.3%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $351

    7. Jacksonville, FL

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,173

    Price range: $1,010 (studio) to $1,434 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +12.9%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $347

    8. San Antonio, TX

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,176

    Price range: $1,029 (studio) to $1,537 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +5.4%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $351

    9. Indianapolis, IN

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,191

    Price range: $1,137 (studio) to $1,394 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +11.3%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $453 10.

    10. Charlotte, NC

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,247

    Price range: $1,157 (studio) to $1,455 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +11.0%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $347

    11. Columbus, OH

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,319

    Price range: $992 (studio) to $2,047 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +10.0%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $528

    12. Dallas, TX

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,428

    Price range: $1,165 (studio) to $2,049 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +7.4%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $524 13.

    Austin, TX

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,432

    Price range: $1,247 (studio) to $1,891 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +6.7%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $371

    14. Houston, TX

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,448

    Price range: $1,229 (studio) to $1,848 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +1.8%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $608

    15. Nashville, TN

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,513

    Price range: $1,410 (studio) to $1,745 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +14.1%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $502 16.

    16. Detroit, MI

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,652

    Price range: $1,061 (studio) to $1,878 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +21.7%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $769

    17. Portland, OR

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,691

    Price range: $1,378 (studio) to $1,950 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +9.0%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $484

    18. Baltimore, MD

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,742

    Price range: $1,384 (studio) to $2,123 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +0.4%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $680

    19. Denver, CO

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $1,756

    Price range: $1,399 (studio) to $2,439 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +8.4% Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $499

    20. Philadelphia, PA

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $2,197

    Price range: $1,623 (studio) to $3,677 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +8.2%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $925

    21. Seattle, WA

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $2,261

    Price range: $1,723 (studio) to $3,595 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +13.2%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $644

    22. San Diego, CA

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $2,376

    Price range: $1,847 (studio) to $3,105 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +14.8%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $704

    23. Chicago, IL

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $2,465

    Price range: $1,747 (studio) to $4,905 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +4.8%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $1,078

    24. Washington, DC

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $2,591

    Price range: $1,952 (studio) to $4,670 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +1.8%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $841

    25. San Jose, CA

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $2,849 Price range: $2,262 (studio) to $3,716 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +8.7%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $637

    26. Los Angeles, CA

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $3,028

    Price range: $2,181 (studio) to $5,201 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +9.7%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $1,093

    27. Brooklyn, NYC

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $3,285

    Price range: $2,630 (studio) to $5,728 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: N/A

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $1,352

    28. Boston, MA

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $3,526

    Price range: $2,579 (studio) to $5,630 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +5.3%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $1,048

    29. San Francisco, CA

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $4,132

    Price range: $3,157 (studio) to $6,812 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: +4.2%

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $1,125

    30. Manhattan, NYC

    Average rent in a high-end apartment: $4,416

    Price range: $3,179 (studio) to $8,163 (3-bed)

    Change in high-end rents in the last 3 years: N/A

    Price difference compared to a low-end apartment: $1,035

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 9th May 2018

  • Firepower: Russian Troops Get New Kalashnikov Assault Rifles

    As the United States Army marches towards acquiring the LSAT (Lightweight Small Arms Technologies) light machine gun for their infantry, Russia’s Defense Ministry recently purchased the newest family of Kalashnikov assault rifles for Russian soldiers.

    Russian soldier aims the new AK-12 assault rifle. (Source: Sergey Bobylev, TASS)

    The Russian Defense Ministry confirmed in January that it acquired advanced Kalashnikov AK-12 and AK-15 assault rifles for service, which shoot 5.45×39 mm and 7.62×39 mm cartridges, respectively.

    “A decision has been made on the AK-12 and the AK-15. The submachine guns have been recommended as armament in the ground forces, the airborne force and [naval] infantry,” the Kalashnikov press office said in January, according to Russian News Agency TASS.

    AK-15 (left) and AK-12. (SourceVasily Raksha) 

    Kalashnikov Group CEO Alexei Krivoruchko told TASS that a series of field training exercises were completed with the advanced assault rifles last year. He added that the firearms manufacturer would be shipping the advanced weapons to the Russian Armed Forces in 2018.

    “New Kalashnikov rifles combine famous, battle-proven high reliability with modern ergonomics, increased hit probability and capabilities to effectively use all modern accessories, from red dot, night and IR sights to underbarrel grenade launchers, forward grips, lasers and flashlights, sound suppressors and more.

    AK-12 and AK-15 rifles share most of its arts and assemblies, with key differences being in the ammunition used. AK-12 is chambered for Russian Army standard issue 5.45×39 ammunition, while AK-15 is chambered for older, but still very popular 7.62×39 ammunition. “Kalashnikov” group also designed compact versions of both rifles, known as AK-12K and AK-12K, which are better suited for CQB use by Special Forces, or as Personal Defense Weapons for heavy armament and vehicle crews,” the Kalashnikov Group said in a press statement.

    The AK-12 and AK-15 specifications:

    • Caliber: 5.45х39 (AK-12) or 7.62х39 (AK-15)

    • Length, overall: 34-37 inches

    • Length, shoulder stock folded: 27 inches

    • Barrel length: 16.33 inches

    • Weight, with empty magazine: 7.7 lbs

    • Rate of fire: 700 rounds/min

    • Magazine capacity: 30 rounds

    Russia Beyond Tests The AK-12 Assult Rifle: 

    The advanced assault rifles are part of the Russian military’s “Ratnik” program, which is designed to create future infantry combat systems, including upgraded body armor, high-tech kevlar helmets with special eye monitor (thermal, night vision monocular, flashlight), and communication systems. Initially, only Russian Spetsnaz will receive the AK-12 as part of the Ratnik program, while ground troops will continue using AK-74 into the early 2020s.

    According to Dmitry Semizorov, the CEO of the Central Research Institute of Precision Machine-Making, Russia’s Ratnik combat gear has been successfully tested in the Syrian civil war.

    “You all probably know that the Ratnik was used in Syria and I want to say that the combat gear proved its worth during combat operations. We checked the combat outfit that was used in difficult situations in one way or another. I want to assure you that none of the elements of the combat gear’s protection was ever pierced,” said Semizorov.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    While the global arms race between Washington and Moscow is clearly evident, what we do know today is that both countries are rapidly modernizing their standard military rifles before the next major shooting war.

  • Armenia Elects New Prime Minister, Confirms Alliance With Russia

    Authored via The Duran,

    New Armenian leader confirms Armenia will retain its alliance with Russia…

    Weeks of crisis in Armenia have ended with the Armenian parliament’s election of opposition leader Nikol Pashinyan Prime Minister.

    He was the only candidate after it became clear that the ruling Republican party’s attempts to install its own candidate in place of its retired leader Serzh Sargsyan – whose attempt to appoint himself Prime Minister triggered the crisis – was unacceptable to large sections of the Armenian public.

    Almost the first steps Pashinyan has taken as Armenia’s new leader is pledge to continue Armenia’s military alliance with Russia – which he says (correctly) is essential for Armenia’s security – and say that Armenia will remain a member of the Russian led Eurasian Union.

    Pashinyan has also said that he intends to attend the forthcoming Eurasian Union summit meeting, where he intends to meet Russian President Putin for the first time.

    Pashinyan has expressed opposition in the past to Armenia’s membership of the Eurasian Union.  That will undoubtedly lead some to suspect that his recent pledges to continue Armenia’s alliance with Russia and to keep Armenia inside the Eurasian Union are cynical manoeuvres intended to buy him time whilst he builds up his power base so that he can chip away at the links to Russia later.

    I take a different view.  I think it more likely that Pashinyan’s earlier criticisms were simply intended to distinguish him from Sargsyan and the Republicans, and now that he has achieved his purpose of becoming Armenia’s Prime Minister they will be quietly forgotten.

    Even if that is wrong, the very fact that Pashinyan has felt obliged to make these pledges as soon as it became clear that he would become Prime Minister speaks for itself.

    The simple fact is that Pashinyan would almost certainly not have become Armenia’s Prime Minister if he had not made these pledges.  Quite simply there is no critical mass in Armenia of opponents of the nation’s alliance with Russia sufficient to propel to power a politician who pledges to end that alliance.  Far too many Armenians realise that given Armenia’s difficult geopolitical environment the alliance with Russia is – as Pashinyan says – essential for Armenia’s security to make it possible for an Armenian politician who wishes to end that alliance to gain power.

    That immediately limits what Pashinyan can do, even if he secretly does wish to break with Russia, which as it happens I strongly doubt.

  • Short Of War, China Now Controls South China Sea

    Authored by Richard Javad Heydarian via The Asia Times ,

    Beijing’s new missile deployment to contested land features has tilted the maritime area’s balance of power in its favor. Will the US respond?

    Tensions in the South China Sea are on the boil again amid new reports that China has deployed advanced missiles to land features in the disputed maritime area.

    According to new reports, China has installed several Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAMs) and Anti-Cruise Ballistic Missiles (ACBMs) systems across the Paracel and Spratly island chains, parts of which are claimed by multiple regional states including the Philippines and Vietnam.

    Weeks earlier, China also deployed electronic jamming equipment to the maritime area, giving it the ability to disrupt the command-and-control communications of rival states’ military assets operating in the South China Sea.

    China’s neighbors and rivals fear that the Asian powerhouse is slowly but surely establishing the foundation of an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) in one of the world’s most important and busy waterways. Over US$5 trillion worth of global trade traversed the sea last year.

    Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy warships and fighter jets take part in a military display in the South China Sea, April 12, 2018. Photo: Reuters/Stringer

    Boosting China’s missile defense system in the area would allow it to progressively restrict the movement as well as squeeze the supply lines of smaller claimant states, all of which maintain comparatively modest military capabilities to fortify their sea claims.

    The reports immediately rekindled tensions between China and key Southeast Asian claimant states, including the Philippines. Crucially, it has also reignited an ongoing debate between doves and hawks within the Philippine government.

    In recent days, images of Chinese military assets in Philippine-claimed features, namely the Fiery Cross, Mischief and Subi reefs, have dominated news headlines in Manila.

    Senior Filipino defense officials have repeatedly expressed concerns over China’s militarization of the disputed area. Earlier this year, Philippine Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana claimed that China promised not to deploy more military assets to Philippine-claimed land features.

    The recent reports will thus likely be interpreted by Filipino top brass as a betrayal of trust while giving new ammunition to already strong anti-China rally cries among nationalistic Filipinos.

    Amid rising public pressure for the Philippine government to take a harder stance, the Senate is scheduled to conduct an inquiry into the direction of Philippine-China relations and ways to protect the country’s interest in the South China Sea.

    Philippine Foreign Secretary Alan Peter Cayetano, known for his dovish position on China, has inn recent days tried to strike a new balance: “We’re taking it seriously. We’re verifying the information [about the deployment of missile systems].”

    “The problem is it can’t be solved just by the Philippines and China,” claimed the Philippines’ top diplomat. “This is what the President was saying, that it’s not directed at us, but of course our allies and defense are saying that they may have missiles there. It could affect anyone.”

    Cayetano promised to coordinate with defense authorities, including the defense secretary and the national security adviser, to verify the reports and consider an appropriate response.

    In a high-profile press conference, the US Ambassador to the Philippines, Sung Kim, expressed his concern over any “aggressive unilateral action toward militarization,” while saying that China is “moving toward militarization” of the disputes.

    In Washington, the White House took a more strident stance. White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders told media that the Trump administration has “raised concerns” with China, warning the Asian powerhouse about “near-term and long-term consequences” if there was not a change of course.

    US Navy sailors move aircraft from an elevator into the hangar bay of the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt in the South China Sea, April 8, 2018. Photo: US Navy via Reuters/Michael Hogan/Handout

    A top Pentagon official told CNBC that China’s deployment of missile defense systems in the South China Sea shows “the further militarization of [artificially-created] outposts” by China and “will only serve to raise tensions and create greater distrust among claimants.”

    Last month, Admiral Philip Davidson, the incoming chief of the US Navy’s Pacific Command, said in written testimony to the US Senate Armed Services Committee that China’s militarization of the disputes represent “a substantial challenge to US military operations in this region.”

    “The only thing lacking are deployed forces. Once occupied, China will be able to extend its influence thousands of miles to the south and project power deep into Oceania,” warned the American admiral. “In short, China is now capable of controlling the South China Sea in all scenarios short of war with the United States.”

    Under President Donald Trump’s administration, the US has stepped up its freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea, aiming to deter the establishment of a full-fledged Chinese exclusion zone in the area.

    Against that backdrop, US and Philippine forces launched on Monday their largest joint military exercises under Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who previously aimed to scale down the so-called Balikatan, or shoulder-to-shoulder, drills in a move seen as appeasing China.

    A US Marine runs with a Philippine soldier during joint drills aimed at Philippine Naval base San Antonio, Zambales, October 9, 2015. Photo: Reuters/Erik De Castro

    Filipino officials insisted the regular exercises, comprised this year of around 8,000 Philippine and US forces as well as contingents from Japan and Australia, were not trained on China and focused more on counterterrorism.

    China, for its part, has remained adamant that its actions are purely defensive. “Our peaceful construction activities on the Nansha [Spratly] Islands, including the deployment of necessary national defense facilities, are meant to safeguard China’s sovereignty and security, which is also the rights a sovereign state is entitled to,” China’s Defense Ministry spokesman Hua Chunying recently said.

    Despite a growing public backlash, Duterte seems determined to continue with his rapprochement with China. In a controversial speech on May 4, the Filipino president went so far as to claim that China aims to protect, rather than imperil, the Philippines’ national interests.

    “China said, ‘We will protect you. We will not allow the Philippines to be destroyed. We are just here and you can call for our help anytime,’” said Duterte, desperately seeking to assuage rising criticism of his close relations with Beijing.

    Harry Roque, Duterte’s spokesman, claimed that “we are confident that those missiles are not directed at us,” given the “recently developed close relationship and friendship” between the Philippines and China. He did not explain, however, to whom the projectiles are pointed at instead.

  • Here’s How Much Marijuana Costs In The United States Vs Canada

    Submitted by Priceonomics

    A tidal wave of change is hitting the cannabis industry in both the United States and Canada.

    In the United States, medical marijuana is now legal in 29 states. Not only that, but the recreational use of marijuana is now legal in 10 states. You can walk into a licensed store in places like California, Oregon and Colorado and purchase cannabis nearly as easily as buying beer.

    Similar dynamics are taking place in Canada. Medical marijuana consumption was first legalized in 2001, and in 2017 legislation paved the way for the legalization of recreational use throughout all of Canada — a development that’s expected to be implemented in the summer of this year.

    With the emergence of legal weed in the US and Canada, we were curious, in which country is it more expensive? How does the price of marijuana vary across cities in the United States and Canada?

    We analyzed data from Priceonomics customer Wikileaf, a company that tracks cannabis prices at dispensaries across the US and Canada and aggregated the data at the national level and find out the answers.

    We discovered that cannabis is 30% less expensive in Canada than the United States. When you look at different cities, the price differential can be even more pronounced. Legal marijuana is 39% cheaper in Vancouver than San Francisco, for example.

    ***

    We begin our analysis by looking at the average price of an eighth of an ounce of marijuana in the United States versus Canada at the beginning of April 2018. Throughout this piece, Canadian prices are converted to US dollars to make the price comparison consistent.

    Across dispensaries tracked by Wikileaf in the United States, the price of an eighth of marijuana is $40.0, compared to $27.9 in Canada, where it is 30% cheaper.

    Part of the reason cannabis is so much cheaper in Canada than the United States is there is a much longer history of legalization in Canada, and thus a larger supply of legal marijuana growers and sellers. While cannabis companies in the United States can’t even have bank accounts, in Canada there are publicly traded cannabis companies on the stock market. In anticipation of nationwide legalization this year, supply of marijuana continues to grow.

    Next we look at the price difference between the two countries based on the size of the purchase? Is Canadian marijuana still less expensive if you buy a small amount (a gram) versus large amount (an ounce)?

    At every quantity purchased, it’s much cheaper to buy in Canada versus the United States. At the bottom of the chart, we calculate the percentage discount of Canadian weed versus American. Interestingly, the largest quantity you purchase, the smaller the price discount in Canada is. It turns out that in the United States, they give you a larger bulk discount on weed.

    Since the beginning of 2018, the prices of weed in Canada and the United States have been very stable. Below we chart the weekly average price for an eighth of an ounce of cannabis on Wikileaf since the new year:

    In the past year, the price of marijuana has been extremely stable in both the United States and Canada.

    ***

    Lastly, we conclude by looking at the price of marijuana in the most popular cities among Wikileaf users in the United States and Canada. Is there a large variation in the price of weed in the Canadian cities Vancouver and Toronto? How about in US cities like San Francisco, Seattle, Denver, Portland, and Los Angeles?

    San Francisco, a city which wins a lot of these “most expensive awards” (toast, real estate, coffee, etc), also has the most expensive marijuana of all the cities we looked at. In San Francisco, an eighth of an ounce of weed is 12% more expensive than in Seattle and 20% more expensive than in Los Angeles. 

    When compared to its US counterparts, the Canadian cities of Toronto and Vancouver offer a substantial discount. Someone from San Francisco visiting Vancouver can purchase weed at 39% discount compared to at home. 

    ***

    So, it turns out marijuana is about 30% cheaper in Canada than the United States. Those differences have persisted all year and are pervasive at all purchase sizes. By most accounts, the demand for marijuana in Canada is quite high, so that is unlikely to be the reason for the price discount versus the United States. 

    Instead, cannabis is cheaper in Canada because there has been a longer history of a legal supply of weed.  With marijuana, as with most things, when the supply is high, the prices are not.

  • Is "The Big One" Coming? Los Angeles Area Rocked By 4.5 Magnitude Earthquake

    Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

    An earthquake this morning rattled a wide swath of Southern California, sparking fears that this may not be the worst. 

    The 4.5 magnitude quake struck near Cabazon about 6 miles south-southeast of Mt. San Gorgonio just before 5 am local time.

    Residents felt the quake and warned others to be prepared because this was minor compared to historical quakes, and the close proximity to the San Andres fault line.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    No damage has been reported yet as the magnitude appears to be fairly small, but the shaking was felt by residents across the Inland Empire. The quake occurred at 4:49 a.m. at a depth of 8 miles, the U.S Geological Survey said. Its epicenter was located in Riverside County, 6.8 miles north of Cabazon and 20 miles northwest of Palm Springs. It originally was measured as a 4.6 quake before being downgraded to a 4.5 magnitude. 

    According to The LA Times, the quake was followed by several aftershocks. This marks the second time in little more than a month when the region was hit by a small quake felt over a large area. On April 5, a 5.3-magnitude quake centered in the Channel Islands off Santa Barbara County rattled nerves.

    But experts have recently said that the Hayward Bay faultline in the San Francisco Bay area is more dangerous and volatile than the infamous San Andreas fault line. However, a large quake on either fault line would impact millions and cause untold amounts of damage based solely on population density.

    The scariest scenario for the next major earthquake may not be from the San Andreas Fault (though that one still threatens), but from the Hayward Fault that runs along the east side of the San Francisco Bay. In fact, many say that the next earthquake on the Hayward Bay fault line would be “disastrous.”According to KTUV, a magnitude 7.0 earthquake along the Hayward Fault could kill as many as 800 people and injure 18,000, according to results of a new research released Wednesday. –SHTFPlan

    According to Business Insider, the statistical chances of this type of an earthquake occurring on the Hayward Bay fault line are not very comforting either. There’s about a 76% chance that the San Francisco Bay Area could experience a 7.2 magnitude earthquake within the next 30 years, according to some recent reports.

  • Pompeo Expected To Return With 3 Americans Held In North Korea

    Shortly after arriving in Pyongyang for meetings with North Korean officials, news broke that the new US Secretary of State may have a big surprise when he returns to the US: according to Yonhap, which cited a South Korean presidential official, North Korea is expected to release three U.S. citizens held in the communist state “in an apparent goodwill gesture ahead of a historic meeting between its leader Kim Jong-un and U.S. President Donald Trump.”

    The official reportedly added that Pompeo was expected to return with “the exact time of the Trump-Kim summit, along with the three U.S. captives in North Korea.”

    “We expect him to bring the date, time and the captives,” the official said, while speaking on condition of anonymity.

    Pompeo arrived in Pyongyang earlier in the day, according to reports, marking his second trip to the reclusive North in less than a month, although this one not nearly as top secret as his first one over Easter.

    Trump earlier said the location of his meeting with Kim has already been set.

    Pompeo earlier said the North’s release of the three U.S. citizens would be a “great gesture,” noting the U.S. has been asking for their freedom for 17 months. Pompeo was earlier expected to bring the three captives through the inter-Korean border, but the Cheong Wa Dae official said that will likely not be the case. The three U.S. citizens are all said to be Korean-Americans.

    It was not clear when Pompeo is set to leave Pyongyang.

     

  • No Country For 'Old White Guys'

    After millions of baby boomers lost their life savings during the financial crisis (a catastrophe for which no senior bankers were ever held accountable), more old white men are being forced out of retirement or simply being forced to work until a much later age.

    Unfortunately for older Americans, rampant ageism in the workforce is making it difficult to get well-paying work – or even, as the following case shows, a job at the local restaurant and bar.

    To wit, Darden’s Season 52 chain of restaurants was has been forced to pay $2.85 million to settle a federal lawsuit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission  alleging that job candidates interviewing for jobs at the chain’s 41 locations had been told that they wouldn’t be considered because the company didn’t hire “old white guys,” according to the Orlando Sentinel.

    “Often, discrimination cases are hard to prove,” said David Seltzer, an attorney on the case with the EEOC’s Miami district office. “But here, Seasons 52 interviews across locations repeatedly told applicants things like ‘We don’t hire people over 40,’ ‘Seasons 52 girls are younger and fresh’ or asked them for their date of birth, high school graduation date or a driver’s license.”

    […]

    The EEOC alleged that one manager bluntly said Seasons 52 didn’t employ “old white guys.'”

    Though the company escaped an admission of liability (and continues to deny the allegations) it will now be required to hold new training for all hiring managers regarding “age-neutral and non-discriminatory recruiting, interviewing, and hiring; and how to avoid stereotypes in hiring and in the workplace, including ageism and age stereotypes.”

    Also, the victims of the company’s purported discrimination will be invited to reapply for positions at the restaurant. Season 52 has also been required to have its hiring practices monitored for three years by an independent attorney.

    The case, which was filed in February 2015, alleged that Darden’s Seasons 52 chain tried to portray a “young and hip” image by hiring younger servers and hosts.

    Season

    Both the plaintiffs and Darden said they were happy to put the case behind them, while the plaintiffs said the victory was an important step toward showing American employers that older workers could keep up (though we imagine the victory won’t impact the decision making of managers at independent restaurants and bars across the country).

    “We are pleased to resolve this EEOC matter,” said a statement from Darden spokesman Hunter Robinson. “Putting this behind us is good for Seasons 52, good for our team members and good for our shareholders.”

    […]

    “In Florida, we’ve seen over the years numerous situations where there’s a preference for younger workers over older workers, whether it’s just for show, or they don’t think older people can do the work because they don’t think they can keep up,” said Robert Weisberg, an attorney in the EEOC’s Miami office. “It’s a pervasive problem in many industries and particularly pervasive in hospitality.”

    One lawyer who spoke with the Sentinel described the case as a “significant victory” for the EEOC and the nation’s (rapidly swelling) number of senior citizens who are being forced to continue working – or in some cases reenter the workforce – in the aftermath of the financial crisis.

    No doubt, most Americans know somebody who is being forced to linger in the workforce for longer than they ideally would’ve liked.

    As we pointed out last year, almost 19% of people 65 or older were working at least part-time in the second quarter of 2017, according to the US jobs report released on Friday. The age group’s employment/population ratio hasn’t been higher in 55 years, before American retirees won better health care and Social Security benefits starting in the late 1960s.

    Least the millennials who are presently dominating the American workforce hope they might be spared a similar fate, perhaps thanks to the adoption of progressive social welfare programs like UBI, we have some disheartening news: They won’t.

    Older Americans are working more even as those under 65 are working less, a trend that the Bureau of Labor Statistics expects to continue. By 2024, 36% of 65- to 69-year-olds will be active participants in the labor market, the BLS says. That’s up from just 22% in 1994.

    Seniors

    And the trend looks likely to continue, as the chart above shows.

    Assuming they don’t become crypto millionaires or get discovered yodeling in a Wal-Mart, all the young, hot servers at Season 52 and other restaurants who are hoping for a measure of job security as they inexorably approach their 30s (an age where they will inevitably grow to loathe the fresh-eyed 22-year-olds that management favors) might want to consider a more marketable line of work.

    Might we suggest coding?

  • Mnuchin Reveals Trump's Iran Deal Gamble: "The Objective Is To Enter Into A New Agreement"

    One of the growing concerns resulting from Trump’s decision to pull the US out of the Iran deal, is that oil – and gasoline – prices will jump so much, now that anywhere between 200kb/d and 700kb/d in Iran exports is taken out of the market, they will offset most benefits to US consumers from the Trump tax cuts. We covered this topic three weeks ago in “Rising Gas Prices Threaten To Wipe Out Trump’s Tax Cut Benefits.”

    Incidentally, that’s just one of the less severe complications that could emerge over the next 6 months as the full extent of the new Iran sanctions is rolled out.  As we reported earlier, Trump said the U.S. would levy the “highest level” of sanctions against Iran—including the punishment of Western companies and banks if they continue to do business with the country—as Washington pulled out of the Iranian nuclear accord.

    And while new contracts are banned, companies and banks will have 90 days or 180 days to wind down their ties before risking penalties.

    “Any nation that helps Iran in its quest for nuclear weapons could also be strongly sanctioned by the United States,” Trump said, envisioning a complete paralysis of the Iranian economy. As the WSJ summarizes, financial or business activities outlawed by Aug. 6, Treasury said, include exports of airplanes and parts, dollar transactions, trade in gold and other metals, sovereign debt and auto-industry deals. By Nov. 4, sanctions ban oil purchases, dealings with Iran’s ports and shipping industry, any ties to its insurance sector and dealings with the central bank.

    But is the president really willing to alienate any of the countless European and global states that will continue trading with Iran, especially since the latest sanctions cover every major aspect of Iran’s economy, most importantly banning oil exports from the country, but also hitting the financial sector and the automotive and aviation industries.

    That’s the big question.

    Speaking at a press conference after Trump’s announcement, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said that “this administration is resolved to addressing the totality of Iran’s destabilizing activities”

    And here something interesting emerged.

    Ahead of the Trump sanction announcement, many had speculated that the president is playing hard ball only for purely populist/theatrical purposes, and in reality Trump is exiting the deal only so he can re-enter it, but on his own terms.

    Furthermore, the adverse impact to Trump’s approval rating that would accompany a surge in gasoline prices would be fat worse than any number of Russian kompromats the NSA can leak to the WaPo/NYT.

    And the reality is that both Trump and Mnuchin realize this, and are hardly willing to gamble with Trump’s freedom, especially since none other than Trump himself warned that should the Democrats win the midterm elections, that he may be impeached. Yet while Mnuchin said during today’s press conference that he does “not expect oil prices to go higher”, absent Iranian oil returning fully into the market, it seems improbably that oil will slide right back to $50-60.

    So then was today’s historic unraveling of Obama’s biggest foreign policy achievement just another grand performance by Trump?

    One possible sign pointing to “yes” is that Mnuchin said the hiatus before enforcing compliance is to buy time for allies to exit the Iran deals.  But much more importantly, it is also meant to get Iran and European allies to back a potential new accord on nuclear development and other activities deemed hostile by Washington.

    And, as the WSJ adds, “the wind down periods allow for more than enough time that if there’s not a deal that the sanctions will take effect,” Mnuchin said and added what we believe is the punchline: Trump’s objective in re-imposing sanctions on Iran and threatening to penalize allies “is to enter into a new agreement” even though sanctions will remain in place until the nuke program is stopped. Then again, according to Iran and countless independent observes, Iran’s program already is stopped, which means that Trump himself deliberately set up the strawmen so he can then take them down, and upon “revising” the Iran deal, reincarnate the Iran nuclear deal, only this time it will be “Trump’s Iran Deal“, not “Obama’s Iran Deal.”

    And there you have it: according to Mnuchin, Trump’s goal is not to punish and leave Iran out of the global community – while sending the price of oil soaring -but  to theaten and pressure. In fact, as the WSJ adds, “just as the Trump administration announced steel tariffs but later provided temporary exceptions for allies, the U.S. is leaving itself wiggle room should its actions prove to be too disruptive or too tough to enforce.

    The loophole were also a mile wide: “Mr. Mnuchin said that the U.S. could give exemptions to countries proving they were significantly reducing their purchases from Iran. Treasury didn’t elaborate on what “significant” means.”

    Finally, addressing the underlying futility of the sanctions, the head of MENA research at MUFG Bank, Ehsan Khoman, said that China, India, Russia and Turkey will likely oppose U.S. sanctions and keep current levels of Iranian crude purchases, even as the occasional U.S. allies – including Japan and South Korea – may comply with U.S. sanctions because of concerns they could lose U.S. security umbrella against North Korea.

    Meanwhile, the EU could also escape Trump’s retribution and protect its entities operating in Iran by offering non-USD denominated currencies through institutions including European Investment Bank.

    “It is unclear whether the potential use of non-USD denominated finance lines will offer much protection to European entities, and thus such a move could be largely symbolic in nature.”

    Finally, Khoman notes that in a sign of de-escalation, the EU may not reinstate sanctions on shipping insurance, which were “critical in disrupting Iranian crude exports between 2012 and 2016.”

    In short, Trump’s “draconian” sanctions, which will be delayed for months, have extensive loopholes, and allow most of Iran’s existing oil trade partners to continue buying oil, may be just a big smokescreen that will allow Trump to say he achieved one more campaign promise. Meanwhile, in reality, both Trump and Mnuchin are doing their best behind the scenes to “enter a new agreement”, one which Trump can bring to the masses and say: “here, I took Obama’s unacceptable, defective deal, and made it better…. and i also brought down the price of oil too.”

  • "After 14 Years, I’ve Had It. I’m Leaving Seattle"

    In a scathing op-ed published in the Seattle Times, Alex Berezow, a biomedical science fellow at the American Council on Science and Health, blasted Seattle’s City Council for prioritizing virtue signaling over the plight of the city’s most vulnerable residents and its increasingly strapped middle class.

    When Berezow first moved to Seattle 14 years ago, homelessness didn’t exist in the neighborhood of Northgate, where he continues to live.

    But as home prices have skyrocketed – to the point where the median home value has reached nearly $900,000, placing homeownership in the city far beyond the reach of most American millennials – Berezow said homeless camps have begun appearing in the neighborhood. Many of these camps have no access to social services and are subjected to disease and abuse and as a result, crime has risen.

    Seattle

    In short, Seattle has become a city that is hostile to the middle class.

    But it wasn’t until a meeting with city council woman Debora Juarez that Berezow was inspired to pen an editorial for the Seattle Times. After the council woman blew off his concerns about the homeless and about housing (the city has been accused of artificially restricting supply through overly strict zoning laws), Berezow decided to appeal directly to the city’s residents.

    Seattle’s politicians are so focused on being anti-Trump, they spend more time talking about issues they have no control over – like foreign policy – than ensuring that Seattle’s streets are clean and safe, that potholes have been repaired, and that younger residents can at least entertain the hope of home ownership some day.

    * * *

    Read the full editorial below:

    I KNEW Seattle was no longer a place for me when I met with Debora Juarez — the District 5 City Council member I had voted for.

    Last September, at what I thought was going to be a friendly one-on-one meeting between an elected official and her constituent, I expressed some concerns that were on my mind. I fretted over the deterioration of a city with which I had fallen in love — a city that, despite my 21 trips to Europe, I still believe to be the most beautiful in the world.

    I told my council member that Northgate, my home, had seen a noticeable increase in litter and graffiti. To my dismay, she seemed to suggest these issues were someone else’s job, not hers. So, I moved on to a bigger issue: homelessness.

    When I first moved to Seattle 14 years ago, to attend the University of Washington, homelessness essentially didn’t exist at Northgate. Though I have never been a victim of or witness to a crime, some of my neighbors have been, and they believe homeless camps are the reason. Additionally, the conditions in such camps are often atrocious — not only are the homeless more likely to be victims of violent crime, they are susceptible to infectious disease, such as the hepatitis A outbreak in San Diego that sickened nearly 500 people and has killed 20.

    I believe strongly that it is not compassionate to leave people who are unable or unwilling to care for themselves to suffer and die on the street. Because many (but certainly not all) homeless people struggle with mental illness or drug addiction, I suggested that Seattle find a way to make it easier to provide treatment to these troubled souls — involuntarily, if need be. It could literally save their lives.

    Juarez exclaimed, “What is this? Nazi Germany?”

    Appalled — in part because my grandparents survived Nazi Germany — I got up and walked out.

    As a professional science writer, I’ve certainly grown accustomed to the crass insults that have become routine in our toxic political environment. I just didn’t expect it from a person for whom I voted. But perhaps I shouldn’t have been surprised.

    Slowly but surely, Seattle has become an angry place. Councilmember Kshama Sawant called a police shooting a “brutal murder.” She also tweeted that it was “terrible” for a feminist organization to wish that Barbara Bush, on her death, rest in peace. As a congressional candidate, Pramila Jayapal supporters implied that her respectable opponent, Brady Walkinshaw, was a misogynist and racist. And former Mayor Ed Murray, whose pattern of alleged sexual behavior finally caught up with him, remained defiant until the bitter end.

    For a city that prides itself on being “anti-Trump,” it is difficult to see how exactly we’re supposed to possess the moral high ground over “The Other Washington.”

    The toxic politics are bad enough, but the city also has become unaffordable for the middle class. Partly, that is due to high demand (which is a good problem for a city to have), but it’s also due to self-inflicted wounds, such as a restrictive housing policy that artificially caps supply. Seattle is well on its way to becoming the next Vancouver, British Columbia, with the median housing price having spiked to an eye-watering $820,000, far outside the reach of the middle class. Unless they are able to save for about 14 years to afford a down payment, millennials can forget about homeownership entirely.

    The $15 minimum wage has added gasoline to the fire. Though it hasn’t even been fully implemented yet, the most recent study last summer revealed that when the minimum moved from $11 to $13 an hour, low-wage workers lost about $125 per month. That means that the law raises costs for businesses and customers while actually harming employees it was meant to help.

    But stubborn facts and a hurting middle class don’t seem to faze the City Council, which seems far more concerned about issues over which it has zero control — such as climate change and foreign policy — than it does about issues over which it has at least a modicum of control, such as the cost of living, homelessness, crime, traffic and potholes. For our City Council, virtue signaling is more important than governing.

    So, my wife and I are heading to the Eastside. We really would prefer to stay in Seattle. But if safe streets, clean sidewalks, an affordable place to live and polite discourse is asking too much, we’ll gladly seek refuge in a city where quality of life and civility still matter.

    * * *

    Seattle’s city council recently announced it would pursue an employment tax on the city’s largest companies to create a fund to provide emergency services to the homeless, as well as permanent relocation services.

    The only problem? The city’s largest taxpayer, Amazon, is threatening to halt construction projects and cut down on employment in the city if the measure goes through.

    Opponents of the law say it would penalize employment and ultimately hurt the city’s economy, while doing nothing to alleviate the housing crisis.

    But at least progressive lawmakers could finally say they’re doing something.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 8th May 2018

  • UK New Car Registrations Are Set To Tumble

    In the case of a no deal Brexit, in which the country must resort to WTO rules for international trade, the negative effects on the UK car industry could be devastating. The current uncertainty surrounding the type of deal that will be struck with the EU is already having an effect on production output and leading major investors such as Toyota and PSA (Vauxhall) to assess their future in the region.

    It’s not just investors that need to be reassured in these times of uncertainty, though.

    If the industry is to prosper, demand for cars also needs to remain high among consumers. As Statista’s Martin Armstrong shows in the infographic below, the Brexit effect is also starting to take hold of new registrations.

    Infographic: UK new car registrations: tough times ahead? | Statista

    You will find more infographics at Statista

    As with production, new registrations peaked in 2016 at 2.69 million. Last year though, this fell by 150,000 to 2.54 million.

    Looking ahead, forecasts by SMMT are less than optimistic, with the trend expected to continue down to 2.35 million by 2019.

  • Russia's Grand Strategy In Afro-Eurasia (And What Could Go Wrong)

    Authored by Andrew Korybko via Oriental Review,

    Russia’s 21st-century grand strategy is all about becoming the supreme “balancing” force in Afro-Eurasia through the skillful diplomatic management of the hemisphere’s multiple conflicts, though the greatest danger to this vision comes not from the US’ Hybrid Wars, but from Russia itself if its diplomatic and expert community representatives don’t rise to the occasion in properly explaining this strategy to the masses.

    Russia seems to have become one of the favorite topics nowadays of anyone who’s even remotely interested in international politics, and apparently everyone has an opinion about the country’s grand strategy. Those inclined to believe the Western Mainstream Media usually hold one of two contradictory positions in mistakenly believing that Russia is either hell-bent on militarily conquering the world or is just a few years from an all-out collapse as a result of systemic mismanagement at home. On the other hand, many followers of Alt-Media wrongly think that Russia has a self-appointed mission to save the world from American-led unipolarity in all of its manifestations and that the 5-D chess grandmaster President Putin is flawlessly winning victory after victory. All three trains of thought unfortunately fail to account for the reality of Russia’s grand strategy, which can best be summarized as endeavoring to become the 21st-century’s supreme “balancing” force in Afro-Eurasia through the skillful diplomatic management of the hemisphere’s conflicts.

    From The “Ummah Pivot” To The “Golden Ring”

    This ambitious vision owes its origins to the “progressive” faction of the Russian “deep state” (its permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies) that courageously decided to throw off the Soviet shackles of the past and initiate game-changing rapprochements with non-traditional partners such as Turkey, Saudi ArabiaAzerbaijan, and Pakistan in what can colloquially be called the “Ummah Pivot”.  These foreign policy pioneers “filled in the (geographic) gap” that their predecessors left unattended to after they “bookended” Eurasia with their own post-Cold War rapprochements with Germany in the West and China in the East, so it makes sense that the time would eventually come for Russia to look South towards the Muslim-majority countries lining that part of the Eurasian Rimland. As all of this has been happening, China unveiled its One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity that provides the infrastructural basis for connecting these disparate geopolitical nodes together and building the structural foundation for the emerging Multipolar World Order.

    Iran, Russia and Azerbaijan summit in Tehran in 2017

    Having been rebuffed in Western Eurasia by the EU’s anti-Russian sanctions that Brussels was pressured by the US into implementing, Moscow “rebalanced” its hitherto European focus and diversified its diplomatic efforts through the “Ummah Pivot”, which has seen the creation of two new trilateral partnerships. The first one centers on Syria and concerns Russia, Turkey, and Iran, while the second one is all about Afghanistan and involves Russia, Pakistan, and China. The combined geostrategic potential of these five multipolar Great Powers “circling the wagons” to protect the Eurasian supercontinental core is the “Golden Ring”, which represents the ultimate integrational objective of the 21st-century and would symbolize the institutional union of many of the Eastern Hemisphere’s most important continental powers. Of the highest strategic significance, the fulfillment of the Golden Circle would allow its members to trade with one another via forthcoming overland Silk Road routes that crucially avoid the US Navy’s dominance along the Eurasian Rimland.

    Peripheral Problems

    Nevertheless, the supercontinental maritime periphery is still very important because of China’s dependence on sea routes for trading with Africa, whose future is intertwined with the People’s Republic because the latter absolutely needs the continent to become robust enough of a developed market to purchase the country’s overproduced goods. Beijing’s greatest competitors in the Afro-Pacific space are Washington and its “Lead From Behind” coalition of the “Quad”, which have unveiled the so-called “Asia-Africa Growth Corridor” (AAGC) to counter the New Silk Road. Making everything all the more tense, China and the other four Golden Circle Great Powers need to prepare themselves for responding to externally provoked identity conflicts in the Silk Road’s geostrategic transit states (Hybrid Wars), and while the Eurasia Core can more or less count on multilateral solutions to these challenges via the SCO or any other related structure, Africa has no such security options.

    China is therefore compelled to build up the military capacities of its Silk Road partners there and potentially even deploy its aircraft carriers along the coast in the worst-case scenario to “Lead From Behind” in assisting the locals in their counter-Hybrid War campaigns, but it’s interestingly at this point where Russia could play a pivotal role in restoring stability to Africa. Moscow is already experimenting with a new policy of using “mercenaries” to support the internationally recognized but fledgling government of the Central African Republic in its quest to reclaim the civil war-torn country from the myriad bands of militants that are occupying the vast majority of it, and the success of Russia’s version of its own “Lead From Behind” strategy would be the “proof of concept” needed to convince the rest of Africa and China that Moscow could provide much-needed security services in protecting their Silk Road projects.

    The African Angle

    As was explained in the hyperlinked analysis above, Russia’s involvement in African conflict resolution processes could expand from the initial military phase to a secondary diplomatic one in making Moscow a key player in any forthcoming political settlements there, provided of course that its national companies can be guaranteed privileged access to the said nation’s marketplace and resources. This win-win tradeoff could appeal to African elites and their Chinese partners alike, both of which don’t have the combat or diplomatic experience that Russia has earned through its anti-terrorist campaign in Syria and attendant Astana peace process to handle the coming Hybrid War challenges ahead. So long as Russia exercises prudence and avoids getting caught in any potential quagmires, then it can continue to “do more with less” in “cleaning up” the many messes that are predicted to be made all across Africa in the coming future.

    Together with the military dimension of this “balancing” strategy comes its traditional diplomatic one, which Russia is already practicing to a degree with China’s Indo-Japanese rivals. The reinforcement and betterment of bilateral relations with each of these American-aligned Great Powers is to both Russia and even China’s advantage because it could allow Moscow to exercise “moderating” influence on each of them in the event that the US succeeds in getting them to provoke a crisis with Beijing. Taking it even further, though, Russia should explore opportunities to become a full-fledged member of the AAGC in order to “piggyback” off of these two much more entrepreneurial countries’ progress in Africa, especially when considering that China isn’t helping Russia gain access to this marketplace (though that could change if it becomes Beijing’s strategic security partner in the continent). “Balancing” between the two economic “blocs” would be to Russia’s premier advantage, and it could even yield benefits for its underdeveloped Far East and Arctic regions.

    Strategic Review

    Reviewing the grand strategy that’s been expounded upon thus far, Europe’s rejection of Russia as a result of American pressure motivated Moscow to commence the “Ummah Pivot” in solidifying the Eurasian Core through two interlinked trilateral partnerships that collectively form the basis of the Golden Ring Great Power nexus. By leveraging its centralized position in Eurasia, Russia aims to become the irreplaceable transit state for most continental connectivity ventures as well as the neutral “balancer” for constructively resolving the Hybrid War chaos that the US has wrought all across the landmass, thereby flexing both economic and diplomatic muscle through this strategy. Moving beyond the Eurasian Core and into the Rimland, Russia’s multi-vectored relationships with India and Japan can skillfully be put to use to acquire a market presence in Africa that would complement its unofficial military one via “mercenaries” and thereby allow it have a chance at “balancing” that continent’s affairs too.

    No Narrative, No Chance

    For as nifty as this approach may sound, there’s a lot of risk inherent in it, particularly when it comes to American-encouraged Hybrid Wars in the Eurasian Heartland and divide-and-rule infowar operationsdesigned to break the Golden Ring, but these can still be managed on the state-to-state level with enough multilateral coordination and trust. More difficult to handle, however, are the consequences of Russia’s soft power “shortcomings” in traditionally “failing” to properly explain its “balancing” strategy to the masses, thereby leading to discontent and confusion that in turn provides a fertile environment for devious US-backed NGO operations aimed at sowing discord between the society and their elites. Russia assuredly communicates its “balancing” intentions to each of its “deep state” counterparts, just as it has a history of doing, but the Russian Federation hasn’t been able to match the USSR when it comes to getting its message across to average folks in each of those countries.

    Armenian protests, Velvet Revolution, April 2018

    Armenia is a perfect example of what went wrong with Russia’s soft power strategy and deserves to be concisely analyzed as a case study. Russia’s “military diplomacy” of preserving the regional balance of power by selling arms to both Armenia and its neighboring foe Azerbaijan is a sound strategy in the geopolitical sense but a risky one when it comes to Russia’s image in the minds of each of its partners’ populations. Azerbaijanis don’t mind much since Russia was regarded as previously being closer to their enemy until recently, but the Armenians were understandably upset when they learned that their CSTO mutual defense ally was arming their adversary. Even if the majority of its citizens wouldn’t ever “come around” to seeing Russia’s side of this situation, Moscow could have at least invested enough soft power resources and effort in trying to explain its grand strategic intentions in this situation, but it didn’t and this in turn fueled Pashinyan’s “protest” movement against the ruling Armenian authorities.

    It’s not just Armenia either, but many of Russia’s traditional partners are uneasy over its newfound “balancing” relations with their historic rivals. The Serbian, Syrian, Iranian, and Indian publics would rather that Russia didn’t cooperate so closely with Croatia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, but seeing as how it already is, the “least” that Moscow could do, many of them feel, is try to explain to them why this is occurring even if they don’t ultimately end up agreeing with it. Unfortunately, that’s not happening, at all, and the consequences of this soft power “ineptitude” is that people are losing trust in Russia. Instead of having a chance to consider it as being a skillful player on the “19th-Century Great Power Chessboard” in “balancing” everything and therefore counteracting the destabilizing effects of American foreign policy, the country is coming off as overly “self-interested”, “untrustworthy”, and superficially “no different from the US”.

    Global Risks

    Russian strategists and policymakers are indeed adhering to a Neo-Realist paradigm of International Relations, but their country’s grand interest in maintaining stability in Afro-Eurasia and consequently securing the New Silk Roads that are expected to form the foundation of the emerging Multipolar World Order fully overlap with each of its partners’, though all of them should accept that each party must “compromise” on something or another in order to reach the Moscow-mediated “deals” for bringing this win-win future about. This “inconvenient” reality might not be popular among their publics but it’s nevertheless what has to happen in order for Russia’s model to succeed, though the actual problem arises when people aren’t made aware of any of this by their leaders and then all of a sudden hear on the news or come across rumors (whether true or not) that their country might be on the verge of “sacrificing” something dear to them.

    Had the proper “preconditioning” and “perception management” been implemented prior to this happening, then the potential for the US or other hostile third parties to exploit this sentiment in stirring unrest like they did in Armenia after Russia’s repeated weapons deals with Azerbaijan would be a lot less because there’d at least be a “constructive” narrative already available to counter the newly created destructive one that’s been weaponized by Moscow’s foes. Regrettably, because Russia prefers to deal mostly with its partners’ “deep states” when it comes to these issues and tends to “neglect” public opinion in those countries, this soft power vulnerability is now present all across Afro-Eurasia and waiting to be exploited by the US, which wields considerably stronger sway in “winning hearts and minds” on the local level, even if it has to rely on indirect (NGO) means to do so. Russia’s partners, especially those with nominally “democratic” systems, are therefore at risk of being “blackmailed” by demagogic mobs.

    Concluding Thoughts

    It can’t be stressed how important it is for Russia’s grand strategic vision of “balancing” Afro-Eurasian affairs to be clearly expressed by its diplomatic and expert community representatives in order to prevent the US from weaponizing “public pressure” against it inside of each of its partners’ societies. Sensitive issues such as arms shipments to both Armenia and Azerbaijan or cooperating with Turkey in northern Syria need to be discussed at the local level and not just with each traditional partner’s “deep state” so as to retain public trust in Moscow’s international measures by making at least some degree of effort in trying to explain these policies to the masses. The lack of any narrative whatsoever from the Russian side in these regards leads to an informational void that is quickly filled by the US and its unipolar allies, which endangers the long-term sustainability of Moscow’s “balancing” efforts because of the risk that its partners might cave to externally manipulated “public pressure” (Color Revolutions).

    For as ambitious as it sounds, it’s certainly possible for Russia to pull off its strategy in repairing the damage that the US made all across the hemisphere (especially in its non-European quarters), but only so long as there are equal measures of “deep state” and public trust in its initiatives. Nobody, let alone average folks, should ever be under any false impressions about Russia’s motives in doing this, which are first and foremost to secure its own interests but also overlap with the primary ones of each of its many partners when it comes to the general goal of advancing multipolarity, but false expectations about Moscow’s “commitment” to them will only lead to a sense of disappointment with time which will inevitably be capitalized upon by its American adversary. Along the same lines, having no understanding whatsoever of what Russia is up to is equally dangerous because it could also result in the same disruptive outcome.

    Therefore, Russia needs to prioritize its soft power outreaches and must urgently make attempts through its diplomatic and expert community representatives to communicate its “balancing” intentions beyond its partners’ “deep states” and directly to their people. Regular citizens must be made aware of Russia’s global vision so as not to be as easily manipulated by America through the exploitation of the existing narrative void and/or their false hopes that wishfully arise from it, though it must nevertheless be accepted that not everyone will agree with Moscow’s “balancing” means regardless of its intentions. That’s perfectly alright because the importance is in making the narrative known so that subsequent soft power efforts can be invested in promoting it among the public, which is why the first step must immediately be undertaken in making people aware of this message to begin with so that follow-up plans can be implemented for advancing it in the future and strengthening this grand strategic vision at all levels of Afro-Eurasian society.

  • Visualizing The 10 Wealthiest Countries In The World

    According to market research company New World Wealth, the world has accumulated $215 trillion in private wealth, a 12% increase over the last year.

     

    Incredibly, as Visual Capitalist’s Jeff Desjardins notes, the vast majority of this wealth – about 73.5% – is held by just 10 countries:


     

    Over the last decade, China and India have more than doubled their wealth. Meanwhile, developed economies like the United States and Japan have increased wealth at modest rates – and some, like Italy and France, even lost modest amounts of private wealth over that duration of time.

    Finally, it should be noted that the United Kingdom’s decrease above is mainly due to the depreciation of the GBP, which dropped in dollar terms from roughly $2.00 to $1.35 over the decade in question.

    FUTURE PROJECTIONS

    How is global wealth expected to shift in the future?

    According to New World Wealth, the same 10 countries will dominate the landscape – but the order will change considerably over the next decade:

    While the ranking order of the top three wealthiest countries will remain the same, India is expected to shoot up 200% to claim the #4 position with $24.7 trillion in private wealth.

    Meanwhile, France and Australia are two other significant movers – and they are going opposite directions.

    France will continue its descent down the ranking to 9th place with just 10% growth in a decade, and Australia will increase wealth at a rate that is very impressive for a developed economy. By 2027, it’s expected to be the world’s seventh richest country in terms of private wealth, with a total of $10.4 trillion. That will rival powerhouses like Germany and the United Kingdom, each with private wealth near the $11 trillion mark.

    For more on private wealth, see the 15 wealthiest cities as well the countries that are gaining (or losing) wealth at the fastest rates.

  • 'Rulers', 'Foolers', & 'Shooters': They're Closing The Cage In Plain Sight

    Authored by Jeremiah Johnson via SHTFplan.com,

    A picture that has been around awhile depicts Homo sapiens society at its finest…as it truly is.

    There are four “tiers,” so to speak, with the politicians, royalty, and rulers occupying the uppermost level, followed by the clergymen and religious swamis on tier two, and then the gendarmes/police/soldiers on tier three. The bottom tier is occupied by the people, supporting the other three tiers upon their back. The caption is “We rule you [Leaders], we fool you [Religious Heads], we shoot you [the “Enforcer” class].

    These “tiers” are to be found in every nation, among every people and tongue. It is not a new concept: these three levels of nabobs have existed ever since man formed social communities that encompassed more than the nuclear family.

    The difference between the past and now: for the first time, these tiers will soon be interconnected regardless of location and mutually supportive of one another to obtain global totalitarian rule.

    They already have so much in place, as outlined in previous articles: cell phones for most of the populations that transmit user location along with biometrics (in the latest models), interconnected CCTV (Closed Circuit Television) cameras that coordinate and fix your position with the phones, and a record of all that you buy or sell at a POS (Point of Sale) in the happy big-box stores. They have laws to make you pay taxes on income, property, and they will come to seize your property and/or you if you don’t pay it…with force.

    The laws are increasing in number, tightening the corral around you in your daily life…controlling where you can live, what type of home you can build, how you can communicate on the Internet, how you conduct business. Every business has a corresponding government inspector or regulator. The death of cash is coming soon, as governments replace it with EFT (Electronic Funds Transfer) completely: they will then be able to keep track of every dime you earn or spend, keep track of what they can tax you (overt theft) and what they can pilfer (covert theft, in the case of an electronic “glitch,” a “matter of national security,” or some other nonsensical operation).

    Many people do not realize the depth…the lengths these people are going to in order to achieve global totalitarian rule over all mankind. Recently Bill Gates announced a decision to invest with corporations to place 500 satellites in orbit to be able to monitor every inch of the globe in real-time surveillance. Last week he announced his intentions to develop a “super vaccine” in order to “safeguard” the health of the planet from an outbreak that could kill tens of millions of people.

    There is one “biggie” that must be “taken care of” before all this control can be finalized: They must first confiscate all firearms.

    The most recent news headlines show their intent to do just that. Let’s take it by “category” of the three tiers:

    1. Rulers: The United States’ very own Representative Eric Swalwell, (D-CA) is the one representing the first big push toward totalitarian takeover via gun seizures. On Thursday, 5/3/18, Swalwell (as reported by NBC News on an interview with Swalwell by USA Today) proposed a complete ban of what he describes as “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons,” along with a government “buy-back” of these rifles…and pursuit of those who refuse it. Swalwell describes this last part as “criminally prosecute any who choose to defy [the buyback] by keeping their weapons.” Swalwell cited the Australian mandatory gun buyback laws and as an example used the “unprompted” walkout and demonstrations of Parkland High School students after that school’s shooting. Here’s what Swalwell had to say:

    “There’s something new and different about the surviving Parkland high schoolers’ demands.  They dismiss the moral equivalence we’ve made for far too long regarding the Second Amendment.  I’ve been guilty of it myself, telling constituents and reporters that ‘we can protect the Second Amendment and protect lives.’  The right to live is supreme over any other.  Australia got it right.”

    1. Foolers: On Sunday, 5/6/18, the Pope came out and said that all firearms must be confiscated and taken away, and that the only firearms must be in the hands of the UN (United Nations).  This is not a new thought, as it was John F. Kennedy who proposed a ban of all nuclear weapons and firearms, with the UN “peacekeepers” being the only ones who retained any weapons.  That “clarion call” has been echoed by the UN Small Arms Treaty (the one that Bolton…current Secretary of State…refused to sign when he was UN ambassador under Bush Jr.).  Sure, many may try to disregard what the Pope is saying…but you can’t completely discount anyone who has a billion people under his dominion, spiritually and economically.
    2. Shooters: There are two excellent articles for your perusal written by John W. Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute. One of them is entitled Armed and Dangerous: If Police Don’t Have to Protect the Public, What Good Are They? on 2/28/18. The other more recent article of 5/2/18 is entitled Dial T for Tyranny: While America Feuds, the Police State Shifts Into High Gear.

    In “tier 1” of the “Rulers,” we have a sitting Representative of Congress who openly advocates bypassing the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States by banning a specific type of rifle; he also proposes the governmental “buying” of those semiautomatic rifles. It would do well here to remember the words of Alexis DeTocqueville in “Democracy in America,” [para.] “The end of the Republic [America] will come when the government can buy the people with their own money.” Then(so-called) Representative Swalwell suggested the government follow (in the event weapons owners do not submit) a violation of due process, as well as the supreme law of the land to illegally confiscate any weapons not submitted under a proposed government buyback…a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment.

    It runs deeper, as we can see how the “Parkland Students” cited as an example by Swalwell are the new mantra, the new paradigm to enforce social consciousness and supplant Constitutional law with the law of the mob…the “tyranny of the majority” (a phrase of DeTocqueville) inflicting its wishes. Then there’s the “Australia got it right” grammatical eyesore of Swalwell’s populist jargon, a phony attempt to appear “grass roots” and an average guy…jargon that also pushes the “groupthink” (Australia’s doing it, why shouldn’t we?) so necessary to obtain global governance.

    In “tier 2” we have a Marxist who is the leader of one of the world’s largest religions openly calling for a confiscation of the guns, with only the UN holding them. As mentioned, this guy has more than a billion people under his control, and he’s clearly in the “pocket” of those moving toward global governance. Standard Alinsky principle in “Rules for Radicals” is “organizing the organized.” His loyal followers will follow his lead. Don’t worry: Protestants, Jews, Mormons, and all the others are also “subjected” to the same playbook, perhaps not under one “figurehead” but with their own “Master of Puppets” enforcing their submittal to his/her authority and then compliance with outside directives of the governments.

    In “tier 3,” when you read these articles, you will come to see how there is no more “Officer Friendly.” The police are duty-bound to protect the taxpaying corporate entities, businesses, and politico-oligarchy, and nothing more. They are our jailers, not our protectors. They ensure the continuity of the establishment: the existing social, political, religious, and economic order of things, nothing more. Those who mistakenly believe in the law (as police officers) will eventually be marginalized and drummed out of the force. Recently it was reported in Austin, TX that trainees/police cadets were informed by their instructors that the public are nothing more than cockroaches. In truth, the public pays for their funding…and they are under governmental control and direction: to obtain ad valorem for the municipal and state coffers while keeping the beeves moving, “tagging” the strays with tickets for the quotas and ensuring the docility of the herd.

    The rulers, “foolers,” and shooters are tightening their grasp by the day, aided by the ever-increasing technology that allows for more surveillance and control, along with the stultified and complacent mentality of the public. There is a conspiracy, but it is not a theory: it is a fact. It is no longer a hidden agenda, but openly being pursued in plain sight.  The goal is global governance and the complete abrogation of all rights. We’re seeing it today, and it becomes worse with the passage of time.

  • California Residents Flee, Chased Away By Soaring Home Prices And Cost Of Living

    Last month, a Wall Street Journal op-ed posited that the new tax bill could create a mass exodus of roughly 800,000 residents from the state of California who will flee the state for low-tax red states. 

    In the years to come, millions of people, thousands of businesses, and tens of billions of dollars of net income will flee high-tax blue states for low-tax red states. This migration has been happening for years. But the Trump tax bill’s cap on the deduction for state and local taxes, or SALT, will accelerate the pace. The losers will be most of the Northeast, along with California. The winners are likely to be states like Arizona, Nevada, Tennessee, Texas and Utah.” –WSJ

    Taxes aside, a new report by Next 10 and Beacon Economics suggests the California exodus may get a lot worse, as new housing construction since the Great Recession has been tepid at best, and as a result, California faces a housing backlog of 3.4 million units by 2025 if the trend continues – and 2.8 million units at the current rate of construction. 

    From 2007 to 2017, only 24.7 housing permits were filed for every 100 new residents in California – much lower than the U.S. average of 43.1 permits.

    By 2025, California would have a housing backlog of 3.4 million units if the trend continues. At the current pace of construction, California would add just a minimal amount of new housing – about 600,000 new housing units (net of housing unit losses due to demolition and other causes) – leaving the state with a housing gap of 2.8 million units by 2025. –Next10

    California’s current housing supply is not able to support its growing population,” the report concludes, and as such “the low levels of construction will likely result in further increases in home prices, such that fewer and fewer California residents will be able to afford homes.

    According to the report, California lost over a million residents in the decade between 2006 and 2016, due primarily to the high cost of housing disproportionately hurting lower income households. Over 20% of those who moved over that decade did so in 2006 – at the height of the housing bubble.

    And since American consumers are genetically predisposed to never learning from their mistakes, median home prices in California are once again gapping well above the national average in a very similar pattern, making housing once again prohibitively expensive:

    Meanwhile, migration out of California is mostly tied to income, as most of those leaving the state earn less than $30,000 per year.

    Those migration patterns are shaped by socioeconomics. Most people leaving the state earn less than $30,000 per year, even as those who can afford higher housing costs are still arriving. As the report noted, California was also a net importer of highly skilled professionals from the information, professional and technical services, and arts and entertainment industries. On the other hand, California saw the largest exodus of workers in accommodation, construction, manufacturing and retail trade industries. –MarketWatch

    Crunched California homeowners spent an average of 21.9% of their income on housing expenses in 2016, while home ownership rates are terrible at just 53.6% of homes owner-occupied; the 49th worst in the nation on both counts. California renters meanwhile come in 48th in the nation when it comes to percentage of income spent on housing at 32.8%.

    And how are Californians coping with the skyrocketing costs of housing? One strategy is doubling up – as nearly 14% of renters have more than one person per bedroom, making it the state with the highest percentage of overcroweded renter households

    Another solution? 

    Leaving

    In a separate analysis noted by MarketWatchs Andrea Riquier, “Realtor.com found that the number of people searching real estate listings in the 16 top California markets compared to people living there and searching elsewhere was more than double that of other areas — and growing.”

    Searches for homes in pricey California towns – primarily Santa Clara, San Mateo and Los Angeles – experienced virtually no increase over the past year, while views of listings in other parts of the country were up 15%. 

    So where do most broke Californians move? Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon and Washington . 

    Read the report below: 

  • Believe It Or Not, Bolton's Right – North Korea Will Follow The "Libyan Model"

    Authored by Andrew Korybko via Oriental Review,

    The new US National Security Advisor John Bolton controversially advocated the so-called “Libyan model” for North Korea’s denuclearization.

    While he was indeed speaking about the technical aspect of this example in having the North African country completely surrender all of its nuclear-related capabilities, others are interpreting it differently and almost as a Freudian slip given that it was precisely because of Tripoli’s sincere adherence to this model that it was defenseless in deterring the NATO-led war that ultimately led to its destruction in 2011. On the surface, it makes one question why any country, let alone North Korea (whose media specifically said right after the beginning of the NATO campaign that Libya should have kept its nuclear program), would ever follow that model, but then again there’s a lot speculatively going on behind the scenes that the public isn’t privy to.

    The entire denuclearization process is such a sensitive one and full of face-saving moves by all sides that it’s unlikely that Bolton would recklessly jeopardize the process by speaking as boldly as he did without he and his “deep state” handlers being certain that it wouldn’t offend Kim to the point of pulling out of the talks for reasons of national dignity. The opposite is actually happening, and he’s instead welcoming American and other experts to observe the decommissioning of his country’s mountainous nuclear test site later this month and even invite the media to report on the entire process. Furthermore, all of this is going ahead despite a South Korean presidential advisor saying last week that North Korea wants “American investment…sponsors, and multinational consortiums” coming to the country, which the man predicted could eventually lead to McDonalds and even a Trump Tower opening up in the former so-called “Hermit Kingdom”.

    Again, despite the obvious sensitivity of this issue and North Korea’s history of strongly responding to those types of remarks, the denuclearization process is continuing unabated. It’s all the more remarkable then that a South Korean official quoted Kim as saying that “if we meet often and build trust with the United States, and if an end to the war and nonaggression are promised, why would we live in difficulty with nuclear weapons?”

    For all intents and purposes, North Korea has reversed its previous position and is now willingly – and one could even say, eagerly – doing exactly what Libya once did, especially in regard to surrendering its tangible deterrence capacities in exchange for simple promises that don’t remove the regional threat posed by American forces.

    John Bolton, National Security Advisor of the United States

    It can only be conjectured at this point why Pyongyang is doing this and whether it’s related to the reported collapse of its mountainous nuclear test site that some rumors allege might have been destroyed by a new type of American weapon, but conventional analyses point to China’s active participation in the latest UNSC sanctions regime against North Korea as being one of the prime catalysts for Kim’s nuclear backtracking. The communist country might fear that it’ll eventually collapse without the sanctions relief that only denuclearization can provide at this point, and that its future will be much brighter if it embraces its pivotal transit role in facilitating the construction of a multimodal Russian-Chinese “Korean Corridor” and courts international expertise to develop its prospective $6-10 trillion rare earth mineral deposits.

    Therefore, it’s because of these strategic reasons – both due to international pressure & its own prerogative as well as a mix of fact & speculation – why North Korea is surprisingly following in Libya’s footsteps, though it remains to be seen whether this risky gamble will ultimately lead to a different outcome.

  • Border-Jumpers Face Criminal Prosecution, Seizure Of Children After DHS Mandate

    A new directive by the Trump administration has paved the way for the criminal prosecution of every migrant caught jumping the US-Mexico border, as opposed to civil deportation proceedings employed in most cases up until now.

    Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen issued the directive last week, announcing that DHS will refer those entering the country illegally for criminal cases.

    Illegal entry into the United States is a misdemeanor crime, however attempts to sneak back in after a prior deportation are a felony which DHS says needs to be enforced.

    DHS will enforce the immigration laws as set forth by Congress,” said a Homeland Security official via the Washington Times.

    The move will be a major test for federal prosecutors and courts, who could see their caseloads surge as they deal with what could be thousands of new cases each month.

    But it’s likely to thrill Border Patrol agents who had begged for the government to impose serious consequences on illegal immigrants, for whom crossing the border, getting deported and trying again is just a part of their way of life. –Washington Times

    On Monday morning, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reinforced the DOJ’s new push at curbing illegal immigration, telling a Scottsdale, Arizona law enforcement conference that those entering the country illegally with children will be subejct to separation

    “If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law,” said Sessions. “If you don’t like that, then don’t smuggle children over our border.”

    Later, speaking from San Diego, Sessions reiterated the push – only changing his language from “will be separated from you” to “may be separated from you as required by law.” 

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Protesting Sessions was a man equipped with a bullhorn wearing a white shirt which read “Nazi Fascistas ¡No Pasarán!” – who asks “Why are you here? Are you gonna be separating families? Don’t.. why are you doing this? Do you have a heart? Do you have a soul?

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Sessions announced last Wednesday that the DOJ will be sending 35 prosecutors and 18 judges to the southern U.S. border in order to more efficiently prosecute illegal immigrants. Texas will receive 15 attorneys, followed by eight to California, six to Arizona and six to New Mexico. The judges will be deployed similarly. 

    The American people made very clear their desire to secure our borders and prioritize the public safety and national security of our homeland,” said Sessions. “Promoting and enforcing the rule of law is essential to our republic. By deploying these additional resources to the Southwest border, the Justice Department and the Trump Administration take yet another step in protecting our nation, its borders, and its citizens. It must be clear that there is no right to demand entry without justification.

    In early 2018, the Washington Times reported on one migrant who was deported a record 44 times between 2000 and 2015, while migrants with over a dozen deportations “are not unusual.” The Times points out that the immigrant who murdered Kate Steinle in 2015 had been deported five times. 

    About two-thirds of all asylum claims lodged with U.S. Customs and Border Protection last year came between the ports of entry, meaning people jumped the border, were caught and then asked for asylum.

    Homeland Security said those migrants, if they jump the border, will be prosecuted for illegal entry while their asylum cases proceed, just like other border jumpers. –Washington Times

    Those apprehended will be sent directly to federal court under the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service, and their children will be transferred to the custody of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement. The U.S. Marshals will then place the individuals in approved detention centers during the course of the criminal process and, if convicted, to complete their sentences,” the official said.

    “During the prosecutorial process, immigration proceedings will be advanced by ICE Enforcement Removal Operations (ERO). Upon completion of the criminal proceedings, and after a finding of removability, individuals will be returned to their country of origin.

    The DHS push to secure the border and criminally prosecute illegal entries into the country comes two weeks after the remains of a giant migrant “caravan” made its way from Central America to the San  Ysidro border crossing. The last of the 181 asylum seekers from the caravan entered the U.S. on Friday and are currently being processed. 

    President Trump railed against the caravan, calling it a threat to national security, while Sessions referred to it as “a deliberate attempt to undermine our laws and overwhelm our system.” 

    It turns out all Trump needed to justify beefing up border enforcement was a giant caravan of illegal immigrants directly challenging the U.S. border. 

  • Is Social Media Destroying Humanity On Purpose?

    Authored by Daisy Luther via The Organic Prepper blog,

    You may not be on social media yourself, but chances are your friends and family are. Some of us are on there for work purposes and some so we can keep in touch with loved ones who live far away. There are valid reasons we have accounts on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. But things are getting ugly out there in Internetland and it begs the question of whether social media is destroying humanity.

    And even worse, is social media destroying humanity on purpose, because it was engineered to do so?

    You’d have to live under a rock big enough to block all internet communications to not have heard about the privacy scandals that have plagued Facebook recently. From Cambridge Analytica mining user’s datato Facebook’s massive profits from your data, it’s been all over the news. Zuckerberg even had to testify to Congress about it for 10 hours recently, in the end apologizing for his part in the scandal.

    But your lack of privacy may be just a drop in the bucket.

    A while back, Facebook admitted that they were performing psychological experiments on users by adjusting their news feeds to see if they could alter the moods of users. They have a long and disturbing history of experimenting on users.

    But it may be far more serious than merely toying with us. It’s entirely possible that they’re actually programming us. All it takes is a glimpse at the headlines to realize the world has become more insane than ever – and maybe this has been done deliberately. Maybe social media is destroying humanity on purpose.

    One former Facebook executive said, “We have created tools that are ripping apart the social fabric of how society works.”

    And everyone knows this is true.

    The only law in social media is mob rule. People band together to blast those they consider politically incorrect. They “dox” people with whom they disagree. (To “dox” someone is to “ to publicly identify or publish private information about (someone) especially as a form of punishment or revenge.) Social media is busy censoring viewpoints with whom the owner disagrees while allowing flagrantly abusive points of view from people on “their side.”

    People will say horrible, hateful things on the internet that they’d never say to a person’s face. Or at least, that used to be the case – now, it seems like people are more likely to be hateful than ever before, regardless of the medium.

    In other examples that should be no less terrifying, we miss the experiences when we go on vacation because we’re so busy grabbing the perfect Instagram shot to show our “audiences.” We don’t talk to the people who are right across the table from us because we’re busy instant-messaging someone online. For many, their worlds are on their phones and not in the physical realm. We’re happier to get likes on social media than we are to have a real, no-electronics conversation.

    We’re being programmed by social media.

    In this video, Melissa Melton Dykes explores how some of the early executives are horrified at what Facebook and other social media outlets have become.

    It’ll be much easier to silence – or even depopulate – people who have been utterly dehumanized by social media. Social media has fanned the flames of race war and hatred. During the previous election, it caused so much political animosity that some families and friendships never recovered. People have live-streamed murders and suicidesabuse and rapes for the “entertainment” of their “friends.”

    This, of course, doesn’t mean that you can’t use social media at all.

    But if you do, use it wisely.

    I have it for business and spend very little time on there aside from helping people in my group. Some people have very small “friends” lists with just a few family members or close friends. These days, it’s a lot easier to get local information from social media groups than it is from a local newspaper or radio station. There are ways you can use it that aren’t harmful.

    But, beware. Anything you put on there is there forever, even if you delete it later. Anything you click “like” on it recorded as well. Marketers have a snapshot of who you are based on what you like, and they have even developed software to help them predict what you’ll do next.

    Social media may be destroying humanity in the macro perspective, but we don’t have to let it destroy us.

  • "We've Never Seen Anything Like This" – Hawaii Officials Warn Residents Of Dangerous Volcanic Smog

    More than four days after the first fissures opened up in the ground surrounding Hawaii’s Mt. Kilauea, the volcano’s destructive eruptions continued on Monday, destroying more buildings in the island’s tony Leilani Estates neighborhood, CNN reported.

    Lava and hazardous gases are bubbling up through the cracks in the volcano’s East Rift Zone, a situation that has been exacerbated by a series of powerful Earthquakes that rocked the area late last week.

    High levels of dangerous sulfur dioxide has been released into the air, forcing the government to issue a warning to residents living downwind from the volcano. Already, nearly 2,000 residents of the surrounding area have fled or been evacuated. They include residents of Leilani estates and the nearby Lanipuna Gardens.

    But while the lava has caught the attention of photographers who’ve snapped thousands of pictures of the glowing red substance devouring homes, the Washington Post reports that an unseen danger has been threatening visitors and residents alike.

    Vog

    They’re calling it “vog” – short for volcanic smog. Though the smog isn’t a killer, it has made tens of thousands of Hawaiians during previous eruptions, and could make thousands more ill this time around.

    Unfavorable winds could spread far from the volcano on the Big Island to affect people as far away as Oahu, 200 miles to the northwest. Similar patterns emerged in 2008 and 2016.

    Vog, which mainly consists of water vapor, carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide, can appear as “hazy air pollution.” It can also contain several other compounds such as hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen fluoride and carbon monoxide, all of which are harmful to people, according to the Geological Service. However, of the three primary gases, sulfur dioxide, which has an acrid smell reminiscent of fireworks or a burning match, is the “chief gas hazard in Hawaii,” the service reported.

    […]

    Vog is nothing new to people living on the Big Island or the surrounding islands. The summit of Kilauea has been emitting high levels of sulfur dioxide for the past 10 years, Babb said.

    In past years when vog has plagued the islands, many reported suffering from debilitating symptoms.

    Experts say vog exposure symptoms include headache, soar throat and lethargy.

    The user’s symptoms included a headache, a raw swollen sore throat and lethargy. The government is also warning that the smog can’t be totally filtered out with store-bought gas masks – especially in high concentrations.

    “We are planning on going to VNP [Hawaii Volcanoes National Park] today and if I had an oxygen tank I’d wear it!” the user wrote. “My question is will this get any better or should we just take our losses and leave?”

    One day later, the same user provided a status update: “We are leaving today for Oahu. Hopefully I can recover enough to redeem the rest of our vacation. This has indeed been brutal!”

    While the smog is threatening a broader swath of the island’s territory, the lava continues to cause the bulk of the destruction.

    Longtime residents have been shocked by the destruction.

    “It’s nothing that I’ve ever experienced on a personal level ever before,” said Jessica Ferracane, a spokesperson for the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park.

    Their chief concern now is the earthquakes that have occurred frequently after the eruptions.

    “That’s the big concern for everybody on the island,” Ferracane said Monday. “The earthquakes continued through the night.”

    To help accommodate evacuees with nowhere to turn, the American Red Cross has opened shelters at the Pahoa and Keaau community centers.

    Quakes

    Officials are expected to provide an update on the violent volcanic eruption in Hawaii shortly.

    Hawaii

    Since the eruptions began on Thursday, the volcano has destroyed more than 35 buildings and nearly two dozen homes. As we pointed out earlier, in one video shared on social media, lava can be seen destroying a car.

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    The Hawaiian Volcano Observatory said Sunday that the lava flow from the Kilauea volcano has traveled more than half a mile, and aftershocks continue to shake the region, as NPR pointed out.

    Hawaii

    Kilauea has been in a continuous state of eruption since the early 1980s, according to NPR. But the carnage being caused by this latest eruption is the result of a dramatic shift in the pattern of magma flows. In a historical incident that doesn’t bode well for the current eruption, back in 1955, a Kilauea eruption lasted 88 days.

    //www.instagram.com/embed.js

     

    According to Hawaii News, the number of open fissures expanded to 10 on Monday, though not all of them are actively spewing magma.

    The fissures are scattered across the Puna subdivision on the island of Hawaii – also known as “the big island.”

    Map

    Hawaii County Mayor Harry Kim told local media the county will house and feed evacuees for “as long as we need to.”

    So far, no deaths have been reported.

Digest powered by RSS Digest

Today’s News 7th May 2018

  • Meanwhile In Greece…

    Less than a week after the Greek government sent additional police forces to reinforce its land border with Turkey as fears mount over a sharp rise in the number of refugees and migrants crossing the frontier, The Guardian reports that  Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras faced down protests from citizens Thursday upset over how he’s handled April’s 17% increase in the influx of migrants.

    The Daily Caller’s Audrey Conklin reports that the protests in Lesbos, Greece, represent a stark shift in attitude among a people once significantly more welcoming to migrants fleeing as part of a years-long refugee crisis.

    Locals argue with riot police during a protest against the visit of Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras in Mytilene, on the Greek island of Lesbos.

    Huge numbers of people seeking asylum are flooding into the country by bus and boat every week, and while an agreement between the EU and Turkey signed in 2016 states that illegal refugees are supposed to be sent to Turkey after crossing European borders, Greek camps are overcrowding and in bad shape. Experts estimate that as many as 500 refugees new people cross the island’s borders each week. 

    As DW News reports:

    “Earlier on Thursday, the aid agency Doctors without Borders warned that Lesbos was ‘reaching breaking point’…overstretching healthcare and other services laid on for the migrants while leading some to resort to violence.”

    Approximately 9,000 migrants and refugees are currently stranded in Greece because they are stuck between borders with no real place to live, even temporarily, as a result of the EU deal with Turkey.

    Since March 2016, Turkey has threatened to terminate the agreement because the EU is having trouble collecting and delivering funds for the millions of refugees Turkey agreed to take in from Europe.

    Syrian refugee Bashar Wakaa (3rd L) and his family stand in front of their tents at a makeshift camp for refugees and migrants next to the Moria camp on the island of Lesbos, Greece.

    Arrivals on Greece’s Aegean islands have increased by 17 percent since last month “due to refugees fleeing Iran, Iraq and Syria.”  Nearly a million refugees have crossed the borders of Lesbos over the past three years. Locals have had enough.

    “The people of Lesbos are exhausted,” said mayor Spyros Galinos. “Kindness has turned to anger … and where there is anger there is room for all sorts of extremism.”

    Locals and refugees alike witnessed that extremism Galinos is referring to when, just two weeks ago, radical protesters set fire to bins and flares surrounding a refugee base where Afghan migrants were protesting their confinement. Over a dozen people were injured, the Tampa Bay Times reports

    “Women are afraid to leave their homes at night,” Galinos continued. “Children are kept locked up indoors because parents are afraid to let them go out and play. No community would put up with this.”

    A garbage bin burns as riot police officers stand guard separating protesting groups of locals and refugees demonstrating against conditions in Moria camp and delays in asylum applications, in the city of Mytilene on the island of Lesbos, Greece.

    Residents feel their government is neglecting the people who actually live and work legally in Greece as a result of the ever-increasing population of refugees, which now make up a third of Lesbos’ total population

    “Commerce and investment [have] come to a standstill,” local chamber of commerce leader Evangelos Myrsinias told reporters. “On these islands, we feel very neglected, very abandoned with frustration compounded by the decision to raise VAT which after everything we’ve been through will drastically raise the cost of living.”

    Migration Minister Dimitris Vitsa said the government plans to decrease the number of migrants and refugees by the end of September from the current number of 15,500 to 6,500, which is the total population capacity for refugee shelters.

  • Don't Be Fooled, There's No "New Détente" Between India And China

    Authored by Andrew Korybko via Oriental Review,

    The outcome of last week’s informal summit between Indian Prime Minister Modi and Chinese President Xi is that both nominal BRICS partners are now unofficially in a “Cold Peace” with one another.

    The two leaders met in the city of Wuhan and reportedly went over the gamut of their relations, especially the strategic-military aspects that have led to increasing tensions between the two Asian Great Powers over the past year. This, of course, refers to India’s pro-American pivot to the so-called “Quad” and China’s CPEC project through Pakistani-administered territory that New Delhi claims as its own. By all indications, the meeting was a success in at least superficially restoring regional trust, but looking below the surface, this appears more to be about a “Cold Peace” than a “New Détente”.

    India and China’s globalization models are threatened by the US’ protectionist shift, and the two nominal BRICS allies have a shared interest in tightening their economic cooperation and presenting a seemingly unified front in the face of Trump’s pressure against them both. That, however, doesn’t necessarily transcend over into the military-strategic realm where the two still remain fierce rivals, suggesting that each side won’t make a big fuss for now about the other arming up and building border roads & bases in the meantime, accepting that this will proceed anyhow and that it’s better for the time being to remain quiet about it given their temporarily shared economic interests vis-à-vis the US.

    The “Cold Peace” is welcome because it will calm both of their publics down and allow them to redirect their attention towards more constructive areas of bilateral engagement where they actually have the power to change something, like in the economic field as opposed to the realm of International Relations and military affairs. This could hopefully expand the complex economic interdependency between the two and thus serve as an asymmetrical deterrence measure preventing either of them – but in this context, mostly India – from falling for the American divide-and-rule plot to pit them against one another in the New Cold War.

    This “second honeymoon” between the two countries and their leaders won’t last forever, and both sides know it given their expanding strategic contradictions all across the Afro-Eurasian space (both naturally occurring and American-encouraged), so the “Cold Peace” should be seen as a short-term tactical measure to help each of these Great Powers gain the perception (key word) of greater leverage over the US during the onset of Trump’s protectionist “trade warthan as a long-term strategic understanding paving the way for a “New Détente”.

  • US Navy Resurrects Its Cold War-Era Atlantic Fleet To Counter Russia

    In a stunning surprise, the United States Navy announced Friday that it would reactivate its Second Fleet to counter the increasing threat from Russia.

    Admiral John Richardson, chief of naval operations, said the fleet, deactivated in 2011, could oversee roughly 6,700,000 square miles of the Atlantic Ocean from the North Pole to the Caribbean Sea and from the East Coast of the United States to the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.

    “Our National Defense Strategy makes clear that we’re back in an era of great power competition as the security environment continues to grow more challenging and complex,” said Admiral Richardson.

    The re-establishment of the US Second Fleet is part “of re-orientating the US armed forces towards a world of renewed big power competition and away from the counter-insurgency campaigns they have been fighting over recent decades,” said BBC.

    The strategy makes countering Russia a top priority. Admiral Richardson added, “that’s why today, we’re standing up Second Fleet to address these changes, particularly in the north Atlantic.”

    The Fleet was established following World War II for the sole purpose of supporting the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

    Before the 2011 deactivation, the Second Fleet had approximately 126 ships, 4500 aircraft, and 90,000 personnel situated at major naval installations along the East Coast.

    Adm Richardson also said that the Second Fleet would “exercise operational and administrative authority over assigned ships, aircraft and landing forces.”

    BBC said the revived fleet would be headquartered in Norfolk, Virginia, where the United States Department of Defense (DoD) will build a staff of about 15 personnel for the intermediate timeframe, then increase to more than 200.

    At the moment, it is a mystery who will command the Second Fleet, nevertheless, what military assets it will include.

    According to Military.com, the reactivation of the Second Fleet could bring some relief to other fleets stretched around the globe.

    “Bringing the Second Fleet back to life will free up Fleet Forces to focus on such bigger-picture issues as manning, training and equipping the entire fleet, which took on increased scrutiny in the wake of two deadly collisions involving U.S. warships in Asia. Davidson led the Navy’s comprehensive review of those incidents, which called for restructuring how the Navy operates.”

    NATO has recently suggested that Russia expanded its naval patrols in the Baltic Sea, the North Atlantic and the Arctic regions, along with its submarine activity at levels not seen since the Cold War.

    Back in 2011, the prospect of U.S.-Russia relations seemed healthy, after the Obama administration declared a reset in 2009. Now, it appears as the Trump administration has performed an about-face with a dramatic reversal to reactivate the Second Fleet amid Moscow’s continued support for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria. War is coming…

  • The Warmakers

    Via The Saker,

    Between the US strikes on Syria in April and the recent developments on the Korean Peninsula, we are in somewhat of a lull in the Empire’s search for a new war to start. The always helpful Israelis, in the person of the ineffable Bibi Netanyahu, are now beating the drums for, well, if not a war, then at least some kind of false flag or pretext to make the USA strike at Iran. And then there is the always bleeding Donbass (which I won’t address in today’s analysis).

    So let’s see where we stand and try to guesstimate where we might be heading. To be honest, trying to guess what ignorant warmongering psychopaths might do next is by definition a futile exercise, but since there are some not negligible signs that there are at least a few rational people still left in the US White House and/or Pentagon (as shown by the mostly “pretend strikes” on Syria last month), we can assume (hope) that some residual degree of sanity is still present. At the very least Americans in uniform have to ask themselves a very basic and yet fundamental question:

    Do I want to die for Israel? Do I want to lose my job for Israel? How about my pension? Maybe just my stock options? Is it worth risking a major regional war for such a “wonderful” state?

    A lot depends on whether the US military leaders (and people!) will have the courage to ask themselves this question and, if they do, what their reply will be.

    But, first, let’s begin with the good news:

    The DPRK and ROK are in direct talks with each other.

    This is indeed a truly great development for at least two reasons. First, of course, the main and objective one: anything which lowers the risks of war on the Korean Peninsula is good. But there is a second reason which we should not discount: Trump can now take all the credit for this and claim that his (empty) threats are what brought the North Koreans to the negotiating table. I say – let him. In fact, I hope that they organize a parade for Trump somewhere in the USA, with confetti and millions of flags. Like for an astronaut. Let him feel triumphant, vindicated and very, very manly. MAGA, you know?!

    Yeah, that will be sickening to the thinking (not to mention counter-factual), but if a little bit of intellectual nausea is the price to pay for peace, I say let’s do it. If Trump, Bolton, Haley and the rest of them can feel that they “kicked ass” and that their “invincible military” is what brought “Rocket Man” to “give up his nukes” (he never said any such thing, but never mind that) then I sincerely wish them a joyful and highly ego-pleasing celebration. Anything to stop them from looking for another war to start, at least for a now.

    Now the bad news.

    The Israelis are at it again

    Amazing, isn’t it? The Israelis have been whining about “imminent” Iranian nukes for years, and they are still at it. Not only that, but these guys have the nerve to say “Iran lied”. Seriously, even by the already unique Israeli standards, that is chutzpah elevated to a truly stratospheric level. If it were just Bibi Netanyahu, then this would be comical. But the problem is that Israel has now fully subjugated all the branches of the US government to its agents (the Neocons) and that they now run everything: from the two branches of the Uniparty to Congress, to the media and, now that Trump has abjectly caved in to all their demands, they also run the White House. They apparently also run the CIA, but there still might be some resistance to their lunacy in the Pentagon. The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever.

    So what are these guys really up to? Listen to the one man who knows them best, and whose every single word you can take to the bank, Hezbollah General Secretary Nasrallah (ever wondered why Hezbollah, which has not committed anything even remotely looking like a terrorist attack since the 1980s is called the “A-Team of terrorists”? Just saying…):

    The first event is the Israeli blatant and manifest aggression against the T-4 base or airport on the outskirts of Homs, that targeted Iranian forces from the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution of Iran who were present there, hitting them with a large number of missiles, causing 7 martyrs among its officers and soldiers and wounding others. This was a new, significant and important event. Maybe some people do not pay attention to its importance and magnitude. In this operation, Israel has deliberately killed (Iranian soldiers). This is an unprecedented event. In the past, Israel has struck us [Hezbollah] for example in Quneitra, and it turned out that coincidentally Guardians [of the Islamic Revolution] officers were with us. Israel declared hastily that they did not know it, and thought that all (targeted soldiers) were Hezbollah’s. This is an event that has no precedent since 7 years, it is unprecedented since 7 years, that Israel openly targets the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution in Syria, killing deliberately, in an operation that caused a number of martyrs and wounded (…) I want to tell the Israelis that they must know – I wrote that statement accurately and I read it to them – they must know that they have committed a historic mistake. This is not a simple blunder. They committed an act of great stupidity, and by this aggression, they entered in a direct confrontation with Iran, the Islamic Republic of Iran. And Iran, O Zionists, is not a small country, it is not a weak country, and it is not a cowardly country. And you know it very well. As a comment on this incident, I stress that it constitutes a turning point in the situation of the region. What follows will be very different from what preceded it. This is an incident that cannot be considered lightly, contrary to what happens with many incidents here. It is a turning point, a historic turning point. And when the Israelis committed this stupid act, they had some assessment (of the situation), but I tell them that their evaluation is false. And even in the future, since you have opened a new path in the confrontation, (you should ensure) not to be wrong in your evaluations. In this new path you opened and initiated, don’t be wrong in your assessment, when you are face to face, and directly (in conflict) with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    I can only agree with this evaluation. As does The Jerusalem PostNBC News, and many others. Regardless of how crazy this notion might sound to rational people (see below), there are all the signs that the Israelis are now demanding that the USA start a war against Iran, either by choice or more likely, to “stand by our Israeli allies and friends” after they attack Iran first.

    Israel is truly a unique and amazing country: not only does it openly and brazenly completely ignore international law, not only is it the last overtly racist country on the planet, not only has it been perpetuating a slow-motion genocide against the Palestinians for decades, it also constantly uses its considerable propaganda resources to advocate for war. And in order to achieve these goals, it does not mind allying itself with a regime almost as despicable and evil as the Zionist one – I am talking about the Wahabi nutcases in the KSA. And all that under the high patronage of the United States. Some “Axis of Kindness” indeed!

    What is their plan? Actually, it is fairly straightforward.

    The Israeli plan “A” (failed)

    Initially, the plan was to overthrow all the secular (Baathist) regimes in power and replace them by religious nutcases. That would not only weaken the countries infected by that spiritual rot, it would set them backwards for many decades, some of them would break up into smaller entities, Arabs and Muslims would kill each other in large numbers while the Israelis would proudly claim that they are a “western country” and the “only democracy in the Middle-East”. Even better, when the Daesh/ISIS/al-Qaeda/etc types commit atrocities on an industrial scale (and always on camera, professionally filmed, by the way), the slow-motion genocide of Palestinians would really be completely forgotten. If anything, Israeli would declare itself threatened by “Islamic extremism” and, well, extend a couple of “security zones” beyond its borders (legal or otherwise), and do regular bombing runs “because Arabs only understand force” (which would get the Israelis a standing ovation from the “Christian” Zionist rednecks in the USA who love the killing of any Aye-rabs and other “sand niggers”). At the end of all this, the Zionist wet dream: unleashing the Daesh forces against Hezbollah (which they fear and hate since the humiliating defeat the IDF suffered in 2006).

    Now I will readily agree that this is a stupid plan. But contrary to the propaganda-induced myth, the Israelis are really not very bright. Pushy, arrogant, nasty, driven – yes. But smart? Not really. How could they not realize that overthrowing Saddam Hussein would result in Iran becoming the main player in Iraq? This is a testimony of how the Israelis always go for “quick-fix” short-term “solutions”, probably blinded by their arrogance and sense of racial superiority. Or how about their invasion of Lebanon in 2006? What in the world did they think they would achieve there? And now these folks are taking on not Hezbollah, but Iran. Hassan Nasrallah is absolutely correct, that is a truly stupid decision. But, of course, the Israelis now have a “plan B”:

    The Israeli plan “B”

    Step one, use your propaganda machine and infiltrated agents to re-start the myth about an Iranian military nuclear program. And never mind that the so-called “The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” was agreed upon by all five of the UNSC Permanent Members, and Germany (P5+1) and even the European Union! And never mind that this plan places restrictions on Iran which no other country has ever had to ever face, especially considering that since 1970 Iran has been a member in good standing with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) while Israel, of course, is not. But the Zionists and their Neocon groupies are, of course, quite exceptional people, so they are constrained by neither facts nor logic. If Trump says that the JCPOA is a terrible deal, then this is so. Hey, we are living in the “post-Skripal” and “post-Douma” era – if some Anglo (or Jewish) leaders say “highly likely” then it behooves everybody to show instant “solidarity” lest they are accused of “anti-Semitism” or “fringe conspiracy theories” (you know the drill). So step one is the re-ignition ex nihilo of the Iranian military nuclear program canard.

    Step two is to declare that Israel is “existentially threatened” and therefore has the right to “defend itself”. But there is a problem here: the IDF simply does not have the military means to defeat the Iranians. They can strike them, hit a couple of targets, yes, but then when the Iranians (and Hezbollah) unleash a rain of missiles on Israel (and probably the KSA) the Israelis will not have the means to respond. They know that, but they also know that the Iranian counter-attack will give them the perfect pretext to scream “oy vey!! oy, gevalt!!” and let the dumb Americans fight the Iranians.

    You might object that the USA does not have a mutual defense treaty with Israel. You are wrong. It does, it is called AIPAC. Besides, last year the USA established a permanent US military base in Israel, making it a “tripwire”: just claim that “the Ayatollahs” tried to attack the US base with “chemical weapons” and, bingo, you now have a pretext to use all your military forces in retaliation, including, by the way, your tactical nuclear forces to “disarm” the “genocidal Iranians who want to wipe Israel off the map” or some variation of this nonsense.

    You might wonder what the point of all that would be if Iran does, as I say, not have any military nuclear program?

    My answer would be simple: do you really think the Syrians have been using chemical weapons?!

    Of course not!

    All this nonsense about Saddam’s WMD, the Iranian nuclear program, the Syrian chemical weapons or, for that matter, Gaddafi’s “Viagra armed raping soldiers”, and before that the “Racak massacre” in Kosovo or the various “Markale market” atrocities in Sarajevo for that matter: these were just pretexts for aggression, nothing more.

    In Iran’s case, what the Israelis fear is not that they will be “wiped off the map” (that is a mistranslation of words originally spoken by Ayatollah Khomenei) by Iranian nukes; what really freaks them out is to have a large, successful Muslim regional power like Iran openly daring to denounce Israel as an illegitimate, racist state. The Iranians are also openly denouncing the US imperialism and they are even denouncing the Wahabi dictatorship of the House of Saud. That is Iran’s real “sin”: to dare defy openly the AngloZionist Empire and be so successful at it!

    So what the Israelis really want to do is:

    1. inflict a maximum amount of economic damage upon Iran

    2. punish the Iranian population for daring to support the “wrong” leaders

    3. overthrow the Islamic Republic (do to it what they did to Serbia)

    4. make an example to dissuade any other country who dares to follow in Iran’s footsteps

    5. prove the omnipotence of the AngloZionist Empire’s

    To reach this objective, there is no need to invade Iran: a sustained cruise missile and bombing campaign will do the job (again, like in Serbia). Finally, we just have to assume that the Zionists are evil, arrogant and crazy enough to use nuclear weapons on some Iranian facilities (which they will, of course, designate as “secret military nuclear research” installations).

    The Israelis hope that by making the USA hit Iran really hard, they will weaken the country enough to also weaken Hezbollah and the other allies of Iran in the region sufficiently and break the so-called “Shia crescent”.

    In their own way, the Israelis are not wrong when they say that Iran is an existential threat to Israel. They are just lying about the nature of this threat and why it is dangerous for them.

    Consider this:

    IF the Islamic Republic is allowed to develop and prosper and IF the Islamic Republic refuses to be terrified by the IDF’s undisputed ability to massacre civilians and destroy public infrastructure, then the Islamic Republic will become an attractive alternative to the kind of repugnant Islam embodied by the House of Saud which, in turn, is the prime sponsor of all the collaborator regimes in the Middle-East from the Hariri types in Lebanon to the Palestinian Authority itself. The Israelis like their Arabs fat and corrupt to the bone, not principled and courageous. That is why Iran must, absolutely must, be hit: because Iran by its very existence threatens the linchpin upon which the survival of the Zionist entity depends: the total corruption of the Arab and Muslim leaders worldwide.

    Risks with Israel’s plan “B”

    Think of 2006. The Israelis had total air supremacy over Lebanon – the skies were simply uncontested. The Israelis also controlled the seas (at least until Hezbollah almost sank their Sa’ar 5-class corvette). The Israelis pounded Lebanon with everything they had, from bombs to artillery strikes, to missiles. They also engaged their very best forces, including their putatively ‘”invincible” “Golani Brigade”. And that for 33 days. And they achieved exactly *nothing*. They could not even control the town of Bint Jbeil right across the Israeli border. And now comes the best part: Hezbollah kept its most capable forces north of the Litany river so the small Hezbollah force (no more than 1000 man) was composed of local militias supported by a much smaller number of professional cadre. That a 30:1 advantage in manpower for the Israelis. But the “invincible Tsahal” got it’s collective butt kicked like few have ever been kicked in history. This is why, in the Arab world, this war is since known as the “Divine Victory”.

    As for Hezbollah, it continued to rain down rockets on Israel and destroy indestructible Merkava tanks right up to the last day.

    There are various reports discussing the reasons for the abject failure of the IDF (see here or here), but the simple reality is this: to win a war you need capable boots on the ground, especially against an adversary who has learned how to operate without air-cover or superior firepower. Should Israel manipulate the USA into attacking Iran, the exact same thing will happen: CENTCOM will establish air superiority and have an overwhelming firepower advantage over the Iranians, but other than destroying a lot of infrastructure and murdering scores of civilians, this will achieve absolutely nothing. Furthermore, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is no Milosevic, he will not simply surrender in the hope that Uncle Sam will allow him to stay in power. The Iranians will fight, and fight, and continue to fight for weeks, and months and then possibly years. And, unlike the “Axis of Kindness” forces, the Iranians do have credible and capable “boots on the ground”, and not only in Iran, but also in Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan. And they have the missiles to reach a very large number of US military facilities across the region. And they can also not only shut down the Strait of Hormuz (which the USN would eventually be able to re-open, but only at a cost of a huge military operation on the Iranian coast), they can also strike at Saudi Arabia proper and, of course, at Israel. In fact, the Iranian have both the manpower and know-how to declare “open season” on any and all US forces in the Middle-East, and there are plenty of them, mostly very poorly defended (that imperial sense of impunity “they would not dare”).

    The Iran-Iraq war lasted for eight years (1980-1988). It cost the Iranians hundreds of thousands of lives (if not more). The Iraqis had the full support of the USA, the Soviet Union, France and pretty much everybody else. As for the Iranian military, it had just suffered from a traumatic revolution. The official history (meaning Wikipedia) calls the outcome a “stalemate”. Considering the odds and the circumstances, I call it a magnificent Iranian victory and a total defeat for those who wanted to overthrow the Islamic Republic (something which decades of harsh sanctions also failed to achieve, by the way).

    Is there any reason at all to believe that this time around, when Iran has had almost 40 years to prepare for a full-scale AngloZionist attack the Iranians will fight less fiercely or less competently? We could also look at the actual record of the US armed forces (see Paul Craig Roberts’ superb summary here) and ask: do you think that the USA, lead by the likes of Trump, Bolton or Nikki Haley will have the staying power to fight the Iranians to exhaustion (since a land invasion of Iran is out of the question)? Or this: what will happen to the world economy if the entire Middle-East blows up into a major regional war?

    Now comes the scary part: both the Israelis and the Neocons always, always, double-down. The notion of cutting their losses and stopping what is a self-evidently mistaken policy is simply beyond them. Their arrogance simply cannot survive even the appearance of having made a mistake (remember how both Dubya and Olmert declared that they had won against Hezbollah in 2006?). As soon as Trump and Netanyahu realize that they did something really fantastically stupid and as soon as they run out of their usual options (missile and airstrikes first, then terrorizing the civilian population) they will have a stark and simple choice: admit defeat or use nukes.

    Which one do you think they will choose?

    Exactly.

    Going nuclear?

    Here is the paradox: in purely military terms, using nukes on Iran will serve no pragmatic purpose. Nuclear weapons can be used in one of two ways: against military assets (“counterforce”) or against civilians (“countervalue”). The point is that by the time the Neocons and their Israeli patrons come to the point of considering using tactical nuclear forces against the Iranians, there won’t be a good target to hit. Iranian forces will be dispersed and mostly in contact with allied (or even US forces) and nuking an Iranian battalion or even a division won’t fundamentally alter the military equation. As for nuking Iranian cities just out of savagery, this will only serve one purpose: to truly get Israel wiped off the map of the Middle-East. I would not put it past the Neocons and their Israeli bosses to try to use a tactical nuclear weapon to destroy some Iranian civilian nuclear facility or some underground bunker with the very mistaken hope that such a show of force and determination will force the Iranians to submit to the AngloZionist Empire. In reality, this will only infuriate the Iranians and strengthen their resolve.

    As for the currently “macronesque” Europeans, they will, of course, first show “solidarity” on the basis of “highly likely”, especially Poland, the Ukies and the Baltic statelets, but if nuclear weapons start going off in the Middle-East, then the European public opinion will explode, especially in Mediterranean countries, and this might just trigger yet another major crisis. Israel wouldn’t give a damn (or, as always, blame it all on some totally mysterious resurgence of anti-Semitism), but the USA most definitely does not want the Anglo grip on the continent compromised by such events.

    Maybe a Korean scenario?

    Is there a chance that all the huffing and puffing will result in some kind of peaceful resolution as what seems to be in the works in Korea? Alas, probably not.

    A few months ago it sure looked like the USA might do something irreparably stupid in Korea (see here and here) but then something most unexpected happened: the South Koreans, fully realizing the inanity of Trump’s reckless threats, took the situation in their own hands and began making overtures to the North. Plus all the rest of the regional neighbors emphatically and clearly told Trump & Co. that the consequences of a US attack on the DPRK would be apocalyptic for the entire region. Alas, there are two fundamental differences between the Korean Peninsula and the Middle-East:

    1. On the Korean Peninsula, the local US ally (the ROK) does not want war. In the Middle-East it is the local US ally (Israel) which pushes the hardest for a war.
    2. In Far-East Asia all the regional neighbors were and are categorically opposed to war. In the Middle-East most regional neighbors are sold out to the Saudis who also want the US to attack Iran.

    So while the risks and consequences of a conflagration are similar between the two regions, the local geopolitical dynamics are completely different?

    What about Russia in all this?

    Russia will never *choose* to go to war with the USA. But Russia also understands that Iran’s security and safety is absolutely crucial to her own security, especially along her southern borders. Right now there is a fragile equilibrium of sorts between the (also very powerful) Zionist lobby in Russia and the national/patriotic elements. In truth, the recent Israeli attacks in Syria have given more power to the anti-Zionist elements in Russia, hence all the talk about (finally!) delivering the S-300s to Syria. Well, we will see if/when that happens. My best guesstimate is that it might already have happened and that this is simply kept quiet to restrain both the Americans and the Israelis who have no way of knowing what equipment the Russians have already delivered, where it is located or, for that matter, who (Russians or Syrians) actually operate it. This kind of ambiguity is useful to placate the pro-Zionist forces in Russia and to complicate AngloZionist planning. But maybe this is my wishful thinking, and maybe the Russians have not delivered the S-300s yet or, if they have, maybe these are the (not very useful) S-300P early models (as opposed to the S-300PMU-2 which would present a huge risk to the Israelis).

    The relationship between Russia and Israel is a very complex one (see here and here), but if Iran is attacked I fully expect the Russians, especially the military, to back Iran and provide military assistance short of overtly engaging US/Israeli/NATO/CENTCOM forces. If the Russians are directly attacked in Syria (and in the context of a wider war, they very well might be), then Russia will counter-attack regardless of who the attacker is, the USA or Israel or anybody else: the Zionist lobby in Russia does not have the power to impose a “Liberty-like event” on the Russian public opinion).

    Conclusion: Accursed are the warmakers, for they shall be called the children of Satan

    The Israelis can eat falafels, create “Israeli kufiyeh” and fancy themselves as “orientals”, but the reality is that the creation of the state of Israel is a curse on the entire Middle-East to which has only brought untold suffering, brutality, corruption and wars, wars and more wars. And they are still at it – doing all they can to trigger a large regional war in which many tens or even hundreds of thousands of innocent people will die. The people of the USA have now allowed a dangerous cabal of psychopathic Neocons to fully take control of their country and now those, who Papa Bush used to call the “crazies in the basement” have their finger on the nuclear button. So now it all boils down to the questions I opened this article with:

    Dear US Americans – do you want to die for Israel? Do you want to lose your job for Israel? How about your pension? Maybe just your stock options? Because make no mistake, the US Empire will not survive a full-scale war against Iran. Why? Because all Iran needs to do to “win” is not to lose, i.e. to survive. Even bombed out and scorched by conventional or nuclear strikes, if Iran comes out of this war still as an Islamic Republic (and that is not something bombs or missiles will change) then Iran will have won. In contrast, for the Empire, the failure to bring Iran to its knees will mean the end of its status as the world Hegemon defeated not by a nuclear superpower, but by a regional conventional power. After that, it will just be a matter of time before the inevitable domino effect breaks up the entire Empire (check out Richard Greer’s excellent book “Twilight’s Last Gleaming” for a very plausible account on how that could happen)

    Okay, unlike Russia, Iran cannot nuke the USA or, for that matter, even reach it with conventional weapons (I don’t even think that the Iranians will successfully attack a US carrier as some pro-Iranian analysts say). But the political and economic consequences of a full-scale war in the Middle-East will be felt throughout the United States: right now the only thing “backing” the US dollar, so to speak, are USN aircraft carriers and their ability to blow to smithereens any country daring to disobey Uncle Sam. The fact that these carriers are (and, truly, have been for a long while) useless against the USSR and Russia is bad enough, but if it becomes known urbi et orbi that they are also useless against a conventional regional power like Iran, then that’s it, show over. The dollar will turn into monopoly money in a very short span of time.

    Wars often have “Nietzschean consequences”: countries which wars don’t destroy often come out even stronger than before they were attacked, even if it is at a horrendous price. Both the Israelis and the Neocons are too dialectically illiterate to realize that by their actions they are just creating increasingly more powerful enemies. The old Anglo guard which ran the USA since its foundation was probably wiser, possibly because it was better educated and more aware of the painful lessons learned by the British (and other) Empire(s).

    Frankly, I hope that the ruling 1%ers running the USA today (well, they are really much less than 1%, but never mind that) will care about their wealth and money more than they care about appeasing the Neocons and that the bad old Anglo imperialists who built this country will have enough greed in themselves to tell the Neocons and their Israeli patrons to get lost. But with the Neocons controlling both wings of the Uniparty and the media, I am not very hopeful.

    Still, there is a chance that, like in Korea, somebody somewhere will say or do the right thing, and that awed by the potential magnitude of what they are about to trigger, enough people in the US military will follow the example of Admiral William Fallon and CENTCOM commander at the time who told the President “an attack on Iran will not happen on my watch”. I believe for his principled courage, the words of Christ “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God” (Matt 5:9) can be applied to Admiral Fallon and I hope that his example will inspire others.

  • Saudi Arabia Will Build Christian Churches After Striking Deal With Vatican

    First he let women drive. Then he loosened rules surrounding public interactions between men and women. Now, in his latest act of progressive benevolence (in a country that still chops people’s heads off for committing adultery), Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman will allow the Vatican to build Christian churches in Saudi Arabia.

    The historic deal was signed by the Secretary General of the Muslim World League Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdel Karim Al-Issa and the President of the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue in the Vatican, Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran following a meeting last month, according to Breitbart.

    Saudi

    The decision is part of KSA’s shift to an ever more open stance as it seeks to recruit technology firms and other industries to help diversify its economy away from oil.

    During a visit to Riyadh in April, Cardinal Tauran was received at the royal palace by King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, who in addition to nominally running the country is also the custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, as well as his son MbS. Tauran and his delegation also visited the Center for the Fight against Extremist Thought, and met with the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Abdul-Aziz ibn Abdullah Al ash-Sheikh.

    In his address to Saudi officials, Tauran spoke about the difficulties faced by the “hundreds of thousands of Christians in the Saudi Kingdom” despite the fact that the country is the only state in the Arab world without even a single church.

    Tauran insisted that Pope Francis follows their plight “with close attention.” The cardinal also reaffirmed the Vatican’s view on the equal treatment of all citizens regardless of their religion, including those who are atheist or agnostic.

    Another benefit of the Cardinal’s visit was an agreement to renounce violence, extremism, terrorism and achieve security and stability in the world.

    The accord calls for the formation of a committee with two representatives each from Christianity and Islam. The committee will meet every two years, alternating between Rome and a city chosen by the Islamic World League.

    Since its founding, Saudi Arabia has embraced a fundamentalist strain of Islam known as Wahhabism, which bans all forms of non-Muslim religious activities.

    But as MbS moves to liberalize the country at a staggering rate to help improve the chances of achieving his Saudi Vision 2030 goals, one can’t help but wonder: What’s next? Letting Christians into Mecca?

  • Stephen Hawking's Last Words: We Live In 'The Matrix'?

    Before he passed away in March, renowned physicist Stephen Hawking had published more than 230 articles on the birth of the universe, black holes and quantum mechanics. But, ten days before his death, Hawking finished his final theory on the origin of the universe  – now published posthumously – and it offers an interesting departure from earlier ideas about the nature of the “multiverse.”

    As PBS reports, the new report, co-authored by Belgian physicist Thomas Hertog, counters the longstanding idea that the universe will expand for eternity.

    If you asked an astrophysicist today to describe what happened after the Big Bang, he would likely start with the concept of “cosmic inflation.” Cosmic inflation argues that right after the Big Bang — we’re talking after a teeny fraction of a second — the universe expanded at breakneck speed like dough in an oven.

    But this exponential expansion should create, due to quantum mechanics, regions where the universe continues to grow forever and regions where that growth stalls. The result would be a multiverse, a collection of bubblelike pockets, each defined by its own laws of physics.

    “The local laws of physics and chemistry can differ from one pocket universe to another, which together would form a multiverse,” Hertog said in a statement. “But I have never been a fan of the multiverse. If the scale of different universes in the multiverse is large or infinite the theory can’t be tested.”

    Along with being difficult to support, the multiverse theory, which was co-developed by Hawking in 1983, doesn’t jibe with classical physics, namely the contributions of Einstein’s theory of general relativity as they relate to the structure and dynamics of the universe.

    “As a consequence, Einstein’s theory breaks down in eternal inflation,” Hertog said.

    Einstein spent his life searching for a unified theory, a way to reconcile the biggest and smallest of things, general relativity and quantum mechanics.

    He died never having achieved that goal, but leagues of physicists like Hawking followed in Einstein’s footsteps. One path led to holograms.

    Diagram of evolution of the (observable part) of the universe from the Big Bang (left) to the present. After the Big Bang and inflation, the expansion of the universe gradually slowed down for the next several billion years, as the matter in the universe pulled on itself via gravity. More recently, the expansion has begun to speed up again as the repulsive effects of dark energy have come to dominate the expansion of the universe. Image and caption by NASA

    Instead of the ‘standard’ description of how the ‘universe’ unfolded (and is unfolding), the authors argue the Big Bang had a finite boundary, defined by string theory and holograms.

    The new theory – which sounds simplistically like the world of the red-pill-blue-pill Matrix movies – embraces the strange concept that the universe is like a vast and complex hologram. In other words, 3D reality is an illusion, and that the  apparently “solid” world around us – and the dimension of time – is projected from information stored on a flat 2D surface.

    The Telegraph reports that Prof Hertog, from the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (KT Leuven), said:

    It’s a very precise mathematical notion of holography that has come out of string theory in the last few years which is not fully understood but is mind-boggling and changes the scene completely.

    Applied to inflation, the newly published theory suggests that time and “the beginning” of the universe arose holographically from an unknowable state outside the Big Bang.

    Prof Hawking said before his death:

    We are not down to a single, unique universe, but our findings imply a significant reduction of the multiverse, to a much smaller range of possible universes.

    And believe it or not, there’s actually evidence that the world works this way.

    Hawking’s final paper can be read in full below…

    As PBS concludes, some physicists point out that the Hawking-Hertog theory is preliminary and should be considered speculation until other mathematicians can replicate its equations.

    Sabine Hossenfelder, a theoretical physicist with the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, said on her blog that the ideas put forward in this paper join others that are currently pure speculation and don’t yet have any evidence to support them. She makes it clear that while the proposals aren’t uninteresting, Hawking and Hertog haven’t found a new way to detect the existence of universes other than our own.

    “Stephen Hawking was beloved by everyone I know, both inside and outside the scientific community,” she wrote.

    “He was a great man without doubt, but this paper is utterly unremarkable.”

    Here is Ars Technica’s John Timmer with more details on the holographic universe.

  • Mueller Investigation In Jeopardy As "Witch Hunt" Accusations Play Out In Court

    A funny thing happened on the way to impeaching Donald Trump. After two-years of investigations by a highly politicized FBI and a Special Counsel stacked with Clinton supporters, Robert Mueller’s probe has resulted in the resignation of National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, the arrests of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, and the indictment of 13 Russian nationals on allegations of hacking the 2016 election – along with the raid of Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen.

    The nation has been on the edge of insanity waiting for that much-promised and long awaited link tying President Trump to Vladimir Putin we were all promised, only to find out that there is no link, the deck appears to have been heavily stacked against Donald Trump by bad actors operating at the highest levels of the FBI, DOJ, Obama admin and Clinton camp, and the real Russian conspiracy in the 2016 election was the participation of high level Kremlin sources used in the anti-Trump dossier that Hillary Clinton paid for.

    Now, as the out-of-control investigation moves from the headlines and into court, the all-encompassing “witch hunt,” as Trump calls it, may be in serious jeopardy

    As of Friday, three separate Judges have rendered harsh setbacks to the Mueller investigation – demanding, if you can believe it, facts and evidence to back up the Special Counsel’s claims – in unredacted format as one Judge demands, or risk having the cases tossed out altogether. 

    The first major setback happened in February, when the federal judge assigned to the criminal case against Trump’s former National Security Judge Emmet G. SullivanMueller’s team to turn over any “exculpatory evidence” to Flynn’s defense. 

    Oddly, Flynn’s legal team never made this request. Instead, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan issued the order “sua sponte,” or at his discretion, invoking the “Brady Rule” – which requires prosecutors to turn over previously unfiled evidence that might have a material impact on a defendant’s case. Two days before Sullivan’s order, Mueller filed a motion for a protective order regarding the use of evidence in the case, including “sensitive materials,” which would be provided to Flynn’s lawyers by the office of the Special Counsel.

    Judge Emmet G. Sullivan

    This development generated a significant buzz in conservative circles, with the implication being that perhaps Flynn might not have pleaded guilty in light of certain evidence

    We also know that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn – one of whom was anti-Trump counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok, did not think Flynn was lying to them – something James Comey was recently caught lying about himself. 

    Fox‘s Judge Andrew Napolitano thought Sullivan’s decision at the time was a complete bombshell. 

    “Why would he we want that after General Flynn has already pleaded guilty? That is unheard of. He must suspect a defect in the guilty plea. Meaning, he must have reason to believe that General Flynn pleaded guilty for some reason other than guilt.” –Andrew Napolitano

    And as we noted yesterday, some have suggested that Flynn pleaded guilty due to the fact that federal investigations tend to bankrupt people who aren’t filthy rich – as was the case with former Trump campaign aide Michael Caputo, who told the Senate Intelligence Committee “God damn you to hell” after having to sell his home due to mounting legal fees over the inquiry. 

    “Your investigation and others into the allegations of Trump campaign collusion with Russia are costing my family a great deal of money — more than $125,000 — and making a visceral impact on my children.”

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    Let’s not forget about the time Mueller’s team at the FBI massively screwed up the 2001 anthrax case after 9/11 – ruining the life of SAIC employee Steven Hatfill when it mysteriously leaked that he was the FBI’s prime suspect. Mueller assured Congress in a closed-door January, 2003 session that Hatfill was their man based on shaky evidence which was later deemed unreliable. Effectively, he needed a scalp. Hatfill was professionally and financially ruined until he sued the US Government for $5.8 million.

    It’s like death by a thousand cuts,” Hatfill, who is now 56, says today. “There’s a sheer feeling of hopelessness. You can’t fight back. You have to just sit there and take it, day after day, the constant drip-drip-drip of innuendo, a punching bag for the government and the press. And the thing was, I couldn’t understand why it was happening to me. I mean, I was one of the good guys.” –The Atlantic

    Then there’s the judge in the Manafort Case, who excoriated a Special Counsel attorney on Friday during a “motion to dismiss” hearing. A leaked transcript of the heated exchange between attorney Michael Dreeben and Eastern District of Virginia Judge T.S. Ellis reveals that the entire Manafort case is in jeopardy if the Special Counsel doesn’t produce an unredacted copy of the original order from Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein authorizing the original investigation.

    Judge Emmet G. Sullivan

    Ellis also said that Mueller shouldn’t have “unfettered power” to prosecute Manafort for charges that have nothing to do with collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and called out the DOJ’s efforts in the case as an attempt by Mueller to gain leverage over Manafort.

    “You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment or whatever. That’s what you’re really interested in.” –Judge Ellis

    The Judge also notes that the Special Counsel’s indictment against Manafort doesn’t mention:

    (1) Russian individuals
    (2) Russian banks
    (3) Russian money
    (4) Russian payments to Manafort

    To which Dreeben provided an unsatisfactory lawyerly response about how everything is connected to everything (including, apparently, whether Trump paid a woman to keep quiet about consensual sex). 

    Lastbut we’re quite sure not least, was last week’s ruling by federal Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee, denying Mueller a trial delay over the high-profile February indictment of 13 Russians for interfering in the 2016 US election.

    Mueller accused 13 Russian nationals and three Russian entities – one of which was Concord Management and Consulting, of “knowingly and intentionally” conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump. 

    And Concord Management decided to fight it… 

    As PowerLine notes, Mueller probably didn’t see that coming – and the indictment itself was perhaps nothing more than a PR stunt to bolster the Russian interference narrative. 

    I don’t think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against the charges. Rather, the Mueller prosecutors seem to have obtained the indictment to serve a public relations purpose, laying out the case for interference as understood by the government and lending a veneer of respectability to the Mueller Switch Project.

    One of the Russian corporate defendants nevertheless hired counsel to contest the charges. In April two Washington-area attorneys — Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly of the Reed Smith firm — filed appearances in court on behalf of Concord Management and Consulting. Josh Gerstein covered that turn of events for Politico here. –Powerline Blog

    Politico’s Gerstein notes that by defending against the charges, “Concord could force prosecutors to turn over discovery about how the case was assembled as well as evidence that might undermine the prosecution’s theories.”

    In a mad scramble to put the brakes on the case, Mueller’s team tried to say that Concord never formally accepted the court summons related to the case, wrapping themselves in a “cloud of confusion” as Powerline puts it. “Until the Court has an opportunity to determine if Concord was properly served, it would be inadvisable to conduct an initial appearance and arraignment at which important rights will be communicated and a plea entertained.”

    The Russians hit back against Mueller’s attempt to delay – filing a response on Friday to let the court know that “[Concord] voluntarily appeared through counsel as provided for in [the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure], and further intends to enter a plea of not guilty. [Concord] has not sought a limited appearance nor has it moved to quash the summons. As such, the briefing sought by the Special Counsel’s motion is pettifoggery.

    And the Judge agreed

    A federal judge has rejected special counsel Robert Mueller’s request to delay the first court hearing in a criminal case charging three Russian companies and 13 Russian citizens with using social media and other means to foment strife among Americans in advance of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

    In a brief order Saturday evening, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich offered no explanation for her decision to deny a request prosecutors made Friday to put off the scheduled Wednesday arraignment for Concord Management and Consulting, one of the three firms charged in the case. –Politico

    In other words, Mueller was just denied the opportunity to kick the can down the road, and will likely be forced to produce the requested evidence or withdraw the indictment, potentially jeopardizing the PR aspect of the entire “Trump collusion” probe.  

    As Mueller’s “witch hunt” moves from the headlines to courtrooms with no-nonsense Judges, dismissals and withdrawn cases risk further delegitimizing the already-beleaguered Special Counsel investigation of President Trump and the 2016 US election. 

    One wonders how much this whole thing has cost taxpayers so far?

  • WTI Tops $70 For First Time Since Nov 2014 As Iran Deal Deadline Looms

    With the Iran Deal looking increasingly fragile, front-month WTI futures have just traded above $70 for the first time since Nov 2014.

    $70 just happens to be the 50% retracement from the Aug 2013 highs to the Feb 2016 lows…

    As OilPrice.com’s Tsvetana Paraskova notes, US President Donald Trump has another week to decide whether to waive the sanctions against Iran. Expectations that he would not waive the sanctions this time around have supported the price of oil over the past month, with Brent briefly breaching above $75 to its highest price level since November 2014.

    Analysts are still struggling to quantify the impact of possible fresh sanctions on Iran and prices are expected to be volatile as the deadline for President Trump’s decision is getting closer.

    The month of May could be a very important one for oil prices with geopolitical risks stacked and too close to call. Apart from the Iran sanctions waiver, the market will be looking to the Venezuela presidential election that socialist leader Nicolas Maduro has scheduled for May 20.

    “The geopolitical landscape will therefore remain tense and price conditions volatile,” Stephen Brennock, an analyst at PVM Oil Associates, told Platts on Friday.

    Commenting on the Iran sanctions waiver, Commerzbank analysts said in a note:

    “This will be the main issue preoccupying the oil market, with fundamental factors such as stock levels and production data taking a backseat until this has been resolved”.

    Even more worrisome, as OilPrice.com’s Kent Moors writes, is that Trump walking away from the deal, and possibly re-imposing sanctions on Iran could throw the oil market into chaos.

    An agreement is an agreement, or so it’s said.

    Tensions are skyrocketing after Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s claim that Iran has violated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement.

    This is the deal that was meant to shut down Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

    Whether Netanyahu is correct or not, it puts the ball in President Trump’s court. Remember, he has questioned the JCPOA since before his election.

    But while the talking heads on TV will tell you that cancelling the JCPOA and renewing sanctions on Iran will drive oil prices up…

    The truth is much messier. Here’s what’ll really happen…

    Iran’s Restrictions are Extensive – and Controversial

    As we await a Trump decision on whether to continue the Iranian nuclear accord, the uncertainty is beginning to have an impact on oil’s pricing volatility.

    The accord signed during the Obama administration is officially called the JCPOA. It was agreed upon in Vienna on July 14, 2015 after some 20 months of negotiations.

    Signatories include the five permanent (and veto carrying) members of the UN Security Council (U.S., UK, France, China, Russia), Germany and the European Union (P5+1+EU) on the one hand, and Iran on the other.

    Under JCPOA, Tehran agreed to eliminate its stockpile of medium-enriched uranium, reduce its store of low enriched uranium by 95 percent, and decrease the number of gas centrifuges for 13 years by some 67 percent.

    Additionally, for a period of 15 years, JCPOPA states that Iran would do the following:

    • Not enrich uranium beyond 3.67 percent, enough for energy use but well below weapons grade;

    • agree to forego the building of any new heavy-water plants, essential to control nuclear reactions, over the same period, and

    • limit enrichment to a single location employing first generation centrifuges for a period of 10 years.

    In return, the P5+1+EU agreed to begin phasing out – subject to a sequence of verifications – economic and trading sanctions imposed by the U.N., the U.S., and the E.U.

    However, during the 2016 presidential campaign Trump heavily criticized JCPOA and pledged to scrap the accord…

    America Wants More from the Agreement

    In President Trump’s view, matters not part of the agreement – such as Iranian support for global terrorism, continued development of ballistic missile programs, and support for enemies of Israel and Saudi Arabia in the Persian Gulf region – need to be added to the arrangement.

    As a result, the White House announced in October of last year that it would not provide the periodic JCPOA certification as required under U.S. law.

    However, the administration did not end the agreement.

    This week, Israel released documents claiming that Iran has continued its nuclear program in violation of JCPOA. The presentation was less than compelling, including little tangible information about the post-accord environment.

    Both the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and independent watchdog organizations have said that there is no evidence to support the contention that Iran is evading JCPOA. The IAEA has the responsibility under JCPOA to monitor Tehran’s compliance.

    Now, my Iranian contacts were quick to note the obvious: Each of the new demands made by Washington are not part of what is covered by JCPOA.

    “One does not revise an international arrangement after the fact to pander to one’s own internal politics,” a source in the Iranian National Oil Company said over the weekend.

    There is also strong support from other permanent UN Security Council members, Germany, and the EU to continue the agreement.

    Yet all other parties are very aware that JCPOA will not survive if the U.S. pulls out.

    And neither will the current oil environment…

    The Future without the JCPOA Is Bleak

    The global pricing of crude oil is now feeling the impact of the politics swirling about Washington.

    I expect that the current intent inside The Beltway is to develop evidence to support the Israeli claims. But there seems to be little leverage to accomplish such an objective, even if the administration can figure out what it wants to add.

    This is an exceptionally dangerous play with no clearly identifiable upside beyond delivering on a campaign pledge and a few tweets.

    Trump may have made a threat to scrap JCPOA a central theme for his political support base and has said that a better replacement is needed, but that development has a very low probability.

    Throwing out JCPOA will certainly put Iran back into full weapons development with a corresponding rise in geopolitical uncertainty.

    And there will be a direct impact on oil prices.

    Renewal of U.S. sanctions will increase the cost of Iran’s crude exports, cut Tehran off from easy access to global banking and capital, and in all likelihood reduce the country’s predictable export volume.

    These are factors that would contribute to an upward pressure on international global oil prices.

    But there are other things to consider – factors that could be even stronger and ultimately drive prices in the other direction.

    For one thing, Iran would certainly stop any pretense of abiding by the OPEC-Russia production cuts. That, in turn, would prompt defections by others.

    Moreover, the enticement for a spike in production will be almost irresistible for U.S. companies – which are both the quickest sources of additional oil coming into the market, and the main source not subject to production caps.

    But the main destabilizing factor emerges from the acceleration in volatility itself.

    Any perception of additional security challenges in the Persian Gulf – and make no mistake, the end of JCPOA will heighten tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia – will contribute to a near-term rise in global prices.

    The resulting uncertainty will quickly give way to a widening application of competing short and long plays, which, in a whipsaw effect, will result in higher highs and lower lows in the oil price band and make genuine pricing determinations more difficult.

    Ask any trader.

    Predictability is more important than anything else. Ending JCPOA thrusts the Iranian factor into the center of the equation.

    And that will not be a preferable development.

  • FBI Refuses To Pursue Personal Strzok-Page Texts; Grassley Goes Nuclear

    The FBI is refusing to pursue work-related text messages and emails sent on the personal devices of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page – the FBI “lovebirds” discovered to harbor extreme political bias for Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump while actively involved in cases against each candidate during the 2016 US election. Clinton was of course exonerated by the FBI despite overwhelming evidence of criminal conduct, while Trump’s entire presidency has been tainted by the spectre of unproven Russian collusion.

    Over 50,000 text messages between Strzok and Page were discovered by the Department of Justice’s internal watchdog, the Office of Inspector General (OIG), leading to their removal from special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation – which has since devolved into trying to embarrass the President over allegedly paying a porn star not to discuss consensual sex. Of note, Page tendered her resignation on Friday.

    In a Wednesday letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, FBI Director Christopher Wray said that the FBI was not “obligated” to collect all communications between employees, and would not be pursuing communications Strzok and Page sent to each other on their personal devices.

    In response, Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) went nuclear – reminding Wray in a Friday letter cc’d to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) that “Although, as your letter notes, the FBI is not “obligated” to collect all communications between employees, it is obligated to collect and preserve federal records.” 

    Grassley goes on to note that previously released text messages between Strzok and Page “show substantial reason to believe government work was performed on non-government systems during the course of a high-profile investigation,” and that those communications could prove vital to the Committee’s investigation.

    The work-related communications on nongovernment systems could shed more light on how the FBI handled the Clinton investigation and would constitute federal records that the FBI would be obligated to retrieve and preserve under the Federal Records Act. –Sen. Grassley to FBI Director Wray

    The letter then provides several examples in which Strzok and Page explicitly referred to exchanging work-related information over their personal devices.

    “For example, in two text messages Strzok said to Page:”

    Gmailed you two drafts of what I’m thinking of sending Bill, would appreciate your thoughts. Second (more recent) is updated so you can skip the first.

    Yep. Sent something to your gmail, work-related. Think I’m going to pull here and send to Kortan….

    “In another text message, Strzok and Page appear to use the encrypted iMessage application on their personal Apple devices to discuss work-related material:”

    Strzok: Want to imsg it to me, or want to do it in person?

    Page: It’s not that sensitive.

    Strzok: Ok. You can imsg just for convenience of typing, too, if you want

    Strzok: And I have no good, awful, sh*tty terrible (work) news. I can’t say it here, and you can’t share with Andy (yet). I’m upset.

    Page: Can you share it on imsg?

    Strzok: Yes just sent[.]8

    Grassley then excoriates the FBI – comparing Strzok and Page’s use of personal devices for work purposes to Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information on her personal server – which Strzok and Page were investigating

    “Under 18 U.S.C. § 2071, it is illegal to willfully and unlawfully conceal, remove, or destroy a federal record. Secretary Clinton alienated thousands of federal records when she used a nongovernment server and email for official work, many of which were deleted rather than returned to the State Department when the Department requested them. Ironically, as FBI employees tasked with investigating Clinton’s similar conduct, Strzok and Page appear to have used nongovernment systems for official work as well. This Committee has yet to receive a satisfactory explanation as to why the FBI apparently let Secretary Clinton off the hook for multiple § 2071 violations. It is disturbing that even at this late date, and with all the litigation surrounding Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server for official business, the FBI seems similarly uninterested in even attempting to retrieve federal records of its own employees that appear to have been alienated as well.

    Grassley then asks three questions of Wray, noting that he expects the response to be unclassified:

    • Why has the FBI not requested from Ms. Page or Mr. Strzok any official work-related material from their personal devices and email accounts?
    • Why has the FBI not conducted searches of non-FBI-issued communications devices or non-FBI email accounts associated with Mr. Strzok or Ms. Page for official work-related material?
    • The FBI’s May 3, 2018, response letter also failed to answer questions 1-5, 8, and 11. Please provide answers and the requested documentation by the deadline. 

    Full letter below

Digest powered by RSS Digest