Hillary Clinton’s Odd ‘Four Minutes’ Nuke Launch Time Disclosure — and Spell Invoking Shout Out to Her ’17 Agencies’ Deep State Helpers

Numbers Game:
Was Hillary Trying to Invoke Occult Numerology in Her Debate Performance?

Another number that came out of the debate in which Hillary denounced Trump as a ‘puppet’ of Putin — a shrill and hysterical allegation if there ever was one, especially considering Trump has never met Putin much less met him in secret or collected funds from oligarchs close to him for the Clinton Foundation — was the number four. That is the length of minutes Mrs. Clinton mentioned as the response time from the time a President gives the order to the first launch of ICBMs. It was also likely in Hillary’s mind a not so veiled warning or threat to Russia that under her presidency Washington will rattle nuclear sabres just as much or more as Moscow’s nationalistic bomb throwers like Vladimir Zhirinovsky (who recently warned that a Hillary presidency would likely lead to nuclear war, but Trump was a man the Russians could negotiate with). 

For Trump to be a “puppet” of a hostile foreign power—especially Russia, arguably America’s oldest continuous adversary—would be an event of earth-shaking magnitude, unrivaled in all U.S. history. It would mean that by some nefarious combination of subterfuge and collusion, the sinister Russian leader Vladimir Putin had managed to infiltrate our political system at its very core, executing a Manchurian Candidate-style scheme that would’ve been dismissed as outlandish in even the most hyperbolic 1960s-era espionage movie script.

Trump is often accused of violating the “norms” that typically govern the tenor of U.S. presidential campaigns. And these accusations very often have validity: at the same debate, he declined to preemptively endorse the legitimacy of the election outcome, which appears to be without precedent. As everyone is now keenly aware, he’s unleashed a constant torrent of brash histrionics that defy discursive standards and violate “norms” of many kinds—You’re rigged! I’m rigged! We’re all rigged!

But Hillary too violated a longstanding norm this week with her “puppet” screed, which was the culmination of her campaign’s months-long effort to tarnish Trump as a secret Russian lackey using the kind of retrograde nomenclature (“Puppet”? Really?) that would’ve made even the most hardened old-time Cold Warrior blush. Because of Hillary’s barb, there will henceforth be a precedent for accusing a rival major-party nominee of being a stealth agent of a fearsome foreign power, based on only the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence.

Extrapolating from Trump’s stated belief that cooperation, rather than antagonism, with nuclear-armed Russia is desirable, Hillary’s boosters have long surmised that he must therefore be under the spell of a devious foreign spymaster: it can’t be that he genuinely prefers to be friendly with Russia and forge an alliance with their military. The only tenable explanation by their lights is this harebrained mind-control conspiracy theory.

— http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/hillarys-puppet-screed/

The number four in both Biblical ‘white’ and occult ‘black’ numerology is elemental, representing the earth and universe — four cardinal directions (or the New World Order’s ‘full spectrum dominance’ over the whole earth), and four basic elements (earth, wind, water and fire). In the Book of Genesis God destroyed all but Noah’s family in a deluge of water, in the New Testament’s Books of Peter and Revelations the earth is said to be preserved for judgement by fire, hence The Terminator movies’ nuclear ‘Judgement Day’. Four is also one number less than five, indicating not only that the U.S. response time from a CINC’s go order with the ‘football’ is under five minutes, but also less than 5 — what W the Intelligence Insider calls the number of defense and death to the New World Order.

If It Weren’t for Double Standards Hillary Supporters and the MSM in the Tank for Her (But We Repeat Ourselves) Wouldn’t Have Any — Non-Classified But Sensitive Disclosures Edition

As many Trump supporters said on Twitter, it’s not every day a candidate for President of the United States discloses to the entire world with millions watching, including adversaries who’ve threatened to nuke the U.S. like North Korea, the average American response time in case of a nuclear launch. And Hillary Clinton’s emphasis on the president’s unilateral ability to order a strike in a crisis scenario can hardly be viewed as accidental, given the numerological coincidences above and prominent Russian politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky’s claim that Hillary is deathly ill and mentally unstable that surely rankled Mrs. Clinton’s thin skinned and belligerent ego.

However, the mainstream media dutifully engaged in damage control by insisting that Clinton’s nuclear ‘gaffe’ was merely stating facts that had been declassified and publically discussed among experts on nuclear arms for years, if not since the end of the first Cold War in 1989-91. Thus the allegations that Mrs. Clinton had disclosed classified U.S. nuclear secrets on live television to a global audience of millions were said to be not true. Of course, the fact that had Trump said the same thing he would have likely been excoriated as either an ignoramus or a reckless brandisher of America’s nuclear arsenal goes without saying. If it weren’t for double standards Hillary Clinton’s shameless supporters wouldn’t have any. Certainly retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn who advises Trump slammed Hillary’s disclosure, while it was not likely news to the Russians, as nonetheless harmful to national security and completely unnecessary to make her alleged point about being the one voters should trust with the nuclear codes:

As the Russia Analyst has pointed out here before, nuclear arms control experts like the U.S. Naval (Twitter) War College Prof. Tom Nichols misquote Trump’s supposed statements expressing ignorance about the U.S. nuclear triad (bombers, sub-launched ballistic missiles and land-based ICBMs) while skipping the true substance of The Donald’s remarks that Russia’s nuclear arsenal is actually less decrepit and more rapidly modernizing than the USA’s. It seems despite his constant invocation of expertise on Russia’s nuclear arsenal and military posture Prof. Nichols has been so busy trolling Trump supporters (supposedly never on Department of Defense property or during paid office hours) that he hasn’t noticed the Russians fielding multiple new SLBM/ICBMs, including the massive successor to the SS-18 ‘Satan’ the multi-megaton delivering, anti-ballistic missile defenses evading ‘Sarmat’. (Below is an ad from the Clinton team that ludicrously suggests Donald Trump, rather than she, is more likely to start a nuclear war, when she’s the one threatening a great power with more nukes than the United States with a hot war in Syria if not Ukraine):

The Perils of Politicized Intelligence: When (Al)CIA(eda) Practically Announces ‘#ImWithHer’, Cold Civil War Within the USIC/Department of Defense is the Inevitable Result

At any rate, the USA Today and New York Times ‘fact checkers’ all supported Hillary’s statement that the finding of something called the ‘U.S. intelligence community’ and all 17 agencies that supposedly make up it was unanimous, when if one reads the actual statement issued by the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) James Clapper, one finds more nuance and weasely wording than allusion to solid proof in the language. Even National Review, the soon to be defunct ‘conservative’ magazine that took a #NeverTrump position in the GOP primaries, noticed that the ODNI statement is really a pre-election press release from the ‘Deep State’ on Hillary’s behalf: 

Hillary Clinton in last night’s presidential debate tried to avoid talking about the substance of the damaging WikiLeaks disclosures of DNC and Clinton campaign officials by claiming 17 U.S. intelligence agencies determined that Russia was responsible for this. After Clinton made this claim, she scolded Trump for challenging U.S. intelligence professionals who have taken an oath to help defend this country. What Clinton said was false and misleading.

First of all, only two intelligence entities – the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – have weighed in on this issue, not 17 intelligence agencies. And what they said was ambiguous about Russian involvement. An unclassified October 7, 2016 joint DNI-DHS statement on this issue said the hacks . . . “are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow — the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europa and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.”

Saying we think the hacks “are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts” is far short of saying we have evidence that Russia has been responsible for the hacks. Maybe high-level officials would have authorized them if Russian hackers were responsible, but the DNI and DHS statement did NOT say there was evidence Russia was responsible. My problem with the DNI/DHS unclassified statement is that it appeared to be another effort by the Obama administration to politicize U.S. intelligence. Make no mistake, U.S. intelligence agencies issued this unprecedented unclassified statement a month before a presidential election that was so useful to one party because the Clinton campaign asked for it. The Obama administration was happy to comply.

Clinton tried to defend the DNI/DHS statement by repeating the myth that U.S. intelligence officers are completely insulated from politics. She must think Americans will forget how the CIA crafted the politicized Benghazi talking points in 2011 and how SOUTHCOM intelligence analysts were pressured to distort their analysis of ISIS and Syria to support Obama foreign policy. And that’s just under the Obama administration. Politicization of intelligence goes back decades, including such blatant efforts by CIA officers to interfere in the 2004 presidential election that the Wall Street Journal referred to it as “The CIA Insurgency” in an August 2004 editorial. I discussed the problem of the politicization of U.S. intelligence and the enormous challenge a Trump administration will have in combating it in an August 18, 2016 National Review article.

— http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/441266/hillary-clinton-democratic-emails-hacked-russia

Would a Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Who Committed Perjury Lie to You?

Nor was the National Review‘s contributor Fred Flietz of the hawkish neoconservative leaning Center for Security Policy (CSP) the only one who found fault with Hillary’s invocation of the magical and allegedly unanimously verdict of the 17 agencies, who in reality were ‘spoken for’ by a director of National Intelligence — Clapper — who previously perjured himself before Congress on NSA domestic spying. Mark Jeftovic of Rebooting Capitalism, sums it up this way (in an article excerpted at Russia Insider):

Glenn Greenwald exhaustively back-traced where the ‘Russia-hacked-the-election’ meme came from and that it was pure spin. The original author who set the entire farce in motion later admitted it was all a mistake, and in his own ‘Mea Culpa’ revealed that according to the subtext of extensive emails from a Newsweek reporter pressuring him to allow the lie to live, it was US intelligence agencies pushing to spread this narrative. (NSA whistleblower William Binney said the hack itself was the act of a disgruntled employee within a US intelligence agency).

The ‘17 agencies that actually confirmed’ it was the Russians? Well it turns out that was one guy, namely DCI James Clapper: the head of US intelligence. The same man who committed perjury before Congress after his NSA surveillance program was leaked. He issued a statement that included the phrase:

”We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.”

The very next sentence is also of interest:

”Some states have also recently seen scanning and probing of their election-related systems, which in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company. However, we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government.”

The word “confirmed” does not appear anywhere in this statement.

— http://russia-insider.com/en/fact-17-intelligence-agencies-confirmed-russia-behind-email-hacks-isnt-actuallya-fact/ri17147

It seems strange to the Russia Analyst that the infamously neocon/cuckservative dominated National Review and the thoroughly ‘cucked’ anti-Trump Red State website run by Eric Erickson should have finally seen the light regarding how dangerous Hillary’s plans for a Syria no fly zone at any cost truly are — but better late than never. Even if the recognition of Hillary’s detachment from reality and Russia’s determination to defend Assad and its forces embedded with Syrian government troops from U.S. air and cruise missile strikes is couched in the usual ‘Assad isn’t actually fighting ISIS’ BS talking points.

Nonetheless Erickson’s site mentioned Fox News host Chris Wallace finally challenging Hillary — but letting her evade the question — on whether she would actually be willing to order the shoot down of Russian jets and thus start a global conflict:

The French diplomat and politician Charles Talleyrand once described France’s Bourbon monarchs as having learned nothing and forgotten nothing. This was never more evident that in last night’s debate when Chris Wallace challenged Clinton on what should be her strong suite, foreign policy:

”WALLACE: Secretary Clinton, you have talked about — and in the last debate and again today — that you would impose a no-fly zone to try to protect the people of Aleppo and to stop the killing there. President Obama has refused to do that because he fears it’s going to draw us closer or deeper into the conflict.”

”And General Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says you impose a no-fly zone, chances are you’re going to get into a war — his words — with Syria and Russia. So the question I have is, if you impose a no-fly zone — first of all, how do you respond to their concerns? Secondly, if you impose a no-fly zone and a Russian plane violates that, does President Clinton shoot that plane down?”

Wallace is completely correct. Moreover, the United States no longer has the ability to actually enforce a no-fly zone even if it wanted to.

Russia has deployed an advanced anti-missile system to Syria for the first time, three US officials tell Fox News, the latest indication that Moscow continues to ramp up its military operations in Syria in support of President Bashar al-Assad.

It comes after Russia’s actions led to the collapse of a cease-fire and the cut-off of direct talks with the U.S.

While Moscow’s motives are not certain, officials say the new weapon system could potentially counter any American cruise missile attack in Syria.

Components of the SA-23 Gladiator anti-missile and anti-aircraft system, which has a range of roughly 150 miles, arrived over the weekend “on the docks” of a Russian naval base along Syria’s Mediterranean coastal city of Tartus, two US officials said.

It is the first time Russia has deployed the SA-23 system outside its borders, according to one Western official citing a recent intelligence assessment. The missiles and associated components are still in their crates and are not yet operational, according to the officials.
With this system in place the entire Aleppo battlespace is under a Russian air defense umbrella. In order to enforce a no-fly zone, the US would first have to strike Russian-manned antiaircraft systems.

”CLINTON: Well, Chris, first of all, I think a no-fly zone could save lives and could hasten the end of the conflict. I’m well aware of the really legitimate concerns that you have expressed from both the president and the general.”

”This would not be done just on the first day. This would take a lot of negotiation. And it would also take making it clear to the Russians and the Syrians that our purpose here was to provide safe zones on the ground.”

”We’ve had millions of people leave Syria and those millions of people inside Syria who have been dislocated. So I think we could strike a deal and make it very clear to the Russians and the Syrians that this was something that we believe was in the best interests of the people on the ground in Syria, it would help us with our fight against ISIS.”

This is insane. It is nucking futs.

— http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/10/20/hillary-clinton-just-say-okay-going-war-russia/

While we don’t recall Red State’s writers showing such concerns back when Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio were pushing a no fly zone in Syria as no big deal, better some belated recognition of reality than never…before it’s time to apply what Sarah Connor called 2 million sunblock. The kind that works better than Hillary’s magick abra cadabra repeat them three times numbers…

9 comments

  1. Killery is dying and is absolutely crazy… ! Would she like to go down in flames and take down the planet with her? I think absolutely yes… !

  2. I feel in my gut that the odds of Nuclear war are highest near term, but post election, the odds of civil breakdown rise quickly and war probabilities start to recede. Neither one is any good, as when I say civil breakdown, I mean that in the same sense that a crash could be called an ‘unscheduled disassembly event’.

    Cliff High put out his report the other day, and though I don’t put a lot of stock in that method, I found his October report reasonably plausible. He suggests Trump wins, by a lot, but the Elites won’t let him assume office, they try to place Hillary but she ‘disappears’. Then a period of ‘political confusion’. Then an actual and violent crash of the debt bubble as the new Presidency is stillborn. Sort of a void after that.

    Struck me as entirely possible.

    1. Mark — I am of the same opinion. I told W the Intelligence Insider the other day that part of the desperation behind the present provocations of Russia and secondarily China is the cold realization that by 2020 the U.S. is going to be too broke and increasingly diplomatically isolated to do anything but launch nukes when it comes to WW3 (which is precisely why W thinks the globalists plan to start it near the anniversary of WW1’s ending).

      Our military will be as hollowed out as the Russian Federation military was in 1992-93, when it inherited a huge nuclear arsenal from the USSR and massive stocks of equipment but as the Chechnya debacle in 1994 showed was already far along in terms of rot. I don’t want to even think about what an American equivalent would be to the mid-1990s Chechen War. You can’t see U.S. allies for better or worse like Turkey or Saudi Arabia being chipped away or suddenly veering off fast like the Phillipines (and the Philippines is probably one of or was after WW2 for decades among the most pro-American countries in the world before and then after Marcos) and imagine that Germans, Frenchmen, Italians, Spaniards or Greeks will simply march to war in eastern Europe because the U.S. elected a War Hag who demands a Gleiwitz involving Ukrainians playing Russian invaders in the Baltics to invoke the Washington/NATO treaty. It just won’t happen.

      If the globalists want to get their WW3 on they will probably try to start in Syria and if Putin reluctantly accepts de facto partition of that country to avoid it, then in Moldova/Transnistria/Ukraine. But while the Ukrainian military has certainly shown some improvement in basic discipline/fire control and is no longer the conscript mob it was in mid to late 2014 or early 2015, without direct hands on advisers aka NATO member servicemen being willing to risk their lives along the front lines the Ukros would not last days in direct combat with the Russians nor do they have the enormous reserves of semi-rusty to functional Soviet legacy armor/artillery that the UAF had at the start of the Ukraine war in 2014. And given the performance of Abrams tanks against Russian Kornet missiles in Yemen if not the Syraq theater would the U.S. really bother trying to re-equip the UAF with NATO issue equipment, given the enormous logistical/spare parts complications? I think not, they will probably just sell the Poles more Leapard tanks from Germany since the Germans will never use them in anger against the Russians and have Poland transfer virtually all of its T72s to the Ukrainians. That and providing the Ukros with Marder IFVs are really the only short term rearmament option I see for Kiev as soon as Hildabeast takes office in preparation for a Ukrainian ‘Operation Storm’ against Donetsk and Lugansk that won’t be designed so much to succeed as simply to draw Russia overtly into the fighting instead of covertly as now.

  3. "A migrant who raped a 10-year-old boy in a swimming pool has had his conviction overturned because the court could not prove that the child said no.

    The man, identified only as 20-year-old Iraqi Amir A, violently sexually assaulted the victim while he was undergoing an integration process at Theresienbad pool (above) in Vienna, Austria, last December.

    After the assault, Amir – who had been working as a taxi driver – went back into the pool and was found on the diving board when police turned up.

    He told them that he had a “sexual emergency” because he had not had sex for some time, but admitted that he knew he had been wrong to do it.

    Amir was found guilty of serious sexual assault and rape of a minor and was sentenced to six years in jail – but the Supreme Court has now lifted the verdict and ordered a retrial as his defence team successfully argued that there was no proof that the boy did not consent."

  4. SouthFront’s latest is worth an article in itself:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi2K8QuKUy4

    Talks about Egypt-Russian relations , the significance of Russia’s proxy control over the Suez Canal and the Eastern Mediterranean hilariously labelled as ‘Russian Lake’.

    They also mention stuff like ‘End of History Globalist rhetoric’ and how it was used to lure nations into a false sense of security which left them open to predatory financial lending via IMF and World Bank to bankrupt them. When all else fails the gunboat diplomacy comes in.

    With the Panama Canal owned by the Chinese through a private company and Egypt with Russia managing the Suez Canal, the Eurasian Alliance has moved the chess pieces to control the major intersections of global shipping. Duterte’s ‘detente’ with China over the South China Sea is another major change.

  5. Pingback: SIMAD UNIVERSITY

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *