Titanic's Final Secret Revealed!

The man who located the wreck of the Titanic has revealed that the discovery was a cover story to camouflage the real mission of inspecting the wrecks of two Cold War nuclear submarines.

When Bob Ballard led a team that pinpointed the wreckage of the liner in 1985 he had already completed his main task of finding out what happened to USS Thresher and USS Scorpion.

Both of the United States Navy vessels sank during the 1960s, killing more than 200 men and giving rise to fears that at least one of them, Scorpion, had been sunk by the USSR.

Dr Ballard, an oceanographer, has admitted that he located and inspected the wrecks for the US Navy in top secret missions before he was allowed to search for the Titanic.

(...)

Titanic: The Final Secret will be shown on the National Geographic Channel at 9pm on June 8.

This is reminiscent of the Hughes Glomar Explorer that Howard Hughes said was intended to mine minerals off of the ocean floor but was really used to recover the sunken K129 Soviet submarine. The effort was only partially successful.

DKK

Times of London -- Titanic search was cover for secret Cold War subs mission

Weekly Updated RRStar Stats -- May 27, 2008

The content of the RRStar (online Rockford Register Star) blogs have an overwhelmingly liberal slant in both content, links, and quantity.

I established this blog in an attempt to provide Rockford with political balance and to demonstrate the type and quality of content the RRStar could offer to its readers.

Checking the stats of their political blogs it is clear that they need more of a balanced portfolio of political blogs.

Again, here are the political blogs available at the RRStar:

Applesauce is a prolific far left blog that addresses national issues. The content is mainly composed of links to the left wing of the blogosphere along with a short quips, photo, and video content. Occasionally there are longer posts that include opinions on the items linked. Comments are quickly answered, often with another quip.

In Chambers is a blog that covers Illinois state politics. It appears to be right of center but that could be the result of its adversarial nature to the current state administration. There is no real interaction in the comments.

Sweeny Report is a blog written by the Political Editor of the Register Star. Postings are sporadic, concentrating on local, state and national issues and are mainly short thoughts on events with few links. Chuck appears to be suffering from BDS.

Why We Vote is a group blog consisting of the thoughts of the members of the Register Star's voters opinion panel. The posts are mostly left of center (including those from the independents to date). The conservative member who was posting, sadly, passed away recently.

The Stats for May 19, 2008 through May 25, 2008:

* Applesauce 23 posts with 28 out links 12 YouTube.
* In Chambers 1 posts with 6 out links 0 YouTube.
* Sweeny Report 2 posts with 0 out links 0 YouTube.
* Why We Blog 4 posts (3 left, 0 right, 1 center) 0 out links 0 YouTube.

Totals since I started counting March 27, 2008 through May 25, 2008:

* Applesauce 211 posts with 289 out links 50 YouTube.
* In Chambers 34 posts with 260 out links 1 YouTube.
* Sweeny Report 47 posts with 20 out links 0 YouTube.
* Why We Blog 31 posts (28 left 1 right 3 unknown) 1 out links 0 YouTube.



If your interested in balance in the RRStar blogs keep coming back and let the RRStar know.
DKK

Jihad Urging WMD Attack On U.S.

The most popular jihadi web forum has posted an "unofficial" video urging Muslims to use nuclear weapons against the U.S. and the West. The video is titled "Nuclear Terrorism". By unofficial they mean that it was produced by forum users, and not by al Qaeda's official video production arm.

The lengthy video uses reports popular in the Arab and European Leftist press that the U.S. used chemical weapons in Fallujah as justification for using WMD against the United States. The star witness is Jeff Englehart.

(...)

UPDATE II: Shibumi does a rough Google translation job of an Italian article discussing the ending "code" which appears in the video. Apparently, the code has reference to a specific date in which the threatened attack--a "plague"-- should take place. They seem to think it has reference to a bacteriological attack. When?

September 2008.

DKK

The Jawa Report: Video Urges Nuclear Jihad Against US [UPDATE: "Code" Threatens September 2008 Attack?]

Update (23:52): Counterterrorism Blog says appears to be a hoax:

For the record: there is no indication whatsoever that Al-Qaida's As-Sahab Media Foundation is preparing to release anything in the next 24 hours. There has been no notification posted on the usual channels, there are no glitzy advertisements, and there is no credible electronic chatter, period. Rather, the intel community appears to have (once again) fallen victim to poorly researched open source news reporting.

DKK

Freeport IL Graduation Bomb Threat

Graduation Incident

To the Parents and Guardians of FHS students and to the Freeport Community:

Freeport High School is in receipt of a written anonymous threat indicating a bomb will be set to go off during this year’s graduation ceremony. This document has been turned over to the Freeport Police Department and with the assistance of other law enforcement agencies, an investigation is taking place.

Freeport High School, with assistance from the Central Office staff, the Board of Education, and local and state law enforcement agencies, will make a decision regarding the cancellation of/or the implementation of additional security measures for this years graduation ceremony. This decision will be made by the end of the day Wednesday, May 28, 2008. Check the FHS web site after 4:00 p.m. tomorrow. The website address is www.freeportschooldistrict.com.

It is not necessary to call Freeport High School for additional information. Since this is an ongoing criminal investigation, we are not at liberty to make any additional comments.

DKK

From the Freeport High School site. Link no longer active. I will update when a statement is released by the school -- The original notice can be found here in pdf form.(May 28, 2008 -- 15:59)

Update 21:56:

The Freeport Journal Standard has the story and local reactions.

Update May 28, 2008 16:15:

The Graduation will be held with special security measures in place!

Obama -- Brits Fear Obama's Iran Stance That Violates 3 UN Resolution

David Miliband has raised questions over Barack Obama’s policy on Iran, which officials in Washington and Europe fear threatens to undermine the tough stance adopted by the West towards Tehran over recent years.

The Foreign Secretary, on his visit to the US this week, has held talks with all three presidential campaigns, including those of Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

But when he met Mr Obama’s team of foreign policy advisers on Wednesday, Mr Miliband is understood to have queried the presumptive Democratic nominee’s declared willingness to meet leaders from rogue states such as Iran.
(...)
Before starting his unconditional talks with Ahmadinejad, would Obama present a new resolution at the Security Council to cancel the three that he Islamic Republic president does not like? Or, would Obama act in defiance of the UN, thus further weakening the authority of the Security Council?

DKK
Gateway Pundit --Obama's Iran Policy Freaks Out Brits & Breaks 3 UN Resolutions

Global Warming -- First Earth, Then Mars, Now Jupiter!

Oh, you skeptics are going to rue the day you doubted global warming! Hot off of NASA’s website, we have undeniable proof of “large-scale global warming,” photographic evidence taken from space that shows the increased temperature generating new, violent storms. Deniers will have to eat some crow over this.

Of course, they’ll first have to talk about the right planet

:

New storms confirm global warming on Jupiter!

Here is a picture of the new storm spots:DKK
Hot Air -- Proof of global warming!

Clueless -- Obama Foreign Idiocy!

On Thursday Obama told the Orlando Sentinel that he would meet with Chavez and "one of the obvious high priorities in my talks with President Hugo Chavez would be the fermentation of anti-American sentiment in Latin America, his support of FARC in Colombia and other issues he would want to talk about."

OK, so a strong declaration that Chavez is supporting FARC, which Obama intends to push him on.

But then on Friday he said any government supporting FARC should be isolated.

"We will shine a light on any support for the FARC that comes from neighboring governments," he said in a speech in Miami. "This behavior must be exposed to international condemnation, regional isolation, and - if need be - strong sanctions. It must not stand."

So he will meet with the leader of a country he simultaneously says should be isolated? Huh?

On Friday in an interview with the Miami Herald, Obama also used language suggesting that he's not as positive that Venezuela is supporting FARC.

"When I asked him what he would do about the estimated 37,000 Interpol-certified Colombian FARC guerrilla computer files that indicate an active support from Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa to the Colombian rebels, Obama went farther than the Bush administration," wrote the Herald's Andres Oppenheimer.

Said Obama: "I think the Organization of American States and the international community should launch an immediate investigation into this situation. We have to hold Venezuela accountable if, in fact, it is trying to ferment terrorist activities in other borders. If Venezuela has violated those rules, we should mobilize all the countries to sanction Venezuela and let them know that that's not acceptable behavior."

"If" Venezuela "is trying to ferment terrorist activities in other borders"? Just one day before Obama had asserted that Chavez was supporting FARC in Colombia.

DKK

Political Punch

The Numbers On Terror

On the stump, Barack Obama usually concludes his comments on Iraq by saying, "and it hasn't made us safer." It is an article of faith on the left that nothing the Bush administration has done has enhanced our security, and, on the contrary, its various alleged blunders have only contributed to the number of jihadists who want to attack us.

Empirically, however, it seems beyond dispute that something has made us safer since 2001. Over the course of the Bush administration, successful attacks on the United States and its interests overseas have dwindled to virtually nothing.

(...)

It should also be noted that the decline in attacks on the U.S. was not the result of jihadists abandoning the field. Our government stopped a number of incipient attacks and broke up several terrorist cells, while Islamic terrorists continued to carry out successful attacks around the world, in England, Spain, Russia, Pakistan, Israel, Indonesia and elsewhere.

There are a number of possible reasons why our government's actions after September 11 may have made us safer.

There is a run down of the major terrorist attacks against US interests since 1988, it is well worth the read!
DKK
Powerline -- Are we safer?

Oil Hearing Summary -- No New Drilling Means No Solution!

Mark Steyn on the hearings and the law passed by the house last week that allowed the Justice Department to sue OPEC:

Er, okay. But, before we start suing distant sheikhs in exotic lands for violating the NOPEC act, why don’t we start by suing Congress? After all, who “limits the production or distribution of oil” right here in the United States by declaring that there’ll be no drilling in the Gulf of Florida or the Arctic National Mosquito Refuge? As Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz herself told Neil Cavuto on Fox News, “We can’t drill our way out of this problem.”

With this gem!

Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz knew the routine: “I can’t say that there is evidence that you are manipulating the price, but I believe that you probably are. So prove to me that you are not.”
Had I been in the hapless oil man’s expensive shoes, I’d have answered, “Hey, you first. I can’t say that there is evidence that you’re sleeping with barnyard animals, but I believe that you probably are. So prove to me that you are not.

Maxine Waters(D-CA) threatened to, "Sociali..." she meant nationalize -- the oil companies! (Via Gateway Pundit)

John Hoffmeister from Shell Oil: I can guarantee to the American people because of the inaction of the United States Congress ever increasing prices unless the demand comes down and the five dollars will look like a very low price in the years to come if we are prohibited from finding new reserves and new opportunities to increase supplies.

Rep. Maxine Waters: And, guess what this liberal will be all about? This liberal will be about socializing... uh, will be about, basically taking over and the government running all of your companies.

Our oil companies, as large as they are are very small players in the total world oil market -- most of which is controlled by nations hostile to the US. Powerline notes:

I hadn't realized, until the hearings on energy that were held this week in House and Senate committees, that the United States doesn't have any big oil companies. It's true: the largest American oil company, Exxon Mobil, is only the 14th largest in the world, and is dwarfed by the really big oil companies--all owned by foreign governments or government-sponsored monopolies--that dominate the world's oil supply.
(...)
The United States--unlike, say, France--actually has vast petroleum reserves. It would be possible for American oil companies to develop those reserves, play a far bigger role in international markets, and deliver gas at the pump to American consumers at a much lower price, while creating many thousands of jobs for Americans. This would be infinitely preferable to shipping endless billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela. So, why doesn't it happen? Because the Democratic Party--aided, sadly, by a handful of Republicans--deliberately keeps gas prices high and our domestic oil companies small by putting most of our reserves off limits to development.

DKK

The Neutering Has Begun -- The Active Duplicity Of The Obama Campaign

Earlier I posted my explanation of how the Obama campaign neutered the Clintons through a combination of claiming Hillary's attacks were all below the belt while at the same time attacking Hillary in the very same manner. Then came the inevitable race sensitivity. The combination of these two virtually eliminated all of the Clinton's tools from their tool belt.

That worked in the Democratic primaries because the hard core of the party were willing to believe that Hillary was acting like the evil Republicans thus making her actions taboo!

Well, as I expected Obama's campaign pulled this trick on McCain this weekend.

While discussing the fact that Obama hasn't been to Iraq in at least 2 years and hasn't even bothered to sit down with Petraeus or members of the military from his own state (Vets For Freedom -- Senator Obama, Talk to Commanders or Meet with Dictators?) recently this was reported:

"I go back every few months because things are changing in Iraq," he said. McCain questioned whether Obama has ever been briefed by Petraeus. "I would also seize that opportunity to educate Senator Obama along the way."

Obama spokesman Bill Burton declined to respond directly to McCain.

"Senator Obama thinks Memorial Day is a day to honor our nation's veterans, not a day for political posturing," Burton said.

However as Powerline Blog points out, most of what Obama did Monday, Memorial Day was political Posturing:

What was really offensive about Obama's New Mexico appearance, however, was what followed his very brief, but generally appropriate, tribute to America's war dead. He continued with a town hall-style question and answer period that cast veterans in the only role with which the Democrats are comfortable--victims--and sought to politicize the holiday. A few excerpts:

Number one, is what we just talked about which is making sure that the G.I. bill for a 21st century is passed. And although George Bush has threatened to veto it, our intention is to override that veto when it comes back to the House and the Senate...

(...)

OBAMA: Well, obviously, the problems you just listed affect veterans and nonveterans alike. And part of what this president hasn't understood that I think the American people understand is that part of our security is our economy -- our economic security.

Political posturing in its raw form!

Do as I say, not as I do duplicity -- watch for this to continue with more intensity and to be picked up by the MSM and talking heads as they swoon over, "New Politics," that is really nothing but the old politics.

Somebody tell John McCain the neutering scalpels are out!
DKK