A Second Warning “UFO” Sent To China (Daniel 7)

Second nuclear missile test launched by Navy as U.S. Defense Secretary confirms warning message to America’s enemies

Tuesday, November 10, 2015
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

 

(NaturalNews) To the astonishment of Californians, the U.S. Navy has now launched a second thermonuclear missile over Los Angeles. “The second test launch of the Trident II (D5) missile from a ballistic submarine in the Pacific Ocean took place Monday afternoon,” reports the LA Times. As Natural News readers know, two days ago I exhaustively documented the escalation of the covert war between the United States and a Russian-Chinese partnership. The Trident missile launch, I explained, was a “warning shot” against Russia and China:

Last night’s test launch of the Trident missile over Orange County was staged near a high population area for a tactical reason: To have as many witnesses (and videos) as possible, sending a very visible warning message to China that says, “We can destroy you if you don’t back off.”

Russia and China, I explained, are partnering for a “massive first strike” against the United States, involving cyber attacks, economic attacks, missile attacks against US Navy warships and even the possibility of EMP weapons that attack America’s power grid infrastructure.

As published in the LA Times, U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter all but said the missile launches are a warning against global aggressors: (bolding added)

The submarine missile test came late Saturday after Defense Secretary Ashton Carter addressed a defense forum at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley about the U.S. “adapting our operational posture and contingency plans” to deter Russia’s “aggression.”

“We do not seek a cold, let alone a hot, war with Russia,” he said to the forum. “We do not seek to make Russia an enemy. But make no mistake; the United States will defend our interests, our allies, the principled international order, and the positive future it affords us all.”

In other words, these missile launches are a warning to America’s enemies, sending the irrefutable message that we can nuke your cities if you provoke us.

America’s enemies are posturing toward war

The very fact that the United States feels it necessary to send such a message is proof that America’s enemies are posturing for war. It’s the geopolitical equivalent of a dog growling when another dog gets too close to his bowl of food. But this growl costs U.S. taxpayers at least $31 million per missile, and that doesn’t even include all the support services and personnel needed to prepare, launch and recover them.

Trident missiles, by the way, have a range of over 4,000 nautical miles. As reference, Honolulu and Beijing are approximately 4400 nautical miles apart. This means a U.S. submarine armed with Trident missiles could launch a nuclear strike on Beijing, China, from anywhere in the mid-Pacific Ocean. (It’s the ultimate tactical deterrent.)

It is my opinion that U.S. nuclear submarines are right now the single most important factor preventing China and Russia from escalating their war actions against America. Not only does America have the technical expertise to nuke enemy cities, it has already proven it is willing to drop atomic bombs on civilian populations in order to protect its national interests. If you refute that this has ever happened, you are ignorant of history and probably need to review World War II, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

What does the U.S. Navy know about Russia and China that we’re not being told?

There it is, positioned in the sky over San Francisco! This missile, interestingly enough, was spotted by people all over California and even Arizona. Some people claimed to have seen it from Colorado, and believe it or not, a few online comments claimed to have spotted it from Hawaii. If these comments are true, it means the Trident missile must have achieved a very high altitude to be visible from so far away.

The Hypocrites Of Babylon (Ezekiel 17)

Who are the hypocrites?

By Frida Ghitis

Updated 2:28 PM ET, Fri May 8, 2015

(CNN) The past few weeks have brought a head-spinning display of pronouncements from people claiming to speak on behalf of “freedom.” Of those pretending to defend basic rights for everyone, it’s hard to judge who’s the most egregious and insincere. So here are my nominees for the most hypocritical defenders of human rights of recent days.

Did you know that Iran’s Supreme Leader is deeply troubled by the plight of African-Americans in Baltimore? Did you know that ISIS shares his concerns? Touching, isn’t it?

 

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

 

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei unleashed a barrage of tweets, gleefully rubbing his virtual hands at the anguish in the United States. “Power with cruelty isn’t favored by #Islam. #Police should embody justice and mercy by being potent,” he tweeted.

Clearly, the Ayatollah makes a fine distinction between police and other “law and order” groups such as Iran’s infamous Basij militias, who help the ayatollahs keep control when people protest about, say, stolen elections. The Ayatollah’s worries about abuse of power could be more usefully channeled toward well-documented human rights violations that are endemic in Iran, a place where his power is nearly absolute.

You know who else is worried about the police killing an innocent man in Baltimore? ISIS. Yes, the self-described Islamic State, which slaughters Christians, Yazidis and any Muslim who disagrees with it, posted pictures of black and white jihadis play-sparring to let us know that “In the Islamic state is no difference between black and white.”

 

ISIS is known for its brutality.

North Korea’s news agency carefully downplayed the notion of protesting against injustice. But its Baltimore story explained that Americans “are human butchers without equals.”

In Turkey, where the increasingly autocratic government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was internationally criticized for its violent suppression of anti-government protests, an Erdogan loyalist, the mayor of Ankara, put on an undiplomatic show of schadenfreude, calling out the State Department’s Marie Harf, “Where are you stupid blonde, who accused Turkish police of using disproportionate force?”

These statements of purported support for targets of reprehensible police actions in the United States have nothing to do with concern for the victims. The hypocrisy is an effort to score political points and blunt criticism against regimes with continuing human rights violations in countries where abuses have triggered no prosecutions, self-examination or change in behavior.

The self-proclaimed free speech defenders who actually promote hate.

When two gunmen opened fire in Garland, Texas, trying to make their way into a hall hosting a cartoon contest about the Prophet Mohammed, there was little doubt what their ideology would turn out to be. The shooters, who were killed, are the ones responsible for the attack. No one should be the target of assassins because of the cartoons they draw or the contests they promote.

That said, the event organizer, Pamela Geller, and her American Freedom Defense Initiative are a study in hypocrisy. They claim to defend free speech — a right worth defending — but instead they foment hatred. Geller holds that all Muslims are potential enemies. Her Stop the Islamization of America group claims that “The U.S. constitution is under attack.”

Her views and tactics have been repudiated by the Anti-Defamation League and even right-wing conservatives are speaking against her.

When Geller compared herself to civil rights hero Rosa Parks, someone — was it Fox’s Martha McCullum or the Catholic League’s Bill Donohue — suggested Geller should act in a “Christian way,” an awkward plea for interfaith tolerance.

The PEN writers who support free speech — unless they don’t like it.

When the respected writers’ group PEN decided to award its Freedom of Expression Courage honor to the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, it seemed an obvious choice. Charlie Hebdo displayed immeasurable courage when it continued publishing despite an earlier firebombing and threats over cartoons that many Muslims found deeply offensive. The courage was beyond doubt, as was proven in January when Islamic radicals killed a dozen people in the magazine’s offices.

At the time, everyone declared “I am Charlie.” But now six prominent writers — Francine Prose, Teju Cole, Michael Ondaatje, Peter Carey, Rachel Kushner, Taiye Selasi — have decided Charlie should not be honored. It turns out they believe free speech should be respected only when one approves of its content, which is precisely what those who oppose free speech argue.

These critics accuse the magazine of having an anti-Islam agenda. But that is patently false. Ten years of covers prove Charlie’s agenda is opposing dogmatism. Cringe-worthy cartoons mocking Christian and Jewish dogma are just as common. Islam is a less-frequently mocked religion. The president of the anti-racism group SOS Racisme called Charlie “the greatest anti-racist weekly in the country.”

The writer Salman Rushdie — whose writings prompted Iran to issue a fatwa, a religious ruling, which called for his killing — fulminated against the writers who decided to boycott the PEN award event, saying, “I hope nobody ever comes after them.” He called them “Six authors in search of a bit of character.”

Amnesty International defends human rights for most people.

Amnesty International normally acts as a force for good and has arduously defended many against human rights abuses, so it is with no small amount of displeasure that I note its regrettable demonstration of hypocrisy.

When the organization held its annual meeting last month, members raised motions to sharpen the pursuit of its mission to protect human rights around the world. Every one of the proposals won approval — except one.

A motion calling on the group to combat an epidemic of anti-Semitism spiraling in the United Kingdom was the only resolution defeated at the meeting. The proposal would have Amnesty support the recommendations from a British study that found record high and rising levels of anti-Jewish violence. It had nothing to do with Israel or the Palestinians, the usual explanation given for dismissing charges of anti-Semitism in Europe.

Amnesty, which approved motions to defend Colombian trade union members, Guatemalan rule-of-law violations, and other issues, explained, “We can’t campaign on everything.” With that, Amnesty became a finalist in my hypocrites list.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

US Playing Chess Against The Chessmasters

Iran is playing a win-win game at the nuclear talks

Al-Arabiya

Camelia Entekhabi-Fard

The Great Nuclear Chess Game

Recently, I sat down to dinner with a few Arab friends, all of whom were educated in the West and are engaged in policy making. They were very interested to hear my opinion on Iran’s nuclear program and whether or not Iran is tricking the West and its Arab neighbors while secretly planning to produce a nuclear bomb.

No one at that table believed Iran was sincere in its pledge to work with the international community to solve the lagging and controversial nuclear file. My Arab friends asked for evidence to prove President Hassan Rowhani’s negotiating team were being sincere.

Of course, being too optimistic or too pessimistic is not constructive. Simply put, Iran’s foreign policy has been changed due to the regional and international circumstances.

The interim deal benefits Iran far more than the production of a nuclear bomb. Also, the incentives offered by the West are not bad at all.                                                                 Camelia Entekhabi-Fard

Today, running a country with a population of almost 80 million, with a high youth unemployment rate, is difficult.

Unemployment, drug addiction and frustration among the youth all the consequences of the international isolation Iran has suffered for years. The “smart sanctions” which hit Iran’s oil industries in recent years forced the regime to resume the talks with the West.

President Rowhani and his nuclear negotiating team took very constructive and major steps in order to restore Iran’s image and to try to solve disputes.

They seem to be succeeding because the supreme leader decided to change course and achieve the ambitions they had since the revolution, but in a different way. He understands the importance of being engaged in regional and international matters to play a part rather than sit back in isolation, worrying about national security.

In my opinion, what made Iran’s supreme leader back the nuclear talks and show flexibility, according to his own statement, are the events in the region and the opportunities for Iran to become a regional power once again.

The events in Iraq and Syria,the rise of extremism and Iran’s geopolitical and regional importance coalesce to make Iranians feel like they could gain by changing their language and the way they present themselves in the region.

 

Nuclear bombs can’t feed the masses

North Korea’s breakup of the nuclear talks and their nuclear bomb gained the country starvation for its people and deep isolation. The hostile Pyongyang regime has the bomb but using it is as dangerous as committing suicide. Also, how will they use the bomb to feed the hungry masses? Pakistan and India are other good examples. Nuclear weapons have not helped Pakistan to become a stable nation and have not helped India to feed its poor.

So, the deal benefits Iran far more than the production of a nuclear bomb. Also, the incentives offered by the West are not bad at all. To become a regional power doesn’t mean creating a nuclear bomb if the United States and Western powers give Iran such space.

Plan B works better for Tehran than a hostile Plan A. The interim deal, which was reached last year in Geneva, was proof that all parties accept each other’s terms and conditions.

On August 17, British Prime Minister David Cameron said that Britain must be prepared to ally itself with Iran to combat the “shared threat” of Sunni Islamist extremists in Iraq and Syria who want to create “a terrorist state” that could extend to “the shores of the Mediterranean.”

Now the U.S. and the UK share the national interest of putting aside decades of enmity with the Shite regime in Tehran. The British prime minister called on Rowhani to “engage with the international community” in combating ISIS. A year of negotiations with the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the U.N. security Council plus Germany) since Rowhani become president hasn’t been wasted as part of the interim deal was that some of the sanctions were lifted and the economy eased. Now an invitation for Iran to join the regional coalition to counter terrorism means finally, after 35-years of the revolution, the world recognizes the regime’s importance. Iran is not far from reaching the comprehensive deal to be outlines by November 23.

The harmony between the different factions of the Iranian government is astonishing which leaves no doubt in my mind that the supreme leader is behind all these changes, otherwise it could be impossible for Rowhani to reach the comprehensive deal with the West in such a “win-win” manner as he calls it.

__________________

Camelia Entekhabi-Fard is a journalist, news commentator and writer who grew up during the Iranian Revolution and wrote for leading reformist newspapers. She is also the author of Camelia: Save Yourself by Telling the Truth – A Memoir of Iran. She lives in New York City and Dubai. She can be found on Twitter: @CameliaFard

Last Update: Monday, 1 September 2014 KSA 11:12 – GMT 08:12