Something is fishy about USS Fitzgerald story we are being told

This story needs evidence of proof and legs.


Under Obama, the ship’s Captain would have already been fired.


It will be interesting to see how President Trump deals with this and if it’s humanly possible watch those who surround him to come up with what really happened.

I believe nothing our government tells us along with its 4th arm, the leftist media.

Who was at the helm?

Who was on watch?

There is no upside to this story.

If the government is predictably lying to us were screwed and if the bad guys can attack us at their will then we are screwed again.


How could this have possibly happened, after all, we have NSA and all the rest of the alphabet acronyms working for us??




H/T Jim O’Neill, author, and  U.S. Navy SEAL.
Something is fishy about USS Fitzgerald story we are getting/ ESSENTIAL TO READ!
I wouldn’t take seriously that missing sailor’s mother’s message for a nano-second. 
In addition, the crew of the “Fitz” numbers around 200 — not “thousands.” 
That being said, I concur 100% with the quote below.  Jim

“We have to consider the possibility of an asymmetric warfare attack designed to disable missile defense of a carrier strike group.”


The American Thinker
Thomas Lifson

June 18, 2017

[Note alarming inside information sent by the mother of one of the USS Fitzgerald crewmen!]

Under no circumstances should a US Navy vessel possibly be damaged by a container ship at sea.

Multiple systems exist to prevent this.

Even CNN is noticing how little we know about the catastrophe that took the lives of seven sailors and almost caused a powerful warship to founder.

The USS Fitzgerald, an anti-ballistic missile destroyer that was part of the USS Ronald Reagan carrier strike group, will no longer be ready to defend the carrier and other ships from missile attacks launched from North Korea.

Should push come to shove in the current confrontation with the rogue regime on the threshold of the capability to attack New York, Los Angeles, and our power grid with nuclear missiles. 

This is an incident that could affect the outcome of a nuclear confrontation of historic moment.

Brian Joondeph yesterday noted how the media have distorted what really happened, by reporting a “collision,” as if the ships randomly bumped each other in the fog or something.

The truth is that the ACX Crystal, a ship with somewhat murky provenance, rammed into the Fitzgerald with calamitous results:

[Vice Adm. Joseph P. Aucoin of the 7th fleet] described the damage as “extensive,” adding that there was a big puncture and gash below the waterline on one side of the ship. He also said three compartments were severely damaged.

“The ship is salvageable … [it] will require some significant repair,” Aucoin said. “You will see the USS Fitzgerald back … It will take months, hopefully under a year.”

Retired Rear Admiral John Kirby describes for CNN the extent of the chaos unleashed:

First, we know the crew fought heroically to save their ship and the lives of their shipmates.

See the entire article below.


Continue reading

UPDATE: ‘Mother of All Bombs’: US Forces Drop Massive Non-Nuclear Bomb in Afghanistan killing ISIS and al Qaeda forces

‘Mother of All Bombs’: US Forces Drop Massive Non-Nuclear Bomb in Afghanistan killing ISIS troops.

U.S. forces have dropped what is known as the “mother of all bombs” in Afghanistan.

Staff Sgt. Mark De Alenca was killed in a fierce firefight shortly before the bomb was dropped.


The device is the largest non-nuclear device in the Air Force arsenal,

Fox News’ Jennifer Griffin reported. It was dropped in Nangarhar Province, an eastern area near the Pakistan border.






APRIL 13, 2016


Named MOAB for Mother of all non-nuclear bombs, it’s blast radius and non-penetration on impact give it a devastating kill radius. 


Russia, North Korea, and ISIS may need a time out to refocus their strategy.

Meanwhile, let’s keep dropping the bombs do incinerate every last one of them.



Continue reading

New UN Security Council Resolution Strengthens Sanctions against North Korea

crew-2231211Is this headline more absurd than frightening?

Yes, the North Korean Midget might be capable of delivering a small nuclear warhead from one of its submarines sitting in international waters.



It’s also possible he doesn’t want to die in the immediate U.S. bombing of his country.

North Korea will not have much going on during a Trump presidency. 

In reality, The U.S. and the entire world should not take North Korea development of a nuclear program seriously at this point. (Source)




As with all pure attempts to run a communist dictatorship, the people rebel and overthrow those who force them to live under their

tyrannical rule.

North Korea is far more likely to be destroyed by dissidents from within before they can develop a nuclear capability with a delivery system  to create havoc with the entire world including The United States of America.

The U.N. Security Council is a complete joke and has never served a useful purpose.  (Source)

misunderstood-kim-jong-unWith Kim Jon Un their new leader through , we have an ignorant unpredictable fool.

Clearly, the danger that is North Korea far extends beyond nuclear weapons.

The issue of a North Korean collapse or some sort of forced snap reunification with the South will very likely be a challenge America and its allies in Asia will have to tackle at some point in the future as history shows no dictatorship lasts forever.

So instead of scouring the headlines looking for the latest news on the DPRK’s nuke test, read this report instead. (Source)

From the Rand Corporation:

What ‘Type’ of Collapses Are Possible?

“Under what circumstances might the Kim Jong-Un regime collapse?

Such a collapse could come in one of two forms: regime collapse and government collapse.

In a regime collapse, the Kim family regime (and Kim Jong-Un, in particular) is overthrown, and some new leader takes control of North Korea, likely rising from within the military.

Under this case, the national control mechanisms and organization could remain largely in place, although the overthrow will certainly disrupt the mechanisms for a period.

The new ruler would be prone to purge many of the senior govern.

What is left to say at this point when it comes to that “Hermit Kingdom” everyone loves to hate?

North Korea, or also known as the so-called Democratic People’s Republic, is the ultimate Pandora’s Box and every president’s worst nightmare: A-bombs, chemical toxins, biological weapons and missiles to lob them all over the world—including now at the continental United States.

And Pyongyang knows how to get the news cycle to turn its way—thanks to making Northeast Asia shake with a fresh atomic test.

And yet, while North Korea flexing its atomic muscles is certainly a big deal, the world is missing the real story: What happens if someday North Korea falls apart through a mass uprising, economic disaster, or war?

Plus-sized bad boy, Kim Jung-un is at the head of a state that would likely take trillions of dollars to turn around towards anything resembling normal—say nothing of putting the lives back together of millions of people who been brainwashed, starved and treated as slaves.

Back in 2013, an excellent research paper, more like a book if you look at length alone, was released by the RAND Corporation that tackles this issue and is well worth your time.

The author of the report, Bruce Bennett, lays out a chilling tale of what could happen, what it would take to put the pieces back together and what Washington and its allies should do to prepare for such a contingency.

As I love to do, here are five highlights from the report, which I would argue, demonstrates the real issue when it comes to North Korea.

1. What ‘Type’ of Collapses Are Possible?

“Under what circumstances might the Kim Jong-Un regime collapse? Such a collapse could come in one of two forms: regime collapse and government collapse. In a regime collapse, the Kim family regime (and Kim Jong-Un, in particular) is overthrown, and some new leader takes control of North Korea, likely rising from within the military. Under this case, the national control mechanisms and organization could remain largely in place, although the overthrow will certainly disrupt the mechanisms for a period. The new ruler would be prone to purge many of the senior government leaders and replace them with personnel loyal to him.”

The next scenario is far scarier.

“The alternative kind of collapse would be a government collapse. In this case, the Kim family regime would fail or be overthrown, and no single individual or group would be able to form a new central North Korean government. Most likely, factions would develop, each trying to control parts of the country, with some possibly having very weak control even over their own areas. Many central government functions would fail, including much of the control system.

“Note that regime collapse could be a step along the path to government collapse. Indeed, collapse is both a process and an outcome. North Korea has not yet suffered either regime or government collapse, but the collapse process appears to be under way already. Thus, the Kim regime is perhaps best classified as a “failing or eroding totalitarian system.”

2. A Civil War Is Possible.

“A civil war in North Korea and especially the use of WMD could spill over into the ROK and cause serious damage. Factional forces could cause considerable damage with artillery and special forces attacks on the ROK, especially if nuclear and/or biological weapons are used.

In addition, one or more North Korean factions could purposefully attack the ROK, potentially as a form of revenge if they perceive themselves unlikely to survive.

Thus, ballistic missile attacks against SOUTH KOREAN (ROK) cities—especially ones using nuclear weapons or even chemical or biological weapons—could cause damage across the ROK.

Besides the physical damage done, the ROK economy and society could be significantly affected.

All these consequences could make it difficult for the ROK to pay for and manage unification.

From a ROK perspective, the worst outcome could be destabilization of all of Korea, including the ROK, as crime and insurgency spread, if the ROK is unable to contain and defeat them.”

3. It Gets Worse: China Could Intervene.

“In addition, China could intervene; indeed, some say that China would be likely to intervene. In doing so, China could try to thwart unification… As ROK, U.S., and Chinese forces advance, conflict could develop between the ROK–United States and China. Both Chinese efforts to thwart unification and conflict with China could further jeopardize Korean unification.”

4. Famine Could Set In.

“Because North Korea already has difficulty feeding its population, a government collapse would likely plunge the North into starvation.

Those with money would be motivated to hoard food to guarantee their access to it and because the price of food could well skyrocket in the postcollapse environment.

As food disappears, the military and others with arms would likely increase their raids on those who potentially have food, stealing what little remains.

The humanitarian aid organizations helping in North Korea would probably reduce their assistance as the security in North Korea deteriorates and could curtail their assistance if security decays to the point that their personnel are seriously threatened.

The currently inadequate food supplies could be reduced below the starvation level for many people in North Korea.”




Trump has said that N.A.T.O. nations will begin paying for membership, (Source) look for him to take the same position with the U.N.

If the U.S. didn’t fund the majority of the U.N. it would collapse over its own bureaucracy

Ho long will the member country remains when incoming president Donald Trump has made member nations pay their own way?

But Iran, freed of sanctions, is likely to be the spoiler.

The United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2321 (2016) on November

It condemns the North Korean (DPRK) regime’s continued pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles while its people continue to suffer under inhumane conditions. The resolution strengthens previous UN-imposed sanctions on the DPRK in response to its fifth nuclear test conducted on September 9, 2016.

The resolution strengthens previous UN-imposed sanctions on the DPRK in response to its fifth nuclear test conducted on September 9, 2016.

It condemns the North Korean (DPRK) regime’s continued pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles while its people continue to suffer under inhumane conditions. The resolution strengthens previous UN-imposed sanctions on the DPRK in response to its fifth nuclear test conducted on September 9, 2016.

The prior resolutions have failed to slow, much less eliminate, the DPRK’s nuclear program involving the development and testing of both nuclear device and ballistic missile capabilities.

As UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon pointed out in his remarks to the Security Council following the vote, “The Council first adopted a resolution on the DPRK nuclear issue in 1993. Twenty-three years and six sanctions resolutions later, the challenge persists.”

Twenty-three years and six sanctions resolutions later, the challenge persists.”

The new resolution is intended to put more of a financial squeeze on the DPKR regime than ever before by closing loopholes and cutting the DPRK off from sources of hard currency that can be used to fund its nuclear bomb and ballistic missile programs.

Most notably, the new resolution places tighter restrictions on the DPRK’s export of coal.

There will now be an absolute cap on how much coal the DPRK can export per year, closing a loophole that had allowed an exemption from any coal export limitations so long as the transactions were determined to be exclusively for “livelihood” purposes.

Member states must report all transactions promptly to the 1718 DPRK Sanctions Committee, which is directed to monitor total volumes and notify states when the allowed quantities have been reached and all procurement of coal from the DPRK must end.

The binding export cap will potentially cut the DPRK’s largest export, coal, by approximately $700 million per year from 2015 (more than 60%). Considering the fact that China is the DPRK’s principal purchaser of coal, the new restrictions agreed to by China are significant if fully implemented.

See this very entire article below.

Continue reading

What the next ten years holds: Stratfor Report

crew-22312The Stratfor Global Intelligence Report
September 30, 2015

This is the fifth Decade Forecast published by Stratfor.

Every five years since 1996 (1996, 2000, 2005, 2010 and now, 2015) Stratfor has produced a rolling forecast.

Overall, we are proud of our efforts.


P-16_INLINE (1)


There is no decade without pain, and even in the most perfect of times, there is suffering.

The crises that we expect in the next decade are far from the worst seen in the past century, and they are no worse than those we will see in the next.

There is always the expectation that what we know now as reality will define the future.

There is also the belief that our pain now is the most extraordinary anguish that has ever been.

This is simply narcissism.

greekWhat we have now will always change, usually sooner than we believe possible.

The pains we are having now are merely the normal pains of being human.

This is not a comfort, but a reality, and it is in this context that this decade forecast should be read.

We predicted the inability of Europe to survive economic crises, China’s decline and the course of the U.S.-jihadist war.

We also made some errors.

We did not anticipate 9/11, and more important, we did not anticipate the scope of the American response.


But in 2005 we did forecast the difficulty the United States would face and the need for the United States to withdraw from its military engagements in the Islamic world.

628x-1We predicted China’s weakness too early, but we saw that weakness when others were seeing the emergence of an economy larger than that of the United States.

Above all, we have consistently forecast the enduring power of the United States.

This is not a forecast rooted in patriotism or jingoism. It derives from our model that continues to view the United States as the pre-eminent power.

We do not forecast everything.

We focus on the major trends and tendencies in the world.

Thus, we see below some predictions from our 2010 Decade Forecast:

We see the U.S.-jihadist war subsiding.

This does not mean that Islamist militancy will be eliminated.

Attempts at attacks will continue, and some will succeed.

However, the two major wars in the region will have dramatically subsided if not concluded by 2020.

We also see the Iranian situation having been brought under control.

Whether this will be by military action and isolation of Iran or by a political arrangement with the current or a successor regime is unclear but irrelevant to the broader geopolitical issue.

Iran will be contained, as it simply does not have the underlying power to be a major player in the region beyond its immediate horizons.

The diversity of systems and demographics that is Europe will put the European Union’s institutions under severe strain.

We suspect the institutions will survive.

We doubt that they will work very effectively. The main political tendency will be away from multinational solutions to a greater nationalism driven by divergent and diverging economic, social and cultural forces.

The elites that have crafted the European Union will find themselves under increasing pressure from the broader population. The tension between economic interests and cultural stability will define Europe.

Consequently, inter-European relations will be increasingly unpredictable and unstable.

The United States


The United States continues to make up more than 22 percent of the world’s economy.

It continues to dominate the world’s oceans and has the only significant intercontinental military force.

Since 1880, it has been on an uninterrupted expansion of economy and power.

Even the Great Depression, in retrospect, is a minor blip.

This expansion of power is at the center of the international system, and our forecast is that it will continue unabated.

The greatest advantage the United States has is its insularity.

It exports only 9 percent of its GDP, and about 40 percent of that goes to Canada and Mexico.

Only about 5 percent of its GDP is exposed to the vagaries of global consumption.

Thus, as the uncertainties of Europe, Russia and China mount, even if the United States lost half its exports — an extraordinary amount, it would not be an unmanageable problem.

The United States is also insulated from import constraints.

Unlike in 1973, when the Arab oil embargo massively disrupted the U.S. economy, the United States has emerged as a significant energy producer.

Although it must import some minerals from outside NAFTA, and it prefers to import some industrial products, it can readily manage without these.

This is particularly true as industrial production is increasing in the United States and in Mexico in response to the increasing costs in China and elsewhere.

The Americans also have benefited from global crises.

The United States is a haven for global capital, and as capital flight has taken hold of China, Europe and Russia, that money has flowed into the United States, reducing interest rates and buoying equity markets.

Therefore, though there is exposure to the banking crisis in Europe, it is nowhere near as substantial as it might have been a decade ago, and capital inflows counterbalance that exposure.

As for the perennial fear that China will withdraw its money from American markets, that will happen slowly anyway as China’s growth slows and internal investment increases.

But a sudden withdrawal is impossible.

There is nowhere else to invest money.

Certainly the next decade will see fluctuations in U.S. economic growth and markets, but the United Stares remains the stable heart of the international system.

At the same time, the Americans have become less dependent on that system and have encountered many difficulties in managing, and particularly, in pacifying, that system.

The United States will become more selective in assuming responsibilities politically in the next decade, and even more selective in military interventions.

For a century, the United States has been concerned about the emergence of a hegemon in Europe, and in particular of either an accommodation between Germany and Russia or a conquest of one by the other.

2000px-Soviet_Union_-_Russia.svgThat combination, more than any other, might be able to muster a force, between German capital and technology and Russian resources and manpower, capable of threatening American interests.



Therefore, in World War I, World War II and the Cold War, the United States was instrumental in preventing this from occurring.

In the world wars, the United States came in late, and though it absorbed fewer casualties than other countries, it nevertheless suffered more than was comfortable for it.

In the Cold War, the United States intervened early and, at least in Europe, had no casualties.

Based on this, the United States has a core policy imperative that is almost automatic:

When a potential European hegemon arises, the United States will act early, as in the Cold War, in building alliances and deploying sufficient force in primarily defensive positions.

This is happening now against Russia.

Though we forecast the decline of Russia, Russia poses danger in the short term, particularly with its back against the wall economically.

Moreover, whatever we forecast, the United States cannot be certain that Russia will decline and indeed, if it launches a successful expansionary policy (politically, economically or militarily), it may not decline.

Therefore, the United States will take measures according to its imperative.

It will try to build an alliance system outside of NATO, from the Baltics to Bulgaria, encompassing as many nations as possible. It will try to involve Turkey in the alliance and have it reach to Azerbaijan.

It will deploy forces, proportional to the threat, in those countries.

This will be the primary focus in the early part of the decade.

In the second part, Washington will focus on trying to assure that Russia’s decline does not result in nuclear disaster.

The United States will not become involved in trying to solve Europe’s problems, it will not have a war with China, and its involvement in the Middle East will be minimal. It will conduct global counterterrorism operations but will do so with the full knowledge that those operations will be only partially effective at best.

The Americans will have an emerging problem. The United States has 50-year cycles that end with significant economic or social problems. One cycle began in 1932 with the election of Franklin Roosevelt and ended with the presidency of Jimmy Carter.

It began with a need to rebuild demand for products from idle factories and ended in vast overconsumption, underinvestment and with double-digit inflation and unemployment.

Ronald Reagan’s presidency laid the groundwork for restructuring American industry through a change in the tax code and by shifting the focus from the urban industrial worker to the suburban professional and entrepreneur.

We are now about 15 years from the end of this cycle, and the next crisis will make itself felt in the second half of the next decade. It is already visible.

It is the crisis of the middle class.

The problem is not inequality; the problem is the ability of the middle class to live a middle class life.

Currently, the median household income in the United States is about $50,000.

Depending on the state you live in, this is actually about $40,000. That allows the literal middle to buy a modest home and live frugally outside major metropolitan areas. For the lower middle class, the 25th percentile, this is almost impossible.

There are two causes.

One is the rise of the single-parent household.

Having two households is twice as expensive. The other problem is that the same incentives that led to the badly needed re-engineering of the American corporation and vastly improved productivity also limited job security and income for the middle class.

This is not a political crisis yet. It will become one toward the end of the next decade, but it will not be addressed until the elections of 2028 and 2032. It is a normal, cyclical crisis, but painful nonetheless.

Entire article below.

Continue reading