ANNUAL ADVERTISING RATES FOR INSURE-DIGEST

Annual Advertisement Rates

Monday, October 31, 2016

The Netherlands - Almere, one of Europe's newest and most modern Cities celebrates it's 40th anniversary

Almere-Europe's most modern city 
celebrates its 40th anniversary
From the moment of its establishment in 1976, Almere has been one of the fastest growing cities in Europe.

It was initially developed as a suburban area in the east of Amsterdam, however, it has grown into the status of being Holland’s most exemplary new town.

In just 40 years it has attracted over 200,000 residents and approximately 17,000 businesses.

Almere is the largest city in the province of Flevoland and now also the seventh largest city in the Netherlands.

This November Almere celebrates it's 40th anniversary.

Almere-Digest, Insure Digest , EU-Digest, Turkish-Digest  congratulates the Municipality and Citizen's of Almere!

Almere-Digest

Sunday, October 30, 2016

Personal Debt: What's More Scary? A Haunted House or Your Credit Card Debt? - by Jean Chatzky

Ghosts and witches and monsters — oh my! Halloween brings out so many things meant to send a shiver down your spine. But there are some things even more frightening than Frankenstein, and many of them are financial.

How about the fact that the total amount of consumer credit card debt is over $729 billion and climbing, according to a NerdWallet study? That's $15,675 owed by the average U.S. household carrying credit card debt. Or that one in three Americans has $0 saved for the future? Or that the IRS saw a 400 percent surge in phishing and malware incidents during the 2016 tax season?

Shriek-worthy, indeed. So here are some suggestions for how to get out of the scariest financial situations.

For complete report click here: What's More Scary? A Haunted House or Your Credit Card Debt? - NBC News

Saturday, October 29, 2016

Netherlands Insurance Industry: NN Group Offers $2.7 Billion for Delta Lloyd - by Maarten van Tartwijk and Rory Gallivan

Dutch insurer and asset manager NN Group NV has made an offer to buy local rival Delta Lloyd NV for €2.4 billion ($2.7 billion), a move that could spur long-awaited consolidation in the Netherlands’ insurance market.

NN said Wednesday it is offering €5.30 a share for Delta Lloyd, a 29% premium to Delta Lloyd’s closing price on Tuesday. A combination would create a well-diversified financial services company, increase scale and reduce costs, it said.

“We believe there is a clear and compelling logic to bring consolidation to the Dutch insurance market through a combination,” said NN Chief Executive Lard Friese.

Read more: NN Group Offers $2.7 Billion for Delta Lloyd - WSJ

Germany: Alternative Energy - Windpower: Siemens Wins Orders for Five Onshore Projects in Northern Germany

Direct-drive wind turbines from Siemens are gaining ground on the German market: Siemens has now received five orders for 23 of these state-of-the-art wind turbines. Two of the wind farms are situated in Germany's northernmost state of Schleswig- Holstein, while the other three are to be erected in Lower Saxony. Installation of all five projects, comprising anywhere from one to eight of these gearless units each, is to be completed by the spring of 2017.

The first Siemens model SWT-3.3-130 wind turbine to be installed in Germany is to be erected in Schleswig-Holstein by the end of this year in the municipality of Südermarsch near the town of Husum. This unit that Siemens is installing for Südermarsch Wind GmbH & Co. has an 85-meter hub height on a steel tower and a rotor diameter of 130 meters designed to operate in moderate wind speeds and deliver a rated electrical generating capacity of 3.3 megawatts (MW). Six other wind turbines of this model make up the Damme Wind Farm project being erected near the city of the same name in Lower Saxony. Owing to the wind conditions at this site, however, Siemens will install the units on steel tube towers with a hub height of 135 meters. Both projects are scheduled to go on line by the end of this year.

The five model SWT-3.0-113 wind turbines that Siemens is currently installing on steel towers for the Beedenbostel Wind Farm near the town of Celle in Lower Saxony have a hub height of 115 meters. These 3-MW-Class units with rotors measuring 113 meters in diameter are replacing five older turbines at the farm as part of a repowering project. The five new wind turbines are to take up operation in early 2017. The operator is the Dean Group headquartered in the town of Neustadt am Rübenberge.

Siemens is delivering eight more wind turbines of the same model to its customers innoVent and Jade Concept for the Bollenhagen Wind Farm in the Wesermarsch marshlands near the city of Oldenburg. The hub height of these units is 92.5 meters. Planning calls for this 24-MW wind park to begin commercial operation already by the beginning of 2017. While the wind turbines Siemens is supplying its customer Denker & Wulf AG are of equal hub height, they are model SWT-3.2-113 units destined for the Quarnbek Wind Farm project. This trio of wind turbines, delivering a total output of 9.6 MW, is currently being installed in the community of the same name on the A210 Autobahn between Rendsburg and Kiel. Working in close cooperation with the developer, the project team accelerated construction times so that commissioning can take place before the end of this year.


Read more: Siemens Wins Orders for Five Onshore Projects in Northern Germany

Friday, October 28, 2016

Weapons Industry: “War is Good For Business”: Is the EU About to Grant a 3.5 Billion Euro Subsidy to Weapons Companies? - by Andrew Smith

Recently the European Parliament will be debating the general EU budget for 2017/18. The main focus of the debate is likely to be the knock-on impacts of Brexit and the falling pound, infrastructure, migration and the many other major challenges facing the continent.

Understandably, a lot of significant items are likely to be overlooked, including a crucial point, that could see the EU taking steps towards adopting an institutional military-industrial strategy. Buried within the budget is the EU’s first proposed Preparatory Action for defence research.

If the budget is agreed, this would effectively be a trial-run that would see the European Parliament subsidising military research for the first time. It would represent an important precedent. At present, the European Commission finances exclusively civilian or dual-use R&D through its €80 billion Horizon 2020 programme.

The proposal, would cover the period of 2017-2020 at the estimated cost of€50-100 million – paving the way for a full research programme that the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), which made the proposal in the first place, estimates would cost at least €3.5 billion between 2021-2027.

Right from the start, the process has been influenced by those with a vested interest. The group that put the EUISS report together included high level representation from some of the biggest arms companies in the world. In fact, the majority of those on the Group of Personalities that the EUISS appointed to develop proposals are from the arms trade, so the pro-military conclusion is not particularly surprising.

In effect the arms industry has been brought in to advise the EU on military strategy and reached the conclusion that what is needed is more military spending.

Needless to say, arms companies already benefit from huge amount of public money. A lot of arms company R&D is already funded by member states. Supporters of the change have made clear that they do not foresee any parallel reduction of national budgets for military research, with manyn Member States still bound by their NATO commitments.

There is no question that security is a major challenge and that the EU has a critical role to play in addressing it. However, threats to security are multi-faceted and the solutions that the EU proposes to address them must be clearly based on the Treaties and core values of the EU.

The EU was envisaged as a peace project. The European Parliament stood up for those values this February, when it voted to support an arms embargo against Saudi Arabia due to its devastating bombardment of Yemen. Many of the weapons being used in the destruction are made in Europe, with many being manufactured by the same companies that would benefit from the proposed subsidy.

The EU should be investing in jobs and research projects that promote sustainable industries and contribute to the prevention of conflicts. This proposal could mean taking funds from other projects for something that would only benefit those that profit from war and conflict.

In a busy news agenda, the change may not be generating the headlines that the precedent deserves, but it is getting grass-roots opposition, with over 62,000 people having signed a European Network Against Arms Trade petition to oppose the spending.

Underpinning the opposition is the broader question of what kind of Europe we want. Do we want a social Europe that invests in people and peace, or do we want one that focuses on arms, militarism and war?

As UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has said ‘the World is over-armed and peace is under-funded.’ The EU could play a big role in changing this, but right now it risks doing the exact opposite

There is an international dimension to it too. The ADS, a trade body for arms companies, is clear about its motivations for supporting the proposal, which it says is focused on trying to “maintain and improve long-term competitiveness in the European Defence Industry.”

No explanation is provided for where the money would come from. Would it mean cutting 3.5bn EUR from other budgets? What would be cut in order to fund it? There is also very little explanation of how it will be spent or what checks-and-balances will be in place to stop it from becoming a blank-cheque for arms companies.

Do we want a social Europe that invests in people and peace, or do we want one that focuses on arms, militarism and war?

Read more:  Is the EU About to Grant a 3.5 Billion Euro Subsidy to Weapons Companies?

Thursday, October 27, 2016

The Netherlands: Dutch PM criticized for "vagueness" on Royal family tax files - by Janene Pieters

A number of parties in the Tweede Kamer - the lower house of Dutch parliament - criticized Prime Minister Mark Rutte for the "vague" manner in which he handles files on the Royal family.

According to the parties, Rutte was not transparent in his information and a series of incidents involving the royals is bad for support of the monarchy, NU.nl reports.

The parties point to an alleged tax deal in which the Royal family is compensated for the taxes they pay, controversial sales of art, high maintenance costs of their  Golden Carriage and the their yacht the Groene Draeck and a high allowance crown princess Amalia will receive when she turns 18.

D66 leader Alexander Pechtold accused Rutte of making the King unnecessarily vulnerable by not being open, fair and transparent" about the Royals.

Read more: Dutch PM criticized for "vagueness" on Royal family files | NL Times

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Banking Industry: Beware the Banksters: Three Banking Syndicates Want to Enslave You


"are you safe from the Banking Industry ?"
If you have been following our articles, you know that we call criminal bankers by this name. They are the modern-day version of gangsters, robber barons, bank robbers, and carpetbaggers. They wear suits, not bandit masks; drive Mercedes and BMWs, instead of riding horses; and use fiat currency and fancy financial instruments, not guns, to hold you up.
 
Previously, we have lumped them all into one moniker, but the time has come for us to examine just who these thieves and robbers are so that you will know who your enemy is. Just as we showed you in our article War of the Titans: Globalism v Nationalism, WWIII has been ongoing for many years, whether we knew it or not. We, regular folks, just living our lives in law-abiding ways, didn’t know we had an enemy or that there was a war going on that had the goal of stealing our country and shredding our constitution. 

The globalists were very cagey in hiding their war against us over the last one hundred years. They set up a system so that we thought our disputes were between Republicans and Democrats, one country against another, or any number of factions that they manufactured for us to keep us from seeing behind their masks. But these were just distractions, like battle camouflage, to keep us from knowing and naming our enemy.

The globalist is our enemy. Thanks to everyone in alternative and social media, we have created our own intel system and the globalist can no longer hide behind their media sycophants. They are reporters, media moguls, politicians, professors and educators, Hollywood distractors, bureaucrats, and anyone who wants to put international agendas ahead of national sovereignty. 

Banksters are Globalists
 
Near the apex of their global pyramid structure, is a group of banker interests that want to gobble up the world and create a 21st Century version of feudalism. We the People will be their serfs and servants. Once locked into this feudal system at a global scale, there will be no place that we or our children can go to escape their control. Ever.  

So let’s get busy and learn who these groups are so that, like globalism, we can call them out and get ground control of this battle. At the end of the article, we have some marching instructions (suggestions) that can actually undo the banksters’ plans for taking control of We the People.

Equally important is to provide you information so that your family’s savings and investments are not stolen by these bandits and thugs. 

For the complete report click here: Beware the Banksters: Three Banking Syndicates Want to Enslave You | The Millennium Report

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

US Economy: AT&T’s Merger Could Be A Bad Sign For The Economy - by Ben Casselman

Almost as soon as word leaked out Friday about AT&T’s plan to buy Time Warner (the companies formally announced the deal late Saturday), politicians from both major parties lined up to oppose it.
Donald Trump and Sens. Tim Kaine, Bernie Sanders and Al Franken all
either raised questions about the merger or outright called for the
government to block it. Sens. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Amy Klobuchar,
D-Minn., who lead the Senate’s antitrust subcommittee, promised to hold hearings on the deal. In the coming months, we’ll hear lots more about vertical versus horizontal integration, market concentration and the implications of consolidation in the media industry.

Read more: AT&T’s Merger Could Be A Bad Sign For The Economy | FiveThirtyEight

Monday, October 24, 2016

TTIP: Signing EU-US TTIP Free Trade Deal Impossible Without EU-Canada CETA

The EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) free-trade deal can only be signed, if the European Union and Canada seal their Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), a source in the EU Parliament told RIA Novosti Monday.

The European Council failed to approve CETA due to Wallonia, a region in Belgium, not giving the country its approval to sign the agreement. The Walloon government voted against the trade deal for fear it would water down EU labor, consumer and environmental protections, and give too much power to multinationals.

Read moreL Signing EU-US TTIP Free Trade Deal Impossible Without EU-Canada CETA

Sunday, October 23, 2016

Banking Industry: Americans spent $11 billion in bank fees in 2015 — here’s how to avoid them

Some 10 million U.S. households don’t use any type of bank account for their money, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. While some people who don’t use a bank say it’s because they don’t have enough money, a third of them say it’s because they have a fear of high or unpredictable account fees. They may be right to have that concern.

Banks made about $11.2 billion in fees from consumers’ overdraft and non-sufficient fund penalties in 2015, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

And just 8% of account holders (typically those with low incomes, and who also may be young) carry overdrafts and pay about 75% of all overdraft fees, according to the CFPB.

More than two-thirds of people who consistently overdraft said they would prefer to just have their transaction declined instead, according to research from the Pew Charitable Trusts, a nonprofit based in Philadelphia. But they don’t realize they could have it that way now. Since 2010, banks have been required by law to let consumers opt in to allow their accounts to be overdrafted (if they don’t, their transactions would be declined); still, according to Pew, 52% of overdrafters don’t remember opting in. Thaddeus King, an officer for Pew’s consumer banking project, said it’s also possible to revoke permission for overdrafting, which is an option some might want to consider.

Read more: Americans spent $11 billion in bank fees in 2015 — here’s how to avoid them - MarketWatc

Saturday, October 22, 2016

China’s wind power industry faces slowdown as tariff cuts loom

Mainland China’s wind farm developers and equipment suppliers face a substantial drop off in installation volume in 2018 when Beijing’s proposed cuts to wind power tariffs are expected to take effect, industry executives warned.

Profitability will also be hampered by further power grid bottlenecks and intensifying competition over price and sales volume amid wider capacity oversupply, they told the China Windpower conference.

“What worries us is [plant] utilisation, which has been falling much more than expected,” said Alvario Bilbao, the Asia Pacific chief executive of Gamesa, one of the world’s largest wind turbine makers.

The Spanish firm has stayed in the China market – the world’s largest - despite its market share dropping to 0.27 per cent in 2014 from 36 per cent a decade earlier due to stiff competition from domestic rivals.

Read more: China’s wind power industry faces slowdown as tariff cuts loom | South China Morning Pos

Thursday, October 20, 2016

Netherlands Judiciary: Poorly regulated debt collection agencies in the Netherlands terrorizing indebted citizens

Dutch collection cgencies  terrorizing practices
Many Dutch consumers who find themselves in a debt collection process are harassed  by the debt collectors, who are poorly regulated by the Dutch judicial system, and they usually end-up deeper in debt.

This shocking finding has become evident from a recent analysis made by the Dutch Consumer Association (Nederlandse Consumentenbond) based on complaints they received at their "Debt Complain Center hotline", opened in the spring of this year 

On this Hotline more than 200 personal, often deeply disturbing and emotional stories, have disclosed how inhumane and threatening people are treated by these collection agencies

The Consumers Association says the situation has gone totally out of control, and Bart Combée, Director of the Dutch consumer association says: “the human dimension in this process is completely lost", says Bart Combée.

If consumers want to contact the collection agency, they often get no answer, or the door slammed in their face, even if you dispute a claim "Once the collection train starts running, it can not be stopped, other than by paying their usually inflated bill ”, says Bart Combée.

The most common complaints about the Dutch debt collection processes are about their rapidly increasing and not clearly specified billing costs.

Threatening letters about wage garnishment, foreclosure sales, or lawsuits. Even if the debt collection agencies are not empowered to do so, or when it only concerns a debt of  less than 100 euro's.

The Consumer Association wants the Judiciary to establish clear and precise regulations concerning the procedures to be followed by Dutch collection agencies and they want the Judiciary to firmly intervene when collection agencies violate these rules.

They also recommend that companies, collection agencies and bailiffs should be more accessible and willing to offer more customization to the process.

The Consumer Association also wants to see that the intimidating behavior of the collection agencies be addressed immediately.

Some claims are even based on debts made by deceased  parents, which are transferred to their children, under one of the many archaic and outdated laws still on the books in the Netherlands, labelled under hereditary responsibilities
 
The Dutch Consumer Agency has also requested the Netherlands Parliament to intervene in this matter, but not much has been done so far.

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Health care: Why hospital infections are a bigger threat than HIV, influenza and tuberculosis

If you're in hospital, take care - take very good care. A new study suggests the risk of hospital infections is higher than that of a number of global infectious diseases together, including HIV and flu.

You would think it was the other way around. But six healthcare-associated infections are a bigger burden on hospitals than influenza, HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis together.

The big six are pneumonia, urinary tract and surgical site infections, Clostridium difficile (CDI, which results in antibiotic-associated diarrhea), neonatal sepsis and primary bloodstream infections. And they are all things you can contract while being treated for other things in hospital.

That's the conclusion of a study on Tuesday in Plos Medicine, a peer-reviewed open-access journal published by the San Francisco-based Public Library of Science.

Hospital acquired infections (HAIs) are the "most frequent adverse event in healthcare delivery worldwide," according to the World Health Organization (WHO) - with hundreds of millions of patients affected every year across the globe.

The EU and the European Economic Area face more than 2.5 million cases of hospital infections every year, the study suggests - and they are estimated to result in a burden of about as many so-called disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) - the years of a healthy life lost. The term is used to measure the impact of diseases on the health of a population.

The study is, according to its authors, "a solid first attempt" at estimating the burden of hospital infections, including the role of comorbidities, that is coexisiting multiple diseases. They stress "the need for intensified efforts to prevent and control these infections, ultimately making European hospitals safer places."

Read more: Why hospital infections are a bigger threat than HIV, influenza and tuberculosis | Sci-Tech | DW.COM | 18.10.2016

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

US Economic Freedom Is in Decline, Libertarians Warn

The United States is the 16th freest economy in the world, according to the Libertarian Cato Institute’s annual Economic Freedom of the World report. Produced in conjunction with the Fraser Institute, the report looks at various factors, including the size of government, government regulations, rule of law, and trade and monetary policies to develop a composite score for 159 countries around the world.

On a scale of 0 to 10, the world average rose slightly to 6.85, while the US scored 7.75.  Despite the fact that it puts the US in the top 10 percent of countries for freedom, as defined by CATO, the score was treated as reason for alarm in a commentary accompanying the report.

“The United States still ranks relatively low on economic freedom and is below Chile (13), the United Kingdom (10) and Canada (5),” writes Cato’s Ian Vasquez, noting that the top 4 countries remain Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand and Switzerland.

“The long-term U.S. decline beginning in 2000 is the most pronounced among major advanced economies,” Vasquez continues. “It mirrors a pattern among OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) nations of steady increases in economic freedom in the decades leading into the 2000s, a fall in freedom especially in response to the global economic crisis, and a subsequent slight increase from the low. Neither the United States nor the average OECD country has recovered the high levels of economic freedom that they reached last decade.”

US Economic Freedom Is in Decline, Libertarians Warn | The Fiscal Times

Monday, October 17, 2016

Health Care: Solving surprise medical bills

Imagine you walk into a hospital for a planned procedure, for example a knee operation to be performed by an orthopedic surgeon. Before you scheduled the surgery, you did your due diligence and confirmed that the surgeon performing the procedure participated in your insurance plan, and that the hospital where you were having the surgery was also in-network.

You know that you will still owe hundreds or perhaps thousands of dollars (depending on the details of your insurance coverage or any deductible you need to meet), but you’re certain the costs are manageable and you’re prepared to pay the final amount.

The surgery goes well, and you begin your recovery. Then, several weeks later, you get a bill for the surgery that’s much, much more than you expected to pay—maybe even ten or twenty times what you expected to pay. How did this happen?

A new paper, Solving Surprise Medical Bills from the Schaeffer Initiative at the Brookings Center on Health Policy, takes a closer look at surprise medical bills in America—and how policymakers can protect patients from them.

You might be shocked to receive the bill, but you wouldn’t be alone. Over the past several years, an increasing number of Americans have been hit with surprise bills for medical care. Surprise medical bills result from providers (physicians, hospitals, out-patient facilities, laboratories, etc.) that patients reasonably assumed would be in-network, but actually are out-of-network, or when patients have no real choice over the network status of their provider.

These bills are sometimes the result of emergency situations. None of us, in an emergency, place a call our insurance company to make sure the ambulance we need or the hospital we’re brought to is in-network. Yet you can still be liable for the astronomical bills that result.

Other times, patients are billed by out-of-network providers, such as an anesthesiologist, even though patients did everything they reasonably could to remain in-network for a planned medical procedure. As a result, patients incur much higher charges, which often exceed what insurance reimburses, sometimes are exorbitant, and can lead to financial distress.

There is bipartisan agreement that this problem exists, is increasing, and needs to be addressed. Important differences exist, however, on how the problem should be solved. Over a dozen states have enacted important protections and federal and state officials have proposed additional remedies, but these efforts are incomplete, and they pursue a variety of different strategies.

Read more: Solving surprise medical bills | Brookings Institution

Sunday, October 16, 2016

Britain-EU: Why is Britain's new government keeping quiet about its 40B-euro share in the EU's own bank? - by M.Jay

A row between experts and Ford U.K. over EU loans to its competitors outside of the EU has thrown light on Britain's 40 billion euro stake currently in the EU's own "investment" bank - which could go a long way towards helping the country's health service and creating jobs if it were to be sold to another EU country.

This week a spokesman for the European Investment Bank (EIB) told Daily Sabah it couldn't speculate as to whether Britain's 16 percent could be worth 40 billion euros - which it represents on paper - a tidy sum that Theresa May could use for creating jobs, or funding small businesses. "Unlike other international finance institutions there is not a clear overview of how the U.K. shareholding could be valued," Richard Willis told Daily Sabah, adding, "Therefore the paid in capital as below is one figure and the other is simply 1/6 of all EIB assets. We cannot speculate on this."

Post Brexit talks in Brussels have produced a bitter reaction from the European Commission which is likely to argue that Britain needs to sell its stake in the EIB though - yet may well still benefit from loans to British companies.

Although a Brexit won't stop the practice of the EIB giving whacking loans to companies - outside of the EU - that compete with British ones, which experts are warning are still costing British jobs.

Yet Britain leaving the EU would also mean pulling out of the bank which, in theory, could give the chancellor a cheque for its matured equity stake now believed to be worth 40 billion euros - despite only putting in 3 billion euros of its own money since the 70s.

Such a cash injection, some may argue, would have provided the shortfall the U.K. finance minister would have needed to balance the books, helping firms like Ford U.K. compete with its Turkish competitor benefitting from EIB support.

And Britain will need it now that more EIB loans will be given to many foreign firms that U.K. companies will be competing with them.

British car workers jobs at the Ford plant in Dagenham, for example, could be at risk after experts fear that two EIB loans for Ford factories in Turkey threaten to erode Ford U.K.'s profits, costing jobs.

Could Britain have its cake and eat it, too? Could the government sell its 40 billion pounds stake in the EIB while U.K. firms continue to benefit from commercial loans at the same time? Could it also get assurances that loans will no longer be given to companies whose profits impact directly on U.K. jobs?

"There is simply no roadmap for the process. We would expect that the role of EIB would be one of many issues discussed and covered in lengthy withdrawal negotiations," Richard Willis said recently.
 
Read more: Why is Britain's new government keeping quiet about its 40B-euro share in the EU's own bank? - Daily Sabah

Saturday, October 15, 2016

Belgium snag for EU-Canada trade deal Cetas

A landmark EU-Canada free trade deal called Ceta has hit a serious snag after a Belgian region rejected it, threatening the signing this month.
Parliament in French-speaking Wallonia voted to prevent Belgium's government from signing the draft deal.

EU trade ministers are to decide on Ceta next Tuesday. If they all approve it, the deal can be signed with Canada on 27 October.

Ceta is the EU's most ambitious trade deal to date, lifting most barriers.
Walloon leader Paul Magnette said he would "not give the full powers to the federal government" to back the deal.

Read more:Belgium snag for EU-Canada trade deal Ceta - BBC News

Friday, October 14, 2016

USA - Gun Control: Judge dismisses Newtown families' lawsuit against gun maker after 31 people were killed with same gun

A judge on Friday dismissed a wrongful death lawsuit by Newtown families against the maker of the rifle used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, saying federal law shields gun manufacturers from most lawsuits over criminal use of their products.

State Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis granted a motion by Remington Arms to strike the lawsuit by the families of nine children and adults killed and a teacher who survived the attack on Dec. 14, 2012. A gunman killed 20 first-graders and six educators at the school with a Bushmaster AR-15-style rifle made by Remington.

The families were seeking to hold Remington accountable for selling what their lawyers called a semi-automatic rifle that is too dangerous for the public because it was designed as a military killing machine.

Bellis agreed with attorneys for Madison, North Carolina-based Remington that the lawsuit should be dismissed under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed by Congress in 2005, which shielded gun makers from liability when their firearms are used in crimes.

Lawyers for the families had argued that the lawsuit was allowed under an exception in the federal law that allows litigation against companies that know, or should know, that their weapons are likely to be used in a way that risks injury to others.

Bellis, who sits in Bridgeport, disagreed.

The families can ask Bellis to reconsider her ruling or try to file an amended lawsuit. Joshua Koskoff, a lawyer for the families, didn't immediately return a message Friday.

Jonathan Whitcomb, an attorney for Remington Arms, declined to comment.

Besides Remington, other defendants in the lawsuit include firearms distributor Camfour and Riverview Gun Sales, the now-closed East Windsor store where the Newtown gunman's mother legally bought the Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle used in the shooting.

Adam Lanza, 20, shot his mother to death at their Newtown home before driving to the school, where he killed 26 other people. He killed himself as police arrived.

Read more: Judge dismisses Newtown families' lawsuit against gun maker

Thursday, October 13, 2016

The Netherlands - employment opportunities: Lack of qualified staff holding back Dutch companies

A  shortage of qualified staff is holding Dutch companies back as the economy recovers from the recession, according to new figures from the government statistics service. Statistics Netherlands said 7 per cent of businesses reported problems with understaffing because of a lack of suitable and experienced candidates. 

The figure is at its highest level since 2009. The problem was most acute in the IT sector, where one in six firms said there was a lack of qualified staff. In the service sector the proportion was one in 10. Overall businesses feel there are fewer obstacles to growth than in recent years, according to the survey, which recorded fewer complaints about financial restrictions or weak demand.

The number of businesses planning to take on more staff is at it highest level for years, with 8 per cent planning to add to their team in the second quarter of this year. The figure for the third quarter was 6 per cent. The total number of vacancies reported at the start of July was 155,000.

Read more: Lack of qualified staff holding back Dutch companies - DutchNews.nl

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Security alert: Map of the most dangerous countries for tourists to visit

The UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) updated its travel advice for Turkey after recently  three suicide bombers killed 45 people at Atatürk International Airport in Istanbul.
 
The government body now advises against all travel to within 10 kilometres of the border with Syria and to the city of Diyarbakir, while all but essential travel to the surrounding south-east of the country should be avoided.
 
A new map, which we first spotted on Indy 100, uses the FCO's information to illustrate which countries in the world are considered safe to visit and where caution should be exercised.

The map is colour coded.

Click here to See the Map of the most dangerous countries for tourists to visit - Business Insider

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

US Economy: U.S. Economic Growth Downgraded to Largest 1-Year Drop - by Ali Meyer

The International Monetary Fund downgraded the economic growth outlook for the United States to 1.6 percent in 2016, which is the largest one-year drop seen for an advanced economy, according to the Fund’s World Economic Outlook report.

According to the report, the United States grew at a rate of 2.6 percent in 2015 and is projected to slow to 1.6 percent in 2016, a decline of 38 percent. The United States’ decline in growth is the largest one-year drop seen in all of the advanced economies such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Italy, and Spain.

“Softer-than-expected activity in the second half of 2015 and the first half of 2016 points to some loss in momentum in the United States, despite a mildly supportive fiscal stance and a slower projected pace of monetary policy normalization,” the International Monetary Fund explains. “A prolonged inventory correction cycle and weak business investment has prompted a downward revision of the 2016 forecast to 1.6 percent.”

The group projects that the economy will grow to 2.2 percent by 2017, but medium term growth will be held down at 1.8 percent due to an aging population and low productivity growth.

“The weakness in business fixed investment appears to reflect the continued (albeit moderating) decline in capital spending in the energy sector, the impact of recent dollar strength on investment in export-oriented industries, and possibly also the financial market volatility and recession fears of late 2015 and early 2016,” the report says.

According to the International Monetary Fund, advanced economies are still feeling the effects of the global financial crisis. While progress has been made, the progress has been “uneven” and “crisis scars” are still visible in some countries.

For example, the group notes that the recovery in the United States is overstated by the decline in the unemployment rate.

“In some counties (such as the United States) the decline in unemployment to pre-crisis levels somewhat overstates the recovery in employment, given the decline in labor force participation,” the report states. “This has not, however, been the case in other advanced economies, where in many cases participation rates are above pre-crisis levels.”

Weaker-than-expected growth in the United States is one of the reasons why the International Monetary Fund cut its global growth projections. The group projected that global growth would slow to 3.1 percent in 2016 after growing 3.2 percent in 2015, citing the U.S. growth forecast as well as the Brexit vote.

Read more: U.S. Economic Growth Downgraded to Largest 1-Year Drop

Monday, October 10, 2016

Syria: The Mother Of All US Humanitarian and Foreign Policy disasters

David T. Jones writes in the Epoch Times; "The proverbial “law of holes” states, “When you find yourself in one—stop digging.”

So far as Syria is concerned, we seem unwilling to learn this lesson.

And, brutal as is the reality, the West has lost the war in Syria. Whatever our kaleidoscope of objectives has been, ranging from removal of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad to support of “democratic” rebels to creation of an Aleppo ceasefire, we have failed.

There is no reason to believe al-Assad will cease military action in Syria until he has eliminated opposition—whether it be Daesh (aka ISIS/ISIL/IS) or assorted “rebel” groups of whatever political philosophy. As long as al-Assad has Russian, Iranian, and Hezbollah assistance, he will prevail.

Nor is Aleppo’s ongoing humanitarian disaster going to cause a twinge by those conducting it. The fighting has continued since July 2012; various estimates suggest 30,000 dead with several hundred thousand civilians and combatants remaining in the besieged portion of the city.

However, remembering Russian casualties during World War II, e.g., siege of Leningrad (900 days; one million civilians and 300,000 military died) or Stalingrad (1.1 million total casualties; 478,000 killed), Putin may well conclude Aleppo’s losses are inconsequential—and the Western whiners are trying to play a human rights card in a military reality poker game.

Indeed, Western leaders have misplayed their opportunities from the beginning. We apparently believed the Arab Spring, starting in 2010, which swept away creaky dictatorships in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, as well as forcing political change throughout the Middle East, would also evict al-Assad.

After all, al-Assad looks like a gawky ophthalmologist (his academic training) rather than presenting the visage of an iron-fisted dictator. Implicitly, we thought he would decamp with lovely wife, family, and uncounted fortune to comfortable retirement in some dictator-accepting/friendly country. But there was steel where we expected Jello; his Army stayed loyal, fought hard, and beat down various rebel groups. Al-Assad “channeled” his father who never caviled at massacring opponents.

Western leaders declined to put “boots on the ground”—removing al-Assad wasn’t initially believed to be worth body bags coming home—or even bomb his airfields and destroy his Air Force, his trump card in combating rebels. So fighting continued, and we lost the easy course of action. President Obama backed away from his personal “line in the sand” demanding al-Assad remove chemical weapons; then the Russians were able to arrange such a removal/elimination and, concurrently, seize a principal position in the struggle.

Consequently, Syrians have fled by millions. Statistics on the tragedy are politicized, but one estimate has 4.8 million refugees plus 6.6 million displaced within the country from a population of 17 million. Most refugees are in neighboring Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan.

But the exodus has also disoriented Europe, which in a misplaced burst of humanitarianism opened its doors to more than a million refugees."

 The proverbial “law of holes” states, “When you find yourself in one—stop digging.”

So far as Syria is concerned, we seem unwilling to learn this lesson.

And, brutal as is the reality, the West has lost the war in Syria. Whatever our kaleidoscope of objectives has been, ranging from removal of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad to support of “democratic” rebels to creation of an Aleppo ceasefire, we have failed.

There is no reason to believe al-Assad will cease military action in Syria until he has eliminated opposition—whether it be Daesh (aka ISIS/ISIL/IS) or assorted “rebel” groups of whatever political philosophy. As long as al-Assad has Russian, Iranian, and Hezbollah assistance, he will prevail.

Nor is Aleppo’s ongoing humanitarian disaster going to cause a twinge by those conducting it. The fighting has continued since July 2012; various estimates suggest 30,000 dead with several hundred thousand civilians and combatants remaining in the besieged portion of the city.

However, remembering Russian casualties during World War II, e.g., siege of Leningrad (900 days; one million civilians and 300,000 military died) or Stalingrad (1.1 million total casualties; 478,000 killed), Putin may well conclude Aleppo’s losses are inconsequential—and the Western whiners are trying to play a human rights card in a military reality poker game.

Aleppo - Syria
Indeed, Western leaders have misplayed their opportunities from the beginning. We apparently believed the Arab Spring, starting in 2010, which swept away creaky dictatorships in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, as well as forcing political change throughout the Middle East, would also evict al-Assad.

After all, al-Assad looks like a gawky ophthalmologist (his academic training) rather than presenting the visage of an iron-fisted dictator. Implicitly, we thought he would decamp with lovely wife, family, and uncounted fortune to comfortable retirement in some dictator-accepting/friendly country. But there was steel where we expected Jello; his Army stayed loyal, fought hard, and beat down various rebel groups. Al-Assad “channeled” his father who never caviled at massacring opponents.

Western leaders declined to put “boots on the ground”—removing al-Assad wasn’t initially believed to be worth body bags coming home—or even bomb his airfields and destroy his Air Force, his trump card in combating rebels. So fighting continued, and we lost the easy course of action. President Obama backed away from his personal “line in the sand” demanding al-Assad remove chemical weapons; then the Russians were able to arrange such a removal/elimination and, concurrently, seize a principal position in the struggle.

Consequently, Syrians have fled by millions. Statistics on the tragedy are politicized, but one estimate has 4.8 million refugees plus 6.6 million displaced within the country from a population of 17 million. Most refugees are in neighboring Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan.

But the exodus has also disoriented Europe, which in a misplaced burst of humanitarianism opened its doors to more than a million refugees. "

Bottom line: Syria has become the mother of all US failed humanitarian and foreign policy disasters.

The question that Europe must answer, rather sooner than later is, can it continue to blindly walk in "lockstep" with the US, when it comes to their totally failed Middle East policies, or develop its own independent and more constructive foreign policy objectives?

EU-Digest

Sunday, October 9, 2016

Income Inequality: The Reason Why Forbes Rich List Does NOT Include The Richest Families In The World

“Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.” This is a House of Rothschilds maxim, widely attributed to banking tycoon Mayer Amschel Rothschild in 1838 and said to be a founding principle for the highly corrupt banking and political system we have today.

Along with the Rockefellers, the Rothschild dynasty is estimated to be worth well over a trillion dollars. How are these powerful families linked to the ongoing crisis of global wealth inequality, why are so many people unaware of their existence, and why doesn't Forbes ever mention them in their annual list of the world's wealthiest people?

In January 2014, Oxfam announced that the richest 85 people on the planet share a combined wealth of $110 trillion. The figure was based on Forbes's rich list 2013, and it equates to 65 times the total wealth of the entire bottom half (3.5 billion) of the world's population. While some deluded commentators welcomed this as “fantastic news,” the rest of us were disgusted. Winnie Byanyima, Oxfam's executive director, said at the time: “It is staggering that in the 21st Century, half of the world's population own no more than a tiny elite whose numbers could all fit comfortably on a double-decker bus.” Two months later, following Oxfam's calculation and having published the new 2014 rich list, Forbes journalist Kasia Morena did some fact-checking.

She found that the number of billionaires owning the same as the poorest 3.5 billion had dropped from 85 to 67: which demonstrates an enormous widening of the global inequality gap in just one year. Fast-forward to 2015, and another Oxfam investigation. The anti-poverty charity warned in January that if nothing is done to tackle global wealth inequality- by forcing corporations to pay their taxes and closing off-shore tax havens, for example - the richest 1% will own more than everybody else in the world combined by 2016.

In a paper called Wealth: Having it all and wanting more, Oxfam outlined how the richest 1 percent have seen their share of global wealth increase from 44% in 2009 to 48% in 2014, and will likely surpass 50% in 2016. Winnie Byanyima again warned that the explosion in inequality is holding back the fight against global poverty at a time when one in nine people do not have enough to eat, and more than a billion people still live on less than $1.25 a day.

The organization also outlined how 20 percent of billionaires around the world have interests in the financial and insurance sectors, a group that saw their cash wealth increase by 11 percent in the last 12 months. Billionaires listed as having interests in the pharmaceutical and healthcare sectors saw their collective net worth increase by 47 percent, and the industry spent more than $500 million lobbying policy makers in Washington and Brussels in 2013 alone. “Do we really want to live in a world where the one percent own more than the rest of us combined?” Byanyima asked.

“The scale of global inequality is quite simply staggering, and despite the issues shooting up the global agenda, the gap between the richest and the rest is widening fast.” Meet The People Who Own 50% (And Counting) Of The World's Wealth Here is Forbes's (real-time) list of the 66 billionaires who (officially) own half of all global assets, and will soon own more than the rest of Earth's seven billion population combined. They range from CEOs of large corporations to oil and gas tycoons and Silicon valley entrepreneurs. The list details name, net worth, percentage change since the 2015 results, their age, industry and nationality.

Bill Gates is ranked first at $469 billion, and James Simons at #66 with the $14 billion he made from hedge funds.

But where are the world's Royal families? And more to the point, where are the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers? These two families have an unimaginable amount of wealth that surpasses the trillion mark - they are the only trillionaires in the world, and yet they are missing from Forbes's list every single year, along with the handful of other men commonly believed to own our politicians, our media, our corporations, our scientists, and even our money supply

Forbes's rich list doesn't include members of Royal families or dictators who hold their wealth through a position of power, or who control the riches of their country. In this way, the real people pulling the strings are able to work in absolute secrecy without any media attention at all (unless it is carefully-constructed positive propaganda, like this article on the philanthropy of the Rothschilds, of course).

Forbes's policy to exclude heads of state from the rich list explains why the Queen of England is absent, although nobody has the slightest idea of her wealth in any case: her shareholdings remain hidden behind Bank of England Nominee accounts. As the Guardian newspaper reported in May 2002: ‘The reason for the wild variations in valuations of her private wealth can be pinned on the secrecy over her portfolio of share investments…Her subjects have no way of knowing through a public register of interests where she, as their head of state, chooses to invest her money. Unlike [British politicians and Lords], the Queen does not have to annually declare her interests and as a result her subjects cannot question her or know about potential conflicts of interests…’

The same can be said for the Rothschilds and Rockerfellers, whose European forebears were richer than any Royal family at the time. The families are believed to have set up and own the Federal Reserve (G Edward Griffin's The Creature From Jekyll Island and this research by journalist Dean Henderson are recommended reading if you want to get deeper into this topic). Could this be why the families, whose power in manipulating global affairs for the past few hundred years cannot be underestimated, are protected by Forbes's ‘don't even go there’ policy? Retired management consultant Gaylon Ross Sr, author of Who's Who of the Global Elite, was apparently told in 1998 that the combined wealth of the Rockefeller family was approx $11 trillion and the Rothschilds $100 trillion…what might that figure have reached 17 years later?

One can hardly begin to imagine, but maybe money isn't the most important thing to your average trillionaire, anyway… “The only problem with wealth is, what do you do with it?” was a rhetorical question posed by none other than John D. Rockefeller. Well, if Aaron Russo's testimony is to be believed, all the Rockefeller riches in the world certainly won't be used to benefit the human race.

Ashley Mote, a member of the European Parliament serving British independence party UKIP, asked the following question in Brussels, and retribution was swift: “Mr President, I wish to draw your attention to the Global Security Fund, set up in the early 1990s under the auspices of Jacob Rothschild.

This is a Brussels-based fund and it is no ordinary fund: it does not trade, it is not listed and it has a totally different purpose. It is being used for geopolitical engineering purposes, apparently under the guidance of the intelligence services. I have previously asked about the alleged involvement of the European Union’s own intelligence resources in the management of slush funds in offshore accounts, and I still await a reply.

To that question I now add another: what are the European Union's connections to the Global Security Fund and what relationship does it have with European Union institutions?” This is exactly the kind of question the European public would like an answer to. Yet Mote did not receive one. Instead, the 79 year old politician was sacked from his own party, and later arrested and sent to jail for allegedly claiming false expenses during his time as an MEP.

Mote claimed throughout his trial that he was ‘targeted for being anti-Europe’, and said the money he claimed was used to pay third-party whistleblowers in a quest to uncover corruption and fight for democracy and transparency in European politics. Like everything else relating to the people who really run the show, the truth is out there… but it's almost impossible to pin down. 

Read more: The Reason Why Forbes Rich List Does NOT Include The Richest Families In The World

Friday, October 7, 2016

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

Thursday, October 6, 2016

Foreign Policy Objectives of 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

Wednesday, October 5, 2016

The Netherlands: Almere, Tvesha Chauhan from India, becomes it's 200.000 inhabitant

Almere, the Netherlands newest and Europe's most modern city, celebrated the arrival of it's 200.000 new inhabitant, Tvesha Chauhan from India, who was registered this past Monday, November the third.

She was officially welcomed to the city by Franc Weerwin, the Mayor of Almere, who is a Dutch Citizen from Suriname descent.

Almere's first citizens arrived in the city only back in 1976, after the area was reclaimed from the Zuider-Sea and became part of a new Dutch Province, completely reclaimed from the sea on June 27, 1985 , "baptized" Flevoland, the 12th Dutch Province.

On January 1, 1986. Dutch Parliament passed an act whereby the Province of Flevoland was created, and the rest is history.


Almere, de jongste stad van Nederland, heeft nu 200.000 inwoners. De grens werd symbolisch gepasseerd door de tienjarige Tvesha Chauhan uit India, die met haar…
telegraaf.nl

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

USA Banks: 2016 survey shows Bank of America is considered the worst bank in the US financial system

 considered the worst bank in the US financial system.

It is the worst U.S. bank out of the 50,  included in a recent analysis. It ranked 44th in number of consumer complaints, 48th in regulatory penalties and and 34th in responsiveness to consumer issues.

Read more: 2016 Analysis of Regulatory Violations & Consumer Complaints - ValuePenguin

Monday, October 3, 2016

Hungary PM claims EU migrant quota referendum victory - but is it a victory ?

Hungarian PM Viktor Orban has declared victory in a referendum on mandatory EU migrant quotas, despite a low turnout that appeared to render it invalid.

Nearly 98% of those who took part supported the government's call to reject the EU plan.

But only 43% of the electorate voted, short of the 50% required to be valid.

Note EU-Digest: The Hungarian referendum was declared void and illegal because voter participation was 43 %, well below the allowed 50 % threshold and in reality a vote of no- confidence for the PM because the opposition had told their supporters to abstain from voting.

Read more: Hungary PM claims EU migrant quota referendum victory - BBC News

Saturday, October 1, 2016

Religion USA: Georgetown Study: Religion Worth $1.2 Trillion in U.S. Economy, More Than Google and Apple Combined

A new analysis from Georgetown University that attempts to document the economic value of religion in U.S. society found that the faith sector is worth $1.2 trillion, more than the combined revenue of the top 10 technology companies in the country, including Apple, Amazon, and Google.

The study, The Socioeconomic Contributions of Religion to American Society: An Empirical Analysis, makes three estimates of the quantitative economic value of faith to American society.

The first estimate took into account only the revenues of faith-based organizations, which came to $378 billion annually. The second estimate, $1.2 trillion, included the fair market value of goods and services provided by religious organizations and included contributions of businesses with religious roots.

The third, higher-end, estimate of $4.8 trillion takes into account the household incomes of religiously affiliated Americans, assuming that they conduct their affairs according to their religious beliefs.

The study’s authors, Brian Grim of Georgetown University and Melissa Grim of the Newseum Institute, conclude that the second estimate of $1.2 trillion is the most reasonable because “it takes into account both the value of the services provided by religious organizations and the impact religion has on a number of important American businesses.”

Read more: Georgetown Study: Religion Worth $1.2 Trillion in U.S. Economy, More Than Google and Apple Combine