ThereAreNoSunglasses

American Resistance To Empire

Obama’s Russian War Resolution Passes By 411 to 23

H.Res. 758: PASSED

411 YEA
10 NAY
13 NOT VOTING

congress.gov

H.Res.758 – Strongly condemning the actions of the Russian Federation, under President Vladimir Putin, which has carried out a policy of aggression against neighboring countries aimed at political and economic domination.113th Congress (2013-2014)

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H. Res. 758 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. RES. 758

Strongly condemning the actions of the Russian Federation, under
President Vladimir Putin, which has carried out a policy of aggression
against neighboring countries aimed at political and economic
domination.

_______________________________________________________________________

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

November 18, 2014

Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois submitted the following resolution; which was
referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

RESOLUTION

Strongly condemning the actions of the Russian Federation, under
President Vladimir Putin, which has carried out a policy of aggression
against neighboring countries aimed at political and economic domination.

Whereas upon entering office in 2009, President Barack Obama announced his intention to “reset” relations with the Russian Federation, which was
described by former United States Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul as
a policy to “engage with Russia to seek agreement on common interests”, which included the negotiation of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) in which the United States agreed to major reductions in its nuclear forces;

Whereas the Russian Federation has responded to this policy with openly anti-
American rhetoric and actions and with armed aggression against United
States allies and partner countries, including Ukraine and the Republic
of Georgia;

Whereas the Russian Federation has subjected Ukraine to a campaign of political, economic, and military aggression for the purpose of establishing its
domination over the country and progressively erasing its independence;

Whereas the Russian Federation’s invasion of, and military operations on,
Ukrainian territory represent gross violations of Ukraine’s sovereignty,
independence, and territorial integrity and a violation of international law, including the Russian Federation’s obligations under the United Nations Charter;

Whereas the Russian Federation’s forcible occupation and illegal annexation of
Crimea and its continuing support for separatist and paramilitary forces in eastern Ukraine are violations of its obligations under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, in which it pledged to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine and to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine;

Whereas the Russian Federation has provided military equipment, training, and
other assistance to separatist and paramilitary forces in eastern Ukraine that has resulted in over 4,000 civilian deaths, hundreds of thousands of civilian refugees, and widespread destruction;

Whereas the Ukrainian military remains at a significant disadvantage compared to the armed forces of the Russian Federation in terms of size and technological sophistication;

Whereas the United States strongly supports efforts to assist Ukraine to defend
its territory and sovereignty against military aggression by the Russian
Federation and by separatist forces;

Whereas the terms of the ceasefire specified in the Minsk Protocol that was
signed on September 5, 2014, by representatives of the Government of
Ukraine, the Russian Federation, and the Russian-backed separatists in
the eastern area of the Ukraine have been repeatedly violated by the Russian Federation and the separatist forces it supports;

Whereas separatist forces in areas they controlled in eastern Ukraine prevented the holding of elections on May 25, 2014, for a new President of Ukraine and on October 26, 2014, for a new Rada, thereby preventing the people of eastern Ukraine from exercising their democratic right to select
their candidates for office in free and fair elections;

Whereas, on November 2, 2014, separatist forces in eastern Ukraine held
fraudulent and illegal elections in areas they controlled for the supposed purpose of choosing leaders of the illegitimate local political entities they have declared;

Whereas the Russian Federation has recognized the results of the illegal
elections and continues to provide the military, political, and economic support without which the separatist forces could not continue to maintain their areas of control;

Whereas the reestablishment of peace and security in Ukraine requires the full
withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukrainian territory, the resumption of the government’s control over all of the country’s international borders, the disarming of the separatist and paramilitary forces in the east, an end to Russia’s use of its energy exports and trade barriers to apply economic and political pressure, and an end to Russian interference in Ukraine’s internal affairs;

Whereas Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, a civilian airliner, was destroyed by a Russian-made missile provided by the Russian Federation to separatist forces in eastern Ukraine, resulting in the loss of 298 innocent lives;

Whereas the Russian Federation has used and is continuing to use coercive
economic measures, including the manipulation of energy prices and supplies, as well as trade restrictions, to place political and economic pressure on Ukraine;

Whereas military forces of the Russian Federation and of the separatists it
controls have repeatedly violated the terms of the ceasefire agreement
announced on September 5, 2014;

Whereas the Russian Federation invaded the Republic of Georgia in August 2008, continues to station military forces in the regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and is implementing measures intended to progressively integrate these regions into the Russian Federation;

Whereas the Russian Federation continues to subject the Republic of Georgia to political and military intimidation, economic coercion, and other forms of aggression in an effort to establish its control of the country and to prevent Georgia from establishing closer relations with the European Union and the United States;

Whereas the Russian Federation continues to station military forces in the
Transniestria region of Moldova;

Whereas the Russian Federation continues to provide support to the illegal
separatist regime in the Transniestria region of Moldova;

Whereas the Russian Federation continues to subject Moldova to political and military intimidation, economic coercion, and other forms of aggression in an effort to establish its control of the countries and to prevent efforts by Moldova to establish closer relations with the European Union and the United States;

Whereas under the terms of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), a flight-test or deployment of any INF-banned weapon delivery vehicle by
the Russian Federation constitutes a violation of the INF Treaty;

Whereas, on July 29, 2014, the United States Department of State released its
report on the Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments, as required by Section 403 of the Arms Control and Disarmament Act, for calendar year 2013, which found that, “[t]he United States has determined that the Russian Federation is in violation of its obligations under the INF Treaty not to possess, produce, or flight-test a ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) with a range capability of 500 km to 5,500 km, or to possess or produce launchers of such missiles”;

Whereas according to reports, the Government of the Russian Federation has
repeatedly engaged in the infiltration of, and attacks on, computer networks of the United States Government, as well as individuals and private entities, for the purpose of illicitly acquiring information and disrupting operations, including by supporting Russian individuals and entities engaged in these actions;

Whereas the political, military, and economic aggression against Ukraine and
other countries by the Russian Federation underscores the enduring importance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as the cornerstone of collective Euro-Atlantic defense;

Whereas the United States reaffirms its obligations under the North Atlantic
Treaty, especially Article 5 which states that “an armed attack against one or more” of the treaty signatories “shall be considered an attack against them all”;

Whereas the Russian Federation is continuing to use its supply of energy as a
means of political and economic coercion against Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and other European countries;

Whereas the United States strongly supports energy diversification initiatives
in Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and other European countries to reduce the
ability of the Russian Federation to use its supply of energy for political and economic coercion, including the development of domestic sources of energy, increased efficiency, and substituting Russian energy resources with imports from other countries;

Whereas the Russian Federation continues to conduct an aggressive propaganda effort in Ukraine in which false information is used to subvert the authority of the legitimate national government, undermine stability, promote ethnic dissension, and incite violence;

Whereas the Russian Federation has expanded the presence of its state-sponsored media in national languages across central and western Europe with the intent of using news and information to distort public opinion and
obscure Russian political and economic influence in Europe;

Whereas expanded efforts by United States international broadcasting across all media in the Russian and Ukrainian languages are needed to counter Russian propaganda and to provide the people of Ukraine and the surrounding regions with access to credible and balanced information;

Whereas the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL),
Incorporated continue to represent a minority market share in Ukraine and other regional states with significant ethno-linguistic Russian populations who increasingly obtain their local and international news from Russian state-sponsored media outlets;

Whereas the United States International Programming to Ukraine and Neighboring Regions Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-96) requires the Voice of America and RFE/RL, Incorporated to provide programming content to target
populations in Ukraine and Moldova 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, including at least 8 weekly hours of total original video and television content and 14 weekly hours of total audio content while expanding cooperation with local media outlets and deploying greater content through multimedia platforms and mobile devices; and

Whereas Vladimir Putin has established an increasingly authoritarian regime in
the Russian Federation through fraudulent elections, the persecution and jailing of political opponents, the elimination of independent media, the seizure of key sectors of the economy and enabling supporters to enrich themselves through widespread corruption, and implementing a strident propaganda campaign to justify Russian aggression against other countries and repression in Russia, among other actions:

Now, therefore,be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives–

(1) strongly supports the efforts by President Poroshenko and the people of Ukraine to establish a lasting peace in their country that includes the full withdrawal of Russian forces from its territory, full control of its international borders, the disarming of separatist and paramilitary forces eastern Ukraine, the adoption of policies to reduce the ability of the Russian Federation to use energy exports and trade barriers as weapons to apply economic and political pressure, and an end to interference by the Russian Federation in the internal affairs of Ukraine;

(2) affirms the right of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and all countries to exercise their sovereign rights within their internationally recognized borders free from outside intervention and to conduct their foreign policy in accordance with their determination of the best interests of their peoples;

(3) condemns the continuing political, economic, and military aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova and the continuing violation of their sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity;
(4) states that the military intervention by the Russian Federation in Ukraine–

(A) is in breach of its obligations under the United Nations Charter;
(B) is in violation of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in which it pledged to respect the independence, sovereignty, and existing borders of Ukraine and to refrain from the threat of the use of
force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine; and
(C) poses a threat to international peace and security;

(5) calls on the Russian Federation to reverse its illegal annexation of the Crimean peninsula, to end its support of the separatist forces in Crimea, and to remove its military forces from that region other than those operating in strict
accordance with its 1997 agreement on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet Stationing on the Territory of Ukraine;
(6) calls on the President to cooperate with United States allies and partners in Europe and other countries around the world to refuse to recognize the illegal annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation;
(7) calls on the Russian Federation to remove its military forces and military equipment from the territory of Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, and to end its political, military, and economic support of separatist forces;
(8) calls on the Russian Federation and the separatist forces it controls in Ukraine to end their violations of the ceasefire announced in Minsk on September 5, 2014;
(9) calls on the President to cooperate with United States allies and partners in Europe and other countries around the world to impose visa bans, targeted asset freezes, sectoral sanctions, and other measures on the Russian Federation and its leadership with the goal of compelling it to end its violation
of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, to remove its military forces and equipment from Ukrainian territory, and to end its support of separatist and paramilitary forces;
(10) calls on the President to provide the Government of Ukraine with defense articles, services, and training required to effectively defend its territory and sovereignty;
(11) calls on the President to provide the Government of Ukraine with appropriate intelligence and other relevant information to assist the Government of Ukraine to defend its territory and sovereignty;
(12) calls on North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies and United States partners in Europe and other nations around the world to suspend all military cooperation with Russia, including prohibiting the sale to the Russian
Government of lethal and non-lethal military equipment;
(13) reaffirms the commitment of the United States to its obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty, especially Article 5, and calls on all Alliance member states to provide their full share of the resources needed to ensure their collective defense;
(14) urges the President, in consultation with Congress, to conduct a review of the force posture, readiness, and responsibilities of United States Armed Forces and the forces of other members of NATO to determine if the contributions and actions of each are sufficient to meet the obligations of
collective self-defense under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and to specify the measures needed to remedy any deficiencies;
(15) urges the President to hold the Russian Federation accountable for violations of its obligations under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and to take action to bring the Russian Federation back into compliance
with the Treaty;
(16) urges the President to conduct a review of the utility of the INF Treaty in securing United States interests and the consequences for the United States of withdrawing from the Treaty if the Russian Federation does not return to compliance with its provisions;
(17) calls on Ukraine, the European Union, and other countries in Europe to support energy diversification initiatives to reduce the ability of the Russian Federation to use its supply of energy as a means of applying political and
economic pressure on other countries, including by promoting increased natural gas and other energy exports from the United States and other countries;
(18) urges the President to expedite the United States Department of Energy’s approval of liquefied natural gas exports to Ukraine and other European countries;
(19) calls on the President and the United States Department of State to develop a strategy for multilateral coordination to produce or otherwise procure and distribute news and information in the Russian language to countries with
significant Russian-speaking populations which maximizes the use of existing platforms for content delivery such as the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Incorporated, leverages indigenous public-private partnerships for content production, and seeks in-kind contributions from regional state governments;
(20) calls on the United States Department of State to identify positions at key diplomatic posts in Europe to evaluate the political, economic, and cultural influence of Russia and Russian state-sponsored media and to coordinate with
host governments on appropriate responses;
(21) calls upon the Russian Federation to seek a mutually beneficial relationship with the United States that is based on respect for the independence and sovereignty of all countries and their right to freely determine their future, including their relationship with other nations and international organizations, without interference, intimidation, or coercion by other countries; and
(22) calls for the reestablishment of a close and cooperative relationship between the people of the United States and the Russian people based on the shared pursuit of democracy, human rights, and peace among all nations.

H.Res. 758: PASSED

Vote Party Representative District
Alabama
Yea   R   Byrne, Bradley AL 1st
Yea   R   Roby, Martha AL 2nd
Yea   R   Rogers, Mike AL 3rd
No Vote   R   Aderholt, Robert AL 4th
Yea   R   Brooks, Mo AL 5th
Yea   R   Bachus, Spencer AL 6th
Yea   D   Sewell, Terri AL 7th
Alaska
Yea   R   Young, Don AK
Arizona
Yea   D   Kirkpatrick, Ann AZ 1st
Yea   D   Barber, Ron AZ 2nd
Yea   D   Grijalva, Raúl AZ 3rd
Yea   R   Gosar, Paul AZ 4th
Yea   R   Salmon, Matt AZ 5th
Yea   R   Schweikert, David AZ 6th
Yea   D   Pastor, Ed AZ 7th
Yea   R   Franks, Trent AZ 8th
Yea   D   Sinema, Kyrsten AZ 9th
Arkansas
Yea   R   Crawford, Eric AR 1st
Yea   R   Griffin, Tim AR 2nd
Yea   R   Womack, Steve AR 3rd
Yea   R   Cotton, Tom AR 4th
California
Yea   R   LaMalfa, Doug CA 1st
Yea   D   Huffman, Jared CA 2nd
Yea   D   Garamendi, John CA 3rd
Yea   R   McClintock, Tom CA 4th
Yea   D   Thompson, Mike CA 5th
Yea   D   Matsui, Doris CA 6th
Yea   D   Bera, Ami CA 7th
Yea   R   Cook, Paul CA 8th
Yea   D   McNerney, Jerry CA 9th
Yea   R   Denham, Jeff CA 10th
Nay   D   Miller, George CA 11th
Yea   D   Pelosi, Nancy CA 12th
Yea   D   Lee, Barbara CA 13th
Yea   D   Speier, Jackie CA 14th
Yea   D   Swalwell, Eric CA 15th
Yea   D   Costa, Jim CA 16th
Yea   D   Honda, Mike CA 17th
Yea   D   Eshoo, Anna CA 18th
Yea   D   Lofgren, Zoe CA 19th
Yea   D   Farr, Sam CA 20th
Yea   R   Valadao, David CA 21st
Yea   R   Nunes, Devin CA 22nd
Yea   R   McCarthy, Kevin CA 23rd
Yea   D   Capps, Lois CA 24th
Yea   R   McKeon, Buck CA 25th
Yea   D   Brownley, Julia CA 26th
Yea   D   Chu, Judy CA 27th
Yea   D   Schiff, Adam CA 28th
Yea   D   Cárdenas, Tony CA 29th
Yea   D   Sherman, Brad CA 30th
No Vote   R   Miller, Gary CA 31st
Yea   D   Napolitano, Grace CA 32nd
Yea   D   Waxman, Henry CA 33rd
Yea   D   Becerra, Xavier CA 34th
No Vote   D   Negrete McLeod, Gloria CA 35th
Yea   D   Ruiz, Raul CA 36th
Yea   D   Bass, Karen CA 37th
Yea   D   Sánchez, Linda CA 38th
Yea   R   Royce, Ed CA 39th
Yea   D   Roybal-Allard, Lucille CA 40th
Yea   D   Takano, Mark CA 41st
Yea   R   Calvert, Ken CA 42nd
Yea   D   Waters, Maxine CA 43rd
Yea   D   Hahn, Janice CA 44th
Yea   R   Campbell, John CA 45th
Yea   D   Sanchez, Loretta CA 46th
Yea   D   Lowenthal, Alan CA 47th
Nay   R   Rohrabacher, Dana CA 48th
Yea   R   Issa, Darrell CA 49th
Yea   R   Hunter, Duncan CA 50th
Yea   D   Vargas, Juan CA 51st
Yea   D   Peters, Scott CA 52nd
Yea   D   Davis, Susan CA 53rd
Colorado
Yea   D   DeGette, Diana CO 1st
Yea   D   Polis, Jared CO 2nd
Yea   R   Tipton, Scott CO 3rd
Yea   R   Gardner, Cory CO 4th
Yea   R   Lamborn, Doug CO 5th
Yea   R   Coffman, Mike CO 6th
Yea   D   Perlmutter, Ed CO 7th
Connecticut
Yea   D   Larson, John CT 1st
Yea   D   Courtney, Joe CT 2nd
Yea   D   DeLauro, Rosa CT 3rd
Yea   D   Himes, James CT 4th
Yea   D   Esty, Elizabeth CT 5th
Delaware
Yea   D   Carney, John DE
Florida
Yea   R   Miller, Jeff FL 1st
Yea   R   Southerland, Steve FL 2nd
Yea   R   Yoho, Ted FL 3rd
Yea   R   Crenshaw, Ander FL 4th
Yea   D   Brown, Corrine FL 5th
Yea   R   DeSantis, Ron FL 6th
Yea   R   Mica, John FL 7th
Yea   R   Posey, Bill FL 8th
Nay   D   Grayson, Alan FL 9th
Yea   R   Webster, Daniel FL 10th
Yea   R   Nugent, Richard FL 11th
Yea   R   Bilirakis, Gus FL 12th
Yea   R   Jolly, David FL 13th
Yea   D   Castor, Kathy FL 14th
Yea   R   Ross, Dennis FL 15th
Yea   R   Buchanan, Vern FL 16th
Yea   R   Rooney, Thomas FL 17th
Yea   D   Murphy, Patrick FL 18th
Yea   R   Clawson, Curt FL 19th
Nay   D   Hastings, Alcee FL 20th
Yea   D   Deutch, Theodore FL 21st
Yea   D   Frankel, Lois FL 22nd
Yea   D   Wasserman Schultz, Debbie FL 23rd
Yea   D   Wilson, Frederica FL 24th
Yea   R   Diaz-Balart, Mario FL 25th
Yea   D   Garcia, Joe FL 26th
Yea   R   Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana FL 27th
Georgia
Yea   R   Kingston, Jack GA 1st
Yea   D   Bishop, Sanford GA 2nd
Yea   R   Westmoreland, Lynn GA 3rd
Yea   D   Johnson, Hank GA 4th
Yea   D   Lewis, John GA 5th
Yea   R   Price, Tom GA 6th
Yea   R   Woodall, Rob GA 7th
Yea   R   Scott, Austin GA 8th
Yea   R   Collins, Doug GA 9th
Yea   R   Broun, Paul GA 10th
Yea   R   Gingrey, Phil GA 11th
Yea   D   Barrow, John GA 12th
Yea   D   Scott, David GA 13th
Yea   R   Graves, Tom GA 14th
Hawaii
Yea   D   Hanabusa, Colleen HI 1st
Yea   D   Gabbard, Tulsi HI 2nd
Idaho
Yea   R   Labrador, Raúl ID 1st
Yea   R   Simpson, Mike ID 2nd
Illinois
Yea   D   Rush, Bobby IL 1st
Yea   D   Kelly, Robin IL 2nd
Yea   D   Lipinski, Daniel IL 3rd
Yea   D   Gutiérrez, Luis IL 4th
Yea   D   Quigley, Mike IL 5th
Yea   R   Roskam, Peter IL 6th
Yea   D   Davis, Danny IL 7th
No Vote   D   Duckworth, Tammy IL 8th
Yea   D   Schakowsky, Jan IL 9th
Yea   D   Schneider, Bradley IL 10th
Yea   D   Foster, Bill IL 11th
Yea   D   Enyart, William IL 12th
Yea   R   Davis, Rodney IL 13th
Yea   R   Hultgren, Randy IL 14th
Yea   R   Shimkus, John IL 15th
Yea   R   Kinzinger, Adam IL 16th
Yea   D   Bustos, Cheri IL 17th
Vote Party Representative District
Yea   R   Schock, Aaron IL 18th
Indiana
Yea   D   Visclosky, Peter IN 1st
Yea   R   Walorski, Jackie IN 2nd
Yea   R   Stutzman, Marlin IN 3rd
Yea   R   Rokita, Todd IN 4th
Yea   R   Brooks, Susan IN 5th
Yea   R   Messer, Luke IN 6th
Yea   D   Carson, André IN 7th
Yea   R   Bucshon, Larry IN 8th
Yea   R   Young, Todd IN 9th
Iowa
Yea   D   Braley, Bruce IA 1st
Yea   D   Loebsack, David IA 2nd
Yea   R   Latham, Tom IA 3rd
Yea   R   King, Steve IA 4th
Kansas
Yea   R   Huelskamp, Tim KS 1st
Yea   R   Jenkins, Lynn KS 2nd
Yea   R   Yoder, Kevin KS 3rd
Yea   R   Pompeo, Mike KS 4th
Kentucky
Yea   R   Whitfield, Ed KY 1st
Yea   R   Guthrie, Brett KY 2nd
Yea   D   Yarmuth, John KY 3rd
Nay   R   Massie, Thomas KY 4th
Yea   R   Rogers, Hal KY 5th
Yea   R   Barr, Andy KY 6th
Louisiana
Yea   R   Scalise, Steve LA 1st
Yea   D   Richmond, Cedric LA 2nd
Yea   R   Boustany, Charles LA 3rd
Yea   R   Fleming, John LA 4th
Yea   R   McAllister, Vance LA 5th
Yea   R   Cassidy, Bill LA 6th
Maine
Yea   D   Pingree, Chellie ME 1st
Yea   D   Michaud, Michael ME 2nd
Maryland
Yea   R   Harris, Andy MD 1st
Yea   D   Ruppersberger, A. Dutch MD 2nd
Yea   D   Sarbanes, John MD 3rd
Yea   D   Edwards, Donna MD 4th
Yea   D   Hoyer, Steny MD 5th
Yea   D   Delaney, John MD 6th
Yea   D   Cummings, Elijah MD 7th
Yea   D   Van Hollen, Chris MD 8th
Massachusetts
Yea   D   Neal, Richard MA 1st
Yea   D   McGovern, Jim MA 2nd
Yea   D   Tsongas, Niki MA 3rd
Yea   D   Kennedy, Joseph MA 4th
Yea   D   Clark, Katherine MA 5th
Yea   D   Tierney, John MA 6th
No Vote   D   Capuano, Michael MA 7th
Yea   D   Lynch, Stephen MA 8th
Yea   D   Keating, William MA 9th
Michigan
Yea   R   Benishek, Dan MI 1st
Yea   R   Huizenga, Bill MI 2nd
Nay   R   Amash, Justin MI 3rd
Yea   R   Camp, Dave MI 4th
Yea   D   Kildee, Daniel MI 5th
Yea   R   Upton, Fred MI 6th
Yea   R   Walberg, Tim MI 7th
Yea   R   Rogers, Mike MI 8th
Yea   D   Levin, Sander MI 9th
Yea   R   Miller, Candice MI 10th
Yea   R   Bentivolio, Kerry MI 11th
Yea   D   Dingell, John MI 12th
Yea   D   Conyers, John MI 13th
Yea   D   Peters, Gary MI 14th
Minnesota
Yea   D   Walz, Timothy MN 1st
Yea   R   Kline, John MN 2nd
Yea   R   Paulsen, Erik MN 3rd
Yea   D   McCollum, Betty MN 4th
Yea   D   Ellison, Keith MN 5th
Yea   R   Bachmann, Michele MN 6th
Yea   D   Peterson, Collin MN 7th
Yea   D   Nolan, Richard MN 8th
Mississippi
Yea   R   Nunnelee, Alan MS 1st
Yea   D   Thompson, Bennie MS 2nd
Yea   R   Harper, Gregg MS 3rd
Yea   R   Palazzo, Steven MS 4th
Missouri
Yea   D   Clay, Lacy MO 1st
Yea   R   Wagner, Ann MO 2nd
Yea   R   Luetkemeyer, Blaine MO 3rd
Yea   R   Hartzler, Vicky MO 4th
Yea   D   Cleaver, Emanuel MO 5th
Yea   R   Graves, Sam MO 6th
Yea   R   Long, Billy MO 7th
Yea   R   Smith, Jason MO 8th
Montana
Yea   R   Daines, Steve MT
Nebraska
Yea   R   Fortenberry, Jeff NE 1st
Yea   R   Terry, Lee NE 2nd
Yea   R   Smith, Adrian NE 3rd
Nevada
Yea   D   Titus, Dina NV 1st
Yea   R   Amodei, Mark NV 2nd
Yea   R   Heck, Joseph NV 3rd
Yea   D   Horsford, Steven NV 4th
New Hampshire
Yea   D   Shea-Porter, Carol NH 1st
Yea   D   Kuster, Ann NH 2nd
New Jersey
Yea   D   Norcross, Donald NJ 1st
Yea   R   LoBiondo, Frank NJ 2nd
Yea   R   Runyan, Jon NJ 3rd
Yea   R   Smith, Chris NJ 4th
Yea   R   Garrett, Scott NJ 5th
Yea   D   Pallone, Frank NJ 6th
Yea   R   Lance, Leonard NJ 7th
Yea   D   Sires, Albio NJ 8th
Yea   D   Pascrell, Bill NJ 9th
Yea   D   Payne, Donald NJ 10th
Yea   R   Frelinghuysen, Rodney NJ 11th
Yea   D   Holt, Rush NJ 12th
New Mexico
Yea   D   Lujan Grisham, Michelle NM 1st
Yea   R   Pearce, Steve NM 2nd
Yea   D   Luján, Ben NM 3rd
New York
Yea   D   Bishop, Timothy NY 1st
Yea   R   King, Pete NY 2nd
Yea   D   Israel, Steve NY 3rd
No Vote   D   McCarthy, Carolyn NY 4th
Yea   D   Meeks, Gregory NY 5th
Yea   D   Meng, Grace NY 6th
Yea   D   Velázquez, Nydia NY 7th
Yea   D   Jeffries, Hakeem NY 8th
Yea   D   Clarke, Yvette NY 9th
Yea   D   Nadler, Jerrold NY 10th
Yea   R   Grimm, Michael NY 11th
Yea   D   Maloney, Carolyn NY 12th
Yea   D   Rangel, Charles NY 13th
Yea   D   Crowley, Joseph NY 14th
Yea   D   Serrano, José NY 15th
Yea   D   Engel, Eliot NY 16th
Yea   D   Lowey, Nita NY 17th
Yea   D   Maloney, Sean NY 18th
Yea   R   Gibson, Christopher NY 19th
Yea   D   Tonko, Paul NY 20th
Yea   D   Owens, William NY 21st
Yea   R   Hanna, Richard NY 22nd
Yea   R   Reed, Tom NY 23rd
Yea   D   Maffei, Daniel NY 24th
Yea   D   Slaughter, Louise NY 25th
Yea   D   Higgins, Brian NY 26th
Yea   R   Collins, Chris NY 27th
North Carolina
Yea   D   Butterfield, G.K. NC 1st
Yea   R   Ellmers, Renee NC 2nd
Nay   R   Jones, Walter NC 3rd
Yea   D   Price, David NC 4th
Yea   R   Foxx, Virginia NC 5th
No Vote   R   Coble, Howard NC 6th
Yea   D   McIntyre, Mike NC 7th
Vote Party Representative District
Yea   R   Hudson, Richard NC 8th
Yea   R   Pittenger, Robert NC 9th
Yea   R   McHenry, Patrick NC 10th
No Vote   R   Meadows, Mark NC 11th
Yea   D   Adams, Alma NC 12th
Yea   R   Holding, George NC 13th
North Dakota
Yea   R   Cramer, Kevin ND
Ohio
Yea   R   Chabot, Steve OH 1st
Yea   R   Wenstrup, Brad OH 2nd
Yea   D   Beatty, Joyce OH 3rd
Yea   R   Jordan, Jim OH 4th
Yea   R   Latta, Robert OH 5th
Yea   R   Johnson, Bill OH 6th
Yea   R   Gibbs, Bob OH 7th
Yea   D   Kaptur, Marcy OH 9th
Yea   R   Turner, Michael OH 10th
Yea   D   Fudge, Marcia OH 11th
Yea   R   Tiberi, Pat OH 12th
Yea   D   Ryan, Tim OH 13th
Yea   R   Joyce, David OH 14th
Yea   R   Stivers, Steve OH 15th
Yea   R   Renacci, James OH 16th
Oklahoma
Yea   R   Bridenstine, Jim OK 1st
Yea   R   Mullin, Markwayne OK 2nd
Yea   R   Lucas, Frank OK 3rd
Yea   R   Cole, Tom OK 4th
Yea   R   Lankford, James OK 5th
Oregon
Yea   D   Bonamici, Suzanne OR 1st
Yea   R   Walden, Greg OR 2nd
Yea   D   Blumenauer, Earl OR 3rd
Yea   D   DeFazio, Peter OR 4th
Yea   D   Schrader, Kurt OR 5th
Pennsylvania
Yea   D   Brady, Robert PA 1st
Yea   D   Fattah, Chaka PA 2nd
Yea   R   Kelly, Mike PA 3rd
Yea   R   Perry, Scott PA 4th
Yea   R   Thompson, Glenn PA 5th
Yea   R   Gerlach, Jim PA 6th
Yea   R   Meehan, Patrick PA 7th
Yea   R   Fitzpatrick, Michael PA 8th
Yea   R   Shuster, Bill PA 9th
Yea   R   Marino, Tom PA 10th
Yea   R   Barletta, Lou PA 11th
Yea   R   Rothfus, Keith PA 12th
Yea   D   Schwartz, Allyson PA 13th
No Vote   D   Doyle, Mike PA 14th
Yea   R   Dent, Charles PA 15th
Yea   R   Pitts, Joseph PA 16th
Yea   D   Cartwright, Matthew PA 17th
Yea   R   Murphy, Tim PA 18th
Rhode Island
Yea   D   Cicilline, David RI 1st
Yea   D   Langevin, Jim RI 2nd
South Carolina
Yea   R   Sanford, Mark SC 1st
Yea   R   Wilson, Joe SC 2nd
Yea   R   Duncan, Jeff SC 3rd
Yea   R   Gowdy, Trey SC 4th
Yea   R   Mulvaney, Mick SC 5th
Yea   D   Clyburn, Jim SC 6th
Yea   R   Rice, Tom SC 7th
South Dakota
Yea   R   Noem, Kristi SD
Tennessee
Yea   R   Roe, Phil TN 1st
Nay   R   Duncan, John TN 2nd
Yea   R   Fleischmann, Chuck TN 3rd
Yea   R   DesJarlais, Scott TN 4th
No Vote   D   Cooper, Jim TN 5th
Yea   R   Black, Diane TN 6th
Yea   R   Blackburn, Marsha TN 7th
Yea   R   Fincher, Stephen TN 8th
Yea   D   Cohen, Steve TN 9th
Texas
Yea   R   Gohmert, Louie TX 1st
Yea   R   Poe, Ted TX 2nd
Yea   R   Johnson, Sam TX 3rd
No Vote   R   Hall, Ralph TX 4th
Yea   R   Hensarling, Jeb TX 5th
Yea   R   Barton, Joe TX 6th
Yea   R   Culberson, John TX 7th
Yea   R   Brady, Kevin TX 8th
Yea   D   Green, Al TX 9th
Yea   R   McCaul, Michael TX 10th
Yea   R   Conaway, Michael TX 11th
Yea   R   Granger, Kay TX 12th
Yea   R   Thornberry, Mac TX 13th
Yea   R   Weber, Randy TX 14th
Yea   D   Hinojosa, Rubén TX 15th
Nay   D   O’Rourke, Beto TX 16th
Yea   R   Flores, Bill TX 17th
Yea   D   Jackson Lee, Sheila TX 18th
Yea   R   Neugebauer, Randy TX 19th
Yea   D   Castro, Joaquin TX 20th
Yea   R   Smith, Lamar TX 21st
Yea   R   Olson, Pete TX 22nd
No Vote   D   Gallego, Pete TX 23rd
Yea   R   Marchant, Kenny TX 24th
Yea   R   Williams, Roger TX 25th
Yea   R   Burgess, Michael TX 26th
Yea   R   Farenthold, Blake TX 27th
Yea   D   Cuellar, Henry TX 28th
Yea   D   Green, Gene TX 29th
Yea   D   Johnson, Eddie TX 30th
Yea   R   Carter, John TX 31st
Yea   R   Sessions, Pete TX 32nd
Yea   D   Veasey, Marc TX 33rd
Yea   D   Vela, Filemon TX 34th
Yea   D   Doggett, Lloyd TX 35th
Yea   R   Stockman, Steve TX 36th
Utah
No Vote   R   Bishop, Rob UT 1st
Yea   R   Stewart, Chris UT 2nd
Yea   R   Chaffetz, Jason UT 3rd
Yea   D   Matheson, Jim UT 4th
Vermont
Yea   D   Welch, Peter VT
Virginia
Yea   R   Wittman, Robert VA 1st
Yea   R   Rigell, Scott VA 2nd
Yea   D   Scott, Bobby VA 3rd
Yea   R   Forbes, Randy VA 4th
Yea   R   Hurt, Robert VA 5th
Yea   R   Goodlatte, Bob VA 6th
Yea   R   Brat, Dave VA 7th
Yea   D   Moran, Jim VA 8th
Yea   R   Griffith, Morgan VA 9th
Yea   R   Wolf, Frank VA 10th
Yea   D   Connolly, Gerald VA 11th
Washington
Yea   D   DelBene, Suzan WA 1st
Yea   D   Larsen, Rick WA 2nd
Yea   R   Herrera Beutler, Jaime WA 3rd
Yea   R   Hastings, Doc WA 4th
Yea   R   McMorris Rodgers, Cathy WA 5th
Yea   D   Kilmer, Derek WA 6th
Nay   D   McDermott, Jim WA 7th
Yea   R   Reichert, David WA 8th
Yea   D   Smith, Adam WA 9th
Yea   D   Heck, Denny WA 10th
West Virginia
Yea   R   McKinley, David WV 1st
Yea   R   Capito, Shelley WV 2nd
Yea   D   Rahall, Nick WV 3rd
Wisconsin
Yea   R   Ryan, Paul WI 1st
Yea   D   Pocan, Mark WI 2nd
Yea   D   Kind, Ron WI 3rd
Yea   D   Moore, Gwen WI 4th
Yea   R   Sensenbrenner, James WI 5th
Yea   R   Petri, Tom WI 6th
Yea   R   Duffy, Sean WI 7th
Yea   R   Ribble, Reid WI 8th
Wyoming
Yea   R   Lummis, Cynthia WY

Anti-Russian Economic Warfare—Cutting Russia Off from SWIFT Is An Act of War

The head of VTB: Disabling Russian banks from SWIFT would mean war

CypLive cyprus

Disabling Russian banks from the international payment system SWIFT would have meant war, the head of VTB Andrey Kostin in an interview with German newspaper Handelsblatt, which is published in Wednesday night online edition.

“In my personal opinion, if you will put this kind of sanctions, it would mean war,” – he said, adding that in this case, the US Ambassador to Russia should leave the same day.

Kostin also said it is the banking system, which is largely dependent on the euro and the dollar is one of the most vulnerable of the Russian economy.

Anyway, Russia has a backup plan, and in the event of such a development, said Costin. Previously, he pointed out that the VTB Group is in talks with the Savings Bank on the establishment of an alternative payment system.

SWIFT – Society for Worldwide Interbank telecommunications system provides 1,8 billion messages per year; per day via the SWIFT network are payment orders over 6 trillion dollars, it involves more than 10 thousand financial institutions in 210 countries.

By statute SWIFT, in each country are community group members and group members. In Russia, they are united by association “ROSSWIFT.” According to “ROSSWIFT”, the number of users of the SWIFT system, Russia ranks second in the world after the United States.

Censorship Through Search-Engine Tampering

[In case anyone hasn’t noticed, or hasn’t been paying attention, Google’s infamous “secret algorithm” has been squeezing most blogs out of search results.  Even blogs which are treasure troves of information on the Imperial war on humanity, such as No Sunglasses, can no longer be found by “stumbling-upon” them in concerted searches on specific topics, using Google searches.  Prior to Google’s previous reworking of its search algorithm, called “Panda” (SEE:  Getting Squeezed-Out of Google Searches With the Panda Logarithm), which devastated the Alexa Ratings Index for this website and others like it,

snapshot no sun  Dec. 3, 2014

This site lost over 100,000 points in the Alexa system, because readership is down that much, 400+ daily visitors difference.  Before, “therearenosunglasses” nearly always came up in most web searches, pertaining to the American dictatorship or resistance to it.  Now, after the new algorithm rework, we are faced with Google’s next generation search barricade, called “Hummingbird” (SEE: Hummingbird Unleashed), which has flat-lined most of us.  The proof of Hummingbird censorship has been summed-up in this article from aangirfan, “TRUTH BLOGS UNDER ATTACK.”  It is impossible at this stage of the game to determine whether this can all be written-off to more of the same govt/corporate censorship of truth-tellers (a.k.a., “conspiracy theorists”), or it can be partially explained by the move to hand-held computers and the tendency to turn everything into another “APP” (SEE: Lets talk about Hummingbird—Parts 1 and 2)]

peter.chamberlin@hotmail.com

 

google-chains

Are Plunging Oil Prices Portent of More Violent Revolutions, Possibly World War?

[SEE: City of London Freaks, Frantic with Fear Over Impending Anti-Capitalist World Revolution ]

FOOD PRICE INDEX RIOT PREDICTOR

Oil could plunge to $40 or lower

daily star LEB

Pump jacks are seen in the Midway Sunset oilfield.

Oil’s decline is proving to be the worst since the collapse of the financial system in 2008 and threatening to have the same global impact of falling prices three decades ago that led to the Mexican debt crisis and the end of the Soviet Union. Russia, the world’s largest producer, can no longer rely on the same oil revenues to rescue an economy suffering from European and U.S. sanctions. Iran, also reeling from similar sanctions, will need to reduce subsidies that have partly insulated its growing population. Nigeria, fighting an Islamic insurgency, and Venezuela, crippled by failing political and economic policies, also rank among the biggest losers from the decision by OPEC last week to let the force of the market determine what some experts say will be the first free fall in decades.

“This is a big shock in Caracas, it’s a shock in Tehran, it’s a shock in Abuja,” Daniel Yergin, vice chairman of Englewood, Colorado-based consultant IHS Inc. and author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning history of oil, told Bloomberg Radio. “There’s a change in psychology. There’s going to be a higher degree of uncertainty.”

A world already unsettled by Russian-inspired insurrection in Ukraine to the onslaught of ISIS in the Middle East is about be roiled further as crude prices plunge. Global energy markets have been upended by an unprecedented North American oil boom brought on by hydraulic fracturing, the process of blasting shale rocks to release oil and gas.

Few expected the extent or speed of the U.S. oil resurgence. As wildcatters unlocked new energy supplies, some oil exporters abroad failed to invest in diversifying their economies. Coddled by years of $100 crude, governments instead spent that windfall subsidizing everything from 5 cents-per-gallon gasoline to cheap housing that kept a growing population of underemployed citizens content.

“If the governments aren’t able to spend to keep the kids off the streets they will go back to the streets, and we could start to see political disruption and upheaval,” said Paul Stevens, distinguished fellow for energy, environment and resources at Chatham House in London, a U.K. policy group. “The majority of members of OPEC need well over $100 a barrel to balance their budgets. If they start cutting expenditure, this is likely to cause problems.”

Oil has dropped 38 percent this year and, in theory, production can continue to flow until prices fall below the day-to-day costs at existing wells. Stevens said some U.S. shale producers may break even at $40 a barrel or less. The International Energy Agency estimates most drilling in the Bakken formation – the shale producers that OPEC seeks to drive out of business – return cash at $42 a barrel.

Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. Chairman Murray Edwards said crude may sink as low as $30 a barrel before rebounding to stabilize at $70 to $75 a barrel, the Financial Post reported.

“Right now we’re seeing a price shock coming out of the meeting and it will be a couple of weeks until we see where the price really falls,” Yergin said. Officials “have to figure out where the new price range is, and that’s the drama that’s going to play out in the weeks ahead.”

To be sure, not all oil producers are suffering.

The International Monetary Fund in October assessed the oil price different governments needed to balance their budgets. At one end were Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, which can break even with oil at about $70 a barrel. At the other extreme: Iran needs $136, and Venezuela and Nigeria $120. Russia can manage at $101 a barrel, the IMF said.

“Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar can live with relatively lower oil prices for a while, but this isn’t the case for Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Venezuela, Algeria and Angola,” said Marie-Claire Aoun, director of the energy center at the French Institute for International Relations in Paris. “Strong demographic pressure is feeding their energy and budgetary requirements. The price of crude is paramount for their economies because they have failed to diversify.”

Brent crude is poised for the biggest annual decline since 2008 after OPEC last week rejected calls for production cuts that would address a global glut.

Like this year’s decline, oil’s crash in the 1980s was brought on by a Saudi-led decision to defend its market share, sending crude to about $12 a barrel.

“Russia in particular seems vulnerable,” said Allan von Mehren, chief analyst at Danske Banke A/S in Copenhagen. “A big decline in the oil price in 1997-98 was one factor causing pressure that eventually led to Russian default in August 1998.”

VTB Group, Russia’s second-largest bank, OAO Gazprombank, its third-largest lender, and Russian Agricultural Bank are already seeking government aid to replenish capital after sanctions cut them off from international financial markets. Now with sputtering economic growth, they also face a rise in bad loans.

Oil and gas provide 68 percent of Russia’s exports and 50 percent of its federal budget.

Russia has already lost almost $90 billion of its currency reserves this year, equal to 4.5 percent of its economy, as it tried to prevent the ruble from tumbling after Western countries imposed sanctions to punish Russian meddling in Ukraine. The ruble is down 35 percent against the dollar since June.

While the country’s economy minister and some oil executives have warned of tough times ahead, President Vladimir Putin is sanguine, suggesting falling oil won’t force him to meet Western demands that he curb his country’s interference in Ukraine.

“Winter is coming and I am sure the market will come into balance again in the first quarter or toward the middle of next year,” he said Nov. 28 in Sochi.

Even before the price tumble, Iran’s oil exports were already crumbling because of sanctions imposed over its nuclear program. Production is at a 20-year low, exports have fallen by half since early 2012 to 1 million barrels a day, and the rial has plummeted 80 percent on the black market, the IMF says.

Lower oil may increase the pain on Iran’s population, though it may be insufficient to push its leaders to accept an end to the nuclear program, which they insist is peaceful.

“The oil price decline is not a game changer for Iran,” said Suzanne Maloney, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based research organization, who specializes on Iran. “The Iranians were already losing so many billions of dollars because of the sanctions that the oil price decline is just icing on the cake.”

While oil’s decline wrenches oil-rich nations that squandered the profits from recent high prices, the world economy overall may benefit.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimates a $20 drop in price adds 0.4 percentage point to growth of its members after two years.

By knocking down inflation by 0.5 point over the same period, cheaper oil could also persuade central banks to either keep interest rates low or even add stimulus.

Energy accounts for 10 percent to 12 percent of consumer spending in EU countries such as France and Germany, HSBC Holdings PLC said.

As developed oil-importing nations benefit, some of the world’s poorest suffer. Nigeria’s authorities, which rely on oil for 75 percent of government revenue, have tightened monetary policy, devalued the naira and plan to cut public spending by 6 percent next year.

Oil and gas account for 35 percent of Nigeria’s economic output and 90 percent of its exports, according to OPEC.

“The current drop in oil prices poses stark challenges for Nigeria’s external and fiscal accounts and puts heavy pressure on the exchange rate,” Oliver Masetti, an economist at Deutsche Bank AG, said in a report this month. “If oil prices remain at their current lows, Nigeria will face tough choices.”

Even before oil’s rout, Venezuela was teetering.

The nation is running a budget deficit of 16 percent of gross domestic product, partly because much of its declining oil production is sold domestically at subsidized prices. Oil is 95 percent of exports and 25 percent of GDP, OPEC says.

“Venezuela already qualifies for fiscal chaos,” Yergin said.

The country was paralyzed by deadly riots earlier this year after police repressed protests about spiraling inflation, shortages of consumer goods and worsening crime.

“The dire state of the economy is likely to trigger renewed social unrest, while it seems the government is running out of hard currency,” Capital Economics, a London research firm, wrote in a Nov. 28 report.

Declining oil may force the government to take steps to avoid a default including devaluing the currency, cutting imports, raising domestic energy prices and cutting subsidies shipments to poorer countries in the region, according to Francisco Rodriguez, an economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

“Though all these entail difficult choices, default is not an appealing alternative,” he said. “Were Venezuela to default, bondholders would almost surely move to attach the country’s refineries and oil shipments abroad.”

In an address on state television Nov. 28, President Nicolas Maduro said Venezuela would maintain social spending while pledging to form a commission to identify unnecessary spending to cut.

He also said he was sending the economy minister to China to discuss development projects.

Mexico shows how an oil nation can build new industries and avoid relying on one commodity. Falling crude demand and prices in the early 1980s helped send the nation into a debt crisis.

Oil’s share of Mexico’s exports fell to 13 percent in 2013 from 38 percent in 1990, even as total exports more than quadrupled. Electronics and cars now account for a greater share of the country’s shipments. Though oil still accounts for 32 percent of government revenue, the Mexican government has based its 2015 budget on an average price of $79 a barrel.

US Counter-Insurgency (COIN) Abysmal Failure…But We Still Follow It

COIN Is a Proven Failure

the American Conservative

America risks shoveling more troops into Iraq to replicate a strategy that never worked in the first place.

In late October MSNBC’s Ronan Farrow asked retired Army Lt. Col. John Nagl to give viewers a deeper understanding of the fight between the Islamic State (ISIS) and Kurdish fighters around Kobane. Widely credited with “writing the book” on successful counterinsurgency (COIN) operations, Mr. Nagl said, “we’ve got 1,500 guys on the ground, but they’re not as far forward as they need to be to make a real, immediate impact on the battlefield.” He and a number of COIN experts argue that along with 15,000 U.S. ground troops, Iraqi, Kurdish, and Syrian rebel soldiers can defeat ISIS. Before making any decisions, American leaders should first consider this: despite what is often claimed by a host of advocates, the COIN theories upon which these recommendations are based were in fact demonstrable failures in both Afghanistan and Iraq. We must not sacrifice any more American lives and harm American interests any further by acting on theories that are likely to fail again.

It has been taken as an “obvious truth” by many Americans and major media outlets that the counterinsurgency strategy brought to Iraq by former general David Petraeus in 2007 turned a near-certain defeat into an historic victory. There were two key fundamentals from which many believe victory sprang. The first was that American troops needed to leave U.S. bases and “live in the neighborhoods” with Iraqi citizens, the second that a surge of troops would give Baghdad “breathing space” to form an inclusive government. Instead of leading to success, however, these twin pillars may have contributed to the failure.

In a study published earlier this year by the National Defense University, authors Sterling Jensen and former Iraqi general Najim al-Jabouri wrote this of the Americans’ effectiveness in Anbar province cities: “[t]he surge did not have a role in the Anbar Awakening. Surge troops that came to Anbar in 2007 were not seen as useful… In fact, U.S. troops in general were not seen as useful even before the surge…”

But the authors’ possibly most pointed finding was that the causal factor behind the eventual drop in violence had little to do with either the increase in U.S. troops or the new strategy: “If not for al Qaeda’s murder and intimidation campaign on Sunnis, and its tactic of creating a sectarian war, the Anbar Awakening—a fundamental factor in the success of the 2007 surge—most probably would not have occurred, and it would have been difficult for the United States in 2006 to convince Sunnis to partner with them in a fight against al Qaeda…”

The Sunni-initiated Anbar Awakening, followed by the Petraeus-led “Sons of Iraq” program, resulted in a dramatic drop in violence. The breathing space purchased with considerable American blood was intended to facilitate the development of Iraqi democracy. Kelley Vlahos, contributing editor for The American Conservative, recently wrote, “in hindsight, the only meaningful space created was for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki” to use America to rid him of political enemies, not the least of which were many Iraqi Sunni leaders and groups.

Maliki’s oppressive rule, which alienated much of the Sunni population in the Western part of the country, was a key factor in the rise of ISIS; his penchant to dismiss Sunni officers and pack the senior ranks of the Iraqi Security Force (ISF) with inexperienced political patrons played a major role in the disintegration of the ISF when the Islamic State began its offensive.

I served in Iraq as a military trainer in 2009, and have twice deployed to Afghanistan (2005, 2010-11). Between my 2009 Iraq deployment and the last Afghanistan deployment—at the height of that surge—I traveled over 14,000 miles throughout both countries, going on mounted and dismounted patrols, with U.S., allied, Iraqi, and Afghan troops, and led a team to train an Iraqi border battalion. I can conclusively state that outside the wire, the counterinsurgency theories were an unqualified failure at the strategic level. The populations were never protected in either country. The insurgent forces were never fully defeated in either country—and are stronger now than they have been at any time since 9/11. The Afghan and Iraqi governments remain the third and seventh most corrupt governments in the world, and do not have the support of their people. The armed forces for both countries, despite the decade-long effort and tens of billions of dollars that the U.S. spent training them, are virtually incapable of conducting even basic security.

It is incomprehensible that with such an extensive, publicly available record of failure—which cost the United States $2 trillion in direct outlays, 6,842 U.S. troops killed and 52,281 wounded in action—that the designers of this failed concept are given any credibility. The conclusive evidence of the failure is on graphic display right now, in both countries: after six full years and tens of billions spent, the U.S.-trained Iraqi army melted away before a few thousand irregular fighters; after the U.S. pulled out of Helmand province in Afghanistan, the Afghan National Security Forces were incapable of preventing an immediate return of the Taliban.

As the president’s national security team continues to develop a new strategy to deal with ISIS—and now also searches for a new secretary of defense—it is more important than ever to make a no-holds-barred analysis of the past decade of combat experience before settling on a new strategy. No matter how many U.S. boots might be placed on the ground in Iraq or Syria in this current environment, they would not be able to accomplish the president’s previously stated objectives. All the additional causalities we would suffer would be in vain.

We must not send any more Americans into the morass of Iraq and Syria with as little concern as one might show shoveling coal into a furnace. They deserve better than to be asked to risk their lives to conduct a no-win tactical mission.

The opinion expressed in this article are those of the author alone and do not represent the views of the Department of Defense or U.S. Army.

Daniel L. Davis is a Lt. Col. in the U.S. Army stationed in the Washington, D.C. area. He has been deployed into combat zones four times, winning the Bronze Star Medal for Valor in Desert Storm.

ISIS Must Have An Identifiable STATE SPONSOR To Claim “Self-Defense” Under Article 51

[So, unless Obama is willing to admit that Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey (among others) are the sponsors of ISIS, he cannot invoke UN Article 51, under the “self-defense” clause.]

Article 51

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

US, Turkey reportedly close to agreement on joint mission against ISIS

foxnews

The U.S. and Turkey are close to an agreement on a joint military action against the Islamic State militant group in northern Syria, according to a published report.

The Wall Street Journal, citing officials from both countries, reported that the proposed deal would allow the U.S. and its coalition partners access to Turkish air bases to use as launch points for air strikes. The agreement would also provide for a protected zone along part of the Syria-Turkey border that would be off limits to Syrian government aircraft and provide protection for moderate Syrian rebels and refugees fleeing the country’s bloody, three-year-long civil war.

Turkey has already agreed to allow 2,000 moderate Syrian rebels to be trained on its own soil, and has sent members of its special forces to northern Iraq to train Kurdish Peshmerga fighters.

The Journal reported that Turkey had proposed a far more extensive no-fly zone over northern Syria, only to be rebuffed by the Obama administration, which said that the proposal would constitute an act of war by the U.S. against the Damascus government of Bashar al-Assad.

U.S. officials told the paper that talks between the two nations were still in a preliminary stage, and a final deal may not be agreed upon for weeks

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan met with Vice President Joe Biden in Turkey last week for discussions about the civil war in Syria and the rise of the Islamic State, better known as ISIS. The Al Qaeda-inspired terror group’s months-long offensive in northern Syria has helped push between 1.5 million and 1.8 million refugees into Turkey, with millions more arrivals possible.

NATO officials told the Journal that Turkey could justify opening its bases to coalition jets under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, which provides a right to collective self-defense. Technically, the ongoing strikes in Syria are being carried out in support of operations in Iraq based on Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi ’s Article 51 letter invoking collective self-defense.–[editor–SEE following citation]

“Absent a legally cognizable connection to a state, the non-state actor that threatens or actually undertook the attack lacks the legal characteristics in international law even to launch an “armed attack” within its legal meaning.  All of this is irrespective of the extent of the actual attack or its real-world consequences. (Cf. 9/11.)”–LAWFARE.BLOG

[editor–in this context, Obama’s/NATO’s contention that he can justify attacks on ISIS within Syria, without Syria’s permission, ONLY if ISIS is officially backed by a STATE SPONSOR, and that Sponsor MUST BE IDENTIFIED.  So, unless Obama is willing to admit that Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey (among others) are the sponsors of ISIS, he cannot invoke UN Article 51, under the “self-defense” clause.  If this principle of international law is upheld, then Obama has already committed multiple “acts of war…against the Damascus government of Bashar al-Assad.]

News of the progress in talks between the U.S. and Turkey comes after Syrian activists said the U.S.-led coalition targeted ISIS’ de facto capital of Raqqa in northeastern Syria with as many as 30 airstrikes Sunday.

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the strikes also targeted the Division 17 air base, which the ISIS seized earlier this year from Iraqi government forces.

The U.S. military did not confirm the airstrikes to the Associated Press.

The monitoring group, which relies on a network of activists inside Syria, reported at least 30 coalition strikes in all. The Local Coordination Committees, an activist collective, also confirmed the airstrikes. Neither group had casualty figures.

City of London Freaks, Frantic with Fear Over Impending Anti-Capitalist World Revolution

We-will-not-tolerate-this-system-any-more-it-is-time-for-a-world-revolution-together-we-will-change-the-world-join-us

Inclusive Capitalism Initiative is Trojan Horse to quell coming global revolt

guardian

Prince Charles, Prince of Wales talks to Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the International Monetary fund, before the start of the Inclusive Capitalism Conference at the Mansion House on May 27, 2014 in London, United Kingdom.
Prince Charles, Prince of Wales talks to Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the International Monetary fund, before the start of the Inclusive Capitalism Conference at the Mansion House on May 27, 2014 in London, United Kingdom. Photograph: WPA Pool/Getty Images

Yesterday’s Conference on Inclusive Capitalism co-hosted by the City of London Corporation and EL Rothschild investment firm, brought together the people who control a third of the world’s liquid assets – the most powerful financial and business elites – to discuss the need for a more socially responsible form of capitalism that benefits everyone, not just a wealthy minority.

Leading financiers referred to statistics on rising global inequalities and the role of banks and corporations in marginalising the majority while accelerating systemic financial risk – vindicating the need for change.

While the self-reflective recognition by global capitalism’s leaders that business-as-usual cannot continue is welcome, sadly the event represented less a meaningful shift of direction than a barely transparent effort to rehabilitate a parasitical economic system on the brink of facing a global uprising.

Central to the proceedings was an undercurrent of elite fear that the increasing disenfranchisement of the vast majority of the planetary population under decades of capitalist business-as-usual could well be its own undoing.

The Conference on Inclusive Capitalism is the brainchild of the Henry Jackson Society (HJS), a little-known but influential British think tank with distinctly neoconservative and xenophobic leanings. In May 2012, HJS executive director Alan Mendoza explained the thinking behind the project:

“… we felt that such was public disgust with the system, there was a very real danger that politicians could seek to remedy the situation by legislating capitalism out of business.”

He claimed that HJS research showed that “the only real solutions that can be put forward to restore trust in the system, and which actually stand a chance of bringing economic prosperity, are being led by the private, rather than the public, sector.”

The Initiative for Inclusive Capitalism’s recommendations for reform seem well-meaning at first glance, but in reality barely skim the surface of capitalism’s growing crisis tendencies: giant corporations should invest in more job training, should encourage positive relationships and partnerships with small- and medium-sized businesses, and – while not jettisoning quarterly turnovers – should also account for ways of sustaining long-term value for shareholders.

The impetus for this, however, lies in the growing recognition that if such reforms are not pursued, global capitalists will be overthrown by the very populations currently overwhelmingly marginalised by their self-serving activity. As co-chair of the HJS Inclusive Capitalism taskforce, McKinsey managing director Dominic Barton, explained from his meetings with over 400 business and government leaders worldwide that:

“… there is growing concern that if the fundamental issues revealed in the crisis remain unaddressed and the system fails again, the social contract between the capitalist system and the citizenry may truly rupture, with unpredictable but severely damaging results.”

Among those “damaging results” – apart from the potential disruption to profits and the capitalist system itself – is the potential failure to capitalise on the finding by “corporate-finance experts” that “70 to 90 percent of a company’s value is related to cash flows expected three or more years out.”

Indeed, as the New York Observer reported after the US launch of the Henry Jackson Initiative for Inclusive Capitalism, the rather thin proposals for reform “seemed less important than bringing business leaders together to address a more central concern: In an era of rising income inequality and grim economic outlook, people seemed to be losing confidence in capitalism altogether.”

Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, who co-hosted yesterday’s conference, told the NY Observer why she was concerned:

“I think that a lot of kids have neither money nor hope, and that’s really bad. Because then they’re going to get mad at America. What our hope for this initiative, is that through all the efforts of all of the decent CEOs, all the decent kids without a job feel optimistic.”

Yep. Feel optimistic. PR is the name of the game.

“I believe that it is our duty to help make all people believe that the elevator is working for them… that whatever the station of your birth, you can get on that elevator to success,” de Rothschild told Chinese business leaders last year:

“At the moment, that faith and confidence is under siege in America… As business people, we have a pragmatic reason to get it right for everyone – so that the government does not intervene in unproductive ways with business… I think that it is imperative for us to restore faith in capitalism and in free markets.”

According to the very 2011 City of London Corporation report which recommended funding the HJS inclusive capitalism project, one of its core goals is undermining public support for “increased regulation” and “greater state” involvement in the economy, while simultaneously deterring calls to “punish those deemed responsible for having caused the crisis”:

“Following the financial crisis of 2008, the Western capitalist system has been perceived to be in crisis. Although the financial recovery is now underway in Europe and America, albeit unevenly and in some cases with the risk of further adjustments, the legacy of the sudden nature of the crash lives on.”

The report, written by the City of London’s director of public relations, continues to note that “the fabric of the capitalist system has come in for protracted scrutiny,” causing governments to “confuse the need for reasoned and rational change” with “the desire to punish those deemed responsible for having caused the crisis.” But this would mean that “the capitalist model is liable to have the freedoms and ideology essential to its success corroded.”

Far from acknowledging the predatory and unequalising impact of neoliberal capitalism, the document shows that the inclusive capitalism project is concerned with PR to promote “a more nuanced view of society,” without which “there is a risk that… we will be led down a policy path of increased regulation and greater state control of institutions, businesses and the people at the heart of them, which will fatally cripple the very system that has been responsible for economic prosperity.”

The project is thus designed “to influence political and business opinion” and to target public opinion through a “media campaign that seeks to engage major outlets.”

The Henry Jackson Initiative for Inclusive Capitalism is therefore an elite response to the recognition that capitalism in its current form is unsustainable, likely to hit another crisis, and already generating massive popular resistance.

Its proposed reforms therefore amount to token PR moves to appease the disenfranchised masses. Consequently, they fail to address the very same accelerating profit-oriented systemic risks that will lead to another financial crash before decade’s end.

Their focus, in de Rothschild’s words in the Wall Street Journal, is cosmetic: repairing “capitalism’s bruised image” in order to protect the “common long-term interests of investors and of the capitalist system.”

That is why the Inclusive Capitalism Initiative has nothing to say about reversing the neoliberal pseudo-development policies which, during capitalism’s so-called ‘Golden Age’, widened inequality and retarded growth for “the vast majority of low income and middle-income countries” according to a UN report – including “reduced progress for almost all the social indicators that are available to measure health and educational outcomes” from 1980 to 2005.

Instead, proposed ‘reforms’ offer ways to rehabilitate perceptions of powerful businesses and corporations, in order to head-off rising worker discontent and thus keep the system going, while continuing to maximise profits for the few at the expense of the planet.

This is not a surprise considering the parochial financial and political interests the Henry Jackson Society appears to represent: the very same neoconservative elites that lobbied for the Iraq War and endorse mass NSA surveillance of western and non-western citizens alike.

Indeed, there is little “inclusive” about the capitalism that HJS’ risk consultancy project, Strategic Analysis, seeks to protect, when it advertises its quarterly research reports on “the oil and gas sector in all twenty” countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Those reports aim to highlight “the opportunities for investors” as well as “risks to their business.”

Just last month, HJS organised a conference on mitigating risks in the Arab world to discuss “methods for protecting your business interests, assets and people,” including “how to plan against and mitigate losses… caused by business interruption.” The focus of the conference was protecting the invariably fossil fueled interests of British and American investors and corporates in MENA – the interests and wishes of local populations was not a relevant ‘security’ concern.

The conference’s several corporate sponsors included the Control Risks Group, a British private defence contractor that has serviced Halliburton and the UK Foreign Office in postwar Iraq, and is a member of the Energy Industry Council – the largest trade association for British companies servicing the world’s energy industries.

The “inclusivity” of this new brand of capitalism is also apparent in HJS’ longtime employment of climate denier Raheem Kassam, who now runs the UK branch of the American Breitbart news network, one of whose contributors called for Americans “to start slaughtering Muslims in the street, all of them.”

Perhaps the final nail in the coffin of HJS’ vision of capitalist “inclusivity” is associate director Douglas Murray’s views about Europe’s alleged Muslim problem, of which he said in Dutch Parliament: “Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board.”

Earlier this year, Murray’s fear-mongering targeted the supposed “startling rise in Muslim infants” in Britain, a problem that explains why “white British people” are “losing their country.” London, Murray wrote, “has become a foreign country” in which “‘white Britons’ are now in a minority,” and “there aren’t enough white people around” to make its boroughs “diverse.”

So abhorrent did the Conservative front-bench find Murray’s innumerable xenophobic remarks about European Muslims, reported Paul Goodman, the Tory Party broke off relations with his Center for Social Cohesion before he revitalised himself by joining forces with HJS.

Yet this is the same neocon ideology of “inclusive” market freedom around which the forces of global capitalism are remobilising, in the name of “sustainable” prosperity for all.

They must be having a laugh.

Dr. Nafeez Ahmed is an international security journalist and academic. He is the author of A User’s Guide to the Crisis of Civilization: And How to Save It, and the forthcoming science fiction thriller, Zero Point. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter @nafeezahmed. [Emphasis in quotes was added]

%d bloggers like this: