For More News, Visit... The Hardcore News Web Site!


America your not going to have any change till the corporate money is out
of politics and ALL of the Zionist are gone globally

Sunday, March 8, 2015

Obama Unveils National ObamaLaw Plan

NEIL MUNRO - White House Correspondent - dailycaller - 4:28 PM 03/02/2015

Obama Unveils National ObamaLaw Plan

President Barack Obama today introduced his plan for a progressive takeover of state and local policing.
“We have a great opportunity… to really transform how we think about community law enforcement relations,” he said Monday.
“We need to seize that opportunity… this is something that I’m going to stay very focused on in the months to come,” Obama said, as he touted a new interim report from his Task Force on 21st Century Policing.
Obama also instructed his media allies to help federalize policing, and to sideline the critics of centralized policing rules. “I expect our friends in the media to really focus on what’s in this report and pay attention to it,” he instructed.
Obama is using the crisis sparked by the August 2014 shooting of Michael Brown, who was killed after assaulting a shopkeeper and a policeman in Ferguson, Mo. Obama and his deputies stoked the subsequent controversy in the run-up to the 2014 election, in the hope of boosting African-American turnout. The mobilization effort failed, partly because local law-enforcement officials released a video showing Brown’s strong-arm robbery of a store shortly before the fatal shooting.
Now Obama is trying to expand progressive control by attaching more conditions to federal funding of state and local law-enforcement efforts. “We can expand the [federally-funded] COPS program… to see if we can get more incentives for local communities to apply some of the best practices and lessons that are embodied in this report,” he said.
Those best practices likely will eventually include rules that restrict police investigations of groups that are part of the Democratic coalition, and rules that try to lower convictions and penalties among favored sub-groups of the United States, regardless of the actual rates of illegal activity among those groups.
“I think communities [with police forces] across the board are going to need to consider… recommendations around prohibiting racial profiling [and] that’s a step that we’ve already taken at the federal level,” Obama said.
The report also calls for government to collect more data about state and local policing. That data will help federal officials impose new rules. “We need more information to find out how to take to scale best practices when it comes to training so that police officers are able to work in a way that reduces the possibilities of bias,“ Obama said.
State and local policing may need to be subordinated to federal social policy, Obama suggested. “Our approach to our drug laws, for example, and criminalization of nonviolent offenses rather than taking more of a public health approach — that may be something that has an impact in eroding trust between law enforcement and communities.”
Those political goals are echoed in the tasks force’s interim report.
“Law enforcement agencies should acknowledge the role of policing in past and present injustice and discrimination and how it is a hurdle to the promotion of community trust,” the report says. “The Federal Government, as well as state and local agencies, should encourage and incentivize higher education for law enforcement officers.”
Other recommendations include “Law enforcement agencies should engage community members in the training process…. [government] should ensure that basic recruit and in-service officer training include curriculum on the disease of addiction… Law enforcement agencies should implement training for officers that covers policies for interactions with the LGBTQ population, including issues such as determining gender identity for arrest placement, the Muslim, Arab, and South Asian communities, and immigrant or non-English speaking groups, as well as reinforcing policies for the prevention of sexual misconduct and harassment..”
Obama’s strategy matches the progressive playbook, which continuously expands progressives’ power by gradually adding more conditions to federal aid. That same strategy is implemented in education via the “Common Core” education plan, in the health-sector via Obamacare, in the banking industry via the mortgage rules that caused the damaging property bubble and in housing via Obama’s “regionalism” plan.  
That’s strategically different from prior Democratic administrations, which cited poverty as a justification for expanding federal aid. The unemployment rate for African-Americans in Ferguson is roughly 16 percent.
In his Monday statement, Obama did not mention unemployment. 
Obama hinted that his plan to centralize policing rules is likely to face widespread opposition. “Law enforcement is largely a local function as opposed to a federal function…A lot of our work is going to involve local police chiefs, local elected officials, states recognizing that the moment is now for us to make these changes.”
Obama pushed the media to aid his takeover.
“Often we see an event that’s flashy; it makes the news; people are crying out for solutions. And by the time recommendations are put forward, our focus has moved on and we don’t actually see and pay attention to the concrete ways that we can improve the situation,” he said.
“There’s some good answers to be had if we don’t make this a political football or sensationalize it, but rather really focus on getting the job done,” he told the media. “So I appreciate everybody’s efforts. I’m going to be focused on it. I hope you will be, too.” 

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

Crimea: Was It Seized by Russia, or Did Russia Block Its Seizure by the U.S.?

Posted on February 22, 2015 by Eric Zuesse. 
Both before and after Crimea left Ukraine and joined Russia in a public referendum on 16 March 2014, the Gallup Organization polled Crimeans on behalf of the U.S. Government, and found them to be extremely pro-Russian and anti-American, and also anti-Ukrainian. (Neither poll was subsequently publicized, because the results of each were the opposite of what the sponsor had wished.) Both polls were done on behalf of the U.S. Government, in order to find Crimeans’ attitudes toward the United States and toward Russia, and also toward Ukraine, not only before but also after the planned U.S. coup in Ukraine, which occurred in February 2014 but was actually kicked off on 20 November 2013, the day before Ukraine’s democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych publicly announced that Ukraine had received a better economic offer from Russia’s Eurasian Economic Community than from America’s European Union. (The EEC subsequently became the Eurasian Economic Union, now that it was clear that Ukraine was going with the EU.) That decision by Yanukovych in favor of the EEC was mistakenly thought by him to be merely an economic one, and he didn’t know the extent to which the U.S. Government had set up an operation to overthrow him if he didn’t go along with the EU’s offer. (If some of these basic historical facts don’t come through from merely the wikipedia articles alone, that’s because the CIA is among the organizations that edit wikipedia articles, and so wikipedia is unwittingly a political propaganda vehicle. It is especially used for propaganda by the CIA and FBI.)
More recently, a poll of Crimeans was issued on 4 February 2015, by the polling organization GfK, and paid for this time by the pro-American-Government Canadian Government, via its Canada Fund for Local Initiatives, and via Free Crimea, which is itself funded by the latter organization. However, the Canadian Government got no better news than the U.S. Government had gotten: 82% of Crimeans “Fully endorse” Crimea’s having become part of Russia (of which it had been part between 1783 and 1954, and which the public there had never wanted to leave); 11% “Mostly endorse” it; 2% “Mostly disapprove”; 3% “Don’t know”; and only 2% “Fully disapprove.” Or, to put it simply: 93% approve; 3% don’t know, and 4% disapprove. This poll was publicly issued only in the polling organization’s own report, which was made available only in Russian (the Ukrainian Government’s main language for international business) and therefore not comprehensible to English-speakers. It was titled, “СОЦИАЛЬНО-ПОЛИТИЧЕСКИЕ НАСТРОЕНИЯ ЖИТЕЛЕЙ КРЫМА Исследование проведенное GfK Ukraine по заказу компании” or “SOCIO-POLITICAL SENTIMENTS IN CRIMEA: Research conducted by GfK Ukraine on the order of the company.” On February 10th, an English-language article reported and summarized the poll’s findings.
During the 16 March 2014 public referendum in Crimea, 96% voted to rejoin Russia. One question on the post-referendum, April 2014, U.S.-sponsored Gallup poll in Crimea, was headlined, “Perceived Legitimacy of March 16Crimean Referendum” (on page 28 of the poll-report), and 82.8% of Crimeans agreed with the statement, “The results of the referendum on Crimea’s status likely reflect the views of most people here.” 6.7% disagreed. According to the newer poll (4 February 2015), 96% were for annexation to Russia, and 4% were opposed, which happens to be exactly what the 16 March 2014 referendum had actually found to be the case. But, continuing now with the description of the April 2014 Gallup poll: its “Views of Foreign Parties’ Role in the Crisis — Crimea” (p. 25), showed 76.2% of Crimeans saying that the role of the U.S. was “Mostly negative,” and 2.8% saying the U.S. role was “Mostly positive”; while Crimeans’ attitudes towards Russia were the exact opposite: 71.3% said Russia’s role was “Mostly positive,” and 4.0% said it was “Mostly negative.”
An accurate reflection of the reason why Crimeans, during the lead-up to the referendum, were appalled by America’s extremely violent and bloody takeover of the Ukrainian Government (as the EU itself had confirmed), was given on Crimean television shortly before the referendum, when a former criminal prosecutor in the Ukrainian Government, who lived and worked in Kiev and saw with her own eyes much of the violence but was not personally involved in the events, quit her office, and got in her car and drove back to her childhood home in Crimea, now unemployed, because she was so revulsed at what had happened to her country. On this call-in show, which was watched by many Ukrainians, she explained why she could no longer, as a lawyer and a supporter of the Ukrainian Constitution, support the Ukrainain Government — that it was now an illegal Government. She closed her opening statement, just before taking the calls from people over the phone, by saying, “Despite that our ‘great politicians’ who seized power by bloodshed, are now claiming that we don’t have the right to decide our own future — citizens of Crimea, you have every right in the world. Nobody is allowed to ururp power.” She subsequently became a criminal prosecutor in the new Crimean government, enforcing now the Russian Constitution, in Crimea.
However, anyone who says that Russia “seized Crimea,” is clearly lying or else is fooled by people who are.
Here, then, are highlights from a typical Western ‘news’ report about Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, in the issue of TIME magazine (December 10th online, December 22nd issue on newsstands), headlining “Vladimir Putin, The Imperialist,” in which Putin was a “runner-up” as the “Person of the Year” — a year when, actually, Obama overthrew Ukraine’s Government and replaced it with one run by racist-fascist (or nazi) haters of Russia, who were setting up to yank the remaining years on Russia’s lease of its crucial Black Sea Naval Base in Crimea, and the Crimeans were imminently fearing a Ukrainian invasion (the author was Simon Shuster):
His decision in March to invade and then annex the region of Crimea from Ukraine marked the first growth of Russia’s dominions since the fall of the Soviet Union. …
With the conquest of Crimea, a derelict peninsula about the size of Massachusetts, Putin at last restored a scrap of Russia’s honor, says Gorbachev, by “acting on his own,” unbound by the constraints of U.S. supremacy and the table manners of international law. …
That name [Crimea], redolent with the history of Europe’s 19th century wars, has become a byword in Russia for national revival, a taste of the imperial glory that a generation of Russians have long hungered for. …
Already expelled from the G-8 club of wealthy nations in March after the annexation of Crimea, Putin was further ostracized at the G-20 summit. …
So, was Putin’s taste of empire worth the cost to Russian prosperity? For those who carry the grudges of Russian history, it was. …
Russia now seeks to position itself as an alternative to the Western model of liberal democracy—and it’s had some success. Right-wing politicians in France and the U.K., not to mention Central and Eastern Europe, are not shy about declaring their admiration for Putin. The ultraconservative government of Hungary, a member of NATO and the European Union, has announced its intention to develop as an “illiberal state” modeled on Russia, cracking down harshly on civil society. …
Putin will face challenges of his own as the West begins to rally against his aggressiveness. …
Make no mistake, though: Russians also remember that their country once dominated a sixth of the earth’s landmass and stood as a global player second to none. That is the role Putin seeks to regain. …
Nothing was said about the Black Sea fleet, nor about any strategic issue. Nothing was provided in order to help readers understand what was happening. Readers’ Cold-War buttons were being pushed; that is all. America’s aristocracy despises its public, whom they merely manipulate and control.
Here is an article about (and linking to) U.S. President Barack Obama’s “National Security Strategy 2015,” in which Obama uses the term “aggression” 18 times, 17 of them referring to Russia. Obama never once cites a reason for appying that term; for example, unlike Simon Shuster, he doesn’t even so much as mention “Crimea.”
And, here is the best video that has yet been issued on Obama’s February 2014 coup, the coup that installed the Ukrainian regime that has been carrying out the ethnic cleansing operation, which Ukraine calls their ‘Anti Terrorist Operation,’ in the Donbass region, though it’s really the anti-resident operation there.
That fate of ethnic cleansing or local genocide — the fate which befell the residents of Ukraine’s Donbass region,the region that’s shown in dark purple in this election-map for the man whom Obama overthrew in February 2014 and which is the area that voted 90% for him — is the fate that Crimeans were protected from when they rejoined Russia.
Russia’s using its troops, who were permanently stationed in Crimea already and didn’t need to ‘invade’ anything in order to protect the residents in Crimea so that they could hold their referendum in peace, is what blocked the seizure of Crimea by the newly installed Ukrainian regime.
The invader was the United States, in its typically sneaky post-1950 way: a coup d’etat. What Dwight Eisenhower’s, Allen Dulles’s, and Kermit Roosevelt’s CIA operation had done to Iran in 1953, Barack Obama’s and Victoria Nuland’s operation did to Ukraine in 2014: a violent coup installing a far-right government — in Obama’s case, even a nazi government (and see this and this and this).
The aggressor here is not Vladimir Putin; it is Barack Obama. All honest news media (such as here and here and here and here and here and here and here) are reporting that. For economic analysis and reporting on these and other events, here is an excellent general news source. (It autotranslates if viewed in google’s chrome browser.) As for dishonest ‘news’ media, such as TIME  and Fox ‘News,’ they serve a different purpose than truth; so, none of them will be listed here, where the only interest is truth.
PS: For further insights into the lying that is prevalent in the West regarding Crimea, Ukraine, and Russia, see this remarkably honest testimimony to the U.K. House of Lords’ 20 February 2015 Committee report, “The EU and Russia: before and beyond the crisis in Ukraine,” linked there on p. 108 as “RUS0012” and titled “Irina Kirillova MBE – Written evidence,” in which that Cambridge university professor describes the profound disappointment of ordinary people she had encountered in Russia, as they saw the misrepresentations in the West regarding the situations in Russia, Ukraine and Crimea. Outside of the English-speaking world, and especially in the regions that are not controlled by the U.S., the fakery of ‘journalism’ in the English-speaking world is becoming shockingly more evident than it formerly was. As usual, however, the House of Lords’ final report ignored these realities; and, throughout, it starts with the assumption that Russia is aggressive and that the West is merely responding to that. This professor’s written testimony was thus ignored. Most of the other individuals in the “Appendix 2: List of Witnesses” were the Anglo-aristocracy’s usual Russia-haters, such as Ian Bond, Director of Foreign Policy, Center for European Reform, saying that, “The most important thing is that the EU, as a rules-based organisation, should follow a rules-based approach to Russia,” as if that would be something alien to Russians. This type of bigoted condescenscion was rife throughout the report. If those people are as blind to evidence and science as they put themselves forth as being, they are dangerous in any governmental role; and to call the U.K. a ‘democracy’ is questionable, at best. Britain is an aristocracy, not a democracy. And the U.S. is at least as bad. In regards to the relationships between Russia, Ukraine, and Crimea, the West might be as bad as Ukraine, and should just quit the entire matter and try to start over from scratch, which means to let the nazis whom Obama placed into power there sink, not provide them with more weapons. Or, if more weapons are provided to them, then the rest of the West should issue sanctions against any nation that does that. Under liars and fools the West is drifting towards a totally unwarranted nuclear conflict with Russia


NPR Propagandizes Against Putin, for Regime-Change in Russia

On Friday, December 26th, National Public Radio aired two superbly done pieces of anti-Russia propaganda, which could as well have been written by the U.S. CIA, or by Voice of America, it was so skillfully deceiving.
One of these propaganda-pieces, on “Morning Edition,” presented Eleanor Beardsley alleging that the anti-immigrant political parties in Britain and France are anti-U.S. and pro-Russian because they are supposedly all “far right”; and the other piece, on “All Things Considered,” presented Corey Flintoff alleging that Russia’s President Vladimir Putin “seized Crimea” (as if he hadn’t actually rescued it) and thereby caused U.S. President Barack Obama and the EU to respond with economic sanctions as punishment for the ‘seizure’ (actually, as we’ll show, rescue).
Here, the two ‘news reports’ will be exposed:
First, Beardsley’s propaganda-piece: it was titled “Europe’s Far Right And Putin Get Cozy, With Benefits For Both.” She noted that, in France, “Marine Le Pen, head of the National Front, has made no secret of her admiration for Putin,” while, across the English Channel, “Nigel Farage, the head of UKIP, Britain’s far-right party, called Putin one of the world leaders he admires most.” Beardsley was trying to suggest that Vladimir Putin is a fascist, and she argued on this false basis that “Europe’s Far Right And Putin Get Cozy” because they’re all “far right.”
What she was trying to get across is more like the opposite of the truth than the truth, because what Putin and Europe’s anti-immigrant parties actually share is not extreme conservatism (which they don’t share at all; Putin isn’t that) but is instead more like the very opposite of that: they share a rejection of U.S. global supremacy or “hegemony”: they reject the U.S. as having a right to control their country’s policies and destinies — in other words: they reject U.S. imperialism, and this is a rejection that all of them share also with progressives in America, hardly with America’s champions of imperialism, such as are, for example, in the U.S., Bill Kristol’s and Robert Kagan’s Project for a New American Century, which was the actually far-right, Rupert-Murdoch-funded, movement that George W. Bush adhered to, that beat the drums incessantly for his “regime change in Iraq,” and for invading Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
To put this matter clearly, here’s what they all reject, and what President Obama asserted at West Point on May 28th:
“Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us. … So the United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed [properly spelled ‘past,’ but this is his text] and it will be true for the century to come.”
Obama was saying there that any nation, such as Russia, which challenges the right of the U.S. Government to determine the appropriate parameters for all other nations’ policies, must be crushed, because the U.S. is superior. By contrast, anti-imperialists argue that no nation possesses any such right of being “world policeman” — the international judge, jury, and executioner — as Obama claims for America. None: not the U.S., not Russia, none at all.
This is an extremely different reality from the lie, the PR hoax, that Eleanor Beardsley was selling to listeners on NPR.
That’s hers; and here’s the other:
Corey Flintoff’s propaganda-piece was titled, “For Russia’s President, A Year Of Costly Triumphs,” and it repeatedly said that the cause of the economic sanctions against Russia is “Russia’s seizure of Crimea.” Parroting the White House’s line that the transfer of Crimea back to Russia — after the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev had donated it to Ukraine in 1954 against the wishes of Crimea’s residents, which Flintoff conveniently failed even to mention — had instead been “Russia’s aggression,” Flintoff’s account made no mention at all of the key relevant facts, necessary to understand the event, including also the following three:
(1) The March 16th, 2014, referendum of the voters in Crimea, produced a 96% vote to secede.
(2) Gallup polled 500 Crimeans during May 16-30 in 2013, and found that only 15% considered themselves “Ukrainian.” 24% considered themselves “Crimean.” But 40% considered themselves “Russian.” Even before Obama’s February 2014 coup which overthrew the Ukrainian President whom80% of Crimeans had voted for, the Crimean people overwhelmingly wanted to secede from Ukraine — and, especially now they did, right after the President for whom they had overwhelmingly voted, Viktor Yanukovych, had been overthrown in this extremely bloody coup. Furthermore, in April 2014, Gallup again polled Crimea, and they found that 71.3% of Crimeans viewed as “Mostly positive” the role of Russia there, and 4.0% viewed it as “Mostly negative”; by contrast, only 2.8% viewed the role of the United States there as “Mostly positive,” and a whopping 76.2% viewed it as “Mostly negative.” During the intervening year, Crimeans’ favorability toward America had plunged down to 2.8%, from its year-earlier 6%. Clearly, what Obama had done in Ukraine (his violent coup in Kiev) had antagonized the Crimeans. And, as if that weren’t enough, the 2014 poll provided yet more evidence: “The 500 people that were sampled in Crimea were asked [and this is crucial] ‘Please tell me if you agree or disagree: The results of the referendum on Crimea’s status [whether to rejoin Russia] reflect the views of most people here.’ 82.8% said ‘Agree.’ 6.7% said ‘Disagree.’” In the hearts of the local residents, Crimea was still Russian territory, after an involuntary hiatus of 60 years; and so the Russian Government accepted them back again, into Russia — this was not as Corey Flintoff droned, “Russia’s seizure of Crimea.” It was Russia’s protection of them from the invasion of Ukraine by the United States in a bloody coup.
(3) Ever since 1783, Russia’s core national security asset, its Black Sea Fleet, was stationed in Crimea, but Obama’s Ukrainian coup-Government wanted to kick them out (and this is one of the reasons why Obama perpetrated his coup). The aggression here was entirely on the American side. Russia wasn’t responding only in order to protect Crimeans; Russia was especially responding in order to protect its core naval base.
The Obama regime overthrew Ukraine’s democratically elected leader in February 2014 in a brazen act of military aggression against Russia; and National Public Radio (like so many ‘news’ media) is trying to fool the American public into thinking what the Administration wants them to think: that the aggression is instead by Russia, and is against the rest of the world, so that the already bloated U.S. military should get involved in yet another war, this one that’s now building, against Russia.
In closing, the key fact should be mentioned that it is Obama and not Putin who is following in the footsteps of Adolf Hitler. The extreme-conservative, at least in foreign policy, is Obama, not Putin. So, Eleanor Beardsley’s falsehood was just about as egregious as can possibly be imagined. 

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

Intel: US Mini-Nukes Delivered to Ukraine; Poroshenko's Family Urgently Leaves the Country


FEB 17 2015 Posted by Lada Ray
The latest breaking news from Ukraine:
1. The family of Ukraine president Poroshenko has urgently left the country via a charter flight. This means that the situation in the country is much more unstable than is being portrayed, and the true extent of turmoil is being underplayed. It also means that Poroshenko knows that he may be unseated any moment and has negotiated an asylum for his family with his handlers in the West as part of the Minsk agreement. Instead of flying straight back to Kiev after Minsk, Poroshenko actually went to Brussels first where he had undisclosed conversations with EU politicians, including Merkel and Hollande. Undoubtedly, this is where the asylum was negotiated.
In one of my 2014 articles I said that I was expecting another Kiev maidan by spring 2015. Yarosh and other ukro-nazis say that they will never observe the Minsk peace agreements and threaten to overturn Poroshenko. Rada is trying to initiate impeachment proceedings. Maidan may be close. Will it happen? I think the wild card right now is Merkel and Hollande tandem. Afraid of a hot war in Europe, they finally mustered some courage to present a unified front in Minsk and beyond. They may spoil the party.
I had also said previously that I didn’t see Poroshenko surviving in his position for much longer.
In one of the previous articles’ comment sections we also had a discussion about the potentiality of an even more obvious nazi regime coming to power after Poroshenko is unseated. I am of the opinion that worst case scenario of an openly nazi regime materializing would actually be better, as it would cause the terrible abscess that is today’s Ukraine to come to the surface, ripen and erupt faster. Ukraine, and the world in general, needs this cleansing. The terrible infestation in Ukraine had been festering inside for too long. It has to come to the surface and be expelled. The faster it happens, the sooner people can start the process of rebuilding.
Read my long-term PREDICTIONS for Ukraine, Russia, USA and more.
2. Ukraine sources are reporting that since the population is sabotaging the mobilization, Kiev junta is now conducting a forced mobilization. The military board a city bus and tell women to leave, while all the men who remain on the bus get herded into trucks and sent to the front. People from Zaporozhie (in central Ukraine, one of the cities that wants to join Novorossia) report that national guard breaks into people’s homes and forcefully hauls off the males into the army.
All this is happening after Minsk peace agreements have been signed and as ceasefire is supposed to be in effect in Donbass. Meanwhile, Donbass reports that there is no ceasefire and that Kiev army is consolidating its forces and attacking the positions of self-defence. They have again attempted to take the Donetsk Airport, which, according to Minsk accords, is supposed to be part of the DNR territory.
Kiev has completely abandoned 5,000 of its soldiers cooking in the Debaltsevo cauldron. Kiev denies the very existence of the cauldron and the fact that their forces have been surrounded by DNR and LNR.
3. German sources report that US military advisors in Ukraine have been busy. According to German intelligence, Americans were able to bring onto the territory of the Debaltsevo cauldron a ‘suitcase’ nuke. It appears US has nothing left to lose after Germany and France broke the ranks and sat down for peace talks with Russia.
Let’s recall what I’d been saying from the start. The goals of the US in Ukraine are, among others: 1. to put a wedge between Russia and Germany/France/EU; 2. paint Russia as a villain; 3. pit Russia and Ukraine in a hot war, by making Russia send troops to Ukraine.
The potential false flag involving a mini-nuke inside the Debaltsevo cauldron is supposed to be blamed on Russia. Therefore, Russia gets again painted as a villain that detonates nukes in poor Ukraine. This may result in more EU sanctions and in US delivering those lethal weapons they had been threatening to send.
Several weeks ago I said that we should expect a massive false flag in Ukraine, something that would be much bigger than MH17. There has been a recent mini-nuke detonation at the chemical plant in Donbass, but apparently, it failed to achieve the desired effect. It is possible they will try again in Debaltsevo. This has to be watched. And as I also said before, if a lot of people talk about it and watch it like hawks, it’s possible to prevent such false flags. Hopefully they will fail.
According to intel from Russian/Ukrainian military analyst Alexander Zhilin (who’s originally from Nikolaev), 4 such American tactical nukes were delivered in November 2014 to the Ivano-Frankovsk military airport in Western Ukraine. The question is: where will they surface?
Info about above news in Russian: here, and in other materials from News-Front.
https://futuristrendcast.wordpress.com/2015/02/17/intel-us-mini-nukes-delivered-to-ukraine-poroshenkos-family-urgently-leaves-the-country/ 

Poroshenko President and members of Parliament have taken their families abroad

Tuesday, February 17, 2015 By Paul Martin - Versia.ru - 2/16/2015 

Ukrainian political elite is preparing for a new round of conflict in the country, which will occur in the near future. President Poroshenko and many Members of Parliament have already taken their families abroad, and the mayor of the capital Kiev Klitschko inspect the bomb shelters. What awaits Ukraine – new maidan or full war with Russia? 

It’s been almost a year since Ukraine got rid of the “corrupt regime of Yanukovich” and embarked on the democratic path of joining the European Union and NATO. The current Ukrainian authorities promised the people a fair European society, financial support from the new allies, the early entry into the European Union and many other things that the country could not achieve because of the “hated Russia.” After loud promises new Ukrainian authorities were forced to remove the “rose-colored glasses” – in March 2014 lost the Crimea, from late spring to Kiev in fact not subject to the population of Donetsk and Lugansk regions, which have to conduct real war, in the treasury are only loans from the IMF. The political elite since last month actively move their family to Europe and other prosperous regions. In late January, Tsarev mentioned it more than once. From the exodus of the elite Poroshenko restrained by example. Today “Political Review” wrote that “the wife Poroshenko left Kiev with the children on a charter flight.” According to our information, they flew through Paris to the United States. It is obvious that the country will face a new round of violence is not only clear the nature of this new round of – whether there will be the country’s next maidan or Kiev will go to the open war with Russia? 

The escalation of the conflict in the Donbas and its transformation into a full-fledged war with Russia 

According to one version, the President Poroshenko remains faithful to the end to its transatlantic ally and still ignite in Europe a real war. Many experts have long said that Washington established political regime in Kiev, entirely subordinate to the White House. The largest US manufacturers of weapons and military equipment already rubbing their hands in anticipation of the carnage that can cover the whole of Europe. Not by chance in Congress consistently raised the issue of the supply of lethal weapons Ukraine , which will lead to the breakdown of the peace process, the transition of military initiative in the hands of security forces and is likely to open participation in the conflict Russia. Moscow has repeatedly said that is not a party to the conflict in the Donbas, but not difficult to guess that if Russian troops are still open will Donbass - local conflict in the south-east of Ukraine in a few days turn into a war throughout the country, and it would be further and think terribly. Perhaps this is what the demand from overseas curators Poroshenko. The fact that Kiev is gradually preparing for a big war says at least the fact that the president and many other politicians to urgently evacuate their families from the capital. In addition, it was impossible not to notice that the mayor of Kiev Vitali Klitschko held a large-scale inspection of the shelters, organized system of public notification of finding most of these shelters. Also on the outskirts of the Ukrainian capital, one after another built fortified checkpoints. Hard to believe that the Ukrainian authorities so thoroughly preparing for confrontation with the militia.

Another Maidan? There is another version of events. Everyone's favorite six months ago Poroshenko now is not, and it's not just that he was unable to keep any promise given to the Ukrainian people during the inauguration. On Poroshenko, apparently, no longer rely allies of the White House in Washington. "Man-function-Poroshenko" has been - and disappeared. Last week in Minsk yet met the leaders of the four Norman to discuss ways to resolve the conflict in the south-eastern Ukraine. Full peace agreement signed by all participants in the talks were not, but the parties nevertheless agree to a cease-fire, which more or less respected. Here you need to understand what the situation turned out to be Ukrainian president. On the one hand Poroshenko aware that military strategic initiative is now in the hands of the militia. The population of Ukraine needs peace, and do not need a general mobilization and war, and the budget of Ukraine desperately needed release from the EU. It would be right to "freeze" the conflict and begin to de-escalation , to that his calling and in Europe, but look at it from across the ocean? Washington, of course, could not ignore the fact that this world conflict is solved without the participation of the White House and then in the face of NATO "remembered" that he has documented proof of the presence of Russian troops in the Donbas. With renewed vigor to raise the issue of granting Ukraine lethal weapons.

Poroshenko close to overthrow, as having taken part in the peace talks in Minsk, he actually left the "war party". President already accused of betraying the ideals of the Maidan, its assets are regularly subjected to attacks by the radical youth, the National Guard battalions already "feel" the way the attack on the building of the Ministry of Defence, the unions do not cease to resent the difficult social conditions in the country, the mother of soldiers regularly picket outside the same building Ministry of Defense. Quite remarkable was another trick scandalous radical Oleg Lyashko, who in the building Verkhovna Rada openly accused Poroshenko "all the troubles" and received a threat of imminent hit behind bars. Here we should pay attention to Ljashko not as frontman political Schizophasia in Ukraine, and as a representative of an oligarch Kolomoisky, that is the financial leader of the "war party" In other words, the attack on the president of the parliament building is nothin

g more than a signal of first change of power in the country and, most of all, the traditional method - Independence - radical thugs - Blood - coup.
Poroshenko finally lost the confidence of the citizens of the country as for the presidency did not fulfill any of the pre-election promises - Crimea lost Donbass half lost, corruption remains, the treasury is empty, the question of accession to the EU and NATO is closed for at least ten years. They say if the bride in the US now sent Paruby. Well, a worthy replacement, they say he even has a certificate.

Источник: https://versia.ru/prezident-i-deputaty-rady-vyvezli-svoi-semi-za-granicu

Comments... Please Be Respectful!

Hardcore News Is Brought To You By...

Bookmarks

Facebook  MySpace  Twitter  Digg  Delicious  Stumbleupon  Google Bookmarks  RSS Feed