Monday, June 20, 2016
As we reported in just the past week, not only has NATO accelerated its encirclement of Russia, with British soldiers deployed in Estonia, US soldiers operating in Latvia and Canadians in Poland, while combat units are being increased in the Mediterranean…
… but even more troubling, was NATO’s assessment that it may now have grounds to attack Russia when it announced that if a NATO member country becomes the victim of a cyber attack by persons in a non-NATO country such as Russia or China, then NATO’s Article V “collective defense” provision requires each NATO member country to join that NATO member country if it decides to strike back against the attacking country.
Specifically, NATO is alleging that because Russian hackers had copied the emails on Hillary Clinton’s home computer, this action of someone in Russia taking advantage of her having privatized her U.S. State Department communications to her unsecured home computer and of such a Russian’s then snooping into the U.S. State Department business that was stored on it,might constitute a Russian attack against the United States of America, and would, if the U.S. President declares it to be a Russian invasion of the U.S., trigger NATO’s mutual-defense clause and so require all NATO nations to join with the U.S. government in going to war against Russia, if the U.S. government so decides.
Also recall that the attack on the DNC servers which leaked the Democrats confidential files on Trump and Hillary donors lists were also blamed on “Russian government hackers”, before it emerged that the act was the result of one solitary non-Russian hacker, but not before the US once again tried to escalate a development which may have culminated with war with Russia!
Throughout all of these escalations, the popular narrative spun by the “democratic” media was a simple one: it was Russia that was provoking NATO, not NATO’s aggressive military actions on the border with Russia that were the cause of soaring geopolitical tension. Ignored in the fictional plot line was also Russia’s clear reaction to NATO provocations that it would “respond totally asymmetrically” an outcome that could in its worst oucome lead to millions of European deaths. Still, no matter the risk of escalation, one which just two weeks ago led to assessment that the “Risk Of Nuclear Dirty Bomb Surges On Poor US-Russia Relations“, NATO had to maintain its provocative attitude .
All NATO had to do was assure that all alliance members would follow the lead, and nobody would stray from the party line.
And then everything imploded when none other than the Foreign Minister of NATO member Germany, Frank-Walter Steinmeier,criticized NATO for having a bellicose policy towards Russia, describing it as “warmongering”, the German daily Bild reported. And just like that, the entire ficitional narrative of “innocent” NATO merely reacting to evil Russian provcations has gone up in flames.
As AFP adds, Steinmeier merely highlighted all those things which rational persons have known about for a long time, namely the deployment of NATO troops near borders with Russia in the military alliance’s Baltic and east European member states. However, since it comes from a NATO member, suddenly one can’t accuse Russian propaganda. In fact, NATO has absolutely no planned response to just this contingency.
“What we should avoid today is inflaming the situation by warmongering and stomping boots,” Steinmeier told Bild in an interview to be published Sunday.
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier
“Anyone who thinks you can increase security in the alliance with symbolic parades of tanks near the eastern borders, is mistaken,” Germany’s top diplomat added.
Needless to say, Russia bitterly opposes NATO’s expansion into its Soviet-era satellites and last month said it would create three new divisions in its southwest region to meet what it described as a dangerous military build-up along its borders. This is precisely what NATO wants as it would be able to then blame Russian effect to NATO cause as an irrational move by the Kremlin, one to which the kind folks at NATO HQ would have no choice but to respond in their caring defense of all those innocent people, when in reality it is NATO that is desperate to provoke and launch the conflict with Russia.
And now even its own members admit it!
In its latest ridiculous escalation, blamed on Russia no less, NATO announced on Monday that it would deploy four battalions to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland to counter a more assertive Russia, ahead of a landmark summit in Warsaw next month. Well, as Steinmeier made it very clear, NATO’s deployment to provoke Russia was precisely that. As a result a Russian “assymmetric” response is assured, and this time it may even spill over into the combat arena, something which would bring infinite delight to Washington’s military-industrial complex neocon puppets.
In an interview with Bild on Thursday, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg said Russia is seeking to create “a zone of influence through military means”. “We are observing massive militarisation at NATO borders — in the Arctic, in the Baltic, from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean Sea,” he told the newspaper.
Credit to Infowars
The US Navy has held talks with "Transhumanist" and presidential candidate Zoltan Istvan, who told Radio Sputnik about the US military's concerns.
Last week it emerged that US naval officers have held discussions with Zoltan Istvan of the Transhumanist political party, who is also running as a candidate for the US presidency.
He advocates fitting human beings with technology, including microchips, to boost brain power or enhance physical attributes.
Istvan himself has a microchip in his hand that he uses to give out business cards, send text messages, or start his car.
He told Radio Sputnik that the US navy wanted to discuss the possibility of implanting humans with chips fitted with global positioning (GPS) technology, and said that in the near future many people will want to be fitted with chips.
"I wouldn't be surprised if within ten years 50 percent of Americans have some type of implant, because at the end of the day an implant can reduce the size of your wallet or whatever you carry in your purse by about 30 or 40 percent," Istvan said.
"The US Navy is interested in implants of course because they want to know where their soldiers are in the field, and it's not always useful to have a tracking device strapped onto the wrist or to their clothing."
The technology would enable a tracking device to continue working even if a soldier was wounded or captured by the enemy, Istvan said. He explained that the navy is also motivated by security concerns, which also raise legal questions.
"But there are some security concerns for the navy. We have civilians going into the military, and chipping yourself is something that has become more common – for example, I have a chip in my hand."
"Do you allow somebody who has just signed up to the service with a chip in them, onto a nuclear base, or should there be some protocol or policy regarding that?"
The legality of biological chips is a gray area, and they are currently bought on the black market from companies over the internet, without any regulation.
"You inject these chips in yourself, it's just a 30- or 60-second procedure, the chips are so small they go in through a needle, they're literally the size of a grain of rice so right now that's one of the things I'm trying to do, is get the US government and official institutions like the Navy to start discussing it and creating policies around it."
Credit to Sputniknews
"I Don't Need A War In The Black Sea" ...Another NATO Member Folds As Bulgaria Refuses To Join Naval Task Force
Days after it was revealed that the US had dispatched the destroyer USS Porter to the Black Sea, in what the US Navy said was "a series of drills with allies and forces of partner nations in what the United States called a routine deployment", Russia responded that Moscow would respond with "unspecified measures", adding that this and other US deployments were designed to ratchet up tensions ahead of a NATO summit.
The guided-missile destroyer, USS Porter
Russian state media reported that the USS Porter, a U.S. naval destroyer, entered the Black Sea a few days ago on a routine deployment, a move it said raised hackles in Moscow because it had recently been fitted with a new missile system. This deployment was in addition to the two aircraft carriers already on location in the Mediterranean as the US is seemingly eager to dramatically escalate tensions with Russia, this time over sea.
"Of course, this does not meet with our approval and will undoubtedly lead to response measures," RIA cited Andrei Kelin, a senior Foreign Ministry official, as saying about the USS Porter's movements. He also said the deployment of U.S. aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean was a show of force which in his view deepened a chill in ties between Moscow and Washington caused by Russia's actions in Ukraine and Syria."
So how did the US respond? Reuters reports that the United States "decided it would maintain its presence in the Black Sea despite a Russian warning that a U.S. destroyer patrolling there undermined regional security, the U.S. Navy Secretary said."
The USS Porter entered the Black Sea this month, drawing heavy criticism from Moscow. Turkey and Romania are expected to push for a bigger NATO presence in the Black Sea at the NATO summit in Warsaw next month. Aboard the USS Mason, another U.S. destroyer, in the Mediterranean on Thursday, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus told Reuters that it was the U.S. Navy's job to deter aggression and keep sea lanes open.
"We're going to be there," Mabus said of the Black Sea. "We're going to deter. That's the main reason we're there -- to deter potential aggression." Mabus spoke days after Russia criticized NATO discussions about a creating a permanent force in the Black Sea. The NATO summit is set to tale place as relations between Russia and the alliance are severely strained over Moscow's role in the Ukraine crisis and in Syria. While Russia says it poses no threat to alliance, NATO is considering what to do to counter what it sees as growing Russian aggression.
Ironically, this takes place just as the Steinmer, the foreign minister of core NATO member Germany, accused the very NATO of which Germany is part, of "warmongering" toward Russia.
Russian anger, meanwhile, grew following the report of a possible permanent Black Sea naval force: "If a decision is made to create a permanent force, of course, it would be destabilizing, because this is not a NATO sea," Russian news agencies quoted senior Foreign Ministry official Andrei Kelin as saying.
The US shot back when Navy Secretary Mabus said the United States follows the rules of the Montreux Convention, which states that countries without a Black Sea coastline cannot keep their warships there for more than 21 days. NATO members Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria are all Black Sea Basin countries.
However, for all the escalating rhetoric, a major schism appears to be taking place below the placid surface.
Following Germany's scandalous statement accusing NATO of "warmongering" toward Russia and revealing how deep the European fissures within NATO truly are, Reuters added that NATO-member, and Black Sea coast country Bulgaria "appeared to buckle to Russian pressure on Thursday" when its Prime Minister Boiko Borisov said he would not join a proposed NATO fleet in the Black Sea "because it should be a place for holidays and tourists, not war."
“I always say that I want the Black Sea to see sailboats, yachts, large boats with tourists and not become an arena of military action ... I do not need a war in the Black Sea,” Reuters cited Bulgaria's Prime Minister as saying at a media briefing. “To send warships as a fleet against Russian ships exceeds the limit of what I can allow,” Borisov told reporters in Sofia on Thursday, as cited by Bloomberg. “To deploy destroyers, aircraft carriers near [the resort cities of] Bourgas or Varna during the tourist season is unacceptable.”
Bulgaria's president Rosen Plevenliev chimed in, asking to “stop with the speculations that fleets will be set up against anyone,” adding that “Bulgaria is a peaceful country and its foreign policy is not aimed at anyone."
Bulgaria's neighbor to the north also opined, when its President Klaus Iohannis, who visited Bulgaria on June 15-16, and discussed the initiative with both Borisov and Plevneliev, said the initiative’s sole purpose is “practical cooperation in joint exercise.” Iohannis called the news about NATO fleet in the Black Sea a “misconception.”
“Nobody wants to create NATO fleet. That’s nonsense. NATO has neither the resources nor the desire to maintain a Black Sea fleet,” Iohannis said as cited by TASS.
Bulgaria and Romania may be surprised: if recent NATO determination to bring the conflict into Russia's back yard, the two nations may be forced to choose if they wish to maintain their NATO membership as it puts them clearly in harm's way as a Russian retaliation would impact the two Black Sea nations first.
And then there is the Turkey "wildcard" - in May, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that NATO is paying insufficient attention to the Black Sea region. “The Black Sea has almost become a Russian lake,’” Erdogan said at a meeting of heads of general staff of Balkan nations in Istanbul.
Needless to say, relations between Turkey and Russia in recent months have been anything but good, and which brings us to the final point: as Turkey's Yeni Safak newspaper reported yesterday, Erdogan "stressed the significance of the defense industry, saying that Turkey will soon start producing an aircraft carrier after an Anatolian ship." Erdo?an's remarks were made in his speech at a launching ceremony of the Istanbul Naval Shipyard. "There isn't any obstacle to producing our own aircraft carrier. It is possible with this determined government and state," said Erdogan.
Because the only thing the rapidly escalating war of words (and perhaps more in the near future) between NATO and Russia needs is a Turkey aircraft carrier operating in the Black Sea.
Credit to Zero Hedge
Sadly, it’s no joke.
In the wake of the Orlando ISIS bloodbath, the rational world now gazes through the looking glass, jaws agape, into the up-is-down, male-is-female, Muslim-is-Christian alternate universe in which resides America’s caterwauling left.
An Islamic terrorist (a closeted homosexual, according to friends and ex-wife), registered Democrat and admitted Islamic State jihadi enters a “gay” bar wherein, reportedly, he regularly cruised for random homosexual hook-ups, and slaughters 49 “infidels.”
Naturally, secular “progressives,” to include the New York Times editorial board, have, rather than addressing the Allahu Akbar-yelping camel in the tent, twisted themselves into tiny little knots of self-righteous indignation to somehow blame American Christians, Republicans and the NRA. (I address this surreal phenomenon exhaustively in in my new book, “Hating Jesus: The American Left’s War on Christianity.”
Ban guns? No thank you, comrade. There are as many guns in America as people – over 300 million. While we’re at it lets ban beer steins and put an end to drunk driving. Christians to blame? Such farcical pablum tells us more about the liberals who believe it than it does a single Christian. (As if they really do believe it. Nobody’s that stupid. This is Alinskyite propaganda with a purpose.)
One thing and one thing alone is responsible for the deaths of 49 club-going revelers – precious souls, each – last Sunday in Orlando. It is the global menace of Islam: a despotic socio-political system based on the incoherent and pseudo-religious ravings of a warring tyrant who, as even the Quran concedes, was a murderous anti-Semite and anti-Christian misogynist and pedophile, hell-bent on world domination (Islamic caliphate).
In reality, Christ and his followers deeply love the LGBT-identified community enough to tell them the truth about a sin-centric lifestyle that leads to emotional, spiritual and, with rampant AIDS, syphilis and other STDs increasingly endemic to the lifestyle, even physical death. We pray that each and every person who identifies as “LGBT” might come to repentance and salvation through Christ Jesus, who is the only Way to eternal Life.
By contrast, Allah the deceiver and his followers kill homosexuals, not out of hate, though it is hateful, but out of “compassion.” They actually believe they’re being compassionate by killing “gays” because the Quran and the imam’s tell them so. (Mateen most likely targeted his fellow “gays” in an attempt to garner absolution from Allah for sodomy).
Indeed, even after Sunday’s horror, the dhimmi left nonetheless defiantly, and obtusely, refuses to acknowledge the scourge of orthodox Islam. They prefer, for both political and spiritual reasons, to vilify Christian “homophobes,” Republicans and the NRA.
Even so, beyond the Orlando slaughter, homosexuals continue to be, at this moment, “lawfully” executed in Saudi Arabia, Obama’s coddled Iran and dozens of other Muslim nations across the globe. We’re all victims of Islam, you see. Muslim nations summarily hang, stone and behead both Christians and homosexuals. We’re all persecuted – sinners and saints (one and the same) – and will only become more so as incompetent (dare I say seditious?) Western leaders like Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton aimlessly tilt at windmills.
Islamic Shariah law requires the persecution of all non-Muslims. Curiously, it’s the same cowardly leftists disingenuously accusing Christians of “anti-gay hate” stateside who remain silent while homosexuals are, in point of fact, regularly executed by Muslims both abroad and, as of Orlando, right here at home.
This is due to the fact that orthodox Christians, who are spiritually imbued with the love of Christ, are perceived as soft targets by both progressives and Muslims, while orthodox Muslims, who are spiritually imbued with the hate of Muhammad, are not.
In other words, bullies steer clear from picking fights with bigger bullies.
But it’s also because Christ is Truth. Truth is the enemy of “progressivism,” just as Truth is the enemy of Islam. They each derive from the same antichrist spirit. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
Yet somehow orthodox Muslims missed the “Hey-we’re-on-the-same-side-here!” memo. While, as we’ve seen yet again, politically correct progressives will trip over themselves to avoid criticizing Islam and, with perplexing incongruity, even promote it, adherents to “the religion of peace” will gleefully murder the poor lemmings while they do so.
Muhammad taught, and the Quran stresses, that a central tenet of Islam is to convert, enslave or kill the infidel. An infidel is anyone who is not Muslim or, depending on who’s doing the killing, belongs to a different sect of Islam. Those who fall into that elusive, perpetually mute category tagged “moderate Muslim” are also infidels or “idolaters.” They’re bad Muslims, and, so, according to the Quran, not Muslims at all. “When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them,” commands Surah 9:5. “Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.” Faithful Muslims, true followers of Muhammad, “slay the idolaters wherever [they] find them” (see ISIS, Hamas, Omar Mateen, et al.).
It’s what faithful Muslims do.
On the other hand, Jesus taught His followers, who are called Christians, to “do to others what you would have them do to you” (see Luke 6:31); that, “You shall not murder” (see Matthew 19:18); and that we are to “love [our] enemies and pray for those who persecute [us]” (see Matthew 5:44). It goes without saying that those who do not follow these teachings are not Christ followers.
Indeed, while many may claim to be “Christian,” the word only applies to those who are justified in Christ, spiritually reborn and regenerated through the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit. The true Christian walks in Christ’s steps through faith and obedience.
Terrorism and the hatred of persons are in direct disobedience to Christ.
Yet they are in direct obedience to Muhammad.
Whereas “Muslim extremists,” that is, faithful Muslims, kill people extremely, “Christian extremists,” that is, faithful Christians, love people, including their enemies, extremely.
As I’ve said before, Islam is Christianity’s photo-negative. While Christianity brings eternal life to those choosing to surrender to Jesus, who alone is “the Way, the Truth and the Life,” Islam brings eternal death to those who surrender to Allah, who is “the best of deceivers” (“[A]nd Allah was deceptive, for Allah is the best of deceivers.” [see Surah 3:54]).
And so, to those in the “LGBT”-identified community, Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton, the New York Times and other progressives who have smeared, and continue to smear, Christian Americans in the blood of 49 souls who died at the hands of ISIS in Orlando, know this: We don’t hate you. We grieve with you and are praying for you in this shared time of national tragedy.
We also love you.
And we forgive you.
Because you know not what you do.
Credit to WND
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/a-gay-muslim-democrat-walks-into-a-bar/#Lzvc5ybfAWQOzgK2.99
by Eric Zuesse
On Tuesday, June 14th, NATO announced that if a NATO member country becomes the victim of a cyber attack by persons in a non-NATO country such as Russia or China, then NATO’s Article V “collective defense” provision requires each NATO member country to join that NATO member country if it decides to strike back against the attacking country.
The preliminary decision for this was made two years ago after Crimea abandoned Ukraine and rejoined Russia, of which it had been a part until involuntarily transferred to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev in 1954. That NATO decision was made in anticipation of Ukraine’s ultimately becoming a NATO member country, which still hasn’t happened. However, only now is NATO declaring cyber war itself to be included as real “war” under the NATO Treaty’s “collective defense” provision.
NATO is now alleging that because Russian hackers had copied the emails on Hillary Clinton’s home computer, this action of someone in Russia taking advantage of her having privatized her U.S. State Department communications to her unsecured home computer and of such a Russian’s then snooping into the U.S. State Department business that was stored on it, might constitute a Russian attack against the United States of America, and would, if the U.S. President declares it to be a Russian invasion of the U.S., trigger NATO’s mutual-defense clause and so require all NATO nations to join with the U.S. government in going to war against Russia, if the U.S. government so decides.
NATO had produced in 2013 (prior to the take-over of Ukraine) an informational propaganda video alleging that “cyberattacks” by people in Russia or in China that can compromise U.S. national security, could spark an invasion by NATO, if the U.S. President decides that the cyberattack was a hostile act by the Russian or Chinese government. In the video, a British national-security expert notes that this would be an “eminently political decison” for the U.S. President to make, which can be made only by the U.S. President, and which only that person possesses the legal authority to make. NATO, by producing this video, made clear that any NATO-member nation’s leader who can claim that his or her nation has been ‘attacked’ by Russia, possesses the power to initiate a NATO war against Russia. In the current instance, it would be U.S. President Barack Obama. However, this video also said that NATO could not automatically accept such a head-of-state’s allegation calling the cyber-attack an invasion, but instead the country that’s being alleged to have perpetrated the attack would have to have claimed, or else been proven, to have carried it out. With the new NATO policy, which was announced on June 14th, in which a cyber-attack qualifies automatically as constituting “war” just like any traditional attack, such a claim or proof of the target-nation’s guilt might no longer be necessary. But this has been left vague in the published news reports about it.
In the context of the June 14th NATO announcement that cyberwar is on the same status as physical war, Obama might declare the U.S. to have been invaded by Russia when former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails were copied by someone in Russia.
It’s a hot issue now between Russia and the United States, and so, for example, on the same day, June 14th, Reuters headlined “Moscow denies Russian involvement in U.S. DNC hacking”, and reported that, “Russia on Tuesday denied involvement in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee database that U.S. sources said gained access to all opposition research on Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.”
In previous times, espionage was treated as being part of warfare, and, after revelations became public that the U.S. was listening in on the phone conversations of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, espionage has become recognized as being simply a part of routine diplomacy (at least for the United States); but, now, under the new NATO policy, it might be treated as being equivalent to a physical invasion by an enemy nation.
At the upcoming July 8th-9th NATO Summit meeting, which will be happening in the context of NATO’s biggest-ever military exercises on and near the borders of Russia, called “Atlantic Resolve”, prospective NATO plans to invade Russia might be discussed in order to arrive at a consensus plan for the entire alliance. However, even if that happens, it wouldn’t be made public, because war-plans never are.
The origin of this stand-off between the U.S. and Russia goes back to promises that the West had made in 1990 to the last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, not to expand NATO up to the borders of Russia, and the West’s subsequent violations of those repeatedly made promises. Gorbachev disbanded the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact, on the basis of those false assurances from Western leaders. Thus, Russia is surrounded now by enemies, including former Warsaw Pact nations and even some former regions of the Soviet Union itself, such as Ukraine and the Baltic republics, which now host NATO forces. NATO is interpreting Russia’s acceptance of the Crimeans’ desire to abandon Ukraine and rejoin Russia following the 2014 Ukrainian coup, as constituting a showing of an intent by Russia to invade NATO nations that had formerly been part of the Soviet Union and of the Warsaw Pact, such as Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia; and this is the alleged reason for America’s Operation Atlantic Resolve, and the steep increase in U.S. troops and weapons in those nations that border on Russia.
Credit to thedailysheeple.com