[The] man of sin [shall] be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 KJV)
Jesus saith, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6 KJV)
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:13 KJV)
ValueWalk - As tensions increase between Russia and the United States, a chilling report
suggests that a nuclear strike is not beyond the realm of possibility.
According to the report, numerous sources have reported on the meeting
of US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter at the headquarters of the US
European Command in Stuttgart, Germany, with two dozen other US military
commanders and European diplomats in tow.
Nuclear option on the table
The purpose of this meeting is ostensibly to discuss how the economic
and military campaign that is currently being waged against Russia will
be further escalated. Carter is expected to lead a discussion that will
assess the impact of current economic sanctions, as well as
encompassing debate on the success of the NATO strategy in exploiting
the crisis in eastern Ukraine.
Most serious of all, though, is a recent report published by the
Associated Press which suggests that the head of the US military effort,
the Pentagon, has been actively considering the use of nuclear missiles
against military targets in Russia. This may seem like a dire prospect
to anyone aware of the possible consequences of such an action, yet the
United States administration apparently considers this a possible
response to alleged violations of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear
Forces (INF) treaty.
Reports suggest that three separate options are currently being
considered by Pentagon top brass, which include a pre-emptive deployment
of nuclear missiles against targets inside Russia. Although this would
be a particularly extreme option, it is widely believed to be on the
table alongside two other less drastic courses of action. The placement of anti-missile defenses
in Europe aimed at shooting Russian missiles straight out of the sky,
and pre-emptive non-nuclear strikes are also reportedly under
consideration.
A Pentagon spokesman that spoke to the Associated Press did not
explicitly confirm the reports, but did state that all military options
under consideration are designed to ensure that Russia gains no
significant military advantage from the alleged violation. Meanwhile,
Russia continues to deny the suggestion that it has violated the 1987
Treaty, stating that its actions have been entirely consistent with this
legislation.
AP - Iran accused the five nuclear powers Wednesday of failing to take
concrete action to eliminate their stockpiles and called for
negotiations on a convention to achieve nuclear disarmament by a target
date.
Iran's deputy U.N. ambassador
Gholam Hossein Dehghani told the U.N. Disarmament Commission that "a
comprehensive, binding, irreversible, verifiable" treaty is the most
effective and practical way to eliminate nuclear weapons.
He
accused the nuclear powers — the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France
— of promising nuclear disarmament but making no significant progress.
Dehghani's
speech came days after the announcement of a framework agreement
between Iran and the five nuclear powers and Germany aimed at keeping
Tehran from being able to develop a nuclear weapon. It has to be
finalized by June 30.
The commission, which includes all 193
member states, is supposed to make recommendations in the field of
disarmament but has failed to make substantive proposals in the past
decade.
AP - President Dmitry Medvedev says Russian armed forces must prepare to counter U.S. missile defence plans.
Medvedev said Tuesday that even though diplomatic efforts are continuing, Russia must be ready to mount a military response to the U.S.-led NATO missile shield.
He was quoted by Russian news agencies as saying that Russia should be ready to take retaliatory measures by 2017-2018.
NATO has said it wants to co-operate with Russia on the missile shield intended to fend off the Iranian missile threat, but it has rejected Russia's proposal to run the shield jointly.
Without a NATO-Russia co-operation deal, Medvedev has sought guarantees from the U.S. that any future missile defence is not aimed at Russia. He has threatened to aim missiles at the U.S. shield if no agreement is reached.
Russia Considers U.S. Missile Defense Sites in Europe a Threat to Its Nuclear Forces So It Will Deploy Missiles Aimed at Those Sites
Bible prophecy describes the battle of Armageddon as a coalition of nations that will almost certainly include China and Russia and several Muslim nations of the Middle East. Every day, the evidence mounts that China will be tightly leagued with Russia and many of the Islamic nations in a powerful anti-Israel political and military alliance from which the 200-million-man army described in the book of Revelation (Rev. 9:16) will ultimately come. - The Sixth Trumpet War of Revelation 9
Russia considers the plans for missile shields in Europe, including in Romania and Poland, to be a threat to its nuclear forces, but the Obama administration insists they are meant to fend off a potential threat from Iran.
November 23, 2011
AP - Russia will deploy new missiles aimed at US missile defense sites in Europe if Washington goes ahead with the planned shield despite Russia's concerns, President Dmitry Medvedev said Wednesday.
Russia will station missiles in its westernmost Kaliningrad region and other areas if Russia and NATO fail to reach a deal on the US-led missile defense plans, he said in a tough statement that seemed to be aimed at rallying domestic support.
Russia considers the plans for missile shields in Europe, including in Romania and Poland, to be a threat to its nuclear forces, but the Obama administration insists they are meant to fend off a potential threat from Iran.
Moscow has agreed to consider NATO's proposal last fall to cooperate on the missile shield, but the talks have been deadlocked over how the system should operate. Russia has insisted that the system should be run jointly, which NATO has rejected.
Medvedev also warned that Moscow may opt out of the New START arms control deal with the United States and halt other arms control talks if the US proceeds. The Americans had hoped that the treaty would stimulate progress further ambitious arms control efforts, but such talks have stalled over tension on the missile plans...
The US plan calls for placing land- and sea-based radars and interceptors in European locations over the next decade and upgrading them over time.
Medvedev warned that Russia will deploy short-range Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad, a Baltic Sea exclave bordering Poland, and place weapons in other areas in Russia's west and south to target US missile defense sites.
Medvedev added that prospective Russian strategic nuclear missiles will be fitted with systems that would allow them to penetrate prospective missile defenses.
He and other Russian leaders have made similar threats in the past, and the latest statement appears to be aimed at domestic audience ahead of Dec. 4 parliamentary elections.
Washington Post - President Dmitry Medvedev said Wednesday that Russia will target the American missile defense system in Europe with its missiles if Moscow cannot reach an agreement with Washington and NATO on how the system will be built and operated.
Medvedev, who is leading the ruling United Russia party to the polls in the country’s Dec. 4 parliamentary elections, accused the United States and its NATO allies of failing to negotiate with Russia in good faith, and he said Russia reserved the right to halt its arms-control efforts.
“Unfortunately, the United States and other NATO partners have not demonstrated serious readiness to move,” he said in a televised address.
His declaration comes after a week of bellicose statements by Russian officials about NATO. Much of the rhetoric has focused on the prospect of NATO expansion, which is not under discussion but which is an ever-handy political touchstone for Russian military and nationalist groups.
Medvedev, who is stepping aside so Prime Minister Vladimir Putin can take his place, said there is still time to reach an agreement. Putin has said he will appoint Medvedev prime minister.
“Russia has the political will to achieve the necessary understandings that can open a fundamentally new page in our relations with the United States and the North Atlantic alliance,” Medvedev said.
Medvedev wants Russia to have an equal voice in the design of the missile defense system and ironclad guarantees that the system will not be used against it. Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s hard-line ambassador to NATO, said at a later news conference that Medvedev’s announcement does not herald a return to the Cold War.
In the United States, Navy Capt. John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman, said the missile defense program is not a threat to Russia’s security and “is focused on addressing the growing missile threat from Iran.”
The United States has been forthcoming with Russia about the program, Kirby said.
“We have been addressing Russia’s concerns through an intensive dialogue and detailed briefings at senior levels,” he said. “The U.S. and NATO have welcomed Russia to participate in missile defense cooperation. This is the best way for Russia to receive transparency and assurances that missile defense is not a threat.”
But elections tend to bring out the saber-rattling side of politicians. United Russia’s popularity has been sagging, and there are deep pockets of quiet resentment within the military over far-reaching reforms designed to streamline the armed forces. Medvedev’s turn toward tough talk could help him shore up support as voters head to the polls.
“I must say Medvedev’s statement smells a lot of catering to a domestic audience with the upcoming election,” said Hans Kristensen, a nuclear and arms-control expert at the Federation of American Scientists. “It’s counterproductive.”
Medvedev has always portrayed himself as more Western-leaning than Putin. It was just a year ago that he met with the heads of NATO states in Lisbon and said Russia would be interested in joining the missile defense system if accepted as a full partner, something Putin had not endorsed in his two terms as president.
On Tuesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov anticipated Medvedev’s address.
“If we try to single out one problem that is most capable of poisoning the atmosphere of the Euro-Atlantic dialogue, then, certainly, this will be the unilateral plans to deploy parts of the U.S. global missile-defense system in European states under the NATO aegis,” he said, as reported by the Interfax news agency. “These plans are being implemented with no consideration for Russia’s legitimate concerns, thus undermining the principle of indivisibility of security.”
The U.S. missile defense plan, which dates to the Reagan administration, was revamped two years ago into a proposed system of interceptors based on land and at sea around Europe. The Obama administration says the system is designed to protect against Iranian missiles and wants Russia to become part of it. But defense officials in Moscow — who remember that a missile shield was first proposed with Soviet missiles in mind — says it could easily be turned against Russia.
“Bases in Poland, starting from 2018, to say nothing of American warships deployed in the Northern seas, put the Russian strategic nuclear potential under threat of strike” throughout the European part of the country, Rogozin, the ambassador to NATO, said Wednesday.
Tommy Vietor, spokesman for the U.S. National Security Council, voiced American frustration.
“In multiple channels, we have explained to Russian officials that the missile defense systems planned for deployment in Europe do not and cannot threaten Russia’s strategic deterrent. Its implementation is going well, and we see no basis for threats to withdraw from it.”
Medvedev said he has ordered the installation of an early-warning radar system in Kaliningrad, Russia’s westernmost enclave. Missiles in what were described as the southern and western parts of Russia are to be equipped with what he called advanced counter-missile systems.
February 9, 2011
START Treaty to Bring All National Military Forces Under the Control of the United Nations
The US secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.
The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.
Details of the behind-the-scenes talks are contained in more than 1,400 US embassy cables published to date by the Telegraph, including almost 800 sent from the London Embassy, which are published online today. The documents also show that:
America spied on Foreign Office ministers by gathering gossip on their private lives and professional relationships.
Tens of millions of pounds of overseas aid was stolen and spent on plasma televisions and luxury goods by corrupt regimes.
A series of classified messages sent to Washington by US negotiators show how information on Britain’s nuclear capability was crucial to securing Russia’s support for the “New START” deal.
Although the treaty was not supposed to have any impact on Britain, the leaked cables show that Russia used the talks to demand more information about the UK’s Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the US.
Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain.
Professor Malcolm Chalmers said:
“This appears to be significant because while the UK has announced how many missiles it possesses, there has been no way for the Russians to verify this. Over time, the unique identifiers will provide them with another data point to gauge the size of the British arsenal.”
Duncan Lennox, editor of Jane’s Strategic Weapons Systems, said:
“They want to find out whether Britain has more missiles than we say we have, and having the unique identifiers might help them.”
While the US and Russia have long permitted inspections of each other’s nuclear weapons, Britain has sought to maintain some secrecy to compensate for the relatively small size of its arsenal.
William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, last year disclosed that “up to 160” warheads are operational at any one time, but did not confirm the number of missiles.
January 25, 2011
START Treaty to Bring All National Military Forces Under the Control of the United Nations
AP – Russia's lower house of parliament on Tuesday ratified a landmark nuclear arms pact with the United States, virtually assuring passage of an agreement President Barack Obama has described as the most significant arms control deal in nearly two decades.
The State Duma voted 350-96 with one abstention to pass a bill to ratify the New START treaty, which was approved by the U.S. Senate late last year. The treaty will now go to the upper house for final approval.
The New START would limit each country to 1,550 strategic warheads, down from the current ceiling of 2,200 and also re-establish a system for monitoring that ended in December 2009 with the expiration of the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty signed by Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and President George H.W. Bush.
The treaty's passage has never been in doubt in the Kremlin-controlled parliament, but Russian lawmakers wanted to counter a U.S. Senate resolution raising some Republican concerns that accompanied the December ratification by adding on a similar motion.
Obama pressed strongly for the pact's approval, and Democrats sought to appease some Republican senators by allowing them to raise their concerns about the treaty in the accompanying resolution.
Neither the Senate, nor the Duma resolution would affect the text of the treaty, which is a centerpiece of Obama's efforts to "reset" ties with Russia.
While the Senate resolution said the treaty shouldn't restrict U.S. plans to develop a missile defense system, the Duma ratification bill states that the treaty can only be fulfilled if emerging missile defenses don't erode the Russian nuclear deterrent.
The Russian draft bill also mimics the Senate resolution's concerns that the remaining nuclear arsenal is effective by emphasizing the need to modernize Russia's nuclear forces.
The Russian legislators said they felt obliged to present their view of the treaty's provisions, given the Senate interpretation.
"The State Duma proceeds from the assumption that the New START treaty can be functioning and viable only in conditions when there is no quantitative and qualitative buildup of the U.S. missile defense systems, developed independently or jointly with other countries," the Duma said in a statement accompanying the passage of the ratification bill.
NATO has approved a plan for a U.S.-led missile defense in Europe last fall and invited Russia to join. Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev was receptive of NATO's proposal but didn't make a definitive commitment.
Medvedev has warned that the failure to reach agreement on a joint European missile shield with Moscow may force Russia to deploy new offensive weapons and trigger a new arms race.
In its statement on Tuesday, the Duma also turned a cold shoulder to the U.S. push for a quick start of U.S.-Russian talks to cut short-range nuclear weapons.
Following similar statements from the Russian foreign minister, legislators said in their statement that such talks should also include missile defense, potential deployment of space-based weapons and conventional armaments. They also urged the United States to withdraw its tactical nuclear weapons in Europe.
AP – Newly empowered Republican lawmakers are taking their first shots at the United Nations, depicting it as bloated and ineffective as they seek to cut U.S. funding for the world body.
On Tuesday, a House of Representatives panel aired criticisms of the U.N. at a briefing expected to prescribe congressional action.
Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs committee, is seeking cuts and has introduced a bill intended to pressure the United Nations to change the way it operates and to make dues voluntary. She also is promising investigations into possible corruption and mismanagement.
"U.S. policy on the United Nations should be based on three fundamental questions: Are we advancing American interests? Are we upholding American values? Are we being responsible stewards of American taxpayer dollars?" she said in a statement that was read at the briefing, which she could not attend. "Unfortunately, right now, the answer to all three questions is 'No.' "
U.N. spokeswoman Marie Okabe said that U.S. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon would work with U.S. lawmakers.
"The United Nations has always worked constructively with the United States, and we share the same goals: for a stronger United Nations, one that is efficient, effective and accountable," she said.
Congress at various times has withheld funding from the world organization, but last year, under Democratic leadership in both the House and the Senate, the United States paid its dues in full as well as some back dues.
The United States is the largest single contributor to the U.N., responsible for 22 percent of its regular budget and 27 percent of the funding for its peacekeeping operations.
Tuesday's briefing comes as Republicans are pressing for broad spending cuts as they seek to reduce the U.S. budget deficit. Where those cuts should be made will be a major issue as President Barack Obama appears before Congress several hours later to deliver his annual State of the Union policy address.
The United Nations has long been a target for conservative U.S. lawmakers. Investigations by Republican-led congressional panels in the last decade helped spur an independent investigation into the U.N.-run oil-for-food program in Iraq.
Peter Yeo, executive director of the Better World Campaign, which advocates U.S. support for the United Nations, said he expected Tuesday's briefing would mark the "beginning of a long examination" by congressional Republicans. But Yeo, who appeared before the panel, said he hoped to convince lawmakers that the United Nations is a good bargain for the United States.
"The U.N. serves our interest in a cost-effective way to promote global security," he said.
He also pointed to U.N. changes already carried out, including creation of an ethics office in 2006.
Rep. Howard Berman, the ranking Democrat on the committee, also defended the world body. While offering a long list of criticisms, he outlined a list of ways that the United Nations operations serves U.S. interests and noted the recent reforms.
It is unclear whether the Republican critiques will lead to cuts in the U.S. contribution. Ros-Lehtinen's bill probably would face resistance in the Democratic-controlled Senate and from the Obama administration.
U.N. dues must be financed through annual congressionally-approved spending plans and are thus subject to approval by both the House and Senate.
December 27, 2010
START Treaty to Bring All National Military Forces Under the Control of the United Nations
Russia Today - Presidents Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama discussed the ratification of new strategic offensive arms reduction treaty over the telephone on Thursday night.
They agreed that the agreement’s ratification by the US Senate would consolidate the results of joint efforts “to build a constructive and mutually respectful partnership.”
Both Medvedev and Obama assessed the co-operation over the current year highly, the Russian president’s press service said. They also discussed international affairs and agreed to continue regular contact. The two leaders exchanged best wishes for the holiday season.
The US Senate on Wednesday ratified the new strategic arms reduction treaty by a 71-26 vote. Medvedev believes the great number of votes in favor of the agreement shows Russia-US relations “are improving.”
On Friday, the State Duma, Russia’s parliamentary lower house, is considering the law on the New START treaty’s ratification in the first reading.
At the same time, some deputies stressed the need to closely consider “conditions” set by the US senators during the ratification. Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the leader of the Liberal Democratic Party, said that the treaty would “weaken” Russia’s security. Moscow should have more missile to be able to “overcome” any missile defense shield if need be, he noted.
According to the politician, two factions in Duma -– the ruling United Russia Party and the Fair Russia -– would vote for the ratification. The Liberal Democrats and the Communists will likely oppose the ratification, he noted.
December 21, 2010
START Treaty to Bring All National Military Forces Under the Control of the United Nations
December has turned out to be a very good month for the Bilderbergers. The Food Safety bill is about to be signed into law, a bipartisan committee is voting for austerity measures against the people under the pretext of deficit reduction, Obama signed into law the tax package to destroy Social Security, the world's mayors signed a pact (prior to the UN climate change summit in Cancun, Mexico) to tax carbon emissions, California approved the creation of a cap-and-trade system (hoping other states will follow), the FCC adopted 'net neutrality' rules as a justification to seize more power (and to put an end to free and open internet) and, four days before Christmas, the new START Treaty (a nuclear pact with Russia) cleared its last Senate hurdle before ratification.
A very real threat to the national security of the United States is developing and very few people even seem concerned about it. It is called the START Treaty, and Barack Obama is desperately trying to ramrod it through the lame duck session of Congress. Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed to the terms of the treaty back in April, and two-thirds of the U.S. Senate must vote for it in order for the treaty to become law. So what is so bad about the treaty? Well, for starters, it almost totally defangs the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal that has protected us for the past six decades, it puts serious restrictions on the ability of the United States to develop any kind of missile defense, and it puts the U.S. military at a very significant strategic disadvantage... If World War III were to break out over the next decade, the United States would very likely find itself facing a Chinese/Russian alliance. The combined conventional military forces of China and Russia are far superior to those of the United States. The only major advantage that we had was our edge in strategic weaponry, and this treaty would greatly weaken that advantage. - End of the American Dream, 9 Reasons Why The START Treaty Must Be Stopped, December 20, 2010
The Senate on Tuesday voted to limit debate on ratification of a major arms control accord with Russia, setting the stage for a final vote on the so-called START treaty. The Senate voted 67-28 to advance the legislation, easily exceeding the 60 votes required. The Senate is expected to ratify the treaty some time on Wednesday in what would be the latest in a string of legislative victories for President Obama after his party was soundly beaten in the midterm elections last month. Earlier, Republicans senators expressed outrage as Obama secured enough votes for ratification. At least 10 Republicans publicly announced their support for the accord, including Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, the No. 3 Republican in the Senate, putting it on a virtual glidepath to ratification by Wednesday night.
December 21, 2010
Associated Press – President Barack Obama locked up enough Senate Republican votes Tuesday to ratify a new arms control treaty with Russia that would cap nuclear warheads for both former Cold War foes and restart on-site weapons inspections.
Eleven Republicans joined Democrats in a 67-28 proxy vote to wind up the debate and hold a final tally on Wednesday. They broke ranks with the Senate's top two Republicans and were poised to give Obama a bipartisan win on his top foreign policy priority...
Conservative foes of the accord — among them possible GOP presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty — argue the treaty would restrict U.S. options on a missile defense system to protect America and its allies and lacks sufficient procedures to verify Russia's adherence.
"The administration did not negotiate a good treaty. They went into the negotiations it seems to me with the attitude with the Russians just like the guy who goes into the car dealership and says, 'I'm not leaving here until I buy a car,'" Kyl said.
That opposition withered in the face of forceful statements from the military establishment, including Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen who said Monday that the treaty "enhances our ability to do that which we in the military have been charged to do: protect and defend the citizens of the United States."
Obama, who postponed his holiday vacation, lobbied hard for the Senate to complete the treaty before January when Republicans increase their numbers by five and the accord's outlook would be bleak...
Obama working hard on START to secure year-end win
December 21, 2010
Reuters – President Barack Obama's New START nuclear treaty with Russia received the endorsement of a top Senate Republican on Tuesday as the pact headed toward anticipated Senate approval this week.
"I will vote to ratify the New START treaty between the United States and Russia because it leaves our country with enough nuclear warheads to blow any attacker to kingdom come and because the president has committed to an $85 billion, 10-year plan to make sure that those weapons work," Lamar Alexander, the Senate's third-ranking Republican, said in a Senate speech.
Backing of the treaty by Alexander gave it fresh momentum and could help clear the way for a vote on passage, possibly as early as Tuesday. The top two Senate Republicans have both said they would vote against it.
Alexander represents the state of Tennessee, home of one of the nuclear facilities that will receive billions of dollars in modernization funding under an agreement worked out between lawmakers and the White House.
Senate Democrats plan to move on Tuesday to limit further debate on the treaty in an effort to bring the issue to a final vote. If they are successful in restricting debate, a final vote could come later on Tuesday or Wednesday.
Democrats need nine Republican votes to obtain the two-thirds majority required to approve the treaty in the 100-member Senate. Support for the accord has been growing among Republicans, with at least seven publicly committed to a yes vote and several others leaning that way.
The treaty, which would cut strategic atomic weapons deployed by either country to 1,550 within seven years, was signed by Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in April...
President Obama could build on a New START victory as he turns to other foreign policy challenges. Failure might be regarded abroad as confirmation that the administration is too weak to put its stamp on world affairs.
December 21, 2010
LA Times - The upcoming Senate vote on a U.S.-Russia nuclear arms treaty may turn out to be a defining moment for the Obama administration's foreign policy.
If he wins the support of at least two-thirds of the Senate for the New START agreement in a vote that may come as early as Tuesday, President Obama could build on the victory as he turns to a long list of foreign policy challenges — including Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea and his broader plans to limit nuclear weapons.
Failure would be regarded in some world capitals as confirmation that the administration is too weak and preoccupied with domestic problems to put its stamp on world affairs.
With the Republican Senate leadership lined up against approving the treaty in the last days of a lame-duck session, the issue will be decided by a handful of GOP senators. Supporters are expected to vote to cut off debate on Tuesday, a step that would open the way for a final vote later in the day or on Wednesday.
The administration has made controlling nuclear weapons a major foreign policy goal and held out its "reset" of relations with Russia over the last two years as its most tangible international accomplishment. It views the New START treaty, which would reduce the ceiling on long-distance nuclear warheads by up to 30%, as the centerpiece of that relationship.
Russia has enormous influence in many key areas. It has close economic ties to Iran, including in civil nuclear power, and as a member of the U.N. Security Council, its cooperation is essential to pressure the Islamic Republic to accept limits on its nuclear program. Twenty years after Moscow ended its own war in Afghanistan, it has recently expressed a willingness to cooperate with the U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries there. And Russia is one of five countries engaged in sporadic talks with North Korea about its nuclear program.
Other countries will also be watching. The vote will probably help them decide whether it's in their interest to cooperate with Obama.
"At this point, he needs a foreign-policy win," said Paul Saunders, a former State Department official at the Nixon Center in Washington.
The vote comes at a time when world powers have been reassessing the administration's power in light of its midterm election setbacks, the unraveling this month of its strategy for Arab-Israeli peacemaking, and other reversals.
In Israel, some conservative political leaders have said they see Obama's poll numbers and political strength ebbing, and have urged their government to push back harder against administration pressure.
One Senate Republican aide said many world powers attach great importance to a government's ability to work out a major treaty with another world power.
"This matters a lot to them, and they've yet to see it," said the aide, who declined to be identified because he was not authorized to speak to reporters.
On Monday the Senate considered several possible amendments to the treaty, including one to increase the number of annual inspections of each country's nuclear sites, and a second to increase the number of allowable nuclear weapon launchers.
The last START treaty took three years to ratify in the 1990s, but most U.S.-Russia arms treaties have won overwhelming bipartisan support. As recently as this summer, supporters believed New START would coast easily to ratification.
The treaty has wide support among former leaders of the U.S. foreign policy establishment from both parties, and is generally viewed as an incremental step in scaling back the vast nuclear arsenals of the two Cold War rivals.
But the treaty aroused conservatives' fears of Russia, and became entangled in the broader political struggle over Obama's record.
In recent days, as the administration pushed hard for votes on contentious issues such as immigration and the treatment of gays in the military, the debate has become more embittered.
Saunders said he feared the final hours of deliberations had polarized the two parties on Russia issues in a way that "will be extremely unconstructive going forward." Even if Obama ekes out a victory, it will be a narrow one that may not inspire much confidence in Moscow or other foreign capitals, he said.
A rejection may make cooperation more difficult with the Russians on future nuclear arms reduction issues, but also on related issues such as the coordinated missile defense system the two countries have been discussing, Saunders said.
Russia already has expressed its annoyance that Senate action is taking so long. Officials say they will not bring it up for a ratification vote in Moscow until Washington acts. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said last week that if the U.S. failed to approve the treaty, Russia might have to build up its own nuclear forces.
On Monday, Russian officials warned the Senate not to change the language because Moscow would not be willing to renegotiate it.
Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, told the Interfax news agency that the treaty, "worked out on the strict basis of parity, in our view fully answers to the national interest of Russia and the United States."
He said the treaty "cannot be opened up and become the subject of new negotiations."
Some Republican senators have been arguing that the treaty benefits Russia more than the United States, and have cited their concerns that it could limit the ability to expand U.S. missile defense systems.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky argued that every Republican issue should be addressed, and that:
"Our top concern should be the safety and security of our nation, not some politician's desire to declare a political victory and host a press conference before the end of the year."
Both Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton worked the phones to win Republican votes. Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sent a letter to the Senate, emphasizing his view that the treaty would protect U.S. interests.
Administration officials fear that the treaty will face a far tougher process if it is delayed until next year, when the Senate will include five more Republicans.
Aides to Senate supporters of the treaty said that of the nine Republican members they need, they have four committed supporters: Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine and George V. Voinovich of Ohio. Scott Brown of Massachusetts announced Monday that he would also vote to ratify.
Considered as likely or possible votes in favor are Bob Corker of Tennessee, Johnny Isakson of Georgia and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Sens. Bob Bennett of Utah, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Thad Cochran of Mississippi are considered maybes.
Advocates say that they don't know how Sen. John McCain of Arizona will vote but that the White House has been working hard to win him over because it thinks McCain could bring along other Republican votes.
December 20, 2010
START Treaty to Bring All National Military Forces Under the Control of the United Nations
Sic Sempter Tyrannis - With little notice from the average joe on the street, the plan for complete and total disarmament in a supposedly peaceful world continues its way toward completion. Known as the START Treaty, the agenda to turn over total military control to the United Nations is being carried out by the Obama administration, in cooperation of the Russian government and the United Nations body.
The Senate is expected as early as Wednesday to discuss the ratification of the treaty with the Russian government, as soon as the tax package is taken care of stated Harry Reid on Tuesday.
And in order to keep the guise of fighting for the American people, the right side of the “two headed- one party” system has their republicans who have stepped up to “oppose” the Treaty. When asked, however, if the 67 votes needed to ratify the treaty were there, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was confident that the 67 votes were assured.
“To have transparency, to understand the rules by which to put structure to that activity, we need START and we need it badly,” said General James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at a White House briefing.
White House Press Secretary (for the Obama Ministry of Truth) Robert Gibbs said Friday that the chamber would remain in session this year for as long as necessary to ratify the START agreement.
Of course through the years, the United States and Russia has played out the “cold war” operation scaring the hell out of the masses with the threat of Nuclear Annihilation, and with the intent of convincing the nations to sign treaties reducing nuclear stockpiles to almost nothing while at the same time giving more authority to the rogue criminal organization called the United Nations.
According to a little discussed document known as “Department of State Publication 7277, published in 1961 during the Kennedy administration, and titled “Freedom from War : The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World”, the real agenda is to bring all national military forces under the control of the United Nations.
The name of this force, according to the document, would be called The United Nations Peace Force, and would be comprised of internal police/military forces of each of the countries of the world.
Under the section DISARMAMENT GOAL AND OBJECTIVES the document states:
The over-all goal of the United States is a free, secure, and peaceful world of independent states adhering to common standards of justice and international conduct and subjecting the use of force to the rule of law; a world which has achieved general and complete disarmament under effective international control;and a world in which adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.
In order to make possible the achievement of that goal, the program sets forth the following specific objectives toward which nations should direct their efforts:
• The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force;
• The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order;
• The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, for the settlement of disputes, and for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations;
• The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to insure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations. (emphasis mine)
Whenever the START Treaty is mentioned in the news, however, the emphasis has been to refer to the first START Treaty beginning under Republican President Ronald Reagan in Geneva on 29 June 1982, as if to remind us of the fact that it was the Right that started the process of this grand and noble undertaking of ridding the world of war. (This helps Obama in his speeches to gain support from the current warmongering Neocon element of the left-right paradigm).
If we go back in time however, we can see the beginnings of this treaty actually starting under Democratic President Kennedy. In a speech Kennedy gave in front of the United Nations delegates, he stressed the importance of the United Nations’ role saying:
“For in the development of this organization rests the only true alternative to war….”
The “only true alternative” he was referring to is for the complete disarmament of all nation-states with the exception of a military force controlled by the U.N., comprised of internal “police” forces from all countries.
Also in publication 7277, it further states under the section titled GOVERNING PRINCIPLES:
• As states relinquish their arms, the United Nations must be progressively strengthened in order to improve its capacity to assure international security…….
• Disarmament must proceed as rapidly as possible, until it is completed………..(emphasis mine)
Since 1967, the total amount of Nuclear weapons between the U.S. and Russia combined has went from 60,000 nuclear weapons down to the U.S. having only 1,900, and Russia having 2,000. That breaks down to about a reduction of 1,322 nuclear weapons per year over the last 43years. I would consider that a rapid process in the scheme of things.
The document describes a total of three stages to be carried out while at the same time strengthening international institutions. This is also being accomplished in such institutions as the United Nations, NATO, the International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization, Bank of International Settlements, and through many Non Governmental Organizations.
In STAGE I, some of the objectives are:
• The reduction of strategic delivery vehicles
• The reduction of arms and armed forces
• The strengthening of U.N. Peace-keeping powers
In stage I, the document proposes reducing the United States and Russian Armed forces to 2.1 million per each country. The amount of weapons of all descriptions would correspondingly be reduced as well. Currently the U.S. has about 2.5 million troops, while Russia has about 21.5 million troops.
STAGE II describes the establishment of a permanent international peace force within the United Nations, as well as
• the dismantling or conversion of certain militarybases and facilities wherever located……(emphasis mine)
I believe this can be considered another step that has been accomplished here in the U.S. under the REX 84 program and HR 645 with the conversion of certain U.S. military bases into civilian inmate labor camps.
Given the fact that there are around 20 countries in the world that currently have little to no military forces, that leaves about 175 country that do have forces. If you add together the current combined numbers of all 175 countries’ military forces (with Russia, US, China, India, Vietnam, North and South Korea, and Iran at a top out of 2.1 million) then we come to a total force of 47,354,590 troops. These troops from all 175 countries would be under the control of the United Nations.
In STAGE III :
• States would retain only those forces, non-nuclear armaments, and establishments required for the purpose of maintaining internal order; they would also support and provide agreed manpower for a U.N. Peace Force.
• The U.N. Peace Force, equipped with agreed types and quantities of armaments, would be fully functioning.
• The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.(emphasis mine)
At the completion of this stage, the U.N. will in effect be the henchman and enforcer for the New World Global Regime, posing as “Peace Keepers”. Here in the U.S. we have the completed part of this stage that mentions forces that would keep “internal order” in their respective countries. Our internal force is called the Department of HOMELAND (Internal) Security. All of the other departments and agencies have been combined through the Patriot and Military Commissions Act, etc.
To bring home the point of the power of the United Nations at the completion of Stage III the document asserts:
In stage III progressive controlled disarmament and continuously developing principles and procedures of international law would proceed to a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force and all international disputes would be settled according to the agreed principles of international conduct.(emphasis mine)
If you consider the fact that there are approximately 6.5 billion inhabitants on the earth, this would then mean that only about 7% of the world’s population would be armed.Or to put it another way, about 93% of the world’s population would be UNARMED! This would then be the ideal position for the population reduction measures that have been talked about by the likes of Ted Turner, David Rockefeller, Bill Gates, and every other globalist criminal!
The current START Treaty being pushed by Barry Seotoro and the Politburo Senate -House- Congress Regime is one that definitely needs to be the STOPPED Treaty!!!
You will not hear anyone else telling this story, especially the main stream media Ministry of Truth.
AP – Senate Democrats have turned back Republican efforts to change a new arms control treaty with Russia. By a vote of 64-33, the Senate rejected a measure that would have increased the number of weapons inspectors. If adopted, the amendment would have effectively killed the treaty, forcing U.S. and Russian officials back to negotiations.
Eight Republicans voted against the amendment.
By a vote of 64-33, the Senate also rejected an amendment to increase the number of deployed launchers. The measure would have had the same impact on the treaty.
Democrats have managed to beat back four GOP amendments to the treaty. Earlier Monday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov (SEHR'-gay LAHV'-rahf) had warned against any changes to the treaty.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information.
Reuters – Debate in the Senate over President Barack Obama's strategic nuclear arms treaty with Russia grew increasingly testy on Monday but the White House expressed confidence lawmakers would approve the accord before their Christmas break.
Republican senators pushed for passage of a series of amendments in an effort to kill the New START nuclear arms treaty by forcing a renegotiation with Russia. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned in an interview with Interfax that any amendment would be a deal-breaker.
The treaty, which would cut deployed strategic atomic weapons to 1,550 for each side within seven years, is one of President Barack Obama's top priorities for the current legislative session. The White House said the president was calling senators to line up support...
C‑SPAN2 - The Senate is debating the START Treaty now on c-SPAN2 (open session began 10am ET).
At 11:45am ET, John Kerry tried to cut off the debate and rush a vote, emphasizing that they'd only had seven votes after six days of debate and "Christmas is coming." Just yesterday he said they are 'prepared' to stay through Christmas (see story below).
At 12:45pm ET, Kerry urged the rejection of Thune's and Inhofe's amendments to the START treaty: the Thune amendment on warhead limits (#4841) and the Inhofe amendment on verification (#4833) (see next story).
At 12:50pm ET, Bob Casey (D-PA) said there is a sense of urgency to vote on and ratify this treaty.
In the afternoon, the Senate goes into a closed session, scheduled by Majority Ldr. Harry Reid (D-NV) for 2pm ET.
Before It's News - As floor action on New START enters its sixth day, Majority Leader Reid just announced that the Senate today will consider two amendments: The Thune amendment on warhead limits (#4841) and the Inhofe amendment on verification (#4833). Below are some responses to each amendment:
Thune Amendment 4841 WARHEAD LIMITS seeks to increase the limits on the number of deployed strategic delivery vehicles (ICBMs, SLBMs, and Heavy Bombers) from 700 to 720.
Response:
The U.S. military believes that the central limit of 700 deployed strategic nuclear delivery vehicles is enough to sustain a robust and flexible nuclear triad without altering current or planned basing arrangements. As Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright has stated: “I believe the treaty limitation of 700 deployed strategic delivery vehicles imposed by New START provides a sound framework for maintaining stability and allows us to maintain a strong and credible deterrent that ensures our national security while moving to lower levels of strategic nuclear forces.”
Altering the central limits of the treaty via amendment would kill the treaty because Russia would surely reject the change, forcing the treaty to be renegotiated.
Under New START the U.S. will maintain the following force structure of deployed strategic nuclear delivery vehicles: up to 240 SLBMs on distributed among 14 SSBNs; up to 420 ICBMs; and up to 60 nuclear-capable bombers. The planned force of 720 deployed delivery vehicles will eventually need to be reduced to 700, which the U.S. could do by moving 20 delivery vehicles to non-deployed status (as allowed by New START’s limit of 800 deployed and non-deployed strategic nuclear launchers). The treaty limits must be met seven years are entry into force, so the U.S. military has until that time to make any final decisions on how it plans to meet the treaty limits.
The Obama administration has announced a plan to spend $100 billion over the next ten years to sustain and modernize all three legs of the triad.
Inhofe Amendment 4833 VERIFICATION to increase the number of Type One inspections from 10 to 30 as well as increasing the number of Type Two inspections from 8 to 24.
Response:
The U.S. military and intelligence community believes that the number of allowed inspections is sufficient to verify Russia’s compliance with the New START limits. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen testified that, “in totality, I’m very comfortable with the verification regime that exists in the treaty right now.”Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has echoed similar sentiments: “I think the earlier, the sooner, the better [for New START]. You know, my thing is: From an intelligence perspective only, are we better off with it or without it? We're better off with it.”
Altering the number of inspections in the treaty via amendment would kill the treaty because Russia would surely reject the change, forcing the treaty to be renegotiated. Without the treaty there would be zero on-site inspections of Russia’s nuclear arsenal.
New START allows for up to 18 annual on-site inspections per year, including direct monitoring of Russia’s deployed nuclear warheads. While this is a smaller number of inspections than the 28 inspections allowed under START I, New START’s ten “Type One” inspections at bases for deployed missiles and bombers can verify data that required two inspections under START I. Coupled with the eight “Type Two” inspections of non-deployed systems, the 18 New START inspections are actually equivalent to 28 inspections under START I. What’s more, New START’s inspections only have to cover 35 Russian sites, whereas START I covered 70 sites in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. In sum, as Admiral Mullen notes, under New START “there are almost twice as many inspections per facility, per year than under the previous treaty.”
Concerns that the New START verification regime is weaker than START I’s verification regime are unfounded. While New START draws upon much of what was in START I, the new treaty contains new limits and rules which reflect the fact that the U.S.-Russia nuclear relationship is different than it was when START I was negotiated at the close of the Cold War. New rules and limits in turn require verification provisions that are actually pegged to those new rules and limits. In the view of Admiral Mullen, the “verification regime that exists in [the New START Treaty] is in ways, better than the one that has existed in the past.” He also stated he is “convinced that the verification regime is as stringent as it is transparent…and born of more than 15 years of lessons learned under the original START Treaty.”
For more on these an other New START issues, see our online START Resource center here.
NECN/CNN - It's one of many issues facing Congressional lawmakers as the clock ticks on the lameduck session of Congress.
A proposed nuclear arms treaty with Russia, known as New START, would resume inspections of U-S and Russian nuclear arsenals.
The top lawmaker on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hopes the treaty can be ratified before Christmas (click article title to view video).
"We believe that this has been given enormous, reasonable time," said Sen. John Kerry. "We're prepared to stay here, but it's really up to, uh... it's up to those who have issues as to how long we're going to stay. We believe we can get through the remaining amendments, we'll be here today, we'll be here tomorrow, and the next day, and hopefully everybody can go home for Christmas."
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has accused the White House of trying to rush the measure through the full Senate.
McConnell admits that the members of the Foreign Relations Committee have spent more time looking at the treaty.
New START needs approval from two-thirds of the Senate to be ratified.
AP - The Senate's Republican leader came out Sunday against a nuclear arms treaty with Russia, warning Democrats not to rush through President Barack Obama's foreign policy priority in the final days of the postelection Congress. Top Democrats still expressed confidence the Senate would ratify the accord by year's end.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., made no prediction about the treaty's success or failure if it came to a vote, but he said many Republicans were just now getting deeply involved in the issue.
"Members are uneasy about it, don't feel thoroughly familiar with it, and I think we would have been a lot better off to take our time," McConnell said. "Rushing it right before Christmas strikes me as trying to jam us. ... I think that was not the best way to get the support of people like me."
Senate debate was expected to resume Sunday. Treaties require a two-thirds majority of those voting in the Senate, or 67 votes if all 100 senators vote.
Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the Democrats' No. 2 leader in the Senate, and John Kerry, D-Mass., the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said they believe they have the votes to ratify the treaty this year.
Durbin said Sunday would mark a fifth day of debate and that one Republican amendment had been considered Saturday and that another would probably be offered Sunday.
"I think we need to bring this to a vote," he said.
Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the accord — it is known as New START — in April. It would limit each country's strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550, down from the current ceiling of 2,200. It would also establish a system for monitoring and verification. U.S. weapons inspections ended a year ago with the expiration of a 1991 treaty.
Republicans focused on wording in the treaty's preamble that they contended would allow Russia to withdraw from the pact if the U.S. develops a missile defense system in Europe. Democrats argued that the preamble reference to missile defense systems was nonbinding and had no legal authority.
Debate on the treaty was interrupted Saturday with votes on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that banned gays from serving openly in the military — it passed — and a bill creating a pathway to citizenship for young illegal aliens — it failed [editor's note: typical diversion tactic of the district of criminals].
"This treaty needs to be fixed," said Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate. "And we are not going to have the time to do that in the bifurcated way or trifurcated way that we're dealing with it here, with other issues being parachuted in all the time."
While Kyl did not predict whether the treaty would be rejected or ratified, he said gaining 67 votes would depend upon whether senators would be able to consider the amendments Republicans wanted to offer.
"I predicted a couple of weeks ago that we would not have time to do this adequately, and I think my prediction's coming true," he said.
Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee and one who supports ratification, said more amendments to the treaty needed to be heard.
"Several Republicans will support it, and I join the chairman in believing that there are the votes there. The problem is really getting to that final vote," Lugar said.
On Saturday, Senate Democrats deflected an initiative by Republicans that would have forced U.S. and Russian negotiators to reopen talks. The 59-37 vote against the amendment by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., indicated the difficulty Obama is having in trying to win ratification of the treaty before a new, more Republican Senate assumes power in January.
Led by McCain, Obama's GOP opponent in the 2008 presidential election, Republicans tried to strike words from the treaty's preamble that they say would allow Russia to withdraw from the pact if the U.S. develops a missile defense system in Europe. Democrats said a reference in the treaty's preamble on missile defense systems is nonbinding and has no legal authority.
Durbin and Kyl spoke on "Fox News Sunday" while Kerry and Lugar appeared on ABC's "This Week." McConnell spoke on CNN's "State of the Union."
C‑SPAN2 - Senators continued debate on the START nuclear treaty today after defeating an amendment which would have altered the language of the agreement. Submitted by Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID), the amendment would have forced the treaty back into negotiations with Russia, effectively killing the agreement. It failed by a vote of 32 to 60.
Also today, Minority Ldr. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) told CNN that he would vote against the treaty. Sen. McConnell is concerned that START will give Russia a strategic advantage over the U.S.
During President Obama’s weekly address to the nation, he urged the Senate to heed the calls from Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, along with leadership of the military to approve the treaty.
The Senate takes up START tomorrow in an open session beginning at 10am ET. In the afternoon, the Senate goes into a closed session, scheduled by Majority Ldr. Harry Reid (D-NV) for 2pm ET.
START Treaty to Bring All National Military Forces Under the Control of the United Nations
New York Times — The Senate on Saturday beat back the most serious Republican effort to block approval of a new arms control treaty with Russia this year, after President Obama reassured lawmakers that it would not constrain American plans to build a missile defense system in Europe.
By a margin of 59 to 37, lawmakers rejected an amendment to strip out language from the treaty preamble that, despite the president’s denial, critics had argued could inhibit missile defense. The White House and Senate Democrats considered the amendment a treaty killer because any change to the text would require the United States and Russia to go back to the negotiating table.
The vote was the first on the substance of the treaty since debate opened last week. Republicans may propose other conditions or statements that would accompany the treaty but not actually alter the pact itself.
Treaty supporters needed only a majority to defeat the amendment but fell short of the two-thirds they will need for final approval, suggesting that they may need to satisfy the concerns of as many as eight senators who voted for the amendment.
The vote came shortly after a letter from Mr. Obama was read in part on the Senate floor reaffirming his support for missile defense.Mr. Obama said the treaty “places no limitations on the development or deployment of our missile defense programs” and dismissed Russian warnings that it might withdraw from the treaty if American plans ultimately evolve into a threat to Russia’s nuclear deterrent.
“Regardless of Russia’s actions in this regard, as long as I am president, and as long as the Congress provides the necessary funding, the United States will continue to develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect the United States, our deployed forces, and our allies and partners,” Mr. Obama said in the letter.
At issue in Saturday’s vote was an attempt by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, to delete a clause in the treaty preamble that says the two sides recognize “the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms” and “this interrelationship will become more important as strategic nuclear arms are reduced.”
Obama administration negotiators have said such language was intended as a gesture to Russian concerns about missile defense after American negotiators rejected any meaningful limits in the treaty. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and the nation’s top generals have said the preamble language would not constrain American missile defense.
Mr. McCain said the language could provide an excuse for Russia to later obstruct American plans to deploy missile defense installations in Eastern Europe by threatening to withdraw from the treaty, known as New Start. Russia issued a statement when New Start was signed reserving the right to pull out if it decides missile defense ever undermines its nuclear deterrent.
“Words matter,” Mr. McCain said. “To open ourselves up to this type of political threat by accepting an outdated interrelationship between nuclear weapons and missile defense is wrong.”
He added, “We have handed the Russian government the political tool they have sought for so long to bind our future decisions and actions.”
Senator John Kerry, the Democrat leading the fight for the treaty, said Republicans were making an issue out of phrases that would have no tangible impact.
Mr. Obama’s letter, according to one official, was privately requested by Mr. McCain, among others, to provide assurances to Republicans who want to vote for the treaty without undermining missile defense. Senator George V. Voinovich, an Ohio Republican who had been leaning toward the treaty, said the letter reassured him and that he would now vote yes.
The Voice of Russia - The US Senate has launched the process of ratification of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, signed between the US and Russia in April. While the Democrats want to reach the finish as fast as spring runners, their opponents – the Republicans say the Senate has little time for a proper discussion to hold the final vote before Christmas.
At the beginning of the START treaty ratification debates the Democrats voiced President Barack Obama’s position, who said that the document should be ratified before the Christmas holidays. The Republicans replied that the Democrats wanted to push the treaty through and proposed first to read the treaty out loud in full. The idea turned to be ridiculous because such a reading would last 12-15 hours setting a new Guinness Record. That is why that proposal was turned down. However the Republicans expressed intention to make changes in the agreement and the resolution on its ratification. According to Vladimir Yevseyev, the head of the Russian non-governmental Center of Social and Political Studies, this is very dangerous for the content of the treaty.
"Russia is concerned with the amendments, which may be introduced by the Republicans because they can remove many of the achievements contained in the Treaty the two presidents signed in Prague. Firstly, this concerns the definition of the missile defense system. In this case the Russian lawmakers will have to accept the treaty with amendments. This is the most vulnerable point in the development of the US-Russian relations in the field of reduction of strategic offensive arms."
The US Democrats say that amendments will kill the treaty. The treaty’s ratification requires its approval by at least 67 of 100 senators. To do this, the Democrats must win the support of at least nine Republicans. That’s the number of Republicans who spoke for the ratification in the beginning but it does not mean that all of them will support the treaty during the final vote.Now even the senators do not known when the final vote will take place. A source with Russia’s Foreign Ministry told the “Voice of Russia” that the senators won’t leave for the Christmas holidays and the debates will continue next week. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said that Moscow is watching the development of the dispute.
"We would like to hope that the efforts, which have been made not only by the US administration but also by many other US officials and politicians, including the members of former administrations, will be successful."
In his interview with the “Voice Of Russia”, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov confirmed that Moscow is ready to fulfill the commitment on simultaneous ratification of the treaty with the US. The ratification of the treaty in the Russian parliament won’t meet any obstacles unless there are some which are put by the US lawmakers, the minister said.
There will be no date, no particular point in history where you can say, “On this date, the New World Order was ushered in.” To a very large extent, we’re already in it. We’ve been in it for a long, long time. What they’re really doing is just building the walls a little bit at a time with the passage of each day, and we’re in it. We will never be able to say, “Gee, it started on this date.” If there was to be a date that historians might want to put on the arrival of this monster, I suppose it would be the date on which all of the nations of the world surrendered control over their money and over their military, because those are the two legs on which national sovereignty stands. If you’ve got a strong military and a strong money system, you’re a sovereign nation. If you don’t have those things, you’re nothing. You’re just a territory that is controlled by someone who does have strong money or a strong military. So we’re very close to the surrender of our money right now. I suppose that would be a date that historians might choose for the crossover point. - G. Edward Griffin, Restore the Republic's Reality Report, May 17, 2009
Clarington Fund - It’s no secret this time around, but once again we see the unseemly prospect of a select group of key legislators staying up all night and delaying their Christmas break long enough to muscle-through some controversial legislation before the close of the year. In doing so, they are continuing a grand tradition. December 23 or 24 has been a great time to pass controversial laws, while nobody’s watching too closely. Here are a few examples of legislative skullduggery enacted on December 23 or 24 in history:
On December 23, 1975: President Ford signed the Metric Conversion Act, still a controversial law, and still widely ignored 34 years later.
On December 23, 1982: Congress passed an unpopular five-cent-per-gallon Gas Tax increase, on the premise that nobody would notice the nickel, or the secret vote.
While those items might seem trivial and harmless in the rear-view mirror, some of the worst legislation in American history was also hatched on Christmas Eve:
On December 24, 1827, a group of Congressmen under the control of Andrew Jackson drafted a tariff bill so outrageously protectionist that it was later dubbed “The Tariff of Abominations.” It didn’t pass until the next Spring, but it had the intended outcome of helping Jackson oust John Q. Adams in the 1828 election -- and alienating the South.
On December 23, 1913, Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act, President Woodrow Wilson’s economic initiative for the creation of a national bank to match those in Europe. President Wilson quietly signed the Federal Reserve into existence on Christmas Eve, while most of the press was on holiday break, ignoring the epochal news.
And on December 24, 2009, a massive new healthcare bill is likely to pass, one for which the recent head of the Democratic Party, Howard Dean, said that he would NOT vote.
At the New Orleans Investment Conference in October, I had a chance to meet and interview Howard Dean. He seemed like a reasonable, honest, candid man, unlike the media image I’d seen before. That’s why I was not surprised when he wrote last Thursday:
“In Washington, when major bills near final passage, an inside-the-Beltway mentality takes hold. Any bill becomes a victory. Clear thinking is thrown out the window for political calculus. In the heat of battle, decisions are being made that set an irreversible course for how future health reform is done. The result is legislation that has been crafted to get votes, not to reform health care. …I reluctantly conclude that, as it stands, this bill would do more harm than good to the future of America.”
But rather than share a partisan stand on the current sausage of new laws and regulations, I want to use the rest of this column to take a closer look at the mistaken rush to create the Fed in 1913 . . .
When we lose our economic security, we also lose our freedom and are forced to survive any way we can. The subliminal, one-world religion is self-preservation — the survival instinct. It's basic to human nature. The Bible shows a coming world leader who will exploit this self-preservation instinct and will bring this religion to its logical conclusion. And, if possible, even some of the very elect will be deceived by this appeal to their pocketbook and personal security.
“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” (1 John 4:1 KJV)
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32 KJV)
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." (Ephesians 6:12 KJV)
This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
