CIA INSIDER: "LOOKS LIKE WORLD WAR III"

"Christmas In Washington" Canceled After 33 Years....Illuminati?

America Has No Answer for Russia’s New Super Weapons

One of America’s most celebrated generals, David Patreaus has issued a very public warning, on Charlie Rose’s PBS show, to NOT put boots on the ground in Syria. He has stated that the effort would be filled with inherent dangers that our military would find sustainable. He was quite cryptic in his warning. What could he be talking about? What is he is talking about is now becoming quite clear. The Russians are in possession of weapons for which our military, in which technological innovation has been held in a state of suspended animation since the advent of the Obama administration, cannot hope to compete with on the battlefield. When Obama condemns our young men and women to death when he deploys entire units of ground troops to Syria, I feel that America has a right to know the position that this President has placed our soldiers into a situation in which they cannot win. 

The New World of Military Technology

Russia has unveiled a host of weapons that were outside the public view. One such system is the Krasuha-4. It is defined as a ‘Mobile electronic warfare system which suppresses spy satellites, ground-based radars and airborne systems AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System). The system can also cause damage to enemy radar electronic warfare and communications systems. 

New Russian Weapon – Secret Naval Proton Gun – 775

One look at the following ground theater weapons system is so very frightening I found it difficult to watch the above video knowing that the target of this weapon would be American ground troops.

Tesla Based Plasma Fighter Jet

This Russian weapon armed and equipeed with Plasma stealth, resulting fromTesla Haarp Experiments, means that this new russian superweapon is superior over the United States and her NATO allies.
The Sukhoi PAK FA (or PAK-FA) is a fifth-generation fighter which is being developed by Russia. PAK FA stands for Perspektivnyi Aviatsionnyi Kompleks Frontovoi Aviatsyi  which translates to Prospective (promising) Aircraft System of the Frontline Aviation. The PAK FA was designed to compete with the America’s F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II, the world’s first fifth-generation fighter jets. Being a fifth-generation fighter usually means more reliable performance in combat. This fighter jet is generally thought to be superior in maneuvering abillity.

The Monster

If the US thinks that it is going to use superior air power and wipe out the Russian ground forces, they may wish to reconsider their position.   My best source has told me that the Russians have moved their most advanced anti-aircraft batteries in the world into Syria. This weapons systems will totally negate American airpower.  The system is dubbed the “monster” which is officially categorized as S-400.

The S-400’s can track and attack a maximum of 300 targets, at the same time, ranging from anywhere between just a few feet off the ground, all the way to 40 miles above the earth’s surface. In other words, flying beneath the radar will soon become a lost art. This system has five times the striking distance as the American counterpart system. The system is mobile and can be operated by only three soldiers.

Fear of the Russian military received an unexpected boost in the fear factor when an “open mic” incident when it was revealed that the Russians have developed a nuclear torpedo capable to wiping out an entire coastline of the United States with intense radiation and a giant tsunami that could produce waves in excess of 1600 feet!

The BBC reported the following:

• “Some commentators in Russian media suggest leak of giant torpedo plan was deliberate
• Such a torpedo was envisaged in 1950s, during Cold War, by nuclear physicist Andrei Sakharov – later a famous dissident and peace activist
• 100-megaton warhead could devastate US coast with massive tsunami and intense radiation
• Soviet “Tsar Bomba”was biggest nuclear device ever detonated – it was 58 megatons
• Torpedo “leak” is warning to US not to seek nuclear advantage, says Russian military analyst Igor Korotchenko.”

Easily, this is Russia’s most devastating weapon. Does America have a counter response? Not according to my sources.

Conclusion

In the next part in this series, I am going to highlight how far the Russians have moved with regard towards establishing control over Syria. And with the Petrodollar in serious jeopardy and economic collapse in our future, can a forced provocation between the Federal Reserve forces controlling the US government be very far away. Better get ready, because WW III is a foregone conclusion.

Credit to Common Sense

Blast near an Istanbul metro station

The cause of a blast near an Istanbul metro station on Tuesday was still unknown and police investigations were underway, a police official told Reuters.

Broadcaster NTV reported the blast at an overpass near the Bayrampasa metro station on the European side of the city may have been caused by a bomb, while Haberturk TV said it was believed to have been triggered by a transformer.

Credit to Reuters

Read more at Reutershttp://www.reuters.com/article/2015/12/01/us-turkey-blast-idUSKBN0TK53J20151201#k7T5X2bVeXChITCQ.99

Russian Helicopters Shot Down Turkish Border

Obama To Turkey: Seal Off The Border To Syria, Turkey To Obama: Handle Mexico First

President Barack Obama wants Turkey to close its 60-mile-long border with Syria to end the influx of new Islamic State fighters pouring into Syria and Iraq.

If Turkey acquiesces to Obama’s demands, no entry points will remain between the two countries. The entire border is 550 miles long, The Wall Street Journal reports.

But a Turkish official quickly pointed out to The Wall Street Journal the irony in Washington’s call to close off the border, given the U.S. is completely unable to stop flows in and out of Mexico.

In response, a U.S. official said, “If we were at war with Mexico, we’d close that border.”


CRedit to Daily Caller
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/30/obama-to-turkey-seal-off-the-border-to-syria-turkey-to-obama-handle-mexico-first/#ixzz3t59F3tFp

NATO: The Russians were simply invincible.

In June 2014, the Pentagon conducted a “table top” exercise – a sort of war game between Russia and NATO. The scenario was Russian pressure on NATO member Estonia and Latvia. Would NATO be able to defend those countries?

“The results were dispiriting,” Julia Ioffe writes in Foreign Policy. Even if all US and NATO troops stationed in Europe were dispatched to the Baltics – including the 82nd Airborne, which is supposed to be ready to go on 24 hours’ notice – the US would lose.

“We just don’t have those forces in Europe,” explains a senior US general. “Then there’s the fact that the Russians have the world’s best surface-to-air missiles and are not afraid to use heavy artillery.”

The Russian ‘victory’ was not a one-off. The Americans conducted the exercise as many as 16 times, under various scenarios, all favourable to NATO, always with the same conclusion. The Russians were simply invincible.

In this backdrop, Turkey’s rash act of shooting down a Russian Air Force jet portends grave tidings for NATO. Because Turkey is a NATO member, if the Russian Air Force pounds the living daylight out of the Turks, at least in theory all the other members of the US-led military bloc are treaty-bound to come to its defence.

Although the chances that the Americans will risk New York for Istanbul are smaller than small – which leaves a very nervous Turkey on its own – one can never rule out the possibility of a NATO hothead wanting to attack Russia.

A nuclear exchange will undoubtedly have catastrophic consequences for both sides – and perhaps the entire planet – but there are certain factors that could skew the fighting field in Russia’s favour.

Tactical warheads

Before the use of strategic weapons, Russia could cripple forward NATO bases with tactical – or battlefield – nukes. Russian military doctrine emphasises the use of small-yield nuclear weapons as a war fighting tool early on in a conflict in order to stun and confuse NATO forces, impacting their ability to think and act coherently.

After tactical nuclear artillery decimates forward deployed NATO military troops, Russia could deliver small-yield warheads via intermediate range missiles that could devastate the next line of military bases, while limiting civilian casualties. At this point the US would be faced with the option of retaliating with strategic weapons and face a devastating response from Moscow. A good guess is the option won’t be used.

For, no American president would risk a single US city for a dozen European ones. John F. Kennedy didn’t risk it in 1962 for the same reason – the loss of even one city was too many.

State of US strategic forces
How reliable is the US Strategic Nuclear Command? If you are an American, you won’t feel so reassured after reading that Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton both “reportedly lost the launch code cards that presidents are expected to have on them at all times – Clinton for months, according to a former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. Carter allegedlysent his out with a suit to the cleaners”.

In any conflict – more so in a high stakes nuclear standoff – morale, training and discipline are key factors. Russian officers who have the job of deciding when and where to aim their nuclear missiles include PhD holders who are required to think on their feet. On the other hand, American personnel who have the same role are beset with alcoholism, depression and cheating.

Nothing can sugar coat the crisis plaguing the US strategic forces. In October 2013, Major General Michael Carey, responsible for the command of 450 nuclear missiles, was fired after drunken behaviour on a visit to Russia. Days earlier, another military officer, Vice Admiral Tim Giardina, with high-level responsibility for the country's nuclear arsenal, was relieved of his duties after he was caught using counterfeit gambling chips at an Iowa casino.

Think that’s frightening? Check this out. A US Air Force general who supported the command mission to provide nuclear forces for the US Strategic Command was an alcoholic. General David C. Uhrich kept a vodka bottle in his desk and repeatedly drank on duty, so much so that another officer told investigators that “if he did not have his alcohol, the wheels would come off”.

The rot has trickled down to US missileers who have a culture of cheating on competency tests, endangering the readiness off American ICBMs. Again, in February 2014, the US Navy revealed it was looking into allegations that enlisted sailors cheated on tests involving the nuclear reactors that power its submarines and aircraft carriers.

The US strategic forces are also suffering from systemic neglect, with its ICBM bases in North Dakota and Montana reporting “leaking roofs”. The missileers, who work in blast-proof bunkers located 60 feet underground, are forced to defecate in buckets and urinate in jugs, and bring it all back up at the end of 24 hours. How ready these personnel will be when they have to react to a Russian missile strike is questionable.

On the other hand, Russian Strategic Forces are treated as the very elites in the military. The quality of Russian personnel can be deduced from the actions of Russian strategic forces officer Lt Colonel Stanislav Petrov. On September 26, 1983, a Russian early-warning satellite indicated five US nuclear missile launches. Tensions were high between Washington and Moscow after the downing of a South Korean airliner weeks earlier, and Petrov had only minutes to respond. With little additional information to go on, he deemed the readings a false alarm, reasoning that “when people start a war, they don’t start it with only five missiles”.

This is precisely why highly qualified personnel matter. When you’re placed squarely in the cross hairs of the enemy’s nuclear missiles and you’re holed up in a bunker 60 feet below the earth’s surface, then nervousness, insomnia and depression are part of your daily life. Unable to cope, less educated personnel will abuse alcohol and drugs and even exhibit criminal behaviour. On the other hand, educated and motivated officers will keep their cool even in the event of a thermonuclear showdown.

For, a nuclear war may not necessarily involve a quick exchange of ballistic missiles. According to War Scare: Russia and America on the Nuclear Brink, by Peter Vincent Pry, Director of the US Nuclear Strategy Forum, the Russian Strategic Forces are trained to “launch pre-emptive or retaliatory nuclear strikes, survive a hammer blow from a massive enemy nuclear attack, launch follow-on nuclear strikes, and supervise military operations in a protracted nuclear war, expected to last weeks or months”.

In such a drawn out, harrowing scenario, Russia’s nuclear warfare specialists clearly have the edge.

Reflexive Control: Ultimate Weapon
Disinformation, camouflage and stratagem are some of the ways one can influence the outcome of a war. The Russians have taken these ancient arts to another level through the use of the theory of Reflexive Control (RC).

Developed by Russian military strategists in the 1960s, RC aims to convey information to an opponent that would influence them to voluntarily make a decision desired by the initiator of the action. It can be used against either human or computer-based decision-making processors. Russia employs it not only at the strategic and tactical levels in war but also in the geopolitical sphere.

Russian Army Major General M.D. Ionov was among the early proponents of RC, having pursued it since the 1970s. In an article in 1995, he noted that the objective of reflexive control is to force an enemy into making decisions that lead to his defeat by influencing or controlling his decision-making process.

Ionov considers this a form of high art founded of necessity on an intimate knowledge of human thinking and psychology, military history, the roots of the particular conflict, and the capabilities of competing combat assets.

Timothy L. Thomas writes in the Journal of Slavic Studies: “In a war in which reflexive control is being employed, the side with the highest degree of reflex (the side best able to imitate the other side’s thoughts or predict its behaviour) will have the best chances of winning. The degree of reflex depends on many factors, the most important of which are analytical capability, general erudition and experience, and the scope of knowledge about the enemy.”

If successfully achieved, reflexive control over the enemy makes it possible to influence their combat plans, their view of the situation, and how they fight. RC methods are varied and include camouflage (at all levels), disinformation, encouragement, blackmail by force, and the compromising of various officials and officers.

According to Robert C. Rasmussen of the Center for International Maritime Security, “It is exactly this type of application of Reflexive Control that a young Vladimir Putin would have learned in his early development at the 401st KGB School and in his career as a KGB/FSB officer.”

Because every battle is first fought in the head before a bullet is fired on the ground, Russia’s long experience with RC would be a key factor in its existential struggle with the US.

Credit to in.rbth.com

http://in.rbth.com/blogs/stranger_than_fiction/2015/11/30/world-war-iii-why-rusia-will-bury-the-west_545807

Why I’m Closing My Bank Accounts While I Still Can

Not long ago I walked into a local branch of my bank – the 13th largest bank in the United States based on consolidated banking assets, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (FDIC) second-quarter 2015 data.

I wanted to cash a check for a few thousand dollars. It was a business check made out to cash; it was my business account and there was plenty of money in it.

What happened next was, frankly, frightening. And it has profound implications for every American.

Have you ever wondered how billionaires continue to get RICHER, while the rest of the world is struggling?
"I study billionaires for a living. To be more specific, I study how these investors generate such huge and consistent profits in the stock markets -- year-in and year-out."

That’s because it means capital controls, courtesy of the government and the U.S. Federal Reserve, could be right around the corner. They’re already in effect in some form.

That means you might not be able to get the money you want out of an ATM. You might not be able to cash a check when you have plenty of money in your account. Or worse… your bank could take your deposited cash and convert it to shares of stock in that bank.
In other words, if you think you’ll always be able to get your money out of your bank, you’re wrong.

Here’s what happened…

It Started Innocently Enough

When I went to cash the check, a routine activity that must happen millions of times every day in the United States, the woman behind the big, thick glass partition said, “I’m sorry. I can’t cash this for you.”

“Pardon me,” I said. “What do you mean you can’t cash that?”

She replied matter-of-factly, “I don’t know you.”

“You don’t know me because you’re new here,” I replied. “Please get the branch manager,” I requested politely.

“I’ll call her, but you’ll have to fill out this form,” she told me as she reached into a drawer under the counter.

Just then the branch manager came over to the teller inside the cage. “Hi Mr. Gilani, is there a problem?” she asked.

“Yes, there is a problem,” I replied. “I’m trying to cash a check and first this young lady said she didn’t know me and couldn’t cash the check, then she said I’d have to fill out some forms to get my money out. What’s going on?”

The manager told me there were some “new rules” they had to follow. She acknowledged she knew me, telling the teller I was okay, but told me I’d still have to fill out the form.

“I am not filling out any form ever to take my money out of my account,” I stated. “Is that a federal law or is that this bank’s idea of customer service?”

“It’s just what we have to do now,” the manager replied.

So I looked at her as if to say, “Really? You’re not going to tell me why I have to fill out a form to take cash out of my account?”

Then I said, very calmly, “I’m sorry – and I don’t want to be a jerk – but if you don’t cash this check or if I’m ever asked to fill out a form again when I cash a check, I’ll close all my accounts here.”

I got my cash… and a seriously creepy feeling.

No one has ever been able to tell me why the teller wouldn’t cash my check, not even my friends who own banks. The best answer I got was, it was a new teller and she probably didn’t understand the SARs rules and figured she’d better not cash the check, in case she got in trouble.

Which begs the question, what are SARs?

They are Suspicious Activity Reports. And according to the FDIC’s website…
“A bank shall file a suspicious activity report with the appropriate federal law enforcement agencies and the Department of the Treasury, in accordance with the form’s instructions, by sending a completed suspicious activity report to FinCEN (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network) in the following circumstances:
Insider abuse involving any amount.
Transactions aggregating $5,000 or more where a suspect can be identified.
Transactions aggregating $25,000 or more regardless of potential suspects.
Transactions aggregating $5,000 or more that involve potential money laundering or violations of the Bank Secrecy Act.”

Banks fill out these reports regularly. They have to.

In fact, according to a post on the well-respected ZeroHedge.com site, “Banks have minimum quotas of SARs they need to fill out and submit to the federal government. If they don’t file enough SARs, they can be fined. They can lose their banking charter. And yes, bank executives and directors can even be imprisoned for noncompliance.”

As annoyed as I was with the difficulty of getting my money out of my account (and the teller no doubt filing a SAR on me), at least I was able to get my money.

But that can change.

There are two scenarios where depositors could either be restricted from withdrawing their cash or have their deposits confiscated and converted into bank stock shares.

And, no, I’m not kidding.

How This Nightmare Could Yet Come True
First of all, imagine the economy sinks back into a deep recession and the Federal Reserve decides to lower interest rates into negative territory.

The Fed can push rates so low that interest rates are negative. In other words, if you deposit your money in a bank, they don’t pay you interest, they charge you interest to park your money with them.

If that happens (and it’s already happening in Europe), to stop depositors from taking their money out of banks, capital controls could be imposed by government regulators, meaning the FDIC or the Federal Reserve could restrict how much cash depositors can withdraw.

We know governments can do this. It’s been done in Cyprus, in Greece, and Ukraine. The U.S. government would do it to keep banks solvent, otherwise massive outflows of deposits would cause banks to have to be shut down.

While it’s possible, but not likely, that the Fed would take rates into negative territory as a matter of routine policymaking, it is entirely possible in the next banking crisis that depositors in giant too-big-to-fail failing banks could have their money confiscated and turned into equity shares.

And, no, I’m not kidding.

Your deposited cash is an unsecured debt obligation of your bank. It owes you that money back.

If you bank with one of the country’s biggest banks, who collectively have trillions of dollars of derivatives they hold “off balance sheet” (meaning those debts aren’t recorded on banks’ GAAP balance sheets), those debt bets have a superior legal standing to your deposits and get paid back before you get any of your cash.

You can thank the Obama administration for that. Big banks got that language inserted into the 2010 Dodd-Frank law meant to rein in dangerous bank behavior.

You: Lender of Last Resort (and the Last to Be Paid Back)

Have you ever wondered how billionaires continue to get RICHER, while the rest of the world is struggling?
"I study billionaires for a living. To be more specific, I study how these investors generate such huge and consistent profits in the stock markets -- year-in and year-out."

CLICK HERE to get your Free E-Book, “The Little Black Book Of Billionaires Secrets”




Here’s what can happen to your deposits in the next banking crisis.

If your too-big-to-fail (TBTF) bank is failing because they can’t pay off derivative bets they made, and the government refuses to bail them out, under a mandate titled “Adequacy of Loss-Absorbing Capacity of Global Systemically Important Banks in Resolution,” approved on Nov. 16, 2014, by the G20′s Financial Stability Board, they can take your deposited money and turn it into shares of equity capital to try and keep your TBTF bank from failing.

In a San Diego Free Press article, “The Bail-In: How You and Your Money Will Be Parted During the Next Banking Crisis,” author John Lawrence writes, “The (Financial Stability Board’s) language is a bit obscure, but here are some points to note:”
What was formerly called a “bankruptcy” is now a “resolution proceeding.” The bank’s insolvency is “resolved” by the neat trick of turning its liabilities into capital. Insolvent TBTF banks are to be “promptly recapitalized” with their “unsecured debt” so that they can go on with business as usual.
“Unsecured debt” includes deposits, the largest class of unsecured debt of any bank. The insolvent bank is to be made solvent by turning our money into their equity – bank stock that could become worthless on the market or be tied up for years in resolution proceedings.
The power is statutory. Cyprus-style confiscations are to become the law.
Rather than having their assets sold off and closing their doors, as happens to lesser bankrupt businesses in a capitalist economy, “zombie” banks are to be kept alive and open for business at all costs – and the costs are again to be borne by us.

The points are actually made by Ellen Brown, author of “Web of Debt” and “The Public Bank Solution.”

These “laws” exist, and the public has no idea access to their deposits can be restricted or that their deposits can actually be confiscated as part of a big bank “bail-in” to try and save the bank from closing.

Oh, and don’t think it’s safe to put your cash in a bank safe-deposit box. A bank, under government orders, can confiscate cash in there too.

Me, I’m spending my excess cash on hard assets. Heavy stuff that can’t be toted away by the government or the Federal Reserve.

You might want to think long and hard about where you have your hard-earned money.


We’re in the midst of the greatest investing boom in almost 60 years. And rest assured – this boom is not about to end anytime soon. You see, the flattening of the world continues to spawn new markets worth trillions of dollars; new customers that measure in the billions; an insatiable global demand for basic resources that’s growing exponentially; and a technological revolution even in the most distant markets on the planet.And MoneyMorning is here to help investors profit handsomely on this seismic shift in theglobal economy. In fact, we believe this is where the only real fortunes will be made in the months and years to come.

Credit to ETF

http://etfdailynews.com/2015/11/30/why-im-closing-my-bank-accounts-while-i-still-can/2/

Poland: No Invaders, No EU Flag

The new Polish government has refused to accept any nonwhite invaders at all, as demanded by the European Union’s “quota dispersal” rule—and has also taken down all EU flags at its press conferences.



The two highly significant moves, announced this week by the new Polish Prime Minister Beata Szydlo, could have far-reaching consequences for Poland’s membership of the European Union and for the unity of that organization.

Mrs Szydlo, who heads the newly-elected Law and Justice Party government, told a press conference in Warsaw this week that her country “will refuse to take in 4,500 refugees as part of an EU quota.”

She said that her government “was not prepared to accept the quota system,” adding that the refugee-terrorist attacks in Paris had “changed the situation.”

Poland’s previous government, which was decisively defeated in the October general election, had previously announced that it would accept the Angela Merkel EU-quota system and take in its allotted “share” of nonwhite invaders.

It is not known how the EU will react to Mrs Szydlo’s announcement, but sanctions of some sort are inevitable.

Poland’s move may spur on some of the other EU nations—particularly Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, and the Czech Republic—to adopt similar positons, as they all voted against the EU quota system when it came up for approval before the European Parliament in September. In addition, Finland, which abstained during the September voting, might be encouraged to break ranks.

“We will be proposing to sit down at a table and think over whether the solutions which have been proposed are good. In our view, we are not prepared to accept those quotas of refugees,” Mrs Szydlo said.

At the same press conference, it became apparent that Mrs Szydlo had also ordered the removal of the EU flag which had always been present in the background.

When asked by a journalist about the missing flag, Mrs Szydlo said that her government had “adopted the approach that statements after government meetings will take place against a backdrop of the beautiful white-and-red flags.”

Credit to newobserveronline.com/

http://newobserveronline.com/poland-no-invaders-no-eu-flag/