Tag Archives: Russia

How To Stop The Advance Of Vladimir Putin

Posted on by

Frank Gaffney, Jr. posted an article today at the Center For Security Policy website explaining how to stop Vladimir Putin’s plans to create the former Russian empire.

The article explains how Putin uses the price of natural gas to advance his program:

Russian president Vladimir Putin has just increased by over forty percent the price of natural gas Russia supplies to Ukraine.

This isn’t the first time Putin has used energy as a weapon against Ukraine and others. We should be doing everything possible to make it the last time, though.

Russia’s role as a major exporter of oil and natural gas is a two-edged sword. Yes, the Kremlin can squeeze those dependent on its exports for political or strategic purposes. But the Russian economy is also critically dependent upon such energy sales.

America has the answer to both stopping the Russian blackmail of Ukraine and to collapsing the Russian economy. It’s actually very simple. Begin to develop and export our own natural gas resources. It would probably take less than a year and Russia would lose its leverage over Ukraine and much of Europe. It’s simple and would also help the American economy.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Next Step After Ukraine?

Posted on by

Yesterday NBC News posted a story about Russian military drills near Finland.

The article reports:

Troops and jet fighters from all four military regions of Russia were deployed Sunday about 150 miles east of the Finnish border, according to the English-language newspaper Finnbay. The Russian defense ministry said in a statement that the exercises were pre-planned and that more than 50 fighter pilots took part.

Vladimir Putin has stated that he wants to restore Russia to its former glory. The article reminds us that Finland was part of the Russian empire for 108 years, from 1809 until Russia’s withdrawal from World War I in 1917.

The article explains Vladimire Putin’s goal:

This anxiety was heightened Sunday after one of Putin’s closest former advisers told the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet that the Kremlin would seek “historical justice” by reclaiming Finland and ex-Soviet countries as part of an enlarged Russian Federation.

 “Putin’s view is that he protects what belongs to him and his predecessors,” wrote Andrei Illarionov, according to a translation by the Moscow Times.

“Parts of Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic states and Finland are states where Putin claims to have ownership,” said Illarionov, who is now a senior fellow at the Washington, D.C.,-based Cato Institute.

Finland is a member of the European Union. Theoretically, Europe would come to its defense if it were attacked. Finland was also the only European nation involved in World War II to avert a foreign occupation. Obviously we would all be better off if Russia were not flexing its muscles at Ukraine and Finland, but until America has a strong leader in the White House we can expect to see more of this.

Enhanced by Zemanta

News Stories That Only Report Half Of The Truth

Posted on by

Yesterday the BBC posted a story about the role of Russia and China in the financial collapse in the United States in 2008. The article notes that the Russians and the Chinese considered creating a financial crisis in the United States, but did not act on the idea.

The article reports:

Now this is where we enter the territory of a geopolitical thriller. Mr Paulson:

“Here I’m not going to name the senior person, but I was meeting with someone… This person told me that the Chinese had received a message from the Russians which was, ‘Hey let’s join together and sell Fannie and Freddie securities on the market.’ The Chinese weren’t going to do that but again, it just, it just drove home to me how vulnerable I felt until we had put Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship [the rescue plan for them, that was eventually put in place].”

For me this is pretty jaw-dropping stuff – the Chinese told Hank Paulson that the Russians were suggesting a joint pact with China to drive down the price of the debt of Fannie and Freddie, and maximize the turmoil on Wall Street – presumably with a view to maximizing the cost of the rescue for Washington and further damaging its financial health.

Paulson says this guerrilla skirmish in markets by the Russians and Chinese didn’t happen.

Now wait a minute. Even if the Russians and Chinese decided to manipulate American markets, the housing bubble was a result of the policies of the American Congress–no one else is to blame.

I have posted the YouTube video “Burning Down the House” before, but in case you missed it, here it is again. This video explains the cause of the 2008 financial meltdown. The information included in the video is a matter of public record, but has not been widely reported.

Please watch the video and draw your own conclusions.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why Foreign Policy Matters

Posted on by

None of us have a 100% chance of predicting the future, but we expect our leaders in Congress and the White House to be well enough informed to make sure they don’t do anything that will hurt us internationally in the future. The current situation in Ukraine is one example of a Congressional bill that later had serious unintended consequences.

Today’s U.K. Daily Mail posted a story about a bill passed by Congress that destroyed the stockpile of weapons Ukraine needs to defend itself against Russia.

The article reports:

As a U.S. senator, Barack Obama won $48 million in federal funding to help Ukraine destroy thousands of tons of guns and ammunition – weapons which are now unavailable to the Ukrainian army as it faces down Russian President Vladimir Putin during his invasion of Crimea.

In August 2005, just seven months after his swearing-in, Obama traveled to Donetsk in Eastern Ukraine with then-Indiana Republican Senator Dick Lugar, touring a conventional weapons site.

The two met in Kiev with President Victor Yushchenko, making the case that an existing Cooperative Threat Reduction Program covering the destruction of nuclear weapons should be expanded to include artillery, small arms, anti-aircraft weapons, and conventional ammunition of all kinds.

After a stopover in London, the senators returned to Washington and declared that the U.S. should devote funds to speed up the destruction of more than 400,000 small arms, 1,000 anti-aircraft missiles, and more than 15,000 tons of ammunition.

…Many of the artillery shells shown in photographs from Donetsk, multiple weapons experts told MailOnline, would be the same types of ammunition required to repel advancing Russian divisions as they advanced to the west, had they not been destroyed.

…’Vast stocks of conventional munitions and military supplies have accumulated in Ukraine,’ Obama said in am August 30, 2005 statement from Donetsk. ‘Some of this stockpile dates from World War I and II, yet most dates from Cold War buildup and the stocks left behind by Soviet withdrawals from East Germany, the Czech Republic, Hungry and Poland.’

‘We need to eliminate these stockpiles for the safety of the Ukrainian people and people around world, by keeping them out of conflicts around the world.’

More than a year later, President George W. Bush signed into law a proposal authored by Obama and Lugar.

In addition to the destruction of these weapons, many of the weapons were sold to the United States, Libya, and Great Britain. There is no way any of this activity made the world one bit safer.

The article concludes:

Sky News video broadcast on Tuesday showed Russian troops firing automatic weapons over the heads of apparently unarmed Ukrainian Air Force personnel near a contested airfield in Crimea.

Foreign policy matters. This is an example of what happens when Congress and the White House do something that down the road endangers the freedom of people in other nations.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Cost Of Poliltical Partisanship

Posted on by

One of the problems in America right now is politicians who value their political party more than they value their country. As a result of that values system, statements from the other party that should be heeded are mocked and ignored. We saw this principle in action with Sarah Palin in the 2008 presidential campaign and with Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential campaign.

Breitbart.com posted an article yesterday reminding us of the events in 2008:

Palin said then:

After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama‘s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.

Levin (conservative talk radio host Mark Levin) said her comment was “dismissed as a very strange comment by the eggheads in and out of Washington.” And Levin mocked those who derided Palin for not thinking that “Russia’s our friend… they would never go into Ukraine.” As Breitbart News reported, Blake Hounshell, who was then at Foreign Policy magazine and is now at Politico, wrote that Palin’s comments were “strange.”

Her comments may have been “strange,” but they were obviously 100 percent accurate.

Breitbart further reminds us:

Because she was running on the Republican ticket, Sarah Palin’s comments were ignored and mocked. No one on the Democrat side of things was willing to listen to her.

When Mitt Romney ran against President Obama, something very similar happened. Steven Hayward at Power Line posted the story yesterday (along with the video):

John (John Hinderaker at Power Line) noted before how the Obama campaign attacked Mitt Romney in 2012 for saying Russia was our most important adversary, but it’s also worth taking in Obama mocking Romney in their third debate, saying that “the 1980s want their foreign policy back.”  That’s actually starting to sound pretty good.

I don’t know what difference it would have made if Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney had been listened to, but I can’t help but think that we would have been able to react in some way had we been prepared for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. One analyst I was listening to this morning felt that if America does not do something to help the Ukrainians, Russia will turn its sights to Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. The world is getting very complicated, and we have a President who is so convinced he knows everything that he is not paying attention to what is going on around him. Putin is playing chess and President Obama is playing checkers. President Obama needs to listen to people on both sides of the aisle–it might avoid some serious mistakes.

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Russia Is Playing Chess, America Is Playing Checkers

Posted on by

The U.K. Telegraph posted an article today detailing the rapidly changing situation in the Ukraine. As it stands now, Russia admits that it has moved troops into the Ukraine, and the Ukraine has regained control of an airport taken over by Russian troops. Please follow the link above to the article to read about the latest events.

The article reports:

US Secretary of State John Kerry attempted to relieve diplomatic pressure that has increasingly assumed Cold War overtones by announcing that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had assured him that Moscow “will respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine.”

Putin also appeared to take a more conciliatory approach late on Thursday by vowing to work on improving trade ties with Ukraine and promising to support international efforts to provide Kiev with funds that could keep it from declaring a debt default as early as next week.

As I said, checkers.

I don’t have a lot to say about the situation in the Ukraine, because I believe there may be a whole lot of things going on under the radar that I am unaware of. However, I will say that I suspect that there are many people in the Ukraine that are longing for freedom as they have seen it in the West, rather than the type of government they have seen in Russia. My prayer is that this situation will end peacefully with a free Ukraine. However, Putin is flexing his muscle, and America right now does not have a muscle to flex. That is not good.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Some Perspective On The Ukraine

Posted on by

On Thursday the U.K. Telegraph posted an article by Edward Lucas about the situation in the Ukraine. Obviously, events there are moving very quickly. The U.K. Daily Mail posted an article by Mark Almond yesterday. Both articles point to the danger of the spread of the unrest in the Ukraine. Please follow the links to the articles. There is a lot of information in both articles.

The article in the Daily Mail reminds us that the Ukraine is made up of both Russians and Ukrainians. Each group has their own concept of what the country’s relationship with Europe and Russia should be. There is a serious division among the population of the country.

The article in the Telegraph states:

Without Vladimir Putin, Ukraine would be at peace today. It was Russia which forced Ukraine to shun the economic agreement offered by the EU in October, launching a crippling trade war against Ukrainian exports. It was Russia which offered cheap gas and soft loans as the Ukrainian economy tottered. It was Russia which installed hundreds of “advisers” in key Ukrainian public bodies and ministries, including the SBU secret police, to ensure that they toe the Moscow line. Without Russia’s silent putsch, Ukrainians would have not have needed to build barricades in the streets in protest at the regime’s misrule. Even then, without the continued and escalating Russian pressure on Mr Yanukovych, the conflict could have been defused.

We have seen enough of Putin to know that he will not let the Ukraine move toward Europe politically and economically without a fight. President Putin has openly stated that his dream is to bring back the old Soviet Union.

The Telegraph reports:

But Russia’s interference in Ukraine has intensified in recent months, just as Western efforts have floundered. European policymakers still cling to the notion that talks with Russia can bring a mutually beneficial solution to Ukraine’s agony. That is a false hope. The Kremlin does not like win-win solutions. It likes outcomes in which it wins, and its detestable Western rivals lose, preferably humiliatingly – this, for Mr Putin, is a matter of personal prestige. In short, though the EU finds the whole notion of geopolitics old-fashioned and unappealing, geopolitics is happening on its doorstep. And it is losing.

America is out of the game, too. The Obama administration has neglected its European allies since the day it took office. Its senior official dealing with Ukraine, Toria Nuland, is admirably energetic – and blunt (she recently declared “F— the EU” in a phone call to her ambassador in Kiev, bugged and then leaked by Russian intelligence). But she lacks the clout to make the wheels of policy turn in Washington. Without Moscow’s interference, the EU and United States could marshal their modest resources to make a difference. Faced with Russia in all its implacable fury, both are outgunned. The fallout from Edward Snowden’s leaks of secret material from the National Security Agency has corroded and weakened the transatlantic alliance: fury with American snooping in countries such as Germany has paralysed what should be vital discussions on security.

Hopefully this will end with freedom for the people of the Ukraine, but I am not optimistic. I remember how hard Poland fought to be free of the Soviet Union. Putin does not give up easily, and he does not compromise.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Preparing For The Winter Olympics

Posted on by

The 2014 Winter Olympics will be held in Sochi, Russia. The amazing part of that is that Sochi has a sub-tropical climate with low temperatures in January averaging 49 degrees. However, there is a nearby cluster of mountains that will provide the venue for winter snow sports. However, security may be a concern.

Today CBN News reported a second terrorist attack in Volgograd, a city just 400 miles from the site of the Winter Olympics. Volgograd is a key hub for transportation in the area of the Winter Olympics.

The article reports:

Recently a terrorist leader called for attacks against civilian targets in Russia, including at the winter olympics. The attacks have raised security fears for the safety of travelers headed to the games in Sochi in February.

Christopher Swift, Georgetown University Adjunct Professor of National Security Studies said, “I think the Russian government has something to fear and that is the potential loss of face, the potential embarrassment to them if this terrorist syndicate is able to pull off one or more major terrorist events.”

Volgograd is an important train link from Moscow to Sochi. Both cities are located near the unstable North Caucasus region where Islamic terrorists have been fighting a brutal rebellion for the past two decades.

We need to remember that terrorists do not care about injuring or killing innocent people. The Winter Olympics would be an ideal place for them to strike. I hope the Russian security people are able to protect the lives of the Olympic athletes.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leopards Don’t Really Change Thier Spots

Posted on by

The Wall Street Journal posted a story this morning entitled, “Russia’s Anti-American Foreign Policy” (no link–subscribers only). So what happened to ‘reset’? Regardless of what is said between the two countries, the freedom of America is a potential threat to the totalitarianism of Russia.

The article notes:

The U.S. needs three things from Russia: understanding in defense matters, assistance in the war on terror, and help in curbing the ambitions of rogue states. In each case, the record of the Putin regime is one of relentless obstruction.

Among other things, Russia has objected to the idea of an antimissile shield in Europe. Why? There is no logical reason for that opposition. NATO has never been a threat to Russia. The Russians have recently taken in Edward Snowden, and whether you see him as a traitor or a hero, that was definitely a slap in the face toward the United States.

One of the things that the article points out is that the Russian economy is deteriorating–in the second quarter of 2013, the growth was 1.2 percent. During the 2000’s the growth rate was 7.2 percent. Russia needs high oil prices to keep its economy afloat. Middle East instability results in high oil prices.

There are two lessons to be learned here. First of all, we need to remember that Russia is looking out for Russia’s interests–not America’s interests. Peace in the Middle East is not in their interest. Second of all, we could be done with all this kowtowing to the tyrants of Russia and the Middle East if we would develop our own energy sources. We need the Keystone Pipeline so that we won’t be at the mercy of Russian foreign policy–we need to determine our own foreign policy without being enslaved to Middle East oil.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Who Is Running The Country?

Posted on by

This article is based on two articles–one from the U.K. Telegraph today and one from Associated Press today. Both articles are related to the bizarre turn of events yesterday when Secretary of State John Kerry unintentionally suggested a solution to the Syrian crisis. Secretary of State Kerry in an offhand remark suggested that if Assad would hand over all his chemical weapons Syria could escape American attack. The suggestion was picked up quickly by Vladimir Putin, and President Obama (and Harry Reid) had an excuse to delay a vote in Congress (which the President was likely to lose) about military intervention in Syria.

The Associated Press article reports:

Syria said Tuesday it has accepted Russia’s proposal to place its chemical weapons under international control for subsequent dismantling.

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said Tuesday after meeting with Russian parliament speaker that his government quickly “agreed to the Russian initiative.”

Al-Moallem added that Syria did so to “uproot U.S. aggression.”

So what is going on here? The current government of Syria is an ally of Russia. Russia just bought them some time. Even a small strike by the United States could turn the tide in favor of the rebels, and John Kerry’s offhand remark gave Russia a chance to avoid that strike.

Syria has agreed to the arrangement. Has anyone asked if the facilities to make chemical weapons will be inspected and dismantled?

I don’t support a military strike on Syria–I am not convinced there is anything to gain be getting involved in a civil war where there don’t seem to be any good guys. I am sorry that the President misspoke about a red line, but that is not worth killing anyone. I am not sure that this new idea is a solution–I think it is more of a delay tactic, but I think it is better than sending American weapons or troops.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Congress As A Last Resort

Posted on by

On Monday, Byron York posted an article at the Washington Examiner about President Obama’s decision to seek authorization from Congress for military intervention in Syria.

The article points out that President Obama first sought approval on the world stage. When it became apparent that the world stage was not interested in giving its approval, President Obama sought approval from Congress.

The article reports:

It was only after it became clear to Obama that he could not win acceptance in other, preferred, circles that he chose to go to Congress. Would he have sought congressional authorization if he had won United Nations approval for a Syrian attack? Highly unlikely. Would he have sought congressional authorization if the British Parliament had voted to join Obama’s action? Also unlikely. Even approval from the Arab League might have been enough for Obama to act.

So where are we?

Yahoo News posted an article today with the following statement by Vladimir Putin:

He said he “doesn’t exclude” backing the use of force against Syria at the United Nations if there is objective evidence proving that Assad’s regime used chemical weapons against its people. But he strongly warned Washington against launching military action without U.N. approval, saying it would represent an aggression. Russia can veto resolutions at the U.N. Security Council and has protected Syria from punitive actions there before.

It will be interesting to see how Congress votes on this.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Problems With Electing Rodney Dangerfield To The American Presidency

Posted on by

In case you are under the age of forty, Rodney Dangerfield was a comedian whose tag line was, “I don’t get no respect!” Unfortunately, we seem to have elected a President who has the same problem.

“One of the things I intend to do as president is to restore America’s standing in the world. We are less respected now than we were eight years ago even four years ago.” That statement was made by President Obama in his first 2008 presidential debate. The problem with this statement is a lack of understanding of the fact that it would be good to be feared as well as respected. Sometimes respect is rooted in fear.

Today’s Wall Street Journal (no link–subscribers only) included an editorial entitled, “Portrait in Respect.” The editorial related to the problems the Obama Administration has had in trying to bring Edward Snowden back to the United States. Hong Kong said they could not return Mr. Snowden because of a technical glitch in the extradition request. Several news sources reported that Hong Kong was under pressure from China not to return Mr. Snowden. Since then, Mr. Snowden has fled to Russia, where the Russians have said that they will not send him back to America. Meanwhile it is a safe bet that the FSB (the new KGB) is downloading information from the four computers Mr. Snowden is traveling with.

Somehow I don’t think America has achieved the respect that was promised in the 2008 Presidential debate.

Enhanced by Zemanta

We Are Supporting The Terrorists That Want To Murder Us

Posted on by

Yesterday the Boston Herald posted an article giving some of the details about the government assistance the Tsarnaev family received between 2010 and 2012. The family received more than $100,000 in taxpayer-funded assistance–ranging from housing to food stamps and cash.

The article reports:

The state has handed over more than 500 documents to the 11-member House Post Audit and Oversight Committee, which today met for the first time and plans to call in officials from the Department of Transitional Assistance to testify.

…Transitional assistance officials also told the Herald tonight that the agency was conducting its own investigation into whether Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s family ever notified the DTA about his extended trip to Russia, and has since expanded its probe to include a full history of the benefits received by the entire Tsarnaev family.

This is a very interesting situation. On one hand, if a family is asking political asylum, they may not have the means to get established immediately in the United States. On the other hand, is it practical to give immigrants handouts rather than encouraging them to work? This family had been willing to work–they were simply not successful enough to live in Massachusetts.

On Saturday, the Washington Post reported:

America, the golden door, had already welcomed two of his brothers when Anzor Tsarnaev crossed the ocean with his family in 2002. Anzor’s brother Ruslan, who had immigrated just a few years earlier, already had a law degree and was on his way to an executive job and a six-figure salary. And at first, Anzor, his wife, Zubeidat, and their two sons, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar, seemed as energetic and brimming with initiative as their relatives had been. Anzor, a mechanic, fixed up cars. His wife turned a cut-rate apartment in affluent Cambridge into an improvised salon, offering facials at attractive prices

This sounds like a family you would welcome to the neighborhood. But the scene changed:

But over the past four years, even as members of their extended family found their piece of the American dream, the Cambridge Tsarnaevs’ experience in their new land curdled. Money grew scarce, and the family went on welfare. Zubeidat was accused of stealing from a department store. Anzor’s business, never prosperous, faded.

My point in posting this is simple. There was no way to know that the Tsarnaev family was going to become involved with terrorism. The money they were paid was appropriate for the situation they were in–as Americans they were as entitled to it as anyone else. (I know that is not a popular opinion, but it is true–welfare is not the culprit here).

The problem with the Tsarnaevs was the fact that our homeland security does not yet work as well as it should. The attack of September 11, 2001, could have been prevented if egos and bureaucratic rivalries had not been the order of the day (I recommend reading The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright). The bombing on April 15th could also have been prevented had their been more follow up on the tips from Russia and more cooperation between state, city, and government officials. If we are to survive as a nation, we have to learn to work together–and that includes rival bureaucracies. Otherwise, we will see more of what happened during the Boston Marathon. The Welfare Office is not to blame–they are in charge of welfare–our security people are in charge of security.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sometimes There Are No Words

Posted on by

CBN News posted a story today with two interesting bits of information on the surviving terrorist who planted bombs at the Boston Marathon. I will refer to him as Suspect Number 2 because I don’t want to give him the recognition of referring to him by name. Suspect Number 2 is currently recovering from his injuries in a Boston hospital. Unfortunately some of the people impacted by his actions did not have the opportunity to recover–their lives ended very suddenly and very quickly.

There were two facts reported (neither is a surprise):

The surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings stopped talking to the FBI after he was read his Miranda rights.

…Tsarnaev’s parents are not keeping quiet. They plan to fly from Russia to the U.S. today and hold a press conference. They’re seeking permission to bring the body of their son Tamerlan back to Russia for burial.

Meanwhile, new information about Tamerlan has been released. U.S. officials say his name was added to a U.S. government terrorism database 18 months before the attacks.

There is nothing I can add to this information.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Consequences Of An America That Does Not Project Strength

Posted on by

At some point we all have to grow up enough to realize that everyone in the world does not love us or wish us well. Some of this ill will is related to things we have done, but some of it is related to who we are–we are a free country whose citizens enjoy rights envied by much of the world. The people who are less free want to be us, and the leaders who are responsible for keeping their citizens less free would like us to go away. We are as hated for who we are as much as for what we do. It is possible to make amends for what you do; it is nearly impossible to make peace with someone who hates you for what you are. That has been the challenge to America since World War II.

The Washington Free Beacon reported yesterday that a Russian bomber recently made a practice run simulating cruise missile attacks on U. S. missile defenses in Asia.

The article reports:

According to U.S. officials, a Russian Tu-22M Backfire bomber on Feb. 26 simulated firing air-launched cruise missiles at an Aegis ship deployed near Japan as part of U.S. missile defenses.

A second mock attack was conducted Feb. 27 against a ground-based missile defense site in Japan that officials did not identify further.

The Pentagon operates an X-band missile defense radar on the northern tip of Japan that is designed to monitor North Korean missile launches and transmit the data to missile-firing ships.

The bomber targeting comes as Russia is building up forces in the Pacific by modernizing submarines and building a spy ship specifically for intelligence-gathering against U.S. missile defenses.

We all remember this supposedly off-the-record conversation:

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This is my last election. And after my election, I have more flexibility.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV, RUSSIAN PRESIDENT: I understand you. I transmit this information to Vladimir —

President Obama has essentially taken down our missile defense systems in Europe (in accordance with Russian wishes), and now the Russians are making practice runs on our missile defenses in Asia. I really don’t think the Russians want peace, and I really don’t think they are worried about offending us right now. That is unfortunate. I liked it better when we had someone in the White House that the world thought was dangerous and unpredictable–America and the world were safer then.

The article at the Washington Free Beacon points out an obvious contrast in the direction Russia is traveling and the direction America is traveling:

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney said the Backfire targeting is troubling.

“Russia continues to conduct aggressive offensive missile training in the Pacific against U.S. and Allied Forces,” McInerney said.

“We should understand that they look at ‘reset’ differently than we do,” said the retired three-star general, who once commanded forces in Alaska. “They look at it as regaining their previous USSR position as a superpower while this administration is moving towards unilateral disarmament.”

When counties that stand for freedom put down their arms, countries that are not free take up arms. That is not a situation that should be encouraged.

Enhanced by Zemanta

About That Flexibility

Posted on by

America seems to have forgotten who her friends are and who her enemies are. On March 26, 2012, major news sources reported that President Obama had told outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev he will have “more flexibility” to deal with contentious issues like missile defense after the U.S. presidential election. That remark was caught by an open mike. Well, it seems as if that flexibility has arrived.

Saturday’s New York Times reported that the United States has effectively canceled the final phase of a Europe-based missile defense system that was fiercely opposed by Russia and cited repeatedly by the Kremlin as a major obstacle to cooperation on nuclear arms reductions and other issues. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel made the announcement. Those resources will be shifted to America to provide missile interceptors in response to recent threats made by North Korea. It is a good thing that we are protecting America, but I do wonder about the wisdom of leaving allies out in the cold with nothing but our broken promises.

The New York Times couches this as a good thing for our relationship with Russia and states that the Polish government is not all that upset about it. Regardless, we have broken a promise to an ally in order to please a government that does not represent freedom and is not an ally of America. I question the wisdom of that decision.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Who Pays For The United Nations?

Posted on by

I am not a fan of the United Nations to begin with–I think it has lost its way from its original purpose and become a forum for thugs and tyrants rather than a forum to promote freedom. Because of this, I really do not like the amount of money America contributes to this organization. But let’s look at who finances the United Nations.

On Friday, CNS News posted some of the details of the United Nations funding. The article reports:

The 193 U.N. member-states’ contributions are assessed according to their relative “capacity to pay,” based on population size and gross national income (converted to U.S. dollars at market exchange rates). The ceiling is 22 percent while the bottom level is 0.001 percent, which over the next three years will apply to more than 30 of the world’s poorest countries.

The United States has paid 22 percent of the total regular budget every year since 2000, and will now continue to do so for the next three years. The U.S. pays 25 percent of the separate peacekeeping budget.

The article reports:

Some developing countries have seen relatively significant increases in their assessments: China, the world’s second-largest economy, will pay 5.15 percent, up from 3.12 last time; the Russian contribution has risen to 2.44 percent from 1.60 percent; Brazil’s 2.93 percent is an increase from 1.61.

China’s year-on-year GDP growth rate last year was 9.2 percent, Russia’s was 4.3 percent and Brazil’s 2.7 percent, according to CIA World Factbook data.

India’s increase in U.N. contributions is more modest – from 0.53 to 0.66 percent – while Japan, Canada and European countries including Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain will contribute a smaller percentage over the next three years than they have over the past three.

The United Nations General Assembly has approved a two-year U.N. budget of $5.4 billion.

I really think it is time to remove the United Nations from New York City and to remove America from the United Nations. If we want an international organization to support peace and freedom, we should form one with the democracies of the world and leave the thugs and tyrants out of it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

More Fallout From President Obama’s Foreign Policy

Posted on by

Scott Johnson at Power Line posted an article today about the recent changes in adoption policies regarding Americans adopting children from Russia. The new Russian policy takes effect on January 1st, and will stop all adoptions in process, including those about to take place.

The article reports:

The New York Daily News reports that Russia has 740,000 children not in parental custody with 18,000 Russians standing in line to adopt children. The law is aimed at Americans and suffused with anti-American animus as well as Russian nationalism:

Some recent news articles in Russian have claimed that violence against adopted Russian children in America goes unpunished and that the adopted children were being used as organ donors, sex toys or cannon fodder for the Army. Because the press is run by the government, the Russian people have no reason to doubt this.

The children are the ones being hurt by this decision. The orphanages in Russia do not educate the children to find jobs when they leave the orphanage, and many of these children have no place to live or no food to eat. One of the charities that has been working to change the lives of these children is Orphan’s Promise. They are one of many organizations working to change things for the children in orphanages around the world with no hope for the future. Unfortunately, this new decision by the Russian government means that more children in Russia will be stuck in the poverty of that nation.

Enhanced by Zemanta

We Remember

Posted on by

I posted this article a few years ago, and I apologize for repeating myself, but I am on the road today and will probably not be able to get to my computer to post anything. I think the article is appropriate for the day.

To the Struggle Against World Terrorism: A Monument Created by Zurab Tsereteli

This is a picture of the Teardrop Memorial, Russia’s gift to the United States in memory of 911.  The monument To the Struggle Against World Terrorism was dedicated on September 11, 2006, by President Clinton.   It is located in Bayonne, New Jersey, at a place where the twin towers were visible.   To read the entire story of the monument and how it came to rest there, please follow the link to 911monument.com.    The website tells the story of what inspired the monument and how it came to be.  Below is another picture of the monument.    I stumbled on this monument in an article at the American Thinker and visited the memorial when I was in New Jersey attending my 45th high school reunion.

911 Monument Dedication Ceremony, Sept. 11, 2006

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

When America Appears Weak The World Is A More Dangerous Place

Posted on by

In March 2012, Fox News (and other media) reported on President Obama’s supposedly off-microphone comment to Russian President Medvedev. President Obama stated, “This is my last election. And after my election, I have more flexibility.” It was generally believed that this comment was in relation to a potential missile treaty involving defensive missiles in Europe and general disarmament. Unfortunately, it seems as if the Russians interpreted this statement as a sign of weakness on the part of America.

The Washington Free Beacon is reporting today:

Russian strategic nuclear bombers threatened U.S. airspace near Alaska earlier this month and F-15 jets responded by intercepting the aircraft taking part in large-scale arctic war games, according to defense officials.

The Russian war games began the same day President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin held a frosty summit meeting in Mexico June 18.

U.S. officials said the arctic exercises over the Russian Far East and Pacific appeared to be a further sign of Russia’s hardening posture toward the United States.

The Obama administration made no protest of the bomber intrusions, according to the officials, in line with its conciliatory “reset” policy of seeking warmer ties with Moscow.

This is just stupid. Why are we seeking warmer ties with someone who delights in threatening us?

The article further reports:

As part of the arctic military expansion, Russia announced May 30 it was re-opening arctic air bases that had been closed after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

Russian officials have said the strategic air bases will be used for arctic operations and include airfields in the far north at Naryan-Mar, on Novaya Zemlya, and Franz Josef Land.

Naryan-Mar is a mainland strategic air base and Novaya Zemlya and Franz Josef Land are islands.

Additionally, Russia has announced it is setting up an 8,000-troop Arctic Brigade that will be deployed on the Kola Peninsula, near Finland and Norway.

In 2010, Adm. James A. Winnefeld, then-commander of the Colorado-based U.S. North Command, said in an interview that Russia has continued to fly its strategic nuclear bombers near U.S. airspace as part of Moscow’s efforts to maintain what he termed the illusion of power.

“In some cases, this is about the illusion of power, where power is not quite there,” Winnefeld said from the Colorado Springs-based command known as Northcom. “They are trying to show the world that they are a powerful nation, and we’re not giving them the satisfaction.”

At some point, we need to remember who we are dealing with. One reason the Cold War ended was that the Russians were not able to keep up with American defense technology–the Star Wars technology had a lot to do with that. President Obama is seriously cutting back on all defense spending and making America able to defend herself or stand her ground in the new Cold War. Make no mistake, with Putin in charge of Russia, there will be a new Cold War.

Enhanced by Zemanta

How Did We Get Here ?

Posted on by

Today’s Washington Times posted a story about the current situation regarding the NATO missile defense sites in Eastern Europe that are supposed to be set up. These sites are supposed to be the subject of the recent open microphone remark by President Obama to Russian President Medvedev that President Obama would be able to be much more flexible in his second term. Well, evidently President Obama’s promise of flexibility in the future didn’t really impress the Russians.

The article in the Washington Times reports:

Russia’s most senior military officer (Russian Chief of General Staff Nikolai Makarov) said Thursday that Moscow would strike and destroy NATO missile defense sites in Eastern Europe before they came online if the U.S. pushes ahead with deployment.

“A decision to use destructive force pre-emptively will be taken if the situation worsens,” Russian Chief of General Staff Nikolai Makarov said at an international missile defense conference in Moscow attended by senior U.S. and NATO officials.

How did America get to a place where we are being overtly threatened by the Russians?

The article concludes:

Russian officials insist that the system has the capability to shoot down their ICBMs, thus robbing their nuclear deterrent of its credibility and destabilizing the Cold War-era balance of mutually assured destruction.

Neither the State Department nor the Pentagon had any immediate comment on the Russian threat Thursday.

I need to point out here that the missile defense system in question is a missile defense system–no one is saying anything about offensive weapons (except the Russians). How did we get to a place where the Russians can tell us whether or not we can place defensive missiles in Europe?

Enhanced by Zemanta

American Industry Triumphs–Even When It Is Not Allowed To !

Posted on by
Escopeta Oil and Gas Spartan 151 jackup oil ri...

Escopeta Oil and Gas Spartan 151 jackup oil rig being towed, Kachemak Bay, Alaska (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There is something very ironic about this story. One of the reasons that the American economy is recovering so slowly is the high price of gasoline. That price is pretty much set by OPEC (made up of countries that generally do not like us) and the falling value of the American dollar.  One of the solutions to that particular problem would be for America to develop its own oil resources and become energy independent. The Obama Administration has done a fairly good job of blocking any attempt to make that happen (offshore drilling, drilling in ANWR, Keystone pipeline, etc.). American oil companies have been limited in where they can explore for oil and where they can drill. Because American oil companies are in business to make a profit, they are going elsewhere!

Breitbart.com reported yesterday that Exxon Mobil has been hired by Russia to drill for oil in the Arctic Ocean–you know–up where the Obama Administration prevented Americans from drilling.

The article reports:

Think about how backward things are under Obama—the largest oil company in America is going to be drilling in waters around the Arctic where they expect to find 85 billion barrels in recoverable oil. And instead of sending it to Texas refineries, and thereafter to gas stations across America, the oil will be sent to Russia and refined for their use.

By the way, if extracted at the rate of 1 million barrels a day, 85 billion barrels of oil would last for 85,000 days.  85,000 days equals well over 200 years.  Yet here we are, listening to Obama telling us the future is one of wind farms, electric cars, and a companies like Solyndra.

Perhaps we’ll get lucky and Russia will sell us some of their oil. If Obama keeps us in this energy stranglehold we’re going to need it.

It seems that one of the casualties of the Obama Administration’s energy policy is common sense.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Giving Away America’s Resources

Posted on by
New Siberian Islands map Bennett island

New Siberian Islands map Bennett island (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This is truly under the radar. The Washington Times was the only reliable source I could find on this. The source for the Washington Times article was World Net Daily.

The Obama Administration is planning to give away seven islands in the Arctic Ocean. They are planning to give these islands and the tens of thousands of square miles of oil-rich seabeds surrounding the islands to Russia as part of a maritime boundary agreement between Alaska and Siberia.

World Net Daily reports:

The agreement was negotiated in total secrecy. The state of Alaska was not allowed to participate in the negotiations, nor was the public given any opportunity for comment. This is despite the fact the Alaska Legislature has passed resolutions of opposition – but the State Department doesn’t seem to care.

This is the list of the islands involved:

The imperiled Arctic Ocean islands include Wrangel, Bennett, Jeannette and Henrietta. Wrangel became American in 1881 with the landing of the U.S. Revenue Marine ship Thomas Corwin. The landing party included the famed naturalist John Muir. It is 3,000 square miles in size.

Northwest of Wrangel are the DeLong Islands, named for George Washington DeLong, the captain of USS Jeannette. Also in 1881, he discovered and claimed these three islands for the United States. He named them for the voyage co-sponsor, New York City newspaper publisher James Gordon Bennett. The ship’s crew received a hero’s welcome back in Washington, and Congress awarded them gold medals.

In the Bering Sea at the far west end of the Aleutian chain are Copper Island, Sea Lion Rock and Sea Otter Rock. They were ceded to the U.S. in Seward’s 1867 treaty with Russia.

The World Net Daily article ends with the following statement by the author:

Author’s addendum, Feb. 17, 2012: This is not a new issue. In fact the Bush and Clinton administrations are directly at fault for the same inaction. A maritime agreement negotiated by the U.S. State Department set the Russian boundary on the other side of the disputed islands, but no treaty has ratified this action. Consequently, it is within the president’s power to stop this giveaway. The Alaska delegation’s failure to put pressure on the administration is inexplicable. State Department Watch, an organization that assisted with this article, has confronted each administration and is currently confronting the Obama administration — and has been met by silence. I’m hoping this piece will help reinvigorate efforts to stop this handover.

I don’t know how many people actually read this blog, but I would really appreciate it if some of them will send an email to their Congressman about this land deal. At some point in the very near future, the existence of America will depend on our energy independence. That time will probably come before the practicality of ‘green energy.’ It is not wise to give away a resource that may be necessary for the survival of America.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Pushing The Reset Button On Russia

Posted on by

We have all read President Obama’s supposedly off-the-record comments to Russian President Medvedev. The mainstream media seems to be avoiding saying much about those comments, but conservative commentators (and Republican candidates) have sounded the appropriate alarm.

Hugh Hewitt posted an interview with Mitt Romney on his blog:

MR: Well, it is revealing, it is alarming, it’s troubling, it suggests that the President has a very different agenda with the Russians than he’s willing to tell the American people. And for that reason alone, we ought to vote him out of office. This is a very disconcerting development.

HH: What do you think he has in mind, Governor, when he says I will be flexible? Is it missile defense? It is the number of our warheads? Is it Iran? What is he talking about?

MR: Well, he says missile defense, but we’re talking about one of those two issues, either missile defense or warheads. What he’s done on warheads, of course, with the new START Treaty, he took warheads down to 1,500 on strategic nuclear weapons. Of course, the Russians were already at 1,500. They didn’t have to have any reductions. We were at 2,200. So the only reduction in his missile defense treaty was a reduction at the U.S. level. And of course, he ignored the tactical nuclear weapons, which are of course the same nukes. They’re just on smaller rockets. He ignored that, where Russia has an advantage of five or ten to one over us. So this is a president who continues to try and appease and accommodate, and believes that the best interests of America are to bow to the interests of Russia. And it’s very, very troubling, and I mean, I’m very disturbed by this. I hope the American people understand that what we heard from the President is revealing about his character in terms of what he tells the American people, and revealing about his direction and sentiment with regards to Russian, which is after all our number one geopolitical foe. They don’t represent a military threat to us at the present, but they oppose us at every turn in the United Nations, and oppose us in every one of our efforts, whether in Iraq or Iran, North Korea. They’re on the other side. And for him to be cozying up with them with regards to missile defense is simply unacceptable.

HH: How do you expect this aside from the President will be understood in Poland and the Czech Republic, and Ukraine, and Georgia, and other front line states facing a newly-expansive Russia?

MR: Well, I think our friends around the world have been reevaluating their relationship with the United States, in part because of this president’s treatment of friends relative to the treatment of enemies. I’ve heard from more than one foreign leader that it seems to be preferable to be an American foe than an American friend to this president.

HH: Now Governor Romney, the press will of course attempt to dismiss this as not a big issue. Will this remain a front line issue? And do you think that the President has got to spell out with great detail what he has in mind here?

MR: You know, I don’t think he can recover from it, to tell you the truth. I mean, I think he will try and spin something. But I don’t know how you spin from an open mic, where you’re talking about having more flexibility after the election, which means quite clearly that you don’t want the American people to hear what you’re really planning on doing, and that you’re going to be able to do more when you no longer are accountable to the American people. You know, the mainstream media may try and put this to bed, but we’re going to keep it alive and awake. And we’re going to keep hammering him with it all the way through November.

It seems to me that there are enough serious questions about the President’s off-the-record statement to persuade Americans to vote against him.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why I Want To End The United Nations

Posted on by

Yesterday the U. K. Telegraph reported that Russia and China had vetoed a United Nations resolution to back an Arab League plan to end the violence in Syria. The problem issue was a requirement that the Syrian government withdraw tanks and artillery from the streets. Syria had agreed to do this in November. On Friday it was reported that the Syrian government had killed hundreds of civilians in the city of Homs.

This would seem to be an obvious situation for the United Nations, Amnesty International, and various human rights groups to be involved with. Where are they?

Why would Russia and China veto this? Syria is a puppet state of Iran. Iran does not want the government of Syria to fall. Russia and China have been supplying Iran with nuclear material and knowledge and have been doing a lot of trading with Iran. This is all in keeping with the policy of ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend.’ Russia and China are not friends of the United States. Their governments do not wish us well, although many of their people do not share those feelings. The United Nations is powerless because it has been taken over by dictators. It needs to be replaced by an organization that actually supports human rights and will protect innocent civilians.

Enhanced by Zemanta