Scud missile strikes Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

According to emerging reports from Yemen, a surface-to-surface missile fired by the Yemeni Army has hit Riyadh in Saudi Arabia.

The missile was launched on Sunday evening, and sources in Yemen have described the missile test as successful.  It is unclear exactly what missile was used, and casualty figures, if any, are yet to be reported.

Saudi Arabia militarily intervened in the Yemeni Conflict in 2015, leading a coalition of almost 10 Middle Eastern countries. In October 2016, a Yemeni activist warned that Riyadh was the next target for a Yemeni missile attack.

Advertisement

Update 1: More information has emerged, suggesting that the missile was a variant of a Russian Scud, known as the “Borkan” surface-to-surface missile.

Update 2: Sources indicate that the missile struck a military base West of Riyadh, in Mazahimiyah.

Update 3: On social media, a Saudi attempts to cover-up the attack, saying that the sound of the explosion in Riyadh was an earthquake or meteor.

Update 4: Co-Founder of Mona Relief, a Yemeni charity, Dr. RS Karim, has reported that his contacts in Riyadh told him that a state of emergency has been declared.

Follow Reporter on Twitter for Updates: @SulimanM98

Can Trump Drive A Wedge Between Russia and Iran w/Out Alienating Putin?

Trump Administration Looks at Driving Wedge Between Russia and Iran

Wall_Street Journal

 

 

Officials say strategy marries president’s vows to improve relations with Putin and to aggressively challenge Iran’s military presence in Middle East

Ali Shamkhani, right, Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, welcomed Russia's special envoy on Syria, Alexander Lavrentiev, in Tehran on Sunday.

Ali Shamkhani, right, Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, welcomed Russia’s special envoy on Syria, Alexander Lavrentiev, in Tehran on Sunday. Photo: Vahid Salemi/Associated Press

WASHINGTON—The Trump administration is exploring ways to break Russia’s military and diplomatic alliance with Iran in a bid to both end the Syrian conflict and bolster the fight against Islamic State, said senior administration, European and Arab officials involved in the policy discussions.

The emerging strategy seeks to reconcile President Donald Trump’s seemingly contradictory vows to improve relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin and to aggressively challenge the military presence of Iran—one of Moscow’s most critical allies—in the Middle East, these officials say.

A senior administration official said the White House doesn’t have any illusions about Russia or see Mr. Putin as a “choir boy,” despite further conciliatory statements from Mr. Trump about the Russian leader over the weekend. But the official said that the administration doesn’t view Russia as the same existential threat that the Soviet Union posed to the U.S. during the Cold War and that Mr. Trump was committed to constraining Iran.

“If there’s a wedge to be driven between Russia and Iran, we’re willing to explore that,” the official said.

Such a strategy doesn’t entirely explain the mixed signals Mr. Trump and his circle have sent regarding Moscow, which have unnerved U.S. allies and caught Republican leaders in Congress off guard.

Days after the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, said a surge in violence in eastern Ukraine demanded “clear and strong condemnation of Russian actions,” Vice President Mike Pence suggested Sunday that Washington could lift sanctions on Moscow soon if it cooperated in the U.S. fight against Islamic State.

Mr. Trump himself spoke again about wanting to mend relations with Mr. Putin in an interview that aired before Sunday’s Super Bowl, saying “it’s better to get along with Russia than not.” After Fox News host Bill O’Reilly said Mr. Putin was a “killer,” the president responded: “What, you think our country’s so innocent?”

But those involved in the latest policy discussions argue there is a specific focus on trying to drive a wedge between Russia and Iran.

“There’s daylight between Russia and Iran for sure,” said a senior European official who has held discussions with Mr. Trump’s National Security Council staff in recent weeks. “What’s unclear is what Putin would demand in return for weakening the alliance.”

But persuading Mr. Putin to break with Tehran would be immensely difficult and—a number of Russian experts in Washington say—come at a heavy cost likely to reverberate across America’s alliances with its Western partners. Nor would Mr. Trump be the first U.S. president to pursue the strategy: The Obama administration spent years trying to coax Russia away from Iran, particularly in Syria, only to see the two countries intensify their military operations there to bolster the Damascus regime.

“If the Kremlin is to reduce its arms supplies to Iran, it is likely to expect a significant easing of sanctions,” said Dimitri Simes, a Russia expert and president of the Center for the National Interest in Washington. “The Russians don’t believe in free lunches.”

The Kremlin has said it aims to mend ties with the U.S. under the Trump administration but in recent months has also signaled its intent to continue to build on its cooperation with Iran.

Moscow and Tehran have formed a tight military alliance in Syria in recent years. The Kremlin is a major supplier of weapons systems and nuclear equipment to Iran.

But the Trump administration is seeking to exploit what senior U.S., European and Arab officials see as potential divisions between Russia and Iran over their future strategy in Syria and the broader Mideast.

“The issue is whether Putin is prepared to abandon [Ayatollah] Khamenei,” said Michael Ledeen, an academic who advised National Security Council Advisor Michael Flynn during the transition and co-wrote a book with him last year. “I think that might be possible if he is convinced we will ‘take care’ of Iran. I doubt he believes that today.”

Russia, Iran and Turkey have been leading talks in Kazakhstan in recent weeks to try to end Syria’s six-year war. Participants in the discussions, which have excluded high-level U.S. diplomats, said Russia has appeared significantly more open than the Iranians to discussing a future without President Bashar al-Assad.

A Russian-backed faction in the talks has promoted the creation of a new Syrian constitution and a gradual transition away from Mr. Assad.

Moscow has pressed the Trump administration to join the talks at a high-level, an invitation not extended while President Barack Obama was in office. Last week, the administration sent only a lower-level official, its ambassador to Kazakhstan.

Mr. Putin largely has succeeded in saving the regime of Mr. Assad from collapse through a brutal air war in Syria over the past 18 months. But the Kremlin is interested in fortifying its long-term military presence in Syria and doesn’t necessarily view Mr. Assad as an enduring partner, these officials said.

Iran, conversely, is wholly wedded to Mr. Assad as its primary partner for shipping weapons and funds to Iran’s military proxies in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, including Hezbollah and Hamas. Any future Arab leader in Syria, even one close to Mr. Assad, is unlikely to tie his position so closely to Tehran.

“Russia is fully aware of the corruption and incompetence of the Assad regime…[and] knows that a stable Syria—a country worth having military bases in the long term—is unattainable with Assad at the helm,” said Fred Hof, a former State Department official who oversaw Syria policy during President Obama’s first term.

He added: “Tehran knows there is no Syrian constituency beyond Assad accepting subordination to [Iran].”

The Obama administration also pursued a strategy of trying to woo Russia away from Tehran. During his first term, Mr. Obama succeeded in getting then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to support tough United Nations sanctions on Iran for its nuclear activities. Moscow also delayed the delivery of antimissile batteries to Tehran, sparking a diplomatic row between the countries.

In return, the Obama White House rolled back missile-defense deployments in Europe that Russia believed weakened its strategic position.

Tensions between Russia and the U.S. flared, though, after Mr. Putin regained the presidency in 2012 and seized the Crimean region of Ukraine in 2014. The U.S. and European Union responded with tough financial sanctions on Mr. Putin’s inner circle.

A number of Russia experts in Washington say they believe Mr. Putin would demand a heavy price now for any move to distance himself from Iran. In addition to easing sanctions, they believe he would want assurances that the U.S. would scale back its criticism of Russia’s military operations in Ukraine and stall further expansion of North Atlantic Treaty Organization membership for countries near the Russian border.

Montenegro is scheduled to join NATO this year. The U.S. Senate still needs to vote to approve the bid.

In a report released Friday, the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington think tank, cautioned that even if Moscow were to distance itself from Tehran, it wouldn’t contain the enormous influence that Iran wields over Syria’s economic, military, and political institutions. “Any U.S. effort to subvert Iran’s posture in Syria through Russia will undoubtedly end in failure,” the assessment said.

Russia delivered its S-300 antimissile system to Iran after Tehran, the U.S. and five other world powers implemented a landmark nuclear agreement a year ago. The Kremlin since has talked of further expanding its military and nuclear cooperation with Tehran.

Mr. Trump, though, campaigned on improving relations with Moscow, a theme that Mr. Putin has publicly embraced. Mr. Trump has suggested he could ease sanctions on Russia if the Kremlin took serious steps to cooperate in fighting Islamic State in Syria and Iraq and addressing other national security threats to the U.S.

Mr. Trump and his advisers have made clear since assuming office that constraining Iran would be among their top priorities. They have also privately acknowledged there is no certainty the Kremlin will cooperate.

Last week, the administration declared Iran “on notice” and the U.S. Treasury Department imposed sanctions on 25 Iran-linked individuals and entities for their alleged roles in aiding Iran’s ballistic missile program and terrorist activities. The Pentagon also dispatched a naval destroyer, the USS Cole, last week to police the waters around Yemen.

The Trump administration’s show of force has raised concerns that the U.S. and Iran could stumble into a military conflict. But officials close to the Trump administration said they believed the White House could gain the respect of the Kremlin if it showed a commitment to enforcing its warnings to other governments.

“Iran has a continuing operation throughout the region…that is not sustainable, not acceptable, and violates norms and creates instability,” a senior U.S. official said on Friday. “Iran has to determine its response to our actions. Iran has a choice to make.”

Noisy…Little…British Navy Alerting Russian Subs 100 Miles Away

Type 45 destroyers HMS Dragon, left, and HMS Diamond
Type 45 destroyers HMS Dragon, left, and HMS Diamond Credit: Solent News & Photo Agency

Britain’s ability to defend itself against a major military attack has been called into question after an investigation found Navy warships are so loud they can be heard 100 miles away by Russian submarines.

Rear Admiral Chris Parry, a former director of operational capability for the Ministry of Defence, said the £1 billion a piece Type 45 destroyers are “as noisy as hell” and sound like “a box of spanners” underwater.

It comes amid warnings that years of defence cuts and expensive procurement contracts with a small number of large defence firms, has the left the military with an “existential minimum” amount of equipment.

The Type 45 destroyer HMS Duncan being assisted by dockyard tugs
The Type 45 destroyer HMS Duncan being assisted by dockyard tugs Credit: Raymond Wergan

The Ministry of Defence spent £3.5bn on each of the Army’s Ajax tanks, but they are unable to fit on board transport aircraft without needing to be dismantled, according to an investigation by the Sunday Times.

A further £1.2 billion was spent on 54 Watchkeeper reconnaissance drones, which haven’t entered frontline service for 12 years.

General Sir Richard Barrons, a former commander of Joint Forces Command, has called on the Government to “re-bench” the armed forces.

Watchkeeper: army's latest 'spy in the sky' Watch | Watchkeeper: army’s latest ‘spy in the sky’

He said: “You are dealing with a legacy of iterative hollowing out, which has reached a point where the frog has boiled.”

Long-rumoured problems with the Navy’s fleet of six Type 45 destroyers that left them total powerless were confirmed early this year.

The Ministry of Defence issued a statement admitting “reliability issues” had affected the ships and said that it was considering upgrades to the vessels to make them more reliable.

Sir Richard Barrons
Sir Richard Barrons said defence cuts had left the military with an “existential minimum” amount of equipment and supplies Credit: Harland Quarrington/MoD

The warships were originally designed to work in the cool waters of the North Atlantic, but in hotter climates, the jet engines have experienced problems with heat, causing them to shut down.

Admiral Parry said: “We used to put little wooden wedges between the hatchclips and the hatches in my destroyer to stop them rattling so we could keep the noise down.”

“We have forgotten all about it — it’s crazy. Noise suppression has been probably the biggest dirty secret since the end of the Cold War that people have been cheerfully ignoring.”

The Ministry of Defence ordered 54 Watchkeeper reconnaissance drones in 2005 in an £847m deal to provide surveillance and reconnaissance for troops.

The drones can beam back high definition images as they fly up to 16,000ft above the battlefield, but technical and safety delays have meant that apart from a brief stint in Afghanistan, the aircraft will not enter full service until this year.

An MOD spokesperson said: “Britain’s defence budget is the biggest in Europe and it is growing every year, we are investing £178 billion as the UK steps up globally.

“We are focused on maintaining an affordable programme and getting the best value for the taxpayer to deliver the cutting-edge kit our Armed Forces need to keep Britain safe.”

Justice Department demolishes case against Trump order

Judicial second-guessing of the president’s determination that a temporary suspension of entry of certain classes of aliens was necessary at this time to protect national security would constitute an impermissible intrusion on the political branches’ plenary constitutional authority over foreign affairs, national security, and immigration. See, e.g., Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 588-89 (1952) (“[A]ny policy toward aliens is vitally and intricately interwoven with contemporaneous policies in regard to the conduct of foreign relations, the war power, and the maintenance of a republican form of government.”). “[I]t is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien.” Knauff, 338 U.S. at 543; see also INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 425 (1999).

In addition, the government argued, “courts are particularly ill-equipped to second-guess the president’s prospective judgment about future risks.” The reason: “Unlike the president, courts do not have access to classified information about the threat posed by terrorist organizations operating in particular nations, the efforts of those organizations to infiltrate the United States, or gaps in the vetting process.”

The government brief supported the president’s decision on both legal and constitutional grounds, starting with the law. And that starts with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which states:

Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Quoting cases from 2016 and 1977, the Justice Department argued that, specifically in the context of immigration, “the Supreme Court has ‘long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.'” “When Congress delegates this plenary power to the executive, the executive’s decisions are likewise generally shielded from administrative or judicial review.”

Earlier presidents have “repeatedly invoked this authority,” the government brief argued, noting actions by Presidents Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama. The Supreme Court even ruled in 1993 that the president had “ample power” to order a naval blockade to keep out Haitians trying to enter the United States. Surely he has the authority to stop a Libyan, in Libya, from receiving permission to enter the United States.

The government brief noted that the “vast majority” of people affected by the executive order are foreign nationals residing outside the U.S. Yemenis in Yemen, Somalis in Somalia, Libyans in Libya, etc. But Washington State argued that it has an interest, as a state, in stopping the Trump order because “immigration is an important economic driver in Washington.” The state’s lawyers argued that Microsoft alone employs nearly 5,000 H-1B visa holders, and that is in addition to those working for Amazon, Expedia, and Starbucks in the state. Therefore, the people of Washington State have legal standing to challenge the Trump order.

The government responded that, whatever Microsoft’s hiring preferences, the law is clear:

The [Immigration and Naturalization Act]’s carefully reticulated scheme provides for judicial review only at the behest of an alien adversely affected, and even then only if the alien is subject to removal proceedings. Under longstanding principles exemplified by the doctrine of consular nonreviewability, an alien abroad cannot obtain judicial review of the denial of a visa (or his failure to be admitted as a refugee). It follows that a third party, like Washington, has no “judicially cognizable interest” in such a denial.

In other words, a state cannot stop a president’s national security directive to satisfy the wishes of a particularly big business in that state.

Washington State also argued that the president’s authority under the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 to deny entry to “any aliens or any class of aliens” was later limited by a 1965 amendment that “prohibits discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas on the basis of race, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.” The Trump order, Washington State lawyers argued, along with intent revealed in statements made by candidate Trump during the 2016 campaign, are discriminatory and violate the amended immigration act.

Not so, argued the Justice Department. “This restriction does not address the president’s authority…to ‘suspend the entry’ of aliens, which is an entirely different act under the immigration laws,” the Department argued. “An immigrant visa does not entitle an alien to admission to the United States, and even if an alien is issued a valid visa, he is subject to being denied admission to this country when he arrives at the border.” Beyond that, the government said, the lawsuit’s argument could lead to an absurd end:

Washington State’s interpretation…would lead to the untenable result that the United States could not suspend entry of nationals of a country with which the United States is at war, which would raise a serious constitutional question about Congress’s ability to restrict the President’s Article II authority to ensure the nation’s security.

Beyond that, there is the issue of non-immigrant entry into the U.S., that is, the millions of people who are admitted each year not as immigrants but as visitors. While the 1965 passage concerns “immigrant visas,” there seems to be no question among anyone that the president can halt the entry of non-immigrants at any time, and Trump’s order specifically included non-immigrants.

On the larger question of the Trump order’s constitutionality, the government makes a very simple point: foreign nationals in foreign countries do not have U.S. constitutional rights:

The vast majority of the individuals that Washington State claims are affected by the Executive Order are aliens outside the United States, but it is “clear” that “an unadmitted and nonresident alien” “had no constitutional right of entry to this country as a nonimmigrant or otherwise.” Mandel, 408 U.S. at 762; see Plasencia, 459 U.S. at 32. This is fatal to Washington’s facial challenges, which require it to show that there is no constitutionally valid application of the order. Even if the state could show a constitutional violation with respect to some individuals — and it cannot — they plainly cannot establish such a violation as to non-resident aliens who are outside the United States and who have no prior connection to this country…The district court’s sweeping injunction…conflicts with the basic principle that “an alien seeking initial admission to the United States requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding his application, for the power to admit or exclude aliens is a sovereign prerogative.” Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32 (1982).

Nevertheless, Washington State argued that Trump’s order violates the First Amendment because it is “intended to disfavor Islam and favor Christianity,” and violates the Fifth Amendment because it is “motivated by animus and a desire to harm a particular group,” meaning Muslims, and because it would discriminate between groups seeking to enter the U.S.

To make its case, Washington State lawyers cherry-picked several Trump statements from the campaign to demonstrate alleged presidential intent to deprive Muslims abroad and in the U.S. of their constitutional rights.

The Justice Department responded in four different ways. First is the argument that no foreign national in a foreign country has U.S. constitutional rights to violate. Second is that the Trump executive order covers countries previously identified by Congress and the Obama administration as terrorist hot spots and is therefore not based on Trump’s alleged animus toward a particular religion. Third, the order does not target Muslims specifically. And fourth, and perhaps most importantly, it is not the role of a U.S. district judge to divine the president’s motives:

Washington State argued that the district court should disregard the president’s stated rationale for issuing the executive order because Washington State believed it was prompted by religious animus toward Islam. That argument is wrong, and it cannot be reconciled with Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 US. 753, 770 (1972), which held that, “when the executive exercises” immigration authority “on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will [not] look behind the exercise of that discretion[.]” Cf. Kerry v. Din, 135 S. Ct. 2128, 2140 (2015) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (noting that Mandel’s “reasoning has particular force in the area of national security”). Here, as another district court has recognized, the executive order undeniably states a facially legitimate and bona fide reason — ensuring the “proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals” and “that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists.” Order, §§ 3(c), 5(a), (c); see Louhghalam, Order 18-19. The order does so in part by incorporating a list of seven countries that were identified by Congress — and by the Executive in 2016 — as raising terrorism-related concerns.

Finally, the Justice Department noted that even with such a large body of law opposing Robart’s judgment, and in such a high-profile case with so much responsibility on the judge to clearly state his reasoning, Robart “did not confront” the arguments against his position and indeed “gave no explanation why the state of Washington has a high likelihood of success on the merits of its claims.” Beyond that, the state itself, as a state, is not subject to the executive order, and therefore does not have standing to challenge it. And Robart’s order is “vastly overbroad” and “untethered to Washington State’s particular claims” and “extends even to aliens abroad who currently have no visas” and “applies nationwide, effectively overriding the judgment of another district court [in Boston] that sustained the executive order against parallel challenges.”

In fact, while Judge Robart decreed that the interests of Washington State would be harmed by the Trump order, the government argued that the interests of the presidency, and of the Constitution, would be harmed by Judge Robart’s decision. “Judicial intrusion on the political branches’ exclusive authority over the admission of aliens, by violating the separation of powers, in itself constitutes irreparable injury,” the Department argued.

By the end of the Justice Department’s 24-page brief, Judge Robart’s, and the state of Washington’s, argument lay in tatters.

So what happens now? The Department filed the emergency request to stop Robart’s order with the 9th Circuit, long known as the most liberal appeals court in America. No matter how strong the case, many observers thought there would be zero chance the circuit court would take the government’s side. And indeed, the emergency effort to stop Robart was immediately rejected. But that was just the emergency effort. In the days ahead, there will be a fuller hearing on the issue, and possibly more appeals.

As that goes on, even among Trump allies there will be debate over whether the new administration moved too fast, whether it should have waited until it had more fully introduced the ideas in the executive order to the public and had its own team in place in the Justice Department. (The Department’s brief was filed by Noel J. Francisco, a former Bush administration official who is now a temporary Trump appointee serving as Acting Solicitor General.)

Despite the overwhelming strength of the administration’s argument, what happens next — as the case is argued in a liberal circuit and then possibly moves on to a Supreme Court divided evenly, 4 to 4, among liberal and conservative justices — is impossible to predict. But strength of the case does not assure victory. As Laura Ingraham, the conservative radio host who also served as a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, tweeted on Sunday: “The law is on Donald Trump‘s side. Doesn’t mean that the courts will follow it.”

The Big Secret Plan For A Future Without You Or Yours

The Thirty Families Made Plans For A Future Without You.

The Central Banks have been buying corporate stocks. The Federal Reserve has been buying stocks likely through companies like Citadel Capital.   Max Keiser

Never forget that Federal Reserve Vice-Chairman Stanley Fischer used to be the Governor of the Bank of Israel. He holds dual US-Israeli citizenship and was brought here in 2014 to oversee the demise of the US Dollar.  Vidrebel

Hint: Stanley Fisher used to be a professor of economics. He was a mentor to Ben Bernanke and Mario Draghi. That is all you need to know about him.

David Rothkopf was the Managing Director of Kissinger Associates back in the 1990s. He wrote the book Superclass in which he said that the world was run by 30 Families and their 6,000 Minions. The Thirty Families are the New World Order. The NWO wants to replace the sovereign decision making authority of more than 100 nations with their Absolute Power. One World government would remove the facade of democracy.

The trade treaties TPP and TTIP would have taken power away from sovereign nations and turned it over to corporations. A Swiss study found that 147 corporations controlled 20% of world trade. The 30 Families and their 6,000 Minions wanted these companies to be above the law and to exploit consumers in all nations without recourse to law. So what if you have studies proving Genetically Modified Organisms are harmful to human and animal health. You will eat your GMO and not talk back.

The TPP and TTIP treaties would have been stepping stones to a One World government.

Brexit and the election of Donald Trump have stopped the progression to a One World government. That and the dislike for GMO by consumers around the world.  All you need to know about One World government is that One Bank One Vote would have replaced One Man One Vote.

As Max Keiser was implying, the plan is to run the stock market up so the Uber Rich can unload their over valued shares to the Central Banks, pension funds and small investors then let you eat the inflation as the world plunges into a Global Depression worse than the 1930s.

The Bankers plan to cut our wages and pensions by 60% or more. Of course some nations would be better off than others after a global crash. Russia has very little debt even though it has dipped into reserves. Putin has enough cash left over to buy gold by the ton. Despite Fake News reports, the US does not have more gold reserves than Russia.

The British have more Household or private debt than Americans. But Australia and the Netherlands have even more than Britain. The US and Japan lead most countries in national public debt. And that includes Greece. You will have to do a web search for total private debt as well as public debt for your nation to determine how bad things will become in the relatively near future.

Why am I concerned about debt? Because a Depression is a period in time when Unpayable Debts are cancelled en masse. The preferred method for cancelling Unpayable Debts in the modern era is Hyperinflation. Venezuela just added a zero to their money. On July 4, 2008 in Zimbabwe the price of a bottle of beer rose from 100 to 150 billion dollars between 5 and 6:30 pm.

The United States was over populated by design and has been living off the charity of others since the 1960s. The US prints dollars which people overseas use to buy oil or food or thousands of other products and commodities from producers outside the US. Americans get to pay for imported cars, food, oil, electronics, apparel and everything else with’I Owe You Nothing’ Federal Reserve Notes. That system which allows the US to print dollars foreigners are forced to redeem will come to an abrupt end in the near future.

That is when imported prices either double or triple or even quadruple thus instantly impoverishing everyone who is stuck holding dollars. That will cut American wages and pensions 60%. When you combine that massive paycut with the other accompanying economic dislocations, you can see how Americans will suffer worse than during the Great Depression. Only 3 million Americans starved to death last time in the 1930s.

The Bankers transfer wealth from us to them through a rigged system that allows them to charge us interest on money they created out of nothing. That ability to rob 300 million non-Jewish Americans is sacrosanct. We will not be allowed to change our banking laws until our survival depends on it.

A few hints of things to come before the collapse:

Most of us have friends and relatives who love the price of their home. They do not realize that homes in many areas of the world are way over valued. It was only the phenomenal rise in Unpayable Mortgage Debt that has driven up house prices beyond the ability of young couples to buy.

Others have never thought about what will happen to their city the day after the Nationwide Food Riots begin. WalMart has had riots in localities where the Electronic Transfer Benefit cards for Food Stamps failed to work. Imagine what happens when 120 million Americans cannot afford to buy food because their wages and pensions were cut 50%.

This income reduction will work out in different ways for people around the world. Some nations will be far in worse conditions than others. Both America and Great Britain will have hard times.

Americans do have 350 million guns but millions of people might use them against their fellow citizens to steal what little they have. That is what the Uber Rich want to happen.

It was interesting to note that Donald Trump has 3 generals in his inner circle. To me that signifies that he is prepared for a Civil War. George W Bush had 2 former Defense Secretaries and a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in his inner circle. But that was so America could fight Israel’s wars in the Mideast. I see a greater domestic focus for Trump. Bush’s father was a former CIA Director and had worked for the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds. But Trump’s father was a builder in Brooklyn. And his mother had immigrated from the Hebrides islands when she was 18. English was her second language.

Stanley Fischer was lauded by other Central Bankers for his skills. This is not good news for you. He favors using your deposit money to pay for any losses the Banks incur. That means your savings and pension will be cut more than 60%. I read in Zero Hedge that 27 million employed adults who work as many hours as they can get have to skip meals to get through the week. Cutting their wages will be hazardous to the health of anyone who works  for the government and especially for those in law enforcement or the military after martial law is decreed.

I must repeat my previous plea: Only Debt Cancellation will end this Depression painlessly without violence. After the Nationwide Food Riots begin, martial law will be declared. The only sensible solution would be for junior military officers to seize control and arrest the Bankers seizing their assets to fund Debt Cancellation.

I will conclude with something have not said for awhile.

The Fundamental Fact of Your Existence as a modern man or woman is that the bankers of New York and London want to reduce you to Debt Slavery.

Accept that fact and move on to the solution.

That is their plan for you.

What is your plan for them?

Trump Foiled Soros’ Master Plan to Impose New World Order

 

© AP Photo/ Kin Cheung

Wall Street hedge fund manager and financial analyst Mitch Feierstein claims that Donald Trump came to power just in time to prevent billionaire George Soros and Bill and Hillary Clinton achieve a Trans Pacific free trade deal hidden from the public.

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — President Donald Trump came to power just in time to prevent billionaire George Soros and Bill and Hillary Clinton achieve a Trans Pacific free trade deal hidden from the public, Wall Street hedge fund manager and financial analyst Mitch Feierstein told Sputnik.”George Soros and Clinton Inc. were nearly able to declare ‘Mission Accomplished’ on their vision of establishing an opaque ‘New World Order’,” Feierstein, a hedge fund manager who has spent 38 years working in the New York, Tokyo and London global financial markets, said on Tuesday.

On Monday, Trump announced that he was scrapping the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that his predecessor President Barack Obama had sought to complete during his eight years in office.

“Forget Soros’s New World Order for now because a new sheriff, Donald Trump, the 45th US President arrived on in Washington promising to drain the swamp. TPP is a now history and it will be interesting to see who is naked at low tide,” Feierstein noted.

The top-secret TPP free trade agreement was one of the worst trade deals ever crafted by Washington’s pay-to-play culture of corruption, Feierstein stated.

“How could any rational individual or sovereign be supportive of a secret ‘trade deal’ with zero transparency and legal language drafted by multi-national corporations?” he asked.

The TPP was deliberately crafted to ensure a form of “globalization” so that these same corporations who designed the “rules” could operate in the dark with total impunity while stripping member nations of their sovereignty and denying consumers of all their rights and protections, Feierstein explained.

“TPP was Obama’s ‘Crown Jewel’ achievement after 35 years of failed neoliberalism funded by oligarchs for the benefit of oligarchies,” he observed.

Feierstein is a British-American investor, banker and writer who has worked as a columnist for the Daily Mail and currently works as a columnist for The Independent and the Huffington Post.