There has been a tremendous amount of talk about the spending deal that was just reached in Congress. Most of the focus has been on who "won" and who "lost" politically, and if you have been keeping up with my articles you definitely know my opinion on the matter. But what nobody is really talking about is that this deal actually increases spending at a time when our debt has been absolutely exploding. We added more than a trillion dollars a year to the U.S. national debt during Obama's eight years in the White House, and our debt binge actually accelerated toward the end of his second term. In fact, the national debt increased by more than 1.4 trillion dollars during fiscal 2016...

In fiscal 2016, which ended on Friday, the federal debt increased $1,422,827,047,452.46, according to data released today by the U.S. Treasury.

At the close of business on Sept. 30, 2015, the last day of fiscal 2015, the federal debt was $18,150,617,666,484.33, according to the Treasury. By the close of business on Sept. 30, 2016, the last day of fiscal 2016, it had climbed to $19,573,444,713,936.79.

Since we are already in so much debt, we might as well shoot for the moon, right?

This new spending deal increases spending in a whole bunch of different ways, but it doesn't do anything to raise more revenue.

At the moment, the U.S. national debt is stuck at $19,846,087,305,498.20 because the debt ceiling has not been raised. The federal government is using accounting tricks to keep that number from moving, but the moment the debt ceiling is finally raised by Congress that number will jump up by hundreds of billions of dollars.

By the time fiscal 2017 is over, we will almost certainly have added at least another trillion dollars to the debt, and the Congressional Budget Office is projecting that an additional $10 trillion will be added to the debt over the next ten years.

These days we toss around the phrase "a trillion dollars" as if it isn't a big deal.

But it is a big deal.

Consumers of mainstream media have been treated to a steady diet of Trump voters expressing doubts, frustrations and regrets over the myriad 'betrayals' of his early presidency. But a fresh national survey from the Washington Post and ABC News demonstrates that these cherry-picked examples represent just two percent of Trump's 2016 backers. With near unanimity, virtually every American who pulled the lever for Trump in November does not regret the decision. Indeed, the poll shows that in spite of all of the controversy, mass demonstrations, media hostility and popular culture ridicule, if the same pool of voters were to do it all over again today, Donald Trump would once again defeat Hillary Clinton:

The US deployment of the THAAD anti ballistic missile system to South Korea is destabilising because it is actually directed at China.

As the crisis between the US and North Korea waxes and wanes, a commonly expressed view is that it is not a real crisis at all but an exercise in 'bait and switch', an attempt both to draw attention away and to justify the activation of the US Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile system to South Korea, which has now been activated.

This is a superficially attractive view. THAAD is strongly opposed by China, and there is also widespread opposition to it in South Korea. Cranking up tensions against North Korea is an effective way both of drawing international attention away from it, and for justifying its deployment to the South Korean public.

THAAD however is almost certainly not the reason for the recent outbreak in the crisis between the US and North Korea. Opposition from China and in South Korea was not going to prevent the deployment of THAAD, even if the incoming South Korean President is said to be unenthusiastic about it. Given the dangerous rise in tensions and the very serious possibility of things going dangerously wrong, it is scarcely conceivable the US - even when led by an administration as inexperienced as that of Donald Trump - would have deliberately stirred up a crisis in the Korean Peninsula in order to get THAAD deployed, when it was going to be deployed anyway.

Myanmar appears poised to escape international scrutiny of its vast and expanding human rights abuses targeting its Rohingya minority.

US State Department-funded media platform, The Irrawaddy, would report in an article titled, "Burma set to Dodge Full UN Probe on Arakan State," that:

Burma looks set to escape an international investigation into alleged atrocities in Arakan State, after the European Union decided not to seek one at the UN Human Rights Council, a draft resolution seen by Reuters showed on Wednesday.

The UN said in a report last month that the army and police had committed mass killings and gang rapes of Rohingya Muslims in northern Arakan state and burned villages in a campaign that may amount to crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.

The article would also reveal the role the European Union played in avoiding the UN probe, stating:

EU diplomats told a meeting on Tuesday that they preferred using an existing mechanism that had received good cooperation and access from Burma's government, rather than a new approach, and to give more time to the domestic process.

Several Russian senators have drafted a bill detailing the psychological and professional assessment of military conscripts to determine their future assignments in various military branches and roles.

The main sponsors of the motion are the head of the upper house Committee for Defense and Security, Viktor Ozerov, and the first deputy head of the committee, Franz Klintsevich.

In the explanatory note accompanying the draft, the authors wrote that the psychological and professional assessment procedure is intended to establish whether certain conscripts are fit for particular professions and types of service, as well as for studying in specific military schools.

The aim is to improve the professional qualities of servicemen. If the bill is passed, the assessment would be carried out by professional psychologists and the details of the procedure would be laid out by the Defense Ministry.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claims that "Dozens of tonnes" of chemical weapons still remain in Syria.

"Dozens of tonnes" of chemical weapons still remain in Syria, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in an interview with the Channel 9, warning parties to the Syrian conflict against any attempts to use chemical weapons against Israel.

"First of all, chemical weapons remain there. Despite the fact, that this is several percent [of the prewar Syrian arsenals], that is nevertheless dozens of tonnes ... I promise you that if somebody has an idea to use weapons of mass destruction against us, he will expose himself to a great danger," Netanyahu said.

The extraordinary statement has yet to be met with a US response.

Ilnur Cevik, the chief adviser to Turkish President Erdogan has made a sensational claim during an interview on the Turkish radio station CRI-FM.

Due to recent Turkish attacks on Kurdish led SDF fighters in Syria, America which is a strong ally of the Kurds, has positioned US forces in Syria between Kurdish and Turkish forces to act as a buffer zone between the two opposing parties.

The Turkish Presidential adviser was asked by the interviewer,

"What will you say to the US? They've served as a shield for the terrorists from the Kurdistan Worker's Party. They've become a shield so that we cannot strike them"?

Cevik replied,

"The fact that they (US troops) went there doesn't mean anything. If the PKK terrorists continue to operate in Turkey - and as you know, they are leaking in through northern Syria. They are infiltrating into our country through that region"

Cevik continued,

"What happened to Daesh (ISIS)? One night we suddenly went (after ISIS); we ended up in El-Bab. The same applies to northern Syria. If our forces push far enough, and US armoured vehicles are already there...You may see several missiles accidentally hitting them".

It is illegal to bribe a president. But it is totally legal to pre-bribe one.

Here's how a pre-bribe works.

When a president leaves office, you offer the ex-president an enormous speaking fee. Let's say $400,000. The ex-president does the speech and banks the money. The ex-president has no power at that point, so the speaking fee can't be seen as a bribe because there is no quid pro quo.

But what about the president that is in office while this happens? Do you think the current president notices when the the prior president gets a $400,000 payday for an hour of work?

It would be hard to miss.

So let's say the company that hired the ex-president asks for a meeting with the current president. Do you think the company gets that meeting? And do you think the current president bends over backwards to get them whatever they need?

He does if he wants a $400,000 payday after leaving office. That's a pre-bribe.

Totally legal.

The value of Iceland's krona is on the rise. Two interest rate cuts have not been enough to erode the currency's appreciation fueled by economic growth, a boom in tourism, and relatively high yields.

The krona has surged four percent against the euro and 6.4 percent against the US dollar since the end of March. It has gained 21 percent against the euro and 15 percent against the dollar in the last year.

The krona was trading at 106.29 per dollar and 115.96 per euro as of 13:30pm GMT on Wednesday.

During a Senate hearing on FBI oversight, Director James Comey said he had not served as an anonymous news source on investigations into Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, nor had he authorized anyone else to do so.

Comey also outlined the decision-making process for announcing on October 28 that the FBI had reopened the probe into Clinton's use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state.

"It was a hard choice. I still believe in retrospect the right choice" Comey told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I can't consider for a second whose political fortunes will be affected."