Sarah Palin: Yes, you can see Russia from Alaska

*
Posted just a few minutes ago by Gov. Palin on Facebook:

Alaska’s Position on the Globe (Yes, You Can See Russia!)

At least week’s revved-up Anchorage rally for Joe Miller I spoke to the independent, inspired crowd about the need to change Washington so Alaska can finally develop our natural resources to help secure the union. In the discussion, of course, the fact was made that our strategic location on the globe is key to resource development, military security, and transportation and shipping lanes boosting export opportunities, etc. And naturally I included a riff on the fact that you can actually see Russia from Alaska, because apparently only Alaskans know it’s true. Anyway, my good buddies throughout the state continue to send their “pictures of truth,” along with the plea to prove my point and put to rest the lamestream media’s mocking of that point. I promised my buddies I would prove it. So here you go. Some friends emailed photos showing how close Alaska is to Russia. This one shows Russia over the shoulder of a tough Alaskan. We are proud of our strategic location as the air crossroads of the world, our rich natural resources, and our valuable shipping and transportation lanes affecting the commerce of Pacific Rim countries. We need a U.S. Senator who will fight the feds for our right to responsibly develop and contribute to the rest of the U.S., so we can help secure the union economically and physically. We need Joe Miller!

- Sarah Palin

On the left of the photo is Little Diomede, behind it is Big Diomede,
and to the right of them you can see the Russian mainland. Photo
of Lynn Nelson.

- JP

"You can see Russian nukes from here..."

*
In what Eugene Volokh opined is "an otherwise very sensible Slate article by a very sensible columnist," Fred Kaplan gaffed:

"If U.S. and Russian borders were only 100 miles apart, it's doubtful we could have survived the Cold War without a 'nuclear exchange.'"

Glenn Reynolds quipped:

"IF SARAH PALIN HAD MADE THIS KIND OF MISTAKE it would be a big deal. But since it’s a 'sensible writer' at Slate, it’s just a glitch."

Well, of course it would be a big deal, considering that Sarah Palin was governor of Alaska, and last time we checked, Alaska was still U.S. land. She knows the local geography well:

"Alaska and Russia are less than 3 miles apart at their closest point in the Bering Strait where two islands, Russia's Big Diomede Island and Alaska's Little Diomede Island, are located. In winter it is possible to walk across the frozen Bering Strait border between these two islands. At its closest, the American mainland and the Russian mainland are 55 miles apart where Alaska's Seward Peninsula and Russia's Chukotka Peninsula reach out to each other."

- JP

Sarah Palin Was Right #18: Iran and the Alaska Missile Shield

- by upinak

When Obama stands there with his feeble limp-wristed style to swoon the stupid liberals into believing all is good and no harm will come to them. It makes one wonder about the safety for the country as well as question when Obama is actually going to do anything about the troops in Afghanistan.

Iran has made it clear to the world that it will not abide by the sanctions that were put in place to make it “safe” for what they are doing with the yellow cake uranium. They are going their own way regardless. The mullahs have not cooperated with this nation, and Cheney and Joint Chiefs predicted that it was never going to happen. And Obama just sits there looking like the schoolyard mama's boy being pushed around by the bully.

But here is a new shocker. I have pointed out that Alaska has a missile shield for the United States which would protect the West Coast and the Eastern Seaboard in some cases as Alaska's location in the hemisphere the ability of the the 49th Missile Defense Battalion to react quickly argue strongly for the US. to expand and strengthen its missile defense capabilities. Indeed, recently in the news it has come to light that there is a new measure on the table to complete the missile defense system at Ft. Greely but only subject to a bizarre condition:

Sen. Mark Begich, a Democrat, appealed to the Senate Armed Services Committee in June to maintain money to expand the ground-based missile defense system, saying it's not just about North Korea but also about shooting down missiles launched by Iran. In a news release Tuesday, Begich said the plan is "a welcome decision that will decrease the risk of the ever-evolving ballistic missile threats from rogue nations by increasing capacity required to defend the United States."

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, was less enthusiastic about the decision in an e-mailed statement to the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, noting that the completion of Missile Field 2 comes with plans to decommission another missile field at the base, about 100 miles south of Fairbanks. "I remain unconvinced that abandonment of the Bush administration's plan, previously supported by Secretary Gates, is the right thing to do from a national security perspective," Murkowski said.

So we can have all the missiles that were slated for our protection under the Bush administration for overall protection, but we have to dismantle Missile Field 1, fund get the missiles for Missile Field 2 at Greely. Does anyone else think this sound like a self-defeating proposition? Especially since the Missile Field 1 only became fully operational in 2003/2004! Why does the Washington establishment want to waste the taxpayers' hard-earned money in such a cavalier manner?

Sarah Palin, you were right. It is America's misfortune that it has come to this.

- u

Sarah Palin Was Right #14: Missile Defense - Russia and Iran

- by upinak

I wrote about Russia a few days ago concerning Iran and why Russia doesn’t seem to care. I also noted that something was amiss, and here it is: Russia said no to sanctions and now is allowing Iran to have a preemptive nuclear option. No regulations, no sanctions, nothing. What is Russia getting out of this deal?

Breitbart shed some light on the situation:

The interview appeared in the daily Izvestia during a visit by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, as U.S. and Russian negotiators try to hammer out a nuclear arms reduction treaty by December. It also came amid grumbling in Moscow over U.S. moves to modify plans for a missile shield near Russia's borders rather than ditch the idea outright.

Patrushev said a sweeping document on military policy including a passage on preventative nuclear force will be handed to President Dmitry Medvedev by the end of the year, according to Izvestia.

Officials are examining "a variety of possibilities for using nuclear force, depending on the situation and the intentions of the possible opponent," Patrushev was quoted as saying. "In situations critical to national security, options including a preventative nuclear strike on the aggressor are not excluded."

As did Reuters:

"There is no need to frighten the Iranians," Putin told reporters in Beijing.

"We need to look for a compromise. If a compromise is not found, and the discussions end in a fiasco, then we will see," he said, adding that talks of sanctions was "premature" at present.

This stinks, worse then a dead elephant in the room. And what is worse is the fact that Obama is letting Russians visit our nuclear sites. WHY????

Via Foxnews.com:

Russia and the United States have tentatively agreed to a weapons inspection program that would allow Russians to visit nuclear sites in America to count missiles and warheads.

The plan, which Fox News has learned was agreed to in principle during negotiations, would constitute the most intrusive weapons inspection program the U.S. has ever accepted.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who met with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, said publicly Tuesday that the two nations have made "considerable" progress toward reaching agreement on a new strategic arms treaty.

The 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, expires in December and negotiators have been racing to reach agreement on a successor.

There are two start agreements, START 1 and START II. The Fox report refers to START II. But take a look at the title on the State.gov website:

THE TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS ON THE REDUCTION AND LIMITATION OF STRATEGIC OFFENSIVE ARMS AND ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS

Interestingly, all of a sudden it seems that Russia wants to look into this. Putin has been around for a while, so why the sudden interest? I believe it has to do with that Russian-Iranian alliance, that was forged in 2005. Yet no one really talks much about it in the U.S., even now.

Sarah Palin was right about Missile Defense here at home. But is anyone listening? There is good cause for concern.

- u

Sarah was right: Missile defense Part 4 - Russia & Iran

*
- by upinak

Russia has an interesting relationship with almost all other nations. She has never been one to back down from a fight, but something has been amiss in Mother Russia lately.

The Jerusalem Post published this interesting article concerning Russia and Iran, presenting two theories why Russia has no fear of the Persian state:

First, Iran is primarily a threat to Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. The mullahs will increase regional tensions and strengthen Russia's position there. Good relations with Iran could position Russia as a mediator between these countries and the Islamic republic. For example, the recent cancellation of the deal to sell Iran anti-aircraft complexes was used to leverage Russia-Israel relations.

Second, Russia can use its relations with Iran as a bargaining chip in opposing the United States. The latest events demonstrate how, by changing its position toward sanctions, Russia achieved its goal: getting Obama to cancel the AMD program and reversing the previous US administration's policy.

I think there is more to it then just what the Jerusalem Post has stated.  Russia is a country that uses other countries to gain what they consider power, or a stepping stone of power.  The Russians like to test other countries, such as when they probe American and Canadian airspace with their Bear strategic bombers, for example.  But this isn't just about America and Canada.  Russia is constantly checking the boundaries of what it can do to judge how other countries react, including Pakistan.  The Russian Bear is playing with fire and grinning from ear to ear while doing it.

Imposing sanctions on loose cannons such as Iran will not make much of a contribution to regional stability, especially when nuclear arsenals are involved. Such a measure may only make it more difficult for those nations that are trying to keep the peace.  Hillary Clinton is also on the front end of the situation, but there is something which just doesn't add up. Stating that Secretary Clinton never asked for Russia's help seems odd to me in light of another article which states that she said no to the Russians. Something is not right.

And yet here we sit, without what should have been a missile defense, waiting to see what will happen.  Meanwhile, the Russians say they do no want sanctions on Iran... The 64 Megaton question is why not? Hmm.

- u