Report: At Least One Dead, 14 Injured in Mass Shooting at Ft. Hood

Infowars.com | Texas military base was also the scene of a mass shooting in 2009.
Infowars

Act of War: Ukrainian Officer Shot Dead In Military Base Raid: “Unknown Forces, Fully Equipped and Their Faces Covered”

ukraine-military-called-up
(Military officials have mobilized all active and reserve service members
to defend Ukraine in the event of a Russian Invasion)

While the Monday deadline set forth by Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama led only to the seizures of financial assets belonging to members of the Russian parliament and other business leaders, the situation in the Ukraine is far from resolved. In fact, if reports streaming in from the former Russian republic are accurate, then things are about to take a turn for the worse.

A Ukrainian serviceman was killed on Tuesday at a Ukrainian base that came under attack in Crimea’s main town Simferopol, the first death on the peninsula from a military clash since the region came under Russian control three weeks ago. As news spread of the death of the serviceman, in an assault on the base by unknown attackers, Ukraine’s pro-Western prime minister denounced it as a “war crime” and called for international talks to prevent an escalation of the conflict.

He said the attackers had told the Ukrainian servicemen that they were under arrest and their documents were confiscated. It was unclear, Seleznyov said, who had staged the assault.

He described the attackers as “unknown forces, fully equipped and their faces covered”.

This is, by no stretch of the imagination, an act of war, or at the very least is being perceived as one by western allies. The probability that these were state-sponsored Russian or Crimean (now one in the same) forces is extremely high. The attackers were fully equipped, suggesting this wasn’t some band of rogue terrorists or rebels. The only full equipped personnel with their faces covered currently operating in Crimea are Russian troops.

russian troops crimea (Armed men believed to be Russian troops patrol the area around a Ukranian military base)

If Ukraine’s prime minister is calling this act a “war crime,” then we can only assume that they now believe they are, in fact, in the midst of a war. And that may well be the case. If not today, then in coming days and weeks. In Crimea, Russia has mobilzed at least 80,000 troops, while the Ukranians have themselves sent 40,000 troops to defend the border in what neighboring Estonia has suggested will lead to an invasion by Russian troops.

The western appointed President of Ukraine has already indicated that his country will never give up Crimea. On the other side of the border, the Russians now believe they have every right to annex Crimea based on a seemingly overwhelming “democratic” vote in support of Russian rule by the people of the small peninsula.

For now, the East vs. West battle has been taking place on the periphery, with no serious repercussions for either side. Essentially, all the United States has done at this point is to seize the financial asset of those individuals who have been marked as supporters of the separatist movement in Crimea – including many Russian politicians.

But what happens when, as Karl Denninger notes, real economic sanctions take place? The one thing that Ukraine has over Crimea is control of electricity and gas resources. They have not yet wielded this weapon, but it makes sense that this could be used to further pressure the acting government of Crimea.

First is that Crimea has nearly no electrical generation capacity on the peninsula.  There are only two routes into there by land for electrical power and both go into Ukraine.

Ukraine has no obligation to leave the power on.  If they turn it off then Crimea is roughly, by my figures, 80% short of its electrical demand requirements.

Second of course are the gas pipeline issues; there appears to be exactly one gas pipeline route into Crimea and it doesn’t come from Russia.

What do you think is going to happen if Ukraine decides to literally “pull the plug” on Crimea?

Is Vladimir Putin just going to stand by as the Crimean grid collapses?

Keep in mind that President Putin has made it clear that he believes there should be no division of Ukraine and Crimea. And the way things are going, with troops massing all over the region, it looks like Putin is prepared to take steps to ensure a united Ukraine. Moreover, we now have Russian state-sponsored television threatening to turn the United States into radioactive ash, an obvious attempt to, once again, scare the crap out of President Obama.

In August of 2013 the United States made similar military movements in and around Syria, only to pull back on threats of invasion after members of Putin’s government warned of the possibility of nuclear counter strikes.

Will Vladimir Putin do the same, and simply pull back his troops and lose face to Obama this time around?

We highly doubt it.

Though it was a Hollywood script, one can’t help but see the parallels between what is happening in Ukraine right now and the opening credits of the movie Red Dawn. Watch the video for yourself and decide, especially after the first minute, where the country (former Russian state of Georgia) in question is different but the circumstances are almost identical. Keep in mind that this movie was originally filmed in 2008 and released in 2012, specifically because of the objections of China, who was originally featured as the invading force:

Yes, it is a Hollywood script. But it seems to be, at least in part, mimicking reality.

Does anyone remember what happened next?

It started with an EMP attack that took down the power grid of the entire West coast, followed by an invasion of the United States.

From a historical perspective, the military and civilian casualties in World War I were 37 million people. That war started from a seemingly insignificant assassination of an archduke from the Austro-Hungarian empire.

But just as we saw in the build up to this single event that changed the world back in the 1910′s, we are now seeing military mobilizations and positioning on a massive scale in Europe, Asia, the middle east. The chess pieces are actively in motion and the end game is quickly approaching.

Will cooler heads prevail?

Maybe. But what if they don’t?

Eventually, someone is going to give the go-ahead and then all bets are off.


SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You

WHITE HOUSE TRIVIA: All of those dead bodies piling up from Benghazi and Fast & Furious? Those are on Fox

When confronted with rank propaganda like this, I really, really want to drop the f-bomb and other appropriate adjectives. But this is a family blog.

Not accustomed to being asked difficult questions about his failures in office, President Obama attacked Fox News host Bill O’Reilly during a pre-Super Bowl interview on Sunday for daring to demand answers about the Benghazi terrorist attack and the IRS targeting conservative groups.

O’Reilly said, “Your detractors believe that you did not tell the world it was a terror attack because your campaign didn’t want that out. That’s what they believe.” Obama ranted in reply: “And they believe it because folks like you are telling them that.” O’Reilly responded: “No, I’m not telling them that, I’m asking you whether you were told it was a terror attack.”

Minutes later, while O’Reilly was asking about the IRS scandal, Obama tried to dismiss the topic: “Folks have, again, had multiple hearings on this. I mean, these kinds of things keep on surfacing in part because you and your TV station will promote them.

As the Conservative Tribune puts it:

Obama did in this interview what Obama has always done: Shift the blame to someone else. If something goes wrong in his presidency, it’s the fault of Republicans, racism, Fox News, or anything else that seems like a good scapegoat.

On Obama’s desk, there must be a new riff on Truman’s sign that reads:

THE BUCK STOPS ANYWHERE BUT HERE

Or:

THE BUCK STOPS WITH FOX NEWS

I don’t have the appropriate words in my vocabulary to describe what I think of this kind of behavior.

Hat tip: BadBlue Real-Time News

Doug Ross @ Journal

Don’t Miss This Interview: “I Don’t Like Repeat Offenders… I Like Dead Offenders”

Editor’s Note: The following interview with Ted Nugent is a must-watch and one you’ll want to share with family and friends, especially those who don’t agree with our natural right to preserve and defend our lives. We challenge any advocate of restrictive gun legislation to put forth a logical argument to counter the natural laws highlighted by Nugent. We’re fairly certain no such argument could be made on the merits, despite the fact that the Huffington Post once referred to him and his ideas as “toxic” to the Republican Party and “like a machine gun that riddles his own troops with friendly fire” in an effort to suggest Nugent is a madman whose ideas are supported only by a minority of radical, bible toting, gun carrying fringe lunatics on the extreme right of the modern day political spectrum. 

nugent

Via The Daily Sheeple:

There are so many quotable gems in this video of the incomparable Ted Nugent that we don’t even know where to begin. Here are a few favorites:

“I don’t need a document, and I don’t need another man to explain to me, that I have a right to defend my gift of life.”

“There is an argument in America … from a whole gaggle of numbnuts who would try to tell me that they will dictate where, how, and if I can defend myself. I find that preposterous. I find it unacceptable and I will not accept it.”

“The Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights is my concealed weapons permit, period.”

“I don’t like repeat offenders, I like dead offenders.”

Somehow, these statements are seen by many as outrageous.  The gun control advocates really aren’t fans of intelligence and common sense. (Remember this hysterically funny video of Cali Senator Kevin de Leon attempting dramatic effect with no facts whatsoever?) If Mr. Nugent was the one making the laws, we’re quite sure that violent crime rates in America would plummet.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

Related: Why I Cannot Support Concealed Carry Weapons Permits


SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You

NOTHING TO CUT: Meet the Multi-Millionaire Who Collected His Dead Mom’s Social Security Checks for 23 Years

Guest post by Laura Trueman

The 2014 omnibus bill contains an increase in funding for running the Social Security Administration (SSA). Maybe now they can stop paying Social Security benefits to dead people.

According to a December Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, SSA systems do not accurately note and confirm the deaths of beneficiaries, resulting in payments being made to dead people—sometimes for decades. The flawed system doesn’t just impact Social Security payments, either. Multiple other federal agencies that pay benefits—from federal pensions to payments to farmers and the disabled—rely on SSA’s flawed death data.

Collecting Dead Mother’s Social Security for 23 Years. Raymond O’Dell made news this week when he was sentenced for collecting his dead mother’s Social Security benefits for 23 years. O’Dell collected $ 188,000 in benefits, while building a successful Taco Bell franchise. His accountant put his net worth at $ 4 million (including $ 431,000 in cash). This week, he was sentenced to pay back the benefits, along with a $ 20,000 fine, and will serve six months in prison.

O’Dell is not unique. In Washington state, U.S. Attorney Jenny Durkan convicted five people for collecting a dead parent’s Social Security benefits. One man personally disposed of his mother’s body in a rural area and never reported her death; he collected her benefits for 9 years. More examples are cited in the SSA’s “Deceased Payee Fraud; Strange But True,” released this month.

As Durkan noted, “Cheaters shred the safety net for those that really need it…and need to know prison and hefty fines wait at the end of the scheme.” The SSA has the Office of Inspector General Fraud Hotline for reporting suspected fraud. That’s good, but it isn’t enough.

Getting a Handle on the Problem. The SSA receives and processes death reports from a variety of sources, including states, family members, funeral directors, post offices, financial institutions, and other federal agencies. It’s a big job: In 2012, seven million deaths were reported to the SSA; overall, they manage the death records for some 98 million people.

The GAO reports that the agency does not verify the death reports from all of its sources. The SSA has no clue how accurate the unverified reports are because, according to the GAO, the agency has “never performed an analysis validating the accuracy of the various sources of death reports.”

The GAO checked on a random sample of the SSA’s death reports and found problems:

  • Notice of about 500 deaths came to the SSA long after the person’s death; in fact 200 were 10 or more years after the fact, meaning that all kinds of benefits could have been flowing unchecked for years.
  • Another 150 people were apparently engaged in “back to the future” time travel—their date of death was BEFORE their date of birth.
  • Almost 2000 broke or nearly broke Guinness records—living between 115 and 195 years.

The GAO made some recommendations on how to improve the SSA systems, and maybe things will improve. It should be noted that, while the GAO focused on the SSA’s struggles with the death reports it received, Raymond O’Dell and a slew of others kept their relative’s death from being reported.

In the omnibus appropriations Congress passed this week, they offered their usual solution—more money—increasing the agency’s budget by $ 651 million. Oklahoma’s Senator Tom Coburn (R) and a few others are pushing the SSA to fix this and other fraud in benefit programs. As The Wall Street Journal notes, these members “are voices crying in the wilderness” as Congress focuses on spending more money, not making existing agencies and programs work better.

Read more at The Foundry.

Doug Ross @ Journal