‘Pipe bomb-style device’ Explodes Along Military 5K Route

Multiple devices also found “wired together”

1
An explosive device went off in a garbage pail Saturday morning along the route of a 5K run and walk to benefit military soldiers.

Multiple devices were also found “wired together” in the same garbage pail, but they did not detonate, according to Al Della Fave, spokesman for the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office.

The explosion occurred along the route of the Seaside Semper Five Marine Corps Charity 5K at around 9:30 a.m.

The device is being described as a “pipe bomb-style device” based on a preliminary investigation by officials from the New Jersey State Police Bomb Squad, Della Fave said.

Read more

 

Advertisements

Over 2,800 arrested, 265 killed, 1,440 injured in Turkish coup attempt

Those arrested included ordinary soldiers and high-ranking officers

Turkish Prime Minister said that 2,839 soldiers and officers implicated in an overnight coup attempt have been arrested. At least 265 people have been killed, including 104 pro-coup participants, while 1,440 people were injured in military action in Istanbul and Ankara.

According to Prime Minister Binali Yildirim, those arrested included ordinary soldiers and high-ranking officers. He added that about 20 of those who planned the overnight coup were killed and 30 more were wounded.

Acting chief of staff of the armed forces Umit Dundar said during a press conference that more than 190 people have been killed since the attempted coup was launched.

“1,563 soldiers were arrested, and 104 military who took part in the coup were killed in clashes. Ninety others were also killed, including 41 [pro-government] police officers, 2 [pro-government] soldiers and 47 civilians,” he said.

Pro-government forces have seized control of the top military HQ building, but there are still some groups of rebels resisting, a Turkish official said on Saturday, as cited by Reuters.

General Hulusi Akar, who heads Turkey’s armed forces, has been rescued from rebel captivity. He was the most senior military official in their hands.

The rebels reportedly have several helicopter gunships in their disposal, but loyalists have threatened to shoot them down as they downed at least one aircraft carrying out attacks on government buildings.

A faction of the Turkish military attempted to overthrow the government on Friday night, employing tanks and attack helicopters. The conspiracy appears to have failed, however, as they didn’t manage to capture any senior government officials and couldn’t win wide support from the Turkish military.

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called on his civilian supporters to take to the streets of Istanbul, which they did. Rebel soldiers, who called on the population to stay indoors, apparently didn’t have the resolve to launch a full-scale war against civilians in Turkey’s biggest city.

The coup attempt began on Friday night when warplanes and helicopters buzzed over Ankara and rebel troops moved in to seal off the bridges over the Bosphorus Strait.

Tanks attacked several government buildings, including the Turkish parliament, as lawmakers hid in shelters inside the building.

Several airports were shut down and access to social media was blocked in the first hours of turmoil.

The TRT state television and the Turkish branch of CNN were seized and ceased broadcasting.

The tide turned early on Saturday as rebels lost momentum and failed to win support.

Government officials accused Fethullah Gulen, an influential cleric in self-imposed exile in the United States, of instigating the plot. Gulen used to be an ally of Erdogan, but turned into his fierce opponent.

In 2013, Turkey was shaken by a corruption scandal involving senior government figures. Erdogan claimed it had been set up by Gulen and launched a crackdown on his supporters in the police and judiciary.

Even though Erdogan appears to have kept his hold on power, the coup attempt is a clear signal that some of his policies are badly failing, Sreeram Chaullia from the Jindal School of International Affairs told RT.

Under his watch, Turkey has picked a fight with Kurdish insurgents, contributed to the chaos in Syria and Iraq, antagonized Iran and Russia, and to some extent made Turkey a liability to NATO, he explained.

“I have a feeling that this coup is linked to the security crisis. A series of terrorist attacks signal the inability of the Turkish government to stop these attacks. It has angered some sections of the security establishment that believe that they can do a better job because Erdogan is just playing politics with everything,” he said.

Modern Turkey has undergone three successful military coups over its century-long history, the latest in 1980.

The Turkish military has traditionally been the guarantor of the country’s secularity, while Erdogan’s platform is Islamist in nature. Critics accuse the Turkish president of trying to turn the country into an Islamic state with him as its dictatorial head.

Erdogan, who has been in power since 2002, has faced being toppled by the military before, but the alleged plot dubbed Operation Sledgehammer was prevented in 2010 by a series of arrests. Some 300 alleged conspirators were sent to prison at that time.

Turkey is a member of NATO and a key US ally in the region, providing its airbase for the ongoing military campaign in neighboring Syria. It also hosts American nuclear weapons, with an estimated 50 to 90 B61 bombs stored at the Incirlik base.

House rejects effort to ban illegal immigrants from military service

In a break from previous votes on the issue, the House on Thursday rejected two GOP proposals to prevent the Obama administration from enlisting young illegal immigrants to serve in the military.

Lawmakers voted down two measures offered by immigration hard-liners Reps. Steve King (R-Iowa) and Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) that would have prohibited the use of federal money to enlist young illegal immigrants who have been granted work permits under President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

More than 30 Republicans with more centrist views on immigration joined all Democrats in opposing the two amendments offered to a Defense Department spending bill. The amendments failed narrowly with votes of 207-214 and 210-211, respectively.

Certain young illegal immigrants qualify for DACA if they came to the U.S. as minors and have worked toward at least a high school education, among other requirements.The Obama administration has already enlisted some DACA recipients through a program, Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (MAVNI), that recruits immigrants with valued foreign language or medical skills to serve in the military. Gosar said the Pentagon confirmed to his office that it had recruited 141 DACA recipients as of April.

The amendments would have blocked the Obama administration from using the MAVNI program to enlist people in the DACA program.

Democrats sought to tie the provisions to the harsh rhetoric on immigration from presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump.

“Clearly, House Republicans are taking their anti-immigrant cues from Donald Trump,” said Rep. Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.), the chairman of House Democrats’ campaign arm.

“They come here in the spirit of Donald Trump,” Rep. Joaquín Castro (D-Texas) said of the House GOP. “What we’re seeing with these amendments is part of a larger pattern of hostility toward Hispanic Americans on the part of the Republican Party.”

King and Gosar said that the Obama administration is stretching the limits of MAVNI.

“It’s not for the president to use this as a blanket amnesty,” King said.

Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), an Iraq War veteran, argued that the military should be able to recruit anyone who could help the nation.

“Simply put, we shouldn’t let political posturing stand in the way of our military’s requirement goals,” Gallego said.

It’s the second time in a week that House Democrats have used an immigration-related provision in an appropriations bill to try to tie the GOP to Trump.

The annual spending bill for legislative branch operations typically passes with a wide bipartisan majority. But the measure passed largely along party lines last week because Democrats opposed a provision to keep the phrase “illegal alien” in subject headings, contrary to a Library of Congress decision.

Republicans maintained that the phrase simply reflects that some people are in the country illegally. But Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chairwoman Linda Sánchez (Calif.) urged fellow Democrats to vote against the spending bill, arguing that the term “perpetuates racism and promotes hate.”

Debate over allowing illegal immigrants to serve in the military nearly sunk the annual Defense authorization bill last year.

The House Armed Services Committee had approved a provision establishing a “sense of the House” that the Pentagon should review allowing DACA recipients to enlist during its markup of the bill. But the House later voted to eliminate the language in response to conservative outcry.

Update: Military Martial Law Bill Sneaked Through by Senate

Bill gives Obama power to deploy military anywhere – including on U.S. soil

“The Authorization for Use of Military Force put for­ward by Mc­Con­nell would not re­strict the pres­id­ent’s use of ground troops, nor have any lim­its re­lated to time or geo­graphy,” Defense One reported.

In other words, the authorization allows the president to deploy the military anywhere at his discretion – both foreign and domestic – for as long as he wants.

Several senators, including Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Whip John Cornyn, were surprised by McDonnell’s decision to fast-track the bill after a year of deep in-fighting over similar measures in the Senate.

“He did?” he asked the Na­tion­al Journ­al on Thursday morn­ing when reporters informed him about the bill.

Even some Senate Democrats have an issue with a new authorization without geographical restrictions placed on the president.

“I’m for the Con­gress vot­ing on an AUMF; of course it de­pends what the AUMF looks like,” Sen. Robert Men­en­dez said Thursday. “I don’t want a blank check.”

It’s also interesting to note McConnell is trying to push through the bill on a Friday as an unprecedented blizzard slams the northeast U.S., including Washington, D.C.

FOLLOW on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RealKitDaniels
SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

FOLLOW on Twitter:

HAARP To Be ‘Transferred To Civilian Control’; Will Still Receive Pentagon Funding

Controversial military site will continue to be used for experiments
HAARP To Be 'Transferred To Civilian Control'; Will Still Receive Pentagon Funding

by Steve Watson | InfoWars | July 14, 2015


The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, also known as HAARP is to be transferred from military operation to “civillian control”, as the site is handed over to the University of Alaska, which will continue to use the mysterious facility for experiments.

“The Air Force Research Lab has control of the HAARP facility until Aug. 11,” Marmian Grimes, a university of Alaska spokesperson, wrote in an email to The Intercept.

“After that, the university will have access to the site under the terms of an agreement between [University of Alaska Fairbanks] and the Air Force. That agreement allows access for two years, which will provide the university and the Air Force time to negotiate an agreement regarding the transfer of the land.”

HAARP was officially constructed with the stated goal of studying the ionosphere. It is made up of a huge array of radio transmitters and antennas, which generate radio waves to heat up portions of the ionosphere, the region of Earth’s upper atmosphere, from about 60 km (37 mi) to 1,000 km (620 mi) altitude, which is ionized by solar radiation.

The heat accelerates electrons, creating conditions for military scientists to conduct experiments.

The facility has long been the subject of intense scrutiny among those who believe the Pentagon constructed and used it to conduct research into everything from weather and natural phenomenon manipulation weapons to more esoteric studies, such as electronic and psychotronic mind control.

As the Intercept report notes, the Pentagon ploughed millions into the facility, mostly via congressional add-ons, and was still doing so as recently as 2007, when HAARP was officially completed.

It consequently seemed dubious to many that just seven years later an announcement came that the Air Force was set to close the site and dismantle the array.

Now it has been revealed that HAARP will live on. The Intercept notes:

“Physicist Dennis Papadopoulos, a professor at the University of Maryland and longtime proponent of HAARP, said the agreement that was worked out would transfer the facility from the Defense Department to the state of Alaska, and then over to the University of Alaska, which has long been involved in research at the site.”

HAARP will then operate, like other ionosphere research sites, as a scientific facility supported by those conducting experiments there. Papadopoulos said that the state of Alaska will put in about $2 million, and some additional funding may come from the National Science Foundation and the Pentagon.

So the facility will likely STILL be funded by the government, and experiments will continue to be conducted there.

This inevitably means that the theories over what HAARP is really used for will not go away, and researchers will continue to be fascinated with the mysterious facility.

—————————————————————-

Steve Watson is a London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from Nottingham Trent University.

NASA MISTAKES AND FALSE RESULTS EXPOSED

June 22, 2015 in Science

by

When we look at the many accomplishments of man, we tend to forget how much man really has accomplished. We seem to have a great deal of assistance from government programs recently and even dating back hundreds of years. From Nicolas Copernicus discovering that the earth rotated around the sun to the discovery the world just is not a flat plate.

Someone or something has been altering history and blocking the advancement of man for quite some time.

Long established fundamental understanding has been overwritten continually by just one culture and they are good at it.

White men seem to have a habit of making things up to suit themselves then claiming everyone else is wrong about it rather then excepting the long held beliefs and evidence supporting those beliefs.

There has been a world wide takeover of those false beliefs ranging from the world being flat to ignoring the older text and even the Bible as to what the truth is. The real puzzle is why?

Here we can clearly see a photo of ruins here on earth that were built so long ago that mainstream science wishes they were not built at all.

x

Next we can look at a poor photo taken by NASA on the surface of Mars and see the foundations of a city laid out much the same way.

y

There is no denying that the foundations are there.

Something that they teach you if you have ever been in the Army or for that matter any branch of the Military is how to identify structures that may be hidden on a battle field. The first rule is nature does not make straight lines. the second rule is nature never makes perfect 90′ corners. to get silly nature does not make squares or cubes… it is something that is a tattletale of enemy positions and therefore subject to be shot at… the reciprocal is true if you are attempting to camouflage something you never make squared corners.. So when we look at these pictures and NASA with their advanced knowledge tries to redefine kindergarten fundamentals by denying the images of structures either on the moon or on Mars is simply absurd.

z

To support this fundamental assumption that only man makes straight lines or 90′ corners we will look at the following website for advice.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-25-26/ch8.htm

Quote directly from this site and just about any military handbook on the subject.

8-9. IDENTIFICATION OF PHOTOGRAPH FEATURES

The identification of features on a photograph is not difficult if the following facts are remembered. The view that is presented by the aerial photograph is from above and, as a result, objects do not look familiar. Objects that are greatly reduced in size appear distorted. Most aerial photography is black and white, and all colors appear on the photograph in shades of gray. Generally speaking, the darker the natural color, the darker it will appear on the photograph.

a. The identification of features on aerial photographs depends upon a careful application of five factors of recognition. No one factor will give a positive identification; it requires the use of all five.

(1) Size. The size of unknown objects on a photograph, as determined from the scale of the photograph or a comparison with known objects of known size, gives a clue to their identity. For example, in a built-up area the smaller buildings are usually dwellings, and the larger buildings are commercial or community buildings.

(2) Shape (Pattern). Many features possess characteristic shapes that readily identify the features. Man-made features appear as straight or smooth curved lines, while natural features usually appear to be irregular. Some of the most prominent man-made features are highways, railroads, bridges, canals, and buildings. Compare the regular shapes of these to the irregular shapes of such natural features as streams and timber lines.

(3) Shadows. Shadows are very helpful in identifying features since they show the familiar side view of the object. Some excellent examples are the shadows of water towers or smoke stacks. As viewed directly from above, only a round circle or dot is seen, whereas the shadow shows the profile and helps to identify the object. Relative lengths of shadows also usually give a good indication of relative heights of objects.

(4) Shade (Tone or Texture). Of the many different types of photographic film in use today, the film used for most aerial photography, except for special purposes, is panchromatic film. Panchromatic film is sensitive to all the colors of the spectrum; it registers them as shades of gray, ranging from white to black. This lighter or darker shade of features on aerial photographs is known as the tone. The tone is also dependent on the texture of the features; a paved highway has a smooth texture and produces an even tone on the photograph, while a recently plowed field or a marsh has a rough, choppy texture and results in a rough or grainy tone. It is also important to remember that similar features may have different tones on different photographs, depending on the reflection of sunlight. For example, a river or body of water appears light if it is reflecting sunlight directly toward the camera, but appears dark otherwise. Its texture may be smooth or rough, depending on the surface of the water itself. As long as the variables are kept in mind, tone and texture may be used to great advantage.

(5) Surrounding Objects. Quite often an object not easily recognized by itself may be identified by its relative position to surrounding objects. Large buildings located beside railroads or railroad sidings are usually factories or warehouses. Identify schools by the baseball or football fields. It would be hard to tell the difference between a water tower next to a railroad station and a silo next to a barn, unless the surrounding objects such as the railroad tracks or cultivated fields were considered.

b. Before a vertical photograph can be studied or used for identification of features, it must be oriented. This orienting is different from the orienting required for the construction or use of the point designation grid. Orienting for study consists of rotating the photograph so that the shadows on the photograph point toward yourself. You then face a source of light. This places the source of light, an object, and its shadow in a natural relationship. Failure to orient a photograph properly may cause the height or depth of an object to appear reversed. For example, a mine or quarry may appear to be a hill instead of a depression.

When you cover this type of identification a bit more you can discover just how much misdirection NASA has been giving the public from the starting gate. Giving the public picture after picture and claiming natural formations that are clearly foundations and structures. Always blurry pictures are given by NASA and this is strange. After all NASA is suppose to have some of the most expensive photographing equipment known on the planet but time and time again nothing but blurry photos that are color soaked in one way or another.

When the public gets these photos regardless of how spectacular they seem to be, they turn a blind eye because of the 100s of years misinformation given to the general public. When you just look at these pictures without any further information then here is a photo, most people will make out foundations of building vary quickly. But after this tell them it is a picture from Mars and they laugh and dismiss there own eyes all to quickly. They have been taught to do this…

So when you are looking at new photos from anyplace that NASA has been, take a closer look to see what it really is, not what someone tells you it should be…. THEY ARE DECEIVERS and most know they are..

Now I ask the question again, Why is it so important that the world remains flat? And why do so many people blindly except, who’s word for it?

Does Military Defense Require Large States?

Wealth — not size — buys defense
Does Military Defense Require Large States?

by Ryan McMaken | Mises.org | June 12, 2015


Earlier this year, Lithuania reinstituted the military draft, which the Lithuanian state claimed was in response to threats from Russia.

Ukraine has also recently reinstituted the draft, with mixed political results, and for similarly stated reasons.

Regardless of how one gauges the magnitude of Russian aggression, the problem faced by small states like Lithuania is an important one.

How can a small state with a small population — and thus a small military — ever hope to defend itself against a much larger state?

This is an important question for libertarians especially, since, as Hans-Hermann Hoppe has noted, if we must have states, a system of small, independent states (i.e., Monaco, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, and arguably Switzerland) is much more ideal than a system of medium-sized or large states.

As illustrated here and here, we find that small states are less able to impose strong coercive state monopolies since small states face greater competition from surrounding states, and the more abusive states (if small) are at greater risk of losing their most productive citizens to emigration. Thus, small states have an incentive to pursue more laissez-faire policies.

The natural implication of this is that libertarians and other proponents of laissez-faire should seek a world of small states through secession, or through radical decentralization which leads to de facto local autonomy.

In response to this, opponents of secession and decentralization claim that only large and strong states can provide adequate military defense in the face of illiberal and large foreign regimes. “We can reduce the Americas and Europe to regions of small, weak states,” they may say, “but that would leave them defenseless against domination by some future equivalent of China, or Russia, or the United States.”

But are small states really defenseless?

Wealth — Not Size — Buys Defense

War-making is an expensive and capital-intensive endeavor. Ironically, some of the most warlike states often have their genesis in relatively laissez-faire economies (e.g., those of the American and Imperial British economies) because those economies are able to provide more tax revenue.

The other side of coin, however, is the fact that wealthier societies have a greater ability to defend themselves from aggressors. Wealthier societies can afford important and expensive armaments such as anti-aircraft defenses and related defensive technologies. They can afford to pay for specialized highly-trained troops instead of resorting to a 100-percent conscription tax on people with no particular skill for soldiering. Wealthier societies can also more easily obtain nuclear weapons technology which has clearly been shown to deter war-making by large aggressive states.

Also, wealthier societies can buy defense from neighbors in a variety of other ways. They can employ foreign mercenaries, and they can simply bribe unfriendly foreign regimes. Potential foreign aggressors will also be reluctant to bomb wealthy foreign cities that are sources of lucrative trade and investment.

And finally, in a wealthier society, residents at an individual and small organizational level, are more capable — if the state permits it — of arming themselves, which has the effect of adding another layer of resistance to foreign aggression.

The Advantages of Decentralization

This latter advantage of economic wealth brings us to the tactical advantages of political and military decentralization. Hoppe writes:

As a monopolist of ultimate decision-making, the state decides for everyone bindingly whether to resist or not; if to resist, whether in the form of civil disobedience, armed resistance or some combination thereof; and if armed resistance, of what form. If it decides to put up no resistance, this may be a well-meaning decision or it may be the result of bribes or personal threats by the invading state — but in any case, it will certainly be contrary to the preferences of many people who would have liked to put up some resistance and who are thus put in double jeopardy because as resisters they disobey now their own state as well as the invader.

On the other hand, if the state decides to resist, this again may be a well-meaning decision or it may be the result of pride or fear — but in any case, it too will be contrary to the preferences of many citizens who would have liked to put up no resistance or to resist by different means and who are entangled now as accomplices in the state’s schemes and subjected to the same collateral fallout and victor’s-justice as everyone else.

The reaction of a free territory is distinctly different. There is no government which makes one decision. Instead, there are numerous institutions and individuals who choose their own defense strategy, either independent of or in cooperation with others, each in accordance with one’s own risk assessment. Consequently, the aggressor has far more difficulties gathering information and conquering the territory. It is no longer sufficient to “know” the government, to win one decisive battle or to gain control of government headquarters from where to transmit orders to the native population. Even if one opponent is “known,” one battle is won or one defense agency defeated, this has no bearing on others.

Moreover, the multitude of command structures and strategies as well as the contractual character of a free society affect the conduct of both armed and unarmed resistance. As for the former, in state-territories the civilian population is typically unarmed and heavy reliance exists on regular, tax-and-draft-funded armies and conventional warfare. Hence, the defense forces create enemies even among its own citizenry, which the aggressor state can use to its own advantage, and in any case there is little to fear for the aggressor once the regular army is defeated. In contrast, the population of free territories is likely heavily armed and the fighting done by irregular militias led by defense professionals and in the form of guerilla or partisan warfare. All fighters are volunteers and all of their support: food, shelter, logistical help, etc. is voluntary. Hence, guerrillas must be extremely friendly to their own population. But precisely this: their entirely defensive character and near-unanimous support in public opinion can render them nearly invincible, even by numerically far superior invading armies. History provides numerous examples: Napoleon’s defeat in Spain, France’s defeat in Algeria, the U.S. defeat in Vietnam, Israel’s defeat in South Lebanon.

Collective Defense, Guerilla Warfare, and Private Arms

Rothbard explored these same themes in his work on the American Revolution, in which he noted the essential role of guerilla warfare in that conflict. Simultaneously during the war, the “United States” functioned as a group of independent states that had come together for the purposes of collective defense. The coalition was successful against the most powerful state of the era, and the Americans states remained de facto independent small entities, even if they functioned internationally under a single diplomatic banner.

Consequently, we find that effective military defense does not necessitate a centralized state or political unity. There is no compelling reason to believe that had there been twenty or thirty colonies instead of thirteen, that the outcome or conduct of the war on the side of the Americans would have been any different.

These facts remain relevant even today since other regions of the world could take advantage of the same dynamics, were they able to overcome their commitments to nationalism and authoritarianism. For example, if Lithuania were serious about military defense, it might look to the fact that the former states of the Soviet Bloc, from Estonia to Bulgaria (not including the former SSRs, such as Ukraine), have a combined population of over 100 million people and populations spread out over a large area. In other words, the region has the potential to mount a credible and effective military defense to foreign invaders through decentralized, collective defense.

Defensive military capability would also be greatly enhanced by a commitment to economic growth through deregulation and laissez-faire. Not surprisingly, though, most of the states of the region are unwilling to free their economies from government intervention. At the same time, those same states are committed to disarming the local populations and centralizing military capability while palming off their defense costs on the American taxpayer via NATO. That is, they remain committed to old models of state defense that have failed them spectacularly in the past.

The region (like most of the world) remains mired in the idea that a centralized state and a defenseless private sector are the best option for defense. The number of privately owned-firearms in Bulgaria, for example, is six guns per 100 people. In Poland, the number is 1.3 private guns per 100 people. There are even fewer private guns in Lithuania (0.7 per 100), which has decided that enslaving young men via conscription is better than letting citizens have guns. When we compare these numbers to gun ownership in Switzerland, which has a rate of forty-five guns per 100 people (the rate is eighty-eight per 100 in the United States), it becomes abundantly clear that the regimes of eastern Europe are not serious about any type of military defense that does not prioritize protecting the state’s monopoly of coercion over its own citizens.

Ideology Matters

Economics, size, and the quality of war materiel all matter, but none of these factors can overcome the power of ideology. Hoppe writes:

[H]ow is one to explain, for instance, that France has not long ago conquered Monaco, or Germany Luxemburg, or Switzerland Liechtenstein, or Italy Vatican City, or the U.S. Costa Rica? Or how is one to explain that the U.S. does not “finish the job” in Iraq by simply killing all Iraqis. Surely, in terms of population, technology and geography such are manageable tasks.

The reason for these omissions is not that French, German, Swiss, Italian or U.S. state rulers have principled moral scruples against conquest, occupation, expropriation, confiscation, enslavement and the imprisonment or killing of innocents — they do these things on a daily basis to their “own” population. … [W]hat constrains the conduct of state rulers and explains their reluctance to do things that appear feasible from a “technical” point of view is public opinion, domestically, but also abroad.

As La Boétie, Hume, Mises, Rothbard have explained, government power ultimately rests on opinion, not brute force. Bush does not himself kill or put a gun to the head of those he orders to kill. Generals and soldiers follow his orders on their own. Nor can Bush “force” anyone to continue providing him with the funds needed for his aggression. The citizenry must do so on its own, because it believes that, by and large, it is the right thing to do. On the other hand, if the majority of generals, soldiers and citizens stop believing in the legitimacy of Bush’s commands, his commands turn into nothing more than hot air.

Ultimately, no governmental structure can prevent war if the prevailing ideology is one that prefers violence to peace and nationalism to international laissez-faire. Likewise, Sweden and Norway (for example) no longer come to blows, not because peace is imposed on them by NATO or the US, but because the people of the region view war as an untenable option. There is peace (for now) throughout most of the West because few of the productive taxpaying citizens of the West are inclined to make war on other citizens of the West. This is an ideological triumph, not a military one.

This Is How You “Boost” GDP: US Sells Over $4 Billion In Weapons To Israel, Iran And Saudi Arabia

Just as the US military industrial complex wanted.
This Is How You "Boost" GDP: US Sells Over $4 Billion In Weapons To Israel, Iran And Saudi Arabia

Image Credits: United States Air Force.

by Zero Hedge | May 22, 2015


War, what’s it good for?

Aside from countless deaths of innocent civilians of course, it means a GDP boost for the biggest exporter of weapons on earth, the United States, and even more profits for the US military-industrial complex. Profits which mean the shareholders of America’s arms manufacturers get even richer.

Which is why following months of middle-eastern sabre ratling and numerous quasi-wars already raging in the region, moments ago the U.S. State Department approved the sale of 10 MH-60R Seahawk helicopters to Saudi Arabia for $1.9 billion, the first step in “a major multibillion-dollar modernization of the Saudi navy’s eastern fleet.”

MH-60R Seahawk helicopter

According to Reuters, the Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) notified lawmakers on Thursday about the possible arms sale, which has been discussed for years.

The Saudi government had requested a sale of the 10 MH-60R multi-mission helicopters, built by Sikorsky Aircraft, a unit of United Technologies Corp and Lockheed, as well as radars, missiles and other equipment, the agency said.

Why do the Saudis need a modernization of their already state of the art weapons?

The proposed sale would improve Saudi Arabia’s capability to meet current and future threats from enemy weapons systems, as well as secondary missions such as vertical replenishment, search and rescue, and communications relay.

“Saudi Arabia will use the enhanced capability as a deterrent to regional threats and to strengthen its homeland defense,” the agency said.

In other words, the Saudis, by funding ISIS, are creating the very “regional threat” (which recently has launched numerous false flag attacks against the same Saudi Arabia to provie the cover for needing such a modernization) that they need to wage war against.

But wait, there’s more!

Because just to make sure the same vendors of lethal equipment have happy repeat customers, the Pentagon also announced a $1.9 billion deal with Israel to supply 3,000 Hellfire precision missiles, 250 AIM-120C advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles, 4,100 GBU-39 small diameter bombs and 50 BLU-113 bunker buster bombs. The order also includes 14,500 tail kits for Joint Direct Attack Munitions for 220kg and 900kg bombs and a variety of Paveway laser-guided bomb kits according to RT.

Bunker buster bomb in moment of deployment

Wait, wasn’t the US said to have tarnished its relations with Israel in recent months following various diplomatic snubs by Netanyahu and Obama? Well, it was all for show: according to Israeli media deal is seen as “compensation” for the rapprochement between Iran and the US.

Curiously, this is precisely what we wrote two weeks ago in “Obama’s Real Motive Behind The Iran Deal: A Backdoor Channel To Sell Weapons To Saudi Arabia” only we can now add Israel in the mix.

“The proposed sale of this equipment will provide Israel the ability to support its self-defense needs,” the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency said, adding that the new contract is meant to“replenish”Israel’s arsenal without supplying the country with any kind of new weapons.

In November 2014 it was reported that Pentagon was going to supplying Israel with 3,000 smart bombs, similar to those used by the Israeli Air Force in Gaza last summer, where an estimated 100 tons of munitions were dropped.

So “modernizing” the Saudi arsenal and “replenishing” that of Israel.

In other words, Obama’s warming up to Iran was nothing but a back door diplomatic loophole to arm Iran’s “threatened” neighbors in the region. Just as we forecast.

As for the beneficiaries, once again there is no question: the main contractors to fulfill the lucrative Israeli arms deal will be Boeing, Ellwood National Forge, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Missile Systems, AFP reported.

But wait, there is even more!

Because, just in case arming Israel and Saudi Arabia with sophisticated modern weaponry isn’t enough to assure of a full on war in the coming weeks as the balance of power in the middle east once again shifts dramatically, the US – to really make sure America’s MIC has even more happy repeat customers, will also deliver 2,000 AT-4 anti-tank rockets to Iraq as early as next week, 1,000 more than announced on Wednesday, to help Baghdad combat suicide car bombings by Islamic State.

Soldier firing AT-4 anti tank rocket

Wait, anti-tank bombs to counter suicide bombers? Apparently yes:

Spokesman Colonel Steve Warren said the delivery would help Iraq defend against approaching suicide bombers driving vehicles packed with explosives, attacks used by Islamic State militants last weekend to help them seize Ramadi from Iraqi forces. “This is a good counter to that (type of bombing),” Warren said.

Warren said the anti-tank weapons would allow the Iraqi forces to destroy approaching suicide car bombers at a distance. Relying on small arms requires disabling the engine or killing the driver, which can be difficult, he said.

And all of this why? So that the Saudis and Iran can “fight” against a Saudi-funded ISIS force, while Israel has “defensive” weapons against an Iran which may become a threat to Israel because of its recently friendly relations with the US.

Or, to conclude with the same summary we provided two weeks ago when predicting this outcome:

In other words, we have, for the past few years, been on the edge of a razor thin Middle Eastern balance of power equilibrium which prevented any one nation or alliance from garnering an outsized influence of military power.

All of that is about to change the moment the MIC figurehead known as president Obama greenlights the dispatch of billions of dollars in fighters, drones, missile batteries, and surveillance equipment to Saudi Arabia and its peers, in the process dramatically reshaping the balance of power status quo and almost certainly leading to yet another middle eastern war which will inevitably drag in not only Israel and Russia at least in a proxy capacity, but ultimately, the US as well.

Just as the US military industrial complex wanted.

Because as every Keynesian fanatic will tell you: in a world saturated by debt, and where organic growth is no longer possible, there is only one remaining option.

War.

Say Goodbye To Homemade Guns If These New Bills Pass

Image source: weaponeer.net

Only law enforcement and the military would have access to body armor if a California Congressman gets his way.

Democratic Rep. Mike Honda (D-California) would also like to ban the sale of “lower receivers” that are used to make homemade AR-15s and require the regulation of other homemade firearms in some of the most restrictive gun control legislation ever introduced in Congress.

Honda introduced all three bills on the same day earlier this year.

“These bills are sensible, reasonable measures to limit the damage that can be inflicted by guns and those who mean harm with them,” Honda said. “We have seen too many people injured and killed by guns to just stand by and do nothing. These bills will modernize our gun laws to reflect how weapons are currently getting into the wrong hands.”

The Responsible Body Armor Possession Act, HR 378, would “amend the federal criminal code to prohibit the purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body armor,” according to a bill summary. The ban includes helmets and shields. Presumably, anyone who already has purchased such armor would be in violation of the law.

How To Hide Your Guns, And Other Off-Grid Caches…

“This bill allows law enforcement to respond to active shooting situations more effectively,” a press release said.

The Homemade Firearms Accountability Act, HR 377, would require that all homemade guns have serial numbers and be regulated in the same way as those that are purchased.

The Home-Assembled Firearms Restriction Act, HR 376, would ban the sale and purchase of “incomplete lower receivers,” which are often bought by gun enthusiasts to make, for instance, an AR-15.

Banning Guns AND Defense Against Guns

Not surprisingly, gun control groups endorsed the bills.

ar-15“Representative Honda’s bills would fill gaping holes in our nation’s gun laws that make it far too easy for mass shooters, gun traffickers, and common criminals to build homemade military-style firearms and acquire military-grade body armor,” said Kristen Rand, the legislative director of the Violence Policy Center.

But commenters on Honda’s own website wondered about the wisdom behind the bills.

“If body armor, which is entirely defensive in nature, is to be banned, how is that fundamentally different from banning locks on doors?” commenter Jay Silla asked. “After all, locks make it difficult for the police to conduct raids…”

Ryan S. wrote, “So, wait … you want to ban guns because they kill people. … But you also want to ban something that protects people from guns?!? Are you serious?!”

Another commenter was highly critical of the proposed ban on lower receivers.

My Personal Defender: Low Cost Way To Defend Yourself Against Lowlife Criminal Scum!

“Criminals don’t go online, buy an 80% AR lower, buy a jig and an end milling kit, and then spend 3+ hours milling out the AR lower with his drill press, then another hour with a fine file making all the internals fit. You know who does that? Lawful gun owners who will never use that gun that they just made to commit a crime and are more interested in saying ‘I made that.” Some, including me, would call it art,” the commenter, named Gunner, wrote.

Even some Democrats are skeptical of use of serial numbers to track weapons. Last year, California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed a state bill similar to HR 377.

“I appreciate the author’s concerns about gun violence, but I can’t see how adding a serial number to a homemade gun would significantly advance public safety,” Brown wrote after vetoing a bill called SB808.

3D Guns Targeted

At least one gun control advocate thinks that Honda’s legislation also targets 3D- printed guns, although such weapons were not mentioned in the press release.

“3D printed guns remain unregulated and law enforcement deems them a threat,” said Brian Malte, the senior national policy director of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “We applaud Rep. Honda for introducing legislation to regulate 3D printed guns to protect our kids and communities.”

Obama combats police militarization by limiting supply of military-style gear

Surprise announcement will ban government from providing items such as armored vehicles, high-power firearms and grenade launchers to local police
Obama combats police militarization by limiting supply of military-style gear

by Lauren Gambino | The Guardian | May 18, 2015


More than nine months after the paramilitary response to anti-police protests sent shockwaves around the world from the streets of Ferguson, Missouri, Barack Obama is taking matters into his own hands. The president will ban the US government from providing certain types of military-style equipment to local police departments and sharply control other weapons and gear provided to law enforcement, White House officials announced on Monday.

The announcement coincides with the release of a report from a taskforce on policing assembled by Obama in response to the turmoil in Ferguson. The so-called 21st Century Policing Task Force, made up of 12 members from academia and law enforcement, was asked to propose solutions to overcome racial bias in police operations and recommend ways to improve relations between agencies and the communities they serve.

“Law enforcement culture should embrace a guardian – rather than a warrior – mindset to build trust and legitimacy both within agencies and with the public,” the report said.

The White House said 21 police agencies nationwide, including those of Camden, New Jersey, and nearby Philadelphia, have agreed to start putting out never-before-released data on citizen interactions like use of force, stops, citations and officer-involved shootings. Congressional reform on de-escalating militarized gear in local law enforcement has stalled.

Read more