- Hillary's 'War Drums' Confirm Putin's Fears Of A World "Rushing Irreversibly" Towards Nuclear Showdown
As election day looms in America, it appears the writing that Vladimir Putin drew on the wall just a few short months ago is coming to fruition. Having lost his patience with the constant spewing of anti-Russia propaganda – missing the bigger picture of vicious circle towards muclear confrontation – Putin implored the western media, for the sake of the world, to listen:
We know year by year what's going to happen, and they know that we know. It's only you that they tell tall tales to, and you buy it, and spread it to the citizens of your countries. You people in turn do not feel a sense of the impending danger – this is what worries me. How do you not understand that the world is being pulled in an irreversible direction? While they pretend that nothing is going on. I don't know how to get through to you anymore.
In calm tones, not reflective of the angry allegations lobbed at Americans every day of a Russia hell-bent on the election of Trump (for whatever reason they dreamed up of this week), Putin reminded a 'deaf' press corps of what lies ahead and implicitly what happens if and when Americans vote for Hillary.
And, as Lawrence Murray (via Atlantic Centurion) explains why Donald Trump is the anti-war candidate…
From the Jordan to the Moskva, war drums beat. The powder keg that set off the first world war was ethno-religious conflict in the lands of the former Ottoman Empire, and in a sense it threatens to do so once more. The Balkan nations were not impressed with the botched settling of the Eastern Question, and a mix of state and non-state actors took matters into their own hands, leading to a globalized conflict. As late as 2006, the borders of the region were still being contested, when Montenegro voted to break away from Serbia.
Today, millions of people in the Levant, especially in Syria and Iraq, reject the imposed settlement of their borders. These were drawn by imperialists and zionists nearly a century ago under the Sykes-Picot Agreement to serve the interests of Britain, France, and the overseas Israeli community—and the successors of those diplomats wish to maintain those same borders. The ethno-religious conflict I am referring to in the former Ottoman Empire is of course the:
- Syrian civil war
- Iraqi civil war
- Turkish-Kurdish conflict
- American intervention in Iraq
- American intervention in Syria
- Iranian intervention in Iraq
- Iranian intervention in Syria
- Russian intervention in Syria
- Hezbollah campaign in Syria
- Yemeni civil war
- Libyan civil war
- NATO intervention in Libya
- Egyptian counter-insurgency
- War on Terror / global Islamic jihad
- US-Russian Middle Eastern proxy war
- Arab-Israeli conflict
Oh. Too many? This is the scope of conflicts that the Leviathan on the Potomac has gotten itself into, and just in the former Ottoman Empire. This does not include the:
- South China Sea territorial dispute
- Korean civil war
- War in Afghanistan
- Russian-Ukrainian border war
- Combat support in various African countries
- Occupation of Germany
In November, Americans will roll to the polls on their motorized scooters to elect the next Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States.
Hillary Clinton has a track record of following neoconservative foreign policy imperatives that favor “exporting” democracy and disrupting the enemies of Israel, such as Baathist (Arab nationalist) Iraq and Syria. Or as Republicans put it, “muh benghazi.” The Alt-Right cleverly notes that combined with America’s post-1965 immigration laws, this is a policy of “Invade the World, Invite the World.” If not for the dual policies of bombing Muslims and importing Muslims, the United States would be a radically different society. Instead of a bomb-sniffing watchdog state, we might have a night watchman state (like we used to). As late as 2000, some airline pilots would let you into the cockpit, especially if you had a small child with you who wanted to see it. Now even lingering at the front of the plane for to long means you’re a terrorist.
But it’s more than just a cultural change and anxiety about being in crowded, target-rich, or sensitive areas. The United States is required to spend billions of dollars a year now in order to prevent the next 9/11, which could have easily been prevented by not allowing immigration from Saudi Arabia, a country which practices shariah law, polygamy, and beheading of religious dissidents. Indeed, the surveillance and counterterrorism operations the United States is required to carry out against its citizens in the name of security as a result of mass immigration from outside of Europe put the state police of bygone regimes to shame. East Germany would be envious.
The other option is Donald Trump.
Donald Trump has never played a role in the shattering of nations or in conducting airstrikes against embittered medieval tribespeople. He has never been blamed for the death of an American ambassador or his staff. He has never chuckled about killing Muammar Gaddafi, whose autocratic and idiosyncratic rule of Libya raised living standards, generated oil wealth for his people, and prevented Islamist terror movements from spreading in a region where that is a problem. He has spoken favorably of Saddam Hussein, who likewise while imperfect did not preside over a millennarian civil war between two strains of jihadists and nationalist-secularists. There is something to be said for leaving these parts of the world to their own devices, even if it means they don’t get an American or parliamentary democracy. They can live without it. In fact, they literally live without it. What is happening right now in Syria and Iraq and Libya and Afghanistan and other hotspots is not life. It is death, and it is being funded with your tax dollars. By a Democratic administration that is fighting to preserve disputed borders in foreign countries while neglecting our own.
Obama and Clinton get away with warmongering because they aren’t George W. Bush. But short of committing tens of thousands of ground troops, they are doing almost the same thing he did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps worse because of the low human cost of the war to the Western side, we could potentially intervene in this conflict for, well, as long as the drone program is funded and fuel is loaded into our planes. There is no attrition. Just us turning various cities into replicas of Guernica. No bodies are sent home; no one cares.
…
Trump wants to end war in Syria and Iraq by working with the Russians and Iranians to defeat the number one enemy of international peace, which is ISIS. He also wants a moratorium on the importation of violent overseas ethnoreligious conflict into the United States.
Clinton wants to continue fighting the de jure Assad government, which benefits ISIS vis-a-vis just as much as it benefits the “moderate” rebels and non-ISIS jihadist groups. At the same time, she also wants to make the United States incrementally more Muslim each year. That’s how immigration works—less x and more y each year. Why recreate Syria in Seattle? Iraq in Idaho?
Trump wants to end the wars abroad and at home. He wants to put America First. What does Clinton want to put first?
- Tinfoil: It's Getting Harder To Leave Home Without It
It used to be when someone mentioned the term “tinfoil cap wearing,” “conspiracy theorist,” “lunatic fringe,” etc, etc., it was usually in reference to a subset of individuals or groups that resided in some dark corners or basements believing “mind control” went far beyond just propaganda. i.e., It was actually the government (or aliens!) sending out undetectable frequencies directly into the minds of the masses. And, the only protection was: tinfoil. With it’s best use fashioned and adorned as a cap. It’s been a running joke (as it should be) longer than most can remember.
Yet, with all that said, it’s getting harder to be out amongst the public as an informed person and not feel as if there isn’t something to all the “lunacy.” For if you speak to nearly anyone these days be it family, friends, coworkers, or the occasional overheard conversations of strangers. You can’t help wondering: how can so many be so clueless? Or worse: how is it they can argue some form of righteous stance about this, or that, all the while they are “knee-deep” themselves in the same (if not worse) muck they say is being slung from the other side?
It’s moved so far beyond ridiculous I’m now starting to believe there is something in the water. However, is it in the tap or, is it in the bottled? For the people able to afford bottled, as opposed to plain tap, seem to have some of the more “crazy” arguments I’ve heard in quite some time. And that’s saying something. It’s the only thing that explains it.
(Note: “informed” would include you dear reader, for the mere act of you reading this, whether you agree or disagree, proves ipso facto that you are searching out information as to draw your own conclusions. And to that – I tip my hat too you.)
So now that you’ve read this far, let’s both don a silvery chapeau and contemplate what might be one of the scariest propositions (if found true) that could change everything (and I do mean everything) as we know it. e.g., “WWIII”
(C’mon, what’s a good conspiracy theory without an apocalyptic conclusion as part of the deal? For if you’re going to go there – just go there is all I’ll say, yes?)
In the U.S. we are currently in the final stages (within 30 days) of the election process where we’ll vote for the next president. And in you were an alien just landed from some distant galaxy you would be hard pressed to not assume Vladimir Putin wasn’t running on the ballot in third-party status. For he’s been mentioned and garnered more free electoral press as it pertains to the campaign than the actual third-party candidate has received – including ad buys. Hence, this is where things get down right loony.
Say what you want about “Russian hackers” infiltrating private email servers and the like. Proving that it’s actually state sponsored, which state (i.e., Russia, China, N.Korea, etc.) is quite another. For it can also be just the garden variety hack (i.e., basement dwelling protesters) or, it could be the sophisticated type, i.e., Anonymous, etc. It’s a guessing game based on circumstantial evidence sprinkled with very suspect actual at best.
However, you know what can’t be denied and is pure evidence based for all the world to see, on purpose?
Military troop movements, missile deployments, a calling home to all diplomats and their children, multi-national communist allied war gaming (e.g. Russian and Chinese navy) on the open sea, all while instructing the Russian population to take part in “live nuclear bombing drills” for the first time since the cold war ended.
That’s what’s been taking place (and a whole lot more) over the last 30 days in the real world. Have you heard, read, or seen anything about it in the main-stream media?
Sorry, trick question. Of course not. Have you heard about the Kardashian’s latest escapades? Again, trick question – you can’t turn on a TV, radio, or go to the grocery store without seeing another version of the same headline. They’re everywhere.
Yet, here is the real question: Can you think of another time when something even resembling the above as it pertains to war, or even the drums of it wouldn’t be the only thing reported this close to an election previously? The silence is so deafening it boggles the mind. For along with this “radio silence” comes forth that other silence – nobody’s taking about it because: nobody knows.
As for proof? As I iterated earlier: just ask someone about it, then watch for the blank stare.
So, as I like to do, let’s not think “outside-the-box” and limit ourselves. Let’s delve more into what I like to call “there is no box” hypothesizing. Where we can let our conspiracy theorist inner person loose and argue assertions and plausibilities without constraints. For remember: facts sometimes prove out that far more lunacy exists in the real world – than the fictional. It’s in the inability to contemplate or, to ” the-getting-there” that blindside most from ever seeing the possibilities that exist. So let’s proceed. And don’t forget your hat….
What if the U.S. drops the “nuclear” option in December? No, not some ICBM. But rather: Raises interest rates.
And not by .25 basis points, but rather, say 50. e.g., 1/2 of 1%.
I know, this is crazy talk (but that’s why we have the tinfoil, no?) But let’s play this through taking the “crazy” view as a possibility. Can it make sense of what we already deem as “crazy?” Sometimes, yes, sometimes no. But you’ll never know unless you try.
Back in May of this year I penned an article titled: “Was The Fed Just Given The Launch Codes?” In it I made some observations as it pertained to “the elites” or “Ivory Tower” type thinking. It was a follow-up from a previous in October where I hypothesized another perilous possibility: “Weaponizing The Fed.”
With all that was happening at that time, along with what has happened since, it’s getting harder to push these ideas away, more than it is to embrace the possibilities. And that, in-and-of itself, is causing me more concern with each passing day. Especially when combined with the realities taking place in real-time today.
So what type of “conspiracy” laden scenario can I hypothesize using what we know to be factual, and, what we can conceptualize happening based on what has happened previous? Warning: it might be time to check for any possible tears, or cracks in your metallic helmet, and repair or reapply as much “tinfoil” as one feels appropriate. With that said, let’s continue.
Have you noticed as of late that the more “serious” the Fed. is intoning hawkish tones – the more its Chair Janet Yellen is suggesting monetary lunacy? e.g., “Yellen Says Fed Buying Stocks Is “A Good Thing To Think About”
Square this circle if you can: In the U.S. even the idea of negative rates alone is almost too much to handle or contemplate based on capitalistic principles and fundamentals. The backlash and furor alone in just the discussion all but holds it at bay. The finger-pointing at the Fed. currently, along with their trying to defend against “too easy for too long” critics has pushed many Fed. members (even those considered to be doves) to intone hawkish language whenever possible in public as of late to keep the pitchforks and torches at bay.
And yet – the Fed. Chair is publicly affirming (remember: this is only 2 weeks ago) that the idea of openly, and directly buying stocks is something that should be contemplated? Something here just doesn’t add up. Even when using Princeton math. Unless…
What if we were to hypothesize that for whatever the reason, December would be the ultimate time to send the financial world into a tailspin for a desired (“desired” by globalists, or elitists that is) outcome? Many (“many” being common sensical thinkers) would never entertain the idea because of the election in Nov. However, what if there was precedent of, and for, navigating turmoil and instituting the unthinkable precisely at that time? Hint: The interval between the actual election and the swearing-in. e.g., Nov. – Jan.)
One of the most curious things I remember about the financial crisis was the way, then, outgoing president Bush was seemingly instantaneously replaced with the then “president-elect” Obama.
Never before to my recollection had I ever seen a “president-elect” giving speeches or press conferences (especially in times of crisis when there was a live sitting president) equipped with podiums, lecterns, and more in precisely the same configuration, backdrops, and all including presidential seal. You would have thought Obama took over in Nov. rather than January if you didn’t look closely to read the term “president-elect” in the same space reserved for “president” on the presidential seal. Nobody seems to remember that but me when I ask. Yet, if you look back to press clippings from that time, or videos with today’s eye – you can’t miss it.
So now let’s really get into the weeds: What if “elites” or whatever term you want to use for people who think they know what is best for the rest of society, rather, than leaving that up to society itself, and have concluded no matter who wins the election, this whole charade of market stability is about ready to collapse upon itself like a house of cards at any time?
And any time is weeks, or months, not years. What would one do? Wait, and try to deal with the fallout in real-time? Or, bring it down of your own volition and have it fall in some type of controlled demolition experiment of one’s choosing?
I think when it comes to “elites” they believe they can control anything if they are the one’s that initiate it. So, I would go with the latter. And if so, what does that look like? Well, consider this….
Let’s say the candidate of choice for the “elites” wins. How could you employ the triggers with near immediacy that would devastate, or wreak the most havoc on an adversary lest dropping real ordinance? Hint: A release via the monetary equivalent by raising interest rates causing a market meltdown, but in-particular, causing a capital outflow of inordinate proportions out of your adversary, seeking refuge in not only the $dollar, but $dollar denominated securities, and more.
That is – while the $dollar is, still remains/considered “safe haven” status. It doesn’t sound all that crazy when put in those terms does it?
During the most assuredly ensuing period of absolute financial turmoil you (once again e.g. Paulson and Bernanke-esque) convince both the congress, as well as the business community that “Radical action is needed now! Or we all go down in flames.” All the while the current president (much like Bush) steps off to the sidelines where the new (much like Obama did) “president-elect” calls for much of the same, echoing the most assuredly chants of fire and brimstone if “Decisive action is implemented immediately!” No matter how radical or unnerving it may be to commonsense at the time.
You could have a scenario where the wind (as little as there would be except for the bloviating of politicians) of capital flight would be in the desired direction of your choosing, along with the ability to once again push through laws, or just allow for further take over, or more intervention by the Fed. or others in ways never dreamed possible before in a capitalistic society.
All the ground work has already been plowed. Both in some precedents, as well as open rhetoric of the possibilities of going where no modern society has gone before with its capital markets. (Think current Fed. communications)
As for your adversaries? You’d be doing this before they had real-time to test newly formed alliances of monetary trading or swaps in crisis mode. And during a crisis? Money seeks known safety first – not speculative. And the U.S. $dollar, along with its equity markets, as perverted as they are, are still the cleanest shirt in a dirty laundry.
The absolute havoc, devastation, financial destruction, and a whole lot more is almost near unconscionable to even contemplate. Yet, what you have to always remember is this: Elites, or those controlling the power, never think about the destruction happening to them. They always think in terms of “It won’t be us who has to live with our decisions. That’s for others to deal with.”
And if there is any doubt you may have to that last thought. Let me remind you of another story you may not have heard about, and the resulting aftermath when “elites” think “good ideas” that the people must live with and beside – not them.
Welcome to Paris “Scenes From The Apocalypse” circa this month.
A lot of people there once thought “They would never allow that to happen!” Maybe they would like to re-think that again, no?
No tinfoil required.
- Western Hypocrisy, And Why It Makes The World A Dangerous Place
Submitted by Michael Jabara Carley via Strategic-Culture.org,
The West has always been a great trembling hive of hypocrisy, portraying itself as liberal, progressive, civilised and democratic. You know the descriptors; the list is very long. Take the United States, for example, it is the «shining house upon the hill»: just, altruistic, democratic, with a «mission to extend individual liberties throughout the world».
«Our cause has been the cause of all mankind», Lyndon Johnson declared during the 1964 presidential election campaign. To reinforce his argument Johnson cited President Woodrow Wilson, who had similar things to say about American virtue. Nothing has changed: listen to Barack Obama talk about the altruism of the United States. ‘We are the «exceptional nation»,’ he often says.
These western and especially US virtues are mobilised to justify policies, wars, covert activities which are not virtuous at all. Let’s start with Wilson. He is best known for the «Fourteen Points», national self-determination, «democracy», open agreements, and so on. «Do as I say, not as I do,» Wilson might have cautioned in the backroom. He did not, for example, anticipate «self-determination» for the Philippines, a US colony, or closer to home, for American «Negros».
You see, Wilson was a segregationist and supporter of Jim Crow and the Ku Klux Klan. We need the KKK, Wilson believed, to keep «colored folks» in line, especially those who came back from France having served in the US armed forces. They might think they were entitled to the same rights as white people. As American blacks were to be subject to Jim Crow, so Bolsheviks in Russia were to be subjected to Entente military intervention to put an end to their socialist revolution.
Then of course there was World War II. It is during this war that the United States and Great Britain got into the habit of destroying cities and civilian infrastructure, and killing large numbers of civilians. It is true that Nazi Germany set the precedent for targeting civilians, and few people questioned the destruction of German cities and the mass killing of civilians in Cologne, Hamburg, Dresden, Berlin and other places.
The «krauts» had it coming. So did the Japanese, most of their cities were burned to the ground. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed with the first atomic bombs. «Military targets,» said accidental President Harry Truman, «we had to do it to save the lives of American soldiers». He lied. The American government knew very well that Japan was beaten and ready to surrender. The United States wanted to intimidate Iosif Stalin, with atomic bombs the USSR did not yet have. Did the Americans truly believe they could intimidate Marshal Stalin?
The end of World War II led to the resumption of the Cold War, Act II (Act I having started in 1917). With Great Britain reduced to the status of a vassal state, the United States took the lead in defending «free» peoples against the menace of communism. Unfortunately, there was a chasm between the image and the reality. The US government unleashed the CIA to buy politicians and elections and overthrow governments it did not like. Iran, Guatemala, Cuba were early examples. That was the fate reserved for Vietnam too, except there, Washington bit off more than it could chew.
The United States sabotaged Vietnamese elections in 1956 because, according to US president Dwight Eisenhower, the communist leader Ho Chi Minh would have won 80% of the vote. Not much respect for democracy there: it turns out that the United States was only comfortable with «democracy» when their clients won. When they couldn’t win, elections were rigged, bought with CIA money, or sabotaged. «Leftists, communists, eccentrics, not wanted here,» was a sign America might have hung out on the doors of its embassies worldwide.
In Vietnam the United States hijacked the south and ran it through puppets. A terrible war ensued: the World War II pattern of targeting cities and civilians was repeated. The US government declared that it was not bombing North Vietnamese cities, but Toronto Star correspondent Michael Maclear drove up from the Vietnamese Demilitarized Zone to Hanoi and found just about every city and town along the way had been flattened or badly damaged by American bombing. Civilians were fair game, US claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Estimates range from 2 to 6 civilians killed for every Vietnamese combatant. These figures are certainly on the low side given US carpet bombing and use of napalm and chemical defoliants.
It is true that most of the Vietnamese people were united with their armed forces in resisting US aggression. So the distinction between civilian and soldier was necessarily blurred, much to the frustration of US authorities. Then there was the My Lai massacre in March 1968 when nearly five hundred men, women and children were gunned down by American soldiers. The massacre made the pages of Life magazine, not good publicity for the American war of aggression in Southeast Asia.
The United States lost that war because of the remarkable resistance of the Vietnamese people, though they paid a high price for driving out the American invader. Defeat however did not long chasten US authorities. In 1973 the CIA overthrew the democratically elected Chilean government of Salvador Allende. A neo-fascist took his place, which was fine with Washington. In the 1980s the United States backed Islamist fundamentalists in Afghanistan against the USSR. «They’re sons of bitches», Americans might have agreed in a rare moment of candour, but «they are our sons of bitches».
The point is that the American claims of altruism and promotion of democracy were bogus. As long as the USSR existed, the United States could not run completely amuck although the US rampage in Southeast Asia was bad enough. After the collapse and dismemberment of the USSR, the United States felt the last restraints on its power fall away. NATO was expanded up to Russia’s western frontiers. Yugoslavia was destroyed and dismembered without any reference to international law. The United States and its NATO vassals backed Islamist terrorists and gangsters in Bosnia and Kosovo, following the Afghan pattern. «They’re our terrorists and gangsters,» the Americans might have said, «and therefore we’re alright». Serbia was bombed, its infrastructure destroyed, civilians were killed. Not even crocodile tears were shed in the west over the dead Serbian civilians.
Since the destruction of Yugoslavia, the list of US and western covert or overt wars of aggression is long. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Syria, Yemen have all been destroyed or are being destroyed by the United States and its NATO or regional vassals in the name of «responsibility to protect» (R2P) and «democracy» proselytization. The west’s allies are Wahhabi terrorists (again), Daesh, Nusra, Al-Qaeda and various iterations of them, as well as fascists in the Ukraine. It is an extraordinary American rogues’ gallery, like a long police line-up of felons. But «not to worry», the Americans would no doubt repeat, «they’re our Islamists and our fascists, and working for us, which makes everything alright».
Everywhere the United States leaves its footprints, along with those of the British and French depending on location, you will find ruins and victims. Iraq and Libya are in chaos and infested with Al-Qaeda terrorists. War drags on in Afghanistan after fifteen years. In the Ukraine the US-backed fascist coup d’état has only partially succeeded and a crisis there could irrupt at any time. In Yemen a Saudi invasion has butted into formidable resistance.
In Syria the US and Anglo-French-led attempt to overthrow the Syrian government has failed. Not only did the United States run up against a formidable Syrian resistance inspired by Syrian president Bashar el-Assad, but it has run up against the Russian Federation, Iran, and Hezbollah. They are allied with the Syrian government against the invasion of US and western supported Islamist mercenaries, armed, financed, trained, and sheltered by Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, and Apartheid Israel.
Russia has played the principal role in checking the US-led war of aggression against Syria. Of course, President Vladimir Putin has tried to finesse the United States into abandoning its terrorist allies and joining a coalition to destroy the Wahhabi invaders. As I write these lines, the Russian effort has failed; as well it might, since the United States is addicted to subversion and wars of aggression as a drug user is addicted to narcotics. But Russia had to try, and I suppose, will continue to try, to persuade the United States to go cold turkey.
In the meantime its French and British vassals accuse Russia and Syria of war crimes, fulminate about the surrounded, victimized Wahhabi terrorists in Aleppo. The very same who have made films showing their decapitation of Syrian POWs and officials, Christians and any others who don’t embrace their practice of Islam. Further forms of cruelty include execution by drowning or being burned alive in cages, or crushed by tanks. Women are raped, and stoned if they don’t submit; refugees seeking to escape Al-Qaeda authority are flogged, crucified, decapitated, buried alive, or shot (the latter form of execution being for the Wahhabis a rather banal, merciful way of killing victims).
It is these terrorists who the United States and its vassals support in Aleppo and elsewhere in Syria. They have abandoned the argument about the Wahhabis being «our terrorists» for another to the effect that they are «our moderates». This line is just as preposterous and bogus as all the other US justifications for war, though President Putin and his foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, have played along trying to persuade the United States to see reason. The Russian strategy has failed, as its other peace strategies have failed, because, inter alia, there are no Islamist «moderates» to separate from the so-called genuine terrorists. «Our moderates» is a fiction and a US cover for its support of Al-Qaeda and its various allies, largely foreign mercenaries fighting against the secular, legitimate government of Syria.
The only result, so far, of Russian efforts is that US generals threaten «to beat» Russia as never before. The French president threatens Russia and Syria with war crimes indictments, and various British politicians, including the Foreign Secretary, fulminate about Nazi-like bombardments of poor, innocent «moderates» who in fact use Aleppo civilians in their diminishing zone of occupation as human shields, summarily executing those who attempt to escape. In the much larger part of Aleppo which the «moderates» do not control, they deliberately target civilians.
Will there ever be an end to the hypocrisy and double standards? From Wilson to Johnson, to Obama, we have been subjected to a pack of lies. The US and western narrative about Syria, as elsewhere, is false to the last syllable. The «shining house upon the hill» is a myth. A dark charnel house filled to the ceiling with victims of US and European neo-colonialism would better represent the reality. But don’t expect any western governments to look inside that house. «Collateral damage,» the Americans would say, «and a price worth paying». Myths and lies conceal the real foreign conduct of the United States and its vassals, but that unfortunately is nothing new. The question now is whether Americans, Europeans and Canadians are willing to risk a gratuitous war with Russia for a pack of lies, in defence of the US-led Al-Qaeda invasion of Syria. We, all of us, need to decide quickly, before it is too late.
- PuTTNiK FiGHTS THe RuSSiaN BeaR…
- Lawmakers Allege "Quid Pro Quo" Between FBI And State Over Altered 'Classified' Clinton Emails
About a week ago we wrote about newly released FBI interviews with numerous references to State Department officials, including Patrick Kennedy, applying pressure to subordinates to change classified email codes so they would be shielded from Congress and the public (see “Two Boxes Of Hillary Emails Mysteriously Disappear“). Here is the relevant section from the FBI’s interview notes:
Now, according to a report from Fox News, new FBI files reviewed by Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), Chair of the House Oversight Committee, potentially point toward a “quid pro quo” arrangement between the State Department and the FBI whereby Patrick Kennedy, a senior executive at the State Department, offered “additional slots for the FBI at missions overseas” in return of “altering the classification” of certain Hillary Clinton emails. If true, of course, this new evidence could serve to discredit the entire FBI investigation as the notes are a “flashing red light of potential criminality.”
FBI interview summaries and notes, provided late Friday to the House Government Oversight and Intelligence Committees, contain allegations of a “quid pro quo” between a senior State Department executive and FBI agents during the Hillary Clinton email investigation, two congressional sources told Fox News.
“This is a flashing red light of potential criminality,” Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, who has been briefed on the FBI interviews, told Fox News.
He said “there was an alleged quid pro quo” involving Undersecretary for Management Patrick Kennedy and the FBI “over at least one classified email.”
“In return for altering the classification, the possibility of additional slots for the FBI at missions overseas was discussed,” Chaffetz said.
“Both myself and Chairman Devin Nunes of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence are infuriated by what we have heard,” he added.
“Left to their own devices the FBI would never have provided these [records] to Congress and waited until the last minute. This is the third batch because [the FBI] didn’t think they were relevant,” Chaffetz said.
Of course, the FBI told Fox News there was absolutely no impropriety in the interactions between the FBI and the State Department. Apparently an FBI agent just happened to raise the issue of additional slots for agents overseas during a call with Patrick Kennedy about changing email classifications due to a previous unfortunate bout of phone tag between the FBI and State. Here is the full statement from the FBI to Fox News:
“Prior to the initiation of the FBI’s investigation of former Secretary Clinton’s personal email server, the FBI was asked to review and make classification determinations on FBI emails and information which were being produced by the State Department pursuant to FOIA. The FBI determined that one such email was classified at the Secret level. A senior State Department official requested the FBI re-review that email to determine whether it was in fact classified or whether it might be protected from release under a different FOIA exemption. A now-retired FBI official, who was not part of the subsequent Clinton investigation, told the State Department official that they would look into the matter. Having been previously unsuccessful in attempts to speak with the senior State official, during the same conversation, the FBI official asked the State Department official if they would address a pending, unaddressed FBI request for space for additional FBI employees assigned abroad. Following the call, the FBI official consulted with a senior FBI executive responsible for determining the classification of the material and determined the email was in fact appropriately classified at the Secret level. The FBI official subsequently told the senior State official that the email was appropriately classified at the Secret level and that the FBI would not change the classification of the email. The classification of the email was not changed, and it remains classified today. Although there was never a quid pro quo, these allegations were nonetheless referred to the appropriate officials for review.”
The response from the State Department was much more terse:
“This allegation is inaccurate and does not align with the facts,” State Department Deputy Spokesperson Mark Toner said. “To be clear: the State Department did upgrade the document at the request of the FBI when we released it back in May 2015.”
What are the odds that so many completely “harmless” coincidences occurred during the investigation of Hillary’s private email server to her explicit benefit…with that kind of luck we suspect she should have won the PowerBall about 2 or 3 times by now.
- The Fed, Like The BOJ, Is Now In The Curve Steepening Business: What That Means For Markets
Following Janet Yellen’s strange speech from Friday, titled “The Elusive ‘Great’ Recovery” in which a seemingly perturbed Yellen not only admitted that the Fed may have hit peak confusion and that 7 years after unleashing a global, multi-trillion asset reflation experiment, it has not only failed to reflate non-market assets (at least both bonds and stocks are near all time highs on central bank buying), but in which the Fed chair also admitted the Fed is not even sure it understands the phenomenon of inflation any more, and in which Yellen’s reference to stoking a “high-pressure economy” and the lack of a mention of raising interest rates (coupled with her suggestion that the Fed “may want to aim at being more accommodative” during recoveries) was initially seen as a dovish sign, the just as confused market first rose, then fell after it reintrepreted her comments not so much as dovish, but as refering “financial stability”, something that Eric Rosengren explained earlier on Friday refers to steepening the yield curve, which in effect is a tapering of long-end purchases, or – as we first dubbed it when previewing the BOJ’s similar operation – a reverse Operation Twist.
The result was a prompt jump in 10Y and 30Y TSY yields to session highs on Friday after Yellen’s speech discussing “plausible ways” to reverse adverse supply-side effects by temporarily running a “high-pressure economy”, but more importantly the 5s30s steepened. Indeed, the selloff in long end saw 30Y yields rise by more than 7bp, topping 2.55% for 1st time since June 23 Brexit vote, the 10Y yield was higher by 5bp at 1.791%, above closing levels since June 2, while the short end barely budged.
But the steepening mood started not with Yellen but with Eric Rosengren, the president of the Boston Fed President, who dissented from the FOMC’s decision to hold rates steady at its September meeting, and who said is perplexed by historically low 10-year Treasury yields, which “haven’t rebounded as in other recoveries, with investors willing to accept a vanishingly small premium over their inflation expectations to hold them.”
Perhaps the reason for that is that despite the endless rhetoric, there hasn’t actually been a, you know, “recovery.”
As Bloomberg’s Daniel Kruger observed, Rosengren cited the Fed’s extensive holdings of 10-year Treasuries as a reason, but speculated that there’s a more likely and enduring cause: safety, in the wake of the financial crisis, is more expensive than it used to be. “It’s a global phenomenon. In 2006 a 10-year Treasury buyer received 2.3 percentage points more in interest than the market’s 10-year inflation forecast. That’s fallen to 0.2 percentage points this year. Spreads have narrowed in Japan and Germany, as well. Buyers of 10-year JGBs now get 0.4 percentage point less, and in Germany it’s an 0.8 percentage point less.”
So, not surprisingly, just like the BOJ before it, Rosengren suggested to use the Fed’s balance sheet to steepen the yield curve. The gap between five- and 30-year debt has widened 0.24 percentage point from the 20-month low of 1.03 percentage points in August. And with about one-fourth of the Fed’s $2.46 trillion in Treasuries matures in 2027 or later, selling a portion would certainly widens the curve even more. However, it will most certainly backfire should investors sell risk assets in order to fund purchases of long-term Treasuries at suddenly higher yields, which as we explained just over a month ago, is the dreaded VaR shock scenario where a rapid selloff in bonds promptly migrates to other risk assets courtesy of risk-parity deleveraging, which in turn forces a scramble for “safety”, i.e., the very same long-maturity securities, whose selloff prompted the panic in the first place.
Indeed, as Kruger points out, removing stimulus from the long-end of the bond market isn’t going to boost risk appetite in broader financial markets or stimulate growth. In other words, it will lead to more selling, something which US equity futures appear to be doing right this very moment.
* * *
The Fed is not the only one suddenly expecting a notably steeper yield curve. Over the weekend, Deutsche Bank’s Dominic Konstam who until recently expected the 10Y to drop as low as 1.25%, has also changed his mind and now expects the long end to rise due to the market’s expectations of further steepening.
But it won’t all be song and games, because as Dalio and Goldman have both warned, should rates move too high, too fast, MTM losses will become so great that the move itself will provoke a scramble right back into fixed income, and other deflationary, assets.
This is what Konstam said in his Credit Weekly publication:
If we are right and yields continue to rise with the curve steeper, there will inevitably be concern for risk assets and perhaps for the economic “recovery”. For this reason we think investors should view the moves as more tactical rather than structural and, importantly, consistent with easier policy at the front end. In the extreme the BoJ and ECB can ease still further to underwrite the steeper yield curve while the Fed can delay hikes for longer. While many investors have been lulled into a sense of low long rates are desirable, we continue to think that the central banks are shifting gears whereby steeper yields curves per se are more desirable for helping to stabilize bank profits and higher long yields per se for the entitlement industry as well as to soften the hunt for yield that may be driving excessively low risk premia in risk assets. The BoJ target for zero 10s is clearly in this framework – although as we argued two weeks ago the logic must be a dramatic decline in short rates to support 1s5s JGB curve steepening AND 5s10s JGB curve flattening so that 5y5y can fall or at least be stable relative to the US especially, despite sticky 10 year JGB yields. In turn, this will allow for a weaker yen. A weaker yen is critical to raise inflation expectations – it is about the only thing that matters for Japanese inflation. As of now note there has been a decent steepening in 1s5s (5 bps over 2 weeks vs. recent low of just 7 bps) while 5s10s has been stable to slightly flatter although overall 5y5y is slightly higher.
Rosengren’s statement that…”[I]f one were concerned about the historically low 10-year Treasury and commercial real estate capitalization rates, perhaps because of potential financial stability concerns, the balance sheet composition could be adjusted to steepen the yield curve” After the Great recession. A Not-So-Great Recovery FRB Boston, October 14, 2016, we think is an important new augmented angle from the Fed that fits well with our thesis. Below we look at options that the Fed might take in the event that it also wanted to steepen the yield curve.
As an illustration of the sorts of financial stability concerns we have been highlighting the richness of the SPX in relation to real yields and breakevens and specifically how this richness has been achieved via specific sectors that have performed increasingly well even as breakeven yields have fallen – the coefficients have effectively flipped since 2013 for sectors like healthcare, utilities, staples. This shows up as a compression of earnings yields to (falling) nominal yields via lower real yields and stable to lower breakevens. Restoring risk premia in the bond market therefore will at least forestall a further richening in risk assets but may also allow for some reversal. To the extent that breakevens recover with real yields still relatively low should at least though limit the risk asset correction – a pause that refreshes rather than a tantrum. Again the idea is that this is tactical not structural. There is an important distinction to make versus late last year when the fed was not just hiking but threatening to hike every quarter so real yields themselves had a full on tantrum as the dollar soared. This is exactly what needs to be avoided and we expect it to be avoided in the context of the current ongoing policy re-jig.
Twist Reversal?
Treasury curve steepened on Rosengren’s comments about adjusting Fed’s balance sheet to steepen the yield curve on financial stability concerns. The change in Fed’s balance sheet composition could steepen the yield curve similar to how Twist flattened the curve in 2011 and 2012. Fed portfolio extension during Twist was worth about 45-50bp in 5s-30s based on our model.
We fit 5s-30s curve to Fed funds to 2s and Fed portfolio average maturity from November 2010 to December 2012 to capture Twist effect. The original intension was to extend our ten-year bootstrap fair value model, which uses Fed funds to 2s and Fed funds target as input variables, to curve slope by adding the Fed portfolio maturity variable. As Fed funds target was unchanged during that period, that variable becomes irrelevant. Note that the Fed portfolio average maturity dominates in the regression with a -4.4 t-stats and a six-month lag. Twist contributed 50bp to the 5s-30s flattening during that period.
The coefficient on the Fed portfolio average maturity is about -0.014 per month. A one-year change Fed portfolio average maturity is worth about 17bp in 5s-30s.
To change the portfolio composition, the Fed can stop reinvestments of maturity coupon debt at 10- and 30-year auctions. Treasury then needs to borrow more from the market in the long end, steepening the curve. Alternatively, the Fed can stop reinvestments of maturity coupon debt at all auctions and use the proceeds to buy short dated coupon debt in open market operations while keeping the balance sheet stable.
One final warning: it was Rosengren’s comments, together with the hint that the BOJ would proceed will full blown curve steepening, in the week of September 5 that spooked markets which not only ultimately led to a dramatic steepening in the JGB curve, but also to the sharpest drop in the S&P since Brexit. Now, one month later, we have another set of even more vocal Rosengren comments and this time it is not the BOJ but the Fed which is suggesting the next big monetary move will be not more easing but implicit tightening via Reverse Twist. Meanwhile Libor is soaring and pressuring everyone who has floating exposure, while the rising long end is about to put an end to any housing “recovery.” As such, keep a close eye on risk assets not just overnight but in the next few days, as a “deja vu all over again” moment is increasingly likely, especially if the Ray Dalio’s of the world decide they would rather sit this one out…
- Podesta Emails Reveal Hillary Planned Obama "Hit" For Cocaine Use In 2008 Campaign
Remember in the 2nd Presidential debate when Hillary stole Michelle Obama’s line saying “when they go low, we go high.” It was hard to miss it as the mainstream media replayed it over and over for several days after the debate.
But new Podesta emails show that a better slogan might have been “when they go low, we get high.” Despite repeatedly claiming the “high road,” the following email from Neera Tanden, head of the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, clearly shows the Clinton campaign organized a below-the-belt hit on Obama back in 2007 over his admitted cocaine use.
Perhaps even more important is Neera’s scathing assessment of Hillary’s “instincts” which she describes as “suboptimal.” Something tells us that could get Neera in a bit of trouble in the not too distant future.
The email references the following exchange between back in 2007 on MSNBC when Democratic strategist Mark Penn repeatedly brought up the word “cocaine” causing Joe Trippi to nearly lose his mind.
PENN: Well, I think we have made clear that the — the issue related to cocaine use is not something that the campaign was in any way raising. And I think that has been made clear. I think this kindergarten thing was a joke after Senator…
TRIPPI: This guy`s been filibustering on this. He just said cocaine again. It`s like…
PENN: I think you`re saying cocaine.
In fact, new polling data discovered among Podesta’s emails from 2007 even reveals that the Clinton campaign tested the “cocaine hit” with potential voters…unfortunately no one seemed to care about the issue but the Clinton camp decided to take it for a spin anyway.
While an impartial media would call out candidates for claiming to “take the high road” while working behind the scenes to organize below-the-belt hits, somehow we suspect that Hillary will get a pass on this one.
And here are the full poll results from 2007:
- Learning From The British Election Of 1722
Submitted by Gary Galles via The Mises Institute,
It has become commonplace to note that the 2016 election campaign is unlike any America has seen before. Whether it is the issues brought to the fore, the number of scandals, or the intensity of the personal invective, it is hard to believe we are now within the bounds of what our founders had in mind.
In fact, we can make that statement going back more than half a century before our founding. The reason is that one of the greatest influences on colonial American political thought was Cato’s Letters, in which John Trenchard and Robert Gordon echoed John Locke in the early 1720s. According to Ronald Hamowy, its
arguments against oppressive government and in support of the splendors of freedom were quoted constantly and its authors were regarded as the country’s most eloquent opponents of despotism…[and] frequently served as the basis of the American response to the whole range of depredations under which the colonies suffered.
Of particular note in regard to our current election choices are Cato’s Letters 69 and 70, which addressed British voters about the choice of representatives they faced in their fiercely fought general election of 1722. Those letters bring us back to how far we have moved from what George Washington described as “the sacred fire of liberty…staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American People,” making some of its insights worth reconsideration today:
- "Our country abounds with men of courage and understanding; nor are there wanting those of integrity and public spirit: There is an ardent desire and diffusive love of liberty…and many begin to be tired, sick, and ashamed of party-animosities, and of quarrelling…to gratify the pride, the ambition, and rapine of those who only sell and betray them. It is yet in our power to save ourselves."
- "Let us not again be deluded with false promises and deceitful assurances; but let us judge what men will do by what they have done."
- "Throw your choice upon such who will neither buy you, nor sell you."
- "In corrupt administrations, your superiors of all kinds make bargains, and pursue ends at the public expense, and grow rich by making the people poor."
- Think what you are doing, while you are raising hue and cry after men who will betray you…for a poor momentary share of their infamous plunder.
- Know, Gentlemen, how you are used above, by those who think it worth their time to flatter you below, and to your faces…It depends now upon yourselves, whether you will deserve these base and reproachful names, or not; show that you are men.
- Liberty: You are our Alpha and Omega, our first and last resource; and when your virtue is gone, all is gone…you may choose whether you will be freemen or vassals; whether you will spend your own money and estates, or let others worse than you spend them for you.
- "You are born to liberty, and it is your interest and duty to preserve it…your governors have every right to protect and defend you, none to injure and oppress you…But it depends upon yourselves alone to make these rights of yours…of use to you."
- "All men desire naturally riches and power; almost all men will take every method, just or unjust, to attain them. Hence the difficulty of governing men."
- "While men are men, ambition, avarice, and vanity, and other passions, will govern their actions; in spite of all equity and reason, they will be ever usurping, or attempting to usurp, upon the liberty and fortunes of one another, and all men will be striving to enlarge their own. Dominion will always desire increase, and property always to preserve itself; and these opposite views and interests will be causing a perpetual struggle: But by this struggle liberty is preserved."
- "The interest of the body of the people is to keep people from oppression, and their magistrates from changing into plunderers."
- "Nor can there be any security in the fidelity of one [representative], who can find it more his interest to betray you than to serve you faithfully."
- "Choose not therefore such who are likely to truck away your liberties for an equivalent to themselves, and to sell you to those against whom it is their duty to defend you."
- "This is not a dispute about dreams or speculations, which affect not your property; but it is a dispute whether you shall have any property, which these wretches throw away."
- "Do you not know how much you are at the mercy of their honesty…whether you are to be freemen or slaves…Would you allow the common laws of neighborhood to such as steal or plunder your goods, rob you of your money, seize your houses, drive you from your possessions, enslave your persons, and starve your families? No, sure, you would not."
- "Consider what you are about…We are all in your hands, and so at present are your representatives; but very quickly the scene will be shifted, and both you and we will be in theirs…think what they are like to be, when they are no longer under your eye…These humble creatures, who now bow down before you, will soon look down upon you."
Cato’s Letters 69 and 70 focused on the British election of 1722. But they also provide a useful civics primer for the principles American voters concerned with the progressive evisceration of liberty should consider this November, almost three centuries later. However, those principles seem to disqualify both major party candidates, neither of whom exhibits more than a lukewarm commitment for defending our freedoms. No wonder so many are torn about who to hold their nose and vote for. But that begs the question: Is voting for anyone whose positions are so at odds with our founding defensible, if one believes in liberty?
- Iraq Launches Military Offensive To Retake Mosul From ISIS; Up To 1 Million Refugees Expected
Moments ago, Iraq’s Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi publicly announced the start of an offensive to retake Mosul, the capital of Islamic State’s caliphate in Iraq. US troops are said to be playing a “supporting role” in the offensive, with the Iraqi army and Kurdish Peshmerga fighters making up the bulk of the 30,000-strong force.
Tonight, PM Abadi issued orders to initiate major operations to liberate #Mosul after two years of darkness under #ISIL terrorists. #??????
— Brett McGurk (@brett_mcgurk) October 16, 2016
Washington recently announced the deployment of 600 additional US troops to help with the city’s recapture, bringing the total number of US force management personnel to move than 5,000, according to the Pentagon.
Godspeed to the heroic Iraqi forces, Kurdish #Peshmerga, and #Ninewa volunteers. We are proud to stand with you in this historic operation.
— Brett McGurk (@brett_mcgurk) October 16, 2016
“The hour has come and the moment of great victory is near,” Prime Minister el-Abadi said in a speech on state TV, surrounded by the armed forces’ top commanders. “I announce today the start of the operation to liberate the province of Nineveh.”
The assault on Mosul is backed the U.S.-led coalition and could be one be the biggest military operations in Iraq since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.It is expected to last several weeks if not longer.
“We are proud to stand with you in this historic operation,” Brett McGurk, U.S. envoy to the coalition against Islamic State, said on Twitter at the start of the Mosul offensive.
Mosul is the last major stronghold of ultra-hardline Sunni group in Iraq. With a pre-war population of around 2 million, the northern Iraqi city is the largest city Islamic State has controlled after it declared a “caliphate” in Iraq and neighboring Syria in 2014.
#BREAKING:
Peshmerga artillery shells ISIS positions near Mosul.
?????? #????????? ???? ???? ????#MosulOps #TwitterKurds #Mosul #Peshmerga pic.twitter.com/NjsqDVQZSQ— Peshmerga (@KURDISTAN_ARMY) October 16, 2016
The launch of the offensive does not come as a surprise to anyone, and certainly not ISIS, after leaflets declaring “Victory Time” were dumped over the city on Sunday. Local media outlets reported earlier over the weekend that the Iraqi army and allied militiamen may start the offensive against the ISIS “capital” in Iraq on Monday. The International Red Cross warned the move could create a million refugees.
The operation to drive Islamic State out of Iraq’s second-largest city Mosul was due to start “early on Monday,” Sky News Arabia reported citing sources in Iraqi Kurdistan. Similar reports have been filed by Russia’s RIA Novosti news agency, citing Iraqi government sources. The action is set to be backed by the US-led anti-IS coalition. However according to RIA, which cited a military source, the operation might be delayed, since the terrorists are now allegedly aware of the exact plan. The jihadists have hence “booby trapped roads” to Mosul forcing the Iraqi military to change plans, the source adds.
But the biggest question is where will the up to 1 million refugees go. Around half of the city’s original population of more than 2 million remain in Mosul, and most of them could flee once fighting begins, which would create another refugee crisis and what one representative has called “one of the largest man-made displacement crises of recent times,” according to CNN.
Camps are reportedly being set up to accommodate those who leave the city.
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...