IMF Paper Recommends Debt-free Money That is Created Directly by National Governments

What If We Adopted A System Where The Banks Did Not Create Our Money?

October 22, 2012

Economic Collapse - What if there was a financial system that would eliminate the need for the federal government to go into debt, that would eliminate the need for the Federal Reserve, that would end the practice of fractional reserve banking and that would dethrone the big banks?  Would you be in favor of such a system?

A surprising new IMF research paper entitled “The Chicago Plan Revisited” by Jaromir Benes and Michael Kumhof is making waves in economic circles all over the globe.  The paper suggests that the world would be much better off if we adopted a system where the banks did not create our money.

So instead of a system where more money is only created when more debt is created, we would have a system of debt-free money that is created directly by national governments.

There have been others that have suggested such a system before, but to have an IMF research paper actually recommend that such a system be adopted is a very big deal.

At the moment, the world is experiencing the biggest debt crisis in human history, and this proposal is being described as a “radical solution” that could potentially remedy some of our largest financial problems.  Unfortunately, apologists for the current system are already viciously attacking this new IMF paper, and of course the big banks would throw a major fit if such a system was ever to be seriously contemplated.  That is why it is imperative that we educate people about how money really works.  Our current system is in the process of collapsing and we desperately need to transition to a new one.

One of the fundamental problems with our current financial system is that it is based on debt.  Just take a look at the United States.  The way our system works today, the vast majority of all money is “created” either when we borrow money or the government borrows money.  Therefore, the creation of more money creates more debt.  Under such a system, it should not be surprising that the total amount of debt in the United States is more than 30 times largerthan it was just 40 years ago.

We don’t have to do things this way.  There is a better alternative.  National governments can directly issue debt-free currency into circulation.  The following is a brief excerpt from the IMF report…

At the height of the Great Depression a number of leading U.S. economists advanced a proposal for monetary reform that became known as the Chicago Plan. It envisaged the separation of the monetary and credit functions of the banking system, by requiring 100% reserve backing for deposits. Irving Fisher (1936) claimed the following advantages for this plan: (1) Much better control of a major source of business cycle fluctuations, sudden increases and contractions of bank credit and of the supply of bank-created money. (2) Complete elimination of bank runs. (3) Dramatic reduction of the (net) public debt. (4) Dramatic reduction of private debt, as money creation no longer requires simultaneous debt creation. We study these claims by embedding a comprehensive and carefully calibrated model of the banking system in a DSGE model of the U.S. economy. We find support for all four of Fisher’s claims.

Why should banks be allowed to create money?
That is a very good question.

Why should sovereign governments ever have to borrow money from anyone?
That is another very good question.

Our current system is designed to enrich the bankers and get everyone else into debt.
And is that not exactly what has happened?

Taking the creation of money away from the bankers would have some tremendous advantages.  A recent article by renowned financial journalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard described some of these benefits…

One could slash private debt by 100pc of GDP, boost growth, stabilize prices, and dethrone bankers all at the same time. It could be done cleanly and painlessly, by legislative command, far more quickly than anybody imagined.
The conjuring trick is to replace our system of private bank-created money — roughly 97pc of the money supply — with state-created money. We return to the historical norm, before Charles II placed control of the money supply in private hands with the English Free Coinage Act of 1666.

Specifically, it means an assault on “fractional reserve banking”. If lenders are forced to put up 100pc reserve backing for deposits, they lose the exorbitant privilege of creating money out of thin air.

The nation regains sovereign control over the money supply. There are no more banks runs, and fewer boom-bust credit cycles.

So why don’t we go to such a system immediately?

Well, the transition to such a system would undoubtedly be a major shock to the global financial system, and most people try to avoid significant short-term pain even if there are tremendous long-term benefits.
More importantly, however, is that the bankers have a tremendous amount of power in our society today, and they would move heaven and earth to keep a debt-free monetary system from ever being implemented.
You see, the influence of the bankers is not just limited to the big banks.  Our largest financial institutions (and the people who own them) also have large ownership stakes in the vast majority of the big Fortune 500 corporations.  In essence, the big banks are at the very pinnacle of “the establishment” in the United States and in almost every other major country in the western world.

And the vast majority of all political campaigns are funded by “the establishment”.  It takes an enormous amount of money to win campaigns these days, and most politicians are extremely hesitant to bite the hands of those that feed them.

So don’t expect any changes to happen overnight.

One proposal that has actually been put forward in Congress is to cancel all of the government debt that the Federal Reserve is currently holding.  Right now, the Fed is holding more than 1.6 trillion dollars of U.S. government debt…


That would seem to make a lot of sense.  That would immediately wipe more than 1.6 trillion dollars from the U.S. national debt without any real harm being done.

But “the establishment” would be horrified if such a thing happened, so I wouldn’t anticipate it happening any time soon.

Hopefully we can get the American people (along with people all over the globe) educated about these things so that we can start to get millions of people pushing for change.

A debt-free monetary system is superior to a debt-based monetary system in so many ways.

For example, if the U.S. government directly spent debt-free money into circulation, it could conceivably never need to borrow a single dollar ever again.  If the government wanted to spend more money than it brought in, it would simply print it up and spend it.

Of course the big danger with that would be inflation.  That is why it would be imperative for there to be a hard cap on what the government could spend.  For example, you could set the cap on spending by the federal government at 20 percent of GDP.  That way we would never end up looking like the Weimar Republic.

And the current federal debt could be paid down a little at a time using newly created debt-free dollars.  This would have to be done slowly to keep inflation under control, but it could be done.

That way we would not hand a 16 trillion dollar debt to our children and our grandchildren.  We created this mess so we should clean it up.

Theoretically you could also do away with the federal income tax if you wanted to.  Personally, I would like to see the federal government be funded to a large degree by tariffs on foreign goods.  That would also have the side benefit of bringing millions of jobs back into the United States.

Our system of income tax collection is just so incredibly inefficient.  It costs us mind boggling amounts of time and money.  Just consider the following stats from one of my previous articles…

1 – The U.S. tax code is now 3.8 million words long.  If you took all of William Shakespeare’s works and collected them together, the entire collection would only be about 900,000 words long.
2 – According to the National Taxpayers Union, U.S. taxpayers spend more than 7.6 billion hours complying with federal tax requirements.  Imagine what our society would look like if all that time was spent on more economically profitable activities.
3 – 75 years ago, the instructions for Form 1040 were two pages long.  Today, they are 189 pages long.
4 – There have been 4,428 changes to the tax code over the last decade.  It is incredibly costly to change tax software, tax manuals and tax instruction booklets for all of those changes.
5 – According to the National Taxpayers Union, the IRS currently has 1,999 different publications, forms, and instruction sheets that you can download from the IRS website.
6 – Our tax system has become so complicated that it is almost impossible to file your taxes correctly.  For example, back in 1998 Money Magazine had 46 different tax professionals complete a tax return for a hypothetical household.  All 46 of them came up with a different result.
7 – In 2009, PC World had five of the most popular tax preparation software websites prepare a tax return for a hypothetical household.  All five of them came up with a different result.
8 – The IRS spends $2.45 for every $100 that it collects in taxes.

For long stretches of our history the United States did not have any income tax, and during those times we thrived.  It is entirely conceivable that we could return to such a system.

At this point, the wealthy have become absolute masters at hiding their wealth from taxation.  According to the IMF, a total of 18 trillion dollars is currently being hidden in offshore banks.  What we are doing right now produces very inequitable results and it is not working.

In many ways, inflation would be a much fairer “tax” than the income tax because inflation taxes each dollar equally.  Nobody would be able to cheat the system.

But if people really love the IRS and the federal income tax, we could keep them under a debt-free money system.  I just happen to think that the IRS and the federal income tax are both really bad ideas that have never served the interests of the American people.

In any event, hopefully you can see that there is a much broader range of solutions to our problems than the two major political parties have been presenting to us.

• We do not have to allow the banks to create our money.
• The federal government does not have to go into more debt.
• We don’t actually need the Federal Reserve.
• There are alternatives to the federal income tax and the IRS.

Yes, it is very true that no system would be perfect.  But clearly the path that we are on is only going to lead to disaster.  U.S. government finances are a complete and total nightmare, and this mountain of debt that we have accumulated is going to absolutely destroy us if we allow it to.

So somebody out there should be proposing a fundamental change in direction for our financial system.
Unfortunately, our politicians are just proposing more of the same, and we all know where that is going to lead.

Two-thirds of National Journal's National Security Insiders Believe Israel Will Attack Iran

Iran figures prominently in Bible prophecy because they are the direct descendants of the Persians, who are mentioned in Ezekiel 38 as key allies of Magog, a powerful nation in the North that many prophecy scholars have tentatively identified as Russia. Together with other nations, these allies will engage in a future war against Israel. [See The Church Will Be 'Raptured' at Armageddon]

Insiders: Israel Will Attack Iran

October 9, 2012

National Journal - Two-thirds of National Journal's National Security Insiders believe Israel will attack Iran to try to derail its nuclear program, but they are divided over whether military action would take place in the coming months or at a later date.

Speculation abounds over whether the Jewish state may strike, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently called upon the United Nations General Assembly to draw a clear "red line" to stop Tehran from developing nuclear weapons. While President Obama has insisted that no option is off the table to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, the administration has so far advocated for a strategy of tougher sanctions and diplomatic pressure.

"If the U.S. strategy in 2013 does not produce noticeable changes in Iran's behavior," one Insider said, "then either Israel will convince the U.S. to strike (their preferred option) or they will go it alone (and the U.S. will share in the consequences)."

Other Insiders believed an Israeli attack is imminent.

"The drums of war are beating louder and louder, and the Israelis are concerned they are running out of time to mount an effective attack on the Iranian nuclear program," one Insider said. "The Israelis have lost the element of surprise but believe their nation's existence is threatened by the Iranian program, thus making it likely they will strike Iran in the coming months."

Israel will strike soon, because time is not on its side, another Insider said.

"Those who think a nuclear Iran can be deterred don't live in Jerusalem."

One-third of Insiders did not think Israel would attack Iran.

"With the help of his U.S. supporters, Netanyahu's strategy all along has been to try [to] bully the Obama administration into waging war against Iran on Israel's behalf," one Insider said. "Fortunately, Obama resisted the pressure, leaving Israel with the prospect of confronting Iran alone. As a result, Netanyahu, despite all of his saber-rattling and chest-beating, will back down, preferring a war of hot air to one of hot lead."

The political window for an attack is before the U.S. presidential elections, one Insider said.

"Netanyahu doesn't have a political consensus at home in favor of an attack, so he is unlikely to follow through during what remains of that window."

Another Insider said such a strike was unlikely because many Israeli military leaders oppose it, and it could be effective only if complemented by a U.S. strike or substantial American intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.

"A strike against Iran would undermine broader U.S. interests by embittering many Arabs and some Iranians,” the Insider said. "The best Western strategy is to back political opponents in Iran and pursue regime change. Even if it were ever possible, it is too late now to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."

Related:

• The Chronological Order of the Book of Revelation
• Armageddon and the Rapture of the Church
• Gog and Magog
• Anti-Christian Beast is the One-world Power
• Satan's Final Deception Before Christ Returns
• The End of the World and the Final Seven Years 
• The Return of Christ in the Clouds of Heaven

Will Israel Attack Iran By Mid 2013?

If Obama Gets Second Term, Israel's January Attack on Iran Looms Large

September 30, 2012

Forbes - If the American arms dealer I spoke with on September 29 is right, Obama has bigger things to worry about than the debate or the election — which is increasingly looking like it will lead him to a second term.

Obama’s biggest concern could be how the U.S. will respond to the repercussions of an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities this coming January. My source — who has been in contact with officials in Israel, Washington, and Saudi Arabia recently, said that Israel had been planning the attack for June; however, my source said that in March figures in Washington asked Israel to wait until after the November election and Israel agreed.

The plan of attack is fairly straightforward. Israel would launch a missile strike on Iran’s nuclear sites using so-called bunker buster bombs provided by the U.S. Saudi Arabia would clear its airspace for the Israeli attack.

Iran has seeded Southern Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank with millions of missiles. And Iran’s hope is to use them to strike Israel in retaliation. To prevent that, my source says that the Israeli army would send tanks to take over those territories before those missiles could be fired.

One unknown since February is a result of the change in leadership in Egypt. Israel is not certain whether Egypt will also launch missiles into Israel via the Sinai peninsula. But if Israel believes that threat is likely, it could also move troops to block such strikes.

Meanwhile, Obama is increasingly appearing to gain momentum for re-election as people get more confident about the economy and thanks in part to Romney’s less-than-stellar political skills — his “47%” video is not helping. According to AP, Romney must reverse Obama’s growing lead in nine battleground states in order to have a shot at the 270 electoral votes needed to win.

AP believes that if the election were held on September 30, Obama would win at least 271 electoral votes — “with likely victories in crucial Ohio and Iowa along with 19 other states and the District of Columbia. Romney would win 23 states for a total of 206.”

The vote that counts is November 6.

And if Israel indeed launches its attack in January, it would be logical to expect that to happen after January 20 when the U.S. president is inaugurated. After all, if Israel is going to get U.S. support for such an attack, it may want to do so during a time when our government is functioning as fully as possible.

Not everyone agrees with the January timing of such an attack. But Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, implied in his September 27 speech at the UN that “Israel would attack Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities if they were allowed to process potential weapons-grade material beyond his red line,” according to Reuters.

Some Israeli newspapers are guessing that Israel will strike Iran later in 2013. According to Reuters, those newspapers include Maariv and Yedioth Ahronoth, that believe Israel will attack Iran in “spring 2013″ because that’s when they think Netanyahu believes Iran will have made enough “20 percent-enriched uranium for a first bomb, if purified further.”

But Reuters notes that two other newspapers — Haaretz and pro-government Israel Hayom — are estimating a mid-2013 attack.

Whoever is president in January will have to deal with the unpredictable worldwide reaction to an Israeli strike — if it happens. For example, Would Iran involve the rest of the world by sending missiles to strike U.S. interests – such as our Middle Eastern embassies? Would Iran cut off the flow of oil out of the Middle East? Will Russia and China line up behind Iran and take positions against the U.S.? Will Israel be able to withstand Iran’s efforts to retaliate?

This cluster of issues is so important that it would make a good debate topic on Wednesday. For example, it is worth considering the scenario that Iran would attack U.S. interests and cut off the flow of oil from the Middle East.

Moreover, Russia and China may well help supply arms to Iran for its attacks. And while Israel may be able to defend itself from rocket attacks – it is unclear whether it will have enough ground forces in the event that Egypt gets in on the attack.

I would like to hear how the candidates would propose that the U.S. prepare for such outcomes and what policies they would implement if they happened.

Because if these rumors are realized, an Israeli attack on Iran would be the biggest issue our President will face in 2013 – and possibly beyond.

Israel's Top Diplomat Scorns EU Rebuke on Jerusalem Settlement Expansion

Israel's top diplomat scorns EU rebuke on Jerusalem settlement

October 20, 2012

Reuters - Israel's foreign minister on Saturday dismissed criticism by the European Union of Jewish settlement on occupied land the Palestinians seek for a state, advising the 27-nation bloc to attend to its own problems instead.

The comments by Avigdor Lieberman, a hardliner who serves as Israel's top diplomat by dint of his clout in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's coalition government, suggested an appeal to right-wing voters ahead of the January 22 national election.

In a statement reflecting long-standing EU policy, the bloc's high representative for foreign affairs, Catherine Ashton, said on Friday she "deeply regrets" Israel's announcement of plans to expand Gilo settlement between East Jerusalem and the West Bank, lands it seized in a 1967 war.

"Settlements are illegal under international law and threaten to make a two-state solution impossible," she said, referring to more than two decades of efforts to negotiate the creation of a Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state.

Lieberman said in a statement such censures "attest to a fundamental lack of ability to understand regional reality" and "merely encourage the Palestinian side to continue to refuse to sit and negotiate, and to pursue anti-Israel activity in the international sphere".

Israel is preoccupied by the Palestinians' plan to sidestep the deadlocked talks by asking the United Nations next month to upgrade their member status, and has lobbied the Europeans and others to oppose the move.

Israel considers all of Jerusalem - including the annexed eastern sector and nearby settlements like Gilo - its capital, a position not accepted internationally. Most world powers deem the settlements illegal.

Lieberman concluded his statement by suggesting the European Union "focus, for now, on the problems arising among the various peoples and national groups on Europe's territory, and once there is a successful solution we would be happy to hear recommendations for solving the problems with the Palestinians".

Israel's Netanyahu: no limit on Jerusalem building

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is vowing to continue building in east Jerusalem, over the objection of Palestinians who claim the territory as capital of their hoped-for state.

October 20, 2012

AP - Israel's prime minister vowed on Sunday to continue building in east Jerusalem, despite objections from Palestinians who claim the territory as capital of their hoped-for state.

Benjamin Netanyahu spoke Sunday after the European Union's foreign policy chief criticized plans to build 800 new apartments and a military college on contested land, which the international community considers to be under Israeli occupation.

"We are not imposing any restrictions on construction in Jerusalem" Netanyahu told his Cabinet. "It is our capital."

A top aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas promptly accused Netanyahu of deliberately destroying prospects for peace.

The Israeli leader's comment "comes in the context of the continuing destruction of the peace process and the two-state solution," Nabil Abu Rdeneh said.

The fate of Jerusalem lies at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Palestinians refuse to negotiate while Israel continues to build settlements in east Jerusalem and the West Bank, areas captured by the Jewish state in 1967.

Netanyahu has rejected the notion of partitioning the city.

Meanwhile, American academic Noam Chomsky made his first ever visit to the Gaza Strip, where he called on Israel to end its blockade of the territory run by the Islamic militant group Hamas.

Israel says it imposed the blockade to prevent Gaza militants from getting weapons. Gaza militants have fired thousands of rockets and mortar rounds at Israeli border communities and towns over the past decade.
Hamas is listed as a terror group by the U.S., EU and others because of its suicide bombings and other attacks against civilian targets like buses and restaurants that have killed hundreds of people.

Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh issued a statement Sunday evening saying he met with Chomsky in the afternoon. According to the statement, the Hamas leader thanked Chomsky for his support of the Palestinians.

The octogenarian Chomsky, an ardent critic of Israel who was banned from the country in 2010, entered Gaza through neighboring Egypt to attend a linguistics conference. While there, he accused the U.S. of allowing the Jewish state to act with impunity for its continuation of the blockade, which Israel imposed after the militant Islamist Hamas group violently seized control of Gaza in 2007.

The restrictions on Gaza were loosened after an Israeli raid on a blockade-busting boat in 2009 killed nine Turkish activists, but there are still limits on movement, imports of raw materials, and exports.

France: Iran Seems on Track for Nukes by Mid-2013; Iran Denounces Beirut Bombing, Points Finger at Israel

Netanyahu warned on September 16, 2012, that Iran would reach the brink of nuclear weapons capability in six to seven months, adding new urgency to his demand that Obama set a clear "red line" for Tehran, a demand that could deepen an already substantial U.S.-Israeli rift. Taking his case to the American public, Netanyahu said in U.S. television interviews that by mid-2013, Iran would be 90 percent of the way toward generating enough enriched uranium for a bomb. He urged the United States to spell out limits that Tehran must not cross on pain of facing military action something Obama has refused to do. "You have to place that red line before them now, before it's too late," Netanyahu told NBC's "Meet the Press" program, saying that such a move could reduce the chances of having to attack Iran's nuclear sites. [Source]

France: Iran seems on track for nukes by mid-2013

October 21, 2012

AP - France's foreign minister says Iran appears on track to reach the ability to produce a nuclear weapon by the first half of next year.

France is one of six countries that have negotiated with Tehran over its nuclear program, which Iran insists is peaceful.

Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told Europe-1 radio Sunday that unspecified experts "have established in an absolutely indisputable way" that Iran has compiled a full array of centrifuges that "apparently will allow the ability to go toward possession of the nuclear weapon by the first half of next year, the end of the first half." 

He did not elaborate.

Western nations fear Iran may turn its uranium enrichment program toward making weapons, a growing concern as Tehran expands the number of machines it uses to enrich uranium.

Iran denounces Beirut bombing, points finger at Israel

October 20, 2012

Reuters - Iran on Saturday condemned a car bomb attack in Beirut that killed a prominent Lebanese intelligence official on Friday and suggested that Israel was to blame.

A senior Israeli official dismissed the suggestion as "beyond pathetic".

The slain Lebanese official, Brigadier-General Wissam al-Hassan, was close to several Lebanese politicians who back the uprising in Syria and led several investigations into Syrian meddling in Lebanese affairs, including one that implicated Damascus and its Lebanese ally Hezbollah in the assassination of former prime minister Rafik al-Hariri in 2005.

Iran is Syria's most powerful regional ally.

"This action was taken with the aim of sowing dissension among different currents and segments of the Lebanese people and was conducted by an element who has never had in mind the interests of the Lebanese people and government and who only strives for its own impure interests and goals," said a statement posted on the Iranian Foreign Ministry's website.

"Without a doubt the main enemy of the people of Lebanon and the region is the Zionist regime (Israel), which benefits from insecurity and instability in the region," ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said, according to the statement.

It offered no evidence for the suggestion of Israeli involvement.

Asked about Mehmanparast's remarks, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said:

"After the Iranian regime accused Israel of even the bad weather conditions prevailing in Iran, is there anything at all that they would not automatically blame on Israel? This is beyond pathetic. It's pathological."

The Syrian government and Hezbollah condemned the bombing.

Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati, whose government includes ministers from Hezbollah, said his government was trying to identify the perpetrators and they would be punished.

Iran's Mehmanparast was quoted as calling for Lebanese national unity in the aftermath of the attack.

Hariri's son, Saad al-Hariri, accused Assad of being behind the bombing while March 14, a anti-Assad Lebanese political bloc, called Hassan "one of the martyrs of the independence uprising (against Syria)", adding that it was "a crime signed by Bashar Assad's regime, his regional allies and local tools".

The March 14 bloc called on Mikati's government to resign.

Speaking shortly after the bombing, Lebanese Foreign Minister Adnan Mansour told Reuters that his Iranian counterpart Ali Akbar Salehi had condemned the bombing and planned to visit Beirut on Saturday.

Iran has been a stalwart ally of Assad as he fights a 19-month-old uprising, counting his government and Hezbollah as part of an "axis of resistance" against Western and Israeli influence in the region.

Lebanon's religious communities are divided between those supporting Assad and those backing the Syrian rebels, leaving it vulnerable to spillover from the Syrian bloodshed.

US and Iran: Could Romney Be Tougher Than Obama? Unlikely

US and Iran: Could Romney Be Tougher Than Obama? Unlikely

Short of conducting a unilateral military strike or declaring war against the Islamic Republic, a Romney administration would be faced with the same legislative options on Iran as President Obama, who has already administered them. 

October 21, 2012

Christian Science Monitor - In the run-up to Monday’s debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, the most disputed foreign policy issue hasn’t been Afghanistan, where roughly 68,000 US troops are still based in the fight against Al Qaeda, or the contentious decision by the Obama administration to withdraw US troops from Iraq.

As moderator Martha Raddatz said at the Oct. 11 vice-presidential debate, the biggest national security threat faced by the United States is now considered to be the Islamic Republic of Iran.

“Every American is less secure today because [President Obama] has failed to slow Iran’s nuclear threat,” Mitt Romney said at the Republican National Convention in August. 

The Republican candidate has since argued that Mr. Obama hasn’t been tough enough on Tehran, and he has vowed to institute a different, harsher sanctions program that will be sure to cripple the Islamic Republic.

But analysts, legal experts, and US-allied diplomats say that when it comes to sanctions on Iran, US legislation isn't expected to differ much from one administration to another. Short of conducting a unilateral military strike or declaring war against the Islamic Republic, a Romney administration would be faced with the same legislative options on Iran as President Obama, who has already administered them.

Former President George W. Bush began implementing legislation for harsher financial sanctions against Iran during his last two years in office. After the 2008 presidential election, the Obama administration instituted and expanded those sanctions at a speed that has made current US sanctions policy on Iran the harshest in contemporary history. This leaves a potential new Romney administration with few policy alternatives.

“The only thing Romney can really do to get to the right of Obama on Iran policy is to say he'd bomb Iran if elected president, or would actively promote and pursue a policy of regime change,” says Karim Sajadpour, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Given the misgivings Americans have about the Iraq war, I don't think those are winning talking points for him.”

Since Obama became president in 2009, his administration has used a carrot-and-stick approach with the Islamic Republic, practicing a policy of limited engagement while boosting the implementation of Bush-era financial sanctions against Tehran and enacting new, tighter financial restrictions.

Iran’s economy began feeling the bite of new US and United Nations sanctions during the last two years of former President Bush’s second term in office. When Obama became president, the US Treasury Department upped the ante on Iran sanctions, accelerating their implementation and obtaining concrete commitments from US allies and private international entities to institute them as well.

Obama’s administration has also been tougher on US allies, particularly in Europe, flanking traditional diplomacy with direct pressure for collaboration on Iran policy, according to interviews with western European diplomats.

“A lot of what has come out on sanctions is a result of what Congress is passing,” says Erich Ferrari, a DC-based lawyer specializing in US Treasury legislation and author of the first comprehensive guide to US transactions regulations on Iran. “What Obama did was continue Bush-era policies and put them on steroids.”

Western European diplomats say Obama has been less willing than the Bush administration to engage in “multilateral conversations” with Europe on sanctions, opting instead to directly pressure some governments and private institutions to agree with and implement Washington’s unilateral sanctions laws.

As a result, US financial sanctions against Iran – now considered the harshest in recent history – have during the last four years been integrated into the global banking system much more quickly and deeply.

The US now sanctions foreign companies that do not significantly cut or completely stop purchases of Iranian oil, and it penalizes banks engaging in financial transactions with the Islamic Republic.

Coupled with a European embargo on Iran's oil imposed in July, the country’s oil exports have fallen by more than 50 percent since last year, forcing Tehran to continue reducing oil production as a result of declining demand. This summer, Iraq out-produced Iran for the first time in more than twenty years, according to data from the International Energy Agency.

US banking sanctions have also hindered Tehran from accessing its foreign exchange reserves held overseas, constraining the ability of its central bank to defend the value of Iran’s national currency, which has fallen by roughly 80 percent since last year.

The European Union intensified its sanctions against Tehran last week, formally barring all trade and transactions with Iranian banks (except those with specific EU government permission), and tightening restrictions against Iran’s central bank, the National Iranian Oil Company, and the National Iranian Tanker Company.

In addition to sanctions, Iran has dealt with breaches to its security.

Since January 2010, Israel’s spy agency, Mossad, has reportedly conducted covert operations leading to the assassinations of at least four Iranian nuclear scientists, according to intelligence officials cited anonymously in a Time Magazine report. A wave of damaging cyberattacks targeting Iran’s nuclear-fuel centrifuges started in mid-2009.

“After this level of sanctions, the only thing left would be a real blockade of all communications,” says Roberto Toscano, who served as Italy’s Ambassador to Iran for five years until 2008.

Aside from a military strike on Iran by either the US or Israel, which could drag Washington into a regional war, the only policy option left beyond sanctions is diplomacy, Ambassador Toscano says, adding:

“If we think sanctions alone will make them cave, this is not going to happen.”

Obama vs. Romney 101: 3 ways they differ on Iran

Moderate Quake Shakes Central California

5.3-magnitude Quake, Aftershocks Rattle California

October 21, 2012

Associated Press - A moderate earthquake and minor aftershocks jolted the central California coast over the weekend but didn't cause any damage, authorities said.

Nearly 6,700 people reported feeling the magnitude 5.3-quake when it struck late Saturday outside of King City, the U.S. Geological Survey said on its website.

Read more here: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2012/10/21/2143031/moderate-quake-shakes-central.html#storylink=cpy

USGS geophysicist Don Blakeman said the temblor struck in a "seismically active area" near the San Andreas Fault, about 90 miles southeast of San Jose. It was followed by at least four aftershocks that were greater than magnitude 2.5.

The area where the quake hit is a mostly rural area of rolling hills with large farms and ranches.

A magnitude 5-quake is capable of causing damage - most often knocking things off shelves and making moderate cracks in walls and foundations, the USGS said. The sheriff departments for Monterey and nearby San Luis Obispo counties said they received calls about the earthquake but no reports of damage.

Far to the north, a minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 rattled an area 15 miles east of Eureka, USGS said. Eureka police said no damage or injuries were reported.

The quake near Eureka was not related to the ones near King City, Blakeman said.

Read more here: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2012/10/21/2143031/moderate-quake-shakes-central.html#storylink=cpy

Iran Claims 'Dozens' of Its Drones Reached Israel

Iran Claims 'Dozens' of Its Drones Reached Israel

October 17, 2012

AP - A senior Iranian military official claimed Tuesday that Iranian-made surveillance drones have made dozens of apparently undetected flights into Israeli airspace from Lebanon in recent years to probe air defenses and collect reconnaissance data. An Israeli official rejected the account.

The Iranian official declined to give further details on the purported missions or the capabilities of the drones, including whether they were similar to the unmanned aircraft launched last week by Lebanon's Hezbollah and downed by Israeli warplanes. It also was impossible to independently verify the claims from the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to brief the media.

The Iranian assertions appear to be part of the Islamic Republic's widening strategy to boast about military advances — including warships and longer-range drones — that Tehran says could reorder the balance of power in the region as the West and its allies boost pressure over Iran's nuclear ambitions. Iran's leaders also seek to portray Israel as vulnerable to Tehran and its proxies.

But an Israeli security official rejected the Iranian claims, saying last week's interception of a drone was the first time such an infiltration had occurred. He said Israel spotted the unmanned aircraft well before it entered Israeli airspace, determined it was not "dangerous" and then shot it down over uninhabited desert according to plan. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because an Israeli military investigation is still under way.

The Iranian official claimed drones made by the Islamic Republic have made "dozens of flights over Israel" since the summer 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel. He said Israeli defenses had been unable to detect the surveillance craft.

"The one that was shot down last week was not the first and will not be the last to fly into Israeli airspace," the official said.

Iran has often used its military moves to send messages to Israel and the U.S., which has key bases in Gulf Arab states such as the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. Tehran last year sent warships into the Mediterranean Sea for the first time since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Last month, Iranian military leaders gave details of a new long-range drone and tested fired four anti-ship missiles just before U.S.-led naval drills in the Gulf.

At the time, a senior Revolutionary Guard commander, Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, also warned that U.S. bases in the Gulf could face retaliatory strikes if Israel attacks Iran's nuclear sites.

On Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Rahmin Mehmanparast described Iran's military developments, including drones and missiles capable of reaching Israel, as a safeguard against a possible Israeli attack on nuclear sites.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Natanyahu last month urged the international community to set a "red line" on Iran's uranium enrichment, which the West and its allies fear could lead to the development of atomic weapons. Iran says its nuclear efforts are only for energy and research.

"Basically, the possibility of a war breaking out increases when countries don't have the might to defend themselves. But when countries are powerful ... the possibility of aggression decreases," Mehmanparast told reporters.

A member of the Iranian parliament, Abbas Ali Mansouri, said the drone's flight also showed Hezbollah's growing battlefield capabilities as Tehran's main client militia. Hezbollah could take an even higher profile for Iran if Syrian rebels oust Bashar Assad's regime in Damascus, another critical ally for the Islamic Republic.

"It's crucial that Hezbollah is able to gather remarkable intelligence from inside Israel," he said.

At the United Nations, Israeli Ambassador Ron Prosnor called Assad, Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a "trio of terror."

The Hezbollah drone flight took place a month after Iran unveiled a new long-range unmanned aircraft, which has been described by military officials as a key strategic addition to Iran's military capabilities with the ability to carry out reconnaissance missions or be armed with "bombs and missiles."

The Shahed-129, or Witness-129, has a range of 2,000 kilometers (1,250 miles) that can stay aloft for 24 hours, Iranian officials say.

But it's unclear whether the new drone contains any elements of an U.S. RQ-170 Sentinel drone that went down in eastern Iran in December. Iran said it has recovered data from the American unmanned aircraft and claimed it was building its own replica.

Iran frequently makes announcements about its strides in military technology, but it is virtually impossible to independently determine the actual capabilities or combat worthiness of the weapons Iran is producing.

Obama Takes Charge and Wins Debate

Obama Wins the Second Debate. Too Bad It’s Not the One That Mattered

October 17, 2012

Yahoo! News - When the evening began, one observation dominated the conversation: “If President Barack Obama has another debate like the last one, the election’s over.”

When the evening ended, I was struck by a different thought: If Obama had performed this way at the first debate, the election would have been over.

In every debate, whatever the format, whatever the questions, there is one and only one way to identify the winner: Who commands the room? Who drives the narrative? Who is in charge? More often than not on Tuesday night, I think, Obama had the better of it.

From a substantive view, there was one argument that the president was seeking to make over and over: Don’t let Mitt Romney fool you; he’s a rich guy out to protect the interests of the well-off, not the middle-class.

That’s why he referenced not just Romney’s tax plan, but Romney’s taxes, the fact that the Republican presidential nominee paid a lower rate on his millions than ordinary working-class folks do on theirs, the fact that Romney has invested heavily in China. And when Romney went at Obama with almost the exact same argument he used so devastatingly against Newt Gingrich—“have you checked your pension?”—Obama came back with, “I haven’t looked at my pension; it’s not as big as yours. (For super-wonks it harked back to a 1982 debate between Mario Cuomo and the super-wealthy Lew Lehrman, when Cuomo reached over, grabbed Lehrman’s hand, and said, “Nice watch, Lou!”)

As a tactical matter, Obama executed one of the toughest of maneuvers: the counterpunch. When Romney attacked Obama for hindering the use of coal, the President recalled an appearance of Romney as governor of Massachusetts, where he vowed to shut down a coal-fired power plant. (The fact that Romney was probably right about the danger will be the subject of earnest substantive post-debate analyses that have no place here!)

And in talking about an area where the Obama administration has clear vulnerabilities—the attack on the American consulate in Libya—Obama summoned the inherent high ground of the presidency to condemn the “politicization” of the attack.

To be clear: There was nothing particularly off about Romney. He had several strong moments, most especially contrasting what Obama said he would do in 2008 with what in fact had happened over the past four years. This was, and is, the single most powerful argument against returning Obama to the White House, and Romney deployed it effectively.

It’s just that Obama found what he could not find in Denver—a coherent thread to make the case that he understands the middle-class in a way Romney does not. For those Democratic partisans wondering where “the 47 percent” argument was, Obama was saving it for the close which—because of a pre-debate coin flip—Romney could not answer. In this sense, it was like Reagan’s famous “are you better off?” question from 1980.

In a larger sense, however, Obama’s success is unlikely to have anything like the impact of that 1980 debate, nor will it likely alter the terrain of the campaign as the first debate of 2012 did. Had the Obama of this debate showed up two weeks ago, he might well have ended Romney’s effort to present himself as a credible alternative to the president.

That opportunity vanished that night. While it’s clear that Obama’s performance will revive the enthusiasm of his supporters, it seems unlikely that it will cause those impressed by Romney to reconsider. Like they say in show business, timing is everything.

Moderate Earthquake Strikes Maine, Felt in Boston

A moderate earthquake struck the northeastern U.S. state of Maine on Tuesday shortly after 7 p.m. (2300 GMT), according to the U.S. Geological Survey. First reported as a 4.5 magnitude quake centered near Lake Arrowhead, the USGS revised the quake's magnitude to 4.6 and finally down to 4.0. It shifted the epicenter to close to Hollis Center, southeast of the original location, and revised the quake's depth from a deep 17 miles to a relatively shallow 3 miles. Hollis Center is about 20 miles west of Portland, Maine's most populous city, and about 100 miles north of Boston. Eyewitnesses across the Boston area reported feeling the quake for up to 20 to 30 seconds. The quake was felt in much of New England, including much of Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Connecticut. A few reports were also received from upstate New York, the USGS said. A spokeswoman for the Maine State Police in the Portland area said there were no immediate reports of damage or injuries. Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick said state emergency personnel were monitoring the situation but also had no reports of damage. Quakes are not unknown in the region, which has felt "small earthquakes and suffered damage from infrequent larger ones since colonial times," the USGS said on its website. - Reuters

Earthquake in Maine Rattles New England States

October 17, 2012

AP - Patrons of a pizza parlor near the epicenter of an earthquake in southern Maine may not have known what was happening. But the shaking building was enough to send all 20 of them skedaddling outside.

"It was loudest bang you ever heard in your life. We actually thought it was an explosion of some type," said Jessica Hill, owner of Waterboro House of Pizza. "The back door and door to the basement blew open," she said.

The earthquake that hit southern Maine Tuesday night and was felt in New England states as far away as Connecticut caused no apparent damage or injuries, but it rattled residents throughout the region.

The U.S. Geological Survey said the 4.0 magnitude quake hit around 7:12 p.m. and its epicenter, about 3 miles west of Hollis Center, Maine, was about 3 miles deep. That location is about 20 miles west of Portland. The quake was first estimated to be 4.6 magnitude but was later downgraded.

In Saco, Sue Hadiaris said, "The whole house shook. ...It was very unnerving because you could feel the floor shaking. There was a queasy feeling."

Afterward, Hadiaris called her 15-year-old niece in Falmouth to make sure she was safe.

"She said, 'We can cross that off our bucket list. We've lived through an earthquake,'" Hadiaris said.

Earthquakes are rare in New England but they're not unheard of.

In 2006 there was a series of earthquakes around Maine's Acadia National Park. The strongest earthquake recorded in Maine occurred in 1904 in the Eastport area, near the state's eastern border with Canada according to the Weston Observatory at Boston College. It had an estimated magnitude of 5.7 to 5.9.

The Seabrook Station nuclear plant, about 63 miles away in New Hampshire, declared an unusual event — the lowest of four emergency classifications — but said it was not affected. The plant has been offline for refueling.

"There has been no impact at all to the plant from the earthquake and our refueling maintenance activities have not been affected," said Alan Griffith, spokesman for Next EnergyEra Seabrook Station.

Jim Van Dongen, public information officer for the New Hampshire Department of Safety said New Hampshire 911 got about 1,000 calls in the first hour after the quake, but they later dropped off. He said no major damage was reported.

Brief, but noticeable shaking was felt in downtown Boston and the surrounding area.

Edward Conti, who lives in a four-story apartment building in Cambridge, Mass., he was watching television when "it sounded like a car crash. Then there was another boom-boom. It was no small thing." Conti said there was no damage.

In Melrose, just north of Boston, Peter Ward said the shaking he felt seemed to last about four seconds. 

"It felt like a big gust of wind shaking the house. I don't want to overstate it, but the glass did rattle a little," he said.

Lynette Miller, a spokeswoman for the Maine Emergency Management Agency, said her dogs started barking several seconds before the quake on Tuesday. 

"It was several seconds of good shaking but nothing falling down," Miller said from her home in Readfield, about 60 miles north of Portland.

In Portland, Abbie Miller had just turned on the aging furnace in her house for the first time this season. "An hour later, things started shaking and it sounded almost like a train coming through. I thought my furnace was going to blow," she said.

East Coast quakes are rarely strong enough to be felt over a wide area. A quake of magnitude 5.8 on Aug. 23, 2011, was centered in Virginia and felt all along the coast, including in New York City and Boston. 

Experts say the region's geology can make the effects felt in an area up to 10 times larger than quakes of similar size on the West Coast.

Retiring Rep. Norm Dicks Warns of 'Cyber 9/11'

Retiring Rep. Norm Dicks Warns of 'Cyber 9/11'

As he retires from Congress, Norm Dicks is warning that America is vulnerable to a cyberattack that could shut down power grids, freeze money supplies, cripple transportation systems and imperil nuclear plants.

October 11, 2012

The Associated Press - As he retires from Congress, Norm Dicks is warning that America is vulnerable to a cyberattack that could shut down power grids, freeze money supplies, cripple transportation systems and imperil nuclear plants.

Dicks says the nation needs more protections against a rogue attack on computer systems that could amount to a "cyber 9/11" or "electronic Pearl Harbor."

The Kitsap Sun reports ( http://is.gd/XzhRRF) Dicks delivered his warning Wednesday night in a speech to technology leaders in Bremerton.

Dicks blamed his colleagues in Congress for concerns about privacy trumping the threat of cyberwar. He says he hopes Congress acts before it's too late.

Dicks is a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations.

Google Accused of Spying on Gmail Users

Google Accused of Spying on Gmail Users

October 13, 2012

RT.com - Google isn’t exactly a stranger to allegations that they invade the privacy of their customers, but now the search engine is being asked to explain itself in court over accusations that they snoop through messages sent through its Gmail service.

Representatives from Google are asking a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit waged at the company’s Gmail platform because the plaintiffs in the case cannot explicitly prove that their correspondence is being unlawfully monitored by the email service.

Brad Scott and Todd Harrington are the lead plaintiffs in a case that attempts to call-out the Silicon Valley search engine company as being in violation of California’s Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) because they believe Gmail conducts clandestine scans of emails for words and content, intentionally intercepting private communiqué as a result without obtaining the user’s permission. Google, on the other hand, maintains that only computers complete all the legwork and that no humans actually have their eyes on any emails, also insisting that neither Mr. Scott nor Mr. Harrington can back up their claims that any action from Gmail has led to injury.

Google condemned the case this week, Courthouse News reports, arguing by way of a 25-page motion that Gmail scans data sent over its servers using its “fully automated processes involve no human review of any kind” that they insist exists to screen out viruses and spam “for the protection of its users.” Now they are asking US District Judge Lucy Koh to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.

The plaintiffs say that Google’s actions are enough to land them in court because that conduct constitutes wiretapping and eavesdropping in their eyes, a claim which Google says is “contorting” state law “in ways the California Legislature never intended.”

“In the context of emails, multiple courts have recognized that no one can reasonably expect that the emails they send to others will be free from the automated processing that is normally associated with delivering emails,” Google responds to the case with this week’s motion.

“Plaintiffs fail to articulate a single concrete injury stemming from the automated processing of emails sent to Gmail users,” Google adds. “Plaintiffs instead rely on conclusory allegations that their privacy rights were infringed in the abstract.”

Additionally, Google charges that no state statues being called into question applies to the plaintiffs’ allegations, writing in their motion that the terms “electronic communication,” “email,” “Internet” and “computer” are not included.

“Even if the court were to accept plaintiffs’ invitation to judicially rewrite the statute to reach electronic communications, choice of law rules would still preclude applying CIPA to this case,” Google’s motion states.

“CIPA makes clear on its face that it is intended to protect California residents and not to regulate California businesses,” Google adds.

Judge Koh is now expected to hear the motion on March 21, 2013. Meanwhile, congressional Republicans wrote to the White House this week to attack a planned cybersecurity executive order that would allow third-party companies, such as Google, to openly share customer-inputted information with the federal government.

“An executive order exerting influence over critical infrastructure is not just a step in the wrong substantive direction,” the letter reads. “It will almost certainly be exploited by other nations to justify their efforts to regulate the Internet. This is a most critical time, and we cannot afford a hasty, unilateral action that will only serve to bolster the efforts of less democratic nations to stifle the very free exchange of ideas and expression that has allowed the Internet to flourish across the globe. For these reasons, we urge you to rethink the wisdom of an executive order.”

The letter to US President Barack Obama was signed by 11 GOP members of Congress, including US Rep. Fred Upton (R-Michigan), Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-New Hampshire), Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) and Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah).

U.S. Upset About Iran-Iraq-Syria Alliance; Turkey Slams Russia, China, Iran Over Syria

U.S. Upset About Iran-Iraq-Syria Alliance

October 12, 2012

Presstv.ir - A prominent military analyst says the United States is deeply concerned about the alliance among Iran, Iraq and Syria and their stand against Israel, Press TV reports.

“There are deep concerns within the US that a coalition between Iran, Iraq and Syria will stand against Israel and Turkey which frankly is their long-serving surrogate since Ottoman times,” Gordon Duff said in an interview with Press TV on Friday.

He further stressed that there needs to be a no-fly-zone over Turkey “since they seem to have difficulty following international convention.”

Turkey has beefed up military defenses on its border with Syria over the past weeks, stationing tanks, anti-aircraft missiles, and additional troops in the area.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned on October 9 that Turkey’s armed forces would not hesitate to strike back in response to any strike on Turkish soil after the Turkish parliament authorized cross-border military action against Syria “when deemed right” On October 4.

Tensions have been running high between Syria and Turkey, with Damascus accusing Turkey — along with Saudi Arabia and Qatar — of backing a deadly insurgency that has claimed the lives of many Syrians, including security and army personnel.

Syria has been experiencing unrest since March 2011.

Damascus says outlaws, saboteurs, and armed terrorists are the driving factors behind the unrest and deadly violence, but the opposition accuses the security forces of being behind the killings.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said in August that the country is engaged in a “crucial and heroic” battle that will determine the destiny of the nation.

Turkish Premier Slams Security Council Over Syria

October 13, 2012

AP - Turkey's prime minister sharply criticized the U.N. Security Council on Saturday for its failure to agree on decisive steps to end Syria's civil war, as NATO ally Germany backed the Turkish interception of a Damascus-bound passenger jet earlier in the week.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan told an international conference in Istanbul that the world was witnessing a humanitarian tragedy in Syria.

"If we wait for one or two of the permanent members ... then the future of Syria will be in danger," Erdogan said, according to an official interpreter.

Russia and China, two of the five permanent Security Council members, have vetoed resolutions that sought to put concerted pressure on Damascus to end the conflict and agree to a political transition.

Erdogan called for a reform of the Security Council, which he called an "unequal, unfair system" that didn't represent the will of most countries.

He spoke as Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu met with Arab and European leaders amid growing tensions between Turkey and neighboring Syria.

Davutoglu held talks Saturday with Arab League chief Nabil Elaraby, German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle and U.N. envoy on Syria Lakhdar Brahimi. He told reporters after the meetings that Turkey was prepared to use force again if it was attacked, just as it did last week when a shell fired across the border from Syria killed five Turkish villagers.

"If a similar incident occurs again from the Syrian side, we will again take counter action," Davutoglu told reporters, while stressing that the border between Syria and Turkey is also the frontier of NATO.

One week after the shelling, Turkey intercepted a Syrian passenger plane en route from Moscow to Damascus and seized what it said was military equipment on board.

Syria denounced the move as air piracy, while Russia said the cargo was radar parts that complied with international law.

Germany's foreign minister backed Turkey on Saturday, saying Berlin would have acted the same way if it believed weapons were being transported to Syria over its airspace.

"It's not just about weapons. Weapons need to be steered. Weapons need to be delivered," Westerwelle said. "These are all things that don't need to be tolerated."

But he cautioned the situation between Turkey and Syria could quickly escalate out of control.

"The danger of a 'wildfire' is very big," said Westerwelle, who also met briefly with Abdelbaset Sieda, head of the Syrian National Council opposition group. "If that happens, then this can become a devastating conflict for the whole region."

In Syria, activists said Saturday that army troops clashed with rebels on several fronts across the country, including in Aleppo, the largest city.

Amateur video posted online Saturday shows the aftermath of what is described as an artillery attack on a neighborhood in Aleppo. The video shows a large cloud of gray smoke pushing through a narrow street lined by apartment blocks. Residents then converge on a damaged building. "Is anyone in there?" one of the men is heard calling out as others try to put out small flames with pieces of cloth.

Eventually, rescuers are seen pulling at least two bodies out of the building. One has a bloody face, and another is carried away on a stretcher, amid shouts of "Allahu Akbar," or "God is Great.

The authenticity of such videos cannot be confirmed independently, since Syria imposes tight restrictions on foreign journalists.

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, an activist group, said at least two people were killed in the shelling.

Another amateur video posted Saturday showed the scattered, burning wreckage of what appeared to be an aircraft. Several gunmen stood near the debris, as civilians rushed to the scene. The narrator said video was shot in the countryside west of Aleppo.

Rami Abdul-Rahman, the head of the Observatory, said he was told by local rebel fighters in the area that they had shot down the plane. The video showed flames shooting out of what appeared to be left of a wing or tail, and other wreckage a few dozen yards away.

The claim could not be verified independently.

Opposition fighters have claimed to have shot down helicopters and warplanes in the past, although the regime blamed most of the problems on mechanical difficulties.

Over the past month, rebels overran two air defense bases, including one on Friday near Aleppo. This would give them access to heavy weapons, though experts questioned whether they would be able to make use of any missiles they may have spirited away.

More than 32,000 people have been killed in Syria since a revolt against President Bashar Assad erupted 19 months ago. Hundreds of thousands of Syrians have fled the fighting, which has devastated whole neighborhoods in Syria's cities and towns.

The Observatory, which relies on a network of activists on the ground, said regime forces were pounding the rebel stronghold of Homs in central Syria with mortar fire and artillery Saturday. The southern province of Daraa, the birthplace of the revolt, also sustained shelling by the Syrian army throughout Saturday. Fighting between army troops and rebels raged around Idlib province, in and around Aleppo and on the outskirts of the capital Damascus, the Observatory said.

Earlier, Syria's state-run news agency reported that Damascus supported a proposal by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to find a "mechanism of direct security communication between Syria and Turkey."

SANA reported that Syrian government officials and Russia's ambassador in Damascus discussed ways to establish a joint Syrian-Turkish security committee that would "control the security situation on both sides of the border in the framework of respecting the national sovereignty of the two countries."

Turkey has made no comment on the proposal, and it is unclear whether Moscow has presented it to the Turkish government yet.

National Debt Over $16 Trillion

Budget Deficit Tops $1 Trillion for Fourth Straight Year

October 12, 2012 

 
Reuters - The United States government reported a budget surplus for the final month of the 2012 fiscal year, but the tiny bump in revenues did not prevent the country's deficit from exceeding $1 trillion for the fourth year in a row.
 
The 2012 budget gap was $1.089 trillion, narrower than last year's deficit of $1.297 trillion because of higher corporate income tax receipts and less spending, the Treasury Department said on Friday.
 
The deficit equaled 7.0 percent of U.S. economic output, down from 8.7 percent last year, the department said. Economists generally consider deficits exceeding 3.0 percent of gross domestic product to be unsustainable in the long term.
 
The year-end budget report comes in the final weeks of the presidential election campaign, where the massive budget gap and President Barack Obama's economic policies have dominated the debate.
 
After the budget data was released, Obama's Republican challenger Mitt Romney reiterated criticisms that the Democratic administration's reckless spending has racked up the deficit and pushed the national debt over $16 trillion.
 
Obama and his Democrats have said spending was necessary to pull the economy out of the recession they inherited from the previous Republican administration.
 
The Obama administration spent $3.538 trillion in the 2012 fiscal year, 1.7 percent less than last year due to the expiration of stimulus provisions, a stronger economy, the end of military operations in Iraq and the continued drawdown in Afghanistan, the Treasury said.
 
Payments for the Obama administration's troubled housing foreclosure prevention programs fell as well as payments to the government-controlled mortgage financiers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The administration's stock sale of bailed-out insurer AIG also helped reduce overall outlays.
 
Strong tax collections from Americans and businesses pushed receipts up to $2.449 trillion in 2012, up 6.4 percent from last year, according to the Treasury Department.

"We are seeing the stimulus spending fading and we are seeing some of the effects of the investment incentives," said Lou Crandall, chief economist with Wrightson ICAP.

The government posted a September budget surplus of $75 billion mostly because monthly benefit payments were made in August due to a holiday weekend. That surplus topped analyst expectations for a surplus of $42 billion and marked only the second month in the fiscal year ended September 30 that the country was in the black.

A Vote for Romney or Obama is a Vote for the Private Oligarchies That Rule America

Don’t Vote For Evil

October 13, 2012

Paul Craig Roberts - Back during the George W. Bush neocon regime, President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela in his UN speech summed up George W. Bush for the world. I am quoting Chavez from memory, not verbatim.

“Yesterday standing at this same podium was Satan himself, speaking as if he owned the world. You can still smell the sulfur.”

Chavez is one of the American right-wing’s favorite bogyman, because Chavez helps the people instead of bleeding them for the rich, which is Washington’s way. While Washington has driven all but the one percent into the ground, Chavez cut poverty in half, doubled university enrollment, and provided health care and old age pensions to millions of Venezuelans for the first time.

Little wonder he was elected to a third term as president despite the many millions of dollars Washington poured into the election campaign of Chavez’s opponent.

While Washington and the EU preach neoliberalism–the supremacy of capital over labor–South American politicians who reject Washington’s way are being elected and reelected in Venezuela, Ecuador, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Bolivia.

It was the Ecuadoran government, not Washington, that had the moral integrity to grant political asylum to WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange. The only time Washington grants asylum is when it can be used to embarrass an opponent.

In contrast to the leadership that is emerging in South America as more governments there reject the traditional hegemony of Washington, the US political elite, whether Republican or Democrat, are aligned with the rich against the American people.

The Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, has promised to cut taxes on the rich, taxes which are already rock bottom, to block any regulation of the gangsters in the financial arena, and to privatize Social Security and Medicare.

Privatizing Social Security and Medicare means to divert the people’s tax dollars to the profits of private corporations. In Republican hands, privatization means only one thing: to cut the people’s benefits and to use the people’s tax dollars to increase the profits in the private sector. Romney’s policy is just another policy that sacrifices the people to the one percent.

Unfortunately, the Democrats, if a lessor evil, are still an evil. There is no reason to vote for the reelection of a president who codified into law the Bush regime’s destruction of the US Constitution, who went one step further and asserted the power to murder US citizens without due process of law, and who has done nothing to stop the exploitation of the American people by the one percent.

As Gerald Celente says in the Autumn Issue of the Trends Journal, when confronted with the choice between two evils, you don’t vote for the lessor evil. You boycott the election and do not vote.

“Lessor or greater, evil is evil.”

If Americans had any sense, no one would vote in the November election. Whoever wins the November election, it will be a defeat for the American people.

An Obama or Romney win stands in stark contract with Chavez’s win. Here is how Lula da Silva, the popular former president of Brazil summed it up:

“Chavez’s victory is a victory for all the peoples of Latin America. It is another blow against imperialism.” 

Washington, making full use of the almighty dollar, was unable to buy the Venezuelan election.

How will a Romney or Obama win be summed up? The answer will be in terms of which candidate is best for Israel’s interest; which is best for Wall Street’s interest, which is best for agribusiness; which is most likely to attack Iran; which is most likely to subject economic and war protesters to indefinite detention as domestic extremists.

The only people who will benefit from the election of either Romney or Obama are those associated with the private oligarchies that rule America.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is the father of Reaganomics and the former head of policy at the Department of Treasury. He is a columnist and was previously the editor of the Wall Street Journal. His latest book, “How the Economy Was Lost: The War of the Worlds,” details why America is disintegrating.