OBAMA: PREPARING “MY MILITARY” FOR THE NEXT STEP?

RELATED POSTS:

RUSSIA’S PLAN TO USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS ON THE UNITED STATES

CHINA’S PLAN TO USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS ON THE UNITED STATES

PLANS FOR REDRAWING THE MIDDLE EAST: THE PROJECT FOR A NEW MIDDLE EAST

UNITED STATES CIVIL WAR 2016; U.S. MILITARY OFFICERS ARE BEING TOLD TO PLAN TO FIGHT AMERICANS

ARMED UNITED STATES DRONES COMING TO AN AIRSPACE NEAR YOU BY 2015

EMP ATTACK AND SOLAR STORMS: A GUIDE

OBAMA’S WAR ON AMMO: TOTAL GUN CONTROL

EXCLUSIVE: U.S. GOVERNMENT NOW ACTIVATING FEMA DETENTION CAMPS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES

FEMA CAMP ROUNDUP HAS BEGUN: CITY TO EXILE THE HOMELESS; EITHER GO TO JAIL OR THE FEMA CAMP

PRESIDENT OBAMA: THE CIA MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE GROOMED BY COMMUNISTS TO DESTROY THE UNITED STATES

OBAMA IS LEADING AMERICA INTO COMMUNISM

OBAMA’S BLITZKRIEG ON AMERICA

THE PLANNED DESTRUCTION OF THE UNITED STATES

OBAMA’S PLAN TO DEPOPULATE THE SUBURBS

FLASHBACK: OBAMA’S PLAN TO TRANSITION AMERICA TO A SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

SECRET TRANS PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP NEGOTIATIONS ARE NEXT STEP TOWARDS A NEW WORLD ORDER; OBAMA READY TO SIGN AWAY U.S. SOVEREINTY

by: Brandon Walker

On October 12, 2013, ABC’s Dianne Sawyer brought us a video of a 9th, yes 9th, General fired from the military this week. It’s even reaching some of the more liberal stations and begging them to ask the question, “What is going on?” It seems President Obama is preparing what he calls “my military” for his version of the final solution. With all the documentation we have, it looks as though he is purging the military for the next step.

We have now seen this official President Obama temper-tantrum in action this week. But is it a temper-tantrum or is there a method to his madness?

We have been warned by a Pentagon Official to expect radical changes. You heard of our dire warnings of Chinese Economists planning to foreclose and forming the TPP Treaty that could set a global economy in motion. We have the very real possibility of 16 U.S. States being shutdown and handed over due to debt in this mess. We even have a CIA whistle blower warning us that President Obama wants to radically take over power. People are crying out, where is our military in this mess?

Well, there seems to be some very credible evidence that since last year and through this year that there has been a “litmus test” given to American Military Officers. The Main point of that test, “Would you fire on an American Citizen?” If you say no, then as Donald Trump would say, “Your fired!” Since the beginning of the year these retired officer’s have came forward with ““President Obama is preparing for war against the U.S.”.  We even know Dr. Garrow and others confirmed this litmus test. Then we have heard President Obama himself talk about “My Military”.

-

-

And this isn’t all. This strange chain of firings from the Military is so bizarre and so unheard of that even Dianne Sawyer of ABC news reached out to cover it when the 9th, yes 9th, Military Commanding Officer was relieved of duty in less than a year. This doesn’t include the long list last year, this is just the nine individuals this year alone.

Gen HamGeneral Carter Hamm, United States Army-Served as head of the United States African Command. Was in charge of the US African command during the fateful night of September 11, 2012 when the lives of four American citizens was taken in the Embassy in Benghazi. Hamm was extremely critical  of our Commander and Chief and stated he lied about not having reinforcements in the area on that night. Hamm “resigned and retired” on April of 2013.

thumb_RDML GaouetteRear Admiral Charles Gaouette/United States Navy-Commander of Carrier Strike Group Three. His most recent activity served as Deputy Commander of the US Naval Forces, US Central Command. He was in charge of Air Craft Carriers in the Mediterranean Sea the night of September 11, 2012. He testified before the hearing committee and said that there may not have been time to get the flight crews there but left the door open on if told when the events took place if that he could have had the aircraft launched upon cross-examination by Rep. Tray Gowdey. Recently fired from the Administrative post and relieved of Duty by the Obama Administration for “utterance of a racial slur”.

ralphbaker

Major General Ralph Baker, United States Army- Major General Baker served as the Commander of the Joint Task Force-Horn at Camp Lamar, Djibouti, Africa. Was also involved in some aspect with the incident September 11, 2012, being under the African Command. Had said he believed attack helicopters could have made it in time. Relieved of command and fired for groping a civilian (no assault charges or sexual misconduct charges filed with JAG)

bryanroberts

 Brigadier General Bryan Roberts, United States Army-General Roberts took command of  Fort Jackson in 2011. Was considered a rising star in his field. He served in Iraq during his service as the Commanding Officer of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, and was the Deputy Commanding General of the United States Army Recruiting Command, Fort Knox, KY. Relieved of Duty and Fired for Adultery. While this is still on the books in the United States Code of Military Justice, it has rarely been used since President Bill Clinton’s indiscretions.

MG_Gregg_SturdevantMajor General Gregg A. Sturdevant, United States Marine Corps-Director of Strategic Planning and Policy of  for the United States Pacific Command and Commander of the aviation wing at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan. Highly decorated soldier with two Naval and Marine Commendations and two Naval and Marine Good Conduct medals. He also has an Air Medal with a gold star. He served honorably and distinctively. He had asked about supplies to his command. He was one of two commanding officers suddenly relieved of command and fired from the military for failure of proper force protection.

MG_Charles_GurganusMajor General Charles M.M. Gurganus, United States Marine Corps- Regional Commander in the Southwest and I Marine Expeditionary Force (a forward or frontal division) in Afghanistan. Also Highly decorated with a Defense Superior Service Medal, two Legion of Merritt w/Valor, and three Meritorious Service Commendations. Major General C.M.M.Gurganus had questioned the use of Afghanistan patrols along side American patrols after two officers were executed at their desk and a platoon was lead into an ambush on the front lines. Was the other commander relieved of duty for failure of proper force protection.

220px-LTG_David_HuntoonLieutenant General David Holmes Huntoon Jr, United States Army-Served as the 58th Superintendent of the United States Military Academy at West Point, NY.   He had graduated from the same academy in 1973 and had served in Senior Planning and Education Services through the majority of his career. He was “censored” for “an investigation” into an “improper relationship” according to The Department of Defense.  Nothing was released to the nature of the improper relationship. Nothing was even mentioned if an actual investigation even took place.

thumb_VADM Tim Giardina

Vice Admiral Tim Giardina, United States Navy-Deputy Commander of the United States Strategic Command. Commander of the Submarine Group Trident, Submarine Group 9 and Submarine Group 10, where every single one of the 18 Nuclear Submarines with Nuclear Trident Missiles of those three groups were in his command. This commander earned six Legions of Merit, Two Meritorious Service Medals, two Joint Service Commendation Medals, and several other medals, ribbons and decorations in his illustrious career. He was removed from service and fired from the military for the charge of using counterfeit poker chips (not making that up).

GetFile_xlarge

Last on the list, Major General Michael Carry, United States Air Force-Commander 20th Air Force in charge of 9,600 people and 450 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) at three operational wings and served in both Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. He was Fired October 11, 2013, for “Personal Misbehavior” is what was told to ABC News. He and Giardina were both the two top Commanders over the United States Nuclear Arsenal before their dismissal within 48 hours of each other.

As ABC News reports, this is an extremely alarming rate and one of the biggest and fastest purges of military personnel ever recorded.  It apparently is such a shock at the rate even for a long time veteran of reporting the news as Dianne Sawyer, because at one point she gets heated saying two Commanders of the Nuclear Command.

You don’t put people who are not very intelligent and without a squeaky clean record over that area of the Military.  It is enough to make the hardest and staunchest of supporters as the ABC news crew to pause and ask themselves, “what step is he planning?”.

You can watch the ABC interview here:

-

-

U.S. COMMANDER IN JAPAN RELIEVED OF DUTY DUE TO ALLEGED MISCONDUCT

-

armycoltilley

-

Army Col. Eric Tilley

-

by PressTV

November 1, 2013

The Army has relieved the commander of its largest base in Japan after an investigation into alleged misconduct, according to a US Army Japan press statement sent late Friday.

The investigation had been ongoing since June 7, when Col. Eric Tilley was suspended from his job as commander of US Army Garrison Japan.

Maj. Gen. James C. Boozer, Sr., commander of US Army Japan and I Corps (Forward), officially relieved Tilley on Friday for “lack of confidence” based on the results of the inquiry, according to the press statement.

The statement provided no other details. Reached via email, US Army Japan spokesman Maj. Kevin Toner said, “…it would be inappropriate to make public the allegations because the investigation did not lead to findings of criminal misconduct.”

The Tilley inquiry was not related to Boozer’s predecessor, Maj. Gen. Michael T. Harrison, Toner said. Harrison was also suspended in June while officials looked into whether he may have failed to report or properly investigate a sexual assault claim.

Toner would not address rumors that other officials have been relieved of their duties from Camp Zama as a result of alleged misconduct, nor did he elaborate on what had happened to Tilley’s civilian deputy, Jeffrey Wertz, who was temporarily detailed to other duties in June during a misconduct investigation.

Col. Joy Curriera has been appointed US Army Japan commander, according to the US Army Japan news release. Stars and Stripes

-

10TH MILITARY COMMANDER PURGED

Published on Nov 5, 2013

Yet another, the tenth, high ranking military official has been dismissed. We have a military under civilian rule but is the President purging those who don’t subordinate the Constitution to political loyalty?

-

‘PURGE SURGE’: OBAMA FIRES ANOTHER COMMANDER

Naval commanding officer alarmed by ‘relentless’ attack on Armed Forces

by F. Michael Maloof | World Net Daily

WASHINGTON – After multiple top generals described to WND what they regard as a full-scale “purge” of the U.S. military by the Obama administration, the commander of U.S. Army Garrison Japan was summarily relieved of duty and his civilian deputy reassigned, pending a “misconduct” investigation.

Nine generals and flag officers have been relieved of duty under Obama just this year – widely viewed as an extraordinary number – and several sources put the total number of senior officers purged during the five years of the Obama administration as close to 200.

In response, prominent retired generals – ranging from Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, a Fox News senior military analyst, to Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, a founder of the Army’s elite Delta Force, to Medal of Honor recipient Maj. Gen. Patrick Henry Brady – have all gone on the record with WND, characterizing Obama’s actions as nothing less than an all-out attack on America’s armed forces.

According to U.S. Army Japan, Col. Eric Tilley was suspended from his job by Maj. Gen. James C. Boozer Sr., commander of U.S. Army Japan and I Corps (Forward) for a “lack of confidence” based on the results of an inquiry.

A spokesman for U.S. Army Japan, Maj. Kevin Toner, would not elaborate on what prompted a “lack of confidence,” saying it would be “inappropriate to make public the allegations because the investigation did not lead to findings of criminal misconduct.”

Tilley is to be replaced by Col. Joy Curriera.

Tilley’s dismissal is only the latest in what retired Navy Capt. Joseph John refers to as a “bigger picture” in which some “135 senior officers have been purged.”

“The ‘bigger picture,’” John told WND, “is that the U.S. Armed Forces have been under relentless attack by the occupant of the Oval Office for five years.”

A Naval Academy graduate, John had three tours of duty in Vietnam, served as an al-Qaida expert for the FBI, and was a commanding officer with SEALs embedded on special operations. He was awarded the Navy Marine Corps Commendation Medal, five Meritorious Service Medals and 22 medals and unit citations for combat operations in Vietnam, Philippines, Desert Storm and on anti-terrorist operations.

Today, John is chairman of Combat Veterans For Congress PAC (Political Action Committee), which has helped elect 20 combat veterans to Congress.

“I believe there are more than 137 officers who have been forced out or given bad evaluation reports so they will never make Flag (officer), because of their failure to comply to certain views,” John told WND.

“The truly sad story is that many of the brightest graduates of the three major service academies witnessing what the social experiment on diversity … is doing to the U.S. military, are leaving the service after five years,” he said. “We are being left with an officer corps that can be made to be more compliant, that is, exactly what Obama needs to effect his long range goals for the U.S. military.”

In an email to WND, John outlined what he termed “a very few of the most egregious” aspects of Obama’s “attack” on the military over the past five years.

He referred specifically to the Rules of Engagement in combat that were put in place after Obama took office, asserting that the changes resulted in very high casualty rates in Afghanistan, including the loss of 17 members of SEAL Team 6 in one incident.

“The Rules of Engagement precluded the use of suppression fire at a landing zone,” John said.

Echoing what other high-ranking officers have told WND, he said the Pentagon policy of repealing “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” resulted in the first openly “gay” “major military force in the world.” The development has brought about “massive” sexual assaults on “thousands of straight military male personnel that have been covered up,” he said.

He also cited military chaplains’ being prohibited from reading letters in the pulpit from their cardinals during Sunday services as a restriction of freedom of religion.

These and other “social experiments,” he said, have constituted “a massive assault to restructure the military mindset, destroyed unit cohesion, unit morale and is negatively affecting combat effectiveness.”

John also referred to major cuts in the military budget that resulted in, for one example, restricting as many as seven aircraft carriers to port, “leaving them open to another Pearl Harbor-type of attack.”

Physical fitness qualifications for “tip of the spear units” such as the Rangers, SEALs, Green Berets and combat infantry are being downgraded, he said, so “women can be placed into those units.” Likewise, he added, “women have been assigned to submarines and ships resulting in relationships at sea that have broken up military families.”

Some senior enlisted personnel and commanding officers in the midst of six-month deployments, he said, have been removed because they got involved with the opposite sex, which degrades the ships’ battle readiness.

John sums up this way: “The net result of the occupant of the Oval Office’s new policies set for the U.S. armed forces changed and enforced by his civilian appointees at DOD continues to degrade the most effective military organization ever created.”

If John’s comments about Obama sound dire, they are no more so than those expressed to WND in recent days by top generals.

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, recipient of the U.S. military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor, as well as other top retired officers, say President Obama’s agenda is decimating the morale of the U.S. ranks to the point members no longer feel prepared to fight or have the desire to win.

“There is no doubt he [Obama] is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him” over such issues as “homosexuals, women in foxholes, the Obama sequester,” Brady told WND.

“They are purging everyone, and if you want to keep your job, just keep your mouth shut,” another military source told WND.

Not only are military service members being demoralized and the ranks’ overall readiness being reduced by the Obama administration’s purge of key leaders, colonels – those lined up in rank to replace outgoing generals – are quietly taking their careers in other directions.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, who was a founding member of Delta Force and later deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence under President George W. Bush, says it is worrying that four-star generals are being retired at the rate that has occurred under Obama.

“Over the past three years, it is unprecedented for the number of four-star generals to be relieved of duty, and not necessarily relieved for cause,” Boykin said.

“I believe there is a purging of the military,” he said. “The problem is worse than we have ever seen.”

The future of the military is becoming more and more of concern, added Boykin, since colonels who would become generals are also being relieved of duty if they show that they’re not going to support Obama’s agenda, which critics have described as socialist.

“I talk to a lot of folks who don’t support where Obama is taking the military, but in the military they can’t say anything,” Boykin said.

As a consequence, he said, the lower grades have decided to leave, having been given the signal that there is no future in the military for them.

Referring to recent reports that Obama has purged some 197 officers in the past five years, Boykin said the reports suggest these officers were suspected of disloyalty or disagreed with the Obama administration on policy or force-structure issues. As Boykin pointed out, a number of them have been relieved of duty for no given reason.

“Morale is at an unprecedented low,” Boykin added, part of which is due to sequestration.

Sequestration has seriously cut back operational readiness for the military to the point where Boykin said that often they have no ammunition and are unable to conduct training because of the planned cuts.

Brady, who was a legendary “Dust Off” air ambulance pilot in Vietnam and detailed his experiences in his book, “Dead Men Flying: Victory in Viet Nam,” told WND, “The problem is military people will seldom, while on duty, go on the record over such issues, and many will not ever, no matter how true. I hear from many off the record who are upset with the current military leadership and some are leaving and have left in the past.”

Brady referred to additional problems in today’s military including “girly-men leadership [and] medals for not shooting and operating a computer. This president will never fight if there is any reason to avoid it and with a helpless military he can just point to our weakness and shrug his shoulders.”

Brady made similar references in a recent article he wrote for WND in which he said “just when you thought the leadership of this government could not get any worse, it does. Never in history has an administration spawned another scandal to cover the current one.”

The reference was to the recent firing of a number of generals to mask “Obama’s serial scandals, all prefaced by lies – Fast and Furious, Benghazi, NSA, IRS” among others.

WND reported that three of the nine firings by Obama this year alone were linked to the controversy surrounding the Sep. 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the CIA special mission in Benghazi, Libya.

In one case, U.S. Army Gen. Carter Ham, who commanded U.S. African Command when the consulate was attacked and four Americans were killed, was highly critical of the decision by the State Department not to send in reinforcements.

Obama has insisted there were no reinforcements available that night.

But Ham contends reinforcements could have been sent in time, and he said he never was given a stand-down order. However, others contend that he was given the order but defied it. He ultimately was relieved of his command and retired.

Now, new information in the Washington Times reveals there were Delta Force personnel in Tripoli at the time of the attack and two members volunteered to be dispatched to Benghazi to assist in protecting the Benghazi compound, contrary to stand-down orders from the State Department.

Another flag officer involved in the Benghazi matter – which remains under congressional investigation – was Rear Adm. Charles Gaouette. He commanded the Carrier Strike Group.

He contends aircraft could have been sent to Libya in time to help the Americans under fire. He later was removed from his post for alleged profanity and making “racially insensitive comments.”

Army Major Gen. Ralph Baker was the commander of the Combined Joint Task Force Horn of Africa at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, Africa. Baker contended that attack helicopters could have reached the consulate in time on the night of the attack.

“To understand the insufferable assaults on our military and veterans, who should be exempt from political squabbles but are often at the forefront of Obama threats, we need to understand the psyche of the elite in this country led by Obama,” Brady said.

“It is no accident that the president used the Obama sequester and shutdown to punish the military family,” he said. “It is part of his DNA. In fact it is in the psyche of the entire liberal/progressive establishment – the elite. President Clinton outed himself and this ilk when he declared his loathing of the military. Who could believe progressives/liberals care about veterans and military?”

Army Major Gen. Paul E. Vallely similarly has been very vocal in his opposition to the Obama administration.

Vallely said the White House won’t investigate its own officials but finds it easy to fire military commanders “who have given their lives for their country.”

“Obama will not purge a civilian or political appointee because they have bought into Obama’s ideology,” Vallely said. “The White House protects their own. That’s why they stalled on the investigation into Fast and Furious, Benghazi and Obamacare. He’s intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”

Vallely served in the Vietnam War and retired in 1993 as deputy Commanding General, Pacific Command. Today, he is chairman of the Military Committee for the Center for Security Policy and is co-author of the book “Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror.”

Duty personnel seem to back up this concern, suggesting that the firings are meant to send a message to “young officers down through the ranks” not to criticize the president or White House politics.

-

TWO ADMIRALS FACE PROBE IN NAVY BRIBERY SCHEME

-

Vanderlei Almeida/AFP/Getty Images – Ted Branch, then a rear admiral, speaks to the press in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in this 2010 photo. Now a vice admiral and the service’s top intelligence officer, he and and Rear Adm. Bruce Loveless, the Navy’s director of intelligence operations, were placed on leave Friday and their access to classified material was suspended, the Navy said in a statement.

-

By Craig Whitlock | The Washington Post

November 8, 2013

Two U.S. admirals — including the director of naval intelligence — are under investigation as part of a major bribery scandal involving a foreign defense contractor, Navy officials announced Friday night.

Vice Adm. Ted “Twig” Branch, the service’s top intelligence officer, and Rear Adm. Bruce F. Loveless, the Navy’s director of intelligence operations, were placed on leave Friday, and their access to classified material was suspended, the Navy said in a statement.

Both admirals are being investigated for their ties to a Singapore-based defense contractor, Glenn Defense Marine Asia, whose chief executive was arrested in September on charges that he bribed other Navy officers into giving him classified or privileged information in exchange for prostitutes and cash.

Two Navy commanders and a senior Naval Criminal Investigative Service agent have already been arrested, and a captain was relieved of his ship’s command last month in connection with the case.

But the announcement that two admirals in charge of protecting the Navy’s secrets have been swept up in the investigation makes the crisis the worst to tar the Navy since the 1991 Tailhook scandal, when a convention of naval aviators sexually assaulted scores of women.

Navy officials said they were bracing for even more bad news to emerge from a corruption case that has expanded swiftly since it became public in September. “We do believe that other naval officers will likely be implicated in this scandal,” Rear Adm. John F. Kirby, the Navy’s chief spokesman, said in a telephone interview.

The Navy did not disclose why Loveless and Branch had drawn the scrutiny of investigators but said their alleged misconduct occurred prior to their current assignments and before they became admirals.

“There is no indication, nor do the allegations suggest, that in either case there was any breach of classified information,” Kirby said in a statement.

But a Navy official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case said the NCIS recently uncovered evidence of “personal misconduct” against Branch and Loveless as the investigation into Glenn Defense Marine widened.

Neither Branch nor Loveless has been charged with a crime or service violation, and both men retain their rank while the investigation proceeds, the Navy said. The decision to suspend their access to classified information was made by Navy Secretary Ray Mabus.

-

(http://www.navy.mil/) – Rear Admiral Bruce F. Loveless, Director of Intelligence Operations.

-

The suspension of two senior intelligence officials raises serious questions about whether national security may have been compromised because of improper contact between Navy officers and Glenn Defense Marine.

Prosecutors from the U.S. attorney’s office in San Diego have charged the two Navy commanders with passing classified information about ship and submarine movements to Leonard Glenn Francis, a Malaysian national and the chief executive of Glenn Defense Marine.

Navy contracting officials raised suspicions about Francis — who is known as “Fat Leonard” in Navy circles because of his imposing girth — as far back as 2005. But prosecutors allege he was able to dodge scrutiny by bribing Navy officers and the NCIS agent for inside information about law enforcement probes and contract audits.

To recruit the moles, Francis plied the officers with female escorts, cash, paid travel and other perks, including tickets to a Lady Gaga concert in Thailand and a performance of “The Lion King” in Japan, according to court records.

Glenn Defense Marine has serviced and supplied Navy ships and submarines at ports around the Pacific for a quarter-century, providing fuel, tugboats, sewage disposal, wharfside security and other assistance.

Francis and his company were familiar faces to Navy brass, including the commanders of most vessels in the Pacific. The company was rewarded in 2011 with new contracts valued up to $200 million.

Prosecutors, however, allege that the firm routinely overbilled for everything from tugboats to fuel to sewage disposal, defrauding the Navy of more than $10 million.

Francis sought inside information on ship deployments and pressed at least one commander to steer aircraft carriers and other vessels to ports where his firm could easily overcharge the Navy for services, court documents allege.

Earlier Friday, Francis and one of the Navy commanders charged in the case, Michael Vannak Khem Misiewicz, appeared in federal court in San Diego for a procedural hearing. Misiewicz had been a rising star in the Navy; he escaped Cambodia’s “killing fields” as a child, then made a triumphant return to the country decades later as the skipper of a U.S. destroyer.

Prosecutors told the court that they would be seeking an order to prohibit defense attorneys from circulating or sharing evidence. They noted that the NCIS agent, John B. Beliveau II, is charged with giving sensitive law enforcement files to Francis to help him duck charges.

Francis is being held without bond because prosecutors have argued that, as a Malaysian citizen, he poses a flight risk. He was arrested in San Diego in September after investigators lured him to the United States in a sting operation. His attorney and a spokeswoman for Glenn Defense Marine have declined to comment on the allegations against him.

Another Glenn Defense Marine executive, Alex Wisidagama of Singapore, was arrested at the same time in San Diego and also faces bribery charges.

The second Navy commander, Jose Luis Sanchez, was arrested Wednesday in Tampa on charges that he gave classified information to Glenn Defense Marine in exchange for prostitutes and more than $100,000 in cash. Sanchez is a former senior logistics officer for the Navy’s 7th Fleet in Japan.

Charging documents show that Francis enjoyed a cozy and familiar relationship with the two commanders and the NCIS agent, referring to them as “bro” or “brudda” in e-mails and sending them photos of call girls he was planning to set them up with.

In return, the Navy officers playfully called Francis “Lion King” or “Big Bro.” Court records describe him as standing 6 feet 3 inches tall and weighing 350 pounds.

Pentagon officials have identified Capt. Daniel Dusek, former commander of the USS Bonhomme Richard, as another target of the investigation. He has not been charged, but the Navy relieved him of command Oct. 2, citing the investigation.

The U.S. military has never been immune from contracting scandals, but it is extremely rare for senior uniformed commanders to face fraud or corruption charges.

It is unclear how well Branch or Loveless may have known Francis. But both admirals have spent parts of their careers deployed to Asia.

Branch, an aviator, previously was an executive assistant to the commander of the Pacific Fleet. He was promoted to vice admiral in July when he took over as director of naval intelligence.

Loveless assumed his current job at the Pentagon in February. He also commanded the U.S. Pacific Command’s Joint Intelligence Operations Center, based at Pearl Harbor, from 2009 to 2012.

Agents from the NCIS, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service and the Defense Contract Audit Agency are working together on the probe. The criminal investigation is being overseen by the U.S. attorney’s office in San Diego and Justice Department officials in Washington.

-

BRIBERY SCANDAL ENSNARES TOP NAVY INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS

by James Rosen | McClatchydc.com
November 9, 2013

The Navy on Saturday suspended access to classified material for two admirals who run Navy intelligence operations because of their alleged ties to the head of a Singapore-based company at the center of a widening Navy scandal.

The unusual restrictions were placed upon Vice Adm. Ted Branch, director of Naval Intelligence, and Rear Adm. Bruce Loveless, head of Navy intelligence operations, because of their alleged “improper relations” with Leonard Francis, CEO of Glenn Defense Marine Asia (GDMA), said Rear Adm. John F. Kirby, Navy chief of information.

“The suspension was deemed prudent given the sensitive nature of their current duties and to protect and support the integrity of the investigative process,” Kirby said.

The measures against the admirals were taken three days after Cmdr. Jose Luis Sanchez appeared in federal court in Florida on charges of having accepted $100,000 in bribes, luxury trips and sessions with prostitutes from Francis.

Francis was arrested Sept. 16 in San Diego. His firm provides fuel, food, water, cleaning and other services to Navy ships throughout Asia and in California.

Sanchez was the third Navy officer charged in the case. They allegedly helped Francis’ company get Navy contracts and provided him sensitive information in exchange for the bribes.

Kirby said the alleged improper behavior of Branch and Loveless occurred when they held lower officer ranks. He stressed that they have not been charged with any crime and retain their current ranks and security clearances, though both men are on temporary leave.

“There is no indication, nor do the allegations suggest, that in either case there was any breach of classified information,” Kirby said.

Before the arrest of Sanchez, 41, Cmdr. Michael Vannak Khem Misiewicz, 46, and Naval Criminal Investigative Service Supervisory Special Agent John Bertrand Beliveau II, 44, were charged separately in connection with the bribery allegations.

“As described in the corruption charges unsealed today, senior officials with the United States Navy abused their trusted positions as leaders in our armed forces by peddling favorable treatment – and even classified government information — for their personal benefit,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman said Wednesday.

Sanchez received cash payments totaling $100,000, luxury trips and sessions with prostitutes in exchange for giving Francis sensitive Navy information and recommending his company to Pentagon colleagues, according to the criminal complaint unsealed Wednesday.

In a related case, Francis and one of his firm’s executives, Alex Wisidagama, have been charged with participating in a scheme to overbill the Navy by submitting phony invoices for millions of dollars in services provided in ports throughout Southeast Asia, the Justice Department said.

Beliveau, the NSIS special agent, allegedly provided Francis with reports of investigations into his firm’s billing practices.

Sanchez and Francis communicated regularly via email and Facebook, according to the criminal complaint. Sanchez called Francis “Lion King” and “Boss,” while Francis called Sanchez “brudda.”

Francis allegedly hired female escorts for Sanchez and his friends on multiple occasions.

In one email to a prostitute, Francis wrote, “Hey Love Jose is in Manila at the DIAMOND Hotel go and see him he needs some love asap,” according to the complaint.

In another email exchange, Francis and Sanchez discussed a forthcoming pleasure trip to Kuala Lumpur and Singapore with Navy friends, the complaint said.

When Sanchez requested prostitutes for “motivation,” Francis replied: “J, got it we will hook up after the FLAG dinner, will arrange a next for you guys and some birds [women],” according to the criminal complaint.

In a business deal arranged between Francis and Sanchez, the USS Mustin purchased fuel from GDMA during a port call in Laem Chabang, Thailand, paying more than $1 million — more than twice as much as the fuel should have cost, the complain said.

The case is based on a joint investigation by NCIS, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the Defense Contract Audit Agency and the Drug Enforcement Administration. The Royal Thai Police and Singapore’s Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau provided assistance, the Justice Department said.

-

U.S. NAVY INTELLIGENCE CHIEFS SUSPENDED AS BRIBERY SCANDAL SPREADS

By Alex Lantier

November 12, 2013

Two US Navy admirals were suspended last week in a spreading bribery scandal involving a Singapore-based defense contractor that services US Navy vessels in the Pacific Ocean.

Director of Naval Intelligence Vice Admiral Ted Branch and Navy Director of Intelligence Operations Rear Admiral Bruce Loveless were placed on leave Friday and their access to classified material suspended. They are under investigation for their ties to defense contractor Glenn Defense Marine Asia, whose CEO Leonard Glenn “Fat Leonard” Francis was arrested in September in a sting operation in San Diego. Francis was charged with bribing Navy officers into giving him classified information with cash, favors, and prostitutes.

Francis reportedly asked US officers to steer US warships towards ports with lax oversight, where Glenn Defense Marine Asia could overcharge the Navy for services such as providing tugboats, fuel, sewage disposal, and portside security—netting millions of dollars. He also obtained inside information on the US Navy’s initial investigations into Glenn Defense Marine Asia, which started in 2005, helping him evade charges.

The suspension of Branch and Loveless comes amid deep turmoil in the top ranks of the American military. Only a month ago, the Obama administration announced the sacking of high-ranking Air Force and Navy officials inside the US nuclear command, in what military officials acknowledged was an unprecedented crisis of the US nuclear forces.

Now, the top ranks of the US Navy and a broad layer of high-ranking officers in the US Pacific Fleet—the force at the heart of the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia,” aimed at containing China—are being roiled by another scandal.

US Navy sources said they believed more Navy officers would come under suspicion in the affair. Yesterday, US Navy spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby said: “We are going to let the facts take us where they may. We certainly expect that other naval officers, and perhaps even some Navy civilians, will be implicated.”

Glenn Defense Marine Asia has long-standing ties to the US Navy, having serviced US warships in the Pacific for a quarter century. It did $200 million in business with the US Navy in 2011.

As such, Leonard Francis developed contacts among a broad swathe of commanders, captains, and admirals who could now be under suspicion. The Washington Post noted that “Francis and his company were familiar faces to Navy brass, including the commanders of most vessels in the Pacific.”

Several such high-ranking officers are already facing charges. Two US officers, Commander Michael Vannak Khem Misiewicz and Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) Supervisory Special Agent John Bertrand Beliveau, were arrested at the same time as Francis. They allegedly provided classified information in exchange for free travel, luxury accommodations, and prostitutes. All three face five years in prison.

Misiewicz, a former destroyer commander who was directing operations of the Japan-based US Seventh Fleet, reportedly e-mailed Francis classified schedules of US warship movements. Misiewicz helped “work Francis’ business plan,” according to the Singapore Straits Times, in exchange for prostitutes and free travel around Asia.

In one case, he helped divert the aircraft carrier USS George Washington from Singapore to Port Klang, Malaysia, where Leonard had arranged to prepare fake invoices to submit to the US Navy.

Beliveau faces charges of tipping off Leonard about the US Navy’s investigation of him, having downloaded documents from NCIS internal databases about investigations into Glenn Defense Marine Asia that he was not working on.

Another senior logistics officer for the Seventh Fleet, Commander Jose Sanchez, was charged last week with accepting prostitutes, luxury travel, and over $100,000 in cash from Francis in exchanged for classified information about US warship movements.

-

$1.6 MILLION SEAL TEAM SIX SILENCER SCAM IS THE U.S. NAVY’S SECOND INVESTIGATION THIS MONTH

Rich McCormick
The Verge
November 14, 2013

Three senior US Navy intelligence officials are under investigation for an alleged scheme to defraud the military for $1.6 million. The three civilian officials are suspected of contracting the purchase of rifle silencers for 200 times their manufacturing costs from a car mechanic in California, purportedly for use by the elite SEAL Team Six unit that killed Osama Bin Laden.

The Washington Post reports the silencers were designed for the “AK family of firearms,” and cost around $8,000 to build. They were marked as unmarked and untraceable, and ordered for use by SEAL Team Six. Officials with the unit claim to be unaware of such an order.

None of the three officials have yet been charged in the investigation, which is ongoing, but The Washington Post reports that federal investigators failed to correctly redact the names of two of the three people involved. It names Conspirator #2 as Lee Hall — a “longtime defense official” — and speculates, citing three sources, that Conspirator #3, referred to as “David,” is a senior director for Navy intelligence, David W. Landersman. Court records reportedly name the mechanic who provided the silencers as Mark Landersman: David W. Landersman’s brother. The same records describe Landersman as a “down-on-his-luck” mechanic who declared personal bankruptcy in July 2012.

A month after his bankruptcy, court documents show Mark Landersman receiving emails from his brother at the Pentagon in which David W. Landersman discussed the construction of firearm silencers, attaching links to instructions for their creation. Mark replied with “Wow! Very Simple!” The blueprints for the silencers — referred to as “small engine mufflers” — were given to machinist Carlos C. Robles to create, for which he was paid $8,000. A day after he furnished his brother with the necessary details for silencer construction, David Landersman received a $2 million budget supplement for “studies, assessment, and research,” $1.6 million of which is believed to have gone toward the silencers. Shortly after fulfilling the “muffler” contract, the recently bankrupted Mark Landersman bought four vehicles, including a Porsche 911.

In 2011, the US Navy set up a special review team to avert exactly this form of fraud after a Navy official and the owner of a small tech business were found to be conspiring in a $10 million kickback scheme. At the time, Navy secretary Ray Mabus said the military would “not accept any impropriety, kickbacks, bribery, or fraud.” But the hard line appears to be ineffectual: last week three other Navy intelligence officials were charged with bribery after being found to have exchanged sensitive information for money and sex.

-

PENTAGON CHIEF RAPS POKER SCANDAL, DEMANDS ETHICAL BEHAVIOR

-

Hagel

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel

MANUEL BALCE CENETA — ASSOCIATED PRESS

-

By James Rosen | McClatchy Washington Bureau
November 18, 2013

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Friday made his first public comments on a recent military scandal as he condemned the behavior of a senior officer fired last month for allegedly cheating at the poker table.

Hagel criticized the bizarre episode surrounding Vice Adm. Tim Giardina, whom President Barack Obama removed last month from his post as deputy commander of U.S. Strategic Command.

Giardina was fired while being investigated by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service for his alleged use of counterfeit poker chips at the Horseshoe Council Bluffs Casino in Council Bluffs, Iowa.

In condemning multiple lapses in conduct by military personnel, Hagel appeared also to be alluding to last month’s separate firing of Maj. Gen. Michael Carey as commander of 20th Air Force, which oversees the Minuteman 3 nuclear missiles that are part of Strategic Command’s arsenal. Officials haves said Carey’s removal was tied to alcohol abuse.

Among other lapses first reported by the Associated Press, service members working at a nuclear missile base in Montana failed a safety and security inspection.

Hagel made the comments during a change-of-command ceremony at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, in which Adm. Cecil D. Haney replaced Air Force Gen. C. Robert Kehler as head of the command that runs U.S. air-, sea- and land-based nuclear weapons.

Without mentioning Giardina by name, Hagel made it clear that he had violated the high ethical standards required of the military and civilian men and women who help operate the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

“Perfection must be the standard for our nuclear forces,” Hagel said. “And Gen. Kehler has vigorously enforced that standard throughout his tenure – reflecting his own background as an (intercontinental ballistic missile) officer. As you all know, this close scrutiny, and the most rigorous evaluations we have within the Department of Defense, have recently exposed some troubling lapses in maintaining this professionalism.”

By praising Kehler’s enforcement of ethical standards, Hagel appeared to be clearing him of any responsibility for his former deputy’s behavior. Haney was head of U.S. Pacific Command before taking on his new assignment, which makes him the first African-American director of STRATCOM since President George H.W. Bush established it in 1992 as a successor to the Strategic Air Command.

Hagel also put the 2,700 people who work at U.S. Strategic Command on notice that breaches in professional or personal conduct will not be tolerated.

“To our STRATCOM professionals, I would say, you have chosen a profession where there is no room for error,” Hagel said. “That’s what the American people expect from you, and you must deliver. Americans trust you with their security. They count on you.”

Hagel drove home the same point in a meeting after the ceremony with junior officers who work at the nuclear arms hub, which is one of three commands among nine altogether that is organized around function rather than geography.

“Secretary Hagel conveyed that Strategic Command is responsible for the military’s most sensitive and important missions and the nation is counting on all personnel, at all levels, to maintain the highest standards of conduct in performing these duties,” said Carl Woog, the Pentagon’s assistant press secretary.

In addition to its critical nuclear mission, Strategic Command in recent years has expanded to oversee U.S. space-based systems and to protect the nation’s crucial infrastructure against hacking or other cyber attacks.

The scandal surrounding the disgraced admiral, who allegedly played cards at a casino just across the Iowa state line from Offutt Air Force Base, is the second to engulf the Navy in recent months.

In the separate Navy scandal, at least three midlevel officers face criminal charges and two admirals are blocked from accessing classified materials because of their ties to a Singapore-based company that services Navy ships in Asia and beyond.

Hagel noted in his speech that stealth bombers operated by Strategic Command, responding to “a series of dangerous provocations” by North Korea, had conducted an unusual aerial sortie in March.

“To assure our Republic of Korea allies, a pair of B-2 bombers assigned to Strategic Command flew a nonstop mission from the United States to South Korea, sending a clear message of American resolve and helping to de-escalate the crisis,” Hagel said.

The nuclear-capable, bat-winged planes soared through the skies over South Korea on March 28 to reassure South Korea and Japan after a series of threats from North Korea.

-

RELATED POST: HAGEL SAYS CUTS TO PAY AND BENEFITS ARE NEEDED FOR THE MILITARY

-

SAILORS LEAVING NAVY OVER STRESS ON SOCIAL ISSUES, TOP GUN INSTRUCTOR SAYS

By Rowan Scarborough | The Washington Times

March 25, 2014

A Navy F-18 fighter pilot and former Top Gun instructor is publicly warning admirals that retention is beginning to suffer from the military’s relentless social conditioning programs.

Cmdr. Guy Snodgrass, until recently a Pentagon speech writer for the chief of naval operations, Adm. Jonathan Greenert, said sailors are becoming fed-up with the constant emphasis on social issues — an apparent reference to gays in the military, women in combat and ending sexual harassment.

“Sailors continue to cite the over-focus on social issues by senior leadership, above and beyond discussions on war fighting — a fact that demoralizes junior and mid-grade officers alike,” Cmdr. Snodgrass wrote this month on the U.S. Naval Institute website, an independent forum for active and retired sailors and Marines.

It is a remarkably frank assessment from an upwardly mobile fighter pilot who is due to become the executive officer of a F-18 unit in Japan.

He says one troubling sign already has emerged: a drop in applications to the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis last year.

“The U.S. Navy has a looming officer retention problem,” Cmdr. Snodgrass writes, adding there is an “erosion of trust in senior leadership.”

He says retention racked up its “worst year in history” for the special warfare community, including Navy SEALs, with a record number of lieutenants declining to stay.

The aviation side had a goal of 45 percent “take rate” on retention bonuses, but got only 36 percent.

“Unfortunately,” Cmdr. Snodgrass says in his 24-page study, “the fact that a growing number of quality officers have already left the service or are planning to head for the doors seems to be going undetected by senior leadership.”

He lists long wartime deployments as a leading retention negative.

He tackles a touchier issue, what some sailors have referred to as “political correctness,” such as the banning of uniform patches that might offend someone.

Cmdr. Snodgrass writes of “a recent shift within the Navy to eradicate behavior that is, by its every nature, ineradicable.”

“Put simply, there is no dollar amount that can be spent, or amount of training that can be conducted, that will completely eradicate complex issues such as suicide, sexual assault, or commanding officer reliefs for cause — yet we continue to expend immense resources in this pursuit,” he says. “Sailors are bombarded with annual online training, general military training, and safety stand-downs — all in an effort to combat problems that will never be defeated.”

Some of the pressure comes from Congress.

“The perception is that these efforts are not undertaken because they are incredibly effective, but rather because of significant political and public oversight,” the commander says.

Vice Adm. William Moran, deputy chief of naval operations for manpower, personnel, training and education, told The Washington Times Tuesday that he applauds Cmdr.  Snodgrass for warning that retention problems may lie ahead.

“I share many of the concerns and have similar questions raised in the paper,” Adm. Moran said. “Many have heard me on the road talk about how the Bureau of Naval Personnel, historically ‘swings behind the pitch,’ unable to nimbly react to economic and early stage retention issues. It’s not neglect, good people here trying to do the best they can with limited tools, but the fact is it has cost us in both good people and money. We have to do better, and I must say that this discourse helps.”

He added: “Fostering an environment where our people feel empowered to share thoughts on important issues is a core responsibility of leadership — ideas, good and bad, have no rank.”

-

MILITARY OFFICERS FED UP WITH POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

by Joel Skousen | World Affairs Brief

March 28, 2014

As the Washington Times wrote this week, A Navy F-18 fighter pilot and former Top Gun instructor is publicly warning admirals that retention is beginning to suffer from the military’s relentless social conditioning programs.

Having had a collateral duty in the Marine Corps as a Human Relations Officer, I can attest to the kind of politically correct, social garbage that is forced down everyone’s throat in the military (and that was years ago—it’s much worse now).

Cmdr. Guy Snodgrass, until recently a Pentagon speech writer for the chief of naval operations, Adm. Jonathan Greenert, said sailors are becoming fed-up with the constant emphasis on social issues — an apparent reference to gays in the military, women in combat and ending sexual harassment.

He says one troubling sign already has emerged: a drop in applications to the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis last year… “The U.S. Navy has a looming officer retention problem,” Cmdr. Snodgrass writes, adding there is an “erosion of trust in senior leadership.” [Because Senior leadership can no longer be trusted to take up your cause—they have all become yes-men to the political agendas coming down from above.]

He says retention racked up its “worst year in history” for the special warfare community, including Navy SEALs, with a record number of lieutenants declining to stay. The aviation side had a goal of 45 percent “take rate” on retention bonuses, but got only 36 percent.

“Unfortunately, the fact that a growing number of quality officers have already left the service or are planning to head for the doors seems to be going undetected by senior leadership.” He lists long wartime deployments as a leading retention negative. He also tackles a touchier issue, what some sailors have referred to as “political correctness,” such as the banning of uniform patches that might offend someone.

“Put simply, there is no dollar amount that can be spent, or amount of training that can be conducted, that will completely eradicate complex issues such as suicide, sexual assault, or commanding officer reliefs for cause — yet we continue to expend immense resources in this pursuit,” he says. “Sailors are bombarded with annual online training, general military training, and safety stand-downs — all in an effort to combat problems that will never be defeated.”

Some of the pressure comes from Congress. But most of it comes from the social workers in the Executive branch who are unaccountable to Congress. Even more difficult is the fact that they are formally trained in a very flawed view of human psychology, devoid of any understanding about man’s interaction with God or Satanic temptation, or the unique spirit inside each person that determines, more than the environment, our personality and proclivities.

-

OBAMA TELLS CHIEFS: SUPPORT ‘GAYS’ IN RANKS OR QUIT

Coast Guard commandant describes Obama’s pressure on repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

by World Net Daily
April 4, 2014

President Obama told the heads of the five military branches to support his agenda of “gays” in the ranks or find another job.

The stunning revelation came from Adm. Robert Papp, commandant of the Coast Guard, in a Jan. 8 session with cadets that was captured in a video obtained by Buzzfeed under a Freedom of Information Act request.

“We were called into the Oval Office and President Obama looked all five service chiefs in the eye and said, ‘This is what I want to do,’” Papp said.

Papp, who will retire in May, said he could not divulge everything Obama said in the 2010 meeting because it was in private communications within the Oval Office.

“But if we didn’t agree with it – if any of us didn’t agree with it – we all had the opportunity to resign our commissions and go do other things,” he said.

The issue was Obama’s abandonment of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that allowed homosexuals to serve in the military as long as they kept their proclivities to themselves. Now the military promotes open homosexuality in the ranks.

As a presidential candidate in 2008, Obama told the Advocate magazine, a “gay”-rights publication, that he would not make support of the “Don’t Ask” policy a litmus test.

“What I want are members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who are making decisions based on what strengthens our military and what is going to make us safer, not ideology,” Obama said.

Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, told WND on Thursday that Obama’s demand of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2010 “falls in line with his previous behavior that he’s above the law.

“He’s acting again like an imperial president,” the congressman said.

WND has reported the apparent development of a “compliant officer class” under Obama. Some top generals are openly saying the administration is carrying out a “purge” of senior military officers who run afoul of Obama or his agenda.

Nearly 200 senior officers over the last five years have lost their jobs, officials have confirmed.

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, a recipient of the U.S. military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor, told WND that Obama’s agenda is decimating the morale of the U.S. ranks to the point that members no longer feel prepared to fight or have the desire to win.

“There is no doubt [Obama] is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him” over such issues as “homosexuals, women in foxholes, the Obama sequester,” said Brady, former president of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society.

Not only are military service members being demoralized and the ranks’ overall readiness reduced by the Obama administration’s purge of key leaders, but colonels – who are lined up in rank to replace outgoing generals – are quietly taking their careers in other directions, sources confirm.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, who was a founding member of Delta Force and later deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence under President George W. Bush, says it is worrying that four-star generals are being retired at the rate that has occurred under Obama.

“Over the past three years, it is unprecedented for the number of four-star generals to be relieved of duty, and not necessarily relieved for cause,” Boykin said.

“I believe there is a purging of the military,” he said. “The problem is worse than we have ever seen.”

WND for weeks has reported on the problems faced by the nation’s military officers.

Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness says Obama has done “great damage” to the military by taking away resources and imposing “heavy burdens of social experimentation.”

“But most flag and general officers are following orders, keeping their heads down and, in my opinion, letting down the troops,” she said.

In the Reagan administration, Donnelly was appointed by Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger to the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. In 1992, President George H. W. Bush appointed her to the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces.

Former Florida Congressman Allen West is calling for congressional oversight hearings into what he calls an “alarming trend” of dismissals and firings of high-ranking military officers by the Obama administration.

West, who served on the House Armed Services Committee, said he recently had been in contact with Committee Chairman Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon. West is calling for hearings “to determine exactly why” so many officers, especially senior officers, are being given the boot.

West commented on the video that was uncovered.

“Obama apparently prefers leadership by intimidation and coercion – nothing new there – rather than leading by example and with competence,” he wrote.

“Even Buzzfeed recognizes the hypocrisy of Obama: ‘In a 2008 interview, then-Senator Obama told The Advocate that he wouldn’t make support of DADT’s repeal ‘a litmus test’ for his military leaders. ‘What I want are members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who are making decisions based on what strengthens our military and what is going to make us safer, not ideology.’”

“So we cut the military down to pre-World War II levels but we institute social egalitarian ideological initiatives under threat of resignation, Mr. President? Some Commander-in-Chief we have huh?” West said.

-

MILITARY’S ‘BIGGEST PROBLEM IS CONSENSUAL SEX’

‘An awful lot of women are now serving with men in close conditions’

by World Net Daily

November 22, 2013

The U.S. Senate is quietly moving toward a vote on a plan to curb sexual assaults in the military by moving sexual assault cases and other major criminal allegations out of the military justice system and into civilian courts, a move former Pentagon official Jed Babbin claims creates a whole set of new problems without doing anything to solve the rising number of assaults.

Babbin also said there’s an even bigger problem in the military: consensual sex.

The plan is sponsored by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and is breaking down along unusual lines. Tea-party favorite Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, supports the bill while Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin are opposed.

“This is a very bad idea. It upsets the entire United States Uniformed Code of Military Justice and overturns roughly 60 years of UCMJ proceedings,” Babbin told WND.

Gillibrand’s thesis is that military commanders cannot be trusted to handle these serious allegations, given the rising number of assaults, and steps need to be taken to ensure justice is done. Babbin said moving serious crimes out of military courts is a terrible precedent.

“What Gillibrand is trying to do here is take the military justice out of that business and say we’re going to have a separate class of protected people, the victims of sexual assault, and we’re going to give them civilian lawyers and a whole separate civilian process. It’s bad for the military. It’s bad for order and discipline,” said Babbin, who further asserts that commanders are the best people to have in charge of handling these serious allegations.

“Commanders understand what’s going on,” he said. “They understand what the context of these offenses are. They can hear things and see things and learn things that they’ll never be able to do in the civilian world.”

Babbin, a former Air Force JAG officer himself, said he doesn’t know a single JAG officer in any branch who doesn’t investigate sexual assaults vigorously. He further points out that the chief of staff of every military branch is staunchly opposed to the bill.

So if commanders looking the other way isn’t the problem, why are we seeing record number of sexual assaults reported in the military? Babbin said it’s because of political correctness running amok in the U.S. Armed Forces.

“The numbers are rising, quite frankly, because an awful lot of women are now serving with men in close conditions. You now have women serving on submarines, which has never been true up until about two years ago. You have a situation where people are under stress, they’re working in very close conditions and things are going to happen,” Babbin said. “The biggest problem is not the offensive nature of sexual assaults. The biggest problem is consensual sex.”

He added, “I just got off the phone with a friend of mine who used to be the skipper of a nuclear aircraft carrier and that was his problem.”

It isn’t clear what the fate of the Gillibrand bill will be in the U.S. Senate. Babbin does not expect the House to consider anything similar, but if it passes the Senate lawmakers in both chambers will contend with the legislation as part of the must-pass Defense Authorization bill.

-

FANNING: AIR FORCE HAVING TROUBLE KEEPING PILOTS, AND PAY ISN’T THE PROBLEM

-

-

by Tom Shoop | DefenseOne.com

November 14, 2013

The Air Force is offering big bonuses to keep its pilots in the service, but they’re not taking them because budget constraints are forcing the service to limit both current flying hours and opportunities to fly the next generation of aircraft, acting Air Force Secretary Eric Fanning said Thursday.

Over the summer, the Air Force began offering its pilots payments of $25,000 per year as an incentive to stay on, up to a maximum of $250,000. But “pilots aren’t taking them,” Fanning said at the Defense One Summit in Washington. The main reason is that “we’re going to have flying hour issues for the foreseeable future,” he said, with rolling groundings of two to three months per squadron.

Pilots “want to fly,” Fanning said. And with the airline industry facing a wave of forced retirements of pilots, opportunities for them are opening up in the private sector.

At the same time, the Budget Control Act and sequestration are putting limits not only on Air Force operations, but investments in new aircraft platforms. “That will have a worse effect on morale” than pay and benefits issues, Fanning said. “It’s not just compensation that keeps people in the military. It’s mission.”

In the current budget environment, the Air Force is contemplating fairly steep reductions in compensation costs. Such costs consume 40 percent of the service’s budget, and the numbers are growing faster than the rate of inflation.

“We’re not cutting compensation, we’re just slowing its growth,” Fanning said. In particular, the current path of spending on health care is “unsustainable,” he said. “If we don’t address it, we will have aging platforms. That will have a worse effect on morale.”

Overall, Fanning said, “morale is really as bad as I’ve seen it on the civilian side and the uniformed side. But it is better than you think it is, and better than we deserve it to be, because we’ve got an amazing mission.”

-

U.S. WAR READINESS IN JEOPARDY AS PILOTS FLEE

‘Morale is really as bad as I’ve seen it’

by F. Michael Maloof | World Net Daily
November 18, 2013

WASHINGTON – As if to dramatically illustrate repeated claims top generals have made to WND of a purge of senior officers and a degradation of military readiness under President Obama’s leadership, stunning testimony at a recent Senate committee hearing shows America may soon be unable to fight and win a war.

The Air Force is having problems retaining its pilots, even though they are being offered big bonuses to remain, senators learned at the Nov. 7 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

The problem appears to be partly from sequestration, which has imposed budget limitations on pilots’ ability to get in both the requisite flying time and the training needed to fly the next generation of aircraft, according to Air Force Secretary Eric Fanning.

He expressed grave concern about the trend toward budget cutbacks.

Likewise, at a recent Defense One Summit in Washington, Fanning warned that “we’re going to have flying hour issues for the foreseeable future,” a reference to the reality that pilots must fly a certain number of hours to maintain their ratings on various aircraft.

But Fanning said each U.S. squadron will be subject to rolling groundings of two to three months.

However, for the pilots, the issue isn’t just financial, as they have been offered major cash bonuses as an incentive to stay.

However, Fanning said, “pilots aren’t taking them.”

Instead, he said, pilots want to fly and are looking to the private sector where the retirement of commercial pilots is opening new opportunities.

Sequestration, those mandatory percentage cuts set up by President Obama and implemented when Congress failed to address cuts in other areas, has not only cut back operations, but necessary investment in new-generation aircraft.

That’s happening even as older aircraft are being relegated to retirement.

The Air Force has begun to mothball its B-52 bomber fleet, whose aircraft are older than the pilots who fly them.

“That will have a worse effect on morale,” Fanning said. “It’s not just compensation that keeps people in the military. It’s mission.”

All of this uncertainty is having a negative effect, said Fanning.

“Morale is really as bad as I’ve seen it on the civilian side and the uniformed side,” Fanning said. “But it is better than you think it is, and better than we deserve it to be, because we’ve got an amazing mission.”

Sequestration cuts aren’t limited to the Air Force.

The Army is shrinking the number of troops to 380,000. Gen. Raymond Odierno, Army chief of staff, in the same Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, expressed particular concern that force reductions have greatly affected its readiness capability between 2014-2017.

The Marine Corps will be limited to 150,000 troops.

The Navy will be cut three carriers, after already having reduced the number of capital ships to some 260, down from the 600 reached at the peak of the Reagan administration.

New Navy flag officers and executives have been told to begin more cuts under sequestration, in which some 3,000 temporary civilian personnel will be laid off, and base operations will be reduced.

In addition, there is to be a cancellation of maintenance work on some 30 Navy ships and 250 aircraft.

The cutbacks come as the Navy continues to operate under 2012 budget levels because of a congressional continuing resolution. Like the other services, the Navy hasn’t received its 2013 funding, where it had hoped for a $4.6 billion increase.

More than half of Obama’s $1 trillion sequestration cuts were imposed on the military.

Accompanying the aging of the equipment under Obama, a de facto  purge of the military also is in progress, with almost 200 senior officers having been relieved of duty since Obama became president.

Retired generals who have spoken to WND have warned over the potential emasculation of the military because of Obama’s actions and policies.

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, recipient of the U.S. military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor, as well as other top retired officers, say Obama’s agenda is decimating the morale of the U.S. ranks to the point that members no longer feel prepared to fight or have the desire to win.

“There is no doubt he [Obama] is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him” over such issues as “homosexuals, women in foxholes, the Obama sequester,” Brady told WND.

“They are purging everyone, and if you want to keep your job, just keep your mouth shut,” one military source told WND.

Officers who have questioned the administration’s actions, including social experimentation and sequestration, have quietly been removed, according to retired Army Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin.

Boykin, a founding member of Delta Force and later deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence under President George W. Bush, has expressed concern to WND over the number of high-ranking officers being relieved of duty, “and not necessarily relieved for cause.”

Referring to recent reports that Obama has purged some 197 officers in the past five years, Boykin said the reports suggest these officers were suspected of disloyalty or disagreed with the Obama administration on policy or force-structure issues.

“Morale is at an unprecedented low,” Boykin added.

-

STUDY: NUCLEAR FORCE FEELING ‘BURNOUT’ FROM WORK

By ROBERT BURNS
AP National Security Writer

November 21, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) — Key members of the Air Force’s nuclear missile force are feeling “burnout” from what they see as exhausting, unrewarding and stressful work, according to an unpublished study obtained by The Associated Press.

The finding by researchers for RAND Corp. adds to indications that trouble inside the nuclear missile force runs deeper and wider than officials have acknowledged.

The study, provided to the AP in draft form, also cites heightened levels of misconduct like spousal abuse and says court-martial rates in the nuclear missile force in 2011 and 2012 were more than twice as high as in the overall Air Force.

These indicators add a new dimension to an emerging picture of malaise and worse inside the intercontinental ballistic missile force, an arm of the Air Force with a proud heritage but an uncertain future.

Late last year the Air Force directed RAND, a federally funded research house, to conduct a three-month study of attitudes among the men and women inside the ICBM force. It found a toxic mix of frustration and aggravation, heightened by a sense of being unappreciated, overworked, micromanaged and at constant risk of failure.

Remote and rarely seen, the ICBM force gets little public attention. The AP, however, this year has documented a string of missteps that call into question the management of a force that demands strict obedience to procedures.

Gen. Mark Welsh, the Air Force chief of staff, said in an interview Wednesday that he sees no evidence of fundamental problems in the ICBM force.

“There are issues like there are in every other mission area we have in the United States military, and we deal with the issues as they come up, and we deal with them pretty aggressively. But as far as getting the job done, they’re getting the job done – they do a great job of that every single day,” Welsh said.

The AP was advised in May of the confidential RAND study, shortly after it was completed, by a person who said it should be made public to improve understanding of discontent within the ICBM force. After repeated inquiries, and shortly after the AP filed a Freedom of Information Act request for a PowerPoint outline, the Air Force provided it last Friday and arranged for RAND officials and two senior Air Force generals to explain it.

Based on confidential small-group discussions last winter with about 100 launch control officers, security forces, missile maintenance workers and others who work in the missile fields – plus responses to confidential questionnaires – RAND found low job satisfaction and workers distressed by staff shortages, equipment flaws and what they felt were stifling management tactics.

It also found what it termed “burnout.” In this context, “burnout” means feeling exhausted, cynical and ineffective on the job, according to Chaitra Hardison, RAND’s senior behavioral scientist and lead author of the study. She used a system of measure that asks people to rate on a scale of 1 to 7 – from “never” to “always” – how often in their work they experience certain feelings, including tiredness, hopelessness and a sense of being trapped. An average score of 4 or above is judged to put the person in the “burnout” range.

One service member said: “We don’t care if things go properly. We just don’t want to get in trouble.” That person and all others who participated in the study were granted confidentiality by RAND in order to speak freely.

The 13 launch officers who volunteered for the study scored an average of 4.4 on the burnout scale, tied for highest in the group. A group of 20 junior enlisted airmen assigned to missile security forces also scored 4.4.

This has always been considered hard duty, in part due to the enormous responsibility of safely operating nuclear missiles, the most destructive weapons ever invented.

In its Cold War heyday, an ICBM force twice as big as today’s was designed to deter the nuclear Armageddon that at times seemed all too possible amid a standoff with the Soviet Union and a relentless race to build more bombs.

Today the nuclear threat is no longer prominent among America’s security challenges. The arsenal has shrunk – in size and stature. The Air Force struggles to demonstrate the relevance of its aging ICBMs in a world worried more about terrorism and cyberwar and accustomed to 21st century weapons such as drones.

This new reality is not lost on the young men and women who in most cases were “volunteered” for ICBM jobs.

Andrew Neal, 28, who completed a four-year tour in September with F.E. Warren’s 90th Missile Wing in Wyoming, where he served as a Minuteman 3 launch officer, said he saw marked swings in morale.

“Morale was low at times – very low,” Neal said in an interview, though he added that his comrades worked hard.

Neal says his generation has a different view of nuclear weapons.

“We all acknowledge their importance, but at the same time we really don’t think the mission is that critical,” Neal said, adding that his peers see the threat of full-scale nuclear war as “simply nonexistent.” So “we practice for all-out nuclear war, but we know that isn’t going to happen.”

Every hour of every day, 90 launch officers are on duty in underground command posts that control Minuteman 3 missiles. Inside each buried capsule are two officers responsible for 10 missiles, each in a separate silo, armed with one or more nuclear warheads and ready for launch within minutes.

They await a presidential launch order that has never arrived in the more than 50-year history of American ICBMs. The duty can be tiresome, with long hours, limited opportunities for career advancement and the constraints of life in remote areas of the north-central U.S., like Minot Air Force Base, N.D.

In his doctoral dissertation, published in 2010 after he finished a four-year tour with the 91st Missile Wing at Minot, Christopher J. Ewing said 71 of the 99 launch officers he surveyed there had not chosen that assignment.

RAND was looking for possible explanations for a trend worrying the Air Force – higher levels of personal and professional misconduct within the ICBM force relative to the rest of the Air Force. Courts-martial in the ICBM force, for example, were 129 percent higher than in the Air Force as a whole in 2011, on a per capita basis, and 145 percent higher in 2012. Cases handled by administrative punishment were 29 percent above overall Air Force levels in 2011 and 23 percent above in 2012.

On Wednesday the Air Force provided the AP with statistics indicating that courts-martial and reports of spousal abuse are on a downward trend in recent months, while still higher than the overall Air Force in percentage terms. Administrative punishments also are trending downward.

Reported cases of spousal abuse in the ICBM force peaked in 2010 at 21 per 1,000 people, compared with 10.3 per 1,000 in the overall Air Force. The rate for the ICBM force dropped to 14.4 in 2011 and to 12.4 last year. It also has declined for the overall Air Force.

The RAND study and AP interviews with current and former members of the ICBM force suggest a disconnect between the missile force members and their leaders.

“There’s a perception that the Air Force (leadership) doesn’t understand necessarily what’s going on with respect to the ICBM community and their needs,” says Hardison, the behavioral scientist who led the study.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel delivered a “no-room-for-error” message when he visited U.S. Strategic Command in Nebraska last week to welcome Navy Adm. Cecil Haney as the nation’s new top nuclear war-fighter, succeeding Air Force Gen. Robert Kehler.

“Perfection must be the standard for our nuclear forces,” Hagel said, noting that “some troubling lapses in maintaining this professionalism” have been exposed recently by “close scrutiny” and “rigorous evaluations.”

In Hardison’s view, expectations of perfection are “unproductive and unrealistic.”

“People who are even top performers, who are exceptionally good at their jobs, fear that they are going to make one mistake and that’s going to be the end of their career,” she said in an interview.

RAND’s survey results, while revealing a level of discontent, are not definitive. Hardison said the findings need to be confirmed on a larger sample population and the results tracked over time.

Perhaps ironically, the person who raised concerns about problems in the missile force was Maj. Gen. Michael Carey, who was fired in October as commander of 20th Air Force, the organization responsible for the full ICBM fleet – for alleged misconduct that officials have said was related to alcohol use.

In November 2012, Carey told Welsh that his organization’s misconduct record was out of line with the broader Air Force and he wanted to find faster fixes.

One change already being implemented is ensuring that lower-level officers and enlisted airmen in the missile fields are given more decision-making authority, said Maj. Gen. Jack Weinstein, the interim successor to Carey. He said he also is seeking to ensure more stability in the ICBM force’s work schedules so service members have more predictable periods to spend with their families.

Internally, concern about the ICBM force is not new.

In a little-noticed report published in April, a Pentagon advisory group that has studied the nuclear mission said weaknesses in the way the Air Force manages its ICBM workforce have made it hard to maintain.

“This should be a cause for serious concern,” the Defense Science Board advisory group concluded.

It said the problem is especially acute in notoriously frigid Minot, where the Air Force has had trouble keeping people in its maintenance and security forces. Harsh climate is no excuse, it said.

“Minot weather has always been Minot weather. What has changed is the perception of negative career impacts, the slow response to concerns and the need for tangible evidence” that work conditions and equipment will improve, it said.

Kehler, the retiring head of Strategic Command, acknowledges that with national security attention focused elsewhere, it’s easy to see why some nuclear warriors would be uneasy.

“What happens is, that translates into a very personal concern that’s out there in all parts of the nuclear force, and that is: What’s my future?”

-

AIR FORCE SECRETARY: 37 NUCLEAR MISSILE LAUNCH OFFICERS INVOLVED IN DRUG, CHEATING SCANDAL

-

-

By LOLITA C. BALDOR and ROBERT BURNS

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Air Force says 34 nuclear missile launch officers have been implicated in a cheating scandal and have been stripped of their certification in what is believed to be the largest such breach of integrity in the nuclear force.

Some of the officers apparently texted to each other the answers to a monthly test on their knowledge of how to operate the missiles. Others may have known about it but did not report it.

The cheating was discovered during a drug investigation that involves 11 Air Force officers across six bases in the U.S. and England.

Of the three missile launch officers involved in the drug scandal, two are at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana and one is at F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming. The two at Malmstrom are among those implicated in the cheating scandal.

It’s the latest controversy involving the service members who maintain and operate the nation’s 450 nuclear missiles.

-

NEW SCANDALS ROCK U.S. NUCLEAR COMMAND

By Bill Van Auken
January 31, 2014

The Pentagon has been forced to pull nearly one out of every five of the US Air Force’s nuclear launch officers from their posts, as a result of spiraling drugs and cheating scandals.

The Associated Press reported Wednesday that the number of officers implicated had more than doubled since the scandal first became known earlier this month, with 92 airmen—all of them assigned to Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana—now facing charges of being either directly or indirectly involved in cheating on proficiency tests.

The report came the same day that US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel convened a top level meeting at the Pentagon of the country’s nuclear commanders to review the growing signs of serious morale and discipline problems in a force entrusted with weapons that could wipe out humanity.

The base is responsible for 150 nuclear-armed Minutemen 3 missiles, one third of the country’s entire Minuteman 3 force. The test in question is designed to assess officers’ proficiency in carrying out emergency war orders issued from the US president to launch the missiles as part of a nuclear war. This horrific task is supposed to take under two minutes.

Each of the Minuteman 3 missiles carries a payload with 27 times the destructive power of the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. They are capable of leveling and vaporizing everything within 50 miles of their target, while the blast, heat and radiation would kill everything for hundreds of miles.

The cheating scandal came to light as the result of an investigation into illegal drug use by 11 Air Force officers, including two launch officers at Malmstrom. The revelation that the two officers had been stripped of their security clearances and temporarily suspended came on January 9, just as Chuck Hagel was set to make the first visit by a US secretary of defense in six years to one of the nuclear missile facilities.

Speaking to the nuclear missile crews at F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming, he praised them for “doing something for the greater good of the world,” while stressing that they had “chosen a profession where there is no room for error,” an implicit reference to the danger of an accidental launch.

The visit appeared to be aimed at boosting morale for a force putting in 24-hour shifts in underground bunkers, where “burnout” has been widely reported. Moreover, the missile commands’ top commander had been sacked recently over alleged “behavioral incidents.”

Last month the Air Force released an official report charging that the commander, Maj. Gen. Michael Carey, appeared to be on a drunken binge through much of a US-Russian nuclear security exercise in Moscow. It cited testimony of other officers that he had consorted with two “somewhat suspect” women at a bar, where he also repeatedly demanded to be allowed to play with the band. The report also said he offended his Russian hosts with remarks about Syria and Edward Snowden.

The sacking of Carey came shortly after another firing of a top level nuclear force commander. Vice Admiral James Giardina, who was second in command of the US Strategic Command, was relieved of his command on charges that he had tried to gamble at a casino with $1,500 worth of fake chips.

“We’re confident in the security of the nuclear arsenal of this country,” Pentagon press secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby told reporters last week. “That said, clearly we’ve got some issues.”

The crisis in the US nuclear war command, particularly ominous because of its potentially world catastrophic implications, is only one indication of mounting tensions and morale problems within the US military as it carries out what the Pentagon refers to as the “rebalancing” of America’s armed forces in the wake of over a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Washington Post published a pair of articles documenting an unprecedented series of military investigations of personal misconduct and abuse of subordinates by dozens of generals and admirals over the past 15 months. The newspaper, which obtained reports on the investigations under the Freedom of Information Act, warned that the incidents had “tarnished the reputation of US military leadership.”

Tensions have also been growing between the military brass and the Obama administration over issues that include the drawdown of forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, the so-called “pivot to Asia,” and claims that the Pentagon budget fails to provide enough resources to modernize the military for a potential confrontation with China.

“Technological superiority is not assured,” the Pentagon’s undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, Frank Kendall told a congressional panel this week. “This is not a future problem; it is a here and now problem.”

Meanwhile, an indication of political moods within the military brass was provided last week by Admiral Michael Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who addressed a meeting in Washington called by the neo-conservative magazine, the Weekly Standard and a right-wing veterans’ association.

“I worry that America has paid us very well, the compensation’s good, [so it says] ‘please go off and fight our dirty little wars and let us get on with our lives,’” said the former chief military commander, who has since joined the boards of directors of General Motors and Sprint-Nextel.

Pointing to the increasing divide between an all-volunteer military and the rest of society, Mullen added, “The people in the Northeast don’t know us anymore.” He proposed the imposition of two years of universal national service, while claiming it would not be a draft.

“The military becoming more and more isolated from the American people is a disaster for America,” he warned.

Indeed, the immense and growing power of the US military and intelligence complex, the emergence of a professional military caste and its increasing independence from civilian control poses tremendous dangers to basic democratic rights.

-

AIR FORCE STAFF AT MONTANA NULCEAR BASE FIRED OVER EXAM CHEATING SCANDAL

None of the nine fired commanders were directly involved in the cheating, but each was found to have failed on leadership issues

-

US Air Force secretary Deborah Lee James and chief of staff Mark Welsh. The Air Force has come under scrutiny over the cheating scandal.

US air force secretary Deborah Lee James, left, had promised to hold officers at Malmstrom accountable. Photograph: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

-

by Associated Press in Washington | theguardian.com
March 27, 2014

The US air force fired nine mid-level nuclear commanders Thursday and will discipline dozens of junior officers at a nuclear missile base in response to an exam-cheating scandal that spanned a far longer period than originally reported.

Air force officials called the moves unprecedented in the history of the intercontinental ballistic missile force, which has been rocked by a string of security lapses over the past year, including a failed safety and security inspection last summer at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana, where the cheating happened.

-

-

In a bid to correct root causes of the missile corps’ failings — including low morale and weak management — the air force also announced a series of new or expanded programs to improve leadership development, to modernize the three ICBM bases and to reinforce “core values” including integrity.

Air Force secretary Deborah Lee James, the service’s top civilian official, had promised to hold officers at Malmstrom accountable once the cheating investigation was completed and the scope of the scandal was clear. None of the nine fired commanders was directly involved in the cheating, but each was determined to have failed in his or her leadership responsibilities.

Investigators determined that the cheating, which officials originally said happened in August or September last year, began as early as November 2011 and continued until November 2013, according to a defense official who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to reveal details before James’ announcement. It involved unauthorized passing of answers to exams designed to test missile launch officers’ proficiency in handling “emergency war orders,” which are messages involving the targeting and launching of missiles.

When the cheating was first revealed, air force leaders condemned it as violating the most basic air force values. They also suggested that it reflected an unhealthy pressure from commanders to achieve perfect test scores. The tests are one part of a training and evaluation system that is supposed to ensure that every one of the more than 500 missile launch officers is fully proficient.

The most senior person touched directly by the cheating scandal was the commander of Malmstrom’s 341st Missile Wing, Col Robert Stanley. He was permitted to resign, according to a defense official. The official described the air force actions on condition of anonymity before they were announced.

Nine key commanders below Stanley were fired, including the commanders of the 341st Wing’s three missile squadrons, each of which is responsible for 50 Minuteman three nuclear missiles.

Also sacked were the commander and deputy commander of the 341st Operations Group, which oversees all three missile squadrons as well as a helicopter unit and a support squadron responsible for administering monthly proficiency tests to Malmstrom’s launch crews and evaluating their performance.

Members of all three missile squadrons were implicated in the cheating, either by providing or receiving test answers or knowing about the cheating and not reporting it.

No generals are being punished. Major General Michael Carey, who was fired last October as commander of the 20th Air Force, which is responsible for all three 150-missile wings of the ICBM force, is still on duty as a staff officer at Air Force Space Command but has requested retirement; his request is being reviewed.

Carey was fired after a military investigation determined that he had engaged in inappropriate behavior while leading a US government delegation to a nuclear security exercise in Russia last summer. He was replaced by Major General Jack Weinstein.

The cheating at Malmstrom was discovered in early January during the course of an unrelated drug investigation that included two launch officers at Malmstrom and others at several other bases; the drug probe is continuing.

A total of 100 missile launch crew members at Malmstrom were identified as potentially involved in the cheating, but nine were cleared by investigators. Another nine of the 100 are being handled separately by the Air Force Office of Special Investigation; eight of those nine involve possible criminal charges stemming from the alleged mishandling of classified information.

Of the remaining 82 officers, an estimated 30 to 40 are eligible to be retrained and returned to duty on the missile force; the rest face unspecified disciplinary action that could include dismissal from the air force, officials said.

After the cheating was announced in January, defense secretary Chuck Hagel launched a pair of in-depth reviews of the nuclear forces to determine why the ICBM force has suffered so many setbacks over the past year.

Hagel said he his goal was to restore public confidence in the nuclear force.

-

AIR FORCE SACKS TWO COMMANDERS IN EUROPE

-

AFLt. Col. Matthew Olson, right, assumes command of the 422nd Communications Squadron from Col. Charles Hamilton, left, 422nd Air Base Group commander at RAF Croughton, England, on July 8, 2013. Olson and Hamilton were relieved of their commands on Thursday after an investigation raised questions about their abilities.  Brian Stives/Courtesy U.S. Air Force

-

By Adam L. Mathis
Stars and Stripes
March 17, 2014

RAF MILDENHALL, England — Two U.S. Air Force commanders in the 422nd Air Base Group at RAF Croughton have been relieved over a loss of confidence in their abilities.

Col. Charles Hamilton, who commanded the base group since 2011, and Lt. Col. Matthew Olson, who commanded the 422nd Communications Squadron since July, were relieved of command on Thursday by the 501st Combat Support Wing commander after an investigation, officials said.

“It was loss of confidence in the commanders’ abilities to lead their units in the best interest of the Air Force,” spokesman Capt. Brian Maguire said in an e-mail. “This action was more about leadership style and organizational climate than a specific event.”

Maguire said there was no connection between the two sackings and that the two men were not under criminal investigation.

Col. Brian May will command the air group until a scheduled replacement arrives this summer, Maguire said. Maj. John Riester will command the communications squadron, but no permanent replacement has been selected yet.

Col. Angela Cadwell, 501st commander, said in an email that her primary focus was the “health, welfare and organizational climate” in the wing. She did not elaborate.

Croughton provides communication and computer support to military assets throughout Europe. The base came under public scrutiny last year when it was reported that British Telecom would provide a telecommunication link between Croughton and a base in Djibouti connected with unmanned aerial vehicle operations.

-

WHY ARE DOZENS OF HIGH RANKING OFFICERS BEING PURGED FROM THE U.S. MILITARY?

Michael Snyder
New American
January 17, 2014

Since Barack Obama has been in the White House, high ranking military officers have been removed from their positions at a rate that is absolutely unprecedented.  Things have gotten so bad that a number of retired generals are publicly speaking out about the “purge” of the U.S. military that they believe is taking place.

Image: Barack Obama (Wikimedia Commons).

As you will see below, dozens of highly decorated military leaders have been dismissed from their positions over the past few years.  So why is this happening?  When I was growing up, my father was an officer in the U.S. Navy.  And what is going on right now is absolutely crazy – especially during a time of peace.  Is there a deliberate attempt to “reshape” the military and remove those that don’t adhere to the proper “viewpoints”?  Does someone out there feel a need to get officers that won’t “cooperate” out of the way?  Throughout world history, whatever comes next after a “military purge” is never good.  If this continues, what is the U.S. military going to look like in a few years?

Perhaps you are reading this and you think that “purge” is too strong a word for what is taking place.  Well, just consider the following quotes from some very highly decorated retired officers…

-Retired Army Major General Paul Vallely: “The White House protects their own. That’s why they stalled on the investigation into fast and furious, Benghazi and Obamacare. He’s intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”

-Retired Army Major General Patrick Brady: “There is no doubt he (Obama) is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him.”

-Retired Army Lt. General William G. “Jerry” Boykin: “Over the past three years, it is unprecedented for the number of four-star generals to be relieved of duty, and not necessarily relieved for cause.”

-Retired Navy Captain Joseph John: “I believe there are more than 137 officers who have been forced out or given bad evaluation reports so they will never make Flag (officer), because of their failure to comply to certain views.”

According to the Blaze, one anonymous Pentagon official has said that even young officers have been told “not to talk about Obama or the politics of the White House”…

A Pentagon official who asked to remain nameless because they were not authorized to speak on the matter said even “young officers, down through the ranks have been told not to talk about Obama or the politics of the White House. They are purging everyone and if you want to keep your job — just keep your mouth shut.”

Now this trend appears to be accelerating.  We have seen a whole bunch of news stories about military officers being dismissed lately.

Almost always, a “legitimate reason” is given for the dismissal.  And without a doubt, if a military officer is actually behaving unethically, that officer should be held accountable.

However, the reality is that everyone has “skeletons in the closet”, and if you really want to get rid of someone it is usually not too hard to find a way to justify your decision.

The following are excerpts from three news stories about military officers in trouble that have come out so far in 2014…

#1 The Air Force Times: A group of former Air Force majors, forced out this summer by a noncontinuation board, plans to file a lawsuit claiming the service had no right to separate them simply to meet end-strength numbers set by Congress.

More than 10 of the 157 dismissed majors are banding together to challenge the move in court, seeking either reinstatement or early retirement pay. All 157 had been twice passed over for promotion and were within six years of retirement.

#2 Defense News: Acting US Navy Undersecretary Robert Martinage, the department’s No. 2, has resigned under pressure, sources confirmed for Defense News.

The resignation, which Martinage announced to his staff Tuesday morning, came after allegations were made of inappropriate conduct with a subordinate woman, the sources confirmed.

#3 Huffington Post: The Air Force says 34 nuclear missile launch officers have been implicated in a cheating scandal and have been stripped of their certification in what is believed to be the largest such breach of integrity in the nuclear force.

Some of the officers apparently texted to each other the answers to a monthly test on their knowledge of how to operate the missiles. Others may have known about it but did not report it.

The cheating was discovered during a drug investigation that involves 11 Air Force officers across six bases in the U.S. and England.

—–

Taken alone, it would be easy to dismiss those stories as “coincidences”.  But when you put them together with the stories of dozens of other high ranking military officers that have been purged from the U.S. military in recent years, a very disturbing pattern emerges.

The following is a list of high ranking military officers that have been dismissed over the past few years that has been circulating all over the Internet.  I think that you will agree that this list is quite stunning…

Commanding Generals fired:

  • General John R. Allen-U.S. Marines Commander International Security Assistance Force [ISAF] (Nov 2012)
  • Major General Ralph Baker (2 Star)-U.S. Army Commander of the Combined Joint Task Force Horn in Africa (April 2013)
  • Major General Michael Carey (2 Star)-U.S. Air Force Commander of the 20th US Air Force in charge of 9,600 people and 450 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (Oct 2013)
  • Colonel James Christmas-U.S. Marines Commander 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit & Commander Special-Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force Crisis Response Unit (July 2013)
  • Major General Peter Fuller-U.S. Army Commander in Afghanistan (May 2011)
  • Major General Charles M.M. Gurganus-U.S. Marine Corps Regional Commander of SW and I Marine Expeditionary Force in Afghanistan (Oct 2013)
  • General Carter F. Ham-U.S. Army African Command (Oct 2013)
  • Lieutenant General David H. Huntoon (3 Star), Jr.-U.S. Army 58th Superintendent of the US Military Academy at West Point, NY (2013)
  • Command Sergeant Major Don B Jordan-U.S. Army 143rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command (suspended Oct 2013)
  • General James Mattis-U.S. Marines Chief of CentCom (May 2013)
  • Colonel Daren Margolin-U.S. Marine in charge of Quantico’s Security Battalion (Oct 2013)
  • General Stanley McChrystal-U.S. Army Commander Afghanistan (June 2010)
  • General David D. McKiernan-U.S. Army Commander Afghanistan (2009)
  • General David Petraeus-Director of CIA from September 2011 to November 2012 & U.S. Army Commander International Security Assistance Force [ISAF] and Commander U.S. Forces Afghanistan [USFOR-A] (Nov 2012)
  • Brigadier General Bryan Roberts-U.S. Army Commander 2nd Brigade (May 2013)
  • Major General Gregg A. Sturdevant-U.S. Marine Corps Director of Strategic Planning and Policy for the U.S. Pacific Command & Commander of Aviation Wing at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan (Sept 2013)
  • Colonel Eric Tilley-U.S. Army Commander of Garrison Japan (Nov 2013)
  • Brigadier General Bryan Wampler-U.S. Army Commanding General of 143rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command of the 1st Theater Sustainment Command [TSC] (suspended Oct 2013)

Commanding Admirals fired:

  • Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette-U.S. Navy Commander John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group Three (Oct 2012)
  • Vice Admiral Tim Giardina(3 Star, demoted to 2 Star)-U.S. Navy Deputy Commander of the US Strategic Command, Commander of the Submarine Group Trident, Submarine Group 9 and Submarine Group 10 (Oct 2013)

Naval Officers fired: (All in 2011)

  • Captain David Geisler-U.S. Navy Commander Task Force 53 in Bahrain (Oct 2011)
  • Commander Laredo Bell-U.S. Navy Commander Naval Support Activity Saratoga Springs, NY (Aug 2011)
  • Lieutenant Commander Kurt Boenisch-Executive Officer amphibious transport dock Ponce (Apr 2011)
  • Commander Nathan Borchers-U.S. Navy Commander destroyer Stout (Mar 2011)
  • Commander Robert Brown-U.S. Navy Commander Beachmaster Unit 2 Fort Story, VA (Aug 2011)
  • Commander Andrew Crowe-Executive Officer Navy Region Center Singapore (Apr 2011)
  • Captain Robert Gamberg-Executive Officer carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower (Jun 2011)
  • Captain Rex Guinn-U.S. Navy Commander Navy Legal Service office Japan (Feb 2011)
  • Commander Kevin Harms- U.S. Navy Commander Strike Fighter Squadron 137 aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln (Mar 2011)
  • Lieutenant Commander Martin Holguin-U.S. Navy Commander mine countermeasures Fearless (Oct 2011)
  • Captain Owen Honors-U.S. Navy Commander aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (Jan 2011)
  • Captain Donald Hornbeck-U.S. Navy Commander Destroyer Squadron 1 San Diego (Apr 2011)
  • Rear Admiral Ron Horton-U.S. Navy Commander Logistics Group, Western Pacific (Mar 2011)
  • Commander Etta Jones-U.S. Navy Commander amphibious transport dock Ponce (Apr 2011)
  • Commander Ralph Jones-Executive Officer amphibious transport dock Green Bay (Jul 2011)
  • Commander Jonathan Jackson-U.S. Navy Commander Electronic Attack Squadron 134, deployed aboard carrier Carl Vinson (Dec 2011)
  • Captain Eric Merrill-U.S. Navy Commander submarine Emory S. Land (Jul 2011)
  • Captain William Mosk-U.S. Navy Commander Naval Station Rota, U.S. Navy Commander Naval Activities Spain (Apr 2011)
  • Commander Timothy Murphy-U.S. Navy Commander Electronic Attack Squadron 129 at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, WA (Apr 2011)
  • Commander Joseph Nosse-U.S. Navy Commander ballistic-missile submarine Kentucky (Oct 2011)
  • Commander Mark Olson-U.S. Navy Commander destroyer The Sullivans FL (Sep 2011)
  • Commander John Pethel-Executive Officer amphibious transport dock New York (Dec 2011)
  • Commander Karl Pugh-U.S. Navy Commander Electronic Attack Squadron 141 Whidbey Island, WA (Jul 2011)
  • Commander Jason Strength-U.S. Navy Commander of Navy Recruiting District Nashville, TN (Jul 2011)
  • Captain Greg Thomas-U.S. Navy Commander Norfolk Naval Shipyard (May 2011)
  • Commander Mike Varney-U.S. Navy Commander attack submarine Connecticut (Jun 2011)
  • Commander Jay Wylie-U.S. Navy Commander destroyer Momsen (Apr 2011)

Naval Officers fired: (All in 2012):

  • Commander Alan C. Aber-Executive Officer Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron 71 (July 2012)
  • Commander Derick Armstrong- U.S. Navy Commander missile destroyer USS The Sullivans (May 2012)
  • Commander Martin Arriola- U.S. Navy Commander destroyer USS Porter (Aug 2012)
  • Captain Antonio Cardoso- U.S. Navy Commander Training Support Center San Diego (Sep 2012)
  • Captain James CoBell- U.S. Navy Commander Oceana Naval Air Station’s Fleet Readiness Center Mid-Atlantic (Sep 2012)
  • Captain Joseph E. Darlak- U.S. Navy Commander frigate USS Vandegrift (Nov 2012)
  • Captain Daniel Dusek-U.S. Navy Commander USS Bonhomme
  • Commander David Faught-Executive Officer destroyer Chung-Hoon (Sep 2012)
  • Commander Franklin Fernandez- U.S. Navy Commander Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 24 (Aug 2012)
  • Commander Ray Hartman- U.S. Navy Commander Amphibious dock-landing ship Fort McHenry (Nov 2012)
  • Commander Shelly Hakspiel-Executive Officer Navy Drug Screening Lab San Diego (May 2012)
  • Commander Jon Haydel- U.S. Navy Commander USS San Diego (Mar 2012)
  • Commander Diego Hernandez- U.S. Navy Commander ballistic-missile submarine USS Wyoming (Feb 2012)
  • Commander Lee Hoey- U.S. Navy Commander Drug Screening Laboratory, San Diego (May 2012)
  • Commander Ivan Jimenez-Executive Officer frigate Vandegrift (Nov 2012)
  • Commander Dennis Klein- U.S. Navy Commander submarine USS Columbia (May 2012)
  • Captain Chuck Litchfield- U.S. Navy Commander assault ship USS Essex (Jun 2012)
  • Captain Marcia Kim Lyons- U.S. Navy Commander Naval Health Clinic New England (Apr 2012)
  • Captain Robert Marin- U.S. Navy Commander cruiser USS Cowpens (Feb 2012)
  • Captain Sean McDonell- U.S. Navy Commander Seabee reserve unit Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 14 FL (Nov 2012)
  • Commander Corrine Parker- U.S. Navy Commander Fleet Logistics Support Squadron 1 (Apr 2012)
  • Captain Liza Raimondo- U.S. Navy Commander Naval Health Clinic Patuxent River, MD (Jun 2012)
  • Captain Jeffrey Riedel- Program manager, Littoral Combat Ship program (Jan 2012)
  • Commander Sara Santoski- U.S. Navy Commander Helicopter Mine Countermeasures Squadron 15 (Sep 2012)
  • Commander Kyle G. Strudthoff-Executive Officer Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 25 (Sep 2012)
  • Commander Sheryl Tannahill- U.S. Navy Commander Navy Operational Support Center [NOSC] Nashville, TN (Sep 2012)
  • Commander Michael Ward- U.S. Navy Commander submarine USS Pittsburgh (Aug 2012)
  • Captain Michael Wiegand- U.S. Navy Commander Southwest Regional Maintenance Center (Nov 2012)
  • Captain Ted Williams- U.S. Navy Commander amphibious command ship Mount Whitney (Nov 2012)
  • Commander Jeffrey Wissel- U.S. Navy Commander of Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadron 1 (Feb 2012)

Naval Officers fired: (All in 2013):

  • Lieutenant Commander Lauren Allen-Executive Officer submarine Jacksonville (Feb 2013)
  • Reserve Captain Jay Bowman-U.S. Navy Commander Navy Operational Support Center [NOSC] Fort Dix, NJ (Mar 2013)
  • Captain William Cogar-U.S. Navy Commander hospital ship Mercy’s medical treatment facility (Sept 2013)
  • Commander Steve Fuller-Executive Officer frigate Kauffman (Mar 2013)
  • Captain Shawn Hendricks-Program Manager for naval enterprise IT networks (June 2013)
  • Captain David Hunter-U.S. Navy Commander of Maritime Expeditionary Security Squadron 12 & Coastal Riverine Group 2 (Feb 2013)
  • Captain Eric Johnson-U.S. Navy Chief of Military Entrance Processing Command at Great Lakes Naval Training Center, IL (2013)
  • Captain Devon Jones-U.S. Navy Commander Naval Air Facility El Centro, CA (July 2013)
  • Captain Kevin Knoop-U.S. Navy Commander hospital ship Comfort’s medical treatment facility (Aug 2013)
  • Lieutenant Commander Jack O’Neill-U.S. Navy Commander Operational Support Center Rock Island, IL (Mar 2013)
  • Commander Allen Maestas-Executive Officer Beachmaster Unit 1 (May 2013)
  • Commander Luis Molina-U.S. Navy Commander submarine Pasadena (Jan 2013)
  • Commander James Pickens-Executive Officer frigate Gary (Feb 2013)
  • Lieutenant Commander Mark Rice-U.S. Navy Commander Mine Countermeasures ship Guardian (Apr 2013)
  • Commander Michael Runkle-U.S. Navy Commander of Mobile Diving and Salvage Unit 2 (May 2013)
  • Commander Jason Stapleton-Executive Office Patrol Squadron 4 in Hawaii (Mar 2013)
  • Commander Nathan Sukols-U.S. Navy Commander submarine Jacksonville (Feb 2013)
  • Lieutenant Daniel Tyler-Executive Officer Mine Countermeasures ship Guardian (Apr 2013)
  • Commander Edward White-U.S. Navy Commander Strike Fighter Squadron 106 (Aug 2013)
  • Captain Jeffrey Winter-U.S. Navy Commander of Carrier Air Wing 17 (Sept 2013)
  • Commander Thomas Winter-U.S. Navy Commander submarine Montpelier (Jan 2013)
  • Commander Corey Wofford- U.S. Navy Commander frigate Kauffman (Feb 2013)

-

DR. JEROME CORSI: U.S. MILITARY PURGE REVEALED

Published on Feb 21, 2014

Alex Jones talks with New York Times best-selling author Jerome Corsi about the Obama administration’s purge of top military officials. They also discuss the fact that the majority of the American people are now being listed as extremist or terrorists.

-

GENERAL: OBAMA PURPOSELY WEAKENING U.S. MILITARY

Former Pacific Command leader warns against giving global enemies combat advantage

by F. Michael Maloof | World Net Daily
November 26, 2013

WASHINGTON – A former deputy commanding general of the U.S. Pacific Command says President Obama seeks to “seize control over national security” and, bypassing Congress, singlehandedly weaken the U.S. military.

Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, retired, charges in a 21-page position statement made available to WND, titled “The Obama Military – Evolution and Legacy,” that Obama already has begun working with Russia to reduce nuclear weapons without a treaty, which would require Senate ratification.

“This would allow Obama and the executive branch to unilaterally cut our military capability and nuclear weaponry and ignore the treaty clause of the Constitution,” said Vallely, who has also served as a senior military analyst for Fox News Channel. Vallely has also charged, along with several other top generals, that Obama is purging the military by firing top-level commanders and that his ultimate goal is to “destroy U.S. military superiority” to the “advantage of our global enemies.”

In his capacity as chairman of the organization Stand Up America, Vallely previously called for the resignations of Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and certain congressional leaders, issuing a “national call to action” aimed at bringing about those resignations.

Vallely is far from the only one worried about a plunge in military capabilities under Obama’s administration.

Frank Gaffney, former acting assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration, has asserted that placing women in combat is just the latest example of a “deliberate and systematic wrecking operation” the administration has conducted against the U.S. armed forces since 2009.

In addition, the Obama administration has directed measures to reduce the Pentagon budget by $1.3 trillion over the next 10 years, said Gaffney, currently president of the Washington-based Center for Security Policy.

In turn, this is bringing about the elimination or slowing of virtually all modernization programs, reduction in maintenance of worn-out weapons systems and other equipment and diminished training and cutting back in benefits, such as the plan the Pentagon has ordered to cut out commissary privileges at all of the military’s 178 U.S. and 70 foreign bases.

Further, Obama’s social agenda now includes changes in the law to allow open homosexuality in the ranks of the American armed forces.

Response? Increased foreign aggression

The undermining of the U.S. military hasn’t been lost on other countries like China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, all of whom have become more militarily aggressive during the Obama administration.

Robert Fisher, a Chinese military affairs specialist, says the Chinese leadership is “not impressed” with the administration’s decisions regarding next-generation stealth aircraft and its retirement of more than half of the Navy’s warships.

At the same time, Beijing has deployed its “carrier killer” missile, the Dong Feng-21D, that can be fired from a mobile launcher as Beijing begins to show greater military assertiveness in the East and South China Seas.

Retired Navy Capt. Joseph John tells WND the “bigger picture” is that “the U.S. armed forces have been under relentless attack by the occupant of the Oval Office for five years.”

A Naval Academy graduate, John had three tours of duty in Vietnam, served as an al-Qaida expert for the FBI, and was a commanding officer with SEALs embedded on special operations. As chairman of Combat Veterans For Congress PAC (Political Action Committee), he has helped elect 20 combat veterans to Congress.

“I believe there are more than 137 officers who have been forced out or given bad evaluation reports so they will never make flag [officer], because of their failure to comply to certain views,” John told WND.

“The truly sad story is that many of the brightest graduates of the three major service academies witnessing what the social experiment on diversity … is doing to the U.S. military, are leaving the service after five years,” he said. “We are being left with an officer corps that can be made to be more compliant, that is, exactly what Obama needs to effect his long range goals for the U.S. military.”

In an email to WND, John outlined what he termed “a very few of the most egregious” aspects of Obama’s “attack” on the military over the past five years.

He referred specifically to the Rules of Engagement in combat that were put in place after Obama took office, claiming the changes resulted in very high casualty rates in Afghanistan, including the loss of 17 members of SEAL Team 6 in one incident.

“The Rules of Engagement precluded the use of suppression fire at a landing zone,” John noted.

Endangering safety

Retired Air Force pilot Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson, who was a senior military aide to President Bill Clinton, also asserts that Obama’s national security policies are weakening the military and endangering the country’s safety.

Author of the recent book, “Conduct Unbecoming – How Barack Obama is Destroying the Military and Endangering our Security,” Patterson said Obama is underfunding and misusing the military, making America more vulnerable.

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, recipient of the U.S. military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor, as well as other top retired officers, say Obama’s agenda is decimating the morale of the U.S. ranks to the point members no longer feel prepared to fight or have the desire to win.

“There is no doubt he [Obama] is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him” over such issues as “homosexuals, women in foxholes, the Obama sequester,” Brady told WND.

Brady, a legendary “Dust Off” air ambulance pilot in Vietnam who described his experiences in “Dead Men Flying: Victory in Viet Nam,” said, “The problem is military people will seldom, while on duty, go on the record over such issues, and many will not ever, no matter how true.

“I hear from many off the record who are upset with the current military leadership and some are leaving and have left in the past,” he said.

Brady, who has served as president of the Congressional  Medal of Honor Society, referred to additional problems in today’s military including “girly-men leadership [and] medals for not shooting and operating a computer. This president will never fight if there is any reason to avoid it and with a helpless military he can just point to our weakness and shrug his shoulders.”

Retired Army Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, who was a founding member of Delta Force and later deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence under President George W. Bush, tells WND it is worrying that four-star generals are being retired at the rate that has occurred under Obama.

“Over the past three years, it is unprecedented for the number of four-star generals to be relieved of duty, and not necessarily relieved for cause,” Boykin said. “I believe there is a purging of the military. The problem is worse than we have ever seen.”

‘Demand resignation’

Vallely said the current crop of political leadership at the federal level must be forced to resign by the “demand resignation” process which he explained requires massive grassroots protests and social networking. As an example, he cited the public and media pressure that led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon.

Vallely also has announced the formation of a “provisional leadership council” – a citizens’ commission – to scrutinize Obama administration actions on national security and economic issues.

To begin the process of “reclaiming America,” Vallely envisions an “American Leadership Council” to be comprised of 12 people who would hold “America’s interests first, not their own,” and be people from “proven leadership,” not “talking heads” and “community organizers.”

“These must be people who have led large businesses and/or held military positions of consequence,” Vallely said. “These must be people who hold loyalty, fealty and love for this country first, and most of all, they must be trustworthy.”

He told WND that he intends to announce their names shortly.

“Under the Obama administration, the military has not been appropriately used to improve diplomatic relations, largely because the military is not viewed as a mechanism to achieve diplomatic success,” Vallely said. “Instead, Obama employs it as a ‘nation-building’ tool, a function quite anathema to its very definition.”

“Now, it’s not even fighting, just assassinating individuals. Retreat is now known as ‘drawdown’ and victory is now known as ‘nation-building’ or ‘transitioning,’” he said.

Vallely said that while conservatives see the military as a “crucial component” of diplomacy,  Obama views it as a “hindrance.”

“Changing diplomacy,” he said, “therefore is being carried out in a number of ways by the Obama administration: diminishing the military role and leadership in diplomacy; manipulating the rules of engagement; and making the U.S. military irrelevant elsewhere.”

-

TOP GENERALS REVEAL OBAMA’S SECRET HIGH LEVEL MILITARY PURGE

In Obama’s America, the military must forsake their constitutional oath in favor of blind allegiance to their new commander.

By Anthony Gucciardi | Story Leak
November 3, 2013

And whether it’s top nuke commanders being removed for failing to play ball with the global elite, or just silencing potential whistleblowers, top military generals are now speaking out about the ‘mass purge’ within the United States military.

One such general, a recipient of the Medal of Honor, has now gone on record in speaking with news organization WND about the mass culling of high level military officers on behalf of the Obama administration. Retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady says that the attack on high level military personnel is so great that it has now obliterated the morale of troops at large, but is more importantly centered in terminating any high level individual that will not go along with the plan.

“There is no doubt he (Obama) is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him,” the retired general told WND.

General Brady’s admission comes just after two of the top nuclear commanders in the United States were terminated and suspended amid the high level military intelligence we released surrounding the secret transfer of nuclear weapons from a Texas Airforce base to South Carolina. And while the terminations were originally reported on by the Associated Press, who has been covering the issue in depth and even hinting towards our coverage of the missing nuke within their reports, it was revealed by the agency that the terminations and suspensions were actually found out through leaked emails.

In other words, the mass purge of military officials was never truly intended to meet the public eye. But even in the face of government secrecy surrounding the issue, numerous news organizations and media figures have now come out and highlighted the purge of top nuke commanders and others. From Michael Savage launching an investigation into the missing nuke issue and calling for answers, to WND questioning officials over the military intelligence.

Overall, the new media has forced this issue into the spotlight, reaching millions with the powerful information that has been confirmed time and time again by scenarios like Senator Lindsey Graham’s same day speech regarding a nuclear strike on the exact destination of the nuclear warheads. Meanwhile, the establishment has been busy in attempting to eliminate high level military officers who will not blindly follow commander Obama on his every unconstitutional demand.

-

OBAMA BUILDING ‘COMPLIANT OFFICER CLASS’

Army intel official: Increasingly, ‘to make colonel and higher is all politics’

by F. Michael Maloof | World Net Daily
November 13, 2013

WASHINGTON – The extraordinarily large number of senior military officials being relieved of duty during the Obama administration – nine generals and flag officers this year alone and close to 200 senior officers over the last five years – is part of the creation of a “compliant officer class,” according to a U.S. Army intelligence official.

Since WND’s ongoing coverage of what some top generals are openly calling a “purge” of senior military officers who run afoul of Obama or his agenda, some military personnel have been speaking out.

According to a veteran Army intelligence official who spoke to WND on condition of anonymity, there is within the armed forces a major concern that a “compliant officer class” is being created by the Obama administration. So much so, he said, that it’s becoming harder and harder to find “senior officers with a pair of balls in there [the military] now that would say no to anything.”

“Maybe at the rank of major or below, and possibly there are some in SOF (Special Operations Forces), but to make colonel and higher is all politics,” he said.

To underscore this concern, the official said almost no public concern was expressed by officers to the recent repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy or the decision to allow women into front-line combat.

“I didn’t read one piece of resistance to the DADT repeal, and I haven’t seen one peep about females in the infantry,” he said.

His comments echo those of retired generals who have expressed alarm over the high rate of dismissals of high-ranking officers in the Obama administration.

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, a recipient of the U.S. military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor, told WND Obama’s agenda is decimating the morale of the U.S. ranks to the point that members no longer feel prepared to fight or have the desire to win.

“There is no doubt he (Obama) is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him” over such issues as “homosexuals, women in foxholes, the Obama sequester,” said Brady, former president of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society.

Not only are military service members being demoralized and the ranks’ overall readiness reduced by the Obama administration’s purge of key leaders, but colonels – those lined up in rank to replace outgoing generals – are quietly taking their careers in other directions.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, who was a founding member of Delta Force and later deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence under President George W. Bush, says it is worrying that four-star generals are being retired at the rate that has occurred under Obama.

“Over the past three years, it is unprecedented for the number of four-star generals to be relieved of duty, and not necessarily relieved for cause,” Boykin said.

“I believe there is a purging of the military,” he said. “The problem is worse than we have ever seen.”

Boykin said the future of the military is becoming increasingly concerning because of the departure of its leaders who decline to jump onto Obama’s agenda, which critics have described as socialist.

“I talk to a lot of folks who don’t support where Obama is taking the military, but in the military they can’t say anything,” Boykin said.

As a consequence, he said, the lower grades therefore have decided to leave, having been given the signal that there is no future in the military for them.

Regarding compliance with the new social order in the military, the Army intelligence official told WND that as far as women in combat is concerned, he is “pretty sure” Army officers will “cheat to make sure one gets through basic training, as opposed to the Marine Corps which tends to be the last to lower its standards.”

As a consequence, he said, the Army is reevaluating physical fitness test standards that will “accommodate all genders, meaning lowering the standards.”

The point has been debated hotly as Obama moves women into all parts of the military. Obama supporters call for equal effort assessments for women and men doing the same physical stress tests., while critics call for equal results, which is crucial in war.

“Without going too far down the rabbit hole,” he said, “I can tell you, having been in the infantry, that basic training isn’t a big deal. Where the females are going to get damaged is during the field training exercises and/or combat deployments.”

He also pointed out that the Army is pushing to “get rid of ‘toxic leadership.’ They’re even talking about a 360-degree evaluation system for officers, where the troops get a say on the officers’ performance.”

He indicated that this type of evaluation could portend the departure of many more officers, many for questionable reasons.

He said “toxic leadership” has been viewed as a result of the wartime environment where people were promoted too fast, or their performance wasn’t scrutinized very closely.

“I guess that’s the long way of saying probably a lot of officers need to be relieved,” he said.

That concept was outlined in a 2005 “Strategy Research Project” paper at the U.S. Army War College at Carlisle Barracks in Carlisle, Pa. It examined the issue of “destructive leadership styles,” which apparently the Army believes continues to exist in the officer ranks and would be subject to purging.

The paper, authored by Col. Denise F. Williams, identified characteristics of toxic leadership to include incompetence, malfunctioning, maladjusted, sense of inadequacy, malcontent, egotism, arrogance, selfish values, avarice and greed, among others.

The Army Times recently cited “toxic leadership” as referring to cases of misconduct and abuse of authority by military leaders, which have “proliferated across the services in recent years.”

In one case, which it called bizarre, a Navy commander was fired after subordinates complained that he poked them in “appallingly inappropriate places with his flashlight.”

A retort from one reader was that, “I would never make it in this kinder, gentler Army. I wonder what happened to mission first. We won our war and a war hasn’t been won since. The only thing toxic in my day was gas.”

Boykin has told WND that the rate of dismissals has approached 200 in the past five years and that officers were dismissed on suspicion of disloyalty or suspected disagreement with the Obama administration on policy or force-structure issues.

He added that a number of officers have been relieved of duty for no given reason.

“Morale is at an unprecedented low,” Boykin said.

“Officers want to train for war but are not allowed to” because of other distractions such as allowing openly homosexual personnel in the military, the integration of women into the infantry and rules of engagement that favor “political correctness over our ability to fight to win.”

This sentiment was echoed by a Coast Guard Reserve member who told WND he will be retiring soon.

“I spend most of my ‘drills’ doing online training on things like ‘diversity’ and ‘preventing sexual harassment’ these days,” he said. “It’s becoming a joke. This country is in trouble.”

Those reports include confirmation from Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, who says Obama has done “great damage” to the military by taking away resources and imposing “heavy burdens of social experimentation.”

“But most flag and general officers are following orders, keeping their heads down and, in my opinion, letting down the troops,” she said.

During the Reagan administration, Donnelly was appointed by Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger to the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. And in 1992, Pres. George H. W. Bush likewise appointed her to the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces.

There have been nine cases this year alone of commanding officers and generals being removed from their posts. Several retired generals have accused the Obama administration of a “purge” and have linked the removals to political and social agendas.

Former Florida Congressman Allen West also has expressed alarm over the exit of top-level military officers and now is calling for congressional oversight hearings into what he calls an “alarming trend” of dismissals and firings of high-ranking military officers by the Obama administration, firings that in a number of cases appear to be political.

West, who as congressman served on the House Armed Services Committee, said he recently had been in contact with Committee Chairman Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon – calling for hearings “to determine exactly why” so many officers, especially senior officers, are being given the boot.

“McKeon needs to look at this problem,” West told WND. “There needs to be transparency. It is important to get the truth.”

Others have even stronger feelings.

In a recent interview with WND, Retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, who was the deputy commanding general of the Pacific Command, similarly accused Obama’s close adviser, Valerie Jarrett, of orchestrating the imposition of “political correctness” throughout the military, affecting everyone from top generals to the ranks of the enlisted.

In pinning the blame on Jarrett, reportedly Obama’s closest and most influential adviser, Vallely suggested her far-left, politically correct influence is forcing senior officers to watch everything military personnel say and do.

According to Vallely, Obama is “intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”

Vallely served in the Vietnam War and retired in 1993 as deputy Commanding General, Pacific Command. Today, he is chairman of the Military Committee for the Center for Security Policy and is co-author of the book “Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror.”

-

MILITARY PURGE: OBAMA WANTS TROOPS TO OBEY HIM, NOT THE CONSTITUTION

Service members given litmus tests designed to purge officers who place the Constitution above Obama

Kit Daniels
Infowars.com
November 7, 2013

The Obama administration is currently purging the military by giving officers tests to identify which ones are more likely to defend the Constitution rather than support the president’s policies.

The United States Constitution, which is ignored by the Obama administration.

For at least two years, top military brass have been giving litmus tests to officers, from generals down to sergeants, asking them if they will disarm or even fire on U.S. citizens.

“Going back to the beginning of this administration, I’ve had friends within the community talking about how they were brought in and questioned with people from more towards the top side,” Benjamin Smith, a retired U.S. Navy SEAL, said on the Oct. 23 edition of the Alex Jones Show. “The questioning resulted in … do you feel comfortable disarming American citizens?”

“You can see that now with the shoving of a lot of the officers and stuff like that. We don’t have 100% track on it, but there’s a lot of funny things happening within the military.”

This likely explains the unprecedented removal of at least 197 military officers by the Obama administration in the past five years.

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady told WMD last week that generals and colonels are being relieved of duty if they do not follow Obama’s agenda.

Even non-commissioned officers in the military police are being conditioned to assist the Federal Emergency Management Agency with its unconstitutional demands.

In a video leaked to Infowars, an army commander briefed MPs on their domestic duties with FEMA during martial law, including escorting federal officials as they confiscate firearms from Americans.

“We’ve lost all control when the military moves in on your street,” the commander said during the briefing. “They [government officials] are saying you have no more rights, you are going inside your houses.”

“We are not going to be out involved in a riot and not really have any authority to do anything,” he later added.

Current and former members of the military are being used as mere pawns for the political machine in D.C., following a trend occurring throughout the Obama administration.

As we saw during the government “shutdown” when Obama ordered the closure of war memorials, the White House has as little respect for our veterans as it does for the Constitution.

Considering that over 800 World War II veterans pass away every day, the visit to the memorials that vets made during the “shutdown” may have been the last chance for many of them to see the shrines made in their honor and those who never made it back.

Yet the White House could not care less about their rights.

It is more concerned with expanding the state’s monopoly of force and moving things towards the endgame rather than protecting the birth rights of individuals.

The administration would prefer to place the country on the road to serfdom instead of respecting individual drive which leads to economic progress and prosperity.

To do so, the White House is using litmus tests to remove the roadblocks – soldiers who will defend the Constitution – so it can accelerate the nation down the highway to slavery while the vultures who fed on past empires, the dynasty of elites, stare on with hunger in their eyes.

The current purge of the military is simply a siege on the remaining vestiges of the republic.

-

OBAMA ACCELERATES PURGE OF U.S. MILITARY

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
November 6, 2013

Obama is traitorously attempting to emasculate the U.S. military by conducting a purge of the top ranks, according to retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady.

“There is no doubt he (Obama) is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him,” Brady told WorldNetDaily last week.

Disagreeing on issues such as “homosexuals, women in foxholes, the Obama sequester” will result in early retirement. In the past year alone nine generals have been purged from the Pentagon’s ranks. “They are purging everyone” a source told WND.

“Over the past three years, it is unprecedented for the number of four-star generals to be relieved of duty, and not necessarily relieved for cause,” retired Army Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin told F. Michael Maloof. “I believe there is a purging of the military,” he added. “The problem is worse than we have ever seen.”

Boykin also cited reports indicating 197 military officers had been removed by the Obama administration over the last five years.

Boykin pointed to the early retirement of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who criticized the Obama administration. McChrystal was forced to retire after an article penned by freelance journalist Michael Hastings appeared in Rolling Stone. Hastings later died under mysterious circumstances.

The greatest purge in U.S. military history has delivered a decisive blow to morale and poses a dangerous weakness to the readiness of troops, warned the U.S. Army’s Chief of Staff, Gen. Raymond Odierno, last month.

Currently there are only two Army brigades — between 7,000 to 10,000 troops — that are rated as combat-ready, less than one-third required for national security requirements, the General explained. “Right now we have in the Army two brigades that are trained. That’s it. Two,” Odierno said in October.

Litmus Test for Firing On American Citizens

In January of this year 2009 Nobel Peace Prize nominee Jim Garrow told Alex Jones and Infowars he was informed by a top military veteran that the Obama administration’s “litmus test” for new military leaders hinges on if they will obey orders to fire on U.S. citizens.

“I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new ‘litmus test’ in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders,” Garrow wrote on his Facebook page. “The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not. Those who will not are being removed.”

During the Clinton administration in the mid-1990s, similar accusations were made after a survey was given to U.S. Marines at the 29 Palms Marine Corps base in California. The survey allegedly asked the soldiers if they would “fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the United States government.”

In addition, a former Navy SEAL, Ben Smith, said last month that the Obama administration is asking top brass in the military if they would be comfortable with disarming U.S. Citizens.

“Going back to the beginning of this administration, I’ve had friends within the community talking about how they were brought in and questioned with people from more towards the top side and the questioning… where it was pointing was do you feel comfortable disarming American citizens,” Smith told the Alex Jones Show on October 22.

-

-

On October 25, a caller to the Alex Jones Show provided footage shot during a FEMA meeting revealing the mindset of the government concerning the Second Amendment and the ability of citizens to protect themselves during a civil emergency. “When the military moves in on your street,” an unidentified official stated during the meeting, “they are now saying you have no more rights.”

-

-

Stalin and Hitler Conducted Political Purges of the Military

Obama’s military purge brings to mind Stalin’s purge between October 1940 and February 1942 of the Red Army. This purge is part of a larger Soviet historiography that saw the imprisonment and execution of more than 20,000,000 political enemies by the Soviet secret police and the NKVD.

Stalin and the NKVD were also responsible for purging the Polish military in 1940 and executing around 22,000 officers. Known as the Katyn massacre, the purge was blamed on Nazi Germany by Stalin. The Russian government denied it was responsible for the atrocity until 1990.

Other infamous military purges include Hitler’s Night of the Long Knives in 1934. In addition to purging the street fighting SA faction of the German military after Hitler consolidated power, resulting in murder of Ernst Röhm and the SA leadership, the operation included liquidating the so-called left-wing Strasserist faction of the Nazi Party and the wholesale execution of Nazi opponents.

-

OBAMA BUDGET SUPERSIZES U.S. FUNDING FOR UNITED NATIONS, GLOBAL MILITARY

Written by  Alex Newman | The New American
April 7, 2014

At a time of soaring U.S. budget deficits, brutal economic hardship for tens of millions of Americans, and unprecedented levels of federal spending, the Obama administration is asking Congress to drastically increase U.S. funding for the scandal-plagued United Nations and its oftentimes ruthless so-called international “peacekeeping” troops. However, rather than rewarding the widely criticized “dictators’ club” with more borrowed or confiscated funds, critics say U.S. lawmakers should cut off all funding to the UN — and eventually withdraw from the sovereignty-subverting outfit altogether.

In its fiscal year 2015 budget request, which seeks almost $4 trillion in spending overall, the Obama administration is asking Congress to approve a massive 33-percent hike in U.S. taxpayer handouts to the UN and other international organizations. In addition, the White House is pushing “contributions” to so-called global “peacekeeping” schemes that are a full 43 percent larger than last year, sparking outrage from critics.

Most of the proposed increase in UN military funding, the administration says, will go to deploying even more UN troops to prop up the dubious regimes ruling war-torn African nations such as Mali, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and more. The self-styled global military already has about 100,000 UN troops and “police” deployed across 15 “missions,” along with more than 15,000 civilians. Apparently, though, the UN and Obama want more.

Of course, the Orwellian-sounding UN “peacekeeping” forces — the infamous “blue helmets” would be more appropriately referred to as international war-making troops — have become loathed around the world. Among the most serious problems associated with the global soldiers under UN command: widespread brutality, human-rights abuses, sexual exploitation of civilians, mass murder, spreading deadly diseases, brazen corruption, impunity, ruthlessly propping up illegitimate UN-backed regimes, and more. By late 2013, the stench of scandal and horror around UN “peace” forces was so overbearing that even the establishment press around the world was forced to report it.

Last year, though, the U.S. government still sent over $1.75 billion to prop up the UN’s fledgling armed forces and their lawless “missions” around the globe — on top of paying for almost a quarter of the UN’s budget. In response to the perpetually ballooning scandals surrounding the international war-making troops, the Obama administration now hopes to reward them with more than $2.5 billion borrowed from abroad or extracted from U.S. taxpayers.

The UN and other international outfits, meanwhile, would receive more than $4 billion under the White House request, not including the huge expenditures for the global military. In a perfect example of Obama’s deceitful scheming, instead of ending the “Overseas Contingency Operations” (OCO) expenditures that were sold as a temporary measure to pay for U.S. wars abroad over the last decade, the administration is trying to preserve that funding — and divert it to UN “peacekeeping” operations.

“This appropriation provides funds for the United States to support unforeseen requirements of peacekeeping operations and activities, including peace enforcement missions [sic] undertaken directly by the United Nations, or by regional coalition forces,” explains the relevant section of the administration’s budget request. Obama is seeking $150 million for that particular plot, in addition to the $2.5 billion for regular UN “peacekeeping” and another $235 million for the military forces of illegitimate “regional bodies” such as the “African Union.”

In the meantime, the UN is working to come up with a palatable pretext for global taxation, thereby freeing it from having to operate on “contributions” taken from taxpayers indirectly via member governments and dictatorships. According to analysts, though, even without the highly sought after planetary tax regime, UN “revenue” almost tripled in the decade between 2002 and 2012. Why it would need even more funding from struggling U.S. taxpayers and a federal government that is already drowning the public in debt remains unclear.

At the same time, with help from top Obama administration figures like John Podesta, the UN is working to advance plots targeting even the “behavior” and “worldview” of every last person on Earth for “dramatic” modification, official UN documents show. Indeed, in addition to demanding trillions from Western taxpayers under various guises — “global warming,” supposedly “fighting” poverty, “sustainable development,” and more — the UN is positioning itself to become a full-fledged global government. It has also become increasingly brazen in its open assaults on the U.S. Constitution, state sovereignty, individual liberty, the will of American voters, and more.

Justifying its call for massively expanding the amount of funds extracted from U.S. taxpayers for the UN, the White House claimed implausibly that it was somehow in America’s “national interest” to squander more money it does not have on dictator-dominated globalist organizations notorious for seeking to undermine U.S. sovereignty. “The administration is committed to robust multilateral engagement and to promoting U.S. leadership in international organizations as a means of advancing U.S. national security interests and values,” the request claims. At the same time, the administration is working overtime to “reform” the IMF, which globalists are grooming to become a planetary central bank, by vastly expanding the resources at its disposal while giving up U.S. influence at the outfit.

The 2015 budget request also seeks almost $50 billion for unconstitutional “foreign aid” via just the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which is used to bribe foreign powers while also funding domestic projects to attack free markets. “Mindful of fiscal constraints, this budget provides American taxpayers a remarkable return on their investment in American leadership,” the State Department claimed, apparently without intending to sound facetious. The federal government, of course, is not constitutionally authorized to distribute foreign aid or to fund attacks on the U.S. Constitution and American independence via the UN.

Unsurprisingly, globalists and UN apparatchiks celebrated the Obama administration’s request for vastly more funding to the international outfit and its global military wing. Vice President for Public Policy Peter Yeo with the extremist “UN Foundation,” for example, even claimed that the $2.5 billion for global “peacekeeping” schemes “would make real progress on getting the U.S. out of the red at the UN and back in good standing with our allies and international partners.”

In other words, Yeo was transparently implying that U.S. taxpayers somehow “owe” their wealth and the fruits of their labor to the UN’s armed forces. In a bizarre twist of reasoning, Yeo, who works with the “Better World Campaign” as well, also suggested that if the UN did not fight the wars demanded by globalists, the U.S. government would have to fight them alone. It was not clear whether he thought the American people and their elected representatives ought to have a say in that, despite the Constitution’s requirement that all wars be declared by Congress.

Among Americans, the UN is quickly becoming increasingly unpopular. Among other concerns, critics cite the outfit’s coddling of dictators and putting them on the cartoonishly ridiculous “Human Rights Council;” seeking to expand its powers even faster; working to curtail freedom worldwide, attacking the U.S. Constitution; trying to undermine self-defense rights; entangling America’s armed forces in dubious foreign wars; and more.

Often dubbed the “dictators’ club” by critics due to the largely autocratic composition of its membership, the UN has also sparked alarm by becoming increasingly outspoken about its vision of “global governance.” Its radical agenda, described in countless documents, speeches, and reports covered by The New American, is completely at odds with God-given individual rights and Judeo-Christian values.

It is time for real change. Instead of saddling the American people with even more odious debt to the Communist Chinese regime and the privately owned Federal Reserve to prop up and reward the out-of-control UN, lawmakers should defund the radical international outfit altogether. Legislation currently in Congress, H.R. 75: American Sovereignty Restoration Act, would end all U.S. participation in the UN, including all handouts to the outfit from American taxpayers. Introduced by Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.), the bill has nine co-sponsors so far.

The timing to get the U.S. government out of the UN, which would set the globalists back decades, could not be better. And with more public pressure and awareness, that goal may not be too far off.

-

OBAMA: “WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO RELY ONLY ON OUR MILITARY IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE NATIONAL SECURITY OBJECTIVES THAT WE’VE SET…WE’VE GOT TO HAVE A CIVILIAN NATIONAL SECURITY FORCE, THAT’S JUST AS POWERFUL, JUST AS STRONG, JUST AS WELL FUNDED”

-

So who is going to be the enemy under a civilian national security force?  Under a civilian national security force, you are going to become an enemy of the state.

If you are a libertarian, conservative, constitutionalist, gun-owner, military veteran, tea-party activist, a Christian, a practicing, freedom loving American, or are against tyranny in any way, shape, or form, you are going to become an enemy of the state.  Your political ideology won’t make any difference.  This goes beyond your ideology.  At some point, in that enemy of the state phase, you will be forced to either fully pledge your allegiance and your alliance to the state, or you’re going to be denied access to a job, food, commerce, health care, and anything else that the state offers.  It’s all about control.  You cannot stay within the system and think somehow they’ll just ignore you.  You will be forced to choose.

Pastor David Langford made a great statement when he said, “You don’t have to go lookin’ for trouble. Trouble’s comin’ lookin’ for you.”

The takeover of America is coming.

Obama has purged almost 200 of America’s top military commanders  The reason they’re being dismissed, is not because of the phony charges against them,  it’s because they have refused to swear allegiance to the entity of the White House versus the Constitution.  So what you’re seeing is the intentional destruction of the U.S. military and in it’s place you’re going to see a civilian national security force or private army of a man who has sworn to take the United States to a place it’s never been before.  It will truly be a fundamental transformation of the United States of America.

-

-

Under this civilian national security force, there will no longer be freedom of speech, gun rights, or search warrants to enter your home.  Individual property rights will cease to exist.  The state will be allowed to do whatever it wants.  You can be the victim of a drone strike.  You can be arrested for any reason and held in indefinite detention without the right to an attorney or trial by jury.

People must understand that they can acknowledge the Constitution exists, but not in the power structure that intends to do every thing it can to destroy any and all your of rights as a U.S. citizen.  They intend to take those rights away from you.  It is time to decide which side you’re on.

-

RAHM EMANUEL: UNIVERSAL CITIZEN SERVICE – “EVERYBODY BETWEEN THE AGES 18 AND 25 WILL SERVE THREE MONTHS OF BASIC TRAINING IN A KIND OF CIVIL DEFENSE…WILL GIVE AMERICANS ONCE AGAIN A SENSE OF WHAT THEY ARE TO BE AMERICAN AND THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO A COUNTRY AND A COMMON EXPERIENCE”

-

-

MSNBC HOST MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY SAYS YOUR CHILD IS NOT YOURS, ALL YOUR CHILDREN BELONG TO THE STATE

Published on Apr 6, 2013

-

RELATED POSTS:

MSNBC HOST MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY SAYS THAT YOUR CHILD IS NOT YOURS, ALL YOUR CHILDREN BELONG TO THE STATE

OBAMA’S PLAN FOR THE DRAFT: MANDATORY SERVICE FOR EVERYONE 18-25

-

RUSSIAN CHILD SOLDIERS TRAINED IN BATTLE TACTICS, WEAPONS AND HAND-TO-HAND COMBAT TO ‘REPEL ANY ENEMY OF THE MOTHERLAND’

  • Military sports club ‘Berkut’, or ‘Golden Eagle’, is in Zhukovsky, Russia
  • Children as young a five sent on marches, trained in hand-to-hand combat
  • They are even trained to fire Kalashnikovs, small arms and throw grenades
  • The course offers preparation ‘to young fighters, to repel any enemy’
  • Parents urged to send kids before they become ‘gamblers or drug addicts’

By Daily Mail Reporter

March 24, 2014

Some parents would gasp at the thought of their children playing with a toy gun, but these Russian children are actually encouraged to take up real arms.

-

Old enough to hold a gun: Military sports club, 'Berkut', (meaning golden eagle), trains up young Russian, who dream of joining the elite units of the Russian army and fighting under the command of President Vladimir Putin

Gun trained: A young boy is pictured on their website brandishing a hand gun and dressed in military fatigues with his finger over the trigger

Special forces trained: Children as young a five are sent on forced marches, given battlefield training, taught hand-to-hand combat, and how to use military equipment

Early learners: 12-year-olds are also taught how to fire Kalashnikov assault rifles and other small arms

Nerves: During the clubs regular camps, some children are given the opportunity to parachute jump during their paratrooper training

Military sports club, ‘Berkut’, (meaning golden eagle), trains up young Russian, who dream of joining the elite units of the Russian army and fighting under the command of President Vladimir Putin.

A young boy is pictured on their website brandishing a hand gun and dressed in military fatigues with his finger over the trigger.

Children as young a five are sent on forced marches, given battlefield training, taught hand to hand combat, and how to use military equipment. 12 year olds are also taught how to fire Kalashnikov assault rifles and other small arms.

-

Impressionable age: The club appears to urge Russian parents not to wait until their child becomes a compulsive gambler, drug addict or alcoholic, before sending them to the club

Defenders: The club based in Zhukovsky, Russia, claims to provide military training designed to develop the younger generation of the 'motherland' - a term synonymous with the former Soviet Union and the communist rule of the last century

Defenders: The club based in Zhukovsky, Russia, claims to provide military training designed to develop the younger generation of the ‘motherland’ – a term synonymous with the former Soviet Union and the communist rule of the last century

-

During the clubs regular camps, some children are given the opportunity to parachute jump during their paratrooper training.

The club based in Zhukovsky, Russia, claims to provide military training designed to develop the younger generation of the ‘motherland’ – a term synonymous with the former Soviet Union and the communist rule of the last century.

The training is designed to promote a healthy lifestyle, good physical development and loyalty to their homeland.

Most instructors are ex-armed forces and have first-hand knowledge of the hardships of service in the armed forces and offer preparation ‘to young fighters, to repel any enemy’.

Other activities include skydive training, survival skills and winter hiking. Every year camouflage clad children and adults from the club march into the mountains of the Crimea for an annual 130km trek.

The club appears to urge Russian parents not to wait until their child becomes a compulsive gambler, drug addict or alcoholic, before sending them to the club.

-

Loyal family: The training is designed to promote a healthy lifestyle, good physical development and loyalty to their homeland

Fitness test: Every year camouflage clad children and adults from the club march into the mountains of the Crimea for an annual 130km trek

Grenade throwing: A young boy hones his grenade-throwing skills during battlefield practice in the woods

-

It also offers their youngsters the opportunity to become full-fledged citizens of society and learn to ‘resist evil and violence, to protect the weak and the oppressed, to believe in justice and always be guided by courage and bravery’.

Every year the club celebrates the victory of the Soviet Union during WW2 with a public performance, in which camouflage-clad children demonstrate their hand to combat combat skills in front of proud parents.

Formed during the Soviet era, the club offers one program provided in The Young Paratrooper course which includes several military-technical disciplines, physical conditioning and the development a boy’s moral qualities.

-

WHITE HOUSE COUNTERTERROR CHIEF: “CONFRONTATIONAL” CHILDREN COULD BE TERRORISTS

Obama adviser tells parents to be suspicious of their own kids

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
April 18, 2014

Image: Lisa Monaco (White House).

White House counterterrorism and Homeland Security adviser Lisa Monaco gave a speech this week in which she urged parents to watch their children for signs of “confrontational” behavior which could be an indication of them becoming terrorists.

During the speech at at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government on Tuesday night, Monaco, who replaced John Brennan last year in overseeing the executive branch’s homeland-security activities, said that parents need to be suspicious of “sudden personality changes in their children at home.”

“What kinds of behaviors are we talking about?” she asked. “For the most part, they’re not related directly to plotting attacks. They’re more subtle. For instance, parents might see sudden personality changes in their children at home—becoming confrontational.”

Monaco lamented the fact that, “The government is rarely in a position to observe these early signals,” encouraging parents to act as watchdogs to detect radicalization in line with President Obama’s goal of combating homegrown extremism.

Over the last decade, the federal government has broadened its definition of what constitutes potential terrorism to such a degree that the term has lost all meaning and is clearly being used as a political tool to demonize adversarial political activism.

Indeed, only yesterday Senator Harry Reid caused outrage when he labeled supporters of Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy “domestic terrorists”.

Although such tactics pre-date the 2009 release of the MIAC report, the Missouri Information Analysis Center document was perhaps the most shocking in that it characterized a whole swathe of conservative Americans as domestic extremists, including Ron Paul supporters, people who own gold and people who display political bumper stickers.

Homeland Security study leaked in 2012 upped the ante even further, demonizing Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.

Lisa Monaco’s speech and the federal government’s track record in assailing both banal behavior and political activism as potential “terrorism” serves as a reminder that the war on terror has now been focused inwardly against innocent Americans, making it all the more harder to detect actual terrorists.

-

-

In the video below, Alex Jones breaks down the bigger picture behind the move to turn the war on terror against American citizens.

-

-

BE WARNED: GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS THREATEN PARENTS WITH ARMED, MILITARIZED RAIDS UNLESS THEY COMPLY WITH DEMANDS

By Daisy Luther | The Organic Prepper

November 26, 2013

SHTFplan Editor’s Note: Nothing could be more terrifying than when agents of the government kick in your door to take your children, especially if you have done nothing wrong. But that’s exactly what school districts across the country are now telling parents is going to be done unless they comply with their requests. As you’ll see from the report below by Daisy Luther of The Organic Prepper, we have now crossed into a very dangerous time in America, and one in which snitches in all walks of life, including our childrens’ classrooms, are using the power of the state to force compliance, even with non-existent regulations. They don’t care about your ideals, your beliefs, or the morality of what they are doing. They simply want total control of every aspect of your life, even your kids. And if you don’t do what they say, they will send armed agents of a militarized government to do their bidding. 

Make no mistake. If you fail to comply, they won’t come knocking nicely. The reality is that you will have police cruisers and anti-terrorism teams at your doorstep. They’ll be fully armed and prepared to kill you if you fight back. And they WILL take your children should they decide they want them.

We are living in a police state… that should now be crystal clear.

Police State Raids

(Pictured: Militarized Boston police raid homes following the marathon bombing.)


Don’t Make Us Tell Child Welfare: Schools Insist on Forced Medical Exams for Kids
By Daisy Luther via The Daily Sheeple

What would you do if you received a threatening letter from your child’s school, demanding that you take your youngster to a medical doctor and dentist at the whims of the school administrators, or risk being reported to the child welfare authorities?

Parents in at least two states have gotten exactly such letters. Police State USA reports:

Under the auspices of keeping children healthy, the government has usurped the role of “parent” away from actual parents.  The state — not legal guardians — is determining when and how children should be subjected to outside business influences.

The provisions establish that the state has taken the final say in parenting matters, undermining parents’ natural role in the child’s life as protector and final decision maker.  The provision invades the privacy of the family by giving the government access to private medical results.

Then there is the inherent problem of forcing people into unwanted business contracts, with parties they may not agree with, for services that may not be needed or wanted.   The law states that the health certificates may only be signed by medical staff authorized by the state; meaning that parents’ alternatives to fulfill this mandate are limited down to allopathic, pro-pharmaceutical doctors.  Families who favor natural and holistic caregivers are undermined by virtue of exclusionary state licensing. (source)

First, the letter from New York:

NYS_DentalExamSchoolReq

Then the one from Michigan…

michigan letter

Let me emphasize the most important and terrifying line in this letter:

It is our intention to work with you in this matter to avoid any involvement with child protection services.

This letter is threatening the parents of this youngster with child welfare agencies if they do not comply with the demands of the school. So, potentially, at the very least, the welfare agency could investigate the family, and at the worst, take steps to remove the child from the household, all because a parent might have different ideas about healthcare than those of the school system.

This brings us to some very important questions about privacy and the right to make decisions for your own children.

  • If you are anti-vaccine, will the doctor refuse to sign the letter? What happens then?
  • What if the medical or dental visit is not in the budget at the time the school demands it?
  • What if you choose to treat your child’s concerns with natural substances and diet, but the doctor wants you to medicate with pharmaceuticals?
  • What gives the school the right to tell you that you must take your child to a standard physician instead of a holistic practitioner?
  • What if you refuse to have your child’s teeth treated with toxic fluoride?
  • Will your child be subjected to nosy questions, such as inquiries about firearms in the home?

The US government seems more and more convinced that THEY own YOUR kids. Just this week, a Tennessee dad was arrested for picking up his young children after school instead of allowing them to cross into traffic as the school’s policy demanded. Some schools won’t allow lunches to be sent from home, and if they are, the school insists on supplementing those lunches at extortionistic rates in order to control the situation regardless of parental wishes. This doesn’t even take into account the dumbed down Common Core curriculum, the absurd attempts to be politically correct, and the zero-tolerance insanity that causes kids to be charged with felonies for having loaded fishing tackle boxes in their vehicles or cutlery in their lunch boxes.

If you’re wondering why so many people homeschool, add this to the ever-growing list of reasons.

-

DECLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS REVEAL U.S. GOVERNMENT IS SPYING ON PATRIOTS AS A THREAT

-

NSA-Work-Files

-

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
November 19, 2013

Declassified documents provided by the Obama administration dictate how the National Security Agency (NSA) has been given the green light by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to monitor Americans – dating back to the Bush administration.

Much of the information has been redacted, yet there is still a clear path of how the Bush administration created surveillance programs without judicial oversight which conducted operations outside of legal authority.

Suspects of terrorism had their entire lives under surveillance.

James Clapper, director of National Intelligence (NI) explained that Obama told him to “make public as much information as possible about certain sensitive programs while being mindful of the need to protect sensitive classified intelligence activities and national security.”

Clapper said: “Release of these documents reflects the executive branch’s continued commitment to making information about this intelligence collection program publicly available when appropriate and consistent with the national security of the United States.”

Seven years ago, the Bush administration ordered the collection of information from all domestic phone calls be made under authority of the Patriot Act. All “relevant” records of business transactions were taken up during investigations.

This program is still functioning as it was when it was created.

The NSA readily admitted in these documents that they broke their own rules and laws regarding privacy and rights of Americans for the sake of national security.

Over four years ago, the NSA acknowledged their programs were operating “improperly” which was the product of “poor management, lack of involvement by compliance officials and lack of internal verification procedures, not by bad faith.”

US District Court Judge John Bates stated that the federal government had continued to promise to stop breaking the rules; however “those responsible for conducting oversight at the NSA had failed to do so effectively.”

The NSA trained special agents to search databases for phone records of suspects and their “associates” by using “objective justification” for their choice in targets.

Although these agents were told not to listen to phone calls or read emails, there was so little oversight that the possibility is quite high, considering their admission to breaking every regulation to justify their mission.
Triggers for the NSA agent were Americans who:

• Believe in the 1st Amendment
• Speak or write in opposition to the government
• Worship at a mosque
• Work as a journalist

Last month, speaking to the press, former vice president Dick Cheney said that the Tea Party “has been a positive influence on politics.”

Cheney joked: “I’m not a card-carrying member. I don’t think there is a card, but I have respect for what the people are doing. These are Americans. They’re loyal, they’re patriotic, and taxpayers and fed up with what is happening in Washington. It’s a normal, healthy reaction, and the fact that the party has to adjust to it is positive.”

Cheney did say that the Tea Party was “an uprising” but that this is a good thing for the Republican Party to learn how to be more radical.

Florida State House Representative Alan Grayson released fund-raising emails to potential donors that claimed the Tea Party is comparable to the Klu Klux Klan (KKK).

The propaganda document entitled, “The Year in Hate and Extremism” was recently published by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). This report criticizes Patriots are a viable threat to the US government and places them in the same category as other right-wing extremists.

According to the SPLC, constitutionalists, racists and terrorists are organizing in the US at record levels which places the current President in danger because he is half black.

SPLC states that Patriots are convinced of a movement toward One World Government which causes them to act out in an extreme manner, organize against the current administration and recruit more citizens at an all-time high.

Everett Wilkinson, member of the National Liberty Federation (NLF) asserts that Patriot groups promote peaceful resolution and that the SPLC “is a liberal organization that likes to spread propaganda about right-wing and conservative groups.”

Earlier this year, a paper entitled “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right” published by Combating Terrorism Center, a think-tank at the West Point US Military Academy that the “far-right”, “anti-federalist” and groups that support “civil activism, individual freedoms and self-government” are dangerous as “racist/white supremacy movement, an anti-federalist movement and a fundamentalist movement.”

The report claims “while far-right groups’ ideology is designed to exclude minorities and foreigners, the liberal-democratic system is designed to emphasize civil rights, minority rights and the balance of power.”

-

OBAMA’S NEW OFFICER CLASS: THE CULLING OF THE UNITED STATES MILITARY

Published on Dec 6, 2013

In Obama’s America, the military must forsake their constitutional oath in favor of blind allegiance to their new commander. And whether it’s top nuke commanders being removed for failing to play ball with the global elite, or just silencing potential whistleblowers, top military generals are now speaking out about the ‘mass purge’ within the United States military.

-

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY PURCHASED PAPER TARGETS WITH IMAGES OF AMERICANS FOR FIREARMS TRAINING

-

dhstargets-

February 19, 2013

Law Enforcement Targets, Inc., a company that sells law enforcement and federal agencies “realistic” paper targets for firearms training, is providing the Department of Homeland Security with images of “non-traditional threats.”

The people in these images are most likely Americans, with such images as “’pregnant woman threat,’ ‘older man with shotgun,’ ‘older man in home with shotgun,’ ‘older woman with gun,’ ‘young school aged girl,’ ‘young mother on playground,’ and ‘little boy with real gun,’” writes Paul Joseph Watson on Tuesday.

It would appear as if this company is trying to help police and law enforcement prepare for fighting Americans. As Watson points out, there would have to be a demand among the agencies to which the company sells in order to put these products on the market.

Law Enforcement Target’s Web site declares that these targets are “designed to give officers the experience of dealing with deadly force shooting scenarios with subjects that are not the norm during training,” and are “meant to help the transition for officers who are faced with these highly unusual targets for the first time.”

The line of images is called “No More Hesitation,” implying that law enforcement shouldn’t hesitate to kill these people just because they’re Americans.

Speculation that the DHS is preparing for fighting within the United States has abounded for some time. Over the last year, the department has purchased nearly 2 billion rounds of hollow point ammunition of various calibers, enough to fight a 30 year war and shoot every American man, woman and child four times.

Along with the ammo, the agency has also purchased 7,000 fully automatic assault rifles.

The DHS has also issued various reports that describe people distrustful of government as potential terrorists and military veterans as threats to the country.

-

HOMELAND SECURITY EXERCISE TARGETS “FREE AMERICANS AGAINST SOCIALIST TYRANNY”

Leaked documents reveal plan to counter online dissent during martial law

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com

March 24, 2014

Leaked Homeland Security documents obtained by Infowars reveal details of a joint DHS/FEMA national exercise set to take place this week, one of the components of which revolves around an effort to counter online dissent by a group called “Free Americans Against Socialist Tyranny,” which is disgruntled at the imposition of martial law after an earthquake in Alaska.

Image: DHS (Wiki Commons).

The document again underscores the federal government’s obsession with characterizing libertarians and conservatives as some kind of extremist radical threat.

The document (PDF) was leaked by an individual affiliated with Stewart Rhodes’ Oathkeepers organization and passed on to Infowars. It is entitled National Exercise Program – Capstone Exercise 2014 – Scenario Ground Truth.

The document is intended for “U.S. Department of Homeland Security Trusted Agents Only” and is “disseminated only on a
need-to-know basis.” Even the role players involved in the exercise itself are prohibited from seeing the files.

The exercise is designed to evaluate readiness in preparation for a catastrophic incident, natural disaster or major act of terrorism. Some of the scenarios which will be in play during the exercise include a series of earthquakes, tsunamis and a nuclear weapons accident.

On page 125 of the document, a scenario is outlined whereby a group calling itself “Free Americans against Socialist Tyranny” responds to “The U.S. Northern Command mission of Defense Support to Civil Authorities” (or the imposition of martial law) by launching a protest campaign on social media and potentially engaging in cyber attacks.

According to the scenario, the campaign is driven by suspicion that “the government is responsible for the Alaska earthquake and a “hacktivist” manifesto.”

“The U.S. Northern Command mission of Defense Support to Civil Authorities has led to increased activity by some anti-government organizations,” states the document. “Currently, the most vocal organization is Free Americans against Socialist Tyranny; using social media, they advertise anti-U.S. rhetoric focusing on the Department of Defense as well as to recruit like-minded individuals to join their “cause”.

“While some Free Americans against Socialist Tyranny members are capable of conducting adverse cyber operations, the greatest threat is current government employees sympathetic to their cause,” the document adds. “It is believed that there are employees within US Northern Command, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, National Guard, and Defense Information Systems Agency that may support Free Americans against Socialist Tyranny doctrine based on individual comments on social media sites. Free Americans against Socialist Tyranny sympathizers may include both former and current members of the military with training on satellite communications, computer network defense, network operations, as well as military command and control.”

The scenario also suggests that Northern Command members sympathetic to Free Americans Against Socialist Tyranny may attempt to hack the North American Aerospace Defense Command as a form of retaliation.

This is by no means the first time that the Department of Homeland Security has characterized anti-big government Americans as domestic extremists.

A study funded by the Department of Homeland Security, details of which emerged in 2012, characterized Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.

As we have exhaustively documented on numerous occasions, federal authorities and particularly the Department of Homeland Security have been involved in producing a deluge of literature which portrays liberty lovers and small government advocates as extremist radicals.

The document also mentions the threat posed by “disgruntled military and Department of Defense civilians,” which ties into the talking point, repeatedly promoted by the DHS and other federal agencies, that returning veterans pose a major domestic terror threat.

The Capstone Exercise 2014 document makes it clear that a key part of the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA’s preparation for the aftermath of major catastrophic incidents in the United States is centered around combating online dissent which will be sparked as a result of federal authorities and military assets instituting martial law, or what the document refers to as “Defense Support to Civil Authorities”.

This is particularly chilling given reports that emerged in 2006 concerning a nationwide FEMA program under which Pastors and other religious representatives were trained to become secret police enforcers who teach their congregations to “obey the government” in preparation for a declaration of martial law, property and firearm seizures, and forced relocation.

The fact that the DHS is focusing its cyber security efforts during a major national exercise not on targeting foreign state actors or terrorists but on combating online dissent by conservatives is sure to increase concerns that the federal agency once again has libertarians, patriots and small government activists in the crosshairs.

-

-

ARMY VETERAN RECALLS THE UNFORGETTABLE MOMENT WHEN A JUDGE TOLD HIM: ‘YOUR TIME IN IRAQ MAKES YOU A THREAT TO SOCIETY’

By Jason Howerton | The Blaze
November 13, 2013

Army veteran Andrew Chambers recently shared the story of how he was sentenced to ten years in prison after a judge allegedly told him that his service in the Iraq war makes him a “threat to society.” Video of his speech from prison for TEDxMarionCorrectional’s TEDxTalks is now going viral after being posted on Oct. 31.

After explaining that he decided to join the Army following the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, Chambers talked about the positive side of joining the U.S. military — traveling the world and experiencing different cultures. He was deployed to Iraq in 2004 after spending a year in Central America.

However, his experience in the devastated country took its toll. Chambers told his audience about the time he was working as a turret gunner on the top of a Humvee when gunfire erupted. He said he heard someone laughing and remembers asking himself, “who could be laughing at a time like this?”

As it turns out, it was he who was laughing.

Judget Tells Army Veteran Andrew Chambers: Your Time in Iraq Makes You a Threat to Society

“I felt like I was finally loosing control of that rage they (the military) taught me to harness,” Chambers said.

Things didn’t get much better when he returned home either. The Army veteran said he remained “paranoid,” always carried a pistol on him and “assessed the threat level of every person and place I came into contact with.” He also explained that he drove in the middle of the street because he feared the side of the street was going to blow up and kill him.

After seeking help from the Veterans Affairs (VA) Mental Health Clinic, Chambers was reportedly given a prescription sleeping aid, despite telling doctors he was afraid he was going to end up hurting someone.

Chambers’ problems culminated when he pulled his pistol on someone after a knife was drawn during a night out drinking. He says he made sure everyone was on the ground then took the knife from the man and “beat him.”

He was later arrested for attempted murder and other criminal charges, some of which he denies committing.

He said he’ll never forget what the judge said to him during his sentencing:

“Mr. Chambers, you’re service is a double edged sword. Your time in Iraq makes you a threat to society and I have a civil obligation to lock you up.”

He got 10 years in prison.

Towards the end of the video, Chambers pleas with his audience to find a veteran and talk to them.

“A lot of us just need someone to talk to,” he said.

Watch Chambers’ inspirational talk below:

-

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE NOMINEE: OBAMA ASKS MILITARY LEADERS IF THEY WILL “FIRE ON U.S. CITIZENS”

Shock claim purported to come from “one of America’s foremost military heroes”

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
January 22, 2013

2009 Nobel Peace Prize nominee Jim Garrow shockingly claims he was told by a top military veteran that the Obama administration’s “litmus test” for new military leaders is whether or not they will obey an order to fire on U.S. citizens.

Garrow was nominated three years ago for the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize and is the founder of The Pink Pagoda Girls, an organization dedicated to rescuing baby girls from “gendercide” in China. Garrow has been personally involved in “helping rescue more than 36,000 Chinese baby girls from death.” He is a public figure, not an anonymous voice on the Internet, which makes his claim all the more disturbing.

“I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. “The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not”. Those who will not are being removed,” Garrow wrote on his Facebook page, later following up the post by adding the man who told him is, “one of America’s foremost military heroes,” whose goal in divulging the information was to “sound the alarm.”

Garrow’s claim is even more explosive given that the country is in the throes of a national debate about gun control, with gun rights advocates keen to insist that the founders put the second amendment in the Constitution primarily as a defense against government tyranny.

It also follows reports on Sunday that General James Mattis, head of the United States Central Command, “is being told to vacate his office several months earlier than planned.”

Concerns over US troops being given orders to fire on American citizens in the event of mass gun confiscation first arose in 1995 when hundreds of Marines at 29 Palms, California were given a survey as part of an academic project by Navy Lieutenant Commander Ernest Guy Cunningham which asked the Marines if they would, “Fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the United States government.”

The survey was subsequently leaked because many of the Marines who took it were shocked by the tone of the question.

The US Military has clearly outlined innumerable civil emergency scenarios under which troops would be authorized to fire on U.S. citizens.

In July 2012, the process by which this could take place was made clear in a leaked US Army Military Police training manual for “Civil Disturbance Operations” (PDF) dating from 2006. Similar plans were also outlined in an updated manual released in 2010 entitled FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations.

The 2006 document outlines how military assets will be used to “help local and state authorities to restore and maintain law and order” in the event of mass riots, civil unrest or a declaration of martial law.

On page 20 of the manual, rules regarding the use of “deadly force” in confronting “dissidents” on American soil are made disturbingly clear with the directive that a, “Warning shot will not be fired.”

Given that second amendment advocates are now being depicted as dangerous terrorists by the federal government and local law enforcement, Garrow’s claim is sure to stoke controversy given that Americans are seeing their gun rights eviscerated while the federal government itself stockpiles billions of bullets.

Last week, Gloversville Mayor Dayton King warned that any federal gun confiscation program could lead to a “Waco-style standoff” in rural areas of America.

-

“URBAN WARFARE TRAINING” AND THE MILITARIZATION OF AMERICA

By Bill Van Auken | Global Research
July 27, 2013

This week’s deployment of Blackhawk helicopters in Chicago is only the latest in a series of “urban warfare training” exercises that have become a familiar feature of American life.

As elsewhere, this exercise was sprung unannounced on a startled civilian population. Conducted in secrecy, apparently with the collusion of local police agencies and elected officials, Democrats and Republicans alike, the ostensible purpose of these exercises is to give US troops experience in what Pentagon doctrine refers to as “Military Operations on Urban Terrain.”

Such operations are unquestionably of central importance to the US military. Over the past decade, its primary mission, as evidenced in Afghanistan and Iraq, has been the invasion and occupation of relatively powerless countries and the subjugation of their resisting populations, often in house-to-house fighting in urban centers.

The Army operates a 1,000 acre Urban Training Center in south-central Indiana that boasts over 1,500 “training structures” designed to simulate houses, schools, hospitals and factories. The center’s web site states that it “can be tailored to replicate both foreign and domestic scenarios.”

What does flying Blackhawks low over Chicago apartment buildings or rolling armored military convoys through the streets of St. Louis accomplish that cannot be achieved through the sprawling training center’s simulations? Last year alone, there were at least seven such exercises, including in Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, Tampa, St. Louis, Minneapolis and Creeds, Virginia.

The most obvious answer is that these exercises accustom troops to operating in US cities, while desensitizing the American people to the domestic deployment of US military might.

Preparations for such deployments are already far advanced. Over the past decade, under the pretext of prosecuting a “global war on terror,” Washington has enacted a raft of repressive legislation and created a vast new bureaucracy of state control under the Department of Homeland Security. Under the Obama administration, the White House has claimed the power to throw enemies of the state into indefinite military detention or even assassinate them on US soil by means of drone strikes, while radically expanding electronic spying on the American population.

Part of this process has been the ceaseless growth of the power of the US military and its increasing intervention into domestic affairs. In 2002, the creation of the US Northern Command for the first time dedicated a military command to operations within the US itself.

Just last May, the Pentagon announced the implementation of new rules of engagement for US military forces operating on American soil to provide “support” to “civilian law enforcement authorities, including responses to civil disturbances.”

The document declares sweeping and unprecedented military powers under a section entitled “Emergency Authority.” It asserts the authority of a “federal military commander” in “extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the president is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.” In other words, the Pentagon brass claims the unilateral authority to impose martial law.

These powers are not being asserted for the purpose of defending the US population against terrorism or to counter some hypothetical emergency. The US military command is quite conscious of where the danger lies.

In a recent article, a senior instructor at the Fort Leavenworth Command and General Staff College and former director of the Army’s School of Advanced Military Studies laid out a telling scenario for a situation in which the military could intervene.

“The Great Recession of the early twenty-first century lasts far longer than anyone anticipated. After a change in control of the White House and Congress in 2012, the governing party cuts off all funding that had been dedicated to boosting the economy or toward relief. The United States economy has flatlined, much like Japan’s in the 1990s, for the better part of a decade. By 2016, the economy shows signs of reawakening, but the middle and lower-middle classes have yet to experience much in the way of job growth or pay raises. Unemployment continues to hover perilously close to double digits …”

In other words, the Pentagon sees these conditions—which differ little from what exists in the US today—producing social upheavals that can be quelled only by means of military force.

What is being upended, behind the scenes and with virtually no media coverage, much less public debate, are constitutional principles dating back centuries that bar the use of the military in civilian law enforcement. In the Declaration of Independence itself, the indictment justifying revolution against King George included the charge that he had “affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.”

Side by side with the rising domestic power of the military, the supposedly civilian police have been militarized. An article published by the Wall Street Journal last weekend entitled “The Rise of the Warrior Cop” graphically described this process:

“Driven by martial rhetoric and the availability of military-style equipment—from bayonets and M-16 rifles to armored personnel carriers—American police forces have often adopted a mind-set previously reserved for the battlefield. The war on drugs and, more recently, post-9/11 antiterrorism efforts have created a new figure on the US scene: the warrior cop—armed to the teeth, ready to deal harshly with targeted wrongdoers, and a growing threat to familiar American liberties.”

The article describes the vast proliferation of SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) units to virtually every town in America, fueled by some $35 billion in grants from the Department of Homeland Security, “with much of the money going to purchase military gear such as armored personnel carriers.”

This armed force was on full display in April when what amounted to a state of siege was imposed on the city of Boston, ostensibly to capture one teenage suspect. The entire population of a major American city was locked in their homes as combat-equipped police, virtually indistinguishable from troops, occupied the streets and conducted warrantless house-to-house searches.

Underlying this unprecedented militarization of US society are two parallel processes. The immense widening of the social chasm separating the billionaires and multi-millionaires who control economic and political life from American working people, the great majority of the population, is fundamentally incompatible with democracy and requires other forms of rule. At the same time, the turn to militarism as the principal instrument of US foreign policy has vastly increased the power of the military within the US state apparatus.

Both America’s ruling oligarchy and the Pentagon command recognize that profound social polarization and deepening economic crisis must give rise to social upheavals. They are preparing accordingly.

-

DIVERSE TERROR ATTACKS RESULT IN ENDLESS DRILLS

State and local governments continue to beef up their response teams, expending millions in the process

Julie Wilson
Infowars.com

August 14, 2013

Government alleged “terrorist attacks” can take many forms these days ranging from biological warfare to remotely hijacking your car or even detonating a bomb out of a backpack. Despite proof that historically most of these attacks have been organized by the government for political gains, states continue to routinely coordinate emergency response drills.

Multifarious “terror threats” have managed to spread into nearly every city and state across the country preparing first responders and conditioning citizens for any kind of “emergency” you can think of.

This week Columbus, Ohio plans to engage in a training exercise that will involve nearly 6,000 military staff and veterans in order to simulate a “terrorist attack,” reports WBNS-TV.

The state will use resources from the following agencies: Ohio Emergency Management Agency, Franklin County Emergency Management, Homeland Security, Department of Defense and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to perform a drill at military Camp Atterbury and also at Camp Muscatatuck in southern Indiana.

Surely assembling state and government agencies to perform drills isn’t exactly budget friendly.  When weighed with the probability of these “attacks” actually occurring, funds could seemingly be put to better use.

Last week 600 National Guard troops and airmen conducted a drill simulating a massive chemical train derailment in Westchester County, N.Y. Troops carrying out the drill wore hazardous material suits and searched for “victims” of a mock spill that would’ve threatened communities, reported WCBS.

Reuters released a report last spring describing the “first simulated test of a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant” in Pa. as a success. Although the test was performed at Three Mile Island, the site of the worst commercial nuclear accident in U.S. history, officials said the location had no significance. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has mandated 65 nuclear power plants to practice terrorist attack drills every two years, testing their preparedness. The test involved 1,200 participants in 76 municipalities including 15 school districts.

In April the NYPD orchestrated a $3.4 million drill meant to bolster the department’s response to a biological warfare attack in the city’s subway system. Police released what they called “harmless” gas into 21 of the city’s 34 subway lines over a three day period in an attempt to monitor the colorless gas tracing it as it dispersed, reported RT.

Experts argue the gas used wasn’t so harmless. In fact, the NYPD themselves admitted in their drill notice that the health affects of per-fluorocarbons are widely unknown. Infowars disclosed the dangers in a report linking gas exposure to the early onset of menopause and revealed that animals exposed to the gas suffered from altered liver and thyroid function, increased tumor risks and failed reproductive organs.

The N.Y. gas drill originated after investigators allegedly “foiled an Al-Qaeda terrorist plot” to bomb the New York subways on the eighth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, reported Fox News.

Attorney General Eric Holder called it “one of the most serious threats” to the US since 2001.

Of course Holder’s statement came prior to the latest “global terror alert” that originated in early August and is set to span the entire month, leaving several US embassies closed and instilling fear into traveling Americans worldwide.

An Infowars report illustrated the State Department’s attempt to justify and even deflect the spotlight aimed at the NSA following whistle blower Edward Snowden’s release of secret documents that confirmed the agencies’ spy tactics are directly targeting innocent Americans.

Infowars reporter Paul Joseph Watson argues that the global issued terror alert is a ploy to “damped opposition to drone strikes” that have now spread into Yemen  killing a total of 37 since late July.

The “global terror alert” followed national exposure of the CIA running an arms smuggling operation during last year’s Benghazi attack that left Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans dead, further highlighting the depths of corruption operating within the CIA.

According to Paul Joseph Watson’s report, 50 civilians are killed for each terrorist that’s taken out by a drone strike, meaning 95% of deaths resulting from drone strikes are innocent men, women and children.

Even more recently, Austin, Texas and Pasadena, Calif. managed to become targets for a potential backpack bomb following the conclusion of the Ramadan period. A DHS document leaked to Infowars late last week claimed “unspecified terrorists or a terrorist group will emulate the Boston bombing by using backpack explosives. The target is said to be 6th Street in Austin, a popular tourist attraction that is crowded on weekends.”

Despite the low probability of being killed in a terrorist attack, state and local governments continue to beef up their response teams, expending millions in the process. They ignore the fact that you’re one thousand times more likely to die in a car accident, which Obama admitted himself on a recent Jay Leno appearance.

These simulated terrorist attack drills serve no purpose but to restrain the public to a constant state of fear conditioning them to habitual military control and presence. Meanwhile the world’s most powerful terrorist, the US government, conducts business as usual compromising the safety of Americans through a slew of foreign policies that includes the slaughter of innocent men, women and children.

With the continuous growth of government, particularly in the branches that exert authoritative control, terror drills are most likely here.  They provide the military an excuse to maintain their ominous presence offering the government a smokescreen to camouflage their staged terror attacks.

-

FORBES: 1.6 BILLION ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION FOR HOMELAND SECURITY?  IT’S TIME FOR A NATIONAL CONVERSATION

-

Soldiers from the 41st Infantry Regiment, 1st ...

-

by Ralph Benko, Contributor | Forbes
March 11, 2013

The Denver Post, on February 15th, ran an Associated Press article entitled Homeland Security aims to buy 1.6b rounds of ammo, so far to little notice.  It confirmed that the Department of Homeland Security has issued an open purchase order for 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition.  As reported elsewhere, some of this purchase order is for hollow-point rounds, forbidden by international law for use in war, along with a frightening amount specialized for snipers. Also reported elsewhere, at the height of the Iraq War the Army was expending less than 6 million rounds a month.  Therefore 1.6 billion rounds would be enough to sustain a hot war for 20+ years.  In America.

Add to this perplexing outré purchase of ammo, DHS now is showing off its acquisition of heavily armored personnel carriers, repatriated from the Iraqi and Afghani theaters of operation.  As observed by “paramilblogger” Ken Jorgustin last September:

“[T]he Department of Homeland Security is apparently taking delivery (apparently through the  Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico VA, via the manufacturer – Navistar Defense LLC) of an undetermined number of the recently retrofitted 2,717 ‘Mine Resistant Protected’ MaxxPro MRAP vehicles for service on the streets of the United States.”

These MRAP’s ARE BEING SEEN ON U.S. STREETS all across America by verified observers with photos, videos, and descriptions.”

Regardless of the exact number of MRAP’s being delivered to DHS (and evidently some to POLICE via DHS, as has been observed), why would they need such over-the-top vehicles on U.S. streets to withstand IEDs, mine blasts, and 50 caliber hits to bullet-proof glass? In a war zone… yes, definitely. Let’s protect our men and women. On the streets of America… ?”

“They all have gun ports… Gun Ports? In the theater of war, yes. On the streets of America…?

Seriously, why would DHS need such a vehicle on our streets?”

Why indeed?  It is utterly inconceivable that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is planning a coup d’etat against President Obama, and the Congress, to install herself as Supreme Ruler of the United States of America.  There, however, are real signs that the Department bureaucrats are running amok.  About 20 years ago this columnist worked, for two years, in the U.S. Department of Energy’s general counsel’s office in its procurement and finance division.  And is wise to the ways.   The answer to “why would DHS need such a vehicle?” almost certainly is this:  it’s a cool toy and these (reportedly) million dollar toys are being recycled, without much of a impact on the DHS budget.  So… why not?

Why, indeed, should the federal government not be deploying armored personnel carriers and stockpiling enough ammo for a 20-year war in the homeland?  Because it’s wrong in every way.  President Obama has an opportunity, now, to live up to some of his rhetoric by helping the federal government set a noble example in a matter very close to his heart (and that of his Progressive base), one not inimical to the Bill of Rights: gun control.  The federal government can (for a nice change) begin practicing what it preaches by controlling itself.

Remember the Sequester?  The president is claiming its budget cuts will inconvenience travelers by squeezing essential services provided by the (opulently armed and stylishly uniformed) DHS.  Quality ammunition is not cheap.  (Of course, news reports that DHS is about to spend $50 million on new uniforms suggests a certain cavalier attitude toward government frugality.)

Spending money this way is beyond absurd well into perverse.  According to the AP story a DHS spokesperson justifies this acquisition to “help the government get a low price for a big purchase.” Peggy Dixon, spokeswoman for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center:  “The training center and others like it run by the Homeland Security Department use as many as 15 million rounds every year, mostly on shooting ranges and in training exercises.”

At 15 million rounds (which, in itself, is pretty extraordinary and sounds more like fun target-shooting-at-taxpayer-expense than a sensible training exercise) … that’s a stockpile that would last DHS over a century.  To claim that it’s to “get a low price” for a ridiculously wasteful amount is an argument that could only fool a career civil servant.

Meanwhile, Senator Diane Feinstein, with the support of President Obama, is attempting to ban 100 capacity magazine clips.  Doing a little apples-to-oranges comparison, here, 1.6 billion rounds is … 16 million times more objectionable.

Mr. Obama has a long history of disdain toward gun ownership.  According to Prof. John Lott, in Debacle, a book he co-authored with iconic conservative strategist Grover Norquist,

“When I was first introduced to Obama (when both worked at the University of Chicago Law School, where Lott was famous for his analysis of firearms possession), he said, ‘Oh, you’re the gun guy.’

I responded: ‘Yes, I guess so.’

’I don’t believe that people should own guns,’ Obama replied.

I then replied that it might be fun to have lunch and talk about that statement some time.

He simply grimaced and turned away. …

Unlike other liberal academics who usually enjoyed discussing opposing ideas, Obama showed disdain.”

Mr. Obama?  Where’s the disdain now?  Cancelling, or at minimum, drastically scaling back — by 90% or even 99%, the DHS order for ammo, and its receipt and deployment of armored personnel carriers, would be a “fourfer.”

  • The federal government would set an example of restraint in the matter of weaponry.
  • It would reduce the deficit without squeezing essential services.
  • It would do both in a way that was palatable to liberals and conservatives, slightly depolarizing America.
  • It would somewhat defuse, by the government making itself less armed-to-the-teeth, the anxiety of those who mistrust the benevolence of the federales.

If Obama doesn’t show any leadership on this matter it’s an opportunity for Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, to summon Secretary Napolitano over for a little national conversation. Madame Secretary?  Buying 1.6 billion rounds of ammo and deploying armored personnel carriers runs contrary, in every way, to what “homeland security” really means.

-

TSA TO PURCHASE 3.5 MILLION ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION

Enough for its agents to fire 9,400 bullets a day, every day of the year

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
August 19, 2013

The Transportation Security Administration is set to purchase 3.5 million .357 SIG caliber bullets, enough for its agents to fire 9,400 rounds a day, every day of the year.

Image: YouTube

According to a solicitation issued by the agency on August 16, the TSA is looking to buy “3,454,000 rounds of .347 SIG Caliber Training Ammunition”.

Although TSA agents in airports are currently unarmed, last month the TSA announced its plan to hire the use of a firing range within a 20 mile radius of LaGuardia Airport in order to train TSA workers.

The federal agency’s huge bullet buy could signal an expansion of its controversial Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) program, where teams of armed TSA officers patrol railroad stations, bus stations, ferries, car tunnels, ports, subways, truck weigh stations, rest areas, and special events.

VIPR teams currently conduct around 8,000 operations a year. As well as providing security at transport hubs, VIPR teams are now being used to keep tabs on fans at sporting events.

Earlier this month it was announced that VIPR agents would now be patting down Americans “outside the airport” by conducting stop and search shake downs at transport hubs and public events.

As Government Security News notes, the amount of ammunition being purchased, “means the TSA could fire off more than 9,400 rounds per day, every day of the year, to consume that entire quantity annually.”

Significant bullet purchases by the TSA are likely to fuel concerns that the federal government is arming itself to the teeth in preparation for some form of domestic unrest or other catastrophe, following the Department of Homeland Security’s commitment to purchase more than 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition over the course of the last 18 months.

As we reported last week, Congressman Jeff Duncan’s attempt to get answers on why the IRS is also training its agents with semi-automatic AR-15′s designed for “standoff capability” has been ignored by the federal agency.

-

WASHINGTON STILL SUCKING UP AMMUNITION SUPPLIES

TSA now wants to buy 3.5 million rounds

by Bob Unruh | World Net Daily

The federal government drew the ire of Congress for sucking up ammunition supplies so fast that citizens and even police forces have been unable to meet their own needs.

Lawmakers looked into legislation to force the feds to back off, but apparently nothing has been done.

The latest agency to buy massive amounts of ammunition is the Transportation Security Administration, which doesn’t even arm most of its agents.

The FedBizOpps.gov website reports that the TSA is seeking to purchase nearly 3.5 million rounds of .347 SIG caliber training ammunition. Weapons experts told WND the .347 is an unknown caliber, and the document likely contained a mistake, instead intending to reference a .357 caliber.

The agency’s workers mostly are unarmed, with the primary exception being the federal air marshals who travel aboard airliners to deter and respond to violence, hijackings and terrorism.

There are no firm numbers available on the number of agents, but experts estimate there are several thousand. The planned purchase, then, would give the agency the availability of nearly 10,000 rounds per day for “training.”

TSA officials declined to respond to a WND request for more information.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitan0 admitted in April that the federal government was drying up ammunition supplies.

She was asked by a House panel about the huge government purchases, estimated to be in the range of 1.6 billion rounds, enough for many years of war at the rate ammunition is used by the U.S. military.

Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., wanted to know whether the reports were accurate.

“This was a five-year strategic sourcing contract for up to one-point-whatever billion rounds,” she confirmed.

Calculations done by the Washington Examiner suggest the reported 1.6 billion rounds would be enough for “something like a 24-year supply of ammunition on hand.”

Other consumers of ammunition, however, from the weekend hunter to police departments, are finding the shelves bare.

For example, Utica, N.Y., police have been told it could take up to 10 months to get the ammunition they order. The department especially is having trouble getting .223 and .45 caliber rounds, the type that the federal government also orders.

In Mobile, Ala., Nick Sagler said, “You can’t find what you need.”

And Jeremy Windle called it an “extreme shortage.”

Ronica Williams, at the Greater Gulf State Fairgrounds gun show, said all of the ordinary supplies are back-ordered “six months or better.”

In Boca Raton, Fla., the problem is just as bad.

“Right now ammo’s pretty hard to get. People bought everything that was to be bought, They’ve completely cleaned out the supply chain,” said a gunsmith.

U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., believes the purchase orders by the Department of Homeland Security are part of an “intentional” effort by the Obama administration to “dry up the market” for gun-owning citizens.

“We have in this country the Second Amendment that preserves the right to keep and bear arms,” Inhofe told radio host Aaron Klein, “and the president doesn’t believe in that.”

Inhofe was a guest on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on New York City’s WABC, talking about his Ammunition Management for More Obtainability – or AMMO – bill, which is designed to limit non-defense, armed federal agencies to pre-Obama levels of ammunition. The bill, S.843, has been referred to Senate committee, while a similar bill sponsored by Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Okla., has been referred to House committee.

“President Obama has been doing everything he could to stop the private ownership of guns in America,” Inhofe asserted. “Yet he’s been voted down in a big way by a large majority, and so my feeling is that he’s doing this to buy up [ammunition] so honest, law-abiding citizens here in the United States, like my son, can’t even buy ammunition because government is purchasing so much.”

The DHS has claimed it’s placing bulk orders to save money and that 80 percent of the ammunition is used for training purposes, but Inhofe isn’t buying the explanation.

“We had someone testify the other day the DHS has the ‘right’ – this is a bureaucrat who said this – they have the ‘right’ to buy as much as they want, and they’re planning to buy 750 million rounds,” Inhofe said. “That is more than three times the amount our soldiers are using for training to defend our nation.”

“I believe it’s intentional,” Inhofe said of the ammunition shortages many private and local law enforcement purchasers are experiencing. “It’s just another effort to restrict gun activity and ownership.”

The government has explained that to qualify to fly armed, the person must be a law enforcement officer, have a reason or need for the weapon, and be qualified by position and training.

“The officer must need to have the weapon accessible from the time he or she would otherwise check the weapon until the time it would be claimed after deplaning. The need to have the weapon accessible must be determined by the employing agency, department, or service and be based on [several factors].”

The factors include the need to provide protection, the need to arrive “prepared for duty” or to have control of a prisoner.

The purchase plan describes the products only as “TSA Training Ammunition.”

Paul Joseph Watson, who repeatedly has documented such purchases at Infowars.com, noted the TSA announced last month it wanted to rent a firing range near LaGuardia Airport in New York City.

“Significant bullet purchases by the TSA are likely to fuel concerns that the federal government is arming itself to the teeth in preparation for some form of domestic unrest or other catastrophe, following the Department of Homeland Security’s commitment to purchase more than 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition over the course of the last 18 months,” he reported.

He noted it also could signal a huge expansion of the agency’s Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response program, which essentially is TSA agents confronting travelers at bus stations, ferry ports, car tunnels, subways, rest areas and other locations and demanding they be patted down.

In Catoosa, Okla., law enforcement agencies have reported paying a lot more for ammunition. In some locations, police departments have requested help from residents with ammo supplies, because their own sources have run out.

WND’s reports also have included plans by the FBI to spend up to $100 million over five years on millions of rounds for its machine guns and pistols.

According to a solicitation revised and released March 25 that WND discovered during routine database research, the FBI is gathering the ammunition “to be carried and fired [by FBI Special Agents] in defense of life” as well as for training purposes.

The ammunition includes a combination of field-ready Glock 9mm rounds as well as reduced-lead training ammo. Weapons listed in the Statement of Work, or SOW, are Glock Model 17, Glock Model 19, Glock Model 26, SIG Sauer P226, SIG Sauer P228, Heckler and Koch MP5 9mm submachine gun (K, A2, A3, SF and SD versions).

Among the federal plans:

  • Although DHS has not yet awarded contracts in that proposed CBP acquisition, late last year it revealed its intention to buy 250 million rounds of Smith & Wesson .40 ammunition over the life of a five-year contract.
  • DHS separately issued a revised solicitation to buy a combination of 100,000 handgun and rifle rounds destined for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, or FLTC, in Artesia, N.M. It did not disclose the estimated cost.
  • The department also additionally released another amended procurement notice for 360,000 rounds of jacketed hollow-point .40 caliber training ammo also destined for the Artseia FLTC.
  • InfoWars.com reported on the initial release of that particular procurement earlier.
  • Although the estimated cost of the solicitation, likewise, has not been disclosed, DHS recently awarded a $49,000 contract to Grace Ammo LLC for a similar batch of ammo for the Artesia facility.
  • DHS in January purchased an additional 200,000 rounds of jacketed hollow-point .40 caliber rounds. It awarded a $46,000 contract to Evian Group Inc. in that instance.

The developments appear to coincide with the goals of Democratic strategists.

Their 80-page document, titled “Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging,” urges gun-control advocates use images of frightening-looking guns and shooting scenes to make their point.

“The most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak,” the guide insists. “The debate over gun violence in America is periodically punctuated by high-profile gun violence incidents including Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, the Trayvon Martin killing, Aurora and Oak Creek. When an incident such as these attracts sustained media attention, it creates a unique climate for our communications efforts.”

The manual offers a step-by-step guide on how to stir up sympathy for victims, arrest the “moral authority” from opposing groups like the National Rifle Association and keep the debate emotional instead of allowing facts to interfere.

“Essentially it’s a how-to book on inciting a moral panic,” comments James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal.

The guidebook, discovered by the Second Amendment Foundation and reported by Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner, was prepared by four strategists, including Al Quinlan of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, which touts it is “committed to progressive goals” and includes among its clients the American Civil Liberties Union, Planned Parenthood and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, among dozens of other left-leaning organizations.

But at least some of the gun restriction strategies already have backfired. In Colorado, where majority Democrats pushed through this year a multitude of new gun laws and limits, found a community organization could no longer do gun buybacks in which owners turn over weapons to local activists who then destroy them.

That’s because of the new law requiring a background check for every individual purchase, every weapon, every time. Officials said it was impossible to set it up so that background checks could be done on the agencies for each weapon that is purchased, so the sale would not be legal.

It was in June when DHS plans to buy rounds were targeted by Congress. Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., said there are questions about the purchase plans that need to be answered.

And in May, Proctor, Minn., police chief Walter Wobig said he was asking his residents to help supply ammunition, because the town’s supplier had informed him it would be months before his order could be filled.

The attack on gun rights and ammunition supplies under the Obama administration has prompted resistance.

WND reported on a video dramatization that was created to demonstrate in shocking, living color one reason gun-rights advocates resist bans on high-capacity magazines for firearms: Armed thugs don’t always attack alone.

The video by MB Studio Productions depicts a startling but believable scenario in which armed thieves target a house when the family is at home. The family calls 911 and the father quickly retrieves his pistol from a gun safe. But after fending off the first armed intruder, the father stands horrified after pulling the trigger on a gun now empty of bullets as the second intruder enters the home.

The dramatization’s final scene is tragic, and the video concludes with the words, “Because your government decided how many rounds you need to protect your family.”

-

TSA INVADES TRAIN TERMINALS, SPORTING EVENTS, MUSIC FESTIVALS AND RODEOS

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com

August 9, 2013

It is said the Transportation Security Administration was originally established as a response to the September 11, 2001, attacks. If this is the case, then the Department of Homeland Security, the federal agency now exercising authority over the agency, must think al-Qaeda will soon target rodeos.

-

-

On Monday, the New York Times reported the TSA’s widely covered mission creep has infested “sporting events, music festivals, rodeos, highway weigh stations and train terminals” and admits not “everyone is happy” about the Americanized version of the Gestapo fanning out across the nation.

The Transportation Security Administration’s Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response squads — also known as VIPR teams – are so pervasive even members of Congress are beginning to complain and question their deployment.

TSA bureaucrats like to pretend their intrusive and largely resented “random searches” at public events do not violate the Fourth Amendment and insist the illegal searches are “special needs” or “administrative” in nature and exempt from probable cause because they are designed to prevent terrorist attacks.

Despite this claim, the agency has yet to provide evidence the Gestapo-like VIPR teams have actually ever foiled a terrorist plot. Any such evidence, they remind us, is strictly classified.

“But they argue that the random searches and presence of armed officers serve as a deterrent that bolsters the public confidence,” the New York Times reports as it neglects to mention the public’s widespread contempt and disgust for the agency infamous for sexually molesting children and lying to the public about the risks posed by radiation-emitting naked body porno scanners.

So-called security experts, cops, Amtrak bureaucrats, and other elements of officialdom, however, continue to ignore an outraged public. Instead, they call for continuing and expanding TSA police state tactics.

“This is a gray area,” Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and ranking member on the House Homeland Security Committee, remarked about the effectiveness of the TSA and its desire to expand into various public venues.

“It’s hard to quantify the usefulness of these teams based on what we have seen so far,” Thompson said about militarized VIPR teams roaming airports, train stations, rodeos and music festivals in search of elusive terrorists.

In response to growing concern about VIPR moving into train stations and beyond, the TSA has promised to get the public up to speed, according to the Times.

-

VETERAN MARINE CORPS COLONEL: HOMELAND SECURITY BUILDING “DOMESTIC ARMY”

-

Fallujah veteran says government is afraid of its own citizens

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com

August 15, 2013

A former Marine Corps Colonel who was stationed in Fallujah and trained Iraqi soldiers warns that the Department of Homeland Security is working with law enforcement to build a “domestic army,” because the federal government is afraid of its own citizens.

-

-

The comments by the Colonel, whose identity remains unknown, were made during public testimony at a Concord City Council meeting on Tuesday. The meeting concerned a decision on whether to accept a $260,000 Homeland Security grant on behalf of the Central New Hampshire Special Operations Unit to purchase a BearCat armored vehicle.

The purchase of the vehicle has been surrounded by controversy after the city’s Police Chief wrote in an application filing to the DHS that the vehicle was needed to deal with the “threat” posed by libertarians, sovereign citizen adherents, and Occupy activists in the region.

Referencing signs in the crowd which read “More Mayberry, Less Fallujah,” the Colonel spoke of how he didn’t even have armored vehicles when he was stationed in Fallujah.

The Colonel’s role as a Ministry of Defense coordinator was to command, train and equip the Iraqi Army, noting that he helped do everything he could “to make it as strong as possible,” but that “Homeland Security would kick their butts in a week.”

Stressing that it was unlawful and unconstitutional to use US troops on American soil, the Colonel warned, “What’s happening here is we’re building a domestic military,” adding that police are now “wearing the exact same combat gear that we had in Iraq, only it was a different color.”

The Colonel warned that the DHS was following military tactics by, “pre-staging gear and equipment” in order to build a “domestic army” while shrinking the US military “because the government is afraid of its own citizens.”

The Colonel slammed the idea of law enforcement purchasing militarized vehicles for domestic security, noting, “The last time more than ten terrorists were in one place at the same time was September 11th and all these vehicles in the world wouldn’t have prevented it nor would it have helped anybody.”

“I don’t know where we’re going to use this many vehicles or this many troops,” he continued, “Concord is just one cog in the wheel – we’re building an army over here and I can’t believe that people aren’t seeing it – is everybody blind?”

In his initial application to the DHS for the grant to purchase the armored vehicle, Police Chief John Duval wrote, “The State of New Hampshire’s experience with terrorism slants primarily towards the domestic type. We are fortunate that our State has not been victimized from a mass casualty event from an international terrorism strike however on the domestic front, the threat is real and here. Groups such as the Sovereign Citizens, Free Staters and Occupy New Hampshire are active and present daily challenges.”

Duval’s characterization of activists from across the political spectrum as terrorists prompted outrage but he refused to apologize, merely clarifying that his application may not have been worded correctly. Following the removal of the terms Sovereign Citizens, Free Staters and Occupy New Hampshire from the application, the DHS made it clear that the grant would be approved.

As the Concord Monitor reports, Tuesday’s public testimony also included a warning from Irena Goddard, who grew up in Czechoslovakia.

“I do not want this deadly intimidation force of a military vehicle to suppress free speech, much like what was done with communist military tanks in Czechoslovakia,” she said.

Resident Jesse Mertz remarked that the militarization of law enforcement signaled that, “The military industrial complex has infiltrated every part of our society to the point where it’s now happening in our hometowns, and we’re seeing stuff occur that people said would never happen in our own country.”

The Concord Council delayed the decision to purchase the vehicle and the matter will be taken up once again at next month’s meeting.

-

INHOFE: U.S. MILITARY IS BUT A SHADOW

Says Constitution calls for strong national defense

by World Net Daily

Oklahoma’s senior senator says the U.S. military is suffering – severely – under the administration of Barack Obama.

“We have a hollow force,” Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., told the told the Norman Transcript in a visit to the Oklahoma newspaper’s office.

The senator was in the region for a visit to Tinker Air Force Base regarding a federal commission assigned to examine cost efficiency in the military.

He told the newspaper he wants the Senate Arms Service Committee to hear the report.

“It’s a good group to come in and tell the truth,” he said.

Inhofe said the U.S. military needs to be rebuilt, and if there’s a need to cut spending, the “bloated bureaucracies” are a good place to start.

He said he supports a strong national defense because it’s “what the Constitution says we should do.”

Inhofe told the Oklahoma newspaper he’s one of the senators willing to hold up the budget to fight Obamacare. He also said he wants to end the war on fossil fuels and to crack down on regulations.

The senator, who has written a book on global warming, “The Greatest Hoax,” said he would like to remain in the Senate to see a GOP majority.

His comments on the military come as budgets are being slashed and operations restricted because of the budgetary priorities under the Obama administration.

In a WND commentary, Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, author of “Dead Men Flying,” blasted Obama’s “emasculation, socialization and feminization of our military.”

He described it as a greater threat to the U.S. than the economy.

“Can you see him as a fighter pilot a la the Bushes? Or commanding a PT boat as did John Kennedy? This is not a man I would want with me in combat and neither should America,” Brady wrote.

“Under the leadership of the Obama/[Robert] Gates/[Michael] Mullen trinity, our military has suffered as never before. Gates supervised the waste and fiscal incompetence at the Pentagon (millions of dollars lost). He instituted an insane op tempo (60 out of 80 months deployed is not unusual), causing unprecedented suicide and PTSD rates among soldiers and depression and anxiety in their families. Military pay cuts are coming, and the administration actually lost graves and urns at Arlington. There is an effort to raise health insurance premiums for retirees. The number of stolen top-secret documents is unmatched in our history. On the silly side, Gates’ Pentagon actually considered giving medals to soldiers for not shooting!” he said.

“On the battlefield, they have stripped the premier combat life saver, Aeromedical Evacuation, from the medics. This is the first time a medical resource has been so usurped since the Civil War, and I have heard horror stories from the battlefield on delayed reaction times. (I actually had a soldier from Iraq turn his back on me when I told him I was a Dust Off pilot in Vietnam; he said forces had failed to react in time to save his friend’s life.) It may be a surprise to Vietnam veterans that the Congress authorized a program to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Vietnam War and honor its veterans; but it will be no surprise that Gates drastically cut its funds. We will soon be longing for the ‘hollow military’ of the ’70s.”

He continued, calling the lack of military expertise in the Obama administration stunning.

“Obama’s replacement for Gates, Leon Panetta, had an astonishing response in answer to a query concerning why we ignored the plea for help from the Americans about to be slaughtered in Benghazi: ‘You don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what is going on.’ Excuse me. Did we not know that Americans were under attack and pleading for help? What else do you need to know? By his standard you would never go. In combat and chaos you are never sure of what is going on. Is it the standard of this administration that American should never risk lives to save lives? Risking lives to save lives is the essence of our wars!”

He warned of the consequences: “America is impotent without a strong military – and so is American policy. Our military strength is the one sure force for peace in the world. It deters the bad guys – not only from attacking us but others as well. Weakness emboldens evil, and ultimately we will be drawn into some disaster whether we like it or not. All the sheep and chickens in the world – and many liberals – would like for everyone to be vegetarians – won’t happen, there are too many wolves out there. Yet how could any objective, informed person not see the deliberate dismantling of our military? Obama personally authored sequestration, which will bench us from the field of world affairs.”

-

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MANUAL: “EXTREMIST’ FOUNDING FATHERS ‘WOULD NOT BE WELCOME IN TODAY’S MILITARY’

Manual lists people concerned with “individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place” as potential extremists

Adan Salazar
Infowars.com
August 24, 2013

Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch recently obtained a Department of Defense training manual which lists people who embrace “individual liberties” and honor “states’ rights,” among other characteristics, as potential “extremists” who are likely to be members of “hate groups.”

dodman

Marked “for training purposes only,” the documents, obtained Thursday through a Freedom of Information Act request submitted in April, include PowerPoint slides and lesson plans, among which is a January 2013 Air Force “student guide” distributed by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute simply entitled “Extremism.”

Judicial Watch’s FOIA request asked for “Any and all records concerning, regarding, or related to the preparation and presentation of training materials on hate groups or hate crimes distributed or used by the Air Force.”

As the group notes, “The document defines extremists as ‘a person who advocates the use of force or violence; advocates supremacist causes based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or national origin; or otherwise engages to illegally deprive individuals or groups of their civil rights.’”

The manual goes on to bar military personnel from “active participation” in such extremist organization activities as “publicly demonstrating,” “rallying,” “fundraising” and “organizing,” basically denying active-duty military from exercising the rights they so ardently fight to defend.

It begins its introduction of a section titled, “Extremist ideologies,” by describing the American colonists who sought independence from British rule as a historical example of extremism.

“In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples,” according to the training guide.

In a section drawing inspiration from a 1992 book titled “Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe: Political Extremism in America,” the manual also lists “Doomsday thinking” under “traits or behaviors that tend to represent the extremist style.”

Extremists often predict dire or catastrophic consequences from a situation or from a failure to follow a specific course, and they tend to exhibit a kind of crisis-mindedness. It can be a Communist takeover, a Nazi revival, nuclear war, earthquakes, floods, or the wrath of God. Whatever it is, it is just around the corner unless we follow their program and listen to their special insight and wisdom, to which only the truly enlightened have access. For extremists, any setback or defeat is the beginning of the end.

“Nowadays,” the manual explains, “instead of dressing in sheets or publicly espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.”

Judicial Watch also acknowledges the Southern Poverty Law Center “is listed as a resource for information on hate groups and referenced several times throughout the guide,” even though the group itself was directly responsible for a “hate crime” perpetrated on the Family Research Council after it was listed on the SPLC’s “hate map.”

Infowars readers will find much of the training guide’s contents unsurprising as they merely reinforce what we have exhaustively documented in the past.

In 2009, Infowars obtained the “law enforcement sensitive” contents of a Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report entitled “The Modern Militia Movement” which listed supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as potential “militia” influenced terrorists.

Also, in July 2012 Infowars blew the lid on a Department of Homeland Security-funded study, produced by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland, that characterized Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.

Indeed, the latest report echoes scenes from Alex Jones’ prescient documentary 9/11: The Road to Tyranny, made over a decade ago, which covered the fact that FEMA and other government bureaus have for years been training law enforcement agencies to regard people who espouse conservative ideologies, such as those represented by the Founding Fathers, as terrorists.

-

-

It can no longer be denied that military and local law enforcement crosshairs have gradually been realigned from targeting phantom terrorists overseas to targeting domestic “extremists,” a broad, all-encompassing term that accommodates anyone generally challenging or questioning the status quo.

As Judicial Watch notes, although the documents were obtained through the Air Force, the fact that they originated in a DOD office means they have likely been distributed throughout the government’s various agencies.

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton concluded that the documents fall in line with the Obama administration’s “nasty habit of equating basic conservative values with terrorism,” and that the language closely “echoes the IRS targeting language of conservative and Tea Party investigations.” “And now… its Defense Department suggests that the Founding Fathers, and many conservative Americans, would not be welcome in today’s military… After reviewing this document, one can’t help but worry for the future and morale of our nation’s armed forces.”

-

BEAN-

OBAMA’S AMERICA IS BECOMING A POLICE STATE

by Bob Russell | Conservative Daily News

April 7, 2013

Tyranny doesn’t happen over-night.  It happens in a series of events that build on themselves until you wake up one morning and life as you know it is gone forever, liberty is a thing of the past.  Adolph Hitler didn’t just start rounding up Jews on a whim.  He spent years putting the infrastructure in place to install his totalitarian state.  They had control of everything; the media, the child indoctrination centers they referred to as “public schools”, the monetary and economic structure, and national and local police departments.  Hitler and his henchmen made Jews the scapegoats.  Friends and neighbors soon began to hate Jews for who they were. German citizens bought into the blame game and generations of co-existence was gone in 6 years, all due to propaganda in the government controlled media and the government controlled schools.

The Aryan German people let Hitler have the Jews, and even helped him, because he was leaving them alone.  Then one day he struck; swiftly, efficiently, thoroughly, and without warning!  The average German citizen woke up and found the Gestapo at their door because a disagreement over a debt, or a minor insult to a neighbor or stranger led to them being denounced as traitors over a grudge.  The Gestapo kicked in their door and dragged them out into the street.  Some were shot dead on the spot; some were taken to prisons and tortured by sadists seeking information that didn’t exist. Most were never seen again.

This happened to your everyday, patriotic German citizens.  They had gone about their lives, ignoring or accepting the things that happened over the years as Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, Goering, Heydrich, and the rest ignored the rights of citizens and passed decrees that were “unlawful”.  Unlawful to whom?  Hitler didn’t see rounding up, “enemies of the state”, and shooting them as “unlawful”.

The people had seen what these men were doing but said, “it can’t happen here, we have a system of laws”.  They didn’t think Hitler was a despot.  He was a great leader, Der Fuhrer, who would never turn on his “Aryan” citizens.  He “cares about us”.  Then one day the Jews were under control and he came back for them.

When Pastor Martin Neimoller made his famous “first they came for…” quote he could have been speaking about America’s society today.  Many will ridicule this video, and the whole concept of Nazi Germany, because “it can’t or it won’t happen here, we have a Constitution”.  But take a look at this picture and answer the question, “when did this; become this?”.  Our society in the United States of America today mirrors the society of 1936 Germany.

Hitler offered money to those who turned in their neighbors.  New York City is now offering a $500 bounty for snitching on anyone possessing an “illegal weapon”.  Holding a grudge against someone?  Want to cause them some misery?  What is happening in America today HAS happened before and we are taking the exact same path they took then.  Apathy and denial are the two most dangerous states of mind in any free society.

How can people ignore or dismiss the Patriot Act, NDAA 2011 and its “indefinite detention without charge”, the TSA, the Department of Homeland Security, or the explosion of local SWAT teams and the military equipment they are being given by the federal government?  Policemen now kick in doors in the middle of the night dressed in black face masks and body armor head to toe.  The uniforms are just that, uniform around the nation.  The equipment and the tactics designed for an urban battlefield are being ”uniformly” spread to police departments and sheriff’s offices throughout the nation, and being funded with primarily federal funds.  Helicopters participate in “live fire” operations using blanks, in American cities, in conjunction with local police forces.  Why are they doing this?  Who are they going to round up and put in the FEMA camps that were a “figment of my imagination” in 2010?

How can anyone with any amount of cognitive ability not see where both political parties are taking us?  How does someone dismiss 2 billion rounds of ammunition, tens of thousands of full automatic “assault rifles”, and MRAP armored vehicles with gun ports and machine gun mounts operated by local law enforcement?  What SWAT team really needs this kind of firepower?  Who are they going to use this equipment against?

Both political parties refuse to secure the border and do anything about all the illegal aliens.  It is very apparent that they aren’t looking to round up illegal aliens so why do we find ourselves with an internal security apparatus having so much armament?  No free nation has ever had this kind of domestic military force and remained free for long.  This is the SS and Brown Shirts of Nazi Germany being paraded before our very eyes yet many people deny there is any danger.  It reminds me of a joke where a woman catches her husband with another woman and he asks her “are you going to believe what I tell you or your LYING EYES”?

Conspiracy Theory?  At one time I thought so.  By themselves many of the events over the last 10-15 years pose no “clear and present danger”, but when they are looked at with an open mind and in the view of 20th Century history it is another vision altogether.  We the People are called mentally unstable and enemies of the state by the “leadership” of both political parties.  Veterans who defended liberty are labeled as mentally ill by members of Congress.  Some have been “detained” and had their lawfully owned firearms confiscated in a clear abuse of the Constitution.

Can’t happen here?  Won’t Happen here?  Don’t bet your life on it!  Are you going to believe what they tell you or are you going to believe “your lying eyes”?  Time is short and one morning Americans will wake up and find out their nation is in the grips of a totalitarian regime as evil as Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

-

BBM-

THE UNFOLDING OF THE EXTREME MILITARIZATION OF THE POLICE

By Dave Hodges | thecommonsenseshow.com
August 23, 2013

We have grown accustomed to the tyranny at the Federal level. The CIA is the most efficient organized criminal operation on the planet. The spy tactics of the NSA would make the East German Stasi green with envy. With the NSA watching our every move, nobody should feel safe for fear of being branded an enemy of the state. Even journalists are feeling the brunt of the new found bravado of the globalists. The systematic murders of journalists such as Andrew Breitbart and Michael Hastings for getting “too close” are stark reminders that our republic democracy is a facade and has degenerated into a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Where the Federal government and the existence of their confederate secret societies such as the Council on Foreign Relation and the Trilateral Commission, were once denied, they are now fully admitted to and championed as the true rulers of this country.

Trilaterals Over Washington

Back in 1979 I was given the book Trilaterals Over Washington co-authored by Anthony Sutton and Patrick Wood.  After reading it, I was horrified that such a small group of men could control such vast resources and do so much harm to humanity. My surprise speaks to my level of ignorance.  I was a budding researcher at the time and I had a ravenous appetite to learn more about these Constitutional usurpers.

What I discovered was that Sutton and Wood’s book was largely a standalone piece. Of course there was the classic None Dare Call It a Conspiracy, by Gary Allen, and there was that one article in 1977 in Atlantic Monthly which mentioned the Trilateral Commission, but debunked the conspiratorial angle.

The media was postured in such a way at that time, that if anyone mentioned the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, you were marginalized and ridiculed. Today, we are witnessing a complete reversal in government secrecy as it relates to their participation in global tyranny and the installation of a police state surveillance grid.  The destruction of the United States is totally being done in stealth, but things have changed.

Why Are the Misdeeds of the CIA Out In the Open?

Indeed, the veil of secrecy has been stripped away. The CIA is admitting past transgressions from as far back as 60 years ago when modern Iranian history took a critical turn when a CIA backed coup overthrew the country’s prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. True to their mafia nature, the CIA never admits to anything. Does this mean that they are turning over a new leaf and are submitting to a new era of agency transparency and accountability? Not really, when the CIA admits to their complicit behavior of running drugs for guns in the Iran-Contra Affair and setting up the cocaine gangs and started the drug war in LA in the 1980′s to fund and facilitate Iran Contra, I might take their “open disclosure intentions” more seriously. And when the CIA admits its role in the murder of JFK, then I might begin to cut some slack to what has been the most virulent organized criminal organization in the world. And when CIA director John Brennan, admits to having award winning journalist Michael Hastings murdered, then maybe I will take a serious look at considering that the CIA is entering into a new era of openness.

Did Obama Actually Fulfill One of His Campaign Promises?

Some would argue that there is a new era of transparency that is emanating from Washington D.C. and that Obama is finally making good on his campaign promise to oversee the most transparent organization in the history of the country. Not in a pig’s eye. We are not witnessing a new age of accountability, we are watching the unveiling of in-your-face tyranny.

Fear and Intimidation Is the Objective

Didn’t you get the message that tyranny is out of the closet and is being placed firmly in the faces of the American public? The globalists are sending a clear message, “Fear Us!” Their intent is to frighten and intimidate the public into believe that resistance is futile.

Recently, the NSA revealed that they spied upon innocent Americans by intercepting an unspecified number of emails. Of course, the NSA said that this was an “accident.” The accident aspect of the story is not believable, however, the objective was achieved with the revelation; “Be afraid America, very afraid, we are watching everything you do.”

Nowhere is the in-your-face-tyranny more prevalent than in the today’s law enforcement agencies as we have witnessed the militarization of the police which are now designed to harass and intimidate.

The Overt Militarization of the Police

As we witness the unfolding of the extreme militarization of the police, the American public will be increasingly subjected to more heinous, Gestapo and KGB types of crimes being committed against innocent American citizens.

-

DRONES, TANKS, AND GRENADE LAUNCHERS: COMING SOON TO A POLICE DEPARTMENT NEAR YOU

By John W. Whitehead

“The argument for up-armoring is always based on the least likely of terrorist scenarios. Anyone can get a gun and shoot up stuff. No amount of SWAT equipment can stop that.”Mark Randol, former terrorism expert with the Congressional Research Service

Why does a police department which hasn’t had an officer killed in the line of duty in over 125 years in a town of less than 20,000 people need tactical military vests like those used by soldiers in Afghanistan?  For that matter, why does a police department in a city of 35,000 people need a military-grade helicopter? And what possible use could police at Ohio State University have for acquiring a heavily-armored vehicle intended to withstand IED blasts?

Why are police departments across the country acquiring heavy-duty military equipment and weaponry? For the same reason that perfectly good roads get repaved, perfectly good equipment gets retired and replaced, and perfectly good employees spend their days twiddling their thumbs—and all of it at taxpayer expense. It’s called make-work programs, except in this case, instead of unnecessary busy work to keep people employed, communities across America are finding themselves “gifted” with drones, tanks, grenade launchers and other military equipment better suited to the battlefield. And as I document in my book, A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, it’s all being done through federal programs that allow the military to “gift” battlefield-appropriate weapons, vehicles and equipment to domestic police departments across the country.

It’s a Trojan Horse, of course, one that is sold to communities as a benefit, all the while the real purpose is to keep the defense industry churning out profits, bring police departments in line with the military, and establish a standing army. As journalists Andrew Becker and G. W. Schulz report in their insightful piece, “Local Cops Ready for War With Homeland Security-Funded Military Weapons,” federal grants provided by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have “transformed local police departments into small, army-like forces, and put intimidating equipment into the hands of civilian officers. And that is raising questions about whether the strategy has gone too far, creating a culture and capability that jeopardizes public safety and civil rights while creating an expensive false sense of security.” For example, note Becker and Schulz:

In Montgomery County, Texas, the sheriff’s department owns a $300,000 pilotless surveillance drone, like those used to hunt down al Qaeda terrorists in the remote tribal regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan. In Augusta, Maine, with fewer than 20,000 people and where an officer hasn’t died from gunfire in the line of duty in more than 125 years, police bought eight $1,500 tactical vests. Police in Des Moines, Iowa, bought two $180,000 bomb-disarming robots, while an Arizona sheriff is now the proud owner of a surplus Army tank.

Small counties and cities throughout the country are now being “gifted” with 20-ton Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles. MRAPs are built to withstand IED blasts, a function which seems unnecessary for any form of domestic policing, yet police in Jefferson County, New York, Boise and Nampa, Idaho, as well as High Springs, Florida, have all acquired MRAPs. Police in West Lafayette, Indiana also have an MRAP, valued at half a million dollars.

Universities are getting in on the program as well. In September 2013, the Ohio State University Department of Public Safety acquired an MRAP, which a university spokesperson said will be used for “officer rescue, hostage scenarios, bomb evaluation,” situations which are not increasingly common on OSU’s campus. In reality, it will be used for crowd control at football games.

Almost 13,000 agencies in all 50 states and four U.S. territories participate in the military “recycling” program, and the share of equipment and weaponry gifted each year continues to expand. In 2011, $500 million worth of military equipment was distributed to law enforcement agencies throughout the country. That number jumped to $546 million in 2012. Since 1990, $4.2 billion worth of equipment has been transferred from the Defense Department to domestic police agencies through the 1033 program, in addition to various other programs supposedly aimed at fighting the so-called War on Drugs and War on Terror. For example, the Department of Homeland Security has delivered roughly $34 billion to police departments throughout the country since 9/11, ostensibly to purchase more gear for their steady growing arsenals of military weapons and equipment.

While police departments like to frame the acquisition of military surplus as a money-saving method, in a twisted sort of double jeopardy, the taxpayer ends up footing a bigger bill. First, taxpayers are forced to pay millions of dollars for equipment which the Defense Department purchases from megacorporations only to abandon after a few years. Then taxpayers find themselves footing the bill to maintain the costly equipment once it has been acquired by the local police. It didn’t take the residents of Tupelo, Mississippi, long to discover that nothing comes free. Although the Tupelo police department was “gifted” with a free military helicopter, residents quickly learned that it required “$100,000 worth of upgrades and $20,000 each year in maintenance.”

Police departments are also receiving grants for extensive surveillance systems in order to create microcosms of the extensive surveillance systems put in place by the federal government in the years since 9/11. For example, using a $2.6 million grant from the DHS, police in Seattle purchased and setup a “mesh network” throughout the city capable of tracking every Wi-Fi enabled device within range. Police claim it won’t be used for surveillance, but the devices are capable of determining “the IP address, device type, downloaded applications, current location, and historical location of any device that searches for a Wi-Fi signal.” Police have already been testing the network.

It doesn’t look like this trend towards the militarization of domestic police forces will be slowing down anytime soon, either. In fact, it seems to have opened up a new market for military contractors. According to a December 2011 report, “the homeland security market for state and local agencies is projected to reach $19.2 billion by 2014, up from an estimated $15.8 billion in fiscal 2009.”

In addition to being an astounding waste of taxpayer money, this equipping of police with military-grade equipment and weapons also gives rise to a dangerous mindset in which police feel compelled to put their newly high-power toys and weapons to use. The results are deadly, as can be seen in the growing numbers of unarmed civilians shot by police during relatively routine encounters and in the use of SWAT teams to carry out relatively routine tasks. For example, a team of police in Austin, Texas broke into a home in order to search for a stolen koi fish. In Florida, over 50 barbershops were raided by police donning masks and guns in order to enforce barber licensing laws.

Thus, while recycling unused military equipment might sound thrifty and practical, the ramifications are proving to be far more dangerous and deadly. This is what happens when you have police not only acquiring the gear of American soldiers, but also the mindset of an army occupying hostile territory. In this way, the American citizen is no longer seen as an employer or master to be served by public servants like police officers. With police playing the part of soldiers on the battlefield and the American citizen left to play the part of an enemy combatant, it’s a pretty safe bet that this particular exercise in the absurd will not have a happy ending.

-

U.S. GOVERNMENT PREPARING FOR ECONOMIC COLLAPSE WITH GUNS AND WEAPONS

Published on Jul 12, 2013


-

GLOBAL DEBT AND THE HUMAN BUBBLE

Published on Feb 11, 2013

-

The American people are now facing a very serious situation. On January 17, 2013, the Government Accountability Office, the nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress released its annual audit of the U.S. government. The report covered fiscal years 2011 and `12. The conclusion of the report was this, “Absent policy changes, the federal government continues to face an unsustainable fiscal path.”

The federal government will never be able to pay back the debt that it owes.  Members of Congress and the White House are aware of this.  Other foreign countries that the United States owes money to such as Russia and China are also aware of this.

So it’s now up to the Federal Reserve to keep the system going by printing money and extending the time of default out far enough so that some future world war can happen to justify the need to take total control over the United States through martial law.

No nation has ever collapsed just from economic problems. Modern nations only collapse through invasion and war.

The globalists have being building up Russia and China militarily since 1917, to become future enemies so that there will be a giant World War someday that would force Americans to yield up what remains of their liberty and join a New World government where we’d lose our sovereignty. That’s where all of this is headed.

The Russian plan is to obliterate military and communication targets and then blackmail the West into submission.  They and the Chinese want to harness these modern economies, and run their own version of the New World Order—not obliterate the West entirely.

After the take over of America, a World Government will be created with a single world army, and a new world currency.  The U.S. dollar will no longer exist.  The World Government will still be controlled by the same powerful group of elite people, but this way they escape the blame for everything and keep their power over the masses, which is exactly the type of control that they want.

Under a World Government you will be forced to either fully pledge your allegiance and your alliance to the New World Order, or you will be denied access to a job, food, commerce, health care, and anything else that the New World Government offers.  It’s all about control.  You cannot stay within the system and think somehow they’ll just ignore you.  You will be forced to choose.

There will no longer be freedom of speech, freedom of religion, gun rights, or search warrants used to enter your home.  Individual property rights will cease to exist.  The World Government will be allowed to do whatever it wants.  It will truly be a fundamental transformation of the United States of America.

-

-

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AGENDA TO “KILL THE U.S. DOLLAR”

-

-

by Douglas J. Hagmann

March 30, 2013

Some might be surprised to learn that the fate of America’s economy has already been determined, verified and announced by the Obama White House. Yet, it has received scant attention from the corporate media. In 2011, economist Kyle Bass interviewed a senior member of the Obama administration about its planned solutions for fixing the US economy and trade deficit [i].

Among the questions he asked was about U.S. exports and wages, but the question itself was not nearly as important as the response he received from this senior administration official. In fact, this single, seven word response clarifies everything, explains everything, and leaves little else to discuss: “We’re just going to kill the dollar.”

There it is, the entire agenda in one short sentence. It explains everything we’ve been seeing domestically and globally. That one statement makes every other question irrelevant, or otherwise answers all economic questions and explains everything. Nothing else matters. I urge you to ponder that statement and all that it implies. Doing so will provide you with the clarity to understand not only what is taking place today, but what is yet to come.

It is important to note the specificity of the word “kill.” Stated in the active voice, it means an unambiguously intentional and deliberate act. The murder of our national currency, the United States Dollar (USD), is the ultimate agenda to be implemented under Obama. To “kill” our national currency will subvert the United States and destroy it from within. This begs a number of questions, including what type of Americans would actually have, as their objective, the destruction of our national currency? To whom do they hold their allegiance, if not to the American people whose life’s work as well as the toil of our ancestors is represented in the form of wealth held in U.S. dollars? Does this make any sense to us, as Americans? The answer of course is “no.”

By its very definition, to kill our national currency is an act of high treason by those engaged in this activity. It undermines the very sovereignty and survival of our nation, and will have a life-changing impact on every citizen in the U.S. It will also impact every nation and the people of every nation on the planet, as the USD is presently the world’s reserve currency. It is an act that should result in the filing of criminal charges against the conspirators, a trial of their peers and if convicted, a death sentence. It’s that serious.

According to my source, we are past the point of no return. We will not be able to stop what is coming, but must be wise enough to prepare and “get out of the way.” The murder plot involving the death of the dollar did not begin with Obama, but he and other conspirators have accelerated the plans, plots and schemes for its demise.

The ultimate objective is to implement an international currency in tandem with a system of global governance. The problem is that most people are not thinking large enough, nor do they understand the magnitude of the lie.

They are not seeing the larger picture as their focus is diverted elsewhere. For example, they focus on various tentacles of the octopus such as the gun confiscation initiative, the DHS armament acquisitions and economic woes as independent and unrelated events. They are not.

Meanwhile, others continue to adhere to, or even perpetuate the dual party meme of governance, holding dearly to the notion that there is a practical difference between the Republican and Democrat parties. Have we not seen sufficient evidence that they are now of one party acting in concert with each other? They cannot see the collusion and backroom deals, and continue to hope that the next election will finally change the unchangeable continuity of agenda.

Most of the elected officials are on board with the subjugation of the United States to a global system of governance. Some are actively facilitating this agenda, while others are making nominal objections on the stage of political theater while hoping to earn a seat at the global table. It’s entertainment for the globalists, distraction of the masses, and diversionary fodder for the talking heads in the media.

America has become a captured operation – captured from within. Think of the Vichy French, internal collaboration with the enemy, or softening the ground for a full takeover from within. The takeover of America has already happened, the collaborators have already been installed, and we are now on a path to complete subjugation of a larger global system of governance. If you continue to doubt this, how else would you explain the numerous examples of our dual-party governmental acquiescence of self destruction?

Those who are pleased about the new record setting stock-market highs and various other manipulated statistics that indicate our economy is improving will be the most vocal critics of this report and who will attempt to discredit the validity of the information offered here. The more intellectually astute will look beyond the statistics offered for mass consumption not only to identify the deliberately manipulated data, but to understand what is actually driving these false hopes, figures and data. It is a magic show, and many are still captivated by the magicians’ many diversions, failing to realize that we are engaged in a global war while being simultaneously hobbled by enemy infiltrators from within.

One reason we are seeing new stock market highs is the rush to the dollar from other currencies, especially in the Eurozone. Another reason is the monetization of our debt by the Federal Reserve, despite the previous denials of Ben Bernanke and others.

Simply put, the plan by the globalists, or the central bankers and those behind them, is to create this rush to the USD like passengers from sinking ships to lifeboats. Once the lifeboats are filled to capacity, they will be sunk, and the United States Dollar will be completely worthless. As in such a scenario, many will not make it. Many will die from what is coming. The level of evil behind this plan is incomprehensible to the normal human mind.

We are at war with Russia. After removing Qaddafi from power in Libya, the Obama-Clinton black-ops plan was immediately put into action. Benghazi was the logistics hub for arming the anti-Assad terrorists by our own State Department covert operatives who were shipping millions of tons of weapons to Syria via Turkey and other staging areas. Russia was aware of our actions, and through the attack at the CIA operations center in Benghazi by proxy forces, exposed this operation to the world while putting a stop to this operation. It seems that everyone except the Western media reported what had taken place.

The “dirty little secret” that explains why we have not been told the truth about Benghazi is quite simple. The efforts to overthrow Assad from power are continuing, except the arms and munitions shipments are now originating primarily from Croatia. Overthrowing Assad would pose a direct threat to Russia, both militarily and economically. Are we to expect Russia’s Putin to simply accept this without response? No. So what is Russia doing to subvert our efforts? He is waging war against America, striking at the weak underbelly of our economy which is the “oil backed” dollar as identified in Michael Reagan’s article, Building on a Kernel of Truth.

Sadly, the Obama regime is doing nothing to protect us from this asymmetrical war. It’s as if they are allowing it to take place.

Although it was reported in The New York Times, few have paid attention to last week’s meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, but it was an extremely important event in terms of the planned murder of the U.S. dollar. An alliance is being forged between Russia and China to replace the USD as the reserve currency, already severely weakened by the policies of those in power, with a gold backed currency.

While reports do exist that cite the hoarding of gold by China and Russia, they are purposely under reporting their collective reserves. Meanwhile, Americans can’t even get honest answers to the amounts of our own gold reserves held in Fort Knox or the Federal Reserve. Don’t people find this reluctance for audit and inspection a bit curious if not outright suspicious?

The battle is being waged not only by military might but by a currency war. We are “being played” through our military involvement in the Middle East, including our covert operations against Syria at the behest of Saudi Arabia. Unlike Iraq, the war in Syria will explode, turn hot, and we will be engaged in an ominous battle that will quickly expand and turn deadly. Weakened militarily through the policies of the Obama regime, coupled with an already weakened economy, the U.S. will suffer consequences unlike anyone might imagine or is willing to address. It is a recipe for disaster planned and initiated by the global elite behind the central banking system, including those in our own government. We have been set up from within, lied to, and now, we are about to see exactly what this globalist system has in store for not only the United States, but every nation of the world.

It is critical to understand that the take-down of the U.S. will be the result of an asymmetrical war that includes the weakening of our military, our economy, and a direct assault on our ability to keep the dollar as the world reserve currency and protect the free flow of oil and energy to the United States.

Within the last week, China held a surprise naval exercise in the South China Sea. Meanwhile, Russia displayed their resurgent military might in the Black Sea. These exercises were conducted as U.S. military forces are spread thinly across many areas in the world. Is anyone paying attention here?

Just as certain a collapse of the dollar is coming, so will be chaos on the streets of America caused by this plan “to kill the dollar.” The central bankers and the leaders selected to govern each country have effectively used the Hegelian Dialectic [ii] to implement their agenda. Just as stated by George H.W. Bush on September 11, 1990, their predetermined solution of a “New World Order” is being formed before our very eyes. They’ve told us what they are doing, but we have chosen not to listen or failed to understand what was being said.

The U.S. has always been the firewall against the globalists. By their persistence, infiltration of global elitists into our government, and covert subversion from within, we are being led to slaughter. A view from space, looking at the larger picture of events for which many have questions, a clearer picture emerges. There will be some who dare to resist the pillaging of our bank accounts, the erosion of our rights, and the enslavement that comes with the dismantling of America.

The dust clouds visible on the far horizon that watchmen have been reporting for decades can now be seen as an attacking army of barbarians, whose fighters are now on the ladders and cannons are breaching our empire’s outer walls. Who knows how long the inner walls of our empire will survive the next wave of their coming attack.

Perhaps Ernest Hemmingway said it best in referencing John Donne from his novel of the same name… “And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.”

References:

[i] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V3kpKzd-Yw&feature=youtu.be

[ii] http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/dialectic.htm

-

THE PROCESS OF KILLING THE U.S. DOLLAR

By Douglas J. Hagmann

March 22, 2014

I wrote about it nearly one year ago to the day. The Obama agenda is to simply “kill the U.S. dollar,” where the ultimate objective is to implement an international currency in tandem with a system of global governance. Some people laughed, saying it was hype. Others held a death grip onto their normalcy bias, saying it was not possible.  Exactly a year later, the stage is being set for the murder of the U.S. dollar. This is a process that has been long in the planning, and is no accident, nor is it a result of the amateurish handling of our economic affairs by the Obama regime or the last few presidential administrations. It is a deliberate process, covered by the fog of the geopolitical machinations between the U.S., Russia and the controlling power elite.

The U.S. dollar is now exhibiting signs of cheyne-stoking, as it is in its last phase of life. It is obvious not only by Janet Yellen’s lipstick-on-a-pig policies, but by the actions of Russia in response to our caliphate building process in the Levant and Eastern Europe. It is asymmetrical warfare at the highest of levels, as Putin knows the sting created by the deliberate destruction of the Ruble from years ago.

Those who don’t yet understand what is taking place may be enlightened by rereading my article from March 30, 2013, which contains information given to me by an intelligence insider and is actively taking place as I write this. For the current state of our economic affairs, Tyler Durden of Zero Hedge explains the active process well in his article “Petrodollar alert: Putin Prepares to Announce Holy Grail Gas Deal with China.”  While the eyes of the world are transfixed to their televisions in a new reality show involving the disappearance of a Boeing 777, our wealth is being confiscated.

This is all part of a process that ties together seemingly disparate events such as the Arab Spring, the take-over of Libya, the continued attempts to destabilize Syria, and, of course, our meddling in Ukraine. All of these events are interrelated, as are the so-called “banker deaths,” which are obviously much more. One simply has to step back and look at the big picture to understand exactly how we are being led into a global governance of wealth confiscation, redistribution and financial bondage.

Many have wondered why the federal government needs all of the ammunition and military style equipment on the streets of America. When people suddenly realize that they have no more retirement or savings left and no way to sustain themselves, it will get ugly. Some will be convinced that it was all a series of unfortunate misdeed, or some cosmic accident that Americans and those who trade with the U.S. dollar are unable to buy food, gas and other necessities. In reality, however, it was all planned long ago. Very soon, we’re all going to see the effects of those plans.

-

ANALYZING THE PROMOTERS OF DOLLAR COLLAPSE

by Joel Skousen | World Affairs Brief

March 28, 2014

The number of voices calling for a collapse of the dollar is reaching a crescendo and I’m compelled to do a detailed analysis to keep my readers from panicking. No, I’m not saying everything is fine. It isn’t, but you have to understand both the power and the intent of the Powers That Be to see why they aren’t intentionally trying to pull the plug on the economy. In fact they show every sign of trying to keep things afloat with continual bailouts, but without causing hyperinflation. I’ll cover three of the most prominent purveyors of the dollar collapse scenarios:

Porter Stansbury: Stansbury runs an investment advisory company and he’s flooding the internet with the claim that one particular bill signed by Congress is going to collapse the dollar.

-

PORTER STANSBURY: THE DEATH OF THE DOLLAR

-

Published on June 22, 2013

-

-

-

The bill is H.R. 2847, the Hire Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act, which is a real bill that was signed into law in 2010. But it’s not the hiring incentives that are the threat, he says, but the evil provision that was tacked onto the bill called the “Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.”

This portion of the bill is a problem and is known as FATCA. It is an extension of the ongoing program of the feds to pressure offshore financial institutions to provide a 1099 form to the Internal Revenue Service for their American customers, hence revealing secret foreign bank accounts and dinging America tax evaders with huge tax bills. The Hill.com gave this summary:

 Under FATCA, banks will be forced to submit information on total assets, account balances, transactions, account numbers and other personal identifying information. This intrusion goes way beyond a 1099 and would not be accepted or tolerated by Americans living in United States… Noncompliance will result in huge financial penalties and sanctions to the foreign financial institutions.

Various experts can only guess how much extra revenue will be brought in by exposing undeclared foreign accounts, from between $210B to $800Billion over ten years.

Stansbury is claiming, among other things, that this will cause a run away from the dollar, because the new reporting requirements will cause everyone to pull out their dollars and dump them. Frankly, there aren’t but a small percentage of Americans that have illegal offshore accounts, so I think this is merely a sales gimmick aimed at driving people to his investment company to save them. As the Hill reported,

 It is not really known what ramifications this law will have on U.S. residents with funds in foreign banks or if foreign banks will cooperate with the law… US demands on foreign banks to provide client information may violate their own country’s laws and constitutions.

The next is David Morgan, an investment expert in silver, which he promotes. These kinds of advisors do have a financial agenda that may partially skew their ability to see the broader picture, even though they are all more or less in the free-market camp.

-

DAVID MORGAN: DOLLAR VALUE COULD SUFFER INSTANT CHANGE

-

-

Morgan is following the lead of others in claiming some “black swan” event (once in a blue moon catastrophe) without providing any details of what would have to happen specifically for the dollar to collapse. Greg Hunter of USAwatchdog.com comments favorably on Morgan’s claims:

 Silver expert David Morgan is warning of coming financial changes that may be forced on the U.S. during the next G20 meeting. Morgan says, “The impetus here is the U.S. has had too much financial power backed by the military for far too long, and they (G20) are going to implement change one way or the other.

But Morgan has absolutely no evidence to back up this claim. How are the G20 going to be able to force economic changes upon the US or other member countries? In the 2012 letter to all G20 participants from the Financial Stability Board (FSB), there is clearly no implied force in the recommendations: Ultimately, implementation is the responsibility of your jurisdictions.

Here’s what the globalist Financial Stability Board is suggesting:

1) Ending Too-Big-To Fail (which may involve some shared pain by depositors, as in Cyprus).

2) Strengthening oversight and regulation of shadow banking (good luck shutting down secret banking).

3) Increased regulation of the derivatives markets (very important but difficult to get the big banks to even put up a fraction of the $500T they contract for in derivative contracts). That much money doesn’t even existing in current markets.

4) Increasing the capacity, resources and power of the FSB (more power to the international financial regulator scheme—a predecessor to a Global Government).

Realistically, all other nations have as many problems curtailing deficit spending and speculation as does the US, so this reform can’t be targeting only the US dollar. There simply isn’t the political will to do any of these reforms democratically, so this threat is bogus. However, these kinds of quasi-international reforms are a warm-up exercise for full globalism when it arrives.

 The IMF is basically an extension of the United States. Even though it’s called the International Monetary Fund, it is really U.S. based. With what’s been proposed here, the IMF is not going to have the clout that it once did because the G-20 is going to be able to overrule the IMF vote… 19 out of the G20 are saying we are mad as hell and we are not going to take anymore. You get it together or we are going to get it together for you. [There’s absolutely no backing for that statement. Not a single country I know of is saying this because they are ALL in worse shape than the US, except for Switz.].

Even if it had the power to control the IMF, the IMF doesn’t ever vote on anything targeting the US. Rather, it is marching to a globalist agenda to control other countries via loans. Why should that change? The G20, the pro-communist BRICS countries are all in favor of giving more money to other countries.

 Morgan goes on to say, “For years and years, decades, the United States has exported their inflation because it’s a reserve currency, and we have the ability to just print at will. [Not really. There are internal restraints on the FED to keep inflation within certain limits.] We have pushed the U.S. dollar overseas, into Japan, into China, into Europe, all over the world, and now these dollars could be repatriated. . . .

 The reason we haven’t seen inflation is those dollars have not been spent. [Half right. Perhaps only 50% of the cash is being held out of circulation in mattresses or hiding places. The rest is being circulated.] This would portend ‘I need to get out of the dollar and buy tangible assets.’ [The fact that those dollars are "not being spent" as he claims is absolutely no justification for concluding, "I need to get out of the dollar." People are hoarding dollars because their own currencies are unstable. The drive to get rid of dollars could only happen if the dollar was being inflated a lot faster than other currencies relative to its base which is currently not the case].

 This would be an impetus for these countries that don’t need dollars anymore. [There are very few in this category. China is the main one because they have too many dollars, not because they don't need some dollars] If I don’t need these dollars and I don’t settle oil in dollars, it’s not the supreme currency. [Yes, but those who have taken themselves out of the dollar markets constitute less than 15% of the international economy—not that big. The US alone is half the dollar economy and that’s not going to go away.]

 I need to get out of it.’ If that mindset takes hold widespread, [Well, give me a rational reason for how all other countries that want dollars now would suddenly want to get rid of them?] you could see the dollar dive in value against other currencies… If that were to take place, you could see a huge change virtually overnight.”

IF, IF, IF… give me some substance. Only the FED pulling back the money supply in a major way or hyperinflation could do this and we see no sign of either. Morgan thinks the world knows the dollar is in trouble. He contends, “Everyone wants to pretend that everything is OK, but [once] people say I’m out, the dollar is toast. Once that mindset takes place, it could catch fire.. It’s unlikely, but you cannot rule it out [that's a big change of wording from the previous paragraph where he was claiming it was imminent].. . Something is going to take place this year that will have such an impact. [What, pray tell? Be specific—even a guess would help us judge how you are thinking.]

 On silver, Morgan says, “The rush into gold is basically nation states, true, but the rush into silver is basically ‘the people,’ [Not at all, it's industry much more than people.]… Gold has always been nation state to nation state settlement. . . . What will happen in my view, and this happened in late 1979 and 1980, is that people will catch on quickly. They will see what’s happening in gold and they will say ‘I can’t afford gold at $2,500 an ounce or $3,000,’ and they’ll say ‘I’m going to buy silver.’ [Nothing new here. It's been that way ever since gold went over $500, and it hasn't appreciably changed the gold silver price ratio].

 There will be a rush into gold and then silver like you have never seen before… You will either have it or you don’t.” What are Morgan’s price targets? Morgan says, “I am on the record that silver will hit $100 an ounce, and that may be conservative [It should go that high, but it won’t while the money powers are still manipulating the silver markets]. I don’t think we need to focus on the paper price but the value of silver relative to the market.

You do need to focus on the paper markets, since that is where the manipulation of the market is happening. No predictions about the upside potential for gold and silver have any validity unless he addresses the downward suppression of Gold and Silver by paper futures contracts that rarely demand delivery. He’s right about fundamental pressures to go up, but please tell us how anyone can predict when the money powers are going to stop manipulating the price through paper contracts. Without that key, his prediction means nothing. I fully expect the pressure on silver and gold to keep going in the upward direction, but the financial powers have still got a lot of monetary muscle to keep it from rising to the level it should.

Another financial author, James Rickards (Currency Wars) has come out with another book expanding on the same theme. It’s called “The Death of Money” and he too is shouting “collapse, collapse, collapse.”

-

JAMES RICKARDS: DOLLAR GOING TO COLLAPSE 80% OR 90% OR MORE

Published on Mar 23, 2014

-

It’s too bad the book is marred by this hype about collapse. The book actually has some excellent analysis of the global economy, but he draws the wrong conclusions from true facts, as I will explain shortly.

 James Rickards says that the “international monetary system is headed for a collapse…. The international monetary system actually has collapsed three times in the past 100 years. It collapsed in 1914. It collapsed in 1939, and it collapsed in 1971.”

He’s obviously overusing the word collapse. None of those three examples was a true collapse and his dates don’t really correspond to the big financial problems of the era, which do include some limited collapses.

His first two collapse dates (1914 and 1939) were war years and war did destabilize the financial world, but it didn’t cause a collapse. Besides, the entire world system was in a financial funk all during 1929-1940 due to the US stock market crash (caused by the FED), and the hyperinflation of Weimar Germany (where there was a true collapse of the German Mark) but it wasn’t an international collapse. Collapse is far too excessive of a word for what Rickards is describing and I object to it strongly.

In addition, there was no collapse in 1971—simply anger over the US reneging on its promise to redeem dollars in gold. The other nations with large dollar reserves did NOT dump dollars, any more than the Chinese are dumping US bonds today—lest the price drop dramatically before they can unload their stash. They are selling slowly, and the dollar still retains a great deal of value relative to other currencies because all nations have inflated currencies, and the choice between them is only relative—especially now that the absolute value of gold and silver has been somewhat disconnected from the markets through downward manipulation.

In point of fact, economies NEVER collapse to zero because people simply move into survival mode. They never completely give up and stop trying, except during the ravages of war when people get driven out of their homes and businesses. Government money in a few countries has collapsed from hyperinflation, but even that takes a special set of circumstances that is hard to come by in modern Western economies, as I have previously explained in the WAB.

 Rickards contends, “What I do for the reader is explain why the collapse is coming and, secondly, describe what this new system might look like. That should be very helpful to investors in preparing to both survive the collapse and be well positioned in terms of wealth preservation under the new system that’s coming.

In his suggested fix, he talks about IMF special drawing rights with partial gold backing and redeemability in combination with a mix of fiat currencies. That’s not a good fix. Any formula which gives fiat currencies any place at the table with gold redeemable options will ensure that governments will take advantage of the money creation option and avoid gold payouts like the plague.

Rickards, in my opinion, has way too much confidence in government’s willingness to abide by the limits he suggests. He clearly lacks an understanding of corrosive effects of socialism which dominate every nation on earth and which drive political promises.

Neither will they do the right thing based upon sound economics or the “common good.” For this reason, he does recognize that his system of reform won’t satisfy the Austrian School (the true free market theory) of economic thinkers like Mises and Hayek:

 Austrian School supporters of a traditional gold standard [100% backing with redeemability in a fixed amount of gold per bill] are unlikely to endorse this new [his] gold standard because it has fractional, even variable gold backing [and allows a mix of fiat currencies to be intermingled with gold backing]. The conspiracy-minded are also unlikely to support it because it is global and has the feel of a New World Order.

That distrust is merited, due to the conspiratorial nature and evil conduct of the globalists who promote the New World Order.

 Even the milder critics will point out that this system depends completely on promises by governments, and such promises have consistently been broken in the past. Yet it has the virtue of practicality; it could actually get done.

If it was accepted it would be because those who would agree to it would see that it still contains the allowance for fiat expansion of the money supply without the constraints of 100% commodity backing. But, just because it “works” doesn’t mean it is honest or fair to all.

The reason the gold redeemability standard of the Bretton Woods agreement didn’t hold is that it didn’t really prohibit the FED from printing more currency than the redeemability of the gold clause could supply. It simply relied on the US promise to redeem at a fixed price, with the implied threat of default that would follow any indiscriminate money creation without a concomitant increase in the gold supply. The rest of the world failed to figure on US perfidy and the inevitable future default on their gold obligations which came in 1971.

The promise of gold redeemability is the real thing that promoted the dollar as a reserve currency, not some ethereal or general promise of gold backing by a central bank. Gold backing without redeemability is like loaning money to someone with a collateral guarantee but no provision for foreclosure upon default.

Interestingly enough, the US has only lost about 20% of its international reserve value since reneging on the gold contract in 1971 And that is because no other currency was offering redeemability in gold either. Relative to our current situation Rickards says,

 Here we are, again, looking at another collapse… A paper money standard can work, but only if you maintain confidence in the money . . . and you do that by running a good economy and having a good business environment . . . we’re doing the opposite. We are printing a lot of money [so is everyone else]. We have a lousy business environment [so has everyone else]. Taxes are too high [ditto]. Growth is too low [ditto]. So, a lot of things are combining to undermine confidence in the dollar.

In his latest book, he documents similar problems with Russia, China, Brazil, India, Britain, and the EU, so why can’t he see that all these problems don’t point to a dollar collapse, but rather a downward spiral of all economies? Rickards goes on to say,

 The last time the system collapsed in 2008, the Fed rescued it. [It didn’t collapse—only the mortgage-backed securities market collapsed and the housing market which dropped about 30%.] How did they do that? Well, we know the Fed printed over $3.5 trillion in new money in the last 5 years. The Fed’s balance sheet went from $800 billion to over $4 trillion [but that inflation of the money supply was less than 2% of US dollars outstanding—hardly hyperinflation].

He missed the biggest thing the FED did to bail out the economy—they bailed out AIG, the largest holder of derivative contracts (guaranteeing those mortgage-backed securities). This alone kept the derivatives bubble from collapsing, which would have taken down not only AIG but Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase. Here’s Rickard’s final warning:

 When the next collapse comes, it is going to be bigger than the last one. It’s going to be exponentially bigger. The five biggest banks that were too big to fail in 2008, today they are bigger. They own a larger percentage of the total banking assets [including the FED itself, secretly]… the last crisis was barely enough for the Fed to contain. They have used up all their dry powder. They can’t take the balance sheet any higher. The Fed is insolvent… What are they going to do, take their balance sheet to $8 trillion and leverage 200 to 1? The game is up.

No, the game isn’t up and they haven’t used up all their powder. They can and show every sign of keeping real inflation below the 10% level, and if they do that it won’t turn into a hyperinflation scenario that he and others are touting:

 Imagine gas at $20 a gallon and bread at $10. That’s what we’re talking about… When a collapse happens, it will happen quickly. You won’t see it coming. There won’t be time to run out and buy gold, and it probably will not even be available at that stage. You need to prepare now.”

–Not true at all. Inflation starts out slowly and then picks up speed. But before it becomes a rush, something very specific has to happen between government and consumers—income and salary raises have to become automatic and backed by government money.

Without these injection mechanisms from government you only get stagflation, not hyperinflation. If prices rose 50% suddenly as he claims, it would instantly stall the economy. As long as people don’t have a way to increase their income to match that level of inflation, they simply stop buying and the economy stops raising prices due to lack of demand. The only way hyperinflation can take hold is for government and business to start indexing people’s salaries to inflation so they can keep pace. Without it, there’s only stagflation.

In summary, Rickards is absolutely right that US debt is unsustainable and that it won’t ever be solved. But he is wrong about collapse being the only option. He fails to see they can prolong the time to a default for several more years until other events help them avoid the blame:

1) The US and the FED are NOT out of options and if they keep doing what they are doing (keeping inflation below 10%, manipulating the official inflation rate even lower, and artificially suppressing interest rates and the price of gold) they can prolong the inevitable default on US debt for a decade or more. They show every sign of doing just that, which he fails to recognize.

2) Rickards lists all the dire things that can bring down the dollar but he misses the biggest one of all. He fails to see the world war the globalists are preparing to bring down upon the world by inducing a nuclear strike on the US from Russia and China. This gives them not only an excuse to drive the West into a militarized global government and new world financial system, but helps them evade the blame for the inevitable debt collapse.

He writes as if the only threats are economic and I see that as his greatest failing, despite his otherwise erudite analysis—and he’s not alone. Most other “smart people” fail to see the world war that’s looming. But, with both Russia and China beginning to show their aggressive tendencies, you have to be willfully blind not to see this new threat emerging.

-

OBAMA: “THIS IS MY LAST ELECTION.  AFTER MY ELECTION I HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY.”

-

JOEL SKOUSEN’S RED DAWN WARNING TO AMERICA

Published on Nov 10, 2013

-

JOEL SKOUSEN: NORTH KOREA WILL BE THE TRIGGER FOR WORLD WAR III

Published on Jan 31, 2014

-

-

RELATED POSTS:

NORTH KOREA TESTS ROCKETS AS U.S. AND SEOUL CARRY OUT MILITARY DRILLS

NORTH KOREA FIRES TWO BALLISTIC MISSILES TOWARDS JAPAN SEA

NORTH KOREA THREATENS TO CARRY OUT MORE NUCLEAR TESTS

KIM JONG-UN HAS TOLD HIS MILITARY CHIEFS TO PREPARE FOR WAR WITH SOUTH KOREA IN 2015

KOREA AND THE “AXIS OF EVIL”

-

RETIRED NAVY INTELLIGENCE OFFICER: WE WAR GAMED THE SCENARIO THAT IS HAPPENING IN THE UKRAINE

Published on Mar 17, 2014

-

The United States is locked in a Cold-War type mentality illustrated by the following two quotes:

In 1997 former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in his book “The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperative” that without Ukraine Russia ceases to be empire, while with Ukraine – bought off first and subdued afterwards, it automatically turns into empire.  According to Brzezinski, the new world order under the hegemony of the United States is created against Russia and on the fragments of Russia. Ukraine is the Western outpost to prevent the recreation of the Soviet Union.  The main goal of Ukraine’s association with the European Union is not improving the common people’s well-being but rather pursuing the geopolitical mission of weakening Russia. (source)

-

On December 6, 2012, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, There is a move to re-Sovietise the region,” (…) “It’s not going to be called that. It’s going to be called a customs union, it will be called Eurasian Union and all of that,” (…) “But let’s make no mistake about it. We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it” (source)

-

RELATED POSTS:

GET READY FOR A RUSSO-GERMAN EUROPE

A STEP CLOSER TO ALL-OUT-WAR: UKRAINE ON ARMED ALERT AS WAR FEARS GROW

RUSSIA RESPONDS TO OBAMA’S WAR DRIVE AS USS DONALD COOK DEPLOYS ON ITS FIRST MISSION SINCE ARRIVING IN SPAIN

FORMER BLACKWATER MERCENARIES HIRED AS THOUGHT POLICE IN EASTERN UKRAINE

AFTER CRIMEA: TOP INTELLIGENCE ANALYSTS FORECAST THE FIVE THINGS THAT PUTIN MIGHT DO NEXT

PUTIN’S LONG GAME

BELARUS WANTS OUT

IS ALASKA GOING TO BE RETURNED TO RUSSIA?

PUTIN’S QUIET LATIN AMERICA PLAY

COULD THE U.S. FACE A CRUISE MISSILE THREAT FROM THE GULF OF MEXICO?

-

UKRAINE’S PHONY COUP—SHADES OF SOVIET PAST

-

-

by Joel Skousen | World Affairs Brief

February 28, 2014

The sudden collapse of the pro-Russian Ukrainian government this week is a too-good-to-be-true win for the protesters. No one in either the mainstream or alternative media is questioning the glaring contradictions about what happened during the supposed “coup” this past weekend. Who gave the orders for all of the riot police to melt away and leave their posts? The almost totally disarmed opposition easily took control of the city and just walked up to the presidential villa. Who gave the orders to the pro-Russian Party of Regions, who wielded the majority in parliament, to suddenly switch their votes to join their political enemies in unanimously ousting President Yanukovych (who, knowing what was coming, had already left)? It certainly wasn’t the opposition. This all smacks of the same staged “collapse of communism” that supposedly toppled multiple soviet-controlled governments that still had fully functioning police, army and security forces.

Today, ousted PM Yanukovych gave a press conference in Russia claiming he left only because his life was threatened and that he was being shot at in his car all along his exit route as he left the country. Sorry, but that doesn’t wash. There aren’t but a handful of old hunting rifles in all of the opposition, so it’s hardly believable they could set up a running ambush on his escape that no one knew about. And, if his claims are real why doesn’t he tell us who was threatened his life?

He can’t because this coup was all fake. I’ve seen this done before. As I watched the phony collapse of Communism in 1989 I was shocked then too as the Western media blindly reported the superficial story and refused to point out or even question any of the numerous too-good-to-be-true happenings:

1) The suddenly incompetent KGB failed to capture Gorbachev in his undefended villa,

2) The supposed heads of the KGB, GRU and Defense Ministers (all second level bureaucrats who were elevated to those high positions just prior to the collapse) had to “flee for their lives” as the attempted coup failed. If they really were the heads of the security apparatus in Russia, who were they fleeing from?

3) We saw pictures of the phony opposition leader Boris Yeltsin standing on a tank in Red Square rallying for freedom while the Communist Party who was still in control of the television broadcasting system, let him go on without pulling the plug. Come on, think people!

Later admissions from deposed dictators like East Germany’s Erik Honeker surfaced that he had been “ordered by Moscow” to allow the Leipzig student protests to go uncontested and eventually to step down. The media ignored or downplayed these explosive revelations. The media even fooled conservatives into believing it all by giving credit to Reagan for bringing down the Soviet Union. Reagan was as shocked as anyone and had no idea it was coming.

One of the reasons why the mainstream media chooses not to expose this kind of political theater is that it serves globalist purposes to allow Communism to maneuver unopposed as it prepares for a future all-out war with the West. The globalists want this war too, so they are more than happy to play along with Russia’s deceptions without exposing them.

Fast forward to recent events in Ukraine where Western globalists are again covering for the hidden events to encourage the opposition—not because they really want Ukraine to be free but to give Russia room to manipulate events and give them the excuse to eventually intervene and begin the process of reclaiming former Soviet states like Ukraine before moving against Europe.

The problem for Russia is that the opposition in Ukraine rose too fast before the Russians were ready to reveal their military hand. Perhaps that was inevitable given the gross level of corruption that pervades all of these post-communist states. But the people have long grown used to this high level of socialism and control (which is always corrupt) and without arms, they really have no way to force change—especially when the Russians still create and control all of the largest of the opposition parties.

As I have long pointed out, Russia is still in the military rearmament phase and isn’t ready for a third world war yet—not until some time in the next decade. So, while it is highly probable that the West won’t do anything to stop Russia were she to send in troops to the Ukraine now, it would poison the public perception of Russia as an emerging “good guy” and almost certainly stop the West from pursuing another dangerous level of disarmament with the “continuing Soviets” (as Christopher Story used to call the Russians after the phony “fall of communism”).

So here’s what Putin gains by pulling another phony coup

1) It suckers the West into coming to Ukraine’s rescue financially and gets Russia off the hook for their promised $15B bailout—only $3B of which has been relinquished so far. Financial aid from the West was also a big part of why they pulled off the phony “fall of the Soviet Union.” Ukraine is bankrupt and can never dig itself out, as I will explain later.

2) After the phony coup, the pro-EU Western Ukrainians are portrayed as getting their way and now the Russians get to portray the pro-Russian majorities in Eastern Ukraine and in the Crimea as the beleaguered group. This is an open excuse for Russia to intervene in the future—in small ways now but more forcefully later at a time of their choosing that matches their rearmament. They have full control over the pro-Russian protestors and can manipulate them into riots at will. They don’t even have to be subtle about it.

What we are seeing in the news this week and will see in the near future is a lot of political theater—Russian agents ginning up the Russian workers in the Crimea to demand independence and the break-up of the Ukraine into smaller countries. Armed thugs have even taken control of the Crimean regional Parliament to make this possibility appear very serious.

It’s unlikely, however, that Russia wants Ukraine divided. If that were to happen, both the pro-EU Western Ukraine and the pro-Russian Eastern Ukraine would be relatively happy and there would be no basis for conflict or future intervention.

Russia is in no danger of losing its military bases on the Black Sea as even the Ukrainian opposition has never demanded that. Moreover, Putin’s sudden military exercise is more political theater, showing he has the military power, but giving him the opportunity to show restraint.

The real evidence that this is a contrived revolution is in the nature of the controlled opposition—not by Western globalists, as is commonly charged by strident and misinformed anti-globalists like Paul Craig Roberts, but by the Russians themselves. Look no further than the previous leader of the opposition, Yulie Tymoshenko, conveniently released from prison last Saturday to coincide with Yanukovych’s ouster. Here’s the New Republic on her background:

 It was here [on the Maidan–Independence Square in Kiev], during the protests of 2004-2005, that Tymoshenko, newly reinvented as a Ukrainian-speaking Joan of Arc, a newly dyed blonde with a peasant braid ringing her head like a halo, promised to usher Ukraine into a new, more modern and European era. Last night, nearly a decade later, she took the stage here again, this time in a wheelchair. She had just been released nearly two years into a politically motivated seven-year prison sentence—Yanukovich, her rival in the 2010 presidential elections, jailed her for overstepping her authority and profiting from a gas deal with Russia—and Tymoshenko looked the worse for it. She was tired and aged, barely any blonde left in her long-undyed hair.

 People in the crowd wept, men and women both [as she told them,."You are heroes," "You are Ukraine's very best."] Tymoshenko wept. It was an extraordinarily moving moment “Under no circumstances can you leave this square, until you have accomplished all that you set out to accomplish,” she said…. No more secret agreements, no more couloirs [hallways], she said, a master of secret agreements in couloirs. “I want to say to you on behalf of everyone that, until now, politicians have not been worthy of you. And I want to do everything so that you see new politicians, new civil servants.”

 And then the old Tymoshenko came out. “Starting today, I am getting back to work,” she said. “I will not a miss a moment to make sure that you feel happy in your own land.” And she promised that she would be Ukraine’s guarantor that the people are no longer duped by their politicians.”

Tymoshenko was playing hard to get, claiming that she was not intending to run for president, but this is more political theater. Her claims of acting as the guarantor of a new brand of politician is begging for them to draft her for president.

 It sounded like the opening volley of a campaign, and there had already been rumors leaking from her camp that evening that Tymoshenko planned to run in the newly announced presidential elections in May. And the crowd wasn’t having any of it [and cried out for her to run for president].

But here is the sordid past of this corrupt former leader—and no one can participate in this level of corruption in a former Soviet state unless the communists who still control things under the table assent:

 Kievans I spoke to were fed up with her ruthless political style. Moreover, they saw her as a main reason for the ultimate failure of the Orange Revolution [she betrayed true aspirations of liberty and did not reform any of the Soviet styled bureaucracies that continued to take advantage of people]. She was also of questionable moral caliber: her fortune, then numbering in the hundreds of millions, was stashed abroad in cash and gold bullion, her mansion guarded by an army of personal bodyguards. Her business partner and crony politician Pavlo Lazarenko was in federal prison in the U.S. for money laundering, wire fraud, and transporting illegal goods, and there were charges that he siphoned off over $20 billion of Ukraine’s public funds into personal accounts in the U.S.

 Tymoshenko had herself been arrested for trying to smuggle out millions in cash. There were rumors that she even canceled a trip to New York, fearing arrest in connection with Lazarenko’s case. By the time she stepped out onto the Maidan, in 2004, she had become known as the “Gas Princess” for her iron fisted reign over Ukraine’s notoriously murky and corrupt gas sector. At one point, she controlled one third of it, or 20 percent of Ukraine’s GDP.

 While in office as prime minister, from 2005 to 2010, she was as savage with her allies [phony conservative leaders, as in the US, always treat harshly those in the party who want real liberty] as she was with her opponents, coming down hard on party members for any perceived insubordination. After several contentious incidents with journalists, many questioned her commitment to press freedom. Vladimir Putin spoke warmly of her then as he does now, fondly recalling how well the two did business together. [Very telling]

 “Yes, Tymoshenko was in jail illegally, and the trial was politically motivated,” wrote Ukrainian journalist Sergei Leschenko this morning. “There was no evidence of her personal enrichment from the gas contracts she signed with Putin [but she did get rich off local kickbacks]. “I have the same kinds of documentation of bribes paid to Yanukovich, which were found in Mezhigorie [his personal dacha], except that [in the documents I have] she is the one paying Lazarenko.

That’s more evidence of collusion between supposed political enemies. But despite all this evidence, I’m having trouble countering the wave of outrage from well-meaning but misinformed anti-globalists like Paul Craig Roberts and Joseph Paul Watson and others who keep insisting that the Ukrainian opposition members are paid puppets of the globalists. They are only appearing to be so, which helps eventually put the blame for future problems on the US and the EU.

Roberts this week even went so far as to call them all neo-Nazis, succumbing to the old tired Leftist jargon that portrays Nazis on the Right wing of the political spectrum—when they are always on the Left (more government authority). Of course, in reality, there are no real neo-Nazis today—only people hired by government agent provocateurs to play the role of skin heads and neo-Nazis in order to poison public perception of the Right. Robert’s rant begins with,

 To the extent that government exists in post-coup Ukraine, it is laws dictated by gun and threat wielding thugs of the neo-Nazi, Russophobic, ultra-nationalist, right-wing parties… Read about the neo-nazis intimidating the Central Election Commission in order to secure rule and personnel changes in order to favor the ultra-right in the forthcoming elections. Thug Aleksandr Shevchenko informed the CEC that armed activists will remain in CEC offices in order to make certain that the election is not rigged against the neo-nazis. What he means, of course, is the armed thugs will make sure the neo-nazis win. If the neo-nazis don’t win, the chances are high that they will take power regardless.

But Roberts doesn’t dig deep enough into these accounts to see this is a setup. How did these opposition “thugs” suddenly get a quantity of weapons? And the Ukrainian police withdrew (upon someone’s orders) and are sitting in their barracks allowing all this to happen uncontested. Does he think the EU has that kind of power to command?

 Members of President Yanukovich’s ruling party, the Party of Regions, have been shot, had arrest warrants issued for them, have experienced home invasions and physical threats, and are resigning in droves in hopes of saving the lives of themselves and their families. The prosecutor’s office in the Volyn region (western Ukraine) has been ordered by ultra-nationalists to resign en masse.

Once again, Roberts in cherry picking his facts. None of this so-called persecution and mass resignation of ruling Party of Regions (pro-Russian) members happened until AFTER they had all voted unanimously to oust Yanukovych. How does he explain that little piece of coercion? Someone within their own pro-Russian circle, speaking on behalf of Putin, had to give those orders. As I pointed out last week, it was probably Putin’s oligarch insider Vadim Novinsky—who recently traded in his Russian passport for Ukrainian in order to direct Putin’s agenda in the Rada (Ukrainian Parliament).

Actually, the resignation of many pro-Russian legislators is essential to maintain the illusion that the opposition is in power. Were the Party of Regions to maintain their majority status, people would get suspicious when they suddenly started voting with the opposition. By manufacturing threats and “forcing” mass resignations, the Parliament can be reconstituted by the less than genuine opposition.

That is exactly what happened this week as the newly constituted Ukrainian Parliament installed Arseniy Yatsenyuk as the new prime minister of the country. He’s a former banker and corrupt millionaire who previously served in the administration of Yulie Tymoshenko as minister of Economy, foreign minister and speaker of the Rada. He is a member of Tymoshenko’s Fatherland Party. This choice clearly points to the return of Tymoshenko’s leadership in Ukraine.

Here’s the way I think things are going to play out in the future. The Russian dominated areas will continue to engage in social unrest and lobbying for independence. Russia will settle for semi-autonomous regions which will keep Ukraine together as a nation but give increasing powers to each of the conflicting sectors. Although there will be relative peace for a while, the conflict can easily be rekindled in the future as necessary by the autonomous regions complaining that they are being oppressed by Western Ukraine. The Voice of America noted that this proposal for regional autonomy has already been floated before:

 Russia does seem intent on promoting what it calls the “federalization” of Ukraine, a tactic that could increase its leverage against the central government and enable Moscow to throw up roadblocks to Ukraine’s further integration with the European Union by establishing deep economic relations with “autonomous” eastern regions.

 Analyst Dmitri Trenin, who heads the Moscow Carnegie Center, argued in “The New York Times” on February 23, however, that “although federalization is seen in Kyiv and western Ukraine as a step toward ultimate partition, it could in fact help hold Ukraine together” since “more financial and cultural autonomy” could enable the different parts of the country to coexist more easily.

Sebastopol, where the Russian Naval Fleet is headquartered, has just installed a pro-Russia Mayor—one more step towards setting the stage for the call for autonomous regions.

But one of the things that will be a source of constant conflict will be the austerity measures more IMF (bailout) loans will require for Ukraine—plenty of fodder for benefit-dependent Ukrainians with which to justify violent protests. Reuters listed the austerity conditions that will be imposed for new loans:

 The IMF has consistently said that Ukraine’s economic policies would create unsustainable large external and fiscal imbalances. It has called on Kiev to cut its large fiscal deficit, phase out energy subsidies, strengthen the banking sector, and allow the exchange rate to fall. A freely floating hryvnia currency and higher domestic gas prices are unpopular steps previously rejected by the Kiev government. Similar conditions are expected to be attached to any new IMF bailout.

While Ukraine, like Greece and other countries bailed out by the EU and the US, will implement some of these measures, they’ll never be able to get in the black again and all the bankers know it. But they also know that there are other global purposes in pushing loans in trade for economic controls—they always lead to pressure to join in increasingly autocratic global governing bodies.

Russian banks have to play the game as well, and have $28B of exposure in Ukrainian loans not counting the $3B Russia just added before halting its proposed $15B bailout. Putin did, however, claim that Russian money could start flowing again after a new government is formed. If it does, it’s more evidence that Russia secretly supports the controlled opposition. If it were Western controlled, he wouldn’t.

 Russia is going to continue to use its control of natural gas supplies in Ukraine since that’s Russia’s major means of coercion. Russia’s main pipeline into Europe also passes through Ukraine—another reason why Russia will never let go. Ukrainians are used to special price cuts from Russia for their natural gas and the Ukrainian government absorbs even some of that cost as a subsidy to the people. “Even under the lower [gas] price they are telling us that they can’t pay. This really changes the situation,” Medvedev said.

Still it’s doubtful if Russia will cut off gas supplies—they’ll continue to use it as a club and that will help give the Russian-controlled opposition the excuse to compromise with Russia, as it did in the past for Tymoshenko.

Russian PM Dmitry Medvedev proposed that Russia postpone the loan until “we understand what sort of government there will be, who will be working in it, and what rules they will stick to”. Medvedev’s concern was mainly fueled by the country’s inability to make regular payments for natural gas.

Make no mistake, Ukraine’s economy is teetering on the brink of collapse, but it won’t be allowed to collapse. The West will continue to bail out this bloated and corrupt Soviet state until it eventually is recaptured by Russia leading up to WWIII.

-

THE UKRAINE MESS: FACT FROM FICTION

by Joel Skousen | World Affairs Brief

March 7, 2014

The Ukraine conflict has reached such a level murkiness and complexity due to deception and misdirection by all the parties involved that deciphering the situation taxes even the most experienced of conspiracy analysts. A lot of mistaken conclusions are being presented by both major and alternative media. The Ukraine opposition has been infiltrated by both Western globalists and Russia-controlled sleepers, so it’s hard to tell who is directing what. Russia is claiming that those providing “security” for the airports and major bases in Crimea are just “local militia”, but why do they wear masks and uniforms without insignias, and drive Special Forces vehicles with Russian tags? Supposedly, pro-Russian oligarches in official positions in eastern Ukraine have been replaced with pro-western oligarches, but all the “Post-Soviet” oligarches have been allies of the continuing Soviet leadership (who still run the show behind the scenes), why should we expect these new ones to be any different? This week, I’ll try and help readers figure out what real and what’s fake.

Let’s start with Russian President Putin’s press conference this week where he stated, “It was an unconstitutional overthrow and an armed seizure of power.”

First, every coup is an unconstitutional action—that’s a given—but it was Putin’s own pro-Russian majority party in Ukraine (Regions Party) that voted almost unanimously for Yanukovych’s ouster and the coup couldn’t have taken place without their wholesale agreement. So, if Putin is really complaining about the unconstitutional coup he has only his own lackeys to blame. As I said last week, the opposition could never have forced most of the Regions’ delegates to go along with the ouster—only Putin’s orders could have done that.

Second, if it was an “armed seizure of power,” where were the arms? Only the Berkut (Ukraine’s special police) and the regular police had any quantity of armed personnel and they were under the control of Yanukovych right up to the phony coup. The opposition may have had a few dozen hunting weapons but that isn’t enough for an armed seizure of power. As I pointed out last week, someone had to give the order to cause the armed forces to stand down—and that couldn’t have been the opposition.

Further, despite Putin’s rhetoric, this isn’t going to escalate into a world war with the West because 1) Russia isn’t ready to take on the West militarily and 2) the US and EU have showed no inclination to send in military forces as a counter force in Crimea, thus denying Russia any excuse to attack the West. How could Putin excuse attacking the West and starting WWIII if the West isn’t contesting his actions in Ukraine with anything other than weak rhetoric and tepid sanctions?

The US has made some token military moves. They moved six fighters to Poland, a frigate into the Black sea, and redeployed a Special-Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force Crisis Response team to Spain. Even Russia’s claim to have authorized an invasion hasn’t amounted to anything except a few hundred Special Forces at best, and the repositioning of a few ships to the black sea.

Both sides are engaged in a symbolic show of force to probe how the other will react. For instance, after US fighters arrived in Poland, Russia began an air defense drill in response. Russia’s only direct confrontation inside Crimea with Ukrainian military was the shooting of a few rounds over the heads Ukrainian soldiers at a military base to test control.

Rumors that the Russian 20th and 48th armies are getting ready to invade Eastern Ukraine have not materialized. They may be drawing up contingency plans, as usual, but there have been no large troop movements of any kind. On the Ukrainian side, the provisional government mobilized troops and called up military reservists, but there is no corresponding movement of troops to indicate a direct confrontation with Russian forces. I think it is clear that neither side wants a shooting war over this, yet.

I watched with interest to see how fellow anti-globalists like Paul Craig Roberts and Paul Joseph Watson would react to my arguments that the coup in Ukraine was done by Putin and not by the globalists. Roberts, in particular, has been painting Putin as the victim of Western globalist aggression, a mistaken analysis, though he is correct in thinking that the globalists are predators with their own agenda. This week, Roberts was predicting this could lead to a nuclear war with Russia, showing he doesn’t yet understand what criteria, on both sides, have to be in place for that to happen.

He fails to realize that the globalist objective is not to push Russia out of Ukraine, but to provoke a long-term conflict there to help usher in World War III and ultimately stampede Americans into forming a militarized global government in response. But even the globalists have to wait until Russia and China make the big move. They can’t push so hard that it looks like the West is starting the war with Russia.

Paul Joseph Watson had a chance to respond to my claims on Monday during a show on the Alex Jones channel (Alex interviewed me and my point of view last Friday). The host mentioned that “we heard from Joel Skousen this week” that the evidence pointed to the pro-Russian forces being responsible for the coup. Watson, who does a great job pulling together the news stories for Infowars.com each week, responded by saying he disagreed and then proceeded to recite the evidence of Western influence and money on the opposition. But this misses the point.

I have never disputed that there is Western meddling in the Ukraine opposition, but this alone cannot and does not explain the coup. Watson never addressed my arguments that only pro-Russian forces could have ordered the defense forces to stand-down, or ordered the Regions Party to vote against Yanukovych.

Western meddling did and continues to occur, but it alone can’t explain the stand-down order and the too-good-to-be-true unanimous vote of the Regions Party, which hated the opposition, in favor of the ouster. Pro-Russian leaders wouldn’t have pulled this phony coup were they not in control of the opposition leaders, who are only playing along with the West so the West gets the blame when austerity measures and other problems become unpopular.

The Sniper Claim: This week, those who blame the coup entirely on Western intervention have a new argument that they say surely proves their point. Officers of Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) loyal to the ousted President Viktor Yanukovych hacked phones of Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet speaking with EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton. This was said 8 minutes into the conversation: [my comments in brackets]

 Paet: “All the evidence shows that people who were killed by snipers from both sides, policemen and people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides. … Some photos that showed it is the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it is really disturbing that now the new coalition they don’t want to investigate what exactly happened [this latter point may be evidence of a cover up but it doesn’t tell us anything about who is covering for whom. If the new opposition government is a phony opposition sleeper for Russia, as I claim, then it could just as well be covering for a pro-Russian sniper doing the false-flag shooting]. So there is now stronger and stronger understanding [he’s not fluent in English. The more correct word, given that he doesn’t really know is “suspicion”] that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition.” [Saying “somebody” shows that he doesn’t know and the people who talked to him don’t know—they, being from Regions Party, are assuming it’s the opposition. And, most of them may not actually know who is pulling the strings on the opposition. In fact, that is likely, so that the truth doesn’t leak out.]

 Ashton: “I think we do want to investigate. I mean, I didn’t pick that up, that’s interesting. Gosh.” [indicates that 1) she wasn’t aware of any refusal to investigate and 2) that she is willing to investigate]

 Paet (in an earlier part of the conversation): “[There is] no trust of the opposition, have dirty past.[true] I was talking to Regions (party)... “tremendous pressure on party members, univited visitors during the night, one parliament member beaten on the street by an armed group…[but only after they had voted for the ouster, proving that someone got to them before these obvious threats were made (for public consumption)] Opposition will not leave the streets until real reform happens [the real opposition members are different from the public opposition leaders, who are always created and directed by the powers behind the scene, just as in Moscow]—not enough to have a change of government.

Analysis: First of all, none of this conversation provides any definitive evidence justifying his pointing the finger at the opposition. What Paet says is clearly third hand information, first, from pro-Russian contacts in the SBU, and then to members of the pro-Russian Regions party who were feeding this info to Paet. We are left to presume the SBU extracted and compared the bullets killing the various protestors and police. But there are various levels of bullet analysis and his weak English recitation of facts is clearly insufficient to tell us what specifically was investigated.

But even if the Security Services did get a specific bullet match to a single rifle, it tells us nothing about who was behind the rifle and who he (or they) worked for. Until you find the shooter(s), which won’t happen unless someone on the inside talks, you have no evidence sufficient to blame one side or the other.

The Crimean conflict: Let’s now look at Putin’s claims justifying Russian aggression in Crimea and how he’s going to push these claims to his advantage (working off the list put together by the US State Dept):

1) That Russian forces in Crimea are only acting to protect Russian military assets.

That’s hard to justify. There never was any threat to Russian bases by the provisional Ukrainian government. In fact, Putin made his move before the new government was even a day old. You don’t restructure a government in that amount of time—which means that essentially, the same people are running the bureaucracy and military that was there during Yanukovych’s reign.

2) That “citizen defense” groups, not Russian forces, seized infrastructure and military facilities and who are rushing to lock down Crimea for Russia.

Not true. They may wear uniforms without insignia, but their vehicles have Russian military license plates and the types of vehicles are used exclusively by Russian Special Forces. Moreover, the kinds of automatic weapons being used are not available to civilians.

3) Mr. Putin claims that Russia’s actions fall within the scope of the 1997 Friendship Treaty between Ukraine and the Russian Federation.

Yes, but the 1997 agreement requires Russia to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Russia’s military actions in seizing control of Ukrainian military bases and civilian airports is clearly a violation of the agreement.

4) That the opposition failed to implement the February 21 agreement with former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, which opposition leaders signed.

Opposition leaders say that they were in the process of following through and that Yanukovych was to sign the legislation taking Ukraine back to the Constitution of 2004 within 24 hours and bring the crisis to a peaceful conclusion. But Yanukovych (on the orders of someone) fled the country and did not sign. Naturally, Putin’s initial claim that Yanukovych is still the legitimate leader of Ukraine is also faltering. Putin now admits that there is no going back to Yanukovych, saying he “has no political future.”

5) That there is a humanitarian crisis and hundreds of thousands are fleeing Ukraine to Russia and seeking asylum.

Not true. There has been no action taken against the Russian speaking people, so why should they flee. The only people who claim to be threatened were members of the Regions party, and we suspect that’s only political theater to help justify why they suddenly switched their votes, without naming who gave them the orders. There is absolutely no evidence a flood of asylum-seekers fleeing Ukraine for Russia or “mass attacks on churches and synagogues in southern and eastern Ukraine,” either.

6) Putin claims that the Rada is under the influence of extremists or terrorists.

Yes, everyone is playing the Right-wing threat card. The Svoboda (Freedom) party is the only “far right wing ultranationalist group” that has published photographs of members wearing Nazi symbols or giving the Nazi salute. Normal, credible people don’t do this. Virtually every neo-Nazi group in the world that I have examined is run by or funded by government agents to give the right wing a bad name. Either Russia or the West could be behind promoting Neo Nazis—Russia to denigrate the opposition or the West to denigrate the most libertarian of opposition factions that they can’t control—by linking them in people’s mind with Nazism.

Besides the Russian military takeover of Crimea, the key move by Russia is to push for the appearance of a public demand for autonomy for Crimea. Russia used its influence to have a pro-Russian leader elected to the head of the Crimea regional government this week, who then got the Crimean parliament to declare its intent to become part of Russia by scheduling a vote on the issue set for March 16.

There will only be two options for voting: 1) merging Crimea with Russia or 2) restoring the 1992 Crimean Constitution, whereby the peninsula would remain an autonomous republic within Ukraine. There is no third option for voting for independence. Neither the globalists nor Russia want anyone to be independent anymore.

The West is verbally adamant against allowing Russia to merge Crimea within its borders, even though it has made no claims of military options to prohibit such a move. Even arch globalist Henry Kissinger emerged to write an op-ed piece in the Washington Post urging, in typically euphemistic language, that the West continue to placate Russia while encouraging compromise within Ukraine—in other words, stretch out the issue into the future.

 Wise Ukrainian leaders would then opt for a policy of reconciliation between the various parts of their country. Internationally, they should pursue a posture comparable to that of Finland. That nation leaves no doubt about its fierce independence and cooperates with the West in most fields but carefully avoids institutional hostility toward Russia. [This policy is called Finlandization–exchanging superficial liberty for non-criticism of Russian dominance]

But in no case was Crimea to be allowed to go to Russia:

 It is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. But it should be possible to put Crimea’s relationship to Ukraine on a less fraught basis. To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea. Ukraine should reinforce Crimea’s autonomy in elections held in the presence of international observers. The process would include removing any ambiguities about the status of the Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol.

As I said last week, this policy will not solve the tensions, but will ensure they can be shifted into the future when Russia is militarily able to take on the West and reabsorb by force all of the former Soviet states.

Earlier, Ukraine’s interim president met with leaders in France on Wednesday and strongly down-played any prospect of war with Russia—sending a message that there will be no military confrontation. The Franco-German plan for Ukraine is one that hopes to stabilize the current conflict and yet not resolve it in the long term. According to French foreign minister Fabius:

 It envisages a national unity government, a pullback of Russian forces, the dissolution of extremist militias and moves to organize a presidential election as quickly as possible.

President Barack Obama said the Crimea referendum is illegal: “Any discussion about the future of Ukraine must include the legitimate government… In 2014 we are well beyond the days when borders can be drawn over the heads of democratic leaders.”

Obama’s words are a violation of the spirit of the Declaration of Independence (1776), which clearly says that people have the right, without permission of government, to declare their independence when their fundamental rights are being violated and when petitions for redress have been ignored. It’s disturbing when the presumed leader of the free world denies the political justification for independence.

 Secretary of State Kerry also had this little piece of hypocrisy to promote before leaving for Ukraine. Ben Swann hammered Kerry for telling NBC’s Meet The Press this week, “You just don’t invade another country on phony pretext in order to assert your interests… This is an act of aggression that is completely trumped up in terms of its pretext. It’s really 19th century behavior in the 21st century.”

Swann responds,

 Seriously? This from the same Secretary of State who pushed for the U.S. to fire cruise missiles on Damascus because of sarin gas that he “knew” was used by the Syrian government but later turned out could have been used by so called “rebels”? This statement from the same government that went to war in Iraq over weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist. That kind of phony pretext?

Indeed! Gross hypocrisy.

Sanctions: Secretary of State John Kerry said in Kiev that the US and other Western nations are considering economic sanctions against Russia, including seizing of foreign bank assets and cutting off trade. Kerry said,

 “every single one of them are prepared to go to the hilt in order to isolate Russia with respect to this invasion. They’re prepared to put sanctions in place, they’re prepared to isolate Russia economically.”

But so far, that hasn’t happened. Putin fired right back saying he would retaliate by cutting off gas supplies to the EU and stopping payment on all the money Western banks have loaned Russia. While many people are hyping the danger of Russia dumping US Treasuries, that’s not as much a threat to the US as the holder of bonds. Dumping causes the price to fall and the dumper loses more and more as he sells.

But Russia is tightly interlocked with Europe in trade and neither can afford trade sanctions. More than 70 percent of Russiás gas and oil flows to Europe pass through Ukraine, and Europe buys about 90 percent of Russiás oil exports. Stop buying Russian oil and such European gas prices skyrocket.

Then there’s the issue of natural gas. Germany gets 36% of its gas from Russia, the UK gets 25% from Russia, France about 15% from Russia and Italy, 27%. So total economic sanctions are a bluff. Neither side can afford them—and that is why Europe will never contest Russian aggression until it is too late, speaking of the long-term future.

Obama, rather than backing down on foolish sanctions, is playing a phony trump card: executive sanctions of a minor order: This week he announced that the Treasury Department will impose sanctions on “individuals and entities” responsible for Russia’s military takeover in Crimea or for “stealing the assets of the Ukrainian people.” That little stunt avoids targeting Russia while still appearing to be tough.

Obama also got the EU to announce the freeze of the assets of Mr. Yanukovych and of 17 of his closest aides and family members, holding them responsible for the embezzlement of state fund. He should also have included many wealthy opposition leaders like Yulie Tymoshenko who has embezzled millions in state funds as well.

US former Sec of Defense Robert Gates, who also headed the CIA, and is a globalist said that Putin “knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s trying to re-establish Russian influence and a measure of control over the former states of the Soviet Union.”

And, that’s exactly what the globalist knew he would do sometime after the phony fall of the Soviet Union, which they helped promulgate by not exposing what a sham it was.

Here are some excerpts from a quote from J R Nyquist on the overall nature of the deceptive fall of Communism and how it relates to Ukraine:

 The KGB of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics relied on Tsarist methods of controlled opposition and networks of secret agents, many of whom pretended to be enemies of the government.

 Because of the KGB’s ability to infiltrate Moscow’s opposition, all revolutions or political changes in former East Bloc countries are a puzzle [I claim they are a fraud]. We can never be sure who has actually won until we see, after time has passed, whether power has really changed hands; that is, whether the old Communist elite remains in charge of the army and police, the media and economic system, and key government posts.[and that is exactly what has happened in all the “former” Soviet satellite states] The analysis here is simple to do, but nobody in the West tries doing it. There is no career advancement in such analysis, especially in Western countries where the powers-that-be hear what they want to hear, and blot out the rest.

Sadly, Nyquist steadfastly refuses to believe there is a conspiracy in government and the media to blot out these truths—preferring to believe it is mere stupidity and the work of Communist infiltrators that explains all US foreign policy failures relative to communism. But he does agree with me here:

 Therefore, the Soviet Empire remains intact through the operation of hidden structures. KGB-controlled opposition was the story in 1989 and 1991. It has always been the untold story. It will continue to be untold until the hidden Soviet Union is taken down, at long last. I have spoken to schoolmates of Vaclav Havel who described him as the perfect instrument of the Communist state – as a fake dissident and a man who could be trusted by the KGB. In 1992 a Fighting Solidarity leader told me that Lech Walesa was a long-time stooge of the Polish secret police. Since that time Walesa’s secret police codename (BOLEK) has been published

Nyquist has good insights into who’s fake and who’s real in the Ukraine opposition:

 Who is on Moscow’s team in Kiev? Most of the parliament, for starters [including the major opposition leaders]; Yulia Tymoshenko in particular; the heads of the security services and military, excepting all those who are secretly working with the Ukrainian underground.

 To know that there is a powerful underground movement,[in Ukraine] with its own tentacles burrowed into Moscow, is not mere optimism. The Ukrainians were Soviets, and as such they had access to the same game the Russians were playing on them. Ukrainians have experience, access, and a motivation for playing the Russians at their own game.

My only reservation about Nyquist’s claim about the strength of the Ukraine undergroundf is that these former Soviet Ukrainian insiders were mostly corrupt and are not inclined to help out real liberty as they are inclined to stay within the corrupt, but hidden, continuing Soviet system. Some of them became wealthy oligarches and took their corruption to the next higher level. Undoubtedly, there are a few principled people who are working the underground, but I doubt Nyquist’s claim that they have much ability to infiltrate back up the chain into Moscow. Evil can smell goodness and root them out, much easier than good people can see through evil masquerading as good. So I believe the true underground is small in number and weak.

 The Kremlin has many weapons, many agents, and many deceptions at its command. A former socialist country must, in itself, resemble a “wilderness of mirrors.” The Communists like to confuse the political process in every country. This also applies to Germany, part of which was also a “Communist Country” (i.e., the German Democratic Republic). If we hear that (the conservative) German Chancellor Angela Merkel is now eager to meet with former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, who has recently been let out of prison, we must first reckon with Merkel’s Communist past before we reckon with Tymoshenko’s role as Moscow’s little helper; for both women have a peculiar relationship to Moscow which extends far back in time. [true]

 A German journalist recently wrote to me about Merkel, saying that German intelligence attempted to warn the Christian Democrats that Merkel was “a dangerous person.” But the Christian Democrats didn’t listen, and now Germany is more dependent on Russian natural gas than ever before.

But like Marxist Tony Blair, who switched sides and became a globalist, it is very possible that Merkel has switched sides too. That doesn’t mean she couldn’t switch back again if the Soviets win the next war, but I think she knows they won’t—that Russia is being set up to be taken down in the next war. China will become the new hegemon and cold war enemy of the global government.

 I had the chance to speak with Ukrainian activist Boris Chykulay , who explained the situation as follows: “Instinctively people know that they fight against a hidden USSR. You can see this in all the cities now with the fall of so many Lenin monuments.” [few Ukrainians see through the phony fall of Communism, but they hate Russian dominance past and present, which accounts for pulling down the memories of Soviet rule]

 “The problem we now face,” Chykulay said, “is that Putin merely says goodbye to Mafiosi Yanukovych. Now he starts to work with normal agents .” [the controlled opposition] As another activist added, the politicians who are now coming forward to direct affairs are former Soviet Komsomol leaders (now in parliament), the most committed Communists of the old system. These are not democrats by any stretch of the imagination. According to Chykulay, these “normal Soviet agents” are telling the Maidan protestors to go home. The revolution has been won.

 “They are trying to keep the old system, without any… changes, they want to close the case,” he explained. “Russia will try to control Ukraine through its old network; through Yulia Tymoshenko and others. She said, ‘Dear Ukrainians, I won’t let the government hurt you anymore.’ So you see, they already describe the Ukrainian government as something separate from the Ukrainian people. She doesn’t say the Ukrainians have any part in the government. They want to save the hidden Soviet structures. The Ukrainians are therefore told, in all seriousness, ‘you won’t be attacked.’”

 Is there danger of Ukraine coming under direct attack? Could the Russians intervene with troops? Chykulay responds, “Yes, Western Ukraine is a potential target,” Chykulay replied. “They will say the people in Lviv are fascists, and they will depict the Ukrainians as right wing extremists.” The Kremlin has, indeed, threatened to invade any former Soviet country where the rights of the local Russian-speaking minority are not respected.

 The Kremlin has many devices, and many tricks to play before things reach such an extremity… There is a cautious optimism on the part of Ukrainian activists. Previous attempts at freedom have been thwarted, it is true, but Maidan has good tactics and refuses to be fooled by Kremlin stooges. A Ukrainian analyst explained it thus: “As it happens, the people will not accept the leaders’ attempts to wiggle out. This morning Maidan had a massive meeting about Tymoshenko. They called it an ‘action meeting’ which was held against the return of Tymoshenko to politics. If she comes back, they said, the gangster clan will take over and nothing will change. They are demanding a total reset.”

Nyquist’s closing statement is optimistic:

 The anti-Communist counter-revolution in Ukraine grows in power. Moscow sends its puppets into the meat-grinder. One is chewed up after another. Which will emerge as the new leader? Perhaps the controlled opposition game has exhausted its possibilities in Ukraine.

I’m not as optimistic. The opposition is weak and tired of being out in the cold. They may see through Tymoshenko, but if so, the Russians will keep searching until they find a believable opposition puppet. After all, like US conservatives, the Powers That Be know that in a democracy, the opposition has “no other place to go” than to vote for people the PTB allow to be elected.

Summary: I’m still convinced it’s too early for Russia to go to war with the West, so this situation will not trigger WWIII, but the Crimean referendum will surely tend toward cementing Russia’s claim to hold power there. By occupying Crimea, Putin will make sure that only Western Ukraine can negotiate with the EU in the future, and with Russian troops in Crimea, Ukraine won’t be able to join NATO.

The EU is already cementing ties with Western Ukraine by offering a $15B loan. It won’t even come close to solving Ukraine’s bankrupt status, but it will provide the excuse for closer ties and continuing bailouts and austerity measures that will eventually boost EU/Russian tensions.

I’m betting that the result of the Crimea election will be a semi-autonomous republic rather than leaving Ukraine. Secession would tend to force Ukraine’s hand militarily—which they cannot hope to win. It also makes a peaceful resolution much more difficult without losing face. But either way, there won’t be war in the near term.

The globalist agenda of further dealings with Russia, including disarmament, will be severely hampered if Russia gets too aggressive in taking back the Russian-speaking areas. Then again, I’ve known the globalists to turn a blind eye to much worse than this (savage suppression of the Hungarian revolution) and resume aid and trade with Russia, given enough time to let the public forget. Trouble is, there isn’t a lot of time left before the big confrontation that awaits us.

Lastly, if you want to know why the Ukrainians hate the Russians, watch this excellent video on YouTube about how Stalin systematically starved 7 million people in Ukraine. Horrific story.

-

UKRAINE GOLD HEIST?

by Joel Skousen | World Affairs Brief

March 14, 2014

There was also a flood of potential disinformation flooding out of the Ukraine this week, adding to the mess. The most prominent among the alternative media was the small story from an obscure Russian blog that claimed all of Ukraine’s gold reserves had been flown out of the country to the Federal Reserve —billed as another globalist rape of an Eastern European country.

Much as I’m against the globalists, I’m unwilling to jump on such hyped up claims unless it has a little better documentation than this one. While not fluent in Russian, I know how to read it well enough, with the help of a dictionary, to sort through reports like this. First the story, summarized at Zerohedge (I have the original Russian and this translation is OK):

A curious story, and one which should be taken with a mine of salt, has surfaced out of the pro-Russian newspaper Iskra, which reports – so far on an entirely unsubstantiated basis – that last Friday, in a mysterious operation under the cover of night, Ukraine’s gold reserves were promptly loaded onboard an unmarked plane, which subsequently took the gold to the US.

Here’s what the Russian source wrote (second hand):

Tonight, around at 2:00 am, an unregistered transport plane took off took off from Boryspil airport. According to Boryspil staff, prior to the plane’s appearance, four trucks and two cargo minibuses arrived at the airport all with their license plates missing. Fifteen people in black uniforms, masks and body armor stepped out, some armed with machine guns. These people loaded the plane with more than forty heavy boxes. After this, several mysterious men arrived and also entered the plane. The loading was carried out in a hurry. After unloading, the [license] plateless cars immediately left the runway, and the plane took off on an emergency basis.

Airport officials who saw this mysterious “special operation” immediately notified the administration of the airport, which however strongly advised them “not to meddle in other people’s business.” Later, the editors [of Iskra] were called by one of the senior officials of the former Ministry of Income and Fees, who reported that, according to him, tonight on the orders of one of the “new leaders” of Ukraine, all the gold reserves of the Ukraine were taken to the United States.

One of the problems with this story is that, according to the latest IMF figures, Ukraine’s official gold holdings about 40 tons. You can’t get 40 tons in 40 boxes (2000lbs each) or even 80 small boxes (1000lb each) that are loadable by hand. No where could the original airport workers see what was in the boxes. It’s the editors at Iskra that are saying it was gold, and saying where the plane is going, which they couldn’t possible know—the airport employees didn’t say. If it was gold, it was probably no more than 4 tons. So, even if true, which I doubt, it clearly wasn’t “all of Ukraine’s gold reserves.”

Another problem is that it’s very difficult to find a transport plane with no markings. Even military planes have markings. And why the masks if it’s pitch black at night? You certainly don’t come through the security gates of an airport with masks and flash ID at the guards. That only raises questions. It would have been much more plausible to come through as on official convoy—the guards don’t ask what you are carrying, only that you have official orders. A mask only compounds the problem of getting in. This whole story sounds fishy, absent any information that can be verified.

Lastly, and most importantly, as I’ve stated in the past two briefs, this coup installing the current (presumably pro-EU government) could only have been carried out by Russian orders since only the Pro-Russian side had the power to tell the Berkut and Police to stand down, and the pro-Russian Regions party to vote for Yanukovych’s ouster.

So, why would a secret sleeper government in Ukraine, under Putin’s orders, move any gold to the US? I’ve never bought into the phony conspiracy theory that the globalist control Putin. There are other reasons to explain why they help Russia prepare for war. Putin could very well have been moving it to Russia, for all we really know, since no evidence has been presented that the plane was bound for New York.

False Flag operation claimed: since the Russian’s were so effective at tapping phones of EU personnel and spreading disinformation, they tried another claim this week claiming that some small outfit had hacked into an email account of a US Army officer in Ukraine:

We have hacked e-mail correspondence of US Army Attache Assistant in Kiev Jason Gresh and a high ranking official from Ukrainian General Staff Igor Protsyk. It appears that they are planning to conduct a series of attacks on Ukrainian military bases in order to destabilize the situation in Ukraine.

Particularly, Jason Gresh writes to Igor Protsyk that it’s time to implement a plan that implies “causing problems to the transport hubs in the south-east of Ukraine in order to frame-up the neighbor. It will create favorable conditions for Pentagon to act”, says Jason Gresh.

In his turn, Protsyk writes to some Vasil and tells him to arrange an attack on an airbase of 25 aviation brigade of Ukrainian air force stationed in Melitopol.

This email is a planted piece of disinformation. We’ll be able to prove it when nothing ever happens to the base in Melitopol. But this much I can tell you now: no military attache that is assigned to carry out this kind of false flag operation would have talked about it so openly in an email. Everyone knows emails are not secure, anywhere, anytime, unless encrypted—and even then they can be broken given enough time. No, folks, these kinds of messages are relayed by other means, never by open emails.

But, by far, the biggest and most dangerous rumors flying around Ukraine, are the rumors about massive buildups of Russian troops on the border. It’s an escalating story with escalating numbers, but the reality is otherwise. First, according to the Daily Mail,

The secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and National Defense Committee Andriy Parubiy claimed Russia has 80,000 troops, 280 tanks and 170 aircraft massed on the border ready to invade. ‘They are adding to this military potential,’ he said. ‘We have a critical situation on the entire southeastern border. The Russian army is only two to three hours from Kiev.’

Then, Igor Tenyukh, the Ukraine defense minister for the government in Kiev began claiming only two days later that Russia has more than 220,000 troops, 1,800 tanks and over 400 helicopters in regions adjacent to eastern Ukraine. That’s hardly possible. Russia Today (rt.com) quoted Russian defense minister Antonov as vehemently denying this:

“Ukrainian military officials know full well that the entire [Russian] Southern and Western Military Districts put together don’t have that much equipment. The only way you could arrive at that number of soldiers would be if you counted their families,” Antonov said.

“I would dissuade Mr Tenyukh from adding fuel to the fire of the crisis, which is what he appears to be doing. He openly outlined the reasons for this himself, when he asked the Ukrainian parliament to issue him with more funding,” continued the Russian official. Antonov added that continuing mass training exercises in eastern Ukraine, which Kiev began this week, could plunge Ukraine into even deeper turmoil.

From my research, I’ve also concluded that the numbers Ukraine and UK sources like the Daily Mail tabloids are grossly exaggerated, but not completely unfounded. According to the NY Times,

A day after a deputy minister denied any military buildup on the border, the Defense Ministry released a series of statements beginning early Thursday that appeared to contradict that. They outlined what was described as intensive training of units involving artillery batteries, assault helicopters and at least 10,000 soldiers.

The operations confirmed, at least in part, assertions by Ukrainian leaders on Wednesday that Russia was massing forces, as well as amateur photographs that appeared to show columns of armored vehicles and trucks in a border village called Lopan, only 30 miles from the Ukrainian city Kharkiv. One statement announced that another 1,500 paratroopers from Ivanovo, east of Moscow, had parachuted onto a military base in Rostov, not far from the Ukrainian cities Donetsk and Lugansk.

All that is still a long way from 80,000 or even 220,000 troops. As for the sightings, those too can be deceptive unless you know what units are being photographed and where they are heading. As part of Russia’s exercises and drills, they are moving some troops and equipment around from local bases. These pictures of trucks hauling tanks and APCs around don’t add up to the kinds of numbers claimed, but there are increased concentrations in the areas where exercises are taking place–not necessarily a sign of war or an imminent invasion.

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov has even invited Ukraine to fly surveillance aircraft over the border areas to confirm how many Russian troops are present. By treaty with Ukraine, the Russians are allowed to have up to 25,000 in the Crimea, and they haven’t exceeded that yet.

But even with that more realistic analysis, this coming week will present a crucial showdown on the Ukraine and Crimea issue. Crimean parliament declared it’s independence from Ukraine ahead of region’s referendum which will make it almost certain that the public will vote to break away, paving the way for the state to join Russia.

Russia, in its part of the propaganda battle, has stepped up the rhetoric over ‘lawlessness’ and claims “far-right militias” (everyone loves to bash the Right) are operating under orders from Kiev, and is organizing large pro-Russian rally all through Eastern Ukraine—ginning up the political fervor for tensions.

I’m a bit worried that the first signs of US threats to intervene militarily have finally emerged, though they have no teeth to them. Susan Crabtree of the Washington Examiner reports on Sec. Of State John Kerry’s time-limited threat that “Russia has until Monday to reverse course in Ukraine.”

Kerry will travel to London for a Friday meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov ahead of a Sunday referendum vote in the Crimea region to secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation... he warned of serious repercussions for Russia on Monday if last-ditch talks over the weekend to resolve the crisis in Ukraine failed to persuade Moscow to soften its stance.

U.S. and European officials argue that Moscow is orchestrating the referendum and waging an intimidation campaign with thousands of Russian troops controlling the region. If Russian-backed lawmakers in Crimea go through with the Sunday referendum, Kerry said the U.S. and its European allies will not recognize it as legitimate under international law.

“There will be a response of some kind to the referendum itself,” Kerry said. “If there is no sign [from Russia] of any capacity to respond to this issue … there will be a very serious series of steps on Monday.”

For the first time, we have the administration making noise about a military response: as Bloomberg just reported,

the US has escalated even further, citing the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, who “has claimed that in the case of an escalation of unrest in Crimea, the U.S. Army is ready to back up Ukraine and its allies in Europe with military actions.” According to the Web site of the Atlantic Council, [a globalist promoting front organization] Dempsey said that “he’s been talking to his military counterparts in Russia, but he’s also sending a clear message to Ukraine and members of NATO that the U.S. military will respond militarily if necessary.”

“We’re trying to tell [Russia] not to escalate this thing further into Eastern Ukraine, and allow the conditions to be set for some kind of resolution in Crimea. We do have treaty obligations with our NATO allies. And I have assured them that if that treaty obligation is triggered [in Europe], we would respond,” Dempsey said.

“If Russia is allowed to do this, which is to say move into a sovereign country under the guise of protecting ethnic Russians in Ukraine, it exposes Eastern Europe to some significant risk, because there are ethnic enclaves all over Eastern Europe and the Balkans,” Dempsey said.

That’s pretty rare to see the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs get that political in a speech, but then again, Dempsey is also a globalist, so he’s following the CFR script for building future tension.

Nevertheless, I’m not all convince the US will make a military response. We don’t have any offensive resources in the area except a lone missile frigate. Besides, Kerry’s threatened “serious series of steps” starts with token and then perhaps more serious sanctions. That tells me this is not a fast process, but slow pressure on Russia since nobody wants war yet.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican [a rabid neocon] and a top critic of President Obama’s foreign policy, asked what the administration would do if Russian forces advance farther into the eastern area of Ukraine, and the new government in Kiev asks the U.S. for weapons to fight the Russians. Kerry responded carefully, saying “we have contingencies – we are talking through various options that may or may not be available.”

That’s not war talk.

He said that currently Russia does not have the assets positioned to “march in and take over all of Ukraine but that could change and we recognize that.”

Still, within a week’s time, Russia could launch a significant invasion that would see troops overrun Ukraine in a few days. Ukraine’s military, a holdover from Soviet days is geared toward attack on the West, not Russia, and would be rather incapable of facing it’s former master or even counting on the loyalty of its troops, many of which side with Russia.

With it all, I’m still inclined to say that not only is this not going to arise to war, but it won’t arise to a major military confrontation either. Things will undoubtedly get more tense after next week, which will surely see Crimea defect to Russia, but unless Russia does the same with Eastern Ukraine, there is little chance of military engagement.

-

By Joel Skousen | World Affairs Brief

March 21, 2014

While the West is focused upon the Ukraine conflict, there are actually two equally coordinated thrusts by Russia and China targeting US and NATO world dominance: 1) Putin has made his first successful move in Eastern Europe by taking back the first of the former Soviet States (Crimea) and 2) China is beginning her power play aimed at dominating the first chain of islands to her East. Someday she intends to take everything from Japan down through Australia. It’s important to watch both of these future enemies as Russia and China have a coordinated global strategy to attack the West on two fronts. I admit that the initiation of this two pronged thrust by Russia and China has begun sooner than I expected, and although economic and political factors will still delay the actual world war for several years I will discuss what this recent move means for future timing.

Hitler was a far less patient predator than either Russia or China, which is typical of eastern philosophy and thought that seems to plan strategic moves decades in advance. Hitler, in contrast, moved directly to war in about a year’s time (Sept 1938 to Sept 1939) from his taking control of the Czech Sudetenland and Austria, to the Polish invasion. This rapid movement gave him the element of surprise and didn’t allow the allies to react quickly enough to stop him.

Thinking the Russians and Chinese would delay showing their hand until everything was ready for their big move, I was a bit surprised to see Putin make his play in Ukraine several years in advance of Russia’s optimal military preparedness for war with the West. Of course, he was facing a growing anti-Russian rebellion in Ukraine that was legitimate, even if aided by Western intervention. Perhaps he had to move now while he could still manipulate the outcome with his paid opposition leaders.

Putin’s early move on a former Soviet state could either mean that war can come sooner than expected, or that the process of fomenting a war will take longer than in WWII. I still don’t think Russia is ready to go to full scale war.

From a big picture point of view, while it is true that Russia is more advanced militarily than Hitler ever was leading up to WWII, Russia’s enemies in the West are also far more advanced than Britain was both in quantity and sophistication of war machines—though they are not any better at exerting a will to deter. The West has always been lulled into promises of peace, especially when their leaders harbor a globalist wish for war (without getting the blame for it).

Russia knows she needs a lot more military might before taking on the West, and also needs more time to develop the rationale or justification for war in this age when people naively don’t believe a World War could ever happen, let alone a nuclear holocaust (after the ruse of the cold war nuclear threat appearing to be defused). China also has to be ready to back up any Russian move, and it’s too early for that, but getting closer.

Could the Ukraine situation suddenly get worse enough to provoke a full scale war between Russia and NATO/US in the near future? Possibly. One shouldn’t delay preparations. But, here’s what would have to happen for such an outcome to be likely:

1. Russia would have to annex Crimea (done)

2. Russia would have to start a formal military invasion of Eastern Ukraine (meaning with regular Russian forces), triggering treaty obligations between the West and Ukraine. (Possible)

3. The West would have to contest this invasion with a full military counterstrike. (Unlikely)

When Ukraine (as part of the phony fall of the Soviet Union) gave up its nuclear weapons in 1994 it gained security guarantees with the West as part of the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, between the US, Britain and Russia, pledging to respect Ukraine territorial integrity, a pledge that was broken by Russia in its recent takeover of Crimea

But there is one major factor that can provide an excuse for both parties so this does not rise to a major war: that Crimea was not originally part of Ukraine.  Crimea had its own semi-autonomous parliament after it was annexed undemocratically to Ukraine by Stalin in 1954. Thus, the Crimean gambit can be effectively dismissed as not being a crucial violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. In fact, that compromise has already been reached on both sides, despite the war talk.

Putin smartly induced his lackeys in Crimea to put this up for a vote of the people, so it met all the requirements of a democratic choice—and that also made the US and NATO look bad, even hypocritical, relative to our history of allowing people to declare their independence, when we opposed this result of the will of the Crimean people.

With a touch of political finality, Putin declared Crimea an independent sovereign state and the Russian Duma has voted to allow Crimea to join the Russian Federation.

And, as an indication of Ukraine’s acceptance of the new status quo, Ukraine has given up any military bases in Crimea without a fight.Well, there was one suspiciously staged and minor fight between pro-Russian “militia” and lightly armed Ukrainian employees at a Ukrainian Naval base, but the Ukrainians just walked out with their belongings—clearly not a real war.

In short, Crimea was an obvious and easy choice for Russia’s first move in luring a former Soviet State back into the Russian Federation. Its people, except the original Tartars, are overwhelmingly Russian in orientation and language.

It’s important to note from a PR point of view that everything Russia has done in Crimea has been done with “irregular forces” so that if push comes to shove, Putin can always claim it wasn’t really the Russian military in there. Of course, we all know it was Russian Special Forces in their unique military vehicles and automatic weapons, but they often wore masks and had taken off all insignias showing their unit designations.

So forget about all the bluster of last week’s news about Ukraine moving troops and equipment toward Crimea. There never was any intent to contest this secession of Crimea. Ukraine’s quick decision to pull out all troops from Crimea following the seizure of military bases, including the Ukrainian navy’s headquarters in the Black Sea port of Sevastopol, indicates that there was no intent to pick a fight over this.

Even the capture of the commander of the Ukrainian navy, Admiral Sergei Haiduk, by militia backed by masked gunmen was staged for political purposes. Though everyone locally knew the captors were Russian Special Forces, Kiev demanded that Crimea’s pro-Moscow leaders release him or face “an adequate response”. He was released about 6 hours later, so the show goes on and a fight never ensues.

Most importantly, as I pointed out last week, Russia doesn’t have an excuse to escalate the Ukraine conflict to a world war unless the US and NATO intervene militarily. So far, it’s all talk and no action on the part of the US and NATO—and running drills and joint military exercises is not “action,” just more political theater.

Summing up, the rhetoric is much harsher than the reality and will likely continue to be so. Take this typical commentary by Haaretz on the Ukrainian Ambassador’s claims before the UN for example:

Russia may be preparing a further military incursion to Ukrainian territory, Ukraine’s ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, Yurii Klymenko, told UN diplomats at a briefing on the human rights situation in Ukraine on Thursday.

“There are indications that Russia is on its way to unleash a full blown military intervention in Ukraine’s east and south,” Klymenko said. His statement was widely supported by other ambassadors, but challenged by a Russian diplomat, who read a prepared statement justifying Russia’s actions so far.

This claim has no substance in fact. There is no large massing of Russian troops on the border with eastern or southern Ukraine, although Russia is planning on moving more personnel into bases in the Crimea to make sure the secession is not reversed.

Klymenko also said that Ukraine will not initiate a trade war with Russia and hopes to use the World Trade Organization to resolve any such disputes initiated by Russia. “We are very much interested in having normal trade relations with Russia,” Yurii Klymenko said, adding that he expected Russia to restrict trade in the wake of its annexation of Crimea.

Those are not sentiments indicative of a coming world war, they are a plea for business as usual, which you will find typical of this new administration in Ukraine. They are only feigning to be in the West’s camp in order to gain more money and military assistance from the West.

For the benefit of those just joining the World Affairs Brief, I need to remind readers that my unique analysis of this Ukraine crisis and phony coup has never been refuted: that only the pro-Russian leadership in Ukraine could have ordered the Berkut (riot police) and the regular police forces to stand down and let the opposition take over. Only the pro-Russian leaders behind the scenes could have ordered the Russian controlled Party of Regions to switch sides and vote for Yanukovych’s ouster. It was a staged coup, just like the phony fall of the Soviet Union, and no one in the West, except me, is calling them on it.

What that means is that as long as the Russians control the visible opposition leaders, there will not be any real fighting between Ukraine and Russia. And that’s why I don’t think Russia is going to invade Eastern Ukraine in the near term.

I predict that in this second stage, however, they will continue to drum up public protests and unrest in the Russian speaking areas of Eastern Ukraine demanding independence sometime in the future. But because this region is formally part of Ukraine, Russia will have to move more slowly than in Crimea where it already had major military interests. This second stage of the Ukraine crisis is where I see Putin slowing down, allowing for more time to continue his military preparations, while allowing the Ukraine situation to fester toward a future intervention.

Meanwhile, the larger diplomatic and economic battles will emerge as the primary focus in the near term. Token sanctions (and they are almost laughably minor) and counter sanctions are being hurled back and forth between Russia and the US and Europe is trying to evade them at all costs.

The sanctions Obama is trumpeting to the world are aimed only at 20 Russians in Putin’s inner circle who can be treated as “bad guys”—but nothing against Russian trade itself. Russia countered with sanctions against nine US officials, barring them from entering Russia, including House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.; and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., which is utterly meaningless. They aren’t traveling to Russia anyway so what difference does it make?

Europe has the most to lose in the sanctions game, and is back peddling as fast as its leaders can while claiming to still be tough on Russia. Europe, as you all know by now, is highly dependent not only on Russian natural gas, but Russian oil and fuel products for transportation. France, which is supplying Russia with several high tech Mistral class warships is reassuring its defense industry that it’s still “business as usual” with Russia.

Americans, for their part, have little stomach for more US involvement in European matters. A recent poll by Pew Research, crossing party lines, indicates that most feel that the US Should “Not Get Too Involved” in Ukraine.

Those who say it is more important for the U.S. taking a firm stand against Russian actions in Ukraine were asked if the U.S. should consider military options or only political and economic options. Most of this group — 19% of the public overall — said the U.S. should consider only political and economic options in addressing the situation, while just 8% of the public think that military options should be considered. Just 16% of Republicans and smaller shares of Democrats and independents (5% each) say that military options should be considered.

Gary North comments that “This is good news for Putin, but it is bad news for the Council on Foreign Relations.” He’s referring to the globalists and their warmongering agenda. But his most important commentary is about Americans’ historical aversion to intervention in other’s affairs:

Before a military conflict involving the USA, non-intervention is the permanent condition of the American people. This does not change. This is why the government needs an occasional Pearl Harbor for Americans to get behind the next war [all of which are attacks provoked or done by US black ops to justify war]… the foreign policy establishment needs saber rattling from time to time, and these days, it is clear that there is nothing in America’s interest that justifies rattling sabers.

But that won’t stop them from creating more conflict. Western globalists are content to allow the Russian ruse to go forward, as both the West and the East want the tension that the pro-Russian Ukrainian opposition—feigning friendship with the West—can provide.

I predict that the sanctions will continue to escalate but not in ways that seriously affect trade between East and West. The West, for example threatened to oust Russia from the G-8, but Europe is now denying that. Get used to hearing various different factions in the EU go back and forth on their stories (as happened this week when various French officials contradicted each other on the Russian G-8 membership), but in the end it will be business as usual for a few more years.

Meanwhile, another little ex-Soviet mini state is longing to get back into the Soviet Union as Businessweek said.

Trans-Dniester, a tiny, self-proclaimed “independent republic” wedged between Moldova and Ukraine, has a hammer and sickle on its flag, a parliament called the Supreme Soviet, a Soviet-sounding national anthem praising “the friendship of peoples,” and about 200,000 Russians out of a total population of 510,000. Following Crimea’s annexation, it also wants to join the Russian Federation.

Don’t laugh; the Russian Parliament will take up their petition next week. But the issue of Ukraine aid is an essential part of this conflict, just as increased economic aid and trade with Russia was a principle reason for the Soviets to fake their own demise.

This week, Sen. Marco Rubio stopped his opposition to the Ukraine aid bill in Congress—typical of Rubio who plays to the Right-wing but always switches sides to the globalists when it matters. The Democrats added into the aid bill approval of IMF reform which will not only double national quotas for the IMF but erode US and EU voting power as well. This is part of the future globalist monetary system they will eventually enforce upon all nations, so it deserves to be watched.

-

PROSPECTS FOR A TWO REGION WAR

By Joel Skousen | World Affairs Brief

March 28, 2014

The prospects for peace in Ukraine don’t look good as of this writing. If anything, the rhetoric on both sides has increased to a level that borders on irresponsibly provocative. Both NATO military leaders and the temporary Ukrainian government keeping talking about “massing” of Russian troops near Eastern Ukraine and that an invasion is imminent. Yet no one is providing verifiable facts to back up those assertions. Using the word “massing” for a few thousand troops is about as accurate as the claim of “sanctions” to describe the minimal restrictions the West has slapped on a few of Putin’s top henchmen. Added to this are the swirling rumors that Israel has suddenly shut down its embassies in an unprecedented move that portends a strike on Iran. All I can say is that it would be the height of military foolishness for Israel to start a war with Iran, which could retaliate against US forces in the Middle East, while the US is confused and unprepared about how to respond to additional Russian moves in Eastern Europe.

Fox News reports that some US officials, who want to remain anonymous, say there are more indications than ever that Russia could invade Ukraine. A senior US official told Fox News,

 The thinking in the U.S. government is that the likelihood of a major Russian incursion into Ukraine has increased… The new thinking is based mostly off analysis of public information, such as heightened rhetoric from Putin and his claims that Russian-speaking people in Ukraine face “brutality.” He is building a public case for more military action, according to senior U.S. officials.

I am suspicious about this report because the officials were basing their concerns on news reports rather than official intelligence reports, which would have included real live satellite photos of the size of Russian forces on the border. The US certainly has been doing detailed surveillance of the Russian position, so it’s suspicious that they won’t reveal anything definitive. Everyone keeps hyping the word “massing” of troops, but based upon prior wars, that should mean hundreds of thousands of troops, not tens of thousands as estimated right now. So far, I remain skeptical about a real live invasion, but it is possible.

 Also significant is the large buildup of Russian forces along the border with Ukraine. U.S. Defense officials say the numbers of troops far exceeds the amount needed for a training exercise. And the fact that there is no real evidence any large-scale exercises have occurred, and that none of the troops have returned to their bases, is also concerning to U.S. observers.

 Some have estimated the troop strength to be at about 30,000 — Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio, though, claimed Thursday that the number could be as high as 80,000. It is believed that an additional 50,000 troops may have flooded the region in the last few days.

And that’s about as accurate as the news stories get—no hard information, just what a few neocon Congressmen “think.” There’s a big difference between 30,000 and 80,000 and we don’t have official confirmation by the military for even the 30,000 claim. If the satellites don’t show large encampments, there is no “massing” of troops. If all the troops fit inside existing barracks in the few bases in the area, there is no significant invasion force present.

Even worse for hype, Andriy Parubiy, chairman of Ukraine’s National Security Council is claiming there are 100,000 Russian troops waiting to invade, but by his vague description it doesn’t sound like he has an specific evidence to back this up either.

 The massive [everyone is following that propaganda line] troop buildup along the border is reminiscent of Russia’s military movements prior to the conflicts in Chechnya and Georgia, one official said. [Which weren’t major–they were all mobile troops, similar to an airborne battalion—far short of a full Army Group which would be necessary to invade a country as big as Ukraine].

 A Defense official said if Russia were to invade the mainland, Ukraine would attempt to defend itself and this would be “far from a bloodless event as we saw in Crimea.” However, Ukraine would be outmatched, this official said.

True, and that’s why this next stage in Ukraine is so important. As I said last week, Ukraine can give up a small semi-autonomous region like Crimea without a fight because it was ceded to them by Russia years back, but it can’t look the other way at an invasion of Eastern Ukraine. Because of security agreement obligations NATO and the US will also have to do something more than talk, or appear as a paper tiger (and maybe that’s what they want, so as to encourage more Russian and Chinese aggressiveness).

Everything so far in Crimea has the taint of a phony war, typical of what one might expect with Russia facilitating the phony coup in Kiev that overthrew Yanukovych.

 In Rome as part of an overseas tour, President Obama stressed the need for the U.S. to support Ukraine. The Senate, shortly after noon, approved the first major Ukraine aid bill — one which also includes sanctions against Russia. The House approved a different version, but each would provide $1 billion to Ukraine, and lawmakers are trying to iron out the differences before the end of the day.

This is just what we need—a bill that throws a billion dollars at another former satellite nation that the US has no intention of actually defending. I can tell you that Russia fully intends to take back the former Soviet states as she builds toward WWIII, and this is the beginning of that gradual process.

Meanwhile the G7 can’t formally decide whether to expel Russia permanently. They keep saying they are, but when pressed, no nation is willing to commit to permanent expulsion for Russia. Obviously, the EU is still in the mode of accommodating Russia and holding out the olive branch. Very naive.

The latest assessment offers a consensus view of intelligence agencies and the U.S. military. The assessment also takes into account that Putin likely has the desire to create a land bridge into Crimea… [and] the possibility that Moscow could move to expand its territory by annexing Transdniestria, a breakaway state whose 1990 claim of independence from the former Soviet republic of Moldova has gone unrecognized by the rest of the world.

There’s been a lot of hype coming out of Ukraine about Russia invading Moldova, but that’s unlikely without an invasion of Eastern Ukraine. Moldova is clear across the country and Russia can’t get there except by crossing all of Ukraine. But what is also interesting is that the US NATO commander, General Philip Breedlove has been at the forefront, broadcasting the Russian threat, which can only mean that the US is intent on involving NATO. But German Chancellor Angela Merkel is clearly not enthused at the prospect. She’s an old Communist from East Germany and can’t even countenance a cut off of economic trade with Russia, let alone war.

Gen. Philip Breedlove, NATO’s supreme allied commander for Europe, gave a classified briefing Thursday morning to members of the House Armed Services Committee… “We’re all concerned about what Russia is doing on the border of Ukraine,” Breedlove said after the first briefing. “The size of the forces have a message that are not congruous with respecting the borders.”

Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday strongly urged President Obama to take a firmer stance against Russia… the letter’s authors said they are “gravely concerned” about the reported troop buildup, and urged the Obama administration to work with NATO allies to share intelligence with the Ukrainian government so they can prepare for any further incursions by Russia. [How about sharing with the American public?]

“There is deep apprehension that Moscow may invade eastern and southern Ukraine, pressing west to Transdniestria, and also seek land grabs in the Baltics,” they wrote.

Sounds like they’ve been reading the WAB, as there has heretofore been no hint in the media that “our ally” Russia would take an offensive action such as a land grab to the Baltics, although I have long predicted it. These Congressmen on the Foreign Relations committee don’t know anything except what the government briefs them on, so this is good evidence that the government has long known about the phony fall of the Soviet Union and Russian plans to reconstitute the Union prior to WWIII. Government briefers must have hinted to the committee that Russia may also have designs on the Baltics.

In a big picture sense, it is telling that the US is not mobilizing any forces to counter Russia in Ukraine and neither is NATO. So any sudden invasion into Ukraine by the Russians would be met with no effective resistance. That either means that the US knows the Russian invasion is all hype or that it doesn’t intend to stop it so as to let Russia accrue its own aggressor reputation.

The latter, however, would inhibit any further ability of the US to weaken our defenses via suicidal disarmament treaties with Russia, and would also alert the American public that Russia is a much bigger problem than the phony war on terror. We’ll just have to wait and observe.

Lastly, this whole conflict has many aspects of political theater typified by no real shooting in the Crimea, no real sanctions against Russia, and the IMF deciding to throw yet more money at Ukraine, which can’t even service its current debt.

Ukraine has been granted an emergency bailout of up to $18B to save it from default and at least $3B of that will immediately go to Russia. Russia will also get much of what remains since Ukraine is in arrears to Gazprom for natural gas supplies. Naturally, the loan will require Ukraine to slash public spending and the new government will once again be subject to destabilizing austerity protests—providing perhaps yet another excuse for Putin to intervene in the East.

The most inflammatory anti-Ukraine story this week was another “leaked” phone conversation that was uploaded to YouTube where former “Right-wing” PM Yulia Tymoshenko is reported to say, “time to go grab guns and kill those damned Russians with their leader,” so that “not even scorched earth will be left where Russia stands.” At the 1:51 minute mark in the video, she says, “They [the Russians in Ukraine] must be killed with nuclear weapons.” Yulia denied this quote in a tweet saying the recording had been edited and implied it was by the FSB.

These kinds of statements are extremely inflammatory for any politician to say even in private, and after the embarrassing Victoria Nuland wiretapping leak recently, I find it hard to believe that any politician would risk saying something like this on the phone. It seems faked, but if real, it would mean Tymoshenko is still a Russian puppet and is purposely sacrificing herself in order to fuel public hatred of the opposition. Either way, the world seems to be letting it die. When Tymoshenko announced this week that she will run for president, no one brought up the embarrassing comment about nuking Russian Ukrainians.

-

RUSSIA’S TEMPORARY STAND-DOWN IN UKRAINE

by Joel Skousen | World Affairs Brief

April 4, 2014

As I predicted, the Ukraine-Russia conflict has settled into a cold war standoff without military conflict. NATO and the US are planning to move a few more troops and planes into Eastern Europe which gives Russia an excuse to further accuse NATO of meddling in areas of “Russian interest.” Russia, for its part, is continuing to bait NATO by instigating more social unrest in Eastern Ukraine and trumpeting the threat of “extremism” in Ukrainian politics. Both sides are engaging in constant media attacks with exaggerated claims which will only serve both Russia’s long-term purpose of justifying taking back Ukraine eventually and the globalist purpose of justifying a future world war. But the time is not yet mature for that to unfold.

Russia was pounding out the story of 25 Ukrainian citizens that were arrested in Russia by the country’s security agency on suspicion of planning sabotage. Nobody does that in Russia unless they are working for the state’s security services.

Putin continued his harangue about the dangers of Neo-Nazi extremists among the “Right-wing” politicians in Ukraine—and the two mentioned in the news are patsies promoted by those who want an excuse for conflict. Another patsy is the copycat hacker group in Ukraine calling itself “Anonymous,” but their statement clearly indicates they are following the inflammatory language of the propaganda script written by Moscow:

 Anonymous Ukraine supports peace and the right of the people to self determination. The Bandera Nazis and fascist thugs that are beating and killing police and members of the security services of Ukraine do not represent the will or the wishes of the people of Ukraine. The people of Ukraine do not want European Union integration. The people of Ukraine do not want NATO on their territory. The people of Ukraine voted for President Yanukovich to lead them in fair and just democratic elections. The people of Ukraine plea to the President and to Russia for help in stopping the siege of Ukraine by Nazi thugs and murderous gangs.

On the other side of the coin, the EU military headquarters was harping about how Putin could invade Ukraine within 48 hours after giving the orders and the Ukraine foreign ministry was claiming that there had been no Russian troop drawdown on the border in order to bolster the hype about an imminent invasion. Jason Ditze of anti-war.com had this retort:

 Media hysteria, fueled by US hawks and Ukrainian ultranationalists [fronting for Putin by making the real Ukrainian opposition look bad], had forwarded the narrative that the Russian invasion was imminent, with claims of a military buildup of historic proportions, and Ukrainian officials claiming at times as many as 100,000 Russian troops waiting to roll into Donetsk.

 The portrait of the Russian military as a Lord of the Rings-style army of evil, bloodthirsty troops just waiting for marching orders, took a major blow when NBC took the unusual step of actually going to the border and looking around.

 What they saw was a calm border, with no signs of a serious military build-up, and by contrast exactly what Russia had said, evidence of a training exercise going on in the Russian side. Some troops, some heavy trucks, but no tanks or artillery.

 It wasn’t lost on the Russian troops there, who expressed concern that Ukraine has all their (mostly obsolete) tanks deployed right at the border, and were worried that Ukraine’s Right Sector could commandeer a few tanks and take out a lot of Russian troops, since the trucks aren’t exactly up to fighting tanks, even the T-64s that make up the bulk of Ukraine’s force.

 Russian President Putin, apparently sick of hearing about an invasion that’s not going to happen, also announced redeployment today of a lot of the troops involved in the training exercises.

While there were no US or NATO forces mobilized to counter Russia’s use of Special Forces in Crimea, the US and NATO are now making plans to beef up both troops and aircraft in Eastern Europe and the soft underbelly of Russia. The Iranian PressTV has the story:

 Romanian President Traian Basescu said on Tuesday that Washington has asked to increase the number of its troops and aircraft at a Black Sea airbase in eastern Romania.

 Basescu also said the US has decided to add up to 600 troops to the 1,000 forces currently positioned in the country. The Pentagon also wants to station military aircraft used for specific missions at the airbase, which is a major hub for US forces and equipment leaving Afghanistan and northern Iraq. The US has used the air base, just a few hundred kilometers away from Russia’s Crimea region, since 1999.

At this point this looks like a political move to show support for nervous Eastern European countries. It is only a token increase and certainly not something capable of deterring a major Russian war move. As one Romania skeptic responded, “What’s the point of sending more US troops that can’t fight, not willing to fight and unfit to fight?” The Guardian added this:

 A Nato committee drafted plans “for promoting stability in eastern Europe in the current context” by increasing military co-operation with Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Moldova – all in Russia’s “near abroad” and considered by Moscow as falling within its sphere of influence.

Moldava had to be included since there are pro-Russian factions there lobbying Putin for military intervention—which won’t happen anytime soon because of Moldava being sandwiched between Ukraine and Europe.

 Nato and EU member states such as Poland and the three Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) are alarmed at Vladimir Putin’s expansionist policies. [Indeed, they are, and need to be in the long term] There are widespread suspicions that the Kremlin will seek to destabilize and coerce Moldova ahead of its scheduled signing of a trade and political pact with the EU in June.

Also this week Ukraine is claiming that its investigation into the sniper deaths of opposition protesters and police can be traced to the Berkut—Ukraine’s special police that had sniper teams active during the protests in Kiev in February. Interior Minister Arsen Avakov told reporters that 12 members of the Berkut police had been identified as snipers and arrested. Both sides will be pointing fingers of blame at each other but the fact remains that while the sniping occurred, the Berkut were under the control of the pro-Russian forces loyal to Yanukovych.

The temporary government of Ukraine, masquerading as pro-EU, but secretly taking orders from Moscow, showed its colors recently by moving to disarm any of the opposition who got hold of weapons during the phony coup last month. RIA Novosti has the story:

 Ukraine’s parliament has ordered the immediate disarming of illegally armed groups in the country following a fatal shooting Monday on the city’s main square believed to have involved a political activist of the Right Sector movement.

 The country’s Interior Ministry declared a month of volunteer surrender of firearms in March, extended on Monday for another month. Kiev believes that disarming Ukrainians will help to halt the threat of violence that has risen with the formation of self-defense groups.

Yes, stopping trumped up violence is always the excuse, but this will only ensure that there are no arms in private hands when Ukraine finally falls back into Soviet hands.

Another propaganda move by the new government is to recruit opposition protestors into the Ukrainian armed forces to pacify their discontent—as if they will be any more free to protest when under military rule. They won’t be. The Gulf-times.com reports:

 Before the crisis, Ukraine’s underfunded force consisted of about 130,000 soldiers, half of them conscripts, with ageing and limited equipment. And as a result of Russia’s annexation of Crimea where Ukraine’s maritime forces were based, the country’s military assets were decimated by the loss of warships, helicopters and fighter jets as well as some 15,000 troops who decided to defect to the Russian army. Avakov told journalists at the military base that some 32,000 permanent troops had joined the new force, with 20,000 reserves.

I think that number is way too high to be protesters eager to join the military. Meanwhile, as Russia sets the stage for future confrontation in Ukraine, it warned the interim government in Ukraine against integration with NATO, reminding them that Kiev’s previous attempts to move closer to the bloc had strained ties with Russia and by implication caused the intervention in Crimea.

Russia is also making its own military moves to consolidate it’s gains in Crimea —often described by military tacticians as the world’s largest unsinkable aircraft carrier. Jane’s Defense Weekly said that the Russian Ministry of Defense planned to establish a “missile-carrying regiment” of Tupolev Tu-22M3 bombers on the Crimean peninsula near its capital, Simferopol.

In a not so veiled threat, Russia warned that future economic ties between Moscow and Kiev “will largely depend on the actions Ukraine takes in its foreign policy.” To make its point, Russia started raising Ukraine’s price for natural gas this week, twice in one week. It also announced plans for an undersea pipeline to supply Crimea with natural gas. The current pipeline goes through Ukraine. This indicates that Putin foresees a continuing crisis in Ukraine and the potential that Ukraine may cut off gas to Crimea in retaliation for Moscow squeezing Ukraine with higher gas prices.

Infowars this week said that NATO is considering stepped-up military exercises and sending more forces to eastern member states and the permanent basing of alliance forces in those countries. This will of course be viewed by Moscow as “provocative”, and I think that is what is intended.

 The NATO boss said the alliance may soon station forces permanently in the former Soviet Baltic states. “We are now considering all options to enhance our collective defense, including… further development of our defense plans, enhanced exercises and also appropriate deployments,” Rasmussen said.

 The call for militarization along Russia’s western border and an escalation of the conflict was hailed by Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski. He said he would welcome “some more prominent NATO presence in Poland.”

In this article, Kurt Nimmo provides the partly erroneous conspiratorial view that the Globalist are the only warmongers and that Russia is the victim:

 The United States and Britain have used the threat of a “resurgent Russia” to call for more military spending by European Union member states, many plagued by serious economic ills. “Russia is acting much more like an adversary than a partner,” declared Philip M. Breedlove, the American commander of NATO, during a meeting in Brussels of the globalist German Marshall Fund. [True, but NATO and the US knew this well before the Ukraine crisis. They are only now feigning shock and surprise. But the call to arms is still very limited and not seriously intended to threaten Russia—only to give Russia a further excuse to rally its people to arms in response]

 “It’s still very difficult for governments to sell the idea that social spending on health and education is less important than defense, especially in Western Europe,” explained Xenia Dormandy, a former American diplomat at Chatham House. NATO, the United States, and the EU have escalated their rhetoric to exaggerate the Russian threat.

 The Chatham House is a British think tank operating like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Brookings Institute in the United States [true]. Corporate members include Goldman Sachs International, Morgan Stanley, Lockheed Martin, Bloomberg, GlaxoSmithKline, Coca-Cola, and other transnational giants and banker operations.

On the sane side of things, NATO and NASA have finally suspended all military and scientific cooperation with Russia. It’s about time, although I’m not sure we can ever trust the West not to continue their secret transfer of technology to the enemy. BBC News reports:

 Nato foreign ministers have agreed to suspend all practical civilian and military co-operation with Russia. “We have decided to suspend all practical civilian and military cooperation between NATO and Russia. Our political dialogue in the NATO-Russia Council can continue, as necessary, at the Ambassadorial level and above, to allow us to exchange views, first and foremost on this crisis,” the statement reads. [That last comment shows they are still holding out hope for detente to return—very naive].

 The alliance plans to review its relations with Russia at a meeting in June. The decision could affect cooperation on Afghanistan in areas such as training counter-narcotics personnel, maintenance of Afghan air force helicopters and a transit route out of the war-torn country.

Inevitably, even some of our yes-men military leaders are being forced to admit the obvious, after years of being told to downplay the Russian threat. Bill Gertz noted this week that,

 Russia is engaged in a large-scale buildup of strategic nuclear forces that has been underway for a decade, the commander of the U.S. Strategic Command (Stratcom) told Congress on Wednesday. “Russia has maintained and continues to modernize their strategic deterrent capability,” Adm. Cecil Haney, the Stratcom commander told the House Armed Services Committee.

 The blunt comments came in response to reports that Russian strategic nuclear forces recently held a large-scale nuclear exercise coinciding with saber-rattling conventional military deployments close to Russia’s eastern border with Ukraine. Haney said the Russians conduct periodic nuclear war games and in 2013 produced a YouTube video that highlighted “every aspect of their capability.” “But on a day-to-day basis, they exercise and have a readiness posture of their capability, which we monitor very closely,” Haney said.

Yes, and they’ve been monitoring this for years, but they are now just being forced to go public with what they have long known. And the State Department is playing the same game:

 State Department cables sent to Washington earlier this year included dire warnings that Russia is vastly increasing its nuclear arsenal under policies similar to those Moscow followed during the Soviet era.

So, why is the State Dept. still funding disarmament proposals if their warnings are “dire?” Here’s the final admission that is shocking, given US denials of Russian intentions for so long:

 The cables, according to officials familiar with them, also stated that the Russian strategic nuclear forces buildup appears aimed at achieving nuclear superiority over the United States and not nuclear parity.

Remember this when the Obama or the next Republican sellout president proposes more disarmament with Russia.

Lastly, I want mention one more example of the error that is creeping into our movement due to lack of understanding about the New World Order conspiracy. Too many are still wedded to the notion that the globalists are the only threat in the world. One guy took aim at Glenn Beck this week for saying that Russia and China are the threat. Just because Beck is blind to the US globalist conspiracy, and various other conspiracies like 9/11, doesn’t mean he’s wrong about Russia and China.

 Glenn Beck shows himself to be a stooge of the international banking cartel who want Beck to deceive the American conservative masses with the lie that Russia and China — NOT the U.S./Britain/Israel combine– are the would-be global dictators of what Beck calls “the New World Order.” So, the big Beck lie is that Russia and China are the New World Order.

Well Glenn is at least partly right.

As I have long maintained, there are three predator centers of evil power in the world, not one:

1) the Anglo-American Globalists

2) the Russians and

3) the Chinese

Each of them intend to rule over the world with their own version of a New World Order—after eliminating the other two.

My misinformed source continued:

 Glenn Beck is shown to be a shill for the globalist ruling elite, as veteran analyst of international politics, Lyndon LaRouche explains to Alex Jones that the global ruling elite are rousting and ousting leaders of nations who resist the elite globalists’ takeover of their nations, such as Syria, Libya, Somalia, Mali, Ukraine, etc., as these elite globalist insurgents, under NATO, recklessly provoke thermonuclear war, which, obviously would spell the destruction of Earth and most life on the planet.

 The above critic of Beck seems to be ignorant of the fact that Lyndon LaRouche and his wife are allies of Socialist International and, according to all the background sources on him that I have read, they have backgrounds that indicate former ties with communism in Europe. LaRouche’s special mission seems to be to play the role of critic of US problems (Jane Fonda and environmentalism) to fool the American Right Wing into accepting his brand of socialism. Naturally, his hero is FDR. I’ll have to encourage Alex not to give air time to this master of deceit.

-

WILL PUTIN INVADE EASTERN UKRAINE?

by Joel Skousen | World Affairs Brief

April 11, 2014

Acting Interior Minister for Ukraine, Arsen Avakov, said Wednesday that the recent uprising by ethnic Russians in Ukraine’s eastern region demanding independence would be resolved one way or the other within 48 hours—either by negotiations or police confrontation. That means we should see that development today—but I suspect they may just let things slide. Ukraine’s government used police force earlier this week to arrest one set of protestors who occupied a government building and predictably this caused more protests demanding their release. If Ukraine uses force on the other two cities where rebels are well armed, there may be bloodshed and it could be the excuse Putin has been waiting for to add Eastern Ukraine to his conquests. If he’s smart, Putin will engineer another covert invasion by continuing to dress up professionals as local militias as he did in Crimea and let them create the image of a local civilian crisis, rather than a direct invasion. If he does invade, it would blow his non-threatening cover before he’s ready for war and force the West to react militarily, which they aren’t financially prepared to do.

Armed pro-Russian protestors in the city of Luhansk rejected Kiev’s offer of amnesty for those who seized government buildings earlier this week. The protesters are trying to play the democracy card: saying they would only lay down their weapons if Ukraine agreed to a referendum vote on independence for Eastern Ukraine, which the Pro-Russian side would surely win. The UK Telegraph summarized it well:

 Russia was accused of attempting to repeat the “Crimea scenario” in eastern Ukraine Monday after pro-Moscow activists barricaded seized government buildings and in one city proclaimed a referendum on breaking ties with Kyiv. Activists seized control of public buildings in Donetsk, Kharkiv and Luhansk on Sunday night and issued calls yesterday for Russian support for their uprising against the pro-Western government. In a statement, the Donetsk separatists said a referendum on independence would be held on May 11, a date they said had been coordinated with other groups in the Kharkiv and Luhansk regions.

All of these tactics are designed to put a more humanitarian tilt to Putin’s stealthy move and avoid the need for an open invasion, though that is still an option.

 Ukrainian and NATO officials warned that large, well-prepared bodies of Russian troops were standing by close to the Ukrainian border in a clear threat to intervene of behalf of the demonstrators. Oleksander Turchinov, Ukraine’s acting president, said in a televised address that Russia was seeking to repeat “the Crimea scenario” and promised that “anti-terrorist measures” would be deployed against any armed revolt.

We should know today if any of those threats materialize. In any case, NATO made an effort to confirm prior claims about Russia “massing troops” on the Eastern border. They are now claiming 40,000 Russian combat forces, a far cry from the 100,000 troop number that Ukraine was claiming before. Here’s what NATO is claiming according to news from the AP:

 Speaking at the end of a NATO conference in Paris, [US NATO General] Breedlove told the AP the Russian armed presence near Ukraine’s frontier continues unabated… the general’s staff provided the AP with a set of commercial satellite photographs they said showed Russian warplanes, combat helicopters, armor, artillery and a probable airborne or special forces brigade deployed in locations east of the Ukraine-Russian border, including along the coastline of the Sea of Azov.

 The commercial provider of the photographs, DigitalGlobe, said they were taken in late March. [The US won’t show classified military satellite images to keep US capabilities secret—as if the Russians don’t know already.] “What we see there is a force of about 40,000,” Breedlove said. “I would characterize it as a combined arms army. In other words, this is an army that has all of the provisioning and enablers that it needs to accomplish military objectives if given them.”

However, the Russian ministry of defense adamantly denies that these photos are recent. They say they were taken in August of 2013 during a major exercise on the border with military participation of both Ukrainian and Russian troops.

While the Ukraine government and Secretary of State Kerry fume and threaten that this buildup, if real, is unacceptable, they have made few military moves to deter it, which confirms my suspicion that no big war is anticipated right now.

The US is moving some F-16′s into a base in Romania as a token show of force, but they won’t be able to do anything unless there’s a real invasion. You can’t use F-16′s against protestors, though they are capable of hampering armored columns and troop formations if it comes to that. But I’m still betting it won’t come to that.

The US is still only talking “stronger sanctions” against Russia if she invades—and we know how “tough” that first group of token sanctions were—considered a joke in Russia! The second round of sanction may be about economic and financial trade and that will hurt the EU as much as Russia.

Of course there’s no talk of military consequences and no NATO or US forces anywhere nearby to make good on any implied military options—although the US NATO commander did mention the possibility of US troops becoming involved. As the AP article noted,

 NATO’s top military commander in Europe, U.S. Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, drafting countermoves to the Russian military threat against Ukraine, said Wednesday they could include deployment of American troops to alliance member states in Eastern Europe now feeling at risk.

Don’t hold your breath. His commitments were so tentative and iffy as to make them dismissible. This is mere posturing for the sake of nervous allies near the front lines. One look at the dismal state of US and NATO preparedness in the region shows how unprepared they are to take on a formidable first world military like Russia’s.

Der Spiegel of Germany put on the definitive assessment this week and came to the conclusion that NATO is woefully unprepared for war with Russia. That’s the way it always is with the West before a world war. Like the US, NATO has been duped into thinking the only future threats are unconventional warfare against terrorists.

 Once the Cold War ended [an illusion, created by the phony “fall of the Soviet Union] Western militaries reduced their focus on military deterrence in Europe. As a consequence, the Ukraine crisis has caught NATO flat-footed as it rushes to find an adequate response to Russia. Germany has been reluctant to go along.

 The alliance’s cooperation with Russia — which took years to build up [one of the purposes of faking Communism’s demise] – has been on ice since last week. And Moscow is no longer seen as a partner, but as an adversary. The logical next step is clear: How does military deterrence function in the year 2014?

 It is a term that hasn’t been heard in Western Europe for some time. Prior to the fall of communism and the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact, deterrence was based on the destructive potential of atomic weapons, hundreds of thousands of soldiers posted in Europe, heavy weaponry and tanks. The West German army alone had some 495,000 troops, 4,100 Leopard battle tanks and 600 warplanes. The soldiers were the core of an Allied defensive force defending the border between the two power blocks — a frontier that ran right through Germany.

 Since then, Germany’s defense budget has shrunk from 3 percent of gross social product to just 1.2 percent. The country’s army, the Bundeswehr, now has 185,000 soldiers – a number that is set to fall even further — and is focused less on defending Germany than it is on participating in select foreign missions. Instead of tanks and howitzers stationed at the Fulda Gap, the emphasis is now on paratroopers and helicopters for places like Kosovo, Afghanistan or Africa… The number of warplanes possessed by Germany’s military has been more than halved since the fall of communism and hundreds of battle tanks were either mothballed or sold off.

And nobody in Europe wants to face the fact that the Soviet Union is coming back. The cost to rearm and prepare for what’s coming is enormous, at a time when the EU, like the US is close to bankruptcy. Both nations traded guns for butter and allowed their welfare states (the butter) to grow until public demand will no longer allow them to shrink.

 The new debate within NATO is no doubt music to the ears of aging cold warriors who have always felt that integrating Moscow into alliance structures was dangerously naive. [“Aging Cold Warriors” is the modern pejorative for those who should now be celebrated as correct.] But it is also the logical consequence of a reconsideration of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s long-term goals. If Russia is now planning its future against the West rather than with the West, then the question regarding a “modern deterrence” must be posed.

One wonders why they still talk in terms of “if”.

 Prior to the Ukraine crisis, there were many asking what purpose NATO would serve once the alliance’s troops had withdrawn from Afghanistan. But now that Putin has taken over the Crimea — leading countries on the alliance’s eastern edge to feel threatened — the mood in NATO’s Brussels headquarters has changed dramatically.

 Senior officers within NATO are demanding internally that the readiness of Western ground troops and air forces be increased. Currently, it would take 180 days for the requisite forces to be moved into place ahead of any operation. That time lag, argue military leaders, needs to be shortened, a proposition that would also affect up to 10,000 German troops. In addition, say military leaders, tank units should be strengthened and munition depots filled. Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski even proposed stationing two NATO brigades (up to 10,000 troops) in his country. That, however, would require the construction of barracks, depots and equipment storage facilities to house them.

 The Chancellery in Berlin is wary of such proposals. “We shouldn’t give the Russians any cause for accusing us of breaching treaties,” officials there say. In 1997, NATO committed itself to refrain from stationing large numbers of troops in former Warsaw Pact member states. Doing so now would be a provocation of a new dimension. [As if Putin’s moves weren’t provocative!]

 As such, Foreign Minister Steinmeier is focusing exclusively on diplomacy. His ministry is currently developing an “Action Plan for Ukraine,” which is to elucidate all of Berlin’s support for the new Ukrainian government. All of the ministries involved in that support are taking part in creating the action plan, the Foreign Ministry says. But the Ministry of Defense is not one of them.

And look at the slow, timid moves NATO is making, militarily—no Russian planner is going to shudder at this!

 NATO has asked alliance members to make additional contributions over and above the already agreed to increase to air-policing sorties and AWACS surveillance flights. Proposals are to be submitted to NATO headquarters by mid-April. Von der Leyen is likely to propose joint military maneuvers involving Germany, Poland and the Baltic states. A NATO maneuver planned for 2015 in Southern Europe could also be moved up and shifted to the east. But the minister has rejected sending heavy equipment or troops for an extended period.

 Poland, for its part, would like to see even more shows of NATO solidarity. Not to put too fine a point on it, Poland is afraid of Russia, as are its Baltic neighbors. Some of that fear stems from the Soviet era. But Russia’s recent show of power on Ukraine’s eastern border — and Putin’s evident refusal to withdraw forces as he recently promised — has also raised concern in Warsaw.

 The West long snickered at the dilapidated state of Russia’s military. [Actually, military intelligence has always been aware of both the level of cheating in Russia on arms treaties and the continuing military build-up, but they were politically silenced from saying so.] But it has since been dramatically modernized and analysts in Western armies and intelligence services are concerned about the capabilities Russia has put on display in recent maneuvers.

 Operation Sapad 2013 is a particularly stark example. Sapad is the Russian word for West and the exercise could certainly be understood as a threat pointed in that direction. Officially, fewer than 13,000 soldiers took part in the exercise, falling below the threshold that would have required observation by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). But part of the exercise took place in Kaliningrad, the Russian exclave on the Baltic Sea that shares borders with Poland and Lithuania. Special forces were involved as were officers from the FSB, Russia’s domestic intelligence agency. It total, Western military leaders estimate, some 60,000 people took part in the maneuver — one which even interfered with a NATO radar facility in the Baltics. The Russian military also fired a short-range “Iskander” missile. It was armed with nothing more than a practice warhead, but drills for arming such missiles with nuclear warheads were also apparently carried out.

 Nobody doubts today that Russia would be able to overrun and occupy eastern Ukraine. The German government believes that preventing such an eventuality is the task of diplomacy. In any case, the erstwhile Western military deterrent has been weakened considerably.

Neither the US nor NATO is warning of war with Russia, but even if they did, it would still confirm my prediction that our leaders would never acknowledge the Russian or Chinese threat until it was too late to stop. It’s already too late. While top leaders in Europe are once again talking “deterrence,” this coming war will not be deterred, so talk of deterrence is wasted breath.

War is coming sooner rather than later, I’m afraid, although I’m still convinced this current crisis won’t be the real trigger. Instead it’s the beginning of a long push to exacerbate tensions in the former Soviet states and justify eventual military action. Der Spiegel also notes an example of the blindness of European leaders:

 Volker Kauder, the head of the parliamentary group for Merkel’s conservative Christian Democrats, opposes such ideas [of remilitarization]. “The current situation with the Crimean crisis has absolutely zero influence on the Bundeswehr’s defense projects,” he claims. So far, that’s an opinion that has been shared by Defense Minister von der Leyen. [Talk about blind!]

Part of the problem in getting the Germans to spurn Russian energy and trade ties is the growing hostility toward America as well as German dependence on Russian fuel and natural gas. After the NSA spying scandal broke, the German Interior Minister said, “the USA is operating without any kind of boundaries.” He also mentioned that “approval ratings for Americans in German polls are lower right now than they have been in a long time. The last time this was the case was during a certain phase of the policies of George W. Bush.”

 Der Spiegel said that, “Germany is pulling closer to Russia out of its own self-interest and disgust with the U.S. We are so used to thinking of Germany as allied with the U.S. against Russia, this may be hard for most Americans to conceive. But this is how alliances change—with a first step.

We have to also keep in mind that many of Germany’s high politicians, including Angela Merkel, were communists from former East Germany and no one can ever be sure where their ultimate allegiance lies. There are also a lot of closet Marxists in German media and education all gleefully waiting for the resurgence of Soviet power to “show the US a lesson.” Keep in mind that German people, in general, have been subjected to a barrage of socialist public education since the war and surveys reflect this soft German thinking among the baby boomers:

 “A recent survey conducted by pollster Infratest dimap showed that almost half of all Germans want the country to adopt the middle ground between Russia and the West. In the states that belonged to the former East Germany, twice as many people as in western German states believe that Germany should adopt a special role. But even in the western states, there is only a narrow majority which believes Germany should stand firmly on the side of NATO and the EU in the conflict with Russia. It’s fair to say that when it comes to question of its affiliation with the West, Germany is a divided land.”

They’re going to learn the hard way (as will America) about how naive they all were about buying into the post Soviet “peace agenda.” Meanwhile, NATO is only helping justify more Russian intervention by continuing to hold out NATO membership for Ukraine. The current president of the EU, Former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, published an op-ed in the German daily Die Welt saying that the path to NATO membership was fundamentally open to Ukraine.

While I agree with the sentiment that any sovereign nation has the right to choose, NATO membership for Ukraine is not, in fact, on the table right now, and it would be unwise to do so given the fact that the majority of voters in Ukraine are Pro-Russian—that’s why Yanukovych won the last election. Further dividing Ukraine along partisan lines by offering NATO membership will only justify the need for people to rebel in Eastern Ukraine.

Despite my continued efforts in print and radio interviews to portray this Ukraine coup, correctly, as a Russian-driven coup, I find myself in a running battle with other anti-globalist commentators and writers who are so consumed with attacking the globalists that they insist on portraying Russia as the victims of globalist intrigue.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Putin has given orders to special operatives in Eastern Ukraine to organize these protests and gain access to automatic weapons so protestors can be armed—and not with just a few old hunting rifles as in the pro-liberty protests in Kiev. While I’m sure that most of the pro-Russian protestors are legitimate (not paid, but stupidly naive about Russia), there are paid stooges directing the tactical scene.

Yes, it is also true that the pro-EU protests in Western Ukraine were managed, but not just by the West. The Russians also wanted the appearance of a breakaway Ukraine to justify their intervention. If fact, they not only planned for the final coup against Yanukovych, but made it happen in the final hours when they gave orders to the riot police to stay in their barracks and let the protestors take over all government buildings. The coup simply could not have happened without Russian direction. They also gave orders to the pro-Russian Party of Regions, who held the majority in the Ukraine parliament, to oust their own leader. If you insist this was a Western coup, tell me how the globalists did either of those two things.

Many otherwise intelligent conservatives don’t understand the sophistication of Hegelian dialectics and don’t see that both Russia and the West had motives to make this appear as a Western coup. Both want a world war, for very different reasons, and that’s why the controlled Western media is covering for both this phony Russian directed coup, as well as the phony fall of the Soviet Union. The globalist media let Russia get away with anything while she gains strength and, at the same time, highlight any justifications that build up animosity toward the West. The West is accommodating this view by constant bullying and intervening around the world.

This Russian ploy in Ukraine has put the country into a permanent state of disarray and made the government to appear illegitimate which helps the Russians to create tensions in the East. And, believe me, just like in Russian elections, Moscow controls the Western Ukraine opposition as they do all major parties in Russia, even those on the “right.” They have always controlled the major opposition parties and leaders in Western Ukraine, such as Yulia Timoshenko, who is trying to regain the presidency.

The Russians have been promoting the story that the West has sent in 150 mercenaries (Greystone, supposedly an offshoot of Blackwater) into Eastern Ukraine and dressed them up as Ukrainian soldiers. Secretary of State Kerry says this is “rubbish” and for once I think he is telling the truth. The Russian press has not presented one shred of evidence to back up their claims. Besides, you can’t send foreign mercenaries into Ukraine and expect them to tangle with protestors and not be recognized as Americans or detected as foreigners for their lack of language skills. Even American Special Forces trained in Russian can’t pass as native speakers. They can always be detected by the locals.

The Voice of Russia is pouring on the propaganda about mercenaries to gin up fears of a massacre among the pro-Russians in Eastern Ukraine. The story is always accompanied by the worn out claim that these mercenaries are “financed by Ukrainian oligarchs and organized in coordination with the US State Department.” But Oligarchs in Ukraine as in Russia are allowed to rise because of insider connections with the pro-Russian establishment. So even if oligarchs were involved, they would be working for Russia—not a free Ukraine.

Clearly the current conflict is going to quickly make Ukraine a basket case economically. Putin has raised gas prices 80% for Ukraine and is claiming to be cutting off imports from Ukraine to Russia, its largest trading partner. But it is only a selective cutoff. Russia can’t do without Ukraine’s grain, nor its military parts suppliers—a lot of Russia’s high tech aviation and military parts come from Ukrainian factories. But other non-strategic commerce will be squeezed in order to create a clamor for the Ukraine government to give in to Russian demands, in order to restore trade.

While I don’t think this is going to amount to WWIII yet, it’s probably going to advance to a certain point and then stalemate for a while, until Russia and China are ready to take on the West. Let’s look at the various possibilities and the consequences of each:

1) Ukraine accedes to the demands for a referendum and the vote goes in favor of joining Russia or forming an independent state. Ukraine would certainly not recognize independence but may counter with an offer of a semi-autonomous regional status. That would be rejected and protests would continue.

2) Ukraine refuses to accept a referendum and cracks down with force to remove protestors from the buildings. If Russia does not intervene militarily, there will be more protests for a long time and lots of future opportunities for Russian intervention if there is bloodshed.

3) Ukraine cracks down on protests and Russia intervenes to restore order, holds a referendum, just like in Crimea and annexes Eastern Ukraine. The US and NATO are in no position to stop it so it becomes the new status quo and the country is reluctantly divided but the West never accepts it as legitimate. Thus, it becomes a constant source of future tension and no further accommodations with Russia are possible, including more disarmament.

Any way it comes down, I think the crisis will stalemate at some point in favor of Russia, but won’t keep progressing toward a world war until other factors are in place in both Russia and China.

-

UKRAINE’S TIMID RESPONSE TO RUSSIAN MOVES

by Joel Skousen | World Affairs Brief
April 18, 2014

The game of cat and mouse continues this week as Russia provokes more uprisings while Ukraine responded with minimal force, at best. Their threat of action against the pro-Russian separatists occupying government buildings came and went last Friday. So did Monday’s deadline. Even though armed paratroopers were flown into the Eastern region, they quickly showed that they had no orders to use force. What this means is that Ukraine has no intention of confronting the armed separatists in the East. Numerous local police and even some of the armed forces continue to defect to the separatist side which is making enforcement of a Ukrainian national will almost impossible. The UN declined to send in peacekeepers, which sent yet another signal to Putin that the West will also only give minimal opposition to his stealth moves to recapture Ukraine.

This conforms closely to my predictions that the West will not oppose Russia’s moves on Ukraine, and that Putin will not directly invade. The minimal reactions by the West and interim government also confirms my idea that the supposed opposition in Western Ukraine may also be secretly directed by Moscow—hence no orders to shoot in the East.

Putin is clearly working behind the scenes to foment the separatist riots. Press reports this week said armed protesters and “militia” forced their way into police buildings using flash grenades and brandishing military rifles. But no one in the mainstream press asked where these local people got automatic weapons, stun grenades and other strictly military hardware in a country where it is illegal for civilians to be armed. Why are the rioters all wearing Army camouflage uniforms and often masks?

Shame on the Western press for falling for this propaganda. Of course, they (and the Western globalists) have been accessories to this phony revolution—not only in partially funding the initial protests, but also by not exposing these Russian ploys.

The pro-Russian protesters are mostly former or current military people who have been recruited by Russian agents to play as if they are “militia” but there is no such thing in these countries. Putin’s military is clearly passing out automatic weapons and directing the armed portion of the separatist movement—to further his very cunning stealth invasion of Eastern Ukraine.

This is similar to what we saw in Crimea and differs very much in scope and form from the relatively unarmed protests in Western Ukraine where, with the exception of a few agent-provocateur snipers, there were very few weapons. The original protesters wore largely street clothes and ski helmets, not military dress and mostly fought with paving stones and Molotov cocktails—all very different from the current separatist “riots.”

Three pro-Russian protesters were killed and 13 injured during an armed raid Wednesday night on a Ukrainian National Guard base in the Black Sea port of Mariupol, but this does not mean Ukraine is starting a show of force. They claimed an offensive success by retaking an airport but that was also not aggressive military action, as the AP noted:

Ukraine’s acting president says army troops have restored control over a small airport in eastern Ukraine that had been occupied by pro-Russian militiamen… Heavy gunfire rang out at the airport near Kramatorsk on Tuesday, but there was no immediate confirmation of any casualties.

As usual there were conflicting reports. They may not, in fact, have “taken back” the airport as claimed. One source said that the Ukrainian army had always maintained control of the airport and the automatic weapon fire was just warning shots into the air to discourage armed protesters, thus there were no casualties.

The only real casualties were caused by armed protesters who were attacking the Ukrainian-held military positions or government buildings. As the AP reported,

Masked and battle-ready militia bearing sophisticated firearms have been deeply involved in seizing government offices in eastern Ukraine, igniting suspicions that much of the unrest is being stirred with Russia’s backing. But in a four-hour televised question-and-answer session, Putin on Thursday dismissed as “nonsense” claims that Russian special forces were fomenting the unrest in eastern Ukraine.

Putin is lying. The only way these militants could get Russian weapons was for Russia to provide them. In other confrontations, the AFP reported

20 tanks and armored personnel carriers were the most forceful response yet by the Western-backed government in Kiev to the pro-Kremlin militants’ occupation of state buildings in nearly 10 cities across Ukraine’s rust belt. Ukrainian forces set up a cement road barrier and began checking traffic leading to Slavyansk while fighters and attack helicopters circled overhead. [All for show, no direct confrontation with armed separatists holding government buildings.]

“They must be warned that if they do not lay down their arms, they will be destroyed,” Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) General Vasyl Krutov told a group of reporters tracking the sudden tank movements [big talk, no action]. He insisted that the militants were receiving support from several hundred soldiers from the Russian army’s Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) that had been dispatched to Slavyansk and surrounding villages.

Then there was the issue of how the pro-Russian forces commandeers six armored personnel carriers:

Breaking hours of silence, the Ukrainian Defense Ministry issued a statement saying Ukrainian troops had entered Kramatorsk, south of Slovyansk, on Wednesday morning. There residents and “members of Russian sabotage groups” seized six armored personnel vehicles and drove them to Slovyansk. The military insisted the armed men seen on APCs in Slovyansk were not Ukrainian forces but added “the whereabouts of the Ukrainian servicemen” had yet to be established.

Sounds to me like the Ukrainian crew just gave up and ran away without a fight or defected. You’ve got to remember here that the Ukrainian military is full of pro-Russian enlistees and it has to create a conflict with them when they are suddenly expected to shoot at their fellow Russian-speaking brothers.

But let me be clear: Russia is not the victim of Western Globalist aggression in Ukraine—a charge heard more frequently on our side of the alternative news. Russia’s controlled media is pushing out nonstop propaganda about how fascist the new regime in Ukraine is. Notice in this Time.com report how Putin claims they are so oppressed in Ukraine that they have to “arm themselves.” Sorry, Vladimir, but civilians cannot just arm themselves in Ukraine unless provided the weapons:

Russian President Vladimir Putin warned during a live televised Q&A on Thursday that he would send troops to protect the people of eastern Ukraine and that Kiev gave him just the visuals he needed to revive his faltering narrative about civilians under threat [and it is a faltering narrative].

Vladimir Putin could not have picked a better day than Thursday, April 17, to hold his annual call-in show on Russian television. Two days earlier, Ukraine’s government had sent its military to fight armed Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine. The result on Wednesday in the region of Donetsk was a series of clashes and confrontations between the military and the local separatists. [Actually, there were no bloodshed except on the Black Sea, where the armed protestors were clearly doing the attacking.] So on Thursday, when Putin appeared live on TV, he clearly felt he had every excuse to move one step closer toward a Russian intervention.

“The people in the eastern regions have started arming themselves,” Putin said in response to a question about the Ukrainian crisis. “And instead of realizing that something isn’t right in the Ukrainian state and moving toward a dialogue, (the government in Kiev) began threatening more force and even moved in tanks and planes against the peaceful population. [None were used or even put into a position to fire] This is yet another very serious crime of Ukraine’s current rulers.” He then reminded viewers that the Russian parliament has given him approval to send troops into Ukraine. “I really hope that I’m won’t be forced to use that right,” he says.

But Russia has been warning for months that it would take eastern Ukraine “under its protection” if the local population came under threat of military force. [But, clearly Putin started this all by arming the separatists (calling them militia).] The Kremlin’s television channels have meanwhile been hyping that threat with all the subtlety of a jackhammer. Their narrative has been simple: Ukraine’s revolution brought fascists to power in February; those fascists are out to repress the Russian-speaking regions of southern and eastern Ukraine; salvation lies in separatism and, if needed, in Russia’s protection.

Still, I don’t think direct intervention is going to be necessary, and Putin risks forcing NATO to intervene if he does openly send in Russian troops. This is a bluff, and that’s all the temporary Ukrainian government needs to justify its timid approach to the protesters.

In response to all of this stealth war, the US State Department said on Tuesday that it anticipates more sanctions against Russia but that nothing would be proposed before the scheduled four-way talks in Geneva this week, and nobody in Europe expects the EU to do anything that will cut off Russian oil or gas. Until the US gets its export operation of compressed natural gas up and running (2 years) it won’t be in any position to help the EU thumb their nose at Russian gas, which constitutes 40 percent of Europe’s needs. The US has been exporting diesel fuel to Europe for the past few years—and that’s why diesel prices are higher here than gasoline, not because there is a shortage.

The NY Times revealed this about the EU’s fear of sanctions on Russia.

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and other leaders here have for weeks made it clear that they will go along with tougher sanctions, while cautioning behind closed doors that a serious rupture in business and other ties could take years to heal. [Demonstrates how Merkel says one thing in public, but is pro-Russian in private.]

And Al Jazeera found this quote: “Russia thinks the West is unable to impose any real sanctions on Russia, and to a large extent it is right. Putin understands the West much better than the West understands Putin,” said Wojciech Kononczuk, a scholar with the Center for Eastern Studies. “A weak response from the West after the Russian annexation of Crimea gave it a green light for further escalation, and Russia has shown it is ready to pay some costs of its actions.

Well said. Since it is obvious to Putin that the West won’t oppose his stealth moves in Ukraine by force of arms, he can continue to slowly take over Eastern Ukraine until it becomes a de facto divided nation. I think that’s where we are headed. If Russia moves faster with an armed invasion, I still don’t think the West will oppose him but it forces the West to view Russia as a full enemy, which neither Russia nor the globalists want just yet.

Russia will demand at future talks that Ukraine hold a referendum in all the Eastern sectors where the Russian-speaking majority will ensure a pro-Russian outcome. The West will protest the referendums but will accede to the eventual secession of Eastern Ukraine—obviously, the majority in Eastern Ukraine are never going to go back to square one.

As a compromise (in the face of certain loss) the Ukraine government will likely encourage the eastern side to become a semi-autonomous republic, loosely attached to Ukraine—but that would only be acceptable to the pro-Russian side if they get orders from Moscow to slow down the dismemberment of Ukraine and accept a temporary truce. Either way, Russia gains back Eastern Ukraine and NATO loses face as a paper tiger—further encouraging those who are anxious to see the West gets its comeuppance for all those years of bullying around the world.

As the NY Times announced, NATO is only going to make some token moves as a show of political force—not real military force:

The head of NATO pledged on Wednesday to immediately step up military [air] patrols along the alliance’s vast eastern border in response to mounting evidence of Russian interference in Ukraine… But Mr. Rasmussen emphasized that the move was designed to be a deterrent rather than preparation for conflict.

“Our decisions today are about defense, deterrence and de-escalation,” Mr. Rasmussen said in a statement posted on the NATO website. “NATO will protect every ally and defend against any threat against our fundamental security,” he said.

As I said last week, Putin is not going to be deterred and the coming war between East and West is inevitable. It is also interesting where NATO chooses to increase aircraft sorties and surveillance. They have only done so in the Baltic States—over Poland and a few flights over Romania where the US has leased an air base—but nothing over Ukraine itself. Go figure.

Mr. Rasmussen said the decision on Wednesday meant that aircraft will fly more sorties over the Baltic region and that allied ships will deploy to the Baltic Sea, the eastern Mediterranean and elsewhere, as required… In addition, military personnel will deploy “to enhance our preparedness, training and exercises,” he said. “We will have more planes in the air, more ships on the water, and more readiness on the land,” he said.

All of this rings hollow. All his pontificating did was heighten nerves about Ukraine across all of Europe, as people suddenly realize they are sitting ducks if Russia tests NATO’s meager forces.

Reflecting the West’s concern, German Chancellor Angela Merkel called Russian President Vladimir Putin late Tuesday to discuss the situation in Ukraine and the upcoming diplomatic talks in Geneva on Thursday.

The U.S., Russia and European Union agreed to a framework of steps to de-escalate tensions in Ukraine, including demobilizing militias, vacating seized Ukrainian government buildings, and establishing a political reform program, U.S. and Russian officials said Thursday.

“The Geneva meeting on the situation in Ukraine agreed on initial concrete steps to de-escalate tensions and restore security for all citizens,” the participants in the talks said in a joint-statement. “All sides must refrain from any violence, intimidation or provocative actions.”

But this is a worthless agreement since Russia can still claim not to have any control over the protestors, who may well be secretly encouraged to not stand down. That seems to be exactly what is happening in the aftermath of the Geneva agreement. The NY Times said today,

The leader of a group of pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine said he would ignore the international agreement reached in Geneva on Thursday to de-escalate the crisis in the country because his representatives were not at the talks. The agreement, announced by the United States, Russia, the European Union and Ukraine, called for all protesters to vacate the buildings they have occupied and lay down their arms. But Denis Pushilin, the leader of a group that seized government buildings in Donetsk, a regional capital in the east, and declared an independent People’s Republic of Donetsk that no nation has recognized, told reporters on Friday that his followers would not comply until the interim government in Kiev resigned.

He repeated his group’s demand for a referendum on the region’s future, similar to the one that preceded the annexation of Crimea by Russia last month. Russia “did not sign anything for us,” Mr. Pushilin said at a news conference in Donetsk.

Of course this is hypocritical in that Pushilin openly invited Russia to come in a protect them from the Ukrainian military—but no he disavows all connections. He wants it both ways.

Breaking: Bill Gertz of the Free Beacon reports that Russia has just notified the US that it is refusing to allow a surveillance plane to fly in their airspace this week despite the Open Skies Treaty that allows both nations to freely fly surveillance aircraft over the other’s nation in a show of openness:

Under the Open Skies Treaty, the sole permitted reason for canceling such overflights is flight safety and U.S. officials said that was not the reason for the Russians’ action. “They’re getting ready to do SOMETHING [to Ukraine] and they don’t want us LOOKING,” said one official familiar with the canceled flight. Former Pentagon official Phillip A. Karber said the denial of the Open Skies flight appears to be designed to LIMIT intelligence gathering on Russian forces near Ukraine.

Russia may well have signed the Geneva agreement disingenuously, knowing that the separatists wouldn’t go along and that Ukraine would be forced to forcibly disarm them—giving Russia perhaps an excuse for invasion to “protect Russians.” I’ll end this section with a quote from Alex Grossman:

First Vladimir Putin mauled Georgia, but the world forgave him—because Russia was too important to be cut adrift. Then he gobbled up Crimea, but the world accepted it—because Crimea should have been Russian all along. Now he has infiltrated eastern Ukraine, but the world is hesitating—because infiltration is not quite invasion. But if the West does not face up to Mr Putin now, it may find him at its door.

 

-

AMERICA’S PEACETIME RETREAT FROM EUROPE NOW LEAVES U.S. POWERLESS IN UKRAINE

Combat teams, aircraft, tanks pulled from Europe

-

A10CTwo A-10C Thunderbolt II aircraft pilots fly in formation during a training exercise March 16, 2010, at Moody Air Force, Ga. Members of the 74th Fighter Squadron performed surge operations to push its support function to the limit and simulate pilots’ wartime flying rates. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Benjamin Wiseman)

-

By Rowan Scarborough | The Washington Times

April 18, 2014

The Obama administration has removed all operational combat tanks from Europe and key strike aircraft, limiting the options for a show of force to bolster eastern NATO allies as Russia contemplates invading Ukraine.

Most analysts, and President Obama, say direct military aid to Kiev in the form of weapons, air power or ground troops is off the table.

That makes it a top priority to show Russian President Vladimir Putin that Washington stands militarily behind NATO members such as the Baltic states, Poland and other countries once under Soviet domination.

The problem is, the U.S. shelf is a bit bare. In the past two years, the Obama administration has deactivated the only two armored combat brigade teams in Europe equipped with the Army’s main M1 battle tanks. It also disbanded a squadron of A-10 ground-attack jets that proved effective over Libya.

While Mr. Putin is flexing his muscle in the east, Washington is tilting military away from Europe and toward Asia.

“Everyone is moving west when we need to be looking east,” said Luke Coffey, a former Army officer who was a defense adviser to Britain’s conservative government.

“Ten thousand American troops have moved west out of Europe,” said Mr. Coffey, an analyst at The Heritage Foundation. “Ten thousand British soldiers have moved west out of Germany, while thousands of Russian soldiers have moved west to the Ukraine.”

On Wednesday, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced an increase in air policing missions over the Baltic member countries. More allied warships will be sent to the Baltic Sea and eastern Mediterranean, Mr. Fogh Rasmussen said.

Tensions reached new levels Tuesday as Ukraine launched its first military strike against pro-Russian militias that had gained control of an airport near the eastern border. Mr. Putin declared that Ukraine was on the brink of civil war, a statement that could be construed as pretext to invade.

Mr. Fogh Rasmussen accused Mr. Putin of fomenting the violence in Ukraine.

“We call on Russia to be part of the solution,” he said. “To stop destabilizing Ukraine, pull back its troops from the borders and make clear it doesn’t support the violent actions of well-armed militias of pro-Russian separatists.”

Mr. Coffey said there are steps the White House can take. For example, it sent older aircraft — F-15 fighters — from England to Lithuania for policing missions.

“If we’re going to take this threat seriously, why not send F-22s?” he said, referring to the Raptor, the Air Force’s most modern ground-attack stealth fighter. “Why are we sending planes that had their heyday in the 1980s? The F-22 is the most advanced fighter plane we have in the inventory, and it would send a message to Russia that we mean business. It’s not business as usual when you send F-22s.”

The Pentagon also could send a team of non-combatants into Ukraine to assess the threat posed by Russian troops, armor and fighter aircraft massing near its border, Mr. Coffey said.

“There really aren’t any military options,” said James Russell, an instructor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif. “The truth of the matter — the Russian army is there and ours isn’t, and the Europeans have mostly disarmed, so you can forget about them. It isn’t much more complicated than that.”

Mr. Russell noted that Ukraine is not a NATO member, which would require the alliance to defend it.

Also, he said, “We have no vital interests at stake in Ukraine.”

He said the real option is to make Mr. Putin suffer. “Russia will pay a mounting political and economic cost to its thuggery, as Putin and his cronies expand their looting activities to what’s left to steal in the Ukraine,” Mr. Russell said.

Mr. Coffey said two Army combat teams remain in Europe: an airborne unit and a one mechanized with Stryker armored personnel carriers. The two tank brigades were deactivated in 2012 and 2013.

“For the first time in 70 years, there’s not a single U.S. tank on European soil that can be used for combat operations,” he said, adding that the Pentagon moved a few tanks back to the Continent for training purposes earlier this year.

The 67,000 U.S. troops in Europe are down from a Cold War peak of 400,000.

Mr. Coffey said a heavy brigade is designated for Europe and based at Fort Hood, Texas. It could be sent to Europe on a rotational basis as a show of force. With regard to air power, the U.S. has F-16s parked at Aviano, Italy, and F-15s at Lakenheath, England.

State Department spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki said Tuesday that “we’re not actively considering military assistance,” including nonlethal equipment such as body armor.

A defense industry source said Ukrainian officials have been in the U.S. shopping for small arms and communications gear — items the Obama administration is unwilling to provide.

“Certainly, there are requests that have come in from the Ukrainians, but our focus at this point remains on the economic and political support that we’re providing to the Ukrainian government,” the industry source said on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive issues freely.

The Pentagon provided 300,000 packaged meals, called MREs, in March.

“I’m pretty confident MREs won’t stop the Russians,” said Gary Schmitt, an analyst at the American Enterprise Institute.

The administration’s steadfast opposition to any military aid rankles Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, who has said Mr. Obama does not realize that Mr. Putin still lives in the Cold War.

“We ought to at least, for God’s sake, give them some weapons, light weapons with which to defend themselves,” Mr. McCain said Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

He said the administration “won’t even share some intelligence with the Ukrainian government. I can tell you from my conversations with people in the government, they feel abandoned by us, and rightfully so. This is shameful.”

The Russian media reported that CIA Director John O. Brennan made a secret trip to Kiev last week in what is believed to be an offer of some intelligence on what the Russians are up to.

-

SAVING UKRAINE

-

By Keith Darden | Foreign Affairs
April 14, 2014

For the first time since 1989, Europe is transforming. Russia is expanding. NATO and the West are struggling to react. And there is constant talk of a new Cold War. The primary protagonists, by most accounts, are Russia and the West. It’s Putin vs. Obama, Moscow vs. Brussels, authoritarian speed vs. democratic dithering. The bit of territory that they are clawing at — Ukraine — has largely been eclipsed. For, as with all great geopolitical contests, observers assume that the real forces at work lie not in the battleground — Ukraine now, or Corcyra in the struggle between Athens and Sparta, or Bohemia in the Thirty Years’ War — but with the Great Powers.

Yet inattention to Ukraine’s internal demons reflects a dangerous misreading of current events; the struggle between Russia and the West has been a catalyst, but not a cause. The protagonists in this conflict are subnational regions. The EU association process, and especially the protests, repression, and revolution that followed, activated very deep and long-standing divisions between them. Unless Kiev deals with its regions and installs a more legitimate, decentralized government, Ukraine will not be won by the East or the West. It will be torn apart.

Since the problem is an internal Ukrainian problem (and remains so, despite Russia’s annexation of Crimea, the presence of tens of thousands of Russian troops on the country’s borders, and the seizure of city administrations throughout eastern Ukraine by pro-Russian groups), the solution will also be Ukrainian. The country might not be able to fix its centuries-old divides, but it must finally craft institutions to accommodate them.

NEW RUSSIA

In some sense, it is accurate to describe the battle in Ukraine as an East-West struggle: the east is Donetsk, and the west is Lviv.

On the side of the West are the four provinces that were part of Habsburg Austria until 1918. Later, all were swept into the Soviet Union. For over a century, these regions have been a hotbed of anti-Russian, pro-European sentiment. When they were in power, the Habsburgs, fearing both Polish nationalism and Russian expansionism, encouraged and cultivated fierce nationalism through schools, societies, and paramilitary scouting organizations. They taught the local peasants — who had previously referred to themselves as ruski or rusyn — that they were part of a great Ukrainian nation spanning from the Carpathian Mountains to the banks of the Don River, and that they had historically been oppressed by the Russians and the Poles. The peasants’ allies in their struggle for national liberation? Europe, naturally. Or, more specifically, Habsburg Vienna.

The imprint of Ukrainian nationalism on these western communities has been remarkably durable. In the interwar period, they chafed at Polish rule. Ukrainian nationalists formed radical underground organizations, burned Polish estates, and ultimately assassinated the Polish interior minister. When the Soviet Union took over these territories, it found an implacably hostile population, one that mounted a large-scale insurgency. At the insurgency’s peak, there were over 100,000 men at arms. These warriors fought the Soviets through the early 1950s. When the Soviets finally defeated the insurgency, these regions fed the ranks of Soviet dissidents and the anti-Soviet diaspora in the West. They were among the first to protest against Soviet rule again in the 1980s, and voted by large majorities for secession from the Soviet Union in March of 1991 (the only Ukrainian provinces to do so). Since then, Ukraine’s western reaches have been the mainstay for Ukraine’s nationalist parties. Although the population of these provinces is only about 12 percent of Ukraine’s total population, they punch far above their electoral weight because of the intensity of their political views, their support in the diaspora, and their willingness to take to the streets.

On the side of the East is what is currently called Ukraine’s south and east, historically known as New Russia. These are the areas that the Russian Empire annexed from the Tatar Khanate and the Ottoman Empire at the end of the eighteenth century. Because the area was home to very few people, these huge swaths of territory were largely settled by migrants from within the Russian empire and immigrants from abroad. In fact, the town that became the pro-Russian metropolis of Donetsk was originally chartered in 1869 by John Hughes, a Welsh businessman, as part of his New Russia Company for developing mining and ironworks. As in New England and New France, on the North American continent, diverse populations flooded into these territories on the promise of land, upward mobility, and education. They were taught the Russian language and — to a great extent — were assimilated into the Russian identity. To the extent that these areas were still thought of as Ukrainian, it was a Ukrainian identity that was not seen as being incompatible with Russian identity. In fact, these territories fed the ranks of the Soviet Union’s top leadership — Nikita Khrushchev earned his stripes in Donetsk, Leonid Brezhnev in Dnipropetrovsk — not the ranks of its discontents.

Like the former Habsburg territories, historic New Russia bears the stamp of its past. With the exception of Crimea, Soviet policies left most of those who live in what is today southeastern Ukraine with Ukrainian listed as their ethnicity in their passports, but these Ukrainians are overwhelmingly Russian-speaking and strongly pro-Russian. In the past elections, they voted in large numbers for the pro-Russian Party of Regions, and for the Communist Party prior to that. Since the 1990s, these regions have produced Ukraine’s most powerful leaders. Former President Viktor Yanukovych hails from Donetsk; former President Leonid Kuchma is from Dnipropetrovsk. The south and east constitute approximately half of Ukraine’s population and provides the lion’s share of its GDP.

It is thus not surprising that, when questioned about the Soviet past or about support for European or Russian alignment in the present, the country cleaves sharply, and consistently, along regional lines. According to a recent poll, the idea of joining NATO is popular only in western Ukraine (64 percent in favor). It is deeply unpopular in the south (11 percent in favor) and the east (14 percent in favor). Much the same is true for membership in the European Union. If the matter were up for a referendum, which it will not be anytime soon, 90 percent would vote yes in the west, 29 percent would vote yes in the south, and 22 percent would vote yes in the east. Perhaps looking for a silver lining to the Russian invasion, some observers maintained that the Russian occupation and annexation of Crimea would change those attitudes — after all, the stability and protection that Europe would offer starts to look better when your neighbor invades — but the regional divides are remarkably durable. Even surrounded by battle-ready Russian forces and at risk of annexation, southerners and easterners seem more interested in having the Russian military protect them from NATO than they are in having NATO protect them from Russia.

KEEPING UKRAINE WHOLE

When Yanukovych and his entire government were ousted back in February, the West welcomed it as a semi-constitutional revolution. The Russians saw it as a right-wing coup d’état. Neither view is entirely incorrect, but each misses the point. The relevant fact for Ukrainian politics is that power shifted in an extreme fashion from one regional base to another.

First, back in mid-February, only 20 percent in the east and eight percent in the south felt sympathetic toward the Maidan protesters; they could not possibly be expected to be pleased with how power changed hands in Kiev. Making matters worse, the new government under Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk is dominated by the west. Around 60 percent of its top officials (ministers and above) come from the former Habsburg provinces. A third are from Lviv itself. Only two members of the new government (Interior Minister Arsen Avakov and Minister of Social Policy Lyudmila Denisova) hail from the country’s south and east.

-

ukraine1-

This is in sharp contrast to the Yanukovych government, under Prime Minister Mykola Azarov, in which 75 percent of the ministerial-level leadership was from the south and east of the country and 42 percent was from Yanukovych’s home province of Donetsk.

-

ukraine2-

It is not hard to see why the Russophile regions have raged against the new government, which the regional press calls the Kiev junta, the Maidan government in Kiev, or simply Banderovtsy (the informal name for the anti-Soviet insurgency that was based in the Habsburg west). Indeed, the consequences of the shift in power toward the far west have been entirely predictable. First, Crimea was lost, and not solely because of the presence of Russian special forces. Rather, in early March, the overwhelming majority of Ukraine’s military forces on the peninsula simply followed the newly appointed head of the Ukrainian navy and defected to the Russian side. In Donetsk, even before pro-Russian groups occupied the regional administrative buildings and declared the area the Donetsk Autonomous Republic, the courts were refusing to act on the request of the prosecutors (controlled from Kiev) to charge and try protestors. Elsewhere in the New Russian territories, protesters have taken to the streets and seized administrations buildings despite the high risk of arrest.

The new government’s extreme regional imbalance created the space for Russian intervention, and it must be resolved immediately if Ukraine is going to survive intact. And survival is important.  Most Ukrainians still want to keep their country whole. That is a good thing, because despite the regional divisions, there would be no clear or clean way to partition the country. Managed unity is better than violent division. Yet a region containing 12 percent of the population but controlling the majority of the top government posts would be a recipe for instability in any country — even one without a large and powerful neighbor. Adding in the fact that the government came to power through a popular uprising rather than an election, that its foreign policy views are extreme outliers in the country, and that it is divorced from the historic centers of power and the current centers of wealth, it is surprising that Ukraine is still standing at all.

If the West continues on its current track, things will get much worse. Observers and policymakers in Europe and the United States have seen the new government as a potential partner to finally bring Ukraine into the Western fold. In turn, they have granted Kiev international legitimacy and financial backing. But this tug toward Europe may pull Ukraine apart. The same intense anti-Russian Ukrainian nationalism that gives the new government its desire to move toward Europe limits its capacity to govern Ukraine.

It is thus time to face some hard facts. A pro-European, pro-NATO government ruling a regionally divided country — and one that is quite vulnerable to Russian military intervention — is a recipe for instability, not for European integration. Simply pushing forward with EU association and NATO integration without pushing the government in Kiev to address its illegitimacy problems through means other than arrest is not much of a strategy. It’s not even much of a gamble, as it is almost certain to fail.

One way or another, power in Ukraine needs to be spread out. Early presidential elections are part of the answer, but they cannot achieve the goal alone. According to recent surveys, only 22 percent in the south and 15 percent in the east think that the upcoming elections will be free and fair. Illegitimate elections cannot confer legitimacy. If people in the southern and eastern regions feel they have no control over the process, they will not have a stake in the result. Power may thus need to be shared first, and then new elected leaders put in place.

The most obvious way to do that is through some form of constitutional change. Call it what you want: decentralization, federalization, regionalization. The label makes little difference. Kiev needs to transfer some very substantial powers, including those over education, language, law, and taxation, to the regions. It also needs to make the officials who hold such powers democratically accountable to elected councils and governors. The Russian plan to federalize Ukraine, which, in reality, is a plan to turn Ukraine into a weak confederation where the central government is largely ceremonial, is a step too far. It is a recipe for dissolution and Russian absorption of the territory, not a solution. But there is certainly a deal to be made between Ukraine’s regions that will satisfy its regional power bases, appease its neighbors, and keep the country whole. It is hard to see a viable alternative, and the interim Yatsenyuk government is now beginning to open up that dialogue. As long as Ukraine retains its highly centralized winner-take-all political system, and one regional faction sits in Kiev with the backing of either Russia or the West, Ukraine is going to be unstable. With a little bit of constitutional accommodation, though, the divided house just might stand.

-

GLENN BECK: WORLD WAR III INEVITABLE AS PUTIN PREPARES TO TAKE POLAND

According to Glenn Beck , World War III is now inevitable as Russia’s Vladimir Putin prepares to take Poland. Warning that Russia is now preparing to ‘re-take’ their old satellite countries while Barack Obama does nothing, Glenn warns that this will will soon spread to Europe as a ‘New World Order’ forms around the formerly socialist countries and moves ever closer to America.

-

-

POLAND IS QUIETLY MOBILIZING ITS ARMY RESERVISTS

  • Polish men in London getting military call-up papers

  • Poland feels vulnerable to Putin’s aggression

-

032514polish

-

By Crispin Black | The Week

March 25, 2014

NEXT time you take a tray of tea and custard creams to the nice gang of Polish builders renovating your semi, they may seem a little distracted and anxious. Ask them why, and they will answer that some of them have in the last few weeks received call-up papers as army reservists.

This happened to a friend of mine in London at the end of last week.  At least 7,000 reservists have been recalled to the colours for immediate exercises lasting between 10 and 30 days.

They’re told by the Polish authorities that the call-ups are “routine”: but the men say they haven’t been asked before and they’re well aware of the growing alarm in Warsaw at President Putin’s aggression. Three weeks ago, their Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, called a press conference to warn that “the world stands on the brink of conflict, the consequences of which are not foreseen… Not everyone in Europe is aware of this situation.”

My own view is that Putin was initially more concerned with righting a specific historical wrong in Crimea than starting a new Cold War.  This is still probably the case despite the dawning truth that the EU/Nato Emperor really has no clothes at all.

But in the worst case scenario of a truly revanchist Russia, Poland certainly has the borders from hell.  Starting from the top, it abuts Kaliningrad (the Russian exclave on the Baltic carved at the end of the war from East Prussia), Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine.

None of these borders relies on any natural barriers like rivers or mountain ranges – they are just lines on a map drawn by Stalin in the full flush of victory.  No wonder the Poles are feeling vulnerable.

And we should be worried, too. Poland is both a Nato and EU member.  We are bound by solemn treaty to defend her in case of attack.  Violation of Poland’s territorial integrity was after all why we went to war reluctantly in 1939.

Thanks to the marvellous 2012 film, The King’s Speech, we are well aware of the historical and personal drama behind King George VI’s radio address to his people on 3 September 1939 after the declaration of war against Germany. The King’s speech was couched in general terms – an appeal to international law and the Almighty.

But earlier that day the prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, had broadcast to the nation from Number 10 Downing Street in more specific terms that we should remember today: “This morning the British Ambassador in Berlin handed the German Government a final Note stating that, unless we heard from them by 11 o’clock that they were prepared at once to withdraw their troops from Poland, a state of war would exist between us.”

Listen to a recording, if you can.  Chamberlain’s pause at this point is heartbreaking.  He went on, his voice slightly lower, “I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country is at war with Germany.”

That we should defend Poland today seems to me reasonable.  I am still a reservist – until my 55th birthday in December.  If Russian tank columns attacked Warsaw, I would be prepared to do my bit – preferably manning a desk in the MoD, “flying a mahogany bomber” in the jargon, but if necessary, further forward.  (Hopefully, not in the winter, though luckily the silk-lined combat jacket that kept me warm in the Rhine Army and South Armagh a generation ago is somewhere in the attic.)

We are as a country still in a position to help defend Poland, if necessary.  The UK has tanks, armoured infantry and artillery based in Germany though they are due to be repatriated over the next few years.  General Lord Dannatt has suggested today that not only should we keep our garrisons on the north German Plain for the foreseeable future, but we should reinforce them. I cannot think of a better way to warn off President Putin from any further adventurism.  Perhaps David Cameron might consider reversing some of his defence cuts as well.

Poland is one thing but there are other states in Russia’s shadow who are members of both Nato and the EU. Would we fight for the vulnerable Baltic states should President Putin turn the screws on them?

They lie geographically from north to south in alphabetical order: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.  All have significant and often restive Russian minorities.  The populations of Estonia and Latvia are nearly a quarter ethnic Russian. The proportion in the eastern parts of Estonia is much higher.  Latvia’s capital, Riga, is nearly half Russian.  Lithuania is only five per cent Russian and as a result more aggressive towards them – a few days ago the government pulled the plug on a pro-Russian TV station.

In the case of Estonia, I feel a regimental, and therefore personal, connection.  A company of Estonians fought gallantly with the Welsh Guards in Afghanistan in 2009.  Three Estonian soldiers were killed in action, as were a number of Welsh Guardsmen, including Lieutenant-Colonel Rupert Thorneloe, the most senior officer to die since Colonel ‘H’ in the Falklands.

Welshmen feel a strong affinity for Estonians – a small and proud nation just like them that has had a difficult history, and with an acute sense of honour.  The British system chose not to give Thorneloe a medal even though many other officers whose lives were never at risk picked up gongs.  The Estonians, bless them, gave him posthumously their Distinguished Service Decoration.

But I fear they are going to have to work out their future with more Russian influence and pressure on their countries than they had anticipated. Both Nato and the EU have made promises they can’t possibly keep. We have led them up the garden path with our empty guarantees.

-

REPORT: POLAND CALLS UP ARMY RESERVES: “THE WORLD STANDS ON THE BRINK OF CONFLICT”

Mac Slavo
SHTFPlan.com
March 27, 2014

Though not much is being said about the the Ukraine in U.S. mainstream news circles, the tension in Europe is being stretched to a near breaking point.

Image: Polish Troops (Wiki Commons).

A few weeks ago the country of Estonia warned that their sources indicated that the Russian Army was are preparing an invasion of the Western-supported Ukrainian government. The President of the country’s provisional government has since deployed at leas 40,000 troops to its Eastern front as a countermeasure should Vladimir Putin’s 80,000 strong military cross its border.

In Poland, which sits in a region that has been party to just about every European engagement in modern history, leaders are concerned with the possibility that a Russia/Ukraine conflict would spill over to its country.

According to a report from The Week Polish military reservists are being called up by the thousands, presumably to prepare for the possibility of not just spillover, but all out military confrontation with Russia.

At least 7,000 reservists have been recalled to the colours for immediate exercises lasting between 10 and 30 days.

They’re told by the Polish authorities that the call-ups are “routine”: but the men say they haven’t been asked before and they’re well aware of the growing alarm in Warsaw at President Putin’s aggression. Three weeks ago, their Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, called a press conference to warn that “the world stands on the brink of conflict, the consequences of which are not foreseen… Not everyone in Europe is aware of this situation.”

But in the worst case scenario of a truly revanchist Russia, Poland certainly has the borders from hell.  Starting from the top, it abuts Kaliningrad (the Russian exclave on the Baltic carved at the end of the war from East Prussia), Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine.

None of these borders relies on any natural barriers like rivers or mountain ranges – they are just lines on a map drawn by Stalin in the full flush of victory.  No wonder the Poles are feeling vulnerable.

And we should be worried, too. Poland is both a Nato and EU member.  We are bound by solemn treaty to defend her in case of attack.  Violation of Poland’s territorial integrity was after all why we went to war reluctantly in 1939.

Poland is one thing but there are other states in Russia’s shadow who are members of both Nato and the EU. Would we fight for the vulnerable Baltic states should President Putin turn the screws on them?

This is the first time in Poland’s history that they have called up their reserve troops, so whatever prompted the mobilization is likely of serious concern.

As cited by Before It’s News Glenn Beck reports that Vladimir Putin is now preparing his forces for an assault on other former Russian satellite countries as well.

Anybody who is in a former Soviet state sees the writing on the wall, that Putin can go in and do whatever he wants and nobody can stop him.

What happened two weeks ago with Russia, Putin on Monday said ‘I’m not going to annex Crimea. We’re just going in to help them keep the peace.’

By Friday, four days later, he signed the annexation. He could tell the world didn’t care, so much so, that he just signed it.

Here are your choices… do nothing and look at possible World War III because what you’re going to see is that Russia will start to sweep across its former satellites and then possibly more, and we will have the situation as we had on our hands in World War II, and that is probably England will come to us and say “you’ve got to be involved otherwise this thing is going to be on your door step.”

So, you can either sit it out or do nothing… which will end up probably in World War III, or hopefully a cold war.

Or… you can get involved in World War III [right away]

Perhaps this is all just posturing by Vladimir Putin and his European counterparts.

But what if Putin does cross into Ukraine… and then Poland and other former satellite countries?

What will America do?

Are we prepared to protect the territorial integrity of Polan and other EU member states? The consequence could well be World War III, nuclear weapons and all?

President Obama has remained largely silent, save for empty threats and “economic sanctions” that include seizing the financial assets of a handful of Russian diplomats and businessmen.

Russia, on the other hand, has flexed its muscle by not only deploying troops, but annexing half of an entire country. It seems that Vladimir Putin believes himself to be unstoppable in his efforts to return Russia to its former Soviet glory.

Will Obama and the rest of the world sit idly by and watch it happen?

-

POLAND FEARS PUTIN’S ‘NEW RUSSIA’ DOCTRINE

-

putin-

by Ben Watson | DefenseOne
April 17, 2014

Just weeks ahead of taking over NATO’s Baltic Air Policing mission in Eastern Europe, Poland’s defense minister is worried about a possible “Putin doctrine” that aims to recreate the Soviet Union with a “New Russia.”

“That doctrine could give rise and has already gave [sic] rise to concern, especially in the part of the world that had been attached to the Soviet Union,” Polish Defense Minister Tomasz Siemoniak told reporters in a joint briefing with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel at the Pentagon.

After hours of meetings in Geneva on Thursday, Secretary of State John Kerry announced a deal with between the United States, European Union, Russia and Ukraine to de-escalate the crisis in Ukraine. The agreement requires all sides to stop the violence, disarm all illegally armed groups and return control of buildings seized by pro-Russian militants.

But Siemoniak said Europe’s security “must not be taken for granted,” and allying with the United States and NATO is the only way to guarantee the security of nations like Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Romania.

“[Russian President Vladimir] Putin talked about the needs of the Russian minority in different countries, and there is a number of such countries in the region. President Putin also evaluated the different actions that took place after the collapse of the Soviet Union. So such doctrine gives rise to our concern,” he said.

Siemoniak’s remarks came shortly after Putin held a 4-hour televised news conference in which he referred to eastern Ukraine as  “New Russia.” Asked about a compromise on Ukraine’s present status, Putin replied, “The question is to ensure the rights and interests of the Russian southeast. It’s New Russia. Kharkiv, Lugansk, Donetsk, Odessa were not part of Ukraine in czarist times, they were transferred in 1920. Why? God knows.”

He also admitted, contrary to his previous statements and those from many Russian officials, that Russian troops were indeed in Crimea before the annexation in late March. “Of course we had our servicemen behind the self-defense units of Crimea,” Putin said.

Both Siemoniak and Hagel said the U.S.-Polish military partnership would strengthen in the coming weeks in response to the Ukraine crisis, with the possibility of greater cooperation in special operations and cyber defense. And Siemoniak said he is still interested in “the presence of the American troops in Poland,” including a installing a U.S. Army base there. “We want Poland to be as close to the West as possible,” he said.

Hagel said all options are on the table, but “no decisions have been made.”

“Russia’s aggression has renewed our resolve to strengthen the NATO alliance,” Hagel said, but added that any buildup of NATO assets is “not meant to provoke or threaten Russia.”

Siemoniak’s growing concern follows NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rassmussen’s announcement Wednesday of additional NATO deployments of land, sea and air assets to the Baltic and Mediterranean regions. Hagel said the recent U.S. additions of 12 F-16s and 200 personnel from Aviano Air Base in Italy will remain through the end of the year.

President Barack Obama, speaking from the White House briefing room, said, “I don’t think we can be sure of anything at this point” but there is chance “that diplomacy may de-escalate the situation.”

“We have to be prepared to potentially respond,” Obama said.

The Pentagon is also sending more non-lethal aid to Ukraine in the coming days. Those items include helmets and various supplies for use in the field, items like generators, sleeping mats and shelters for Ukraine’s State Border Guard Service.

-

UKRAINE CRISIS: POLAND ASKS NATO TO STATION 10,000 TROOPS ON ITS TERRITORY

NATO is divided over demands from Poland and the Baltic states for a permanent deployment of the Alliance’s troops to defend them from Russia

-

Nato foreign ministers met in Brussels to consider requests for soldiers to be deployed in Poland and the Baltic States, all of which share borders with Russia

Nato foreign ministers met in Brussels to consider requests for soldiers to be deployed in Poland and the Baltic States, all of which share borders with Russia Photo: Francois Lenoir/ Reuters
-
By Bruno Waterfield, Brussels and Tony Paterson in Berlin | telegraph.co.uk
April 2, 2014
Poland asked Nato to station 10,000 troops on its territory on Tuesday as a visible demonstration of the Alliance’s resolve to defend all its members after Russia’s seizure of Crimea.

Nato foreign ministers met in Brussels to consider requests for soldiers to be deployed in Poland and the Baltic States, all of which share borders with Russia.

Nato generals and admirals have been ordered to devise ways to better protect alliance members that feel threatened by Russia, and “all practical civilian and military cooperation” with Russia.

President Vladimir Putin has massed about 40,000 troops near Ukraine’s eastern frontier, giving himself the option of seizing more of his neighbour’s territory.

On Monday, he assured Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, that some of these forces would be withdrawn. But the ministers disclosed that Russia had yet to keep this promise.

“We’ve had some statements from Russia about pulling back forces from the eastern border, but we haven’t seen the evidence yet,” said William Hague, the Foreign Secretary.

Meanwhile, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Nato secretary general, said he could not “confirm that Russia is withdrawing its troops” and warned of the dangers posed by a “massive military build-up”.

-

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Nato secretary general (Olivier Hoslet/ EPA)

-

Against this background, Radek Sikorski, the Polish foreign minister, asked for “two heavy brigades” of armoured infantry, with about 5,000 troops each, to be stationed in his country. Poland has a 144-mile border with Russia’s Kaliningrad enclave.

“It is very important that all members should enjoy the same level of security,” said Mr Sikorski. “Poland has been a member of Nato for 15 years now – and so far the only permanent military institution that we have is a conference centre, training facility. We would welcome a prominent, major presence.”

Donald Tusk, the Polish prime minister, has expressed frustration over Nato’s reluctance to deploy troops in his country in breach, say diplomats, of promises made as long ago as 1997. “We are gaining something step by step, but the pace of Nato increasing its military presence could be faster,” said Mr Tusk.

Britain has offered to send RAF Typhoon fighters to join Nato exercises over Poland and air defence patrols above the Baltic states. But Poland wants Nato forces to be permanently stationed on its territory. Mr Hague gave a cautious response, saying: “We certainly need to give additional reassurance and confidence to our Eastern allies. The UK has said we will contribute aircraft to Baltic air policing and there may be other measures we decide upon.”

Nato is expected to make further announcements on the deployment of military “assets” in the coming weeks. This might include sending troops and warships to Eastern Europe and the Baltic.

America is expected to send another 600 personnel to Mihail Kogalniceanu airbase on the Black Sea coast of Romania and said it was also likely to send a warship to the Black Sea. However, Germany and other Nato members are wary of causing still more tension with Russia by sending forces to its frontiers.

“No, we don’t need any Nato troops on the border with Russia,” said Frans Timmermans, the Dutch foreign minister in response to the Polish proposal.

A Nato “restricted” document, seen by Germany’s Der Spiegel, singles out Armenia, Azerbaijan and Moldova as three countries – all former Soviet republics – that might benefit from increased Western military support.

The seven-page document said they would be encouraged to participate in Nato’s “Smart Defence” programme, which involves buying specific weapons and taking part in joint exercises. The document held out the long term prospect of eventual Nato membership for the three countries, but noted that opinions differed widely on this question.

Diplomats are concerned that a permanent Nato military presence in member states bordering Russia could lead President Vladimir Putin to counter by bolstering his own forces near sensitive frontiers.

They are particularly reluctant to place any Nato troops in Ukraine itself. “It’s not the most opportune moment to have a visible Nato presence in Ukraine. It would be a golden pretext for the Russians to reinforce their presence,” said a diplomat.

-

POLAND’S ROLE IN DESTABILIZING UKRAINE

By Andrew Korybko | Global Research
April 17, 2014

Polish media outlet Nie has published a bombshell account about direct Polish involvement in Ukraine’s destabilization. Its source alleges that the Polish Foreign Ministry had invited Ukrainian militants into the country and trained them outside of Warsaw in September 2013. Considering the destructive actions and fatalities they would later be responsible for during the EuroMaidan riots, such a connection would directly link Warsaw to the pandemonium. It would also implicate Poland in being the “Slavic Turkey” of NATO in Eastern Europe. The impact of Nie’s reporting can also affect domestic Polish politics, as it would prove that the political elite misled members of Parliament, which could later have direct political repercussions for Tusk’s ironically named “Law and Justice Party”. This scandal serves to highlight that Poland is starting to emulate the methods of its invited neo-colonial headmaster, the US, thereby deepening the puppet-master relationship between Warsaw and Washington.

According to the report, 86 Euromaidan militants, some of whom appeared to be over 40 years old, came to Poland under the invitation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The pretext for plausible deniability was that they were in the country to promote cooperation between the Warsaw University of Technology and the National Technical University in Kiev. In reality, however, these individuals were whisked away to Legionowo, a town on the outskirts of Warsaw. There, at the police training center, they spent four weeks engaged in a regiment of destabilization training.

Polish police academy “students” beating Ukrainian anti-riot police officer on Euromaidan in Kiev, January 2014.

The source goes on to state that pictures of the participants show them clothed in Nazi regalia and tattoos, with their Polish military instructors lacking any outward identification as such. At the facility, militants learned the following techniques: crowd management; target identification; tactics; leadership; behavioural management under stressful conditions; protection against police gasses; building barricades; and importantly, they engaged in shooting classes, which incidentally included sniper rifles. Quite clearly, the “students” who came to Warsaw were there for war, not academic work, and their training there resulted in the christening of Bandera’s spiritual descendants.

These revelations underline how the EuroMaidan militants had prior Western-backed training, and that Poland was chosen as the location for their instruction. Through its direct involvement and support in training the radicals, Poland is quickly living up to its reputation as NATO’s most important frontline state. When the Polish Sejm voted in early December, 2013 to show its “full solidarity with the citizens of Ukraine, who with great determination show the world their desire to ensure their country’s full membership in the EU”, little did they know that the violent vanguard which had just days before thrown Molotov cocktails and attacked police officers likely acquired their tactics less than an hour’s drive from where they casted their vote. Most members of parliament likely did not have a clue that their government was training those violent elements and would be shocked to know that this was the case.

The ultimate irony is that Poland is training fighters who honor a man that glorified in ethnically cleansing Poles from Ukraine in the most horrendous ways imaginable during World War II. For all of its blaring patriotism and nationalist sentiment, the Polish government is actually working against its long-term interests by backing such radical anti-Polish elements right next door. This “Bandera Brinksmanship” reminds one of the US’ foreign policy mentality of allying with and building dangerous radical forces that may later come back to harm them (i.e. Al Qaeda in the Soviet’s Afghan conflict and the Libyan and Syrian-based international jihadis of today). Through its greedy and nationalistically minded cooperation with the US in seeking to de-facto resurrect the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Poland has abandoned its European principles and blindly set itself on becoming America’s bulldog in Eastern Europe.

-

NATO SUMMIT ENDS COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA AND ANNOUNCES FURTHER TROOP BUILD-UP

By Chris Marsden

April 2, 2014

The United States and its NATO allies have pledged additional military forces to be stationed in states neighbouring Russia and agreed to take part in military manoeuvres in Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

The moves are the most aggressive yet taken against Russia since the Western-organised coup in Ukraine in February. Washington, Berlin, Paris and London have utilised Moscow’s subsequent annexation of Crimea to legitimise pre-existing plans to encircle Russia militarily and destabilise its economy through sanctions.

Prior to a meeting in Brussels of the 28-member military alliance, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told a press conference that NATO had seen no sign of a withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine’s borders. This followed President Vladimir Putin’s phone call to German Chancellor Angela Merkel in which he said a partial withdrawal was underway. NATO claims that some 35,000-40,000 Russian troops are massed near Ukraine’s eastern border, but Russia cites a figure less than half that and insists the troops are taking part in planned military manoeuvres.

Yesterday’s summit agreed to “suspend all practical civilian and military cooperation between NATO and Russia.” Afterwards, Secretary of State John Kerry told a press conference that the US had pushed hard for NATO expansion and increased military spending in Europe to show that NATO is committed to “shared security.”

The US has made clear for months its intention to do what it now declares as public policy. Back in November last year, NATO staged “Steadfast Jazz,” its biggest military exercise in seven years in the Baltic countries and Poland. Involving 6,000 soldiers, it was based on a scenario in which troops from the imaginary state of Bothnia invade Estonia in a crisis sparked by competition for energy resources and economic collapse.

Since the whipping up of the crisis in Ukraine, Washington has despatched 12 warplanes and hundreds of troops to Poland and sent the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush and its naval group to the Mediterranean Sea. In addition, NATO and Ukraine are taking part in a joint military exercise in Bulgaria called “Sabre Guardian.” The US has also sent 10 F-15 jets to help NATO boost its military presence in the Baltic states.

Britain and France have announced increases in the number of planes they contribute to NATO air patrols over the Baltics.

Yesterday, German military sources said they too were ready to offer support to some eastern European members of NATO “in response to Russia’s seizure of Crimea,” according to Der Spiegel. Up to six aircraft were being considered to patrol East European airspace. A Defence Ministry spokeswoman told Reuters that “the army could take part in flights to patrol airspace with AWACS machines over Romania and Poland, as well as training flights in the framework of a NATO air policing mission over Baltic States.”

A seven-page draft NATO plan was leaked to Der Spiegel urging increased military cooperation with Armenia, Azerbaijan and Moldova, including joint exercises and training, greater “interoperability” of their militaries with NATO, and participation in “smart defence” operations. A NATO liaison office was proposed for Moldova, military training for Armenia, and projects in Azerbaijan aimed at securing its Caspian Sea oil and gas fields.

Romanian President Traian Basescu said the US has also asked to boost the number of American troops and aircraft stationed there. Washington is expected to send another 600 personnel to its Mihail Kogalniceanu airbase on the Black Sea coast.

Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski has asked for two heavy brigades, equivalent to 10,000 troops.

Most seriously, the US and Ukraine are to conduct joint military exercises in Ukraine itself.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Deshchytsia took part in an extraordinary session of the Ukraine-NATO Commission and will attend the meeting of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg on April 2-3. Hours before the meeting was due to start, Ukraine’s parliament approved by a 235-0 vote a series of joint military exercises with NATO.

“Rapid Trident” will involve 1,800 international troops, while “Sea Breeze” will take place in the Black Sea port of Odessa.

The US has pressed hard for NATO membership and associate membership of the European Union to be extended eastwards to Russia’s borders, with President Barack Obama stating that he was intent on “ensuring a regular NATO presence” in “vulnerable” countries.

Rasmussen, in an op-ed piece for Welt am Sonntag, called NATO’s expansion in the region “one of the greatest success stories of our time,” adding that the “task is not yet complete.”

Though Ukraine was not an immediate candidate for membership, NATO’s partnership with Ukraine has been getting “ever stronger,” he added, and NATO will help to “reform” its armed forces.

The NATO meeting marks 15 years since Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined the alliance, 10 years since the accession of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, and five years since Albania and Croatia became members. More is planned. Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro and Georgia are actively seeking NATO membership, Rasmussen wrote.

The right of sovereign nations to choose their own course was one of the foundations of modern Europe, he declared, adding, “We must all stand by it today.”

Berlin has formally distanced itself from calls for Ukraine to join NATO and from proposals to expand membership more generally.

“The federal government does not see the need at this stage for further expansion of NATO to the east. That is not on the list of necessities for us, although Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Macedonia seek to become members,” said government spokesman Steffan Seibert.

Asked about possible Ukrainian membership, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said that while the German government hasn’t formed a position, “I don’t see a path to NATO membership.”

On a practical basis, this is an attempt to keep diplomatic channels open to Moscow. The Russian Foreign Ministry has warned Kiev against any attempts to join NATO, and such a move by Ukraine or Georgia would be extraordinarily inflammatory.

Georgia is on NATO’s agenda today (Wednesday) as part of the preparations for NATO’s September summit in Wales.

Germany’s concerns are held by other NATO states, with Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans saying in response to the Polish proposal, “No, we don’t need any NATO troops on the border with Russia.”

Meanwhile, Germany continues to play an active role in NATO’s encirclement plans while asserting its own interests independently of the US.

Steinmeier, Laurent Fabius of France and Poland’s Radek Sikorski met in Berlin and the eastern German city of Weimar Monday and Tuesday. The “Weimar Triangle,” first set up in 1991 to promote cooperation between the three countries, was revived in order to urge a “more flexible” range of cooperation options with the EU for east European states that did not involve the accession treaty offered to Ukraine. “We perhaps underestimated how Russia would react to such offers (the Association Agreement),” Steinmeier told reporters.

The preferred option was a “new dynamic of the European Neighborhood Policy,” founded 10 years ago and covering 16 countries, including Ukraine and Georgia, and offering financial aid and integration into the EU single market. Steinmeier said he could also envision closer cooperation as part of the NATO-Ukraine Commission that was established in 1997.

The three made a point of insisting that NATO must “reassure the security of our allies” and urged Russia to withdraw troops from Ukraine’s borders.

-

SECRETARY KERRY DELIVERS REMARKS AT NATO

-

Press Availability at NATO

Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Brussels, Belgium
April 1, 2014

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, good evening to everybody. This obviously could not be a more important time for NATO allies to come together and to reaffirm our commitment to each other, to the transatlantic treaty and transatlantic security, and especially to our common values. As we mark the 65th anniversary of the strongest alliance on earth, we are all facing a new challenge, a critical moment, a new reality on the Euro-Atlantic landscape at a time when some of the basic principles underlying the international system have been violated and, frankly, our alliance has been put to the test.

Let me reiterate what President Obama said in this city last week: Russia today has challenged truths that only a few weeks ago appeared to be self-evident; that in the 21st century, the borders of Europe would not be redrawn with force; and that international law still guides all of us; that people and nations must always be able to make their own decisions about their own future. It’s clear that the alliance is prepared for this moment. We heard that over and over again today from every participant. We are unified, and the alliance is strong.

Today, NATO allies tasked the Supreme Allied Commander to provide visible reassurance with respect to our Central and Eastern European allies, assurance that Article 5 of NATO’s treaty means what it says on land, air, and sea. The United States has already begun to contribute to this mission because, as President Obama reaffirmed to Secretary General Rasmussen last week and I reiterated to my colleagues here today, the United States commitment to Article 5 obligations is unwavering.

Now in recent weeks, the United States has augmented NATO’s Baltic air policing mission with six additional F-16s. We’ve deployed 12 F-16s to Poland. We’ve kept the USS Truxtun in the Black Sea and more U.S. support is on the way. Today, many allies pledged their own contributions to assure that every ally, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, feels secure.

Just as importantly, Europe and North America have stood together in defense of Ukraine’s right to choose its future and in defense of international law. Together, we have rejected any notion that there is any legality in Russia’s efforts to annex Crimea and challenged – we have all challenged – the tactics of intimidation, particularly the deployment of unprecedented amounts of military forces around Ukraine’s borders.

Ukraine’s democratic and economic success is, in the end, going to be the best response to this challenge. Every ally here today pledged unwavering support in order to help make sure that Ukraine succeeds. This includes support through the IMF, our bilateral and multilateral assistance, the OSCE monitors, and through our support for free, fair, constitutional elections and for constitutional reform, as well as the anticorruption and demobilization efforts that are taking place.

We also reaffirmed to Foreign Minister Deshchytsia that just as Ukraine has stood in partnership for the past two decades, it’s important that NATO stand in partnership now with Ukraine, and we endorsed a range of measures in order to do so. Secretary General Rasmussen has called the events in Ukraine a wake-up call – a reminder that the stability and security in NATO’s neighborhood requires all of our constant vigilance. To that end, today, I made clear that many members of the alliance now need to step up defense spending. As we plan for NATO’s summit in Wales this September, each of us must demonstrate by the decisions that we take and the budget commitments that we make that we are committed to each other, and by our shared security and our shared prosperity and our shared values, we will continue to maintain that strength.

This afternoon, we mark the five, ten, and fifteen-year anniversaries of NATO’s post-Cold War expansions. And it is clear that each of these expansions has actually strengthened NATO by opening doors for millions of people who, through the power of this alliance, now are able to experience greater opportunity, a greater prosperity, and greater security. As free nations, we will continue to stand together and stand always in defense of international law, of our mutual security, and of the right of nations and people everywhere to freely choose their own destiny. Our meeting today underscored these principles in both words and in deeds.

I’d be happy to take a couple questions.

MS. PSAKI: The first question will be from Margaret Brennan of CBS News. Oh, right – other side.

QUESTION: Geez, wow. Thank you very much. (Laughter.) Mr. Secretary, two questions for you. NATO says there are no signs of a Russian pullback. What is it going to take for this body to have a greater show of force? Because there do seem some members wary of antagonizing Russia.

And on Mideast peace, where are we in this process, with President Abbas saying he’s canceled this meeting with you? Is this brinksmanship? And has the U.S. offered the release of Jonathan Pollard?

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, that’s about three questions or four, I think. But I’m happy to answer them. With respect to NATO and the presence of force and what is it going to take, I think everybody here today made it clear that the preference of NATO and the preference of all of us is to see a de-escalation, to find a diplomatic route in order to be able to work, hopefully, ultimately, together to strengthen the possibilities of Ukrainians making their own choices about Ukraine in the future. That’s the goal.

And at the same time, it is important for everybody in the world to understand that the NATO alliance takes seriously this attempt to change borders by use of force. So that is the wakeup call. And as a result, people here today made a commitment to be able to strengthen visibly, as a matter of deterrence and as a matter of reality, the cooperation, the deployment, and the efforts of those who are members of this alliance.

Now, with respect to the de-escalation, we were happy that yesterday Russia made an announcement, President Putin made the announcement initially, that they were going to move a battalion back. And that’s obviously small compared to the numbers that are deployed, but it is a welcome gesture in the right direction. The question now is: Is there a way to build on that in order to be able to find a way to move the masses of troops back and truly deescalate?

So I think there’s a delicate balance, and we’re engaged in efforts with lots of different people engaged in this effort to see if there is a way forward. That’s a lot of the discussion here today – it’ll be some of the discussion at the dinner tonight – is to help map that road forward.

With respect to the Middle East peace process, I’ve heard a rumor about, quote, not being invited or something. But I’m not sure I’m going, regardless of that, whether or not we have certain things that we’re trying to figure out in terms of the logistics on the ground and what is possible.

What is important to say about the Middle East right now is it is completely premature tonight to draw any kind of judgment, certainly any final judgment, about today’s events and where things are. This is a moment to be really clear-eyed and sober about this process. It is difficult, it is emotional, it requires huge decisions, some of them with great political difficulty, all of which need to come together simultaneously.

And all I can tell you is that we are continuing, even now as I am standing up here speaking, to be engaged with both parties to find the best way forward. We’ve been in touch with the White House and Washington during the day, as well as all of the parties. And I’ve talked to many people on the ground in the region, and I will continue to even tonight.

So my team is on the ground meeting with the parties even tonight. And we urge both sides to show restraint while we work with them. Obviously, it’s moments like this when we all need to remember exactly what brought us to this effort in the first place, what the goal is, and where everybody wants to end up. And tonight I haven’t heard yet what the public response of Israel has been, but I know that President Abbas in his comments made it clear that he intends to continue to work, even tonight, on this process that we are engaged in.

So we will see where we wind up at the end of the evening in the next days, but it is, as I said at the outset of my remarks, completely premature to draw any judgments about this at this point in time. And at this point in time, no agreement has been reached with respect to any prisoner, not even the ones that, at this moment, are at issue in terms of the transfer. The cabinet in Israel has to vote; I’m not sure exactly when that might take place or not. And so there is no agreement at this point in time regarding anyone or any specific steps. There are a lot of different possibilities in play.

MS. PSAKI: The next question will be from Lesley Wroughton of Reuters.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, I just wanted to be clear because there’s a lot of reports going around. We also understand from a U.S. official that you’re not traveling tomorrow to Ramallah. But also if it is true – I mean, I’ve looked at the transcript and President Abbas has signed those conventions to join these 15 agencies – is this in your mind a breach of the understanding of the process that you launched eight, nine months ago?

On the other hand, do you – how do you see the way going forward? If this is – the way that President Abbas explained it was that the Israelis did not release those prisoners; that was the agreement. He agreed he wouldn’t go to the UN until the end of April, and he’s going – he’s going to go now. So there seems to be a lot of disappointment.

SECRETARY KERRY: No, he’s not. He is not. Let me make it absolutely clear: None of the agencies that President Abbas signed tonight involve the UN. None of them. And President Abbas has given his word to me that he will keep his agreement and that he intends to negotiate through the end of the month of April.

Now obviously, the prisoners were due on the 29th, which was Saturday. I’m not going to get into the who, why, what, when, where, how of why we’re where we are today. We’re where we are today – and the important thing is to keep the process moving and find a way to see whether the parties are prepared to move forward. In the end, this is up to the parties.

I mean, I want to make this crystal clear: The United States is proud and ready and willing to be a facilitator in this process. But the leaders on both sides have to make the decisions, not us. It’s up to them to decide what they’re prepared to do with each other, for each other, for the future, for the region, for peace. And we will do everything in our power. President Obama has been as committed to this as anybody. He has committed his personal time. He has committed my time. The President is desirous of trying to see how we can make our best efforts in order to find a way to facilitate. But facilitation is only as good as the willingness of leaders to actually make decisions when they’re put in front of them.

And we’re going to continue to do our work. We’re going to continue because this matters – matters to the region, matters to the parties, matters to us, matters to the world. Everywhere I go, people ask me: Is there any progress? Can you get anywhere? Can you move? The one thing that I keep in the center of my mind is that, even tonight, both parties say they want to continue to try to find a way forward. And so we will continue to work with them in order to try to do that.

MS. PSAKI: Thank you, everyone.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you, everyone.

-

BIDEN IN EUROPE TO ‘REASSURE OUR ALLIES’ OVER RUSSIA’S MOVES IN UKRAINE

Issuing an outright warning to Moscow, Vice President Joe Biden declared Wednesday the United States will respond to any aggression against its NATO allies, as Russia’s neighbors looked warily to the escalating crisis in nearby Ukraine.

-

-

WARSAW—Vice President Biden arrived here Tuesday to reassure a set of allies anxious over Russia’s move into Crimea, denouncing the impending Russian annexation of the region as a “blatant, blatant disregard of international law.”Appearing with Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, Biden offered the moral support of a “steadfast ally,” but promised only modest assistance to help Poland modernize its army and explore how to lessen its dependence on Russian natural gas.

Tusk, however, expressed the more intimate concern of a leader with a new, unpredictable conflict suddenly on his doorstep, saying Russian President Vlaimir Putin’s intervention in Ukraine “increases the risk in Eastern Europe but it also has global implications.”

“It is a challenge for the whole world,” Tusk said. “It is not just Poland, but all of Europe must speak in a strong voice.”

Tusk’s remarks captured the mounting worries sweeping through Eastern Europe as Putin resists international calls to withdraw from Crimea, a strategically important Black Sea peninsula with historic connection to Russia.

Over two days, Biden will meet with the leaders of Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, all NATO members with old memories of Soviet domination and new fears of an expansionist Russia under Putin.

As Putin told Russia’s political leadership in Moscow that Crimea would again be part of Russia, Biden outlined the next steps that the United States intends to take to prevent that move and head off a broader military push into eastern Ukraine, an escalation that would bring the conflict even closer to Poland and the Baltic states.

Putin’s actions follow a Sunday referendum in which Crimean voters — under the eye of Russian troops — chose to split from Ukraine and join Russia. The Obama administration and its European allies have condemned the takeover of Crimea as a violation of international law. Here on Tuesday, Biden called it a “brazen, brazen military incursion.”

One senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the vice president’s plans, said his trip is “first and foremost to reassure our allies who are deeply concerned about Russia’s action in Ukraine and what the deeper implications might be.”

The adviser said Biden will discuss measures that would be taken “in the days and weeks ahead,” building on financial sanctions imposed on 11 Russian and Ukrainian officials that President Obama announced Monday but that appeared to have little effect on Putin’s calculations.

The talks here and on Wednesday in Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, come days before European leaders meet in Brussels to consider Russia’s actions in Ukraine.

The senior administration official, traveling with the vice president, said Biden would emphasize that whatever steps follow the sanctions that the United States and European Union have already announced must be done “so that NATO emerges from this crisis stronger than when it went into it.”

Russia’s recognition of an independent Crimea, and Putin’s apparent step toward Russian annexation of the Black Sea peninsula, has proven to be a test of the Obama administration’s preference for economic sanctions and international diplomatic pressure over military threats.

Obama has sought to re-energize NATO, placing the alliance at the center of efforts to wind down the Afghan war and act together in humanitarian emergencies such as in Libya. Poland and Lithuania convened an emergency meeting of NATO members earlier this month in response to Russia’s move on Crimea.

But some allies, including in Europe, have watched with worry as Obama has in their view emphasized reaching out to antagonists at the expense of longtime friends. Administration officials strongly disagree, arguing that new relationships with such countries as Iran, China, and Russia benefit America’s allies in Europe and other regions.

How Obama intends to confront Putin has been closely monitored here and throughout Eastern Europe, a region far more susceptible to Russian economic sanctions, energy disruptions and military threats. So far Obama, who plans to end America’s longest war — in Afghanistan — at the end of this year, has made clear military options are not under consideration.

Obama has moved U.S. Navy ships closer to the Black Sea, where Russia maintains its only warm water port.

Biden emphasized Tuesday that the United States has deployed 12 F-16 fighter jets to Poland in reent weeks, and delivered another 10 F-15s to the Baltic states for air patrol programs. He announced additional U.S. military training for Poland’s army.

But the senior administration official said Biden would not offer changes to administration plans for a missile defense system in Eastern Europe, which Obama adjusted on taking office at a time he was pursuing a “reset” in Russian relations.

Russian officials argued that the missile-defense system threatened Russian security and undermined arms treaties. U.S. officials, however, say the system is designed to target long-range missiles fired from such nations as Iran.

Since Russia’s intervention in Ukraine, some Congressional Republicans have called on Obama to return to the previous missile defense plan, one negotiated by the George W. Bush administration. That plan would have located a radar station in the Czech Republic and stationed 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland.

Obama chose instead to place interceptors on navy ships. Over the next four years, NATO intends to locate smaller ground-based interceptors in Romania and in Poland.

The senior official said Biden would tell Eastern European leaders during his meetings that those missile-defense plans remain “on track” and would not be altered to respond to Russia’s actions in Ukraine.

“That is our commitment – an operational missile defense system by 2018 here in Poland,” Biden said.

-

U.S. PLANS MILITARY DRILLS IN EASTERN EUROPE

By MICHAEL R. GORDON | The New York Times
APRIL 18, 2014

WASHINGTON — The United States plans to carry out small ground-force exercises in Poland and Estonia in an attempt to reassure NATO’s Eastern European members worried about Russia’s military operations in and near Ukraine, Western officials said Friday.

The moves are part of a broader effort by NATO to strengthen the alliance’s air, sea and land presence in Eastern Europe in response to Russia’s new assertiveness in the region.

It is not yet clear what additional troop deployments the United States and other NATO nations might undertake in Eastern Europe after the exercises and to what extent the moves would ease anxieties there.

The land-force exercises the Obama administration is planning are extremely modest.

The exercise in Poland, which is expected to be announced next week, would involve a United States Army company and would last about two weeks, officials said. A company consists of about 150 soldiers.

The exercise in Estonia would be similar, said a Western official who declined to be identified because he was talking about internal planning.

Although the exercises would be short, the United States is considering other ways to maintain a regular ground-force presence in Eastern Europe by rotating troops and conducting training there.

“There’s an entire range of possibilities and measures that are being considered,” Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said on Thursday in a joint news conference with Poland’s defense minister, Tomasz Siemoniak. “Rotational basis of training and exercises are always part of that.”

The company-size Army exercise that is planned is far from the sort of NATO deployment that Poland’s foreign minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, suggested this month when he told reporters that he wanted the alliance to deploy two combat brigades with as many as 5,000 troops each in Poland.

This week, NATO’s top military commander, Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, gave members of the alliance a range of options for strengthening its military posture in response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea, along with his own recommendations.

The measures include immediate, midterm and long-term steps. One option, General Breedlove said in an interview this month, is to move the 4,500-member American combat brigade from Fort Hood, Tex., to Europe. But Obama administration officials have not publicly supported such a step.

The first hint that the Obama administration plans to announce that American troops would be sent to Poland was provided on Friday by The Washington Post, which noted that Mr. Siemoniak had said that the move had been agreed to on a political level but provided no details.

The United States has already sent 12 F-16 fighter jets and 200 support personnel to Poland.

NATO’s secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said this week that the alliance would fly more air patrols over the Baltic region and that allied ships would deploy to the Baltic Sea.

Mr. Rasmussen left open the possibility for additional deployments, including on land.

“More will follow, if needed, in the weeks and months to come,” he said.

NATO officials have said that a number of member nations in addition to the United States were offering to provide ground troops, which could be sent to Eastern European members through the end of the year.

-

U.S. GROUND TROOPS GOING TO POLAND, DEFENSE MINISTER SAYS

Fred Hiatt
Washington Post
April 18, 2014

Poland and the United States will announce next week the deployment of U.S. ground forces to Poland as part of an expansion of NATO presence in Central and Eastern Europe in response to events in Ukraine. That was the word from Poland’s defense minister, Tomasz Siemoniak, who visited The Post Friday after meeting with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel at the Pentagon on Thursday.

Credit: soldiersmediacenter / Flickr

Siemoniak said the decision has been made on a political level and that military planners are working out details. There will also be intensified cooperation in air defense, special forces, cyberdefense and other areas. Poland will play a leading regional role, “under U.S. patronage,” he said.

But the defense minister also said that any immediate NATO response to Russian aggression in Ukraine, while important, matter less than a long-term shift in the defense postures of Europe and America. The United States, having announced a “pivot” to Asia, needs to “re-pivot” to Europe, he said, and European countries that have cut back on defense spending need to reverse the trends.

“The idea until recently was that there were no more threats in Europe and no need for a U.S. presence in Europe any more,” Siemoniak said, speaking through an interpreter. “Events show that what is needed is a re-pivot, and that Europe was safe and secure because America was in Europe.”

How likely is such a reversal on defense spending? Siemoniak said there was widespread support at a recent meeting of European defense ministers. “Now they’ll go back to their presidents, prime ministers and ministers of finance, and this will stop being easy,” he admitted. “But the impetus is very strong.”

The strongest impetus, he said, is not even Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, but President Vladimir Putin’s bald lies about Russian actions there and his exposition of a new doctrine allowing Russia to intervene in any country where Russian-speaking populations are, in Russia’s judgment, under threat. This poses a potential danger to the Baltic nations, which are members of NATO, and even more to Moldova, Belarus and central Asian nations that are not, he said.

Like President Obama, Siemoniak said it’s too soon to judge the agreement reached Thursday in Geneva to defuse tensions. He said he believes that Russia’s “special operation in eastern Ukraine didn’t go as planned” and that Putin may have decided to play a longer game.

“He holds different instruments that he can use to influence events in Ukraine,” Siemoniak said. Putin will keep in reserve the option of an outright military incursion, “but the political, military and financial costs would be gigantic.” The 46-year-old minister mused that until recently NATO was wondering what mission it would have, if any, once its troops came home from Afghanistan.

“Now we have an answer to that question,” he said.

-

90 PERCENT OF ALL AMERICANS WILL DIE WITHIN 12-18 MONTHS AFTER AN ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE ATTACK

-

RELATED POSTS:

AN ATTACK ON IRAN IS STILL ON THE PENTAGON’S DRAWING BOARD…ISRAEL PREPARES TO LAUNCH “THE FIRST STRIKE”

NETANYAHU ORDERS ISRAEL ARMY TO PREPARE FOR POSSIBLE MILITARY STRIKE AGAINST IRAN IN 2014

EMP ATTACK AND SOLAR STORMS: A GUIDE

-

GOVERNMENT AGENCY: IF NINE SUBSTATIONS ARE DESTROYED, THE POWER GRID COULD BE DOWN FOR 18 MONTHS

by Michael Snyder | Economic Collapse

March 19, 2014

What would you do if the Internet or the power grid went down for over a year?  Our key infrastructure, including the Internet and the power grid, is far more vulnerable than most people would dare to imagine.

Image: Power Grid (Wiki Commons).

These days, most people simply take for granted that the lights will always be on and that the Internet will always function properly.  But what if all that changed someday in the blink of an eye?  According to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s latest report, all it would take to plunge the entire nation into darkness for more than a year would be to knock out a transformer manufacturer and just 9 of our 55,000 electrical substations on a really hot summer day.  The reality of the matter is that our power grid is in desperate need of updating, and there is very little or no physical security at most of these substations.  If terrorists, or saboteurs, or special operations forces wanted to take down our power grid, it would not be very difficult.  And as you will read about later in this article, the Internet is extremely vulnerable as well.

When I read the following statement from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s latest report, I was absolutely floored…

“Destroy nine interconnection substations and a transformer manufacturer and the entire United States grid would be down for at least 18 months, probably longer.”

Wow.

What would you do without power for 18 months?

FERC studied what it would take to collapse the entire electrical grid from coast to coast.  What they found was quite unsettling

In its modeling, FERC studied what would happen if various combinations of substations were crippled in the three electrical systems that serve the contiguous U.S. The agency concluded the systems could go darkif as few as nine locations were knocked out: four in the East, three in the West and two in Texas, people with knowledge of the analysis said.

The actual number of locations that would have to be knocked out to spawn a massive blackout would vary depending on available generation resources, energy demand, which is highest on hot days, and other factors, experts said. Because it is difficult to build new transmission routes, existing big substations are becoming more crucial to handling electricity.

So what would life look like without any power for a long period of time?  The following list comes from one of my previous articles

-There would be no heat for your home.

-Water would no longer be pumped into most homes.

-Your computer would not work.

-There would be no Internet.

-Your phones would not work.

-There would be no television.

-There would be no radio.

-ATM machines would be shut down.

-There would be no banking.

-Your debit cards and credit cards would not work.

-Without electricity, gas stations would not be functioning.

-Most people would be unable to do their jobs without electricity and employment would collapse.

-Commerce would be brought to a standstill.

-Hospitals would not be able to function.

-You would quickly start running out of medicine.

-All refrigeration would shut down and frozen foods in our homes and supermarkets would start to go bad.

If you want to get an idea of how quickly society would descend into chaos, just watch the documentary “American Blackout” some time.  It will chill you to your bones.

-

-

The truth is that we live in an unprecedented time.  We have become extremely dependent on technology, and that technology could be stripped away from us in an instant.

Right now, our power grid is exceedingly vulnerable, and all the experts know this, but very little is being done to actually protect it

“The power grid, built over many decades in a benign environment, now faces a range of threats it was never designed to survive,” said Paul Stockton, a former assistant secretary of defense and president of risk-assessment firm Cloud Peak Analytics. “That’s got to be the focus going forward.”

If a group of agents working for a foreign government or a terrorist organization wanted to bring us to our knees, they could do it.

In fact, there have actually been recent attacks on some of our power stations.  Here is just one example

The Wall Street Journal’s Rebecca Smith reports that a former Federal Energy Regulatory Commission chairman is acknowledging for the first time that a group of snipers shot up a Silicon Valley substation for 19 minutes last year, knocking out 17 transformers before slipping away into the night.

The attack was “the most significant incident of domestic terrorism involving the grid that has ever occurred” in the U.S., Jon Wellinghoff, who was chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at the time, told Smith.

Have you heard about that attack before now?

Most Americans have not.

But it should have been big news.

At the scene, authorities found “more than 100 fingerprint-free shell casings“, and little piles of rocks “that appeared to have been left by an advance scout to tell the attackers where to get the best shots.”

So what happens someday when the bad guys decide to conduct a coordinated attack against our power grid with heavy weapons?

It could happen.

In addition, as I mentioned at the top of this article, the Internet is extremely vulnerable as well.

For example, did you know that authorities are so freaked out about the security of the Internet that they have given “the keys to the Internet” to a very small group of individuals that meet four times per year?

It’s true.  The following is from a recent story posted by the Guardian

The keyholders have been meeting four times a year, twice on the east coast of the US and twice here on the west, since 2010. Gaining access to their inner sanctum isn’t easy, but last month I was invited along to watch the ceremony and meet some of the keyholders – a select group of security experts from around the world. All have long backgrounds in internet security and work for various international institutions. They were chosen for their geographical spread as well as their experience – no one country is allowed to have too many keyholders. They travel to the ceremony at their own, or their employer’s, expense.

What these men and women control is the system at the heart of the web: the domain name system, or DNS. This is the internet’s version of a telephone directory – a series of registers linking web addresses to a series of numbers, called IP addresses. Without these addresses, you would need to know a long sequence of numbers for every site you wanted to visit. To get to the Guardian, for instance, you’d have to enter “77.91.251.10″ instead of theguardian.com.

If the system that controls those IP addresses gets hijacked or damaged, we would definitely need someone to press the “reset button” on the Internet.

Sadly, the hackers always seem to be several steps ahead of the authorities.  In fact, according to one recent report, breaches of U.S. government computer networks go undetected 40 percent of the time

A new report by Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) detailswidespread cybersecurity breaches in the federal government, despite billions in spending to secure the nation’s most sensitive information.

The report, released on Tuesday, found thatapproximately 40 percent of breaches go undetected, and highlighted “serious vulnerabilities in the government’s efforts to protect its own civilian computers and networks.”

“In the past few years, we have seen significant breaches in cybersecurity which could affect critical U.S. infrastructure,” the report said. “Data on the nation’s weakest dams, including those which could kill Americans if they failed, were stolen by a malicious intruder. Nuclear plants’ confidential cybersecurity plans have been left unprotected. Blueprints for the technology undergirding the New York Stock Exchange were exposed to hackers.”

Yikes.

And things are not much better when it comes to cybersecurity in the private sector either.  According to Symantec, there was a 42 percent increase in cyberattacks against businesses in the United States last year.  And according to a recent report in the Telegraph, our major banks are being hit with cyberattacks “every minute of every day”…

Every minute, of every hour, of every day, a major financial institution is under attack.

Threats range from teenagers in their bedrooms engaging in adolescent “hacktivism”, to sophisticated criminal gangs and state-sponsored terrorists attempting everything from extortion to industrial espionage. Though the details of these crimes remain scant, cyber security experts are clear that behind-the-scenes online attacks have already had far reaching consequences for banks and the financial markets.

For much more on all of this, please see my previous article entitled “Big Banks Are Being Hit With Cyberattacks ‘Every Minute Of Every Day’“.

Up until now, attacks on our infrastructure have not caused any significant interruptions in our lifestyles.

But at some point that will change.

Are you prepared for that to happen?

We live at a time when our world is becoming increasingly unstable.  In the years ahead it is quite likely that we will see massive economic problems, major natural disasters, serious terror attacks and war.  Any one of those could cause substantial disruptions in the way that we live.

At this point, even NASA is warning that “civilization could collapse”…

A new study sponsored by Nasa’s Goddard Space Flight Center has highlighted the prospect that global industrial civilisation could collapse in coming decades due to unsustainable resource exploitation and increasingly unequal wealth distribution.

Noting that warnings of ‘collapse’ are often seen to be fringe or controversial, the study attempts to make sense of compelling historical data showing that “the process of rise-and-collapse is actually a recurrent cycle found throughout history.” Cases of severe civilisational disruption due to “precipitous collapse – often lasting centuries – have been quite common.”

So let us hope for the best.

But let us also prepare for the worst.

-

STANDBY NATO: TURKEY PLOTS JUSTIFICATION TO SYRIA STRIKE

Published on Mar 29, 2014

The Turkish government is red-faced after a leak on YouTube revealed a daring plot to justify invading neighboring Syria. An anonymous source posted audio of a secret meeting between top Turkish officials – discussing a false flag operation that would appear as a Syrian attack. It’s not the first time Ankara has tried to rally NATO against Syria. RT’s Marina Portnaya has a collection of Turkish attempts to spark a full-blown war with its neighbor, with the backing of the Alliance.

-

SCANDAL: MASS MEDIA CENSORS SHOCKING ADMISSION OF TURKISH FALSE FLAG

MEDIA BURIES BOMBSHELL ADMISSION OF TURKISH GOVERNMENT PLANNING FALSE FLAG ATTACK

TURKISH LEADERS ADMIT TO PLANNING FALSE FLAG TERROR TO JUSTIFY A WAR IN SYRIA

CONFIRMED: NATO’s PLANS FOR FALSE FLAG ATTACK ON TURKEY REVEALED

MAN IN THE MIDDLE

SEVGI AKARCESME: ‘TURKEY LOSING ITS DEMOCRACY, TURNING AUTHORITARIAN’

TRIAL BY TWITTER

TURKEY SHOOTS DOWN SYRIAN FIGHTER JET

TURKEY VS. SYRIA: NATO’s LAST GASP?

-

IS AN ISRAELI ATTACK ON IRAN IMMINENT?

By Joel Skousen | World Affairs Brief

March 28, 2014

This week Reuters reported that Israel was suddenly shutting down all their embassies over a supposed wage strike. The internet, however, became aflame with speculation that Israel was up to something bigger—like attacking Iran. Barbara Honegger, a former presidential advisor of the neocon variety, and Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the US Naval Postgraduate School added fire to those rumors by saying,

 Because of the recall of Israel’s Embassy and Consulate personnel worldwide under the guise of a wage strike – assuming this Reuters story is true – I believe Israel is about to go to war on Syria and Iran, which would bring in Russia, the U.S. and NATO. The Malaysia Airlines ‘search’ is probably a cover for moving naval and air force military assets into place.

While I have long predicted that Israel will attack Iran, as the prime Muslim target of the globalists—which can’t tolerate any Muslim nation developing its own indigenous weapons systems (let alone, nuclear), there is no good reason to link the inevitable attack on Iran with the embassy closings. Here’s my reasoning:

1) No other nation has shut down all their embassies worldwide prior to war, especially among allies which may be helpful in time of war, and who certainly will have a constant need to be briefed on Israeli intentions. Moreover, why give Iran a heads-up that war is coming with such a dramatic move?

2) Israel has an ultra-socialist labor system left over from the Marxist Labor movement which founded Israel, so one mustn’t discount the excessive power that unions have in Israel, and the reluctance of a nominal “Right-wing” government to step in and offend labor by ordering the Foreign Service personnel back to work.

That said, there are other credible signs that Israel is still intent on attacking Iran, including a recent $2 billion budget increase for military readiness. In the US, the neocons in Congress are in lock-step with Israel and recently moved ahead on a bill aimed at punishing Iran and backing Israel in any conflict. Here’s policymic.com on the issue:

 Here we go again. Just as world powers start to close the gap of mistrust between themselves and their Iranian counterparts about Iran’s nuclear program, the U.S. Senate decides to ramp up the pressure on Iran by trying to push through harmful legislation meant to get even tougher with its Persian adversary should the deal crumble.

 As of now, the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act of 2013 has 58 total sponsors, with 26 original endorsements. While President Obama has promised to veto the bill should he get his hands on it, securing 67 votes would absolve it from crossing his chopping block… This paragraph would raise an eyebrow of even an untrained eye given the lies hidden within the prose:

 “If the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran’s nuclear weapon program, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with the law of the United States and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.

As if this were not enough, the same neocon establishment is ginning up the excuse to tackle Syria, using the rise in terrorism there—despite the fact that the US itself is responsible for the very rise of jihadism that plagues Syria, having funded them with weapons and money. Infowars.com quotes CIA director Brennan (the epitome of the dark side of government) with saying,

 “We are concerned about the use of Syrian territory by the al-Qaeda organization to recruit individuals and develop the capability to be able not just to carry out attacks inside of Syria, but also to use Syria as a launching pad,… There are camps inside of both Iraq and Syria that are used by al-Qaeda to develop capabilities that are applicable, both in the theater, as well as beyond.”

 Then Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, noted for his ubiquitous lies to Congress on NSA spying, added to the claims by saying that “around 7,500 of the foreign mercenaries are in Syria [which] pose a domestic terror threat to the United States.” [The same old yarn to keep the phony war on terror alive] “Among them are a small group of Af-Pak al-Qaeda veterans with aspirations of external attack in Europe, if not the homeland,” he said.

The New York Times pushed the same theme last Tuesday on its front page, saying that “Syria is an appealing base for these operatives because it offers them the relative sanctuary of extremist-held havens — away from drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan…

 Kurt Nimmo continues: However, long before Brennan and Clapper made their ominous warnings in February and the Times launched its latest war propaganda effort, the United States, in collusion with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, moved to supplant the ineffectual Free Syrian Army with more ruthless Islamist groups capable of effectively battling the Syrian military, including al-Qaeda and al-Nusra. Radical Islamists now dominate the mercenary forces in Syria.

 “Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster, according to American officials and Middle Eastern diplomats,” The New York Times reported in October, 2012.

 The United States has publicly lamented the dominance of radical Islamism on the battlefields of Syria. “Western hopes of building a moderate Syrian opposition to President Bashar al-Assad have been set back after the Islamist militias that dominate the rebel movement said they were ‘going it alone’ and intended to establish a sharia state,” The Telegraph reported last September.

It may well be that all this anti-terror propaganda in Syria is done to give Israel an excuse to attack Syria rather than Iran. Yet another piece of the puzzle confirms that Turkey is planning for a Syrian invasion. There was a leak of a secret meeting that surfaced this week, between Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkish Armed Forces deputy general Yasar Guler, National Intelligence Agency chief Hakan Fidan and Foreign Affairs undersecretary Feridun Sinirlioglu, discussing possible war scenarios with Syria. Something’s up, and it may well start with a false flag attack that Turkey is planning to blame on Syria. The link has the details.

Once again, learn to recognize when the globalists have someone in their sights. They’ll never take “no” for an answer until Syria gets taken down. This is one of the reasons why I don’t think the Israeli strike on Iran is imminent—they have long demanded that the US take down Syria first so as to lessen Iran’s retaliatory power against Israel working through surrogates in Syria and Lebanon. It just might be that because the US is bound to honor the chemical weapons disarmament agreement with Syria that Israel will have to start this war as well.

-

U.S. WILL CUT DEPLOYED NUKE MISSILE FORCE BY 50

By ROBERT BURNS
AP National Security Writer

April 13, 2014

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. will keep its current force of 450 land-based nuclear missiles but remove 50 from their launch silos as part of a plan to bring the U.S. into compliance with a 2011 U.S.-Russia arms control treaty, the Pentagon said Tuesday.

The resulting launch-ready total of 400 Minuteman 3 intercontinental ballistic missiles would be the lowest deployed ICBM total since the early 1960s.

The decisions come after a strong push by members of Congress from the states that host missile bases – North Dakota, Wyoming and Montana – to not eliminate any of the silos from which the missiles would be launched. Fifty silos will be kept in “warm” status – empty of missiles but capable of returning to active use.

Sen. John Tester, a Montana Democrat, called the Pentagon’s announcement “a big win for our nation’s security and for Malmstrom Air Force Base,” home of the 341st Missile Wing with 150 Minuteman 3 missiles.

“ICBMs are the most cost-effective nuclear deterrent, and keeping silos warm is a smart decision and the kind of common sense Montanans expect from their leaders,” Tester said.

The decision to put 50 missiles in storage but not eliminate any of their launch silos is a departure from the practice followed throughout the 50-plus year history of intercontinental ballistic missiles. A senior defense official who briefed reporters on the plan and its rationale said the Pentagon had never before structured its ICBM force with a substantial number of missiles in standby status. The official spoke under Pentagon ground rules that did not permit her name to be used.

Hans Kristensen, an arms control expert at the Federation of American Scientists, called the administration’s announcement disappointing as an apparent shift away from ICBM force reductions.

“This decision appears to have more to do with the administration surrendering to the ICBM caucus (in Congress) than with strategic considerations about national security,” he said in an email exchange.

The Pentagon said it will cost $19.3 million over five years to keep the 50 launch silos and missiles in standby status. The 50 missiles will be stored at their base or, in some cases, sent to a depot for repairs or maintenance.

Keeping all 450 silos meant the Pentagon had to make steeper reductions in the Navy’s sea-based nuclear force in order to comply with the New START, or Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, by 2018. The Navy will reduce the number of deployed and non-deployed submarine-launched ballistic nuclear missiles to 280 from the current 336.

The Navy has 14 Ohio-class submarines armed with missiles but only 12 will count as deployed because two will be undergoing long-term maintenance at a given time during the 10-year life of the New START treaty. The Navy is embarking on a multibillion-dollar program to build a replacement for the current fleet.

The other “leg” of the U.S. nuclear force, the Air Force strategic bombers, will be trimmed from the current deployed total of 93 to 60, with an additional six available in a non-deployed status. The 60 will comprise 19 B-2 stealth bombers and 41 B-52H Stratofortress heavy bombers.

Thus the administration will remain within the New START limit of 700 deployed strategic nuclear weapons with 400 ICBMs, 240 sub-launched missiles and 60 bombers. Russia already is well below the 700-deployed weapon limit; at the most recent reporting period, last October, Russia had 473; the U.S. had 809.

The 400 deployed ICBMs would be the lowest total since 1962, according to a history of the force written by Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists. He says the U.S. had 203 deployed ICBMs in 1962, with the force expanding rapidly to 597 the following year and topping 1,000 in 1966. It has been between 550 and 450 since 1991.

The Obama administration spent months figuring out how to apportion the reductions required to comply with the New START treaty. In the meantime, the ICBM force came under heavy scrutiny for a variety of problems, including low morale, leadership failures and investigations over exam-cheating and drug use among launch officers.

Some question the value of retaining ICBMs, although President Barack Obama has committed to keeping them as part of the nuclear “triad” of forces that can be launched from land, sea and air. In addition to the 450 ICBM silos currently in use, the Air Force has four at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., used only for test launches. They will remain.

The Pentagon said Tuesday it probably will cost about $300 million to implement all the announced changes required to comply with New START by 2018. About two-thirds of the cost will be for altering some of the missile tubes aboard Navy submarines so they can no longer launch ballistic missiles.

The nuclear sub fleet is far more costly to operate than either the land-based missiles or the bombers, but its strategic advantage is the relative invulnerability of the submarines while at sea, and thus their ability to survive a first strike.

The New START treaty also requires both Russia and the U.S. to reduce to 1,550 the number of nuclear warheads associated with the deployed missiles and bombers. The Pentagon has not spelled out how it will do that, but analysts have said they believe the breakdown will be: 1,090 warheads aboard subs, 400 on land-based missiles and the 60 bombers counting as one warhead each.

Obama announced last summer that the U.S. would be ready to reduce its total warheads by another one-third, to about 1,100, in a new round of negotiations with Russia. But there is scant chance of that happening anytime soon, especially with the crisis over Russian intervention in Ukraine.

-

US CONTINUES DISARMING IN THE FACE OF RUSSIAN AGGRESSION

by Joel Skousen | World Affairs Brief

April 11, 2014

The Defense Department just announced its intent to remove 50 additional Minuteman missiles from their silos at 3 bases. They claim the empty silos will remain in warm status, meaning that they can be reloaded if needed. However, the US isn’t building any more missiles and they will be using up these missiles in tests over time. Their storage locations will be known to the Russians and thus can easily be destroyed if they still exist when war comes.

The Wall Street Journal reported on the fact that our government has finally acknowledged that the Russians violated the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which bans the testing, production and possession of nuclear missiles with a range between 310 and 3,400 miles:

 Russia has tested at least three missiles—the R-500 cruise missile, the RS-26 ballistic missile and the Iskander-M semi-ballistic missile—that run afoul of the proscribed range limits.

But, rather than use this as an excuse to stop further US compliance with treaties, the US continues to disarm unilaterally. As I reported earlier in the WAB, “Russia has increased its counted deployed strategic nuclear forces over the past six months, while at the same time America’s stockpile of warheads and launchers has declined.”

As the WSJ further reports, Obama has dismissed Russia as a regional power, and he is maneuvering the US closer to a position of absolute nuclear inferiority to Russia.

 Russia has seized Crimea and has 50,000 troops as a potential invasion force on the border with eastern Ukraine. The Kremlin is also abrogating the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, in which Kiev agreed to give up its nuclear arsenal—at the time the third largest in the world—in exchange for guarantees of its territorial integrity from Russia, the U.S. and U.K. That memorandum has now proved to be as much of a scrap of paper to the Kremlin as Belgium’s neutrality was to Berlin in the summer of 1914.

 The Kremlin is also violating the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which bans the testing, production and possession of nuclear missiles with a range between 310 and 3,400 miles. Russia has tested at least three missiles—the R-500 cruise missile, the RS-26 ballistic missile and the Iskander-M semi-ballistic missile—that run afoul of the proscribed range limits.

 The Obama Administration has suspected for years that Vladimir Putin was violating the INF Treaty, which supporters hail as the triumph of arms control. The Russians were boasting of their new missile capabilities in open-source literature as far back as 2007. Yet as defense analysts Keith Payne and Mark Schneider noted in these pages in February, “since 2009, the current administration’s unclassified arms-control compliance reports to Congress have been mum on the Russian INF Treaty noncompliance.”

 At a minimum, Congress should call on Rose Gottemoeller, confirmed last month as under secretary of state for arms control over strenuous objections from Florida Senator Marco Rubio, to explain what the Administration knew, and what it disclosed, about Moscow’s INF violations when she negotiated New Start. [The US has always refused to publicize or acknowledge Russian treaty violations].

 Ms. Gottemoeller has been publicly noncommittal on this point, perhaps because she knew New Start would never have won a two-thirds Senate majority if Russia’s INF cheating had been widely known. The episode reminds us of why people like former Arizona Senator Jon Kyl were right to oppose the ratification of New Start.

 Mr. Obama has dismissed Russia as a regional power, but he is maneuvering the U.S. closer to a position of absolute nuclear inferiority to Russia. The imbalance becomes even worse when one counts tactical nuclear weapons, where Russia has a four-to-one numerical advantage over the U.S.

 To the surprise of defense analysts, the Pentagon will make the sharpest cuts in the submarine and bomber legs of the nuclear triad, while mostly preserving the silo-based Minuteman ICBMs. This means that the U.S. will maintain a stationary, and vulnerable, nuclear force on the ground while largely dismantling what remains of our second-strike capability at sea and in the air. A crucial part of deterrence is convincing an adversary that you can survive a first strike. It does not help U.S. security to dismantle the most survivable part of the U.S. arsenal.

 This is even more pernicious when you factor in PDD-60, the 1997 Presidential Decision Directive directing our missile forces to “not rely on launch on warning” but to prepare to retaliate after absorbing a nuclear first strike. That dumb nuclear doctrine is still in force, and has never been repealed, even by that nominal Republican president, George W. Bush.

That first strike would wipe out all of our silos if they were not allowed to launch on warning—and though our Missileers still believe they are going to get the order to launch on warning, I’m betting that order will never come. Without the command codes from the White House, they can’t launch. By cutting the rest of our strategic nuclear triad, we make sure the impact of that first strike cannot be recovered from. And don’t forget that in 1998 Clinton agreed to keep 50% of our missile subs in port to make sure they were more vulnerable—to assure Russia that we posed no threat to it.

The WSJ concludes:

 It’s fashionable in the West to dismiss this as “Cold War thinking,” but it appears that Vladimir Putin hasn’t given up on such thinking or he wouldn’t be investing in new nuclear delivery systems.

 Cold War or no, recent events are providing daily reminders that the great-power rivalries of previous centuries are far from over. They have also offered the grim lesson that nations that forsake their nuclear deterrent, as Ukraine did, do so at considerable peril. After the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979 the Senate refused to ratify Jimmy Carter’s SALT II Treaty. Any serious response to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine should include a formal and public U.S. demarche about Russian cheating on the INF treaty, while promising to withdraw from New Start if the cheating continues.

 Nuclear arsenals aside, the timing of Mr. Obama’s nuclear dismantling couldn’t be worse as Mr. Putin contemplates his next moves in Ukraine and sizes up a possible Western response.

-

PUTIN INVADES, OBAMA DISMANTLES

The U.S. rushes to obey a nuclear arms treaty while Russia cheats.

By The Wall Street Journal

April 8, 2014

John Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday that “Russian provocateurs” had infiltrated eastern Ukraine in order to foment “an illegal and illegitimate effort to destabilize a sovereign state and create a contrived crisis.” Also on Tuesday, the Pentagon announced steep cuts to U.S. nuclear forces, four years ahead of schedule, in accordance with the 2010 New Start treaty with Russia.

At this point in Barack Obama‘s Presidency we should be used to the mental whiplash. But we still feel concussed.

So let’s slow down and follow the thread. Russia has seized Crimea and has 50,000 troops as a potential invasion force on the border with eastern Ukraine. The Kremlin is also abrogating the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, in which Kiev agreed to give up its nuclear arsenal—at the time the third largest in the world—in exchange for guarantees of its territorial integrity from Russia, the U.S. and U.K. That memorandum has now proved to be as much of a scrap of paper to the Kremlin as Belgium’s neutrality was to Berlin in the summer of 1914.

The Kremlin is also violating the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which bans the testing, production and possession of nuclear missiles with a range between 310 and 3,400 miles. Russia has tested at least three missiles—the R-500 cruise missile, the RS-26 ballistic missile and the Iskander-M semi-ballistic missile—that run afoul of the proscribed range limits.

The Obama Administration has suspected for years that Vladimir Putin was violating the INF Treaty, which supporters hail as the triumph of arms control. The Russians were boasting of their new missile capabilities in open-source literature as far back as 2007. Yet as defense analysts Keith Payne and Mark Schneider noted in these pages in February, “since 2009, the current administration’s unclassified arms-control compliance reports to Congress have been mum on the Russian INF Treaty noncompliance.”

At a minimum, Congress should call on Rose Gottemoeller, confirmed last month as under secretary of state for arms control over strenuous objections from Florida Senator Marco Rubio, to explain what the Administration knew, and what it disclosed, about Moscow’s INF violations when she negotiated New Start.

Ms. Gottemoeller has been publicly noncommittal on this point, perhaps because she knew New Start would never have won a two-thirds Senate majority if Russia’s INF cheating had been widely known. The episode reminds us of why people like former Arizona Senator Jon Kyl were right to oppose the ratification of New Start.

Which brings us to the Administration’s announcement on cutting U.S. nuclear forces to levels specified by New Start four years before the treaty’s 2018 compliance deadline. The news comes a few days after Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists reported that “Russia has increased its counted deployed strategic nuclear forces over the past six months.” Yet at the same time America’s stockpile of warheads and launchers has declined.

Mr. Obama has dismissed Russia as a regional power, but he is maneuvering the U.S. closer to a position of absolute nuclear inferiority to Russia. The imbalance becomes even worse when one counts tactical nuclear weapons, where Russia has a four-to-one numerical advantage over the U.S.

To the surprise of defense analysts, the Pentagon will make the sharpest cuts in the submarine and bomber legs of the nuclear triad, while mostly preserving the silo-based Minuteman ICBMs. This means that the U.S. will maintain a stationary, and vulnerable, nuclear force on the ground while largely dismantling what remains of our second-strike capability at sea and in the air. A crucial part of deterrence is convincing an adversary that you can survive a first strike. It does not help U.S. security to dismantle the most survivable part of the U.S. arsenal.

It’s fashionable in the West to dismiss this as “Cold War thinking,” but it appears that Vladimir Putin hasn’t given up on such thinking or he wouldn’t be investing in new nuclear delivery systems.

***

Cold War or no, recent events are providing daily reminders that the great-power rivalries of previous centuries are far from over. They have also offered the grim lesson that nations that forsake their nuclear deterrent, as Ukraine did, do so at considerable peril. After the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979 the Senate refused to ratify Jimmy Carter’s SALT II Treaty. Any serious response to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine should include a formal and public U.S. demarche about Russian cheating on the INF treaty, while promising to withdraw from New Start if the cheating continues.

Nuclear arsenals aside, the timing of Mr. Obama’s nuclear dismantling couldn’t be worse as Mr. Putin contemplates his next moves in Ukraine and sizes up a possible Western response. Someone said recently that Mr. Putin plays chess while Mr. Obama plays checkers, but that’s unfair to the noble game of checkers.

-

RUSSIA TO BENEFIT FROM U.S. SUSPENSION OF NUCLEAR COOPERATION PROGRAM

-

The Topol strategic missile complex

The Topol strategic missile complex

-

MOSCOW, April 8 (RIA Novosti) – Washington’s decision to end cooperation with Moscow on dismantling weapons of mass destruction due to the crisis in Ukraine will free up Russia for a military partnership with China, a Russian defense expert has said.

“I think that if the US halts cooperation, Russia may create a new military bloc with China. It will be a serious alliance that will rival NATO,” said Anatoly Tsyganok of Moscow State University, noting that Beijing preferred not to rush things at the moment.

The United States announced Tuesday it was going to phase out a decades-long joint effort with Russia to dismantle weapons of mass destruction in former Soviet republics, called the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program.

The CTR agreement, also known as the Nunn-Lugar program, dates back to the early 1990s and led to the decommissioning of scores of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons after the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Tsyganok, who heads the Military Forecasting Center at Moscow State University, believes the United States is desperately afraid of Russian-Chinese cooperation on military and technical matters.

The freeze of another US-Russia bilateral program could push Moscow closer to its eastern neighbor, a nightmare scenario for Washington, he said.

Other experts say that Russia has long regarded the Nunn-Lugar program as a burden, which it will be happy to shake off.

Igor Korotchenko, Director of the Center for Analysis of the World Arms Trade, believes the end of cooperation will deprive the United States of a unique source of classified data on Russia’s nuclear potential.

“Over the past few years, this program has been a de facto cover-up for American intelligence inroads in Russian nuclear facilities,” he said. “Now the Americans are going to lose out on this opportunity.”

Korotchenko noted that Russia has learned to rely on its own capabilities to secure its nuclear sites, as well as to develop, produce and store nuclear weapons, and no longer needed foreign assistance.

In 2012, Russia complained about the program being out of sync with its concept of cooperation, but the United States succeeded in pushing through an interim agreement that scaled down the number of bilateral projects and restricted US monitors’ access to Russian nuclear sites.

-

LYNDON LAROUCHE: ‘GLOBAL THERMONUCLEAR WAR UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA WOULD BE UNSURVIVABLE’

.

-

LAROUCHE: THE ISSUE IS NOT A WAR INSIDE EUROPE; THE ISSUE IS A GLOBAL THERMONUCLEAR WORLD WAR III

March 19, 2014

In reviewing the international strategic situation after today’s speech by President Vladimir Putin to Russia’s parliament, Lyndon LaRouche emphasized that what is at issue is not a war around Ukraine or inside Europe. What is unfolding is the British Empire’s drive for thermonuclear World War III. LaRouche stressed that we have to mobilize the American people and Congress to recognize the real danger, not the bullshit being pumped out in the media, and to mobilize to impeach President Obama before he unleashes that thermonuclear war on instructions of the British Empire.

The way Obama has played the Ukraine situation is designed to seek war, thermonuclear war, when there is no actual military threat coming from Russia, LaRouche elaborated. Russia is being put in a position where it has to act. But Russian President Putin has not been reckless; he has been very careful and cautious throughout. When Putin says Russia views what is happening as a threat to its existence and security, he means it. His demands have always been limited, so as not to be misunderstood.

It is clear that Putin is looking ahead to the prospect of thermonuclear World War III, and is trying to prevent it. That is why there is so much interest of late in the Russia media in what I have to say, LaRouche noted.

As for the media reports that the purpose of Vice President Biden’s current trip to Poland for scheduled meetings with NATO-members Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, is to “pledge additional security assistance” to them, and in particular to reaffirm and expand the U.S.-NATO anti-missile system deployment in that region, if that is the case, LaRouche emphasized, then Biden is furthering Obama’s drive for thermonuclear war, and he too is suspect of impeachment.

The active deployment of the Aegis-equipped USS Donald Cook from its home base in Rota, Spain, is part of a change in posture that is underway, the crossover from a posture around Ukraine into one for general war, LaRouche said. Congress and the American people have to wise up to what is happening, and impeach this SOB. The time for stupidity is over; excess stupidity leads to radioactivity.

-

RELATED POSTS:

OBAMA, CAMERON PLAY INTERACTIVE ‘NUCLEAR WAR GAME’

RUSSIA’S PLAN TO USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS ON THE UNITED STATES

CHINA’S PLAN TO USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS ON THE UNITED STATES

PLANS FOR REDRAWING THE MIDDLE EAST: THE PROJECT FOR A NEW MIDDLE EAST

THE BIG WALL STREET BANKS ARE ABOUT TO ENTER A DEATH SPIRAL

-

THREATS BOTH REAL AND VISIBLE

by Joel Skousen | World Affairs Brief

December 27, 2013

As we review 2013 we see several grim threats to our liberties and safety that are looming so large even those with a minimum of discernment are waking up and growing uneasy even as conspiring men feign reform or pretend to ignore the issues. At home the US government has every intention of continuing warrantless spying, the Obamacare rollout and unending debt increases despite growing public disapproval and claims of reform. Abroad, foreign intervention is increasing while the great threats of China and Russia are emerging as real and visible but which our government has no intention of countering. Worse, we can no longer depend on our elected representatives to stop any of this. It’s time to prepare in earnest for the inevitable demise of liberty even if it may not be imminent. When it does come in the next decade, it will be swift and relentless. There will be no turning back.

Both Democrats and the compromised Republican leadership have no intention of putting up any real resistance to the slow and agonizing loss of American Liberty. Their half-hearted opposition to spying, the PATRIOT ACT, and the new NDAA signed into law this week is an assent by silence to the slow erosion of liberty and constitutional protections that continues unabated.

For example, support for Obamacare has plummeted across every spectrum of the public, even among people eager for government handouts. Polls sponsored by pro-government media, like CNN, put support in the mid-30 percentile, which should be sending shock waves through the Democrats in Congress. Instead, it’s full speed ahead with implementation.

Republican House Speaker John Boehner has no intention of bringing up repeal legislation again. Neither does he intend to stop deficit spending nor hold the line on the debt limit. Instead he trotted out conservative Paul Ryan to convince Republicans that the latest budget compromise is “the best we can get.” Ryan is turning out to be one of Boehner’s “useful idiots,” to quote Lenin.

These are all crucial high-profile battles that the Republicans purposely sabotaged and lost. The political capital is spent and the waters of reform are poisoned forever so that even as public support for repeal grows, they have an excuse “not to go there” again. And, Boehner and his lackeys are preparing to sell us out on amnesty as well. That’s coming up early next year.

The courts will also continue their relentless permissiveness of government illegal acts under the guise of protecting us from terror and defending state secrets. I’m not optimistic about the temporary setback for NSA spying that one judge timidly opined was “likely” unconstitutional. The Supreme Court will reluctantly find in favor of “limited” government spying as they have in the past.

Part and parcel of this finding is the government’s continual downplaying of the degree to which it surveils worldwide communications. The spy agencies only admit to collecting “metadata” when we all know they are recording content as well—with which they analyze, sort and build future action lists targeting dissidents and political resistors worldwide. This is only peripherally involved with fighting terror which, like drugs, the government promotes as much as it counters.

Spying, indefinite detention without due process, secret prisons, torture, illegal black operations and the militarization of local police forces is all part of the world government police state they intend to force upon us as soon as the next war justifies such a massive disavowal of constitutional limits and the liberty that is inherent in national and state sovereignty.

As part of this, the push for continual “free trade” agreements with Asian and European nations will continue. While I don’t expect them to be able to fully implement the New World Order with its required taxation and police powers via these preparatory agreements, they certainly are a stepping stone towards getting people accustomed to increased international regulation and control (dubbed “cooperation”).

There is no denying that the pace of attacks against our liberty has picked up speed. This has led to a growing number of fellow commentators on the constitutional Right sounding the alarm about imminent collapse of the dollar and the economy as the catalyst for unmasking martial law and the implementation of tyranny.

I continue to caution people against this superficial analysis, often fomented by government misinformation sources inside the movement feeding disinformation to promoters like Lindsay Williams and others. Pastor Williams may well be sincere in his desire to save the country, but he continues to be deceived by his “insider sources” who have fed him bad tips for the past two years. He’s got a 100% failure rate and yet persists with the same claims, slightly more intense each time around. For a review of my analysis of why the PTB won’t crash the dollar or the economy see this link for the June 29, 2012 edition of the WAB in the archives.

I repeat for the benefit of my new subscribers that no one can be an insider feeding information to the liberty movement (they don’t want to get out) and not be discovered in this age of total surveillance. That includes the so-called “anonymous and confidential” government sources talking to mainstream “investigative” reporters. They are all known to government and every reporter’s phone is tapped constantly. When government takes reporters to court to force them to reveal their sources it is just a cover to keep the public believing in journalistic integrity.

We know what happens to real whistleblowers who reveal the illegal acts of government. They are exposed, maligned and persecuted incessantly. So any “leaker” who is allowed to keep leaking to those on our side every week or month is either not really an insider or is a disinformation expert being allowed to leak by government for manipulation purposes. Some, like the so-called “DHS insider” who talks to the Intel Hub regularly, are just patsies, in my opinion, that think they’ve been given insider access but who really are just being used to deliver disinformation to keep false conspiracies alive.

One of the main tactics of this disinformation about imminent threats is, I believe, to eventually discredit the prepper movement, 99% of which is motivated by these constant claims of imminent economic collapse. Most preppers have spouses or relatives that aren’t completely on board with their claims and consider them “paranoid” and “nuts.” Preppers who continue to regale them with the imminent collapse stories will find themselves embarrassed and increasingly unable to convince their friends and loved ones of even more serious preparations as the real threats get closer.

It isn’t that the economic collapse crowd is wrong about the dire state of our economy and the latest bubble the FED has created. It’s only that they don’t fully understand conspiracy and the larger agenda of the PTB who manipulate the economy. The conspirators have much more to gain by keeping things afloat with artificial stimulus than by letting it collapse. They control the regulatory powers as well and are able to cover up many Ponzi schemes, or at least keep them contained by denying that default ever occurs—as they did in the Greek bond haircuts forced upon investors.

With all of the fast moving events of the past year, you probably won’t be surprised that I am continually asked by subscribers if my estimate of timing has changed or moved up, especially in light of this year’s display of Chinese naval growth and aggressive behavior in the Far East. For the answer, we have to look at the potential for war, which is by far the most likely trigger for change in the world, even economic change.

A foreign attack allows our leaders to evade the blame for the dire situation and it gives them the excuse to take on dictatorial powers, restructure the money system and empower globalist solutions. In an economic collapse without war, they take the full blame, especially when all the FED watchers would know the day the PTB pulled the plug on the economy by cutting new monetary creation to zero. Ever since 2008, they have shown no inclination of pulling the plug on the economy or the dollar. It’s not a blameless rationale for martial law. They have also kept the real rate of inflation below 10%, and as long as they continue to do so, the hyperinflation threat bandied about so often won’t happen.

Here is my current feeling on the timing of war:

1. First, I have to continually remind my listeners that I’ve never given a timetable for when WWIII is going to start. I’ve concentrated on how much time I feel remains before Russia and China are ready to strike. They aren’t the same thing and don’t necessarily coincide. Even if I think they are ready, it still doesn’t mean they will strike. It could still take longer depending on the political climate at the time and whether or not an appropriate excuse has been engendered to justify war. As you all know, historically these excuses are almost always provoked by one side or the other.

2. I’ve said since the beginning of this decade that Russia and China are at least 8-10 years from having sufficient air, missile and naval forces to take on the West. We’re now 6-8 years away from that estimate where “we still have time to prepare.” I still feel confident that Russia and China won’t be ready until at least the beginning years of the next decade. In last week’s brief, I covered the fact that most of their major weapons systems aren’t scheduled to come on line until 2020-2024, so that’s still 8-10 years from now.

3. The following is very important: It is not true that Russia and China are totally unprepared until that magic time they reach optimal readiness. While it is improbable, there is nothing to say they won’t decide to strike earlier, at a lesser state of preparedness. No one is ever totally prepared for war—it’s a matter of high confidence in success, and also a matter of the right timing. As Russia and China get closer to full preparedness, the chance increases that they could grab a political opportunity to strike prior to their planned timetable if they thought they had a good enough opening—one that overcame the disadvantage of moving sooner rather than later. The US could also provoke a crisis that gave them an opportunity to strike that “they couldn’t resist.”

So, while I’m still fairly confident in my feeling that we still have several years to prepare, as we get closer to the next decade and they get closer to being ready, the chances of an early surprise attack increases as they approach full readiness. I don’t think the time will be much shorter but you need to be aware of the possibility. It’s one of the reasons why you don’t want to put off necessary preparations just because you might have more time than previously thought. Don’t try to cut it too close. With that said, let me outline some of the signs that war may be approaching sooner rather than later. I will be watching for these as well in the WAB.

First, it’s important to keep in mind that the mainstream media will increasingly concentrate on China as the problem, not Russia—even though they are both in a temporary alliance to take down the West. One will not go ahead without the other, but for some reason the word has gone out to planners to downplay the Russian threat.

I surmise that the reason Russia is being protected is that Russia provides the continual rationale for more disarmament. It is ironic (if not hypocritical) that the West will dramatize the Chinese threat more than the Russian threat but no overtures or expectations of disarmament will ever be made to China. The West has never even approached China with demands for a disarmament pact and doesn’t appear likely to do so in the future. –Not that China would ever entertain one.

The fact that the US keeps seeking disarmament pacts with the Russians in spite of continual missile manufacturing and cheating on all disarmament treaties is strong evidence that the US is trying to use disarmament to weaken our nuclear deterrence, NOT make the world safe from nuclear weapons. Evading any demands for the Chinese to disarm is even more evidence that the US overtures to Russia on disarmament have nothing to do with “making the world safe from nuclear weapons.”

So, when outlining the signs of war, keep in mind that there are two enemies and either one or both may be engaged in setting the stage for war. Both are already involved in significant and steady rearmament. That isn’t going to change, and they are starting early enough that the West won’t be able to detect a significant uptick in production later on as a sign of war.

Don’t look for Russia or China to necessarily engage in the normal massing of forces at some border as Hitler did. They will use a ballistic missile first strike with a preliminary EMP attack as a means of temporarily paralyzing US and NATO forces as the electrical grid gets taken down. This will be followed by nuclear strikes against ground targets. Once the US military is taken down they figure they can blackmail the rest of the West into submission and amass the necessary invasion/occupation forces while the West is struggling to reorganize after a nuclear strike.

Watch for these provocations that indicate war is getting nearer:

Russia: Russia will continue to contest any additional moves by former satellite states like Ukraine and Georgia moving to closer to EU integration. The latest move by Russia to bribe and threaten Ukraine from making a trade deal with the EU is, I believe, a permanent and hardened position. It won’t be reversed. Despite continued Ukrainian protests, the opposition is controlled and divided and will never be able to overthrow the pro-Moscow direction of the government. Democracy is only a sham in most of the post-Soviet states. Controlled parties on both the Left and Right keep marching inevitably toward more concessions toward Russian hegemony—especially in light of the grip Russia has on the flow of natural gas to Europe and Eastern Europe.

Remember too that the controlled opposition and continued protests also serve Russia’s purposes since she can use them when they turn violent to justify sending in Russian troops to “protect” the millions of ethnic Russians placed in each of these satellite states.

That said, I don’t expect Russia to start getting aggressive with the post-Soviet states until after the US signs another disarmament agreement with Russia. Expect feelers to be put out in 2014 for a typically one sided agreement to be signed before Obama leaves office. This is one of those things, like socialized medicine, that they do while Democrats are in the White House.

China: China has already started to increase provocations with the West in the disputed ADIZ air defense zone claimed by China in the East China Sea, as well as the Chinese naval harassment of US surveillance ships in the South China Sea in international waters. Expect those provocations to continue. China knows that by increasing the overall levels of East-West hostilities, it becomes increasingly difficult for the West to tell when China expects to go to war.

North Korea: Nothing is more telling about this tactic of “obscuration through hundreds of feints” than North Korea’s regular provocations and small military attacks on South Korea over the years. North Korea is China’s puppet state and is the one most likely to provide China and Russia with the trigger event they need for WWIII. As I have explained before, a sudden invasion/artillery attack by NK on South Korea almost guarantees a tactical nuclear response by the US since the North has such overwhelming forces just across the border from Seoul, the SK capitol. If the US uses tactical nukes to contain the onslaught, China could easily use this “first use” to launch it’s planned first strike on US military targets.

Threats against the South happen almost every month and vary in intensity. Just this week, as the UK Daily Mail reported, North Korea warned the West that “war could break out without notice” as Kim Jong-Un tells troops to get combat ready.

The warning came a day after reports that satellite images appeared to show North Korea has started producing fuel rods for its nuclear reactor. The U.S. and South Korea had been wary of possible threats from the North, where tensions have been high since the execution of Kim’s uncle and mentor. The latest saber rattling came as Kim visited his troops on Christmas Eve, according to Al Jazeera.

‘He instructed the unit to put utmost spurs on rounding off its combat readiness … always bearing in mind that a war breaks out without any prior notice,’ reports from state media said. Tens of thousands of troops pledged their loyalty to Kim last week at a parade to mark the anniversary of the death of his father, and former leader.

Satellite images seen by the Johns Hopkins University appeared to show facilities at the North’s scientific research center could be used to make fuel rods for the plutonium reactor. ‘The identification of these facilities indicates a more wide-ranging, extensive effort by North Korea to modernize and restart the Yongbyon complex dating back to 2009 than previously understood,’ the report said. North Korea’s reactor was put back into service earlier this year, after a six-year break.

North Korea’s nasty habit of threatening war and putting troops on alert is a regular occurrence, and so is NK’s breaking of agreements to limit its nuclear weapons productions. Taken in isolation, none of these minor provocations mean war is imminent. But what it does do—very effectively—is make it very hard to tell when they are serious about an attack.

One of the great dangers of NK saber rattling and keeping their enlisted and junior officers hyped up for war is that sometimes the trigger actually gets pulled, as it did when the NK artillery forces shelled Yeonpyeong Island in 2010, killing four South Koreans. They were lucky the US and SK are in such a permissive mood or there might have been a war.

-

russia attacks america red dawn

-

THE GATHERING RED STORM

by Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

January 30, 2013

It’s difficult to not look at world events these days and feel as though we are sitting on a ticking time bomb. Things are heating up even more and the clock is now at about 30 seconds to midnight.

One wonders where all this will lead… Well, if the current course is kept, straight into hell, probably. That is by design and has been planned on for a very long time.

From Trevor Loudon:

If it comes to war, one joint Russia/China plan is for Russia to nuke the hell out of the continental United States. After Obama has finished decimating what is left of the US nuclear arsenal of course. The Russians will then invade Alaska and parts of Canada, but not the lower ’48. China will then invade across the Pacific. They will lose millions of troublesome young men, but they eventually get a foothold. Then their allies in Latin America will invade across the Mexican border… and the Red Dawn will break.

You can count North Korea in that mix as well. It has always been the plan of the Russians to use Iran as a proxy army to take control of the Middle East and the energy resources at play. But would any of them really come after the US?

The answer to that question is a definitive ‘yes.’ Being separated from most of our enemies by an ocean gives us the illusion of safety, but that should have been shattered after 9-11. However, America’s apathy runs deep these days and most people fell back to sleep or into an encompassing lethargy when a would-be dictator started trashing the Constitution and our God given rights. While we tear ourselves apart as a nation, our enemies are salivating, awaiting the right opportunity to strike.

I contend that Obama is setting us up for just such an attack. And as Trevor Loudon astutely points out, it will most likely come from several enemies at once. With a depleted nuclear arsenal and a massively weakened military, the hour is drawing nigh that an attack will be forthcoming. Think about it… if you were our powerful enemies, what would you do? You would attack of course when your enemy is at their weakest financially and militarily – like right about now. Consider this scenario:

  • North Korea launches 2 or 3 EMPs over the United States with no warning, or so little that we have no time to take evasive measures.
  • Russia invades Alaska and parts of Canada.
  • China launches an attack via the Pacific Ocean with millions of soldiers. The sheer numbers alone would overwhelm our current defenses.
  • Iran, Venezuela and Cuba attack from the South. With a fully open border and with no guard there whatsoever, hordes of terrorists would slash their way through with absolutely no pity or remorse for the bloody trail of bodies left behind.

Now consider if these all happen at once. Not possible, you say?  Both Russia and China have been busy building their military forces up, while the United States has been scaling radically down in that arena. Iran now has nuclear capability as does North Korea. Aside from the energy resources in the Middle East, what would be the biggest prize ever? Bringing down America, invading her and conquering a once free nation. All our enemies need to do is team up, pillage and plunder, then divide the spoils of war. See Sun Tzu. It would be the ultimate redistribution of wealth.

If that is not enough to haunt your dreams, consider this… What if Progressives made deals for themselves with our enemies while betraying our closest ally? For land, resources, slaves, security, power… No? Then tell me why we are being so cozy with the Chinese, or the Muslim Brotherhood, or the Russians for that matter. With Obama’s reelection, he can be much more flexible. Why is Obama deliberately bankrupting our nation? And why is money massively being withdrawn from our banks? It seems to me that Obama and the Communists are really close in their goals for this country. Just this last week, CPUSA was cheering Obama on gun restrictions.

Remember, Communism as articulated in the various Communist documents, asserts that nobody owns anything – that the group owns everything. But because in practice that doesn’t work, an elite self-appointed class takes control and endeavors to enforce the ideals of Communism on the proletariat. Thus, implementing in practice a form of fascism, nominally called “Communism.” The Muslim creeds implement an unabashed fascism from the beginning. So our enemies all have fascism in common. Even those regimes that are nominally Communist, wind up implementing fascism because completely decentralized control doesn’t work when there is no ownership. You see, our enemies have a lot in common ideology wise and they all want the United States’ land and resources.

So, while our Progressives have been calling for the end of the Constitution, the Chinese have been busy buying up billions in real estate here in the US. They are now buying up our utilities and natural resources as well. They are buying up major companies such as battery makers as well. This is just Communist foreplay. The problem with the US is that we are an instant gratification society. Long range planning for us is what’s for dinner tonight. Long range planning for our enemies is the demise and conquest of America.

We hear very little in the media about what is facing us militarily. Even Pravda sees more clearly what is going on in the States than many Americans do. As the gathering red storm advances on America, will we react in time to save ourselves?

When the EMPs and nuclear weapons begin to fly, it will be a little too late to rally the troops to our defense.

-

RUSSIA AND CHINA PREPARE FOR THE DAY WHEN THEY WILL NUKE THE UNITED STATES

By Michael Snyder

November 7, 2013

While Barack Obama is busy gutting the U.S. nuclear arsenal, Russia and China are rapidly preparing for the day when they will nuke the United States.  To most Americans, it sounds very strange to hear that Russia and China are concerned about nuclear war.  After all, isn’t the Cold War over?  Isn’t that what politicians from both major political parties keep telling us?  Unfortunately, the truth is that Russia and China both consider the United States to be their number one geopolitical threat, and both nations have been systematically strengthening and updating their strategic forces.  At the end of last month, Russia held a large-scale military drill that involved the launch of four nuclear missiles, and the Chinese government released a major report for the public which included maps showing what would happen to major U.S. cities in the event of a nuclear attack by Chinese submarines.  Obama may blindly believe that wishful thinking and unilateral disarmament will keep the United States safe, but Russia and China are taking a much different path.  Both of them believe that a military conflict with the United States in the future is quite likely, and they are rapidly preparing for that eventuality.

The major nuclear drill conducted by Russia at the end of last month made headlines all over the planet…

Russian strategic forces carried out a large-scale surprise military drill on Wednesday, launching four nuclear missiles that were closely monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies, U.S. officials said.

The drill began around 9:00 am ET and included the test launch of two land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and two submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).

But this was far from an isolated incident.  In fact, it has been reported that Russian missile forces will hold more than 200 drills during the second half of 2013.

Things have very much changed in Russia since the end of the Cold War era.  Back then, Russia did not have a lot of money to put into the military.  But now Russian President Vladimir Putin is working very hard to strengthen and modernize Russian nuclear forces…

Russia is developing several new missiles, including a weapon U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed as a covert intermediate-range nuclear missile called the RS-26 that is being developed and tested in apparent violation of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

The Russian government has denied the RS-26 violates the INF treaty and claims it is a new ICBM, which some arms compliance experts say is a violation of the 2010 New START treaty.

Russia is also developing a new submarine-launched ballistic missile and a new class of missile submarines.

The missile submarines are of particular concern.  Russia has introduced a new “near silent” nuclear submarine which is far quieter than anything the U.S. currently has…

The Borey Class submarine, dubbed Vladimir Monomakh, has a next generation nuclear reactor, can dive deeper than 1,200 feet, and carries up to 20 nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM).

Each of these “Bulava” ICBM’s can carry ten detachable MIRV warheads, what they call “re-entry vehicles,” capable of delivering 150 kiloton yields per warhead

These subs have the capability of approaching the coastline of the United States without us ever even knowing that they were there.

Most Americans do not realize this.

Most Americans also do not realize that Russia has more spies inside the United States today than it did at any point during the Cold War.

Russia is more of a threat to the United States today than it ever has been before, but the American people are completely and totally oblivious to this.

Meanwhile, China is publicly bragging about what their nuclear submarines could do to us.

Late last month, the Chinese government released a report which included maps which showed the projected results of a nuclear strike on major U.S. cities.  This report was heavily covered by government-controlled media outlets in China such as China Central TV, the People’s Daily, the Global Times, the PLA Daily and China Youth Daily.

The following are a couple of excerpts from that report…

“If we launch our DF-31A ICBMs over the North Pole, we can easily destroy a whole list of metropolises on the East Coast and the New England region of the U.S., including Annapolis, Philadelphia, New York, Boston, Portland, Baltimore, and Norfolk, whose population account accounts for about one eighth of America’s total residents.”

—–

“Because the Midwest states of the U.S. are sparsely populated, in order to increase the lethality, [our] nuclear attacks should mainly target the key cities on the West Coast of the United States, such as Seattle, Los Angles, San Francisco, and San Diego.”

In recent years, China has been working hard to develop a new generation of inter-continental and submarine-launched nuclear missiles.  The following is from a recent article posted on the Washington Free Beacon

China is rapidly expanding its nuclear forces with new missiles, submarines, and warheads. At least one of the warheads is based on warhead designs stolen from U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories in the 1990s, U.S. officials have said.

The submarine-launched missiles that they have been developing are of particular concern.  The following is from a recent article posted on Investors.com

China’s sub fleet is reportedly the world’s second-largest, with about 70 vessels. About 10 are nuclear-powered, and four or more of those are nuclear ballistic submarines.

In 2010, the Type 094 Jin class entered the service. It is capable of launching 12 to 16 JL-2 missiles with a range of about 8,700 miles, covering much of the continental U.S. with single or multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicle warheads.

Do you remember a few years ago when a Chinese submarine fired a test missile from just off the west coast of the United States?

The U.S. Navy did not even know that the sub was there.  If that missile had been fired directly at Los Angeles, it would have been incinerated long before the U.S. government could ever have responded.

Are you starting to get the picture?

In response, the Obama administration will not even comment on this latest Chinese report…

The Obama administration declined to comment on Sunday on provocative state-run Chinese media reports outlining Beijing’s nuclear war plans, including land-based and submarine-launched missile strikes on U.S. cities that would kill up to 12 million people.

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf and Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith would not respond when asked about the highly unusual Chinese reports published Oct. 28 in numerous major Communist Party-controlled television and newspaper outlets.

The Chinese reports included maps showing nuclear strikes on Los Angeles and the Pacific Northwest, along with the resulting radiation plumes stretching thousands of miles across the western United States.

You see, the truth is that talking about what China is doing does not fit in with the Obama administration’s “progressive agenda”.  Obama has been systematically disarming America, and most Americans do not even realize that it has been happening.

Most Americans just continue to believe that we still have a very robust strategic nuclear deterrent.

Unfortunately, that is no longer the case.

Back in 1967, the U.S. military had more than 31,000 strategic nuclear warheads.

Since that time, the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal has been reduced by about 95 percent,

The START Treaty that Obama agreed to back in 2010 will limit both the United States and Russia to a maximum of 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads.

But that is not nearly enough of a reduction for Obama.

Back in June, he declared that “after a comprehensive review” he has decided that the United States can reduce the number of our deployed nuclear warheads by another one-third…

After a comprehensive review, I’ve determined that we can ensure the security of America and our allies, and maintain a strong and credible strategic deterrent, while reducing our deployed strategic nuclear weapons by up to one-third.  And I intend to seek negotiated cuts with Russia to move beyond Cold War nuclear postures.

That would leave us with around 1,000 warheads.

And thanks to the various treaties that we have signed, Russia will know where most of those warheads are located.

So this makes a scenario in which Russia and China collectively conduct a first strike against the United States much more conceivable.  If Russia or China knows exactly where our warheads are, it would be very easy to take most of them out in less than 10 minutes with a submarine-based first strike.

Of course most Americans never even think about such things anymore, and our politicians certainly are not talking about them.

But Russia and China are thinking about these things, and they are rapidly preparing for the day when war comes and they choose to nuke us before we nuke them.

-

CHINA, RUSSIA INCREASE WAR PREPARATIONS IN RESPONSE TO UNITED STATES WAR THREAT

November 3rd, 2013

Both China and Russia, in their own ways, have been engaged in upgrading both their conventional and strategic nuclear forces to be ready for war as a component of their resistance to the Anglo-American Imperium. Nor are the two countries conducting their preparations in isolation from each other, as the meeting between Russian president Vladimir Putin and Vice Chairman of China’s Central Military Commission Xu Qiliang on Oct. 31 underscores. Putin indicated, according to Xinhua, that military cooperation plays a pivotal role in the strategic partnership between Russia and China, and he expressed the hope that the two defense ministries could improve their coordination to further bilateral ties in the future. Xu replied that the China-Russia strategic cooperation has entered a new phase because of the efforts of both countries. Xu added that China is willing to deepen the military exchange and expand cooperation with Russia to boost bilateral ties to a new high.

The week began with China, for the first time, going public about its strategic nuclear missile submarines on Oct. 28, when a slew of articles began appearing in the Chinese media. The People’s Daily [1], on Oct. 31, quoted Chinese military expert Yin Zhuo characterizing China’s strategic missile forces as components of a “counter attack strategy.” That is, “Only when our opponents use nuclear weapons to attack us, will we use nuclear weapons to counterattack them.” While China, like Russia and the U.S., operates a nuclear triad, the strategic missile submarines are considered the most important leg, because their chances of survival should a conflict break out, is in the realm of 85 to 90%, compared to no more than 50% to as little as 5% from the land-based missile and bomber forces.

The Chinese were also clear as to whom they are deterring, as a Global Times [2] article on Oct. 28 made the point. A Chinese nuclear attack on the U.S. would mainly target population centers. Submarine-launched missiles fired from the Pacific would mainly be aimed at West Coast cities, while the land-based DF-31 ICBMs, fired over the North Pole would mainly be aimed at major East Coast cities. The message in such statements is clear.

The Russians, meanwhile, have been conducting their own preparations as well. This week, President Putin ordered a no-notice snap exercise of the strategic missile and submarine forces combined with an air and missile defense exercise on the Kapustin Yar testing range. Two ICBMs and two submarine-launched missiles were live-fired, as were about 15 S-300 and S-400 air defense missiles, during the exercise, which was overseen by President Putin, himself. Putin has ordered at least four such no-notice snap drills, this year, and both he and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu have indicated that there will be more. The purpose of the drills is to test the war readiness of Russian forces.

While the strategic forces exercise was going on, two TU-160 nuclear bombers have been operating in South America. They arrived in Venezuela on Oct. 28, after a 13-hour flight from their base in the Volga region. On Oct. 30, they landed in Nicaragua. “The crews are now resting and preparing for new missions. They are scheduled to carry out several patrols over the region,” Commander of the Russian Long-Range Aviation, Lt. Gen. Anatoly Zhikharev, reported at a Defense Ministry meeting on Oct. 31.

-

SENIOR GENERAL THOMAS G. MCINERNEY: UNITED STATES IN GREATEST DANGER SINCE 1930s

Senior analyst Gen. McInerney warns that US is in comparable danger to pre-WWII period, specifically from Russian and Iranian hegemonies.

By Ari Yashar& Orli Harari | Israel National News
November 22, 2013

Senior military analyst Lt. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney spoke to Arutz Sheva on Tuesday, warning that rising Russian and Iranian influence, coupled with America’s waning Middle East presence, has put the US in the most dangerous situation it has been in since the 1930s just prior to World War II.

McInerney addressed the global security situation following the “EMPactconference in Washington DC, in which analysts warned that the US is unprepared for an Iranian “Electromagnetic Pulse” attack.

The General urged the world to wake up to the Iranian nuclear threat which he fears may be allowed a free hand following deals in the ongoing Geneva conference.

Aside from the Iranian danger, McInerney noted that spreading Russian influence poses a serious threat.

In particular McInerney highlighted the danger of US President Barack Obama’s handling of longtime US ally Egypt, which has recently turned to Russia. Just on Wednesday reports revealed that Egypt signed a $4 billion arms deal with Russia designed to let Egypt attain parity with the IDF.

McInerney’s warning call, followed by the transcribed statement, appears below:

-

-

When you support America you support Israel. That’s fundamental to our society.

We are facing the most dangerous threat that the United States has seen since the 1938-39 timeframe, and we do not realize it, the public does not realize it.

We have an administration that has an entirely different view about the world.

We’re giving a key ally away to the Russians–Egypt. And Egypt is crucial to our success in the Middle East because of its relationship to the (Israeli) peace treaty, number two–the Suez canal, our access, number three–overflight.

And four, for the first time an Arab nation is openly attacking the Muslim Brotherhood, the radical Islamists. And we should be supporting General (Abdel) Al-Sisi, we are not. He’s extremely important.

You’ve seen what’s happened in Syria. We have now legitimized (President Bashar) Assad, we’ve legitimized the Soviet hegemony in the region, as well as the Iranian hegemony.

So we have a very dangerous situation in the world, and fundamentally in two days I believe this administration will acquiesce and pull off the sanctions against the Iranians.

We should double the sanctions, that’s the only thing that’s working. So that’s why I believe it is the most dangerous position the United States has seen since the 30s.

Finally, we are unilaterally disarming the US military, it is very dangerous what’s going on. And all of this is coming together at a very critical time in our history.

-

KILLING THE TOMAHAWK MISSILE

by Joel Skousen | World Affairs Brief

March 28, 2014

The Obama administration has omitted any funding for both the Tomahawk cruise missile and the Hellfire Missile used on drones and all supplies will be exhausted by 2016. Moreover the Pentagon has no replacement in the pipeline. While I do not approve of the drone programs that kill so many civilians and even American citizens without trial, this seems to me to be aimed at making sure we are not prepared for the larger and more important world war coming up.

-

OBAMA TO KILL TOMAHAWK, HELLFIRE MISSILE PROGRAMS

Cornerstone of U.S. Naval power eliminated under Obama budget

-

The guided-missile destroyer USS Barry launches a Tomahawk cruise missile / AP

The guided-missile destroyer USS Barry launches a Tomahawk cruise missile / AP

-

BY: Adam Kredo | Washington Free Beacon
March 24, 2014

President Barack Obama is seeking to abolish two highly successful missile programs that experts say have helped the U.S. Navy maintain military superiority for the past several decades.

The Tomahawk missile program—known as “the world’s most advanced cruise missile”—is set to be cut by $128 million under Obama’s fiscal year 2015 budget proposal and completely eliminated by fiscal year 2016, according to budget documents released by the Navy.

In addition to the monetary cuts to the program, the number of actual Tomahawk missiles acquired by the United States would drop significantly—from 196 last year to just 100 in 2015. The number will then drop to zero in 2016.

The Navy will also be forced to cancel its acquisition of the well-regarded and highly effective Hellfire missiles in 2015, according to Obama’s proposal.

The proposed elimination of these missile programs came as a shock to lawmakers and military experts, who warned ending cutting these missiles would significantly erode America’s ability to deter enemy forces.

“The administration’s proposed budget dramatically under-resources our investments in munitions and leaves the Defense Department with dangerous gaps in key areas, like Tomahawk and Hellfire missiles,” said Rep. Randy Forbes (R., Va.), a member of House Armed Services Committee.

“Increasing our investment in munitions and retaining our technological edge in research and development should be a key component of any serious defense strategy,” he said.

The U.S. Navy relied heavily on them during the 2011 military incursion into Libya, where some 220 Tomahawks were used during the fight.

Nearly 100 of these missiles are used each year on average, meaning that the sharp cuts will cause the Tomahawk stock to be completely depleted by around 2018. This is particularly concerning to defense experts because the Pentagon does not have a replacement missile ready to take the Tomahawk’s place.

“It doesn’t make sense,” said Seth Cropsey, director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for American Seapower. “This really moves the U.S. away from a position of influence and military dominance.”

Cropsey said that if someone were trying to “reduce the U.S. ability to shape events” in the world, “they couldn’t find a better way than depriving the U.S. fleet of Tomahawks. It’s breathtaking.”

The Navy has used various incarnations of the Tomahawk with great success over the past 30 years, employing them during Desert Storm and its battle zones from Iraq and Afghanistan to the Balkans.

While the military as a whole is seeing its budgets reduced and equipment scaled back, the Tomahawk cuts do not appear to be due to a lack of funds.

The administration seems to be taking the millions typically spent on the Tomahawk program and investing it in an experimental missile program that experts say will not be battle ready for at least 10 years.

“It is definitely short-sighted given the value of the Tomahawk as a workhorse,” said Mackenzie Eaglen, a former Pentagon staffer who analyzes military readiness. “The opening days of the U.S. lead-from-behind, ‘no-fly zone’ operation over Libya showcased how important this inventory of weapons is still today.”

Overall, the Navy has essentially cut in half its weapons procurement plan, impacting a wide range of tactical weapons and missiles.

Navy experts and retired officials fear that the elimination of the Tomahawk and Hellfire systems—and the lack of a battle-ready replacement—will jeopardize the U.S. Navy’s supremacy as it faces increasingly advanced militaries from North Korea to the Middle East.

The cuts are “like running a white flag up on a very tall flag pole and saying, ‘We are ready to be walked on,’” Cropsey said.

Retired Army Lt. Col. Steve Russell called the cuts to the Tomahawk program devastating for multiple reasons.

“We run a huge risk because so much of our national policy for immediate response is contingent on our national security team threatening with Tomahawk missiles,” said Russell, who is currently running for Congress.

“The very instrument we will often use and cite, we’re now cutting the program,” Russell said. “There was a finite number [of Tomahawk’s] made and they’re not being replenished.”

“If our national policy is contingent on an immediate response with these missile and we’re not replacing them, then what are we going do?” Russell asked.

North Korea, for instance, has successfully tested multi-stage rockets and other ballistic missiles in recent months. Experts say this is a sign that the Navy’s defensive capabilities will become all the more important in the Pacific in the years to come.

Meanwhile, the experimental anti-ship cruise missile meant to replace the Tomahawk program will not be battle ready for at least 10 years, according to some experts.

The Long Range Anti Ship Missile has suffered from extremely expensive development costs and has underperformed when tested.

“You have to ask yourself: An anti-ship missile is not going to be something we can drive into a cave in Tora Bora,” Russell said. “To replace it with something not needed as badly, and invest in something not even capable of passing basic tests, that causes real concern.”

The Pentagon did not return requests for comment.

-

PACIFIC COMMANDER: U.S. LACKS ABILITY TO CONDUCT SUCCESSFUL AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULTS

-

LocklearCommander, U.S. Pacific Command Adm. Samuel J. Locklear III

-

By Douglas Ernst | The Washington Times

March 25, 2014

The head of U.S. Pacific Command believes America does not possess the capacity to conduct amphibious assaults in the wake of a crisis, as it did during World War II.

Adm. Samuel Locklear III, commander of U.S. Pacific Command gave his assessment of the deficiency in readiness on Tuesday, Stars and Stripesreported.

“We have had a good return of our Marines back to the Asia-Pacific, particularly as the activities in the Middle East wind down in Afghanistan. … But the reality is, is that to get Marines around effectively, they require all types of lift. They require the big amphibious ships, but they also require connectors (meaning landing craft and other amphibious vehicles). The lift is the enabler that makes that happen, so we wouldn’t be able to [successfully carry out a contested amphibious assault without additional resources],” Adm. Locklear said, Stars and Stripes reported.

The admiral’s comments come only weeks after Capt. James Fannell, the chief of intelligence of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, said that he believes China is training for war with Japan.

“[We] concluded that the PLA has been given the new task to be able to conduct a short sharp war to destroy Japanese forces in the East China Sea following with what can only be expected a seizure of the Senkakus or even a southern Ryukyu [islands] — as some of their academics say,” the captain said in February after witnessing “massive” Chinese military exercises in the Pacific.

During the congressional hearing on Tuesday, Army Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, the commander of U.N. and U.S. forces in Korea, also questioned whether U.S. forces would be able to quickly counter a sudden large-scale offensive by North Korea, Stars and Stripes reported.

“I am concerned about the readiness of the follow-on forces in our theater,” Gen. Scaparrotti said. “Given the indications and warnings and the nature of this theater and the threat that we face, I rely on rapid and ready forces to flow into the peninsula in crisis.”

-

PENTAGON’S STRATEGIC THREAT REVIEW IS WEAK

BY Joel Skousen | World Affairs Brief

March 14, 2014

In light of the growing world threats to US hegemony, especially from Russia and China, the Pentagon’s strategic view is very weak, bordering on suicide—and that too has always been the way in which the US acts before a world war—downplay the threats and disarm. Our leaders purposely weakened our military prior to both WWI and II. Last week, Bill Gertz of the Free Beacon took Joint Chief head Martin Dempsey to task of the hapless state of his strategic vision:

The risk of war in Asia will increase over the next 10 years as U.S. military forces struggle to maintain their edge amid declining budgets and increasing threats, according to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The dire assessment from Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman, is outlined in the Pentagon’s four-year strategy called the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).

Dempsey stated in the review that he believes the U.S. military will continue to be the most advanced armed force in the world. But he warns: “In the next 10 years, I expect the risk of interstate conflict in East Asia to rise, the vulnerability of our platforms and basing to increase, our technology edge to erode, instability to persist in the Middle East, and threats posed by violent extremist organizations to endure.”

This preoccupation with the Middle East is part of the planned globalist strategy to make sure our military is worn out and used up in foreign wars before the big one comes. It’s little wonder that,

China was not mentioned by Dempsey as the source of a future conflict in Asia. But other U.S. officials have said Beijing’s large-scale nuclear and conventional military buildup, combined with warlike propaganda produced by state-run media and increasing aggressiveness in maritime disputes, has increased the risk of a war with Japan and other states. North Korea also remains a potential belligerent that could trigger a war.

You see, Dempsey can’t mention China or Russia as direct threats to us because that would go counter to the globalist plan of alerting Americans to the real future threats. Russian can be a foe of Ukraine, but is not allowed to be viewed as a direct threat to us, nor is China, until it is too late. But there was something in the review giving US citizens the hint that they may not be protected the next time around when world war comes:

Dempsey, in the QDR, said that in addition to the growing risk of an Asian war, he expects a future conflict to take place at a much faster pace and on a more difficult high-technology battlefield. Also, he said any U.S. overseas conflicts will no longer allow the U.S. homeland to remain “a sanctuary either for our forces or for our citizens.”

Future conflicts also will likely begin in the new domains of cyberspace and outer space, rather than in the past when U.S. forces countered aggression by initiating strikes using air power or sea power, he said. “We are likely to be surprised—pleasantly and unpleasantly—by the speed of technology proliferation, increasingly sophisticated systems being developed by potential state adversaries, the cleverness and persistence of terrorists, the ability to adapt our own acquisition programs and capabilities, and the vitality of the U.S. technology and economic cycle,” Dempsey said.

And, the US is responsible for that too. As I was reviewing past years of the World Affairs Brief in preparation for my forthcoming book and documentary on The Modern History of Conspiratorial Power, I was struck by how many times over the past 15 years I had occasion to complain in the WAB about the US allowing the Chinese military to have access to US high tech weapons labs, keeping up scientific exchanges, and giving Chinese military people full access to Hughes Aerospace and Lockheed Martin defense plants. Bill Gertz also commented on these technology leaks that are still going on:

A cyber espionage operation by China seven years ago produced sensitive technology and aircraft secrets that were incorporated into the latest version of China’s new J-20 stealth fighter jet… The Chinese cyber spying against the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II took place in 2007 under what U.S. intelligence agencies codenamed Operation Byzantine Hades, a large-scale, multi-year cyber program that targeted governments and industry.

Pentagon technology security officials in 2011 opposed a joint venture between General Electric and AVIC over concerns that U.S. fighter jet technology would be diverted to AVIC’s military aircraft programs. The Obama administration ignored the concerns and instead has since promoted the systematic loosening of technology controls on transfers to China.

Our government plays both sides, first appearing to oppose, but letting things slip through. I once reported in the WAB that the US government allowed Boeing to do a joint partnership with Svezda-Strella the Russians weapons lab on the F-35 strike fighter. Why should we wonder that China, an ally of Russia gets hold of that technology years later. But, they now blame it on cyber-espionage to cover for their treasonous former decisions permitting joint development projects.

The new Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile systems and Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missile defenses, along with many other systems, were compromised through cyber espionage, the board said in a report.

Those were very dangerous failures in securing our military technology. Remember as well, that the US uses Israel as a conduit for getting military technology to China, which Israel freely sells, with US permission.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Buck McKeon (R., Calif.) criticized the QDR as based more on politics than strategy. “In defiance of the law, this QDR provides no insight into what a moderate-to-low risk strategy would be, is clearly budget driven, and is shortsighted,”

McKeon said he wants the Pentagon to rework the strategy so that it complies with the legal requirements of the four-year strategy review. The report failed to fulfill the requirement of identifying what funds are needed to address evolving threats, did not extend its review to the required 20 years, and assumes “too much risk,” [on the short side of risk]

The higher risks for the military include more difficult conventional fights. “Operational plans cannot be executed with a large force that is not ready in time or a ready force that is too small,” he said.

Also, foreign adversaries are building forces while U.S. forces decline. “Our aging combat systems are increasingly vulnerable against adversaries who are modernizing—many of whom have invested in leap-ahead technologies—making our ability to develop and employ leading-edge technologies, systems and concepts even more urgent,” he said.

He called for “dramatic changes” in military forces, plans, posture, objectives, and concepts of war. [but in the wrong direction] Central to both the budget and strategy are large-scale cuts in U.S. forces, including a reduction in Army forces to pre-World War II levels. The Air Force budget calls for $4.6 billion for 26 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, while killing A-10 anti-tank jets and the U-2 spy plane.

Spending on Navy forces in the budget includes $5.9 billion for two Virginia-class attack submarines, $2.8 billion for two DDG-51 guided missile destroyers, $1.5 billion for three Littoral Combat Ships, and $3.3 billion for eight F-35s.

Funding for missile defenses includes $7.5 billion for the Missile Defense Agency and $5.1 billion for cyber operations. [a lot of secret slush money in that latter category]. Special operations forces will receive $7.7 billion to support counterterrorism and training missions. [globalist intervention, that should be mostly cut]

Lastly, as if a fulfillment of the globalist plan to make sure we aren’t ready for war with China, the Army Times reports,

A senior Pentagon official said on Tuesday that, due to cuts to the defense budget, the Pentagon’s plans to pivot to Asia “can’t happen.” The pivot, part of a larger plan to focus deployments and military ties to the Asia-Pacific region to combat the rising threat of China, has been a central tenet of Pentagon strategy as the agency looks to wind down the war in Afghanistan.

But Katrina McFarland, assistant secretary of defense for acquisition, said the agency is now reconsidering the strategy in light of the budget pressures it faces. “Right now, the pivot is being looked at again, because candidly it can’t happen,” she told Aviation Week’s Defense Technologies and Requirements conference in Arlington, Va.

Officials have previously insisted that the pivot, or “rebalance,” would proceed regardless of funding levels due to strategic needs. McFarland said the Pentagon is trying to create rotational models to make sure that the US can live up to its promises to regional allies.

What McFarland said, apparently enraged her superiors at the Pentagon, who don’t want it made so obvious that we intend to betray the East to China, called her in for a “chat.” After this article was posted online, McFarland clarified her statement through a DoD spokeswoman that the pivot will still continue. Don’t hold your breath.

-

JESSE VENTURA: FEMA CAMPS IN THE UNITED STATES WILL BE USED TO DETAIN AMERICANS

-

-

RELATED POST: SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: AMERICANS MAY BE LOCKED UP IN FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMPS

-

FEMA CAMP ROUNDUP HAS BEGUN: CITY TO EXILE THE HOMELESS; EITHER GO TO JAIL OR THE FEMA CAMP

The homeless are disappearing from the streets.  It starts with the poor and homeless, next they will take the guns and then they will come for you.  Executive Orders have been signed for the U.S. government to take over and initiate martial law in the United States whenever the President gives the command.

November 6, 2013

-

CIVIL UNREST IS COMING TO AMERICA 2013-2014

This video compilation from videographer Jason A gives us more clear signs that the United States government is preparing for an economic collapse and will use martial law to prevent the inevitability of civil war and civil unrest in the United States.

-

PENTAGON PREPPING FOR ‘LARGE SCALE ECONOMIC BREAKDOWN’

Anthony Gucciardi
Infowars.com
August 26, 2013

High level government documents reveal that the Pentagon is preparing in full force for ‘large scale economic meltdown’ and massive revolt via the US public — exactly what we are criticized for doing.

protesters

You see the Pentagon and agencies like the Department of Defense (DoD) are in full scale emergency readiness in their own words for ‘cataclysmic’ events that are believed to ultimately ignite riots in the face of chaos and economic collapse, and it’s all out in the open. And it’s one of the reasons that we’re seeing such a massive amount of spying on activists of all kinds, alternative news writers and personalities, and basically anyone preparing for themselves.

The US government is dedicated to logging such information into a major database in order to ‘prepare’ for the coming collapse that they are predicting in their own documents for all to see. Collapse predictions that have turned into ‘war games’ by the Pentagon, which in 2010 were orchestrated to prepare for what the Pentagon dubbed ‘large scale economic breakdown’ and the disappearance of essential services like food.

In this same ‘war games’ exercise dedicated to domestic response, exercises were ran in order to prepare for ‘domestic order amid civil unrest’.

MILITARY TO STOP ‘DOMESTIC RESISTANCE’

A thread that is seen throughout these tests is the concept that civil unrest will unfold and prompt military action against the public. One of the largest examples of this is the US Army’s Strategic Studies Institute paper that talks about about the ‘threat of domestic crises’ that are expected to lead to massive unrest throughout the nation. Spurring more paranoia into the notion that every citizen is a terrorist, the report starts talking about everything from economic collapse to a loss of functional political order brought upon by a ‘hostile group within the United States’ that could access weapons.

In such scenarios, the report discusses how the DoD would then be ‘forced by circumstances’ to come in and stop ‘purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency”:

“DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility. Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States. Further, DoD would be, by necessity, an essential enabling hub for the continuity of political authority in a multi-state or nationwide civil conflict or disturbance.”

To go along with this, and the idea of the military coming in to stop domestic resistance in the midst of an economic collapse, the Pentagon has gone and created a force consisting of 20,000 troops whose sole purpose is to be available for civil unrest and catastrophes – all based on the 2005 Homeland Security program to prepare for ‘multiple, simultaneous mass casualty incidents‘. Yet again we see this link.

But don’t worry, changes have been made just one month ago to allow for the Pentagon to directly have absolute authority over domestic emergencies and ‘civil disturbance’ at large. As reported in a Long Island news publication and properly summarized by The Guardian as further preparation for some form of domestic meltdown:

“Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.”

What does this mean exactly, to engage in the activity necessary to quell large-scale civil disturbances? Well, for one it is the blank check ability to go ahead and stop major protests amid domestic turmoil. The kind of protests we’re seeing around the world, from Egypt to Brazil. The kind of protests where citizens have had enough.

And going by the Pentagon documents mixed with the DoD papers, it appears the military believes America may take to the streets amid an economic collapse or ‘domestic disturbance’ of large caliber. And you can be sure that virtually all citizens that question the government are the targets of military intervention, as we see in the DoD’s own Army Modernisation Strategy, detailing ‘anti-government and radical ideologies that potentially threaten government stability‘ as a major threat.

Yes, you read that right. The DoD is classifying ‘anti-government and radical ideologies’ as something that threatens government stability. When a major ‘domestic disturbance’ comes along that all of these documents are discussing, such as perhaps in the form of mass protests, it’s the ‘anti-government extremists’ they will be coming after.

-

WILL AMERICANS PUT UP WITH AMERICANS BEING TRAINED TO ATTACK THEM?

All signs unfortunately point to a resounding “Yes”

Adan Salazar
Infowars.com
November 7, 2013

As evidence mounts that the U.S. military is being trained to engage citizens domestically, the lack of outcry from the American people has been astounding.

 A military police officer with the Special Reaction Team, 178th Military Police Detachment, 89th Military Police Brigade, raids a house in Wainwright Village during a new training exercise at Fort Hood, Texas, March 5, 2013.

Exactly why the military is undergoing training in this regard is still unclear.

It could be related to a potential welfare state collapse, which could be triggered by cuts to food stamps or social security benefits. According to the Social Security Administration, “9 out of 10 individuals age 65 and older receive Social Security benefits.”

The arms buildup could also be in response to the slow motion financial collapse, which can only be accelerated through the implementation of Obamacare and which banks have already been warned to prepare for.

Another possibility is that the military is gearing up for another type of staged false flag event, which is desperately needed to relieve Obama’s flagging approval rating, and which will in turn help further instill fear in Americans and keep them looking to government for solutions.

A gun confiscation offensive targeting “bitter clingers,” tea party conservatives, or “conspiracy theorists” who support the Second Amendment is also not completely out of the picture, as one MP in Arizona recently confirmed to Infowars.

No matter the explanation, a few things are clear. Ammunition, lethal and nonlethal firearms, and riot gear is being stockpiled at an alarming rate, along with checkpoints, military vehicles and armed personnel for federal buildings.

Confirmed rumors that the military is weeding out of several generals and enlistees using a “litmus test” to gauge whether or not they will fire upon American citizens, in addition to shooting range targets depicting armed pregnant women, children and elderly citizens in residential settings, and domestic training exercises and army manuals, only exacerbate worries that the government is preparing for imminent civil unrest.

While Infowars and others have diligently documented these unprecedented developments, the sleeping giant that is the American people has thus far failed to offer a reciprocal response through protest, activism or other means.

The question must be asked: Will Americans put up with their own countrymen attacking them? All signs unfortunately point to a resounding “Yes.”

Americans already have complete apathy towards eugenicist practices carried out by the likes of Planned Parenthood in the form of abortion, sterilization and other artificially induced procedures.

Americans are already putting up with cops that conduct proctology exams on the side of the road and forced colonoscopies inside hospitals.

Americans already put up with bureaucrats repeatedly and unapologetically lying to them on a near daily basis.

Americans already put up with a government that ships arms and funds to foreign mercenaries, such as the Al Qaeda offshoot Jabhat Al Nusra in Syria and other parts of the world, while they simultaneously promote gun control within their own borders.

Americans already put up with having a federally funded domestic spy network and tech software which ubiquitously monitors and logs conversations, phone calls, texts, web pages visited and emails.

Americans already put up with degrading so-called security procedures, like the TSA sticking their hands down their pants, snapping x-ray photos of them naked and grabbing their genitals, all while gradually moving outside the scope of airports.

Americans already put up with massive wealth redistribution schemes, like Obamacare which, under the guise of wanting to keep everyone healthy, is actually set up to annihilate the middle class through increased taxation.

Indeed, it seems Americans know no limit when it comes to allowing the federal government to further erase liberties in the name of safety, activities which far exceed what America’s forebearers initiated a revolt over.

Something I missed? The conversation continues on Twitter with the hashtag: #Americansalreadyputupwith, where everyone is urged to describe other ways in which the American people have stood down while their rights and liberties were slowly stripped away.

-

THE COMMUNIST TAKEOVER OF AMERICA – 45 DECLARED GOALS

By Greg Swank

You are about to read a list of 45 goals that found their way down the halls of our great Capitol back in 1963. As you read this, 39 years later, you should be shocked by the events that have played themselves out. I first ran across this list 3 years ago but was unable to attain a copy and it has bothered me ever since. Recently, Jeff Rense posted it on his site and I would like to thank him for doing so. http://www.rense.com

Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record–Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963

Current Communist Goals EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 10, 1963 .

Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.

At Mrs. Nordman’s request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following “Current Communist Goals,” which she identifies as an excerpt from “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen:

-

-

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.

-

MICHAEL MALOOF: OBAMA’S UNPRECEDENTED PURGE AND DECONSTRUCTION OF THE U.S. MILITARY

Published on Nov 8, 2013

-

OBAMA ‘GUTTING MILITARY’ BY PURGING GENERALS

Intended to send message ‘down through the ranks’

by F. Michael Maloof | World Net Daily
October 29, 2013

WASHINGTON – President Obama this year alone has fired some nine generals and flag officers, on top of at least four similar dismissals during his first term, suggesting that a purge may be the real reason behind the removals, which are being described as cases of personal misbehavior.

Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, claims it is part of Obama’s strategy to reduce U.S. standing worldwide.

“Obama is intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged,” he charged.

Duty personnel seem to back up this concern, suggesting that the firings are meant to send a message to “young officers down through the ranks” not to criticize the president or White House politics.

“They are purging everyone, and if you want to keep your job, just keep your mouth shut,” one source said.

The military is looked upon as one of the last bastions of conservative ideas, even though under the Obama administration, it, too, has become a testing ground for social experimentation. The efforts include openly homosexual behavior and women in combat.

Three of the nine firings just this year were linked to the controversy surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. special mission in Benghazi, Libya.

In one case, U.S. Army Gen. Carter Ham, who commanded U.S. African Command when the consulate was attacked and four Americans were killed, was highly critical of the decision by the State Department not to send in reinforcements.

Obama has insisted there were no reinforcements in the area that night.

But Ham contends reinforcements could have been sent in time, and he said he never was given a stand-down order. However, others contend that he was given the order but defied it. He was immediately relieved of his command and retired.

Another flag officer involved in the Benghazi matter – which remains under congressional investigation – was Rear Adm. Charles Gaouette. He commanded the Carrier Strike Group.

He contends that aircraft could have been sent to Libya in time to help the Americans under fire. He later was removed from his post for alleged profanity and making “racially insensitive comments.”

Army Major Gen. Ralph Baker was the commander of the Joint Task Force-Horn at Camp Lamar in Djibouti, Africa. Baker contended that attack helicopters could have reached the consulate in time on the night of the attack.

He was relieved of his command by Ham for allegedly groping a civilian. However, there has been no assault or sexual misconduct charge filed against him with the military Judge Advocates General’s Office.

Six others were removed for a variety of alleged misconduct.

Army Brig. Gen. Bryan Roberts, who took command of Fort Jackson in 2011, was relieved of duty and fired for alleged adultery. While the charge remains in the United States Code of Military Justice, it has rarely been used since the days of President Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky.

Roberts served in Iraq as commanding officer of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team. He was the deputy commanding general of the U.S. Army Recruiting Command at Fort Knox, Ky.

Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Gregg A. Sturdevant was director of Strategic Planning and Policy for the U.S. Pacific Command. He also was commander of the aviation wing at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan.

Sturdevant was a highly decorated Marine with two Naval and Marine Commendations, two Naval and Marine Good Conduct medals and the Air Medal with a gold star.

Sturdevant had complained about getting supplies to his command. Yet, he was one of two commanding officers fired from the military for alleged failure to use proper force protection at the camp after 15 Taliban fighters attacked the camp on Sep. 14, 2012, resulting in the deaths of two Marines.

Marine Corps Major Gen. Charles M. M. Gurganus was regional commander in the Southwest and I Marine Expeditionary Force in Afghanistan. Gurganus had received the Defense Superior Service Medal, two Legion of Merit with Valor and three Meritorious Service Commendations.

His indiscretion? Gurganus questioned having to use Afghan security patrols alongside American patrols after two of his officers were executed at their desk and a platoon was led into an ambush.

Army Lt. Gen. David Holmes Huntoon Jr. served as the 58th superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. While serving in Senior Planning and Education Services, he was “censored” for an investigation into an “improper relationship,” the Defense Department said. Yet, there was no mention on the nature of the improper relationship or whether an actual investigation ever took place.

Navy Vice Adm. Tim Giardina was deputy commander of U.S. Strategic Command. He had served as commander of Submarine Group Trident, Submarine Group 9 and 10 where every one of the 18 nuclear submarines with nuclear trident missiles of those three groups came under his command.

Among the commendations, Giardina earned six Legions of Merit, two Meritorious Service Medals and two Joint Service Commendation Medals. However, he was removed after coming under criminal investigation for the alleged use of counterfeit gambling chips while playing poker at a western Iowa casino.

Air Force Maj. Gen. Michael Carey was commander of the 20th Air Force in which he oversaw almost 10,000 people and 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles at three operational wings. He also served in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

He was fired earlier this month for “personal misbehavior,” although no one is saying what that misbehavior was. His dismissal, however, came within 48 hours after Giardina was dismissed.

During Obama’s first term, he also oversaw the firing of at least four other generals.

Army Gen. David Petraeus, who retired to become the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, was pressured to leave that position after only a few months following allegations of adultery.

Gen. John Allen was relieved of duty for “inappropriate communications” with a woman allegedly involved with Petraeus. However, he was promoted to head NATO, but decided to retire.

Gen. Stanley McCrystal was fired by Obama for alleged comments he made in a Rolling Stone magazine article.

Gen. David McKiernan was removed from his post while commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan in 2009. He didn’t go along with a counterinsurgency strategy.

He was replaced by McCrystal who did comply. However, Petraeus, who replaced McCrystal, reversed his restrictions on air power. Petraeus then was replaced by Allen, who abandoned counterinsurgency and refocused on training Afghans toward an orderly pullout by U.S. and NATO forces from Afghanistan.

-

TOP GENERALS: OBAMA IS ‘PURGING THE MILITARY’

Describes president’s actions as ‘emasculating,’ ranks now lack ‘will to win’

by F. Michael Maloof | World Net Daily

WASHINGTON – Retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, recipient of the U.S. military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor, as well as other top retired officers, say President Obama’s agenda is decimating the morale of the U.S. ranks to the point members no longer feel prepared to fight or have the desire to win.

“There is no doubt he (Obama) is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him” over such issues as “homosexuals, women in foxholes, the Obama sequester,” Brady told WND.

“They are purging everyone, and if you want to keep your job, just keep your mouth shut,” one source told WND.

Not only are military service members being demoralized and the ranks’ overall readiness being reduced by the Obama administration’s purge of key leaders, colonels – those lined up in rank to replace outgoing generals – are quietly taking their careers in other directions.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, who was with Delta Force and later Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence under President George W. Bush, says it is worrying that four-star generals are being retired at the rate that has occurred under Obama.

“Over the past three years, it is unprecedented for the number of four-star generals to be relieved of duty, and not necessarily relieved for cause,” Boykin said.

“I believe there is a purging of the military,” he said. “The problem is worse than we have ever seen.”

Boykin points out that the military adheres to the constitutional requirement of a civilian leadership over the military. As a consequence, officers are not allowed to criticize their civilian leadership, as occurred when Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal was relieved in 2010 of his command of the International Security Assistance Force and commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan.

He was relieved due to what has been described as unflattering remarks made about Vice President Joe Biden and other administration officials in a Rolling Stone magazine article. He was recalled to Washington where Obama accepted his resignation as commander in Afghanistan.

Boykin says that because of the fundamental civilian leadership over the military, McCrystal was “appropriately forced to retire.”

Some officers were involved in adulterous affairs and those situations, Boykin said, also were grounds for dismissal.

Boykin specifically said that because of the civilian-military relationship, he did not see any prospect for a “coup” coming from the military ranks.

“People I’ve spoken to would like to see the military ‘fulfill their constitutional duty and take out the president,’” Boykin said. “Our Constitution puts a civilian in charge of the military and as a result a coup would not be constitutional. You’re not going to see a coup in the military.”

Nevertheless, Boykin said the future of the military is becoming more and more of concern, since colonels who would be generals also are being relieved of duty, if they show that they’re not going to support Obama’s agenda, which critics have described as socialist.

“I talk to a lot of folks who don’t support where Obama is taking the military, but in the military they can’t say anything,” Boykin said.

As a consequence, he said, the lower grades therefore have decided to leave, having been given the signal that there is no future in the military for them.

Boykin referred to recent reports that Obama has purged some 197 officers in the past five years.

These reports suggest these officers were suspected of disloyalty or disagreed with the Obama administration on policy or force-structure issues. As Boykin pointed out, a number of them have been relieved of duty for no given reason.

“Morale is at an unprecedented low,” Boykin said, part of which is due to sequestration.

Sequestration has seriously cut back operational readiness for the military to the point where Boykin said that often they have no ammunition and are unable to conduct training because of the planned cuts.

“These officers want to train for war but are not be allowed to” because of the preoccupation not only with sequestration, but what Boykin said were other concerns surfacing in the military under Obama as commander-in-chief.

He referred specifically to the recent repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which now allows openly homosexual personnel in the military. In addition, he said the integration of women into the infantry “will reduce readiness of units.” He also was critical of the rules of engagement which he says favor “political correctness over our ability to fight to win.”

“The last time we won an all-out war was in 1944,” Boykin said. “Now, we don’t have the will to win.”

Brady, who was a legendary “Dust Off” air ambulance pilot in Vietnam and detailed his experiences in his book, “Dead Men Flying: Victory in Viet Nam,” said, “The problem is military people will seldom, while on duty, go on the record over such issues, and many will not ever, no matter how true.

“I hear from many off the record who are upset with the current military leadership and some are leaving and have left in the past,” he said.

Brady referred to additional problems in today’s military including “girly-men leadership [and] medals for not shooting and operating a computer. This president will never fight if there is any reason to avoid it and with a helpless military he can just point to our weakness and shrug his shoulders.”

Brady made similar references in a recent article he wrote for WND in which he said “just when you thought the leadership of this government could not get any worse, it does. Never in history has an administration spawned another scandal to cover the current one.”

The reference was to the recent firing of a number of generals to mask “Obama’s serial scandals, all prefaced by lies – Fast and Furious, Benghazi, NSA, IRS” among others.

WND reported that three of the nine firings by Obama this year alone were linked to the controversy surrounding the Sep. 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the CIA special mission in Benghazi, Libya.

In one case, U.S. Army Gen. Carter Ham, who commanded U.S. African Command when the consulate was attacked and four Americans were killed, was highly critical of the decision by the State Department not to send in reinforcements.

Obama has insisted there were no reinforcements available that night.

But Ham contends reinforcements could have been sent in time, and he said he never was given a stand-down order. However, others contend that he was given the order but defied it. He ultimately was relieved of his command and retired.

Now, new information in the Washington Times reveals there were Delta Force personnel in Tripoli at the time of the attack and two members volunteered to be dispatched to Benghazi to assist in protecting the Benghazi compound, contrary to stand-down orders from the State Department.

Another flag officer involved in the Benghazi matter – which remains under congressional investigation – was Rear Adm. Charles Gaouette. He commanded the Carrier Strike Group.

He contends aircraft could have been sent to Libya in time to help the Americans under fire. He later was removed from his post for alleged profanity and making “racially insensitive comments.”

Army Major Gen. Ralph Baker was the commander of the Combined Joint Task Force Horn of Africa at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, Africa. Baker contended that attack helicopters could have reached the consulate in time on the night of the attack.

“To understand the insufferable assaults on our military and veterans, who should be exempt from political squabbles but are often at the forefront of Obama threats, we need to understand the psyche of the elite in this country led by Obama,” Brady said.

“It is no accident that the president used the Obama sequester and shutdown to punish the military family,” he said. “It is part of his DNA. In fact it is in the psyche of the entire liberal/progressive establishment – the elite. President Clinton outed himself and this ilk when he declared his loathing of the military. Who could believe progressives/liberals care about veterans and military?”

Brady said that some people who fear for the future of the United States believe it needs to be “re-moralized.”

“We cannot survive without increasing patriotism, a youth schooled in the Constitution,” Brady said. “If the uncommon common American is to prevail against the elite, we need to return to the truths of our Constitution.

“We need to realize that this recent assault on the military and veterans is no accident,” Brady added. “It is purposeful. The elite loathe our military, the one sure guarantor of our freedom. These elite – not a shutdown or default – and their assault on the Constitution and our military are the real threat to our future.”

Army Major Gen. Paul E. Vallely similarly has been very vocal in his opposition to the Obama administration.

Vallely said the White House won’t investigate its own officials but finds it easy to fire military commanders “who have given their lives for their country.”

“Obama will not purge a civilian or political appointee because they have bought into Obama’s ideology,” Vallely said. “The White House protects their own. That’s why they stalled on the investigation into Fast and Furious, Benghazi and Obamacare. He’s intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”

Vallely served in the Vietnam War and retired in 1993 as deputy Commanding General, Pacific Command. Today, he is chairman of the Military Committee for the Center for Security Policy and is co-author of the book “Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror.”

Duty personnel seem to back up this concern, suggesting that the firings are meant to send a message to “young officers down through the ranks” not to criticize the president or White House politics.

-

OBAMA ‘WEAKENING MILITARY IN UNPRECEDENTED WAYS’

Expert: Top officers’ silence allows radical social experimentation to wreck armed forces

by F. Michael Maloof | World Net Daily
November 11, 2013

WASHINGTON – The U.S. military, which has seen generals and other high-level officers relieved of duty at an unprecedented rate during the Obama administration, is in trouble largely because of the radical social experimentation being forced upon it, according to the Center for Military Readiness.

CMR’s president, Elaine Donnelly, said in an interview with WND that officers have gotten the Obama administration’s message of political correctness – “and most have been virtually silent ever since.”

Under Obama, she said, budgets for the military have been slashed, SEAL Team Six members exposed as the ones who killed Osama bin Laden, open homosexuality introduced and service members pressed into service to hold an umbrella over the president during the rain.

During the Reagan administration, Donnelly was appointed by Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger to the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. And in 1992, Pres. George H. W. Bush likewise appointed her to the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces.

Donnelly says Obama has done “great damage” to the military by taking away resources and imposing “heavy burdens of social experimentation.”

“But most flag and general officers are following orders, keeping their heads down and, in my opinion, letting down the troops,” she said.

Although the president is “weakening our military in unprecedented ways,” she reiterated, “the brass has remained largely silent since the spring of 2010.”

And she believes the Obama administration is taking advantage of this silence among military leaders.

“Due to dissembling and deception from the military’s uniformed and civilian leaders, President Obama is seizing the opportunity to radically change and weaken the culture of the military,” Donnelly told WND. “The president’s objective is ‘gender diversity’ in the combat arms, and the Joint Chiefs, so far, have persuaded Congress that they need not intervene.”

“Liberal activists,” she said, are seeking to remove all military opposition “to their most radical objectives.”

In this connection, she said the Military Leadership Diversity Commission has recommended in its “DoD-endorsed report” that officers’ promotions be contingent on support for “gender diversity metrics,” which she says is another name for quotas.

“This is not a secret – the problem is there, hidden in plain sight,” Donnelly said.

Part of the problem, she points out, is that the armed forces defend individual rights, but the military itself is governed by different rules under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

“Under the UCMJ,” she said, “members of the military are not free to publicly disparage the commander-in-chief, Congress and other officials. This is as it should be, but the (Obama) administration is taking advantage of the military’s culture of obedience,” she said.

“Because everyone must follow orders, the military is [no longer] a conservative institution. It is on the cutting edge of social experimentation.”

WND has been reporting on the removal of large numbers of commanding officers and generals since Obama took office, including nine such cases this year alone. Several retired generals have accused the Obama administration of a “purge” and have linked the removals to political and social agendas.

Gen. Carter Ham was one of three generals who later retired following the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate and CIA special mission facility in Benghazi, Libya. He had criticized the lack of timely reinforcements to protect these facilities. Following the terrorist attack on Benghazi, Ham said he had wanted to send reinforcements to stop the attack, which killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, two of whom were former SEALs.

While others contend Ham was given a stand-down order but defied it, he said he didn’t get the order. He was relieved of his command and retired.

Two other senior officers were immediately relieved of their commands along with Ham.

One was Rear Adm. Charles Gaouette, who commanded the Carrier Strike Group in the area at the time. After Gaouette contended aircraft could have been sent to Libya in time to help the Americans under fire, he was removed from his post for alleged profanity and making “racially insensitive comments.”

Another was Maj. Gen. Ralph Baker, commander of the Combined Joint Task Force Horn of Africa at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, Africa. Baker contended attack helicopters could have reached the consulate in time on the night of the attack.

Donnelly leveled some criticism at Ham, noting he was an adviser to the committee that investigated the jihadist attack at Fort Hood, which produced a report calling the attack “workplace violence.”

Ham also served as co-chair of the Comprehensive Review Working Group, or CRWG, which, contents Donnelly, rather than a study was more of a vehicle “to promote repeal of the 1993 ['Don't Ask, Don't Tell'] law.”

She added that Ham was “largely absent” during a process controlled by Jeh Johnson, who has been general counsel of the Department of Defense since 2009. Last month Obama nominated Johnson, a civil and criminal trial lawyer prior to government service, to become the next secretary of homeland security. The Senate will begin consideration the nomination this week.

Donnelly had uncovered the DOD Inspector General report that revealed Johnson had discussed the results of a survey among military personnel about LGBT – before the survey was conducted.

That survey, which critics say Johnson evidently manipulated, showed military personnel had no objection to the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“The military has no mechanism to find out why people leave the military,” Donnelly said. “I think they really do not want to know.

“There is no question about social issues on the exit survey form,” she added. “This allows the administration to claim all is going well. When Jeh Johnson goes before the Senate for confirmation, he will no doubt make such claims.”

Yet Donnelly said problems under LGBT law will only increase as time passes. Sexual assaults have been on the rise, she noted, principally male-on-male assaults.

She pointed out that the administration had dropped any legal defense of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, within weeks after a lame-duck Congress voted to repeal the 1993 law.

In characterizing the direction of the administration as pushing its social experimentation on the Defense Department, Donnelly noted that the DOD has extended benefits to same-sex couples.

“Now, the ‘Ts’ in LGBT are pushing for recognition and rights, too,” she said. “Flag and general officers have been almost completely silent on all of this. I wish there were signs of resistance, but the administration is using the military’s culture of obedience to push an extremely liberal agenda that former Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen called ‘Diversity as a strategic imperative.’”

Even the Defense Department’s chief of personnel and readiness, she said, has called “diversity and inclusion” critical to “mission success.”

Rather than a “purge,” as some generals have called it, Donnelly says, “I see capitulation at the top levels of military leadership. It’s up to Congress, and civilians who vote for Congress, to start exercising responsible oversight, and to insist on a restoration of high standards and sound priorities in the military. It is the only one we have.”

A number of former military, including former Florida Congressman Allen West, are alarmed over an exit of top-level military officers. West now is calling for congressional oversight hearings into what he calls an “alarming trend” of dismissals and firings of high-ranking military officers by the Obama administration, firings that in a number of cases appear to be political.

West, who as congressman served on the House Armed Services Committee, said he recently had been in contact with Committee Chairman Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon – calling for hearings “to determine exactly why” so many officers, especially senior officers, are being given the boot.

“McKeon needs to look at this problem,” West told WND. “There needs to be transparency. It is important to get the truth.”

Others have even stronger feelings.

In a recent interview with WND, Retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, who was the deputy commanding general of the Pacific Command, similarly accused Obama’s close adviser, Valerie Jarrett, of orchestrating the imposition of “political correctness” throughout the military, affecting everyone from top generals to the ranks of the enlisted.

Valerie Jarrett

In pinning the blame on Jarrett, reportedly Obama’s closest and most influential adviser, Vallely suggested her far-left, politically correct influence is forcing senior officers to watch everything military personnel say and do.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, says in a story by The Blaze, that Jarrett influences nearly every policy issue at the White House.

“She seems to have her tentacles into every issue and every topic,” Chaffetz says. “Her name ultimately always comes up.”

The Washington Post has written about Jarrett as the president’s “mysterious” adviser.

And author Ed Klein, former editor-in-chief of the New York Times magazine, said in a Washington Times report that Jarrett was the secret “architect” of the Obama strategy to shut down the government and blame it on congressional Republicans.

London’s Daily Mail newspaper notes that Jarrett’s insider nickname is “Night Stalker” because of her exclusive, late-night access to the presidential family’s private quarters.

According to Vallely, Obama is “intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”

Vallely served in the Vietnam War and retired in 1993 as deputy Commanding General, Pacific Command. Today, he is chairman of the Military Committee for the Center for Security Policy and is co-author of the book “Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror.”

In addition to Vallely, a number of prominent retired generals – from Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, a founder of the Army’s elite Delta Force, to Medal of Honor recipient Maj. Gen. Patrick Henry Brady – have also gone on the record with WND on this issue.

They’ve described Obama’s actions as nothing less than an all-out attack on America’s armed forces.

Brady, recipient of the U.S. military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor, said Obama’s agenda is decimating the morale of the U.S. ranks to the point members no longer feel prepared to fight or have the desire to win.

“There is no doubt he [Obama] is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him” over such issues as “homosexuals, women in foxholes, the Obama sequester,” Brady told WND.

“They are purging everyone, and if you want to keep your job, just keep your mouth shut,” another military source told WND.

Not only are military service members being demoralized and the ranks’ overall readiness being reduced by the Obama administration’s purge of key leaders, colonels – those lined up in rank to replace outgoing generals – are quietly taking their careers in other directions.

Boykin, who was a founding member of Delta Force and later deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence under President George W. Bush, says it is worrying that four-star generals are being retired at the rate that has occurred under Obama.

“Over the past three years, it is unprecedented for the number of four-star generals to be relieved of duty, and not necessarily relieved for cause,” Boykin said.

“I believe there is a purging of the military,” he said. “The problem is worse than we have ever seen.”

The future of the military is becoming more and more of concern, added Boykin, since colonels who would become generals are also being relieved of duty if they show that they’re not going to support Obama’s agenda, which critics have described as socialist.

“I talk to a lot of folks who don’t support where Obama is taking the military, but in the military they can’t say anything,” Boykin said.

As a consequence, he said, the lower grades have decided to leave, having been given the signal that there is no future in the military for them.

Brady, who was a legendary “Dust Off” air ambulance pilot in Vietnam and detailed his experiences in his book, “Dead Men Flying: Victory in Viet Nam,” told WND, “The problem is military people will seldom, while on duty, go on the record over such issues, and many will not ever, no matter how true. I hear from many off the record who are upset with the current military leadership and some are leaving and have left in the past.”

Brady referred to additional problems in today’s military including “girly-men leadership [and] medals for not shooting and operating a computer. This president will never fight if there is any reason to avoid it and with a helpless military he can just point to our weakness and shrug his shoulders.”

Likewise, retired Navy Capt. Joseph John tells WND that the “bigger picture” is that “the U.S. Armed Forces have been under relentless attack by the occupant of the Oval Office for five years.”

“I believe there are more than 137 officers who have been forced out or given bad evaluation reports so they will never make Flag (officer), because of their failure to comply to certain views,” said John.

“The truly sad story is that many of the brightest graduates of the three major service academies witnessing what the social experiment on diversity … is doing to the U.S. military, are leaving the service after five years,” he said. “We are being left with an officer corps that can be made to be more compliant, that is, exactly what Obama needs to effect his long range goals for the U.S. military.”

-

OBAMA’S MILITARY COUP PURGES 197 OFFICERS IN FIVE YEARS

by Investor’s Business Daily

October 30, 2013

Defense: What the president calls “my military” is being cleansed of any officer suspected of disloyalty to or disagreement with the administration on matters of policy or force structure, leaving the compliant and fearful.

We recognize President Obama is the commander-in-chief and that throughout history presidents from Lincoln to Truman have seen fit to remove military commanders they view as inadequate or insubordinate. Turnover in the military ranks is normal, and in these times of sequestration and budget cuts the numbers are expected to tick up as force levels shrink and missions change.

Yet what has happened to our officer corps since President Obama took office is viewed in many quarters as unprecedented, baffling and even harmful to our national security posture. We have commented on some of the higher profile cases, such as Gen. Carter Ham. He was relieved as head of U.S. Africa Command after only a year and a half because he disagreed with orders not to mount a rescue mission in response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi.

Rear Adm. Chuck Gaouette, commander of the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group, was relieved in October 2012 for disobeying orders when he sent his group on Sept. 11 to “assist and provide intelligence for” military forces ordered into action by Gen. Ham.

Other removals include the sacking of two nuclear commanders in a single week — Maj. Gen. Michael Carey, head of the 20th Air Force, responsible for the three wings that maintain control of the 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles, and Vice Adm. Tim Giardina, the No. 2 officer at U.S. Strategic Command.

From Breitbart.com’s Facebook page comes a list of at least 197 officers that have been relieved of duty by President Obama for a laundry list of reasons and sometimes with no reason given. Stated grounds range from “leaving blast doors on nukes open” to “loss of confidence in command ability” to “mishandling of funds” to “inappropriate relationships” to “gambling with counterfeit chips” to “inappropriate behavior” to “low morale in troops commanded.”

Nine senior commanding generals have been fired by the Obama administration this year, leading to speculation by active and retired members of the military that a purge of its commanders is under way.

Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, notes how the White House fails to take action or investigate its own officials but finds it easy to fire military commanders “who have given their lives for their country.” Vallely thinks he knows why this purge is happening.

“Obama will not purge a civilian or political appointee because they have bought into Obama’s ideology,” Vallely said. “The White House protects their own. That’s why they stalled on the investigation into Fast and Furious, Benghazi and ObamaCare. He’s intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”

Another senior retired general told TheBlaze on the condition of anonymity, because he still provide services to the government and fears possible retribution, that “they’re using the opportunity of the shrinkage of the military to get rid of people that don’t agree with them or do not toe the party line. Remember, as (former White House chief of staff) Rahm Emanuel said, never waste a crisis.”

For President Obama, the military of a once-feared superpower is an anachronistic vestige of an America whose exceptionalism and world leadership require repeated apologies. It must be gutted and fundamentally transformed into a force wearing gender-neutral headgear only useful for holding the presidential umbrella when it rains. It is to be “his” military and used only for “his” purposes.

-

GENERAL SAYS OBAMA “NIGHT STALKER” PURGING MILITARY

Published on Nov 7, 2013

-

GENERAL BLAMES ‘NIGHT STALKER’ FOR MILITARY PURGE

Says mysterious adviser’s influence on Obama now negatively affecting U.S. armed forces

by F. Michael Maloof | World Net Daily
November 6, 2013

WASHINGTON – Who, or what, is behind the “purge” of top-level U.S. military officers during the Obama administration, with estimates of the number of senior officers fired during the last five years edging toward 200?

According to Retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, formerly the deputy commanding general of the Pacific Command, who has served as a Fox News senior military analyst , a good part of the blame belongs to Obama’s close adviser, Valerie Jarrett. Rampant “political correctness” due to her influence, Vallely tells WND, is now permeating the military and negatively affecting everyone from top generals to the ranks of the enlisted.

WND has been reporting on the surge of firings, suspensions and dismissals of key military commanders under Obama, including just a day ago, when the commander of the U.S. Army Garrison Japan was summarily relieved of his duties.

So far, at least nine generals and flag officers have been relieved of duty under Obama just this calendar year – widely viewed as an extraordinary number.

Jarrett, a Chicago lawyer with far-left roots, is one of Obama’s closest advisers, and has been throughout his career, well before his presidential campaign and Oval Office occupancy. She has shadowed his career, largely staying out of the limelight, but is today widely recognized as perhaps the single most influential person, aside from wife Michelle, on Barack Obama.

Vallely suggested her influence is forcing senior officers to watch everything military personnel say and do. Officially, the White House calls her a senior adviser with responsibilities for the offices of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs, but insiders agree her influence on the president is unique and powerful.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, says in a story by The Blaze, that Jarrett influences nearly every policy issue at the White House.

“She seems to have her tentacles into every issue and every topic,” Chaffetz says. “Her name ultimately always comes up.”

The Washington Post has written about Jarrett as the president’s “mysterious” adviser.

And author Ed Klein, former editor-in-chief of the New York Times magazine, said in a Washington Times report that Jarrett was the secret “architect” of the Obama strategy to shut down the government and blame it on congressional Republicans.

“She convinced the president that a government shutdown and default offered a great opportunity to demonize the Republicans and help the Democrats win back a majority in the House of Representatives in 2014,” said Klein.

London’s Daily Mail newspaper notes that Jarrett’s insider nickname is “Night Stalker” because of her exclusive, late-night access to the presidential family’s private quarters.

According to Vallely, Obama is “intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”

Vallely served in the Vietnam War and retired in 1993 as deputy Commanding General, Pacific Command.

Today, he is chairman of the Military Committee for the Center for Security Policy and is co-author of the book “Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror.”

Vallely equated the current treatment of U.S. senior military officers watching over what is said and done among mid-level officers and enlisted ranks to that of the “political commissars from the Communist era.”

For example, said Vallely, “Col. Dooley, who was relieved of duty … can’t even talk about radical Islam and other issues that the Obama administration is putting out.”

He is referring to U.S. Army Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley, a 1994 graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, who was relieved of duty as a military instructor after being publicly condemned by Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Dooley was relieved because of what was referred to as the negative way Islam was portrayed in an approved course titled “Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism.”

Action was taken against him after 57 Muslim organizations in an Oct. 19, 2011, letter to the Department of Defense demanded that all training materials they judged to be offensive to Islam be “purged” and the instructors be “effectively disciplined.”

Dooley, in fact, later was eliminated from contention for a position as battalion commander even though a five-member selection board had agreed to consider him.

The controversy generated a legal claim on behalf of Dooley by the Thomas More Law Center, where Richard Thompson, president, said, “The way they’re treating him now is not only a total miscarriage of justice on a personal level, but it also is really removing an effective combat leader from the Army, and it ultimately effects the national security of the United States.”

In another case considered by Obama critics to exemplify his demands for radical political correctness in the U.S. military, Senior Master Sgt. Phillip Monk was relieved of his position for refusing to agree with the homosexual agenda of his commanding officer, a lesbian.

“It’s now reaching the point it’s not acceptable to think something,” attorney Mike Berry of Liberty Institute told WND about the case.

The conflict began when Monk objected to the plans of his commander at Lackland Air Force Base to severely punish a supervised staff sergeant who had expressed his religious objections to homosexuality to trainees.

During their conversation, the commander ordered Monk to reveal his personal views on homosexuality. Monk claims he then was relieved of his position because his views differed from the commander’s.

Berry explained, “We’re now at this juncture … if you don’t believe, or think in a particular manner, that’s going to be held against you.”

Of the current atmosphere, a sailor who recently returned from sea duty told Vallely he gets more instruction on sexual harassment than he does in how to handle weapons.

“The planned agenda is to squash any dialogue in the ranks on any issue on which the administration disagrees,” Vallely said.

He said a similar move has now taken place against officers in the Central Intelligence Agency in a congressional probe on the Sept.11, 2012, terrorist attack on the special mission in Benghazi.

The general pointed out that at least two CIA officers who were to testify recently were told a few weeks ago to keep quiet or they could lose their jobs.

“It is easier to do this to military personnel,” he said. “No one on the civilian side is purged.”

As a consequence of this White House-generated initiative, Vallely said the effect has been a major loss of morale in which soldiers believe they have lost their First Amendment rights.

The intimidation extends also to retired generals and mid-level officers who want to get jobs with defense contractors, according to Vallely, who said many even in retirement are intimidated, since it can affect their ability to get a government contract.

Even defense contractors are discouraging any talk within their corporations that disparage Obama’s agenda, he added.

“These are just some aspects on how our military is being decimated by telling them either to shut your mouth or you won’t get a job,” Vallely told WND.

In addition to Vallely, a number of prominent retired generals – from Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, a founder of the Army’s elite Delta Force, to Medal of Honor recipient Maj. Gen. Patrick Henry Brady – have also gone on the record with WND on this issue.

They’ve described Obama’s actions as nothing less than an all-out attack on America’s armed forces.

Likewise, retired Navy Capt. Joseph John tells WND that the “bigger picture” is that “the U.S. Armed Forces have been under relentless attack by the occupant of the Oval Office for five years.”

A Naval Academy graduate, John had three tours of duty in Vietnam, served as an al-Qaida expert for the FBI, and was a commanding officer with SEALs embedded on special operations. As chairman of Combat Veterans For Congress PAC (Political Action Committee), he has helped elect 20 combat veterans to Congress.

“I believe there are more than 137 officers who have been forced out or given bad evaluation reports so they will never make Flag (officer), because of their failure to comply to certain views,” John told WND.

“The truly sad story is that many of the brightest graduates of the three major service academies witnessing what the social experiment on diversity … is doing to the U.S. military, are leaving the service after five years,” he said. “We are being left with an officer corps that can be made to be more compliant, that is, exactly what Obama needs to effect his long range goals for the U.S. military.”

In an email to WND, John outlined what he termed “a very few of the most egregious” aspects of Obama’s “attack” on the military over the past five years.

He referred specifically to the Rules of Engagement in combat that were put in place after Obama took office, asserting that the changes resulted in very high casualty rates in Afghanistan, including the loss of 17 members of SEAL Team 6 in one incident.

“The Rules of Engagement precluded the use of suppression fire at a landing zone,” John said.

Echoing what other high-ranking officers have told WND, he said the Pentagon policy of repealing “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” resulted in the first openly “gay” “major military force in the world.” The development has brought about “massive” sexual assaults on “thousands of straight military male personnel that have been covered up,” he said.

If John’s comments about Obama sound dire, they are no more so than those expressed to WND in recent days by top generals.

Brady, recipient of the U.S. military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor, said Obama’s agenda is decimating the morale of the U.S. ranks to the point members no longer feel prepared to fight or have the desire to win.

“There is no doubt he [Obama] is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him” over such issues as “homosexuals, women in foxholes, the Obama sequester,” Brady told WND.

“They are purging everyone, and if you want to keep your job, just keep your mouth shut,” another military source told WND.

Not only are military service members being demoralized and the ranks’ overall readiness being reduced by the Obama administration’s purge of key leaders, colonels – those lined up in rank to replace outgoing generals – are quietly taking their careers in other directions.

Boykin, who was a founding member of Delta Force and later deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence under President George W. Bush, says it is worrying that four-star generals are being retired at the rate that has occurred under Obama.

“Over the past three years, it is unprecedented for the number of four-star generals to be relieved of duty, and not necessarily relieved for cause,” Boykin said.

“I believe there is a purging of the military,” he said. “The problem is worse than we have ever seen.”

The future of the military is becoming more and more of concern, added Boykin, since colonels who would become generals are also being relieved of duty if they show that they’re not going to support Obama’s agenda, which critics have described as socialist.

“I talk to a lot of folks who don’t support where Obama is taking the military, but in the military they can’t say anything,” Boykin said.

As a consequence, he said, the lower grades have decided to leave, having been given the signal that there is no future in the military for them.

Brady, who was a legendary “Dust Off” air ambulance pilot in Vietnam and detailed his experiences in his book, “Dead Men Flying: Victory in Viet Nam,” told WND, “The problem is military people will seldom, while on duty, go on the record over such issues, and many will not ever, no matter how true. I hear from many off the record who are upset with the current military leadership and some are leaving and have left in the past.”

Brady referred to additional problems in today’s military including “girly-men leadership [and] medals for not shooting and operating a computer. This president will never fight if there is any reason to avoid it and with a helpless military he can just point to our weakness and shrug his shoulders.”

WND reported that three of the nine firings by Obama this year alone were linked to the controversy surrounding the Sep. 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the CIA special mission in Benghazi, Libya.

In one case, U.S. Army Gen. Carter Ham, who commanded U.S. African Command when the consulate was attacked and four Americans were killed, was highly critical of the decision by the State Department not to send in reinforcements.

Obama has insisted there were no reinforcements available that night.

But Ham contends reinforcements could have been sent in time, and he said he never was given a stand-down order. However, others contend that he was given the order but defied it. He ultimately was relieved of his command and retired.

Now, new information in the Washington Times reveals there were Delta Force personnel in Tripoli at the time of the attack and two members volunteered to be dispatched to Benghazi to assist in protecting the Benghazi compound, contrary to stand-down orders from the State Department.

Another flag officer involved in the Benghazi matter – which remains under congressional investigation – was Rear Adm. Charles Gaouette. He commanded the Carrier Strike Group.

He contends aircraft could have been sent to Libya in time to help the Americans under fire. He later was removed from his post for alleged profanity and making “racially insensitive comments.”

Army Major Gen. Ralph Baker was the commander of the Combined Joint Task Force Horn of Africa at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, Africa. Baker contended that attack helicopters could have reached the consulate in time on the night of the attack.

-

ALLEN WEST: CONGRESS MUST PROBE MILITARY FIRINGS

Sees trend of relieving hundreds of senior officers as orchestrated from Oval Office

-

Alan West 012_t607

-

by F. Michael Maloof | World Net Daily
November 7, 2013

WASHINGTON – Former Florida Congressman Allen West is calling for congressional oversight hearings into what he describes as an “alarming trend” of dismissals and firings of high-ranking military officers by the Obama administration, firings that in a number of cases appear to be political.

While he wouldn’t assign a particular reason for the high rate of dismissals – and he declined to label them a “purge” – West in an exclusive WND interview said oversight hearings need to be convened to determine why so many officers are being removed.

West, who as congressman served on the House Armed Services Committee, said he recently had been in contact with Committee Chairman Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon – calling for hearings “to determine exactly why” so many officers, especially senior officers, are being given the boot.

“McKeon needs to look at this problem,” West told WND. “There needs to be transparency. It is important to get the truth.”

There is also concern, he noted, that military officers still on active duty may be reluctant to testify against their commander-in-chief should the trail of trouble lead back to the Oval Office.

West said congressional hearings also need to determine whether a political cover-up was related to the dismissal of three high-ranking officers to deflect political criticism over the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, which resulted in the murder of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens as well as Sean Smith, a State Department information officer, and Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, both ex-Navy SEALs.

Major concerns arose over whether Stevens and the other Americans could have been rescued by available U.S. forces.

As WND reported, three of the nine top-level firings of flag officers by Obama this year alone were linked to the controversy surrounding the Benghazi disaster.

In one case, U.S. Army Gen. Carter Ham, who commanded U.S. African Command when the consulate was attacked and the four Americans killed, was highly critical of the decision by the State Department not to send reinforcements.

Obama insisted there were no reinforcements available that night. But Ham contends reinforcements could have been sent in time, and said he never was given a stand-down order. Others contend he was given the order, but defied it, and he ultimately was relieved of his command and retired.

Now, new information in the Washington Times reveals Delta Force personnel were in Tripoli at the time of the attack and two members volunteered to be dispatched to Benghazi to assist in protecting the Benghazi compound, contrary to stand-down orders from the State Department.

Another flag officer involved in the Benghazi matter – which remains under congressional investigation – was Rear Adm. Charles Gaouette, who commanded the Carrier Strike Group.

After Gaouette contended aircraft could have been sent to Libya in time to help the Americans under fire, he was removed from his post for alleged profanity and making “racially insensitive comments.”

Army Major Gen. Ralph Baker was the commander of the Combined Joint Task Force Horn of Africa at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, Africa. Baker said attack helicopters could have reached the consulate in time on the night of the attack.

West acknowledges the rate of dismissals at the higher ranks is having an adverse impact on mid-level officers and enlisted personnel.

A retired Army Lt. Colonel, West said Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel “doesn’t have a good handle on this and that the trend of dismissals is being directed from the Oval Office.”

In a recent interview with WND, Retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, who was the deputy commanding general of the Pacific Command, similarly accused Obama’s close adviser, Valerie Jarrett, of orchestrating the imposition of “political correctness” throughout the military, affecting everyone from top generals to the ranks of the enlisted.

West referred to recent reports of some 197 high-ranking officers who have been dismissed during the Obama administration. While acknowledging some had “zipper issues” leading to their being relieved of duty for personal misconduct, West says the most troubling and pervasive issue at play is the radical “social egalitarianism” being forced on the military – rather than the traditional focus on maximizing readiness – which, he says, is bringing the world’s greatest military to the point that “we can’t fight a war.”

He referred specifically to the dismissal of Senior Master Sgt. Philip Monk, who was relieved of his position for refusing to agree with the homosexual worldview of his commanding officer, a lesbian.

Monk had objected to the plans of his commander at Lackland Air Force Base to severely punish a supervised staff sergeant who had expressed his religious opinions regarding the issue of homosexuality.

During their conversation, the commander ordered Monk to reveal his personal views on homosexuality. Monk claims he then was relieved of his position because his views differed from that of the openly lesbian commander.

A similar case of social egalitarianism occurred in the dismissal of U.S. Army Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley, a 1994 West Point graduate, who was relieved of duty as a military instructor after being publicly condemned by Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The reason? Because Dooley allegedly portrayed Islam in a negative way in an approved course titled “Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism.”

Action was taken against him after 57 Muslim organizations in an Oct. 19 2011, letter to the Department of Defense demanded that all training materials they considered offensive to Islam be “purged” and the instructors “effectively disciplined.”

“There is a demoralization going on at the lower ranks, and they see what is happening at the higher ranks,” West said.

As an Army officer, West commanded the 2nd Battalion, 20th Field Artillery, 4th Infantry Division and served in Iraq during Operation Desert Storm in 1991 and Operation Iraqi Freedom until 2004, when he retired.

During Operation Iraqi Freedom, West was involved in an incident in which he had received intelligence that his unit was about to be attacked. He interrogated an Iraqi police officer whom the intelligence suggested was involved in the plot.

Because of the imminence of the potential ambush, West fired his pistol near the ear of the potential terrorist to get names and information.

“At the time, I had to base my decision on the intelligence I received,” West said during the subsequent investigation. Although he ultimately was fined $5,000, West was widely supported by the public for his actions on behalf of his men. As West put it, “If it’s about the lives of my soldiers at stake, I’d go through hell with a gasoline can.”

West is the recipient of the Bronze Star, Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal and the Army Achievement Medal.

WND has recently published a series of high-profile reports on the surge of firings, suspensions and dismissals of key military commanders under Obama, including earlier this week when the commander of the U.S. Army Garrison Japan was summarily relieved of his duties.

So far, at least nine generals and flag officers have been relieved of duty under Obama just this calendar year – widely viewed as an extraordinary number.

In pinning the blame on Jarrett, reportedly Obama’s closest and most influential adviser,Vallely suggested her far-left, politically correct influence is forcing senior officers to watch everything military personnel say and do.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, says in a story by The Blaze, that Jarrett influences nearly every policy issue at the White House.

“She seems to have her tentacles into every issue and every topic,” Chaffetz says. “Her name ultimately always comes up.”

The Washington Post has written about Jarrett as the president’s “mysterious” adviser.

And author Ed Klein, former editor-in-chief of the New York Times magazine, said in a Washington Times report that Jarrett was the secret “architect” of the Obama strategy to shut down the government and blame it on congressional Republicans.

“She convinced the president that a government shutdown and default offered a great opportunity to demonize the Republicans and help the Democrats win back a majority in the House of Representatives in 2014,” said Klein.

London’s Daily Mail newspaper notes that Jarrett’s insider nickname is “Night Stalker” because of her exclusive, late-night access to the presidential family’s private quarters.

According to Vallely, Obama is “intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”

Vallely served in the Vietnam War and retired in 1993 as deputy Commanding General, Pacific Command. Today, he is chairman of the Military Committee for the Center for Security Policy and is co-author of the book “Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror.”

In addition to Vallely, a number of prominent retired generals – from Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, a founder of the Army’s elite Delta Force, to Medal of Honor recipient Maj. Gen. Patrick Henry Brady – have also gone on the record with WND on this issue.

They’ve described Obama’s actions as nothing less than an all-out attack on America’s armed forces.

Brady, recipient of the U.S. military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor, said Obama’s agenda is decimating the morale of the U.S. ranks to the point members no longer feel prepared to fight or have the desire to win.

“There is no doubt he [Obama] is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him” over such issues as “homosexuals, women in foxholes, the Obama sequester,” Brady told WND.

“They are purging everyone, and if you want to keep your job, just keep your mouth shut,” another military source told WND.

Not only are military service members being demoralized and the ranks’ overall readiness being reduced by the Obama administration’s purge of key leaders, colonels – those lined up in rank to replace outgoing generals – are quietly taking their careers in other directions.

Boykin, who was a founding member of Delta Force and later deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence under President George W. Bush, says it is worrying that four-star generals are being retired at the rate that has occurred under Obama.

“Over the past three years, it is unprecedented for the number of four-star generals to be relieved of duty, and not necessarily relieved for cause,” Boykin said.

“I believe there is a purging of the military,” he said. “The problem is worse than we have ever seen.”

The future of the military is becoming more and more of concern, added Boykin, since colonels who would become generals are also being relieved of duty if they show that they’re not going to support Obama’s agenda, which critics have described as socialist.

“I talk to a lot of folks who don’t support where Obama is taking the military, but in the military they can’t say anything,” Boykin said.

As a consequence, he said, the lower grades have decided to leave, having been given the signal that there is no future in the military for them.

Brady, who was a legendary “Dust Off” air ambulance pilot in Vietnam and detailed his experiences in his book, “Dead Men Flying: Victory in Viet Nam,” told WND, “The problem is military people will seldom, while on duty, go on the record over such issues, and many will not ever, no matter how true. I hear from many off the record who are upset with the current military leadership and some are leaving and have left in the past.”

Brady referred to additional problems in today’s military including “girly-men leadership [and] medals for not shooting and operating a computer. This president will never fight if there is any reason to avoid it and with a helpless military he can just point to our weakness and shrug his shoulders.”

Likewise, retired Navy Capt. Joseph John tells WND that the “bigger picture” is that “the U.S. Armed Forces have been under relentless attack by the occupant of the Oval Office for five years.”

“I believe there are more than 137 officers who have been forced out or given bad evaluation reports so they will never make Flag (officer), because of their failure to comply to certain views,” said John.

“The truly sad story is that many of the brightest graduates of the three major service academies witnessing what the social experiment on diversity … is doing to the U.S. military, are leaving the service after five years,” he said. “We are being left with an officer corps that can be made to be more compliant, that is, exactly what Obama needs to effect his long range goals for the U.S. military.”

-

OBAMA’S MILITARY PURGE

by Joel Skousen | World Affairs Brief

There is another internet claim circulating about the “9 General Officers Sacked” recently as evidence of a purge by Obama in the military. The headline blared, “MAJOR ALERT — 9 High Ranking Military Flag and General Officers Fired By Obama, 1st Time In US History

Well, it isn’t the first time in history and the list includes dismissals from almost a year ago, so it certainly isn’t a one-time event. The two nuclear commanders at StratCom were mentioned, but they also added in the two general officers (Ham and Gaouette) who were, in fact, relieved for disobeying a stand down order over Benghazi. That doesn’t mean these weren’t yes-men, generally, just that they had their limits. If they were real patriots they would come forward and tell us about the stand down order rather than remain silent.

Here’s a short summary of the other officers listed and the real reasons they were dismissed:

Major General Ralph Baker / Commander of Joint Task Force – Horn at Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti, Africa. Relieved of command and fired for groping a civilian. He was let off easy since no assault charges or sexual misconduct charges were filed in this court martial-worthy offense.

Brigadier General Bryan Roberts / Commander at Ft. Jackson in 2011 and on the fast track towards his second star. He has served in Iraq as commanding officer of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team and was deputy commanding general of the U.S. Army Recruiting Command at Fort Knox, KY. He was relieved over Adultery, which is still on the books in the United States Code of Military Justice, though it is often overlooked. It depends upon who is involved. When it involves another officer’s wife in high command, that isn’t often overlooked.

Marine Major General Gregg A. Sturdevant / Director of strategic planning and policy for U.S. Pacific Command and commander of the Aviation Wing At Camp Bastion, Afghanistan. He was one of two commanding officers suddenly relieved of command and fired from the military for failure of proper force protection, and that was very much justified.

Marine Major General C.M.M. Gurganus / Commanded Regional Command Southwest and I Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward) in Afghanistan. This was the other commander relieved of duty for failure of proper force protection, although he was also fired for standing up too much to the higher ups on other issues (appropriately): He complained about the use of Afghanistan patrols alongside American patrols after two officers were executed at their desk and a platoon was lead into an ambush on the front lines.

Lieutenant General David Holmes Huntoon, Jr. / American military officer who served as the 58th Superintendent of the United States Military Academy at West Point. Huntoon was just the opposite of a principled guy objecting to what the government was doing. He was an insider on the fast track whose corruption made a lot of other good officers angry at his continual promotion to prestigious postings. His misdeeds finally caught up with him and he had to be relieved. The whole story is here on Militarycorruption.com.

-

Commanding Military Officers Terminated By Obama

-General John R. Allen-U.S. Marines Commander International Security Assistance Force [ISAF] (Nov 2012)
-Major General Ralph Baker (2 Star)-U.S. Army Commander of the Combined Joint Task Force Horn in Africa (April 2013)

-Major General Michael Carey (2 Star)-U.S. Air Force Commander of the 20th US Air Force in charge of 9,600 people and 450 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (Oct 2013)

-Colonel James Christmas-U.S. Marines Commander 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit & Commander Special-Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force Crisis Response Unit (July 2013)

-Major General Peter Fuller-U.S. Army Commander in Afghanistan (May 2011)

-Major General Charles M.M. Gurganus-U.S. Marine Corps Regional Commander of SW and I Marine Expeditionary Force in Afghanistan (Oct 2013)

-General Carter F. Ham-U.S. Army African Command (Oct 2013)

-Lieutenant General David H. Huntoon (3 Star), Jr.-U.S. Army 58th Superintendent of the US Military Academy at West Point, NY (2013)

-Command Sergeant Major Don B Jordan-U.S. Army 143rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command (suspended Oct 2013)

-General James Mattis-U.S. Marines Chief of CentCom (May 2013)

-Colonel Daren Margolin-U.S. Marine in charge of Quantico’s Security Battalion (Oct 2013)

-General Stanley McChrystal-U.S. Army Commander Afghanistan (June 2010)

-General David D. McKiernan-U.S. Army Commander Afghanistan (2009)

-General David Petraeus-Director of CIA from September 2011 to November 2012 & U.S. Army Commander International Security Assistance Force [ISAF] and Commander U.S. Forces Afghanistan [USFOR-A] (Nov 2012)

-Brigadier General Bryan Roberts-U.S. Army Commander 2nd Brigade (May 2013)

-Major General Gregg A. Sturdevant-U.S. Marine Corps Director of Strategic Planning and Policy for the U.S. Pacific Command & Commander of Aviation Wing at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan (Sept 2013)

-Colonel Eric Tilley-U.S. Army Commander of Garrison Japan (Nov 2013)

-Brigadier General Bryan Wampler-U.S. Army Commanding General of 143rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command of the 1st Theater Sustainment Command [TSC] (suspended Oct 2013)

Nearly 160 Majors through the rank of Colonel have been let go by Obama.

Commanding Naval Officers Terminated by Obama

-Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette-U.S. Navy Commander John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group Three (Oct 2012)-Tried to rescue Ambassador Chris Stevens but was arrested during the attempt.

-Vice Admiral Tim Giardina(3 Star, demoted to 2 Star)-U.S. Navy Deputy Commander of the US Strategic Command, Commander of the Submarine Group Trident, Submarine Group 9 and Submarine Group 10 (Oct 2013)

-Lieutenant Commander Kurt Boenisch-Executive Officer amphibious transport dock Ponce (Apr 2011)

-Rear Admiral Ron Horton-U.S. Navy Commander Logistics Group, Western Pacific (Mar 2011)

-Lieutenant Commander Martin Holguin-U.S. Navy Commander mine countermeasures Fearless (Oct 2011)

-Captain David Geisler-U.S. Navy Commander Task Force 53 in Bahrain (Oct 2011)

-Commander Laredo Bell-U.S. Navy Commander Naval Support Activity Saratoga Springs, NY (Aug 2011)

-Commander Nathan Borchers-U.S. Navy Commander destroyer Stout (Mar 2011)

-Commander Robert Brown-U.S. Navy Commander Beachmaster Unit 2 Fort Story, VA (Aug 2011)

-Commander Andrew Crowe-Executive Officer Navy Region Center Singapore (Apr 2011)

-Captain Robert Gamberg-Executive Officer carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower (Jun 2011)

-Captain Rex Guinn-U.S. Navy Commander Navy Legal Service office Japan (Feb 2011)

-Commander Kevin Harms- U.S. Navy Commander Strike Fighter Squadron 137 aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln (Mar 2011)

-Commander Etta Jones-U.S. Navy Commander amphibious transport dock Ponce (Apr 2011)

-Captain Owen Honors-U.S. Navy Commander aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (Jan 2011)

-Captain Donald Hornbeck-U.S. Navy Commander Destroyer Squadron 1 San Diego (Apr 2011)

-Commander Ralph Jones-Executive Officer amphibious transport dock Green Bay (Jul 2011)

-Commander Jonathan Jackson-U.S. Navy Commander Electronic Attack Squadron 134, deployed aboard carrier Carl Vinson (Dec 2011)

-Captain Eric Merrill-U.S. Navy Commander submarine Emory S. Land (Jul 2011)

-Captain William Mosk-U.S. Navy Commander Naval Station Rota, U.S. Navy Commander Naval Activities Spain (Apr 2011)

-Commander Timothy Murphy-U.S. Navy Commander Electronic Attack Squadron 129 at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, WA (Apr 2011)

-Commander Joseph Nosse-U.S. Navy Commander ballistic-missile submarine Kentucky (Oct 2011)

-Commander Mark Olson-U.S. Navy Commander destroyer The Sullivans FL (Sep 2011)

-Commander John Pethel-Executive Officer amphibious transport dock New York (Dec 2011)

-Commander Karl Pugh-U.S. Navy Commander Electronic Attack Squadron 141 Whidbey Island, WA (Jul 2011)

-Commander Jason Strength-U.S. Navy Commander of Navy Recruiting District Nashville, TN (Jul 2011)

-Captain Greg Thomas-U.S. Navy Commander Norfolk Naval Shipyard (May 2011)

-Commander Mike Varney-U.S. Navy Commander attack submarine Connecticut (Jun 2011)

-Commander Jay Wylie-U.S. Navy Commander destroyer Momsen (Apr 2011)

Forty one more were fired in 2012. One hundred and fifty seven were fired in 2013.

Partial Documentation

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20120103/NEWS/201030335/

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/obamas-military-purge/

http://investmentwatchblog.com/list-of-names-military-purge-high-officers-terrifying/

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67653.html

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20130718/CAREERS03/307180027/Commander-22nd-Marine-Expeditionary-Unit-relieved-command

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20131018/CAREERS03/310280001/Colonel-charge-Quantico-s-Security-Battalion-relievehttp://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/09/3-star-navy-admiral-fired-as-deputy-chief-nuclear-command-demoted-to-2-star

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/11/air-force-general-in-charge-nuclear-missiles-to-be-fired-officials-say/?intcmp=latestnews

-

CHAPLAINS MOCKED, FORCED OUT OF VA PROGRAM FOR THEIR CHRISTIAN BELIEFS

Written by  Dave Bohon | The New American
November 14, 2013

Two military chaplains are suing the federal Veterans Affairs department after they said they were mocked for their Christian beliefs and forced out of a Veterans Affairs chaplain training program.

In 2012, Lieutenant Commander Dan Klender, a Navy chaplain, and Major Steven Firtko, a retired Army chaplain, enrolled in the VA’s Clinical Pastoral Education Center program in San Diego. The class is a requirement for chaplains wishing to serve at VA hospitals. The two chaplains are members of the Conservative Baptist Association of America, a denomination that places a high priority on Scripture and faith in Christ.

The two chaplains charge that they were ridiculed and taunted by the program’s director, Nancy Dietsch, a VA employee with a reputation for antagonism toward evangelical Christians, charged John Wells, the attorney representing the two chaplains in the suit. “She’s been very, very critical of Christians,” Wells told Fox News. “Instead of teaching anything dealing with faith issues, she’s dealing with a holistic, humanistic approach. It’s the idea that the spirit comes from within.”

The lawsuit, filed against Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki, charges, among other things, that Dietsch said VA policy forbade chaplains from praying in Jesus’ name, and that chaplains could not quote Scripture in her class.

Specifically, during one class discussion on faith, Major Firtko cited the Scripture saying that “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” According to Fox News, “Dietsch told the chaplain he was not allowed to quote from the Bible in her classroom.”

During one class session, Dietsch said that she believed God could be either man or woman. But when Firtko referred to “The Lord’s Prayer,” which refers to “our Father which art in heaven,” Dietsch “angrily pounded her fist on the table and shouted, ‘Do not quote Scripture in this class,’” the lawsuit contends.

On another occasion, according to the lawsuit, “Dietsch insisted that evolution was fact and that she believed mankind evolved. Chaplain Firtko stated he believed in the Genesis statement that ‘in the beginning, God created the Heavens and Earth.’ In response, Ms. Dietsch pounded her fist on the table and ordered Chaplain Firtko to not quote Scripture in the classroom.”

The lawsuit charges that in January of this year Dietsch declared to the chaplains enrolled in the class that there are many ways to heaven and that one religion cannot be right while all others are wrong. When Firtko pointed out that Jesus said that “no one comes to the Father but through me,” Diestch again demanded that he stop quoting Scripture and said to him, as quoted in the lawsuit: “If you believe your beliefs are right, and everyone else’s are wrong, you do not belong in this program.”

By February of this year Dietsch’s harassment of the two chaplains had become so severe, the lawsuit claims, that Klender withdrew from the program. Meanwhile, Firtko had been placed on a six-week probation period after being threatened with dismissal. A week after Klender withdrew Firtko received a letter, signed by Dietsch, booting him from the program, with Dietsch insisting that the “probation period is not yielding” the results she had desired.

In July, Klender and Firtko, along with their denomination, filed a formal complaint against Dietsch for religious discrimination and for violating the standards of the Association of Pastoral Continuing Education. The lawsuit seeks the return of the two chaplains into the program, along with an injunction that will prevent the VA from discriminating against Christian chaplains.

“No American choosing to serve in the armed forces should be openly ridiculed for his Christian faith, and that is most obviously true for chaplains participating in a chaplain training program,” said Wells, a retired Navy officer and executive director of the group Military-Veterans Advocacy. “Not only was the treatment these men received inappropriate, it was also a violation of federal law and the religious freedom guarantees of the First Amendment.”

“Rarely do we see something as shocking as supervisors placing a hard-working military veteran on leave right before Veterans’ Day for saying something patriotic,” said PJI President Brad Dacus.

“The hospital’s actions were outrageous and illegal. We expect a swift apology and full restoration of Mr. Hawks’ rights,” he said.

The hospital did not respond to a WND request for comment.

A letter from  PJI Staff Attorney Matthew McReynolds to the hospital’s chief nursing officer, Janine Hawkins, argued the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the California Fair Employment and Housing act bar workplace discrimination on the basis of religion.

“In light of the widespread dissemination of a plethora of philosophical statements among hospital employees and management, the directive that Mr. Hawks delete ‘God Bless America’ is indefensible,” McReynolds said.

He explained that the hospital ordered the censorship, and when Hawks complied, he said he wanted to consult with legal counsel.

That apparently, according to the hospital, constituted “insubordination.”

“It is untenable and insulting to claim that his compliance and consultation with legal counsel is insubordinate. On the contrary, it is common sense,” the letter said.

McReynolds noted that Hawks has been a dedicated employee for 10 years, earning such distinctions as ‘Employee of the Year’ for his work in quality assurance.

Prior to joining the hospital staff, Hawks spent 20 years in the U.S. Army, attaining the rank of sergeant first class. PJI is demanding that supervisors rescind their disciplinary action and their censorship.

The legal team asks to be notified no later than Friday that the leave has been rescinded and the directive to censor his email dropped.

“Otherwise, we will proceed with all appropriate legal action to ensure that this veteran does not lose the freedoms or livelihood for which he fought.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/vet-suspended-for-god-bless-you/#7xUQcy0qdiIAOa3w.99

-

VETERAN SUSPENDED FOR ‘GOD BLESS YOU’

Employer barred phrase in his email signature

-

VeteranHospital

-

by Bob Unruh | World Net Daily
November 15, 2013

A Stockton, Calif., hospital has suspended a 10-year employee because he included “God Bless America” in the signature line of his emails, even though he obeyed an order to remove the offending phrase.

Boots Hawks, a military veteran, returned to work Nov. 6 at Dameron Hospital to find lock combinations and his computer password had been changed, according to Pacific Justice Institute, or PJI, which is representing him.

“Rarely do we see something as shocking as supervisors placing a hard-working military veteran on leave right before Veterans’ Day for saying something patriotic,” said PJI President Brad Dacus.

“The hospital’s actions were outrageous and illegal. We expect a swift apology and full restoration of Mr. Hawks’ rights,” he said.

The hospital did not respond to a WND request for comment.

A letter from  PJI Staff Attorney Matthew McReynolds to the hospital’s chief nursing officer, Janine Hawkins, argued the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the California Fair Employment and Housing act bar workplace discrimination on the basis of religion.

“In light of the widespread dissemination of a plethora of philosophical statements among hospital employees and management, the directive that Mr. Hawks delete ‘God Bless America’ is indefensible,” McReynolds said.

He explained that the hospital ordered the censorship, and when Hawks complied, he said he wanted to consult with legal counsel.

That apparently, according to the hospital, constituted “insubordination.”

“It is untenable and insulting to claim that his compliance and consultation with legal counsel is insubordinate. On the contrary, it is common sense,” the letter said.

McReynolds noted that Hawks has been a dedicated employee for 10 years, earning such distinctions as ‘Employee of the Year’ for his work in quality assurance.

Prior to joining the hospital staff, Hawks spent 20 years in the U.S. Army, attaining the rank of sergeant first class. PJI is demanding that supervisors rescind their disciplinary action and their censorship.

The legal team asks to be notified no later than Friday that the leave has been rescinded and the directive to censor his email dropped.

“Otherwise, we will proceed with all appropriate legal action to ensure that this veteran does not lose the freedoms or livelihood for which he fought.”

-

THERE ALREADY IS A GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IN AMERICA AND IT IS THE MEDICAL VERSION OF HELL

Michael Snyder
Economic Collapse
November 27, 2013

What would happen if the entire health care system in the United States was run by the federal government?  Would such a system be better or worse than what we have today?  To get an answer to these questions, all we have to do is take a look at what is already happening.

Image: Injured Veteran (Wikimedia Commons).

The truth is that there already is a government health care system in America and it is the medical version of hell.  You are about to read about the horrifying state of health care being provided by the federal government at VA hospitals and on Indian reservations around the country.  Injured military veterans and those that live on Indian reservations are some of the most vulnerable members of our society, and the government is doing an absolutely nightmarish job of taking care of them.

Theoretically, the government should be able to provide at least a basic level of care for these people, but as you will see this is simply not happening.

Why?

The bottom line is that the federal government is completely and utterly incompetent.  This has been demonstrated once again in recent months by the launch of Obamacare.  What a train wreck that has been.

But we shouldn’t be surprised.  When it comes to health care, the U.S. government can’t seem to get anything right.

Most Americans don’t realize this, but government-run health care for our military veterans is a complete and total joke.  In some instances, it can take critically injured military veterans more than a year to see a doctor…

CJ Jackson, a Purple Heart recipient and 101st Airborne medic, was severely wounded during a battle in Afghanistan when an enemy rocket-propelled grenade hit a wall a couple of feet from him, sending debris into his arm and leg. He said he waited over a year to see a doctor at the Jackson VA despite being considered critically injured.

And once a vet is finally able to see a doctor and have surgery scheduled, those surgeries are often conducted in facilities that are beyond disgusting.  The following is what one orthopedic surgeon recently told CNBC

“Occasionally we’d find pieces of bone” on equipment, he told CNBC. “What it really shows is that no one is really taking the time or care to clean the instruments.”

His story was backed up by Dr. Phyllis Hollenbeck, who still works at the hospital. She testified on Sept. 9 about problems at the Jackson center. “Essentially everything that happens in primary care at the Jackson VA can be included under the umbrella of being unethical, illegal, heartbreaking, and life threatening for the veterans, and everything in the care of the veterans starts in primary care.”

Of course this is not the first investigation that discovered these kinds of conditions at VA hospitals.  A few years ago, ABC News also conducted an investigation of conditions at VA facilities across the United States.  What ABC News discovered was absolutely staggering.  The following are just a few of the things that they found during the course of their investigation

*Bathrooms filthy with what appeared to be human excrement

*Dirty linens from some patients mixed in with clean supplies

*Examining tables that had dried blood and medications still on them

*Equipment used to sterilize surgical instruments that had broken down

*Some patients that were begging for food and water

*Vets neglected so badly that they had developed horrific bedsores and dangerous infections

Is this how the federal government should be treating the men and women that have shed blood fighting for our country?

Unfortunately, it appears that the mistreatment of our military veterans has gotten even worse since Barack Obama took power.  For much more on all of this, please see my previous article entitled “25 Signs That Military Veterans Are Being Treated Like Absolute Trash Under The Obama Administration“.

The funny thing is that many of the people that run these VA facilities are greatly rewarded for their “hard work”.  For example, CNBC discovered that those running the VA facility in Jackson, Mississippi described above are receiving huge bonuses…

The director of the Jackson VA, Joe Battle, received a $6,500 bonus last year on top of his $165,000 salary, and Rica Lewis-Payton, the network director of the South Central Health Care Network, which includes Jackson, got almost $36,000 in bonuses last year, on top of her $180,000 salary.

Are you disgusted yet?

You should be.

And we see the exact same thing happening in government-run health care facilities on Indian reservations.

By treaty, the U.S. government is required to provide health care on Indian reservations.  But the level of health care being provided is of extremely low quality and the programs are very underfunded.

In fact, things are so bad that the following expression is very commonly heard on Indian reservations across America…

“Don’t get sick after June”.

Why would they say that?

Well, because in the fall and winter the waits to see a doctor and the rationing of care get particularly bad.  If you get seriously ill, you might end up dying before you ever get the care that you need.

Posted below is a video news report featuring Judge Andrew Napolitano about the horrific state of government-run health care on Indian reservations…

-

-

In light of all of this, should we have more government interference in the health care system or less?

-

OBAMA TO FORCE MILITARY FAMILIES AWAY FROM TRICARE TO OBAMACARE, BY TRIPLING THEIR FEES

President Barack Obama has said on multiple occasions that he stands by the troops, and lauds their selflessness in fighting the Iraq war and the conflict in Afghanistan.  During a time when our bravest in uniform have been in a state of war for more than a decade, one would think that our fearless leaders should reward their efforts by making life a bit easier at home.

Instead, Obama simply insists on tripling their fees on the military health insurance program called Tricare.

What is the administration’s reasoning on this?  Well, they actually admit that Obama would rather the troops partake in ‘alternatives’ that were established in the Affordable Care Act (otherwise known as Obamacare).  In a report from the FreeBeacon.com, Bill Gertz states:

Administration officials told Congress that one goal of the increased fees is to force military retirees to reduce their involvement in Tricare and eventually opt out of the program in favor of alternatives established by the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.”

This is quite a telling move by the Obama administration, due to the transparency in a letter written to congress, as the FreeBeacon.com further reports:

The Administration is disappointed that the Congress did not incorporate the requested TRICARE fee initiatives into either the appropriation or authorization legislation,” the White House wrote in an official policy statement expressing opposition to the bill, which the House approved in May.”

So, what are these ‘fee initiatives’?  The Bill Gertz goes on to say,

Significantly, the plan calls for increases between 30 percent to 78 percent in Tricare annual premiums for the first year. After that, the plan will impose five-year increases ranging from 94 percent to 345 percent—more than 3 times current levels.

According to congressional assessments, a retired Army colonel with a family currently paying $460 a year for health care will pay $2,048.

The new plan hits active duty personnel by increasing co-payments for pharmaceuticals and eliminating incentives for using generic drugs.”

Essentially, Barack Hussein Obama would rather force military families to partake in Obamacare welfare-backed programs rather than using Tricare, and he had hoped to do this by tripling their premiums in just 5 years.

All the while, the report states that Obama leaves his true friends, the ‘unionized civilian defense workers’, unscathed by tax and premium hikes:

The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.

The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.”

The sad part of this tale is that Barack Obama clearly has no loyalty to his country, his ‘friends’, and most certainly the troops that would carry out his commands without question for the love of their home.  It is clearly only profit and power that pulls him out of bed in the morning, and lulls him to sleep at night.  How so?

We already know that upon the passage of Obamacare that the market reacted by tanking 1%, while certain public sector insurance companies, hospital firms, and pharmaceutical manufacturers significantly increased in share prices.  We already know from leaked Pfizer lobbyist memos that they were going to pledge $80 billion to Obama’s reelection efforts if he were to pass the ACA.  So, essentially, the fact that Obama’s action of forcing military families away from Tricare and towards these public sector insurance ‘alternatives’, shows who he really serves.  …just a hint, it’s not you or anyone in the military.

That’s correct, he serves the unionized defense contractors (as long as they serve him in return), and he serves public sector companies and Wall Street-owned major medical companies, like Pfizer (also… as long as they serve him in return).

In the closing, Patricia Campion of Yahoo News writes these insightful words:

As commander-in-chief, I want every veteran to know that America will always honor your service and your sacrifice — not just today, but every day,” the president said in November. “And just as you fought for us, we’re going to keep fighting for you — for more jobs, for more security, for the opportunity to keep your families strong and America competitive in the 21st century.”

Of course, he forgot to warn them he was about to kick their existing health care insurance plan so far out of reach that they’d be forced to grab the plan that 53 percent of Americans want repealed for survival.”

Thanks for selling the men and women of our military down the river Mr. President.

-

RELATED POSTS:

FLASHBACK: OBAMA’S PLAN TO TRANSITION AMERICA TO A SINGLE PAYER HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

VIDEO OF OBAMA LYING 36 TIMES ABOUT HEALTH CARE PLANS OF AMERICANS; “IF YOU LIKE YOUR PLAN, YOU CAN KEEP YOUR PLAN.  IF YOU LIKE YOUR DOCTOR, YOU CAN KEEP YOUR DOCTOR.”

OBAMA NOW BLATANTLY DELUSIONAL: DENIES EVER PROMISING YOU CAN KEEP YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE

-

MILITARY MEMBERS, VETERANS MISSING OUT ON KEY OBAMACARE PROVISION

By FoxNews.com

November 12, 2013

One of the most touted benefits of President Obama’s health care overhaul law is the provision allows parents to keep their adult children on their health insurance until age 26.

However, Trace Gallagher reported on “The Kelly File” Monday, this benefit is not being extended to a significant group of Americans: members of the U.S. military.

TRICARE, the Department of Defense program that provides health coverage to active duty and retired military members and their families, only covers young adult dependents up until age 21, or age 23 if they are enrolled full-time in college.

TRICARE recipients can then purchase a plan for their young adult dependents, according to their website.

Air Force veteran Eddie Grooms said he was disappointed to learn he could not add his 21-year-old daughter to his insurance provided by the military, as he thought he had been promised under the health care overhaul.

“It’d be nice if they leveled with everybody and let them know so that people could make plans, because this is going to hit all, I mean it’s going to hit thousands of retirees over time,” Grooms said.

Jessie Jane Duff of Concerned Veterans for America told Megyn Kelly the reason the benefit has not been extended to military members is the rates under TRICARE are very low because they are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers.

She said “unfortunately” this means adult children cannot be covered, saying there has to be some “give and take” for the reduced rates.

“We’ve been very fortunate because legislation was passed that exempted TRICARE from a lot of the ObamaCare standings, so that actually has benefited veterans to keep the rates that they’ve had,” Duff said.

About these ads

3 Responses to OBAMA: PREPARING “MY MILITARY” FOR THE NEXT STEP?

  1. Pingback: RUSSIA RESPONDS TO OBAMA’S WAR DRIVE AS USS DONALD COOK DEPLOYS ON ITS FIRST MISSION SINCE ARRIVING IN SPAIN | sreaves32

  2. Pingback: EDWARD LUCAS: I HOPE I’M WRONG BUT HISTORIANS MAY LOOK BACK AND SAY THIS WAS THE START OF WORLD WAR III | sreaves32

  3. Pingback: IS ALASKA GOING TO BE RETURNED TO RUSSIA? | sreaves32

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 74 other followers

%d bloggers like this: