First Food Then Energy Prices Are About To Skyrocket.

Kiev shellings ruin & devastate E. Ukraine towns

U.S. Treasury eager to Raise Cash before Economic Collapse

Russian Bombers Conduct More Than 16 Incursions of U.S. Air Defense Zones

‘Spike’ in Bear H flights over past week seen as test of U.S. air defenses



Russia's Air Force strategic bombers, Tu-95, fly over Red Square / AP

Russian strategic nuclear bombers conducted at least 16 incursions into northwestern U.S. air defense identification zones over the past 10 days, an unusually sharp increase in aerial penetrations, according to U.S. defense officials.

The numerous flight encounters by Tu-95 Russian Bear H bombers prompted the scrambling of U.S. jet fighters on several occasions, and come amid heightened U.S.-Russia tensions over Ukraine.

Also, during one bomber incursion near Alaska, a Russian intelligence-gathering jet was detected along with the bombers.

“Over the past week, NORAD has visually identified Russian aircraft operating in and around the U.S. air defense identification zones,” said Maj. Beth Smith, spokeswoman for U.S. Northern Command and the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).

Smith called the Russian flights “a spike in activity” but sought to play down the threat, stating the flights were assessed as routine training missions and exercises.

The bomber flights took place mainly along the Alaskan air defense identification zone that covers the Aleutian Islands and the continental part of the state, and one incursion involved entry into Canada’s air defense zone, Smith said.

The Russian strategic aircraft included a mix of Tu-95 Bear H heavy bombers and Tu-142 Bear F maritime reconnaissance aircraft, she said, adding that one IL-20 intelligence collection aircraft was detected during the flight incursions over the past week to 10 days.

The bomber flights are the latest case of nuclear saber rattling by the Russians.

However, other defense officials said the large number of aerial incursions is very unusual and harkens back to the Cold War, when Soviet bombers frequently sought to trigger air defenses along the periphery of U.S. territory as preparation for a nuclear conflict.

Moscow, under strongman President Vladimir Putin, is engaged in a major buildup of its strategic nuclear forces. The modernization includes new missiles of several ranges, new strategic missile submarines, and new long-range bombers.

As for its long-range aviation flights near U.S. coasts, Russia has been sharply increasing the activities, especially in the Pacific Northwest near Alaska, Canada, and the West Coast.

The Washington Free Beacon first reported that two Bear bombers flew within 50 miles of the California coast on June 9—the closest the Russians have flown their nuclear-capable bombers since the days of the Cold War. A U.S. F-15 intercepted the bombers.

A defense official disagreed with the spokeswoman on the increased bomber forays. Russian strategic nuclear forces appear to be “trying to test our air defense reactions, or our command and control systems,” said an official familiar with reports of the incursions.

“These are not just training missions,” the official added.

Northern Command and NORAD in the past frequently sought to dismiss the Russian bomber incursions as non-threatening as part of the Obama administration’s conciliatory “reset” policy of seeking closer ties with Moscow.

The Pentagon and other commands, however, have toughened rhetoric toward Russia and its activities after the Russian military annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea in June.

Relations between Washington and Moscow have soured. The State Department last month accused Moscow of violating the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty by developing a new cruise missile.

Moscow dismissed the charges as untrue.

Adm. Cecil Haney, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, expressed concerns about the increase in Russian strategic nuclear activities during a speech in Washington June 18.

Haney said Russian nuclear activities coincided with recent tensions over Ukraine and included the test launch of six air-launched cruise missiles in a show of force.

A Russian Defense Ministry statement on the cruise missile test launches said a Tu-95 bomber “is capable of destroying the critical stationary assets of an enemy with cruise missiles, in daytime and nighttime, in any weather and in any part of the globe.”

Moscow also conducted several large-scale nuclear war games in May, Haney said.

“Additionally, we have seen significant Russian strategic aircraft deployments in the vicinity of places like Japan, Korea, and even our West Coast,” Haney said at a defense industry breakfast.

“Russia continues to modernize its strategic capabilities across all legs of its triad, and open source [reporting] has recently cited the sea trials of its latest [missile submarine], testing of its newest air-launched cruise missile and modernization of its intercontinental ballistic force to include its mobile capability in that area,” he said.

Russia’s recent Cold War-level aerial encounters over the Pacific near Alaska followed an earlier U.S.-Russian aerial duel in Europe.

U.S. officials confirmed that an RC-135 Rivet Joint electronic intelligence gathering aircraft was forced into violating Swedish airspace by a Russian fighter jet July 18. The U.S. jet was seeking to evade the Russian interceptor jet at the time.

That encounter took place a day after Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 was shot down by a missile over eastern Ukraine.

Credit to freebeacon.com

It Begins: Canada To Send Military Equipment To Ukraine

And so it begins.

Moments ago Bloomberg reported, citing Defense minister Rob Nicholson speaking in Trenton, Ontario, that Canada, a NATO member, will send military equipment to Ukraine. Ukraine will in turn supposedly use supplies to protect eastern border Nicholson speaking to reporters, although perhaps one should ask ISIS where US military equipment that was meant for Al-Qaeda, pardon, Syrian rebels to dethrone Assad ended up...



To be sure this expansion is purely symbolic however the first formal entrance of a NATO member into the Ukraine conflict will assure it only escalates from here.

What happens next is anyone's guess, however with this formal expansion of the "regional" proxy war to include western powers, thereby making the new Cold War quite warm, Putin will certainly take an appropriate response seeing what was until now a confined civil war involving "only" Ukraine participants, if only on paper, expand into global. Keep in mind that while Putin may well have been supporting the east Ukraine rebels, there was never any formal admission of this. Now that brand new NATO forces will be effectively on the Russian borders, the Kremlin may have just the pretext it needed to justify its military expansion into a conflict which it will claim is merely for self-preservation against clear NATO involvement and expansion, i.e., "defensive."

Furthemore, since Canada is now involved, expect other NATO member countries to also jump in, thus provoking the Russian bear that much more and leading to a sequence of events that will hardly be pleasant for anyone.

Credit to Zero Hedge

The World's Descending Into Chaos’ Under Obama

On Fox Business Wednesday, former ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton declared that under the president’s ineffective leadership, “the world’s descending into chaos” and if America continues to pull back internationally, "you're going to have anarchy increasing."

Speaking with host Stuart Varney, Bolton first discussed Vladimir Putin’s hostile strategy in Ukraine and Europe, including increasing the number of Russian troops at the border and conducting cyber-warfare against several European countries—“aggressive” tactics to which Bolton saw no end in sight.

Varney then transitioned to the recent WSJ/NBC poll that presents damning numbers about the American people’s opinion of President Obama’s leadership—particularly in foreign policy, with a dismal 36% approval.

Bolton: Yeah, I’d like to know who those 36% are because the world’s descending into chaos. And I think this poll and the drop in approval numbers overall, gives the lie to the conventional political wisdom that Americans don’t care about foreign policy, that it’s too remote from their lives.

I think the American people are much more sensible and practical than their political leaders, and they see that because our economy here at home depends on a global economy that instability in Europe can have a profound effect...

Varney argued that the American public has become used to the 24-hour news cycle, and expects stories like Ukraine to be resolved, but they are “just not going away.”

Bolton responded, “It’s just the tip of the iceberg,” pointing out that Putin broadcasted his intentions eight years ago, but was being met by "no effective American or European resistance":

Bolton: It’s just the tip of the iceberg. Look, Putin gave us strategic warning eight years ago when he said the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. That was a statement right then that he intended to get Russian hegemony in the space of the former Soviet Union.

That’s what he is doing and he is meeting no effective American or European resistance.

Varney then asked Bolton if he agreed that the problem was that the president had “withdrawn from the game”:

Bolton: I think that’s a large measure of it. Look, what minimal international order and stability there’s been since World War II has been because of American strength, the projection of our power, our system of alliances around the world. International trade, finance, travel, you name it, didn’t get there by accident. And if the United States pulls back, you’re going to have anarchy increasing. You can see that in the Middle East today, but signs of it exist everywhere.

Credit to truthrevolt.org

New Research: Pastors Deliberately Keeping Flock In The Dark

Research Confirms What I Have Been Saying For Years George Barna is the foremost researcher of modern Christianity in the country. He recently spoke about a two-year research project studying why modern-day pastors and churches are so silent regarding political issues. The result of his research only confirms what I have been trying to tell people for years. But there was one thing his research uncovered that did somewhat surprise me. OneNewsNow.com covered the story: “On Thursday, George Barna--research expert and founder of The Barna Group--shared with American Family Radio's ‘Today's Issues’ about new information he's compiling at American Culture and Faith Institute over the last two years, gauging where theologically conservative pastors are at politically. "‘What we're finding is that when we ask them about all the key issues of the day, [90 percent of them are] telling us, Yes, the Bible speaks to every one of these issues. Then we ask them: Well, are you teaching your people what the Bible says about those issues?--and the numbers drop...to less than 10 percent of pastors who say they will speak to it.’ “When researchers ask those pastors what else they are willing to do to get their people active in the political process, Barna said ‘it's almost nothing.’ "‘So the thing that struck me has been that when we talk about the separation of church and state, it's that churches have separated themselves from the activities of the state--and that's to the detriment of the state and its people,’ stated the researcher.” That 90% of America’s pastors are not addressing any of the salient issues affecting Christian people’s political or societal lives should surprise no one--especially the readers of this column. It has been decades since even a sizeable minority of pastors have bothered to educate and inform their congregations as to the Biblical principles relating to America’s political, cultural, and societal lives. But the part of the research that did somewhat surprise me was this statement by Barna: “What we're finding is that when we ask them about all the key issues of the day, [90 percent of them are] telling us, Yes, the Bible speaks to every one of these issues. Then we ask them: Well, are you teaching your people what the Bible says about those issues?--and the numbers drop...to less than 10 percent of pastors who say they will speak to it.” Did you get that? Ninety-percent of America’s pastors say they KNOW that the Bible speaks to all of these issues, but they are deliberately determined to NOT teach these Biblical principles. That is an amazing admission! It would have been one thing if the pastors had said that these political issues were not relevant to scripture, and, therefore, they didn’t feel called to address them. But the pastors are admitting that, yes, they KNOW that the scriptures DO relate to our current political issues, but they are deliberately choosing to NOT teach those scriptural principles. Holy heads-in-the-sand, Batman! I confess: this statistic caught me off-guard. So, we can forever dismiss ignorance as justification for pastors remaining silent. Now, all of the church members out there who have been forgiving of their ministers for not speaking out on the issues by saying things like, “He really doesn’t understand what’s going on,” need to reevaluate their leniency--if they are intellectually honest, that is--and if they truly care about the future of their country. Church member, admit it: that pastor of yours who refuses to speak out on the issues KNOWS the Bible speaks to these issues, and he is DELIBERATELY refusing to teach those Biblical principles to you and your family. So, we are not dealing with IGNORANT pastors; we are dealing with DELIBERATELY DISOBEDIENT pastors. They are PURPOSELY CHOOSING to remain silent. Will that make any difference to the Christians in the pews who say they want their pastor to take a stand but are willing to overlook his “ignorance?” Probably not. But, at least, we now know what the real issue is, don’t we? The report goes on: “Why the disconnect? According to Barna, the answer is simple. He suggests asking pastors how someone would know if their church is ‘successful’--which he did.” "‘There are five factors that the vast majority of pastors turn to [when asked that question],’ he explained. ‘Attendance, giving, number of programs, number of staff, and square footage.’” There you have it: pastors are more concerned about being “successful” than they are being truthful. They believe if they tell their congregations the truth, their churches will not be “successful.” And it is so refreshing to see Barna directly ask pastors what “success” means to them. So, now we know (as if we didn’t know before; but, at least now there is definitive research to back it up). The vast majority of pastors believe church success lies in: *Attendance *Giving (money) *Number of programs *Number of staff *Square footage (of facilities) Shazam! Where did pastors come up with this definition of “success?” You know where: from men such as Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, et al. The megachurch phenomenon of the last several decades transformed how pastors think and behave. Pastors read the “successful church” books and publications; they attend the “successful church” conferences; they watch the “successful church” videos, etc. They, then, try to mimic the tactics and strategies they have been taught. And if there is one constant theme promulgated by the likes of Osteen, Warren, and Hybels, it is pastors must avoid controversy like the plague. Again, one must realize that the goal is NOT being faithful to Biblical principles; the goal is building a “successful” church as noted above. It is time for Christians to acknowledge that these ministers are not pastors; they are CEOs. They are not Bible teachers; they are performers. They are not shepherds; they are hirelings. It is also time for Christians to be honest with themselves: do they want a pastor who desires to be faithful to the scriptures, or do they want a pastor who is simply trying to be “successful?” BE HONEST WITH YOURSELF, CHRISTIAN FRIEND. Barna’s research blows the “ignorance” excuse out of the water. Again, it is not ignorance; it is deliberate disobedience. Barna goes on to say, "Now all of those things [the five points of success listed above] are good measures, except for one tiny fact: Jesus didn't die for any of them.” Wow! You nailed it, George! See the report here: Barna: Many Pastors Wary Of Raising ‘Controversy’ Where do you find anything in the New Testament that measures a pastor’s success by the number of people attending his church? Or by how large his offerings are? Or by how many programs his church has? Or by how many staff members he has? Or by how large his facilities are? In fact, the early New Testament church didn’t even own property or buildings. When the Apostle Paul listed his ministerial pedigree, here is what it looked like (II Cor. 11): *Stripes above measure *In prisons frequently *In deaths often *Beaten with rods *Stoned *Perils *Weariness *Painfulness *Hunger and thirst *Cold and nakedness I don’t see attendance, offerings, programs, staff, or square footage in that list at all, do you? When Paul wrote his own epitaph, it read, “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith.” (II Timothy 4:7). He didn’t say, “I had a large congregation, we had big offerings, we had a lot of programs, I had a large staff, and we had large facilities.” In the world of Osteen, Warren, and Hybels (and 90% of America’s pastors), the Apostle Paul’s ministry must have been a dismal failure. And how many church pulpit committees would even consider the pastoral résumé such as the Apostle Paul wrote above? Please understand this: America’s malaise is directly due to the deliberate disobedience of America’s pastors--and the willingness of the Christians in the pews to tolerate the disobedience of their pastor. Nothing more! Nothing less! Oh, and get this: according to the survey conducted by Barna, guess what the number one reason is why pastors choose to be “successful” and not “controversial?” You guessed it: fear of the IRS 501c3 tax-exempt status. Who would have thought it? (Yes, that question is deliberately facetious.) The release of this research by George Barna could not have come at a more opportune time. I announced just last week that we have officially launched the Liberty Church Project, whereby we will be helping people around the country to establish non-501c3 churches. I invite folks (pastors or laymen) who are serious about starting new non-501c3 churches--or helping to resurrect patriot pulpits within existing churches--to fill out our online application. We already have several groups that we intend to help and are looking for others. If you are someone who is serious about such an endeavor, and seeks our assistance, please fill out the online application here: Liberty Church Project Credit to http://chuckbaldwinlive.com