Sunday, November 17, 2013

7.8M earthquake struck the Scotia Sea area (north of Antarctica , east of South America)

7.8M earthquake struck the Scotia Sea area (north of Antarctica , east of South America). No tsunami warning issued. 

This is the same area which received the brunt of the x-class flare when it intersected Earth. (already had a 7.2M / 6.8M yesterday), plus a swarm of mid 5.0M today.. 

now this 7.8M.7

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

(BBC) Saudi nuclear weapons 'on order' from Pakistan




While the kingdom's quest has often been set in the context of countering Iran's atomic programme, it is now possible that the Saudis might be able to deploy such devices more quickly than the Islamic republic.
Earlier this year, a senior Nato decision maker told me that he had seen intelligence reporting that nuclear weapons made in Pakistan on behalf of Saudi Arabia are now sitting ready for delivery.
Last month Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israeli military intelligence, told a conference in Sweden that if Iran got the bomb, "the Saudis will not wait one month. They already paid for the bomb, they will go to Pakistan and bring what they need to bring."
Since 2009, when King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia warned visiting US special envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross that if Iran crossed the threshold, "we will get nuclear weapons", the kingdom has sent the Americans numerous signals of its intentions.

Gary SamoreGary Samore, until March 2013 President Barack Obama's counter-proliferation adviser, has told Newsnight:
"I do think that the Saudis believe that they have some understanding with Pakistan that, in extremis, they would have claim to acquire nuclear weapons from Pakistan."
The story of Saudi Arabia's project - including the acquisition of missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads over long ranges - goes back decades.
In the late 1980s they secretly bought dozens of CSS-2 ballistic missiles from China.
These rockets, considered by many experts too inaccurate for use as conventional weapons, were deployed 20 years ago.
This summer experts at defence publishers Jane's reported the completion of a new Saudi CSS-2 base with missile launch rails aligned with Israel and Iran.
It has also been clear for many years that Saudi Arabia has given generous financial assistance to Pakistan's defence sector, including, western experts allege, to its missile and nuclear labs.
Visits by the then Saudi defence minister Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz al Saud to the Pakistani nuclear research centre in 1999 and 2002 underlined the closeness of the defence relationship.

Saudi Arabia’s undisclosed missile siteDefence publisher Jane’s revealed the existence of Saudi Arabia’s third and undisclosed intermediate-range ballistic missile site, approximately 200 km southwest of Riyadh
In its quest for a strategic deterrent against India, Pakistan co-operated closely with China which sold them missiles and provided the design for a nuclear warhead.
The Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan was accused by western intelligence agencies of selling atomic know-how and uranium enrichment centrifuges to Libya and North Korea.
AQ Khan is also believed to have passed the Chinese nuclear weapon design to those countries. This blueprint was for a device engineered to fit on the CSS-2 missile, i.e the same type sold to Saudi Arabia.
Because of this circumstantial evidence, allegations of a Saudi-Pakistani nuclear deal started to circulate even in the 1990s, but were denied by Saudi officials.
They noted that their country had signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and called for a nuclear-free Middle East, pointing to Israel's possession of such weapons.
The fact that handing over atom bombs to a foreign government could create huge political difficulties for Pakistan, not least with the World Bank and other donors, added to skepticism about those early claims.


In Eating the Grass, his semi-official history of the Pakistani nuclear program, Major General Feroz Hassan Khan wrote that Prince Sultan's visits to Pakistan's atomic labs were not proof of an agreement between the two countries. But he acknowledged, "Saudi Arabia provided generous financial support to Pakistan that enabled the nuclear program to continue."
Whatever understandings did or did not exist between the two countries in the 1990s, it was around 2003 that the kingdom started serious strategic thinking about its changing security environment and the prospect of nuclear proliferation.
A paper leaked that year by senior Saudi officials mapped out three possible responses - to acquire their own nuclear weapons, to enter into an arrangement with another nuclear power to protect the kingdom, or to rely on the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East.
It was around the same time, following the US invasion of Iraq, that serious strains in the US/Saudi relationship began to show themselves, says Gary Samore.
The Saudis resented the removal of Saddam Hussein, had long been unhappy about US policy on Israel, and were growing increasingly concerned about the Iranian nuclear program.
In the years that followed, diplomatic chatter about Saudi-Pakistani nuclear cooperation began to increase.
In 2007, the US mission in Riyadh noted they were being asked questions by Pakistani diplomats about US knowledge of "Saudi-Pakistani nuclear cooperation".
The unnamed Pakistanis opined that "it is logical for the Saudis to step in as the physical 'protector'" of the Arab world by seeking nuclear weapons, according to one of the State Department cables posted by Wikileaks.
By the end of that decade Saudi princes and officials were giving explicit warnings of their intention to acquire nuclear weapons if Iran did.
Having warned the Americans in private for years, last year Saudi officials in Riyadh escalated it to a public warning, telling a journalist from the Times "it would be completely unacceptable to have Iran with a nuclear capability and not the kingdom".
But were these statements bluster, aimed at forcing a stronger US line on Iran, or were they evidence of a deliberate, long-term plan for a Saudi bomb? Both, is the answer I have received from former key officials.
One senior Pakistani, speaking on background terms, confirmed the broad nature of the deal - probably unwritten - his country had reached with the kingdom and asked rhetorically "what did we think the Saudis were giving us all that money for? It wasn't charity."
Another, a one-time intelligence officer from the same country, said he believed "the Pakistanis certainly maintain a certain number of warheads on the basis that if the Saudis were to ask for them at any given time they would immediately be transferred."
As for the seriousness of the Saudi threat to make good on the deal, Simon Henderson, Director of the Global Gulf and Energy Policy Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told BBC Newsnight "the Saudis speak about Iran and nuclear matters very seriously. They don't bluff on this issue."
Talking to many serving and former officials about this over the past few months, the only real debate I have found is about how exactly the Saudi Arabians would redeem the bargain with Pakistan.
Some think it is a cash-and-carry deal for warheads, the first of those options sketched out by the Saudis back in 2003; others that it is the second, an arrangement under which Pakistani nuclear forces could be deployed in the kingdom.
Gary Samore, considering these questions at the centre of the US intelligence and policy web, at the White House until earlier this year, thinks that what he calls, "the Nato model", is more likely.
However ,"I think just giving Saudi Arabia a handful of nuclear weapons would be a very provocative action", says Gary Samore.
He adds: "I've always thought it was much more likely - the most likely option if Pakistan were to honour any agreement would be for be for Pakistan to send its own forces, its own troops armed with nuclear weapons and with delivery systems to be deployed in Saudi Arabia".
This would give a big political advantage to Pakistan since it would allow them to deny that they had simply handed over the weapons, but implies a dual key system in which they would need to agree in order for 'Saudi Arabian' "nukes" to be launched.
Others I have spoken to think this is not credible, since Saudi Arabia, which regards itself as the leader of the broader Sunni Islamic 'ummah' or community, would want complete control of its nuclear deterrent, particularly at this time of worsening sectarian confrontation with Shia Iran.
Map of Saudi Arabia
And it is Israeli information - that Saudi Arabia is now ready to take delivery of finished warheads for its long-range missiles - that informs some recent US and Nato intelligence reporting. Israel of course shares Saudi Arabia's motive in wanting to worry the US into containing Iran.
Amos Yadlin declined to be interviewed for our BBC Newsnight report, but told me by email that "unlike other potential regional threats, the Saudi one is very credible and imminent."
Even if this view is accurate there are many good reasons for Saudi Arabia to leave its nuclear warheads in Pakistan for the time being.
Doing so allows the kingdom to deny there are any on its soil. It avoids challenging Iran to cross the nuclear threshold in response, and it insulates Pakistan from the international opprobrium of being seen to operate an atomic cash-and-carry.

These assumptions though may not be safe for much longer. The US diplomatic thaw with Iran has touched deep insecurities in Riyadh, which fears that any deal to constrain the Islamic republic's nuclear program would be ineffective.
Earlier this month the Saudi intelligence chief and former ambassador to Washington Prince Bandar announced that the kingdom would be distancing itself more from the US.
While investigating this, I have heard rumours on the diplomatic grapevine, that Pakistan has recently actually delivered Shaheen mobile ballistic missiles to Saudi Arabia, minus warheads.
These reports, still unconfirmed, would suggest an ability to deploy nuclear weapons in the kingdom, and mount them on an effective, modern, missile system more quickly than some analysts had previously imagined.
In Egypt, Saudi Arabia showed itself ready to step in with large-scale backing following the military overthrow of President Mohammed Morsi's government.
There is a message here for Pakistan, of Riyadh being ready to replace US military assistance or World Bank loans, if standing with Saudi Arabia causes a country to lose them.
Newsnight contacted both the Pakistani and Saudi governments. The Pakistan Foreign Ministry has described our story as "speculative, mischievous and baseless".
It adds: "Pakistan is a responsible nuclear weapon state with robust command and control structures and comprehensive export controls."
The Saudi embassy in London has also issued a statement pointing out that the Kingdom is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and has worked for a nuclear free Middle East.
But it also points out that the UN's "failure to make the Middle East a nuclear free zone is one of the reasons the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia rejected the offer of a seat on the UN Security Council".
It says the Saudi Foreign Minister has stressed that this lack of international action "has put the region under the threat of a time bomb that cannot easily be defused by manoeuvring around it".

Sunday, October 13, 2013

'De-Americanised' world needed after US shutdown: China media




Senator Chuck Schumer and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid speak in Washington about continuing attempts to end the government shut down, on October 12, 2013

Beijing (AFP) - While US politicians grapple with how to reopen their shuttered government and avoid a potentially disastrous default on their debt, the world should consider 'de-Americanising', a commentary on China's official news agency said Sunday.
"As US politicians of both political parties (fail to find a) viable deal to bring normality to the body politic they brag about, it is perhaps a good time for the befuddled world to start considering building a de-Americanised world," the commentary on state news agency Xinhua said.
In a lengthy polemic against American hegemony since World War two, it added: "Such alarming days when the destinies of others are in the hands of a hypocritical nation have to be terminated.
"A new world order should be put in place, according to which all nations, big or small, poor or rich, can have their key interests respected and protected on an equal footing."
Negotiations over how to end the budgetary impasse have shifted to the US Senate after House Representatives failed to strike a deal with President Obama on extending borrowing authority ahead of an October 17 deadline.

Beijing has in recent days issued warnings as well as appeals for a deal, all the while emphasising the inseparable economic ties that bind the world's two biggest economies.
"The cyclical stagnation in Washington for a viable bipartisan solution over a federal budget and an approval for raising debt ceiling has again left many nations' tremendous dollar assets in jeopardy and the international community highly agonised," said the commentary.
China is the biggest foreign holder of US Treasury bonds, worth a total of $1.28 trillion according to US government data.
"Instead of honouring its duties as a responsible leading power, a self-serving Washington has abused its superpower status and introduced even more chaos into the world by shifting financial risks overseas," but equally stoked "regional tensions amid territorial disputes, and fighting unwarranted wars under the cover of outright lies" the commentary said, referring to Iraq.
It added that emerging economies should have a greater say in major international financial institutions the World Bank and International Monetary Fund and proposed a "new international reserve currency that is to be created to replace the dominant US dollar".
China has only slightly more weight than Italy at the IMF, which has been headed by a European since its creation in 1944.
A governance reform has been in the works for three years but its implementation has been blocked by the effective veto of the United States.


October 17th - Day the dollar died?!! Could we see America default on its loans and subsequently collapse from within?




It has never happened before in the history of the United States. We The People are watching a political game of chess unfold from our nations leaders and are on the very brink of a financial catastrophe like no other since our nations founding. When and if this occurs in just a mere 11 days, on October 17, President Obama is not looking to fix it but rather “shut down” or terminate the charter of 16 U.S. States!
The train wreck that was predicted with the Affordable Care Act, AKA Obamacare, is being scheduled. Our national debt clock is ticking down like a time bomb. October 17th, for the first time in U.S. History, we may default on our loans. Not a joke.  October 17th is when the check to the outstanding accounts that we borrowed from to fund our Federal Reserve comes due to countries like China who President Obama borrowed over a Trillion dollars from.
Imagine if you will:
The sequence of events would likely go as follows…
Within seconds of news that the United States missed a payment, almost simultaneously, the stock market and the U.S. dollar would plummet in value.
A super-spike in interest rates would follow in short order.
A gallon of milk would suddenly cost upwards of $100.
A loaf of bread, $44.
A gallon of gasoline, upwards of $1,000.
In a panic to protect their inventories, business owners would shut their doors, triggering widespread looting and chaos.
Then, within an hour later, the federal government would issue emergency notification that its disaster map is in effect.
“The United States of America would look dramatically different,” says renowned global analyst, Karim Rahemtulla, adding that “not every state will survive.”-Town Hall
Town Hall reports some interesting comments from the Secretary of Treasury, Jack Lew, on this subject.
“If we have insufficient cash on hand, it would be impossible for the United States of America to meet all of its obligations,” said Treasury Secretary, Jack Lew, on Wednesday.
What our treasury secretary is hinting at is bigger then anything we could imagine and an almost doomsday scenario for the United States being planned out by President Obama and his administration. How serious is the threat? Well it is serious enough for the NSA, Department of Homeland Security, and the Federal government to put contingency plans in place completely annexing 16 states and redrawing the federal United States Map.
The Federal Government has put into place contingency plans for if this happens implementing a virtual “government shutdown” of 16 states. Which 16 states? Well that depends on the map, as two are in play. One shuts down the biggest welfare states, the other redraws the map of the Civil War!
Is your state on the map to be annexed?
illinois-welfare-percentage
This map shows the biggest TANF, or federal funds to low income families, recipients. This is one of the biggest drains on the government borrowing from the Social Security and Medicare tax income that is received since the 1996 reform. Dark blue indicates the biggest percentage per population that receives these funds.

According to CNBC and the National Counsel of State Legislatures (NCSL) the top 15 states to be victims of Obama’s government shutdowns to punish the people would be: 15. Oregon, 14. Pennsylvania, 13.  Michigan, 12. Rhode Island, 11. Indiana, 10. New Mexico, 9. Washington, 8. Minnesota, 7. New York, 6. District of Colombia (not a state but one of the highest per capita welfare recipients), 5. Vermont, 4. Massachusetts, 3. Tennessee, 2. Maine, 1. California. The 16th state could be a choice from any of the darker blue states from Virginia, Florida, Alaska, etc.
This could also be drawn up by the 2012 census of Household Median Income which would pretty much redraw some old battle lines and old wounds of our Nation.  This list would included from lowest to highest: 16. Mississippi, 15. West Virginia, 14. Arkansas, 13. Kentucky, 12. Alabama, 11. Tennessee, 10. Louisiana, 9. South Carolina, 8. New Mexico, 7. Oklahoma, 6. Idaho, 5. North Carolina, 4. Montana, 3. Florida, 2. Missouri, 1.Ohio.
Basically the bread basket of America. It would be agriculture verses industry. The rest of the southern states are not far behind on that list. We can record government interference with the farm industry and recent flooding, droughts, and natural occurrences for the gap.  The one missing from the list as a major player in industry in the old Confederate States has a plan that makes this even bigger.
Republic of Texas
Texas Governor Rick Perry (R) made no secret since 2009 his feelings on if the United States Federal Government and the republic collapsed what his feelings were. It is no secret that Texas is a big battleground state and one of the industry leaders with even a slot in the World Economy.
This year, the Attorney General of Texas, Gregg Abott, signed a contingency plan that he would help the Texas Nationalist Movement in the event of an economic collapse to restore the Republic of Texas to the full glory of the nation it once was. This has led to some serious debate with constitutional lawyers as if it was even possible since the civil war. But Texas remains one state that is still classified as a “Republic” and is one of the only states that can fly its flag at the same level as the US flag.
This prompted legislation in Oklahoma from the Oklahoma House and Senate and was signed off on by Governor Mary Fallen (R) to also leave the US in the event of a catastrophe. It seems that Oklahoma would join its sister state in leaving and they are on the list of the 16 states that would be cut if President Obama does this by wealth.
Louisiana is flirting with the idea and Arkansas as well. Parts of Colorado (considering that they had the first re-call election and replaced legislatures for the first time in history during a term) and New Mexico are also lining up with the idea . Could we see the rise of the Republic of Texas again?
How credible is the threat? Well there are several things that makes this doomsday scenario possible. Number one, the government already has the contingency plan in place and President Obama signed off on the executive order already.
We have the truckers shutting down the dollar on October 11-13 to get their attention and demand impeachment. We have the banks threatening to follow suit in retaliation. Instant market flux or maybe market crash.
The powers that be stand to make money on this, in fact they are routing for it:
“It’s piling into very specific global markets,” says Karim Rahemtulla, author of the bestselling book, Where in the World Should I Invest?
“Certain insiders will get rich off of this event. It happens in every crisis dating as far back to the Depression. You just need to know where to put your money,” Rahemtulla adds.

Next, The Blaze reported while we were writing this article that Speaker John Boehner now states that if President Obama continues to negotiate that we will default on the National Debt.  Here is the video that they are talking about:

It is bad enough to get Speaker Boehner to cuss in another speech directly to the White House of “This Is NOT some damn game”!
Here is the situation in a nut shell, IF the President comes to the table and negotiates, then we raise the debt ceiling; we risk a credit downgrade again in our US History, the dollar weakens, and we risk another catastrophic market collapse.  However, the United States stays intact, and we can possibly end the insanity as of late.
If that doesn’t happen, then see the doomsday scenario set in place for us all. We have his excuse to declare martial law and rip the United States to pieces.
Either way, if your Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Independent, or not affiliated with any party, the final outcome of October 17th, 2013, does not look good.  Check Mate.

Tuesday, October 8, 2013

Police Arrest Veterans at NYC Memorial




“This is a sign of betrayal”Infowars.com
October 8, 2013
Police arrested numerous Vietnam veterans during a vigil at a war memorial in New York City last night after the protesters refused to adhere to a 10pm curfew.
The veterans had gathered at the Vietnam Memorial Plaza to protest the 12th anniversary of the war in Afghanistan by reading out the names of deceased US soldiers.
One video shows a man speaking about how veterans are committing suicide. “This is a sign of betrayal….it’s important you know that your government committed immense atrocities during the Vietnam war, we did it every day,” he states.
After the Park Service rejected the group’s application to hold a protest at the site, an all night vigil was planned. The group argued that its first amendment rights superseded the 10pm curfew.
Photographs show veterans being handcuffed and loaded into paddy wagons.
A live stream video recording of the event shows demonstrators chanting, “whose side are you on?” before police, after several verbal warnings, move in to make the arrests.
View more images and video from last night’s demonstration below.