The data from the black box of the downed Russian Su-24 bomber will prove that the aircraft was in Syrian airspace when it was attacked by Turkish forces, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday.
Earlier in the day, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu showed Putin the black box, which was recovered in Syria by Russian and Syrian forces.
"As I understand, the flight data recorder will give us the opportunity to understand the Su-24's trajectory from the moment of its take-off to the moment of the crash," Putin said. "This means we will be able to understand where it was [at the moment of the downing] and where the treacherous strike from the Turkish Air Force was dealt."
Putin also said that the black box should be opened only in the presence of international experts.
Putin thanked everyone who participated in the operation to search for and retrieve the black box from Russia's Su-24, which was shot down on November 24 by the Turkish Air Force.
Moscow argues that the aircraft was flying in Syrian airspace when it was attacked.
During the meeting with Shoigu, Putin also addressed Moscow's ongoing air campaign against Daesh, also known as ISIL/The Islamic State.
Putin said the results of strikes against Daesh targets with new high-precision weapons should be continually analyzed, and expressed hope that the fight against the terrorists would not require nuclear warheads.
"We must, of course, analyze everything, everything that happens on the battlefield, how the weapons are working. The 'Calibers,' the A-101 rockets on the whole have proved themselves very well; they are new, modern and highly effective," Putin said.
Every so often an event occurs that lays bare the fraud of government better than anything that can be written or said. We saw such an event last week.
In my writing of late, I’ve focused on the Machiavellian strategies employed by the government and its main players to steal from you your wealth and liberties and to turn this once-Constitutional republic into a Third World collectivist nanny-state hellhole, all under the sweet-sounding sake of safety and name of democracy. You can read some of them here, here, here and here.
The massacre of 14 people (plus 21 wounded) in San Bernardino, California, by American Muslim Syed Rizwan Farook and his Pakistani wife, Tashfeen Malik, peeled back the veneer of massive government fraud and deception. The so-called war on terror, the surveillance state, the security state and oppressive gun laws are nothing more than feckless distractions designed to give the illusion of safety while your liberties are stolen from you one by one.
The American government and its shadow, deep state operatives, along with allied governments and their intelligence agencies, used Muslim sectarianism to create al-Qaida and ISIS, supplying them with weapons and training in proxy wars and for the purpose of overthrowing sovereign governments. This is part of the globalists plans to blow up the Middle East, preserve the petro-dollar and ensure the dominance of our “allies” in the region: Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel. This is part of the long-range neocon plan as outlined in the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
After 9/11,the government embarked on a “war on terror” to “keep us safe.” The idea, George Bush the lesser assured us, was to kill “them” over there so we wouldn’t have to kill “them” over here.
So for 14 years straight, and nigh on 25 years if you take it back to Bush I’s unconstitutional first Gulf War, which never really ended, we have been killing “them” over there. But that didn’t keep “them” from setting off a bomb in the World Trade Center in 1993. It didn’t keep “them” from flying airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001. And it didn’t keep “them” from creating a bomb factory and acquiring weapons and hording ammo for a big attack in San Bernardino last week.
Nor did the surveillance state, which monitors everyone’s communications and bank and credit card transactions to such an extent that the NSA felt the need to create a $1.5 billion 1 million square-foot data center in Utah to store everything it’s ever collected on everyone.
Farook was an American citizen who, despite trips to countries with histories of radicalizing young men and frequent communications with what the security state describes as people on the FBI’s radar because of their connections to terrorism, remained under their radar while he and his wife acquired paramilitary training and, along with a group of a half dozen or so other “Middle Eastern” men built bombs in the middle of a residential neighborhood. The Department of Homeland Security’s “See something, say something” program failed because saying something, as DHS requests in pamphlets and public service announcements, often gets one tagged as racist or Islamophobic or xenophobic. (See the response to Ahmed Mohamed, the clock boy.)
Malik was a vetted foreigner — vetted by the security state — and allowed into the country despite her ties to Muslim countries known to support terrorism. As NBC explains it: “Malik entered the U.S. on a K-1 visa, which is required of a fiancé [in this case, a fiancée] engaged to a U.S. citizen. These visas are granted after the applicant undergoes a rigorous security screening process aimed as (sic) preventing so-called ‘Green Card’ marriages.”
In addition to collecting all our communications and financial transaction data, the security state watches us with drones and security cameras on every corner, as well as with vehicles containing backscatter cameras that see through our walls and into our vehicles. It gropes and/or forces us into radiation spraying scanners before we can travel, questions us at random checkpoints, and paws through our bags and forces us to empty our pockets before entering public venues.
California has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Yet Farook and Malik used legally acquired weapons with appropriate background checks. No word has yet been uttered from the MSM or the FBI whether the bomb-making material they possessed was legally acquired, however.
So as we now see, none of this “keeps us safe”: not the so-called war on terror, the surveillance state, the security state or the oppressive (for law-abiding citizens) gun laws. For who feels “safer” from the threat of terrorism in America today than he did 25 years ago? Certainly not the American public, despite assurances from the mainstream media and the government men and women who claim that’s the purpose of the war on terror, the surveillance state, the security state and oppressive gun laws.
So what do we hear from the MSM and the government men and women? After hours of hoping the shooters were conservative white men and, failing that, trying to hide the ties to radical Islam and attempting to deflect from the terrorism angle, we hear from the establishment and the government men that what we need is more war on terror, more surveillance state, more security state and more oppressive gun laws.
Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing “25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad” and 51% of those polled, “agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah.” Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won’t convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.
Mr. Trump stated, “Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again.”
It should be possible to disagree with this statement without describing Donald Trump as the new Hitler… but it seems to be rather difficult.
Mediate has a roundup of newspapers making Hitler comparisons, complete with photos chosen to make it look as if Trump is giving his audiences the old Sieg Heil. The Huffington Post declared Trump had gone “full fascist.”
“Is this what Germany looked like in 1933?” asked MSNBC host Joe Scarborough.
That last link comes courtesy of my friend David Harsanyi of The Federalist, who lost family members during the Holocaust, and speaks with authority when he replies to Scarborough, “No. Not at all.”
David says he tries to be a good sport about “the occasional gratuitous Nazi analogy,” but feels obliged to throw a flag on this particular play:
He offers an interesting theory that the swift flurry of “Trump=Hitler” responses might be due to the Left’s effort to portray Muslims as an oppressed class in the Western world. There’s a lively genre of European editorials and political speeches that explicitly claim “Muslim refugees are the new Jews.”
As for whether Trump’s proposed Muslim immigration ban would be unconstitutional, Mark Krikorian at National Review judges it would most likely pass Constitutional muster, with due allowances for varying interpretations (and some confusing responses from Trump campaign spokespeople) of exactly what Trump has in mind:
First of all, it’s important to underline that Congress can exclude or admit any foreigner it wants, for any reason or no reason. Non-Americans have no constitutional right to travel to the United States and no constitutional due-process rights to challenge exclusion; as the Supreme Court has written multiple times, “Whatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned.”What’s more, while the president doesn’t have the authority that Obama has claimed, to let in anyone he wants for any reason (under the guise of “parole”), he does have the statutory authority to keep anyone out, for any reason he thinks best.
But going from his original statement and its title, and sifting through the rubble of the overnight attacks and clarifications, I think we’re talking about: (A) A ban on Muslim immigration to the United States, for (B) a limited period of time (“until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on,” which may be the vaguest deadline ever proposed) because (C) the Muslim population includes an unacceptably high percentage of people prone to commit, support, or indulge terrorist violence (“it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension.”)
This may be a very bad idea, or an unworkable proposal; Trump can be criticized for failing to include extensive specifics for such an enormously controversial idea, or fully briefing his campaign staffers on the bombshell he was about to drop. But it’s not fascism or Hitlerism. Among other things, it is a proposal that would leave considerably fewer people under the authority of a prospective President Trump. Hitlerism was not defined by closed borders, but by moving borders. You didn’t have to immigrate to Nazi Germany – it came to you.
In his National Review piece, Krikorian gives Trump a little credit for starting a conversation about immigration and national security, topics which are too often dominated by thoughtless pieties. We might also applaud Trump for dragging liberals out of their seven-year totalitarian stupor under Obama, and making them realize due process matters, legislative responsibility rests with Congress, and untrammeled executive authority is bad. I knew they would instantly embrace all of those truths on the day a Republican President was inaugurated, but Trump woke them up over a year ahead of schedule.
As Barack Obama and his useful idiots in his administration, Congress and the media attempt to immigrate hundreds of thousands of Islamists into the united States, the law needs to be brought to bear and the law is not on their side. Islamists, like all totalitarians, are prohibited by law (yes, American law) from immigrating to the united States.
In 1952, Islam, along with Communism was effectively banned by law.
The Immigration and Nationality Act, which was passed June 27, 1952 revised the united States' laws regarding immigration, naturalization and nationality. This Act, under Section 313 states the following:
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 405(b) , no person shall hereafter be naturalized as a citizen of the United States-
(1) who advocates or teaches, or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches, opposition to all organized government; or
(2) who is a member of or affiliated with (A) the Communist Party of the United States; (B) any other totalitarian party of the United States; (C) the Communist Political Association; (D) the Communist or other totalitarian party of any State of the United States, of any foreign state, or of any political or geographical subdivision of any foreign state; (E) any section, subsidiary, branch, affiliate, or subdivision of any such association or party;
(3) who, although not within any of the other provisions of this section, advocates the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization that advocates the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, either through its own utterances or through any written or printed publications issued or published by or with the permission or consent of or under authority of such organizations or paid for by the funds of such organization; or
Chapter 2, Section 212 presents a prohibition of entry to the US if the person belongs to an organization seeking to overthrow the US government by "force, violence, or other unconstitutional means." The Koran and the Hadiths present Sharia and demand submission to Islam, which is antithetical to Biblical law and the US Constitution, as well as to our Republic.
Whether one pushes Islam as a religion is irrelevant. It's ideology is opposed to America and her laws, including her Constitution.
First, consider that Hussein Obama has ignored immigration law, both with regards to those coming across our southern border and those from the Middle East.
Now, consider that this is about immigration and naturalization and its aim was primarily at Communism. However, it also mentions totalitarianism being promoted. That is all that Islam does. They are no different than Communism in their ideology. They just claim to do it in the name of Allah rather than advance the idea of a Creator.
Consider that the Muslims Brotherhood, as well as the Communists, have documented their goals for the destruction of America. Consider the Islamic organizations in the united States like designated terror and Muslim Brother hood front group Hamas-CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations), The Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim Student Association, and plenty of others, including individual Muslims who seek to advance Sharia (which is anti-Christian and anti-American). Sharia falls under the very definition of the ideology of those Barack Hussein Obama wants to flood America with. If the law applies to those wishing to immigrate to the united States, should those same laws against sedition and treason not apply to those already here?
And, don't give me that "freedom of religion" bit, for Islam is nothing more than totalitarianism under a thin veil of religion, but make no mistake, Islamists mean to rule the world apart from the Creator's law and justice.
On Monday, the price of U.S. oil dropped below 38 dollars a barrel for the first time in six years. The last time the price of oil was this low, the global financial system was melting down and the U.S. economy was experiencing the worst recession that it had seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
As I write this article, the price of U.S. oil is sitting at $37.65. For months, I have been warning that the crash in the price of oil would be extremely deflationary and would have severe consequences for the global economy. Nations such as Japan, Canada, Brazil and Russia have already plunged into recession, and more than half of all major global stock market indexes are down at least 10 percent year to date. The first major global financial crisis since 2009 has begun, and things are only going to get worse as we head into 2016.
The global head of oil research at Societe Generale, Mike Wittner, says that his “head is spinning” after the stunning drop in the price of oil on Monday. Just like during the last financial crisis, we have broken the psychologically important 40 dollar barrier, and there are concerns that we could go much lower from here…
But the truth is that plunging oil prices are exceedingly bad for the U.S. economy as a whole. In recent years, the energy industry has been the primary engine for the creation of good jobs in this country, and now those firms are having to lay off people at a frightening pace. Not only that, CNBC’s Jim Cramer is warning that many of these firms may actually start going under if the price of oil doesn’t start going back up soon…
On Monday, we witnessed another benchmark that we have not seen since the last financial crisis.
I watch a high yield bond ETF known as JNK very closely. On Monday, JNK broke below 35 for the first time since the financial crisis of 2008. Just like 40 dollar oil, this is a key psychological barrier.
So why is this important?
As I discussed last week, junk bonds crashed before stocks did in 2008, and now it is happening again. If form holds true, we should expect U.S. stocks to start tumbling significantly very shortly.
Meanwhile, another notable expert has come forward with a troubling forecast for the global economy in 2016. Just like Citigroup, Raoul Pal believes that there is a very significant chance that we will see a recession next year…
Instead of fixing our problems after the last crisis, we just papered them over with lots of money printing and lots more debt. And of course all of this manipulation just made our long-term problems even worse. I really like how Peter Schiff put it recently…
We’re spending more money, but it’s not because we’re generating more wealth. We’re generating more debt. We’re using that borrowed money to consume and so temporarily it feels that we’re wealthier because we get to spend all that money… but we have to come to terms with paying the bill.
The bills are going to come due. Right now interest rates are being kept at zero which makes it possible to service the debt even though it’s impossible to repay it… at least we can service it. But once interest rates go up then we can’t even service it let alone repay it.
And then the party is going to come to an end.
Indeed – the party is coming to an end, and a new financial crisis is playing out in textbook fashion right in front of our eyes.
Hopefully you are already prepared for what is coming next, because it is going to be extremely painful for the U.S. economy.
After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. – John 19:28
Here we have our Lord’s fifth word on the cross. It was just before the end. All things belonging to His work as Redeemer
were now finished. He had suffered from thirst all the terrible six hours that He hung on the cross, but He restrained His
anguish until His task was done. Now He gave expression to His desire for drink, the only word on the cross that referred
to His physical sufferings.
Some one reached up to Him on a stem of hyssop a sponge which had been moistened in the sour vinegar that stood
there. It was an act of kindness and pity, and was the only mark of human tenderness shown to Jesus in those hours. We
cannot but be thankful for this slight ministry which must have given momentary relief to the holy Sufferer.
Earlier in the day, at the moment of crucifixion, He was offered drink which He refused. That was a stupefying potion, a deadening
wine mingled with myrrh or wormwood. It was offered with the intention of dulling His senses, that He might not be conscious of His
sore suffering. He refused it because He wised to preserve the clearness of His mind in the hours when He was making atonement
for the world. This potion, offered now by the soldier, was not medicated wine, and was not stupefying in its effects.
He needed refreshment to strengthen Him for the great final act — the giving of His soul up to God.
All the experiences of Jesus Christ which reveal human need and suffering bring Him very near to us. Since He suffered hunger
and thirst, and pain and weariness and sorrow, He is able to sympathize with us in all our human experiences. He knows what
we feel, for He has not forgotten even in heaven what He Himself endured in His incarnation.
Sorry...it seems sometimes on my ipad I can't get this posted right. I hope this works now.. Enjoy!
After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the
scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. – John 19:28
Here we have our Lord’s fifth word on the cross. It was just before the
end. All things belonging to His work as Redeemer were now finished. He
had suffered from thirst all the terrible six hours that He hung on the
cross, but He restrained His anguish until His task was done.
Now He gave expression to His desire for drink, the only word on the cross
that referred to His physical sufferings.
Some one reached up to Him on a stem of hyssop a sponge which had been
moistened in the sour vinegar that stood there. It was an act of kindness
and pity, and was the only mark of human tenderness shown to Jesus in those
hours. We cannot but be thankful for this slight ministry which must have
given momentary relief to the holy Sufferer.
Earlier in the day, at the moment of crucifixion, He was offered drink which
He refused. That was a stupefying potion, a deadening wine mingled with myrrh
or wormwood. It was offered with the intention of dulling His senses, that He
might not be conscious of His sore suffering.He refused it because He wised
to preserve the clearness of His mind in the hours when He was making atonement
for the world. This potion, offered now by the soldier, was not medicated wine,
and was not stupefying in its effects. He needed refreshment to strengthen Him
for the great final act — the giving of His soul up to God.
All the experiences of Jesus Christ which reveal human need and suffering bring
Him very near to us. Since He suffered hunger and thirst, and pain and weariness and sorrow,
He is able to sympathize with us in all our human experiences. He
knows what we feel, for He has not forgotten even in heaven what He Himself
endured in His incarnation.
Post a Comment