Search the Community

It's happened before, It will happen again. When Government becomes so powerful and so big that you can be charged and arrested just because you don't think like someone else, then government has become oppressive. What is most surprising is that this has happened before. Ever wonder why you don't see cigarette adds on TV? Hitler would be proud of these little elitist. Oh, and just for the record, this is gonna happen. Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptic The science on global warming is settled, so settled that 20 climate scientists are asking President Barack Obama to prosecute people who disagree with them on the science behind man-made global warming. Scientists from several universities and research centers even asked Obama to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to prosecute groups that “have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.” RICO was a law designed to take down organized crime syndicates, but scientists now want it to be used against scientists, activists and organizations that voice their disagreement with the so-called “consensus” on global warming. The scientists repeated claims made by environmentalists that groups, especially those with ties to fossil fuels, have engaged in a misinformation campaign to confuse the public on global warming. “The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peer-reviewed academic research and in recent books,” the scientists wrot But these riled up academics aren’t the first to suggest using RICO to go after global warming skeptics. The idea was first put forward by Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who argued using RICO was effective at taking down the tobacco industry. “In 1999, the Justice Department filed a civil RICO lawsuit against the major tobacco companies… alleging that the companies ‘engaged in and executed — and continue to engage in and execute — a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public, including consumers of cigarettes, in violation of RICO,’” Whitehouse wrote in the Washington Post in May. “We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation,” the scientists wrote to Obama. “The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry. A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking.” “If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done,” the scientists added. This year has been a trying one for global warming skeptics. Earlier this year, Democratic lawmakers began an investigation into scientists who disagreed with the White House’s stance on global warming. Many of these skeptical scientists were often cited by those critical of regulations to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Arizona Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva went after universities employing these researchers, which resulted in one expert being forced to get out of the field of climate research altogether. “I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic and I have ring-fenced my slowly diminishing blogging on the subject,” Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado wrote on his blog. “Congressman Grijalva doesn’t have any evidence of any wrongdoing on my part, either ethical or legal, because there is none,” Pielke wrote. “He simply disagrees with the substance of my testimony – which is based on peer-reviewed research funded by the US taxpayer, and which also happens to be the consensus of the IPCC (despite Holdren’s incorrect views).”

Mathew 24:7 Kingdom against Kingdom. More bible in the news folks. Russia Moves Its First Tactical Fighter Jets to Base in Syria Move raises U.S. concerns Moscow will play direct role in helping Bashar al-Assad By DION NISSENBAUM in Washington and NATHAN HODGE in Moscow Updated Sept. 18, 2015 6:34 p.m. ET775 COMMENTS Russia has moved jet fighters to a base in Syria for the first time, U.S. defense officials said Friday, a major military escalation that heightens fears Moscow is set to play a more direct role in propping up Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The deployment of a small number of tactical jets came just hours before U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter spoke to his Russian counterpart about Moscow’s deepening role in Syria, a call that ended a long pause in high-level military communication between the U.S. and Russia. U.S. defense officials said the nearly hour long conversation was designed in part to help avert a confrontation in Syria between the U.S. and Russia, which have long been on opposite sides of the 4½-year-old civil war. Russia’s decision to send in jets, however, is the clearest indication Moscow is preparing to use military might to help Mr. Assad as he clings to power. U.S. policy in Syria, which has for years sought to avoid getting drawn into the protracted and bloody conflict, is at a turning point, prompted by the flood of refugees into Europe and the surprising Russian escalation. In addition, the Obama administration is considering whether to scrap its troubled plan to arm moderate Syrians to battle the extremists of Islamic State, which controls much of Syria. The direct involvement of Russian forces in the Syrian civil war on behalf of Mr. Assad would mark a new twist that could put American pilots, who regularly fly surveillance flights and airstrike missions, in substantially greater danger. Russian officials have sought to play down the buildup at the coastal Syrian airfield as routine military support for Syria that should not be alarming to the U.S. and its allies, however. During their call, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoygu told the Pentagon chief that Russia’s military buildup in Syria is “defensive in nature” and “designed to honor commitments made to the Syrian government,” according to a senior U.S. defense official. Even though Russian support would be aimed also at subduing Islamic State, it runs counter to current U.S. policy, which calls for Mr. Assad’s ouster. And it opens up the possibility that Russian jets could attack U.S.-backed Syrian forces battling Mr. Assad. Defense officials said over the past two weeks Russia has stepped up development of an airfield near the port city of Latakia by sending in housing for up to 2,000 people, attack and transport helicopters, artillery, tanks and armored personnel carriers. The jets, believed to be Sukhoi Su-27s, which are designed for air-to-air combat, could be used to challenge U.S. planes flying over Syria or to help Syrian forces defending the Assad regime. Last year, to protest Russia’s intervention in Ukraine, the Pentagon suspended military cooperation with Moscow, a move that cut off bilateral talks, joint exercises and planning sessions. The Obama administration decided in recent days the time was right to resume high-level military ties, despite the implication that Russia was being forgiven. “It will help to define some of the different options that are available to us as we consider next steps in Syria,” Secretary of State John Kerry said in London. “Clearly, if you’re going to have a political settlement, which we’ve always argued is the best and only way to resolve Syria, you need to have conversations with people and you need to find a common ground.” MORON this is how wars start Friday’s call between Mr. Carter and Mr. Shoygu marked the first time the two officials have spoken, and it gave the U.S. a chance to press Moscow on its intentions in Syria, which remain opaque to Washington. U.S. defense officials wouldn’t say whether or not Mr. Carter was informed of the jet fighters’ arrival in Syria before his call with Mr. Shoygu. White House press secretary Josh Earnest sought to play down potential military cooperation with Russia as limited, saying it would only be on “a practical, tactical level” in Syria, designed to avoid any inadvertent conflict between U.S. and Russian forces. “That’s obviously different than the kind of military-to-military cooperation between our two countries that was in place prior to Russia’s inappropriate and unjust interference in eastern Ukraine,” Mr. Earnest said. The U.S. has said it would welcome Russian airstrikes against Islamic State militants, but not if they were in support of Mr. Assad. It seems unlikely that Russia would join the U.S.-led coalition carrying out attacks on Islamic State forces, which means the U.S. could be forced to coordinate with Russia if both countries are flying missions over Syria. In Iraq, Iran has carried out a limited number of airstrikes, but they have not created a serious risk of confrontation with U.S. planes. Russia, one of Mr. Assad’s most important allies, stepped up its military role in Syria after Mr. Assad admitted in July that his forces had lost control of more than half of the country to militants. Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov, a spokesman for Russia’s ministry of defense, confirmed the conversation between Messrs. Carter and Shoygu. “In the course of an hour-long discussion, the two held a detailed discussion on both the situation in the Middle East in general, and in Syria in Iraq in particular,” Gen. Konashenkov said. “The ministers confirmed the re-establishment of direct military-to-military contacts between both countries and agreed to continue consultations.” The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that John Tefft, the U.S. ambassador to Russia, had also met Friday with Mikhail Bogdanov, a deputy Russian foreign minister, to discuss the Syria crisis. The news that the U.S. and Russian militaries were ready to engage on the Syria issue follows a series of phone calls between Mr. Kerry and his counterpart, Foreign MinisterSergei Lavrov. “We are also ready to engage in discussion” about military-to-military contact over Syria, said Maria Zakharova, the spokeswoman for Russia’s foreign ministry. “Lavrov proposed it many times to Kerry.”

Exclusive: The Pentagon Is Preparing New War Plans for a Baltic Battle Against Russia But the really troubling thing is that in the war games being played, the United States keeps losing. FOr the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. Department of Defense is reviewing and updating its contingency plans for armed conflict with Russia. The Pentagon generates contingency plans continuously, planning for every possible scenario — anything from armed confrontation with North Korea tozombie attacks. But those plans are also ranked and worked on according to priority and probability. After 1991, military plans to deal with Russian aggression fell off the Pentagon’s radar. They sat on the shelf, gathering dust as Russia became increasingly integrated into the West and came to be seen as a potential partner on a range of issues. Now, according to several current and former officials in the State and Defense departments, the Pentagon is dusting off those plans and re-evaluating them, updating them to reflect a new, post-Crimea-annexation geopolitical reality in which Russia is no longer a potential partner, but a potential threat. “Given the security environment, given the actions of Russia, it has become apparent that we need to make sure to update the plans that we have in response to any potential aggression against any NATO allies,” says one senior defense official familiar with the updated plans. “Russia’s invasion of eastern Ukraine made the U.S. dust off its contingency plans,” says Michèle Flournoy, a former undersecretary of defense for policy and co-founder of the Center for a New American Security. “They were pretty out of date.” Designing a counteroffensive The new plans, according to the senior defense official, have two tracks. One focuses on what the United States can do as part of NATO if Russia attacks one of NATO’s member states; the other variant considers American action outside the NATO umbrella. Both versions of the updated contingency plans focus on Russian incursions into the Baltics, a scenario seen as the most likely front for new Russian aggression. They are also increasingly focusing not on traditional warfare, but on the hybrid tactics Russia used in Crimea and eastern Ukraine: “little green men,” manufactured protests, and cyberwarfare. “They are trying to figure out in what circumstances [the U.S. Defense Department] would respond to a cyberattack,” says Julie Smith, who until recently served as the vice president’s deputy national security advisor. “There’s a lively debate on that going on right now.” This is a significant departure from post-Cold War U.S. defense policy. After the Soviet Union imploded, Russia, its main heir, became increasingly integrated into NATO, which had originally been created to counter the Soviet Union’s ambitions in Europe. In 1994, Moscow signed onto NATO’s Partnership for Peace program. Three years later, in May 1997, Russia and NATO signed a more detailed agreement on mutual cooperation, declaring that they were no longer adversaries. Since then, as NATO absorbed more and more Warsaw Pact countries, it also stepped up its cooperation with Russia: joint military exercises, regular consultations, and even the opening of a NATO transit point in Ulyanovsk, Russia, for materiel heading to the fight in Afghanistan. Even if the Kremlin was increasingly miffed at NATO expansion, from the West things looked fairly rosy. After Russia’s 2008 war with neighboring Georgia, NATO slightly modified its plans vis-à-vis Russia, according to Smith, but the Pentagon did not. In preparing the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, the Pentagon’s office for force planning — that is, long-term resource allocation based on the United States’ defense priorities — proposed to then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to include a scenario that would counter an aggressive Russia. Gates ruled it out. “Everyone’s judgment at the time was that Russia is pursuing objectives aligned with ours,” says David Ochmanek, who, as deputy assistant secretary of defense for force development, ran that office at the time. “Russia’s future looked to be increasingly integrated with the West.” Smith, who worked on European and NATO policy at the Pentagon at the time, told me, “If you asked the military five years ago, ‘Give us a flavor of what you’re thinking about,’ they would’ve said, ‘Terrorism, terrorism, terrorism — and China.’” Warming to Moscow The thinking around Washington was that Mikheil Saakashvili, then Georgia’s president, had provoked the Russians and that Moscow’s response was a one-off. “The sense was that while there were complications and Russia went into Georgia,” Smith says, “I don’t think anyone anticipated that anything like this would happen again.” Says one senior State Department official: “The assumption was that there was no threat in Europe.” Russia was rarely brought up to the secretary of defense, says the senior defense official. Then came the Obama administration’s reset of relations with Russia, and with it increased cooperation with Moscow on everything from space flights to nuclear disarmament. There were hiccups (like Russia’s trying to elbow the United States out of the Manas base in Kyrgyzstan) and less-than-full cooperation on pressing conflicts in the Middle East (the best the United States got from Russia on Libya was an abstention at the U.N. Security Council). But, on the whole, Russia was neither a danger nor a priority. It was, says one senior foreign-policy Senate staffer, “occasionally a pain in the ass, but not a threat.” Ochmanek, for his part, hadn’t thought about Russia for decades. “As a force planner, I can tell you that the prospect of Russian aggression was not on our radar,” he told me when I met him in his office at the Rand Corp. in Northern Virginia, where he is now a senior defense analyst. “Certainly not since 1991, but even in the last years of Gorbachev.” Back in 1989, Ochmanek thought that Washington should be focusing on the threat of Iraq invading Kuwait, not on the dwindling likelihood of Soviet military aggression. For the last 30 years, Ochmanek has shuttled between Rand, where he has focused on military planning, and the nearby Pentagon, where he has done the same in an official capacity: first in the mid-1990s, when he was the deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy, and then for the first five years of Barack Obama’s administration, when he ran force planning at the Pentagon. It was there that, in February 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin caught Ochmanek and pretty much every Western official off guard by sending little green men into Crimea and eastern Ukraine. “We didn’t plan for it because we didn’t think Russia would change the borders in Europe,” he says. Crimea, he says, was a “surprise.” War games, and losing In June 2014, a month after he had left his force-planning job at the Pentagon, the Air Force asked Ochmanek for advice on Russia’s neighborhood ahead of Obama’s September visit to Tallinn, Estonia. At the same time, the Army had approached another of Ochmanek’s colleagues at Rand, and the two teamed up to run a thought exercise called a “table top,” a sort of war game between two teams: the red team (Russia) and the blue team (NATO). The scenario was similar to the one that played out in Crimea and eastern Ukraine: increasing Russian political pressure on Estonia and Latvia (two NATO countries that share borders with Russia and have sizable Russian-speaking minorities), followed by the appearance of provocateurs, demonstrations, and the seizure of government buildings. “Our question was: Would NATO be able to defend those countries?” Ochmanek recalls. The results were dispiriting. Given the recent reductions in the defense budgets of NATO member countries and American pullback from the region, Ochmanek says the blue team was outnumbered 2-to-1 in terms of manpower, even if all the U.S. and NATO troops stationed in Europe were dispatched to the Baltics — including the 82nd Airborne, which is supposed to be ready to go on 24 hours’ notice and is based at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. “We just don’t have those forces in Europe,” Ochmanek explains. Then there’s the fact that the Russians have the world’s best surface-to-air missiles and are not afraid to use heavy artillery. After eight hours of gaming out various scenarios, the blue team went home depressed. “The conclusion,” Ochmanek says, “was that we are unable to defend the Baltics.” Ochmanek decided to run the game on a second day. The teams played the game again, this time working on the assumption that the United States and NATO had already started making positive changes to their force posture in Europe. Would anything be different? The conclusion was slightly more upbeat, but not by much. “We can defend the capitals, we can present Russia with problems, and we can take away the prospect of a coup de main,” Ochmanek says. “But the dynamic remains the same.” Even without taking into account the recent U.S. defense cuts, due to sequestration, and the Pentagon’s plan to downsize the Army by 40,000 troops, the logistics of distance were still daunting. U.S. battalions would still take anywhere from one to two months to mobilize and make it across the Atlantic, and the Russians, Ochmanek notes, “can do a lot of damage in that time.” Ochmanek has run the two-day table-top exercise eight times now, including at the Pentagon and at Ramstein Air Base, in Germany, with active-duty military officers. “We played it 16 different times with eight different teams,” Ochmanek says, “always with the same conclusion.” The Defense Department has factored the results of the exercise into its planning, says the senior defense official, “to better understand a situation that few of us have thought about in detail for a number of years.” When asked about Ochmanek’s conclusions, the official expressed confidence that, eventually, NATO would claw the territory back. “In the end, I have no doubt that NATO will prevail and that we will restore the territorial integrity of any NATO member,” the official said. “I cannot guarantee that it will be easy or without great risk. My job is to ensure that we can reduce that risk.” Protect the Baltics That is, the Pentagon does not envision a scenario in which Russia doesn’t manage to grab some Baltic territory first. The goal is to deter — Defense Secretary Ashton Carter announced this summer that the United States would be sending dozens of tanks, armored vehicles, and howitzers to the Baltics and Eastern Europe — and, if that fails, to painstakingly regain NATO territory. The Pentagon is also chewing on various hybrid warfare scenarios, and even a nuclear one. “As you look at published Russian doctrine, I do believe people are thinking about use of tactical nuclear weapons in a way that hadn’t been thought about for many years,” says the senior defense official. “The doctrineclearly talks about it, so it would be irresponsible to not at least read that doctrine, understand what it means. Doctrine certainly doesn’t mean that they would do it, but it would be irresponsible to at least not be thinking through those issues. Any time there is nuclear saber rattling, it is always a concern, no matter where it comes from.” There is a strong element of disappointment among senior foreign-policy and security officials in these discussions, of disbelief that we ended up here after all those good years — decades, even — in America’s relations with Russia. “A lot of people at the Pentagon are unhappy about the confrontation,” says the State Department official. “They were very happy with the military-to-military cooperation with Russia.” There are also those, the official said, who feel that Russia is a distraction from the real threat — China — and others who think that working with Russia on arms control is more important than protecting Ukrainian sovereignty. Not only would they rather not have to think about Moscow as an enemy, but many are also miffed that even making these plans plays right into Putin’s paranoid fantasies about a showdown between Russia and NATO or between Russia and the United States — which makes those fantasies, de facto, a reality. In the U.S. planning for confrontation with Russia, says the Senate staffer, Putin “is getting the thing he always wanted.” Yet despite this policy shift, the distinctly American optimism is confoundingly hard to shake. “We would like to be partners with Russia. We think that is the preferred course — that it benefits us, it benefits Russia, and it benefits the rest of the world,” the senior defense official says. “But as the Department of Defense, we’re not paid to look at things through rose-colored glasses and hence must be prepared in case we’re wrong about Russia’s actions and plan for if Russia were to become a direct adversary. Again, I don’t predict that and I certainly don’t want it, but we need to be prepared in case that could happen.” Provocation or preparation? So far, the Pentagon’s plans are just that — plans. But they are also signals: to Russia that the United States is not sitting on its hands, and to Congress that America’s foreign-policy priorities have shifted drastically since the last Quadrennial Defense Review, which was released as the crisis in Ukraine was unfolding and barely mentioned Russia. It is also a signal that the Pentagon feels that sequestration hobbles its ability to deal with the new threat landscape. In his July confirmation hearing to ascend to the chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph Dunford made headlines when he said that Russia posed an “existential threat” to the United States and said that America must do more to prepare itself for hybrid warfare of the type Russia deployed in Ukraine. “It’s clearly a signal to the Hill,” says Smith. “When I come and ask for a permanent presence in Europe or money for a European presence, I don’t want you to say, ‘Gee, this is a surprise. I thought it was all about [the Islamic State].’” Dunford’s statement angered the White House, which saw it as potentially provocative to Moscow, but it was also a signal to everyone else. The commander in chief has the final say on whether to use these new contingency plans, but Obama’s days in office are numbered, and the Pentagon isn’t taking any chances.

Yea, so this line didn't work out to well for Saddam or Qaddafi. I'll bet it doesn't work out to well for this idiot either. WATCH: Khamenei threatens ‘criminal America’ in chilling new video Iranian supreme leader says should war break out, US will be defeated, humiliated Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei released a video published to YouTube this week in which he warned of an American defeat in any war with Iran. The clip — published September 13 to Khamenei’s official YouTube channel — is entitled “If Any War Happens.” It features Khamenei’s voice and is accompanied by English subtitles. The video was viewed almost half a million times by September 18. The clip begins by showing an image of US President Barack Obama sitting down for an interview in which he says that the US will not have a problem “knocking out [iran’s] military with speed and dispatch if we choose to,” after which Khamenei’s voice appears to dismiss such a warning, calling it “boasting among strangers,” according to a translation provided in a report by MEMRI — the Middle East Media Research Institute. The supreme leader then advises the Americans to “use their experiences [in the Middle East] correctly” as images play of suggested American “failures” in the background including photos of the advanced American RQ-170 drone that Iran brought down on its soil in December 2011; a photo of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah against a backdrop of a man flying the Hezbollah flag atop a missile and a mention of the Second Lebanon War in 2006; depictions of US forces being bombed in Afghanistan; and images of US forces carrying a coffin with the text “2003-2011 Iraq war” above it. “We neither welcome nor begin any war. They must know that should any war break out, one who will emerge humiliated out of it will be invading and criminal America,” says Khamenei, according to the English subtitles. In the background of the clip, a crowd says: “We will stand until the end, Khamenei is the leader.” The Iranian leader has issued several threats against the US — and Israel — following the Iranian nuclear deal signed July 14 with world powers, which allows for sanctions relief in exchange for Iran curbing its controversial nuclear program and submitting to inspections. The US is set to start implementing the deal October 18, but it is not yet clear when punitive measures will be lifted, as the International Atomic Energy Agency must first ensure Iranian compliance with the accord. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjmDV8kagV8