Robert McDowell: The U.N. Threat to Internet Freedom – WSJ.com
On Feb. 27, a diplomatic process will begin in Geneva that could result in a new treaty giving the United Nations unprecedented powers over the Internet. Dozens of countries, including Russia and China, are pushing hard to reach this goal by year’s end. As Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said last June, his goal and that of his allies is to establish “international control over the Internet” through the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a treaty-based organization under U.N. auspices.
If successful, these new regulatory proposals would upend the Internet’s flourishing regime, which has been in place since 1988. That year, delegates from 114 countries gathered in Australia to agree to a treaty that set the stage for dramatic liberalization of international telecommunications. This insulated the Internet from [Continue reading in new window...]
Why Does Ron Paul Keep Saying The Fed Prints Money?
“The Fed needs to stop printing money!” How often have you heard or read that statement? Probably on a weekly basis, at least. These days, any article on the economy results in hundreds of comments by readers…sometimes even a thousand or more. Usually within those comments are posters who rail against the government – to them, the Fed is pure evil and the sooner we get rid of it, the better. I think Ron Paul even rages about the Fed.
To hear Ron Paul and those of like mind, the Federal Reserve are an all-powerful secret government headed up by an oligarch named Ben Bernanke, who never sleeps because he is constantly at the presses printing money 24×7. There’s just one problem with Ron Paul’s logic…the Fed does not actually print money.
Despite all the feverish ranting on the campaign trail and across the web, the fact is the Fed is actually not authorized to or capable of printing money – nor can they make the decision to print money. The actual, physical money printing presses are owned and operated by the Treasury Department, which does not take its orders from the U.S. Federal Reserve.
Controlling the money supply
A lot of people are confused about the role of the Federal Reserve and seem oblivious to the role the Treasury plays in our nation’s monetary system. Part of the reason for the confusion is because while the Fed does control the money supply, they don’t realize that controlling the money supply and increasing the money supply through printing currency, are two different things.
The money supply is defined as the amount of physical cash plus the amount of credit circulating throughout the economy…and this is where the Fed comes in. The Fed uses four major tools to oversee the money supply:
Discount Rate
People…and apparently Ron Paul included, need to think of the Fed as a bank for banks. The Fed’s role is to lend money to other banks, which thus determines the rates which those banks charge the rest of us on car loans, mortgages, credit card rates and basically any other type of loan you can think.
Because the Fed sets the rate at which banks can borrow from the Federal Reserve (known as the “discount rate”), the Fed helps determine whether rates are high or low for the rest of us – and those borrowing/credit rates help determine whether people want to borrow money or not.
Fed Funds Rate
In addition to the discount rate, there is also the more commonly known “fed funds rate.” The “fed funds rate” is the rate banks charge to other banks for overnight loans. Basically, the Fed sets a ‘target’ fed funds rate for inter-bank overnight borrowing – since December 2008, that rate has sat at between 0% and 0.25%.
Open Market Operations
In addition to the discount rate and fed funds rate, the other way the Fed controls the money supply is via its “open market operations”, through which it buys and sells bonds in the open market. A good example of ‘open market operations’ is “quantitative easing,” which is when you hear of the Fed buying Treasuries to boost the economy. When the fed does buys bonds, the money supply increases because the banks exchange their bonds for cash and then thus, they have more money on hand (liquidity), which means they have more money to lend to businesses or individuals. When the Federal Reserve doe the opposite and sells bonds to the banks, who can’t refuse, the banks then have less money on-hand. It is in debates about quantitative easing that so many people get hysterical, believing that the Fed is printing money… not only do they not (cannot) but in QE, the government does not actually print money at all.
Reserve Requirements
In addition, the Fed controls the money supply by raising or lowering “reserve requirements.” Reserve requirement is the amount of money banks are required to keep “on reserve” at the Fed, in case of an “emergency.” When they raise those requirements banks have less money on-hand…when they lower the reserve requirement, banks have more money available to lend.
So while the Fed does not and cannot print physical dollars, it does have a huge impact in the amount of money and credit available in our economy.
Now if we can just explain this to Ron Paul and his legion of “abolish the Fed” brigade, perhaps the information circulating on the internet will be a bit more accurate. Ron Paul must be mortified to now realize that every time he has said “the fed prints money…..” that he, a supposed expert, has been so off-base. Next time you hear/read “stop printing money!” remember that the Fed does not print money and… if the government were printing money the way people believe they are, then why do they still have a budget deficit? Wouldn’t it seem logical that when they were “printing” all that money, they’d simply print enough to cover the annual federal budget deficit?
How the U.S.-Iran Standoff Looks From Iran: Hossein Mousavian – Bloomberg
The past six U.S. presidents have employed a policy of sanctions, containment and deterrence against Iran. Earlier in his tenure, President Barack Obamatried to change course by offering instead to engage, stressing“diplomacy without preconditions.” Two years later, however, the talk in Washington is of an inevitable coming war.
This is entirely the wrong direction for the U.S. to be taking. The consequences of a military strike on Iran would be catastrophic for the U.S., Iran and Israel.
Whether Iran should be able to build its nuclear program cannot be dealt with separately from the larger issue of the confrontational relationship that Iran and the U.S. have had since the 1979 Iranian Revolution. In his recent memoir, former International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said he doubted policy makers in Washington were ever truly interested in resolving the Iranian nuclear issue, but that they sought instead to achieve isolation and regime change in Iran.
Regardless of whether ElBaradei was right about that — and having sat at the other side of the table as an Iranian nuclear negotiator, it seemed that he was — it’s safe to say there won’t be a solution to the Iranian nuclear dispute as long as [Continue reading in new window…]
Nuking our Nukes | Washington Free Beacon
Nuking our Nukes
Lowest level of strategic review would leave Pentagon with fewer warheads than China
BY: Bill Gertz –
President Obama has ordered the Pentagon to consider cutting U.S. strategic nuclear forces to as low as 300 deployed warheads—below the number believed to be in China’s arsenal and far fewer than current Russian strategic warhead stocks.
Pentagon and military planners were asked to develop three force levels for the U.S. arsenal of deployed strategic nuclear warheads: a force of 1,100 to 1,000 warheads; a second scenario of between 700 and 800 warheads; and the lowest level of between 300 and 400 warheads.
A congressional official said no president in the past ever told the Pentagon to conduct a review based on specific numbers of warheads.
“In the past, the way it worked was, ‘tell me what the world is like and then tell me what the force should be,’” the official said. “That is not happening in this review.”
The plan for a radical cut in warheads is contained in a review of nuclear weapons ordered by the president in an August directive. The review called the Nuclear Posture Review Implementation Study is nearing completion and could be presented to the president as early as next month.
The plan has come under fire from senior military officers in charge of maintaining nuclear deterrence against Russia, China, and future nuclear rogue states. [Read more...]
GOP pushes back against any further cuts in nukes | The Associated Press
G
OP pushes back against any further cuts in nukes
WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional Republicans on Wednesday vowed to block the Obama administration from sharply cutting the U.S. nuclear force, calling potential reductions of as much as 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons “reckless lunacy.”
Pointing to the growing number of trouble spots, from Iran to Syria to Egypt, members of the House Armed Services Committee said any significant cuts would undermine the U.S. ability to deter aggression. The Associated Press reported on Tuesday that the administration is weighing several options for new reductions from the current treaty limit of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the committee that [Continue reading in new window…]
Has Vladimir Putin Lost His Mojo?
Russia’s Vladimir Putin has made blaming the west his main political platform.
Since Putin decided he wanted to be President of Russia again, not much has gone his way – Believing himself to have been the one who “saved Russia, he assumed that the people would welcome him back with open arms. However, there has been a loud public outcry over the political manoeuvring, with a growing number of Russian citizens angry that Vladimir Putin not only decided he would return to power…but that he could return to power.
Since the escalating back-lash, Putin has tried to divert attention from internal strife and blame everyone else for Russia’s woes – in particular, he has attempted to once again paint the United States as Russia’s main foe. From the missile defence shield, to Egypt, Libya and now Syria, Putin has tried to blame the U.S and the western alliance as a great meddlesome force hindering world peace.
When Russian protests intensified in December, Vladimir Putin, despite no evidence, initiated his presidential “campaign” by accusing the United States of fomenting street protests against his rule, and by calling his political opponents “tools of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”
His increasing aggression towards the west has caused diplomats and politicians in the west to ask why he is so determined to blame the west for what ails him. If the Russian people are unhappy that they are about to have Putin re-installed as president, blame rests at home and not abroad.
- The Russian people laboured under the misapprehension that they were a more open, freer nation and thus, had a true voice and vote in who leads their country.
- Putin’s return to power was not greeted with cheers…but jeers. Putin did not expect this, so his efforts to invent a common enemy are a typical political ploy.
- Vladimir Putin and his “United Russia” party hope to stay in power for many years – even if the people don’t want them. Putin believe he can create a scapegoat through red herring issues and manufactured threats to Russia.
- Unlike the days of the cold war, which Putin longs for, the Russian people are connected to the rest of the world – they can access world media outlets and as such, they are able to get real, uncensored news. Putin must have forgotten this fact.
But what may be more frightening to Putin than public mistrust of his role as president, are events taking place thousands of miles away.
Since December 2010, when the “Arab Spring” first began in Tunisia, Putin has been especially nervous. Like the leaders in China and Iran, Putin has watched helplessly as the Arab Spring moved across Algeria, Yemen, Egypt, Libya and now Syria, with the people of those nations take to the streets in mass protest…and worse. In Egypt, they drove Hosni Mubarak from power and put him on trial and in Libya, they drove out Moammar Gadhafi and hunted him down – now he is dead. Putin and the leaders in China and Iran are clearly wondering what would happen if the “Arab Spring” made its way to their own countries. With Syria’s Bashar Assad using the military against his own people so he can cling to power, the leaders of Russia and China must harbour some hope that he actually survives the revolution – which probably explains why they vetoed any action on Syria by the UN.
Putin clearly believed he could return to power and be happily embraced by the average Russian voter – when that failed to happen, he tried to stir nationalistic pride by falsely portraying the United States and the “west” as meddlesome powers that were intentionally causing problems inside Russia. As the Arab Spring took exploded, his anxiety level must have caused him to act irrationally, because he again tried to blame the U.S. for those home-grown revolutions. He made a few mistakes however. Just a few days ago, Russia vetoed UN action against Bashar Assad in Syria, saying that no one should interfere in their internal affairs. This week he is quoted as saying:
“Moscow must not let events like those in Libya and Syria be repeated in Russia.” He followed up this random dire warning by once again telling the west not to interference in a country (Russia), that he intends to “lead for years to come.” He went on to say: “We of course condemn all violence regardless of its source, but one cannot act like an elephant in a china shop. Help them, advise them – limit, for instance, their ability to use weapons – but do not interfere under any circumstances.”
So Putin is telling the U.S. not to interfere in Syria’s internal affairs – but hadn’t he already blamed us for starting the trouble in Syria… and Egypt…and Libya and, apparently…Russia? He needs to keep his stories straight and he needs to keep his blame game more organized…there must be an app for that, right?
Conspiracy Theorists Abuzz Over Call For “Accelerated Use Of Drones” In U.S.
There are reports surfacing which claim that Congress is “calling for accelerated use of civilian unmanned aerial systems (drones) in U.S airspace.
According to these “reports,” a House-Senate conference report references an imminent bill authorizing the Federal Aviation Administration and the Secretary of Transportation to develop “a comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system.” The report goes onto to state that the “plan” will “provide for the safe integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system as soon as practicable, but not later than September 30, 2015.”
Conspiracy theorists are apoplectic. In their view, they see this as the latest salvo by the federal government in their supposed efforts to implement a totalitarian state. The web is abuzz with people issuing dire warnings and “I told ya’ so” comments, as they see this report as a leaked, secret directive by the Feds to solidify their ability to spy on the people…and if necessary, to “take out” a citizen by use of drone killer aircraft that they envision will be flying over our heads 24 x 7.
The truth is less exciting. The fact is, the “conference report” is not secret at all, so it is hardly a “leaked” secret government directive. Upon reading the report, a few things become clear right away:
- The government wants to implement a means and protocol to test unmanned (drone) aircraft in the United States
- They refer to UAS (unmanned aerial systems) as civilian and reference to military uses is limited and does not reference the use of these UAS by the military or by government agencies to spy on the American people
- The report also indicates that the reason for intense testing is to not only make sure UAS “flights” would not endanger lives, but to also determine how they could best be used in remote regions such as the Arctic
- The report also makes it clear that in fact, model airplanes are considered drones – one of the goals of bill is to have more comprehensive practice and procedure guidelines on the use of these “drones” in U.S. airspace
One reason why some people are paranoid about talk of “drone” aircraft in the U.S. airspace is because up until now, regular citizens have only head of drones being used in combat – attacks on enemy combatants in Afghanistan and Iraq. What they’re not doing is using logic – if the Department of Homeland Security were going to use drone aircraft in some dark plot against the American people… they certainly wouldn’t make it public knowledge and they most certainly would not set up a large-scale system for testing and safety.
The other logic that seems to be missing in the minds of those who see sinister motives is the realization that many civilian/consumer technology we now use, was actually developed by the military…including the internet – that the FAA and Secretary of Transportation are working with the DoD is logical, as the re-purposing of military technology into civilian use has always included initial involvement by the Pentagon.
From reading the report, the conclusion we came to is that the FAA and Secretary of Transportation needs to better control the use of model aircraft (unmanned) and they want to determine how to best utilize unmanned aircraft in civilian capacities, such as weather data, search and rescue assistance in remote areas, conducting observation and data collection in hard to reach areas, such as the extreme Arctic, etc.
Read the text of the bill: [Read more...]
Is Newt Gingrich A Sore Loser?
Reports are surfacing that Newt Gingrich will not accept defeat gracefully, as he intends to challenge the results of Florida’s primary. The Gingrich campaign is planning to formally state their challenge to the results based upon a RNC rule stating that no “winner-take-all” primary may be held before April 1st … Florida happens to be a winner-take-all state.
Mitt Romney won the Florida primary by a significant margin and with over 770,000 votes he actually received the most votes in Florida GOP primary history. As the clear winner, he was expected to gain all 50 of the state’s delegates. However, it seems likely that the Gingrich campaign will demand to split up the delegates, based on percentage.
The RNC did send a warning communiqué to the Republican Party of Florida stating that a “winner-take-all state” couldn’t have a primary until April 1, but ultimately, they do not have the ability to actually intervene unless Gingrich files a formal contest
Whether Gingrich will file an official declaration contesting the Florida primary is not yet clear. Considering that Mitt Romney won 46% to Gingrich’s 32%, Rick Santorum’s 13% and Ron Paul’s 7%, Gingrich is looking to many like a sore loser. Considering that historically, every GOP candidate who has won Florida has won the party’s nomination, Gingrich’s latest ploy seems like he cares more about being a spoiler than he does about fairness in elections.
Follow Us!