Consumer Confidence Collapses To 2 Year Lows

After a hope-filled bounce in May, The Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence index plunged in June from a revised 131.3 to 121.5 (well below expectations of a modest drop to 131.0).

This is the weakest confidence print since July 2017…

 

Finally, we note that the gap between current and future confidence (DoubleLine’s Jeff Gundlach’s favorite recession indicator) is flashing big red recessionary signals…

The spread between savings and confidence is turning back down also – just as it did in 2007 and 2000…

You can only dis-save to spend (and juice confidence) for so long!

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2X6a1SS Tyler Durden

New Home Sales Crash In May To Weakest Since 2018

After existing-home-sales rebounded modestly in May, hope was high that lower mortgage rates would spark a renaissance in the US housing market… but a shocking 7.8% crash in new home sales in May has blown that narrative out of the water.

Against expectations of a 1.6% MoM rise, new home sales plunged 7.8% in May to 626k, the weakest level since Dec 2018…

This collapse is happening despite the plunge in mortgage rates.

Median prices of new homes tumbled from $335.1K to $308K, lowest since Jan 2019…

Purchases of new homes fell in the Northeast and the West, where they dropped the most since 2010. Sales rose in the South and Midwest.

Along with the disappointing data from Case-Shiller, the rebound – on low rates – in US housing appears to be another dead cat bounce, not a phoenix.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2NmH7Jo credittrader

Stossel: 2020 Candidates’ Worst and Best Ideas

The 2020 campaign season is getting started. John Stossel says he’s “repulsed by most politicians” because “not only are they mad for power, they push bad ideas.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) has proposed that the post office go into the banking business, so that poor people can access banking.

Sanders says the “Postal Service could make billions of dollars a year by establishing basic banking services.”

Stossel wonders: “Really? The people who mishandle mail?” The post office loses billions every year. “Now they’re going to manage our money?” he asks.

Sanders doesn’t stop there. He wants “a ban on for-profit charter schools” and a moratorium even on nonprofit charters.

He wants that even though the vast majority of studies show charters increase learning.

The bad ideas keep coming.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D–N.Y.) wants to force everyone to buy fertility treatment insurance.

Sen. Cory Booker (D–N.J.) wants government to guarantee everyone a job and to pay many people’s rent.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) would cancel student loan debt of up to $50,000.

Former Vice President Joe Biden would make college free.

Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) would force companies to prove they pay men and women equally for the same work.

And she’d “hold social media platforms accountable” for “hate.”

“That sounds nice,” Stossel points out, “but if politicians get to decide what is ‘hate,’ they will censor any idea they don’t like.”

President Trump also has bad ideas. For example, Stossel says, he misunderstands the trade deficit. That’s led him to start trade wars around the world.

Fortunately, many of the candidates also have good ideas—from Trump’s regulation cutting to Biden’s support for free speech, to Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s (D–Hawaii) steadfast opposition to war.

“All the candidates have bad ideas,” Stossel says. “But some are a bigger danger to our liberty than others.”

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Like us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

The views expressed in this video are solely those of John Stossel; his independent production company, Stossel Productions; and the people he interviews. The claims and opinions set forth in the video and accompanying text are not necessarily those of Reason.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2FqV1Eb
via IFTTT

Porsche Recalling Over 100,000 Vehicles Due To Risk Of “Rolling Away” While In Park

Porsche recently announced that it would be recalling over 100,000 vehicles in the U.S. and Canada due to a risk of “fooling drivers into believing the transmission is in park”, and rolling away, according to Car Complaints.

While a driver can move the gear shift to the “Park” position, and even remove the ignition key under the impression that the vehicle is in park, the transmission may not be moving along with it, according to the recall. 

Without any warning messages or chimes, a driver could wind up exiting the vehicle and watch it roll down the street unattended. Porsche says the issue could be due to the plastic bushing that attaches the cable connection between the gear shifter and the gearbox detaching. 

Porsche learned about the issue in December 2018 and promptly commenced an internal investigation that found “numerous incidents” of detached cable bushings. The company said it hasn’t learned of any injuries or property damage reports as a result of the issue. The recall will begin August 11, 2019 and, as a result, Porsche dealers will replace the shifter cable bushings.

About 99,700 vehicles were recalled in the U.S. and 8,742 in Canada. 

The full list of vehicles potentially affected is lengthy:

  • 2003-2006 Porsche Cayenne S
  • 2003-2006 Porsche Cayenne Turbo
  • 2004-2010 Porsche Cayenne
  • 2006 Porsche Cayenne Turbo S
  • 2010-2016 Porsche Panamera S
  • 2010-2016 Porsche Panamera 4 S
  • 2010-2016 Porsche Panamera Turbo
  • 2011-2016 Porsche Panamera
  • 2011-2016 Porsche Panamera 4
  • 2012-2013 Porsche Panamera Turbo S
  • 2013-2016 Porsche Panamera 4 GTS
  • 2014-2016 Porsche Panamera 4 S Executive
  • 2014-2016 Porsche Panamera Turbo Executive
  • 2014-2016 Porsche Panamera Turbo S G1 II
  • 2014-2016 Porsche Panamera Turbo S Executive
  • 2013 Porsche Panamera 4 Platinum Edition
  • 2013 Porsche Panamera Platinum Edition
  • 2016 Porsche Panamera 4 Edition
  • 2016 Porsche Panamera Edition
  • 2016 Porsche Panamera Turbo S Executive Luxury Sport

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2Fx0OId Tyler Durden

U.S. Cops Are Facing a Recruitment Crisis. Will It Force Them to Change Their Ways?

The number of people applying to be cops in Montgomery County, Maryland, has dropped by half in recent years, according to a department complaint last week. Officials suggest it’s because of growing national skepticism toward policing.

“When you do a job that’s being highly criticized on a daily basis, we have to ask ourselves, how do we find good candidates that really want to be under that type of scrutiny,” said Acting Police Chief Marcus Jones.

Montgomery County won’t have an easy time importing its officers from other communities, either. Recruitment of law enforcement officers is down in areas around the country, and the drop in numbers is stark.

“The number of full-time sworn officers per 1,000 residents decreased, from 2.42 in 1997 to 2.17 in 2016,” the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reported last summer. The raw number of police officers in the U.S. also declined slightly, from 724,690 in 2013 to 701,169 in 2016.

Next door to Maryland, police departments in Virginia also saw declines in applications. So have departments in Minnesota, in Nashville, and in New York City, to name a few.

Nationally, 66 percent of police departments report seeing declining numbers of applications, according to a survey of 400 law enforcement agencies by the the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF).

The FBI suffers similar recruiting challenges, with special agent applicants plummeting from 68,500 in 2009 to 11,500 last year. This year, the Bureau doubled its recruitment advertising budget in an effort to attract more warm bodies.

These drops aren’t necessarily a bad thing. The cop hiring crisis offers an opportunity for rethinking how we keep the peace in this country.

That opportunity could be squandered, however, if authorities don’t address the problems of brutality and bias in police forces while resisting intrusive tactics that could make policing even nastier.

“The American policing profession may be facing the most fundamental questioning of its legitimacy in decades,” said Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, in a 2017 organizational newsletter. “The very essence of policing is being debated in many cities, often because of controversial video recordings of police officers’ actions. Community trust has eroded, and the professionalism of the police is being questioned.”

A healthy job market gets some of the credit for the police recruitment crunch but, as Jones and Wexler describe, law enforcement has lost its gloss in the eyes of many Americans. Public opinion of law enforcement slid to a 22-year low in 2015, according to a Gallup poll.

Numbers have somewhat rebounded since, but that only emphasizes a racial gap in perceptions of police. African-Americans, in particular, tend to view cops as the government’s enforcers rather than as protectors, amidst widely publicized racist incidents and concerns that their communities are disproportionately (and corruptly) targeted. In addition, a militarized police culture that arms officers with weapons of war and trains officers to treat the public as enemies worries those who feel targeted not over race, but just for not being cops.

The FBI has its own issues with declining supportespecially among Republicans—after once again getting drawn into political shenanigans. Given the Bureau’s history of misconduct, it’s arguably to Americans’ discredit that it took so long for us to become disenchanted.

Heavy-handed modern policing hasn’t just alienated the public; it’s decimated the pool of potential recruits.

“Some potential hires are ineligible to be considered because of prior arrests and convictions on minor criminal charges, such as possessing an open container of alcohol in public,” PERF’s Wexler points out. “This situation is especially prevalent in agencies that have practiced strict ‘zero tolerance’ policing in the past.”

That last point may offer a key to improving relations between the public and what used to be known as “peace officers,” by pursuing a less confrontational approach to policing.

“This militarized transformation of American law enforcement—and all that comes with it…should not be a part of the American landscape,” former Los Angeles Police Department Deputy Chief of Police Stephen Downing wrote for Reason five years ago. He went on to propose a program including ending drug prohibition, doing away with federal provision of military equipment and training to police departments, dumping civil asset forfeiture and its incentives to official banditry, reining-in search procedures, and establishing effective civilian oversight.

“With these kinds of reforms in place we could begin to heal our communities; diminish the mass incarceration of people of color; allow more parents to be with their children and fewer children to be sent to foster homes; recognize that addiction is a health rather than a criminal-justice problem, and supplant prison with treatment; abate the arms race between the police, gangs, and cartels; end police profiling; and restore the requirement of reasonable suspicion as an irrevocable feature of constitutional policing,” he added.

Downing’s proposals parallel, in many ways, the 2015 recommendations of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. While stopping short of a retreat on drug prohibition, the task force’s report noted, “law enforcement cannot build community trust if it is seen as an occupying force coming in from outside to impose control on the community.” The report called for less-brutal tactics, consent-based searches, demilitarized police forces, and civilian oversight, among other changes.

The proposals were largely ignored at the time and pushed aside by the Trump administration’s renewed emphasis on law-and-order policing even as crime rates continue their three-decade decline. But reformist ideas about restrained, less-intrusive policing aren’t just philosophically attractive to those of us who care about liberty—they may help thinning police ranks reconcile with a hostile population.

Unfortunately, improvement isn’t inevitable. Bad ideas abound, too.

“Contemporary researchers and police believe that they can…predict a crime before it happens—using computer algorithms,” Reason‘s Ron Bailey warned in 2016.

Police in some communities already adjust how they interact with people they meet based on risk scores assigned by computer algorithms. Cops like predictive policing because it lets them target anticipated trouble spots. But such tactics can become self-fulfilling.

“This creates a vicious cycle where police are sent to certain locations because the program predicts these locations to have the most crime, and the police begin to believe these same locations have the most crime because these were the locations to which they were sent,” cautions the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Dozens of cities have already deployed predictive policing software, Vice reported earlier this year. That means there’s a good chance police will soon have a risk assessment appended to your name that will affect how much violence they bring to traffic stops and appearances at your door.

So, which will it be? Will law enforcement agencies rein-in their excesses and start interacting with the people around them as humans to be protected rather than as enemies to be dominated? Or will they instead assess us as committers of crimes that have yet to occur?

With their ranks diminishing and morale in the pits, policing will certainly change—for better or worse.

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2X7gzAz
via IFTTT

Stocks Fail At Friday Cliff-Edge Again

Just a quick note to show the various attempts to lift stocks in the last 24-48 hours continue to fail…

Dow futs back at Friday’s lows…

We’re gonna need more quad witches.

However, don’t worry America…

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2YamFwB Tyler Durden

Trump Says Rape Accuser E. Jean Carroll Isn’t His Type

If there were a manual of how not to handle sexual assault allegations, President Donald Trump’s responses to E. Jean Carroll could be a case study. Carroll, an author and popular syndicated advice columnist, recently accused Trump of raping her in a department-store dressing room in the mid-’90s. In a Monday interview with The Hill, Trump stressed that, first and foremost, Caroll wasn’t his “type.”

Here’s Trump’s full quote:

I’ll say it with great respect: Number one, she’s not my type. Number two, it never happened. It never happened, OK?

To the president, telling us that the alleged assault didn’t actually happen is apparently not as important as letting us know that he doesn’t like Carroll’s looks. It’s a pattern we see again and again with Trump—more pronounced with women, but applicable to men, too. Appearance and status are very often the first thing he attacks about critics; substantive responses are secondary if they come at all. The playground bully playbook.

It also belies a fundamental misunderstanding about sexual assaults.

The old adage that rape is about power, not lust may be too simplistic—but so too is the idea that rape simply comes down to uncontrollable attraction.

Trump implies that there’s some attractiveness threshold or physical “type” or standard a woman must meet to be worthy of raping. Besides not being quite the slam-dunk defense he thinks it is (no, no, see, my type of rape victim…), it goes against everything we can readily observe about sexual assault. In reality, rape victims come in all shapes, sizes, and types; and many rapists make decisions based on opportunity, perceived vulnerability, and all sorts of criteria unrelated to normative desirability.

Carroll has been taking a lot of guff from folks for saying on CNN that people often think rape is “sexy.” Republicans have been trying to frame this as Carroll herself endorsing the idea that rape is “sexy,” and that this is evidence of Carroll being crazy and unreliable.

I make no judgment about the overarching allegations. But I do think this is an almost willfully uncharitable reading of Carroll’s remarks. Many people—including the president of the United States/the man she’s accusing—do indeed act like rape comes down to a victim’s lust-worthiness and an assailant’s uncontrollable need to act on that.

Prior to speaking to The Hill on Monday, Trump told reporters over the weekend that he had “no idea” who Carroll was.


FREE MINDS

Science fiction writer Cory Doctorow has another excellent piece about regulating speech online. As part of The New York Times’ “Op-Eds From the Future” series (the conceit is that these are pieces we might read in “10, 20 or even 100 years”), Doctorow imagines a world without Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—i.e., the world both Republicans and Democrats are currently pushing for—and the protection it provides for companies to permit free speech online. From Doctorow’s piece:

The platforms and personal websites are fine if you want to talk about sports, relate your kids’ latest escapades or shop. But if you want to write something about how the platforms and government legislation can’t tell the difference between sex trafficking and sex, nudity and pornography, terrorism investigations and terrorism itself or copyright infringement and parody, you’re out of luck. Any one of those keywords will give the filters an incurable case of machine anxiety — but all of them together? Forget it.

If you’re thinking, “Well, all that stuff belongs in the newspaper,” then you’ve fallen into a trap: Democracies aren’t strengthened when a professional class gets to tell us what our opinions are allowed to be.

And the worst part is, the new regulations haven’t ended harassment, extremism or disinformation. Hardly a day goes by without some post full of outright Naziism, flat-eartherism and climate trutherism going viral. There are whole armies of Nazis and conspiracy theorists who do nothing but test the filters, day and night, using custom software to find the adversarial examples that slip past the filters’ machine-learning classifiers.

It didn’t have to be this way.

Read the rest here.


FREE MARKETS

SCOTUS considers wine. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision this week in Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Zackary Blair et al, a case Wine Spectator magazine calls “the biggest case concerning alcohol in 14 years.”

The case “deals with the constitutionality of Tennessee’s residency requirement for alcohol retailers, but some are hoping for—or dreading—a broad ruling with larger consequences for how Americans buy wine,” the magazine notes. More details about the arguments and what’s at stake here


FOLLOWUPS

Some progress on migrant-child detention centers follows an AP investigation: 

Meanwhile, some Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials may be getting fed up with Trump’s extreme politicization of their work and lack of attention to practical details. After Trump tweeted last week about massive ICE raids to come in 10 major cities, the New Yorker‘s Jonathan Blitzer spoke to one officer:

“Almost nobody was looking forward to this operation,” the officer said. “It was a boondoggle, a nightmare.” Even on the eve of the operation, many of the most important details remained unresolved. “This was a family op. So where are we going to put the families? There’s no room to detain them, so are we going to put them in hotels?” the officer said. On Friday, an answer came down from ice leadership: the families would be placed in hotels while ice figured out what to do with them. That, in turn, raised other questions. “So the families are in hotels, but who’s going to watch them?” the officer continued. “What happens if the person we arrest has a U.S.-citizen child? What do we do with the children? Do we need to get booster seats for the vans? Should we get the kids toys to play with?” Trump’s tweet broadcasting the operation had also created a safety issue for the officers involved. “No police agency goes out and says, ‘Tomorrow, between four and eight, we’re going to be in these neighborhoods,'” the officer said.

More here.


QUICK HITS

  • The more you know:

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2ZJYKnY
via IFTTT

Trump Says Rape Accuser E. Jean Carroll Isn’t His Type

If there were a manual of how not to handle sexual assault allegations, President Donald Trump’s responses to E. Jean Carroll could be a case study. Carroll, an author and popular syndicated advice columnist, recently accused Trump of raping her in a department-store dressing room in the mid-’90s. In a Monday interview with The Hill, Trump stressed that, first and foremost, Caroll wasn’t his “type.”

Here’s Trump’s full quote:

I’ll say it with great respect: Number one, she’s not my type. Number two, it never happened. It never happened, OK?

To the president, telling us that the alleged assault didn’t actually happen is apparently not as important as letting us know that he doesn’t like Carroll’s looks. It’s a pattern we see again and again with Trump—more pronounced with women, but applicable to men, too. Appearance and status are very often the first thing he attacks about critics; substantive responses are secondary if they come at all. The playground bully playbook.

It also belies a fundamental misunderstanding about sexual assaults.

The old adage that rape is about power, not lust may be too simplistic—but so too is the idea that rape simply comes down to uncontrollable attraction.

Trump implies that there’s some attractiveness threshold or physical “type” or standard a woman must meet to be worthy of raping. Besides not being quite the slam-dunk defense he thinks it is (no, no, see, my type of rape victim…), it goes against everything we can readily observe about sexual assault. In reality, rape victims come in all shapes, sizes, and types; and many rapists make decisions based on opportunity, perceived vulnerability, and all sorts of criteria unrelated to normative desirability.

Carroll has been taking a lot of guff from folks for saying on CNN that people often think rape is “sexy.” Republicans have been trying to frame this as Carroll herself endorsing the idea that rape is “sexy,” and that this is evidence of Carroll being crazy and unreliable.

I make no judgment about the overarching allegations. But I do think this is an almost willfully uncharitable reading of Carroll’s remarks. Many people—including the president of the United States/the man she’s accusing—do indeed act like rape comes down to a victim’s lust-worthiness and an assailant’s uncontrollable need to act on that.

Prior to speaking to The Hill on Monday, Trump told reporters over the weekend that he had “no idea” who Carroll was.


FREE MINDS

Science fiction writer Cory Doctorow has another excellent piece about regulating speech online. As part of The New York Times’ “Op-Eds From the Future” series (the conceit is that these are pieces we might read in “10, 20 or even 100 years”), Doctorow imagines a world without Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—i.e., the world both Republicans and Democrats are currently pushing for—and the protection it provides for companies to permit free speech online. From Doctorow’s piece:

The platforms and personal websites are fine if you want to talk about sports, relate your kids’ latest escapades or shop. But if you want to write something about how the platforms and government legislation can’t tell the difference between sex trafficking and sex, nudity and pornography, terrorism investigations and terrorism itself or copyright infringement and parody, you’re out of luck. Any one of those keywords will give the filters an incurable case of machine anxiety — but all of them together? Forget it.

If you’re thinking, “Well, all that stuff belongs in the newspaper,” then you’ve fallen into a trap: Democracies aren’t strengthened when a professional class gets to tell us what our opinions are allowed to be.

And the worst part is, the new regulations haven’t ended harassment, extremism or disinformation. Hardly a day goes by without some post full of outright Naziism, flat-eartherism and climate trutherism going viral. There are whole armies of Nazis and conspiracy theorists who do nothing but test the filters, day and night, using custom software to find the adversarial examples that slip past the filters’ machine-learning classifiers.

It didn’t have to be this way.

Read the rest here.


FREE MARKETS

SCOTUS considers wine. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision this week in Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Zackary Blair et al, a case Wine Spectator magazine calls “the biggest case concerning alcohol in 14 years.”

The case “deals with the constitutionality of Tennessee’s residency requirement for alcohol retailers, but some are hoping for—or dreading—a broad ruling with larger consequences for how Americans buy wine,” the magazine notes. More details about the arguments and what’s at stake here


FOLLOWUPS

Some progress on migrant-child detention centers follows an AP investigation: 

Meanwhile, some Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials may be getting fed up with Trump’s extreme politicization of their work and lack of attention to practical details. After Trump tweeted last week about massive ICE raids to come in 10 major cities, the New Yorker‘s Jonathan Blitzer spoke to one officer:

“Almost nobody was looking forward to this operation,” the officer said. “It was a boondoggle, a nightmare.” Even on the eve of the operation, many of the most important details remained unresolved. “This was a family op. So where are we going to put the families? There’s no room to detain them, so are we going to put them in hotels?” the officer said. On Friday, an answer came down from ice leadership: the families would be placed in hotels while ice figured out what to do with them. That, in turn, raised other questions. “So the families are in hotels, but who’s going to watch them?” the officer continued. “What happens if the person we arrest has a U.S.-citizen child? What do we do with the children? Do we need to get booster seats for the vans? Should we get the kids toys to play with?” Trump’s tweet broadcasting the operation had also created a safety issue for the officers involved. “No police agency goes out and says, ‘Tomorrow, between four and eight, we’re going to be in these neighborhoods,'” the officer said.

More here.


QUICK HITS

  • The more you know:

from Latest – Reason.com http://bit.ly/2ZJYKnY
via IFTTT

If History Still Matters, Silver Is Poised For A Huge Move

Authored by John Rubino via DollarCollapse.com,

It’s been a pretty good couple of months for precious metals, but more so for gold than silver. Both are up but gold is up more, and the imbalance that this creates might be one of the major investment themes of the next few years.

The gold/silver ratio – that is, how many ounces of silver it takes to buy an ounce of gold – has bounced all over the place since the 1960s. But whenever it’s gotten extremely high – say above 80 – silver outperformed gold, sometimes dramatically.

As this is written, the ratio stands at almost 93x, which is not far from its record high. With precious metals finally breaking out of a five-year siesta – and the world getting dramatically scarier – it’s not a surprise that safe haven assets are catching a bid. And it would also not be a surprise if the current move has legs, as central banks resume their easing and geopolitical tensions persist.

Combine a chaotic, easy-money world with silver’s relative cheapness and the result is a nice set-up, for both the metal and the stocks of the companies that mine it. Here’s the one-month chart for First Majestic Silver (AG), a large primary silver producer. It’s up about 40%, even while silver underperforms gold. Let the metal start to outperform in the context of an overall precious metals bull run, and stocks like this will go parabolic.

Assuming, of course, that history still matters.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2YbBeQv Tyler Durden

NATO Tells Russia To Destroy New Missile Or Face Consequences

NATO defense ministers will hold talks on Wednesday over their next move if Russia doesn’t destroy a new missile system that could allow for short-notice nuclear attacks throughout Europe, which the United States has said violates the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), according to Reuters

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg

“We call on Russia to take the responsible path, but we have seen no indication that Russia intends to do so,” said Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg at a news conference, adding “We will need to respond.” 

While he declined to go into further detail, diplomats have said their defense ministers will consider allowing more flights over Europe by nuclear-capable US warplanes, as well as more military training and the strategic repositioning of US sea-based missiles. 

The United States and its NATO allies want Russia to destroy its 9M729/SSC-8 nuclear-capable cruise missile system, which Moscow has so far refused to do. It denies any violations of the INF treaty, accusing Washington of seeking an arms race.

Without a deal, the United States has said it will withdraw from the INF treaty on Aug. 2, removing constraints on its own ability to develop nuclear-capable, medium-range missiles.

The dispute has deepened a fissure in East-West ties that severely deteriorated after Russia’s seizure of Crimea and its involvement in Syria. –Reuters

On Monday, Russia responded – warning of an ongoing standoff comparable to the 1962 Cuban missile crisis if the United States deploys land-based missile systems near Russian borders. Stoltenberg said there were no such plans according to the report. 

NATO Amabassador to the United States, Kay Bailey Hutchison, told reporters that the Trump administration would only consider conventional, not nuclear weapons as the only possible response. 

“All options are on the table but we are looking at conventional systems, that’s important for our European allies to know,” she said. 

EU allies are also concerned about an escalation of capabilities in the region, similar to what occurred in the 1980s, and that competition between the Kremlin and the White House would put Europe at great risk. 

The INF treaty banning land-based missiles with a range between 300 – 3,400 miles was signed by then-President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. It was ratified in the US Senate, after which the medium-range arsenals of both countries downgraded their ability to launch short-notice nuclear strikes.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2FIUttB Tyler Durden