Sunday, February 15, 2015

Fragile Ceasefire In Ukraine, An Ominous Wind This Way Blows, Nuclear Specter Returns

Fragile Ceasefire In Ukraine

A ceasefire that came into force midnight Sunday in Eastern Ukraine is holding in most places but not all, with both sides playing the blame gam. But the city of Donetsk has had its first night without shelling in months.
The spokesperson of Ukraine's Joint Staff, Vladislav Seleznev, has confirmed that all shelling of Ukrainian positions has stopped at 3 AM local time.
"The military posture is fairly stable," reported Donetsk region's police chief Vyacheslav Abroskin.
According to the Donetsk militia representative Eduard Basurin, Donbass self-defense forces ‘selectively’ taped the enemy batteries without a second thought and in full conformity with previous statements of Donbass leadership.

The ceasefire has been substantially implemented in eastern Ukraine in the last 12 hours, with the exception of certain areas in Debaltsevo and Lugansk, Chief Monitor of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine Ertu─črul Apakan said on Sunday afternoon.
However, Ukraine’s FM Pavel Klimkin also alleged that Donetsk militia blocked entry to OSCE mission to Debaltsevo.

The blissful silence, according to the rebels, lasted for less than an hour, as Ukrainian troops inflicted several mortar and artillery strikes on rebel forces guarding the perimeter of Debaltsevo mousetrap, where an estimated 5,000 Ukrainian task force is running out of munitions and ordnance while making attempts to break out.

Ukrainian troops locked up in Debaltsevo reportedly shelled settlements of Yenakievo and Gorlovka, as well as the territory of Donetsk airport, no so long ago handed over to the militia forces after months of severe firefight. But the living quarters of the city of Donetsk this time remained intact.
Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) head Aleksandr Zakharchenko said on the eve of the ceasefire that the entrapment near Debaltsevo is situated on the territory fully controlled by the rebel forces. This is interpreted that Minsk agreements on separation of the warring parties do not apply to the encircled Ukrainian servicemen.
“Please pay attention to the fact that there isn’t a word about Debaltsevo [entrapment] in Minsk agreements. That means that Ukraine has simply betrayed those 5,000 people in Debaltsevo trap,”Zakharchenko said, stressing that no negotiations about the entrapment is currently underway with Kiev.
Kiev authorities have been consistently denying the very existence of the Debaltsevo entrapment. Yet Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has told Ukrainian Joint Staff that the peace process is under the threat of failure because of the situation at Debaltsevo.
“I’ve warned you on that,” Poroshenko stressed.

Our world seems to be at a tipping point. The ever encroaching police state, the fact that all financial markets, over the entire global, are rigged. Since when does the President come out and tell Congress that he needs omnipotent powers to continue to expand the wars of aggression? What next, maybe world war; cast a dragnet across the internet to begin scooping up owners of alternative news websites? Perhaps begin systemically killing the bankers in the back office with the codes and programs that run the derivatives markets and rig the equities markets? Or maybe journalist begin dying in questionable auto accidents or suicide. Where does it end?

When speaking with a colleague a few days ago our conversation began with him stating that we was just beat up from all the criminality, corruption and endless manipulation. It was hard to hear and as I explained it is only because of what we do that anything has a chance of changing. Do we simply run away or roll-over and just take it like the majority of people in this country and on this planet? Unfortunately, I just wasn’t built that way.

As 2015 begins to take root signs of an ominous wind are brewing. The trees are laid bare with there exposed branches trembling with anticipation of something this world has never experienced before. The people are uneasy and unsure. The once silent voices are beginning to ask questions and seek better information.

When Brian Williams recently exposed the depths of lies the mainstream media is willing to support and spread, it seems there was a change that is now palatable. People are beginning to seek real information on a grand scale, which can only mean that people are, at the very least, curious as to what may be available in regards to the truth. If someone that was as respected as Brian Williams was before he was exposed, what other lies have people been sold? Who else has been lying and for how long? What am I missing or being sold and can I trust these people, that come into my living room at dinner time, any longer.

Our world seems to be at a tipping point. We are told, every first Friday of the month, that employment has once again improved and people are going back to work. According to Jim Clifton, CEO of Gallup, the employment numbers come straight out of fantasyland. Yet another ongoing, repeated lie, that is perpetuated by the mainstream media and by the government. Mr. Clifton made it clear that it is “reported” is nothing more than smoke and mirrors and doesn’t reveal the truth about the unemployment situation in our country.

Here’s a quote from Mr. Clifton’s Editorial that began the controversy 
"Yet another figure of importance that doesn’t get much press: those working part time but wanting full-time work. If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can find — in other words, you are severely underemployed — the government doesn’t count you in the 5.6%. Few Americans know this."
Two days later, when he was questioned, live on CNBC, about his comments, is when this story took a turn.
“I think that the number that comes out of BLS [Bureau of Labor Statistics] and the Department of Labor is very, very accurate. I need to make that very, very clear so that I don’t suddenly disappear. I need to make it home tonight.”

Both of these scenarios, Brian Williams and Jim Clifton, began unfolding in the early part of February 2015. The tide seems to be turning and the criminals in Washington DC are taking note. On the heels of this next leg up in the grand awakening, it seems there may be a new wrinkle in the story. It appears the criminals don’t really like The Daily Coin, SGTReport, SHTFPlan or any of the websites that are exposing their nonsense and delivering the truth directly to the people by way of the internet. Remember, the internet was developed by DARPA and DARPA is the research arm of the military. They do not develop technology for the benefit of humanity, they develop technology to kill people more efficiently.

It seems instead of using the internet kill switch to squelch this mass awakening, the criminals will simply change the rules. This is where you, yes, you the person reading this story, come in and absolutely must play a part. Just because you are currently seeking information instead of informing people doesn’t mean they aren’t coming for rights and liberties as well. Help us, help you.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is holding a hearing today to receive public feedback on whether it should create new rules regulating political speech, including political speech on the Internet that one commissioner warned could affect blogs, YouTube videos and even websites like the The Daily Coin.

The wind is picking up speed and debris like that of a tornado. Will we the people be blown away or will we stand together and begin taking back our country? Is it too late are the shackles already around our throats and we merely haven’t felt the sting? 

The Ukraine crisis has dramatically worsened relations between NATO and Russia. With cooperation on nuclear security now suspended and the lack of a "red telephone," experts at the Munich Security Conference warn any escalation in tensions could grow deadly.

The scientists had no idea that their experiment could spell the end of civilization. On Jan. 25, 1995, Norwegian and American researchers fired a rocket into the skies of northwestern Norway to study the Northern Lights. But the four-stage rocket flew directly through the same corridor that American Minuteman III missiles, equipped with nuclear warheads, would use to travel from the United States to Moscow.
The rocket's speed and flight pattern very closely matched what the Russians expected from a Trident missile that would be fired from a US submarine and detonated at high altitude, with the aim of blinding the Russian early-warning system to prepare for a large-scale nuclear attack by the United States. The Russian military was placed on high alert, and then President Boris Yeltsin activated the keys to launch nuclear weapons. He had less than 10 minutes to decide whether to issue the order to fire.
Yeltsin left the Russian missiles in their silos, probably in part because relations between Russian and the United States were relatively trusting in 1995. But if a similar incident occurred today, as US arms expert Theodore Postol warned recently, it could quite possibly lead to nuclear catastrophe.

"Five or six minutes can be enough time, if you have trust, if you have communication and if you can put this machinery immediately to work," former Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said on the sidelines of last weekend's Munich Security Conference. Unfortunately, he argued, this machinery works very poorly today, and there is great mistrust.

When asked what would happen today if the 1995 missile incident happened again, Ivanov responded, "I cannot be sure if the right decision would be taken."
Deep mistrust has developed between the West and Russia, and it is having a massive effect on cooperation on security matters.

In November 2014, the Russians announced that they would boycott the 2016 Nuclear Security Summit in the United States. In December, the US Congress voted, for the first time in 25 years, not to approve funding to safeguard nuclear materials in the Russian Federation. A few days later, the Russians terminated cooperation in almost all aspects of nuclear security. The two sides had cooperated successfully for almost two decades. But that is now a thing of the past.

Brown, together with Ivanov and former US Senator Sam Nunn, the grandfather of international disarmament policy, published an analysis last week. The trio recommends "that reliable communication channels exist in the event of serious incidents." In other words, these channels currently do not exist.

"Trust has been eroded to the point of almost being destroyed," said Nunn. "You got a war going on right in the middle of Europe. You got a breakdown of the conventional forces treaty, you got the INF (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces) treaty under great strain, you got tactical nuclear weapons all over Europe. It's a very dangerous situation."

When asked if hybrid warfare could raise the danger of nuclear weapons being used, US diplomat Richard Burt -- who, in his role as chief negotiator, helped put together the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, between the United States and the Soviet Union -- answered in the affirmative. "The simple answer is yes. Both American and Russian nuclear arms are essentially on a kind of hair-trigger alert. Both sides have a nuclear posture where land-based missiles could be authorized for use in less than 15 minutes." In the situation of hybrid warfare, he warns, "that is a dangerous state of play."
"In the Cold War, we created mechanisms of security. A huge number of treaties and documents helped us to avoid a big and serious military crash," says former Foreign Minister Ivanov. "Now the threat of a war is higher than during the Cold War."

With Western newspapers packed daily with reports of the US-led coalition fighting against the Islamic State ISIS/IS/ISIL in the Middle East, it is important to further illustrate the deceptive nature of this latest so-called ‘war against ISIS’. The Syrian Army, Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard have been the main forces battling against this Western-created group since the Syrian proxy war began, with the Iraqi army and factions of the Lebanese government also heavily involved.

Russia has been steadfast in fighting against international terrorism and its support for forces that are actively battling against rebel insurgency groups, with some reports speculating that Russian special forces have been active in Syria conducting counterterrorism operations. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has repeatedly expressed his support for a coalition against ISIS, but one that is authorised through the UN Security Council and is in accordance with international law. These forces constitute the true players fighting against ISIS, not the US-led coalition, whose position on ISIS is duplicitous as they continue to fund the group they claim to be at war with

“The US and the so-called anti-ISIL coalition claim that they have launched a campaign against this terrorist and criminal group – while supplying them with weapons, food and medicine in Jalawla region (a town in Diyala Governorate, Iraq). This explicitly displays the falsity of the coalition’s and the US’ claims”, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Brigadier General Massoud Jazayeri, told Fars newsIran itself reportedly conducted airstrikes against ISIS positions outside of the US-led coalition in December 2014, which corroborates with Iran’s consistent policy of fighting against rebels that the West has been funding. Syrian government warplanes have also been bombing ISIS positions for years as the al-Assad regime has been fighting against Western-sponsored terror groups since 2011.

US has airdropped weapons – including medical supplies, hand grenades, ammunition and other weaponry – to ISIS fighters, claiming these are just accidental drops that missed the drop zone. A captured Pakistani commander of ISIS also recently revealed that he received funds that were “routed” through the US to run an ISIS operation in Pakistan, which recruited rebels to fight against the Syrian regime. Head of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, Ammar al-Hakim, has criticised the US-led coalition for their hypocritical attitude towards ISIS, and has asserted that the coalition forces have not played a prominent role in “vital regions” that are strategically important for the terror group.

 Russian President Vladimir Putin has objected to airstrikes in Syria against ISIS without the consent of the Syrian government, and Russian FM Lavrov has stressed that using force without the governments consent “goes against international law”. As Lavrov also points out, if the coalition truly wanted to defeat ISIS it would fully cooperate with the Syrian army, Hezbollah and Iranian forces which would weaken ISIS dramatically in a matter of weeks, but this is about regime change in Syria under the pretext of fighting the terror group, not about actually wiping out the group. According to reports there has only been very limited cooperation between Iran and the US-led coalition (if any at all), with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani calling the anti-ISIS coalition a “joke” since the alliance is comprised of nations that sponsor “terrorist activities”. ISIS may well be eradicated after they have served their purpose however, or if regional players turn against the agenda due to political instability.

 As the Times of Israel reported in an article titled: Hezbollah condemns US-led strikes on Islamic State, Nasrallah stated:
“We are against an international coalition, whether it is against the regime … or whether it is against Daesh/[ISIS]… This is an opportunity, pretext, for America to dominate the region again.”
The rise of ISIS is a direct result of Western foreign policy in the region that has facilitated, funded, trained and armed this assortment of rebel bandits for years, either directly or through regional channels – in the form of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. IS’s core objective is the toppling of the regime of Bashar al-Assad for the benefit of NATO powers and their regional allies such as Israel (also known as al-Qaeda’s air force).

Also see:

What happens when you give college students a taste of Obamacare?
They spit the taste right out of their mouths.
Cornell University students are up in arms over a $350 student health fee that will be assessed to any student who doesn’t buy the university’s health insurance, Casey Breznick, editor-in-chief of the Cornell conservative student paper the Cornell Review, wrote on Legal Insurrection Saturday.
He also noted that Cornell’s fee resembles a national program: the Affordable Care Act’s penalty for those who don’t purchase health insurance.

As Obamacare dictates people must either buy health insurance or pay a tax, Cornell is now requiring students who do not purchase SHIP [university health insurance] pay the health fee. Of course, there are distinctions between each case–namely, attending Cornell is optional whereas paying taxes is required.
Still, the underlying principle behind the fee implementation and Obamacare are the same: the redistribution of wealth in order to provide “for the common good,” as Skorton stated.

Essentially, both the fee and Obamacare are redistributionist policies which seek to extract from some in order to subsidize others. In some ways, however, the Cornell student health fee is worse, because it’s not only a redistribution of wealth, it is an administrative bailout to the tune of a cool $4 million. It’s a double-whammy of liberal ill-logic and progressive policy.

Some of the most vocal opponents of the fee, Breznick said, are “liberal” students.
“These are the same students who almost surely all vote for Democrats and support redistributionist, big government policies,” Breznick noted, “but when it comes to their own pocket books they are suddenly outraged.”

On Twitter, many people used the hashtag “FightTheFee” — initially used by student activists to rally against the health fee — to mock the Cornell students protesting their university’s decision and “welcome” them to socialism.

No comments: