Obama Not Stopping Russia

Putin Aggression:

There are several people in the Ukraine that are hunting down Soviet loyalist soldiers and providing evidence of Putin’s continued aggression towards Ukraine. They are using social media, photos, tracing steps and following Russian troops footsteps.

The United States needs to take new steps to respond to the Ukraine conflict because economic sanctions and other Western actions have failed to get Russian President Vladimir Putin to reverse course, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said June 5.

Carter, speaking after conferring with U.S. diplomats and military officers in Stuttgart, Germany, said the Pentagon was concerned about “further things happening” after the worst upsurge in fighting in months broke out this week in eastern Ukraine.

Carter’s warning comes after NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg accused Moscow of sending sophisticated new weapons to Russian-backed rebels in eastern Ukraine, including artillery and anti-aircraft systems.

“What’s clear is that sanctions are working on the Russian economy,” causing considerable hardship for ordinary Russians and a deep recession this year, Carter told reporters on his plane back to Washington.

“What is not apparent is that that effect on his economy is deterring Putin from following the course that was evidenced in Crimea last year,” when Moscow annexed the Ukrainian territory, he said. Read more here.

Then without any warning or briefing from the State Department, a Russian violation has not been corrected as it relates to intermediate ranged ground launched missiles from a 1987 arms deal.

WASHINGTON — The State Department reported on Friday that Russia had failed to correct a violation of a landmark arms control accord between Washington and Moscow that prohibits intermediate-range ground-launched missiles.

At issue is the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, known as the I.N.F. Treaty, which the Obama administration says the Russians breached by testing a cruise missile. But American officials have made no discernible headway in persuading the Russians to acknowledge the compliance problem, let alone resolve it.

In December, the Pentagon told Congress that it had developed a range of military options to pressure Russia to remedy the violation or neutralize any advantages it might gain if the diplomatic efforts fail. But no Pentagon countermeasures have been announced.

The American allegation was outlined in the State Department’s annual report on compliance with arms control agreements. It comes as the Obama administration has sought to identify new areas for potential cooperation with Russia, including the crisis in Syria, even as it has continued to object to Moscow’s military intervention in Ukraine.

The State Department did nothing to draw attention to the report. An unclassified version of it was posted on the agency’s website late on Friday afternoon with no advance notice, and no officials were made available to discuss it. (A classified version of the report was provided to Congress earlier this week.)

Representative Mac Thornberry, the Texas Republican who is the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said that the Obama administration had not been forceful enough in pressing Moscow to comply with the agreement.

“Russia’s development of intermediate-range nuclear platforms is designed to hold our interests at risk and enable Putin’s expansionist policies,” Mr. Thornberry said in a statement, referring to President Vladimir V. Putin. “It is not a situation we should accommodate for two years running. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has proposed meaningful military options to deal with Russia’s I.N.F. violations. The president should order their implementation without delay.”

American officials say that Russia began carrying out flight tests of the missile as early as 2008, and Rose Gottemoeller, the State Department’s senior arms control official, first raised the possibility of a violation with Russian officials two years ago.

Despite the allegation of a violation, the State Department report asserted that it was in the interest of the United States not to withdraw from the agreement, which it said “contributes to the security of our allies and to regional stability in Europe and in the Asia-Pacific region.” The accord bans American and Russian ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles that are able to fly 300 to 3,400 miles.

It is unclear what steps the Obama administration might take next. Ms. Gottemoeller told Congress in December that the development of ground-launched cruise missiles had proceeded far enough that Russia had “the capability to deploy it.”

Those concerns are not the only ones about Russian compliance with arms control accords. The State Department report asserted that Russia may have violated troop notification requirements under the Vienna Document, an agreement between the member states of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

Russian forces who were massed near Ukraine last year, the State Department report said, “exceeded personnel and/or equipment levels intended to trigger notification requirements.” But when Russia was asked for additional information, “It failed to provide responsive replies.”

The report also faulted Russia’s adherence to the Open Skies Treaty, which seeks to reduce the risk of war by providing for unarmed observation flights.

In 2014, the report noted, Russia imposed new restrictions on such flights over Kaliningrad, a heavily militarized Russian enclave near the Baltic Sea.

“Russia continues to fail to meet treaty obligations to allow effective observation of its entire territory,” the report said.

Russia has leveled its own charges against the United States, including that the Aegis missile defense system that is being deployed in Europe is able to launch intermediate-range missiles.

The State Department report said that this system did not have any “offensive capability” and was allowed by the treaty.

What is Missing from the TPP? Reward Offered

If The TPP is Such a Great Idea, Why Keep it a Secret?

The Obama Administration has been pressuring members of Congress to pass the bill that will give President Obama the “fast track”  authority to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership(TPP) agreement without any debate in Congress.  Fast track authority would not allow for any amendments and the bill would remain secret until just before it is voted on.

“President Obama is currently pressing members of Congress to pass Fast-Track authority for a trade and investment agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). If Fast Track passes, it means that Congress must approve or deny the TPP with minimal debate and no amendments. Astonishingly, our lawmakers have not seen the agreement they are being asked to expedite.” Nation of Change

This trade agreement, like previous international trade agreements, like NAFTA, is not a partisan issue.  On just about every other piece of legislation that the Obama Administration has introduced to Congress, the Republican majority has stood fast against it.  However, in this instance, Congress appears to be strangely united in its efforts to pass a secret bill that they have not even been allowed to read.  More important details here.

WikiLeaks issues call for $100,000 bounty on monster trade treaty

Today WikiLeaks has launched a campaign to crowd-source a $100,000 reward for America’s Most Wanted Secret: the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP). One chapter is found here.

Over the last two years WikiLeaks has published three chapters of this super-secret global deal, despite unprecedented efforts by negotiating governments to keep it under wraps. US Senator Elizabeth Warren has said

“[They] can’t make this deal public because if the American people saw what was in it, they would be opposed to it.”

The remaining 26 chapters of the deal are closely held by negotiators and the big corporations that have been given privilleged access. Today, WikiLeaks is taking steps to bring about the public’s rightful access to the missing chapters of this monster trade pact.

The TPP is the largest agreement of its kind in history: a multi-trillion dollar international treaty being negotiated in secret by the US, Japan, Mexico, Canada, Australia and 7 other countries. The treaty aims to create a new international legal regime that will allow transnational corporations to bypass domestic courts, evade environmental protections, police the internet on behalf of the content industry, limit the availability of affordable generic medicines, and drastically curtail each country’s legislative sovereignty.

The TPP bounty also heralds the launch of WikiLeaks new competition system, which allows the public to pledge prizes towards each of the world’s most wanted leaks. For example, members of the public can now pledge on the missing chapters of the TPP.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said,

“The transparency clock has run out on the TPP. No more secrecy. No more excuses. Let’s open the TPP once and for all.”

Note: The TPP is also noteworthy as the icebreaker agreement for the giant proposed ’T-treaty triad’ of TPP-TISA-TTIP which extends TPP style rules to 53 nations, 1.6 billion people and 2/3rds of the global economy.

See https://wikileaks.org/pledge/

Bernie Sanders Popularity Spells Bigger U.S. Crisis

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, is an avowed Socialist. He is listed however as an Independent and caucuses with the Democrats. His voting record is here and 52% of Democrats are cool with Sanders position. Years ago, he wrote a manifesto about his illusions of gang-rape.

He wants America to be like Denmark. He refused to attend Israel’s Prime Minister’s speech before the Joint Congress. He says that Americans love socialism.

He announced his candidacy for president, he is making the rounds in stump speeches and is drawing unexpected large crowds. He is 73 years old and if he wins he would be 75 on inauguration day.

His platform includes items such as free college for everyone paid for by all stock and bond trades, higher minimum wage and higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations. He is a supporter of climate change and seeks to install carbon taxes and increase taxes on methane emissions.

So how is it that Bernie Sanders has this popularity in a democratic government?

Here is the real bad news for our country…

How Bernie Sanders’ ‘radical’ ideas entered the municipal mainstream

“He ran against everything.”

On March 4, 1981, red dawn broke over the Green Mountains.

“‘Everyone’s scared.’ Socialist elected mayor of Vermont’s largest city,” blared the UPI headline over an article that began, “Self-described socialist Bernard Sanders… has invited the city’s business and political leaders to join him in creating ‘a rebirth of the human spirit.’ ” Readers could have been forgiven for concluding that some Pol Pot in Birkenstocks had just established a beachhead in Burlington, Vermont.

When Bernie Sanders won by 10 votes in a four-way mayoral race, Ronald Reagan had just entered the White House, the Cold War was in full swing, and people were seriously freaked out. “You would’ve thought that Trotsky had come to Burlington,” said Sanders’ confidant and one-time roommate, Richard Sugarman.

But now, 34 years later, as Sanders launches a campaign for the presidency, many of the radical solutions he imposed — free arts and culture for the masses, local-first economic development, wresting money from rich nonprofits, and, most shockingly, communal land for affordable housing — have become mainstays of the American municipal governance playbook.

Such policies “would be unexceptional today,” said UCLA urban planning professor Randall Crane, noting that urban policy in general has become broader and more creative in the decades that followed, as more people returned to city neighborhoods.

Crane himself lives on property developed through a land trust in Irvine, California, and says the once-radical idea is now “just seen as a routine part of the toolkit.”

“They sound weird and socialist and stuff,” he said of today’s housing trusts, “but it’s become a non-radical way of thinking about housing affordability.”

That was a far cry from what people were saying in the early ’80s. After Sanders’ election as mayor, Burlington’s business and political establishment — in which Democrats and Republicans coexisted cozily — prepared for the worst.

Sanders had campaigned against the incumbent mayor’s plans to raise residential property taxes, and proposed raising taxes on commercial property instead. “If Sanders succeeds in putting over his tax proposals, they would shut this business community down,” an anonymous businessman told UPI. ”If I was planning a major investment in Burlington, I’d be a little cautious right now.”

“He ran against everything — against the governor, the alderman, the senators,” said Tony Pomerleau, 97, a Republican commercial real estate developer. “He ran against me, too, the guys that were making money.” In fact, Sanders’ opposition to Pomerleau’s plan to develop pricey hotels, condos and office space on the city’s dilapidated waterfront became a signature issue of his campaign.

Shortly after taking office, Sanders created a Mayor’s Arts Council to bring free arts and cultural events to the city, and in 1983 the city gave it municipal funding. “It was like he started a revolution,” said Bruce Seifer, Sanders’ appointee as assistant director of economic development, of the initial reaction to this use of city resources. “But business people like to go to cultural events. It helps to retain families and businesses.”

Indeed, with the rise of Richard Florida’s theories about the importance of a creative class to a city’s fortunes, municipal funding for the arts has become an increasingly popular economic development strategy for cities across the country.

Early in Sanders’ tenure, his treasurer discovered $200,000 in the city’s coffers and the mayor determined to plow it into a bold initiative. Inspired by the garden cities of England, Isreali kibbutzim and Indian communes set up by the followers of Gandhi, he proposed to buy land and hold it in a communal trust for affordable housing, while the housing itself would be owned by occupants.

An opposition group, Homeowners Against the Land Trust, or HALT, labeled it a “communist scheme.” But the plan went through. In 1984, the Burlington Community Land Trust became one of the first affordable housing trusts in the world, and the very first to receive municipal funding. Today, there are over 250 such trusts in the United States — in places like Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Boston and Chapel Hill, North Carolina — most of which receive some form of government funding.

That was also the year that Sanders delivered on a campaign promise and brought Burlington a minor league baseball team: The Vermont Reds. “That was from the Cincinnati baseball team — not because of his politics,” insisted Sugarman, though a year later Sanders traveled to Nicaragua to hang out with the Sandinistas.

When it came to economic development, the “Sanderistas” in City Hall, as his supporters were known, decided to ditch the prevailing “smokestack chasing” approach, which called for local government to entice employers to move to town and set up shop. Instead, they promoted local ownership of business and sought to minimize leakage from the local economy to amplify the multiplier effect of money spent within the economy.

“That was an early initiative for sure,” said Evelyn Blumenberg, a professor of urban studies at UCLA. “It’s become more common in cities to think about economic development from within.”

The approach also put Burlington at the forefront of a “buy local” movement that’s now very much in vogue across the country.

Later in his tenure, Sanders went after the University of Vermont and a local hospital, non-profit institutions that owned large swathes of valuable land in the city but were exempt from paying taxes and cut deals for them for them to contribute “Payments in Lieu of Taxes.”

Sanders didn’t invent PILOTs in Burlington. That other people’s republic, Cambridge, Mass, had been receiving them from Harvard since the 1920s, as had other cities since. But he did anticipate an approach that’s become increasingly popular in the Northeast in recent decades as tax-exempt hospitals and universities have swallowed up more and more land and local governments have put the screws on them to pony up more money for city services.

Sanders also carried through on that original campaign plank, scuttling Pomerleau’s plans for a ritzy waterfront development. But Pomerleau learned to work with Sanders nonetheless. So did the rest of the business community. Ben & Jerry’s grew into a household brand and Burton Snowboards moved to town without any special inducements.

Pomerlau ended up becoming one of Sanders’ closest friends. At one point, a Burlington Free Press front page pictured the two men together under the headline “the odd couple.” On Tuesday, Sanders launched his presidential bid from the public park he created on the waterfront land.

In 1988, toward the end of Sanders’ four-term tenure — long after a local Democratic leader predicted the movement that swept Sanders into office would be gone in a decade — the U.S. Conference of Mayors named Burlington the most livable city in the country with a population of under 100,000 (in a tie). Then Sanders’ director of community and economic development succeeded him in the mayor’s office and Inc. Magazine named Burlington the best city in the Northeast for a growing business.

And what about the guy who told UPI “Everyone’s scared” when the Lenin of Lake Champlain first stormed to power in 1981? That was the state’s then-Democratic Party chairman, Mark Kaplan. Today, he’s on board with a socialist in the White House.

“I actually donated to him,” said Kaplan. “I’m kind of excited about it.”

So the final questions are: If Congress has an approval rating of 12%, how come the incumbents get re-elected up to 90% of the time? What’s up with Vermont too? Where did these socialists come from, what are they being taught?

 

 

WH Climate Change Mission and Terrorism

Posted on the White House website is an 11 page summary of how climate change is the cause of comprehensive national security threats including terrorism.

With climate change, certain types of extreme weather events and their impacts, including extreme heat, heavy downpours, floods, and droughts, have become more frequent and/or intense. In addition, warming is causing sea level to rise and glaciers and Arctic sea ice to melt. These and other aspects of climate change are disrupting people’s lives and damaging certain sectors of the economy. The national security implications of climate change impacts are far-reaching, as they may exacerbate existing stressors, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and political instability, providing enabling environments for terrorist activity abroad. For example, the impacts of climate change on key economic sectors, such as agriculture and water, can have profound effects on food security, posing threats to overall stability.

The implications of climate change on national security are not all beyond U.S. borders – they pose risks here at home. According to the Third National Climate Assessment, sea level rise, coupled with storm surge, will continue to increase the risk of major coastal impacts on transportation infrastructure, including both temporary and permanent flooding of airports, ports and harbors, roads, rail lines, tunnels, and bridges. Extreme weather events are also affecting energy production and delivery facilities, causing supply disruptions of varying lengths and magnitudes and affecting other infrastructure that depends on energy supply. Increasing risk of flooding affects human safety and health, property, infrastructure, economies, and ecology in many basins across the United States.

These impacts increase the frequency, scale, and complexity of future defense missions, requiring higher costs of military base maintenance and impacting the effectiveness of troops and equipment in conflict. Assessments are currently underway by the Department of Defense (DOD) to determine the national resources necessary to respond to these growing threats to U.S. national security. Read the full report here.

The climate change activists are out in full measure, where even Catholic priests have embraced the climate change agenda facing off with Exxon Mobile. Cant make this up.

In part from The Hill:  Michael Crosby, who sponsored the resolution for a climate expert on behalf of a group of Milwaukee Catholic priests, said the oil and natural gas giant needs to better embrace renewable energy and to fight climate change. So who are these priests and why take on corporations?

*** (spelling errors and editing omissions are directly part of their website) ***

Catholic Religious Leaders Call for Action on Climate Change

[Denver, CO]   Leaders of US orders of Catholic priests, brothers, and sisters issued aresolution calling their members to work for action on climate change.The members of the Conference of Major Superiors of Men (CMSM) and the LeadershipConference of Women Religious (LCWR), who represent more than 86,000 of thecountry’s Catholic sisters, brothers, and religious priests, met jointly in assembly inDenver, Colorado from August 1‐4. During the meeting, the two conferences resolved to“seek concrete ways to curb environmental degradation, mitigate its impact on thepoorest and most vulnerable people, and restore right relationships among all God’screation; and to foster a consciousness of care for God’s creation among all ourmembers, colleagues, institutions and those whom we serve.”  The leaders noted that the increase in temperature on the earth will likely havewidespread consequences from mass extinctions to devastating impacts on the lives andlivelihoods of the poorest and most vulnerable human beings.

Here is a memo in part from their global association.

Religions and Climate Change
Fr. Sean McDonagh, SSC

I have been at many meetings of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) during the past decade. At almost all of these meetings religious groups have attempted to demonstrate that climate change has a serious ethical and religious dimension, mainly because it affects the poor and important ecosystems in a very negative way.

After visiting Nepal in May 2014, Ms Christiana Figueres the Secretary General of UNFCCC pointed out that, saving the Earth and its peoples from dangerous climate change is a moral and ethical issue, one that goes to the core of the world’s great faiths. She said that it was time for faith and religious institutions to find their voice and set their moral compass on one of the great humanitarian issues of our time.

At COP 20 in Lima, the Consejo Interreligiouso del Perú (the Council for Interreligious Dialogue) Religiones por la Paz (Religions for Peace) had a stand at the main venue and also sponsored a seminar at the NGO Centre at the Jockey Club of Peru. The title of the seminar was Climate Change and the Voice of the Faith Communities. The first speaker was Mons. Salvador Pineiro, the archbishop of Ayacucho and the President of the Episcopal Conference of Peru. He said that he was a city boy, born in Lima and had little understanding of rural life until he was appointed archbishop of Ayacucho. In conversation with a poor potato farmer he learned how climate changes was affecting the potato crop and making things more difficult for farmers during the past decade.

Raquel Cago, who is the executive director of the National Union of Evangelical Churches, said that the bible challenges Christians to take good care of God’s creation. Martin Kopp from the Federation of Lutheran Churches spoke very simply and succinctly about how the faith community should respond to climate change.
He made three suggestions:
The most important thing for Churches and Religions is to develop a credible theology of creation in each of their traditions:
His second recommendation was that the faith community must work together and lobby governments and industries to challenge them to take climate change seriously at local, national and global level. We need good laws and effective enforcement of these laws to protect the poor and the environment:
Finally, people need to do things however small to combat climate change. He gave an example of a choir in a Church in France. The members used to meet in the church for rehearsals even during the winter. This meant heating the large church, even through there were only a few people in the choir. Someone suggested they met in a smaller room and thus save energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

 

 

Muslims Laugh at Obama’s Climate Change Speech

The immediate threat to national security is climate change…sheesh

The White House is the laughing stock of the globe.

Barack Obama used his commencement speech to the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut on Wednesday, to focus on a topic he called an immediate national security threat: climate change.

“Climate change will impact every country on the planet. No nation is immune,” the President told the 218 graduating cadets. “Climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country. And so we need to act — and we need to act now.”

President Obama stressed the effects of climate change and its role in natural disasters and humanitarian crises, citing potential increases in refugee flows, a lack of food and water and threatening the readiness of U.S. military forces.

“Many of our military installations are on the coast, including, of course, our Coast Guard stations. Around Norfolk, high tides and storms increasingly flood parts of our Navy base and an air base. In Alaska, thawing permafrost is damaging military facilities. Out West, deeper droughts and longer wildfires could threaten training areas our troops depend on.”

So, at the end of last week a joint bulletin was distributed describing domestic targets in the near-term.

U.S. investigators are becoming overwhelmed trying to keep up with the social media barrage by U.S.-based supporters of the Islamic State — with the latest information suggesting “US military bases, locations, and events could be targeted in the near-term.”

The warning comes in a new, six-page bulletin obtained exclusively by Fox News. It warns law enforcement and specifically military personnel to be vigilant during upcoming national holidays and military events due to the “heightened threat of attacks by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).”

Sent one day before the Memorial Day holiday weekend, the joint bulletin — from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Homeland Security and National Counterterrorism Center — advised there is no “credible” threat information targeting events on U.S. federal holidays. But it said, “we are aware of recent information suggesting US military bases, locations, and events could be targeted in the near-term.”

While the FBI and other law enforcement agencies have given generic warnings in the past, this bulletin spelled out the heightened chatter and advised precautions that should be taken. The list of “observable behaviors” also points to so-called insider threats, and warns about individuals asking “unusual questions” about building maintenance or security procedures.

Now enter the chiding of Obama on his panicked climate change looming disaster.