Puppet Masters
First some basic background. When President Nixon, on advice of Paul Volcker, then at US Treasury, announced on August 15, 1971 the unilateral end of the Bretton Woods gold-dollar system, to replace it with a floating dollar, Washington economists and Wall Street bankers realized that the unique role of the US dollar as leading reserve currency held by all central banks and the currency for world commodity and other trade, especially oil, gave them something that appeared to be a gift from monetary heaven.
So long as the world needed US dollars, Washington could run government deficits without end. Foreign central banks, especially the Bank of Japan in the 1980's and since the turn of the century, the Peoples' Bank of China, would have little choice but to reinvest their surplus trade dollar earnings in interest-bearing AAA-rated US Treasury securities. This perverse dollar system allowed Washington to finance its wars in faraway places like Afghanistan or Iraq with other peoples' money. During the Administration of George W. Bush, when Washington's annual budget deficit exceeded annually one trillion dollars, Vice President Dick Cheney cynically quipped, "debt doesn't matter; Reagan proved that." Up to a point that appeared so. Now we are getting dangerously near to that "point" where debt does matter.
In June 2017, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE, and Egypt, among other Gulf states, cut off diplomatic relations with Qatar, accusing it of supporting and funding terrorism. Doha was also accused of "meddling" in the internal affairs of its neighbors and of expressing support for Saudi Arabia's historic rival Iran.
Now Riyadh is reportedly worried that Doha's planned acquisition of Russia's S-400 surface-to-air missile units will jeopardize the "national security" of its Persian Gulf neighbors. According to information obtained by Le Monde, King Salman has recently sent a letter to the French presidency, where he expressed his "deep concern" vis-à-vis the ongoing S-400 negotiations between Doha and Moscow.
"Doug Fears brings more than three decades of experience across a range of vital homeland security areas including counterterrorism, cybersecurity, and disaster response to the NSC," White House national security adviser John Bolton said in a statement.
Fears, who spent more than 30 years in the US Coast Guard, currently serves on the National Security Council staff as a special assistant to the president acting as a senior director for resilience policy. Just prior to that, he served as Chief of Staff for the US Coast Guard (2015-2017) where he managed more than 24,000 members of the force. A graduate in public administration of Harvard Kennedy School, Fears also has a degree from the US Naval War College.
The deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) to Ramstein Air Base, which hosts the US Air Force in Europe headquarters and NATO's Allied Air Command, has been discussed, an unnamed US military official told the agency. "It would be a further political message to the Europeans that we're serious about protecting our allies," the official said.
Berlin was open to the move, which, it said, will help better protect civilian populations, another source added.
Reuters also cited a senior German military official, who underlined the need for more radars across the European continent, to better track and monitor potential threats.
The allegations concern arrangements for the sale of 2.5 billion of Australian dollars ($1.9 billion) worth of ANZ shares three years ago.
"The charges will involve alleged cartel arrangements relating to trading in ANZ shares following an ANZ institutional share placement in August 2015," chairman Rod Sims said in a statement.
He added: "It will be alleged that ANZ and the individuals were knowingly concerned in some or all of the conduct." ANZ, one of Australia's so-called "big four" banks, said the charges related to a placement of 80.8 million shares. The shares were offered to the institutional investors at a discounted rate of $30.95 per share.
Comment: What may be of note is that ANZ was raising capital in an attempt to meet regulatory requirements. Is that because without the fraudulent fundraiser they don't have sufficient capital to operate legally? The requirements were implemented in order to prevent a repeat of the 2008 scenario of more than a decade of ponzi schemes, resulting in the financial crash and subsequent robbery of the taxpayer to fund the banking bailouts:
- Banks close 1,700 branches in past 12 months, fastest pace in decades
- The Biggest Financial Scandal In History?
- Deutsche Bank admits to rigging the global precious metals market
- Corruption is built into the DNA of Neo-liberalism's world
- Common sense: Scottish MSP says Britain should have jailed corrupt bankers like Iceland

US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev sign the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, December 8, 1987
The INF (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces) treaty was signed in December 1987. Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev came to Washington to put his signature next to that of US President Ronald Reagan, resulting in an unprecedented scaling down of the two superpowers' arsenals.
The treaty covers missiles of two range classes: short (500 to 1,000km, or 310 to 620 miles) and intermediate (1,000 to 5,000km, or 620 to 3,420 miles), with both nuclear and conventional payloads, but only those with land-based launchers. Further production and use by the two nations of other state missile types has since been banned.
Comment: The 'cold war' was really a state of resistance to US hegemony. When that resistance temporarily ended with Gorby, so too did 'the cold war'. When that resistance was rekindled by Putin, 'the cold war' state returned.
- NATO to discuss dropping INF Treaty and planning for nuclear war in Europe
- Moscow 'concerned' with US accusations of Russian non-compliance with INF
- Russian senator warns US withdrawal from INF Treaty would hit America itself and European allies
- US violations of missile treaty will force Russia to 'promptly' develop new systems
- Putin Delivers Landmark 'State of The Union' Speech: Puts The Smack Down on US, Shows Off Latest Russian Nuclear Weapons

White House Chief of Staff John Kelly escorts North Korean official Kim Yong Chol to the White House on Friday.
President Donald Trump announced the decision after a historic and lengthy Oval Office meeting Friday with Kim Yong Chol, who is the top deputy to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.
"We'll be meeting on June 12th in Singapore," Trump told reporters at the White House. But he also said that it would be hard to reach a deal from a single summit in less than two weeks.
"I don't see that happening," he said. "I told him I think you could have probably [other meetings]."
If you followed international headlines this week, you may have been alarmed to see the shocking revelation that, despite wanting a closer relationship with China, Philippines' President Rodrigo Duterte was now ready to risk war with Beijing to 'protect the territorial integrity of his country'.
"Philippines' Duterte threatens war in South China sea if troops are harmed," Newsweek warns. "Philippines draw three hard lines on China," Asia Times outlines. "Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte will go to war with China if it crosses 'red lines' and claims disputed resources, foreign ministry warns," the South China Morning Post (SCMP) explains. "Duterte will 'go to war' over South China Sea resources, minister says," according to CNN.Those are indeed some shocking headlines as the last thing anyone in their right mind wants is a regional conflict, not least one that involves a rising nuclear power with the capabilities that China has.
So what did President Duterte actually say, and how close to a regional standoff are we at this current juncture?
Comment: See also:
- We can't afford war': Duterte recommends leaving South China Sea alone while Trump offers mediation
- Duterte accepts arms deal with China, signaling thaw in relations between countries
- Duterte tells reporters he's "about to cross the rubicon" between him and US, seeks alliances with Russia and China
The two European nations, which hosted clandestine CIA detention facilities after 9/11, have breached basic tenets of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights by allowing torture of prisoners to happen on their territory, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg ruled on Thursday.
The ECHR ruling refers to the cases of Saudi-born Abu Zabaydah and Saudi Abd Al Rahim Husseyn Muhammad Al Nashiri, both of whom are currently held at the US Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.
Zabaydah, a suspected senior Al-Qaeda member, was held for two months in Lithuania in 2005. Al Nashiri, who is suspected of organizing the attack on the USS Cole, was held in Romania between 2004 and 2005. The case was brought before the court by lawyers, who lodged complaints against the European nations in 2011 and 2012.
Comment: With an unknown number of CIA black sites in multiple countries, it begs the question as to why these were allowed and what were the secret benefits to the hosts.
See also:
- 'They went through some form of hell': Psychiatrist for Gitmo detainee testifies
- Appointing "Bloody Gina" Haspel to head CIA will delight torturers around the globe
- Mark of the beast: U.S. Navy Reserve doctor on 'Bloody Gina' torture victim: "One of the most severely traumatized individuals I have ever seen"
- Trump's new CIA director Gina Haspel ran torture site in Thailand
After months of postponing its implementation while simultaneously threatening a trade war, President Donald Trump has slapped tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. The EU, as well as Canada and Mexico, has vowed to retaliate.
Domestic reaction in the US has also been negative with both Democrats and Republicans criticizing the move. Wall Street analyst and economic commentator Michael Hudson believes the US could actually suffer more than Europe from the tariffs.
RT: The EU has vowed to retaliate. What steps do you expect them to take?
Michael Hudson: The irony of all of this is that there is a good logic for protectionism. And the object to protectionism is to import the raw materials as cheap as you can and make all your profit in manufactures in high value added. What Trump has done by putting the tariffs on aluminum and steel is to raise the price of aluminum and steel to Americans. They've already jumped about 25 percent since he announced the tariffs a few weeks ago. And all of a sudden this oversupply is going to be sold to Europeans and Asians. So, their manufacturers can buy aluminum and steel more cheaply to make manufactured goods at much lower costs than American manufacturers can.
So, Trump has given Europe and Asia an opportunity to undersell American manufacturers of tinware, of anything industrial: beer kegs, people have talked about, frying pans, cars, anything made out of aluminum and steel. Now, the foreigners outside of America will have an advantage over the American producers. Trump has shot the American economy in the foot. That seems to be his guiding principle.
Comment: If these tariffs are so bad for the US and good for other countries, why are they scrambling for leverage and deals, and why is the US expected to increase jobs in direct relation to the tariffs? Is it faulty math? See the following:
- EU willing to buy more gas from US if Trump scraps metal tariffs
- Winning: Trump announces tariffs on foreign steel, US Steel calls back 500 employees to Illinois plant
- Japan planning retaliatory action against Trump's import Tariffs
- Canada and Mexico follow in EU footsteps, vow to retaliate against Trump's trade tariffs
- Study finds Trump tariffs may add 19k aluminum & steel jobs













Comment: So transparent it's pathetic. "Having the S-400 would mean you can defend yourself from us. Therefore, we're threatening to attack you first so you never get the means to defend yourself."