Bloomberg Lies as Ukrainian Rebels Allegedly Down 2 Warplanes

More deception by West as Ukrainian rebels down two more SU-25 warplanes.  

55619_1024px-9K338_Igla-S_(NATO-Code_-_SA-24_Grinch)

Image: Are Ukrainian separatists foolish enough to continue using Buk
missile systems implicated in the downing of MH17? Or have they been
using highly capable man-portable missile launchers like those pictured
above all along? 

July 25, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci – LD) – In Bloomberg’s article, “Two Ukrainian Jets Shot Down, Three Dangerous Explanations,” it claims two Ukrainian SU-25 ground attack warplanes were shot down by rebels over Donetsk in eastern Ukraine, stating:

Ukrainian Defense Ministry spokesman told reporters in Kiev that two of its Sukhoi SU-25 fighter jets were shot down while flying at 5,200 meters (17,000 feet) over the Donetsk region in eastern Ukraine. The pilots ejected, and their whereabouts are unknown.

At 17,000 feet, the planes would have been outside the range of the shoulder-fired missiles that the rebels contend are their only air-defense weapons. The planes would, however, be in range of a surface-to-air missile such as the Buk, which is suspected to have been used to shoot down Malaysian Airlines flight MH-17 on July 17.

Bloomberg’s “three dangerous explanations” are patently false. They first assert that the rebels have been lying about the weapons they have access to, claiming (emphasis added):

This possibility would mean that the rebels do, in fact, have missiles capable of hitting a plane at high altitude. The evidence mustered so far that the Malaysia Air plane was shot down at 33,000 feet over rebel-held territory has proven a major problem. “The rebels are clearly having a very difficult time denying having access to such equipment,” says Reed Foster, a defense analyst at IHS Jane’s in London. The rebels have said they have shoulder-fired weapons known as MANPADS, but Foster says shooting down a plane at 17,000 would be “far outside the capacity” of those weapons.

However, Jane’s itself published an article titled, “Ukraine claims Malaysian airliner was shot down in its territory,” in which it claimed (emphasis added):

The shooting down of a Ukrainian air force An-26 transport plane in Luhansk province on 14 July has also raised questions about more advanced systems potentially being operated by the separatists. The An-26 military aircraft was hit while flying at cruising altitude (6,500 m), out of the range of most MANPADS. This suggests the separatists have either gained access to more advanced systems – such as the 9K38 Igla-S (SA-24) MANPADS, 96K6 Pantsyr-S1 self-propelled air defence systems, or 9K37 Buk (SA-11) self-propelled surface-to-air missile systems – or that the aircraft was downed by a missile fired by a Russian system over the border. Moscow denied any involvement in that incident. 

In other words, there are MANPADS capable of hitting Ukrainian SU-25 warplanes and even higher flying military transport planes (up to 6,500 m) – without possessing weapons like Buk missile systems that could reach 33,000 feet where MH17 was flying, or higher.

Bloomberg’s other two “explanations,” include Russia firing the missiles from within their territory – which like all claims by the Western media lack any evidence at all to back them up – and that the Ukrainian government is lying, which is of course plausible since the Ukrainian government already irrationally claims “Russia” shot down MH17 on purpose as an act of malice state-sponsored terrorism. But while Ukraine lying about the incident is possible, the fact that man-portable missile systems rebels may possess could target and take down the SU-25s at the altitudes they were allegedly flying at, provides the most credible “explanation,” and not surprisingly, the explanation Bloomberg intentionally omitted from its propaganda.

With all that is at stake amid the current politically-motivated climate surrounding the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, would Ukrainian separatists still be using Buk missile systems if they indeed had them to begin with? Would the Russians still be assisting them in their use – a necessity the West has unanimously declared would be required for separatists to deploy the Buk missile system in the first place? Or were Ukrainian separatists using the highly capable MANPAD systems Jane’s alluded to in their recent analysis of aircraft shot down at higher altitudes than the two SU-25s were flying at? Without actual evidence provided by Bloomberg or the less than credible Ukrainian regime they are citing, commonsense suggests the latter.

Article source: http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2014/07/bloomberg-lies-as-ukrainian-rebels.html

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMilitantLibertarian/~3/vIbyuldsbDk/

Coming for Your Accounts: Solutions

 

planBAfter running last week’s article (They’re Coming for Your Accounts), we received a number of questions about how to actually protect oneself. So, this week I’d like to address that subject.

First Words

I need to make an important point before I proceed, however: I am not involved in the financial industry, and I do not know the many rules that apply to IRAs, 401(k)s, and so on.

So, please understand that I’m speaking in rough terms and that you’ll need to apply all my suggestions to your own situation intelligently. I simply do not have precise advice to give you.

But with that said, here are some suggestions:

Partial, Multiple, and Incremental Solutions

Solutions to financial problems do not have to be all or nothing. If you think that IRAs are ripe for picking (as I do), then you can begin by ceasing to fund them. Take your money as regular income, pay taxes on it if you must, and put it to use as you see fit. That money will no longer be in the “first grab” pile.

If you do something like this, you will be slowly moving your assets out of easy government control. And if you hold your earnings in the form of cash, rather than in a bank account, it becomes very difficult for a government to seize.

Everyone will have their own opinions and risk estimates, but in my opinion, money left in registered accounts is becoming riskier than cash that is thoughtfully stored.

There is also the common issue of spouses disagreeing on what to do: One thinks registered accounts are a risk; the other doesn’t. While these situations are difficult, they don’t have to be as dramatic as we make them. We can simply do several things at once: Leave the 401(k) as it is, but start putting new money into silver and gold. Or create an offshore structure and fund it bit by bit, instead of continually funding the government retirement account.

There’s no reason we have to go 100% in any single direction; We can go several ways at once. Better to do this than to fight and make our lives miserable; money should make our lives better, not worse. It is useful and important, but not that important.

Warning Bells

Whatever your plans may be, it’s a good idea to have a backup plan: “If they do X, we’ll do Z.” What you’d like to do ideally is to not get hurt too badly when the alarm bell is rung.

So, I’d suggest that you keep the least money in the place that’s likely to be hit first. And in my opinion, that will be the place that’s easiest for a desperate government to loot.

I gave several examples last week of what has been happening, so that would be a good place to begin your analysis. And remember that predators always hit the softest target first.

Specific Options

Here are several options for keeping your money under your own, personal control:

Cash: Still easy enough to get, and easy to store. Theft is always a concern, but when governments start stealing directly from bank accounts – as they did last year in Cyrpus – which is the lesser risk?

Gold and silver: Very similar to cash, but with two differences: During normal times, it may need to be exchanged for local currency, which is an added expense. In bad times, however, local currency becomes worthless, and the metals retain their full value. There are many local coin dealers that make purchasing silver and gold easy.

Bitcoin: While new, sometimes volatile (though not recently), and not universally accepted, Bitcoin is easy to get, easy to use, and easy to secure. And it remains solely under your control. In addition, crypto-currencies can be used internationally without expense or permission.

Invest in local businesses: We covered the specifics of this in FMP #19, but investing locally diversifies your risk, while still giving you the ability to oversee your investment. And it helps your neighbors directly, rather than giving Washington and Wall Street a skim on all your investments.

Offshore structures: Holding your money in another country is a very large speed bump to your local government. Yes, if you’re a real criminal, the other country will give up your money promptly, but such places are dependent upon foreign bank accounts, and they will not want to scare their customers away by giving up their money without a fight.

Furthermore, offshore structures are not terribly expensive to obtain. You’ll want to use a professional to do the work for you (it’s too hard to do yourself), but the expense is not as bad as you may think.

Offshore real estate: Offshore real estate, I am told (please verify for yourself), does not have to be declared to the US government.

Breaking Inertia

The most fundamental need in situations like this is to break the inertia that entangles us. That inertia moves always in the direction of compliance with authority and a mute servility.

What matters most to us is that we leave the camp of the perpetually obedient and start acting in the world according to our own judgment. In the end, that’s the only way to live our own lives (financial and otherwise), rather than “being lived” by outside forces.

Paul Rosenberg

[Editor's Note: Paul Rosenberg is the outside-the-Matrix author of FreemansPerspective.com, a site dedicated to economic freedom, personal independence and privacy. He is also the author of The Great Calendar, a report that breaks down our complex world into an easy-to-understand model. Click here to get your free copy.]

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMilitantLibertarian/~3/MeMR0fxXU80/

Peace Fighting

Peace Fighting

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMilitantLibertarian/~3/NmdmgkF-je8/

US Appeals to "Law of the Jungle" in MH17 Case

.facebook_1492324920July 23, 2014 (Tony Cartalucci – LD) After the Russian Federation disclosed to the world satellite imagery, radar information, and abnormalities in Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 flight MH17?s flight path, it asked Ukraine and the Western nations backing the regime in Kiev, questions regarding their alleged evidence. To these questions, the West has responded with increasingly suspicious silence and evasion. At one point, US State Department Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf, told journalists that the summation of US evidence was “YouTube” videos and other forms of social media – all of which are admittedly unverifiable and some of which is veritably fabricated.

All of Harf’s comments assigning blame to eastern Ukrainian separatists so far rests entirely on the alleged veracity of “YouTube clips” and “Facebook posts.” Harf left no room for the possibility that the evidence she is hinging her comments on may be fabrications, taken out of context, or otherwise inaccurate.

The abject failure of the United States to once again put forth credible evidence amid a firestorm of propaganda and rush to judgement – and subsequent action – echoes the attempted rush to war after NATO-member Turkey and Saudi Arabia assisted terrorists from the Syrian Al Qaeda franchise, Al Nusra, in carrying out a false-flag sarin gas attack in Damascus in August 2013. It also echoes the fallacious, fabricated evidence peddled before the United Nations regarding Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction” that in fact did not exist – but led to the invasion and nearly decade-long occupation of Iraq and over a million dead.

The serial fabrications the West has produced to advance its agenda worldwide is a troubling indictment of the “international order” it presumes itself chief proponent of and arbiter over. It appears to be an “international order” where the “law of the jungle,” prevails over the rule of law. Instead of an impartial investigation to ascertain the facts surrounding the downing of MH17, the US has resigned to citing “YouTube” clips as the basis upon which it seeks to undermine, isolate, and diminish the nation of Russia and its population of 142 million people, both politically and economically.

Harf insists on behalf of the US government that “commonsense” dictates who is responsible for the downing of MH17 – but to that a simple question can be asked, and demonstrably answered – cui bono? Downing the Malaysian airliner with nearly 300 on board and blaming it on Russia has been the “game changer” desperately needed by NATO and its collaborators in Kiev to turn the tides in a battle they were decisively losing, politically, tactically, strategically, and economically.

Another curiosity is the fact that most of the “intelligence” the US claims to have is in reference to “YouTube” clips, photography, and conclusions drawn on a series of pro-Kiev Ukrainian blogs (written in English). Is US intelligence simply reading blogs? Or are the blogs somehow a clearinghouse of US intelligence? Or are the blogs fabrications by US intelligence in an attempt to frame Russia? One in particular, “Ukraine at War,” is a definitive collection of fabrications, biased propaganda, and dubious claims that appear to precede “US intelligence” claims.

The list of questions the US must answer after its nearly week-long campaign of baselessly accusing Russia is growing exponentially – with diversions, evasions, and juvenile deferrals to “social media” only further compromising America’s waning credibility.

Article source: http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2014/07/us-appeals-to-law-of-jungle-in-mh17-case.html

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMilitantLibertarian/~3/Wxhcvwrs6ZA/

DOJ Claims Judge Who Trashed ‘Made Up Plot’ Should Be Removed For Being ‘Hostile’ To The Gov’t

from Techdirt

The self-assured nature of federal prosecutors can be quite insane. We’ve talked many times in the past about how the criminal justice system is completely rigged against anything remotely looking like fairness. From grand juries to plea bargains to sentencing guidelines, the entire system is designed to make anyone who enters it presumed guilty until their spirit is crushed and destroyed. In the last few years we’ve noted an even more disturbing trend: law enforcement creating their own plots, in which they lure (often gullible or marginalized) individuals into a convoluted criminal “plot” in which nearly all of the other players are fellow law enforcement folks (or informants). They then build up this big plot… wait until it’s about to go off (knowing it’ll never actually happen) and then arrest those they lured into it. It has happened over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Courts have found that this is technically not “entrapment,” even though it sure appears to come close to it.

That’s why we were quite happy to see a federal judge finally call out one of these questionable plots. Earlier this year, we wrote about Judge Otis Wright (whose name you may recall from the beatdown he gave Team Prenda) calling out one of the ATF’s homegrown criminal plots for “outrageous government conduct” in creating a “made up crime.” Wright detailed how the government picked details of the entirely fictional plot at levels to guarantee felony charges, and also accused it of “trawling… poverty-ridden areas” in a “fishing expedition” dangling huge riches on people who have no money. He further noted that nearly all of the elements of “the crime” were done by the ATF:

Read more here.

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMilitantLibertarian/~3/GBnQR9EFV2w/