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

Wednesday, June 8, 2016

UK media hail Navy's 'intercept' of Russian sub… which was not hiding

People have been chipped without knowing it...


A Russian Mobile ICBM

The United States is asleep. We assume that there is no need to fear that the Russians would ever contemplate, let alone conduct a first strike on the United States. But quietly and steadily, the tension in Eastern Europe is escalating. The possibility for a nuclear conflict – involving more than tactical nukes on the battlefield – has never loomed larger than right now. Why would I say this? Because Russia possesses enormous advantages. And Russia has the motivations to use these weapons. The issues are political, economic, and believe it or not, religious.

Image result for russia versus usa

The issue isn’t really who has the best offensive weapons. The question is who has the best defensive weapons. Those that follow me know that I’ve pointed out that what we used to call ABMs for Anti-ballistic Missiles are now called BDM, for Ballistic Missile Defense.

Just a few weeks ago, Russia made alarming allegations about NATO deploying a BDM in Romania, culminating in threats against NATO. NATO’s move was seen as provocative. Russia’s response was provocative too. Despite U.S. claims that the BDM deployed was essential to protect Europe from a rogue Iranian launch of mid-range ballistic missiles, Russia saw the move as a direct threat to Moscow. On the surface, such worries seem ridiculous – to Americans at least.

But Russians have a very different assumption about nuclear weapons. We believe using them is unthinkable. The Russians have always believed that their use in inevitable. Thus, their comments and concerns can only mean one of two things: Moscow feels threatened that the U.S. or NATO intends a first-strike against Russia (which they have felt in their bones was likely ever since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962), or they are themselves preparing for a surprise attack of their own on targets within NATO and the U.S. The Russians obviously want no any BDM in place that could lessen the effectiveness of their attack. They understand that a better defense reduces the likelihood of success in conducting a first strike against the U.S.

I have asserted in several articles over the past year and in two books published during the past 9 months, that Russia intends to conduct a first strike on the U.S. in the near-term. I base this in part based upon geopolitical assessment, conversations with experts in geopolitics, and my own analysis of Bible prophecy. In two of my three most recent books, IS RUSSIA DESTINED TO DUKE THE U.S.? and THE NEXT GREAT WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST, I set forth a case for why a nuclear attack stands out now as a real threat.

In a separate book for which I wrote the foreword, THE NEXT TACTICS OF GLOBAL WAR, authors Benjamin Baruch and Jeffrey (J.R.) Nyquist, laid out the strategic reasons behind such an attack, including detailed descriptions of the updated Russian nuclear weapons that make Russia a true threat and point out the extreme vulnerability of the United States. Plus, they argue that the downfall of the Soviet Union was itself a false flag. It’s often simply called The Perestroika Deception (from a book written by Soviet defector Anatoli Golitsyn). In essence, the argument is that the fall of the Soviet Union was carried out to cause the U.S. to “let its guard down”. Frankly, that is exactly what has happened.

Back to the BDM issue. When one drills down into the issue of how many anti-ballistic missiles the U.S. has at its disposal to knock down Russia ballistic missiles (ICMS for Inter-continental Ballistic Missiles), according to expert J.R. Nyquist, the U.S. has about 5 to 6 dozen deployed in Alaska and California – and a few more in submarines scattered about. In contrast, the Russians may have as many as 11,000 anti-ballistic missiles surrounding their vast country. At best, we are outnumbered in defensive missiles by a mere 100 to 1. If the point is not to start a nuclear war, but to survive one, Russia has 100 times better chance to survive such an attack than does the U.S. This doesn’t count the rumored mammoth underground bunkers within the Russian countryside to protect thousands of their citizens. The U.S. has the capability to protect only a few hundred (perhaps 1,000) persons, reserved for government officials. But as bad as this sounds, things only get worse within the next 2 years.

The Russians will deploy the S-500 BDM system. The S-500 (successor obviously to the S-300 sold recently to Iran and the S-400 deployed and used in Syria to protect Russian fighter bombers after Turkey downed one of their aircraft in November 2015), is not just an ABM that employs nuclear technology (such as an EMP detonation) to explode in outer space destroying incoming multiple ICBMs simultaneously from NATO or the U.S.), the missiles fired by the S-500 can also be OFFENSIVE weapons. Once the S-500 is fully deployed, the entire Russian perimeter will be protected by these sophisticated nuclear defensive AND OFFENSIVE weapons. The nuclear arms limitations treaties (e.g., START signed in 2010) don’t count such “dual purpose missiles”. And ABM treaties are no longer in effect. Russia has a free hand to build as many weapons as they want, claiming them to be defensive, but actually creating massive “overkill” in both missiles and warheads.

The START treaty intended to put an end to the multiplication of missiles containing multiple warheads, each with the ability to find their own targets independently, the so-called MIRV (multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles). The U.S. seems to have complied. But have the Russians? Our scientists seem optimistic that the Russians can be trusted and that they are in full compliance. A sample of such goodwill is found in this passage:

The United States last week finished removing the last MIRV (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle) from its Minuteman 3 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs); these missiles will now each carry a single warhead. The move was the fulfillment of a promise the Obama administration made in its 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, which stated that it would “enhance the stability of the nuclear balance by reducing the incentives for either side to strike first.”

It is also another step toward compliance with the New START treaty, under the terms of which the United States and Russia will each reduce the number of their deployed strategic warheads to 1,550 by 2018 (Russia is already below this number, the U.S. is still working on it). [ 1 ]


Image result for russia versus usa

Troops are building up on the border between Russia and Eastern European states. But this is only the top line of extensive and deep challenges facing Germany, the European Union, Russia, and the Ukraine which serves as the baby about to be sawn in half.

In several articles over the past six months or so, George Friedman of Geopolitical Futuresindicates that there exists a major chess match occurring right now between the U.S./NATO and Russia. Russia is doing its best to split up the alliance between Germany and the U.S. Germany would prefer to end the sanctions between Russia and the E.U. The U.S. wants to continue exerting pressure on Russia despite Russian assistance in the fight against ISIS in Syria (the U.S. was at best double-minded about who they really wanted to win in Syria). Analyst Lily Bayer go Geopolitical Futures comments:

Moscow is employing a dual negotiating tactic. It is seeking to show foreign governments that it remains a credible military threat when it comes to Ukraine. But Russian officials are also working to appear conciliatory and have shown a willingness to aid Western powers when it comes to issues like Syria. The ultimate aim of this tactic is to create a split within the West over its approach to Russia, while also incentivizing Western governments to provide concessions on key areas, like the future status of Ukraine. [ 2 ]

Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, is actually quite friendly with Vladimir Putin, President of Russia. The two would prefer to let by-gones be by-gones. Germany has bigger issues to address. Economically, Germany faces a crisis. It’s a major exporter nation with a big trade surplus that creates its own set of monetary issue. [Anyone who drives a BMW or a Mercedes (I once did… but can’t afford one anymore!) knows all about buying a foreign import from Bavaria]. But hard times outside of Germany have dampened the market for such expensive motor cars. Of course, German technological exports go beyond building great cars. They have their own military-industrial complex. Regardless of any particular set of products, Germany must address the challenge to continue stoking the fire of growth from external markets. Meanwhile, Russia is an exporter of minerals – namely oil and gas. Europe needs Russian fossil fuels. Russia needs to sell their oil and gas to Europe. But there are other issues than just economic “marks and rubles”.

Germany basically trusts Russia and the feeling seems to be mutual. The problem is that the English and the Americans get in the way. (The French usually go whichever way the wind is blowing strongest). However, the eastern states in Europe, the Baltics in the North and the Balkans in the South aren’t so confident that the Russians can be trusted. The Poles and the Czechs have vivid memories of Russian tanks clamoring into Warsaw and Prague. Estonia, Latvia, and the Lithuania are on edge right now. And the Balkans have no illusion about Russian designs on their territories. Several hundred years of tug-of-war between Russia and “Greater Germany” (the Austro-Hungarian Empire plus the Prussians) have taught them that sovereignty can’t be taken for granted.

So what’s really going on today? Lili Bayer of Geopolitical Futures explains:

Until recently, Berlin and Washington largely agreed on how to respond to Russian aggression in Ukraine. Both countries pushed for sanctions and boosting NATO’s defenses, especially in Poland and the Baltic states. At the same time, both were committed to politically and financially supporting Kiev’s Western-oriented government.

But as we outlined last week, the German position is shifting. Faced with a referendum on whether Britain will leave the EU on June 23, banking troubles in southern Europe, and its own economic woes in the form of an export crisis, Berlin is looking for ways to ease tensions with Moscow. [ 3 ]

Bayer argues in part (inconsistently in my view) that the the U.S. is more eager than Germany to find a solution and negotiate. And she concludes her article with these words:

Therefore, Russia is moving some troops to its western borders to remind the West that Moscow can pose a threat to the region and thus improve its position in negotiations with the U.S. However, Moscow is opting to limit the size of these deployments and remain ambiguous about their status in order to avoid derailing its rapprochement with Germany and prospects for an easing of European sanctions.

In Geopolitical Futures’ forecast for 2016, we wrote that there will be a settlement in Ukraine, whether formal or informal. At this stage, as a delicate game of deployments, denials, military coordination and never-ending rounds of diplomatic summits plays out, Russia is aiming to undermine the cohesion of the West and ultimately come to an agreement that would ensure the neutrality of Ukraine. [ 4 ]

The outcome of this is a long way from becoming clear. But what is obvious is that there is no conciliation between the competing parties, no “let’s just get along”. Diplomacy has been much less pronounced than saber rattling. If one takes the long-term strategic view, and believes that there are reasons that war between Russia and the U.S./England (more specifically the brunt of Moscow’s ire than the E.U in general), it’s not comforting to see more and more troops amassing on the borders between Russia and Europe, nor the talk that is transpiring reaching higher and higher decibel levels.

Credit to Douglas Woodward


NATO Ticks Off Russia: Global War About To Be Triggered?

COLLAPSE to WIPE OUT Savings, 401ks, etc.

FEMA Warning, Power Will Be Out For Weeks After The Infrastructure Is Attacked

UK Gov’t Has No Problem Bringing In Refugees As Long As They Aren’t Christian

Image result for no christian

A recent report from a British parliamentary group on religious refugees shows that the United Kingdom’s Home Office has been unfairly rejecting Christians seeking asylum.

The All Party Parliamentary Group on Religious Freedom (APPGRM) found that Christians fleeing their home country for the UK are unfairly quizzed on details of their faith. The Home Office has reportedly rejected Christian refugees for issues ranging from being unfamiliar with the various branches of the Anglican church to failure to name all twelve of Jesus Christ’s apostles.

“If you are someone who has become a Christian in Iran, Bibles are not freely available – and you would not necessarily know how many books there are in the Old Testament. You might not know of lent which is not a common concept in Iran,” said Baroness Elizabeth Berridge, the chair of the APPGRM.

The UK, like many countries, accepts refugees who are “persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion,” as prescribed by the United Nations 1951 Convention.

Credit to Dailycaller
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/06/the-uk-government-has-no-problem-bringing-in-refugees-as-long-as-they-arent-christian/#ixzz4Ax6YKwfj

How Hillary Clinton "Clinched "The Nomination On A Day Nobody Voted

Image result for hillary clinton mafia

Last night, Associated Press – on a day when nobody voted – surprised everyone by abruptly declaring the Democratic Party primary over and Hillary Clinton the victor. The decree, issued the night before the California primary in which polls show Clinton and Bernie Sanders in a very close race, was based on the media organization’s survey of “superdelegates”: the Democratic Party’s 720 insiders, corporate donors and officials whose votes for the presidential nominee count the same as the actually elected delegates. AP claims that superdelegates who had not previously announced their intentions privately told AP reporters that they intend to vote for Clinton, bringing her over the threshold. AP is concealing the identity of the decisive superdelegates who said this.

This is the perfect symbolic ending to the Democratic Party primary: The nomination is consecrated by a media organization, on a day when nobody voted, based on secret discussions with anonymous establishment insiders and donors whose identities the media organization – incredibly – conceals. The decisive edifice of superdelegates is itself anti-democratic and inherently corrupt: designed to prevent actual voters from making choices that the party establishment dislikes. But for a party run by insiders and funded by corporate interests, it’s only fitting that their nomination process ends with such an ignominious, awkward and undemocratic sputter.

That the Democratic Party nominating process is declared to be over in such an uninspiring, secretive, and elite-driven manner is perfectly symbolic of what the party, and its likely nominee, actually is. The one positive aspect, though significant, is symbolic, while the actual substance – rallying behind a Wall-Street-funded, status-quo-perpetuating, multi-millionaire militarist – is grim in the extreme. The Democratic Party got exactly the ending it deserved.

– Glenn Greenwald, writing at The Intercept
Last night, the American public witnessed the most egregious example of mainstream media malpractice of my lifetime. By declaring Hillary Clinton the Democratic nominee based on the pledges of superdelegates who have not voted, and will not vote until the convention on July 25th, the Associated Press performed a huge disservice to American democracy on the eve of a major primary day, in which voters from the most populous state in the union (amongst others) head to the polls. If you are a U.S. citizen and you aren’t outraged by this, there’s something seriously wrong with you.
In this post, I have three objectives. First, I will set the stage by explaining how incredibly sleazy the move by the AP was. Second, I will outline the preposterous and unjustifiable nature of having superdelegates in the first place. Third, I will attempt to convince all true Bernie Sanders supporters to commit themselves to never supporting Hillary Clinton. Let’s get started.

1. Journalistic Malpractice

Let’s start with the Associated Press, which I have lost every single ounce of respect for. The “news” organization is now the most discredited entity in journalism as an result of what it did. Some are excusing its public betrayed as merely “trying to get a scoop” and call the race over before the other networks on Tuesday night. Personally, I think that’s only a small factor in what happened.
I’ve noticed for months now, that the AP from the very beginning was including super delegates in a way that was intentionally misleading. For example, this is how the graphics to their “delegate tracker” appear:
Screen Shot 2016-06-07 at 10.21.21 AM
Notice that the big, bold numbers to the left representing the total, includes superdelegates who have not yet voted. There can be absolutely no doubt that the AP is being intentionally misleading by doing this, and is committing journalistic malpractice. How can I be so sure? Let’s take a look at this video clip from CNN aired earlier this year.
As you saw, Luis Miranda, the Communications Director at the Democratic National Committee, specifically told Jake Tapper that it is wrong to include superdelegates in the tally total for the Democratic primary. There can be no other interpretation. He said:
“Any night that you have a primary or caucus, and the media lumps the superdelegates in—that they basically polled by calling them up and saying who are you supporting—they don’t vote until the convention. And so, they shouldn’t be included in any count.”
Yet the AP and other media continued to do so. Why? It’s just blatant bias from the ostensibly neutral mainstream media for the status quo candidate Hillary Clinton.
That should be enough to turn the U.S. population away from these organizations forever. Yet there’s more. In calling the nomination for Hillary, the Associated Press had to get commitments from a few more super delegates. They achieved that feat yesterday evening (mind you, they still haven’t actually voted), and they kept the names anonymous. Yes, you read that right.
Of course, it wasn’t just the AP, it was virtually all mainstream media proclaiming the same thing in a unified chorus. Indeed, they seemed to relish in it. Particularly inexcusable was reporting from the LA Times. As Wall Street on Parade noted
Particularly outrageous was the unethical conduct of the largest newspapers in California, where 1.5 million new voters have registered since January 1. California is an open primary, meaning Independents can vote. That fact, together with the massive new voter registrations and the tens of thousands who have turned out for Sanders’ rallies, was signaling a potential upset for Clinton in the state. That would not only be embarrassing but could lead to defections among the superdelegates prior to the Convention in July.

The Los Angeles Times, which calls itself “the largest metropolitan daily newspaper in the country, with a daily readership of 1.4 million,” was one of the most egregious in their reporting. After running the headline “Hillary Clinton Clinches Nomination in a Historic First,” it then ran an article that asked in the headline: “After AP calls nomination for Clinton, will voters still turn out Tuesday?”
This is a paper that’s supposed to represent and inform Californians. There’s only one word that comes to mind: disgusting. Particularly so when you see the polling numbers for independents in California:
Screen Shot 2016-06-07 at 11.35.49 AM
So let’s recap. The Associated Press and virtually all other mainstream media declared Hillary Clinton the winner of the Democratic primary on the eve of a huge voting day with 694 pledged delegates at stake. They declared her the winner on a day in which no American primaries or caucuses were held, and via word of mouth from a handful of anonymous superdelegates. I don’t know what to call that, but it’s certainly not journalism.

2. Superdelegates as a Concept is Preposterous

I’ve read all the arguments and spin and there’s simply no reasonable justification for having superdelegates other than to manipulate the voting public via “delegate tracker” graphics such as what is used by the AP in order to always show Hillary Clinton with a big lead irrespective what’s actually happening on the ground. While Clinton has certainly won more pledged delegates thus far, the voting public has been intentionally manipulated from day one via the use of superdelegates.
As the Sanders campaign pointed out last night:
Secretary Clinton does not have and will not have the requisite number of pledged delegates to secure the nomination. She will be dependent on superdelegates who do not vote until July 25 and who can change their minds between now and then. They include more than 400 superdelegates, who endorsed Secretary Clinton 10 months before the first caucuses and primaries and long before any other candidate was in the race.
Think about that for a second. 400 superdelegates pledged their loyalty to Hillary 10 months before any voters had a chance to make their opinions heard. These superdelegates have not switched based on the desires of the voters in their states, and their early loyalty oaths allowed the media to manipulate the public from day one by including these lopsided figures.
How lopsided are they? With a vast majority of the primaries completed, here’s the math.
Pledged delegates
Clinton: 1,812
Sanders: 1,521
Clinton: 571
Sanders: 48
Anyone else see a problem with that? While Clinton still has a comfortable lead in pledged delegates, she is slaughtering him in superdelegates. We can draw two important conclusions from this reality.
  1. Superdelegates do not proportionately represent the will of the voters.
  2. Superdelegates exist solely to manipulate voters through the media. Something that has happened consistently throughout the primary.
The fact that superdelegates exist solely to manipulate voters should be perfectly clear at this point. Perfect proof of this can be seen in the incomprehensible answer DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz gave to why they exists:
Have you ever heard a bigger bunch of mumbo jumbo in your life? It’s pure nonsense. There is absolutely no good reason for superdelegates.
Equally interesting, is a question posed by Jeff Kurzon, a Democrat running for a Congressional district in New York City. He wonders whether the concept is even legal in a recent post:
As it turns out, as my lawyer, Josh Douglass, and I have discovered, the entire concept of super-delegates is in violation of the Party’s own charter. That the Democratic Party is even using super-delegates, is a clear breach of contract. It is also a violation of our constitutional rights, including the 14th Amendment of Equal Protection (our vote should hold just as much weight as a super-delegate’s!).

Last week, I instructed Mr. Douglass to sue both the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the New York State Democratic Committee, on my behalf, over their use of super-delegates. We have requested a preliminary injunction which would cause the DNC to honor the average voter’s preference of POTUS nominee by having the super delegate votes be diminished to being proportional and in keeping with the preference of the primary voters.  This would stop the DNC from permitting the super delegates from carrying Hillary over the finish line. 
Very interesting indeed.

3. Bernie Sanders Supporters Should Not Support or Vote for Hillary Clinton 

This section is for true Bernie Sanders supporters, not for Democrats who like them both. If you can like both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton I simply cannot help you.
The main reason a Bernie Sanders supporter should never support or vote for Hillary Clinton is that there’s really no similarity between the two candidates when it comes to the substantive issues facing America in 2016. They are on drastically different pages in issues of militarism, Wall Street criminality, trade and civil liberties. For more, see links at the end of this post.
No matter what Hillary Clinton says today, the moment she gets into office she’ll do the opposite. This is particularly true of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal. If you think for one moment she will not push aggressively for its passage once in office you are either the most naive person on earth, or simply not paying attention. See:
Moreover, Clinton surrogates constantly talk down to Sanders supporters as if they are miscreant children who need to be disciplined. Here are just a couple of recent examples from The Hill:
Democrats appear ready to bring the curtain down on the tumultuous primary struggle between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders — irrespective of the results Tuesday in California’s primary.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest signaled at Monday’s regular media briefing that President Obama is on board with the Clinton team’s argument that the battle for the presidential nomination is as good as over.

“We’re going to give Democratic voters the opportunity to weigh in. But certainly somebody who claims a majority of the pledged and superdelegates, you know, has a strong case to make,” Earnest said.
How generous of you Mr. Earnest, you call the nomination battle over, but then throw some meager crumbs to the irrelevant peasant voters of California. Pure class.
Or what about this one.
“The people have spoken,” said Eric Jotkoff, who served as an aide on Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. “Even before tomorrow, she already has 3 million more votes more than Bernie Sanders. I get it. It’s never fun to lose. But at some point, the crowd leaves the stadium, the band stops playing and it’s over.”
Well actually only some of the people have spoken. 694 delegates are still up for grabs today Mr. Jotkoff.  The man is dripping with condescension.
Finally, I want to conclude with the most important reason of all not to vote for Hillary Clinton come November. If you do, you will be rubber-stamping everything the Democratic Party and the mainstream media has done during this election cycle. Voting for Hillary Clinton will send a message to the Democratic Party that change is unnecessary. That the status quo can kick you, spit on you and laugh in your face for months straight and get away with it.
Donald Trump is not your problem. Of course, Sanders supporters cannot actually consider voting for the man, but don’t let anyone tell you a vote for a third-party candidate or no vote at all is a “vote for Donald Trump.” The fault is not yours if Trump gets elected. The fault lies with the DNC and the media.
Independent Sanders supporters should be especially outraged. Despite independents comprising 43% of the electorate, many of you were given no choice in the primaries. New York state was a particularly egregious example, as I explained in the post, Hillary Clinton Will Win New York, Because New York is Running a Banana Republic Primary:
Unless you’ve been living in a cave, you’ll know that New Yorkers go to the primary voting booths on April 19th. Unfortunately, only a small sliver of the population will actually be able to vote. First, it’s a closed primary, so you have to be registered as a member of one of the two corrupt political parties in order to participate. As the Guardian recently reported, 27% of New York state’s active voters were not registered in either party as of April 2016, meaning these people will have no say in the primary. Even worse, what about all those residents who aren’t active voters, but would very likely vote in this particular election given the increased turnout seen in other states? They’re iced out as well.

New York has one of the most archaic primaries in the nation. Not only is it one of only 11 states with closed primaries, but if you are a registered voter who wanted to change your party affiliation in order to vote in next week’s primary, you would’ve had to do it by last October. In contrast, if you weren’t yet a registered voter you had until March 25th to register under one of the two parties in order to vote in the primary. So if you live in New York and haven’t registered by now, you can’t vote. 
Most importantly, all Sanders supporters need to understand that if you sacrifice your principles and shift to Clinton just to defeat Trump, you have psychologically taken yourself out of the real fight to come. By supporting her to defeat someone who you think is worse you are harming yourself and your ability to think clearly and engage in activism going forward. The best advice I can give anyone is to vote third party or sit this charade out. As such you’ll remain engaged in the real fight, and fully prepared to act as much needed resistance to whichever authoritarian is elected, Trump or Clinton.
*  *  *
If ever you needed any more proof the captured MSM is nothing but a mouthpiece for the establishment, you got it yesterday. Hillary Clinton, the hand picked surrogate for the crony capitalists, military industrial complex and Wall Street, was declared the winner of the Democratic nomination because some shadowy super delegates supposedly threw their support to her. What a load of bullshit. Hillary was going to lose the California primary today. That would be a huge black eye for her floundering campaign.

The establishment needed to make the votes in California meaningless and keep people from even voting. So they declared her the winner. The timing was calculated. The AP headline and story was written days ago. They waited until the day before the primary to pull the rug out from Sanders and his supporters. Sanders and his people should turn Philadelphia into a war zone at the convention in July. The ruling oligarchy has rigged the game folks and they are telling you your vote doesn’t matter.
Are you ready?
Credit to Zero Hedge