Watch: Peter Dinklage and Morgan Freeman spit a different song of ice and fire

For those boycotting the NFL and its championship Super Bowl game, you don’t have to miss out on the commercials.

Advertisers have found a way to leverage the Super Bowl advertising purchases – put them on YouTube as “Super Bowl Commercial” videos. That allows those of us not watching the game to see the most expensive, and sometimes the best, ads of the year.

In this Doritos vs. Mountain Dew battle, Game of Thrones actor Peter Dinklage and Hollywood star Morgan Freeman go head to head with songs of ice and fire.

Rebuttal of Tom Collina’s blatant lies about US nukes

Last week,the leftist Breaking Defense website published an utterly ridiculous screed by one of the most strident advocates of America’s unilateral nuclear disarmament, Tom Collina, the “research director” of the Arms Control Association, which advocates disarming the US unilaterally and foregoing the deployment of any missile defense systems. (The ACA is funded by several grant-awarding organizations which also advocate America’s unilateral disarmament.

In his screed, Collina makes a lot of lies, all of which, of course, are designed to smear nuclear weapons and mislead the public into supporting that treasonous goal.

Here’s his biggest lie:

“However, at a time of increasingly tight budgets, the more we spend on excess nuclear weapons the less will be available for what Ukraine and NATO need most: economic aid and conventional military assistance.”

Total garbage. Firstly, America does NOT have “excess nuclear weapons” – if anything, it has too few. Russia has a (slightly) BIGGER nuclear arsenal than the US, totalling 2,800 strategic and up to 5,700 tactical nuclear weapons. In fact, Russia has more nuclear weapons (8,500) than the US, Britain, and France combined (8,200). Sources: the Federation of American Scientists and SIPRI’s 2013 Military Balance.

Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal alone rivals America’s in size, and is complemented by “tactical” nuclear weapons, many of which (the warheads of Russian cruise missiles) can be delivered to the US (because the aircraft and nuclear-powered submarines carrying them can travel intercontinental distances). And these warheads are NOT subject to any arms limitation treaty.

Russia’s ICBM fleet alone can deliver at least 1,684 warheads to the US; Russia’s submarine fleet, another 1,400; and Moscow’s bomber fleet (Tu-95s, Tu-22Ms, Tu-160s), another 2,000 if need be.

On top of that, the US has to deter China, North Korea, and Iran. China alone has at least 1,600 nuclear weapons and continues to build that arsenal up.

Not to mention the fact that Russia, China, NK, and Iran are threats to many but protectors to nobody, while the US has to provide a nuclear umbrella to itself and to over 30 allies around the world, many of whom will go nuclear if the US fails to provide an adequate umbrella. (Already 66% of South Koreans want to do that; meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has ordered nuclear weapons in Pakistan and DF-21 ballistic missiles in China.)

No, Mr Collina, the US nuclear arsenal is not excessive at all – if anything, it is too small.

As for economic aid, that is an obsolete, socialist idea. Ukraine needs to revive its economy by implementing free market policies, NOT begging for handouts.

“Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel warned recently that “tough, tough choices are coming” if the Pentagon is forced to make deep spending cuts, as required by law. He may slash about 30,000 soldiers and retire an aircraft carrier.”

Excuse me? Those are supposed to be “tough choices”? Are you kidding me? Reducing the active duty Army to levels roughly equal to those of 9/11 and retiring a single carrier is not tough – it’s a no-brainer. It’s like picking the low-hanging fruit. (After Hagel’s cuts, the Army will be just slightly smaller than on 9/11, and the American people will have NO appetite or stomach for any more ground wars for a long time to come.)

Aircraft carriers are hugely expensive and extremely vulnerable, and their a/c have very little range. Flattops essentially provide NO return for the huge taxpayer investment they cost. I have already submitted an article dealing with this issue to Proceedings; it awaits the Editorial Board’s review.

It would be far better for the DOD to invest seriously in the single most reliable deterrent against aggression – the US nuclear umbrella – instead of blowing money on oversized land armies and very vulnerable flattops.

“As Crimea shows, these priorities are backwards. We must not allow our increasingly important conventional military forces to be undercut by excessive investments in nuclear weapons.”

Utter garbage as well. America’s conventional forces are not being undercut by the nuclear arsenal, whose total cost (ca. $32 bn per annum) is only 6% of the total military budget (roughly $600 bn in FY2014). Even eliminating it altogether would NOT save America’s conventional forces from sequestration. Sec. Hagel is absolutely right to make the nuclear deterrent a priority for the above reasons. As for conventional forces – don’t make me laugh. The unilateral disarmament movement, of which Collina is an active member, opposes BOTH America’s conventional and nuclear forces. The US nuclear deterrent is merely their first target on their way to disarming America unilaterally.

“And we don’t have to. The United States can stay at nuclear warhead levels set by the 2010 New START treaty and still save billions over the next decade by scaling back and delaying new delivery systems.”

Utter nonsense again. Firstly, New START levels are inadequate to deter Russia and China; second, New START is a worthless and treasonous treaty obligating only the US (not Russia) to cut its arsenal while Moscow is allowed to increase its own; and thirdly, Russia has cheated on EVERY arms control treaty it has signed, INCLUDING New START, as Bill Gertz has recently revealed in the WFB.

And “scaling back and delaying new delivery systems” would be utterly suicidal and a recipe for a Russian nuclear first strike. It would mean having far fewer systems (and thus a much less survivable arsenal), and NO new systems coming online for decades – at a time when existing delivery systems are already reaching the end of their service lives! This means, in practice, complete unilateral disarmament!

The Minuteman ICBM and air-launched cruise missiles will go out of service in the 2020s. The B-52 cannot operate in anything but friendly-controlled airspace. The Ohio class will start leaving service later this decade, and even under CURRENT funding projections, there will be a big gap in the SSBN fleet, with a low of just 10 boats in the early 2020s – unless the SSBN replacement program is hastened.

The cost of replacing them is not huge and will likely be far less than the $355 bn Collina falsely claims – but delaying it any further will significantly increase the price tag.

If a superior U.S. nuclear force did not restrain Moscow from annexing Crimea, how would an even larger force stop further Russian adventurism? It would not. The paradox of nuclear weapons is that they are too destructive to be used, so both sides are “deterred” from doing so.”

These are also blatant lies. The US nuclear arsenal, as proven above, is SMALLER and OLDER than Russia’s, and it was never intended or built to deter Russia from annexing… the Crimea, where it already had almost 30,000 troops and dozens of ships anyway. It was never intended to deter Russia from invading the Ukraine, which neither the US nor the EU had any intention of defending or supporting (and Putin knew it), a country the West has kept out of NATO and the EU and has essentially left to fend for itself.

Putin knew that the West would never offer more than verbal protests and tepid sanctions if he went into Ukraine. Which is why he did that. He knew that Ukraine was outside America’s security perimeter.

The US nuclear deterrent is intended to provide security for the US itself and for its NATO and non-NATO allies (e.g. SK, Japan) – and it has been doing that successfully, without any failure, ever since its inception in 1945.

And if nuclear weapons cannot deter Putin in the Crimea or elsewhere, conventional weapons – which have far less striking and thus deterring power – cannot do that, either. Is Collina suggesting the US deploy its soldiers in the Ukraine and used in a shooting war with Russia? Does he envisage US Army BCTs taking on Russian brigades? Because if he’s not, conventional forces are utterly useless in Ukraine.

As former US Strategic Command leader Gen. Kevin Chilton has stated, conventional weapons cannot replace nuclear arms as deterrents, because the former lack the overwhelming striking (and thus deterring) power of nuclear arms.

Collina also approvingly quotes former Australian foreign minister Gareth Evans, who has falsely claimed that:

“Nuclear-weapons enthusiasts seem to have an inexhaustible appetite for bad arguments.”

In fact, Western anti-nuke activists, the advocates of the West’s unilateral disarmament, seem to have an inexhaustible appetite for bad arguments, lying, and disarming their own countries unilaterally.

And while nuclear weapons might not be useful in Ukraine, there is little the US can do there anyway (who’s suggesting putting US conventional troops there?). But building up the US nuclear arsenal and accelerating missile defense deployment in Europe would do three good things:

1) Increase US and allied security by finally providing a bigger, more adequate, and modernized deterrent;

2) Finally showing strength to Russia after many years of appeasement and unilateral disarmament – which is what emboldened Russia to take one aggressive action after another, culminating in the invasion of Ukraine; and

3) Be a huge geopolitical, diplomatic, and prestige defeat for Russia, which strongly opposes both. It’s time to stop giving Russia what it wants. It would mean Russia has finally lost the veto on US and NATO security matters that Obama gave Moscow in 2009 by cancelling GBI missile defense deployment in Europe. Russia (and other aggressors and bullies) only understand the language of force, and they respect only those who are stronger than them. To deter Russia and have a better negotiating position vis-a-vis Moscow, the US needs to have stronger nuclear AND conventional forces.

BreakingDefense itself approvingly published Collina’s screed and falsely called him:

“Tom Collina, a respected expert in nuclear weapons and arms control…”

Balderdash. Collina is not a “respected expert” on anything, ESPECIALLY not nuclear weapons and arms control. He’s an ignoramus and an ideological advocate of America’s unilateral disarmament. Calling him an expert is an insult to every real expert out there. Being a longtime anti-nuclear activist does not make one an expert. And while I would not call myself one, I know far more about nuclear weapons than he ever will.

Shame on him for lying so blatantly and advocating America’s unilateral disarmament, and shame on BD for publishing his utterly ridiculous screed.

Tying Defense With Diplomacy

A lot of Defense Department decisions tie in with State Department foreign policy. But while military advisors and diplomats share the same mission, they have very different perspectives and skill sets. So it would make sense to have a link between the two, right?

That’s where the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs’ Office of State-Defense Integration comes in. It creates a link between DOD and State by supplying State with military advisors and DOD with foreign policy advisors, much like they’re exchange students. It better prepares America to respond to emerging threats and advance U.S. national security interests more effectively.

Nearly 100 military advisors from the DOD are assigned to 25 State bureaus and offices, where they offer senior officials their military expertise and advice on topics that include operations and exercises, post-conflict reconstruction, arms control, counterterrorism and military law.

On the flip side, State sends the DOD about the same number of foreign policy advisors to combatant commands, task forces and special operations units all over the world. These diplomats supply our generals and admirals with foreign policy expertise on international relationships, how to engage with certain leaders, planning of exercises and operations, and more.

Many of the military advisors involved in the program say the role has given them new perspective.

“The level of interaction across the U.S. government is amazing,” said Army Lt. Col. Rex Copeland, the senior foreign military advisor to the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs. “You don’t get this level of influence at a normal … job in another DOD agency.”

“I’ve seen firsthand how a strong U.S. military force — even one that is not necessarily engaged actively in military operations — bolsters the State Department’s diplomatic leadership,” said Army Lt. Col. Jim Cahill, a military advisor in the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration.


Peter Strzok Deleted ‘Personal’ Communications With Lisa Page

  • Peter Strzok told Congress last year that he deleted communications with Lisa Page, but he claimed he did so for “personal” reasons
  • An attorney for Strzok says that the former FBI official deleted the records before he was removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia team
  • Strzok testified that he was asked to review his personal phone and email accounts for any work-related documents. He said he conducted a search of those devices but found no FBI materials on them

Former FBI official Peter Strzok told Congress last year that he deleted “personal” communications he had with his mistress, former FBI attorney Lisa Page.

“As a fact of the matter, following the — at some point, I — you know, it was related to personal reasons — deleted all those,” Strzok told lawmakers on June 27, 2018, according to a transcript of the testimony released on Thursday.

“But they were the personal communications, not the work ones,” added Strzok, who acknowledged having an extramarital affair with Page.

Aitan Goelman, an attorney for Strzok, told The Daily Caller News Foundation on Thursday that Strzok deleted the messages before he was removed from the Mueller team.

“Pete deleted personal communications from his personal iPhone before and unrelated to these investigations,” said Goelman, who added in a follow-up comment that the deletions were made prior to July 27, 2017, when Strzok was kicked off the Mueller probe.

Goelman did not provide a specific date for the deletions.

Strzok, who was fired from the FBI in August 2018, said that he had been contacted by the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to provide any work-related communications he had on his personal cell phone and email accounts.

As deputy chief of FBI’s counterintelligence division, Strzok oversaw the Trump-Russia investigation, dubbed Crossfire Hurricane. He also played a leading role in the Hillary Clinton email investigation, which focused on whether the 2016 presidential candidate mishandled classified information on her private email server.

One issue that arose during that investigation was Clinton’s decision to delete around 30,000 emails that she deemed to be personal in nature. The former secretary of state provided another 30,000 emails to the State Department in December 2014. Republicans have asserted that Clinton may have deleted work-related emails as well from her server, which was housed at her private residence in New York.

In the case of Strzok and Page’s personal communications, the OIG made the request after finding that the pair had exchanged anti-Trump text messages on their FBI-issued cell phones. Strzok was removed from the special counsel’s team after Michael Horowitz, the inspector general, told Robert Mueller about the texts.

Strzok said that he conducted a search of his personal accounts and devices but found no work-related messages.

He made it clear in his testimony that he was allowed the conduct the search on his own, without the involvement of the FBI or OIG.

During Strzok’s congressional hearing, Goelman said that he would not agree to provide his client’s personal communications “to the committee or anybody.”

“Just to clarify, we were asked to provide any work-related communications on Special Agent Strzok’s personal devices. And he reviewed and found that there weren’t any, and we told the IG that. We have not agreed, nor do we agree now, to open up all of Special Agent Strzok’s personal communications on his personal devices to the committee or anybody,” Goelman said.

Strzok also said that he was unaware of any attempts by the OIG or FBI to use subpoenas to obtain his personal communications.

The Strzok-Page texts were discovered during an investigation of the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email investigation.

The messages showed that Strzok and Page exchanged disparaging remarks about Trump. They also discussed aspects of “Crossfire Hurricane,” the FBI counterintelligence probe of the Trump campaign.

In one text on Aug. 8, 2016, Strzok told Page that “we’ll stop” Trump from becoming president. In a text message a week later, he discussed an “insurance policy” that the FBI should take out in the event of a Trump election victory.

Mohamed Morsi has been removed as president of Egypt

TripleMs (CC)

After vowing that he would not leave office yesterday, Mohammed Morsi has been removed as president of Egypt. The constitution of that nation has been suspended, and the chief justice of the constitutional court, Adli Mansour, has been named as the interim leader by the head of the Egyptian military, Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi. While the takeover has been characterized as a military coup by Morsi and his chief security adviser, it has apparently been well-received by the masses still congregated from the protests in Tahrir Square and around Egypt.

Fox News reports:

Fireworks and cheers erupted from the millions gathered in Tahrir Square after the announcement was made.

Earlier in the day, an army deadline for Morsi to resolve Egypt’s political crisis expired.

Top military officials and opposition leaders met Wednesday and agreed on a political roadmap for the country’s future, calling for early presidential and parliamentary elections, el-Sissi said. A new presidential cabinet will be formed as well as a national reconciliation committee, which will include youth movements that have been behind anti-Morsi demonstrations.

Morsi said on his presidential Facebook page that he rejected el-Sissi’s statement, according to Reuters. An aide says he has been moved to an undisclosed location.

El-Sissi said the military will deal “decisively” with any violence sparked by the announcements.

The Egyptian military has seized control of the government, but this is supposed to be another temporary arrangement, until the people have the opportunity to elect a new leader. Where the current leaders, and the Muslim Brotherhood will be in that process remains to be seen. Observers should also be watching for any political moves made by Salafist community leaders, and the military response to the ongoing sexual assaults and violence that have been a part of the current round of protests.

4 Ways How to Get Funds when You Have Bad Credit

If you have bad credit, you know how difficult it can be to get the financing you need to purchase a new vehicle, pay medical bills or even purchase groceries for the week. The good news is, there are a number of tips you can use to help you get the money you need, even if your credit is not perfect. Before you take out a loan with a particular organization, you need to take some time to weigh all of your options. Trying to rush through this process may get you in a dire financial situation that causes you a great deal of stress. Some of these tips can be found here.

1. Get to Know Your Specific Credit Situation

If you need to make a purchase and are low on funds, you need to take some time to get to know what your credit rating is right now. There are a number of free services that will provide you with this information at no cost. Getting to know what your credit rating is will help you better understand the options you have.

Luckily, there are tons of different sites out there where you can access this information for free. By looking at your credit report, you will be able to avoid any unwanted surprises when applying for credit cards or loans. Many of the credit cards for average credit will require a score of 625 or higher. Having information about what your credit score is will help you narrow down the lending options you have.

2. Look for a Bad Credit Dealer

The fact is, more and more people are finding themselves in financial binds today, than ever before. As a result, there are more and more places out there that provide money to individuals who have bad credit. Take some time to find where to get loans online that offers options for those with bad credit. Doing so will give you the best chance possible of getting the funds you need.

3. Browse the Available Options

Once you have found a bad credit payday loan provider that works with people who are in your situation, you can begin filling out the application and finding the option that best works for you. Be sure to speak with them about the amount you can get for a loan so you know whether or not it will cover the bills you have to pay. In most cases, you will find there are quite a few options for you to choose from.

4. Payday Loans May Be a Good Option

If you need money in a hurry, then getting a payday loan may be a great option. Generally, these types of loans will accept just about any type of credit. This means you will not have to worry about getting denied. Before choosing a particular payday lender, be sure to do some homework. You need to find out what type of reputation a lender has and whether or not they have preferable terms. Without this type of research, you will find it hard to choose the right loan.

While you may feel limited by your bad credit, when it comes to getting money when you need it, there are options out there. The key is to know where to look and what to do to get the financing you need to make an important purchase or pay off a bill.

It is important to remember, when you begin searching for a bad credit payday loan, not all services are created equal. It is a good idea to shop around and look at all the options prior to choosing one. This will help ensure you get the best rate for the money that you need and that you don’t have to wait an excessive amount of time to receive the money.

Military Services, Armed Forces or Uniformed Services? What’s the Difference? > U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE > Story

There are seven uniformed services: The five armed forces plus the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, which falls under the Department of Health and Human Services, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Officer Corps, which falls under the Commerce Department.

Officers in the PHS Corps and NOAA Corps wear Navy uniforms and use Navy ranks. There are no enlisted or warrant personnel in these services.

The U.S. surgeon general, a vice admiral, directs the PHS Corps, which provides licensed medical and health sciences professionals to the PHS, DHHS, other uniformed services and other government agencies.

The NOAA Corps is made up of technically skilled science officers who can be incorporated into the armed forces in wartime. In peacetime, the corps supports defense requirements in addition to its purely nonmilitary scientific projects at sea, in the air and in laboratories.

UGA Grad Student Doesn’t Understand Why Saying ‘Some White People May Have To Die’ Is ‘Controversial’

A University of Georgia graduate student does not understand why saying “some white people may have to die” is receiving backlash.

Philosophy grad student and teaching assistant Irami Osei-Frimpong originally made the comment on the “Overheard at UGA” Facebook page Jan. 16, Campus Reform reported.

“Some white people may have to die for Black communities to be made whole in this struggle to advance to freedom,” Osei-Frimpong wrote, according to a screenshot from Campus Reform. “To pretend that’s not the case is ahistorical and generally naive.”

Osei-Frimpong does not understand why he is getting criticized, however.

“I’m confused why that is so controversial,” Osei-Frimpong said, WSB-TV reported Tuesday.

The UGA grad student added he was not trying to call for violence, but was being “honest of racial progress,” according to WSB-TV reported.

UGA donors and alumni have suggested to stop giving money to the school unless Osei-Frimpong is fired.

“If they fire me, they’d be firing me for doing my job,” Osei-Frimpong said.

UGA released a statement Sunday saying they were considering legal options.

“Racism has no place on our campus, and we condemn the advocacy or suggestion of violence in any form,” the statement posted to Twitter said.

Osei-Frimpong has a history of demeaning white people. He compared white southerners to “sociopaths” and “autistic kids.” The teaching assistant also called for white people’s churches, schools and families to be “dismantled” because they supposedly created “crappy white people,” Campus Reform reported.

UGA baseball player Adam Sasser, who was accused of saying racial slurs at the school’s football game, was dismissed from the team in October 2018, according to USA Today.

Osei-Frimpong did not immediately respond to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

Baseball Star Kris Bryant Gets Pranked by Hall of Famer Greg Maddux

Reigning baseball MVP and World Series hero Kris Bryant thinks he’s shooting a baseball workout video. Little does he know that the sound guy on the video crew is none other than Hall of Fame pitcher and four-time Cy Young Award winner Greg Maddux in disguise. Here’s what happened when Bryant allowed Greg Maddux aka “The Sound Guy” to throw him batting practice.

Services Putting Their Assets on Ice

With great power competition heating up, U.S. military leaders are pointing their planes, ships, subs, missiles and radars north toward the Arctic.

Four advisors, representing the Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, met for a discussion on the Arctic at the Wilson Center in Washington, Dec. 4.

Air Force

U.S. aircraft have been operating in the area near the Arctic since World War II, when the Japanese invaded the Alaskan islands of Attu and Kiska, said Iris Ferguson, the senior advisor for Air Force space and information operations.

The Arctic is 1.5 times the size of the United States, she said, and 79 percent of U.S. military assets in that region today belong to the Air Force. Those resources include ballistic missile warning sites and fighter jets — as well as squadrons of tanker aircraft to refuel them.

By 2022, there will be more advanced aircraft in Alaska than anywhere else in the world, Ferguson noted.

Air Force ski-equipped LC-130 Hercules aircraft support National Science Foundation missions to both the Arctic and Antarctic, she said. The service also maintains the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center, which conducts an average of 1,000 missions per year in the Alaska region. Additionally, the Air Force tracks satellites from Alaska and participates in military exercises with Arctic area partners.

Coast Guard

Shannon Jenkins, the Coast Guard’s senior Arctic policy advisor, said that his service has been in the Arctic for about 150 years. The Coast Guard works with Arctic nations to protect fisheries and conduct search and rescue missions, and, he said, the service is always prepared to respond to oil spills. He noted that the Coast Guard has very good relations with their Russian counterparts in these areas of mutual concern.


Jeffrey Barker, the Navy’s deputy branch head for policy and posture, noted that he and Jenkins are on a working group that led to the 2015 signing of the National Fleet Plan, an agreement that strengthened interoperability between the Navy and Coast Guard fleets. He said the working group meets quarterly to discuss Arctic security issues, among other things.

The Navy has more submarines in the Arctic than any other nation, Barker said. However, he added that the Navy never goes it alone. They work there with partner nations.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

David Kennedy, NOAA’s senior Arctic advisor, said his service provides invaluable security intelligence to the armed services, information needed to operate their ships, aircraft and submarines. That information includes sea floor profiles, ice characteristics and water and air conditions, along with long-term climate forecasts.

Incidentally, NOAA is one of the seven uniformed services, along with the Public Health Service, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard.