Kalugin – Putin has already won!

Editor’s Note – After the now famous “six words” Obama uttered Thursday – we don’t have a strategy yet” for dealing with ISIS, (or ISIL as Obama prefers to call them) in Syria, it was just more proof that Obama is terribly feckless and weak, and Putin and others know it well. Therefore the Ukrainian issue is a forgone conclusion, at least according to Oleg Kalugin.

Putin even mentioned that no one should ever “mess with nuclear-armed Russia” as if Obama and others needed to be reminded of their still large arsenal. Despite NATO troops and equipment moving into Lithuania, Ukraine and Poland, Putin is not intimidated.ObamaPutinSerious

Vladimir Putin raised the spectre of nuclear war with the West on Friday as he defied international condemnation over his decision to send thousands of Russian troops and heavy armour into Ukraine.

Accused by Europe and Nato of launching a full-scale invasion of eastern Ukraine, the Russian leader boasted to a group of Russian youngsters that “It’s best not to mess with us.”

In language not seen since the height of the Cold War, he told his audience: “Thank God, I think no one is thinking of unleashing a large-scale conflict with Russia. I want to remind you that Russia is one of the leading nuclear powers.” (Read the rest here.)

Kalugin just may be correct:

Ex-KGB General: Russia Has Already Won 

By Joel Gehrke – National Review Online

Russia has already won “the real victory”​ in Ukraine, according to a former KGB general living in the United States.

Russian Nuke“The Crimea is now Russian, that’s very important,” Oleg Kalugin, one of the top Soviet spies in the United States during the Cold War, told National Review Online. “Southeast of Ukraine, that’s part of the general battle between the Russians and Ukrainians, but it’s not as crucial as the real victory and pride of Russia — the Crimea, I mean.”

The Thursday-morning phone interview took place in the context of media reports that Russia had invaded Ukraine, but Kalugin reiterated that he does not believe Russian president Vladimir Putin wants annex another region of the country.

Oleg Kalugin
Oleg Kalugin

“I believe they’re just trying to do their best to keep as much as they can of pro-Russian population and communities in that area; but Russia does not plan, I am sure, to take the southeastern part of Ukraine just like they did with the Crimea,” Kalugin said.

“It will certainly do it’s best to provide secure access to the Crimea through that part of Ukraine, because otherwise the Crimea can only be accessed by the Black Sea, by water, and this is not the safest way,” he added.

Kalugin said he doubts Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko’s claims that “Russian troops were brought into Ukraine.”

“For political leaders, it’s important to maintain their stance and make people feel that things are still quite dangerous while he may know well that things are going to a peaceful solution,” Kalugin said. “Russia will not move any [troops] forward while western nations are alerted” due to the risk of expanded economic sanctions.

“It’s not in the interest of Putin,” Kalugin said. “His position as of today is fairly strong in the country, in his own country, so why put it at risk by moving further?”

Although Kalugin expects the Russians to keep a “low-profile” in Ukraine, he agreed that Putin has an interest in fomenting unrest in the country by providing weaponry and perhaps special forces assistance to the separatists.

“The tactical victory would be most likely the pro-Russian forces in that part of Ukraine will eventually triumph and Russia will be satisfied,” he said. “It will not necessarily be exactly to a Russian notion of how things should be, but at least it will not be pro-NATO, pro-Western.”

Bulletin: Imminent Jihadist Threat on Southern Border

Editor’s Note – Just yesterday, our president told the world he had no plan for ISIS/ISIL/IS in Syria and soon after Josh Earnest was walking a fine line in trying to clarify why the leader of the free world has no plan, we don’t have a strategy yet,” largely blaming the media for not interpreting his words correctly.

Of course, the press just reported what he actually said.TERRORISTS

Then we learned the PM Cameron of the UK acknowledged that MI5 had raised the threat level to ‘severe’ for the first time since 2010, but Obama and our federal departments would not.

In fact, in the last few days the words spoken by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Martin Dempsey warning America of the severity of the threat was also walked back.

Then we learn from the new de facto truth department at Judicial Watch that we have a real and credible threat on our southern border by ISIS.

The chatter is now loud and emanating from many different and reliable sources that it is true that Commanding General of the 1st Armored Division and Fort Bliss, Major General Stephen M. Twitty, has been briefed today by the CIA, on a credible threat against the US by ISIS.

Once again, the words uttered by the administration are unclear, befuddled, unreliable, and often downright wrong. Why? Can we no longer trust anything coming from the White House anymore? Just over a month ago, another General was sounding the alarm:

The general in charge of U.S. Southern Command says America’s porous southern border poses as much a threat as any foreign power, with gangs and terrorist groups hiding among the tidal wave of illegals.

If Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly, commander of the U.S. Southern Command, keeps warning about the crisis at our southern border, he may soon join the long list of generals and admirals sacked by this administration as it decimates the military.

“In comparison to other global threats, the near collapse of societies in the hemisphere with the associated drug and (undocumented immigrant) flow are frequently viewed to be of low importance,” Kelly told Defense One, a website focused on national security issues. “Many argue these threats are not existential and do not challenge our national security. I disagree.” (Read the rest here.)

Of course, many of us have confirmed the presence of jihadists crossing the border for ages, yet the Obama Administration cannot utter the words – Jihadist threat. Please read on about this breaking news:

Judicial Watch: Feds’ Bulletin Describes Threat of Imminent Terrorist Attack on Southern Border

For those of us who’ve been raising alarms about both the jihadist threat and the national-security vulnerability created by the Obama administration’s non-enforcement of the immigration laws, this is not a surprise — particularly less than two weeks before September 11. But it is nonetheless jarring to read. Judicial Watch has just put out this statement:ISIS Flag over WH

Islamic terrorist groups are operating in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez and planning to attack the United States with car bombs or other vehicle born improvised explosive devices (VBIED). High-level federal law enforcement, intelligence and other sources have confirmed to Judicial Watch that a warning bulletin for an imminent terrorist attack on the border has been issued.

Agents across a number of Homeland Security, Justice and Defense agencies have all been placed on alert and instructed to aggressively work all possible leads and sources concerning this imminent terrorist threat.

Specifically, Judicial Watch sources reveal that the militant group Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) is confirmed to now be operating in Juarez, a famously crime-infested narcotics hotbed situated across from El Paso, Texas. Violent crimes are so rampant in Juarez that the U.S. State Department has issued a number of travel warnings for anyone planning to go there. The last one was issued just a few days ago.

Intelligence officials have picked up radio talk and chatter indicating that the terrorist groups are going to “carry out an attack on the border,” according to one JW source.  “It’s coming very soon,” according to this high-level source, who clearly identified the groups planning the plots as “ISIS and Al Qaeda.”

An attack is so imminent that the commanding general at Ft. Bliss, the U.S. Army post in El Paso, is being briefed, another source confirms.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not respond to multiple inquiries from Judicial Watch, both telephonic and in writing, about this information.

The disturbing inside intelligence comes on the heels of news reports revealing that U.S. intelligence has picked up increased chatter among Islamist terror networks approaching the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. While these terrorists reportedly plan their attack just outside the U.S., President Obama admits that “we don’t have a strategy yet” to combat ISIS.

“I don’t want to put the cart before the horse,” the commander-in-chief said this week during a White House press briefing. “I think what I’ve seen in some of the news reports suggest that folks are getting a little further ahead of what we’re at than what we currently are.”

The administration has also covered up, or at the very least downplayed, a serious epidemic of crime along the Mexican border even as heavily armed drug cartels have taken over portions of the region. Judicial Watch has reported that the U.S. Border Patrol actually ordered officers to avoid the most crime-infested stretches because they’re “too dangerous” and patrolling them could result in an “international incident” of cross border shooting.

In the meantime, who could forget the famous words of Obama’s first Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano; the southern border is “as secure as it has ever been.”

These new revelations are bound to impact the current debate about the border crisis and immigration policy.

Liberal Rant – Conservatives are Pro-War, a Response

Editor’s Note – In a recent Facebook discussion on the Cowboy Logic page, several people posited that Republicans are pro-war and therefore are responsible for many of today’s ills across the globe, and most notably Iraq. As usual, the discussion devolved into a typical morass due to the application of common liberal tactics by more than a few people.

Since there was an argument about the facts, Don Neuen (SUA/Cowboy Logic Radio Co-Host) decided to stop the conversation and do some research. He did so and re-initiated the discussion after posting the following. We encourage anyone to respond as a few did after the initial posting of Don’s research. Please read:

By Don Neuen

Conservatives are pro DEFENSE… pro MILITARY… we are not pro WAR as ‘you’ [referring to a liberal respondent] have repeatedly stated incorrectly…

  • World War I – Woodrow Wilson – Democrat

    Join us on Facebook to participate in similar discussions.
    Join us on Facebook to participate in similar discussions.
  • World War II – FDR – Democrat
  • Korean War – Truman – Democrat
  • Bay of Pigs – Kennedy – Democrat
  • Vietnam War – LBJ – Democrat
  • Grenada – Reagan – Republican
  • Persian Gulf War – Bush – Republican
  • Bosnia and Herzegovina – Clinton – Democrat
  • War on Terror – Bush – Republican
  • War on Terror – Obama – Democrat

But let us look deeper…

Under Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat (Progressive), the Democrats held control of both the Senate and the House from 1913-1917… From 1917-1921, The Democrats continued to control the Senate…

WilsonFDRWar

Under FDR, a Democrat (Progressive), the Democrats held control of both the Senate and the House from 1933-1945…

Under Truman, a Democrat, the Democrats held control of both the Senate and the House from 1945-1953, with the exception of 1947-1949 when the Republicans took control of the House…

Let’s pause here and reflect: During WWI, WWII and the Korean War, the Democrats held control of the Senate exclusively… And with the exception of 1917-1921, and 1947-1949, the Democrats also held control of the House…

I’d also like to note that WWI ended in 1918, while the Republicans held the House… And WWII ended in 1945 when the Republicans closed the gap in the House to its most narrow margin during FDR’s reign…

I’ll continue…

Under JFK, a Democrat, both the Senate and House were controlled by Democrats…

Under LBJ, a Democrat, both the Senate and the House were under the control of… you guessed it: the Democrats…

Under Reagan, a Republican, The Senate was under the control of Republicans for his first 6 years, from 1981-1987… Reagan had two years of a Democrat held Senate: 1987-1989… During Reagan’s entire term, Democrats held control of the House – from 1981-1989…

Under a Conservative failure: Bush 41, a Republican, both the Senate and the House were under the control of the Democrats during his term from 1989-1993…

Under Clinton, a Democrat, the Senate and House were under the control of the Democrats (1993-1995)… From that point forth, both the Senate and the House were under the control of the Republicans (1995-2001)…LBJ.JFK

Now we get to the next Conservative failure: Bush 43, a Republican… The Senate was barely held, but held nonetheless, under the control of the Republicans for half of his term… From 2001-2003, and again from 2007-2009, neither party held control of the Senate… As far as the House goes, Republicans held the purse strings for the first 6 years (2001-2007), but from 2007-2009, the Democrats gained control of the spending…

Now we get to Obama, a Progressive… The Senate has been under the control of the Democrats from 2009-today… The House was under the control of the Democrats from 2009-2011 and has been under the control of the Republicans from 2011-today…

“What’s your point Don???”

My point is this: When you look at the Commander-in-Chief during times of War, you also must look at which party controls the House and the Senate… It is undeniable that more wars have started under Democrat/Progressive Presidents… That cannot be argued…

Furthermore, More wars have been started and perpetuated during times when the Democrats held control of the House and the Senate… That cannot be argued…

If Democrats don’t like war: Don’t fund war… Don’t preside over war… Don’t authorize war…

You statement that “Conservatives are “pro war” is clearly incorrect…

Now let’s take a look at US casualties from war…

Clearly, WWI & WWII fall under Democrat Presidents as well as an exclusive Democrat Senate and with the exception of 1917-1919, an exclusive Democrat House of Representatives…

Not a good way to start the argument that “Conservatives are pro war”, but I digress…

During WWI & WWII, we lost 116,000 and 405,399 soldiers respectively…

The Korean War cost us 36,516 soldiers… Again, Democrat President… Democrat Senate, and a Democrat House, with the exception of 1947-1949… I’d like to note that the Korean War was not taking place during the time in which Republicans held control of the House during Truman’s term, so the Korean War belongs to the Democrat Party…

Bay of Pigs/Vietnam… While some may consider the loss of 4 US lives inconsequential, Conservatives do NOT… I’ll drop Benghazi into the mix briefly… Back to the Bay of Pigs… we lost 4… During a period in which the President was a Democrat, and both the Senate and the House were under control of the Democrats…

Are we staring to see a pattern here?

Now for LBJ and Vietnam… I can’t blame LBJ entirely for the Vietnam War, in which we lost 58,209 US soldiers… But I can pin him for his term as President, as I can Nixon… But I can, and will blame the Senate and House, both controlled by the Democrats during the entire Vietnam War… And if you are a stickler for details, let’s go back to the start of the Vietnam War, and much to my surprise, who controlled Congress, both chambers? Bingo, the Democrats… moving on…

TrumanReaganUnder Reagan, a Conservative, we have a few military conflicts to discuss… First, Iran… clearly, history has shown that Iran mocks Democrats and is afraid of Conservatives…

Then we have El Salvador, Beirut, and Grenada… US deaths: 322… It should be noted that all three of these conflicts, or wars took place under a Republican Senate and a Democrat House…

Now we get to Conservative failure #1: Bush 41… Total loss of life: 353 (Panama, Gulf War and Operation Provide Comfort)…

Please note that during these conflicts, the Democrats held complete control of both the Senate and the House…

During Clinton’s terms… Somalia was the biggest loss of life… 43… Next was Bosnia: 32… But let’s also note that the House and the Senate were controlled by the Republicans from 1995-2001… Democrats held control of both the House and Senate from 1993-1995…

And now for Conservative failure #2: Bush 43… Clearly, this man, to a Conservative, was an abysmal failure… During his terms, an accurate loss of life count is varying… But I’ll use the estimate of 4,539 (Iraq) and 1,049 (Afghanistan)… During the Bush 43 debacle, Republicans held the purse strings from 2001-2007… For the most part, the Republicans also controlled the Senate during that same time period…

For the record… In the opinion of this Conservative, the Bush administration/Congress was a complete failure of true Conservative values…

Now, for Obama… Again, statistics are clearly inaccurate… But according to what I know, during Obama’s time at quarterback (2009-2014), we’ve lost 265 in Iraq and 2,416 in Afghanistan… oh… and 4 in Benghazi…

So again you ask “What’s your point Don????”

My point is simple… The party of War is clearly the Democrats… Historical facts prove that…

Quite possibly, Sir… you are confusing “Conservative Democrats” with “Conservatives”…

Israelis Reveal Hamas War Crime Evidence

Editor’s Note – As the world continues to lay blame on Israel, for a whole host of charges, we ask again, do you know who the real criminals are? Is there true evil in Gaza? Is the U.N. capable and ready to look at the scene in a sincere and justified fashion? We doubt it. What we do know is, documentation easily refutes all these bogus charges but we all know the deck is always stacked against Israel.

Last week we saw numerous attempts to lay blame on Israel and to foment the tide of a visit to the Hague for war crimes. Of course, much of this comes from tortured logic, twisted meanings of wording, and a prejudiced slant, even from some Israeli human rights organizations like B’Tselem who said in the Progressive:IsraelReportScreenShot

“Israel states that all the attacks on Gaza were only aimed at military targets — yet it defines ‘military target’ so broadly that the term loses all meaning,” the group says. “Israel states that all its strikes in Gaza were proportionate, and that the fact that civilians were killed does not in itself contradict that. Yet after dozens of strikes, each killing many uninvolved civilians, while Israel did not prove or even claim military gains significant enough to render such damage proportionate, this argument is no longer tenable.”

Also from that article are others calling for accountability, that is to say, Israeli accountability with no word on Hamas or others:

Francis Boyle, a law professor at the University of Illinois, and author of Palestine, Palestinians, and International Law, says the Palestinians leadership should begin legal proceedings against Israel before the International Court of Justice in The Hague on the basis of the 1948 Genocide Convention. He has given up hope on the International Criminal Court, saying it is biased toward the United States and Israel.

Human Rights Watch and others take a different view.

Legal proceedings at the International Criminal Court “could ensure access to international justice for victims of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on Palestinian territories, and would send an important message that such crimes cannot be committed with impunity,” Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and several other human rights groups state in an open letter to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

“People who want to end the lack of accountability in Palestine and deter future abuse should urge President Abbas to seek access to the ICC,” Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director of the organization, states in a press release.

Damned the facts, damn the evidence, and rely upon a circular argument that vets itself in an incestual pool of thought is rampant among those who accuse Israel, no matter the provocation of being war criminals. Crickets are all we hear from them about the terror organization Hamas as we have documented time and again.Abbas is plotting

In the mean time, the Fatah wing of the Palestinian Authority is moving quickly, especially to regain Mahmoud Abbas’ lost power when Gaza was taken over by Hamas:

Aides to the Palestinian president said Sunday that he will soon appeal to the international community to set a deadline for Israel to end its occupation of lands captured in the 1967 Mideast war and make way for an independent Palestinian state.

President Mahmoud Abbas was expected to unveil his proposal as part of a “day after” plan following the current war in the Gaza Strip, likely at a meeting of the Palestinian leadership on Tuesday, said the aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the plan has not yet been made public.

Abbas is plotting his move even as the fighting continues to rage. Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, warned Sunday that the 7-week-old military campaign in Gaza would stretch into September — despite growing anger among residents in southern Israel over the military’s inability to halt rocket and mortar fire out of the Palestinian territory following the death of a 4-year-old Israeli boy over the weekend.

Knowing this was always going to be the case, the Israelis did do something very smart, they documented everything. The following is a great example of the proof in video, on tape, in audio, and in real time as incidents occurred, you be the judge. This is a must see presentation:

%CODE%

Making BFFs – Obama Curries Favor with Big Business and 1%ers

Editor’s Note – For almost six years as President, along with his campaign rhetoric prior, and his short stint in the Senate, Obama has railed against big business, fat cats, bankers, Wall Street, and beyond. He always tried to appeal to the masses as being separate from the 1%, and for the 99%.

The problem is, he IS part of the 1% and caters to their needs in order to line Democrat Party coffers as well his two campaigns for the Oval Office. Hypocrisy is a word to describe others, while he sees himself as doing what has to be done to achieve his goals. He is the king of the ‘say or do anything crowd’ to get your way and becoming BFFs with big business.

Picking winners and losers, dividing peoples and industries, catering to the wealthy as he vacations on Martha’s Vineyard, and golfing with the elites of the world are his stock in trade. Why do his followers and the MSM not see him as the fake and fraud he really is?

Why the White House Is Now Trying to Be Besties with Big Business

By Gerren McHam – Daily Signal

Ready for a backroom deal brokered by the White House?

White House officials met Monday with business leaders and interest groups to talk about executive actions President Obama should consider on immigration, per press reports. Instead of working to secure the southern border, the White House appears to be looking to obtain allies for its administrative amnesty approach that is unjust, costly, and will increase illegal immigration.

Unfortunately, government and big business collusion is nothing new. We’ve seen them team up to support the Export-Import Bank and back a nearly 1,000 page comprehensive immigration bill that purported to have something for everyone.United States Export-Import Bank

So what opportunities are up for grabs on immigration? The president will likely insist on an administrative amnesty for perhaps as many as five million illegal immigrants.

According to Politico, business leaders and interest groups are advocating for measures that include “allowing spouses of workers with high-tech visas to work, recapturing green cards that go unused, and making technical changes for dual-purpose visa applications.”

The implication is that if the White House gives them some of these goodies, they will support Obama’s inappropriate administrative amnesty.

Lost in the conversation are those who lose out or who aren’t shown the same favoritism as the involved players, such as the American taxpayer who has to foot the bill for illegal immigration. Legal immigrants and those waiting patiently in line to immigrate from abroad legally also will lose

Other business interests are being left out, too. For example, as Politico mentions, representatives of the construction industry would like their slice of the pie by incorporating a low-skilled worker provision into any executive action agreement.

This semi-comprehensive approach is frustrating the left. “All bets are off” for broader immigration reform if Obama continues down this road, said Tamar Jacoby of Immigration Works USA, a pro-immigration reform group,adding that “Obama will poison the well” if he continues excluding their members—many of which are builders and contractors—from private discussions and neglecting to include their own carve outs in Obama’s final orders.

With similar negative responses from other groups, it’s easy to see why the administration continues to communicate that everything is still up for consideration

So why is Obama pursuing this partnership with Big Business?

“White House officials are in talks with business leaders that could expand the executive actions President Barack Obama takes on immigration.”
“White House officials are in talks with business leaders that could expand the executive actions President Barack Obama takes on immigration.”

For the administration, such a partnership would help blunt criticism. Instead of faithfully enforcing our immigration laws, the administration has gone out of its way to undermine them, making promises to supporters of amnesty that Obama will do everything within his power to address immigration through executive action.

Unfortunately for them, a recent CNN poll indicates that 45 percent of Americans believe Obama has gone far enough with executive action, leaving one to believe that handling the immigration issue unilaterally may prove unpopular.

As the New York Times points out, the administration is “essentially making policy from the White House, replacing congressional hearings and floor debates with closed meetings for invited constituents.” This “go-it-alone” approach is a far cry from an administration that “claims to be the most transparent in United States history.”

With the November elections quickly approaching, the Obama administration is likely trying to both appease its supporters and also be able to show. a collective front from business. So instead of focusing to secure the border and properly address the crisis of young accompanied minors, the White House appears to be pursuing business as usual in Washington—something we have unfortunately grown to expect.