There is a perfect storm brewing on both sides of the Atlantic, in Rome and in Washington. When these two political frontal systems converge, the ensuing hurricane could wreak more economic destruction — not just in Europe and the U.S., but in Canada.

It’s a trans-Atlantic fiscal circus, complete with clowns 

By Fen Osler Hampson | Mar 4, 2013 8:59 pm | ipolitics,com

More from Fen Hampson, available here.

Italy’s election produced gridlock in Europe’s third-largest and most indebted economy. Unless its political class stops clowning around, the modest but still important gains that interim president Mario Monti secured to cut Italy’s spending and raise taxes will have been for nought. Investors and financial markets are already spooked. The euro has taken a sharp nosedive.

There is talk that Italy could take the euro down entirely if there is no resolution of the current crisis — either through the formation of an unlikely pact involving Silvio Berlusconi, whose right-wing coalition came in a surprisingly close second to Pier Luigi Bersani’s left-centre alliance, or through new elections which hand one of Italy’s parties a clear victory. The odds are stacked against both possibilities.

France and Britain are also in trouble. Francois Hollande’s government has foolishly taken a run at the very private investors he needs to boost France’s sagging economic fortunes by raising corporate and personal income taxes, especially on the richest. France is still far too reliant on the public sector for employment and growth. Government spending is more than half the size of France’s GDP.Britain has the opposite problem: excessive penury. Many economists argue that Prime Minister David Cameron’s spending cuts have been far too draconian, given the fragile state of Britain’s economic health. Britain is now caught in a downward spiral of deficit reduction and shrinking growth unless Cameron takes his foot off the brakes and pushes down hard on the fiscal accelerator — something that he and Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne are loath to do.

Even Germany, which has long been Europe’s economic motor, is stalled as demand for its goods in key export markets — 60 per cent of which are in the eurozone area — undergoes sharp decline.

German politics is also entering an area of turbulence, with federal elections set for September. Although Chancellor Angela Merkel is miles ahead of her Socialist opponent in terms of personal popularity, her coalition partner in the Bundestaat, the FDP, is in real trouble. Merkel could well lose the next federal election to the Socialists and the Greens unless her own party, the Christian Democrats, can make up the shortfall in voters’ affections.

There is talk that Italy could take the euro down entirely if there is no resolution of the current crisis.

Last week’s sequestration antics in Washington and the drastic fiscal cuts that went into effect on Saturday are proof that you don’t need to be Italian to be a clown.

America’s decline has long been the topic of discussion in the world’s capitals. If you needed any proof, it came in abundance last week with the stunning lack of leadership displayed over the sequestration debate. The damage was done this time not just by mean-spirited Republicans but by a less-than-magnanimous president who demonstrated once again that he is neither a Lincoln nor a Johnson when it comes to the art of political dealmaking.

Perhaps America’s political classes need time off to come to their senses. But with so much heated rhetoric and fingerpointing by all sides, don’t expect a budget deal soon.

Americans are about to enter the worst of all possible worlds: drastic cuts to defence and other discretionary items (like foreign aid and education) that keep America strong, and no real cuts to entitlement programs — the big-ticket items where cuts are needed most.

Continuing economic malaise across the Atlantic will be compounded by the looming crisis south of our border. It’s a double-whammy blow to the global economy, caused by European and American acts of political self-immolation — just when we thought we were getting out of the woods.

Canada is going to take a hit from these colliding storms. Not only will this country’s trade and investment suffer if Europe falters yet again — a receding tide lowers all boats — but unless we can clinch a free trade deal with the Europeans soon we may be forced to throw in the towel. The clock is running out and the deal’s biggest booster in Europe, Angela Merkel, is now entering a real fight for her own re-election.

The much-hyped Beyond the Border deal with Washington may also be a casualty of the sequestration war between the White House and Congress. In short order, we may see fewer U.S. customs and immigration officials at the border, longer lineups, more delays and ever-worsening congestion at key transit points.

Our pleas for special treatment as America’s largest trading partner will be drowned out by the noisy crescendo of Washington’s ugly partisan wars. Getting the White House’s support and undivided attention may well be an exercise in futility.

Fen Osler Hampson is a distinguished Fellow and director of Global Security at the Centre for International Governance Innovation. He is also Chancellor’s Professor at Carleton University. He is the author of nine books and editor/co-editor of more than 25 other volumes on international affairs and Canadian foreign policy.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.

“The main problem with the sequester is actually that it is too small.”

The Sequester Will Be Good for the Economy

 CATO

The March 1 deadline for the spending sequester has come and gone, and the world did not end.  The basis for many of the apocalyptic predictions is the Keynesian claim that spending cuts slow economic growth, and could perhaps even cause a recession.  This claim, says Cato scholar Jeffrey A. Miron, is false. “Across all categories, federal expenditure is far greater than necessary to achieve the legitimate goals of government intervention,” says Miron. “The main problem with the sequester is actually that it is too small.”

• “The Sequester Will Be Good for the Economy,” by Jeffrey A. Miron
• “The Fairy Tale on Spending Cuts,” by Michael D. Tanner
• “Why the Areas Affected by Sequestration Should be Cut,” by Tad DeHaven

While Auschwitz and the Warsaw Ghetto became infamous names linked to the system of mass killing, the Holocaust Museum found that they were just part of a extensive network that imprisoned and obliterated millions of lives.

Nazis may have killed up to 20 million, claims ‘shocking' new Holocaust study

The Nazi Holocaust may have claimed up to 20 million lives, a figure far greater than previous estimates, new research has revealed.

By Matthew Day 

TELEGRAPH

8:46AM GMT 04 Mar 2013

The millions disappeared into a Nazi imprisonment and killing machine that covered a bloody swathe of Europe and appears to have been far more deadly than has been thought.

Up until now, the Holocaust is thought to have consumed between five and six million Jews, with an estimated further six million other people also murdered by the Nazi regime.

The new figures of 15 to 20 million, which have astonished some Holocaust historians, come after thirteen years of painstaking study at Washington's Holocaust Memorial Museum. Historians at the museum brought together and studied the huge amount, and often disparate, files and research on the Holocaust.

"The results of our research are shocking," Geoffrey Megargee, the director of the study, told The Independent newspaper. "We are putting together numbers that no one ever compiled before, even for camp systems that have been fairly well researched - and many of them have not been."

While Auschwitz and the Warsaw Ghetto became infamous names linked to the system of mass killing, the museum found that they were just part of a extensive network that imprisoned and obliterated millions of lives.

The research covered some 42,400 camps and ghettos across Europe, and also included forced-labour camps and Nazi "care" centres where pregnant women were forced to have an abortion or had their child killed right after giving birth. It also drew in camps, prisons and killing grounds used by Nazi puppet regimes in countries such as France and Romania.

The number of locations is almost double previous estimates made by the same institution and, all told, they may have imprisoned and killed between 15 to 20 million people.

"The numbers are so much higher than what we originally thought," Hartmut Berghoff, director of the German Historical Institute in America, said in an interview after learning of the new data. "We knew before how horrible life in the camps and ghettos was but the numbers are unbelievable.

It is a crime for you to lie to the federal government. Why is it not a crime for any agent of the federal government to lie to you? Afterall, it could cost you everything and them nothing.

Documents reveal US Marshals using spy drones

Friday  Mar 1, 2013 9:22AM

Documents obtained by the ACLU have revealed that the U.S. Marshals Service has experimented with using drones for domestic surveillance.

The documents, available on the ACLU website, were released via a Freedom of Information Act request.

The rights group says that although the Marshals Service admitted it had found 30 pages of information pertaining to its use of drones, it only actual handed over two, which were heavily redacted, containing only two short paragraphs of visible information.

Under the heading “Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, Man-Portable (UAV) Program,” an agency document overview states:

“USMS Technical Operations Group’s UAV Program provides a highly portable, rapidly deployable overhead collection device that will provide a multi-role surveillance platform to assist in [redacted] detection of targets.”

This video should give you something to think about

A further document reads:

“This developmental program is designed to provide [redacted] in support of TOG [Technical Operations Group] investigations and operations. This surveillance solution can be deployed during [multiple redactions] to support ongoing tactical operations.”

An LA Times report earlier this month revealed more, stating:

“In 2004 and 2005, the U.S. Marshals Service tested two small drones in remote areas to help them track fugitives, according to law enforcement officials and documents released to the ACLU under the Freedom of Information Act. The Marshals Service abandoned the program after both drones crashed.”

Expressing doubt that these details cover the full scope of the Marshals’ drone use, ACLU says it is “surprising” that what was purportedly “a small-scale experiment” still remains secret after seven years.

“As drone use becomes more and more common, it is crucial that the government’s use of these spying machines be transparent and accountable to the American people. All too often, though, it is unclear which law enforcement agencies are using these tools, and how they are doing so.” a statement on the ACLU website reads.

“We should not have to guess whether our government is using these eyes in the sky to spy on us.” the statement continues.

ACLU staff attorney Catherine Crump added that “Americans have the right to know if and how the government is using drones to spy on them.”

“Drones are too invasive a tool for it to be unclear when the public will be subjected to them.” Crump added. “The government needs to respect Americans’ privacy while using this invasive technology, and the laws on the books need to be brought up to date to ensure that America does not turn into a drone surveillance state.”

There are currently several bills on the table at the state and national level to reign in the use of drones, and not without justification.

The FAA recently released an updated list of domestic drone authorizations, showing more than 20 new drone operators, and bringing to 81 the total number of public entities that have applied for FAA drone authorizations through October 2012.

After Congress passed the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization last year, requiring the FAA to permit the operation of drones weighing 25 pounds or less, observers predicted that anything up to 30,000 spy drones could be flying in U.S. skies by 2020. infowars.com

FACTS & FIGURES

In a major step toward opening U.S. skies to thousands of unmanned drones, federal officials in February solicited proposals to create six drone test sites around the country. AP

According to the Department of Homeland Security’s website, the U.S. government has already been using drones domestically for several years, but remains mostly mum on their missions. RT

Privacy advocates worry that a proliferation of drones will lead to a "surveillance society" in which the movements of Americans are routinely monitored, tracked, recorded and scrutinized by the authorities. AP

The prospect of armed drones patrolling U.S. skies has alarmed some lawmakers and their constituents. More than a dozen bills have been introduced in Congress and state legislatures to curb drone use and protect privacy. AP

A data dump of government documents secured via the Freedom of Information Act, released in August shows that the roll out of domestic unmanned drones will, for the most part, be focused solely on the mass surveillance of the American people. Prison Planet

- See more at: http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/291367.html#sthash.OSM01KKR.dpuf

Tony Blair, pathetic and becoming more so.

There is no official estimate of the number of Iraqi civilians killed as a consequence of the invasion a decade ago, but the death-toll is thought to be at least 100,000.

Iraq war 10th anniversary: Tony Blair says Saddam Hussein 20 times worse than Bashar al-Assad

Tuesday 26 Feb 2013 4:29 pm METRO-UK

34

Tony Blair has issued another defence of his decision to go to war in Iraq ten years ago, claiming deposed dictator Saddam Hussein was ’20 times as bad’ as his Syrian counterpart Bashar al-Assad, who is in the midst of a two-year civil war.

In an interview marking the tenth anniversary of UK armed forces joining a US-led coalition in Iraq, the former prime minister said it would have been a ‘profound mistake’ to stay out of the region.

He admitted to BBC2′s Newsnight life in Iraq was ‘not nearly what it should be’, and that Iraqis faced a ‘long, hard struggle’ to overcome terrorism.Up to 100,000 civilians are thought to have died as a result of the Iraq war. 

Britain joined the largest military operation of then US president George Bush’s war on terror in Iraq on the basis of preventing Saddam’s regime from using the weapons of mass destruction it supposedly possessed.

But when no such weapons were found, the casus belli was changed to merely removing a volatile and deadly regime.

‘Just think what would be happening if these Arab revolutions were continuing now and Saddam, who was probably 20 times as bad as Assad in Syria, was trying to suppress an uprising in Iraq,’ Mr Blair told Newsnight.

In an interview marking the tenth anniversary of UK armed forces joining a US-led coalition in Iraq, the former prime minister said it would have been a ‘profound mistake’ to stay out of the region.

He admitted to BBC2′s Newsnight life in Iraq was ‘not nearly what it should be’, and that Iraqis faced a ‘long, hard struggle’ to overcome terrorism.Up to 100,000 civilians are thought to have died as a result of the Iraq war. 

Britain joined the largest military operation of then US president George Bush’s war on terror in Iraq on the basis of preventing Saddam’s regime from using the weapons of mass destruction it supposedly possessed.

But when no such weapons were found, the casus belli was changed to merely removing a volatile and deadly regime.

‘Just think what would be happening if these Arab revolutions were continuing now and Saddam, who was probably 20 times as bad as Assad in Syria, was trying to suppress an uprising in Iraq,’ Mr Blair told Newsnight.

‘So when you say “do you think of the loss of life and the trouble there’s been since 2003?” of course I do and you would be inhumane not to.

‘But think what would have happened if he’d been left there.’

He explained that he had ‘long since given up trying to persuade people it was the right decision’, instead presenting the decision to go to war as a ‘complex and difficult’ one.

‘Because I think if we don’t understand that, we won’t take the right decision about what I think will be a series of these types of problems which will arise now over the next few years,’ he continued.

‘You’ve got one in Syria right now, you’ve got one in Iran to come. The issue is: how do you make the word a safer place?

‘We are in the middle of this struggle, it is going to take a generation, it is going to be very arduous and difficult. But I think we are making a mistake, a profound error, if we think we can stay out of that struggle.

We are affected by it whether we like it or not.’

The military operations in Iraq began on March 20, 2003. The last British troop withdrew from the country in April 2009, after the deaths of 179 UK servicemen and women.

There is no official estimate of the number of Iraqi civilians killed as a consequence of the invasion a decade ago, but the death-toll is thought to be at least 100,000.

‘So when you say “do you think of the loss of life and the trouble there’s been since 2003?” of course I do and you would be inhumane not to.

‘But think what would have happened if he’d been left there.’

He explained that he had ‘long since given up trying to persuade people it was the right decision’, instead presenting the decision to go to war as a ‘complex and difficult’ one.

‘Because I think if we don’t understand that, we won’t take the right decision about what I think will be a series of these types of problems which will arise now over the next few years,’ he continued.

‘You’ve got one in Syria right now, you’ve got one in Iran to come. The issue is: how do you make the word a safer place?

‘We are in the middle of this struggle, it is going to take a generation, it is going to be very arduous and difficult. But I think we are making a mistake, a profound error, if we think we can stay out of that struggle.

We are affected by it whether we like it or not.’

The military operations in Iraq began on March 20, 2003. The last British troop withdrew from the country in April 2009, after the deaths of 179 UK servicemen and women.

There is no official estimate of the number of Iraqi civilians killed as a consequence of the invasion a decade ago, but the death-toll is thought to be at least 100,000.

You just can’t make this stuff up: John Kerry in Egypt to urge for political consensus .US Secretary of State John Kerry has arrived in Egypt to urge the government and the opposition to reach a political consensus after months of protests.

It goes on:  Mr Kerry is expected to stress that a political deal is needed for Egypt to secure international funds to overcome a crippling economic crisis…

John Effen Kerry lecturing the Egyptians that they need to do what John Kerry did for forty years! Come to a political consensus? 

DID I SAY SOMETHING WRONG OLLIE?

President Obama suggested the concept of “sequester” in late 2011. To his surprise, the Republicans went along with this. The reductions the sequesters require are reductions in the rate of increased spending from those originally planned by Obama and authorized by Congress. Since the federal government has not had a budget in four years, even though federal law requires it to have one every year, these are planned expenditures, not budgetary items, on which the president wants to spend more money. Nevertheless, even if these sequesters do kick in, the feds will spend more in 2013 than they spent in 2012. That's because the sequesters are not cuts to spending; rather, they are reductions in planned increases in spending.

Obama Sounds a False Alarm Over Sequestration

Even if the cuts come to pass, Obama's job is to make the executive branch of the federal government work.

Andrew Napolitano | February 28, 2013 REASON

In an effort to remove the hot-potato issue of excessive government spending from the 2012 presidential campaign, and calling the bluff of congressional Republicans who always seem to favor domestic spending cuts but increased military spending, President Obama suggested the concept of "sequester" in late 2011.

His idea was to reduce the rate of increased spending by 2 percent across the board—on domestic and military spending. To his surprise, the Republicans went along with this. They did so either because they lacked the political fortitude and the political will to designate specifically the unconstitutional and pork barrel federal spending projects to be cut, or because they thought that with the debt of the federal government then approaching $15 trillion (it is now $16.6 trillion and growing), any reductions in spending money the government doesn't have are preferred to no reductions. So, instead of enacting a budget, and instead of recognizing that much of its spending is simply not authorized by the Constitution, Congress enacted the so-called sequester legislation, and the president signed it into law.

The reductions the sequesters require are reductions in the rate of increased spending from those originally planned by Obama and authorized by Congress. Since the federal government has not had a budget in four years, even though federal law requires it to have one every year, these are planned expenditures, not budgetary items, on which the president wants to spend more money. Congress does not feel bound to obey the laws it has written; hence it has disregarded the legal requirement of a budget. Without a budget, the president has great leeway as to how to allocate funds within each department of the executive branch of the federal government.

Nevertheless, even if these sequesters do kick in, the feds will spend more in 2013 than they spent in 2012. That's because the sequesters are not cuts to spending; rather, they are reductions in planned increases in spending. The reductions amount to about two cents for every planned dollar of increased spending for every federal department.

The question remains: What part of each federal department (Justice, Defense, Homeland Security, Agriculture, etc.) will suffer these reduced increases? Here is where this sequester experiment gets dicey.

The president—who once championed the idea of sequesters and even threatened to veto any congressional effort to dismantle them—now has decided he can't live without that additional 2 percent to spend. So, he has gone about the country trying to scare the daylights out of people: Prisoners will be released from federal prisons, soldiers won't have enough bullets in their weapons, we will need to endure five-hour waiting lines at the airports, Social Security checks will be late, and similar nonsense.

If the fears Obama predicts do come to pass, we will have only him to blame. Remember, the sequesters only cut planned increases in spending. Suppose the president planned to hire 100 more soldiers for the Army and agents for the TSA and air traffic controllers for the FAA. Is the president required to hire only 98 of them? Well, under the law, he has a choice. He can hire all 100 and cut back elsewhere, or he can make do on 98 percent of what he has determined are the government's additional needs. But he cannot just intentionally release prisoners or weaken the military or inflict maddening delays on the flying public in order to make his fearful warnings come to pass.

His job is to uphold the Constitution, to make the executive branch of the federal government work. The president has taken an oath to "faithfully execute" his office. The words of the oath are prescribed in the Constitution. The word "faithfully" requires him to enforce the laws whether or not he agrees with them. It also requires him to enforce the laws in such a manner that they make sense—so that the federal government basically performs the services we have grown to expect of it.

I know, we have grown to expect more of the federal government than the Founders dreamed, and far more than we can possibly pay for, and infinitely more than the Constitution authorizes. But that's the good thing about these sequesters: They will force the president to prioritize.

If he prioritizes so that we stay free and safe, so that the government does what we basically have paid it to do, he'll be doing his job and saving us a tiny bit of cash. But if the president enforces the laws so that they hurt rather than work well just so he can say "I told you so" rather than "I'll work with you," then he will be inviting his own political misery or even his own impeachment. And we will have sunk deeper into the abyss of fear, division and red ink that already engulfs us.

Britain’s third party UKIP stuns the Conservatives by moving to second place in a UK by-election. The same thing can apply in the US by getting the Republicans out of the way to take on the Democrats.

Eastleigh by-election: Ukip inflicts major setback on David Cameron

The UK Independence Party has inflicted a major political setback on David Cameron by beating the Conservatives into third place in the Eastleigh by-election.

By James Kirkup, and Rowena Mason TELEGRAPH

6:54AM GMT 01 Mar 2013

Ukip came second in Eastleigh as the Liberal Democrats hung onto the seat despite recent allegations of a sex scandal involving a senior party figure.

Being defeated by both their coalition partners and Ukip will add to the growing doubts that the Conservatives can win the next general election.

Eastleigh is one of the Conservatives’ target seats and the party has flooded the seat with MPs over the last weeks, hoping to seize a constituency won by the Lib Dems in 2010.

But the final results, announced after 2am this morning, showed that the Lib Dems had held on and that Ukip had inflicted a huge symbolic blow to the Conservatives.

Maria Hutchings, the Conservative candidate got 10,559 votes, or 25.4 per cent.

Labour’s John O’Farrell came a distant fourth with 4,088 votes, unchanged from the last general election.

Ukip saw a remarkable rise in support over just a few weeks of campaigning in Eastleigh. It only got four per cent of the Eastleigh vote at the last general election.

Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, said the Eastleigh results showed that British politics is changing and voters are rejecting all the main parties.

“What happened here in Eastleigh was not a freak result. Something is changing,” Mr Farage said.

"People are sick and tired of having three social democrat parties that are frankly indistinguishable from each other."

During the Eastleigh campaign, the party has focussed on the cost and power of the EU, as well as warning of possible mass immigration from Bulgaria and Romania.

Mr Farage predicted that the EU’s role in immigration policy will be “the absolute key” issue in British politics over the coming years.

Despite the by-election being called after the resignation of Chris Huhne, the disgraced Liberal Democrat Cabinet minister – and the sexual harassment scandal facing the party – Nick Clegg’s party still managed to win the contest.

Senior Lib Dems said the result showed their party remains highly resilient, and raised doubts about the Tories’ long-term prospects.

Tim Farron, the Lib Dem president, said the Tories won't have a "sniff" of a majority in 2015 if they cannot take seats like Eastleigh.

He added: "If the Tories can't beat us in a seat they have to gain to win a majority, after the week we've had, that is outstanding for the Liberal Democrats."

The defeat will leave the Conservatives facing their biggest crisis of confidence since Mr Cameron failed to win an overall majority at the general election, and heighten the recent speculation over his leadership.

Grant Shapps, the Conservative Party chairman, insisted last night that the result was not a "crisis" for Mr Cameron and warned against reading too much into “a single by-election.”

However, he admitted the party needs to raise its game.

He told the BBC: “What we need to do is redouble our efforts, so that by the next general election we have a story to tell which is all about... how the Conservative Party is leading the charge to put us in the right place on the issues that really matter."

Mr Shapps’ own plans show the party needs to win seats such as Eastleigh to form a majority in 2015. The last time the Conservatives won an outright majority, at the 1992 general election.

Conservative strategists had hoped the Prime Minister's pledge to hold a referendum on Britain's EU membership would defeat the electoral threat from Ukip.

However, Ukip's unexpected success will put the Prime Minister under pressure to set out further plans for the repatriation of powers from the EU.

He is also likely to face calls to tighten immigration controls and deal with the rising cost of living, as Ukip claimed their supporters are punishing the Coalition for being detached from the lives of ordinary voters.

Tory MPs were last night equally concerned they failed to gain any ground against the Lib Dems even though Nick Clegg has been criticised for his handling of a sexual harassment scandal in his party.

Mike Thornton, the Liberal Democrat candidate, said he was "absolutely exhilarated" to have won as he arrived at the count.

The result defies national opinion polls which have shown the Liberal Democrats have just eight percent support.

Last night, Jeremy Browne, a Liberal Democrat minister, also said the big story from the by-election is "the resilience of the Lib Dems.”

The Conservatives may now be open to criticism over its choice of candidate, Maria Hutchings, who has made a series of gaffes over the last few weeks. Early in the campaign, she was condemned for suggesting she would send her "gifted" son to a private school as local state schools were not good enough to help him become a surgeon.

In the run-up to the vote, senior Tories tried to play down the party's chances of gaining a seat mid-way through a parliament at a time of economic turmoil. A Conservative government has not won a by-election since 1982, during the Falklands War.

The Eastleigh result could strain Coalition tensions as Mr Cameron will now be under pressure to move the party to the right to attract Ukip voters.

During the campaign, Tory ministers gave several interviews pledging more hardline immigration policies but it was not enough to avert the Ukip challenge.

The surge comes ahead of key local elections in May, which the Conservatives now fear could lead to an influx of Ukip councillors. This could help Ukip build a local base ahead of the 2015 general election.