It’s the Monetary Policy, Stupid

W R Collier Jr August 31, 2015

Bill Collier with Monetary Policy Expert George Gilder at the Jackson Hole Summit

Presidential Candidates Ignore the 5th Element For Economic Growth

R. Collier Jr- Today’s candidates for the White House have announced the economic platforms of their campaigns, and among the Republican candidates who are trying to gain traction in the face of Trump’s poll numbers and celebrity, the fare is rather light when you consider that they either give scant attention to or ignore the fifth element of economic growth- monetary policy.

It may not be a terribly interesting issue, but money is everywhere and drives everything, so why wouldn’t one make money, how it is valued and managed, THE central aspect of your economic platform IF you, as a candidate, are truly serious about real and sustained growth for everyone?

I recently attended a summit in Jackson Hole, Wyoming (put on by The American Principles Project who, full disclosure, sponsored my trip to the event), in which leading luminaries of the free market and of monetary policy focused on the issues and problems of monetary policy as enacted by the Federal Reserve. The focus was on economic growth, or, rather, the desire and need to re-stimulate economic growth and to discern the impact of a central bank, like the Fed, on economic growth.

It is true that economic growth which includes all sectors and most all people is a key factor for ending problems ranging from poverty to the deficit, to national debt, and even our imbalance of trade. Growth that is productive and that reaches into every home sustains many advances. As former President John Kennedy said, “A rising tide lifts all boats.”

There are five major elements that impact economic growth
Tax policy
Fiscal policy
Trade policy
Regulatory policy
Monetary policy

Under Reagan and Clinton, George W and Obama, we did not have major operational difference in ANY of these elements of economic growth except for ONE, the fifth element, monetary policy.

Under Reagan and Clinton we had 4% annual growth. Under George W and Obama, 2% or less annual growth (George HW raised taxes which, it can be argued, drove us into a recession).

From “The Great Moderation” under the Fed, which reigned during the Reagan-Clinton years, we went to a boom and bust cycle after 2000. Average Americans prospered, as did the wealthy. Since 2000, the wealthy may have gone from boom to bust to boom and back again, but average Americans went from doing OK, to not doing OK, to doing poorly, to even worse and, finally, to near hopelessness.

If the economy is a fire that we want to keep burning in a manner that keeps us warm from the “elements” of poverty, without burning our house down, then money is like oxygen. Too little oxygen and the fire goes out, too much and the fire gets out of control (you get things like massive inflation that burns the house down).

Monetary policy, how we manage money supply through things like interest rates and the amount of currency in circulation, is not only the fifth element of economic success, it has been the only element changed in an operational and substantive manner since the Reagan-Clinton growth period (The Great Moderation) and thus is THE lead suspect behind the dramatic fall-off of growth (shall we call it The Great Regression?) since 2000 during the Bush-Obama malaise. In fact, 2% growth is really 0% growth per capita because our population grows by 2% a year. (If you want to see real wealth increase, you need an economic growth rate higher than the population growth rate.)

Think of it like this: if we had the extra 2% growth for the last 15 years most everyone, like YOU and me, would have 30% higher incomes, 30% more real property wealth, 30% more in our 401k’s and retirement plans, and 30% more money in the bank.

And yet, for all that, today’s Presidential candidates are focused on the other four elements, while none of them are seriously talking about the Federal Reserve and monetary policy. As John Fund said at The Jackson Hole Summit, “it (the Fed) is the dog that didn’t bark.” Indeed, nobody is barking about monetary policy- how we value the dollar and manage the supply of money.

Where is Ted Cruz? While Rand Paul has touched on this, he has not made it central to his economic platform. The same can be said of them all- monetary policy is the one major change in all economic factors from 2000 that has led to 15 years of economic malaise, therefore, addressing this should be THE central issue of this campaign.

The candidate who can address this with something rational and workable and who can articulate this will rise, even above the heights of mere celebrity.

Fed Meeting Clouded By Discontent

W R Collier Jr August 18, 2015

W. R. Collier Jr- OPINION- The annual meeting of the Federal Reserve in Jackson Hole, Wyoming will be overshadowed by a growing discontent with the Federal Reserve itself, and that discontent is fairly widespread. While critics from the left (the government managed market camp) focus mainly on their belief that the Federal Reserve favors and bails out the rich at the expense of the poor, the irony is that for those in the free market camp the Federal Reserve itself is a product of a leftward leaning progressive “economic management from the center” philosophy. (more…)

OPINION- The People of Baltimore Are Owed Nothing

W R Collier Jr April 28, 2015

Baltimore Riots- What do they tell us about this city?

Opinion/Editorial By Bill Collier- The people of Baltimore own what happened there. No, it wasn’t a small group of people: the rioters were in the thousands and the community itself did not stand up to stop them. The so-called “leaders” asked cops to back off, claiming they could calm things down. In one scene, I saw live on Fox News, a city councilman intoned this promise while, behind him, people were looting a liquor store. And nobody stopped them. Clergy were seen praying in the street: the mob went around them and kept acting, well, like an unruly mob. I also saw “clergy” buy into the hate-filled rhetoric and justify the “anger” of the mob, while “regretting” the violence.
(more…)

Is Iran arming itself with American-Made Uranium?

W R Collier Jr April 23, 2015

The Shocking Source of Iranian Uranium

By Mr Bill Collier- According to a New York Times item posted in November of 2014, the Russians have agreed to greatly expand their role in providing Uranium and technical support to the Iranian nuclear program. In essence, Russia is selling Uranium to Iran.

The world’s largest producer of uranium is Kazakhstan, which produces 46,2 million pounds of uranium to the US’s 4.3 million pounds per year. A total of 139.5 million pounds of uranium are produced annually. According to one estimate, a 50 kilogram bomb (around 110 pounds) would require as much as 2,000 kilograms of uranium (around 4,400 pounds). That uranium is utilized by many buyers, including a once-US-owned and now Russian-owned company called Uranium One, the world’s leading producer of nuclear materials which controls as much as 50% of US uranium production.

According to Wikipedia– Uranium One is a uranium mining company owned by the Russian government with headquarters in Toronto and operations in Australia, Canada, Kazakhstan, South Africa and the United States. It is a Canadian corporation. Rosatom, a Russian State-owned enterprise, through its subsidiary ARMZ Uranium Holding, purchased the balance of a 100% stake in the firm January 2013.

By purchasing the firm, which controls up to 50% of US uranium production, the Russian government not only obtained US uranium, which is then sold on the market to a number of customers, potentially including Iran, but also the expertise of personnel in America and Canada which can be used company-wide to increase mining efficiency and production.

According to the same Wikipedia entry cited above- ARMZ took complete control of Uranium One in January 2013 in a transaction which was reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. In December 2013, an internal reorganization of Rosatom extinguished the interest of ARMZ making Uranium One a direct subsidiary of Rosatom.

This committee includes the US Secretary of State. Hilary Clinton, the current democratic front-runner in the 2016 Presidential Election, wasn’t the Secretary of State at the time.

It is the Russian parent company, ARMZ, that will be tasked with supplying uranium to the Iranians, although the amount being purchased has not been disclosed. What is certain is that Iran has enough uranium to produce dozens of nuclear bombs.

In a related scandal, Hillary Clinton has been accused of taking payments from foreign governments in exchange for currying favor from the State Department. In this instance, Clinton is accused of taking money from the same Russian-owned company that now controls up to 50% of the Uranium being produced in America. The company donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation from 2009 to 2013. The donations were not revealed publicly. You can read more about that scandal in this NYTimes article.

Whether or not the accusations against Clinton are true, the mere fact that the US State Department allowed this deal to go through, a deal which ultimately gives the Russian government control over up to 50% of American uranium production, has caused no small amount of alarm.

The issue is not just about the uranium being mined, which could potentially become part of an Iranian nuclear weapon, but the acquisition of technical means and know-how that would make the Russian government owned company more efficient at mining operations and at uranium processing in general.

The shocking truth here is that Iran gets its uranium from a Russian-government-owned company that now controls up to 50% of US uranium production. It is at least possible, either at present or in the very near future, that SOME of the higher quality US uranium now resides in Iranian centrifuges.

The potential exists for American uranium to be used in Iranian nuclear bombs aimed at American allies or, possibly, distributed to agents to attack America itself (with dirty bombs or portable nuclear bombs). Whether or not this has already come or will come to fruition, the mere fact that such an exchange could occur should give Americans pause. That the US State Department, partly under Clinton (where the process of this approval began) and partly under Kerry (who gave the final approval for the deal), would approve such a deal with these potential outcomes has many even in the intelligence community scratching their heads.

The degree to which Clinton will be tied to this remains to be seen.

Mr Bill Collier is the editor and publisher of News Scope, a digital news intelligence journal that can be found at News-Scope.com
Flashback- the reset button

A Muslim Civil War?

W R Collier Jr March 27, 2015

The Battle for Yemen Gains Steam

The Sunni Coalition Against Iran

Bill Collier- The rise of a Shia Salafist army in Yemen, funded and supplied by Iran, has raised the ire, and the profile, of an emerging Arab coalition against Iran in the Middle East, with the United States absent from any leadership role Indeed, as Yemen, once touted as a success story for American policy, has been vacated by the US. This vacuum appears to have been filled by an Arab coalition led by Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The coalition is attempting to pick up the broken pieces of what has become a failed state.

For more background on the REAL fault line emerging in the Middle East, see author’s News Intelligence Update on News Scope.

The takeover of Yemen by radical Shia Salafists from the Houthi tribe is not complete. Forces still remaining loyal to President Hadi, a Sunni, have been clawing back some lost ground, namely the international airport at Aiden. The fighting is said to be bitter and bloody with no quarter taken or given by either side.

Saudi Arabia has committed 100 warplanes and “150,000 troops” to the fight. They are joined by forces from the UAE, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Pakistan, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan. Whether or not it materializes, this Sunni coalition has made noises that it intends to wage relentless war on the Shia forces in Yemen, and the United States is “absent from the field.”

In short, a major battle is emerging between Iran and her neighbors, with places like Yemen, Iraq, Libya, and Syria being the battleground, although in Iraq and Syria it is more complicated because Iran is fighting the same Sunni Salafists opposed by this emerging Sunni coalition. These powers clearly do not want Iran to advance, and they are not happy about the current negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. Indeed, current US policy is driving many Arab powers into a closer, if unofficial, level of cooperation with Israel, while driving a wedge between the rest of the Arab world and the leaders who control the Palestinian claimed lands of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.

It should be noted that the bonds between the Arab world and the Palestinian people have not suffered. What has suffered is the relationships between Hamas and Fatah on one hand and the rest of the Arab world on the other hand.

It is not clear yet how much is being put into this fight. The Saudi military does not possess a high reputation in battle and is largely controlled by tribal groups- but if, as it appears, these tribes are sincerely opposed to Iranian control over Yemen, one might see a far more aggressive, and capable, Saudi military operation than would be otherwise predicted.. It is certainly true that personnel from Jordan, Egypt, and the UAE would be genuinely opposed to this Iranian proxy Army gaining power on the Arabian Peninsula, but so far it would appear that their forces are limited to air force assets and it is not believed that ANY ground forces have entered Yemen.

Any attack on the ground would likely have to come by air and sea, coming overland from Saudi Arabia would be extremely difficult given the desert terrain which must be crossed in great expanses, except via the Saudi town of Jizanon, which lies just north of the Yemeni town of Al Luhayya on the Yemeni west coast. No reports of ground movement in this area have been reported, beyond beefing up of the border areas as a defensive measure.

Make no mistake, this is a full-on war, and if it proceed in a manner consistent with the stated goals of this Sunni coalition, it is likely to become a major conflagration which spill over into Syria, Iraq, and Libya. For instance, a Sunni-led coalition could conceivably seek to enter Iraq and install a Sunni government while chasing the Iranians out of Iraq. It appears on the ground that the US has ceded Iraq to Iranian hegemony.

None of these developments have taken cognizance of American policy or concerns- indeed the US has maintained a distance from events that is stunning to American allies in the region. The precipitous withdrawal from Yemen by US forces was completely unexpected. The operations plan called for reinforcements of those forces, not their withdrawal, the Freedomist has learned.

Attacks against the Shia forces have come from many locations, including air attacks by coalition partners in support of ground attacks by President Hadi’s loyalists, who have also been air dropped weapons and munitions. But those forces have managed to hold their ground, even as precision air attacks targeting individual commanders on the road have caused attrition among their leadership. Iranian arms and supplies are very likely not coming through. Saudi Arabia has essentially declared a Cordon Sanitaire over Yemen and surrounding areas.

It is not known if the US is providing intelligence or any other resource to this coalition of Sunni powers.

Hope and Change Hits Israel

W R Collier Jr February 16, 2015

Is President Obama Working Toward Regime Change In Israel?

Bill Collier- A new organization in Israel, manned by Jeremy Bird (who was the field director for President Obama’s 2012 campaign) is causing some to suspect that the President is seeking regime change in Israel. Recently, the White House pushed back on House Speaker Boehner’s invitation to Israel’s current Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to speak before Congress. It was argued by the White House that allowing such a meeting with the Prime Minister, and allowing him to speak before congress, would be “interfering” with Israeli elections.

The emergence of this organization has raised eyebrows about the claims by the Obama administration to be concerned about ‘interfering’ with the Israeli elections. The organization itself is well funded by “wealthy American Jews.” It is staffed in large part (and at the top leadership levels) by top operatives from the President’s Presidential campaigns in 08 and 12. The sole aim of the group is to unseat Prime Minister Netanyahu.

While the White House argued that meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu was wrong because it was close to an election it would appear that, at the very least, many of the US President’s political operatives are actively and openly engaged in an attempt to unseat the sitting Prime Minister. This charge, if true, is far more intrusive to the Israeli election than meeting with Netanyahu at the White House would be.

The organization, V-15 (meaning Victory 2015), is not associated with the main opposition party, Labor, and is solely focused on working against the current Prime Minister. As its source of funding is foreign, by its own admission, Likud, the party in power, is seeking to ban it from any further activities.

Netanyahu has also been accused of trying to unseat President Obama. During the 2012 election, an ad by Romney showed a picture of Netanyahu, while a voice-over stated, “The world needs American strength, not apologies.”

It was obvious at the time that Netanyahu was warm and cordial with Romney (whom he met with) even as his relationship with the US President was seen as tense, as it remains even more today. During that time, Mark Regev, Netanyahu’s spokesman, said that the TV spot had “not been coordinated with us, we were not consulted and no one asked us for our permission.”

There was not then and is not now, any accusation that either Netanyahu or his supporters provided expertise or funding for President Obama’s opposition.

The mysterious foreign-led and foreign-funded group has no ties to Labor, according to Labor Chairman Eitan Cabel, who said he knows “nothing about the group “ or its activities. But one organization noted to be working with the mysterious group is “OneVoice”.

According to the group- “The OneVoice Movement, founded in 2002, is an international grassroots movement that amplifies the voice of Israelis and Palestinians, empowering them to propel their elected representatives toward the two-state solution.”

Until November of 2014, the US State Department admitted that they were providing funding to this organization, which observers note “has a clear and partisan political bias” in favor of the left. Funding of this organization by the US has itself been considered to be an act of “interference” in Israeli elections. The group notoriously targets the Israeli political process while doing nothing to promote a “two-state solution” among Arab politicians who lead Gaza and the West bank (Judea and Samaria) and who have consistently espoused a “one state” solution in which the State of Israel ceases to exist.

These assertions, that OneVoice is essentially an anti-Israel movement, have not prevented Palestinian groups from accusing the group of being a mere faux peace movement meant to serve the interests of the Jewish State. A Pro-Palestinian group called “Another Voice” accused OneVoice of being a front for American and Israeli interests back in 2007. But its track record of supporting leftist causes and being led by leftists puts it in the category of being more about promoting liberalism in Israel than peace between Arabs and Jews, in the eyes of many.

But Another Voice said this about OneVoice- “We did not care to demonize the individuals behind OneVoice, nor did we assume bad intentions on their part. However, we were, and continue to be concerned with simplistic, high profile initiatives that equate the occupier with the occupied, and that do not recognize Israel’s ongoing violations of international law, including gross violations of Palestinian human rights, which are the reasons behind the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian “conflict.”

According to Haaretz, “V15 is partnering with the pro-peace organization OneVoice. Its goal is to recruit thousands of volunteers who will go door to door before the election to persuade as many as one million people to vote to change the government.”

“Two candidates for the Knesset are among the heads of OneVoice – Yoel Hasson and Danny Atar,” said David Shimron, a lawyer and close confidant of the Israeli Prime Minister, at a recent press conference.

“Both of them are candidates of the Zionist Camp for the Knesset. OneVoice is financing V15. There is a clear political affiliation here. We can see a clear criminal act whose purpose is to buy the election with money that may not be used,” Shimron stated.

While State Department funding for OneVoice may have ended, as of last November, the amount of money has not been disclosed and, it is argued, that money is only now being deployed to support this electioneering.

V15 countered in its own statement, “Since Likud’s campaign staff has accepted the fact that Netanyahu has lost the field and the street, the party’s lawyers are trying to stop the energy and buzz around Victory 2015. We are bringing in innovative work plans learned from successful campaigns overseas. Obama’s ‘recruitment’ to the campaign exists only in the fevered brains of right-wingers and Likud. The Likud’s panic and paranoia from the right’s loss of the street to the V15 field operatives is not a reason for fantastic delusions such as a connection and cooperation with one of the parties or the American administration. We will continue to win and they will continue to whine.”

Regardless of this statement, it is clear that many of the President’s allies are engaged, that US taxpayer dollars went to OneVoice, and that the US President has done all he can to diminish the Israeli Prime Minister, especially regarding his upcoming speech before the US Congress. That speech is now being boycotted by the same American left who are so deeply involved in the organization seeking his ouster.

Meanwhile, US Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry met with Isaac Herzog, the Israeli opposition leader, while the Secretary of State, John Kerry, took the time to be photographed with Herzog. This occurred during an international security conference in Munich, Germany. Of note, this meeting, which Herzog claimed was not “scheduled” by either American official, also took place a month before the March 17 elections in Israel.

Engaging in regime change is not really a new thing for any state in the world, especially powerful states. It can be claimed that both the American and Israeli governments are active in trying to engage in each other’s political process. What has ruffled feathers among some is the denial by the current American President that this is not currently the case in the face of the overwhelming, if under-reported, facts on the ground.

France Under Attack- Leaders Equivocate On Enemy

W R Collier Jr January 9, 2015

While the people of France face a violent insurgency aimed at toppling their democracy and conquering France from within for the Salafist cause, the leaders of France continue to equivocate about who this enemy is and what the nature and ideology of this enemy is. Salafism is taking root among Muslims worldwide, but France’s Muslim population is leaning more strongly toward the Salafist ideology than most Muslim populations in the West.

Even as the leaders, including Prime Minister Hollande, equivocate and refuse to name, confront, and marginalize the Salafist ideology, the Salafist vanguard is being emboldened in France to attack the civilian population.

While two of the attackers who murdered the staff at Charlie Hebdo, a satirical and anti-religious weekly newspaper, were holed up with hostages at a printing plant 25 miles north of Paris, a second attack and hostage situation took place in Paris.

Authorities say Amedy Coulibaly stormed a kosher market, patronized by Jewish citizens, and, after either killing or wounding numerous individuals, took hostages at around the same time as the first hostage situation unfolded. Amedy and his girlfriend, Hayat Boumediene, a couple who are cadres in the Salafist cause, are believed to have murdered Paris Police Officer Clarissa Jean-Philippe while she was handling a minor traffic accident. Hayat is not on site and is at large in Paris. Officials fear a third attack is being planned. She is believed to have helped Amedy in some material way. Amedy, meanwhile, has stated that if the French police forces storm the site of the first attack he will kill the hostages he was holding. (There are mixed reports that Hayat was also involved.)

Police stormed both locations at around the same time and there are reports that the hostage takers were killed and all of the hostages were freed. However, there were also reports that 4 hostages were killed at the kosher grocery store and two police officers were wounded in that assualt.

It should be noted that while the Salafist cadres are armed, the French population have no legally protected right to self-defense and are therefore disarmed. This means that while the aggressors from within, operating out of Muslim-controlled “no-go zones”, where French law is not enforced, can choose any civilian target and be assured that they will not faced armed resistance.

The existence of these no-go zones throughout Paris and in some areas of France is considered in and of itself a key factor for the planning of Salafist attacks which cannot be detected by intelligence agencies. The unwillingness of the French government to identify, let alone investigate those who espouse, the Salafist jihad ideology or its increasing dominance of Muslim groups and the Muslim population have effectively tied the hands of security forces.

This problem is endemic throughout the West and is symptomatic of a civilization in its winter phase of decline and fall. Similarly US leaders and many media are reacting just as the French leadership are. In fact, individuals who are suspected of espousing Salafist ideology are feared to be in the employ of the American Department of Homeland Security and it is alleged they are among the Muslims who are considered counselors of the American President, who also refuses to name the ideology of the worldwide Islamic Salafist movement. It is not verified that these accusations are true, but the fact that the American government refuses to openly name and counter the Salafist jihad ideology and its proponents as enemies only raises suspicion, even if it is unfounded.

America’s ally, Saudi Arabia, not only espouses Salafism but plants Mosques abroad, including in the US, which teach and promote this imperialistic, authoritarian, and intolerant ideology to Muslims everywhere. Meanwhile, the Council on American Islamic Relations, which some terrorism experts consider to be a Salafist front group, is favored by the current American administration even as other Arab and non-Salafist countries have labeled it as a terrorist organization.

It is not known whether these attacks by Salafist militants will change the view of the French regarding the influx of Muslim populations which have been radicalized by Salafist ideology, but many predict a rise in anti-Islamic sentiment which may target both Salafist and non-Salafist Muslims alike. This is owing to a refusal to name the Salafist ideology is a distinct and dangerous sub-set of the Muslim faith which is not necessarily shared by most people of the Muslim faith. However, in France, a significant minority, perhaps even a majority, of Muslims have shown sympathy for Salafist positions and most French Muslim institutions are controlled by Salafist or Salafist leaning leaders.

As noted, the hostage taker in the second attack was demanding that the two suspects of the Charlie Hebdo attack be freed as a condition of releasing their hostages and had threatened to kill hostages if police storm the print plant. Police opted to storm both sites at the same time. It has been posited that the second two attackers are part of the same group, a cell with a support base of dozens who provide supplies and safe houses. Over a dozen Salafists associated with this group have been captured by French forces.

Cherif and Said Kouachi, suspects in the attack on Charlie Hebdo, stormed the CTF Creation Tendance Decouverte, a printing plant, and had an unknown number of hostages.

Meanwhile, another incident near the Eiffel Tower at Trocadero Square involved police at both the Eiffel Tower and near a subway entrance with weapons at the ready clearing people off. The French Interior Ministry (which handles policing for the entire French state) denies that there was an incident, but Twitter users on scene tweeted the following pictures:

Pictured- French Police at Trocadero Square with drawn weapons. From @Steiner1776

Pictured: police swarm Trocadero Square near the Eiffel Tower. Photo: @NationFMike

Pictured: police on scene at the Eiffel Tower, seen clearing people from the site. Photo: @mutiezo

All or most of these attackers have a long criminal record and have been apprehended for terrorism related activities but subsequently released. Many Muslims in France who become incarcerated for non-terrorism related crimes are radicalized because France’s prisons allow Salafist Muslim Imams to enter the prison and openly preach and recruit from among the population of Muslim prisoners, this all in the name of free speech and freedom of religion.

Meanwhile Andrew Parker, head of Britain’s MI5, used a rare speech at MI5 headquarters in London to warn that, “A group of core al Qaeda terrorists in Syria is planning mass casualty attacks against the West.”

These attacks in France also raise questions about New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio’s cessation of a previous policy by the NYPD of tracking and monitoring Salafist ideology in New York’s mosques. Currently, the proliferation of that ideology and the organizing of Salafist cells in New York continue apace without any real monitoring let alone counter-actions by authorities. The likelihood of such attacks in the US is calculated to be “inevitable” by most security and terrorism experts.

SPECULATION- Obama May Recognize Palestinian State

W R Collier Jr December 19, 2014

Bill Collier- Rumors are circulating that President Obama may unilaterally authorize the State Department to extend “some level of recognition” of a Palestinian State in a move not unlike the sudden reversal of US policy regarding Cuba.

In that move, the President worked for over a year without disclosing his intentions to ANY member of Congress and it is believed that a similar approach is being taken with regard to the Palestinian bid for statehood. This effort would receive the blessings of John Kerry although many Democrats, who receive millions of dollars in campaign donations from Jewish sources, could face a backlash from those same sources if such a poicy shift were to materialize.

It is known that the US has threatened to use a UN veto if the UN Gernal Assembly votes to recognize the Palestinian State, however in recent statements the US has indicated this would be based on “the language of the resolution.” This seeming backpeddle has led to speculation that a policy reversal is in the offing.

While this move seems unlikely, so too did the Cuban move, which has already caused outrage in the Cuban expat community. It would appear that the President, mindful that he has no more elections to endure and determined to use executive authority to what he perceives its limits to be, a line some feel has already gone too far beyond the legal norm, wants to push as much of his true ideological agenda as possible. It is calculated by some that his (alleged) vision for totally transforming America into what must objectively be defined as a leftwing presidential state that is led by technocrats with centralized authority supercedes all other considerations.

What is certain is that the President is swinging for the fences, determined to stay in control of the agenda and determined to keep his political opponents in reaction mode as he pursues initiative after initiative without consulting anyone but his own intuation.

Recognition of a Palestinian State while Congress is in recess, in between the recess of the old Congress and the swearing in of the new Congress, would be a fait accompli which the President may believe his political opponents could do little about, but it would also be extremely unpopular among all but the hard core leftist base. It would throw Israel into the arms of China and Russia and increase the likelihood of Israel taking Iran’s threats and potential of obtaining nuclear weapons into its own hands, and it would undercut Arab efforts to begin a process of moving toward an understanding with Israel. Finally, it would result in a Hamas controlled “proto-state” and place Israel at direct varience with US policy.

We will be watching events closely and while we cannot confirm that such rumors are true, the recent backtracking on statements about a UN resolution recognizing a Palestinian State and the recent move regarding Cuba seem to bolster such speculations.

Cuba Normalization Blindsides Congress

W R Collier Jr December 17, 2014

Normalization of Cuban-American Relations A Major Policy Shift

China Could Be Hard Hit By Cheap Cuban Labor

Bill Collier- While there has been bipartisan discussions about a new push to normalize relationships with the Cuban Communist regime in the interest of trade, the sudden and unexpected move has blindsided Congress. Only recently, Congress was assured that no such dramatic change in the US diplomatic stance regarding the Cuban Communist regime was in the offing, but in reality this promise was untrue. Plans to embark on this path of normalization had been conceived and were being worked since early summer of 2014.

Once again, a Presidential policy move is seen as undermining US law, which states that normalization of relationships and a lifting of the embargo against trade with Cuba must be presaged by Cuba adopting democratic reforms. The main purposes of this policy had been to marginalize Cuba in the region and to prevent Cuba from becoming economically powerful enough to finance a serious military threat to the US. After all, Cuba is only some 90 miles off the coast of Florida.

The move, if it goes through by Congressional support or by alleged executive fiat that is unchallenged, would also be a challenge to China. In short, US companies would have access to Cuba’s cheap labor market and one might expect to see “Made In Cuba” competing with “Made In China.”

While the President has not explicitly ended the embargo, it does expand the amount and type of agricultural products that can be exported, it allows for a higher amount of money that individuals can send to Cuban relatives from the US, and it allows for greater tourism travel. The President is expected to request that Congress ends the embargo. It is not known whether he will use the device of prosecutorial discretion to refrain from prosecuting individuals and entities which might violate the embargo.

On the diplomatic side, the State Department is being instructed to move towards establishing diplomatic relations and removing Cuba from a State Department list of nations that support terrorism.

On the Cuban side, the number of concessions appears to be limited to releasing an American prisoner who has been incarcerated in Cuba for 5 years and possibly another American who has been incarcerated for 20 years. There is no promise or agreement to institute any free market or democracy reforms, to do more to guarantee religious freedom and end the persecution of Christians, to allow freedom of the press, or any move away from totalitarianism. The entire purpose of the embargo was to encourage the Cubans to institute such reforms, whereupon the embargo would end.

The argument being made in support of this move is that such normalization will result in Cuban reforms, but this argument was used regarding China. In the case of China, the normalization of diplomacy and trade added legitimacy to the regime, gave the Chinese access to Western technology, and allowed them to grow their economy. The result of this normalization of relations with China has produced no noticeable liberalization of their political environment. Aside from purely cosmetic changes, the Chinese regime remains wholly undemocratic and continues to persecute ethnic minorities, especially Christians.

In short, there is no objective and clear evidence that President Nixon’s change in policy with China has come anywhere close to the goals which were given at the time the U.S declared this policy shift. In fact, it is argued, China has gained much more and the US and the West have lost much more out of the normalization process that occurred.

The Chinese, however, look on this development with some trepidation, though not through official channels. Cuban labor could substantially eat into their economic position. What is more, Cuban control over oil deposits in the Gulf which they are unable to exploit could result in more oil production in the Western Hemisphere to further erode the price of oil and undercut Middle Eastern suppliers and Russia.

What remains to be seen is whether or not the initiative announced by the President will succeed. Will Congress back the policy and even lift the trade embargo, and who will that benefit? Will the President use executive orders and executive memorandum to essentially gut the 1959 law that created the embargo by not enforcing it and, if so, will it be allowed to stand by what observers refer to as a supine Congress?

Salafist Gains In Global War

W R Collier Jr December 15, 2014

Islamic Salafist Is Winning Battles Against Freedom

The West Refuses To Fight An Ideological War

By Bill Collier- The Salafist forces, united on the Shia side around Iran and on the Sunni side by Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia, continue their ongoing war against modern Muslim states and the states in the West, including America and the United Kingdom, with unrelenting fury. The Islamic Salafist war on freedom is being waged on every continent- it has resulted in numerous (and often misnamed0 acts of terror in the US and elsewhere, and has most recently raised its ugly head in a chocolate shop in Sydney, Asutralia.

Salafism, for those who are not familiar with the term, is a world-conquering pseudo-socialist and authoritarian ideology that utilizes only the earliest writings of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad as the basis for a worldwide revolution, or “Jihad”, against all non-Salafist states. The Salafist the modern Islamic notion of a more moderate and reformed religion in which later writers, or Surahs, which carry more weight in terms of interpreting Islamic law and doctrine than the earliest writing, This view of an “unfolding revelation” of Islam is the reason why some of the seemingly “bloody” texts of the Koran in its earliest sections are interpreted today by many Muslim scholars as having a more spiritual meaning. For instance, modern “Jihad” is viewed as an inner struggle to become more righteous and pure in the yes of Allah, not as a war against anyone on the outside.

The forces of Salafism, however, are in the ascent, not only in terms of their geopolitical and their propaganda gains, but also among rank and file Muslims, For instance, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Hamas and Fatah in the Palestinian territories, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Turkey, and Islamic State (or ISIS) are all Salafist regimes of varuying degrees and of different types.

Among many Muslims around the world, the Salafist version of Islam is in fact gaining in popularity, it is no longer possible to say that “most Muslims do not agree with that” when it comes to Salafist ideology. Even in America, Abu Mujahid Fareed Abdullah of the Islamic Center of Connecticut is a Salafist scholar with a growing following among American Muslims. He was recently hosted at a seminar at The University of Southern California, espousing his Salafist ideology to an Islamist organization on campus that has over 350 members.

As Salafism grows in popularity, there remains no effective ideological response from the West, however Muslim states are beginning to push back and counter with their own ideological response, emphasizing that Salafism is a violation of Muslim teachings and ethics, for instance focusing people to convert or penalizing those who refuse. One Muslim state, the United Arab Emirates is quite vocal in its efforts to present a counter-ideology and Salafism remains largely unpopular among Muslims who live there.

Salafist gains on the battlefield in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan have humiliated Muslim and Western States, which had portrayed their Salafist foes as on the fringe and on the run. It turns out they are no longer a “fringe” group among most Muslims around the world and they are certainly not “on the run.”

The recent release of a party-line Senate report, pushed by Democrats, attacking the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” and disclosing information some have argued is useful for our enemies and not helpful in any debate regarding these techniques, has provided the Salafists with much propaganda material, especially in view of the fact that the West remains fixated on refusing to deal with Salafism on ideological terms. Some argue that it also provided actionable intelligence for Salafist forces and that it makes foreign governments extremely hesitant to share intelligence with the US in light of these disclosures regarding their prior and top secret collaboration.

During the recent hostage taking in Sydney, Australia, for instance, police refuse to acknowledge the motive of the hostage taker or the terrorist nature of the incident, despite the attacker forcing hostages to display a Salafist flag and demanding an ISIS flag be provided, thus clearly indicating that this was an act of Salafist terrorism.

Even the use of the term “Salafism” and information detailing the clear and undeniable difference between modern Islamic doctrines and Salafism has yet to be presented by most media or governments to the general public. There is no question of waging war on Islam, as such, but the lack of an effort to wage ideological war with Salafism, and the confusion caused by conflating modern Islam and Salafist Islam has caused many to withdraw from even criticizing Salafism for fear of being called “Islamophobic.”

When the American President said that ISIS was not “Islamic” his comments sounded absurd to most observers, after all ISIS calls itself the Islamic State, but his real failure was to not explain WHY one should refrain from calling ISIS “Islamic”: because “Islamic” is a broad term that is used to include both Salafist and non-Salafist Muslims. Not noting thatISIS does have an ideology, Islamic Salafism, obscures the difference between modern Islam and Salafist Islam and it fails to deal with the war against this Salafist aggressor on ideological terms.

Islamic Salafist forces are not united, which is likely a good thing given that, even in their disunited state, they continue to advance militarily, politically, and in their popular appeal to Muslims who are increasingly turning their back on modern Islam and embracing this dangerous ideology. A failure to confront Islamic Salafism head on as an ideology by both undermining its legitimacy claims and presenting a contrary ideology will see the continued advance of this dangerous and violent movement.

The attack in Sydney by an Islamic Salafist is only just the beginning of what is in store for many states, both Muslim and non-Muslim, which refuse to go along with Islamic Salafism but which also refuse to confront it on an ideological level.