Russian Forces Storm Crimean Military Base In Belbek – Live Webcast

As we reported earlier, while Ukraine military forces are either slowly leaving the Crimea or joining the Russian army, one outpost, that at the Crimean airforce base of Belbek, remains undaunted by Russian demands to hand over the premises as the Russian ultimatum to surrender has expired, and moments ago wire services reported that shots were fired as Russian forces stormed the front gate of the Crimean outpost. Watch a live webcast from the scene below as the Russian force take control of the last place of presence of Ukraine forces in the Crimea.


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1rchVkz Tyler Durden

Video: Amazons, Academics, and Adventure

Anne Fortier is a best-selling Canadian/Danish author with
an unparalleled talent for bringing history to life. Her previous
novel, New York Times
bestseller, 
Juliet,
retold the Shakespearean legend of Romeo &
Juliet.

Fortier credits many of the ideas and themes in her novels to
her libertarian outlook on life. Her new
novel, The
Lost Sisterhood
, switches back and forth between the
travails of Diana Morgan, a contemporary scholar at Oxford, and
Myrina, the legendary warrior who would become the first ruler of
the Amazons. It’s a page-turning thriller that is also packed with
ideas about history, gender, self-determination, and the desire for
true freedom.


View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1dbmd81
via IFTTT

Scott Beyer on Abolishing the Federal Gas Tax

Gas pumpThe
notion that U.S. infrastructure is crumbling and underfunded has
been common lately, and more such news came in February, when the
Department of Transportation announced that the Federal
Highway Trust Fund could soon run out. This raised debates about
what to do with the trust’s main funding source, the federal gas
tax. Some legislators have long wanted to raise this tax, and
President Obama recently proposed his own $302 billion
funding plan. But one Congressman, Georgia Republican Tom Graves,
has a better idea: nearly abolish the gas tax altogether.

Last November, writes urban issues expert Scott Beyer, Graves
introduced the Transportation Empowerment Act, which was
cosponsored through Senate legislation by Republican Mike Lee. By
drastically reducing the tax, it would enable states to manage
their own transportation policies, improving a process that has
become massively inefficient under federal oversight.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1rbSaAU
via IFTTT

Death to the Federal Gas Tax

Gas pumpThe
notion that U.S. infrastructure is crumbling and underfunded has
been common lately, and more such news came in February, when the
Department of Transportation (DOT)
announced
 that the Federal Highway Trust Fund could soon
run out. This spurred debate about what to do with the trust’s main
funding source, the federal gas tax. Some legislators have long
wanted to raise this tax, and President Obama
recently proposed his
own $302 billion funding plan. But one Congressman, Georgia
Republican Tom Graves, has a better idea: nearly abolish the gas
tax altogether.

Last November, Graves introduced the Transportation Empowerment
Act
, which was cosponsored through Senate legislation by
Republican Mike Lee. By drastically reducing the tax, it would
enable states to manage their own transportation policies,
improving a process that has become massively inefficient under
federal oversight.

“It’s rather silly,” Graves told the
Atlanta Journal-Constitution, that “taxpayers pay taxes at
the pump that go to the federal government, [which] then tells our
state how it must spend the money,” even though it doesn’t “give
you all the money you submitted.”

Currently, the $18.4 cents/gallon tax, along with an even higher
diesel fuel tax, is the nation’s prime source for transportation
spending. Starting in 1956, the tax was funneled to the Highway
Trust Fund to pay for the Interstate System, and has since funded
numerous other projects. But with the rise of fuel-efficient
automobiles, revenue from it has declined over the years from a
high of $45 billion to somewhat more than $30 billion annually, and
the fund is expected to have
insufficient resources to meet all of its obligations
within a
year. Graves’ bill would reduce the tax over five years to 3.7
cents/gallon, which could produce around $7 billion, and that money
would be sent to states through block grants with few regulatory
strings attached. States could then make up the difference by
raising their own gas taxes.

Graves believes that this would produce more and better
infrastructure, by allowing states to keep revenue that he
correctly claims is not now being returned. According to a
2011 Heritage
Foundation study
, 28 states have a negative return on the
gas taxes that they pay into the fund. Georgia, for example, is
expected to have an 84 percent return in 2014—meaning a $185
million overall loss. Similar nine-figure losses are typical
for ColoradoMichigan,
and Texas, which has been robbed of one-fifth of its revenue since
1956.

How do such enormous sums get frittered away? Partly because of
redistribution to other states. But it is also because of added
costs imposed by what Graves calls the “Washington middleman.”

This includes the money needed to pay for federal bureaucracy,
including a Federal Highway Administration that largely duplicates
the responsibilities of state DOTs. States also suffer the added
costs of numerous federal regulations, many of which cater
more to left-wing policy goals than actual transportation needs.
Every federally-funded transportation project, for example, is
subject to Davis-Bacon laws that mandate the payment of local
prevailing wages. An executive order from
President Obama
 in 2009 requires federal projects of over
$25 million to use Project Labor Agreements, which discourage open
bidding in favor of unionized collective bargaining. And “Buy America
provisions in the U.S. Code prevent purchases of certain foreign
construction materials, even if they’re cheaper. Other regulations
require redundant environmental reviews and over-demanding
construction standards. Former FHWA head Robert Farris
has estimated that,
altogether, federal regulations increase project costs by 30
percent.

Federal oversight also encourages construction of projects that
make little economic sense. Before the ban in 2010, large chunks of
gas tax revenue went for earmarks. This meant that, rather than
receiving public input, projects were funded through amendments
that were put into spending bills by politically-driven
legislators. This led to numerous wasteful projects, from Alaska’s
“Bridge to Nowhere,” to over-elaborate bus stops and transportation
museums
. Although Republicans have extended the earmark ban,
there’s no guarantee that it will be safe if Democrats reoccupy the
House.

The selection process has also been inspired by urban planning
dogmas that have crept from America’s ivory towers into federal
policy. In 1983, the Highway Fund was expanded for mass transit,
and 16
percent of revenue
 is now dedicated to this purpose. Along
with light rail, buses, and streetcars, the money goes to bike
lanes, walking trails, pedestrian malls, landscaping, and other
aesthetic garnish. Such transportation “alternatives” have become
another way for the federal government to promote
Smart Growth
, but in most places, they don’t move people
cost-effectively.

Graves believes that by increasing local autonomy, his bill will
weed out many of these misallocations. This is inspired by his
belief—rooted in American federalism—that infrastructure becomes
most pragmatic when funded by those who actually use it. This is in
contrast, writes Nicole
Gelinas
in City Journal, to the impression of “free
money” that localities get when receiving federal grants from
taxpayers nationwide. Local control would also discourage the odd
transportation policy uniformity now being imposed in a nation with
vast cultural differences, from bike- and rail-obsessed Portland to
Graves’ rural Georgia district.

Of course the problem with his Transportation Empowerment Act
may be its unlikelihood of passing. Due to political pressure, the
gas tax has not been raised since 1993, causing it to lag behind
inflation, but it has still been preserved because of its
bipartisan appeal. Republicans like it because, by taxing
consumption, it broadens the revenue base, and serves as a road
fee. Democrats like it because it taxes a product considered
environmentally harmful. This is why debates have been less about
repealing it, than about how it can be bolstered.

But whatever is decided on should, at very least, echo Graves’
focus on local empowerment. Ever since the inception of the gas
tax, the federal government’s role in transportation has, like with
other policies, greatly expanded, even as its administrative
competency has declined. As a result, transportation policy today
is less about improving mobility than about politics, aesthetics,
and broad social goals. This unfortunate trend has contributed to
the poor state of U.S. infrastructure so apparent today.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/OKqHqJ
via IFTTT

IMF’s Property Tax Hike Proposal Comes True With UK Imposing “Mansion Tax” As Soon As This Year

One could see this one coming from a mile away.

It was a week ago that we highlighted the latest implied IMF proposal on how to reduce income inequality, quietly highlighted in its paper titled “Fiscal Policy and Income Inequality“. The key fragment in the paper said the following:

Some taxes levied on wealth, especially on immovable property, are also an option for economies seeking more progressive taxation. Wealth taxes, of various kinds, target the same underlying base as capital income taxes, namely assets. They could thus be considered as a potential source of progressive taxation, especially where taxes on capital incomes (including on real estate) are low or largely evaded. There are different types of wealth taxes, such as recurrent taxes on property or net wealth, transaction taxes, and inheritance and gift taxes. Over the past decades, revenue from these taxes has not kept up with the surge in wealth as a share of GDP (see earlier section) and, as a result, the effective tax rate has dropped from an average of around 0.9 percent in 1970 to approximately 0.5 percent today. The prospect of raising additional revenue from the various types of wealth taxation was recently discussed in IMF (2013b) and their role in reducing inequality can be summarized as follows.

  • Property taxes are equitable and efficient, but underutilized in many economies. The average yield of property taxes in 65 economies (for which data are available) in the 2000s was around 1 percent of GDP, but in developing economies it averages only half of that (Bahl and Martínez-Vázquez, 2008). There is considerable scope to exploit this tax more fully, both as a revenue source and as a redistributive instrument, although effective implementation will require a sizable investment in administrative infrastructure, particularly in developing economies (Norregaard, 2013).

We summed this up as follows: “if you are buying a house, enjoy the low mortgage (for now… and don’t forget – if and when the time comes to sell, the buyer better be able to afford your selling price and the monthly mortgage payment should the 30 Year mortgage rise from the current 4.2% to 6%, 7% or much higher, which all those who forecast an improving economy hope happens), but what will really determine the affordability of that piece of property you have your eyes set on, are the property taxes. Because they are about to skyrocket.

Sure enough, a week later the Telegraph reports that UK Treasury officials have begun work on a mansion tax that could be levied as soon as next year, citing  a Cabinet minister.

“Danny Alexander, the Liberal Democrat Chief Secretary to the Treasury, told The Telegraph that officials had done “a lot of work” on the best way to impose the charge. The preparatory work would mean that a Government elected next year might be able to introduce the charge soon after taking office.  Mr Alexander said there was growing political support for a tax on expensive houses, saying owners should pay more to help balance the books.

After all it’s only fair. It is also only fair, for now, to only tax the uber-rich, who are so defined merely in the eye of the populist beholder. However, said definition tends to be fluid, and what will be a tax on, i.e., £2  million properties tomorrow, will be lowered to £1  million, £500,000 and so on, in 2, 3, etc, years.

And in a world which as Zero Hedge first defined years ago as shaped by the “fairness doctrine“, the one word that was so far missing from this article, can be found momentarily:

“There’s a consensus among the public that a modest additional levy on higher value properties is a fair and reasonable thing to do in the context of further deficit reduction,” he said. “It’s important that the burden is shared.”

There you have it: “fair.” Because there is nothing quite like shaping fiscal (and monetary) policy based on what the du jour definition of fair is to 1 person… or a billion. Especially if that billion has a vote in the “democratic” process.

It gets betters:

Mr Alexander said the new tax would not be “punitive” and insisted that the Lib Dems remained in favour of wealth creation.

So if it’s not “punitive” it must be… rewarding? And how long until the definition of fair, far short of the projected tax windfall, is expanded to include more and more, until those who were previously for the “fair” tax, suddenly become ensnared by it? As for wealth creation, perhaps in addition to the fairness doctrine it is time to be honest about what socialism really means: “wealth redistribution.”

Telegraph continues:

That may be a seen as a challenge to Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, who first called for the mansion tax and has criticised high earners.

 

The Lib Dems and Labour are both in favour of a tax on expensive houses. Labour says the money raised could fund a new lower 10p rate of income tax.

 

The Lib Dems have suggested that the tax should fall on houses valued at £2  million and more.

 

The Treasury last year estimated that about 55,000 homes are in that range, though the Lib Dems say the figure is closer to 70,000.

To be sure not everyone is for the tax:

David Cameron has opposed a mansion tax but George Osborne, the Chancellor, is said to be more open to the idea. Most of the homes that might be affected are in London and the south-east of England.

 

Boris Johnson, the Tory Mayor of London, promised last week to oppose any move towards the tax, which he described as “brutally unfair on people who happen to be living in family homes”.

 

Some critics have questioned the practicality of the policy, asking how the State would arrive at valuations for houses.

Well, they will simply draw a redline above any number they deem “unfair”, duh. As for the London housing bubble, it may have finally popped, now that all those who bought mansions in London will “suddenly” find themselves at the “fair tax” mercy of yet another wealth redistributionist government.

Unfortunately, for the UK, the “mansion tax” idea, , gloriously populist as it may be, may be too little too late.

As we reported late last week in “The Music Just Ended: “Wealthy” Chinese Are Liquidating Offshore Luxury Homes In Scramble For Cash“, the Chinese offshore real estate buying juggernaut has now ended courtesy of what appears to be China’s credit bubble bursting. So if the liquidation wave truly picks up, and since there is no greater fool left (you can forget about sanctioned Russian oligarchs investing more cash in the City in a world where asset freezes and confiscations are all too real), very soon London may find that there is nobody in the “fair” real estate taxation category left to tax.

But that’s ok – because that’s when one simply expands the definition of what is fair to include the not so wealthy… and then again…. and again.

Finally, if anyone is still confused, the IMF-proposed “mansion tax” is most certainly coming to the US, and every other insolvent “developed world” nation, next.


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1oKkpoh Tyler Durden

Ukraine Troops In Crimea Refuse To Leave While Russia Takes Over Most Of Ukraine Navy Fleet

As of Friday, the Ukraine has, as we predicted a month ago, been officially divided in two.  As AP reported earlier, “two almost simultaneous signatures Friday on opposite sides of Europe deepened the divide between East and West, as Russia formally annexed Crimea and the European Union pulled Ukraine closer into its orbit. In this “new post-Cold War order,” as the Ukrainian prime minister called it, besieged Ukrainian troops on the Crimean Peninsula faced a critical choice: leave, join the Russian military or demobilize. Ukraine was working on evacuating its outnumbered troops in Crimea, but some said they were still awaiting orders.”

However, it appears it is not so much a question of figuring out how to evacuate the troops, but rather motivating them. As RIA reports, “less than 2,000 of Ukrainian troops serving in Crimea decided to leave the peninsula for Ukraine, the Russian Defense Ministry said on Saturday. “As of March 21, less than 2,000 out of 18,000 Ukrainian servicemen staying on the territory of the Republic of Crimea decided to go to Ukraine,” the ministry said in a statement.

Those willing to continue their service in the Ukrainian armed forces will be provided with transport to carry their families and belongings to the Ukrainian territory, the ministry added. So while Russia is saying good riddance of foreign troops situation in its brand new territory, it is at least being kind enough to provide the means to depart.

Meanwhile, Russia, already in control of the critical warm water port of Sevastopol, just became the brand new owner of virtually the entire Ukraine navy fleet.

A total of 147 military units in Crimea have hoisted Russian flags instead of Ukrainian and applied to join the Russian armed forces.

 

“St. Andrew’s flags of the Russian Navy have been raised on 54 out of 67 vessels of the Ukrainian Navy, including eight warships and one submarine,” the defense ministry said.

 

Ukraine’s only submarine, the Zaporizhzhia, joined the Russian Black Sea Fleet earlier on Saturday and will be soon relocated to its base.

So while the last vestiges of Ukraine military presence in the Crimea slowly disappear, one place that still refuses to give in to Russians, is the Belbek air force base in east Crimea, made known several weeks ago for the stand off between Russian and Ukraine troops. As shown on the picture below, the troops are waiting for order from Kiev, while the Russian soldiers have all the time in the world to wait as the besieged base is emptied out. AFP adds that some 200 unarmed pro-Russian protesters stormed the base, as the soldiers have barricaded inside and are throwing smoke bombs.

 

All of that is to be expected. However, what one should pay close attention to, is the latest pro-Russia rally which is taking place in the Eastern city of Donetsk, one where the crowd earlier was chanting for a return of the pre-coup Ukraine president, Yanukovich.

Why the importance? Because whether the protest is real or fabricated, any additional provocations against the prevailing pro-Russian population will surely be used as a pretext by Putin to continue his “expansion” campaign into East Ukraine under the same pretext as he has made all too clear previously: to protect the minority population. And, as the west has shown all too clearly with a whole lot of meaningless sanctions, there is nobody to stop him.


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1gIYHKm Tyler Durden

EU Agreed Banking Union Yesterday – Global Bail-Ins Cometh …

 

Friday’s AM fix was USD 1,338.50, EUR 970.21 and GBP 810.57 per ounce.

Thurday’s AM fix was USD 1,327.00, EUR 962.64 and GBP 802.78 per ounce.     


Yesterday, gold climbed $15.27 to $1342.27 at about 7AM EST before it fell back off in New York, but it still ended with a gain of 0.44%. Silver rose to as high as $20.579 at one point, but it then fell back off and ended unchanged on the day.

Euro gold rose to about €966, platinum gained $2.30 to $1432.00, and copper climbed slightly to about $2.95. Palladium prices, meanwhile, closed at a level not seen in more than 2 years with the rally linked to worries about risks to Russian supplies of the metal.

Palladium surged 3.1% to the highest since 2011 on concern supply from Russia may be restricted.

Gold finished higher on Friday, partially recovering from a four-session losing streak on the back of a weaker U.S. dollar, but the metal’s prices still suffered from their worst weekly loss since November – down over 3.5%.



Gold in U.S. Dollars, 5 Days – (Bloomberg)

Gold had become overbought after its surge to 6 month highs and was due profit taking and a correction. A perception of an abatement of tensions between Russia and the West has contributed to the pullback this week. Momentum could lead to further falls next week but we expect weakness will be short lived.

 

Gold’s Technicals
There is a risk that gold could fall below immediate support at $1,320/oz and the next levels of support are at $1,300, $1,240 and then back where we started the year at $1,200. A 50% retracement would not be unusual after the speed of recent gains and that would take us to the psychological level of $1,300/oz again.  

Gold in U.S. Dollars, 1 Year – (Bloomberg)

A political solution needs to be found as governments continue to opt for economic sanctions of various degrees, it could degenerate into a full blown trade and economic war. Were this to occur the benefits of free trade and globalization that we have seen in recent history would be at risk – creating real challenges for the global economy.

The premiums that risk assets such as stock markets command could quickly be lost as market participants reevaluate asset allocations in the light of the more risky economic and geopolitical situation.



Gold in U.S. Dollars, 43 Years – (Bloomberg)

Hopefully, calm and wise counsel will prevail and a diplomatic political solution will be found. However, in the meantime, gold continues to be an important asset to own in order to hedge these and other geopolitical and economic risks.

 

Yellen At Fed – Print Baby Print
It was very welcome to see a woman taking over the helm of the Federal Reserve. However, we cannot allow our goodwill in this regard to cloud judgement and impact our analysis of her and the Fed’s performance and policies.

Yellen gave mixed messages, both on the economy and on monetary policy, but market participants have chosen to focus on some of the more hawkish comments that she made. She acknowledged that the Fed may have been too optimistic about the economic outlook recently. Yet, she and the Fed largely stuck to their projections for how growth and inflation will unfold in the coming years.

 

It is important to remember that the Fed did not predict or foresee at all the sub prime crisis, the housing bubble, Bear Stearns, Lehman, the global financial crisis and subsequent recession.

The dollar is set to be structurally weak in the coming years given the still significant imbalances in the U.S. economy and still very poor fiscal state of the economy. No amount of jaw boning or Fed tinkering with interest rates will change that.

While interest rates may rise from nearly 0%, they are set to remain low for the foreseeable future. At least until the bond markets decide to enforce fiscal discipline on the U.S. Then interest rates will likely rise substantially leading to a severe U.S. recession.


US Govt 10 Year Yield, 1971 to March 2014 – (Bloomberg)

On a long term basis, it is likely that the dollar will remain weak and gold’s bull market will continue until the end of the interest rate tightening cycle which will likely be between 2020 and 2025.

This was seen in the 1970s when interest rates surged higher that decade from a low in March 1971, to a high in September 1981. The U.S. 10 Year went from 5.38% to 15.84% during that period and gold rose from near $35/oz to over $850/oz in January 1980 (see charts).

 

Thus, contrary to the popular perception, rising interest rates are not bearish for gold. High interest rates and real positive interest rates in a sound economy are very bearish for gold prices and will burst the coming gold bubble. However, that is a long way off – likely between 2018 and 2025 and likely when gold prices are well above their inflation adjusted high (CPI) of $2,500/oz. Indeed, longer term prices over $4,000/oz or $5,000/oz are quite feasible.


EU Agrees Banking Union – Bail-Ins Cometh …
 

In the early hours of yesterday morning European Union politicians struck a deal on legislation to create a single agency to handle failing banks and bail-ins in the Eurozone after another all night negotiating marathon ahead of a summit of EU leaders starting in Brussels today.

German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble was drawn into the talks around 0530 GMT as the negotiations dragged on into the night. The politicians emerged around 0715 GMT with the deal, which now will need formal approval by the European Parliament and by national governments.


Negotiators persuaded nations that had been opposed to the proposed Single Resolution Mechanism and the legislation for bail-ins to agree.


Insolvent banks will be treated equally regardless of the country they are based in. Failed banks creditors, both bond holders and depositors, will be subject to bail-ins in the same way in all countries.

“It’s a very good agreement,” European Central Bank President Mario Draghi said before the meeting of EU leaders in the Belgian capital. The banking union was shaped in part by Draghi and he hailed the compromise plan as “great progress for a better banking union. Two pillars are now in place.”


Plans for a single banking union were put together two years ago due to fears for the euro and the EU’s 6,000 banks. Countries wanted to break the link between sovereigns and insolvent banks to ensure taxpayers were not forced to bail out insolvent banks and to prevent contagion and a systemic crisis.

It had already been agreed that shareholders and importantly now depositors will be bailed in before the single resolution fund can be tapped. About 100 banks plus transnationals and those already bailed out will come under the direct supervision of the ECB from January.


While most of the coverage is on the European Union member states and the European Parliament agreeing the final details of a single resolution mechanism (SRM) to wind up failing banks, there is little coverage of the developing bail-in regimes and the heightened risk that depositors in the Eurozone now face.  


Banks in the Eurozone remain extremely vulnerable. Our research on
bail-ins and the developing bail-in regimes clearly shows how banks remain very vulnerable and it is now the case that in the event of bank failure, your deposits could be confiscated as happened in Cyprus.

It is important to realise that not just the EU but also the UK, the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand and most G20 nations all have plans for bail-ins in the event that banks and other large financial institutions get into difficulty.

The coming bail-ins will pose real challenges and risks to investors and of course depositors – both household and corporate. Return of capital, rather than return on capital will assume greater importance.

Evaluating counterparty risk and only using the safest banks, investment providers and financial institutions will become essential in order to protect and grow wealth.

It is important that one owns physical coins and bars, legally in your name, outside the banking system. Paper or electronic forms of gold investment should be avoided as they along with cash deposits could be subject to bail-ins.

Educate yourself about this emerging threat to your livelihood by reading:
Bail-In Guide: Protecting your Savings In The Coming Bail-In Era (10 pages)

Bail-In Research: From Bail-Outs to Bail-Ins: Risks and Ramifications (50 pages)  



    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1gIYGWV GoldCore

Baylen Linnekin on the Intrusive Schemes of the Food Nannies

HamburgerThe federal government’s
Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee plans to issue its latest set
of recommendations by the end of 2015. These recommendations have
teeth, as they’ll “serve as the cornerstone for all Federal
nutrition education and program activities” over the proceeding
five years. The DGAC guidelines are used by a host of federal
agencies, including the FDA, USDA, NIH, and CDC. Many of these
policies will have little or no impact on your life. But make no
mistake. The DGAC is actively dreaming up ways for the government
to meddle in your diet. And in the meantime, writes Baylen
Linnekin, the federal government is actively spilling your data
over the Web, in a demonstration of the respect it has for your
private food choices and everything else you do.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1fOxiqq
via IFTTT

Friday Humor: Obamacare’s Latest Target Audience: The Liberal Tea Party

Forget easy women, keg-standing frat-boys, and Richard Simmons twerking; this has to be the oddest mixed message marketing by the administration yet…

 

Perfect for the back of your VW Beetle…

 

Or your artist sketchpad…

 

Or your Apple laptop…

 

 

We are sure Christopher Gadsden will get the irony as he rolls over in his grave…


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1jdOFZz Tyler Durden

Turkey Set To Block YouTube Momentarily, After Google Refuses To Yank Clips Exposing Prime Minister

As was reported earlier, the Turkish premier, embroiled in what increasingly appears a career terminating corruption and embezzlement scandal (it is not exactly clear yet just how involved the CIA is in this particular upcoming government overthrow), blocked Turkey’s access to Twitter last night, hours after vowing to “destroy twitter.” The idiocy of this escalation against dissemination of information in the internet age needs no comment. Well maybe one. This is what we said in our post from this morning: “since Turkey will certainly not stop at just Twitter, here is what is coming next: “Last week, Erdogan said the country could also block Facebook and YouTube.” It now appears that at least half of this threat is about to materialize because moments ago Google just announced that it would not remove a previously uploaded video, one in which Erdogan tells his son to hide money from investigators (one which can be seen here), and which Erdogan demanded be pulled from Google (seemingly unaware that by doing so he simply made sure that everyone saw it). This means that within days, if not hours, Turkey will likely block Google-owned YouTube, if not Google itself.

From the WSJ:

Google Inc. has declined Turkish government requests to remove YouTube videos alleging government corruption, people familiar with the matter said, the latest sign of resistance to a crackdown against social media led by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

 

Turkish authorities have in recent weeks asked Google to block the videos from YouTube’s Turkish website, the people familiar with the matter said. But amid a national scandal over corruption allegations, Google refused to comply because it believes the requests to be legally invalid, the people added.

 

Google’s refusal to remove videos raises the specter that Turkey could move to block access to YouTube within the country, after blocking the microblogging service Twitter Inc. late Thursday night. Both sites have been central conduits for allegations of corruption against Mr. Erdogan’s government and faced public threats of a blackout by Mr. Erdogan. 

 

Some people within Google had feared a YouTube blackout could be imminent, after the Twitter takedown, the people familiar with the matter said. “We feel an immediate threat,” one of the people said.

Sadly in Erodgan’s berserk regime, this is not only possible but very probable.

Still, one wonders why Google would not relent in this particular case, after recent revelations that the major internet companies have cooperated over the years with the NSA, contrary to their vocal denials in public. Surely, compromising with its principles and ethics would be nothing new to a company which once swore to “do no evil.” Especially since Google realizes quite well by not complying with the government’s demand it is making the overthrow of Erdogan’s regime, violent or otherwise, that much more likely.

Either way, even without Google’s aid it already appeared that Erdogan’s days are numbered when not only the opposition but the figurehead president himself condemned the Twitter blockage.

Opposition politicians decried the move as that of a dictatorship. Turkish President Abdullah Gul, who has a largely symbolic role, also came down against the blackout, using Twitter to write that “wholesale shuttering of social media platforms cannot be approved.”

Alas, with the government in full out despotic mode, however one which would work in the 1970s but certainly not in an age of instant information exchange, further escalations of locking out internet provides will certainly accelerate until finally the information and entertainment starved country says enough.

We eagerly look forward to see which particular pro-Western agent is groomed to take Erdogan’s place. After all remember: those Qatari gas pipelines that in a parallel universe, one without Putin, would have already been transporting nat gas under Syria, would enter Europe under Turkey.

Which makes one wonder – just what is the real goal here?

As for Turkey, we urge the population, largely removed from all Machiavellian moves behind the scenes, to catch up on their favorite YouTube clips: they will shortly disappear for good.


    



via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1lYXO5w Tyler Durden