State-Sponsored Television Anchor Threatens: Russia Is “Realistically Capable of Turning the United States Into Radioactive Ash”

America-in-Ashes

As a preface to the following excerpt from Russian State-sponsored television, it’s import to note that freedom of speech in Russia has been effectively eliminated in recent weeks. Laws and regulations set to punish anyone who speaks against the state have been authorized, and as of this morning, web sites that disseminate opinions contrary to the will of the state have been silenced.

Russia’s government has escalated its use of its Internet censorship law to target news sites, bloggers, and politicians under the slimmest excuse of preventing unauthorized protests and enforcing house arrest regulations. Today, the country’s ISPs have received orders to block a list of major news sites and system administrators have been instructed to take the servers providing the content offline.

Thus, the only information now being made available to the Russian public comes from news sources friendly to the Kremlin.

One such source is the State-sponsored Rossiya 1 television station and it’s clear that they are, just as our mainstream news sources here in the United States, shoveling propaganda to the people by the ton:

A leading anchor on Russian state television on Sunday described Russia as the only country capable of turning the United States into “radioactive ash”, in an incendiary comment at the height of tensions over the Crimea referendum.

“Russia is the only country in the world realistically capable of turning the United States into radioactive ash,” anchor Dmitry Kiselyov said on his weekly news show on state-controlled Rossiya 1 television.

Kiselyov made the comment to support his argument that the United States and President Barack Obama were living in fear of Russia led by President Vladimir Putin amid the Ukraine crisis.

He stood in his studio in front of a gigantic image of a mushroom cloud produced after a nuclear attack, with the words “into radioactive ash”.

Putin last year appointed Kiselyov head of the new Russia Today news agency that is to replace the soon to be liquidated RIA Novosti news agency with the aim of better promoting Russia’s official position.

Source: AFP

We’re not suggesting that a news report from a TV anchor is indicative of an impending nuclear attack, but one certainly can’t be ruled out should political solutions in the Ukraine fail. Moreover, this is state-sponsored, which means that the message was likely approved by the Kremlin itself.

The Propaganda is running thick on both sides of the pond.

With the Obama-Kerry imposed deadline for Putin to pull his troops back very quickly approaching, the world awaits.

Tune In Monday: ‘Murika vs. Mudder Rushia. It’s Awn.


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

TED CRUZ: This imperial presidency threatens the liberty of every American citizen      

Guest post by Ted Cruz

Of all the troubling aspects of the Obama presidency, none is more dangerous than the president’s persistent pattern of lawlessness, his willingness to disregard the written law and instead enforce his own policies via executive fiat. On Monday, Mr. Obama acted unilaterally to raise the minimum wage paid by federal contracts, the first of many executive actions the White House promised would be a theme of his State of the Union address Tuesday night.

The president’s taste for unilateral action to circumvent Congress should concern every citizen, regardless of party or ideology. The great 18th-century political philosopher Montesquieu observed: “There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates.” America’s Founding Fathers took this warning to heart, and we should too.

Rule of law doesn’t simply mean that society has laws; dictatorships are often characterized by an abundance of laws. Rather, rule of law means that we are a nation ruled by laws, not men. That no one—and especially not the president—is above the law. For that reason, the U.S. Constitution imposes on every president the express duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

Yet rather than honor this duty, President Obama has openly defied it by repeatedly suspending, delaying and waiving portions of the laws he is charged to enforce. When Mr. Obama disagreed with federal immigration laws, he instructed the Justice Department to cease enforcing the laws. He did the same thing with federal welfare law, drug laws and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

On many of those policy issues, reasonable minds can disagree. Mr. Obama may be right that some of those laws should be changed. But the typical way to voice that policy disagreement, for the preceding 43 presidents, has been to work with Congress to change the law. If the president cannot persuade Congress, then the next step is to take the case to the American people. As President Reagan put it: “If you can’t make them see the light, make them feel the heat” of electoral accountability.

President Obama has a different approach. As he said recently, describing his executive powers: “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone.” Under the Constitution, that is not the way federal law is supposed to work.

The Obama administration has been so brazen in its attempts to expand federal power that the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the Justice Department’s efforts to expand federal power nine times since January 2012.

There is no example of lawlessness more egregious than the enforcement—or nonenforcement—of the president’s signature policy, the Affordable Care Act. Mr. Obama has repeatedly declared that “it’s the law of the land.” Yet he has repeatedly violated ObamaCare’s statutory text.

The law says that businesses with 50 or more full-time employees will face the employer mandate on Jan. 1, 2014. President Obama changed that, granting a one-year waiver to employers. How did he do so? Not by going to Congress to change the text of the law, but through a blog post by an assistant secretary at Treasury announcing the change.

The law says that only Americans who have access to state-run exchanges will be subject to employer penalties and may obtain ObamaCare premium subsidies. This was done to entice the states to create exchanges. But, when 34 states decided not to establish state-run exchanges, the Obama administration announced that the statutory words “established by State” would also mean “established by the federal government.”

The law says that members of Congress and their staffs’ health coverage must be an ObamaCare exchange plan, which would prevent them from receiving their current federal-employee health subsidies, just like millions of Americans who can’t receive such benefits. At the behest of Senate Democrats, the Obama administration instead granted a special exemption (deeming “individual” plans to be “group” plans) to members of Congress and their staffs so they could keep their pre-existing health subsidies.

Most strikingly, when over five million Americans found their health insurance plans canceled because ObamaCare made their plans illegal—despite the president’s promise “if you like your plan, you can keep it”—President Obama simply held a news conference where he told private insurance companies to disobey the law and issue plans that ObamaCare regulated out of existence.

In other words, rather than go to Congress and try to provide relief to the millions who are hurting because of the “train wreck” of ObamaCare (as one Senate Democrat put it), the president instructed private companies to violate the law and said he would in effect give them a get-out-of-jail-free card—for one year, and one year only. Moreover, in a move reminiscent of Lewis Carroll’s looking-glass world, President Obama simultaneously issued a veto threat if Congress passed legislation doing what he was then ordering.

In the more than two centuries of our nation’s history, there is simply no precedent for the White House wantonly ignoring federal law and asking private companies to do the same. As my colleague Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa asked, “This was the law. How can they change the law?”

Similarly, 11 state attorneys general recently wrote a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius saying that the continuing changes to ObamaCare are “flatly illegal under federal constitutional and statutory law.” The attorneys general correctly observed that “the only way to fix this problem-ridden law is to enact changes lawfully: through Congressional action.”

In the past, when Republican presidents abused their power, many Republicans—and the press—rightly called them to account. Today many in Congress—and the press—have chosen to give President Obama a pass on his pattern of lawlessness, perhaps letting partisan loyalty to the man supersede their fidelity to the law.

But this should not be a partisan issue. In time, the country will have another president from another party. For all those who are silent now: What would they think of a Republican president who announced that he was going to ignore the law, or unilaterally change the law? Imagine a future president setting aside environmental laws, or tax laws, or labor laws, or tort laws with which he or she disagreed.

That would be wrong—and it is the Obama precedent that is opening the door for future lawlessness. As Montesquieu knew, an imperial presidency threatens the liberty of every citizen. Because when a president can pick and choose which laws to follow and which to ignore, he is no longer a president.

Read more at Opinion Journal.

Doug Ross @ Journal

Militia Leader Publicly Threatens President: “We Now Have Authority to Shoot Obama”

obama-threat

The frustration and anger in America are growing.

So much so that one militia leader has publicly called for the assassination of the President of the United States.

In a post on his Facebook page, Christian American Patriots Militia leader Everest Wilhelmsen has claimed authority under the U.S. Constitution to take matters into his own hands.

We now have authority to shoot Obama, i.e., to kill him.

His willful violations and alienation of our Constitution, constant disregard for our peaceful protests and corruption of all the three branches of government, (i.e., rogue and illegitimate government), reveal the dictator that he is. Obama and his co-conspirators disrespect our Constitution (constitutional rule of law) and abuse the American people.

The authority to kill Obama comes from the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution: He is levying war on the United States and aiding and comforting our foreign enemies – the 2nd Amendment gives us the right and duty (authority) to engage an enemy of the United States that does so with the design to reduce us under absolute Despotism. I would be very surprised, if Obama does not leave Washington DC today (Nov. 19th) … never to return, if he is not dead within the month.

Screen capture:

facebook-assassination-threat-large

The Facebook post had nearly 400 ‘shares’ and several ‘likes,’ but according to Social News Daily, these were a result of journalists spreading the report, and not people who agreed with Wilhelmsen:

The good news is that all those shares you see there are either journalists or concerned citizens reporting Wilhelmsen’s threat to the FBI. And yes, as we’ve seen time and time again, it’s very likely that a sensory deprivation tank figures into his immediate future for talking like this on Facebook. It’s not about freedom of speech, remember. Threats against the lives of others, especially public figures like the president, are taken very seriously and do not constitute protected speech.

The Secret Service, of course, was none too pleased about a direct threat to the President and the Facebook post has since been removed.

Under Federal law Wilhelmsen can be prosecuted for such threats against political leaders and may face up to ten years in prison.

Threatening the President of the United States is a class D felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871.

The offense is punishable by five to ten years in prison, a $ 250,000 maximum fine, a $ 100 special assessment, and 3 years of supervised release.

Internet restrictions such as a prohibition on access to email have been imposed on offenders who made their threats by computer.

Hattip Kim Paxton @ The Daily Sheeple


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