The secret transfer of the mobile surface-to-surface Syrian-made Fateh-110 (range 250km) missile to Hizballah sparked the prediction Friday, Feb. 5 from an unnamed US official that cross-border arms smuggling from Syria into Lebanon outside state control was "very dangerous" and "paved the way to war similar to Israel-Hizballah conflict of 2006. debkafile's military sources report hat Israel warned Syria through at least two diplomatic channels against Hizballah using this lethal weapon, which is capable of reaching almost every Israel city.
Our sources disclose: Syria pulled the wool of Israel's eyes for the transfer by openly training Hizballah in the use of SA-2 and SA-6 surface-to-surface missiles. Israel had warned it would deem their passage into Lebanon Syrian casus belli by Syria.
The Fateh-110 is still more lethal, accurate and dangerous than the SA-2 and SA-3. it confronts Israel now with a Hizballah armed with a solid-fuel propellant, road-mobile, single-stage, short-range ballistic system weighing three tons with a half-ton warhead and a range of 250 kilometers. It is not deployed in surface batteries but fired from mobile launchers, which the solid propellant renders capable of firing at speed with little advance preparation, before returning to the fortified underground silos Hizballah has sunk in mountain areas across Lebanon.
These features make the Fateh-110 a very tough target for Israeli bombers to strike.
According to our intelligence sources, Israel posted warnings against Hizballah using the weapon through US Middle East envoy George missile who called on president Bashar Assad in Damascus on January 20 and ,even more emphatically, through Spanish foreign minister Miguel Moratinos who arrived in Syria on Feb. 3 after talks in Jerusalem. The message he carried was that if Hizballah ventured to fire the Fateh-110, Israel was determined to hit back at strategic and military targets inside Syria.
This warning instantly prompted the war rhetoric which emanated from Assad and his foreign minister Walid Moallem. Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman, known for his undiplomatic, blunt style, responded by warning Syria that it stood to lose the next war and the Assad family would lose its grip on power in Damascus.
Prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and defense minister Ehud Barak are presumed to have endorsed the first part of Lieberman's comment as representing their own view. But the minister added the personal threat on Syria's leaders on his own initiative.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Friday, February 5, 2010
The Margin-Call Market Rout
THE DOG THAT DIDN'T BARK gave the clearest explanation of what drove down risk assets across the globe Thursday.
Of course, the crisis of European sovereign borrowers escalated, sending the cost of insuring the debt of the governments and banks in Greece, Spain and Portugal soaring.
And news that in the U.S. new claims for unemployment insurance jumped unexpectedly in the latest week served to put markets further on edge ahead of the anxiously awaited employment report for January due out Friday.
So, the Dow Jones Industrial Average managed to hold the 10,000 mark by the skin of its teeth as it lost 268 points, while the broad, large-cap market measured by the Standard & Poor's 500 plunged over 3%, a loss nearly equaled by the Nasdaq Composite. And the U.S. stock-market's capitalization was about $400 billion lighter by the end of the day, as measured by the Wilshire 5000.
Credit markets also were slammed as the cost to insure investment-grade corporate bonds saw their biggest increase in more than two years. Commodity markets were pummeled along with most currencies relative to the resurgent U.S. dollar and, tellingly, the Japanese yen.
Yet, most significant was the one asset that didn't respond as expected. It is historically the ultimate insurance policy against the collapse of financial assets and political upheavals, a store of wealth since ancient times. That is, of course, gold.
Not only did it fail to maintain its value during the market maelstrom Thursday, gold's price plunged nearly $50 an ounce, or almost 5%. That dumping of the precious metal -- whose only true function is as adornment and as a store of value -- indicates a scramble for liquidity.
By all indications, that rush was to unwind so-called carry trades, which consist of borrowing dollars to fund purchases of other, presumably higher-returning assets. And with U.S. interest rates near zero, the allure of the carry trade is well nigh irresistible.
That means carry traders effectively are short the dollars they borrowed to buy commodities, emerging-market stocks, junk bonds, which beckoned with higher-potential returns. When those positions start to go against the carry traders, the leverage turns painful.
As they scramble to unwind the positions, they not only dump those risk assets, they also have to cover what is effectively a short-dollar sale to pay off that liability. With so many carry traders all making for the exit, there's a squeeze, sending the dollar still higher and exacerbating the pain.
Even as the U.S. Dollar Index (DXY) -- a measure of the greenback against a basket of six currencies -- extended its rally by gaining 0.76% (to just short of 80, a key technical level), the Japanese yen rose even more strongly. That's important because the yen has been the other main funding currency in carry trades, so its rise also suggests a similar short-covering.
The exchange-traded fund that tracks the currency, the CurrencyShares Japanese Yen Trust (FXY), surged 2.35% on nearly triple the average volume. By contrast, the CurrencyShares Euro Trust (FXE), the ETF that tracks the common currency, plunged 1.1%, on similarly heavy turnover as investors fled.
To be sure, some of the buying of yen and dollars did represent some flight to safe harbors, most particularly U.S. Treasuries, where yields tumbled from eight basis points for the two-year note, to 0.80%, to 11 basis points for the rest of the coupon curve. The 10-year note yield ended at 3.59% while the 30-year long bond closed to 4.53%. The iShares Barclays 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (TLT) soared 1.6% on nearly twice the average volume.
But, as noted, gold was throttled along with other risk assets, such as commodities, instead of serving its traditional role of insuring wealth against the vicissitudes of markets and politics.
The popular SPDR Gold Shares ETF (GLD) plunged 4% on nearly double the usual volume. Gold stocks fell even harder, with the Market Vectors Gold Miners ETF (GDX) losing 5.5% on heavy volume. Silver, meanwhile, got slammed even harder than the yellow metal, with the iShares Silver Trust (SLV) losing 6.4%.
Again, if Thursday's rout had been a mere flight to quality, precious metals would have been up, not down sharply. This pattern suggests a reprise of the near-meltdown of late 2008 and early 2009, which also saw the yen and dollar soar in the scramble to repay borrowings in those currencies, which was paid for by the dumping of risk assets, including the traditional store of value, gold.
As with subprime mortgages, the crisis in sovereign bonds in the periphery of euroland had been pooh-poohed as having limited relevance to the larger financial world. But Tim Backshall of Credit Derivatives Research pointed out in a research note Thursday that the sharp rise in the cost of insuring sovereign debt drove up credit costs for "everyone," notably U.S. corporates.
At the same time, the rise in private-sector borrowing costs and risks has meant a scaling back of actual and expected central-bank tightenings.
Thursday, the Reserve Bank of Australia, which was the first central bank to begin raising rates in this cycle, surprised the markets by opting not to snug further. That reflects the restraint on the export-dependent economy by the sharp rise in the Aussie dollar and the tightening of credit in China, the nation's biggest export customer.
And in the U.S., probabilities of a Federal Reserve rate hike were pared further Thursday. The federal-funds futures market priced in just a 25% probability of a hike to 0.5% from the current 0%-0.25% target rate by the Aug. 10 meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee, according to Dow Jones Newswires. At the turn of the year, fed-funds futures put a 78% probability to such a move by the June 22-23 FOMC meeting.
In the past month, concerns about sovereign debt have continued to mount while the heady optimism about the U.S. economy's supposed recovery has been tempered by a rebound in jobless claims and the reality check from the Massachusetts Senatorial special election.
As a result, the carry traders are getting carried out, yet again.
Of course, the crisis of European sovereign borrowers escalated, sending the cost of insuring the debt of the governments and banks in Greece, Spain and Portugal soaring.
And news that in the U.S. new claims for unemployment insurance jumped unexpectedly in the latest week served to put markets further on edge ahead of the anxiously awaited employment report for January due out Friday.
So, the Dow Jones Industrial Average managed to hold the 10,000 mark by the skin of its teeth as it lost 268 points, while the broad, large-cap market measured by the Standard & Poor's 500 plunged over 3%, a loss nearly equaled by the Nasdaq Composite. And the U.S. stock-market's capitalization was about $400 billion lighter by the end of the day, as measured by the Wilshire 5000.
Credit markets also were slammed as the cost to insure investment-grade corporate bonds saw their biggest increase in more than two years. Commodity markets were pummeled along with most currencies relative to the resurgent U.S. dollar and, tellingly, the Japanese yen.
Yet, most significant was the one asset that didn't respond as expected. It is historically the ultimate insurance policy against the collapse of financial assets and political upheavals, a store of wealth since ancient times. That is, of course, gold.
Not only did it fail to maintain its value during the market maelstrom Thursday, gold's price plunged nearly $50 an ounce, or almost 5%. That dumping of the precious metal -- whose only true function is as adornment and as a store of value -- indicates a scramble for liquidity.
By all indications, that rush was to unwind so-called carry trades, which consist of borrowing dollars to fund purchases of other, presumably higher-returning assets. And with U.S. interest rates near zero, the allure of the carry trade is well nigh irresistible.
That means carry traders effectively are short the dollars they borrowed to buy commodities, emerging-market stocks, junk bonds, which beckoned with higher-potential returns. When those positions start to go against the carry traders, the leverage turns painful.
As they scramble to unwind the positions, they not only dump those risk assets, they also have to cover what is effectively a short-dollar sale to pay off that liability. With so many carry traders all making for the exit, there's a squeeze, sending the dollar still higher and exacerbating the pain.
Even as the U.S. Dollar Index (DXY) -- a measure of the greenback against a basket of six currencies -- extended its rally by gaining 0.76% (to just short of 80, a key technical level), the Japanese yen rose even more strongly. That's important because the yen has been the other main funding currency in carry trades, so its rise also suggests a similar short-covering.
The exchange-traded fund that tracks the currency, the CurrencyShares Japanese Yen Trust (FXY), surged 2.35% on nearly triple the average volume. By contrast, the CurrencyShares Euro Trust (FXE), the ETF that tracks the common currency, plunged 1.1%, on similarly heavy turnover as investors fled.
To be sure, some of the buying of yen and dollars did represent some flight to safe harbors, most particularly U.S. Treasuries, where yields tumbled from eight basis points for the two-year note, to 0.80%, to 11 basis points for the rest of the coupon curve. The 10-year note yield ended at 3.59% while the 30-year long bond closed to 4.53%. The iShares Barclays 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (TLT) soared 1.6% on nearly twice the average volume.
But, as noted, gold was throttled along with other risk assets, such as commodities, instead of serving its traditional role of insuring wealth against the vicissitudes of markets and politics.
The popular SPDR Gold Shares ETF (GLD) plunged 4% on nearly double the usual volume. Gold stocks fell even harder, with the Market Vectors Gold Miners ETF (GDX) losing 5.5% on heavy volume. Silver, meanwhile, got slammed even harder than the yellow metal, with the iShares Silver Trust (SLV) losing 6.4%.
Again, if Thursday's rout had been a mere flight to quality, precious metals would have been up, not down sharply. This pattern suggests a reprise of the near-meltdown of late 2008 and early 2009, which also saw the yen and dollar soar in the scramble to repay borrowings in those currencies, which was paid for by the dumping of risk assets, including the traditional store of value, gold.
As with subprime mortgages, the crisis in sovereign bonds in the periphery of euroland had been pooh-poohed as having limited relevance to the larger financial world. But Tim Backshall of Credit Derivatives Research pointed out in a research note Thursday that the sharp rise in the cost of insuring sovereign debt drove up credit costs for "everyone," notably U.S. corporates.
At the same time, the rise in private-sector borrowing costs and risks has meant a scaling back of actual and expected central-bank tightenings.
Thursday, the Reserve Bank of Australia, which was the first central bank to begin raising rates in this cycle, surprised the markets by opting not to snug further. That reflects the restraint on the export-dependent economy by the sharp rise in the Aussie dollar and the tightening of credit in China, the nation's biggest export customer.
And in the U.S., probabilities of a Federal Reserve rate hike were pared further Thursday. The federal-funds futures market priced in just a 25% probability of a hike to 0.5% from the current 0%-0.25% target rate by the Aug. 10 meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee, according to Dow Jones Newswires. At the turn of the year, fed-funds futures put a 78% probability to such a move by the June 22-23 FOMC meeting.
In the past month, concerns about sovereign debt have continued to mount while the heady optimism about the U.S. economy's supposed recovery has been tempered by a rebound in jobless claims and the reality check from the Massachusetts Senatorial special election.
As a result, the carry traders are getting carried out, yet again.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Politicians in Wonderland by Thomas Sowell
There was a recent flap because three different members of the Obama administration, on three different Sunday television talk shows, gave three widely differing estimates of how many jobs the president has created.
That should not have been surprising, except as a sign of political sloppiness in not getting their stories together beforehand. They were simply doing what Barack Obama himself does -- namely, just pulling numbers out of thin air. However, being more skilled at creating illusions, the president does it with more of an air of certainty, as if he has gone around and counted the new jobs himself.
The big question that seldom-- if ever-- gets asked in the mainstream media is whether these are a net increase in jobs. Since the only resources that the government has are the resources it takes from the private sector, using those resources to create jobs means reducing the resources available to create jobs in the private sector.
So long as most people do not look beyond superficial appearances, politicians can get away with playing Santa Claus on all sorts of issues, while leaving havoc in their wake-- such as growing unemployment, despite all the jobs being "created."
Whatever position people take on health care reform, there seems to be a bipartisan consensus-- usually a sign of mushy thinking-- that it is a good idea for the government to force insurance companies to insure people whom politicians want them to insure, and to insure them for things that politicians think should be insured.
Contrary to what politicians expect us to do, let's stop and think.
Why aren't insurance companies already insuring the people and the conditions that they are now going to be forced to cover? Because that means additional costs-- and because the insurance companies don't think their customers are willing to pay those particular costs for those particular coverages.
It costs politicians nothing to mandate more insurance coverage for more people. But that doesn't mean that the costs vanish into thin air. It simply means that both buyers and sellers of insurance are forced to pay costs that neither of them wants to pay. But, because soaring political rhetoric leaves out such grubby things as costs, it sounds like a great deal.
It is not just costs that are left out. It is consequences in general.
With all the laments in the media about skyrocketing unemployment among young people, and especially minority young people, few media pundits even try to connect the dots to explain why unemployment hits some groups much harder than others.
Yet unusually high unemployment rates among young people is not something new or even something peculiar to the United States. Even before the current worldwide recession, unemployment rates were 20 percent or more among workers under 25 years of age in a number of Western European countries.
The young have less experience to offer and are therefore less in demand. Before politicians stepped in, that just meant that younger workers were paid less. But this is not a permanent situation because youth itself is not permanent, and pay rises with experience.
Enter politicians. By mandating a minimum wage that sounds reasonable for most workers, they put a price on inexperienced and unskilled labor that often exceeds what it is worth.
Mandated pay rates, like mandated insurance coverage, impose on buyers and sellers alike things that they would not choose to do otherwise.
Workers of course prefer higher wage rates. But the very fact that the government has to impose those wage rates means that workers were unwilling to risk not having a job by refusing to work for less than the wage rate that has been mandated. Now that choice has been taken out of their hands, with the hidden cost in this case being higher unemployment rates.
It is of course no secret that there is no free lunch. It is just an inconvenient distraction that gets left out of political rhetoric.
That should not have been surprising, except as a sign of political sloppiness in not getting their stories together beforehand. They were simply doing what Barack Obama himself does -- namely, just pulling numbers out of thin air. However, being more skilled at creating illusions, the president does it with more of an air of certainty, as if he has gone around and counted the new jobs himself.
The big question that seldom-- if ever-- gets asked in the mainstream media is whether these are a net increase in jobs. Since the only resources that the government has are the resources it takes from the private sector, using those resources to create jobs means reducing the resources available to create jobs in the private sector.
So long as most people do not look beyond superficial appearances, politicians can get away with playing Santa Claus on all sorts of issues, while leaving havoc in their wake-- such as growing unemployment, despite all the jobs being "created."
Whatever position people take on health care reform, there seems to be a bipartisan consensus-- usually a sign of mushy thinking-- that it is a good idea for the government to force insurance companies to insure people whom politicians want them to insure, and to insure them for things that politicians think should be insured.
Contrary to what politicians expect us to do, let's stop and think.
Why aren't insurance companies already insuring the people and the conditions that they are now going to be forced to cover? Because that means additional costs-- and because the insurance companies don't think their customers are willing to pay those particular costs for those particular coverages.
It costs politicians nothing to mandate more insurance coverage for more people. But that doesn't mean that the costs vanish into thin air. It simply means that both buyers and sellers of insurance are forced to pay costs that neither of them wants to pay. But, because soaring political rhetoric leaves out such grubby things as costs, it sounds like a great deal.
It is not just costs that are left out. It is consequences in general.
With all the laments in the media about skyrocketing unemployment among young people, and especially minority young people, few media pundits even try to connect the dots to explain why unemployment hits some groups much harder than others.
Yet unusually high unemployment rates among young people is not something new or even something peculiar to the United States. Even before the current worldwide recession, unemployment rates were 20 percent or more among workers under 25 years of age in a number of Western European countries.
The young have less experience to offer and are therefore less in demand. Before politicians stepped in, that just meant that younger workers were paid less. But this is not a permanent situation because youth itself is not permanent, and pay rises with experience.
Enter politicians. By mandating a minimum wage that sounds reasonable for most workers, they put a price on inexperienced and unskilled labor that often exceeds what it is worth.
Mandated pay rates, like mandated insurance coverage, impose on buyers and sellers alike things that they would not choose to do otherwise.
Workers of course prefer higher wage rates. But the very fact that the government has to impose those wage rates means that workers were unwilling to risk not having a job by refusing to work for less than the wage rate that has been mandated. Now that choice has been taken out of their hands, with the hidden cost in this case being higher unemployment rates.
It is of course no secret that there is no free lunch. It is just an inconvenient distraction that gets left out of political rhetoric.
Monday, February 1, 2010
A Growing Share of Americans' Income Comes from the Government
While most eyes were focused on the better-than-expected gross domestic product data for last year's fourth quarter, this week's report from the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis also included details on U.S. personal income.
Along with wages and salaries, dividends and interest income, this category includes personal current transfer receipts, which the BEA defines as "income payments to persons for which no current services are performed and net insurance settlements." That is, government social benefits (and, to a very minor extent, net transfers received from businesses).
As you can see from the following graph, while the relationship between personal income and GDP has not changed all that much over the course of the past six decades, the share of income accounted for by transfer payments has jumped more than 200 percent.
The latest data also confirms that the financial crisis has played a major role in boosting Americans' dependence -- for lack of a better word -- on government largesse, with the run-up over the past two years accounting for around a quarter of the relative increase since 1947.
With an ever-greater share of Americans receiving some sort of financial assistance from the government, the obvious question is how -- or whether -- this shift will affect the political landscape, especially when it comes to making tough choices about social programs, in particular, and public finances, in general.
If and when policymakers decide, for example, that the time is right to rein in spending and cut back on public sector borrowing, will the political will be there to see those efforts through? Or, as cynics might suggest, is a financial crash landing the only real "exit strategy" that is on the table right now?
I guess we'll find out soon enough
Along with wages and salaries, dividends and interest income, this category includes personal current transfer receipts, which the BEA defines as "income payments to persons for which no current services are performed and net insurance settlements." That is, government social benefits (and, to a very minor extent, net transfers received from businesses).
As you can see from the following graph, while the relationship between personal income and GDP has not changed all that much over the course of the past six decades, the share of income accounted for by transfer payments has jumped more than 200 percent.
The latest data also confirms that the financial crisis has played a major role in boosting Americans' dependence -- for lack of a better word -- on government largesse, with the run-up over the past two years accounting for around a quarter of the relative increase since 1947.
With an ever-greater share of Americans receiving some sort of financial assistance from the government, the obvious question is how -- or whether -- this shift will affect the political landscape, especially when it comes to making tough choices about social programs, in particular, and public finances, in general.
If and when policymakers decide, for example, that the time is right to rein in spending and cut back on public sector borrowing, will the political will be there to see those efforts through? Or, as cynics might suggest, is a financial crash landing the only real "exit strategy" that is on the table right now?
I guess we'll find out soon enough
Behind the 5.7 % Growth Number
Economy: Gross domestic product grew a robust 5.7% last quarter - much stronger than expected. Like everyone, we're glad the economy's getting back on its feet. But this number isn't nearly as good as it looks.
After two years of no growth at all, that annual rate of growth looks dazzling, gaudy even. But scratch the surface, and another picture emerges - one not of gathering strength, but of ongoing weakness.
So let's deconstruct that 5.7% a bit. For one thing, most of the gain - nearly two-thirds, in fact - was a result of an end to the panicked inventory liquidation that took place at U.S. firms last year. Remove that, and a different picture emerges - a 2.2% rise in GDP.
Most economists agree that GDP growth of 3% or so is needed to boost employment. That may in part explain why GDP could grow 2.2% in the third quarter and 5.7% in the fourth quarter, while businesses slashed 735,000 jobs over the same six months.
More meaningful is year-over-year growth. By that measure, we barely grew - real GDP rose just 0.1% in the fourth quarter from last year, virtually flatWorse, real nonresidential fixed investment - a proxy for business investment in future output - plunged 14.6% from last year. That's a shocking vote of "no confidence" in Obamanomics by America's entrepreneurs and businesses.
We wish that was all, but it isn't. According to the Labor Department, wages and benefits rose in 2009 by just 1.5%, the smallest rise in history. Meanwhile, weekly earnings for nonmanagement workers fell 1.6% last year, the worst since the 1991 recession.
These subpar numbers only underscore the weakness of our job market. In just two years, we've destroyed almost 8 million jobs and watched as the unemployment rate surged to 10%.
Early last year, we predicted the economy would turn up later in 2009, and that those in government would claim it was all due to their massive spending on stimulus and bailouts. That's exactly what's happening now.
The fact is the economy, after its big drop in 2008, was set to rebound anyway. It's resilient. (And zero-percent interest rates don't hurt). If things had been done differently, we'd be in a huge recovery by now, with job growth of 200,000 or more a month.
Instead, after $862 billion in "stimulus" and $700 billion in bank and auto company bailouts, our real economy's barely growing and we're left counting gimmicky short-term inventory reversals as "economic growth." That's one reason why the stock market yawned Friday, despite the "good news."
In recent days, President Obama has returned to his old nostrums, once again proposing to raise taxes on the successful, increase regulations and everywhere punish success. He's still dead-set on an economy-destroying health care takeover - not to mention a cap-and-trade program that will saddle businesses and homeowners with enormous new taxes going forward.
If we didn't know better, we'd almost think this was deliberate. Despite the manifest failure of the policies followed for the last year, the president seems to be doubling down on his bet. If so, we think it's a losing one.
After two years of no growth at all, that annual rate of growth looks dazzling, gaudy even. But scratch the surface, and another picture emerges - one not of gathering strength, but of ongoing weakness.
So let's deconstruct that 5.7% a bit. For one thing, most of the gain - nearly two-thirds, in fact - was a result of an end to the panicked inventory liquidation that took place at U.S. firms last year. Remove that, and a different picture emerges - a 2.2% rise in GDP.
Most economists agree that GDP growth of 3% or so is needed to boost employment. That may in part explain why GDP could grow 2.2% in the third quarter and 5.7% in the fourth quarter, while businesses slashed 735,000 jobs over the same six months.
More meaningful is year-over-year growth. By that measure, we barely grew - real GDP rose just 0.1% in the fourth quarter from last year, virtually flatWorse, real nonresidential fixed investment - a proxy for business investment in future output - plunged 14.6% from last year. That's a shocking vote of "no confidence" in Obamanomics by America's entrepreneurs and businesses.
We wish that was all, but it isn't. According to the Labor Department, wages and benefits rose in 2009 by just 1.5%, the smallest rise in history. Meanwhile, weekly earnings for nonmanagement workers fell 1.6% last year, the worst since the 1991 recession.
These subpar numbers only underscore the weakness of our job market. In just two years, we've destroyed almost 8 million jobs and watched as the unemployment rate surged to 10%.
Early last year, we predicted the economy would turn up later in 2009, and that those in government would claim it was all due to their massive spending on stimulus and bailouts. That's exactly what's happening now.
The fact is the economy, after its big drop in 2008, was set to rebound anyway. It's resilient. (And zero-percent interest rates don't hurt). If things had been done differently, we'd be in a huge recovery by now, with job growth of 200,000 or more a month.
Instead, after $862 billion in "stimulus" and $700 billion in bank and auto company bailouts, our real economy's barely growing and we're left counting gimmicky short-term inventory reversals as "economic growth." That's one reason why the stock market yawned Friday, despite the "good news."
In recent days, President Obama has returned to his old nostrums, once again proposing to raise taxes on the successful, increase regulations and everywhere punish success. He's still dead-set on an economy-destroying health care takeover - not to mention a cap-and-trade program that will saddle businesses and homeowners with enormous new taxes going forward.
If we didn't know better, we'd almost think this was deliberate. Despite the manifest failure of the policies followed for the last year, the president seems to be doubling down on his bet. If so, we think it's a losing one.
Obama Surrendering Internet to Foreign Powers
Without the ingenuity of America’s brightest minds and the investment of
U.S. Taxpayer dollars, there would be no Internet, as we now know it today.
Now, the Obama administration has quietly moved to cede control of the web from the United States to foreign powers.
Some background. The Internet came into being thanks to the genius work ofAmerican's, Dr.Robert E. Kahn and Dr. Vinton G. Cerf. These men while employed by the Department of Defense in the DARPA office, (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), in the early 1970’s, went to work conceiving, designingand implementing the idea of ‘open-architecture networking’. This breakthrough in connectivity and networking was the birth of the Internet.
These two gentlemen had the vision and the brainpower to create a worldwide computer Internet communications network that forever changed the world and how we communicate in it.
They discovered that by providing a person with a unique identifier,
(TCP/IP), which was able to be recognized and interact through a network of servers, all users then could communicate amongst themselves and with
others. The servers would recognize the identifier and connect networks-to-networks, (utilizing a series of giant servers), that would pass on information from computer to computer in a seamless real-time exchange of information. This new process of communication became know as the
'information super highway', a.k.a., the Internet.
Now for the bad news - in an effort to show the World how 'inclusive',
'sharing', 'cooperative' and 'international' America can be, the Obama administration set off on a plan to surrender control and key management of
the Internet by the U.S. Department of Commerce and their agents.
The key to control America has over the Internet is through the management
of the Domain Name System and the giant servers that service the Internet.
Domain names are managed through an entity named IANA, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. The IANA operates on behalf of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The IANA is responsible for the global coordination of the DNS, IP addressing and other Internet protocol resources. In short, without an IP Address or other essential Internet protocols, a person or entity would not have access to the Internet.
For years the International Community has been pressuring the United States
to surrender its control and management of the Internet. They want an International body such as the United Nations or even the International
Telecommunications Union, (an entity that coordinates international telephone communications), to manage all aspects of the Internet in behalf of all nations.
The argument advanced for those seeking International control of the Internet is that the Internet has become such a 'powerful', 'pervasive', and a 'dependent' form of international communications, that it would be dangerous and inequitable for any one nation to control and manage it.
Just this past spring within months of Obama taking office, his administration, through the Department of Commerce, agreed to relinquish some control over IANA and their governance. The Obama Administration has agreed to give greater representation to foreign companies and countries on IANA.
This amounts to one small step for Internationalism and one giant leap for surrendering America¹s control over an invention we have every right and responsibility to control and manage. It is in America¹s economic and national security interests NOT to relinquish any control we currently are responsible for regarding the control, operation and functionality of one of
the modern world's greatest inventions and most powerful communications
network.
What better country to protect the Internet than the United States? We
invented it, and we paid for the research and implementation that made it
possible. We are the freest most tolerant nation on earth, we believe in the
fundamental right of free speech, and practice a free market of commerce and ideas. America has always been against censorship and has shared its
invention with the world without fee or unreasonable or arbitrary restriction. The user fee to operate on the Internet is not one paid to the U.S. Government; a consumer pays it to private Internet companies, who provide access to the Internet through servers for their subscribers.
Look no further than the recent move by China against Google to censor the
Internet and you can envision what can happen when other nations less free
than the U.S. seek to control the Internet beyond even their own borders.
America needs to wake-up. If we lose control over the management of the
Internet, we have given away one of our Nations greatest assets with nothing
in return to show for it. The Obama Administration¹s current actions will
set in motion a slow and complete take-over of the Internet by the U.N. or
some other equally U.S. hostile and unfriendly international body. And, once
it is gone, it will be gone forever.
The surrender of the Internet will spell disaster for our nation, financially, as well as for a safety, security and our standing as a great power that values freedom and the free exchange of ideas and information.
As far as I am concerned, America is still the last best hope for a more
peaceful and prosperous world and our president should be not looking for
ways to weaken us, his job is to work to strengthen us and protect our
nations greatest asset our people's creativity and ingenuity.
U.S. Taxpayer dollars, there would be no Internet, as we now know it today.
Now, the Obama administration has quietly moved to cede control of the web from the United States to foreign powers.
Some background. The Internet came into being thanks to the genius work ofAmerican's, Dr.Robert E. Kahn and Dr. Vinton G. Cerf. These men while employed by the Department of Defense in the DARPA office, (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), in the early 1970’s, went to work conceiving, designingand implementing the idea of ‘open-architecture networking’. This breakthrough in connectivity and networking was the birth of the Internet.
These two gentlemen had the vision and the brainpower to create a worldwide computer Internet communications network that forever changed the world and how we communicate in it.
They discovered that by providing a person with a unique identifier,
(TCP/IP), which was able to be recognized and interact through a network of servers, all users then could communicate amongst themselves and with
others. The servers would recognize the identifier and connect networks-to-networks, (utilizing a series of giant servers), that would pass on information from computer to computer in a seamless real-time exchange of information. This new process of communication became know as the
'information super highway', a.k.a., the Internet.
Now for the bad news - in an effort to show the World how 'inclusive',
'sharing', 'cooperative' and 'international' America can be, the Obama administration set off on a plan to surrender control and key management of
the Internet by the U.S. Department of Commerce and their agents.
The key to control America has over the Internet is through the management
of the Domain Name System and the giant servers that service the Internet.
Domain names are managed through an entity named IANA, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority. The IANA operates on behalf of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The IANA is responsible for the global coordination of the DNS, IP addressing and other Internet protocol resources. In short, without an IP Address or other essential Internet protocols, a person or entity would not have access to the Internet.
For years the International Community has been pressuring the United States
to surrender its control and management of the Internet. They want an International body such as the United Nations or even the International
Telecommunications Union, (an entity that coordinates international telephone communications), to manage all aspects of the Internet in behalf of all nations.
The argument advanced for those seeking International control of the Internet is that the Internet has become such a 'powerful', 'pervasive', and a 'dependent' form of international communications, that it would be dangerous and inequitable for any one nation to control and manage it.
Just this past spring within months of Obama taking office, his administration, through the Department of Commerce, agreed to relinquish some control over IANA and their governance. The Obama Administration has agreed to give greater representation to foreign companies and countries on IANA.
This amounts to one small step for Internationalism and one giant leap for surrendering America¹s control over an invention we have every right and responsibility to control and manage. It is in America¹s economic and national security interests NOT to relinquish any control we currently are responsible for regarding the control, operation and functionality of one of
the modern world's greatest inventions and most powerful communications
network.
What better country to protect the Internet than the United States? We
invented it, and we paid for the research and implementation that made it
possible. We are the freest most tolerant nation on earth, we believe in the
fundamental right of free speech, and practice a free market of commerce and ideas. America has always been against censorship and has shared its
invention with the world without fee or unreasonable or arbitrary restriction. The user fee to operate on the Internet is not one paid to the U.S. Government; a consumer pays it to private Internet companies, who provide access to the Internet through servers for their subscribers.
Look no further than the recent move by China against Google to censor the
Internet and you can envision what can happen when other nations less free
than the U.S. seek to control the Internet beyond even their own borders.
America needs to wake-up. If we lose control over the management of the
Internet, we have given away one of our Nations greatest assets with nothing
in return to show for it. The Obama Administration¹s current actions will
set in motion a slow and complete take-over of the Internet by the U.N. or
some other equally U.S. hostile and unfriendly international body. And, once
it is gone, it will be gone forever.
The surrender of the Internet will spell disaster for our nation, financially, as well as for a safety, security and our standing as a great power that values freedom and the free exchange of ideas and information.
As far as I am concerned, America is still the last best hope for a more
peaceful and prosperous world and our president should be not looking for
ways to weaken us, his job is to work to strengthen us and protect our
nations greatest asset our people's creativity and ingenuity.
US intelligence finds 5,000 Hizballah trained to seize Galilee towns
click on the map in the article
http://debkafile.net/
EXCLUSIVE: US intelligence finds 5,000 Hizballah trained to seize Galilee towns
DEBKAfile Special Expose February 1, 2010, 9:19 AM (GMT+02:00)Tags: Hamas Hizballah Iran Israel Syria US intelligence
Click on the picture to get enlarged mapJones was not talking out of the top of his head, but on the strength of solid US intelligence gathered over months on detailed war plans Iran, Syria, Hizballah and Hamas have drawn up to send five Hizballah brigades sweeping across the border to seize five sectors of Galilee, while also organizing a massive Israeli-Arab uprising against the Jewish state.
Hamas would open a second front in the south and in the east. Syria is expected to step in at some stage.
This plan with attached special map was first published exclusively by DEBKA-Net-Weekly 430 on Jan. 22, 2010. Key excerpts appear here.
Iran's Revolutionary Guards instructors at especially established training facilities near Tehran are already well advanced in training a cadre of 5,000 Hizballah fighters in special operations and urban combat tactics to standards equivalent to those current in similar US and Israeli military forces.
At the outset of the course, the group was split up into five battalions, each given a specific northern Israeli sector for capture with details of its topography and population for close study.
(See attached map).
1st Battalion:
This unit will break through the Naqura-Rosh Haniqra border pass and sweep south along seven kilometers to seize Nahariya, the Israeli Mediterranean city of 55,000 - or parts thereof.
UN peacekeepers have their headquarters at Naqura, the other side of Rosh Haniqra, and Israel defenses there are lax, so no military or geographic obstacles to this Hizballah drive are anticipated. This battalion will capture a large number of Israeli hostages for use as live shields against an Israeli counter-attack
A small group of 150 fighters, trained by Revolutionary Guards marines, will also try and reach the coast by swift boats. They are already standing by in Lebanon.
2nd Battalion:
This unit is assigned to capture the northern Israeli town of Shlomi, 300 meters southeast of the Naqura border pass and home to 6,500 inhabitants. Holding this town and its environs will give Hizballah control of a key road hub and stand in the path of Israeli reinforcements heading for Nahariya through routes 89 and 899 from key Israeli bases in the Galilee and Upper Galilee regions to the east. (See map).
3rd Battalion:
Driving further south than any other Hizballah unit, this battalion must reach the three Israeli-Arab villages of B'ina, Deir al-Asad and Majd el-Krum, which are located north of the town of Carmiel and alongside Israel's Route 85 which connects Acre on the Mediterranean with Safad in the central Galilee mountains.
Iranian war planners want Hizballah to control the three Israeli-Arab locations for two advantages:
One: As a commanding position for stirring up the disaffected Israeli-Arab villages and towns of Lower Galilee and Wadi Ara to the south into a full-blown uprising. The incoming combat force will be backed up by clandestine Hizballah cells which for some years have established, armed and funded the underground "Galilee Liberation Battalions” in Sakhnin, Araba and Deir Hana, by means of drug smugglers.
Hizballah's West Bank cells have been active for some time in the Wadi Ara region, through which National Route 65 connects central Israel to the North.
Two: To gain fire control of Acre-Safed Route 85 from positions in occupied Arab villages and so have a shield ready for the Hizballah units holding Nahariya and Shlomi, and seriously impede the passage of Israeli forces from bases in the center of the country to relieve these northern towns. The Israeli Air Force will be constrained from attacking the areas held by Hizballah by the presence of large civilian populations.
4th Battalion:
This battalion will push southeast into the Kadesh Valley, on the rim of which the Makia and Yiftah kibbutzim and Makia moshav are clustered. Capture of these locations would afford Hizballah fire coverage of Israel's northernmost Galilee Panhandle.
5th Battalion: Hizballah's Strategic Reserve.
Rocket attacks from Lebanon will focus on disabling Israel's strategic military sites, such as air force bases, missile bases, its nuclear facilities and naval bases. Targeting Israeli population centers is a lower Iranian priority.
Syria's initial involvement will be limited to cover by artillery or air for Hizballah operations. But if the fighting escalates or drags on, Hizballah will invite Syrian back-up forces to go into Lebanon; Damascus will open Front No. 4 against Israel from the Syrian side of the Golan Heights.
The Tehran-Hizballah war strategy is all but ready for any contingency. The obvious trigger would be an Israeli military operation against Iran's nuclear facilities, but once all the elements are in place, they could be activated by any other pretext conjured up in Tehran or Damascus.
In recent weeks, both Hizballah and its Syrian allies have mobilized their forces while telling the Arab world that the Jewish state is about to attack Lebanon.
Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah is straining at the leash to attack Israel however the crisis over Iran's nuclear program turns out.
Sunday, January 17, he said: "I promise you, in view of all the threats you hear today… that should a new war with the Zionists erupt, we [the Lebanese resistance movement] will crush the enemy, come out victorious, and change the face of the region.
"God willing, Israel, the occupation, hegemony, and arrogance are in the process of disappearing!"
Nasrallah was not alone in anticipating a troubled year for the Middle East.
http://debkafile.net/
EXCLUSIVE: US intelligence finds 5,000 Hizballah trained to seize Galilee towns
DEBKAfile Special Expose February 1, 2010, 9:19 AM (GMT+02:00)Tags: Hamas Hizballah Iran Israel Syria US intelligence
Click on the picture to get enlarged mapJones was not talking out of the top of his head, but on the strength of solid US intelligence gathered over months on detailed war plans Iran, Syria, Hizballah and Hamas have drawn up to send five Hizballah brigades sweeping across the border to seize five sectors of Galilee, while also organizing a massive Israeli-Arab uprising against the Jewish state.
Hamas would open a second front in the south and in the east. Syria is expected to step in at some stage.
This plan with attached special map was first published exclusively by DEBKA-Net-Weekly 430 on Jan. 22, 2010. Key excerpts appear here.
Iran's Revolutionary Guards instructors at especially established training facilities near Tehran are already well advanced in training a cadre of 5,000 Hizballah fighters in special operations and urban combat tactics to standards equivalent to those current in similar US and Israeli military forces.
At the outset of the course, the group was split up into five battalions, each given a specific northern Israeli sector for capture with details of its topography and population for close study.
(See attached map).
1st Battalion:
This unit will break through the Naqura-Rosh Haniqra border pass and sweep south along seven kilometers to seize Nahariya, the Israeli Mediterranean city of 55,000 - or parts thereof.
UN peacekeepers have their headquarters at Naqura, the other side of Rosh Haniqra, and Israel defenses there are lax, so no military or geographic obstacles to this Hizballah drive are anticipated. This battalion will capture a large number of Israeli hostages for use as live shields against an Israeli counter-attack
A small group of 150 fighters, trained by Revolutionary Guards marines, will also try and reach the coast by swift boats. They are already standing by in Lebanon.
2nd Battalion:
This unit is assigned to capture the northern Israeli town of Shlomi, 300 meters southeast of the Naqura border pass and home to 6,500 inhabitants. Holding this town and its environs will give Hizballah control of a key road hub and stand in the path of Israeli reinforcements heading for Nahariya through routes 89 and 899 from key Israeli bases in the Galilee and Upper Galilee regions to the east. (See map).
3rd Battalion:
Driving further south than any other Hizballah unit, this battalion must reach the three Israeli-Arab villages of B'ina, Deir al-Asad and Majd el-Krum, which are located north of the town of Carmiel and alongside Israel's Route 85 which connects Acre on the Mediterranean with Safad in the central Galilee mountains.
Iranian war planners want Hizballah to control the three Israeli-Arab locations for two advantages:
One: As a commanding position for stirring up the disaffected Israeli-Arab villages and towns of Lower Galilee and Wadi Ara to the south into a full-blown uprising. The incoming combat force will be backed up by clandestine Hizballah cells which for some years have established, armed and funded the underground "Galilee Liberation Battalions” in Sakhnin, Araba and Deir Hana, by means of drug smugglers.
Hizballah's West Bank cells have been active for some time in the Wadi Ara region, through which National Route 65 connects central Israel to the North.
Two: To gain fire control of Acre-Safed Route 85 from positions in occupied Arab villages and so have a shield ready for the Hizballah units holding Nahariya and Shlomi, and seriously impede the passage of Israeli forces from bases in the center of the country to relieve these northern towns. The Israeli Air Force will be constrained from attacking the areas held by Hizballah by the presence of large civilian populations.
4th Battalion:
This battalion will push southeast into the Kadesh Valley, on the rim of which the Makia and Yiftah kibbutzim and Makia moshav are clustered. Capture of these locations would afford Hizballah fire coverage of Israel's northernmost Galilee Panhandle.
5th Battalion: Hizballah's Strategic Reserve.
Rocket attacks from Lebanon will focus on disabling Israel's strategic military sites, such as air force bases, missile bases, its nuclear facilities and naval bases. Targeting Israeli population centers is a lower Iranian priority.
Syria's initial involvement will be limited to cover by artillery or air for Hizballah operations. But if the fighting escalates or drags on, Hizballah will invite Syrian back-up forces to go into Lebanon; Damascus will open Front No. 4 against Israel from the Syrian side of the Golan Heights.
The Tehran-Hizballah war strategy is all but ready for any contingency. The obvious trigger would be an Israeli military operation against Iran's nuclear facilities, but once all the elements are in place, they could be activated by any other pretext conjured up in Tehran or Damascus.
In recent weeks, both Hizballah and its Syrian allies have mobilized their forces while telling the Arab world that the Jewish state is about to attack Lebanon.
Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah is straining at the leash to attack Israel however the crisis over Iran's nuclear program turns out.
Sunday, January 17, he said: "I promise you, in view of all the threats you hear today… that should a new war with the Zionists erupt, we [the Lebanese resistance movement] will crush the enemy, come out victorious, and change the face of the region.
"God willing, Israel, the occupation, hegemony, and arrogance are in the process of disappearing!"
Nasrallah was not alone in anticipating a troubled year for the Middle East.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)