The Power of the Russian Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7)

The Tsar Bomba: This Russia Nuclear Weapon Could Wipe out all of Los Angelesv

Within five miles of ground zero, everyone not killed by the blast and heat would receive a lethal dose of 500 rems of high-energy radiation. Up to 20 miles away from the detonation, the blast wave would gut every building — even concrete and steel reinforced buildings.

Maj. Andrei Durnovtsev, a Soviet air force pilot and commander of a Tu-95 Bear bomber, holds a dubious honor in the history of the Cold War.

Durnovtsev flew the aircraft that dropped the most powerful nuclear bomb ever. It had an explosive force of 50 megatons, or more than 3,000 times more powerful than the Hiroshima weapon.

Over the years, historians identified many names for the test bomb.

Andrei Sakharov, one of the physicists who helped design it, simply called it “the Big Bomb.” Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev called it “Kuzka’s mother,” a reference to an old Russian saying that means you are about to teach someone a harsh, unforgettable lesson.

The Central Intelligence Agency blandly dubbed the test “Joe 111.” But a more popular name born out of Russian pride and a sheer awe sums it all up — the Tsar Bomba, or “the King of Bombs.”

“As far as I can tell the term did not surface until after the end of the Cold War,” Alex Wellerstein, a historian at the Stevens Institute of Technology and blogger, told War Is Boring. “Before that it was just called the 50 megaton or 100 megaton bomb.”

“I think we make a lot more of the Tsar Bomba today than anytime other than the immediate period in which it was tested.”

“Americans like to point to it as an example of how crazy the Cold War was, and how crazy the Russians are and were,” Wellerstein added. “Russians seem to take pride in it.”

On Oct. 30, 1961, Durnovtsev and his crew took off from an airfield on the Kola Peninsula and headed to the Soviet nuclear test area above the Arctic Circle at Mityushikha Bay, located in the Novaya Zemlya archipelago.

The test project’s scientists painted the Bear bomber and its Tu-16 Badger chase plane white to limit heat damage from the bomb’s thermal pulse. That’s at least what the scientists hoped the paint would do.

The bomb also had a parachute to slow its drop, giving both planes time to fly around 30 miles away from ground zero before the nuke detonated. This gave Durnovtsev and his comrades a chance to escape.

When the planes reached their destination at the predetermined altitude of 34,000 feet, he ordered the bomb dropped. The chute opened, and the bomb started its three-minute descent to its detonation altitude two-and-a-half miles above the earth.

Durnovtsev pushed the throttles to the max.

Then the bomb exploded.

The blast broke windows more than 500 miles away. Witnesses saw the flash through heavy cloud cover more than 600 miles from the blast site.

Its mushroom cloud boiled up into the atmosphere until it was 45 miles above ground zero — essentially, the lower boundaries of space. The top of the mushroom cloud spread out until it was 60 miles wide. The nuke’s thermal pulse burned the paint off of both planes.

And that was small compared to the Soviets’ original plan.

The designers originally intended the bomb to have a 100-megaton yield. They used a three-stage Teller-Ulam lithium dry-fuel configuration— similar to the thermonuclear device first demonstrated by the United States during the Castle Bravo shot.

Concerns about fallout prompted Russian scientists to use lead tampers that dialed down the yield to half of the bomb’s capabilities. Interestingly enough, Tsar Bomba was one of the “cleanest” nuclear weapons ever detonated, because the bomb’s design eliminated 97 percent of the possible fallout.

Even its size was monstrous. It was 26 feet long, about seven feet in diameter and weighed more than 60,000 pounds — so large it couldn’t even fit inside of the bomb bay of the modified Bear bomber used to drop it.

The Tsar Bomba was so big, it’s doubtful whether it could ever have been a practical weapon delivered by a Soviet bomber.

Because of the distance from the Soviet Union to America, removal of the fuselage fuel tanks to accommodate the bomb — combined with its sheer weight — meant that a Bear bomber wouldn’t have sufficient fuel for the mission even with aerial refueling.

However, the CIA investigated whether the Soviets planned to place similar warheads on super-powerful intercontinental ballistic missiles that would target American cities.

The reason was accuracy. Or rather, the lack thereof. Because of the NATO alliance’s nuclear advantages, the United States could place bombers and intermediate range ballistic missiles fairly close to Soviet targets in Eastern Europe.

By the late 1950s and early 1960s, America placed intermediate-range ballistic missiles such as the Thor in the United Kingdom and Turkey, and Honest John and Matador missiles in West Germany.

The shorter flight distance for those missiles meant they had a better chance of delivering their nuclear warheads effectively on target.

Russian nuclear weapons had further to travel, so there was more chance of missing the mark. But for a 100-megaton warhead … close enough will do.

Consider the damage a 100-megaton version of the Tsar Bomba could inflict on Los Angeles — say, if detonated directly above the U.S. Bank Tower, the second tallest building west of the Mississippi River.

On a clear day, an airburst at 14,000 feet above ground level would produce a nuclear fireball two miles wide that would be hotter than the surface of the sun, reducing concrete and steel skyscrapers to ashes.

Within five miles of ground zero, everyone not killed by the blast and heat would receive a lethal dose of 500 rems of high-energy radiation. Up to 20 miles away from the detonation, the blast wave would gut every building — even concrete and steel reinforced buildings.

Up to 50 miles away, anyone exposed to the flash of the weapon would receive third-degree burns. In short, a Tsar Bomba warhead would completely devastate the entire Los Angeles metropolitan area.

In 1963, Khrushchev said the Soviet Union possessed a 100-megaton bomb that it deployed to East Germany. But the premier’s claim has divided historians on whether it was true, or was just boasting.

As for Sakharov, his experience building and testing Tsar Bombachanged his life, prompting him to abandon weapons research.

He became an outspoken critic of Soviet efforts to create an anti-ballistic missile defense system, an advocate for civil rights in the Soviet Union and much-persecuted political dissident who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1975.

And Durnovtsev? Immediately after successfully dropping Tsar Bomba, the Soviet air force promoted him to the rank of lieutenant colonel. In addition, he received the Hero of the Soviet Union award, the highest honor bestowed for service to the Soviet state.

This first appeared in WarIsBoring here.

Russia’s Fatal Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7:7)

Russia’s Most Powerful Nuclear Missile Is in Final Testing Stage and These Other Weapons Are Also On Their Way

World International Affairs

Russia’s most powerful nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile has been undergoing its final stage of testing, with other advanced weapons on the way and some already in service.

At a promotion and award ceremony for senior officers on Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin hailed recent achievements of his military, especially in forwarding ambitious plans to develop weapons said to be capable of overcoming existing and even prospective defense systems. He then revealed some of the latest progress for these „modern powerful precision weapons that are determining and will determine in the future the image of Russia’s armed forces.“

The Avangard missile system with a boost-glide vehicle—our hypersonic intercontinental system—will considerably enhance the power of the Strategic Missile Forces. The final tests involving the Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile have been a success,“ Putin told those in attendance. „As you may know, the Kinzhal hypersonic system and the Peresvet laser system have been put on alert duty.

„The navy’s new surface ships and nuclear submarines will be armed with advanced types of weapons, including the Tsirkon hypersonic missile, which has no parallels in the world in terms of range and speed,“ he added.

Russia tests the RS-28 Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile, a weapon with a projected range of 6,800 miles and said capable of delivering multiple nuclear warheads over either the North or South Pole, March 30, 2018. Russian Ministry of Defense

Putin unveiled a number of these weapons, along with other state-of-the-art projects like the underwater Poseidon drone and the 9M730 Burevestnik nuclear-powered cruise missile, during his March 2018 State of the Nation address. In the year since, the Russian military has conducted testing on all of these weapons, with varying degrees of progress.

Among the most highly speculated was the RS-28 Sarmat, previously nicknamed „Satan 2“ by the U.S.-led NATO Western military alliance. Putin claimed the weapon „has practically no range restrictions“ and „is untroubled by even the most advanced missile defense systems“ during his 2018 speech and stated in his February 2019 State of the Nation remarks that it was „undergoing a series of tests.“

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu later told reporters that the Sarmat had reached „the next stage of testing.“ Shortly after Putin described the Avangard—a weapon that Moscow has claimed could travel up to 20 times the speed of sound—as an „answer“ to U.S. aspirations for a global missile shield, Shoigu announced that the weapons system capable of being fitted to the Sarmat would be „combat alert“ by December.

Just one month earlier, President Donald Trump had unveiled his 2019 Missile Defense Review vowing to „detect and destroy any missile launched against the United States anywhere, anytime.“ The Republican leader’s report specifically cited the threat of Russia and China’s development of hypersonic and cruise missile technology in his case for establishing ambitious new measures such as space-based interceptors that Moscow and Bejing have warned may spark an „arms race.“

image-5082767 An unarmed Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile launches during a developmental test at Vandenberg Air Force Base, in California, on February 5. President Donald Trump has vowed to “detect and destroy any missile launched against the United States anywhere, anytime” as part of his 2019 Missile Defense Review. SENIOR AIRMAN CLAYTON WEAR/U.S. AIR FORCE/DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Also raising concerns was the collapse of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty in February. The U.S. accused Russia of violating the 1987 agreement banning land-based missiles ranging from 310 to 3,420 miles with the deployment of the Novator 9M729 missile. Moscow has denied the weapon goes against the pact and has charged Washington with breaking the INF terms through its installment in Eastern Europe of missile defenses that Russian officials have argued could be used to attack as well.

The debate has overshadowed attempts to launch negotiations toward extending another the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). Russia has argued that the U.S. showed little interest in discussing the agreement—which has limits the amount of deployed and non-deployed nuclear warheads as well as carriers—and has accused its counterparts in Washington of potentially manipulating their nuclear reporting figures.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday that, though „there are some arguments on the edges each, but largely [the Russians] have been compliant“ with the treaty due to expire in 2021.

„Both the Russians and the United States have been compliant,“ he added. „We’re at the very beginning of conversations about renewing that. If we can get the deal right, if we can make sure it fits 2021 and beyond, President Trump has made very clear that if we can get a good solid arms control agreement, we ought to get one.“

Nuclear Armageddon Looms Near (Revelation 16)

Cold War statesmen warn threat of nuclear Armageddon still looms

by Zachary Halaschak  | April 10, 2019 10:46 PM

A group of Cold War-era policy veterans have sounded the alarm about the potential for nuclear war with Russia.

Former Secretary of State George Schulz, 98, former Defense Secretary William Perry, 91, and former Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga., 80, penned a joint op-ed in the Wall Street Journal Wednesday warning that the U.S. is caught in a “policy paralysis” with Russia that could lead to military confrontation or the use of nuclear weapons.

“A bold policy shift is needed to support a strategic re-engagement with Russia and walk back from this perilous precipice. Otherwise, our nations may soon be entrenched in a nuclear standoff more precarious, disorienting and economically costly than the Cold War,” the men write.

The three contend that because both countries’ foreign policies are so intertwined, the risk of potential confrontation and disaster is heightened.

“Since the crises broke out in Ukraine and Syria in the past few years, U.S. and Russian forces have again been operating in proximity, increasing the risk that an act of aggression, followed by an accident or miscalculation, will lead to catastrophe,” they write.

The statesmen list three main goals as comprising a comprehensive approach to decreasing the risk of conflict between the two nuclear powers. First, they contend the U.S. must address its own “dysfunctional Russia policy” by bringing together a bipartisan group of leaders to work on renewing dialogue with Russia.

Secondly, they say that President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin should announce a joint declaration reaffirming the dangers of nuclear war and the need for it never to be fought.

Finally, they argue the two nations “must discuss a broad framework for strategic stability — including increasing decision time for leaders — in a period of global destabilization and emerging military technologies.”

Schulz, Perry, and Nunn argue that without renewed engagement between the U.S. and Russia, risk for nuclear war could reach levels that surpass that of the Cold War.

“It is essential that we re-engage with Russia in areas of common fundamental interest to both nations, including reducing reliance on nuclear weapons, keeping them out of unstable hands, preventing their use and ultimately ending them as a threat to the world,” they write.

Schultz served under President Ronald Reagan as secretary of state from 1982 to 1989, Perry ran the Defense Department under President Bill Clinton from 1994 to 1997, and Nunn served as the chairman of the Armed Services Committee from 1987 to 1995.

Tensions Rise Before World War 3 (Revelation 16)

Tensions rise as Iran threatens the US with nuclear weapons ‚beyond your imagination‘

VT.CO

The increasingly frosty relationship between America and Iran will have been causing distress to anyone with a nervous disposition. President Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal last year in order to put sanctions on the country. In doing so, he has destabilised a delicate political situation which had brought together major world powers in an agreement which limited Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

However, Trump baited further hostility on Monday when he referred to a section of the Iranian army – the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – as a “terrorist group”. Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani responded with a concerning warning.

“You use terrorist groups against the peoples of the region and yet claim to have been fighting terrorism?” Rouhani asked. “You are at the top of terrorism in the entire world.” He then added: „You know that we have developed missiles since last year until this year that are beyond your imagination.”

Credit: Getty

This was reported by Iran’s Fars News Agency and betrays an aggressive mindset towards the US from the Iranian president. Having agreed to repurpose and reduce its nuclear facilities, this statement could be interpreted as a clear sign of non-compliance in the nuclear deal which Iran signed in 2013. As for the capabilities of these missiles, Iran claimed in 2017 that they have missiles with a range of 1,200 miles (1,930 km). However, the worrying activity doesn’t stop there.

According to the Associated Press, Iranian lawmakers met for a parliamentary session on Tuesday wearing paramilitary uniforms and chanting „death to America“. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was president of the country for most of the 1980s, praised the work of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and condemned the US, stating that “evil designs” would not harm them.

“You have done everything imaginable,” Rouhani stated in his unofficial address to the United States. “You wanted to tell the Iranian nation that we do not have any red lines, you wanted to say that we also kill children, you wanted to say that we also kill women.”

Credit: Getty

He also pointed to the downing of Iran Air Flight 655, which was taken down by US forces in 1988. Following the incident, Vice President George HW Bush stated: “I’ll never apologise for the United States of America, ever. I don’t care what the facts are.” Two hundred and ninety civilians died in the attack, including sixty-six children. In a matter of months, Bush would be president.

“After shooting down our airliner, you claimed that you mistook it for an F-14 fighter, which is a childish claim,” stated Rouhani. “With this terrorist act, you wanted to say that you do not consider any red lines and kill women and children.” He added: “Your message was to support terrorism in the region.”

Trump said his designation of the elite fighting force: „makes crystal clear the risks of conducting business with, or providing support to, the IRGC … If you are doing business with the IRGC, you will be bankrolling terrorism.“

In addition to a number of foiled plots against the US and its allies, the administration made reference to the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia which left 19 American servicemen dead.

The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised Trump’s branding of the IRGC in a tweet. The Middle Eastern country has a difficult relationship with a number of its neighbours and Netanyahu took the opportunity to reinforce his stance on Iran: “Thank you for answering another one of my important requests, which serves the interests of our country and the countries of the region.”

America has historically had a fraught relationship with the nation of Iran, the 1953 Iranian coup marking the first time the US attempted to overthrow a foreign political regime during peacetime. The overthrowing of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, in favour of the monarchical rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was in the political and economic interests of the United States and United Kingdom, who also intervened.

Credit: Getty

Over the ensuing half a century, through hostage situations, terror attacks and open hostility, Iran would continue to have a fractious relationship with the US. Following the 9/11 attacks, George W Bush famously referred to Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an “axis of evil”. Aerial surveillance operations, launched from Iraq in which the US now had a foothold, repeatedly provided no new information.

There are continuing concerns in the global community regarding democracy, diplomacy and human rights in Iran. World powers have continually questioned whether the country is stable enough to hold a nuclear deterrent. However, with the leaders of both the US and Iran publicly flexing their military muscles, it seems that perhaps neither country should be trusted with such an arsenal.

The Prospect of the Nuclear Holocaust (Revelation 16)

Prospect of a nuclear war ‘higher than it has been in generations’, warns UN

The warning came from Izumi Nakamitsu, the UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, in a meeting convened in support of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), ahead of the next conference to review the historic accord, scheduled for 2020.

The possible use of nuclear weapons is one of the greatest threats to international peace and security Izumi Nakamitsu, UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs

The NPT, which entered into force in 1970, represents the only multilateral, binding commitment to the goal of disarmament by the States which officially stockpile nuclear weapons.

Its objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and disarmament overall.

High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Izumi Nakamitsu, speaking at the Security Council meeting on strengthening the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Ms. Nakamitsu said that the use of nuclear weapons, “either intentionally, by accident, or through miscalculation”, is one of the greatest threats to international peace and security, and that “the potential consequences of a nuclear war would be global and affect all Member States.”

The Treaty, she said, is widely acknowledged as “the cornerstone of the international non-proliferation regime and the essential foundation of nuclear disarmament. Its role as a pillar of our collective security is likewise an accepted fact.”

From disarmament success to “dangerous rhetoric”

The disarmament chief described the two pillars of the NPT – disarmament and non-proliferation ­– as “two sides of the same coin”, adding that “backward movement on one will result in backward movement on the other.”

Unfortunately, Ms. Nakamitsu was able to cite several examples, including the use of “dangerous rhetoric” about nuclear weapons’ use; an increased reliance on nuclear weapons in security doctrines; and modernization programmes to make nuclear weapons faster, stealthier and more accurate.

The durability of the NPT, which has lasted for almost half a century, cannot be taken for granted, she insisted, adding that there is currently nothing to replace the disarmament and arms control framework which is foundational to the post-Cold War era.

With the Treaty coming under increasing stress, the upcoming Review Conference in 2020 will, she said, be a “defining moment.” It could either highlight divisions between States and raise questions about their willingness to seek collective security for all, or present “a golden opportunity to make the practical gains that will ensure the Treaty’s continued viability.”

Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, speaking at the UN Security Council.

Iran, North Korea nuclear programmes ‘top of the agenda’

Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Yukiya Amano, also briefed the Council, reminding members of the role that the Agency plays in the implementation of the NPT; in the creation of an environment “conducive to nuclear cooperation”; and in assisting developing countries to use nuclear energy for peaceful means.

However, Mr. Amano said the IAEA was facing several challenges, including the steady increase in the amount of nuclear material in circulation, the number of nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards (the system of inspection and verification of the peaceful uses of nuclear materials), and continuing pressure on the Agency’s budget.

He told the Council that monitoring the nuclear programmes of Iran and North Korea, officially known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), are among the top items on the IAEA’s agenda.

Mr. Amano said that Iran was implementing its commitments under the UN-backed Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, whose future has been put in doubt by the decision of the US administration to withdraw from the agreement. After 2009, he said, there have been “no credible indications of activities in Iran relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device.”

As for the DPRK, Mr. Amano said that the country’s nuclear programme has significantly expanded over the past decade, carrying out nuclear tests on five separate occasions since 2009, despite the recent lull. With no inspectors inside the country, the IAEA monitors the situation using tools such as open-source information and satellite imagery.

Security Council reaffirms support for nuclear treaty

In a statement released following the meeting, the Security Council announced a reaffirmation of its members’ support for the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and a commitment to “advance the goals of the NPT as the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and the foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.”

Describing the NPT commitments taken under the treaty as viable and mutually reinforcing, the statement underscored the need for its full implementation, and the importance of achieving universal adherence to the Treaty.

The Council members agreed that the 2020 NPT Review Conference will provide an opportunity for an unambiguous reaffirmation of commitment to the Treaty, a commemoration of its historic achievements, and the strengthening of the nuclear-disarmament and non-proliferation regime.

The Real Russian Collusion Scandal

One Potential Russian Collusion Scandal Has Not Yet Been Investigated: Hillary Clinton and Uranium One

25 Mar 2019

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images

MICHAEL PATRICK LEAHY

5,626

13:56

After one year, ten months and five days and the expenditure of millions of taxpayer dollars, Special Counsel Robert Mueller has submitted a report that concluded there was no evidence of Russian collusion by President Trump or anyone on his campaign team, nor is there any evidence to support obstruction of justice charges against the president.

The obvious question that arises now that the Mueller probe has come up dry is why was such an investigation even launched?

It is a well-known tactic, particularly among modern-day Democratic political operatives, to accuse your opponent of committing offenses that you and your team have actually committed. By doing so, you deflect public opinion away from what must not be discovered–your own illegal activities.

A number of unanswered questions surround the role then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton played in handing over 20 percent of America’s uranium supplies to Uranium One, a company entirely owned by the Russian government. To date, no serious investigation has been launched into this highly controversial decision.

“In a controversial 2010 deal, ARMZ, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rosatom, the Russian government-owned nuclear energy conglomerate, obtained a controlling 51 percent interest in Uranium One. That’s the Canadian company at the center of the Clinton Foundation donor scandals. The deal appears to have been approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), an inter-agency committee of the federal government, 52 days after Uranium One’s shareholders signed off on the takeover,” Breitbart News reported in May 2015:

CFIUS is an inter-agency committee of the federal government, first established by an Executive Order from President Ford in 1975. Congress strengthened its mandate when it passed the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA). As amended by a 2008 Presidential Executive Order, FINSA requires that all foreign acquisitions of American assets considered to be central to American national security require the review and approval of CFIUS.

The CFIUS board consists of seven cabinet members, including the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Treasury, and two additional high ranking federal executives. Typically, cabinet members designate representatives to serve on CFIUS.

As Breitbart News noted, “The speedy approval of the ARMZ-Uranium One transaction (CFIUS Case No. 10-40) raises the possibility that the deal may have received expedited treatment, though the management of Canadian based Uranium One stated in a Management Information Circular/Notice to Shareholders published August 6, 2010 and dated August 3, 2010 that “Uranium One and ARMZ intend to submit a joint voluntary notice with CFIUS during the first week of August 2010.”

What raised eyebrows–but not investigations at the time or subsequently–was the fact that the Uranium One–the company that sold 20 percent of America’s uranium to a company owned by the Russian government–was controlled by Ian Telfer, a major donor to the Clinton Foundation, and was the successor to a company controlled by Frank Giustra, another major donor to the Clinton Foundation, as Breitbart News reported:

Ian Telfer, Chairman of Uranium One, donated $2.3 million to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 through his family controlled Fernwood Foundation. Other Uranium One executives and investors contributed between $1 million and $5 million during the same period.

“Mr. Telfer’s undisclosed donations [of $2.3 million through his family foundation] came in addition to between $1.3 million and $5.6 million in contributions, which were reported, from a constellation of people with ties to Uranium One or UrAsia, the company that originally acquired Uranium One’s most valuable asset: the Kazakh mines,” the New York Times reported.

When the 2010 transaction closed, ARMZ gave Uranium One $610 million in cash and controlling interest in two uranium mines in Kazhakstan in return for the issuance of 360 million new shares in the company. Combined with the estimated 109 million shares it already owned (a year earlier, it had purchased 17 percent of the company), the additional shares gave ARMZ ownership of an estimated 469 million shares, or 51 percent of the company’s outstanding 920 million shares.

Owners of the remaining 451 million shares, of whom Chairman Ian Telfer was one of the largest, received a one-time dividend of $1.06 per share, for a total of $479 million.

The Uranium One press release announcing the August 31, 2010 shareholder approval stated, “[a]s previously announced, as part of the Akbastau and Zarechnoye transaction ARMZ will also contribute US $610 million in cash to Uranium One, of which approximately US $479 million will be paid directly to shareholders (other than ARMZ) as a change of control premium after closing, by way of a special dividend of US $1.06 per share”

The company’s Management Information Circular dated April 13, 2010, a solicitation of proxies in advance of the company’s 2010 annual meeting, showed Chairman Telfer owned 800,000 shares personally and had options on an additional 675,000 shares. If those options were exercised, Telfer would have received at least $1.5 million in a one-time preferred dividend from the transaction.

Significantly, the company document acknowledges this reporting is totally reliant upon the transparency of Telfer: “The information as to common shares beneficially owned or over which control or direction is exercised (not being within the knowledge of the Corporation) has been furnished by the respective nominees individually.”

The ties between Uranium One executives and the Clinton Foundation may be stronger than has been previously reported.

Uranium One is the successor company to UrAsia Energy, the Canadian company founded in 2005 by Frank Giustra, who donated $31 million to the Clinton Foundation in 2006 and a year later established the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (CGEP), a Canadian non-profit that has raised $30 million and donated $25 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Giustra has stated that he sold all his shares in Uranium One in 2007, but he remains a close business associate with Uranium One Chairman Ian Telfer, who also serves as Chairman of Goldcorp, one of the largest gold mining companies in the world. Before he established UrAsia Energy, Giustra made huge profits on his earlier investment in Goldcorp while Telfer was at the helm there.

CGEP has refused to disclose the names of its 1,100 donors, a lack of transparency that is seen as a violation of the 2008 Memorandum of Understanding between Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration.

We may never know if Uranium One executives made even more hidden donations to the Clinton Foundation through CGEP.

Here is a summary of just part of what we already know and the mainstream media has admitted to be true, as Breitbart News reported back in April 2015:

Here, then, are 11 facts that mainstream media say are true, verified, and facts from the upcoming blockbuster, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.

CONFIRMED: Hillary’s Foundation Hid a $2.35 Million Foreign Donation from the Head of the Russian Govt’s Uranium Company that Had Business Before Hillary Clinton’s State Dept.—a Clear Violation of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Obama Administration

The New York Times has confirmed that Hillary Clinton violated the Memorandum of Understanding she signed with the Obama administration promising to disclose all foreign donations during her tenure as Sec. of State.

As Clinton Cash reveals, Ian Telfer, the foreign head of the Russian-owned uranium company, Uranium One, which Hillary Clinton approved to acquire U.S. uranium, made four individual hidden donations to the Clinton Foundation totaling $2.35 million, none of which appear in Clinton Foundation disclosures.

CONFIRMED: Bill Clinton Bagged $500,000 for a Speech in Moscow Paid for by a Kremlin-linked Bank

The New Yorker confirms that, as Clinton Cash claims, Bill Clinton made $500,000 for a Moscow speech that was paid for by “a Russian investment bank that had ties to the Kremlin” at the time of the Uranium One deal.

“Why was Bill Clinton taking any money from a bank linked to the Kremlin while his wife was Secretary of State?” asks the liberal publication.

CONFIRMED: Hillary’s Brother Sits on the Board of a Mining Company that Scored an Extremely Rare “Gold Exploitation Permit” in Haiti as Hillary and Bill Clinton Disbursed Billions of U.S. Taxpayer Dollars in Haiti

The Washington Post confirms the accuracy of Clinton Cash’s revelation that Hillary Clinton’s brother, Tony Rodham, serves on the board of a mining company that scored a coveted and lucrative “gold exploitation permit” in Haiti as then-Sec. of State Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton were doling out billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in the wake of the Haiti earthquake.

According to the Post, Rodham’s mining company “won one of the first two gold-mining permits the Haitian government had issued in more than 50 years,” just as Clinton Cashreveals.

CONFIRMED: Hillary’s Foundation Hid a Foreign Donation of 2 Million Shares of Stock by a Mining Executive with Business Before Hillary’s State Dept.—a Clear Violation of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Obama Administration

The Wall Street Journal confirms the book’s revelation that another foreign donation, one by Canadian mining executive Stephen Dattels, made a hidden donation of two million shares in Polo Resources that the Clinton Foundation chose not to disclose in violation of the Memorandum of Understanding the Clintons signed with the Obama administration.

“About two months later, the U.S. ambassador to Bangladesh pushed the energy adviser to that nation’s prime minister to allow ‘open pit mining,’ including in Phulbari Mines, where Polo Resources has a stake,” reports the Journal.

CONFIRMED: Hillary’s Approval of the Russian Takeover of Uranium One Transferred 20% of All U.S. Uranium to the Russian Govt.

The New York Times confirms, “The sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.”

The Times also verifies the book’s reporting that Hillary’s uranium transfer to Russia represented, at the time, a projected 50% of all U.S. uranium output.

CONFIRMED: Bill Clinton was Paid by a For-Profit Education Company Laureate While the Company Benefitted from an Increase in Funding from Hillary’s State Dept.

Bloomberg has confirmed that, as reported in Clinton Cash, Bill Clinton was paid by “Laureate International Universities, part of Laureate Education, Inc,” a position he abruptly resigned from on Friday.

Bloomberg’s examination confirms that “in 2009, the year before Bill Clinton joined Laureate, the nonprofit received 11 grants worth $9 million from the State Department or the affiliated USAID. In 2010, the group received 14 grants worth $15.1 million. In 2011, 13 grants added up to $14.6 million. The following year, those numbers jumped: IYF received 21 grants worth $25.5 million, including a direct grant from the State Department.”

The company nor the Clintons will release the exact amounts Bill received for working for the controversial for-profit education company.

CONFIRMED: The Clinton Foundation has Been Forced to Refile at Least 5 Years of Annual Tax Returns and May Audit Other Clinton Foundation Returns

Reuters has confirmed that “Hillary Clinton’s family’s charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns” as “the foundation and its list of donors have been under intense scrutiny.”

CONFIRMED: At Least $26 Million of the Clintons’ Wealth Comes from Speaking Fees by Companies and Organizations that are Also Major Clinton Foundation Donors

The Washington Post has confirmed in an article based on Clinton Cash that, according to the Post’s independent analysis, “Bill Clinton was paid more than $100 million for speeches between 2001 and 2013, according to federal financial disclosure forms filed by Hillary Clinton during her years as a senator and as secretary of state.”

Of that, reports the Post, “Bill Clinton was paid at least $26 million in speaking fees by companies and organizations that are also major donors to the foundation he created after leaving the White House, according to a Washington Post analysis of public records and foundation date.”

CONFIRMED: Clinton Cash author, Peter Schweizer, is Currently Conducting a Deep Dive Investigative Report on Republican Presidential Candidate Jeb Bush’s Financial Dealings

CBS News has confirmed that author Peter Schweizer is working on a similar investigation into GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush’s financial records and relationships.

“The wide-ranging examination will appraise the possible 2016 contender’s involvement in Florida real estate deals, an airport deal that involved state funds while Bush was Florida’s chief executive, and Chinese investments in Bush’s private equity funds,” reports CBS News.

CONFIRMED: Bill Clinton Delivered Numerous Speeches Paid for By Individuals and Corporations with Pending Business Before Hillary’s State Dept.

ABC News has confirmed Clinton Cash’s reporting that myriad businesses and individuals paid Bill Clinton to deliver speeches even as their companies had business on Sec. of State Hillary Clinton’s desk.

“Records supported the premise that former President Clinton accepted speaking fees from numerous companies and individuals with interests pending before the State Department,” reported ABC News.

ABC News noted it found “an instance where paid and unpaid speaking appearances were conflated,” but that Clinton Cash’s essential “premise” is “supported by records” ABC News independently analyzed.

CONFIRMED: Bill Clinton Lied about Hosting a Meeting with Frank Giustra and Kazakh Nuclear Officials at Clinton’s Home in Chappaqua, New York

New York Times Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter Jo Becker confirmed in a one-hour Fox News television special on Clinton Cash that Bill Clinton lied when questioned about whether Clinton, Giustra, and executives from the Kazakh-owned nuclear company Kazatomprom ever met in Clintons’ home.

The only question that remains is what vehicle should be used to initiate public investigations into possible Russian collusion by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was at the helm in 2010 when the State Department approved the transfer of 20 percent of American uranium to a company controlled by the Russian government.

The US is Provoking the Shi’a Horn (Daniel 7:7)

The U.S. is pushing Iran into the arms of our enemies | Opinion

The United States has levied heavy sanctions against Iran, seriously damaging its economy. Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani recently said, “Today the country is facing the biggest pressure and economic sanctions in the past 40 years.”

Those same sanctions appear intended to threaten Tehran with regime change, put additional pressure on Iran’s 80 million people, drive wedges between us and our European allies and force Iran from the bargaining table. Longer term, they increase U.S. international isolation and reduce the power of the U.S. dollar and Treasury as instruments of world leadership.

Sanctions are applied to impel an adversary to seek an agreement on a problem that threatens U.S. interests. U.S.-led sanctions against Iran eight years ago combined with oil price declines and mismanagement of Iran’s economy put its nuclear bomb program under stringent limits and unparalleled monitoring. The result showed an effective use of the sanctions tool.

The Trump administration has not spoken of the objectives of its sanctions. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued 13 unilateral demands to assure us that Iran will not make a nuclear weapon — a trenchant example of the perfect being the eternal enemy of the good. The president’s vague offer to talk about a “better” nuclear deal by throwing out the existing one is like buying a used car from a convicted carjacker.

These sanctions are undermining the well-being of millions of Iranians while egging on Iran to take ever-more aggressive action in Iraq and Syria and build more ballistic missiles. The sole conclusion that Iran can possibly reach is that the United States seeks regime change.

The threat of regime change, as Pompeo admitted in Warsaw in a possibly unguarded moment, seems real. Looking only at the history of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, the United States has not been very successful.

Meanwhile, Iran is launching diplomatic overtures around the world as the state that stands up to the xenophobia of “America First.” Iran’s role today recalls the high point of Fidel Castro’s Cuba, which gained broad recognition as the obstinate David against the U.S. Goliath even though few sympathized with the Cuban system.

The abject failure of a recent Pompeo-promoted conference against Iran in Warsaw is a clear indicator that the U.S. strategy of trying (and failing) to build a broad coalition against Iran is undermining U.S. world leadership.

Friendly and hostile nations are now planning many ways to work around the U.S. secondary sanctions levied against them to stop trade with Iran. Russia, China and many other nations that have ever more reluctantly used the American dollar as the world reserve currency have expressed greater interest in getting others to use the euro or their rubles or yuan instead. Bankers and government officials assure us that the dollar will remain a great source of American power long into the future. But cracks are developing.

Our European allies set up a financial facility specifically to avoid the long arm of U.S. sanctions against their trade with Iran. The Instrument in Support of Trade Exchange will allow goods to be bartered between Iranian companies and others without dollars or international banks. It is unclear whether it will be effective, but it is another signal of mounting rejection of the United States and its Treasury Department.

The administration’s determination to restrict Iran’s export of oil to zero is designed to crush Iran’s access to currency and foreign goods. Pushback against these U.S. efforts from states that have traditionally depended on Iranian petroleum has forced the administration to give short-term waivers to eight countries (including China, India and Japan), thereby confusing the world market. For example, the United States has brought significant pressure on Iraq to cease importing refined petroleum products and electricity from Iran. This extra demand on Baghdad has added to the mounting disenchantment of with U.S. confrontational strategies against Iran on Iraqi territory.

The U.S. objective should be to undermine Iran’s posture as the victim of U.S. hostility, repair the isolation into which our policies have put us and put on the table a set of ideas for ending Iran’s flirtation with nuclear weapons.

There is no major conflict in the Middle East that can be solved without Iran’s involvement, most especially the nuclear question. The paradox of Iran’s mounting influence because of the sanctions is real. The way to solve it is to build a multinational, cooperative diplomatic commitment to convince Iran that constructive engagement beats aggressive estrangement any time.

Thomas R. Pickering is former U.S. ambassador to Russia, India, Israel and the U.N., and undersecretary of state.

(c) 2019 The Dallas Morning News

Russia Extends Her Nuclear Reach (Daniel 8)


RUSSIA could “be forced” to deploy missiles capable of firing upon the “whole” of Europe, the Russian Ambassador to Washington has warned.

 

Anatoly Antonov told The Moscow Times on Monday if the US were to position new missiles in the territory of allied European countries, Russia will respond by deploying their own. He said Russia is “concerned” that this eventuality is more likely now the US has withdrawn from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty. Signed in 1987 by the US and USSR, the INF treaty was an arms control treaty that banned intermediate-range land-based ballistic missiles and cruise missiles.

US President Donald Trump withdrew from the treaty on February 1 this year, after accusing Russia of violating its terms.

Russian Ambassador Mr Antonov said: “We are very much concerned that after the decision of the United States to withdraw from the INF treaty, missiles could be deployed on the territory of America’s European allies.“

He added: “We will be forced to deploy our missiles.

“And here you will see that the whole territory of European countries will be covered.”

donald trump vladimir putin

Presidents Trump and Putin have both withdrawn from the INF treaty (Image: GETTY)

Anatoly Antonov russia US

Russian Ambassador to the US Anatoly Antonov spoke on Monday (Image: GETTY)

He was speaking at the Henry L Stimson Centre, a Washington security think tank and reportedly displaying a map of Europe.

Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree formally suspending Russia’s participation in the INF treaty.

He has warned that Russian missiles could be turned to target US sites in Europe as well as “decision-making centres” in the US if their rival were to deploy more missiles in Europe.

Putin said: “We don’t want confrontation, particularly with such a global power as the US.

“I’m saying this clearly and openly. Russia will be forced to deploy weapons that can be used against the decision-making centres that are behind the missiles systems which threaten us.”

 

First Deputy Defence Minister Army General Valery Gerasimov warned that Trump’s withdrawal from the INF treaty could foreshadow him abandoning other arms agreements.

According to Russia’s Tass news agency, he said: “In 2002 the US unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

“Their next step after demonstratively suspending their participation in the INF treaty could be the withdrawal from the New Strategic Arms Reduction treaty.

He added that Trump’s Space Force announcement could lead to an “escalation of the military-political situation and emergence of new threats.”

He said Russia would “respond with reciprocal and asymetrical measures”.

Russia Sends Nukes to Caribbean

FILE – In this file photo taken on Friday, Sept. 12, 2008, Russia’s strategic bomber Tu-160 or White Swan, the largest supersonic bomber in the world, lands at Engels Air Base near Saratov, about 700 kilometers (450 miles) southeast of Moscow, Russia. The Russian military says two of its nuclear-capable strategic bombers have arrived in Venezuela, a deployment that comes amid soaring Russia-U.S. tensions. (AP Photo/Misha Japaridze, File) (AP)

Russian nuclear-capable bombers fly over Caribbean Sea

December 12, 2018 at 3:33 PM CST – Updated December 12 at 3:53 PM

MOSCOW (AP) — The Russian military says two of its nuclear-capable strategic bombers have flown over the Caribbean Sea during a 10-hour training mission.

A pair of Tu-160 bombers arrived at Maiquetia airport outside Caracas Monday. The Russian Defense Ministry said they were escorted by Venezuelan fighter jets during part of the training mission on Wednesday to practice interaction.

The Tu-160 is capable of carrying conventional or nuclear-tipped cruise missiles with a range of 5,500 kilometers (3,410 miles).

The Russian bombers‘ deployment came as Russia-U.S. relations have worsened because of the allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election and other issues.

Russia has bristled at U.S. and its NATO allies deploying troops and weapons near its borders.

The Russian Doomsday Nuclear Plan (Revelation 16)

Russia’s „Dead Hand“ Nuclear Doomsday Weapon is Back

Russia has a knack for developing weapons that—at least on paper—are terrifying: nuclear-powered cruise missiles, robot subs with 100-megaton warheads .

Perhaps the most terrifying was a Cold War doomsday system that would automatically launch missiles—without the need for a human to push the button—during a nuclear attack.

But the system, known as „Perimeter“ or “Dead Hand,” may be back and deadlier than ever.

This comes after the Trump administration announced that the United States is withdrawing from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which eliminated the once-massive American and Russian stockpiles of short- and medium-range missiles. Donald Trump alleges that Russia has violated the treaty by developing and deploying new, prohibited cruise missiles.

This has left Moscow furious and fearful that America will once again, as it did during the Cold War, deploy nuclear missiles in Europe. Because of geographic fate, Russia needs ICBMs launched from Russian soil, or launched from submarines, to strike the continental United States. But shorter-range U.S. missiles based in, say, Germany or Poland could reach the Russian heartland.

Viktor Yesin, who commanded Russia’s Strategic Rocket Forces in the 1990s, spoke of Perimeter/Dead Hand during an interview last month in the Russian newspaper Zvezda [Google English translation here]. Yesin said that if the United States starts deploying intermediate-range missiles in Europe, Russia will consider adopting a doctrine of a preemptive nuclear strike. But he also added this:

Zvezda: „Will we have time to answer if the flight time is reduced to two to three minutes when deploying medium-range missiles near our borders? In this version, all hope is only on Perimeter. And for a retaliatory strike. Or was Perimeter also disassembled for parts?

Yesin: „The Perimeter system is functioning, it has even been improved. But when it works, we will have little left – we can only launch those missiles that will survive after the first attack of the aggressor.“

It is not clear what Yesin meant when he said the system has been “improved,” or even exactly what he meant by “functioning.” Perimeter works by launching specially modified SS-17 ICBMs, which transmit a launch signal to regular nuclear-tipped ICBMs in their silos.

David Hoffman, author of “The Dead Hand,” the definitive book on Perimeter, describes Perimeter in this way:

“Higher authority” would flip the switch if they feared they were under nuclear attack. This was to give the “permission sanction.” Duty officers would rush to their deep underground bunkers, the hardened concrete globes, the shariki. If the permission sanction were given ahead of time, if there were seismic evidence of nuclear strikes hitting the ground, and if all communications were lost, then the duty officers in the bunker could launch the command rockets. If so ordered, the command rockets would zoom across the country, broadcasting the signal “launch” to the intercontinental ballistic missiles. The big missiles would then fly and carry out their retaliatory mission.

There have been cryptic clues over the years that Perimeter still exists. Which illustrates one of the curiosities of this system, which is that the Soviet Union kept its existence secret from the American enemy whom it was supposed to deter.

What is unmistakable is that Perimeter is a fear-based solution. Fear of a U.S. first-strike that would decapitate the Russian leadership before it could give the order to retaliate. Fear that a Russian leader might lose his nerve and not give the order.

And if Russia is now discussing Perimeter publicly, that’s reason for the rest of us to worry.

Michael Peck is a contributing writer for the National Interest. He can be found on Twitter and Facebook.

Image: Creative Commons.