March 23, 2017 – Fort Russ News –
– QPress.de, translated from German by Tom Winter, who observes “satire is truth; truth is satire.”
Moos kauen [“Chewing moss” like a Moscow dateline –tr]: This is the hammer! NATO could never have expected such an asynchronous low blow! This is equivalent to a declaration of war before 1 April! And it has caught the North Atlantic Terror Organization completely flat-footed.
No, the Russians have not choked off the air for murder and manslaughter to NATO, but to their own military. From now on, they want about 25 percent less for this nonsense. This unique measure has made for completely perplexed faces in the western military forces, which they either perceive as vicious cunning or hot air, as can be seen in the jet exhaust in the above picture.
The security situation has become so mixed that the West is considering increasing armament spending by at least as much as the Russians pare it down. It contradicts every logic of a good enmity, simply wanting nothing more to do for the eclat. Can even the most doofus enemy be so doofed? But let’s try to collect the facts first and read on to this enmity: Aggression light: Russia shortens its military by more than 25 percent … [RT-Deutsch]. Undoubtedly, the bread can be used for some better purposes but for the Russians. This is disturbing.
Apart from this, this reduction of the Russian military budget comes at a at a very untimely time: The US has announced plans to expand its potential for murder and homicide by an annual $ 54 billion … [N-TV]. That would then be an increase greater than the total annual amount that the Russians would be spending. Can it be that Putin wants to punish Trump’s lies? Or does Putin want to maneuver into the victim’s role? Perhaps this is also the reason that the US under Trump again directed their hostility more towards China and Iran. These seem to be more grateful enemies. After all, their armament expenditures are still increasing.
NATO is now gravely concerned whether Russia can still maintain the “Russian threat” to Finland, Sweden, and the whole of the Baltic States at all. Not to mention Montenegro! The same applies to Syria and also to the leading role in the Eastern Ukraine. Because here, too, the insurrection against Kiev could collapse in the absence of a commitment by the Russians. The reactive thinking is even going so far as to offer Russia military aid, just so it does not fulfill these announcements. It must continue to invest a large portion of its gross social product in armaments, according to the good and profitable tradition.
Russia is threatening NATO with the drastic cutbacks on armaments spending. It can only be a matter for the NATO members to massively reduce the bad-role drama about the Russians in other countries. Where would one go from here? This could be a bad example. We all know the need for armament spending and its social function to secure the profits of our elites.
To place similar amounts into the development of mankind, the struggle against hunger, or in global infrastructure would be completely counterproductive. In contrast to the war machine, the profit prospects tended towards zero, or at least, comparatively too small.
What can emerge from the threat of disarmament?
We have to wait and see how this terribly terrible situation will develop. Is NATO likely to react with a first strike? With a bit of luck, such an act would only lead to an increasing threat from Russia. The most terrible realization from this is that NATO’s eastward expansion has been almost completely and uselessly wasted … unless the Russians are bluffing. The threatening position of the deleted armor expenditures is as novel as it is unambiguous and therefore must to be taken seriously.
It will take weeks or even months before the Western military forces have strategically analyzed the true extent of this new threat of disarmament. Nothing would be worse from a moral point of view than to lose to a disarmed enemy. Well, this may now be a bit exaggerated, because morality has never had a serious place in the strategy and also has no other value.
Given today’s vote fiasco, this seemed highly appropriate…
If you are an older senior citizen and can no longer take care of yourself and need Long-Term Care, but the government says there is no Nursing Home care available for you, what do you do?
You may opt for Medicare Part G.
- The plan gives anyone 75 or older a gun (Part G) and one bullet.
- You may then shoot one worthless politician.
- This means you will be sent to prison for the rest of your life where you will receive three meals a day, a roof over your head, central heating and air conditioning, cable TV, a library, and all the health care you need.
- Need new teeth? No problem. Need glasses? That’s great. Need a hearing aid, new hip, knees, kidney, lungs, sex change, or heart? They are all covered!
- As an added bonus, your kids can come and visit you at least as often as they do now!
And, who will be paying for all of this? The same government that just told you they can’t afford for you to go into a nursing home. And you will get rid of a useless politician while you are at it.
And now, because you are a prisoner, you don’t have to pay any more income taxes!
Is this a great country or what?
Now that you have solved your senior Long-Term Care problem, enjoy the rest of your week!
David Vanallen | December 14, 2016 | News
Russia has joined Hungary in banning the Rothschild family to enter the country. The Russian preside, Vladimir Putin issued a total ban on Jacob Rothschild and his family to come into Russian territory. Thus the Rothschild family has been denied access to the country, a decision that comes shortly after Russia cleared its Rothschild debt.
According to a YNW report, the Russian president is taking a firm stand toward destroying the New World Order.
“They do not own the world, and they do not have carte blanch to do whatever they want. If we do not challenge them there will be other issues. We will not be bullied by them.”
It appears that the Russian economy was directly controlled by the Rothschild bank. Since the beginning of his presidency, Vladimir Putin has made it his priority to unite his country socially, spiritually, and economically. He issued an arrest warrant for the Rothschild-backed oligarch, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who made Rothschild, Henry Kissinger and Arthur Hartman directors of the Open Russia foundation.
I don’t know much about science, and even less about climate science. So as a practical matter, I like to side with the majority of scientists until they change their collective minds. They might be wrong, but their guess is probably better than mine.
That said, it is mind-boggling to me that the scientific community can’t make a case for climate science that sounds convincing, even to some of the people on their side, such as me. In other words, I think scientists are right (because I play the odds), but I am puzzled by why they can’t put together a convincing argument, whereas the skeptics can, and easily do. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?
As a public service, and to save the planet, obviously, I will tell you what it would take to convince skeptics that climate science is a problem that we must fix. Please avoid the following persuasion mistakes.
1. Stop telling me the “models” (plural) are good. If you told me one specific model was good, that might sound convincing. But if climate scientists have multiple models, and they all point in the same general direction, something sounds fishy. If climate science is relatively “settled,” wouldn’t we all use the same models and assumptions?
And why can’t science tell me which one of the different models is the good one, so we can ignore the less-good ones? What’s up with that? If you can’t tell me which model is better than the others, why would I believe anything about them?