The Strange Death of Vince Foster by Chris Ruddy
Sunday, April 24, 2016
Saturday, April 23, 2016
Russia Bolsters Its Submarine Fleet, and Tensions With U.S. Rise
NAPLES, Italy–Russian attack submarines, the most in two decades, are prowling the coastlines of Scandinavia and Scotland, the Mediterranean Sea and the North Atlantic in what Western military officials say is a significantly increased presence aimed at contesting American and NATO undersea dominance.
Adm. Mark Ferguson, the United States Navy’s top commander in Europe, said last fall that the intensity of Russian submarine patrols had risen by almost 50 percent over the past year, citing public remarks by the Russian Navy chief, Adm. Viktor Chirkov. Analysts say that tempo has not changed since then.
The patrols are the most visible sign of a renewed interest in submarine warfare by President Vladimir V. Putin, whose government has spent billions of dollars for new classes of diesel and nuclear-powered attack submarines that are quieter, better armed and operated by more proficient crews than in the past.
The tensions are part of an expanding rivalry and military buildup, with echoes of the Cold War, between the United States and Russia. Moscow is projecting force not only in the North Atlantic but in Syria and Ukraine and building up its nuclear arsenal and cyberwarfare capabilities in what American military officials say is an attempt to prove its relevance after years of economic decline and retrenchment.
Independent American military analysts see the increased Russian submarine patrols as a legitimate challenge to the United States and NATO. Even short of tensions, there is the possibility of accidents and miscalculations. But whatever the threat, the Pentagon is also using the stepped-up Russian patrols as another argument for bigger budgets for submarines and anti-submarine warfare.
American naval officials say that in the short term, the growing number of Russian submarines, with their ability to shadow Western vessels and European coastlines, will require more ships, planes and subs to monitor them. In the long term, the Defense Department has proposed $8.1 billion over the next five years for “undersea capabilities,” including nine new Virginia-class attack submarines that can carry up to 40 Tomahawk cruise missiles, more than triple the capacity now.
“We’re back to the great powers competition,” Adm. John M. Richardson, the chief of naval operations, said in an interview.
Last week, unarmed Russian warplanes repeatedly buzzed a Navy destroyer in the Baltic Sea and at one point came within 30 feet of the warship, American officials said. Last year some of Russia’s new diesel submarines launched four cruise missile at targets in Syria.
Mr. Putin’s military modernization program also includes new intercontinental ballistic missiles as well as aircraft, tanks and air defense systems.
To be sure, there is hardly parity between the Russian and American submarine fleets. Russia has about 45 attack submarines–about two dozen are nuclear-powered and 20 are diesel–which are designed to sink other submarines or ships, collect intelligence and conduct patrols. But Western naval analysts say that only about half of those are able to deploy at any given time. Most stay closer to home and maintain an operational tempo far below a Cold War peak.
The United States has 53 attack submarines, all nuclear-powered, as well as four other nuclear-powered submarines that carry cruise missiles and Special Operations forces. At any given time, roughly a third of America’s attack submarines are at sea, either on patrols or training, with the others undergoing maintenance. American Navy officials and Western analysts say that American attack submarines, which are made for speed, endurance and stealth to deploy far from American shores, remain superior to their Russian counterparts.
The Pentagon is also developing sophisticated technology to monitor encrypted communications from Russian submarines and new kinds of remotely controlled or autonomous vessels. Members of the NATO alliance, including Britain, Germany and Norway, are at the same time buying or considering buying new submarines in response to the Kremlin’s projection of force in the Baltic and Arctic.
But Moscow’s recently revised national security and maritime strategies emphasize the need for Russian maritime forces to project power and to have access to the broader Atlantic Ocean as well as the Arctic.
Russian submarines and spy ships now operate near the vital undersea cables that carry almost all global Internet communications, raising concerns among some American military and intelligence officials that the Russians could attack those lines in times of tension or conflict. Russia is also building an undersea unmanned drone capable of carrying a small, tactical nuclear weapon to use against harbors or coastal areas, American military and intelligence analysts said.
And, like the United States, Russia operates larger nuclear-powered submarines that carry long-range nuclear missiles and spend months at a time hiding in the depths of the ocean. Those submarines, although lethal, do not patrol like the attack submarines do, and do not pose the same degree of concern to American Naval officials.
Analysts say that Moscow’s continued investment in attack submarines is in contrast to the quality of many of Russia’s land and air forces that frayed in the post-Cold War era.
“In the Russian naval structure, submarines are the crown jewels for naval combat power,” said Magnus Nordenman, director of the Atlantic Council’s trans-Atlantic security initiative in Washington. “The U.S. and NATO haven’t focused on anti-submarine operations lately, and they’ve let that skill deteriorate.”
That has allowed for a rapid Russian resurgence, Western and American officials say, partly in response to what they say is Russia’s fear of being hemmed in.
“I don’t think many people understand the visceral way Russia views NATO and the European Union as an existential threat,” Admiral Ferguson said in an interview.
In Naples, at the headquarters of the United States Navy’s European operations, including the Sixth Fleet, commanders for the first time in decades are having to closely monitor Russian submarine movements through the maritime choke points separating Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom, the G.I.U.K. Gap, which during the Cold War were crucial to the defense of Europe.
That stretch of ocean, hundreds of miles wide, represented the line that Soviet naval forces would have had to cross to reach the Atlantic and to stop United States forces heading across the sea to reinforce America’s European allies in time of conflict.
American anti-submarine aircraft were stationed for decades at the Naval Air Station Keflavik in Iceland–in the middle of the gap–but they withdrew in 2006, years after the Cold War was over. The Navy after that relied on P-3 sub-hunter planes rotating periodically through the base.
Now, the Navy is poised to spend about $20 million to upgrade hangars and support sites at Keflavik to handle its new, more advanced P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft. That money is part of the Pentagon’s new $3.4 billion European Reassurance Initiative, a quadrupling of funds from last year to deploy heavy weapons, armored vehicles and other equipment to NATO countries in Central and Eastern Europe, to deter Russian aggression.
This month, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency christened a 132-foot prototype drone sea craft packed with sensors, the Sea Hunter, which is made with the intention of hunting autonomously for submarines and mines for up to three months at a time.
The allies are also holding half a dozen anti-submarine exercises this year, including a large drill scheduled later this spring called Dynamic Mongoose in the North Sea. The exercise is to include warships and submarines from Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland and the United States.
“We are not quite back in a Cold War,” said James G. Stavridis, a retired admiral and the former supreme allied commander of NATO, who is now dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. “But I sure can see one from where we are standing.”
Comment by Dennis: From Bible prophecy it looks like we are headed for nuclear war some time at the end of the last seven-year period. The building-up of tensions between America and Russia would seem to confirm that we as a civilization continue towards the road to Armageddon, the big war to be fought over Israel in the Middle East at the return of Christ. Before that war, the New World Order will initiate a peace plan allowing Israel to begin sacrificial worship on the Temple Mount and most likely the rebuilding of the Temple. But things don't go as well as planned causing the Antichrist world leader to invade Israel setting things up for the horrendous famous battle.
Why Obama’s support for the E.U. is driving some Brits mad
President Obama arrives Thursday in London, where he may find himself at the center of a very British controversy. The U.S. president has become an unlikely player in Britain’s passionate “Brexit” debate–with his views even earning him the title “most anti-British American president there has ever been,” coined by a well-known politician.
For the uninitiated, “Brexit” is the catchy portmanteau used to refer to Britain’s potential exit from the European Union. After years of growing public dissent over the country’s E.U. membership, Britain is set to have a referendum this summer on whether to remain part of the E.U. If a majority of Brits vote to “leave” the E.U., Britain will exit the bloc.
Exactly what happens after that isn’t clear, but Obama evidently doesn’t want to see it happen.
Last year, he told the BBC that he supports Prime Minister David Cameron’s campaign for Britain to remain in the E.U., adding that the membership gave Washington greater confidence in the transatlantic alliance and helped make the world “safer and more prosperous.” During this week’s visit, Obama is widely expected to repeat his calls to vote against a Brexit.
Obama has faced a serious backlash from Brits who are part of the “leave” campaign. But why are they so mad? There seem to be three common arguments against Obama’s Brexit intervention:
1. Foreign leaders shouldn’t comment on another country’s domestic affairs.
In a letter signed by 100 members of Parliament, former Conservative cabinet minister Liam Fox argued that Obama should not interfere in the Brexit debate as it has “long been the established practice not to interfere in the domestic political affairs of our allies and we hope that this will continue.”
2. The United States would never agree to be a part of the E.U., they argue, so why should Britain?
The chief proponent of this argument is Boris Johnson, the mayor of London and a leading figure in Cameron’s Conservative Party. In March, Johnson accused the United States of “exorbitant hypocrisy,” saying it was in no position to preach because it defended its own sovereignty with “hysterical vigilance.” He doubled down on this statement recently, saying it was “bizarre” to be lectured by the Americans when they “won’t even sign up to the international convention on the law of the seas, let alone the International Criminal Court.”
Other prominent figures within the Conservative Party have supported this view: Former cabinet minister Iain Duncan Smith recently said that voting to leave the E.U. would make Britain “look a little more like the U.S.” Duncan Smith also suggested that if Washington liked the E.U. so much, perhaps it should join the bloc.
3. Obama hates the British.
It was Nigel Farage, the eccentric leader of the anti-E.U. U.K. Independence Party, who said that Obama is the “most anti-British American president there has ever been.” This is almost certainly untrue, but it taps into a wider belief that maybe Obama just doesn’t really like Britain that much.
This belief dates to at least 2009, when the British media criticized the new president for apparently sending a bust of Winston Churchill back to Britain (as The Washington Post’s Fact Checker column recently explained, the reality of this situation was a lot more complicated). Adding fuel to the fire, Obama recently appeared to criticize Cameron, reigniting debate over the U.S. president’s apparently cold view of Britain and what that says about the future of the “special relationship” between the two countries.
The logic here seems to go that Obama’s hatred for Britain makes him want to keep the country in the E.U., where it will suffer forever more. Or, perhaps more mundanely, Obama could just be acting out of self-interest and be indifferent to what happens to Brits.
It’s pretty easy to chip some holes in these arguments, however.
For one thing, a Brexit vote isn’t just a domestic affair. It really does affect Americans, too. London has long served as a voice for Washington in Europe, sharing not only a language but also perhaps an ethos bred by the close ties between the countries. If a Brexit actually happens, the United States will lose its top E.U. ally–and perhaps have to find another one. Where this would leave London is unclear: The United States is not keen to pursue new bilateral free-trade agreements, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said recently, and instead favors multilateral free-trade platforms.
More broadly, the United States is concerned about the potential effects a Brexit could have on the world economy–the International Monetary Fund has warned that there would be “severe regional and global damage” if Britain leaves the E.U.
Second, it’s certainly true that the United States has shied away from a lot of international legislation. “All countries try to guard their sovereignty and maintain their freedom of action, but the United States is the world’s only superpower, so it has more go-it-alone power than any other country,” Michael Beckley, an assistant professor of political science at Tufts University, said in an email.
Finally, Obama’s supposed hatred of the Brits is a little hard to see in action. He doesn’t seem to have made any substantive changes to the special relationship in the seven years he has been in office, other than some not-so-thinly veiled criticism about Britain not pulling its weight on the world stage. Perhaps more important, polls have shown that he is widely respected and liked by Brits–in particular, the younger generations expected to turn out in droves for the Brexit vote.
Ultimately, that might be the real reason that Obama’s thoughts on Brexit are proving so controversial in Britain: They may well carry more weight than the opinions of Britain’s own leaders.
Editor: I have just finished reading Vernon Coleman's The Truth They Won't Tell You (And Don't Want You To Know) About The EU.
If he is right, every country in Europe should do their best to get out of the EU. He sees it as a Federal state forcing its opinion and will on its members, raping them of their sovereignty and cultural heritage, and taxing them to the hilt to support a bestial bureaucracy in Brussels. Reading his book, you feel you are witnessing the creation of the New World Order's governmental base. That government is reminiscent of the Antichrist government found in Bible prophecy.
Some Bible scholars believe Europe will be the base of the Antichrist's final government. Europeans seem to be passively agreeing to its mandates even though their economies end up brutalized and destroyed by the global corporations who gain free access to local economies through their friendship with the EU commissioners. Laws are made to hinder the small local businesses and support the large international corporate ones.
It continues to be a sad day for the poor man, the independent and free. If Coleman is right, Europe is headed for a new slavery similar to what has been formed in America, without the help of the American dollar to hold up the economy superficially. After reading the book, the only sensible vote would seem to be to get out now, while you still have the chance.
This election is an unpopularity contest for the ages
The 2016 presidential election is shaping up as an unpopularity contest of unprecedented proportions.
Assuming, as now appears most likely, that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination and that either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz becomes the Republican nominee, the general-election ballot is set to feature a choice between two candidates more negatively viewed than any major-party nominee in the history of polling.
Trump is, by far, the furthest underwater: The latest Wall Street Journal-NBC poll puts his net favorability rating at minus-41. A breathtaking 65 percent of registered voters see him negatively, versus 24 percent with a positive view, making him the most unpopular major party presidential candidate ever recorded. Cruz is at minus-23, with 49 percent viewing him negatively, 26 percent in a positive light.
To underscore the challenge facing the GOP, neither candidate has been viewed more positively than negatively by voters since the start of the campaign.
Clinton, by contrast, has a healthier (and more volatile) history with voters. Polls showed her favorables slightly ahead of her negatives when she formally launched her campaign last April. But her trajectory is unnerving. The new WSJ-NBC numbers have Clinton minus-24 (with 56 percent viewing her unfavorably and 32 percent favorably), almost double the gap just one month earlier.
“This is unprecedented,” said Democratic pollster Mark Mellman. “It will be the first time in the history of polling that we’ll have both major party candidates disliked by a majority of the American people going into the election.”
Pause to let that sink in, to compare this dyspeptic situation with previous elections–and consider the implications for governing.
Some historical perspective: All three candidates are more unpopular than the losing presidential candidate at any point during the past five election cycles, according to Gallup data.
If the nominees are Trump and Clinton, said Republican pollster David Winston, “You’re probably looking somewhere in the neighborhood of three out of 10 Americans having a negative view of both. You could have a very frustrated electorate by the time we get to Election Day.”
It sounds oxymoronic, but voters could elect a president that a majority of them view unfavorably. Assuming Clinton has the advantage over Trump, said Democratic pollster Peter Hart, “she is going to be elected, if she wins, in minus territory, which is something we’ve never had before.”
Which raises questions about the potentially grim aftermath.
“Electing either Clinton or Trump with these type of unfavorable numbers immediately means a weakened president without the power to persuade from the day she or he [is] sworn into office,” said Republican pollster Bill McInturff.
History teaches that a new president’s approval rating rises between Election Day and the inauguration. Americans become more charitably disposed to their new leader once the campaign has concluded, if only briefly.
Given these bargain basement favorability numbers, will the 45th president enjoy that luxury? Does presidential popularity even matter in an era of congressional gridlock?
Some political scientists think not, citing a shift in the locus of presidential authority away from legislating. “Presidential power is no longer the power to persuade,” said Johns Hopkins University political scientist Benjamin Ginsberg. “Popularity at one time was a major factor in a president’s ability to govern, but we are in the era of the institutional president, where presidents rely on their administrative powers and the powers of the office, and less on public opinion.”
If Clinton is elected, said Middlebury College political scientist Matthew Dickinson, “the fact that she may be one of the most unfavorably viewed presidents is not going to make a huge difference, because she’s likely going to be running into a House controlled by Republicans and the Senate’s going to be close either way. That’s what really eats into your ability to govern, rather than your favorability ratings.”
Perhaps. But the unfolding unpopularity contest cannot be a healthy sign for our democracy, nor a good omen for the presidency to come.
Thursday, April 21, 2016
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
Monday, April 18, 2016
Small Things People Use To Judge Your Personality
The human brain is hardwired to judge. This survival mechanism makes it very hard to meet someone without evaluating and interpreting their behavior.
While we tend to think that our judgments are based on the content of conversations and other obvious behaviors, the research says otherwise. In fact, the majority of our judgments are focused on smaller, subtler things, such as handshakes and body language. We often form complete opinions about people based solely on these behaviors.
Our unconscious behaviors have a language of their own, and their words aren’t always kind. These behaviors have likely become an integral part of who you are, and if you don’t spend much time thinking about them, now is a good time to start, because they could be sabotaging your career.
How you treat waiters and receptionists. How you treat support staff is so indicative of your makeup that it has become a common interview tactic. By gauging how you interact with support staff on your way in and out of the building, interviewers get a sense for how you treat people in general. Most people act the part when they’re speaking to the hiring manager or other “important” people, but some will pull a Jekyll and Hyde act the moment they walk out the door, treating others with disdain or indifference. Business lunches are another place this comes to light. No matter how nice you are to the people you have lunch with, it’s all for naught if those people witness you behaving badly toward others.
How often you check your phone. There’s nothing more frustrating than someone pulling out their phone mid-conversation. Doing so conveys a lack of respect, attention, listening skills, and willpower. Unless it’s an emergency, it’s wise to keep your phone holstered. A study from Elon University confirms that pulling out your phone during a conversation lowers both the quality and quantity of face-to-face interactions.
Repetitive, nervous habits. Touching your nails or face or picking at your skin typically indicates that you’re nervous, overwhelmed, and not in control. Research from the University of Michigan suggests that these nervous habits are indicative of a perfectionistic personality, and that perfectionists are more likely to engage in these habits when they’re frustrated or bored.
How long you take to ask questions. Have you ever had a conversation with someone where they talked about themselves the entire time? The amount of time someone allows to pass before they take an interest in you is a strong personality indicator. People who only talk about themselves tend to be loud, self-absorbed “takers.” People who only ask questions and share little about themselves are usually quiet, humble “givers.” Those who strike a nice balance of give-and-take are reciprocators and good conversationalists.
Your handshake. It’s common for people to associate a weak handshake with a lack of confidence and an overall lackadaisical attitude. A study at the University of Alabama showed that, although it isn’t safe to draw assumptions about someone’s competence based on their handshake, you can accurately identify personality traits. Specifically, the study found that a firm handshake equates with being less shy, less neurotic, and more extroverted.
Tardiness. Showing up late leads people to think that you lack respect and tend to procrastinate, as well as being lazy or disinterested. Contrary to these perceptions, a San Diego State University study by Jeff Conte revealed that tardiness is typically seen in people who multitask, or are high in relaxed, Type B personality traits. Conte’s study found that Type B individuals are often late because they experience time more slowly than the rest of us. Bottom line here is not to read too much into people showing up late. It’s better to ask what’s behind it than to make assumptions.
Eye contact. The key to eye contact is balance. While it’s important to maintain eye contact, doing so 100% of the time is perceived as aggressive and creepy. At the same time, if you only maintain eye contact for a small portion of the conversation, you’ll come across as disinterested, shy, or embarrassed. Studies show that maintaining eye contact for roughly 60% of a conversation strikes the right balance and makes you come across as interested, friendly, and trustworthy.
Sometimes the little things in life make a big difference. It’s good to be ready for them, so that you can make a strong impression.
Saturday, April 9, 2016
Everything government touches...
By Chris Rossini
The great Beatles drummer Ringo Starr once said something that should be chiseled into the stone of every government building: "Everything government touches turns to crap."
How perfect!
Everything government touches. Not some things. Not most things.
Ringo left no exceptions. Everything.
America's Founding Fathers, who actually had knowledge of history, attempted to create a government that touches very little. Their attempt would work for a very short while, but like a stream that erodes away even the tallest mountain, those with a lust for power and its centralization would take over and dominate.
Here we are 200+ years later and government now touches everything. It didn't take very long. Two hundred years is a flash in the pan.
Now that government touches everything, what can we observe?
Well, government monopolized charity with its monstrous welfare state. As a result, we have presidential candidates running around complaining about the extreme poverty of so many Americans.
Government monopolized money with its Federal Reserve. As a result, we have rising prices that never offer us any relief. The bills never go down. The purchasing power of The Fed's money relentlessly marches towards the dustbin. Furthermore, every few years Americans must suffer from illusionary economic booms that must be followed by heartbreaking economic busts. The Federal Reserve causes it all.
Government monopolized schooling with its Department of Education. As a result, millions of children are treated as cattle that are run through the mill, stripped of creativity, individuality and curiosity. Every single day they must stand up and recite their morning government prayer. They must pledge their allegiance not to themselves, not to their families, and not to their God. They must pledge their allegiance to their government. When these children leave the mill after 18 years of this, they're thoroughly conditioned to believe in a government that touches everything.
Government monopolized the media with its Federal Communications Commission. The media picks up right where the schools leave off. Now as adults, Americans are shown a 24 hour stream of propaganda that champions and supports a government that touches everything.
Government monopolized commerce with more agencies than we can count. As a result, our economy has become a giant landfill of "regulations" and red tape. Every aspect of employment or starting a business has government involved. As a result, American businessmen and entrepreneurs have been running for the hills. They open up shop in countries that don't gang tackle them with swarming bureaucrats.
Speaking of the rest of the world, the very same government that was designed to touch very little, has decided to monopolize the world. War after war, after war sums up American life. Troops stationed in nearly 150 countries. So many millions dead. At home, every American treated like a lab rat. No privacy and everything monitored.
And finally, a government that touches everything leaves no room for independent thought. It seeks to monitor thoughts with the tyranny of "political-correctness". No one may color outside of the lines or think unapproved thoughts. As a result, Americans walk around not knowing what to think or what to say. Mobs of "thought controllers" await and are ready to pounce on those who do not obey.
Remember Ringo: "Everything government touches turns to crap."
He's right, and there are no exceptions.
Peace, voluntary interactions with one another, sound money, and liberty are the only way out.
