EU: Facebook cries foul on EU request for internal documents - by Andrew Rettman

Facebook, a US tech giant known for abusing its users' private information, has said the European Commission was now attempting to do the same to Facebook employees' data.

The firm filed its complaints at the EU court in Luxembourg, after the commission asked to see internal documents containing any of 2,500 search phrases as part of an anti-trust enquiry.

Brussels-based news agency MLex first revealed Facebook's legal counter-strike in a story on Monday (27 July), citing anonymous sources.

US congressmen were also due to cross-examine Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Monday in a separate investigation into alleged abuse of the firm's online "dominance", but the hearing was postponed due to a clash with a memorial service for a US civil rights leader.

Zuckerberg founded the California-based firm in 2004 initially as a platform for US students to talk to each other.

Read more at: 
Facebook cries foul on EU request for internal documents

World War III ? Russia vs Ukraine War? Ukrainian President Says Neighbor Is Preparing Ground Attack - by Cristina Maza

During a televised speech on Monday in which he outlined his case for imposing martial law, Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko claimed that his country’s intelligence service had evidence that Russia was preparing a ground attack.

Poroshenko's speech was given after Russia blocked three Ukrainian navy vessels from passing from the Black Sea into the Sea of Azov via the Kerch Strait on Sunday. The incident was a major escalation of the tensions that have existed between the two countries ever since Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine and began backing armed separatists in the country in 2014. Poroshenko is close to imposing martial law in Ukraine, which would allow the military to run the country, saying it was necessary for Ukraine’s security.

Many experts said Russia’s attack on Ukrainian naval ships on Sunday was a game changer.

“The big story here is that Russia’s armed forces, in broad daylight, launched an attack on Ukrainian navy ships. This crosses a new line. Moscow, of course, seized Crimea with its military, but under the guise of unidentified ‘little green men.’

 Moscow has been conducting a not-quite-covert war in Donbass. Yes, there are thousands of Russian officers there and they control the fighting, but Moscow denies it. In this case, there is no denial,” John Herbst, U.S. ambassador to Ukraine from 2003 to 2006, told Newsweek.

Note EU-Digest :  For those of us remembering our history classes, this is starting to resemble very much how the second world war started, when on October 1, 1938, Adolf Hitler's army marched into the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia.

This accelerating Nazi Germany's aggressive World War II offensive. 

At that time Europe also was divided, as it is now over Brexit, and to make natters even worse, the US, which used to be the West's major defender of Democracy, has now taken an isolationism turn under the leadership of a not too bright, ego-maniac President, who is in charge of a dysfunctional government, and a population, divided in two polarized camps. 

Putin looking at this picture is probably thinking in the same way as Hitler thought back in 1939. "this is a window of opportunity and it appears there is no need to pull down the shades." Bottom-line, we in the West, and specially the EU,  could become involved in a major war pretty soon, if we don't get our act together.

Read more: Russia vs. Ukraine War? Ukrainian President Says Neighbor Is Preparing Ground Attack

EU, US relations sinking further after divisive Trump tour - by Raf Casert

After a week of the worst barrage of insults yet from U.S. President Donald Trump, the European Union is looking westward toward the White House less and less.

Making it worse, Trump spent Monday cozying up to EU adversary Vladimir Putin in an extraordinary chummy summit with the Russian leader in Helsinki.

Never mind. In an age when Trump has made political optics all-important, on Tuesday the EU struck back. Key EU leaders were in the far east in Japan and China looking for the trust, friendship and cooperation they could no longer get from a century-old ally.

Trump's embrace of Putin and the EU's Asian outreach highlight the yawning rift, widening more by the day, in a trans-Atlantic unity that has been the bedrock of international politics for the better part of a century, as countless graves of U.S. soldiers buried in European soil bear witness to.

Trump's abrasiveness and "America First" insistence had been a given even before he became president. Europe's increasing resignation to letting go of the cherished link to the White House is much more recent.

After last week's brutal NATO summit where Trump derided Europeans as freeloaders, EU chief Donald Tusk spoke on Tuesday of "the increasing darkness of international politics."

"This Helsinki summit is above all another wake-up call for Europe," said Manfred Weber, the German leader of the EPP center-right group in the European Parliament, the legislature's biggest.

"We Europeans must take our fate in our own hands."

It was a startling sentiment coming from someone who hails from the same German Christian Democrat stock as Angela Merkel, Helmut Kohl and Konrad Adenauer, staunch supporters of the trans-Atlantic link over the past three-quarters century.

There have been other signs of the growing European detachment from the White House, especially after Trump pulled out of the global climate agreement and the Iran nuclear deal the EU brokered.

"With friends like that, who needs enemies?" Tusk asked two months ago.

Soon, Trump had also piled on economic punishment with punitive tariffs on European steel and aluminum.

Then came the NATO summit. Already viewed with apprehension, reality turned out to be worse.

First, Trump called Germany, the powerhouse of the European Union, "captive" to Russia. Then he suggested that Britain should "sue" the EU over Brexit terms. Finally, he finished off by calling the 28-nation bloc a trade "foe."

"For Trump, the categories of friend, ally, partner, opponent, enemy don't exist. For him there is only his own ego," said the head of the German parliament's foreign affairs committee, Norbert Roettgen.

So little wonder the EU has turned for friends elsewhere — and found one Tuesday in Japan, where the bloc said it put in place "the largest bilateral trade deal ever."

Up to two years ago, that was supposed to be the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP, trade deal between the EU and the United States. But Trump quickly let it be known that such an international agreement would not happen on his watch.

"This is an act of enormous strategic importance for the rules-based international order, at a time when some are questioning this order," Tusk said at a joint news conference in Tokyo with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

"We are sending a clear message that we stand together against protectionism."

Despite it all, until last week there had remained hope that on the most critical of geopolitical security issues, Trump would remain true to American ideals. Instead, he unleashed unprecedented criticism at the NATO summit.
 
Fully extracting itself from the United States, though, is a daunting challenge for Europe.

Militarily, with the exceptions of France and Britain, the European allies have lived under the nuclear umbrella of the United States since World War II. Defense cooperation outside of U.S-dominated NATO is only now taking off and the blocked Brexit negotiations make such a prospect fraught with uncertainty.

That military dimension, and the bond between Europe and the United States, have a special resonance in nations like Poland and the Baltic states, which had long been under the thumb of Moscow before the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Hence, Monday's Helsinki summit was seen with apprehension that Trump might make dramatic concessions to Putin and leave parts of Europe with too little protection. In Poland, the 1945 Yalta Conference is seen as a symbol of political treason because, without Poland's participation and against Poland's will, it put the country under Soviet control for decades, until 1989.

Read: EU, US relations sinking further after divisive Trump tour

World Health Organization: U.S. Opposition to Breast-Feeding Resolution Stuns World Health Officials - by Andrew Jacobs

A resolution to encourage breast-feeding was expected to be approved quickly and easily by the hundreds of government delegates who gathered this spring in Geneva for the United Nations-affiliated World Health Assembl

Based on decades of research, the resolution says that mother’s milk is healthiest for children and countries should strive to limit the inaccurate or misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes.

Then the United States delegation, embracing the interests of infant formula manufacturers, upended the deliberations.

American officials sought to water down the resolution by removing language that called on governments to “protect, promote and support breast-feeding” and another passage that called on policymakers to restrict the promotion of food products that many experts say can have deleterious 

effects on young children.

When that failed, they turned to threats, according to diplomats and government officials who took part in the discussions. Ecuador, which had planned to introduce the measure, was the first to find itself in the cross hairs.

The Americans were blunt: If Ecuador refused to drop the resolution, Washington would unleash punishing trade measures and withdraw crucial military aid. The Ecuadorean government quickly acquiesced.

Note EU-Digest: These kind of actions, which include bullying and threats by the US Trump Administration, must not only be  condoned, but can not be accepted by the international community as a whole. 

Read more: U.S. Opposition to Breast-Feeding Resolution Stuns World Health Officials - The New York Times

France - US Relations: French President Emmanuel Macron rocks US Congress with great speech

French President Emmanuel Macron hit on the issues of climate change, nationalism, trade and the 2015 Iran nuclear deal in his speech to a joint session of US Congress, calling on the United States to engage more with the world.

After what has been seen as a friendly state visit to Washington, Macron's speech laid out a view of global leadership starkly different from US President Donald Trump's "America First."

What Macron said

• The United States and France have a long history together
• He criticized Trump's isolationist principles
• Climate change is real. We have no Planet B
• Macron is sure the US will someday come back to to the Paris Agreement
• We must fight against fake news
• Iran will never have nuclear weapons nuclear weapons
• At a press conference later, Macron said he believed Trump would pull the US out of the Iran nuclear deal

"We have disagreements between the United States and France. It may happen, like in all families," Macron said.

Read more: French President Emmanuel Macron rocks US Congress with speech | News | DW | 25.04.2018

Immigration turmoil: Blaming Immigrants For Economic Troubles - by Basak Kus

Immigration has always been a prominent issue in American politics. It has become even more salient with the presidency of Donald Trump. A major debate at the moment concerns the economic impact of immigration—low-skilled immigration, in particular. It is argued that immigration has suppressed wages, discouraged unions, and exerted fiscal pressure on the welfare state.

How valid are these arguments? Is immigration really the culprit for these woes?

Let us start with welfare. It is argued immigrants make demands on the welfare state, while not paying enough taxes to cover the cost of the benefits they receive. This is not accurate. America’s welfare system is facing pressure; there is no dispute about that. However, immigration is not the cause. Non-citizens’ use of welfare benefits has declined significantly since the 1996 Welfare Reform no matter where you look: TANF, SSI, food stamps, Medicaid (see here, here and here). At the same time, there is evidence that, in urban areas, immigrant households are paying taxes at nearly the same rate as native households.

If the American welfare system is in distress, that is largely because of the revenue side. The tax revenue the US collects is relatively small, which renders the American welfare state ineffective and unable to meet the needs of the public, as political scientist Sven Steinmo’s work shows. To be specific, in 2015, US’s total tax revenue, at 26 percent of GDP, stood significantly below the OECD average of 34 percent, while in many European countries it exceeded 40 percent. The US’s total corporate tax revenue that year, at 2.2 percent of GDP was also below the OECD average.

Since the 1970s, the highest marginal income tax rate has nearly halved. The bottom line is, it is not the demand on the system caused by immigration that is threatening the welfare state, it is the tax revenue needed to fund it, which is not being collected. Unfortunately, the situation is not likely to improve with the recent passing of the new tax bill.

The truth is, immigrant workers themselves are the victims of the same structural forces that have contributed to the demise of unions: de-industrialization, financialization, and policies, which for decades prioritized market flexibility over wages, employment protection, and unionization rights. Depending on particular political and institutional factors, unions fared better in some countries than others in the face of these global challenges. To make some comparisons with America’s northern neighbor, the percentage of the foreign-born population has been increasing in both countries, and, in fact, it is now higher in Canada than in the US (20% versus 13%). Yet, unions seem to have been faring far better in Canada—both in the private and public sector, despite higher rates of immigration. To be more specific, America’s unionization rates remained very similar to Canada’s until the 1960s, whereas now trade union density in Canada is more than twice that of the United States. Why is this the case? That is a complex question, as Barry Eidlin shows, having to do with these nations’ particular contexts of labor mobilization and party politics.

The worry that immigrants take more than they give, that they would become a “public charge” rather than an “economic contributor” is not new. Cybelle Fox’s work shows, for instance, how deep the economically-based-anti-immigration sentiment ran during the New Deal, how “rumors circulated in the press that there were a million or more aliens on relief,” and how most Americans believed aliens should not receive relief and that those who did should be expelled from the country. These arguments surface time and again, are misguided and simply fuel new nativist attitudes. The overwhelming evidence is that the inflow of immigrants, whether high- or low-skilled, contributes to US economic growth and is not the cause of American workers’ plight.

Read more: Blaming Immigrants For Economic Troubles

Russia: Vladimir Putin's Top Critic Arrested as Russians Protest Election - by Damien Sharkov

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s most prominent critic has been arrested on the day of nationwide protests against the leader’s bid to stay in office for at least another six years.

Anti-corruption blogger Alexey Navalny mobilized two waves of protests in dozens of cities last year, incensed at the reported wealth of government officials under Putin’s protection.

As Putin announced last month he is seeking re-election in March’s presidential vote, Navalny has repeatedly called for a boycott at the ballot boxes in a bid to cast doubt on the legitimacy of Putin’s campaign by lowering turnout.

While Navalny is regularly arrested at his rallies, police went a step further in the early afternoon on Sunday, forcing their way into Navalny’s office and detaining six members of his team in a raid, according to independent monitoring group OVD-Info.

Protests gripped not only Moscow but Russia’s second most important city, St. Petersburg, as well as cities in the country’s east.

“They are the future of Russia,” Navalny tweeted with a photo of two young protesters. “Putin and his band of thieves are her past.”

Read more: Newsweek  Vladimir Putin's Top Critic Arrested as Russians Protest Election

Climate Change: The media is bad at covering climate change and worse at covering solutions

While President Trump has turned bashing the mainstream media into a form of performance art, sometimes the press does deserve some constructive criticism. For example, look no further than the media’s inadequate coverage of climate change and potential solutions—inadequate, at least, according to a new report by the watchdog group Public Citizen. The group looked at news stories from a number of major U.S. news outlets to see how–or if–they covered what many consider to be the greatest threat to national security. More specifically, the group looked at whether the media was able to connect dramatic weather events–which the world had plenty of in 2017–to climate change. It found a “decidedly low” number of pieces that mentioned climate change in relevant contexts–such as drought, floods, and disease. Instead, the term “climate change” most often occurred in stories about record heat, but not issues like wildfires, record rain fall, or hurricanes, tropical storms, and flooding.

In fact, Public Citizen found that just 4% of the many stories discussing hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria, or Nate made the connection to climate change.

Not only is the media barely mentioning climate change in context, but coverage of potential solutions to climate change is even more scanty–only 9% of all pieces mentioned solutions. Reporting on ways to possibly slow or even reverse climate change are critical now, particularly in light of the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, roll back U.S. climate policy, and promote coal.ML

Read more: Report: The media is bad at covering climate change and worse at cover

Europeans think they know America – but the gun control debate shows how little we do - OpEd by Suzanne Moore

The need for using guns is spoon fed into most American kids 

When I first went to my friend Sherry’s house for dinner, I couldn’t help noticing tiny holes all over the white kitchen cupboards. She was a new friend, my only friend, actually, as I had just moved to Miami.

Her mother came in and saw me looking and said: “That’s where Shane shot himself up.” Shane was Sherry’s cousin. Her mother was mostly annoyed that he had used Sherry’s dad’s gun. Whether this was an accident or a suicide I was too polite to ask. He was 16.

When Sherry’s dad sat down at the table, he showed me his huge collection of guns. One rifle after another. I sat there nodding, wondering what to say.

The American dream was what my father had offered my mother. Escape from small-town Suffolk to a place of Pontiacs and huge fridges. She liked Americans so much she married two of them, with an English man in between. “He bought me a lovely little handbag pistol,” she said of my father. This was as glamorous to her as the menthols she smoked: a special ladies’ gun.

This casual relationship to gun ownership is different in different parts of the US. For the US is several different countries. When, later in the 80s, I moved to New York, gun violence was seen as a black crime.

I had moved to the US because it seemed to offer everything I already knew and more. But very quickly I knew that this was an extremely alien culture. It is an illusion of popular culture that makes us think it isn’t. Somehow, though,  Europeans still think they “know” America because they once had brunch in Manhattan. Americans are just like us but with bigger portions, some still say. We can prescribe our liberal solutions to their terrible problems if they would only listen.

This is delusional. The unknowability of the US, even to itself, has been brought into focus by Donald Trump’s election. Nowhere is it more apparent than in the debate around gun control. An angry white man is in the White House. And angry white men who murder scores of people with guns are not terrorists, apparently.

The reaction to these massacres is that more people go out and buy guns to protect themselves. This mentality is incomprehensible to many of us. Never mind North Korea, Americans excel at killing each other with guns and opioids. The terror that they fear is coming over some mythical wall is in fact rooted inside their own culture.

The same figures are rehearsed after every massacre. It is estimated that the US has the highest number of privately owned guns in the world – in 2012, there were thought to be about 300m, held by about one-third of the population (enough for every man, woman and child in the country to have a gun). The second-ranked country is Yemen. In the US, 18 young people are killed every day by guns. Meanwhile, suicide – the majority by gun – is the second most common cause of death for Americans between 15 and 34.

One of the saddest parts of Gary Younge’s devastating book Another Day in the Death of America is when parents of children gunned down speak of relief. The mother of Tyshon Anderson, who was shot in a gang-related incident at 18, says: “I don’t have to worry about him being out there killing nobody else or nobody else trying to kill him.”

Every right-minded liberal can point to Australia, where gun control has brought the homicide rate right down. Legislation would implement background checks for gun ownership and yet …
Gun fairs are visited as if by Victorian anthropologists. Who are these people? The National Rifle Association is powerful, and, of course, the militias were out recently in Charlottesville. This is not “left-behind” America, but it is a part we find utterly foreign.

The anti-centralised state narrative may be wrapped in second-amendment bluster, but part of the problem with gun control is precisely this word “control”. Obamacare is rejected again as something to do with control. I offer no solution to the massacres. I don’t particularly like the US’s reliance on cars either, but I can’t see the country without them.

The now-familiar argument in the US on gun control is that of two different nations circling each other. It seems to me much of the US cannot be understood as a developed nation. Look at the levels of inequality, the infant mortality rates, the addiction, the self-inflicted wounds. The absolute rejection of a centralised state is part of its notion of freedom. That this culture is not ours, that it is something entirely different, gets brought home time and again.

When I was being taught to shoot by an American ex-cop, he emphasised that children must learn how to behave around guns. At what age, I asked him, did he think they should have their first gun?

“Three” he said.

Note EU-Digest: Let us also not forget that the US has coined the phrase "collateral damage" when they carpet bomb thousands of innocent civilians to their death in areas of conflict, they have basically created themselves in the name of "democracy" .

EU-Digest

Violence and religion: 'Violence more common' in Bible than Quran, text analysis reveals in "misleading study"- by Samuel Osborne

An analysis into whether the Quran is more violent than the Bible found killing and destruction occur more frequently in the Christian texts than the Islamic.

Investigating whether the Quran really is more violent than its Judeo-Christian counterparts, software engineer Tom Anderson processed the text of the Holy books to find which contained the most violence.

It took just two minutes for his software to read and analyse the three books.

 In a blog post, Mr Anderson explains: "The project was inspired by the ongoing public debate around whether or not terrorism connected with Islamic fundamentalism reflects something inherently and distinctly violent about Islam compared to other major religions."

Using text analytics software he had developed, named Odin Text, he analysed both the New International Version of both the Old and New Testaments as well as an English-language version of the Quran from 1957.

By categorizing words into eight emotions - Joy, Anticipation, Anger, Disgust, Sadness, Surprise, Fear/Anxiety and Trust - the analysis found the Bible scored higher for anger and much lower for trust than the Quran.

Further analysis found the Old Testament was more violent than the New Testament, and more than twice as violent as the Quran.

However, he adds: "First, I want to make very clear that we have not set out to prove or disprove that Islam is more violent than other religions.

"Moreover, we realize that the Old and New Testaments and the Quran are neither the only literature in Islam, Christianity and Judaism, nor do they constitute the sum of these religions’ teachings and protocols.

"I must also reemphasize that this analysis is superficial and the findings are by no means intended to be conclusive. Ours is a 30,000-ft, cursory view of three texts: the Quran and the Old and New  testament.

Note EU-Digest: the original headline of this article in the Independent is misleading and so is the study, specifically when it comes to the focus on violence, 

Case in point: has the bible ever inspired Christians to strap explosives to teenagers and have them walk into crowded market places and detonate themselves, causing their own death, and many other casualties, or inspired Christians to drive trucks or other vehicles into public gatherings and kill as many people as possible shouting "Jesus is great" ? 

On the other hand, one must also admit that in times of war, Christian nations military forces have killed millions of innocent civilians, afterwards calling the people killed by their indiscriminate bombings, "collateral damage".    

Maybe the conclusion is that evil things happen when people start interpreting religious scripture to fit their needsm and not the other way around?

Read more: 'Violence more common' in Bible than Quran, text analysis reveals | The Independent

Visit USA ? Have you ever smoked pot? Saying yes can get foreigners barred for life at US border - by Rob Hotakainen

USA Tourism: Pot smokers will be banned for life

Canada's likely move to completely legalize marijuana next year promises to produce immediate spillover effects in the United States, starting with increased confusion at the U.S.-Canadian border.

"I'm expecting my business to boom," said Len Saunders, an immigration attorney from Blaine, Wash.

With recreational marijuana already legal up and down the West Coast, from Alaska to California, he said, more Canadians may let down their guard and admit to U.S. authorities that they've used marijuana, reason enough to get foreigners barred from entering the country. Beyond that, pot retailers and legalization backers say it's difficult to predict exactly what might happen if Canada, as expected, becomes only the second nation in the world to fully legalize pot for anyone over 18 on July 1, 2018.

Even with such a big move, Jacob Lamont figures the Canadian customers will keep coming to Evergreen Cannabis, his pot shop in Blaine, just a few blocks from the U.S.-Canadian border.

"I enjoy my brothers and sisters from the north — obviously they support my business quite well," said Lamont, who estimates that Canadian customers make up 60 percent of his year-round business. "They still come down here. They buy a lot of milk, they buy cigarettes and they buy alcohol, because the taxation is so high up there. And I have a feeling they're going to follow suit with marijuana."

Oregon Democratic Rep. Earl Blumenauer, a longtime champion of legalization, said it could be a game changer for Congress.

"It completely changes the dynamic," he said. "Some regard Canada as the 51st state. This is going to make a big difference in terms of adjusting attitudes and accelerating progress. ... It's going to help us bring these things to a head."

Saunders scoffed at the idea that the United States would ever legalize marijuana with President Donald Trump, a teetotaler, in the White House.

"You have a president who not only has an attorney general (Jeff Sessions) who is going to fight drugs, but you have a president who's never even had a sip of alcohol," Saunders said.

One of Saunders' clients, Alan Ranta, 36, a freelance music journalist from Vancouver, British Columbia, got barred last year as he tried to drive his Toyota Yaris into Washington state. During questioning, he was handcuffed and told a U.S. border guard he had smoked marijuana in the past. Even though he was not carrying the drug with him at the time, Ranta said, he was told that under U.S. law he had committed "a crime involving moral turpitude."

"It lulls you into a false sense of security when you don't have anything on you and you've done nothing wrong and you're going to a place where it's legal," Ranta said. "You keep thinking, 'This is crazy, why am I getting in trouble?'"

He figures he was stopped because he and a friend were headed to a music festival, with a banana suit, tutus and a psychedelic top hat visible in the car: "If it's an electronic music festival, we like to dress up in weird things that we'd never wear day to day."

Saunders said that even Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, as a private citizen, could be denied entry since he had admitted to smoking marijuana in the past. Saunders is advising people not to lie to border authorities but to refuse to answer any questions about past pot use.

Note Almere-Digest: It is up to you now dear US visitors: either you lie, or choose another  tourist destination than Trumpland.

Read more: Have you ever smoked pot? Saying yes can get foreigners barred for life at US border

Syria: America struck Syria, and the media swooned. Trump will remember that. - by James Downie

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that Donald Trump is always in want of praise from his television. Though other presidents have been busy with the job of being president, cable news — and tweeting about what he’s watching on cable news — is the centerpiece of Trump’s morning and evening routines. It’s clear that what the media cover and how they portray him has a tremendous influence on Trump: This week, the pictures of Tuesday’s chemical attack by Syria played a crucial role in Trump’s decision to order a missile strike Thursday against a Syrian airfield. The president’s sensitivity to his media image makes it all the more important for outlets to be cautious in their coverage of the missile strike and its aftermath.

Fourteen years ago, the media breathlessly reported the George W. Bush administration’s charges against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and then rhapsodized over “shock and awe” in the war’s early months. One would hope that the United States’ subsequent struggle in Iraq (and Afghanistan) might lead talking heads to be more muted or skeptical this time, but Thursday’s coverage suggested otherwise. MSNBC anchor Brian Williams described Pentagon footage of missile launches as “beautiful.” The New York Times headlined one piece in treacly fashion, “On Syria attack, Trump’s heart came first” (before later changing it). Parades of guests largely praised the missile launches as the right course of action.

By contrast, the networks did not focus much on whether it was concerning that Trump had flipped within a week on intervening in Syria, or what Trump’s next steps would be. (It’s worth noting that, after sending 400 Marines to Syria in March, the administration has stopped disclosing how many U.S. troops are deployed there.) There was even less discussion of the legality of the strike, even though Congress had not authorized it. (The Trump administration even forgot to include a justification in its original set of internal talking points.) And absent almost entirely, with the notable exception of MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, was any extended dwelling on the United States’ not-so-stellar record of Mideast interventions.

Read more: America struck Syria, and the media swooned. Trump will remember that. - The Washington Post

US Economy:Renewable Energy Industry Creates Jobs 12 Times Faster Than Rest of US

The solar and wind industries are each creating jobs at a rate 12 times faster than that of the rest of the U.S. economy, according to a new report.

The study, published by the Environmental Defense Fund's (EDF) Climate Corps program, says that solar and wind jobs have grown at rates of about 20% annually in recent years, and sustainability now collectively represents four to four and a half million jobs in the U.S., up from 3.4 million in 2011.

The renewable energy sector has seen rapid growth over recent years, driven largely by significant reductions in manufacturing and installation costs. Building developers and owners have been fueled by state and local building efficiency policies and incentives, the report explains.

But, these gains are in contrast to Trump's support for fossil fuel production, his climate change denial and his belief that renewable energy is a "bad investment".

 "Trump's current approach is basically ignoring an entire industry that has grown up over the last 10 years or so and is quite robust," Liz Delaney, program director at EDF Climate Corps, told Business Insider.

Note EU-Digest President Trump, however, who does not believe in scientifically proven evidence that Carbon Dioxide Emissions caused by fossil fuels and a variety of other factors are the main cause for global warming, has today signed several sweeping executive orders taking aim at a number of his predecessor's climate policies,  Thereby turning back the clock of American advantages in the alternative energy sector for many years. It will also jeopardize America's current role in international efforts to confront climate change.

Renewable Energy Industry:  Creates Jobs 12 Times Faster Than Rest of US | Fortune.com

EU collecting intelligence on Donald Trump re: business activities and staff relations with Russian officials:- by Kurt Eichenwald

Donald Trump: "everyone is lying except me"

As part of intelligence operations being conducted against the United States for the last seven months, at least one Western European ally intercepted a series of communications before the inauguration between advisers associated with President Donald Trump and Russian government officials, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.

The sources said the interceptions include at least one contact between former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and a Russian official based in the United States. It could not be confirmed whether this involved the telephone call with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak that has led to Flynn’s resignation, or additional communications. The sources said the intercepted communications are not just limited to telephone calls: The foreign agency is also gathering electronic and human source information on Trump’s overseas business partners, at least some of whom the intelligence services now consider to be agents of their respective governments. These operations are being conducted out of concerns that Russia is seeking to manipulate its relationships with Trump administration officials as part of a long-term plan to destabilize the NATO alliance.

Moreover, a Baltic nation is gathering intelligence on officials in the Trump White House and executives with the president’s company, the Trump Organization, out of concern that an American policy shift toward Russia could endanger its sovereignty, according to a third person with direct ties to that nation’s government.

These operations reflect a serious breakdown in the long-standing faith in the direction of American policy by some of the country’s most important allies. Worse, the United States is now in a situation that may be unprecedented—where European governments know more about what is going on in the executive branch than any elected American official. To date, the Republican-controlled Congress has declined to conduct hearings to investigate the links between Trump’s overseas business partners and foreign governments, or the activities between Russia and officials in the Trump campaign and administration—the very areas being examined by the intelligence services of at least two American allies.

Some details about Trump’s business partners were passed to the American government months ago. For example, long before the president’s inauguration, German electronic surveillance determined that the father of Trump’s Azerbaijani business partner is a government official who laundered money for the Iranian military; that information was shared with the CIA, according to a European source with direct knowledge of the situation.

Of equal concern to our allies is Trump’s business partner in the Philippines, who is also the special representative to Washington of that country’s president, Rodrigo Duterte. This government official, Jose E.B. Antonio, is the head of Century Properties, which in turn is a partner with the president’s business in the construction of Trump Tower at Century City in Makati, Philippines. According to people with direct knowledge of the situation, a European intelligence service has obtained the contracts and other legal documents in the deal between the Trump Organization and Antonio. That deal has already resulted in large payments to Trump’s business, with millions of dollars more on the way—all coming from an agent of the Philippine president.

The financial relationship between an American president and the Philippine government comes at a time when the historic alliance between the West and the Southeast Asian country is under great stress.
Since the election last year of Duterte, a campaign of slaughter has gripped the Philippines, with death squads murdering thousands of suspected drug users in the streets. The carnage, which intelligence officials have concluded is being conducted with Duterte’s involvement, has been condemned throughout the Western world; the Parliament of the European Union and two United Nations human rights experts have urged Duterte to end the massacre.

Duterte has responded by signaling his government could tilt its alliances away from the West, instead turning to China as its primary ally. Such a move could be devastating, given that the American armed forces maintains large military bases there.  The situation with the Philippines “is already an enormous challenge,” one official with direct knowledge of the European intelligence operations said. “President Trump’s business there is a complicating factor that we are trying to assess.”

The information gathered by the Western European government has been widely shared among the NATO allies, although it is not clear how much has been provided to American intelligence officials. One source said that members of British Prime Minister Theresa May’s staff had been briefed on the surveillance findings prior to her meeting last month with Trump and that officials within the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel have also obtained the details.

These intelligence operations against the United States come as a result of allied concern about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s designs to damage NATO and whether Trump intends to follow a policy path that would embolden Russia. In addition, they are apprehensive about whether a newly strengthened Moscow would use its energy weapon—Western Europe obtains almost 40 percent of its natural gas from Russia—to push aggressive policies with little objection from the Trump White House

fficials in the Baltic states of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are particularly concerned. Given Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, they fear that, should the Trump administration drop sanctions intended to punish Moscow’s military adventurism, their nations’ futures could also be at risk. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said he will "protect" Russian speakers wherever they are; only 17 percent of Ukraine’s population is ethnic Russians. However, ethnic Russians make up 24 percent  and 27 percent  of the populations of Estonia and Latvia, respectively, according to the Foreign Policy Research Institute, an American think tank. And even though only 6 percent  of Lithuania’s population is ethnic Russian, its government brought back military conscription, which had been abandoned seven years earlier, following Moscow’s military invasion of Ukraine.

While nothing improper has been detected, the Baltic nation also launched an investigation by its intelligence service into the relationship between Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and his longtime personal friend, Igor Sechin, the head of the Kremlin-controlled oil company Rosneft. Sechin and Rosneft are on the blacklist of people and entities designated for sanctions following Russia’s incursion into Ukraine. He was Tillerson’s main business partner when he worked as the chief executive of Exxon Mobil and is a powerful figure in Russia who is both a former member of the FSB (the federal security service that is the primary successor to the Soviet Union’s KGB) and the former head of presidential administration in charge of the security services.

“Sechin’s power derives from his relationship with Putin,” according to a 2008 State Department cable sent from the embassy in Moscow. “As Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration in charge of the security services, there was little doubt about Igor Sechin's power.  He was widely regarded as a very influential member of Putin's inner circle, perhaps even the most influential, with the requisite FSB background to advance the President's (and his own) agenda.”

That influence, and the role Sechin could play in gaining greater power for Russia through oil sales if sanctions are dropped by the Trump administration, is what made him a primary target in the Baltic state’s intelligence investigation of Tillerson. Yet, back in America, the name Sechin was not even mentioned during Tillerson’s confirmation hearings before the Senate.

U.S. Allies Conduct Intelligence Operation Against Trump Staff and Associates, Intercepted Communications

Terrorism and Refugees: Records show that no refugees carried out in the United States

Trump’s executive order bans travel from seven countries — Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Iraq and Iran — but it does not ban travel from residents of Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. In addition, the K-1 fiancee program remains in place.

New York and New Jersey explosions

Ahmad Khan Rahimi faces an array of bombing, weapons and attempted murder charges in two on September 17, 2016, incidents. He is accused of detonating bombs in New Jersey and in New York’s Chelsea neighborhood. The explosion in Chelsea injured 29 people.

Rahimi was born in Afghanistan and first came to the United States in 1995, following several years after his father arrived seeking asylum. Rahimi became a naturalized US citizen in 2011. He had recently spent time in Afghanistan and Pakistan, officials said.

Neither Afghanistan nor Pakistan is on Trump’s list of banned countries.

Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting

Omar Mateen, the man who shot and killed 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando, was an American citizen living in Fort Pierce, Florida. He was born in New York, and his parents were from Afghanistan.

His widow, Noor Salman, was arrested earlier this month on charges of obstruction of justice and aiding and abetting her husband’s material support to ISIS. She grew up in Rodeo, California, and her parents immigrated to the United States from the West Bank in 1985, according to The New York Times.

Neither Afghanistan nor the West Bank is included on the list of banned countries.

Boston Marathon bombings

Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who carried out the Boston Marathon bombings in 2013, were born in Kyrgyzstan to parents originally from war-torn Chechnya.

The Tsarnaev family arrived in the United States when Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was 8 years old, and they applied for and were granted political asylum. The process for applying for political asylum is different from the process of arriving as a refugee.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the younger brother, became a naturalized citizen in September 2012.

Chechnya and Kyrgyzstan are not included on the list of banned countries.

World Trade Center, September 11, 2001

Read more: How many terror attacks have refugees carried out in the United States? | fox13now.com

Anti-Trump Protests: Over 1 million join anti-Trump women's marches worldwide-by Nancy Benac

Anti-Trump Demonstrations around the world

In a global exclamation of defiance and solidarity, more than 1 million people rallied at women's marches in the nation's capital and cities around the world Saturday to send President Donald Trump an emphatic message on his first full day in office that they won't let his agenda go unchallenged.

"Welcome to your first day, we will not go away!" marchers in Washington chanted

Many of the women came wearing pink, pointy-eared "pussyhats" to mock the new president. Plenty of men joined in, too, contributing to surprising numbers everywhere from New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Los Angeles to Mexico City, Paris, Berlin, London, Prague and Sydney.

The Washington rally alone attracted over 500,000 people according to city officials — apparently more than Trump's inauguration drew on Friday. It was easily one of the biggest demonstrations in the city's history, and as night fell, not a single arrest was reported.

The international outpouring served to underscore the degree to which Trump has unsettled people in both hemispheres.

"We march today for the moral core of this nation, against which our new president is waging a war," actress America Ferrera told the Washington crowd. "Our dignity, our character, our rights have all been under attack, and a platform of hate and division assumed power yesterday. But the president is not America. ... We are America, and we are here to stay."

Turnout in the capital was so heavy that the designated march route alongside the National Mall was impassable. Protesters were told to make their way to the Ellipse near the White House by way of other streets, triggering a chaotic scene that snarled downtown Washington. Long after the program had ended, groups of demonstrators were still marching and chanting in different parts of the city.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer had no comment on the march except to note that there were no firm numbers for turnout.

Note EU-Digest:  As one participant noted during the Washington Rally: "This is not only just a rally, this is the beginning of a revolution to end the takeover of America by a delusional  President supported by corporate interests and a corrupt political system.
Thousands of women took to the streets of European capitals to join "sister marches" in Asia against newly installed U.S. President Trump ahead of a major rally in Washington expected to draw nearly a quarter of a million people.

Waving banners with slogans like "Special relationship, just say no" and "Nasty women unite," British demonstrators gathered outside the American embassy in Grosvenor Square before heading to a rally in central Trafalgar Square.

Worldwide some 670 marches were held, according to the organizers' website which says more than two million marchers protested against Trump, who was sworn in as the 45th U.S. president on this past Friday.

Read More: Over 1 million join anti-Trump women's marches worldwide

Loss Of Political Stature: How the United States and UK Risk Their Global Goodwill - by Shihoko Goto

Isolationists are gaining ground worldwide. From worries about losing jobs to concerns about the erosion of social values and cultural norms, disengagement and retreat from the international stage is seen as a viable solution to the looming challenges ahead.

The most glaring fact is that Britain and the United States are at the forefront of seeing withdrawal as an answer to problems facing a rapidly evolving world.

But far from offering any longer-term solutions to the real worries of losing out to international competition, the isolationists are at a real risk of losing their political, military and social and economic power.

With Brexit, non-EU countries are reassessing how they continue to do business in Europe, as Britain can no longer remain their gateway to Europe.

Never mind that for countries like Japan, Britain had been their base in Europe. Corporations including Toyota and Hitachi created over 140,000 jobs across UK as a result.

But while Brexit supporters have touted that leaving the European Union will enhance British economic competitiveness, such signs have yet to emerge.

In fact, the IMF predicted in October that Britain’s GDP growth will fall to 1.1% in 2017, compared to 2.2% growth in 2015. This is a direct result of Brexit and inspire of the British pound’s depreciation.

With even the staunchest of U.S. and British allies frustrated by their retreat, those supporters are already beginning to take matters into their own hands.

But the real cost of London’s isolationist policy may well be that it has shaken the foundations of relations over the decades that spills out well beyond the economic realm.

The intense national debates within Britain ahead of the referendum underscored the unexpected strength of the anti-trade, anti-globalization and ultimately, anti-foreigner stance of many voters.

With popular sentiment becoming more insular, Britain’s reliability as an ally in diplomacy and in security issues has come into question. the concerns are thus not just limited to trade relations with Europe and beyond.

Moreover, confidence in a Britain that has the will and the wherewithal to be a leader in addressing transnational issues, not least to ensure global economic stability, has faltered as well.

In short, the Brexit referendum that supposedly was to make Britain stronger has actually weakened its position on the global stage, at least in the near term.

Still, Britain is not alone in paying a price for its strategic isolationism. International disillusionment with the United States has also begun, especially as Washington continues to shy away from a global trade deal that it has been instrumental in crafting.

The economic merits of signing on to the Trans-Pacific Partnership aside, the fact that the United States could walk out of a negotiation at the eleventh hour, that it had been an integral part of puts U.S. credibility on the line.

As governments of the 11 other TPP member countries are pushing hard to have the deal ratified by their legislators, the fact that both U.S. presidential candidates are united in rejecting the TPP – at least as it currently stands – has been alarming.

In particular, blaming foreign competition for a growing income divide in the United States can hardly be seen as encouraging for overseas investors. At best, such “reasoning” is a wild stretch of the truth.

The trend to blame outsiders for many U.S. economic woes, when domestic reforms and reinvestment into projects, especially infrastructure, could do much to spur growth, has been alarming.

Like Britain, the United States continues to enjoy much international goodwill as a global leader in promoting democracy and free markets that it can continue to draw upon.

Yet, as public opinion in both countries continue to support greater protectionist measures and scaling back on global commitments, that goodwill may whittle down far more rapidly than expected. 

Read moew: How the United States and UK Risk Their Global Goodwill - The Globalist

Foreign Policy Objectives By US GOP and Dem. Pres Candidates Increase Global War Risks

Vladimir Frokov at the Moscow Times writes: "When Russia entered the war in Syria exactly a year ago, it seemed like a clever political gambit.

Making a virtue out of necessity, Moscow intervened to save its embattled ally, Syrian President Bashar Assad. Back then, Assad's regime was teetering on the brink of defeat by armed opposition and radical islamist forces, including terror groups like Islamic State (IS) and Al-Qaeda affiliate the Al-Nusra Front. A short, but intensive air campaign to support the ground offensive by the Syrian army and Iranian allies was conceived as a way of reversing the military situation on the ground. The calculation was that Assad could then be pushed into a political settlement that would have kept him in power as a bulwark against the chaos and instability of the U.S.-promoted Arab Spring.

Presenting this operation as Russia’s contribution to the war against IS, already waged by the U.S.-led international coalition in Iraq and Syria, would have given Moscow coveted international legitimacy. It would have secured even more important, but unarticulated Russian objectives. The first was to break through diplomatic isolation by the West, which was Russia's reality after its actions in Ukraine in 2014. The second — to reestablish Russia as a great power with a global reach that could challenge the U.S. dominated world order.

One year on, the results are mixed. The objective of shoring up the regime has been met. Assad has regained control over the strategically important parts of Syria and can no longer be overthrown, provided Russia and Iran keep fighting for him. The moderate opposition groups have been weakened and are merging with jihadi terrorists, thus ceasing to be a legitimate alternative to the regime.

At the same time, Russia is still stuck fighting the jihadists in increasingly bloody battles in Aleppo and Idlib. A quick exit from this war is no longer feasible, since it would result in the regime’s collapse. Assad disrupts Russia’s efforts at political settlement as he has no incentive to see Russia exit the war.

The goal of securing a strategic breakthrough with the West and geopolitical parity with the United States remains elusive. Russia has made itself indispensable in Syria, but beyond that, the West has not negotiated with Russia over Ukraine and the post-Cold War security order in Europe.

Washington worked closely with Moscow on securing a durable cessation of hostilities, and moving toward a political settlement in Syria. Russia came close to what U.S. President Barack Obama’s former Middle East hand Phil Gordon described as a “clean win” in Syria with the Geneva deal of Sept. 12. This deal would have prevented regime change in Damascus for the foreseeable future, facilitated direct military and intelligence cooperation with the United States against terrorist groups, and reduced the cost of conflict for Russia.

But this agreement is now unraveling. It has been beset by mutual recriminations over its implementation, highfalutin rhetoric and more war. With the regime offensive in eastern Aleppo underway, Syria is turning into a new area of confrontation and potentially direct military clash between Russia and the United States.

The deal was probably doomed from the start. Both sides knew they could not enforce their end of the bargain — pushing Assad and the rebels into a lasting ceasefire and the resumption of the UN talks on political transition. The Russians knew the United States was not in a position to deliver on separating the moderate rebels from al-Nusra. Nonetheless, they pushed through this demand to secure unfettered bombing rights against the largest islamist opposition groups Ahrar al-Sham and Jaish al-Islam.

The United States hoped Moscow could ground Assad’s air force to stop attacks on civilians. But Assad wanted to defeat the rebels in Aleppo at all costs, since it would have ended the rebellion in large cities. Moscow eventually agreed with Damascus that securing a military victory in Aleppo was more important than a shaky deal with Washington to freeze the stalemate.

Now the pressure is on the Obama administration “to raise the costs for Assad and Moscow” for their indiscriminate bombing in Aleppo. “Non-diplomatic” options are being developed like more weapons deliveries to the moderate rebels with long-range artillery and MANPADS thrown in, or stand-off strikes with cruise missiles against the regime’s air assets and airfields.

If approved, such strikes would plunge Washington into direct military confrontation with Russia. Moscow would try to shoot down U.S. missiles with its advanced air defenses, and escalate bombing raids against rebel supply lines. Staring down Washington would hand Moscow everything it wanted: a recognition by the United States of Russia’s equal status and an invitation to discuss Russia’s geopolitical interests. 

The latest rhetorical overkill employed by Moscow — accusing U.S. State Department spokesman John Kirby of instigating terrorist acts in Russian cities — may indicate the Russians are prepared to duke it out.

Obama, who has been masterfully dodging a fight with Putin, would be walking straight into his trap".

Unfortunately there is no major difference between Republican and Democratic parties in deciding US foreign policy, because both major parties are serving the same interests of the political elite which makes the present situation extremely dangerous.

On one issue after another, large numbers of Democrats in Congress have endorsed relatively hawkish policies, because they still assume that this is the politically safe and necessary position that they have to take.

Prominent Republicans who have served in the national security arena – or share the nation-building worldview of George W. Bush — are saying they’d rather have Hillary Clinton as president than Donald Trump.

“I’m supporting Hillary, and the main reason I’m supporting her is that she is for American engagement in the world,” R. Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of state during the George W. Bush administration told the Wall Street Journal.

Other danger signals of a more hawkish Democratic Presidency under Hillary Clinton are that recently the Clinton campaign launched “Together for America,” an initiative to recruit GOP endorsements, and announced support from nearly 50 Republicans, including George W. Bush’s former Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte. The announcement came two days after Politico reported, citing a person close to Clinton, that the Democratic presidential nominee’s campaign reached out to Kissinger and Bush’s former secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice.

Obviously when Clinton wins it will be "payback time"

For Republicans, international concerns now dominate. When asked about what they feel is the nation’s most important problem, 42% of Republicans cite an international concern – terrorism, the Islamic militant group ISIS or another national security issue – while just half as many (21%) mention an economic issue.

Fully 72% of Republicans say that using overwhelming force is the best way to defeat global terrorism. Among Democrats, just 27% favor the use of overwhelming military force, while 66% say relying too much on military force creates hatred that leads to more terrorism.

Fully 68% of Republicans view Islam as more likely than other religions to encourage violence, compared with just 30% of Democrats. When this question was first asked, in March 2002, just 33% of Republicans (and 22% of Democrats) said Islam was more likely than other religions to encourage violence among its believers.

All by all a very scary scenario when we look at the upcoming US elections and the future. Hillary Clinton is probably the safer bet of the two candidates, only if she can be held in check by Democratic party moderates like Bernie Sanders  and Elizabeth Warren.

As to Donald Trump, apart from all the negatives that the "establishment" has cast upon him, did say about President Putin of Russia that "He is really very much of a leader". He also has repeatedly said that if he wins the presidency in November, he'd like to strengthen ties with Russia and work with Putin to defeat the terrorist group ISIS.

The world certainly is in eminent danger if "cool heads don't prevail". 

EU-Digest

USA: The Political Rhetoric of Perpetual War - by Robert Crawford

To start with a quick overview of our present situation. Most of you are familiar with this recent history; yet, it bears repeating. For 15 years now, since 2001, the US has been at war.

The longest single battlefield has been the war in Afghanistan and in neighboring Pakistan Tribal Areas. It has spanned two administrations. The Taliban remains undefeated and is gaining ground and war lords pursue their own political and military agendas.

The 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, now almost universally acknowledged to be one of the greatest military mistakes in recent times, has virtually destroyed a country that had been created by the imperial powers during WWI. Warfare between a Shia dominated Iraqi government and the Sunnis—now mostly controlled by ISIS—has become a struggle for territory and cities. This war has been internationalized.

The Syrian civil war, which has become another international war, continues its rising death toll and propels the greatest refugee crisis since WWII.

The U.S., British and French air war on Gadhafi’s Libya in 2011 has resulted in another failed state, ongoing civil war, and more U.S. and allied bombing.

Insurgencies in Yemen, Somalia, northern Nigeria, along with military attempts to suppress them continue to cause huge numbers of civilian casualties and further displacement. These conflicts have also been internationalized.

Since 2006, the Israeli siege of Gaza and the essentially one-sided warfare against Hamas, culminating in the brutal assault of 2014, has caused extraordinary suffering. The government-backed settler land grab in the West Bank makes the prospects of a just peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians more remote. In all these wars, civilians are the primary victims.

As you know, the US is neck deep in this descent into perpetual and proliferating warfare. Historian Andrew Bacevich calls it America’s WWIV. Despite repeated military failures and negative unanticipated consequences, the US still pursues the illusion that it can shape the contemporary Middle East through a combination of drone warfare, bombing, Special Operations and other covert actions. It continues to invest heavily in the militaries of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and other U.S. allies.

American military dominance (which must be distinguished from effectiveness) is the most fundamental fact of today’s international order. The U.S., after all, maintains a projection of global power with hundreds of thousands troops stationed abroad” who occupy or use “some 761 ‘sites’ in 39 countries”—what critic Chalmers Johnson called “an empire of bases.”

Anyone with eyes wide open must come to this topic with more questions than answers—to say nothing about the burden of grief and even despair that many of us carry. I continue to struggle with both the questions and the difficult emotions.

For those of us hoping for a more peaceful world and a more peaceful American foreign policy, the core political question—what is to be done?—is perplexing. As long as American soldiers are not dying in significant numbers, Americans, for the most part, seem uninterested—and certainly uniformed—about US wars and their consequences. The corporate controlled media are no help; instead, they do everything possible to hinder understanding and serious debate. Historical amnesia is a particularly American affliction. Each of these obstacles are serious problems we need to confront.

My topic, here, is the political rhetoric of the 2016 presidential election. Even though it is a small part of the puzzle, the rhetoric of the presidential candidates reveals a great deal about the historical moment and the larger forces that shape this nation’s perpetual wars.

My first contention is that there is an ideology of militarism that dominates our political culture and it is being perpetuated by both the Democratic and Republican nominees for president, despite their significant differences.

We know or should know how militarist ideology exploits our fears of terrorism, and perpetuates the illusion that our safety depends on the worldwide projection and use of military power.

We know or should know that this ideology was developed and honed throughout the Cold War and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the national security establishment had to find a new enemy to justify its continued rule.

We know or should know that militarism is an ideology that denies its own contributions to the continual escalation of violence in the Middle East and to terrorist attacks in the West.

Note EU-Digest: What is probably most amazing, reading the above report, is that the EU member states don't need to be geniuses to figure out that something in the equation related to their US servitude, when it comes to US foreign and military policies, has not only been a complete failure, but also a financial drain on their budgets. Europe, and specially the EU needs to seriously start thinking about developing its own more independent foreign policy and stop supporting US military adventures whereever they may occur.  

Read more: The Political Rhetoric of Perpetual War

Middle East: UN Suspends all aid to Syria

UN Suspending Aid to Syria
When will this carnage end? Russia, US, EU, Britain, France, NATO, Turkey are all responsible for not doing anything, instead of blaming each other, while the weapons industry is laughing all the way to the bank. Scandelous and shameless.

http://flip.it/mGzz_2