Iranian State TV Announces $80 Million Bounty For President Trump’s Head
Several sources have confirmed that Iranian state television has announced a crowdsourcing effort among citizens to raise nearly $80 million for a bounty on President Trump’s head after the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s elite Quds military force and one of the most influential people in the country.
NBC News’ Tehran Bureau Chief Ali Arouzi tweeted Sunday that “At Solemani’s funeral procession in Mashad one of the organizers called on all Iranian to donate $1 each in order to gather an $80million bounty on President Trumps head.”
At Solemani’s funeral procession in Mashad one of the organisers called on all Iranian to donate $1 each in order to gather an $80million bounty on President Trumps head. pic.twitter.com/Qb7AAfAiww
Dr. Zaid Abdel Wahab, a television host on Iraqi Al Fallujah TV, also tweeted that “Iranian state television: $ 80 million equivalent to President Donald Trump’s head.”
“Iran has 80 million inhabitants. Based on the Iranian population, we want to raise $ 80 million, which is a reward for those who get close to the head of President Trump,” state television said Sunday.
“Each Iranian should therefore donate a dollar to pay the amount to the alleged murderer.”
It seems Kathy Griffin was only 3 years too early…
The worst mistake that the American people have made in the entire history of the United States was to permit the conversion of the federal government to a national-security state. That conversion has played a major role in the destruction of our liberty, privacy, and economic well-being.
What is a national-security state? It is a totalitarian-like governmental structure that consists of an enormous military-intelligence establishment with extraordinary powers, such as indefinite detention, torture, secret surveillance, and even assassination of both citizens and foreigners.
To put the matter into a larger context, North Korea is a national-security state. So are Egypt, China, Cuba, and Russia. And the United States. All of the regimes in those countries wield totalitarian-like powers.
It wasn’t always that way in the United States. Our nation was founded as a limited-government republic and remained that way for nearly 150 years. No Pentagon, no CIA, and no NSA. There was an army but it was relatively small — big enough to win battles against Indian tribes or a neighboring weak and impoverished country such as Mexico, but nowhere big enough to engage in wars around the world.
That was how our American ancestors wanted it. The last thing they wanted was a federal government that possessed a large permanent military-intelligence establishment. That’s because they believed that that type of governmental system would inevitably destroy their liberty and their well-being.
When the delegates met at the Constitutional Convention, their assigned task was simply to modify the Articles of Confederation, which formed a third kind of governmental structure, one under which the states had been operating for more than a decade. Under the Articles, the federal government’s powers were so weak that — get this — it didn’t even have the power to tax. Imagine: For more than ten years, Americans lived under a government that was prohibited from levying any taxes whatsoever.
But there were problems with the Articles, and the purpose of Constitutional Convention was to come up with solutions to those problems through modifications to the Articles of Confederation. Instead, the delegates to the convention, who met in secret, came up with an entirely different proposal, one that called for a different type of governmental system — a limited-government republic, one where the federal government would have more powers, including the power to tax.
Americans were extremely leery. They believed that the greatest threat to the freedom and well-being of a citizenry lay not with some foreign regime but rather with their own government. They also understood that the way that governments throughout history had destroyed the freedom of their citizens was, in large part, through the power of their military forces. If people dissented or rebelled against what the government was doing, officials could employ military force to quell the rebellion. But if they didn’t possess a powerful military, they lacked the means to do that, which would inhibit them from doing bad things to the citizenry.
Consider the protests that are currently taking place in Hong Kong. What has the Chinese government done to send a message that such protests will be tolerated only up to a certain point? It has sent a large military contingent to the Hong Kong border. If Chinese officials want to quell those protests, they will do so through military force. And make no mistake about it: The Chinese soldiers in those units will faithfully and loyally follow the orders of their superior officers.
Suppose the proponents of the Constitution had said to the American people,
The Constitution will bring into existence a federal government that will include a vast, permanent, and ever-growing military-intelligence establishment, with military and intelligence bases all over the United States and the world. Together with the president, the military will have the power to embroil the nation in war anywhere in the world without congressional consent. It will possess the power to spy on and keep files on the American people, in order to keep them safe. It will have the power to take Americans into custody and place them in military dungeons or secret intelligence prison camps, where they can be tortured. It will also have the power to assassinate Americans.
If the American people had heard that from the delegates at the Constitutional Convention, they would have died laughing. They would have thought it was a joke. When they later learned that the delegates were totally serious, the American people would have summarily rejected the deal and instead would have continued operating under the Articles of Confederation.
In fact, the reason Americans were so leery of the proposal offered by the proponents of the Constitution was that they were concerned that they might be bringing into existence a government that wielded those types of omnipotent powers. That’s why they were so opposed to what they called a “standing army,” which was their term for a large, permanent military-intelligence establishment.
The proponents of the Constitution assured Americans that that could never happen. The reason was that the charter that was bringing the federal government into existence also, at the same time, delineated its powers. If a power wasn’t listed in the Constitution, then it simply didn’t exist, which meant it couldn’t be exercised against the citizenry.
On the basis of that assurance but still leery, the American people approved the deal, but only on the condition that the Constitution would be amended immediately after being approved. The amendments would provide express restrictions on the powers of federal officials to destroy the liberty and well-being of the people.
Some proponents of the Constitution responded that such restrictions were unnecessary because if a power to destroy people’s liberty and well-being wasn’t listed in the Constitution, it couldn’t be exercised. A bill of rights, such proponents said, would be superfluous.
But Americans were not willing to settle for that principle. Knowing that people who are attracted to political power inevitably come up with good excuses for destroying people’s liberty, Americans wanted to make it doubly clear that federal officials lacked the power to do tyrannical things to them. That’s why they expressly prohibited them from destroying people’s freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right of assembly, the right to keep and bear arms, and others.
That wasn’t all, however. The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments expressly restricted the power of federal officials to kill both Americans and foreigners. The government couldn’t kill anyone or deprive anyone of liberty or property without “due process of law,” a term that stretched back to Magna Carta in 1215, when the barons of England forced their king to acknowledge that his powers over them were limited.
Due process required formal notice of charges and a trial before the government could kill someone or take away his liberty or his property. If a person was targeted, the Bill of Rights guaranteed that he could elect to be tried by a jury of ordinary citizens rather than by a judge or a tribunal. Recognizing the inherent power of government, the amendments also guaranteed that a person being targeted could have an attorney represent him. The government was also prohibited from conducting searches without judicially issued warrants based on probable cause that a crime had been committed. They also prohibited federal officials from inflicting what they called “cruel and unusual” punishments on people.
Monsters
Our American ancestors had brought into existence a limited-government republic, a type of political system in which the government was delegated very few powers and then expressly forbidden by the Bill of Rights to exercise totalitarian-like powers. While there were backroom political deals that would be made, the overall operations of the government were open and transparent. That was the governmental system under which Americans lived for nearly 150 years.
At the same time, America adopted a noninterventionist foreign policy, one in which the federal government would not embroil the nation in foreign conflicts, wars, disputes, revolutions, or coups. This foreign policy was summed up in a speech that U.S. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams delivered to Congress on the Fourth of July, 1821. Entitled “In Search of Monsters to Destroy,” the speech pointed out that America’s founding foreign policy was not to send military forces abroad to save foreigners from the monstrous conditions in their countries, including dictatorships, famines, wars, and revolutions. If America were ever to abandon that noninterventionist foreign policy, Adams warned, U.S. officials would start behaving like dictators.
Does that mean that Americans were indifferent to the plights of foreigners? On the contrary. It just meant that they wouldn’t help them by bringing death and destruction through military force to their lands. Instead, America would open its borders to anyone who managed to escape his conditions, with no possibility that he would be rejected and forcibly returned to his homeland.
The shift toward empire and intervention began in 1898 in the Spanish-American War. Certain Spanish colonies were waging a war of independence against Spain. The U.S. government intervened in their behalf. As soon as Spain was defeated, however, the U.S. government assumed control over some of its former colonies. That’s how the United States acquired Puerto Rico, control over Cuba, the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Guam, and the Philippines. In the Philippines, U.S. forces killed hundreds of thousands of Filipinos who continued to fight for their independence, this time from the United States. The notion was that in order for the United States to become a great nation, it needed to become an empire and acquire colonies, just like the Spanish and British empires.
After that came U.S. intervention into World War I. Woodrow Wilson maintained that U.S. intervention would bring about an end to all war and make the world “safe for democracy” by totally and completely defeating Germany. Despite the loss of tens of thousands of American men, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Joseph Stalin rose to power in Germany, Italy, and Russia.
Once World War II broke out, Americans were overwhelmingly opposed to intervening again. But Franklin Roosevelt succeeded in provoking Japan into “firing the first shot” with its attack on Pearl Harbor, which brought about U.S. entry into the deadliest and most destructive war the world has ever seen.
The CIA
When the war was finally over in 1945, Americans were ecstatic that the Nazi regime and the Japanese Empire had been defeated and that their lives could return to normal. Not so fast, U.S. officials told Americans. They said that even though the Axis Powers had been defeated, the United States now faced another enemy, one that was arguably more dangerous than the Axis. That enemy was communism or, to be more exact, an international communist conspiracy to take over the world that was based in Moscow, Russia. The communists were coming to get us, U.S. officials said, and take over the U.S. government and the nation.
Therefore, they maintained, it would be necessary to intervene in hot wars to stop the Reds from advancing toward America and to wage a “cold war” against the Soviet Union. That’s how tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers got sacrificed in civil wars in Korea and Vietnam. U.S. officials said that if the United States failed to intervene in those conflicts, the Reds would be at our doorstep before too long.
That cold war is what brought about the conversion of the federal government from a limited-government republic to a national-security state, which was what the Soviet Union was. U.S. officials maintained that a limited-government republic-type of governmental system would be no match for a national-security-state type of governmental system, given that the latter placed no constraints on agents to do whatever they needed to do to win. In order to prevent a communist takeover of the United States, it would be necessary to convert the federal government to the same type of governmental system the Soviet Union had. The implication, of course, was that as soon as the United States won the Cold War, Americans could have their limited-government republic back.
Soon after the CIA was established in 1947, ostensibly as an “intelligence-gathering” agency to provide secret information to the president, it began specializing in the art of assassination, including the preparation of a top-secret “assassination manual” that explained various methods of assassination and, equally important, how to keep people from discovering that it was a state-sponsored assassination. The Fifth Amendment was eviscerated. In the name of protecting national security, the federal government, through the CIA, now wielded the power, to secretly deprive anyone of life it wanted.
In 1953, the CIA secretly initiated a coup in Iran that ousted the democratically elected prime minister of the country, Mohammad Mossadegh, from power and replaced him with the shah of Iran, one of the world’s most brutal dictators. The notion was that Mossadegh was leaning communist. In 1979, fed up with the U.S.-supported tyranny under which they had suffered for 25 years, the Iranian people revolted and ousted the shah from power. Unfortunately, they were unsuccessful in restoring the democratic system that the CIA had destroyed, leaving them suffering under a different type of dictatorship. The CIA’s coup is the root of the bad relations between Iran and the United States today.
One year later, 1954, the CIA secretly initiated a coup in Guatemala, which succeeded in ousting the democratically elected president of that country, Jacobo Arbenz, who was a socialist, and replacing him with a pro-U.S. military dictator. Arbenz was lucky that he was able to escape the country because the CIA had prepared an assassination list that undoubtedly had him at the top. That coup incited a 30-year-long civil war that killed more than a million Guatemalans.
After the 1959 Cuban revolution brought a communist regime into power, the Pentagon and the CIA, along with other U.S. officials, went apoplectic. America couldn’t survive with a “communist dagger” pointed at its throat from only 90 miles away, they said. Thus, the CIA launched an unsuccessful invasion of the island, several unsuccessful assassination attempts against Cuban president Fidel Castro, and a brutal economic embargo that, in combination with Castro’s socialist system, has squeezed the economic lifeblood out the Cuban people.
The national-security establishment’s incessant quest to effect regime change in Cuba also brought the United States and the Soviet Union to the brink of nuclear war.
The fact is that there was never any possibility that the communists were coming to get us and take over the federal government and the country. The Cold War was one great big racket, one that enriched countless people, including an army of “defense” contractors and subcontractors who got rich feeding at the public trough. Most important, the Cold War and the national-security-state form of governmental structure that came with it succeeded in destroying the rights and liberties of the Americans people.
The Middle East
Suddenly and unexpectedly, the Cold War ended in 1989, when the Soviet Union, which had gone bankrupt, called it quits. The Berlin Wall came down and Russian troops exited Eastern Europe.
Needless to say, the national-security establishment was concerned about its future. No more Cold War obviously meant that Americans were entitled to have their limited-government republic back. But the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA were not eager to be dismantled. Soon after the end of the Cold War, they intervened in the Persian Gulf War against their former partner and ally, Saddam Hussein, which began a 30-year campaign of U.S. death, destruction, and humiliation against people in the Middle East.
It was no surprise that that campaign engendered deep anger and rage among the people who were targeted for death and destruction. That’s when the anti-American terrorist blowback began. It started with the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, which was followed by the attacks on the USS Cole, the attacks on the U.S. embassies in East Africa, and the 9/11 attacks.
The 9/11 attacks gave the federal government what our American ancestors had feared when the Constitution was being proposed to them — a government consisting of a massive, ever-growing military-intelligence establishment with omnipotent, totalitarian powers to keep the nation “safe” from the terrorist blowback that U.S. officials had produced with their interventionism.
That’s how Americans have ended up with a government that wields the power to take them into custody and throw them indefinitely into a military dungeon and torture them to any extent whatsoever. It is how Americans have ended up with a government that wields the power to conduct secret surveillance on them, just like government officials do in China, North Korea, and Cuba. It is how Americans have ended up with a government that wields the power to assassinate them.
Anyone who lives under a national-security-state governmental system cannot possibly be considered free. Our ancestors understood that principle. Their successors living today have yet to figure that out. Or if they have figured it out, they have chosen to trade liberty for the pretense of safety and security.
For Americans who want freedom, a necessary prerequisite is the restoration of a limited-government republic and a noninterventionist foreign policy, which necessarily entails the dismantling, not the reform, of the Pentagon, the military-industrial complex, the CIA, and the NSA.
“The Europeans Haven’t Been Helpful” – Pompeo Slams Allies As Not Sufficiently Supportive After Suleimani Killing
With the middle eastern proxy war rapidly coalescing into an actual kinetic war, moves are now in motion to determine the shape of alliances once the shooting begins. And while it is quite clear that Russia and China will back Iran in spirit – although it remains to be seen if they will also back it in deed – it is increasingly questionable if that long-term US ally, Europe, will do the same for the US military-industrial complex.
The first hint of trouble emerged late on Friday when Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a Fox News interview that the United States’ European allies were not as helpful as he was hoping following the US strike in Iraq on Thursday that killed Iran’s top military commander, Qassem Soleimani. Pompeo compared the European response unfavourably with US “partners in the region”, a reference to Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which Pompeo consulted after the Suleimani assassination.
“I spent the last day and a half, two days, talking to partners in the region, sharing with them what we were doing, why we were doing it, seeking their assistance,” Pompeo told Fox News. “They’ve all been fantastic. And then talking to our partners in other places that haven’t been quite as good.
“Frankly, the Europeans haven’t been as helpful as I wished that they could be,” Pompeo said adding that “the Brits, the French, the Germans all need to understand that what we did, what the Americans did, saved lives in Europe as well. We’re trying to get Iran to simply behave like a normal nation.”
In justifying the unilateral airstrike, Pompeo said that “Qassem Suleimani led and his IRGC [Revolutionary Guard] led assassination campaigns in Europe. This was a good thing for the entire world, and we are urging everyone in the world to get behind what the United States is trying to do to get the Islamic Republic of Iran to simply behave like a normal nation.”
A similar shift in tone was apparent in Pompeo’s social media remarks: the Secretary of State has tweeted comments about speaking with a various foreign leaders in the past few days, including the Turkish foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, the United Arab Emirates’ Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan and Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
Pompeo tweeted that he thanked the Prime Minister of the Kurdistan region of Iraq “for his steadfast partnership. We agreed on the need for continued, close cooperation.”
Meanwhile, his tweets about European allies hinted at a cool response: “Countering the Iranian regime’s malign activity is a shared priority with our European allies. Our resolve to protect our people & our interests is unwavering,” Pompeo tweeted after his conversation with French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian.
After speaking with German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, Pompeo commented, “Germany is also concerned over the Iranian regime’s continued military provocations. The U.S. remains committed to de-escalation.”
British Foreign Minister Dominic Raab, who spoke with Pompeo on Friday, in a statement likewise urged “all parties to de-escalate.” Raab said the U.K. “recognized the aggressive threat” that Soleimani posed, but “further conflict is in none of our interests.”
Similarly, French President Emmanuel Macron tweeted, “The escalation of tensions in the Middle-East isn’t inevitable.” He focused instead on supporting Iraq’s sovereignty and security, “as well as the region’s stability; the fight against [ISIS} terrorism.”
European reaction to the drone-strike killing of Suleimani and Iraqi Shia militants travelling with him in Baghdad has been cautious and apprehensive. While noting Suleimani’s destructive role in the region, governments have called for restraint. Policy towards Iran has been a deeply divisive issue between the US and Europe since Donald Trump withdrew from the 2015 multilateral agreement with Iran that imposed strict limits on its nuclear programme in return for sanctions relief. European officials have blamed Trump’s efforts to strangle Iran economically for the rising tensions in the Persian Gulf.
Meanwhile, the killing of Suleimani has had an immediate impact on the coalition’s effort to wipe out Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Nato suspended its training of Iraqi security forces, currently led by Canada, and the US-led counter-Isis mission in the region, Operation Inherent Resolve, also cut back its activities, including the training of Iraqi counter-terrorist units.
Michael Knights, an expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said that “over the last few days we’ve literally stopped the anti-Isis fight – everything stopped”, adding that the counter-Isis campaign had already been severely hindered over the past year as Shia militias extended their influence. US-led forces have been stopped from flying over a large part of Iraq and banned from communicating with Sunni tribal forces, which had been seen as an important part of the strategy for keeping Isis suppressed.
Knights also said that the increased militia threat has also meant US special forces have had to abandon remote positions which they had been manning with Iraqi army units, because such small 30-strong detachments had become too vulnerable. “You just can’t do that because those guys could easily be overrun, killed or kidnapped by the militias, by the Iranians,” Knights said.
“It’s been very challenging to keep counter-Isis operations going under these conditions, and now with the really ramped-up threat to operating locations, it’s even harder, and if they kick us out of the country, even harder still.”
In a preview of what happens next, Knights said that if the Iraq parliament votes to eject the US military – which it did on Sunday – other partner countries in the coalition will leave too: “It operates on an ‘in-with-us out-with-us’, meaning those countries that came in with the US, will leave with the US.”
“N.F.L. insiders say it will take more than the Rooney Rule to diversify the league’s leadership. Their immediate goal: Increase offensive coaching opportunities for minority candidates, who are often overlooked.”
Rooney Rule
The Rooney Rule is a National Football League policy that requires league teams to interview ethnic-minority candidates for head coaching and senior football operation jobs. It is sometimes cited as an example of affirmative action, as there is no quota or preference given to minorities in the hiring of candidates. It was established in 2003, and variations of the rule are now in place in other industries. The rule is named after Dan Rooney, the former owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers and former chairman of the league’s diversity committee.
Diversity Math
There are 32 NFL teams
There are 3 black coaches
The percentage of blacks in the country is 12.1%
The percentage of black coaches is 9.4%
Mercy!
But even more shocking is the fact there are 0% female NFL coaches despite the fact that females are over 50.5% of the US population.
Where’s the outrage over this blatantly sexist policy?
And what about Hispanics? They comprise 16.7% of the population. Again, more outrage is needed.
Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard said she’d been taken aback to hear of the difficulties black female employees face at the central bank, and that the monetary authority faces formidable difficulties in increasing their representation.
“It was eye-opening to hear how black women feel about their roles at the Federal Reserve,” Brainard told a session entitled “Women in Central Banking” at the annual meeting of American Economic Association in San Diego on Friday. “They don’t see themselves” celebrated at a bank whose history has been dominated by white men and whose halls are adorned with photographs attesting to that.
Mercy, Mercy, Mercy
I hardly know where to start. But obviously we need universal race and gender quotas.
I propose we start with the military.
I assure you women, properly trained can be as mean and cruel and willing to blow heads off as any man.
The troops ought to be 50.5% (no more, no less) female.
Yet, according to the Defense Department, women only make up 20 percent of the Air Force, 19 percent of the Navy, 15 percent of the Army and a shockingly low 9 percent of the Marine Corps.
There are 38 four-star generals but only 2 of them are women.
Where’s the outrage?
Must Start in College
We have to start somewhere, and college is the correct place. Fortunately, on that score I have progress to report.
Instead of more women or blacks on the Fed, I suggest we try actual diversity of economic opinion and not gender for gender’s sake.
What’s most needed on the Fed is an Austrian economist who proposes dissolving it. That would be diversity. Instead, expect more group think nonsense about race and the Phillips Curve.
Good Ole Boy Network
To become a Fed president you have to think, believe, and act like a good ole boy. Janet Yellen is best not thought of as a woman, but rather a good ole boy.
Now that Brainard has chimed in, my stated view cannot possibly be right.
We need to rectify the situation promptly starting with race and gender quotas in college admissions, the military, and of course, professional sports.
But what about enforcement? I am glad you asked because I have the perfect solution.
Diversity Police Needed
We need more diversity police.
And they better be 50.5% women, 16.7% hispanic, and 12.% black.
Addendum
This issue goes back a long way for me. In 1998 I was asked point blank by the president of Harris Bank (now Bank of Montreal, BMO), “From a diverse standpoint who is best qualified for a managerial promotion“.
I named a name in one second flat. It was a black woman. Interestingly, my answer would not have changed had the president left of the word “diverse” from his question.
If this Q&A seems improbable to you, here is the background.
I was an AVP, but a non-manager. The president was 6 managerial levels higher than my manager.
But the question did not shock me in the least as I was very well known and outspoken. At every meeting, no matter how many people were present, I asked a pointed question. On at least 4 occasions, I fired off emails to the president. I spoke my mind.
Addendum 2
Martin Luther King called for judging a person on their character and not their skin. Discrimination should not be tolerated.
But there should be equality of opportunity, not quotas based on race or gender. Give everyone a fair shot and then let the best people succeed.
Iran Will “No Longer Observe Any Limits” On Uranium Enrichment
In what is the final blow to Obama’s landmark JCPOA, or the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, Iran’s government said on Sunday it would no no longer abide by any limits on its enrichment of uranium but would continue to cooperate with the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, according to the semi-official FARS news agency.
“The Islamic Republic will no longer observe any limits on the operational aspects of its nuclear program, to include uranium enrichment capacity, enrichment percentage, levels of enriched material and research and development,” Fars reported, citing a statement from the government.
As a reminder, President Trump started the process of unwinding Obama’s signature foreign policy deal in May 2018, when he withdrew the U.S. from the deal, setting off a chain of events that have seen tensions rise to the point where the two countries may now be on the brink of war.
FARS a government statement saying Iran would not respect any limits set down in the pact on the number of uranium enrichment centrifuges it could use, which meant there would be no limits on its enrichment capacity, the level to which uranium could be enriched, or Iran’s nuclear research and development. These would from now on be based on Iran’s technical needs.
The statement also said Iran’s steps could be reversed if Washington lifted its sanctions on Tehran, which of course won’t happen any time soon, if ever.
Instead, what will happen, is that the US will use Iran’s “unilateral” exit from the nuclear deal and the “threat” of a nuclear Iran, as justification for further military intervention, one which in addition to US military, may also involve Israeli forces in the immediate future.
Mr. Nolte then summarized this 2004 Grauniad article about the 2020 climate apocalypse…
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.
The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.
And that’s not the worst of it. Get a load of this:
‘Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,‘ concludes the Pentagon analysis. ‘Once again, warfare would define human life.’
…
Climate change ‘should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern’, say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.
An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is ‘plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately’, they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions
Here are some “highlights” from the actual DOD report:
The report reads like the script for The Day After Tomorrow, which was also released in 2004.
It even has a very funny typo…
Medieval War Period? Maybe this was just to catch the attention of the Pentagon brass. Click to enlarge
Why is it that the climate catastrophists never talk or write about the Bølling-Allerød interstadial (BA)? It’s the most anomalous feature on the temperature chart above. The BA is associated with a sharp rise in atmospheric CO2 (25-35 ppm in ice cores, >100 ppm in some plant stomata chronologies) and a genuine sea level rise acceleration, reaching rates of 40-60 mm/yr during Meltwater Pulse 1A.
The authors of the DOD report were futurist Peter Schwartz, who literally has a degree in rocket science, and Doug Randall, who worked for Schwartz at Global Business Network. Doug has an MBA and teaches yoga. It’s unclear as to whether or not they based this report on The Day After Tomorrow, or if Roland Emmerich based the screenplay for his American scientific film on the DOD report. Although it is possible that both works were based on Art “Coast to Coast“ Bell’s climatology textbook…
The Coming Global Superstorm by Art Bell, Whitley Strieber, first published in 1999. Read the prologue here.
I was going to write that you couldn’t make this sort of schist up, if you tried… But people did.
Addendum
Larry Kummer also addressed the Grauniad article and DOD report in this post.
‘Iranian Hackers’ Take Down US Government Site After DHS Warns Of Lone Wolf Terrorists, Cyberattacks
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Chad Wolf published a special bulletin via the National Terrorism Advisory System, indicating that there is no credible terrorist threat but warns Americans need to be extra vigilant for suspicious activity amid the threat of war with Iran.
Wolf tweeted Saturday, “The new @DHSgov NTAS Bulletin on the threat landscape was issued to inform & reassure the American public, state/local governments & private partners that DHS is actively monitoring & preparing for any specific, credible threat, should one arise.”
The new @DHSgov NTAS Bulletin on the threat landscape was issued to inform & reassure the American public, state/local governments & private partners that DHS is actively monitoring & preparing for any specific, credible threat, should one arise. pic.twitter.com/iNnHU1TI9A
Wolf’s announcement said there’s “no information indicating” a terrorist attack is imminent but said Iranian government officials and military leaders have called for revenge following US airstrikes that killed Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s elite Quds military force and one of the most influential people in the country.
The bulletin warned about lone wolf attacks from “homegrown violent extremists could capitalize on the heightened tensions to launch individual attacks” on soft targets. It said Iran could use Hezbollah agents to conduct terrorist attacks within the borders of the US.
It warned: “An attack in the homeland may come with little or no warning.”
The bulletin also said Iran could use cyberattacks to retaliate.
“Iran is capable, at a minimum, of carrying out attacks with temporary disruptive effects against critical infrastructure in the United States,” it read.
On Saturday, an Iranian hacker group breached a US government website and replaced the homepage with Iranian propaganda.
The Federal Depository Library Program’s website, fdlp.gov, saw its home page replaced with an image of Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Iranian flag.
“This is a message from the Islamic Republic Of Iran,” the page read.
“We will not stop supporting our friends in the region: the oppressed people of Palestine, the oppressed people of Yemen, the people and the Syrian government, the people and government of Iraq, the oppressed people of Bahrain, the true mujahideen resistance in Lebanon and Palestine [they] always will be supported by us,” the message continued.
The world has dove into uncharted waters – Iran has called for “crushing revenge” for Soleimani’s assassination, and Trump has warned if retaliation is seen, the US will strike 52 Iranian sites.
2019 was the great masking. 2020 will be all about the great unmasking and control.
In 2019 central banks once again succeeded in masking all the underlying problems in the economy, the underlying structural problems of debt, deflation and demographics, and the slowing of global growth and offering the pretense that 2019’s policy responses were nothing but a complete system failure acknowledging that markets can’t stand on their own two feet without central bank intervention. In process asset prices were artificially inflated across the board and valuations pushed far above the growth and size of global economies and volatility once again compressed.
2020 is then all about whether control over asset prices can be maintained and whether reflation can be achieved to support exaggerated asset prices or whether failure on either count will bring about the great unmasking of the largest asset bubble since the year 2000.
Bond markets and economic data so far shows few signs of true reflation as key individual stocks ($MSFT, $AAPL) are vastly extended and markets are in a state of imbalance partying like it’s 1999.
Optimism is high for 2020 and bulls enter the year in full control. The price target charade offers again positive outlooks despite all economic and growth projections having been off base.
Trust is placed in a phase one China trade deal to be signed on January 15 that nobody has seen or read or has any insight into specifics as to how it will bring about reflation.
Trust is placed in an administration keen on continuing to push asset prices higher into the US November election, even outlining specific asset price targets. (DJIA 32K).
Trust is placed in central banks to keep all troubles contained and to continue to “calm markets” as unexpected events such as the most recent Iran crisis pop up.
Markets are priced to perfection and the first quarter is likely to see a larger first correction. The historical script suggests that the first sizable correction of 2020 will get bought for a new rally to either new highs or lower highs.
It is the unfolding of economic data and earnings throughout the year that will then need to show evidence and match the high expectations priced into markets. Without such evidence markets and global economies may well proceed on the path of the great unmasking that the structural economy has been pointing toward for a while.
While central banks have successfully again kicked the can, they have yet to prove that reflation can be achieved. Non confirmation signals keep increasing as does the list of factors that need to be ignored to keep the ‘it’s different this time’ narrative alive.
Join me in this week’s market video for an in-depth discussion of technicals and key macro factors/concerns that suggest risk may be greatly misprized :
* * *
To get notified of future videos feel free to subscribe to our YouTube Channel. For the latest public analysis please visit NorthmanTrader. To subscribe to our market products please visit Services.
Biden Caught In ‘Flat-Out Lie’ Over Bin Laden Raid
Joe Biden can’t seem to get his story straight regarding the 2011 Bin Laden raid in which a team of SEALs killed the terrorist leader in a Pakistan compound.
Eight years ago, Biden told a group of congressional Democrats: “Mr. President, my suggestion is, don’t go — we have to do two more things to see if he’s there.”
2/
In 2012, Biden said he told Obama unequivocally: “Mr. President, my suggestion is don’t go.” pic.twitter.com/zTm1HQ6wiZ
Biden began to change his account in 2013, telling the New York Times he told Obama to “follow your instincts,” and then told him “Go” the next morning. He repeated this changed account in 2015, claiming that he privately told Obama to go ahead.
4/ By 2015, Biden completely contradicted what he said before
Biden claimed he never told Obama “don’t go” and that he privately gave Obama his real advice to “go” and “follow his own instincts” when (conveniently) other witnesses weren’t around pic.twitter.com/qjfKtLCNSg
On Friday, Biden doubled down on his lie during a brief exchange with Fox News:
“As commander in chief, if you were ever handed a piece of intelligence that said you could stop an imminent attack on Americans — but you have to use an airstrike to take out a terrorist leader — would you pull the trigger?” Biden was asked.
To which Biden replied “Well we did – the guy’s name was Osama bin Laden.”
“Didn’t you tell President Obama not to go after bin Laden that day?” Fox followed up.
“No, I didn’t,” Biden replied.
Joe Biden is now trying to cover up his opposition to the Osama bin Laden raid.
Moments ago, Biden says, “No I didn’t” when confronted by Peter Doocy for being against the raid.
8 years ago, Biden said he opposed raid and told Obama, “Mr. President, my suggestion is don’t go.” pic.twitter.com/zAWhMf38MU
