US to destroy its largest remaining chemical weapons cache
Plans to start neutralizing 2,600 tons of aging mustard agent in March.
Why is the U.S. Pandering to Illegals When Americans Don’t Have Jobs?
…to destroy the Middle Class because it stands in the way of total tyranny.
Here’s Why the State Wants to Mandate Vaccines
Parents get in the way of state indoctrination.
Colorado Bill Would Support Parents Opting Out Of Child Vaccinations
“Parents bill of rights” would essentially turn everything from curriculum to mental health care into an a la carte menu for parents to choose from.
The Destruction of 20th Century Science: The Need for a Scientific Renaissance
The Basement
Video of 8daPCIYF7xw
Broadcast begins at 12 Eastern. What passes for science today is often, at best, conditioning people to act like trained animals, if not computers — mankind’s future will depend upon reviving a true science, center…
The Destruction of 20th Century Science: The Need for a Scientific Renaissance
The Basement
Video of 8daPCIYF7xw
Broadcast begins at 12 Eastern. What passes for science today is often, at best, conditioning people to act like trained animals, if not computers — mankind’s future will depend upon reviving a true science, center…
Local Police Car Strikes, Kills Pedestrian In South Chicago
Police said street lights on that block have been out for some time.
Rates Don’t Matter–Liquidity Matters
The cure for systemic fragility is not low interest rates forever–it’s a market that transparently prices credit and risk for lenders and borrowers, qualified and marginal alike. One of the most unquestioned narratives out there is that the Federal Reserve…
Dramatic Video Captures Taiwan Plane Crash
Death toll has climbed to 25, 15 others have been hospitalized and 18 remain missing…
Calif. Senators To Introduce Bill Proposing Changes To Measles Vaccinations
Current California law allows parents to skip vaccinating their children under what is called a personal belief exemption.
Oregon Business Must Pay $150,000 to Homosexual Couple for Refusing to Bake a Cake
Kurt Nimmo | State also reserves the authority to shut down First Amendment right of business owners.
Oregon Business Must Pay $150,000 to Homosexual Couple for Refusing to Bake a Cake
State also reserves the authority to shut down First Amendment right of business owners.
Experts Warn of War Risk With Russia
Not everybody in Washington is a lunatic, crazy for war against Russia. There is, in fact, a growing chorus against the US supplying weapons to the regime in Kiev, for reasons that should be obvious to any sane person: it will intensify the conflict on the ground in southeast Ukraine and likely increase the risk of a direct confrontation with a nuclear-armed power.
AFP ran a column on February 2nd warning that arming Ukraine would be a dangerous move, quoting a number of Western think- tankers to that effect. Nick de Larrinaga, Europe editor for IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly in London said:
“The conflict is being portrayed by the Kremlin as standing up to the West, claiming Kiev is a pawn of NATO…Supplying lethal assistance would be fulfilling that prophecy, and could even harden Russia’s position.”
Fiona Hill of the Brookings Institution—who last week hosted an appearance there by Victoria Nuland—warned,
“There is a real risk now that we will end up in a war with Russia…As far as Putin’s concerned we’re already in one, an economic and financial war, and if we start sending in weapons then we’ve taken that up a notch.”
Balazs Jarabik, of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, says that weapons aren’t the problem, as Ukraine is the world’s fourth largest producer of weapons. “Their problems lie in things like leadership, management, logistics,” he said, pointing out that Western weapons would require Western trainers and technicians. “If US forces showed up in Ukraine, even if just for training, it would justify everything the Russian conspiracy theorists have been saying all along,” said Jarabik.
Pat Buchanan, in a column posted on realclearpolitics.com, also warns that sending US arms to Ukraine risks a broader confrontation.
“Rather than becoming a co-belligerent in this [ukrainian] civil war that is not our war, why not have the United States assume the role of the honest broker who brings it to an end.”
Buchanan notes that all Cold War presidents, from Truman to GHW Bush, recognized that what went on east of the Elbe was Russia’s business, not the West’s. “That Cold War caution and prudence may be at an end,” he writes in a column today headed “U.S.-Russia Clash in Ukraine?”
“What would Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon or Reagan think of an American president willing to risk military conflict with a nuclear-armed Russia over two provinces in southeastern Ukraine that Moscow had ruled from the time of Catherine the Great?”
Were the U.S. to start arming Kiev, Putin would have three options, says Buchanan:
“He could back down, abandon the rebels, and be seen as a bully who, despite his bluster, does not stand up for Russians everywhere. More in character, he could take U.S. intervention as a challenge and send in armor and artillery to enable the rebels to consolidate their gains, then warn Kiev that, rather than see the rebels routed, Moscow will intervene militarily. Or Putin could order in the Russian army before U.S. weapons arrive, capture Mariupol, establish a land bridge to Crimea, and then tell Kiev he is ready to negotiate. What would we do then? Send U.S. advisers to fight alongside the Ukrainians, as the war escalates and the casualties mount? Send U.S. warships into the Black Sea?”
Experts Warn of War Risk With Russia
Not everybody in Washington is a lunatic, crazy for war against Russia. There is, in fact, a growing chorus against the US supplying weapons to the regime in Kiev, for reasons that should be obvious to any sane person: it will intensify the conflict on the ground in southeast Ukraine and likely increase the risk of a direct confrontation with a nuclear-armed power.
AFP ran a column on February 2nd warning that arming Ukraine would be a dangerous move, quoting a number of Western think- tankers to that effect. Nick de Larrinaga, Europe editor for IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly in London said:
“The conflict is being portrayed by the Kremlin as standing up to the West, claiming Kiev is a pawn of NATO…Supplying lethal assistance would be fulfilling that prophecy, and could even harden Russia’s position.”
Fiona Hill of the Brookings Institution—who last week hosted an appearance there by Victoria Nuland—warned,
“There is a real risk now that we will end up in a war with Russia…As far as Putin’s concerned we’re already in one, an economic and financial war, and if we start sending in weapons then we’ve taken that up a notch.”
Balazs Jarabik, of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, says that weapons aren’t the problem, as Ukraine is the world’s fourth largest producer of weapons. “Their problems lie in things like leadership, management, logistics,” he said, pointing out that Western weapons would require Western trainers and technicians. “If US forces showed up in Ukraine, even if just for training, it would justify everything the Russian conspiracy theorists have been saying all along,” said Jarabik.
Pat Buchanan, in a column posted on realclearpolitics.com, also warns that sending US arms to Ukraine risks a broader confrontation.
“Rather than becoming a co-belligerent in this [ukrainian] civil war that is not our war, why not have the United States assume the role of the honest broker who brings it to an end.”
Buchanan notes that all Cold War presidents, from Truman to GHW Bush, recognized that what went on east of the Elbe was Russia’s business, not the West’s. “That Cold War caution and prudence may be at an end,” he writes in a column today headed “U.S.-Russia Clash in Ukraine?”
“What would Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon or Reagan think of an American president willing to risk military conflict with a nuclear-armed Russia over two provinces in southeastern Ukraine that Moscow had ruled from the time of Catherine the Great?”
Were the U.S. to start arming Kiev, Putin would have three options, says Buchanan:
“He could back down, abandon the rebels, and be seen as a bully who, despite his bluster, does not stand up for Russians everywhere. More in character, he could take U.S. intervention as a challenge and send in armor and artillery to enable the rebels to consolidate their gains, then warn Kiev that, rather than see the rebels routed, Moscow will intervene militarily. Or Putin could order in the Russian army before U.S. weapons arrive, capture Mariupol, establish a land bridge to Crimea, and then tell Kiev he is ready to negotiate. What would we do then? Send U.S. advisers to fight alongside the Ukrainians, as the war escalates and the casualties mount? Send U.S. warships into the Black Sea?”
How ‘Islamic’ is the Islamic State?
ISIS execution methods directly violate Islamic principles.