Patriot missiles being removed from Turkey were hacked, given ‘unexplained orders’

Leave a comment

This is from Liberty UnYielding.

How many more of our defense systems have been hacked?


There are several weird elements in the missile defense drama suddenly being played out in Turkey.  Alert readers won’t be surprised that two of those weird elements are Russia and Iran.

Seemingly out of the blue, Germany announced this past weekend that the German contingent of two Patriot missile batteries, deployed to Turkey as a defensive measure in January 2013 – against the threat of Syrian Scuds – would be withdrawn ahead of schedule.

Within hours, the U.S. had made the same announcement about the American Patriot missiles that were deployed to Turkey at the same time.  The German and American contingents represent four of the five NATO Patriot batteries now in Turkey (the fifth is from Spain).  The four units will be gone by the end of 2015.

The New York Times puts the abruptness of this move down to the delicacy of recent negotiations over U.S. use of air bases in Turkey for the fight against Islamic State.  The NYTarticle – apparently conveying information supplied on background from the Obama administration – suggests that it would have jeopardized the priority of base access if the Turks had been told earlier, during negotiations, that the Patriot missiles were to be pulled out, at the behest of the Pentagon, due to the lack of a threat from Syria.

Instead, the U.S. kept the Patriot withdrawal a secret until the Turks had agreed to a base access proposal.  Says NYT:

Four American officials, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a diplomatic issue, said Sunday that Turkish officials were livid when told two weeks ago that the United States was withdrawing the Patriots.

So the Obama administration continues to win friends and influence people.

Here are the main weird elements in this tale.

But wait – there is a threat from Syria

It’s not true that there has been little to no threat demonstrated from Syria.  In fact, on 25 March 2015, a Scud missile was fired from Syria into southern Turkey.  Its impact was in Reyhanli, in coastal Hatay Province.

Defense News writer Burak Ege Bekdil (apparently a Turk) wondered at the time why one of the NATO Patriot systems didn’t intercept the Scud.  It’s a fair question:  although we don’t know exactly where the German Patriots were positioned in the neighboring border province of Gaziantep, Gaziantep is where they were at the time.*

Map 1.  (Map courtesy University of Texas  online map library)

No intercept is ever guaranteed, and there may have been legitimate reasons relating to geometry or system capabilities why neither German unit was able to shoot down the Scud.  There could have been a number of reasons.  We don’t know, and I stress that we don’t have the information to draw conclusions.

But in light of this actual instance of a Scud being fired into Turkey, only a few months ago, it’s quite uncharacteristic of the Pentagon to decide – as the NYT’s sources indicate – that the threat from Syria is too low to justify keeping our Patriots in southern Turkey.  The Pentagon is far more likely, if left to its own devices, to keep this threat reflected as active and on the books for years afterward.

The reason given for pulling out the Patriots – that they need upgrading and maintenance, and in a world of multiple threats there are higher priorities – comes off as a limp excuse for a really peculiar security decision.  Seriously: there’s somewhere else on the planet where we have a treaty ally bordering a live, hot civil war in which at least one of the belligerents can launch ballistic missiles – in fact, already has – and even missiles with chemical warheads?

As we’ll see, you don’t want to forget that Germany announced the decision first, this weekend, and it was a German unit that was closest to the Scud fired into Hatay Province.

Russia, paranoid

Russia has been suspicious about the NATO Patriot deployments to Turkey from the beginning.  Russia’s theory – echoed by some in the West – is that the Patriots were put in Turkey not to protect Turkey against Syria but to protect the NATO missile defense radar in Malatya Province against, well, Russia (and perhaps Iran).

NATO deployed the X-band AN/TPY-2 radar to Turkey in late 2011, with the system going operational in January 2012.  By late 2014, expanded participation for Turkey in the NATO missile defense shield was looking like a “go,” in spite of earlier reservations in Ankara about data-sharing with Israel and the use of NATO assets for Israel’s defense.

(In late July 2015, Recep Tayyip Erdogan seemed to do an about-face, poking NATO in the eye and resurrecting the prospect of contracting for missile defense systems with China – a move that now looks more explicable in light of the U.S. decision about the Patriots in Turkey.  Turkey probably had a good idea, through intelligence, that it might be coming.)

I do not think that NATO put the Patriots in Turkey to protect the radar in Malatya.  The Russian theory merely reflects Moscow’s fear that everything America does is a sneaky attempt to thwart Russia’s strategic deterrent.  (Russia’s concern is that the NATO radar in Turkey can assist intercepts of Russian missiles as well as Iranian ones.)

In any case, even though there’s actually been a threat to the radar – more below – the Patriots aren’t the best defense against the nature of the threat, which almost certainly won’t be ballistic missiles, and is very unlikely to be manned attack aircraft.  The Patriots aren’t particularly well positioned to defend the radar from those threats (although they aren’t point-defense systems, and aren’t best deployed next to specific targets that need defending).  Given where an airborne threat to the Malatya radar would come from, it would make sense to put the Patriots further east in Turkey, if defending the radar against potential, if unlikely, threats were the objective.

The Russians are all a-jitter this summer over NATO missile defense plans, in part because of the standoff over Ukraine, and the military posturing by both sides in eastern Europe, but also in part because of the implication Russia reads into the JCPOA with Iran.

I wrote about this after the terms of the JCPOA were first unveiled.  The Russians have interpreted Obama’s policy change on missile defense in 2009 to mean that an Iranian threat has been the sole justification for having a NATO missile defense for Europe.  Now that a thousand flowers are blooming and peace with Iran is at hand, Russia’s foreign ministry has been flogging the theme that NATO can box up all the silly missile defense parts and send them off to be melted down for scrap.

Sergei Lavrov was quoted on 5 August, in fact, accusing Obama of lying because the U.S. isn’t seizing the opportunity afforded by the JCPOA to begin dismantling NATO missile defenses.

Iran, annoyed

Iran hates both the Malatya radar and the NATO Patriots in Turkey.  Tehran reacted with fury when the Patriots were introduced in 2013.  In 2011, as preparations were being made to set up the NATO radar in Malatya (where the Kurecik district is located), Iran threatened to attack the radar if the U.S. or Israel attacked Iran’s nuclear program.

Iran’s specific threat to “bomb” the radar may not have been particularly realistic, if aerial bombardment was what the mullahs had in mind.  But a Turkish intelligence report in 2014 outlined the efforts of an alleged Iran-backed “terror” network inside Turkey, which hadconducted surveillance of the radar site in preparation for attacking it.

To adjust our thinking properly about the Iranian element in this, we must keep a couple of things in mind.  One, the NATO radar and the NATO Patriots are both relevant to the problem of missile defense against a Scud coming from Syria.  The radar was not installed with that threat in mind, but it is useful to the problem, nevertheless.  Iran cares about the credibility of the Assad regime’s missile threat, wanting to preserve it as part of keeping the regime itself credible.

But on a bigger stage, and in the longer term, the NATO radar and the NATO Patriots are also both relevant to the defense of the Middle East against missiles launched from Iran.  The Patriots deployed to Turkey wouldn’t be able to intercept Russian ICBMs, but there are scenarios in which they (or upgraded versions of them) could intercept intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) launched from Iran.

There has been no indication that the Patriots in Turkey were deployed with the threat of missiles launched from Iran in mind.  But their presence has been directly relevant to Iranian thinking about the strategic use of ballistic missiles – and hence infuriating.

Their presence also seems to portend a future complication for Iran’s calculations in that regard.  What if the NATO Patriots did move further east in Turkey?  Where else might NATO suddenly put them for local tactical defense, as opposed to the alliance’s theater-level defense shield?

Iran has been at least as motivated as Russia to maneuver against the missile defense developments unfolding slowly – even a bit haphazardly – in Turkey.

Patriots, hacked

With all of this in mind, consider an event reported in a German professional journal, which seems to have taken place earlier this year.  On an unnamed date in the recent past, a German Patriot system in Turkey was “hacked” by unknown cyber intruders, and the system in fact “carried out ‘unexplained’ orders.”  (H/t: Breitbart)

The article at the cites a specialty-media report – from a “civil service” journal calledBehoerden Spiegel – on 7 July 2015.  Although the Local has a link to the report, the website gives time-out errors when one tries to access it from the U.S.  (Here’s the Wikipedia entry for the journal; it’s legit.)

The reference to “unexplained orders” indicates that some element of the missile system was under the control of hackers for at least a brief period, and that it actually did something unexpected, or tried to.  The report on the event in Behoerden Spiegel seems to have characterized this categorically as a cyber-intrusion.  If the Local’s summary is accurate, the original report wasn’t tentative about that.  It moved on expeditiously to discussing how the breach could have been accomplished.

The magazine speculates about two weak spots in the missile system which could be exploited by hackers.

One such weakness is the Sensor-Shooter-Interoperability (SSI) which exchanges real time information between the missile launcher and its control system.

The second exposed point is a computer chip which controls the guidance of the weapon.

Attackers might have gained access in two different ways, one that takes over the operating of the missile system and one that steals data from it.

We don’t know enough about any of this to draw firm conclusions.  But we do know who would be especially motivated to mess with the NATO Patriots – not just gather data on them, but make them do things – and who would have the best ability to use a cyber-attack to do that.

Russia would top the list.  Iran is not to be dismissed, especially if Iranian agents have been creeping around Turkey conducting surveillance of NATO missile defense sites.

Although the Breitbart author mentions jihadists (meaning Salafis), and there is no reason to dismiss them entirely, I don’t consider them the most likely culprits.  Hacking into a Patriot battery is of much more interest to Russia than it is to ISIS or al-Qaeda or al-Nusra.  It’s certainly not a stretch to imagine Russian and Iranian intel services working together to bring this one off.

It would be an unjustified leap, meanwhile, to infer that the hacking of the German Patriot system was connected to the failure to intercept the Syrian Scud on 25 March.  Perhaps it was, but we don’t have the information necessary to draw that conclusion.  A careful analyst must caution against assuming too much.

But the facts we do have are still quite interesting.  The most discouraging fact, in light of all the others, is that the Obama administration is racing Germany out the door with its Patriot missiles.  Everything about the situation argues instead for keeping the Patriot presence in Turkey on the table as a key security policy issue for the U.S. and NATO.

If a hacking incident has revealed an IT weakness in the Patriot, that certainly needs to be fixed.  If the Patriots in Turkey are positioned sub-optimally, or oriented in a way that lags the real threat, that should be addressed as well.  But these things can be done without leaving the impression that Russia and Iran just might have succeeded in scaring us out of Turkey with our Patriots.

As always, with the Obama administration, the battle for credibility was lost in the failure of policy communication.  Instead of making direct, affirmative statements about U.S. policy, the administration conveys coy signals through anonymous disclosures to the media.  Very often, as it has done here, the administration cobbles together ridiculous “bureaucrat-ate-my-homework” excuses for what it has done, and tries to pass them off as stern drivers of policy – as if the president can’t tell a reluctant, penny-pinching Pentagon to suck it up and keep Patriot missiles in Turkey.


* The NATO Patriots are deployed in the provinces of Adana, Kahraman-Maras and Gaziantep, as seen on Map 1.  It’s a good question why they were placed as they have been.  The deployment areas can be viewed as clustered to counter a missile threat that would presumably arise from western Syria; e.g., from territory held by the Assad regime near Aleppo.  Why it would have taken five or six Patriot units to cover this relatively small area is still an interesting question.  (The original deployment included two units from the Netherlands, as opposed to the one unit from Spain in the current order of battle.)

Turkish demographics may offer one clue to the clustering effect.  The map below shows how intensely ethnic Kurds are concentrated in the provinces further east along Turkey’s southern border.  Whatever the threat from the south, Turkey would be less likely to want the NATO Patriots to be deployed into Kurdish-majority provinces.

Map 2. (Wikipedia)



Russia threatens to retaliate against U.S. military

Leave a comment

This is from World Net Daily.

With Putin in charge in Russia, I do not think this is an idle threat.

Will Obama be stupid enough to cross the line with Putin?


Warns airspace over Syria under protection of Moscow.

TEL AVIV – Russia has delivered a behind-the-scenes threat to retaliate if airstrikes carried out by the U.S. or its allies target the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Middle Eastern security officials told WND.

The security officials said Russia complained Sunday in quiet talks with United Nations representatives that the Obama administration’s current aerial campaign against Islamic State fighters in Syria is a violation of international agreements regarding control of Syrian airspace.

The officials said Russia warned it could potentially retaliate if U.S. or Arab airstrikes go beyond targeting Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, and instead bomb any Syrian regime targets.

The officials told WND they do not have any information about the seriousness of the Russian threat or whether Moscow meant it would retaliate directly or aid Assad’s air force in a military response.

The officials said Russian diplomats asserted terms regarding Syrian airspace were agreed upon last September as part of a sweeping deal to disarm Syria’s arsenal of chemical weapons by the middle of 2014.

At the time, the international community feared Assad could target chemical weapons inspectors acting in Syria. That fear in part lead to a deal in which Moscow says it was provided with significant responsibility over the skies of Syria, purportedly to insure against Assad’s air force acting against the international disarmament effort.

The officials further said that both the Russia and Iranian militaries are on heightened alert amid the ongoing situation in Syria.

On Saturday, U.S.-led coalition warplanes for the first time reportedly struck ISIS targets in Syria near the Turkish border as well as positions in the country’s east, according to activists and a Kurdish officials speaking to the Associated Press.

Nawaf Khalil, a spokesman for Syria’s Kurdish Democratic Union Party, or PYD, told the AP the strikes targeted Islamic State positions near the Syrian Kurdish town of Kobani.

U.S.-coalition strikes also reportedly targeted a local ISIS headquarters in the northern Syrian town of Tel Abyad along the Turkish border, setting an oil refinery ablaze.

“Our building was shaking and we saw fire, some 60 meters (65 yards) high, coming from the refinery,” local businessman Mehmet Ozer told Time Magazine.

Time reported the strikes were also confirmed by the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and were reported by Turkey’s Dogan news agency.

Living Beyond Limits

Leave a comment

This is from Town Hall.

Amy Purdy should be held up as a role model.

It is amazing what this young woman has accomplished.


At 15 years of age, Amy Purdy took up snowboarding and quickly advanced in the sport she came to love and master.

At 19, Amy contracted meningococcal meningitis. She had less than a 2 percent chance of living.

Amy miraculously survived, but not without the life-altering loss of her spleen, her kidneys, the hearing in her left ear and both of her legs below the knee because of the ravage of the disease upon her circulatory system.

But against all the odds, Amy learned not only to walk again but also to snowboard. In fact, she became a world champion! Last Friday, at the age of 34, Amy won a bronze medal in the Paralympics, and she wants to share with us her secrets for success and overcoming life’s greatest obstacles.

How’d she do it? A lot of willpower, a lot of determination, perseverance and, according to Amy, “essentially customizing off-the-shelf prosthetic components to try to get them to move the way we need them to for snowboarding.”

Amy explained to HuffPost Healthy Living: “When I lost my legs, (I didn’t say), ‘Am I going to snowboard again?’ My question was, ‘How am I going to snowboard again?'”

As anyone can imagine, getting up on a snowboard with prosthetic legs — let alone mastering the sport — is a herculean feat. But Amy was up for the challenge — one that would confront her deepest barriers of human potential and bring unexpected and repeated challenges.

Compensating for the loss of limbs would be difficult in most typical life practices, but hers also entailed scaling the mountains of Olympic competition. Amy explained: “Being a double leg amputee, I burn up to 60 percent more calories than the average person. We’re using different muscles and compensating. I have to eat a lot, and to be honest, it’s really difficult.”

Even coming into the few years before the 2014 Paralympics, Amy’s successes didn’t come easy. According to the United States Olympic Committee’s website, she didn’t medal in two consecutive World Cup races on her home course at Colorado’s Copper Mountain. However, she did go on to win a silver and a bronze at the next World Cup, which was at Canada’s Big White. Prior to the Paralympics in Sochi, Russia, Amy was ranked second in the world, behind her teammate and national champion Heidi Jo Duce.

There’s no doubt that Amy’s life, optimism and gusto speak to a great degree for all Paralympic competitors and champions, including Steve Cash, Josh Pauls and Taylor Chace in sled hockey; Lt. Cmdr. Dan Cnossen, Oksana Masters and Andy Soule in Nordic skiing; Patrick McDonald in wheelchair curling; Alana Nichols, Danelle Umstead, Stephani Victor and Tyler Walker in Alpine skiing; and Evan Strong and Mike Shea in snowboarding. Even if they hadn’t won medals, these inspiring souls would be heroes because of the obstacles they’ve overcome in life and the model they’ve set for us all.

Amy has one big final bit of wisdom, particularly for those of us who face what seem to be insurmountable life obstacles. She said: “We all have challenges. You can let them be obstacles or roadblocks, or you can use them. We’ve all seen that every challenge we’ve gone through, we’ve learned something from. It’s not getting hung up on the challenges but figuring out how to get ahead. I wouldn’t be where I am if I didn’t take my situation and run with it. I have two prosthetic legs; this is my life. What am I going to do with it? And it’s put me on this amazing journey. I can look back and be completely grateful and say I would never want to change anything. My hopes would be that other people recognize that we all have challenges. From the outside looking in, it might look easy, but people relate to vulnerability and to seeing someone who has had challenges and has overcome.”

We certainly do, Amy. We certainly do. And your stellar attitude and example remind us all again that life is not about waiting for the storms to pass but about learning how to dance in the rain.

Speaking of dancing, on Monday night, Amy actually appeared as a dance contestant on the popular television show “Dancing With the Stars.”

Congratulations, Amy! And congratulations to all of Team USA’s Paralympic champions!

For more information about Amy Purdy, go to her website, at, or watch her nine-minute inspirational speech, “Living beyond limits,” at

School Shooting Hits Russia Despite Prohibitive Gun Laws

1 Comment

This is from Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership.

Russia has the draconian gun laws Obama and Nanny Bloomberg would like to see in America.

Yet the Ruskies have school shootings and gun crime.

It seems the pesky criminals will have a gun in spite of draconian gun laws.


Russia was hit by a rare and tragic event on Monday: a school shooting. Sergei Gordeyev, a 15-year-old student armed with his father’s hunting rifle, allegedly killed two teachers and briefly held around 20 people hostages before police detained him. Such incidents are virtually unheard of in the country, and politicians and others are offering circuitous remedies.

In an interview with Russian newspaper Pravda, the Association of Child Psychologists’ Alexander Kuznetsov blamed video game and TV violence, suggesting that they foment antisocial attitudes. The State Duma is now considering a bill that would ban shooter-based video games.

Activist Boris Altshuler suggests that the nation’s children are burdened by the loneliness of the internet and should engage in “semi-mandatory extracurricular activities” as students did during Soviet times.

President Vladimir Putin asserts that a more refined and cultured education would teach youths greater empathy, ultimately preventing them from engaging in crimes.

While some of these propositions may (or may not) affect the underlying social problems Russian youth face, they don’t at all address how to actually prevent future violent crimes like the one that shocked the nation yesterday.

The shooting happened despite the fact that Russia has very strict gun control laws. Handguns are entirely banned from private ownership. Anyone who wants to buy a rifle must demonstrate a genuine reason for needing it (such as hunting), submit to a background check that includes criminal, mental, and medical records (suffering from alcoholism is an immediate disqualifier), participate in safety training, and renew their license every five years. Even in one’s own home, guns must be locked up and are subject to inspections by police. Both concealed and open carry are largely prohibited.

Russians own fewer than 13 million firearms (compared to the nearly 310 million firearms in America) and predictably face few gun-related crimes. That’s not to say that guns are inaccessible or unused for criminal pursuits. Black market arms dealing is highly lucrative. And, last year one of the nation’s top mobsters was shot and killed in broad daylight.

Meanwhile, law-abiding civilians seem to be most encumbered by regulations. “Successful use of long-stemmed guns is depressingly rare,” writes Vladimir Simonov of RIA-Novosti, because “burglars have already broken in while you’re still fiddling with the key to the case to get hold of your favorite gun.”

Yet, violent crime doesn’t appear to be in any way stifled by the scarcity of legal guns. United Nations’ data from 2011 (the most recently available) shows that Russia experienced 11.2 homicides per 100,000 people, which is more than double what the U.S. faced. This may be unsurprising, given a recent Harvard study that crunched numbers on gun crimes world-wide and found “no correlation of high gun ownership nations and greater murder per capita or lower gun ownership nations and less murder per capita.”

The loss of life yesterday in Russia deserves much mourning. The nation has been lucky to experience so few school shootings. But, if it hopes to prevent similar incidents and curb its overall homicide rate, both the government and the people must reconsider their belief in restricting the self-defense of law-abiding citizens.

Zenon Evans is a staff writer and editor.
Follow Zenon Evans on Twitter

Orwellian Denver Post Edits “Socialist” Out Of Classmate’s Description Of Arapahoe Shooter

Leave a comment

This is from the Liberty Alliance.

The media of today has taken up where Pravda 

The Russian propaganda machine left off.

Besides this punk being a socialist does fit the media

 template of mass murders being right-wing nuts.

It’s one of the most blatant examples of Soviet-style media disinformation and manipulation I’ve ever seen, here in the West, in my life: A prominent, big-city newspaper deliberately distorting/omitting a salient detail of an important news story, in order to provide cover for the evil school of economic thought that their editors share with yet another crazed, violent attacker of innocents.

It’s bad enough that we’ve already seen numerous examples of the democrat-run mainstream media trying to smear the Tea Party & conservatives by falsely, shamelessly attempting to associate various mass-shooters and terrorists with conservative philosophy and politics (while, in fact, they are almost invariably leftist, Obama-supporting democrats who carry out such attacks).

But this time we have someone who knew the shooter, a classmate, going on record to explicitly identify the madman’s political orientation as being the same as that largely held by those in the liberal media, those who usually vilify and smear the Right–and the newspaper reporting on it shamelessly censors the information, the day after it is initially printed.

The article in question, first published last Friday in The Denver Post, deals specifically with the political philosophy of school shooter Karl Pierson. Titled, “Arapahoe gunman held strong political beliefs, classmates said,” it features various statements from students who knew Pierson, concerning his worldview on economics and politics.

When The Post first ran the story, as written by the article’s authors Zahira Torres and Yesenia Robles, a key remark from one of Pierson’s classmates was reported.

This was the initial version:

Read the rest of this Liberty Alliance article here:

State Department Condemns “Mischief” (also known as Islamic Terrorism)

1 Comment

This is from Minuteman News.

You can not make this Stuff Up.

The State Department is calling terrorism mischief.  

It is clear Vladimir Putin is a man with  a spine of steel.

While Obama is a gutless ,nutless wimp.

Marie Harf, State Department spokesperson, had a scary message for the radical Islamic terrorists in Russia. It must have the Russian terrorists quaking in their boots. The Administration said the US condemns the bombing in Volgograd in the strongest terms.

Russia’s Putin put it a little differently, he vowed to seek the ‘total annihilation of terrorists.’

Then our Administration issued a crucial warning: All those who attend the Olympics in Sochi should remain alert, said Marie Harf.

That must put a lot of minds at ease.

Read More:

New Russian Law: ‘Relatives of Terrorists Pay Bill For Damages.’ Something Obama the Wuss Would Never Do


Hat tip Mad Jewess.

These murdering animals should become the slave of

their victims’ families also.


New Russian Law: ‘Relatives of Terrorists Pay  Bill For Damages.’ Something Obama the Wuss Would Never Do

Putin makes Obama look like a assclown, daily.  Never in my life would I have thought RU would have a great leader and USA stuck with a Commie jackass.

Love or hate Vladimir Putin, he is a man that protects his country.  Unlike Barack Hussein Communist Obama who is hell-bent on destroying this country which he is not even naturally born to.

MOSCOW — Russian parliament’s lower house on Friday approved new legislation that toughens punishment for terrorism and requires terrorists’ relatives to pay for the damages caused in attacks.The document comes as Russia is preparing to host the Winter Olympics in Sochi in February amid concerns about security threats posed by an Islamic insurgency that has raged across the North Caucasus region.

The rest-Russia’s New Law: Relatives of Terrorists Pay The Bill ForThe Damages


US Gov’t Stockpiling Weapons, Ammo, And…Requesting 15,000 Russian Troops?

Leave a comment

This is from The Political Outcast.

Could this be Red Dawn?

It sounds like things are going to get real nasty.

We need to get prepared rapidly and stand together.


This is news that should cause every American, even those who consider themselves apolitical, to cock their heads to the side like a bunch of confused terriers and say, “Holy…,” “What the…,” or some variation thereof.

It begins with what is known in Russia as the Ministry of the Russian Federation for Affairs for Civil Defense, Emergencies, and Elimination of Consequences of Natural Disasters, or, as it’s known internationally, the Emergency Control Ministry (EMERCOM). It was created in 1994 by Russian President Boris Yeltsin and has a whole range of duties, which you can read about on its Wikipedia page or at its own website, but the point is that it is a legitimate agency in Russia and not a fantastical delusion conceived in the overactive imaginations of Internet conspiracy theorists.

Well, a new report by EMERCOM states that Janet Napolitano of the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has requested that, according to The European Union Times, “at least 15,000 Russian troops trained in disaster relief and ‘crowd functions’ [i.e. riot control] be pre-positioned to respond to FEMA Region III during an unspecified ‘upcoming’ disaster.” The Russian troops were requested to be reserved to work “directly and jointly” with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA is a branch of the DHS. (Here is a map of FEMA Region III. Note that Washington, D.C., the heart of the country, where a lot of protests occur, is a part of that region.)

The DHS, of course, is the agency of the federal government that over the last year has purchased riot gear, armored vehicles, and 2 billion rounds of ammunition, without explanation. Juxtaposed with this news of the DHS’s request for Russian soldiers to be prepared to “help us” in a time of emergency, it kind of makes one come to reason that this stockpiling of bullets and riot gear has been for the Russian troops.

I’m not usually a conspiracy theorist, which is probably what a conspiracy theorist would say if he wanted people to listen to him. But EMERCOM is internationally recognized; they are not publishers of tabloids, but an actual division of the Russian government.

I’d love to hear theories, even from the liberals reading this, as to why the Obama administration has requested 15,000 Russian troops to come to D.C. at some point. Whatever the reason is, it is obviously an event that the US government is planning. So what are they preparing for?

Read more:


Right on cue, Obama offers up US nukes

Leave a comment

This is from BizPac Review.

Obama is Hell Bent on destroying America’s ability to

defend herself.

Obama is doing what Jimmy Carter had wet dreams about

doing gutting and demoralizing  the military.

Will America get a Ronald Reagan to rescue her?


When President Obama‘s radical base speaks, be it the militant gay rights folks or rich Hollywood moonbats, he is quick to respond.

In the lead-up to the G8 Summit held in Northern Ireland this week, an array of far-left actors, from Whoopi Goldberg to Morgan Freeman, put together a videourging Obama to “set the world’s course” for an end to nuclear weapons.

And right on cue, while speaking in Berlin at the conclusion of the G8 Summit, Obama repeated the four goals of his plan to eliminate all nuclear weapons, as outlined in a 2009 speech the aforementioned video opens with.

As for yesterday’s speech, the Telegraph called it “pure mush, another clichéd “citizens of the world” polemic with little substance.”

Obama spoke of new limits on the use of U.S. nuclear weapons and called forsharp warhead cuts aimed at what he called achieving “peace with justice,” the Washington Free Beacon reported.

“Peace with justice means pursuing the security of a world without nuclear weapons, no matter how distant that dream may be,” Obama said.

As Free Beacon noted, the president said he intended to seek “negotiated cuts” with Russia but appeared to leave open a unilateral one-third warhead arsenal reduction by the United States.

Surely, if Obama takes the lead in eliminating our nuclear arsenal, the rest of the world will follow suit out of sheer admiration. Right?

Fortunately, some in Congress fail to prescribe to such dangerous naivete.

Sen. James Inhofe (R., Okla.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called the announced disarmament plan “the triumph of hope over experience,” the Free Beacon notes.

In a released statement, Inhofe said:

“Hope that a U.S. disarmament example would encourage other countries to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear arsenals; hope that negotiations with Russia would ‘reset’ relations; and hope that reducing the role of nuclear weapons would make the world a safer place.”

“Instead, our experience has been that nuclear arsenals — other than ours — are on the rise, Russia defies us at almost every turn, efforts to curb the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran are failing, and our allies grow increasingly uneasy about the reliability of U.S. nuclear guarantees.”

Read more at the Washington Free Beacon.


Did the FBI Know About the Boston Bombings?

Leave a comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

Why did the FBI not act on the Russian warnings?

After all the Russians are not exactly full of the warm and fuzzys.

We were told after 9/11 communication lapses would be

no more and all of the agencies would share intelligence.

I know government intelligence is an oxymoron.


I woke up just after midnight this morning with a visual image of the FBI following the two Boston bombers before they set off their pressure cookers, but they were too late.

We’re hearing all kinds of stories about how the FBI dropped the ball on these two guys, especially the older brother who conveniently is not able to be questioned because he’s dead.

After keeping track of their movements and associations for several years, as well as getting warnings from Russia, somehow the FBI didn’t follow up. It could be pure incompetence or misfortune or something else.

Maybe we’re missing something. Is it possible that the FBI and other government agencies wanted to catch these guys in the act and the bombs went off before they could be stopped?

Saving the day in the nick of time would have garnered great publicity for the FBI and the Obama Administration.

It’s just a theory, but in light of contradictory stories from administration spokespeople, I’m beginning to wonder.

The following is from Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) who said that law enforcement agencies may have had advanced warning about the bombing plans. Here’s what Chambliss said to Atlanta TV station Channel 2 Action News:


“There now appears that there may have been some evidence that was obtained by one of the law enforcement agencies that did not get shared in a way that it could have been. If that turns out to be the case, then we have to determine whether or not that would have made a difference.”

It’s hard to tell what’s truth and fiction anymore, especially when a story comes from some government agency. Who do we trust? Maybe we’ve gotten to the point that we should assume that everybody is lying until they can prove they aren’t.

Here’s another bit of information that needs some vetting:

“According to the head cross country coach at the University of Mobile – a marathon runner who has run in numerous big races — bomb-sniffing dogs and a bomb squad inspected the runners … and authorities repeatedly announced over the loudspeaker that they were conducting drills.  This occurred at the start of the Boston marathon. He believes that authorities must have had credible evidence of a bomb threat.”

I found the following by Butler Staffer, who teaches at the Southwestern University School of Law, to be most troubling:

“The federal government and, particularly, the FBI has been involved in many ‘sting’ operations in which its agents have lured unsuspecting victims into criminal — including ‘terrorist’ — acts in order to arrest them. A variant on what has long been known as ‘provocateuring,’ FBI agents have provided fake weapons and explosives and, on some occasions, have driven the sting victim to the scene of his intended crime. In a 2012 New York Times article, it was reported that ‘of the 22 most frightening plans for attacks since 9/11 on American soil, 14 were developed in sting operations.’”

The motto “Trust, but Verify” needs to be changed to “Don’t trust until you verify and even then be suspicious.”

Read more:




Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: