We will have a mirror site at http://nunezreport.wordpress.com in case we are censored, Please save the link

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

"Countdown To The End": EU Officials Say Europe Is "Going Down The Drain"

Image result for money on the drain
Back in September, when Berlin and Brussels were busy devising a quota plan to settle the millions of Mid-East asylum seekers flooding into the country, Slovakia said that if Germany called for financial penalties against countries unwilling to accommodate their “share” of migrants, it would be “the end of the EU.”
That might have seemed hyperbolic at the time, but since then, the situation has spiraled out of control. Border fences have been erected, refugee camps are overflowing, and anti-migrant sentiment is running high after a series of reported sexual assaults on New Year’s Eve sparked a bloc-wide scandal.
In a testament to just how tense things have become, Austria suspended Schengen on Saturday as new rules came into effect for those seeking to traverse the country on the way north.  “Anyone who arrives at our border is subject to control,” Chancellor Werner Faymann said. “If the EU does not manage to secure the external borders, Schengen as a whole is put into question... Then each country must control its national borders,” he added, before warning that if the EU could not better control its external borders “the whole EU [will be] in question.
Indeed, the idea that the worsening migrant crisis could well bring an end to the EU has made its way out of Eurosceptic circles and into discussions between the bloc's top diplomats and officials.
"The Germans, founders of the postwar union, shut their borders to refugees in a bid for political survival by the chancellor who let in a million migrants," Reuters wrote on Sunday, describing a hypothetical European endgame. "And then -- why not? -- they decide to revive the Deutschmark while they're at it." 
Both Angela Merkel and Jean-Claude Juncker were out last week with stark warnings about the prospects for the union's survival in the face of widespread disagreement among member countries regarding how to handle the influx of asylum seekers. Europe is now "vulnerable" Merkel admitted, before saying the fate of the euro is "directly linked" to how the bloc handles the refugee crisis."Nobody should act as though you can have a common currency without being able to cross borders reasonably easily," the Chancellor, whose ratings have slipped amid the migrant debate, said at a business event in Mainz.
Juncker's assessment was more dire. Europe "is on its last chance" he warned, before saying he hopes this isn't "the beginning of the end." 
"Some see that as mere scare tactics aimed at fellow Europeans by leaders with too much to lose from an EU collapse," Reuters continues. "[But] empty threat or no, with efforts to engage Turkey's help showing little sign yet of preventing migrants reaching Greek beaches, German and EU officials are warning that without a sharp drop in arrivals or a change of heart in other EU states to relieve Berlin of the lonely task of housing refugees, Germany could shut its doors, sparking wider crisis this spring."
Make no mistake, were Germany to stop accepting refugees, a dangerous chain of events would unfold just as warmer weather makes the journey more appealing for refugees. Arrivals have not slowed during the winter months, a senior conservative German lawmaker said. "You can only imagine what happens when the weather improves." If Germany's open-door slams shut in the spring, millions of asylum seekers would be stuck along the Balkan route where bottlenecks led to border clashes between Hungarian riot police and migrants last year. 
Croatia, Serbia, and Slovenia are in no position to accommodate the influx. Indeed, Slovenian officials have long said that the only reason the tiny country has been able to cope is because just as many migrants leave each day on their way to Germany and Austria as enter via Croatia. On Monday, Slovenian PM Miro Cerar said that "if Germany or Austria adopt certain measures for stricter controls then of course we will adopt similar strict measures with our southern border with Croatia."
"Millions, and I stress millions of migrants from Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Algeria, Morocco are ready to enter the EU once the weather improves in the coming months," he cautioned.
The EU Commission sought to play down Austria's implementation of border controls, saying it's "nothing out of the ordinary." Of course any emergency measure is "out of the ordinary" by definition. Border checks will continue until at least February. 
Meanwhile, each passing day seems to present a new reason for Europeans to become increasingly disaffected with officials' handling of the crisis. Two days ago for instance, German FinMin Wolfgang Schaeuble proposed a bloc-wide petrol tax to fund the cost of securing the EU's external borders. While Europeans will surely support the notion that the EU needs to better secure the chokepoints through which the majority of asylum seekers enter, migrants will now be equated with higher prices as the pump just as they are becoming synonymous with terror and sexual assaults.
Ultimately, it appears that Germany is beginning to crack. While Merkel has been careful to preserve the "yes we can" narrative, reality is setting in and the cold facts suggest that Europe simply cannot accommodate the people flows. It now appears that it is not a matter of "if" but rather "when" the Iron Chancellor finally gives in and shuts the doors, and on that note, we'll close with two quotes from German and EU officials who spoke to Reuters "in private."
"We have until March, the summer maybe, for a European solution. Then Schengen goes down the drain."

"There is a big risk that Germany closes. From that, no Schengen ... There is a risk that February could start a countdown to the end."

Credit to Zero Hedge

Prime Minister Netanyahu: “We Will Not Allow Iran To Have Nuclear Weapons”

Image result for “We Will Not Allow Iran To Have Nuclear Weapons”

After the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stated on Saturday that Iran has made all the necessary steps to fully implement the international nuclear agreement with the P5 +1 countries, both the US and EU removed previously imposed sanctions on Iran.

During a meeting with his cabinet earlier this morning, Prime Minister Netanyahu made it clear that Israel would still continue to closely monitor Iran’s activities.

“Pursuant to the nuclear agreement with Iran, Israel will continue to monitor all international violations by Iran including the nuclear deal, the agreement on ballistic missiles and terrorism,” said Israel’s Prime Minister.

“Israel’s policy was and continues to remain exactly as it was, not to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons,” added Netanyahu.

The Israeli prime minister also spoke of the need for the international community to reenact sanctions against Iran in light of any action by Iran that violates the international agreement on its nuclear enrichment program.

“The international community must impose severe, hard sanctions for each violation,” stressed Israel’s Prime Minister. “If it had not been for our efforts to move ahead with the sanctions and to stop Iran’s nuclear program, then Iran would have already had nuclear weapons.”

A “snapback” provision in the Iran nuclear agreement allows for the P5+1 countries to automatically re-impose sanctions on Iran in response to any Iranian violation of the nuclear agreement. However, critics doubt the usefulness of such a provision, arguing that the “snapback” process is both convoluted and vague.

Netanyahu also addressed terror threats emanating from Iran’s continued aggression in the region.

“What is clear is that Iran will now have more means to turn to its terrorist activity and aggression in the region and the world, and Israel is prepared to handle any threat,” Netanyahu stated.

Credit to Jewishpress.com
Jonathan Benedek

Why America Can’t Win WW III-This Is Your Last Chance To Get Prepared

If guerilla warfare were our only viable option to survive a while longer as a nation, these gentelmen underscore the importance of why a nation should never surrender its guns.
The longer the Bundy crisis goes on, the farther from their goals are the establishment and their globalist puppeteers.
Many in the know, believe America has two options when it comes to winning a world war against China and Russia. Also, what most agree on is the fact that America cannot win a conventional war against either power, or both.
Ammon Bundy needs to be supported if no other reason than he is forestalling the globalist plans to brutally take down this planet.
The US is a deadman walking. IF Ammon Bundy is cast aside, we will lose our rights. Eventually, we will be forced into WWIII and most of us, 90%, will lose our lives.

Why the United States Cannot Win a Conventional War Against Russia and China

Every military source I speak with says the same thing when it comes to the United States having any chance to win World War III. First, the war cannot be conventional for reasons that will become clear later in this article. Second, in order for the United States to win such a war, the conflict would have to be a well-coordinated nuclear attack which would combine the United States nuclear fire power derived from the three sources: (1) Deep space platforms; (2) Both hardened silos and mobile missile launcher that are land based; and, (3) A devastating attack from the entire submarine fleet. There is a fourth factor to consider and that is the hope that America’s nuclear first strike destroyed enough of the enemies ICBM’s and nuclear armed submarines, that our HAARP like defenses can knock down enough incoming ICBM’s to make any real difference. I have learned from my military sources, that they believe that this is possible, but not likely with Obama serving as the Commander-In-Chief.
The coming war, in whatever form it will take, will largely feature what pundits call the BRIC nations and the USA and her allies. Each side of this coming conflict possesses widely divergent military strengths, weaknesses and strategies and this article will explore the relative strengths and weaknesses.

The US Is Dependent On a Devastating First Strike Attack

In addition to a nuclear first strike, the United States and her allies have a decided advantage of quick strike, long range battlefield capabilities because of superior aircraft and carrier strike capabilities. The Chinese have developed and are close to making operation, carrier-busting weapons platforms. A major advantage enjoyed by the US is about to be totally negated by an advancement in Chinese technology.
On the other hand, the BRIC nations have an advantage with manpower, rocket propelled weapons and tanks. The USA and her allies cannot win a sustained battlefield campaign because of the attrition factor. Yes, America enjoys the advantage in the air, yet bombing has always proven to be a means to an end, never to be an offensive strategy. In conventional war, it always comes down to the boots on the ground. At the end of the day, America will be dependent on a successful nuclear first strike if it has any hope of prevailing in a World War III scenario.
The Chinese have demonstrated the ability to negate the United States Navy’s technological advantage through the use of killer satellites. Therefore, the entire US strategy is predicated on a first strike before the Chinese can destroy the majority of the eyes and ears of the US military, namely, its superior satellite capabilities in which the US forces can quickly locate and destroy the enemy with its smart weapons before the enemy knows what hit them.

Nuclear Submarines Are the “X Factor”

America’s “X Factor”.
The BRICS cannot run or hide from this devastating weapon.
The BRICS cannot run or hide from this devastating weapon.

Nuclear submarines are often looked at as the great equalizer. No matter who is winning on the ground, in the air and on the surface of the oceans, the submarine force has the capability to reign down unimaginable destruction upon their enemy. In the case of submarines, the US and her allies are matched by their BRIC counterparts. Most older subs carry eight nuclear missiles, each capable of destroying a major city. The newer submarines can carry a payload of 16 or more missiles. The US, at the moment, has superior evasive techniques and therefore, would presumably survive sub-killer strategies with greater frequency that their BRIC adversaries. Therefore, the BRIC nations might win every land battle, however, the victorious BRIC nations would not have many of its cities left to return to in the case that the war become a nuclear war. The US submarines are, in effect, a formidable doomsday weapon. My military sources state that although Russia has improved its nuclear submarine force, it still has not sufficiently closed the gap to offset this American advantage. However, that is quickly changing with advances in Russian and Chinese technology. For a short time, in particular, the Chinese have not yet been able to fully integrate their advancements into a coordinated and operational manner. That will soon change and time is not on America’s side.

The Trigger Event

I have been writing for three years that the trigger event would occur in Syria and recent events, with Russia engaging in military attacks upon the US backed ISIS and other Syria rebel forces, are moving the world in the ultimate direction of World War III. The absolutely insane John McCain has called for the shooting down of Russian planes in Syria. How long can it be until, we are engaged in full combat with the Russians? Or, how long will it be until Russia and Israel face off in the same geogrpahic area? Thank God for our submarine fleet and our Deep Space Platform weapons. I have come to believe that this is all that separates us from being totally subjugated. And thank God to the submarine fleet that refuses to surrender their nuclear launch codes to Obama no matter how many of its officers are fired.
Devastating first strike capability.
Devastating first strike capability.

Command and Control of first strike capability.

The Tale of the Tape: The BRICS vs. the USA and Her Allies


   BRIC Nations Conventional Military Strength

When one compares the relative strengths of both sides, the BRICS hold a decided advantage in any conventional conflict. And the difference is growing more significant by the day as Obama is reducing the size of the US military to pre-World War II levels while our enemies are increasing both their equipment and troop strength.

Most Likely to Fight

 Country          Men      Planes       Tanks      Carriers  Subs    Rockets
Russia      766,000      3,082        1,550         1                 62          3,781
China    2,825,000     2,788          9,150         1                69          1,770
India     1,325,000     1,785          3,569          2                17            292
Total  4,916, 000  7,655                14,269       4         148      5,843
Please note that this does not contain the Latin American contingent of nations that Putin is presently arming to fight the US.
(NOTE: The forces of North Korea would be absorbed by China   
 Ukraine and Belarus have a combined military strength of 200,000 men. However, because of recent events, the Ukraine forces may be compromised) 

Allied Nations Conventional Military Strength

Country  Men      Planes     Tanks   Carriers    Subs    Missiles  
US/Allies  3,345,    20,475       8,325          13           141         2,700
This chart assumes NATO will hold together.
With the BRICS conventional forces continuing to grow and the allies forces continuing to shrink, it is very clear that the US cannot win a conventional war of attrition.


The downside of a nuclear first strike by the United States would be that the US would also take a significant beating as Russian and probable Chinese and Indian nuclear forces would have time to retaliate. However, the US submarines could do much of the damage, because of geographical proximity, before our enemies could get many of their missles off the launching pads. If the deep space platform missiles were successful along with the “Rods from God” in targeting Russian and Chinese nuclear submarines, the United States could win a decisive victory. With regard to the “Rods from God”, does anyone think that the recent destruction of the four chemical plants in China was truly an accident?
There is one very disturbing variable to consider, even in an American nuclear first strike, without hardening our power grid infrastructure against an EMP attack, the US could lose its grid and along with it, 90% of the people within two years, according to the Naval War College. Obama, and Bush before him, have left America very vulnerable in this area.
Does Obama show any signs of protecting the power grid? Does he show any signs of standing up to Russian incursions into Syria? It is not likely that a well-coordinated and simultaneous attack could be launched without the leadership of the DOD which is under the control of the President, who shows no sign of mounting a resistance. With this type of leadership, America will be thrust into a World War of attrition which we will lose and lose badly.
Meanwhile, the psychopathic bankers who have perpetuated this scenario will be safely tucked away in the deep underground bunkers.

Likely refuge for the elite psychopathic banksters.
The likely refuge for the elite psychopathic banksters.


un martial law forcesAs long as Obama, Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, et al., are in the Oval Office, America will NEVER launch a nuclear first strike. We cannot win in a conventional world war. Therefore, as I have previously pointed out, Americans can continue their resistance, Viet Cong style, because of the 300 million hand guns at their disposal. This is a logistical nightmare for any occupation force. Flash back to this weekend, why do you supposed Obama is no longer speaking about gun control, in response to the Oregon standoff, he is speaking about the type of gun confiscation done in Australia.
Obama’s point, I have this to say. The University of Hawaii researchers tell us that there were 17 genocides in the 20th century and in everyone of these cases, gun confiscation came first. As distasteful is living in a country that could de-evolve into a decades long guerrilla warfare scenario, the thought of being totally unarmed in the face of our future occupiers is unthinkable because of what they could have in store for us, is unthinkable. Any move upon our guns should be considered as an act of war against the American people and the people should react accordingly. I am convinced that this issue has be our collective line in the sand.
Sometimes a picture is worth a 1000 words.

gun control works
obama gun control

Never give up your guns America, because the coming conflict will eventually become a guerrilla war.

Credit to Common Sense

We Are Preparing Now For Arrival Of Mahdi

Mahdi NowMohammad Ali Jafari, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp, said Iran has prepared almost 200,000 young men in countries across the Middle East to help with the arrival of the Mahdi, a Muslim leader who will usher in justice prior to the Day of Judgment. Maj. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari said recent violence across the region, including the rise of the Islamic State group, was a sign the arrival of the messianic 

Muslim leader was imminent, the Turkish newspaper Daily Sabah reported. Jafari said the current developments in the region, “the formation of [the Islamic State group] and Takfiri [extremist] groups, and the events that occurred in the past years are paving the ground for the emergence of Imam Mahdi,” Middle East Monitor reported. 

“You can now see the positive results in the readiness of nearly 200,000 young armed in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen.” Shiite Muslims generally believe the Mahdi will arrive following a period of widespread violence and instability, and will usher in justice and an event like the Armageddon, the conclusive battle between good and evil. The comments come as Iran has grown increasingly entangled with several regional conflicts, including in Syria, where Revolutionary Guard forces have been battling to support the embattled dictator Bashar Assad. 

Credit to Skywatchtv.com

Don't Believe The Lies, The Crash Is Coming

Why Russia Has Every Right to Be Alarmed by NATO's Buildup in the Baltics

Image result for Why Russia Has Every Right to Be Alarmed by NATO's Buildup in the Baltics

As the North Atlantic Alliance continues to expand its presence in the Baltic countries, Russian experts warn that the US-led alliance is attempting to turn the region into a staging area from which a possible invasion of Russia might take place.

In his swansong State of the Union address before Congress, President Barack Obama indicated that the US would "make sure [that] other countries pull their own weight" in helping Washington contain its geopolitical opponents.
Commenting on the president's remarks, journalist Vasily Vankov suggested that for their part, "Washington's Baltic satellites can only welcome a situation in which they will be used as a stick with whose help the Americans can have a smack at the Russian bear."
In his analysis for independent Russian newspaper Svobodnaya Pressa, Vankov recalled that, "impatient ahead of the 'shift change' set to take place in the White House, Baltic politicians have raised another tantrum, using the old tune about the 'Russian threat'. Latvian politician and economist Uldis Osis recently suggested that if Republican frontrunner Donald Trump wins the election, Washington will 'give away' the Baltics, Syria and Ukraine to Russia."
"Apparently," Vankov writes, "this absurd scenario is taken seriously among the political establishment in the Baltics. At the very least, its officials are doing everything possible to transform the once peaceful, almost pastoral region into a citadel bristling with American bayonets along a potential new eastern front."
"The militarization of the Baltic states is taking place at an accelerated pace," the journalist notes, citing the arrival of more and more US heavy equipment, large-scale NATO drills, parades 300 meters from the Russian border, and the creation of new army and air force bases stretching across the region.

​"In response to just indignation on the part of the Russian Foreign Ministry [over the creation of one such base in Lithuania], Lithuanian Defense Minister Juozas Olekas characteristically replied that his country's moves were 'forced measures' taken in connection with Russia's 'takeover of Ukrainian territory' and its 'aggressive onslaught' in Syria." 
"And it seems," Vankov warns, "that the Pentagon has no plans to stop there. Officials have confirmed plans to build warehouses for the forward deployment of military equipment in the Baltic countries, despite the fact that such a move would violate a key provision of the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act. Furthermore, this summer's NATO summit in Warsaw will discuss the placement of increased NATO forces in the region on a permanent (!) basis."

Commenting on the developments, Ivan Konovalov, the director of the Center for the Study of Strategic Trends, a Moscow-based military think tank, told Svobodnaya Pressa that NATO's moves to turn the Baltics into a potential staging area for an invasion of Russia is undoubtedly viewed as a threat in Moscow.
"I would like to begin by drawing attention to the fact that Moscow has adequately assessed the situation," Konovalov noted. "A few days ago, the Defense Ministry announced the formation of three new divisions in the western direction. Before the Ukrainian crisis, the area was almost entirely undefended."
For their part, the analyst suggested, the Baltic countries' political elites "are using the worsening confrontation between the West and Russia for their own purposes. To begin with, the presence of US and NATO troops on their territory benefits them economically."
"The military lobby in the Baltic countries has achieved what they were after – the allocation of budgetary funds for armies which could previously be categorized only as 'dwarf' in scale. At the same time, the presence of foreign troops will more than reimburse any financial losses. One can only imagine how much the Americans will lay out for the new air bases, of which there are now three in the Baltics. The cost of a full-fledged base, when accounting for aircraft and the ground components, can run upwards of a billion dollars a year."
"For this reason," Konovalov explained, "our restless Baltic neighbors are trying to gain permanent bases on their territory – we are talking about big money, which will come in handy for the budgets of countries whose economies have shriveled as a result of the economic crisis and the sanctions war with Russia."

Commenting on NATO officials' recent "categorical denial" that NATO's military buildup poses any threat to Moscow, Konovalov bluntly retorted that "surely you must agree that it is difficult to see how Abrams tanks and artillery can be considered equipment with a purely defensive purpose? Russia was forced to respond because it reminded it of the situation in 1941, when the Germans moved large formations up to our borders, while simultaneously talking about their defensive nature."
Image result for Why Russia Has Every Right to Be Alarmed by NATO's Buildup in the Baltics
As for the current bases' rotational nature, the analyst noted that it makes little difference. "Yes, NATO is increasing its presence near Russia's northwest borders on a rotating basis, but by and large, this doesn't change much. Obviously, they do not want to completely throw out the NATO-Russia Founding Act, because that would untie Moscow's hands. However, without any fanfare, 300 pieces of NATO heavy equipment have appeared on Russia's borders. It may not seem like much, but this is already a division-sized force. And to think – only a couple of years ago, Estonia had only one old T-55 tank, which it borrowed from neighboring Latvia to hold military exercises."
Ultimately, Konovalov warns, "given the pace of the military buildup, it's not hard to imagine how many pieces of equipment the Baltics might accumulate — say a year from now."
As for the Russian response to the buildup, the expert notes that Russia "is changing its plans for defense – including the transfer of forces to the western direction. And this is absolutely justified. It is well known that in [Russian] military history, the enemy has most commonly attacked from the west. The main obstacle for invasion has always been the Belarusian marshland. Therefore, they usually bypass the marshes via the northwest and the southwest."

"By and large, the most convenient bridgehead for an attack on Russia by conventional forces has been via the southern direction. The Germans broke through to Stalingrad via Ukraine. And in the north, they could not pass, stopping at Leningrad…Incidentally, the Wehrmacht's northern breakthrough failed not least because the Baltic states at the time were part of the Soviet Union. Here, the Germans were forced to break the first line of defense. The defense of Liepaja, Latvia, for example, lasted for almost a week."
As for the worrying prospect of the US deploying tactical nuclear weapons in the Baltics, Konovalov explained that this too is now more likely, given that the latest modification of the B-61 variable yield nuclear bomb can be placed on any airborne platform, and is not limited to strategic bombers. 
"The same NATO planes which are now permanently patrolling Baltic airspace, flying near our borders, could be loaded up [with such weapons]. Europe now has 200 such bombs. Accordingly, the 16 aircraft at the bases at Zokniai, Lithuania or Amari, Estonia, can carry them onboard. And the pilots of these countries have been trained on how to use such weapons."
Speaking to Svobodnaya Pressa, veteran defense commentator Viktor Litovkin agreed with his counterpart that ultimately, "the rotational character of the existing bases, in fact, is of little importance. [All it means is that] one group leaves, and another comes to take their place."
As to whether the buildup in the Baltics and elsewhere in Eastern Europe violates the spirit of the NATO-Russia Founding Act, Litovkin suggested that in his view, "it obviously does…The Pentagon uses uncertain wording, which forbids the placing of 'significant numbers of troops' [in the region]. What precisely is considered 'significant'? A company-sized force? A battalion? A regiment? A brigade? It is unclear. Moreover, Washington does not want to negotiate with Moscow on the concretization of this fuzzy definition."

Ultimately, the analyst notes, "NATO will not risk an invasion of Russia. But the deployment of military bases in the Baltics is akin to a situation where you get a stone caught in your shoe. If you cannot shake it out, it will be a constant irritant, and may eventually make it painful to walk."
"This NATO 'stone in our shoe' will force Moscow to react. And the US is actively trying to provoke another arms race in order to weaken our country economically. The Baltic states' leaders also benefit – receiving rent for the bases, and taxes for local budgets. Therefore, I would say that the anti-Russian hysteria among the Baltic countries' political elites have a multi-valued character."
Emphasizing that Russia full realizes the risks created by NATO's provocations, Litovkin concludes that in any case, "the three new divisions, referred to by Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, are only one small part of the measures Russia will take to ensure the security of its western borders."
Credit to Sputnik

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20160118/1033323769/baltic-nato-bridgehead-russia.html#ixzz3xcQGfp27