The world is in chaos, gold is pushing through $1600 per ounce, silver moving toward $20 per ounce. Flash points throughout the world. War is brewing on the horizon. You need protection today for tomorrow it will be to late.
See below for a previous post from January 2019
Insurance is something that everyone needs but not everyone has. Did you notice what happened when homeowners in hurricane exposed areas called their insurance carrier on the days before the big one? “TOO LATE” for coverage was the reply. Obamacare turned out to be the exact opposite; individuals with serious illnesses didn’t sign up until they were on the death bed. However, Obamacare said, “thanks for dropping by, we will cover you with the preexisting condition.” Socialized medicine for the masses, printing money for the masses. Why not? Hasn’t it worked before?
The protection you need tomorrow must be bought today. And there is nothing better than gold to protect you from the coming financial disaster which obviously is bound to happen. These black swan events come in a flash. The world ten years out will be 180 degrees different from today. Major upheavals the world over will be common place; Globalism will be dead, country vs country and man vs man will be the norm.
Gold is once again on the rise. The pundits can’t nor are they willing to understand the attraction to gold; steadfast has it been in an island of global turmoil. Uncertainty on what will happen have caused many to insure themselves with the metal.
Although some human beings believe we are living in a vacuum, we are not ; attacks are coming from all sides. North Korea, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, Syria to name a few. And then there is the weather, whether you like it or not expect the volatility to continue. Certain things can’t be explained by simple logic. Take for example BITCOIN heading to outer space at warp speed, perhaps being propelled by the hot air coming out of Washington.
The last time we looked, a couple of seconds ago, BITCOIN was flying higher than an Elon Musk SpaceX rocket. At 4750.92 US Dollars we fear for those who hold it. Gravitational effects based on Issac Newton’s law of physics will eventually win out. But there is more to the story for those who don’t want to go mining; for example you can gamble with BITCOINS by buying the cryptocurrency alter ego GBTC. Many crptohumans have done just that.
For those who piled in on Thursday at the peak, suddenly were awakened by the sound of a vacuum going puf. And when this happens it can be devastating to life and dreams. Life to those who jump from the stratosphere and dreams to those who had their balloon deflated.
Bitcoin Investment Trust (GBTC)
800.00-205.00 (-20.40%)At close: September 1 3:57PM EDTThat brings us to GOLD. There is one thing about something physical, you can touch it, hold it, smell it. This also goes for humans too. Like BITCOIN, sexbots will never take the place of a loving woman and BITCOIN will never take the place of GOLD. The past predictions by the pundits have been wrong again. GOLD is on the rise, nothing compared to the parabolic rise of the BITCOIN, a phenomenem rivaling the great TULIP crazed mania of Holland five centuries ago.The United States debt bomb, 20 trillion heading for 20 googles now that the Federal Reserve is ramping up the presses faster than Superman leaping buildings in a single bound. Why would they continue to print fiat money? Well, they have a problem; inflation is not rising faster than they wish. Wages are stagnant and the FEDS are in a tizzy why wage growth is not following the academic script. Some unknown force is with us, but what? Bring in Dr. Henry Lee for the forensics.
During the past six months one talking head after another has tried to talk down gold. But to the skeptics like us, we know that the United States dollar is not worth the paper it is printed on. The likes of Goldman-Sachs (with a name like Goldman, why would they be bearish on Gold – very confusing to us) forecast a $1000 ounce of gold, others saw an implosion to $500, not so fast says the market. When Goldman speaks people listen or do they? Lately gold has mounted a furious rally, rising above $1300.
To the naysayers out there, look what is happening in the world; in one word it is defined as TURMOIL. Globally people have lost confidence in their leaders. The way we look at, the world is on edge waiting for the next suicide bomber. Could it be the BOYman in North Korea who can’t keep a missile in his pants who unzips one or two in a massive display of egomania?
The higher gold goes the worse it will be for the status quo. Remember, the Central Banks were set up by politicians to print money, ostensibly to feed their minions, this became the loop for reelection; it continues today. Once the printing stops, the true revolution begins, the free-loaders will no longer be in control, but the men/women of conscience and integrity will once again rule. Work will be rewarded not the other way around. Bankers be damned.
See below for the previous reprint from an October 2014 blog.
THROUGH OUT HISTORY GOLD HAS BEEN THE MEDIUM OF EXCHANGE; THE STORE OF VALUE. PAPER MONEY DISPLACED GOLD EARLY IN THE 17TH CENTURY; FIRST USED IN MASSACHUSETTS THEN BY THE STATES DURING THE CIVIL WAR. THE BANKING INDUSTRY’S GENESIS WAS INITIATED EARLY ON BY WAREHOUSES WHICH ISSUED A RECEIPT – THUS A WAREHOUSE RECEIPT– ENTITLING THE HOLDER TO REDEEM THE RECEIPT FOR THE SAID AMOUNT OF GOLD AS DEFINED IN THE RECEIPT. AS THE INDUSTRY BLOSSOMED IT BECAME APPARENT THAT THE HOLDERS OF RECEIPTS VERY RARELY REQUESTED THE PHYSICAL GOLD; THEY ONLY TRANSFERRED THE RECEIPTS. THUS THE WAREHOUSES EVOLVED INTO LENDERS REALIZING THAT A CALL FOR 100 PERCENT OF THE GOLD AT ANY ONE TIME WAS NOT A PROBABILITY.
THE 18TH THROUGH THE 21ST CENTURY BECAME THE GLORY DAYS OF GOLD. BANKS BECAME BEHEMOTHS LENDING MORE GOLD THAN THEY HAD IN INVENTORY. WHEN A RUN ON A BANK OCCURRED, WHICH IT ULTIMATELY DID, CULMINATING IN BANKRUPTCY AND RUIN. AS THE UNITED STATES ENTERED THE 20TH CENTURY AS THE WORLD’S BIG MONEY PLAYER THE WORLD TREATED THE DOLLAR AS IF IT WAS GOOD AS GOLD.
THIS WAS TRUE UP UNTIL 1971. NOT DISMISSING THE ILLEGAL TAKING OF INDIVIDUALS GOLD BY FDR BACK IN 1933 (SEE EXECUTIVE ORDER 6102). THE WORLD WAS ON THE PATH OF BECOMING A DYNAMIC AND RISKY ADVENTURE FROM 1971 ON; THE DOLLAR WAS NO LONGER CONVERTIBLE TO GOLD, THE DREAM OF EL DORADO BECAME A REALITY BY INVENTING PAPER GOLD ON A SCALE NEVER SEEN BEFORE. THE PHYSICAL GOLD WINDOW HAD CLOSED, THE DOLLAR PYRAMID SCHEME BEGAN. HENCE THE PRINTING OF PAPER MONEY ON A SCALE NEVER SEEN BEFORE. ECONOMIES WERE ON FINANCIAL COCAINE, A EUPHORIA THAT IS STILL MANIFESTED BY GOVERNMENTS GONE WILD. MORE PRINTING ENABLED THE EXALTED TO EXERT CONTROL OF ECONOMIES, COUNTRIES AND WORLD POLITICS. BUT GOOD TIMES DON’T LAST FOREVER.
ENTERING THE 21ST CENTURY HAS PROVED THAT THE DOLLAR PANACEA HAS A LONG REACH, BUT THINGS CAN CHANGES IN A QUANT MOMENT. ACROSS THE GLOBE ONE COUNTRY AFTER ANOTHER HAS DEFAULTED; GREECE AND ARGENTINA HEAD THE LIST. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE UNITED STATES IS NEXT? A PROBABILITY THAT CANNOT BE COUNTED OUT. WHAT BRINGS US TO THAT CONCLUSION IS THE LOSS OF FAITH IN THE UNITED STATES. WE ARE NO LONGER CONTROL WORLD EVENTS – OBAMA SAW TO IT.
FUTURE OBLIGATIONS ARE THE TAIL WAGGING THE DOG AND THAT IS ABOUT TO BECOME THE ALBATROSS UNDER OUR NECK FOR THE NEXT TWO DECADES. OBLIGATIONS ARE COMING DUE. AND THE QUESTION REMAINS, WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE TO PAY THEM. FOR SURE YOU CAN’T COUNT ON TODAY’S YOUTH TO HAND OVER THEIR HARD EARNED CASH. 17 TRILLION AND COUNTING (NOW 20 TRILLION) IS A GARGANTUAN NUMBER, THAT IS JUST DEBT, COUNTING SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICATE OBLIGATIONS AND INTEREST ON THE DEBT WE ARE LOOKING AT A GOOGLE TYPE NUMBER CLOSER TO 100 TRILLION. $100,000,000,0000,0000.
ANOTHER RELEVANT QUESTION TO ASK A POLITICIAN OF THE GOLDBRICK VARIETY IS: WILL WE EVER BE ABLE TO PAY BACK THE MONEY WE OWE? DON’T EXPECT A STRAIGHT ANSWER. THE NEXT QUESTION IS, WILL GOLD PROVIDE A SOLUTION TO POLITICAL LARGESS? IT ALWAYS HAS
Ax you know the Democrats have been on a social media surge. They hate it when Trump kills our mortal enemies. Take Senator Chris Murphy from CT, an avowed socialist, a lying double talking forked tongue pansy.
Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., criticized President Trump‘s order that led to the death of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani Thursday, appearing to contradict his own rhetoric following the Iran-backed militia assault on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad earlier this week.
“Soleimani was an enemy of the United States. That’s not a question. The question is this – as reports suggest, did America just assassinate, without any congressional authorization, the second most powerful person in Iran, knowingly setting off a potential massive regional war?” Murphy tweeted.
Appearing on CNN Friday, Murphy claimed that the actions taken by the Trump administration “seem disproportionate to the threat” posed by Soleimani, and expressed his fear that Americans, including top political and military figures, are now more in danger because of the escalation.
However, the Democratic senator struck a different tone on Tuesday following the violence at the embassy.
“The attack on our embassy in Baghdad is horrifying but predictable,” Murphy tweeted. “Trump has rendered America impotent in the Middle East. No one fears us, no one listens to us. America has been reduced to huddling in safe rooms, hoping the bad guys will go away. What a disgrace.”
He was even confronted about the inconsistent rhetoric by CNN’s Jake Tapper.
“What do you say to critics who say, ‘Look, before the attack, you said the president is insufficiently projecting American strength. And then he carries out this strike and you fault him for that?'” Tapper asked.
“Well, our policy in the Middle East has been an embarrassment. It has made us weak,” Murphy responded. “The fact that none of our allies can trust us, that the president changes his mind every day on how many troops we’re going to have in Syria, that he welches on promises that America has made to countries in the region and throughout the world. All of our policy in the Middle East has made us weaker. That doesn’t justify the assassination of the leader of a foreign country that ultimately makes us less safe.”
He continued, “I may counsel my kids to stand up to bullies, that doesn’t mean I’m suggesting that they kill the people that are threatening them. In this case, it may be — it is likely that the assassination of Qassem Soleimani ultimately will lead to war with Iran. It will make the United States less safe. So I, of course, think that the president has taken grave missteps in the region, but this is likely an overcorrection for lots of mistakes that mounted over the time that he’s been in office.”
Fox News’ Frank Miles contributed to this report.
Put in perspective. The Democrat President Clinton failed to take out Osama bin-Laden prior to the 911 devastating attack on America.
The Washington Post
“The World Trade Center came down because Bill Clinton didn’t kill Osama bin Laden when he had the chance to kill him.”
—Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), remarks in the GOP debate, Feb. 13, 2016
“The responsibility of 9/11 falls on the fact that al Qaeda was allowed to grow and prosper and the decision was not made to take out their leader when the chance existed to do so. Not once but four times according to the 9/11 report. President Clinton has acknowledged that as a regret.”
—Rubio, remarks on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Feb. 14
Hindsight is always 20/20. Rubio made his comments during the GOP debate after Donald Trump asserted that George W. Bush was responsible for the 9/11 attacks because they happened on his watch. Not so, responded Rubio, pinning the blame on Bush’s predecessor, Bill Clinton. Expanding on his remarks a day later, Rubio said that the 9/11 Commission report identified four times when Clinton could have killed bin Laden.
The reasons varied why a particular attack did not go forward — fear of civilian casualties, uncertainty in the intelligence, diplomatic fallout, bureaucratic inertia. During Clinton’s presidency, al-Qaeda attacked U.S. targets overseas, not in the homeland. Media attention was fleeting. When the CIA suddenly withdrew its support for one operation, the commission wrote: “It was the duty of [George] Tenet and the CIA leadership to balance the risks of inaction against jeopardizing the lives of their operatives and agents. And they had reason to worry about failure: millions of dollars down the drain; a shoot-out that could be seen as an assassination; and, if there were repercussions in Pakistan, perhaps a coup.”
It is worth recalling that when the first operation was discussed — in May 1998 — bin Laden actually had not even been indicted yet. That did not happen until a month later. (It was a sealed indictment and not made public until November, 1998.) Clinton initially only approved a plan to capture bin Laden, and even when he amended that to allowing bin Laden’s death, his intentions were not broadly understood by the CIA.
Three of the rejected operations involved intelligence on bin Laden’s location and might have led to his death; a fourth was only intended to capture him and bring him to the United States for trial. In at least one instance, intelligence later indicates bin Laden had already left the targeted location. In a fifth case, Clinton did order a strike against targets — but bin Laden apparently was missed by a few hours.AD
We will leave it to readers to decide whether that means there were “four times” when Clinton could have killed bin Laden, as Rubio asserted. There were certainly opportunities that were missed — but whether they would have been successful or resulted in unintended consequences is impossible to say.
1. May 1998: Tarnak Farms raid plan rejected
The CIA planned hard on an effort to capture bin Laden and to bring him to the United States for a trial. But at the last minute the CIA senior management lost its nerve and apparently never brought the plan to Clinton for a decision.
From the 9/11 Commission report:A compound of about 80 concrete or mud-brick buildings surrounded by a 10-foot wall, Tarnak Farms was located in an isolated desert area on the outskirts of the Kandahar airport. CIA officers were able to map the entire site, identifying the houses that belonged to Bin Laden’s wives and the one where Bin Laden himself was most likely to sleep. Working with the tribals, they drew up plans for the raid. They ran two complete rehearsals in the United States during the fall of 1997. By early 1998, planners at the Counterterrorist Center were ready to come back to the White House to seek formal approval…One group of tribals would subdue the guards, enter Tarnak Farms stealthily, grab Bin Laden, take him to a desert site outside Kandahar, and turn him over to a second group. This second group of tribals would take him to a desert landing zone …From there, a CIA plane would take him to New York, an Arab capital, or wherever he was to be arraigned. Briefing papers prepared by the Counterterrorist Center acknowledged that hitches might develop. People might be killed, and Bin Laden’s supporters might retaliate, perhaps taking U.S. citizens in Kandahar hostage.But the briefing papers also noted that there was risk in not acting. “Sooner or later,” they said, “Bin Laden will attack U.S. interests, perhaps using WMD [weapons of mass destruction].” The CIA planners conducted their third complete rehearsal in March…The plan had now been modified so that the tribals would keep Bin Laden in a hiding place for up to a month before turning him over to the United States-thereby increasing the chances of keeping the U.S. hand out of sight. …On May 18, CIA’s managers reviewed a draft Memorandum of Notification (MON), a legal document authorizing the capture operation. A 1986 presidential finding had authorized worldwide covert action against terrorism and probably provided adequate authority. But mindful of the old “rogue elephant” charge, senior CIA managers may have wanted something on paper to show that they were not acting on their own….Discussion of this memorandum brought to the surface an unease about paramilitary covert action that had become ingrained, at least among some CIA senior managers. Despite misgivings, the CIA leadership cleared the draft memorandum and sent it on to the National Security Council.From May 20 to 24, the CIA ran a final, graded rehearsal of the operation, spread over three time zones, even bringing in personnel from the region. The FBI also participated. The rehearsal went well. The Counterterrorist Center planned to brief cabinet-level principals and their deputies the following week, giving June 23 as the date for the raid, with Bin Laden to be brought out of Afghanistan no later than July 23.On May 20, Director Tenet discussed the high risk of the operation with Berger and his deputies, warning that people might be killed, including Bin Laden. Success was to be defined as the exfiltration of Bin Laden out of Afghanistan. A meeting of principals was scheduled for May 29 to decide whether the operation should go ahead. But the principals did not meet…The plan was never presented to the White House for a decision.Working-level CIA officers were disappointed….No capture plan before 9/11 ever again attained the same level of detail and preparation. The tribals’ reported readiness to act diminished. And Bin Laden’s security precautions and defenses became more elaborate and formidable.
2. August, 1998: A campaign for continued air strikes is shelved after al-Qaeda attacks two U.S. embassies in Africa
After the embassy attacks, Clinton ordered air strikes against al-Qaeda targets, which were deemed ineffectual. Officials discussed but do not reach agreement on a campaign of follow-on air strikes.AD
From the 9/11 Commission report:The day after the embassy bombings, Tenet brought to a principals meeting intelligence that terrorist leaders were expected to gather at a camp near Khowst, Afghanistan, to plan future attacks. According to Berger, Tenet said that several hundred would attend, including Bin Laden. The CIA described the area as effectively a military cantonment, away from civilian population centers and overwhelmingly populated by jihadists….The principals quickly reached a consensus on attacking the gathering. The strike’s purpose was to kill Bin Laden and his chief lieutenants.Berger put in place a tightly compartmented process designed to keep all planning secret. On August 11, General Zinni received orders to prepare detailed plans for strikes against the sites in Afghanistan. The Pentagon briefed President Clinton about these plans on August 12 and 14.Though the principals hoped that the missiles would hit Bin Laden, NSC staff recommended the strike whether or not there was firm evidence that the commanders were at the facilities….Later on August 20, Navy vessels in the Arabian Sea fired their cruise missiles. Though most of them hit their intended targets, neither Bin Laden nor any other terrorist leader was killed. Berger told us that an after-action review by Director Tenet concluded that the strikes had killed 20-30 people in the camps but probably missed Bin Laden by a few hours….During the last week of August 1998, officials began considering possible follow-on strikes. President Clinton was inclined to launch further strikes sooner rather than later. On August 27, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Walter Slocombe advised Secretary Cohen that the available targets were not promising. The experience of the previous week, he wrote, “has only confirmed the importance of defining a clearly articulated rationale for military action” that was effective as well as justified. But Slocombe worried that simply striking some of these available targets did not add up to an effective strategy. [Eventually the discussion became mired in the bureaucracy and went nowhere.]
3. August 1998: covert operations limited to a ‘capture operation,’ not kill
As will be shown, Clinton vacillated over signing a memo that would authorize the killing of bin Laden. He first authorized only a capture, then agreed to allow bin Laden’s killing, only to weaken the language later. CIA officials were under the impression they did not have permission to kill the al-Qaeda leader.
From the 9/11 Commission report:President Clinton signed a Memorandum of Notification authorizing the CIA to let its tribal assets use force to capture Bin Laden and his associates. CIA officers told the tribals that the plan to capture Bin Laden, which had been “turned off” three months earlier, was back on. The memorandum also authorized the CIA to attack Bin Laden in other ways. Also, an executive order froze financial holdings that could be linked to Bin Laden.
4. December 1998: Missile strike against Kandahar is rejected; memo to ‘kill’ bin Laden misunderstood
Officials had intelligence on bin Laden’s whereabouts, but decided not to allow a missile strike because of fears of civilian casualties. Later intelligence indicates bin Laden had already left that location.
(The day before the Sept. 11 attacks, Clinton told businessmen in Australia that he had decided against launching a strike in Kandahar out of concern for civilian casualties: ”I nearly got him. And I could have killed him, but I would have to destroy a little town called Kandahar in Afghanistan and kill 300 innocent women and children, and then I would have been no better than him. And so I didn’t do it.”)AD
From the 9/11 Commission report:On December 20, intelligence indicated Bin Laden would be spending the night at the Haji Habash house, part of the governor’s residence in Kandahar. … An urgent teleconference of principals was arranged.The principals considered a cruise missile strike to try to kill Bin Laden. One issue they discussed was the potential collateral damage — the number of innocent bystanders who would be killed or wounded. General [Anthony] Zinni predicted a number well over 200 and was concerned about damage to a nearby mosque. The senior intelligence officer on the Joint Staff apparently made a different calculation, estimating half as much collateral damage and not predicting damage to the mosque. By the end of the meeting, the principals decided against recommending to the President that he order a strike…..later intelligence appeared to show that Bin Laden had left his quarters before the strike would have occurred.On December 21, the day after principals decided not to launch the cruise missile strike against Kandahar, the CIA’s leaders urged strengthening the language to allow the tribals to be paid whether Bin Laden was captured or killed. …The new memorandum would allow the killing of Bin Laden if the CIA and the tribals judged that capture was not feasible (a judgment it already seemed clear they had reached). The Justice Department lawyer who worked on the draft told us that what was envisioned was a group of tribals assaulting a location, leading to a shoot-out. Bin Laden and others would be captured if possible, but probably would be killed. The administration’s position was that under the law of armed conflict, killing a person who posed an imminent threat to the United States would be an act of self-defense, not an assassination. On Christmas Eve 1998, Berger sent a final draft to President Clinton, with an explanatory memo. The President approved the document.Because the White House considered this operation highly sensitive, only a tiny number of people knew about this Memorandum of Notification.…A message from Tenet to CIA field agents directed them to communicate to the tribals the instructions authorized by the President: the United States preferred that Bin Laden and his lieutenants be captured, but if a successful capture operation was not feasible, the tribals were permitted to kill them. The instructions added that the tribals must avoid killing others unnecessarily and must not kill or abuse Bin Laden or his lieutenants if they surrendered. Finally, the tribals would not be paid if this set of requirements was not met….Policymakers in the Clinton administration, including the President and his national security advisor, told us that the President’s intent regarding covert action against Bin Laden was clear: he wanted him dead. This intent was never well communicated or understood within the CIA. Tenet told the Commission that except in one specific case, the CIA was authorized to kill Bin Laden only in the context of a capture operation. CIA senior managers, operators, and lawyers confirmed this understanding. “We always talked about how much easier it would have been to kill him,” a former chief of the Bin Laden unit said.
5. Early 1999: Decision not to deploy the AC-130 gunship option
From the 9/11 Commission report:After the decision — in which fear of collateral damage was an important factor — not to use cruise missiles against Kandahar in December 1998, Shelton and officers in the Pentagon developed plans for using an AC-130 gunship instead of cruise missile strikes. Designed specifically for the special forces, the version of the AC-130 known as “Spooky” can fly in fast or from high altitude, undetected by radar; guided to its zone by extraordinarily complex electronics, it is capable of rapidly firing precision-guided 25, 40, and 105 mm projectiles. Because this system could target more precisely than a salvo of cruise missiles, it had a much lower risk of causing collateral damage. After giving [White House official Richard] Clarke a briefing and being encouraged to proceed, Shelton formally directed Zinni and General Peter Schoomaker, who headed the Special Operations Command, to develop plans for an AC-130 mission against Bin Laden’s headquarters and infrastructure in Afghanistan. The Joint Staff prepared a decision paper for deployment of the Special Operations aircraft.Though Berger and Clarke continued to indicate interest in this option, the AC-130s were never deployed. Clarke wrote at the time that Zinni opposed their use, and John Maher, the Joint Staff’s deputy director of operations, agreed that this was Zinni’s position. Zinni himself does not recall blocking the option. He told us that he understood the Special Operations Command had never thought the intelligence good enough to justify actually moving AC-130s into position. Schoomaker says, on the contrary, that he thought the AC-130 option feasible.
6. February-March 1999: A decision not to strike bin Laden’s desert camp
Another potential target — bin Laden’s desert camp — slips by because of diplomatic considerations.
From the 9/11 Commission report:Early in 1999, the CIA received reporting that Bin Laden was spending much of his time at one of several camps in the Afghan desert south of Kandahar. At the beginning of February, Bin Laden was reportedly located in the vicinity of the Sheikh Ali camp, a desert hunting camp being used by visitors from a Gulf state. Public sources have stated that these visitors were from the United Arab Emirates.Reporting from the CIA’s assets provided a detailed description of the hunting camp, including its size, location, resources, and security, as well as of Bin Laden’s smaller, adjacent camp. Because this was not in an urban area, missiles launched against it would have less risk of causing collateral damage. On February 8, the military began to ready itself for a possible strike.The next day, national technical intelligence confirmed the location and description of the larger camp and showed the nearby presence of an official aircraft of the United Arab Emirates. But the location of Bin Laden’s quarters could not be pinned down so precisely. The CIA did its best to answer a host of questions about the larger camp and its residents and about Bin Laden’s daily schedule and routines to support military contingency planning. According to reporting from the tribals, Bin Laden regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited the Emiratis; the tribals expected him to be at the hunting camp for such a visit at least until midmorning on February 11. …No strike was launched. By February 12 Bin Laden had apparently moved on, and the immediate strike plans became moot. According to CIA and Defense officials, policymakers were concerned about the danger that a strike would kill an Emirati prince or other senior officials who might be with Bin Laden or close by. … The lead CIA official in the field, Gary Schroen, felt that the intelligence reporting in this case was very reliable; the Bin Laden unit chief, “Mike,” agreed. Schroen believes today that this was a lost opportunity to kill Bin Laden before 9/11.
7. February 1999: The decision to again amend the covert action authorization, canceling the ‘kill’ authorization of December and reinstating the ‘capture’ language
From the 9/11 Commission report:In February 1999, another draft Memorandum of Notification went to President Clinton. It asked him to allow the CIA to give exactly the same guidance to the Northern Alliance as had just been given to the tribals: they could kill Bin Laden if a successful capture operation was not feasible. On this occasion, however, President Clinton crossed out key language he had approved in December and inserted more ambiguous language. No one we interviewed could shed light on why the President did this. President Clinton told the Commission that he had no recollection of why he rewrote the language.Later in 1999, when legal authority was needed for enlisting still other collaborators and for covering a wider set of contingencies, the lawyers returned to the language used in August 1998, which authorized force only in the context of a capture operation. Given the closely held character of the document approved in December 1998, and the subsequent return to the earlier language, it is possible to understand how the former White House officials and the CIA officials might disagree as to whether the CIA was ever authorized by the President to kill Bin Laden.
8. May 1999: The decision not to do the missile strike on Kandahar
Another opportunity presents itself, and top officials again do not pull the trigger, to the intense frustration of lower-level officials.
From the 9/11 commission report:It was in Kandahar that perhaps the last, and most likely the best, opportunity arose for targeting Bin Laden with cruise missiles before 9/11. In May 1999, CIA assets in Afghanistan reported on Bin Laden’s location in and around Kandahar over the course of five days and nights. The reporting was very detailed and came from several sources.If this intelligence was not “actionable,” working-level officials said at the time and today, it was hard for them to imagine how any intelligence on Bin Laden in Afghanistan would meet the standard. Communications were good, and the cruise missiles were ready. “This was in our strike zone,” a senior military officer said. “It was a fat pitch, a home run.” He expected the missiles to fly. When the decision came back that they should stand down, not shoot, the officer said, “we all just slumped.” He told us he knew of no one at the Pentagon or the CIA who thought it was a bad gamble. Bin Laden “should have been a dead man” that night, he said.Working-level CIA officials agreed. While there was a conflicting intelligence report about Bin Laden’s whereabouts, the experts discounted it. At the time, CIA working-level officials were told by their managers that the strikes were not ordered because the military doubted the intelligence and worried about collateral damage. Replying to a frustrated colleague in the field, the Bin Laden unit chief wrote: “having a chance to get [Bin Laden] three times in 36 hours and foregoing the chance each time has made me a bit angry…. [T]he DCI finds himself alone at the table, with the other princip[als] basically saying ‘we’ll go along with your decision Mr. Director,’ and implicitly saying that the Agency will hang alone if the attack doesn’t get Bin Laden.”But the military officer quoted earlier recalled that the Pentagon had been willing to act. He told us that Clarke informed him and others that Tenet assessed the chance of the intelligence being accurate as 50-50. This officer believed that Tenet’s assessment was the key to the decision.Tenet told us he does not remember any details about this episode, except that the intelligence came from a single uncorroborated source and that there was a risk of collateral damage. …Berger remembered only that in all such cases, the call had been Tenet’s. Berger felt sure that Tenet was eager to get Bin Laden. In his view, Tenet did his job responsibly. “George would call and say, ‘We just don’t have it,’” Berger said.The decision not to strike in May 1999 may now seem hard to understand. In fairness, we note two points: First, in December 1998, the principals’ wariness about ordering a strike appears to have been vindicated: Bin Laden left his room unexpectedly, and if a strike had been ordered he would not have been hit. Second, the administration, and the CIA in particular, was in the midst of intense scrutiny and criticism in May 1999 because faulty intelligence had just led the United States to mistakenly bomb the Chinese embassy in Belgrade during the NATO war against Serbia. This episode may have made officials more cautious than might otherwise have been the case.
9. November-December 2000: The decision not to strike against bin Laden after the al-Qaeda attack on the USS Cole
As the nation is gripped by the post-election struggle between Bush and Al Gore, Clinton administration officials hesitate about retaliating against bin Laden for the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen. Bin Laden was fully prepared for retaliation, but it never came. Eventually, a response gets lost in the transition from the Clinton to Bush administration.
From the 9/11 Commission report:Back in Afghanistan, [after the attack on the USS Cole], Bin Laden anticipated U.S. military retaliation. He ordered the evacuation of al Qaeda’s Kandahar airport compound and fled- first to the desert area near Kabul, then to Khowst and Jalalabad, and eventually back to Kandahar. In Kandahar, he rotated between five to six residences, spending one night at each residence. In addition, he sent his senior advisor, Mohammed Atef, to a different part of Kandahar and his deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri, to Kabul so that all three could not be killed in one attack.In mid-November, as the evidence of al Qaeda involvement mounted, Berger asked General Shelton to reevaluate military plans to act quickly against Bin Laden. General [Hugh] Shelton tasked General Tommy Franks, the new commander of CENTCOM, to look again at the options. Shelton wanted to demonstrate that the military was imaginative and knowledgeable enough to move on an array of options, and to show the complexity of the operations. He briefed Berger on the “Infinite Resolve” strike options developed since 1998, which the Joint Staff and CENTCOM had refined during the summer into a list of 13 possibilities or combinations. CENTCOM added a new “phased campaign” concept for wider-ranging strikes, including attacks against the Taliban. For the first time, these strikes envisioned an air campaign against Afghanistan of indefinite duration.….On November 25, Berger and Clarke wrote President Clinton that although the FBI and CIA investigations had not reached a formal conclusion, they believed the investigations would soon conclude that the attack had been carried out by a large cell whose senior members belonged to al Qaeda. Most of those involved had trained in Bin Laden-operated camps in Afghanistan, Berger continued. So far, Bin Laden had not been tied personally to the attack and nobody had heard him directly order it, but two intelligence reports suggested that he was involved. …Nearly a month later, on December 21, the CIA made another presentation to the Small Group of principals on the investigative team’s findings. The CIA’s briefing slides said that their “preliminary judgment” was that Bin Laden’s al Qaeda group “supported the attack” on the Cole, based on strong circumstantial evidence tying key perpetrators of the attack to al Qaeda. The CIA listed the key suspects, including Nashiri. In addition, the CIA detailed the timeline of the operation, from the mid-1999 preparations, to the failed attack on the USS The Sullivans on January 3, 2000, through a meeting held by the operatives the day before the attack.This, President Clinton and Berger told us, was not the conclusion they needed in order to go to war or deliver an ultimatum to the Taliban threatening war. The election and change of power was not the issue, President Clinton added. There was enough time. If the agencies had given him a definitive answer, he said, he would have sought a UN Security Council ultimatum and given the Taliban one, two, or three days before taking further action against both al Qaeda and the Taliban. But he did not think it would be responsible for a president to launch an invasion of another country just based on a “preliminary judgment.”[No attack was launched and one angry official] rhetorically asked of Defense officials: “Does al-Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon to get their attention?”
Allegedly one million attended the funeral of an Iranian terrorist in his home city – big mistake. A stampede occurred during the procession leading to the “Mother of all” tramplings. As reported, this was no running of the bulls, but the running of fervent terrorists bent on revenge. “Allahu Akbar” have mercy on the ones who perished – as they enter the gates of hell. At last count 32 are dead and almost 200 seriously injured.
President Trump, did not pull his punches, when he gave the order to WHACK out an Iranian terrorist. This was no run of the mill peon, but a GENERAL, a BMOC (big man on campus). This General was the IRGC Quds Force commander, the paramilitary wing of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, ; a terrorist organization that spread its demonic ideology throughout the middle east and afar. You have to wonder why all the hub-bub? Of course the Democrat progressive will never be satisfied with anything Trump accomplishes.
Democrat plunderers have gone wild on social media, calling for Trump’s head. The likes of AOC and Maxine Waters (click her for evidence of a fool – she was pranked) we guarantee you will get a laugh. Both of them have gone berserk besides the usual list of suspects.
Time and time again Soleimani continued to send messages to the United States. A couple of weeks ago he was responsible for killing an American contractor in Iraq. Thursday we returned the favor by sending a message of our own. In an overnight drone strike outside Baghdad International Airport done via special delivery.
Solemani and Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, along with at least 10 other people, were killed in an attack by US forces in Baghdad on Friday.”At the direction of the President, the US military has taken decisive defensive action to protect US personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a US-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization,” the Pentagon wrote in a statement.In a speech to the American people, US President Donald Trump called Soleimani the “number one terrorist anywhere in the world.”
US attempts to portray Soleimani as a master terrorist leader, like say, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levants’s (ISIL, or ISIS) Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is wrong and misses the big picture. Soleimani may have been controversial, even a bloody “shadow commander”, but he served at the pleasure of Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Hosseini Khamenei, to protect and expand the regime’s interests in the Middle East. The killing of Soleimani is an attack on the Iranian state.
Since Jimmy Carter caved to Iranian mullahs back in 1979, Grand AyatollahRuhollah Khomein and subsequent Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei have ruled Iran like an iron fist. Despite economic sanctions they still hang on. Protests have occurred but nothing short of a revolution. The kind needed to bring out the military who will provoke the common folk to overthrow the shia chains that have reduced their being to chattel.
CLICK HERE FOR “NIGHTMARE” Democrats will have in 2020.
Miscreants rule the day. The latest from California, where else? Teachers can’t discipline an unruly student by suspension. Homeless can sleep wherever they want. Muslims wearing the hijab don’t have to take it off for a police photo. Christianity is not what the progressive aspire two. Jews have been sold out by the Democrats who support the BDS movement which is the root cause for violence against Jews. So where does it end?
This ends two ways, one is on November 3, 2020, the day President Trump is reelected. The 2nd is on the day when RBG no longer sits on the Supreme Court. From the words of Barack Hussein Obama, “after my election I have more flexibility.” President Trump will have more flexibility because the Republicans will rule the House and Senate contrary what the fake media promotes.
The 14th Amendment “gotta go.” Liberals Supreme Court justices have interpreted this amendment contrary to the original meaning.
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States—including former slaves—and guaranteed all citizens “equal protection of the laws.” One of three amendments passed during the Reconstruction era to abolish slavery and establish civil and legal rights for black Americans, it would become the basis for many landmark Supreme Court decisions over the years.
Over time, the Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to guarantee a wide array of rights against infringement by the states, including those enumerated in the Bill of Rights (freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, right to bear arms, etc.) as well as the right to privacy and other fundamental rights not mentioned elsewhere in the Constitution.
Finally, the “equal protection clause” (“nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”) was clearly intended to stop state governments from discriminating against black Americans, and over the years would play a key role in many landmark civil rights cases.
14TH AMENDMENT
Previous post – see below
Two years after the Civil War, the Reconstruction Acts of 1867 divided the South into five military districts, where new state governments, based on universal manhood suffrage, were to be established. Thus began the period known as Radical Reconstruction, which saw the 14th Amendment, which had been passed by Congress in 1866, ratified in July 1868. The amendment resolved pre-Civil War questions of African American citizenship by stating that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States…are citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.” The amendment then reaffirmed the privileges and rights of all citizens, and granted all these citizens the “equal protection of the laws.”
AN UN-GOING CRIME IS BEING COMMITTED – THE SUPREME COURT MUST ONCE AGAIN MUST STEP IN AND ADJUDICATE
Overwhelming evidence against the interpretation of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” or “not subject to any foreign power” as reaffirming the common law doctrine of citizenship by birth to aliens can be found following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1867 George Helm Yeaman, United States Minister to Denmark, in his well received treatise on allegiance and citizenship, which was presented to Secretary of State William H. Seward, said: “But the idea of a double allegiance and citizenship united in the same person, and having reference to two separate, independent, and sovereign nations or governments, is simply an impossibility.”
In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean, which Justice Gray would recognize in Elk v.Wilkins years later:
The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)
House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” There is no way in the world anyone can claim “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” affirms the feudal common law doctrine of birth citizenship to aliens because such doctrine by operation creates a “double allegiance” between separate nations.
If there is one inescapable truth to the text and debates, it is this: When Congress decided to require potential citizens to first be subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States they by default excluded all citizens of other nations temporarily residing in the U.S. who had no intention of becoming citizens themselves or, disqualified of doing so under naturalization laws. This was no oversight because it was too simple to declare the common law rule of jus soli if indeed that was truly the desired goal by these very competent lawyers (both Howard and Trumbull were lawyers).
Aaron Sargent, a Representative from California during the Naturalization Act of 1870 debates said the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause was not a de-facto right for aliens to obtain citizenship. No one came forward to dispute this conclusion.
The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress. It is common to see the individual components of the Commerce Clause referred to under specific terms: the Foreign Commerce Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the Indian Commerce Clause.
Dispute exists within the courts as to the range of powers granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause. As noted below, it is often paired with the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the combination used to take a broad, expansive perspective of these powers. However, the effect of the Commerce Clause has varied significantly depending on the US Supreme Court‘s interpretation.
During the Marshall Court era (1801 to 1835), Commerce Clause interpretation empowered Congress to gain jurisdiction over numerous aspects of intrastate and interstate commerce as well as non-commerce. During the post-1937 era, the use of the Commerce Clause by Congress to authorize federal control of economic matters became effectively unlimited. Since the latter half of the Rehnquist Court era, congressional use of the Commerce Clause has become slightly restricted again, being limited only to matters of trade or any other form of restricted area (whether interstate or not) and production (whether commercial or not).
The Commerce Clause is the source of federal drug prohibition laws under the Controlled Substances Act. In a recent medical marijuana case, Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the ban on growing medical marijuana for personal use exceeded Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause. Even if no goods were sold or transported across state lines, the Court found that there could be an indirect effect on interstate commerce. The Court relied heavily on a New Deal case, Wickard v. Filburn, which held that the government may regulate personal cultivation and consumption of crops because the aggregate effect of individual consumption could have an indirect effect on interstate commerce.
And the latest has come from Iraq. Our embassy has been attacked by ruthless terrorists sanctioned by Iran. They are protesting the recent series of airstrikes the U.S. conducted against the Iranian proxy in Iraq, Katib Al-Hizballah. That group had conducted multiple rocket attacks on U.S. installations in Iraq in the last two months, with the most recent killing a U.S. contractor. Our retaliatory strikes were labeled a violation of Iraqi sovereignty by the Iraqi government and key members of the Iraqi government have vowed to strike the U.S. again.
The proximate cause of this rioting was an attack last Friday on a military facility staffed by US and Iraqi forces in which one US civilian Defense contractor was killed. The attackers belonged to Kataib Hezbollah. Kataib Hezbollah are an Iranian sponsored terrorist group that has been attacking US forces since about 2007.
The Washington Post reports today on the men leading the mob action directed against the US Embassy. This one stands out:
Also in attendance Tuesday was Hadi al-Amiri, a former transportation minister, who is considered Tehran’s man in Baghdad. Amiri heads the Badr Organization, which is one of the largest pro-Iran militias in Iraq and is part of the PMF. It was originally founded in the 1980s to fight for Iran against then-President Saddam Hussein as part of the Iran-Iraq war. This name has surfaced before. Back in 2011, al-Amiri was part of an Iraqi delegation that was received at the White House by Barack Obama.
Remember it wasn’t too long ago when Obama (please, please, please) invited the Muslim Brotherhood to the White House.
It is worth noting, yet again, how the Obama administration’s slavish obeisance to Iran destroyed American credibility and influence in the region. When the history of this is written we’ll see that Obama was following a foreign policy of gifting the region to Iran and setting Iran up to be a counterweight to, one has to believe, Israel. Iraq was given over to Iran by Obama, Iranian thugs were feted by the Obama administration, the Iran nuclear agreement was signed to curry their favor, when they pirated two US Navy vessels and ten sailors there were no consequence, and on the eve of leaving the White House we had the unsightly spectacle of US Air Force aircraft delivering pallets of currency to the Iranians.
This will not be another Benghazi because we have a president who is not so monomaniacally focused on appeasing Islamist and Iranian forces that he will sacrifice US lives. But we can’t lose sight of the fact that what is happening today in Baghdad has its roots in the former administration’s relentless fluffing for the mullahs.
Well we wrapped up our twelfth year. Started the NBTP on January 1, 2008 when there wasn’t a scant chance of convincing anyone that a revolution was “a’brewin.” Here we are a dozen years later blazing our wagons from East to West, from North to South.
2020 will be the culmination of our success when Americans, those with the sense of pride, patriotism and duty RE-ELECT Donald J. Trump to his second term. To quote Supreme Court Justice RBG, “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president.” Americans can imagine what this place would be without Donald J. Trump as president. We will leave it at that. Wishing “You’all” a VERY HAPPY AND HEALTHY NEW YEAR.
“I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.
Former NFL player Jack Brewer campaigned for former President Obama but turned his back on Democrats after “awakening” to the way they abandoned African Americans, he said on Saturday. He predicted that a “black awakening” would lead to Trump getting more than 20 percent of the black vote in 2020.
Raids across America captured hundreds of members of the infamous MS-13 gang. However, one has escaped. He was last seen in Washington D.C. heading toward a white house.
"Where Revolution is the Solution" Taking back the Empire
