Group items tagged

Shortly before the US announcement of its decision to suspend talks with Russia on the ‘cessation of hostilities’ agreement reached by US Secretary State Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov on 9th September 2016, a clearly well-sourced article setting out US options was published by Reuters. This article was clearly written on the basis of information provided by senior officials of the US government.  It confirms that “staff level” discussions are underway in the US in light of the collapse of the Kerry-Lavrov agreement and the Syrian army’s advances in Aleppo, though as of the date of publication of the Reuters article (29th September 2016) no suggestions of what to do had been made to Obama. Here is a list of the options apparently being considered (1) “supporting rebel counter attacks elsewhere with additional weaponry or even air strikes, which “might not reverse the tide of battle, but might cause the Russians to stop and think””; (2) “a U.S. air strike on a Syrian air base far from the fighting between Assad’s troops and rebel forces in the north” (the Syrian air base in question is probably the one at Deir Ezzor); (3) “sending more U.S. special operations forces to train and advise Kurdish and Syrian rebel groups”; (4) “deploying additional American and allied naval and airpower to the eastern Mediterranean, where a French aircraft carrier is already en route”.

Apparently the idea of supplying more shoulder held surface to air missiles to the Jihadis has been ruled out because “the Obama administration fears (they) could fall into the hands of Islamic State militants or al Qaeda-linked groups”. As for the idea of a no-fly zone (“a humanitarian airlift to rebel-held areas (NB: this almost certain refers to Aleppo – AM), which would require escorts by U.S. warplanes”) this has apparently been deemed “too risky” and has been “moved down the list”. This list of options exposes how completely out of options the US really is. 

Options (1) and (2) cannot influence the course of the fighting in Aleppo and US officials apparently admit as much.  On past experience option (1) is less likely to make the Russians “stop and think” than to make them more determined and more angry.  Option (3) is a case of more of the same.  The US has been doing this for years without achieving any results.  Option (4) is essentially symbolic unless it is intended to prepare the way for the declaration of a no-fly zone, which however US officials seem to be ruling out. If reports are to be believed the Russians may be taking more steps to guard against the possibility of the US declaring a no-fly zone.  Fox News is reporting US officials as saying that the Russians have reinforced the S400 anti aircraft missile system they have already deployed to Syria with a number of advanced S-300VM “Antey-2500″ anti aircraft systems.  Whilst the Russians have not confirmed this report, if it is true then it makes any US attempt to impose a no-fly zone even more risky.  A sign that the report probably is true is that the Kremlin is pointedly failing to deny it. The Russians have also pointedly reminded the US that they know the whereabouts of all US military personnel in Syria, including presumably those supposedly present in the various Jihadi headquarters (or “operations rooms”) existing in the country. 

f, as seems likely, President Barack Obama retains enough support to complete the nuclear deal with Iran, it will be largely because enough members of the House and Senate are persuaded by his argument that the only other real option is war.This was the rhetorical gauntlet the president threw down at his press conference last week. Equally significant, Mr. Obama omitted the until-now obligatory warning that "all options, including the military one, remain on the table."

Since then, Israeli media have been pressing hard to restore the military option to its accustomed place "on the table." Flying to Israel Sunday night for a handholding mission with top Israeli officials, U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter tried to make his reception in Tel Aviv less frosty, telling accompanying journalists that the nuclear deal with Iran "does nothing to prevent the military option." The context, however, seemed to be one in which Iran was caught cheating on the nuclear deal.That this kind of rhetoric, even when it is not from the president, is still poison to Tehran was clear in the immediate reaction by Iran's Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, who insisted Monday: "Applying force ... is not an option but an unwise and dangerous temptation."

Looking for changes in official public statements was my bread and butter during a long tenure as a Kremlinologist. So on Wednesday, as I watched Mr. Obama defend the deal with Iran, I leaned way forward at each juncture — and there were several — where the timeworn warning about all options being "on the table" would have been de rigueur. He avoided saying it. "All options on the table?" The open-ended nature of this Bush/Cheney-esque bully-type warning is at odds with Western international understandings spanning more than three and half centuries — from the treaties of Westphalia (1648), to the Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928) to the post-World War II Nuremberg Tribunal to the UN Charter (1945). Try raising that with Establishment Washington, though, and be prepared to be dismissed as "picky-picky," or as quaint and as obsolete as the Geneva Conventions. Undergirding all this is the chauvinism reflected in President Obama's repeated reminders that the U.S. "is the sole indispensable country in the world."But in the wake of last week's accord with Iran in Vienna, it is possible now to hope that the "military option" is finally off the table — in reality, if not in occasional rhetorical palliatives for Israel.

The tensions between Russia and the USA have reached an unprecedented level. I fully agree with the participants of this CrossTalk show – the situation is even worse and more dangerous than during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Both sides are now going to the so-called “Plan B” which, simply put, stand for, at best, no negotiations and, at worst, a war between Russia and the USA.

In theory, these are, very roughly, the possible levels of confrontation: A military standoff à la Berlin in 1961. One could argue that this is what is already taking place right now, albeit in a more long-distance and less visible way. A single military incident, such as what happened recently when Turkey shot down a Russian SU-24 and Russia chose not to retaliate. A series of localized clashes similar to what is currently happening between India and Pakistan. A conflict limited to the Syrian theater of war (say like the war between the UK and Argentina over the Malvinas Islands). A regional or global military confrontation between the USA and Russia. A full scale thermonuclear war between the USA and Russia During my years as a student of military strategy I have participated in many exercises on escalation and de-escalation and I can attest that while it is very easy to come up with escalatory scenarios, I have yet to see a credible scenario for de-escalation. What is possible, however, is the so-called “horizontal escalation” or “asymmetrical escalation” in which one side choses not to up the ante or directly escalate, but instead choses a different target for retaliation, not necessarily a more valuable one, just a different one on the same level of conceptual importance (in the USA Joshua M. Epstein and Spencer D. Bakich did most of the groundbreaking work on this topic).

The main reason why we can expect the Kremlin to try to find asymmetrical options to respond to a US attack is that in the Syrian context Russia is hopelessly outgunned by the US/NATO, at least in quantitative terms. The logical solutions for the Russians is to use their qualitative advantage or to seek “horizontal targets” as possible retaliatory options. This week, something very interesting and highly uncharacteristic happened: Major General Igor Konashenkov, the Chief of the Directorate of Media service and Information of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, openly mentioned one such option. Here is what he said: “As for Kirby’s threats about possible Russian aircraft losses and the sending of Russian servicemen back to Russia in body bags, I would say that we know exactly where and how many “unofficial specialists” operate in Syria and in the Aleppo province and we know that they are involved in the operational planning and that they supervise the operations of the militants. Of course, one can continue to insist that they are unsuccessfully involved in trying to separate the al-Nusra terrorists from the “opposition” forces. But if somebody tries to implement these threats, it is by no means certain that these militants will have to time to get the hell out of there.” Nice, no? Konashenkov appears to be threatening the “militants” but he is sure to mention that there are plenty of “unofficial specialists” amongst these militants and that Russia knows exactly where they are and how many of them there are. Of course, officially, Obama has declared that there are a few hundred such US special advisors in Syria. A well-informed Russian source suggests that there are up to 5’000 foreign ‘advisors’ to the Takfiris including about 4’000 Americans. I suppose that the truth is somewhere between these two figures.

The Senate approved a historic rules change on Thursday by eliminating the use of the filibuster on all presidential nominees except those to the U.S. Supreme Court.Invoking the long-threatened “nuclear option” means that most of President Barack Obama’s judicial and executive branch nominees no longer need to clear a 60-vote threshold to reach the Senate floor and get an up-or-down vote.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) used the nuclear option Thursday morning, meaning he called for a vote to change the Senate rules by a simple majority vote. It passed, 52 to 48. Three Democrats voted against changing the rules — Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Mark Pryor of Arkansas. “It’s time to change the Senate before this institution becomes obsolete,” Reid said in a lengthy floor speech on Thursday morning. A furious Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who tried to recess the Senate for the day before the rules change could get a vote, said after the minority’s power was limited by Democrats: “I don’t think this is a time to be talking about reprisal. I think it’s a time to be sad about what has been done to the United States Senate.”

The debate over the filibuster — and specifically its use on D.C. Circuit nominees — has been raging for nearly a decade, stretching back to when George W. Bush was president and Democrats were in the minority. But changing the Senate rules has always been avoided through a piecemeal deal, a gentleman’s agreement or a specific solution, not a historic change to the very fabric of the Senate.

of Press Relations » Daily Press Briefings » 2016 » October » Daily Press Briefing - October 6, 2016John Kirby SpokespersonDaily Press Briefing Washington, DC October 6, 2016

MR KIRBY: Well, again, I think – and I think Mark walked you through this – there were three principal topics that they discussed. One was Syria; one was Ukraine; and the other, of course, was DPRK and our work inside the UN to pursue additional sanctions on the regime. The discussion on Syria focused on two things principally. One was the situation in Aleppo and the Secretary’s obvious and deep concern about the continued siege there and also about the potential to continue multilateral efforts to discuss the way ahead. And that’s – and that’s basically it. We certainly, when we said we were suspending U.S.-Russia bilateral engagement on the cessation of hostilities and the work to that end in Syria, there was never any expectation that the two foreign ministers wouldn’t speak about Syria again. And certainly, if we’re going to continue multilateral efforts, which we fully intend to do, whether it’s with the ISSG or other partners or through the UN, there’s no way you can do that without including Russia in that discussion. QUESTION: So and just – so are you trying to set up a meeting, for example? I mean, you’re talking about bilateral discussions. Are you trying to set up a meeting with other countries including Russia on this? MR KIRBY: I don’t have anything on the schedule to speak to today, but I certainly wouldn’t rule out the fact that there will be attempts and efforts through multi – through a multilateral fora to meet again and to try to work through this. I certainly wouldn’t rule that out. QUESTION: And just one other one. Given the failure of the previous efforts and given the main thing that you guys argued was that the carrot or the leverage you had was Russia’s eagerness for intelligence-sharing cooperation, et cetera, the JIC, what makes you think they’re going to be any more likely to work to halt or reduce the violence in a multilateral context absent those incentives than they were when they had the incentives on the table? MR KIRBY: We don’t know. We don’t know. That’s a call for them to make if they’re interested or willing in participating in a multilateral discussion or not. But speaking for Secretary Kerry, I can tell you that he fully intends to use multilateral efforts available to him, whether it’s the ISSG or the UN or something separate and distinct. Tom Shannon was in Berlin at the invitation of the German Government just yesterday to – a smaller but still multilateral discussion about Syria. The Secretary has every intent to continue to use those vehicles as best he can. But we don’t know whether Russia will come to those sessions. We don’t know whether they will do so --

QUESTION: Yeah, okay. And is there anything that you are doing to try to stop Aleppo from falling to the government, the Russian-backed government offensive, or have you kind of written it off? MR KIRBY: Nobody is writing off Aleppo. I think everybody’s deeply troubled and concerned about what appears to be a very continued, concerted, and if – and increased effort by the regime to conduct a siege and to take Aleppo. But -- QUESTION: Yeah. Are you doing anything to stop it? MR KIRBY: Well, we obviously are continuing – another reason why, as I said, they – Foreign Minister Lavrov and the Secretary spoke yesterday was the Secretary was expressing our concerns about what’s going on in Aleppo. We’re not turning a blind eye to that. And we still want – the short answer to your question is we’re still interested in pursuing a cessation of hostilities that can endure nationwide, and certainly in Aleppo. It’s just that now we’re going to have to pursue that goal through a multilateral effort and not any longer solely through a bilateral effort with Russia.

Once again focusing on escalations of tensions with Russia, State Department spokesman Mark Toner today said that in addition to the “diplomatic” efforts the US is making in Syria, they are also considering conducting “military or other options.” The US demonstrably is not conducting diplomatic efforts in Syria anymore, despite Toner’s claims to the contrary, as the US made a very public show of withdrawing from the diplomatic track yesterday, and condemning Russia on the way out. Adding to the uncomfortable talk about military possibilities, Toner also declared the US to “always consider unilateral options when looking at a situation like Syria,” and while he insisted the US prefers to work with its coalition, it’s unlikely much of the coalition will eagerly follow them into a war with Russia.

Earlier today, Russia announced they are deploying S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to their naval base at Tartus, to defend naval personnel against any potential attacks. With the US-led campaign materially the only air operations in Syria not directly aligned with Russia, the underlying message is that they’re preparing for a unilateral US attack. That US officials reacted negatively to the deployment of purely defensive missiles only adds to this.

It’s happening! According to a new poll, Americans have finally maxed out their tolerance for “lesser evils” in presidential politics. The survey, published by independent research firm, Data Targeting, found a majority of Americans now want an independent candidate to take on Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump — two of the most disliked candidates in recent history. Researchers for the poll, conducted among 997 registered voters via both home and mobile phones this month, reported that “58% of respondents are dissatisfied with the current group of Republican and Democratic candidates for President” — and that 55 percent believe there should be an independent ticket (it is unclear why 3 percent apparently dislike the current candidates but puzzlingly do not think there should be another option). In perhaps the most extreme finding of the analysis, “a shocking 91% of voters under the age of 29 favor having an independent candidate on the ballot.” Considering younger generations’ lack of party allegiance and disillusionment with the status quo, their disapproval of Clinton and Trump seems predictable — but 91 percent constitutes near-total rejection. Tellingly, over 68 percent of participants in the poll were over the age of 50. Older generations are more likely to be attached to party identity, making their acceptance of other options a telling indicator of the populace’s distaste for their current options.

The United States has notoriously clung to the narrow two-party duopoly for most of its history — even as the crafters of the Constitution, for all their staggering shortcomings, cautioned of the dangers of such myopic political representation and party allegiance. But considering the unpopularity of Trump and Clinton — the former has a 55 percent unfavorability liking, the latter 56 percent — Americans appear to be turning a corner on their perception of who deserves power in politics. In fact, 65 percent of poll respondents said they would be “at least somewhat, pretty or very willing to support a candidate for President who is not Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton” — a stark difference from 2012, when Americans resisted deviation from the norm. A Gallup poll from that year highlighted the nation’s two-party rigidity. “U.S. registered voters show limited support for third-party candidates…with the vast majority preferring Barack Obama or Mitt Romney,” analysts reported just a few months before the 2012 general election. They concluded about 5% of Americans would vote for a third-party candidate that year. Just four years later, however, that figure has exploded. As the Data Testing report explains: “In a ballot test against Clinton and Trump, a truly independent candidate starts off with 21% of the vote,” already far greater than 2012’s 5%. “But this number increases to 29% in the ‘Big Sky’ region, 30% in ‘New England’ and 28% in the ‘West’ region.”

Independents were even more willing to break away from the options they’ve been given. “Among voters with an unfavorable opinion of both Trump and Clinton, the independent actually wins the ballot test,” researchers reported, noting that of the three options, 7 percent of respondents chose Clinton, 11 percent chose Trump, and a staggering 56 percent chose the unspecified third-party candidate. Though these ballot test findings are lower than the statistic that 65 percent would be open to breaking away from Clinton and Trump, the increase of third-party interest from 2012 remains palpably significant. It should be noted that Data Targeting is a GOP-affiliated political research firm, however, the results indicate little room for bias. In fact, they are paramount in an election where, as the analysis notes, Clinton and Trump provoke more animosity than enthusiasm. Perhaps highlighting lingering attachments to two-party thinking, Clinton’s highest unfavorability rating (78 percent) came from Republicans, while Trump’s highest unfavorability rating (71 percent) came from Democrats. Regardless, it is undeniable Americans are fed up with the system at large. According to another recent poll, just over half believe elections are rigged. Interest in third-party options, like the Libertarian and Green parties, is also steadily growing. As Ron Paul, the outspoken former presidential candidate, whose 2012 campaign wasundermined by the media and Republican establishment, recently said, “I’ve never bought into this idea that the lesser of two evils is a good idea” — and Americans increasingly agree. According to a Gallup poll released last year, 43 percent of Americans identify as independent — the highest number in the history of the poll.

Outgoing Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) said he is keeping "all options on the table" when it comes to publicly releasing the Senate's report on the CIA's now-defunct interrogation program. Following Udall's reelection loss earlier this month, a number of advocates floated the idea of Udall publicly revealing sections of the classified report on the Senate floor before the end of the year. ADVERTISEMENT"I mean I'm going to keep all options on the table," he told The Denver Post on Thursday when asked specifically about the idea. While the plan is unlikely, there is some precedent. The Constitution gives immunity to senators engaging in speech and debate, whether or not they publicly reveal classified information. But Senate rules forbid those types of disclosure.  

Udall is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which drafted the report. Portions of it, including the executive summary, are being redacted for release. But Udall and others have said the administration has been too heavy-handed in the editing process.  <A HREF="http://ws-na.amazon-adsystem.com/widgets/q?rt=tf_mfw&ServiceVersion=20070822&MarketPlace=US&ID=V20070822%2FUS%2Fthehill07-20%2F8001%2Fdffbe72d-f425-4b83-b07e-357ae9d405f6&Operation=NoScript">Amazon.com Widgets</A> "Transparency and disclosure are critical to the work of the Senate intelligence committee and our democracy, so I'm going to keep all options on the table to ensure the truth comes out," Udall said.Udall said an agreement on the release is close, which would make the revelation on the floor unnecessary. Chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) told the newspaper the report is expected to be made public in the coming weeks.

Like most lefty journalists, I assumed that George Bush and Tony Blair invaded Iraq to buy up its oil fields, cheap and at gun-point, and cart off the oil. We thought we knew the neo-cons true casus belli: Blood for oil. But the truth in the Options for Iraqi Oil Industry was worse than "Blood for Oil". Much, much worse.

Within days, our chief of investigations, Ms Badpenny, delivered to my shack in the woods outside New York a 323-page, three-volume programme for Iraq's oil crafted by George Bush's State Department and petroleum insiders meeting secretly in Houston, Texas. I cracked open the pile of paper – and I was blown away.

I'd already had in my hands a 101-page document, another State Department secret scheme, first uncovered by Wall Street Journal reporter Neil King, that called for the privatisation, the complete sell-off of every single government-owned asset and industry. And in case anyone missed the point, the sales would include every derrick, pipe and barrel of oil, or, as the document put it, "especially the oil". That plan was created by a gaggle of corporate lobbyists and neo-cons working for the Heritage Foundation. In 2004, the plan's authenticity was confirmed by Washington power player Grover Norquist. (It's hard to erase the ill memory of Grover excitedly waving around his soft little hands as he boasted about turning Iraq into a free-market Disneyland, recreating Chile in Mesopotamia, complete with the Pinochet-style dictatorship necessary to lock up the assets – while behind Norquist, Richard Nixon snarled at me from a gargantuan portrait.) The neo-con idea was to break up and sell off Iraq's oil fields, ramp up production, flood the world oil market – and thereby smash OPEC and with it, the political dominance of Saudi Arabia.

Video and Transcript Press TV has conducted an exclusive interview with Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif

The use of chemical weapons is a crime, we believe it is a crime against humanity, but we believe that also the use of force, the threat of use of force, is also a criminal offense in international law. Unfortunately it seems to me that the United States seems to be living in the 19th century when the use of force was a prerogative of states, it is not. I believe the United States, the president of the United States, who seems to be a very fine constitutional lawyer, has to look into his law books, his international law books, which he has not, I think, reviewed recently, and consider the fact, that when he concedes, as he did last night before the American people, that there is no imminent or direct threat against the United States, then the United States doesn’t have any standing under any provision of international law, to take law in its own hands.

There is a need for the United States to come to the realization, and I believe this is an important realization for the United States, that not only the use of force is illegal, that not only the threat of force is against a preemptory international norm of law, but also and more importantly the use of force is ineffective. Force has lost its utility in international relations and it lost its utility long time ago. In 1928, civilized countries decided to reject the use of force as an instrument of national policy, before then, force or war was an instrument of national policy, they thought that war was diplomacy by another means. But since then, the international community has come to its senses, believing that the use of force doesn’t provide the necessary outcome that those who started it wanted to provide and wanted to produce and that is why they have outlawed the use of force. It is not a bunch of idealistic lawyers who sat down and banned the use of force, but in fact because of the reality that it has lost the utility that. Let me just tell you that in the 20th century, 85 percent of the cases, where a country resorted to force, have resulted in that country either being annihilated or not achieving the intended consequences of the war, so that shows to you empirically that force is no longer effective. I hope that the United States, which is the mightiest country on the face of the earth, would come to this realization that it is important to use other means of influence; force is no longer effective

The United States should be prepared to use every military option, including nuclear retaliation, in response to a huge computer attack, an independent Department of Defense task force said. But the nation must determine whether its nuclear arsenal can withstand computer hackers, the Defense Science Board warns in a newly declassified report obtained by the Tribune-Review. In a full-scale cyber war, the board's experts say, the United States' weapons could be disabled or turned against its troops. "It would have to be extreme," Paul Kaminski, chair of the Science Board and a member of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board, said about the kind of attack that might trigger a nuclear response. "It would have to be the kind of attack that we would judge would be threatening our survival." The United States must assume that computer attacks will be part of conflicts, said the report from the task force made up of civilian experts with government advisers. Yet, the report said the country cannot be confident that its military's computer systems would still work under attack from a sophisticated adversary nation with a full range of military and intelligence options.

Some steps to increase computer defenses could be done "relatively inexpensively," said Brian Hughes, the Science Board's executive director. The report suggests the military segregate some weapons - such as 20 bombers out of a fleet of hundreds - from integrated computer networks. The planes would lose some capability but remain operational if a computer attack grounded the rest of the fleet. Other proposals include adding to the number of "cyber warriors," which Defense plans to do, and spending more time playing war games with launching and defending computer attacks. The military must be ready to launch potentially hundreds of simultaneous, synchronized computer attacks even as it defends against them.

Predictions are that we will soon be seeing the “nuclear option” — central bank-created money injected directly into the real economy. All other options having failed, governments will be reduced to issuing money outright to cover budget deficits. So warns a September 18 article on ZeroHedge titled “It Begins: Australia’s Largest Investment Bank Just Said ‘Helicopter Money’ Is 12-18 Months Away.” Money reformers will say it’s about time. Virtually all money today is created as bank debt, but people can no longer take on more debt. The money supply has shrunk along with people’s ability to borrow new money into existence. Quantitative easing (QE) attempts to re-inflate the money supply by giving money to banks to create more debt, but that policy has failed. It’s time to try dropping some debt-free money on Main Street. The Zerohedge prediction is based on a release from Macqurie, Australia’s largest investment bank. It notes that GDP is contracting, deflationary pressures are accelerating, public and private sectors are not driving the velocity of money higher, and central bank injections of liquidity are losing their effectiveness. Current policies are not working. As a result:

There are several policies that could be and probably would be considered over the next 12-18 months. If private sector lacks confidence and visibility to raise velocity of money, then (arguably) public sector could. In other words, instead of acting via bond markets and banking sector, why shouldn’t public sector bypass markets altogether and inject stimulus directly into the ‘blood stream’? Whilst it might or might not be called QE, it would have a much stronger impact and unlike the last seven years, the recovery could actually mimic a conventional business cycle and investors would soon start discussing multiplier effects and positioning in areas of greatest investment.  Willem Buiter, chief global economist at Citigroup, is also recommending “helicopter money drops” to avoid an imminent global recession, stating: A global recession starting in 2016 led by China is now our Global Economics team’s main scenario. Uncertainty remains, but the likelihood of a timely and effective policy response seems to be diminishing. . . . Helicopter money drops in China, the euro area, the UK, and the U.S. and debt restructuring . . . can mitigate and, if implemented immediately, prevent a recession during the next two years without raising the risk of a deeper and longer recession later.

In the UK, something akin to a helicopter money drop was just put on the table by Jeremy Corbyn, the newly-elected Labor leader. He proposes to give the Bank of England a new mandate to upgrade the economy to invest in new large scale housing, energy, transport and digital projects. He calls it “quantitative easing for people instead of banks” (PQE). The investments would be made through a National Investment Bank set up to invest in new infrastructure and in the hi-tech innovative industries of the future. Australian blogger Prof. Bill Mitchell agrees that PQE is economically sound. But he says it should not be called “quantitative easing.” QE is just an asset swap – cash for federal securities or mortgage-backed securities on bank balance sheets. What Corbyn is proposing is actually Overt Money Financing (OMF) – injecting money directly into the economy. Mitchell acknowledges that OMF is a taboo concept in mainstream economics. Allegedly, this is because it would lead to hyperinflation. But the real reasons, he says, are that: It cuts out the private sector bond traders from their dose of corporate welfare which unlike other forms of welfare like sickness and unemployment benefits etc. has made the recipients rich in the extreme. . . . It takes away the ‘debt monkey’ that is used to clobber governments that seek to run larger fiscal deficits.

In chapter one Rickards’ otherwise clear vision fails him. The author is absolutely correct that pre-9/11 insider trading did occur. Rickards also correctly notes that “every transaction has two parties,” meaning that every put and call option leaves a paper trail. But Rickards insults our intelligence when he tells us that associates of Osama bin Laden were responsible for the insider trading. Rickards would have us believe, for example, that the terrorists were behind the 600% spike in call options for the military contractor Raytheon, whose stock surged 37% in the weeks after 9/11. Other big winners were L-3 Communications, Northrop Grumman, and Allied Techsystems. According to Paul Zarembka, professor of econometrics at SUNY Buffalo, the put/call options were exercised, meaning that whoever purchased them later collected the profits, blood money. But is it believable that the very same terrorists who sought to destroy America got away with profiting from the subsequent vast expansion of the US war machine? Catching those responsible certainly was the intent of the Securities and Exchange Commission, which led the probe into allegations of insider trading in the weeks after 9/11. At the time, SEC chairman Harvey Pitt told the press “We will do everything in our power to track those [guilty] people down and bring them to justice.” Everyone took it for granted that the paper trail would lead to al Qaeda.

Yet, weeks later, the SEC quietly and inexplicably tabled its investigation. Why? Instead of issuing indictments, the SEC took the unprecedented step of deputizing everyone associated with its probe. This totaled hundreds, possibly thousands, of people. Why did the SEC do this? The answer was transparently obvious to former LAPD narcotics investigator Mike Ruppert, who pointed out that the SEC deputized its investigators to effectively gag them, no doubt, to prevent leakage of its actual findings. And what were those findings? Well, probably the inconvenient truth that the paper trail led not to bin Laden but back to Wall Street. As we know, there was leakage despite the SEC’s best efforts to keep a lid on things. The Independent (UK) reported that “to the embarrassment of investigators, it has emerged that the firm used to buy the put options on United Airlines was headed until 1998 by Alvin “Buzzy” Krongard, now executive director of the CIA.” George Tenet had personally recruited Krongard, probably to serve as his liaison with Wall Street.

The firm in question was America’s oldest investment bank, A.B. Brown, which merged with Bankers Trust in 1997. In 1999, when B.T. - Alex Brown pled guilty to criminal conspiracy charges, after it was revealed that top-level executives had created a $20 million slush fund out of unclaimed funds, B.T. - Alex Brown was on the verge of being closed down when Deutsche Bank scooped it up. Krongard’s former associate at Alex Brown, Mayo Shattuck III, who helped engineer the merger with Bankers Trust, went on to assume Krongard’s former duties as private banker to the firm’s wealthiest clients, personally arranging confidential transactions and transfers. According to the New York Times, in January 2001, Shattuck was named “co-head of investment banking….overseeing Deutsche Bank’s 400 brokers who cater to wealthy clients.” Shattuck’s sudden resignation on September 12, 2001 must therefor be viewed as highly suspicious. Shattuck retired without a word of explanation even though he reportedly had three years remaining on his contract.

The United States is considering sending a small number of special operations forces to Syria and attack helicopters to Iraq as it weighs options to build momentum in the battle against Islamic State, U.S. officials said on Tuesday.President Barack Obama, deeply averse to over-committing American troops to unpopular wars in the Middle East, could view some of the options as more viable than others as he approaches the final stretch of his presidency.Still, Obama's administration is under pressure to ramp up America's effort, particularly after the fall of the Iraqi city of Ramadi to Islamic State in May and the failure of a U.S. military program to train and arm thousands of Syrian rebels.Two U.S. officials, who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing deliberations, said any deployments would be narrowly tailored, seeking to advance specific, limited military objectives in both Iraq and Syria.

That option includes temporarily deploying some U.S. special operations forces inside of Syria to advise moderate Syrian opposition fighters for the first time and, potentially, to help call in U.S. air strikes, one official said.

The US Congress has the option to buy back the FED at $450 millions (per Congressional Records). When the Congress does this, it will own back the billions of US Government Bonds held by the FED. The US Government will actually PROFIT by buying back the FED! Also, the US government no longer has to pay interests to the FED owners on those bonds.

resident Trump is expected to sign orders Friday to temporarily freeze immigration from seven Muslim nations and halt refugee resettlements from everywhere — a classic example of a solution in search of problem, and just the kind of symbolic act that gives weight to radical Islamists when they argue that the U.S. is an enemy of their faith. Trump’s campaign for president was built on a foundation of fear and resentment, and that dark cloud hangs over these putative attempts to bolster national security. Based on a draft version of the executive order, it seems that Trump will impose a 30-day suspension of visas for people from seven predominately Muslim countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — while the government reviews and presumably tightens its visa-vetting protocols. He also will direct security officials to determine within 30 days what information they need to evaluate potential visitors, and list the countries around the world that don’t provide it. Countries that don’t correct the error of their ways within 60 days of that report — including the seven affected by the ban — will have their citizens barred until they comply. Worse, Trump apparently plans to suspend U.S. acceptance of all refugees — people fleeing war or oppression for whom returning home is not an option — for 120 days as the government reviews and revises its screening procedures, and he is expected to slash the number of refugees the U.S. would accept through October 2017 from 110,000 (set by President Obama last September) to 50,000. Trump also will prioritize the resettlement of refugees seeking asylum on grounds of religious persecution, officially valuing people oppressed because of their religion over those targeted for political dissent, sexual orientation or other reasons. 

And Trump wants plans drawn for “safe areas” for Syrians within Syria or nearby nations, which could help the administration at a later point if it wants to institute a longer-term ban on Syrian refugees. But the draft order offers no details on how the safe zones would be secured, or the legal basis for the U.S. establishing control of territory in a sovereign (if war-torn) state.  Such efforts to restrict access to the U.S. by people fleeing war-torn parts of the world would be misguided and inhumane. The Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, reported in 2015 that in the 14 years after the 9/11 terror attacks, 784,000 refugees resettled in the U.S. Yet during that time only three resettled refugees were convicted on terror-related charges — two of them for plotting against an overseas target and the third for hatching “plans that were barely credible,” according to the report. The vast majority of refugees allowed into the U.S. are first vetted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, whose screeners then recommend placements in third countries. When the U.S. gets a referral, it conducts its own security screening before offering resettlement, a process that routinely takes one to two years.

What’s more, a study by the New America Foundation shows that 80% of the terrorist attacks in this country since 9/11 have been carried out by American citizens (although some of those perpetrators were naturalized citizens). It is not surprising that some Americans are worried by the hostility directed at them from a small, radicalized segment of the Islamic world. But such fears should not be channeled into a broad, discriminatory retrenchment that is at odds with the best of our humanitarian principles — especially if that retrenchment would likely do little to protect us. The U.S. became a wealthy world power in large part through immigration. And it’s openness has provided a lifeline to the oppressed of the world — the U.S. has formally resettled more refugees than any other country (though at the moment it is not bearing its fair share of the burden of resettling the tens of millions of migrants currently fleeing war zones). Trump’s actions are not only inhumane, they are a betrayal of what the United States stands for.