ACTION

                                   HOW NORTH KOREA COULD DESTROY U.S. WTH SINGLE NUKE 

                                                                                     By     

                                                                       Daniel John Sobieski

As both Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has stated, the Clinton-Obama era of “strategic patience” with North Korea is over. The usual suspects in the mainstream media have been warning that Trump is provoking Pyongyang into war on the Korean peninsula. The counter is that the administration isn’t willing to wait till North Korea ha the operational capability to nuke an American city like Seattle or Honolulu.

What is not being discussed is a much bigger and more imminent threat which makes action imperative, an existential one for the United States. 

The nightmare scenario of an America sent back centuries in time before electricity, refrigeration, and smart phones has grown unnervingly closer with the presence of two North Korean satellites with orbits over a blissfully unaware American populace and an Obama administration indifferent that was to the apocalyptic threat of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack.

On Feb. 7, 2016, North Korea launched a second satellite, the KMS-4, to join their KMS-3 satellite launched in December of 2012. In an article in the Washington Times on April 24, 2016, R. James Woolsey,  former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and Peter Vincent Fry, executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security as well as director of the Nuclear Strategy Forum, both congressional advisory boards, warned of the dangers of an apocalyptic EMP attack that these and similar satellites pose:

Both satellites now are in south polar orbits, evading many U.S. missile defense radars and flying over the United States from the south, where our defenses are limited. Both satellites — if nuclear armed — could make an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack that could blackout the U.S. electric grid for months or years, thereby killing millions.

Technologically, such an EMP attack is easy — since the weapon detonates at high-altitude, in space, no shock absorbers, heat shield, or vehicle for atmospheric re-entry is necessary. Since the radius of the EMP is enormous, thousands of kilometers, accuracy matters little. Almost any nuclear weapon will do.

Moreover, North Korea probably has nuclear weapons specially designed, not to make a big explosion, but to emit lots of gamma rays to generate high-frequency EMP. Senior Russian generals warned EMP Commissioners in 2004 that their EMP nuclear warhead design leaked “accidentally” to North Korea, and unemployed Russian scientists found work in North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.

Woolsey and Pry, along with former Reagan science adviser William R. Graham, chairman of the Congressional EMP Commission, Ambassador Henry Cooper, director of the Strategic Defense Initiative and chief negotiator at the Defense and Space Talks with the USSR; and Fritz Ermarth, chairman of the National Intelligence Council; warned of the North Korean EMP threat an article in the February 12, 2016, issue of National Review:

Naïve reliance on their transparent disavowals could end up costing millions of American lives.

North Korea launched its second satellite on Saturday, yet the national press continues to ignore this existential threat. The White House has not recognized that a nuclear-armed North Korea has demonstrated an ability to kill most Americans with an electromagnetic-pulse (EMP) attack. And White House spokesmen and the media have misled the public with unjustified assurances that North Korea has not yet miniaturized nuclear warheads for missile or satellite delivery.

We, who have spent our professional lifetimes analyzing and defending against nuclear-missile threats, warned years ago that North Korea’s Unha-3 space launch vehicle could carry a small nuclear warhead and detonate it a hundred or so miles over the United States to create an EMP, leading to a protracted nationwide blackout. The resulting societal chaos could kill millions.

The image of an America gone dark, an America suddenly transported from an era of IPads to an era of horse and buggy travel, recently depicted in the NBC series “Revolution” is not science fiction but a very real possibility.  As Investor’s Business Daily described the threat in an aptly titled April, 2013 editorial, “How North Korea Could Destroy The United States”:

The three-stage missile North Korea launched last December that also orbited a “package,” which experts say could be a test to orbit a nuclear weapon that then would be de-orbited on command anywhere over the U.S. and exploded at a high altitude, releasing an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). That would fry electronic circuitry and the nation’s power grid.

This concern recently has been reinforced by a little-publicized study released in May 2011, titled “In the Dark: Military Planning for a Catastrophic Critical Infrastructure Event,” by the U.S. Army War College that said a nuclear detonation at altitude above a U.S. city could wipe out the electrical grid for hundreds, possibly thousands, of miles around.

The satellite launched by Pyongyang coincided with a third round of nuclear tests described as a “nuclear test of a higher level,” most likely referring to a device made from highly enriched uranium, which is easier to miniaturize than the plutonium bombs North Korea tested in 2006 and 2009, said Cheong Seong-chang, an analyst at the private Sejong Institute in South Korea.

Such an EMP device would not have to be particularly high yield. It would not be designed to create a big explosion, but to convert its energy into gamma rays, that generate the EMP effect.

Any nuclear weapon detonated above an altitude of 30 kilometers will generate an electromagnetic pulse that will destroy electronics and could collapse the electric power grid and other critical infrastructures — communications, transportation, banking and finance, food and water — that sustain modern civilization and the lives of 300 million Americans.

As the Heritage Foundation reports, an EMP attack with a warhead detonated warhead 25 to 300 miles above the U.S. mainland “would fundamentally change the world. Airplanes would fall from the sky; most cars would be inoperable; electrical devices would fail. Water, sewer and electrical networks would fail simultaneously. Systems of banking, energy, transportation, food production and delivery, water, emergency services, and even cyberspace would collapse.”

Nobody is harmed or killed immediately by the blast. But life in the U.S., the world’s only superpower and the world’s largest economy, would come to a screeching halt as a country dependent on cutting-edge 21st century technology regresses in time almost a century instantaneously.

North Korean has also been working on a submarine launched ballistic missile,  which would put the continental U.S. with striking distance. While North Korean submarines are not yet that sophisticated as our ballistic missile submarine fleet, it would only take a sub modified to launch a single missile, or even one launched fromm a disguised container cargo ship off our West Coast to pose an apocalyptic threat.

As Woolsey and Pry note in the March 29 edition of The Hill, the threat of North Korean sending the U.S. back to the Stone Age is real and imminent:

The mainstream media, and some officials who should know better, continue to allege North Korea does not yet have capability to deliver on its repeated threats to strike the U.S. with nuclear weapons. False reassurance is given to the American people that North Korea has not “demonstrated” that it can miniaturize a nuclear warhead small enough for missile delivery, or build a reentry vehicle for an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of penetrating the atmosphere to blast a U.S. city.

Yet any nation that has built nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, as North Korea has done, can easily overcome the relatively much simpler technological challenge of warhead miniaturization and reentry vehicle design….

…on October 7, 2015, (Admiral William) Gortney again warned the Atlantic Council: "I agree with the intelligence community that we assess that they [North Koreans] have the ability, they have the weapons, and they have the ability to miniaturize those weapons, and they have the ability to put them on a rocket that can range the [U.S.] homeland."

 In February and March of 2015, former senior national security officials of the Reagan and Clinton administrations warned that North Korea should be regarded as capable of delivering by satellite a small nuclear warhead, specially designed to make a high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack against the United States. According to the Congressional EMP Commission, a single warhead delivered by North Korean satellite could blackout the national electric grid and other life-sustaining critical infrastructures for over a year—killing 9 of 10 Americans by starvation and societal collapse.

Deploying THJAAD missile defense systems in South Korea and Alaska, developed under Republican administrations, is a start, but more force or other moves might be necessary.  Fortunately, unlike President Obama,

President Trump is unwilling to keep  whistling past our own graveyard.

          Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.               

                               SUSAN RICE LIED ABOUT SYRIA CHEMICAL WEAPONS

                                                                                      By 

                                                                       Daniel John Sobieski

  The chemical weapon attack by the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad on the rebel-held town Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib Province on April 4 once again underscores what a foreign policy failure President Obama was and what a serial liar Susan Rice is.

On January 16, 2017, Rice, who served as U.N. Ambassador during Obama’s first term and was rewarded for her Benghazi lies with the post of National Security Advisor, where she could be compelled to testify before Congress, 

Gave what amounted to an exit interview with NPR. During the interview she crowed about the Obama administration’s success in eliminating the threat of Syrian chemical weapons:

We were able to find a solution that didn't necessitate the use of force that actually removed the chemical weapons that were known from Syria, in a way that the use of force would never have accomplished. Our aim in contemplating the use of force following the use of chemical weapons in August of 2013 was not to intervene in the civil war, not to become involved in the combat between Assad and the opposition, but to deal with the threat of chemical weapons by virtue of the diplomacy that we did with Russia and with the Security Council. We were able to get the Syrian government to voluntarily and verifiably give up its chemical weapons stockpile.

Tell that, Ms. Rice, to the children of Khan Sheikoun who succumbed to the horrible effects of the sarin gas dropped on them by Syrian forces with the support of their Russian allies. You and your boss colluded with the Russians to keep Assad in power and give Russia a free hand in Syria. Your claim of having removed the threat of Syrian chemical weapons was a lie, as phony as the statement President Onama made after the tragedy of Aleppo. As  CNBC reported the statement President Obama made as he washed his hands of all guilt and responsibility:

"With respect to Syria of what I have consistently done is taken the best course that I can to end the civil war and having also taken into account of the long-term national security interest of the United States," he said….

"Unless we were all in and willing to take over Syria, we were going to have problems," Obama said in the news conference, noting that it would have required "putting large numbers of U.S. troops on the ground, uninvited, without any international law mandate."…

"Responsibility for this brutality lies in one place alone: with the Assad regime and its allies Russia and Iran. And this blood and these atrocities are on their hands," Obama said.

No, sir the responsibility for this horror lies with you, and the blood of Aleppo and Khan Sheikoun is on your and Susan Rice’s hands. It is you who drew the red lines in Syria and there would be consequences if they were crossed. It is you who said Assad must go. There were no consequences and Assad, protected by Russia, is still there.

As Investor’s Business Daily editorialized on Obama’s disappearing red lines in Syria:

Syria's chemical weapons are on the move, their precursor chemicals having been mixed, a crossing of a line drawn by President Obama Aug. 20 when he said "a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized." So our resolute president decides to draw another line — that if Syria's Bashar al-Assad makes use of those weapons, presumably against his own people or neighbors, he will face "consequences." …Obama's appeasement has come home to roost. Assad remembers how Clinton, appearing on CBS' "Face The Nation," dismissed the idea of U.S. military action or regime change in Syria, claiming that unlike Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, Assad was considered to be a "reformer" by "many of the members of Congress."

Yep, your Secretary of State and defeated presidential candidate Hillary Clinton called Assad a reformer:

Apparently neither Mrs. Clinton nor Defense Secretary Robert Gates sees Syria as an outlaw nation. Both said Sunday that Syria was different from Libya and that we would not be lobbing cruise missiles into Damascus in another "humanitarian" effort.

"Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he's a reformer," Clinton said without disputing the assessment. She also drew a distinction between Libya's use of tanks and aircraft against its protesters and "police actions, which, frankly, have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see."

Obama and Clinton intervened in Libta to prevent the slaughter of civilians, turning Libya into a failed state and an incubator of terrorism. Yet both did nothing to prevent the slaughter in Syria when they could have easily. We sacrificed four brave Americans at Benghazi in pursuance of this failed policy.

Why did we do nothing in Syria? Perhaps for the same reason we did nothing to prevent Russia’s invasion of Ukraine  - the Iran deal. Obama, who once  promised Russian President Medvedev more “flexibility” after Obama’s reelection, didn’t want to offend Putin. He needed Russia’s help in securing the Iran deal. Taking out Assad would have offended Tehran. So Obama and Clinton sacrificed both Ukraine and Syria to get the Iran deal and put $150 billion in the hands of Iran, a state ponsor of terror and a mass murderer of U.S. troops in both Lebanon and Iraq.

This reformer moved his chemical weapons and you did nothing. He used his chemical weapons and you did nothing. Seeing no resistance Russia moved in to protect Assad and safeguard its access to the Syrian port of Tarus on th Mediterranean.

You could have done a lot, and it did not involve ground troops. You could have parked an aircraft carrier, 90,000 tons of American diplomacy, off the Syrian coast. You could have ordered aur strikes and destroyed the Syrian air force in 24 hours. Then you could have established a no-fly zone protecting a safe haven in Syria. You could have prevented the slaughter in Aleppo, as well as the flood of refugees into Europe. But you didn’t.

The rise of ISIS, which Obama calls ISIL so he can omit the “S” that stands for Syria, is a direct result of the vacuum he created In Iraq by his precipitous withdrawal after victory had been won.

President Bush left a stable Iraq, one where Shiite and Sunnis had learned to coexist and resist a common al-Qaida enemy. There were free and fair elections and we all remember the pictures of Iraqi women holding up their purple fingers indicating they had proudly voted in those elections. Now we have the mass graves of ISIS, beheadings and  what can only be called the ethnic cleansing of Christians.

It is a myth, as the White House now claims, that President Obama inherited an Iraqi mess from President Bush and had no choice but to withdraw U.S. troops in the absence of a status of forces agreement. The problem was not that Iraq and Prime Minister Maliki wanted the U.S. to leave, but that the force Obama wanted to leave was just too small. As Patrick Brennan has written in National Review:

These claims don’t jibe with what we know about how the negotiations with Iraq went. It’s the White House itself that decided just 2–3,000 troops made sense, when the Defense Department and others were proposing more. Maliki was willing to accept a deal with U.S. forces if it was worth it to him — the problem was that the Obama administration wanted a small force so that it could say it had ended the war. Having a very small American force wasn’t worth the domestic political price Maliki would have to pay for supporting their presence. In other words, it’s not correct that “the al-Maliki government wanted American troops to leave.

Obama destroyed Libya for no god reason, and sacrificed Syria so that he could pursue the dangerous and flawed Iran deal. He created the vacuum ISIS filled in Iraq and Syria. The blood of Aleppo is on nobody’s hands but his, Hillaty Clinton’s and yours, Susan Rice.

          Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.             

Please contact these U.S. Senators today and tell them to vote against the Iran agreement, and also vote to override President Obama's promised veto. We continue to hear that some Senators will not accept email from outside their own states, so phone calls are recommended over email.

Every phone call you make could make the difference between victory and defeat!

Sen. Bob Casey, D-PA
Phone: (202) 224-6324
Email: casey.senate.gov/contact/

After California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein’s legislation introduced in Congress last year, which would have imposed the biggest gun ban in American history failed, you would figure she would have tucked her tail between her hairy thighs and moved on to some other worthless legislation sure to fail. But not this old dog, she is determined to remove the 2^nd Amendment from the American people’s rights.

Feinstein is circulating a letter on Capitol Hill calling once again for a ban on semi-automatic rifles and asking for President Barack Obama to keep his State of the Union promise to make 2014 a “year of action.”

    Dear Mr. President:

    During your State of the Union address, you stated that you want to make 2014 a “year of action.”  We write to urge you to take immediate action to address the significant number of assault weapons that are being imported into the United States in contravention of federal law.  We respectfully request that you take steps to ensure that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) fully enforces the ban on the importation of these military-style firearms.    

    A provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 925(d)(3), prohibits the importation of firearms that are not “generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.”  In recent years, however, importers of firearms have taken advantage of ATF’s interpretation of the “sporting purposes” test to evade the import ban.  In 1998, the Department of the Treasury — which then housed ATF — issued guidance that interpreted the import ban to prohibit only semiautomatic rifles that use magazines originally designed for a military rifle.  Many semiautomatic firearms on the market today do not have a military origin but are modeled closely after military firearms.  These military-style firearms are not prohibited under the current import ban, even though they are functionally equivalent to prohibited rifles with a military origin.  In addition, the Treasury Department’s 1998 guidance allows foreign-made firearms to be imported into the United States without military features, even though these firearms have the capacity to fire multiple times in quick succession without the need to reload and can easily have military features attached.

POLL: Will Lois Lerner go to jail to protect Obama?

Sen. Feinstein’s diatribe against the 2^nd Amendment continues in a long and nauseating attack that would unfortunately make everyone sick if the entire letter were placed here. In short, she is asking our President to do what he has done some many times before – make an executive order to ban the firearms that keep America safe from an overbearing government.

What amazes me is how this beastly woman can still be in office? Does anyone really listen to what she is saying? In 2013 Feinstein said all veterans have PTSD and should have their Second Amendment stripped. She may be even further left than the President himself!

Even the admittedly liberal newspaper, The Los Angeles Times printed an article by – Columnist Burt Prelutsky, where he may have given the best quote about the Senators from California ever.

“Frankly, I don’t know what it is about California, but we seem to have a strange urge to elect really obnoxious women to high office. I’m not bragging, you understand, but no other state, including Maine, even comes close. When it comes to sending left-wing dingbats to Washington, we’re Number One. There’s no getting around the fact that the last time anyone saw the likes of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Maxine Waters, and Nancy Pelosi, they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on ‘Macbeth’. The four of them are like jackasses who happen to possess the gift of blab. You don’t know if you should condemn them for their stupidity or simply marvel at their ability to form words…”

Seriously folks, if the left wing main stream media is ridiculing their own, how are we supposed to take them seriously? 

While Kerry and Obama say that using chemical weapons is unacceptable they must have forgotten their thoughts on Bush and Iraq. Saddam Hussein gassed an entire village of Kurds  which killed about 5,000 people and everything else alive in that village. Then he continued his aggression against other states and implied he had other weapons of mass destruction, although, as Mr. Kerry said this week chemical weapons are considered in that category. Biden called for Bush's impeachment, Kerry and Obama criticized Bush's war in Iraq for several reasons and yet Obama is expected to attack Syria for one of the same reasons, WMD use. Iraq invaded other nations, attempted to kill President Bush SR., interrupted oil production and supply routes, caused terrible environmental oil spills. Bush had a UN coalition of 30 plus nations and a UN mandate. 

Regardless, if you supported the Iraq action or not, my point is that Obama and his team are hypocrites. I think using  WMD now for action in Syria and criticizing Bush in the past is being hypocritical. It is terrible using chemical weapons, but anything that kills innocent civilians is also terrible. Will we police the entire world? I do think the UN and/or NATO should do something to punish the use of Chemical weapons and we are a part of those groups. Maybe Biden, Kerry and Obama should have  thought glass houses before they all stoned Bush? But then, if they did I guess they would not be politicians.

I wonder, if Hillary would just say, " What difference does it make".

The story goes that the Emperor played a musical instrument while Rome burned, which he may have set fire to in the first place. Of course, he wanted to rebuild Rome and needed a clean slate to do it.

While America crumbles, Egypt burns Obama vacations with 70 plus other people party and play golf in Martha's vineyard. Of course, Obama wants to transform America and is working hard on every aspect of our country and life to accomplish his goal. WE know it is a country where the central government controls many or most things, large sections of the population get government checks, private companies are controlled by the Government, i.e., GM and others ( Although there is no Constitutional basis for this control), the Us economy is weaker, the military is weaker, the private civilian army is larger, e.g., (AmeriCorps, Move-On, SEIU,  Homeland Security). Then you add sky high energy prices, ( While we sit on hundreds of years of resources), greatly reduced or eliminated nuclear weapons in the US only, weakened military and hostility/limits in regards to Christianity in the military, 1.8 billion rounds of ammo purchased for US agencies, ( More rounds per person than in the US military), this ammo purchased has dried up civilian supplies, full assault on the Second Amendment via laws, regulations and use of PR, decimation of NASA and redirection to Muslim outreach and Climate change research, and many more actions all geared towards a new America.

The American Gestapo is already here!

  The American Gestapo is already here and it was built with your permission and your tax dollars!  Yep, The Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Created after the 9-11 attacks in 2001 the DHS was created  and charged with the primary responsibilities of protecting the United States of America and U.S. territories (including Protectorates) from and responding to terrorist attacks, man-made accidents, and natural disasters.

Back during Obummer’s first run for the White House while making a speech in Denver,  Then Senator Obama stated that he wanted to see a governmental police force as well equipped and armed as all of our armed forces combined.  For some reason he has never spoken of that again.  It is rumored that his advisors jumped all over him for making it in the first place.

Now consider the following facts:  There are DHS offices in every state in the Union; There are DHS offices in over 125 counties in those states; Obummer has begun firing any top ranking general that won’t pledge to fire on American citizens if ordered to do so.  He has already “retired” three of them:  The budget announced for DHS is in the $100,000,000,000 range or one hundred billion dollars of your money each year. The 2010 fiscal year budget was $98,800,000,000 I have never heard of any budget decreasing for any department of the government with the exception of the Military budget of course.

One more example of why we should never trust our government and grant them a blank check without VERY specific instructions.

They took that check and, among other things did a few things that are unconstitutional.  Let’s take a look at one of them before I move on to today’s topic.

The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution, reads – “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”  Would you believe that your DHS has decided that amendment does not pertain within 100 miles of any border in the good old USA?  That means if you live in almost anywhere in the state of Florida you can be searched and your private property seized on the whim of an agent of your DHS.  (You might want to check on the history of the Gestapo at this point) How about NYNY or all of Rhode Island; all of the upper peninsula and more of Michigan; there is even a special proviso that takes in almost the entire states of Pennsylvania. Texas and New Mexico. Just go around the US map and wherever the US stops mark off 100 miles and you are no longer protected by the fourth amendment by DHS fiat.

Now let’s add in a few more facts just to clear things up a little more.  Non-military departments of your government have already purchased enough ammunition to wage a war similar to the one in Iraq for SEVEN YEARS.  Do as I did and look up the number of rounds of ammunition used per month in Iraq by our soldiers and do the math.  Oh , I forgot to mention the reason they espouse for the purchase:” To maintain the qualification with various weapons their agents are required to qualify on each year.  In other words, target practice.  Literally billions of rounds of ammunition already purchased for target practice.  This doesn’t even begin to talk about all of the new military style weapons purchased.  You know the ones I mean.  Those listed in Feinstein’s bill plus many of the fully automatic ones manufactred.

DHS IS your new secret police.  Aren’t you proud?