US and Russia Preparing for WW3

Yesterday, it was claimed Vladimir Putin has a secret plan to launch a war on Europe while the rest of the world is distracted. Heinrich Brauss, a retired German lieutenant general, said while NATO’s attention is focussed on issues world leaders have deemed more pressing, the Kremlin is plotting a regional war with member states right under their noses, with the aid of nuclear weapons. President Putin may turn his attention to his six new Russian strategic weapons unveiled in March 2018.

However, there is one that will have the US more hot under the collar than the rest.

The 9M730 Burevestnik is a nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed cruise missile, which officials have claimed has unlimited range and the potential to outmanoeuvre any defence.

Given the missile has an on-board nuclear reactor, the missile is the first of its kind for any nation – largely given the engineering challenges and safety concerns involved

According to US military intelligence, only one of 13 known tests of the missile has been moderately successful.

The missile has successfully been tested

The missile has successfully been tested (Image: YOUTUBE)

During its flight, the nuclear-powered engine reached its design capacity and provided the necessary propulsion

Vladimir Putin

However, the latest test, in January 2019, is believed to have gone smoothly, The Diplomat reports.

Despite this, in his original speech unveiling a suite of new weapons before the Russian Federal Assembly in March 2018, Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed it had already passed a trial two years earlier.

He said: “In late 2017, Russia successfully launched its latest nuclear-powered missile at the Central training ground.

“During its flight, the nuclear-powered engine reached its design capacity and provided the necessary propulsion.”

He additionally claimed that the missile’s range was “unlimited” and that it could “manoeuvre for as long as necessary“.

According to Pavel Podvig, director of the Russian Nuclear Forces Project, this will be a “truly revolutionary weapon”.

While original plans were for the missile to be unveiled in 2020, Putin may look to unleash it earlier.

The Burevestnik was announced alongside a range of new nuclear weapons, including the Avangard, a hypersonic boost-glide reentry vehicle, the Poseidon, an autonomous thermonuclear torpedo, the Sarmat, a new intercontinental-range ballistic missile, and the Kinzhal, an air-launched ballistic missile.

The latest test precedes the US notice of withdrawal from The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) on October 2018, after Russian violations of the agreement.

In response, US President Donald Trump announced the release of the 2019 US Missile Defence Review, calling for the development of new technology to augment existing capabilities again cruise and ballistic missile threats.

Putin said the missile has already been successfully launched

Putin said the missile has already been successfully launched (Image: YOUTUBE)

Tensions are high between the US and Russia

Tensions are high between the US and Russia (Image: GETTY)

Military experts are alarmed by the fact Russia continues to arm itself with super and hypersonic missiles.

The US has also been urged to disarm along with Russia, as tensions between the two nations threaten to replicate the heights seen during the Cold War.

External Representative Federica Mogherini said on behalf of the EU she was deeply concerned and warned of a new arms race.

It comes as the three global superpowers – Russia, the US and China are all battling for domination in unclaimed territory.

Beijing has claimed waters in the South China Sea, Moscow has claimed ice in the Arcticregions and the US is battling for space.

Modernization for the Upcoming Nuclear War (Revelation 16)

Nuclear Proliferation: Global Stockpiles Modernize, New US DOD Doctrine Suggests Dangerous Pivot

Peacekeeper missile system being tested at the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. This is a long exposure photo showing the paths of the multiple re-entry vehicles deployed by the missile. One Peacekeeper can hold up to 10 nuclear warheads, each independently targeted. Were the warheads armed with a nuclear payload, each would carry with it the explosive power of twenty-five Hiroshima-sized weapons which is equivalent to around 400 kilotons of TNT. (Photo: David James Paquin)

The new document is very much conceived as a war-fighting doctrine – not simply a deterrence doctrine, and that’s unsettling.”

The total global quantity of nuclear warheads fell in a comparison of data from 2019 to 2018. However, while the stockpile is smaller, it is more advanced as countries continue to modernize and build more sophisticated stockpiles, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s (SIPRI) latest report. The SIPRI report comes just weeks after a startling new nuclear doctrine released by the U.S. Department of Defense appears to show the U.S. is more willing to launch nuclear strikes.

Nuclear Proliferation by the Numbers

At the start of 2019, nine countries – Russia, the U.K., the U.S, France, India, China, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea – jointly had 13,865 nuclear warheads, 600 less than were reported in early 2018. The number of global warheads has dropped drastically since the signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1980 when there were around 70,000 nuclear warheads worldwide.

Only the U.S. and Russia decreased their warhead inventory, by 265 and 350 respectively, according to the report. All other countries maintained or increased their inventories.

Despite the reduction, the report noted, “the pace of their reductions has slowed compared with a decade ago.” Additionally, neither Russia nor the U.S., which account for 90 percent of global nuclear weapons, has committed to making further negotiated reductions in their respective nuclear forces.

“At the same time, both Russia and the USA have extensive and expensive programs underway to replace and modernize their nuclear warheads, missile and aircraft delivery systems, and nuclear weapon production facilities,” the report added.

SIPRI research showed that Russia has the most warheads with 6,500, followed by the U.S. in second with 6,185. Both nuclear powerhouses have seen a decline in their number of warheads since the implementation of the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (also known as the New START) in 2010.

New START Set to Expire

Raising extreme concern, however, is the fact that there are no talks between related parties to extend the New START, which expires in 2021.

“There are currently no discussions about extending New START or negotiating a follow-on treaty,” Shannon Kile, director of SIPRI’s Nuclear Disarmament, Arms Control, and Nonproliferation Program, told Radio Free Europe.

“The prospects for a continuing negotiated reduction of Russian and U.S. nuclear forces appears increasingly unlikely given the political and military differences between the two countries,” he added.

Both Russia and the U.S. are modernizing their weaponry. The former is developing a weapon that can infiltrate America’s anti-missile shield. While Washington is trying to manufacture a short-range tactical nuclear arsenal to counter perceived Moscow threats. The U.S. alleges Russia “has developed and deployed a mobile ground-launched cruise missile with a flight range prohibited under the (INF) treaty,” according to the SIPRI report.

Pakistan, India and China Nuclear Proliferation

According to the SIPRI report released in June of last year, Pakistan currently houses 140-150 nuclear warheads while its neighbor India possesses 130-140.

Even though Pakistan has a more significant number of warheads, India is believed to have more modernized equipment and an advanced defense system which can launch retaliatory attacks.

India and Pakistan have been engaged in a long-term conflict over the region of Kashmir. Both countries are not signatories of the NPT and openly flaunt their nuclear arsenals.

A joint study from Rutgers University, the University of Colorado-Boulder and the University of California in 2007 calculated that if a war between India and Pakistan took place and involved 100 warheads, then 21 million lives would be lost.

China is extremely secretive about its nuclear arsenal but SIPRI reports estimate that currently it has 290 warheads up from 280 in January of 2018 and 270 the year before that. However, a 2017 National Institute for Public Policy Report said, “The Obama Administration estimated that China has several hundred nuclear weapons, but other estimates place the number much higher.”

A SIPRI report at the end of April this year revealed that Chinese and U.S. military spending in 2018 accounted for more than 60 percent of global military expenditures.

US Nuclear Doctrine Pivot

The Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine USS Rhode Island (SSBN 740) returns to Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay after three months at sea, March 20, 2013. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class James Kimber/Released)

On June 11, the Pentagon shockingly released a secretive file describing its basic principles for planning, carrying out, and assessing nuclear operations – the first such doctrine in 14 years. The DoD later deleted the document, titled Nuclear Operations, but Steven Aftergood, an activist at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), downloaded the paper before its removal and made it publicly available on the FAS website.

Arms control experts worry the document reflects a change in U.S. policy towards fighting and using nuclear weapons.

As Aftergood told the Guardian: “That kind of thinking itself can be hazardous. It can make that sort of eventuality more likely instead of deterring it.  The new document is very much conceived as a war-fighting doctrine – not simply a deterrence doctrine, and that’s unsettling.”

“Using nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability,” the joint chiefs’ document says. “Specifically, the use of a nuclear weapon will fundamentally change the scope of a battle and create conditions that affect how commanders will prevail in conflict.”

According to the Guardian, the document quotes controversial cold war theorist Herman Kahn who argued that nuclear war was “winnable.”

Kahn’s quote, “My guess is that nuclear weapons will be used sometime in the next hundred years, but that their use is much more likely to be small and limited than widespread and unconstrained,” begins a chapter on nuclear planning and targeting.

Another expert claimed that the Pentagon’s sudden decision to delete the doctrine after posting it showed a lack of coherent strategy amid Washington’s withdrawal from two nuclear deals: the JCPOA signed with Iran in 2015 and the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) signed with Russia in 1987.

“Posting a document about nuclear operations and then promptly deleting it shows a lack of messaging discipline and a lack of strategy. Further, at a time of rising nuclear tensions, casually postulating about the potential upsides of a nuclear attack is obtuse in the extreme, “ Alexandra Bell, senior policy director at the Centre for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, told the Guardian.

The release of the DoD nuclear doctrine comes following the Department of Defense’s legislative-mandated 2018 Nuclear Posture Review which was widely condemned for calling for a “modern” nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile, as LawFare reported.

In 2010, under the Obama administration, the Nuclear Posture Review announced the retirement of the previous nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile.

Germany, Iran, and Russia slammed the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review for recommending the expansion of the Pentagon’s nuclear arsenal. One of the most shocking parts of the Review was the suggestion that F-35 fighter jets expand their capabilities to firing nuclear weapons.

The Reason For Nuclear Modernization

A Trident II D5 missile is test-launched from the Ohio-class US Navy ballistic missile submarine USS Nebraska. © Reuters / US Navy

US wants low-yield nukes to blackmail dissident countries, not to deter Russia – Moscow

Published time: 22 Jun, 2019 20:02

US generals are well aware that there’s no way of limiting the use of nuclear weapons in a war between superpowers, so the claim that some “low-yield” nukes are needed to match Russia is an outright lie, the Foreign Ministry said.

Moscow’s statement comes in response to the vice-chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Paul Selva, who vehemently promoted the modification of the warheads on Trident missiles, which are carried on Ohio-class submarines, in order for them to be able to carry low-yield nuclear weapons.

Selva argued that the US will be put in a difficult situation if Russia decides to hit an American city with a low-yield nuclear weapon. “The US doctrine says it will respond in kind, but without a low-yield nuclear weapon in its inventory, responding in kind means it will have to respond with a high-yield nuclear weapon,” supposedly provoking and all-out nuclear war.

But the Russian Foreign Ministry on Saturday blasted the general’s claims as “disingenuous” and pointed out that the use of low-yield nuclear weapons wasn’t even a part of Russia’s military doctrine.

An obvious deception is also the idea that it’s possible to ‘limit’ the use of nuclear weapons in a clash between two nuclear powers.

The yield of an incoming enemy warhead can only be determined after it detonates and the Americans are well aware of that, the ministry said in a statement.

“Therefore, any launch of a strategic nuclear carrier aimed at Russian territory… regardless of the capacity of its warhead, will be treated as an aggression with the use of nuclear weapons, and met with an appropriate response.”

US must show evidence if it wants to claim Russia breached nuke test treaty – Moscow

American attempts to turn nukes into “battlefield weapons” have nothing to do with Russia, Moscow insisted.

It seems Washington wouldn’t mind making low-yield warheads a means of blackmailing the countries, who oppose American dictates.

The US returning to its views “from 60 years ago,” when they believed that a “limited nuclear war” was acceptable and winnable, is a source of serious concerns, the Foreign Ministry said, adding that “this is apparently linked to the growing signs of Washington’s desire to refuse its obligations under the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).”

CTBT, which forbids nuclear explosions in all environments, was adopted at the UN General Assembly in 1996. However, the treaty has never gone into force, due to not being ratified by over a dozen countries, including the US.

How Obama and Clinton have Sped up the Bowls of Wrath (Revelation 16)

Image result for obama hillary and bill clinton

Reckless Obama-Clinton uranium deal

I got a good chuckle out of Jim Sathe’s reply to my criticism of Hillary Clinton where he stated that she “was the most qualified person to ever be nominated for the presidency.”

Really?

According to Sathe, her credentials are greater than Washington, Lincoln, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan, etc.

Seriously?

Another major flaw from Hillary was the so-called “Uranium One” deal, which took place while she was Secretary of State in the Obama Administration. Under the agreement, Russia has access to approximately 20 percent of our uranium supply.

Ask any Idaho National Laboratory scientist or researcher and they’ll tell you that uranium is an important material. Meanwhile, Obama and Clinton carelessly allowed Russians to get ahold of a portion of our strategic uranium supply.

Day after day, Democrats accuse President Trump of collusion with the Russians even though the Mueller Report could not cite any specific evidence. The irony here is that the Obama-Clinton uranium deal is a very serious case of collusion with Russian leaders.

I have said this before and I’ll say it one more time: Trump is a big-mouth New Yorker from Queens who sometimes lacks diplomacy laced with occasional obscenities. I do not like him when he talks that way, but Trump’s commonsense, executive and organizational skills far outweigh his loose tongue.

Now, it’s time for local Idaho Democrats, and their national peers, to own up to their leaders’ flaws or are they going to continue to live in the narrow realm of acute liberal politics?

Bob Ziel

The Iran horn quadruples production of enriched uranium

Reports: Iran quadruples production of enriched uranium

(Newser) – Iran quadrupled its uranium-enrichment production capacity amid tensions with the US over Tehran’s atomic program, nuclear officials said Monday, just after President Trump and Iran’s foreign minister traded threats and taunts on Twitter. Iranian officials made a point to stress that the uranium would be enriched only to the 3.67% limit set under the 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, making it usable for a power plant but far below what’s needed for an atomic weapon, the AP reports. But by increasing production, Iran soon will go beyond the stockpile limitations set by the accord. Tehran has set a July 7 deadline for Europe to come up with new terms for the deal, or it will enrich closer to weapons-grade levels in a Middle East already on edge. The Trump administration has deployed bombers and an aircraft carrier to the region over still-unspecified threats from Iran.

Already this month, officials in the United Arab Emirates alleged that four oil tankers were damaged in a sabotage attack; Yemeni rebels allied with Iran launched a drone attack on an oil pipeline in Saudi Arabia; and US diplomats relayed a warning that commercial airlines could be misidentified by Iran and attacked, something dismissed by Tehran. A rocket landed Sunday near the US Embassy in the Green Zone of Iraq’s capital of Baghdad, days after nonessential US staff were ordered to evacuate from diplomatic posts in the country. The Iranian enrichment announcement came after local journalists traveled to Natanz in central Iran, the country’s underground enrichment facility. There, an unidentified nuclear scientist gave a statement with a surgical cap and a mask covering most of his face. The state-run IRNA news agency later quoted Behrouz Kamalvandi, the spokesman of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, as acknowledging that capacity had been quadrupled.

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.

Iran to Display Its Nuclear Advances

Iran Promises to Unveil 100+ ‚Nuclear Achievements‘ to ‚Send Message to Enemies‘

Tehran is prohibited from developing nuclear technology for military uses under the terms of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal, which Iran remains committed to despite the US‘ decision to unilaterally withdraw from the treaty last May.

Iran will unveil 112 „very important“ achievements in nuclear technology next month, Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran (AEOI) spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi has announced.

„The unveiling of these achievements under the country’s current circumstances will convey this message to the US and those enemies of Iran – that the Iranian nation has resisted economic sanctions and has turned threats into opportunities,“ Kamalvandi said, speaking to reporters in Tehran on Saturday.

According to the official, the achievements will include new homegrown breakthroughs in power plant, fuel cycle, laser, exploration and other technologies.

© Flickr/ Bastian

US to Face ‚Heaviest Defeat in History‘ if Iran Mobilizes Resources, Khamenei Says

Kamalvandi promised that the technologies would be presented on 9 April on National Nuclear Technology Day, an annual event celebrating the Middle Eastern country’s achievements in the field of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Last year’s ceremony saw the unveiling of 83 homegrown technologies.

Kamalvandi accused the United States of waging an „economic war“ against Iran, saying that Washington was putting „pressure on all of its allies and non-allies to stop their economic relations with Iran.“

„However, the Iranian nation will strongly pass this phase as well,“ Kamalvandi said, saying that Iran would need to make use of its capabilities to counter and neutralise US pressure.

The official’s remarks echoed sentiment expressed by Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei last week, with Khamenei calling on Iranians to engage in a „maximum mobilisation“ to withstand „enemies‘ hostile pressures“ and defeat US sanctions.

US Think Tank Claims Iran’s Fordow Nuclear Facility Older Than We Think

Under the 2015 JCPOA agreement, Iran is obliged not to engage in the development of nuclear technologies for military use, with the deal’s other signatories, including the United States, promising to provide sanctions relief in exchange. Iran is permitted to develop nuclear tech for peaceful purposes, however, which Tehran seeking to use such technology to ween the domestic economy off of oil and gas and to allow more of its energy resources to be sold on the global market.

President Trump unilaterally withdrew the US from the JCPOA in May 2018, prompting the treaty’s other signatories, including Russia, China and its European signatories, to scramble to try to save it. These efforts have focused on measures to bypass stringent US sanctions, as well as US threats to bring Iranian oil exports down „to zero.“

Environmentalist Recognizing the Bowls of Wrath? (Revelation 16)


Despite their incessant drumbeat about global warming, mainstream media knows climate doomsday is not imminent and are probably uncomfortable when doomsayers like Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) say, “The world will end in 12 years” unless we do something, drastic, now.But they are well aware that political catastrophes could cause much greater harm to humanity—not in the far distant future, but within months, weeks, or even a single day.That’s why climate change and the “Green New Deal” finally disappeared from headlines this week, trumped by news of more immediate threats.The Return of Nuclear War as an Imminent Threat

With the end of the Cold War, the risk of nuclear war has receded from many people’s fears. Certainly the likelihood of a major nuclear exchange between the United States and the Soviet Union, or now Russia, has declined since the nervous 1960s and 1970s.

But the threat is reviving in the form of rogue nuclear states.

North Korea is the most notorious. President Donald Trump’s second meeting with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, which ended with no agreement when Trump refused Kim’s demand that sanctions be lifted, occupied headlines worldwide. Even climate-alarmist CNN abandoned climate change headlines to focus on the historic meeting in Vietnam.

Meanwhile, two weeks ago, India and Pakistan were on the verge of war. The reason? A surgical strike by India’s Air Force on a terrorist camp inside Pakistan, and Pakistan’s response to it.

As many as 16 Indian Air Force fighter jets using 2200 pounds of laser-guided bombs in a 30-minute air raid demolished the camp. It was the same camp (not far from the infamous Abbottabad, where American forces found and killed Osama Bin Laden) from which terrorists launched an attack earlier in February in Jammu & Kashmir, killing around 40 Indian paramilitary forces.

In response, Pakistani fighter jets engaged in air combat with Indian fighters. One jet from each country was shot down. The Indian pilot was captured by Pakistan’s army after he was ejected. Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan told his parliament on Thursday that the pilot would be released as a “peace gesture.”

But tensions remained high. Pakistan closed its entire airspace to commercial traffic. India closed its northern airspace temporarily.Thousands of flights were affected worldwide. Thai Airways cancelled most of its overnight flights to Europe, and all flights normally routed through Pakistani airspace were re-routed.

Both India and Pakistan are nuclear armed, and with volatile leadership in both states, the dangers from a possible nuclear conflict far exceed those touted by climate fear mongers at the United Nations and the leftist environmentalists who support them.

Political Bombshells Overshadow Climate Alarm

While American media focused on testimony by Michael Cohen, headed for prison for lying to Congress, former Canadian Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould dropped what could be the biggest bombshell in Canadian political history—with a possible major impact on Canadian climate and energy policy.

The Star reported, “Wilson-Raybould said she was the target of ‘veiled threats‘ and a ‘consistent and sustained’ effort by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his senior officials to politically interfere in criminal charges against [engineering company] SNC-Lavalin,” which serves the oil and gas, nuclear, mining and metallurgical, and clean power industries.

If confirmed, this could be a criminal offense. Opposition party leader Andrew Scheer called for an immediate investigation and formally asked Trudeau to resign. The scandal could become a deciding factor in Canada’s upcoming election, joining many Canadians’s dislike for carbon taxes Trudeau’s party has imposed.

Across the Atlantic, Brexit has dominated news in Europe, and its environmental aspects have received little to no coverage compared with that given to its economic and developmental aspects.

There are endless examples from around the world of people beginning to realize the futility of climate alarmism and showing increasing concern for more serious matters like domestic tax rates, ethical leadership, energy, and economic development.

Nonetheless, expect the mainstream media to return to their obsession with climate alarmism. They’ve made it a habit.

Vijay Jayaraj (M.Sc., Environmental Science, University of East Anglia, England), Research Contributor for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, lives in Chennai, India.

Bolton Prepares Babylon the Great For War With Iran

John Bolton is trying to steer Trump and the US into another Mideast war. Don’t let him.

I thought neocons were gone, but the most bombastic of them all has Trump’s ear. Let’s learn from Iraq mistakes and avoid a devastating war with Iran.

Michael Morford  |  Opinion contributor 9:41 a.m. MST Mar. 7, 2019

I was surprised to see my commanding general in the conference room that December 2001 day. Almost immediately following 9/11, he had been in Kuwait at Camp Doha overseeing the logistics of the Afghanistan War efforts alongside my direct commander and a small team from our Theater Support Command. Now, a mere two months later, he was back.

I became even more surprised when he sent word to finish the Operations Plan for Central Command, a project we had been developing and honing for several years. This plan was essentially the go-to-war strategy for the United States against Iraq. Although we were only weeks removed from the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, we knew the anti-U.S. terrorists involved were in Afghanistan, not Iraq. We also knew that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis.

I wasn’t sure what invading Iraq had to do with our Global War on Terror. It did not seem to be about national security; after all, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had been successfully contained for  more than a decade. However, I was just an Army captain. If our two-star commanding general said that’s what we were doing, then that’s what we were doing

We now know the truth behind the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It had very little if anything to do with the 9/11 attacks and everything to do with the hubris of men. In the Bush administration, Vice President Dick Cheney, Undersecretary of State John Bolton and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz were three of the leading neoconservative architects in the late 1990s. What they cared about was spreading their vision of a new world order. These delusions of grandeur were their personal goals, and they were guiding our nation’s strategic policies.

I heard echoes of that era during the recent Middle East Conference in Warsaw. Remarks by Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and national security adviser John Bolton sounded eerily similar to the run-up to the 2003 Iraq invasion. And I have the same uneasy feeling now that I had then.

Bolton was a driving force in 2002, when he was undersecretary of State for arms control. He insisted on access to raw intelligence data before it had been evaluated, and he also insisted that it confirmed Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. „The end of the story is clear here,“ he said in a BBC debate. „And if Saddam Hussein does not cooperate, we have made it clear this is the last chance for him.”

Neocons are back and making same mistakes

These same statements and patterns are in front of our eyes today. One could hear the sound of Bolton’s new war drum in 2007 when he said, “Ultimately, the only thing that will stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons is regime change in Tehran.”

That clamor has only intensified. “President Trump told me that if Iran does anything at all to the negative, they will pay a price like few countries have ever paid,” Bolton said last July. During the Warsaw event, he released a short video with a not-so-veiled threat to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei: “I don’t think you’ll have many more anniversaries to enjoy.”

Until recently, I believed that the neocons had become a footnote in America’s history — that the multiple threats to our national security that arose as a result of failed foreign policy had shown our nation and our leaders the errors of the neocon approach. I was wrong.

But Bolton, the most bombastic of that group, is now whispering in President Donald Trump’s ear, and the United States is heading down a familiar path. In Trump, Bolton has found someone focused not on national security but on dismantling presidential actions that preceded his term. Trump is not interested in the nation of Iran, the Iranian people or any Iranian threat. He merely abhors former President Barack Obama and the  Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, more commonly known as the Iranian nuclear deal that the Obama administration negotiated.

Bolton is trying to repeat his 2003 role as a worldview maker, and in Trump he has a receptive commander in chief. The difference this time, however, is that there is no 9/11 for political cover. And even more troubling, Iraq is no Iran.

Learn from history, don’t repeat it

In geographic and demographics consideration, Iraq has just more than  40 million citizens; Iran has more than  80 million. Iraq is close to  169,000 square miles, a bit larger than  California. Iran is almost  four times that size. Iraq has struggled with decades of internal sectarian strife between the Sunni and Shiite Muslim sects. In Iran, up to 95 percent of its citizens are Shiite, which translates to minimal internal distraction.

Experts estimate that Iraq’s army, 1 million troops strong during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, was down to about  40 percent of that total, or 400,000, in 2003. Iran now has about  550,000 active military personnel and is armed with newer and better weapons. The U.S. military was fresh and itching for a fight in 2003. Now, after 18 years of war since 9/11, our readiness levels are ill-equipped to handle anything more than a protracted skirmish in a new region. Plus, where the Bush administration developed a coalition of international support for invading Iraq, the Trump administration has spent two years intentionally fracturing our relationships across the world.

From Sun Tzu’s „The Art of War“ to Carl von Clausewitz’s „On War,“ decision-makers have been taught that they need “the will of the people” to go to war. Currently, the political and societal environment of Iran meets this requirement. In the United States, there is none.

These differences between Iraq and Iran are not minor; the United States would be fighting not a single house cat but a pride of mountain lions. It is imperative that those in Washington who understand national security thwart this absurd direction in which John Bolton is trying to steer President Trump and America. We should learn from our mistakes, not willingly repeat them.

Michael Morford, a former Army captain, is a Security Fellow with the Truman National Security Project. He is also president of VertiPrime Aerospace Manufacturing, a service disabled veteran-owned small business. The views expressed here are his own.

The Growing Risk of Nuclear War

An unsettled year in nuclear weapons

By John Mecklin, December 24, 2018

In 2018, the world’s arms control architecture teetered on the brink of collapse as the United States withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and threatened withdrawal from the landmark Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Negotiations between the United States and North Korea over Pyongyang’s nuclear program stalled. And Hawaii went through 38 dreadful minutes of believing it was under nuclear missile attack.

The Bulletin’s coverage of these events and many other aspects of the modern nuclear dilemma was truly comprehensive last year. What follows, then, is not a “best of” list, per se, but eight prime examples from the remarkably consistent and excellent offerings our expert authors provided throughout the year. I thank and applaud them all.

Facing nuclear reality, 35 years after The Day After

A special report by Dawn Stover

A comprehensive look at the meaning, in today’s world, of a landmark TV movie, including an interview with Ted Koppel, who led an expert panel discussion after the airing of a film that changed world nuclear history.

Dawn of a new Armageddon

By Cynthia Lazaroff

 The truly gripping account of 38 minutes of chaos that ensued after Hawaii received an all-too-believable warning that it was under what appeared to be a nuclear missile attack.

 

George H.W. Bush worked toward a soft nuclear landing for the dissolving Soviet Union

By Siegfried S. Hecker

How the late president aided the effort to secure the Soviet Union’s nuclear material and scientists as the USSR dissolved.

Expert comment: The INF and the future of arms control

By John Mecklin

A collection of extraordinary experts assesses the import of the Trump administration’s declared interest in leaving the landmark Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, a foundation of the world’s arms control regime.

Robert Oppenheimer: The myth and the mystery

By Richard Rhodes

The Pulitzer Prize-winning author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb explains, in brilliant detail, the reality of J. Robert Oppenheimer, in contrast with his portrayal in the opera Dr. Atomic.

 

Under siege: Safety in the nuclear weapons complex

By Robert Alvarez

One of the premier experts on the US nuclear weapons complex explores an Energy Department attack on the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, which oversees and reports on safety practices in the complex.

Hiroshima & Nagasaki

A collection

Through the decades, the Bulletin has been home to distinguished analysis of the US atomic bombing of two Japanese cities at the end of World War II. This collection provides an authoritative starting point for anyone interested in understanding the lasting meaning of those attacks.