October 31, 2016

The Clinton Foundation is a Huge Slush Fund for the Clintons

Private foundations are generally financially supported by one or a small handful of sources—an individual, a family, or a corporation. There are a few different kinds of private foundations: independent, family, and corporate. These categories are not legally defined. Rather, they are commonly used in the field of philanthropy to distinguish the different kinds of private foundations. Private foundations must pay out at least five percent of their assets each year in the form of grants and operating charitable activities. A private operating foundation is a kind of private foundation and must operate under similar rules. However, it does not have to pay out 5 percent or more of its assets each year in grants. Instead, it must carry out its own charitable purposes. All private foundations are 501(c)(3) organizations. Under the Internal Revenue Code, a charity is presumed to be a private foundation unless it can prove that it is a public charity. [Council on Foundations]

The Clinton foundation only donates 5.6% of their earnings to charity [the minimum required by law], despite Hillary knowingly and blatantly lying to the American people by claiming they donated 90% at the last debate, but she is counting on you to not do research, and her mainstream media to not report it.

The Clintons make all their charitable contributions to their private foundation, the Clinton Family Foundation. It is basically a pass-through, the kind of charity commonly used by many wealthy people. It does no direct charitable work but passes money to others. Hillary and Bill Clinton passed $23.2 million between 2001 and 2015 to their foundation. That figure comes from the Clintons’ joint tax returns, which the Democratic nominee has released. In that 15-year period — the years since the Clintons left the White House — they earned about $237 million in adjusted gross income, much of it from speaking fees and book royalties. So Clinton and her husband donated about 9.8 percent of their adjusted gross income to their slush fund to spend as they wish. [Source]

From "The Top 100 Most Damaging Wikileaks":

24. "Bill Clinton Inc." How millions of dollars were raised for the Clintons. Blurred lines between personal and Foundation money

    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/32240 (in attachments)
  • “Throughout the past 11 years since President Clinton left office, I have sought to leverage my activities, including my partner role at Teneo, to support and raise funds … to support the Clinton Foundation and President Clinton personally."
  • "We also have solicited and obtained, as appropriate, in-kind services for the president and his family – for personal travel, hospitality, vacation and the like.”
  • "...more than $50 million in for-profit activity...”
  • "We appreciate the unorthodox nature of our roles."
The 12 page document goes in detail over how Bill Clinton monetized the foundation. The basic context is that, at some point in 2011 there was a civil war inside the foundation, with Teneo/Doug Band on one side, and Chelsea Clinton on the other.  In this attachment, Band tries to justify himself by going over how much money he has made for the Clintons.  It also dispels and puts to rest the notion that the Clintons don't make money from the Foundation. In fact, it demonstrates that the Clinton fortune and the Foundation are indistinguishable and essentially the same, and that donations to the Foundation come with kickbacks for all involved.

The Clinton Foundation even hired a law firm to find out if their pay-to-play scheme would jeopardize their charitable status with the IRS.

Doug Band (who was to Bill what Huma Abedin is to Hillary) described his work as running "Bill Clinton Inc." Essentially, the memo describes Teneo as the revenue-generating arm of Clinton, Inc. - for Clinton speeches, foundation money, etc. It also details quite a bit of offshore money that came in.

Band was selling his clients on idea that giving to the Foundation was a way to bolster their influence.
19. Clinton Foundation schemed with Big Pharma: keep the price of AIDS drugs high in America and NO to cheaper generic versions


The Top 100 Most Damaging Wikileaks

"WikiLeaks says it has some 50,000 Hillary Clinton campaign emails, and on Fri. Oct. 7, it began leaking the personal emails Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. The group said it would release emails every day until Election Day. Podesta acknowledged his emails were hacked, but has not verify the authenticity of the emails. He warned that messages may have been altered or edited to inflict political damage but has not pointed to any specific case of this. Cybersecurity experts said that Fancy Bear, a group of Russian-linked hackers, had infiltrated Podesta’s email. U.S. intelligence officials last week blamed the Russian government for a series of breaches intended to influence the presidential election, and the FBI is investigating the breach. CBS News’ Nancy Cordes reported that Podesta on October 18th went step-by-step through all the contact Donald Trump and his campaign aides have had with Russian actors or with Wikileaks. Through its Twitter account, the Russian Embassy in Washington has denied any role in the cyberattacks, suggesting U.S. officials are just “whipping up” anti-Russia hysteria." [CBS News

On October 7, 2016, WikiLeaks started to publish thousands of emails reportedly retrieved from John Podesta's private Gmail account. Podesto is Hillary Clinton campaign chairman.

The following is a link to a spreadsheet of the emails, etc. compiled by DefNotHillDawg at Reddit:


The following is part of the list of the top most damaging emails from http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/.

42. John Podesta’s password was p@ssw0rd

  • “Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta p@ssw0rd”
Why is this important? The media is lying to us. They are saying the "Russians are feeding Wikileaks" and that they are hacking us. Their passwords are literally password. Some security. They only blame Russia so it can take our focus away from what is actually in the emails, which they do not deny its validity. As mentioned in the info section, Wikileaks has a 10 year, 100% accuracy rating. Not one leak has ever been disproven.

Not only that... but Podesta LOST his cellphone! Extremely dangerous since he illegally had access to top secret documents.

Julian Assange has already strongly suggested that the source of the leaks are insiders, including ex-DNC staffer Seth Rich, who was killed right around the time of the DNC leaks.

John Podesta's password was p@ssw0rd and the White House is trying to claim only a foreign state organization could have been savvy enough to hack these servers.

1. Obama lied: he knew about Hillary’s secret server and wrote to her using a pseudonym, cover-up happened (intent to destroy evidence)



  • “Jen you probably have more on this but it looks like POTUS just said he found out HRC was using her personal email when he saw it in the news… we need to clean this up - he has emails from her - they do not say state.gov.”
  • “How is that not classified?” Huma Abedin to FBI when shown email between Clinton & Obama using his pseudonym. Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president’s use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email.”
I can't state how huge this is, it's a cover up involving the President of the United States. There are a lot of emails implying this, but this email states it very clearly so anyone can understand.  The email proves obstruction of justice and shows how they lied to the FBI, and likely perjury of Congress. This at the very least proves intent by her Chief of Staff.

Obama used executive privilege on their correspondence. Cheryl Mills (who was given immunity) states they need to "clean up" the Clinton/Obama e-mails because they lacked state.gov.

Additionally, Obama on video publicly denied knowing about the server. He also claimed on video that he learned about the secret server through the news like everyone else. The corruption goes all the way to the top! Obama is lying to the American public.

Hillary Clinton set up her private server to hide her pay to play deals discovered throughout these leaks, and to prevent FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests.

Paul Combetta was hired to modify the email headers that referred to a VERY VERY VIP individual, i.e; change the name of who it was from. If you read Stonetear/Combetta story, it's easy to see this is exactly what he was attempting. He wanted to change header information on already sent mail to show "state.gov" instead of Hillary's private email address. Multiple people informed him of the infeasibility (and illegality) of it, so somewhere in the next 6 days it was decided that simply eradicating them was the only option left.

The FBI said they could not find intent of trying to break the law, therefore no recommendation of prosecution.  This email proves, in plain language, that there was intention, and knowingly broke the law.

Ask yourselves: why would they both be communicating on a secret server to each other? Why not through normal proper channels? What were they hiding? We may soon find out…

2. Hillary Clinton dreams of completely "open borders”

  • “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders”
This was stated at one of her $225,000 paid secret speeches to Wall Street that she has tried desperately to hide… This email contains those speeches in those attachments.

Border protection is important. Borders add safety and sovereignty to a country. Borders helps prevent illegal immigration, which limits crime, drugs, human/sex trafficking across the border and allows more Americans (including African Americans and Latinos) to get jobs. It also costs the working class an exorbitant amount of money in higher taxes and leads to higher national debt. Mexico protects their southern border (with the help of $75 million from Obama).

During the 3rd debate, Hillary tried to pivot away from this damning topic by stating she only meant energy. Read the quote for yourself, energy is just one aspect of her open borders policy.

3. Hillary Clinton received money from and supported nations that she KNEW funded ISIS and terrorists



  • “...the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.”
  • “Clintons should know better than to raise money from folks whose primary concern has been supporting the NIAC, a notorious supporter of the Radical Islamic Mullahs. "The Clinton’s have thrown principle out the window in exchange for cold hard cash...putting money ahead of principle.”
Hillary's Chief of Staff admits in the 2nd link that foreign interests sway Hillary to do what they want her to do (money for mandatory appearances).  She also admits that the "Friend of Hillary" list is available and rentable to people who want to influence, but that it’s too sensitive to talk in email.

This leak shows Hillary knows Saudis and Qatar are funding ISIS, which is an enemy of the state.  After knowing this, Hillary accepted tens of millions in donations from these terrorist-funding governments (of course they are getting something back in return). She also supported arms deals to them.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar commit horrible acts under Sharia law, including throwing gay people off of buildings, persecuting Christians, Jews, and atheists, and making it legal to rape and beat women. They are the leading funders of Hillary and her campaign through the Clinton Foundation.

4. Hillary has public positions on policy and her private ones

  • “But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position.”
This leak is a big one because anything she tells us that she will do can and should be considered questionable. Whenever Hillary tells the public a position, a goal, or what she will do for America, there is no way we can be sure if she has an opposite, private position.

This was one of her private paid $225,000 speeches to Wall Street. Behind closed doors she is telling her Wall Street donors one thing, and the American people another thing.  Think about that for a moment...

The rest of the top 100 at the link below:



No link between Trump and Russia, No link between Assange and Russia, But Podesta and Clinton involved in selling 20% of US uranium to Russia (Reddit)

'Phase Three' of Wikileaks Election Coverage Imminent

The Podesta Emails

October 30, 2016

The Hill - Wikileaks enigmatically announced on Twitter that it would soon launch “phase three of [its] election coverage.”

The secrets-sharing site put politicians on notice Sunday evening in a tweet that also included a plea for donations.

“We transition to phrase [sic] three of our US election coverage next week. Keep us strong: https://shop.wikileaks.org/donate,” wrote the site.

It did not provide information about what the third phase entails or if there are still more revelations to come.

Wikileaks supporters, now including a number of disgruntled GOP nominee Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders supporters, immediately replied with tweets expressing hope that phase three would ultimately damage Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign.

User “CorruptMedia” responded with a Photoshopped estimating what CNN coverage of Clinton being escorted to jail would look like.

A new archive of Clinton-related documents would further irk a campaign still reeling from FBI director James Comey's announcement on Friday that new emails related to the Clinton server probe had been discovered.

But there is at least some reason to believe Wikileaks could release material that is not solely Clinton related.

Wikileaks has already posted stolen emails from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chief John Podesta. The hacker or hackers Guccifer 2.0 took credit for the DNC breach and are widely believed to be a front for a Russian intelligence group tied to the Podesta breach.

FBI Obtains Warrant to Search Newly Found Emails Potentially Relevant to Hillary Clinton Investigation

October 31, 2016

WASHINGTON (AP) - The FBI has obtained a warrant to begin reviewing newly discovered emails that may be relevant to the Hillary Clinton email server investigation, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press.

FBI investigators want to review emails of longtime Clinton aide Huma Abedin that were found on a device seized during an unrelated sexting investigation of Anthony Weiner, a former New York congressman and Abedin's estranged husband.

The official, who has knowledge of the examination, would not say when investigators might complete the review of Abedin's emails but said Sunday they would move expeditiously.

The Clinton email inquiry, which closed without charges in July, resurfaced on Friday when FBI Director James Comey alerted members of Congress to the existence of emails that he said could be pertinent to that investigation.

The FBI wants to review the emails to see if they contain classified information and were handled properly, the focus of the earlier Clinton inquiry.

Separately Sunday, another law enforcement official said FBI investigators in the Weiner sexting probe knew for weeks about the existence of the emails potentially related to the probe of Clinton's server. A third law enforcement official also said the FBI was aware for a period of time about the emails before Comey was briefed, but wasn't more specific.

In his letter that roiled the White House race, Comey said he'd been briefed on Thursday about the Abedin emails and had agreed that investigators should take steps to review them.

It was not immediately clear Sunday what steps investigators took once the emails were first found to fully advise FBI leaders that additional and potentially relevant messages had been discovered.

The officials were not authorized to discuss the matter by name and spoke on condition of anonymity.
The timing of Comey's letter less than two weeks before Election Day drew criticism from Democrats and some Republicans who cast it as unprecedented and as potentially tipping the scales in the presidential race in favor of Republican Donald Trump.

Energized by the news, the GOP presidential nominee has rallied his supporters, calling the latest developments worse than Watergate and arguing that his candidacy has the momentum in the final days of the race.

"We never thought we were going to say 'thank you' to Anthony Weiner," Trump said in Nevada.

October 29, 2016

2006 Audio Emerges of Hillary Clinton Proposing Rigging Palestine Election

Hillary caught on tape about rigging the Palestine election (audio)


“I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake.  And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.”

According to an article by The Observer (below), "On September 5, 2006, Eli Chomsky was an editor and staff writer for the Jewish Press, and Hillary Clinton was running for a shoo-in re-election as a U.S. senator. Her trip making the rounds of editorial boards brought her to Brooklyn to meet the editorial board of the Jewish Press.  The tape was never released and has only been heard by the small handful of Jewish Press staffers in the room. According to Chomsky, his old-school audiocassette is the only existent copy and no one has heard it since 2006, until today when he played it for the Observer.  The tape is 45 minutes and contains much that is no longer relevant."

Chomsky recalls being taken aback that “anyone could support the idea - offered by a national political leader, no less - that the U.S. should be in the business of fixing foreign elections.”

This is 100% proof that she is willing to debauch an electoral process.  This also shows that she knows what it takes to rig an election. 

Source: http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com

October 28, 2016

The Observer - On September 5, 2006, Eli Chomsky was an editor and staff writer for the Jewish Press, and Hillary Clinton was running for a shoo-in re-election as a U.S. senator. Her trip making the rounds of editorial boards brought her to Brooklyn to meet the editorial board of the Jewish Press.

The tape was never released and has only been heard by the small handful of Jewish Press staffers in the room. According to Chomsky, his old-school audiocassette is the only existent copy and no one has heard it since 2006, until today when he played it for the Observer.

The tape is 45 minutes and contains much that is no longer relevant, such as analysis of the re-election battle that Sen. Joe Lieberman was then facing in Connecticut. But a seemingly throwaway remark about elections in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority has taken on new relevance amid persistent accusations in the presidential campaign by Clinton’s Republican opponent Donald Trump that the current election is “rigged.”

Speaking to the Jewish Press about the January 25, 2006, election for the second Palestinian Legislative Council (the legislature of the Palestinian National Authority), Clinton weighed in about the result, which was a resounding victory for Hamas (74 seats) over the U.S.-preferred Fatah (45 seats).

“I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake,” said Sen. Clinton. “And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.”

Chomsky recalls being taken aback that “anyone could support the idea—offered by a national political leader, no less—that the U.S. should be in the business of fixing foreign elections.”

October 28, 2016

Executive Order 13603: National Defense Resources Preparedness

"The second I knew about the movie The Hunger Games I knew I had to see it; and when I saw it, it was extremely easy for me to pick out all the obvious things that are being sold to us (particularly our youth) in the form of predictive programming. I sure hope I'm not around when times similar to those come into existence. What's going on now is MORE than sufficient. By the way, I also noticed that all of the valuable resources are controlled by the elite. Reminds me of a little something recently signed off by Obama, where it gives the government full control of our resources in the event of a national crisis. Slowly and surely, they are setting the stage for a world damn near identical to the one depicted in this film." - Andy, April 2012, “The Hunger Games”: A Glimpse at the Future?

On March 16, 2012, President Barack Obama issued a National Defense Resources Preparedness executive order (13603) that gives the president unprecedented new powers to appropriate national resource, which prompted Congresswoman Kay Granger to pen the missive quoted below:
With all that is going in Washington these days some things don’t make the news the way they should. Fourteen days ago President Obama issued an Executive Order that you should know about. This order gives an unprecedented level of authority to the President and the federal government to take over all the fundamental parts of our economy - in the name of national security - in times of national emergency. This means all of our water resources, construction services and materials (steel, concrete, etc.), our civil transportation system, food and health resources, our energy supplies including oil and natural gas - even farm equipment - can be taken over by the President and his cabinet secretaries. The Government can also draft U.S. citizens into the military and force U.S. citizens to fulfill "labor requirements" for the purposes of "national defense." There is not even any Congressional oversight, only briefings are required.

By issuing this as an Executive Order the President puts the federal government above the law, which, in a democracy, is never supposed to happen.
As President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, he has the Constitutional authority to issue executive orders. And while similar orders have been made before by presidents from Eisenhower and Reagan to Clinton and George Bush - it has never been done to this extent.

It is still unclear why this order was signed now and what the consequences are for our nation - especially during times of peace. This type of Martial Law imposes a government takeover on U.S. citizens that is typically reserved for national emergencies, not in a time of relative peace.

Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:


Section 101Purpose.  This order delegates authorities and addresses national defense resource policies and programs under the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (the "Act").

Sec. 102Policy.  The United States must have an industrial and technological base capable of meeting national defense requirements and capable of contributing to the technological superiority of its national defense equipment in peacetime and in times of national emergency.  The domestic industrial and technological base is the foundation for national defense preparedness.  The authorities provided in the Act shall be used to strengthen this base and to ensure it is capable of responding to the national defense needs of the United States.

Sec. 103General FunctionsExecutive departments and agencies (agencies) responsible for plans and programs relating to national defense (as defined in section 801(j) of this order), or for resources and services needed to support such plans and programs, shall:
(a)  identify requirements for the full spectrum of emergencies, including essential military and civilian demand;
(b)  assess on an ongoing basis the capability of the domestic industrial and technological base to satisfy requirements in peacetime and times of national emergency, specifically evaluating the availability of the most critical resource and production sources, including subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel;
(c)  be prepared, in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States, to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements;
(d)  improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the domestic industrial base to support national defense requirements; and
(e)  foster cooperation between the defense and commercial sectors for research and development and for acquisition of materials, services, components, and equipment to enhance industrial base efficiency and responsiveness.
Sec. 104Implementation.  (a)  The National Security Council and Homeland Security Council, in conjunction with the National Economic Council, shall serve as the integrated policymaking forum for consideration and formulation of national defense resource preparedness policy and shall make recommendations to the President on the use of authorities under the Act.
(b)  The Secretary of Homeland Security shall:
(1)  advise the President on issues of national defense resource preparedness and on the use of the authorities and functions delegated by this order;
(2)  provide for the central coordination of the plans and programs incident to authorities and functions delegated under this order, and provide guidance to agencies assigned functions under this order, developed in consultation with such agencies; and
(3)  report to the President periodically concerning all program activities conducted pursuant to this order.
(c)  The Defense Production Act Committee, described in section 701 of this order, shall:
(1)  in a manner consistent with section 2(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2062(b), advise the President through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy on the effective use of the authorities under the Act; and
(2)  prepare and coordinate an annual report to the Congress pursuant to section 722(d) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2171(d).
(d)  The Secretary of Commerce, in cooperation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and other agencies, shall:
(1)  analyze potential effects of national emergencies on actual production capability, taking into account the entire production system, including shortages of resources, and develop recommended preparedness measures to strengthen capabilities for production increases in national emergencies; and
(2)  perform industry analyses to assess capabilities of the industrial base to support the national defense, and develop policy recommendations to improve the international competitiveness of specific domestic industries and their abilities to meet national defense program needs.

Sec. 201Priorities and Allocations Authorities.  (a)  The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:
(1)  the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;
(2)  the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;
(3)  the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;
(4)  the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;
(5)  the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and
(6)  the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.
(b)  The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection (a) of this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions.  Each Secretary shall authorize the heads of other agencies, as appropriate, to place priority ratings on contracts and orders for materials, services, and facilities needed in support of programs approved under section 202 of this order.

(c)  Each resource department shall act, as necessary and appropriate, upon requests for special priorities assistance, as defined by section 801(l) of this order, in a time frame consistent with the urgency of the need at hand.  In situations where there are competing program requirements for limited resources, the resource department shall consult with the Secretary who made the required determination under section 202 of this order.  Such Secretary shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements to prioritize on the basis of operational urgency.  In situations involving more than one Secretary making such a required determination under section 202 of this order, the Secretaries shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements should receive priority on the basis of operational urgency.

(d)  If agreement cannot be reached between two such Secretaries, then the issue shall be referred to the President through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.

(e)  The Secretary of each resource department, when necessary, shall make the finding required under section 101(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(b).  This finding shall be submitted for the President's approval through the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.  Upon such approval, the Secretary of the resource department that made the finding may use the authority of section 101(a) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071(a), to control the general distribution of any material (including applicable services) in the civilian market.

October 27, 2016

Unemployed Coal Miner Confronts Clinton About Saying "We're Going to Put a Lot of Coal Miners and Coal Companies Out of Business"

October 27, 2016

Yahoo News - What did Hillary Clinton mean when she said, “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business”?

To Bo Copley, a 39-year-old unemployed West Virginia coal miner, her remark at a CNN forum in March was a direct threat to his future livelihood, family and town. So when Clinton showed up to campaign in Williamson, he let her know how he felt:

“I just want to know how you can say you’re going to put a lot of coal miners out of jobs and then come in here and tell us how you’re gonna be our friend,” he said, sliding a picture of his three children across the table toward her — a moment captured by reporters that catapulted him to at least fleeting local fame.

Months later, when Republican West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito held a hearing in October on “the devastating effects that EPA’s anti coal regulations are having on our state,” Copley was a star witness, describing the events leading up to his layoff as a maintenance planner and foreman at a subsidiary of the mining giant Arch Coal:

“With increasing regulations forcing other mines to close, we would see more and more inspectors on our job. At one point, we had 12 inspectors on our property on the same day. They told us they were all there that day because they had nowhere else to go … That would lead to more violations because of their interpretation of laws. More violations lead to higher cost per ton. Higher cost per ton leads to less profits. Less profits lead to job loss.”

It was a report from the trenches of what Republicans have been calling, since long before the campaign even began, the Obama administration’s “war on coal.” This was a message Donald Trump sought to reinforce at a rally in West Virginia by donning a miner’s hardhat and pretending to wield a shovel, violating a principle of campaigning dating back to 1988, when Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis was photographed in a tank turret, wearing a helmet that memorably reminded many observers of Snoopy: Never put anything weird on your head.

To Clinton, her remark was just a recognition of something that was happening already, and would continue, a result not just of environmental concerns but competition for coal from cheap natural gas. She apologized to Copley for her “misstatement”:

“What I was saying is that the way things are going now, we will continue to lose jobs. That’s what I meant to say and I think that seems to be supported by the facts.” As the media noted, she was actually making a point about the need to bring jobs back to Appalachia and support laid-off miners.

Copley, for his part, was unconvinced, telling reporters after the confrontation that he “would have liked to have heard more of what her plan is” for coal country. He could have read her plan, all 2,180 words of it, including job training, expanded broadband access, combatting drug abuse, and promoting the rich cultural heritage of Appalachia, here. But it probably wouldn’t have mattered; as he also told reporters, he was a Republican who would never support her anyway: “Coal is not the only priority,” he explained. “Her stance on abortion and other things are things I can’t get behind either.” — By Jerry Adler

October 26, 2016

Putin Promises ‘Confrontation’ If Clinton Keeps Up Russia Talk

October 25, 2016

New York Post - Russian President Vladimir Putin has issued a veiled threat to Hillary Clinton, saying his country will engage in “confrontation” with the US if she continues to provoke the Motherland, according to a new report.

Putin, 64, accused the Democratic presidential nominee of putting forth continued “harsh rhetoric” and “threats” against Russia for her own political gain, The Daily Star reported.
“Jeopardizing Russian-American relations in order to gain brownie points internally – I consider this to be harmful and counterproductive, Putin recently told reporters in Russia.

“It’s not funny anymore. If somebody out there wants confrontation. This is not our choice but this means that there will be problems,” Putin warned.
The former KGB spy added that Clinton was trying “to distract [American] voters from the country’s problems” by unifying voters against two common enemies – Russia and Iran.
And Putin made no secret over who he favors in the Nov. 8 election.
“Mrs. Clinton has chosen to take up a very aggressive stance against our country, against Russia. Mr. Trump, on the other hand, calls for cooperation – at least when it comes to the international fight against terrorism,” Putin said.

“Naturally we welcome those who would like to cooperate with us. And we consider it wrong, that we always have to be in conflict with one another, creating existential threats for each other and for the whole world,” Putin noted.

October 24, 2016

Chaos Will Erupt Across America in Less Than 100 Days… No Matter Who Wins the Election

August 30, 2016

The clock is ticking for America. There are 70 days remaining until the presidential election, and after the results are counted, America will be a tinderbox ready to explode no matter who wins.

What follows is an educated analysis of the political friction now escalating in America. Note carefully that nothing in this article should be construed as any intention to call for violence of any kind. I do reference such acts, however, as part of human history as well as likely outcomes in our near future. What I’m offering here is an analysis and a warning, along with a call to prepare for what’s coming.

If Trump wins, the left goes full terror

As I’ve publicly predicted numerous times over the last year, if Donald Trump wins, the radical extreme leftists go on a violent rampage that leads to the rest of us begging for martial law. After half a dozen cities burn with riots and looting, Trump invokes a national emergency, deploying National Guard troops across the most devastated urban areas, and the radical left finds itself in a shooting war with the government.

If Hillary Clinton wins, all the Trump supporters who have been violently assaulted, spat upon and physically attacked by the radical left un-holster their concealed weapons and start shooting back. This quickly escalates into open warfare between lunatic leftist Hillary supporters and armed Trump “Second Amendment” people who basically figure they’ve got nothing left to lose anyway, so why not fight to save America?

This was all pointed out in an insightful reader comment posted to The Burning Platform on August 29th:
With the rise of Donald Trump, the plan of the political elites has been to provoke violence and blame it on him, thus scaring the normal populace. Early-on there were the road-blockings, the threatened riots, the cancelled events in Chicago and Cincinnati, the beatings, the police ordered to “look the other way”…and it has continued: The screaming harassment and physical attacks on Trump supporters as they leave his rallies. The spitting. The intimidation. The thrown eggs. The shoves and punches. The cars blocked and damaged. The hats snatched off people’s heads, stomped on, and then burned on the ground…

The people who support Trump are increasingly well-armed, and increasingly seething with justifiable rage. For now they hold back. Donald Trump himself has repeatedly observed that “the safest place in America” for anti-Trump protesters is at Trump rallies. And that is true. For now (except for the one old cowboy who punched out the protester, he was an octogenarian outlier). Why is this? Why the docility in the face of clear provocation?

It is because Trump supporters understand that any retaliatory violence now will be instantly, widely, and incessantly portrayed by the whorish mainstream media as proof that “Trump is dangerous” and “Trump’s movement is violent” and “Trump invites violence.” So his supporters endure the abuse. They endure the spittle. They endure the shoves and punches. They endure the theft of their possessions. They endure the damaged cars and the incessant harassment. For now, for the sake of their political movement and the candidacy of Donald Trump, they do not strike back…

But what happens after the election? It matters not who wins. If Hillary Clinton is elected, by hook or by crook, the mass movement harnessed by Donald Trump will be free to respond to physical attacks.  
If Donald Trump wins the Presidency, there will similarly be no reason to continue to endure physical attacks and humiliations by the street thugs of the Democrats. Whether Trump or Hillary Clinton is in the White House, there will be no reason to hold back.
Hundreds of millions of guns across America are now in the hands of people who are fed up with being stomped on, ridiculed and marginalized by a corrupt leftist regime that’s destroying America

Do the math on this one: You’ve got 44% of U.S. households that now own guns (and not just one gun each, but several different types of guns). Over the last 8 years, President Obama’s anti-gun rhetoric has resulted in the largest surge of gun sales to private citizens ever recorded in American history. As a result of Obama’s criminal efforts to try to destroy the Second Amendment via false flag operations such as Operation Fast and Furious, more Americans than ever now own battle rifles such as ARs, AKs and PTR 91s.

People bought all these guns for a reason. And they sure didn’t buy them just to turn them over to a corrupt criminal government.

The reader comment continues:
Whatever happens after this Presidential election, it will have been unleashed by the corporate elites and their servants in the media and elsewhere. They will be responsible for blood in the streets… And many will cheer it.
What the author is saying is, essentially, America is quite likely just 70 days away from the start of the next revolution… or even events that could escalate into Civil War.

A Hillary victory would set off an immediate popular revolt

If Hillary wins the election, it’s hard not to imagine some sort of popular revolt across America as the citizens reject the obvious criminality and corruption of not just the Clinton crime family but also a complicit mainstream media. The same media that has funneled millions of dollars into the Clinton Foundation also intentionally downplays all the Clinton scandals. The entire system is a corrupt, incestuous, rigged f–kfest that benefits the deceitful plutocrats whom the voters are sick and tired of seeing remain in power.

Election Fraud? Get Ready for Martial Law

Times of San Diego (Opinion) - This election is where faux news, conspiracy theories and fears are colliding like a Super Nova explosion.

Already, no less than the FBI, Homeland Security, and others are issuing clarion calls about possible cyber interference in the coming presidential and local elections.

A national coordination task force is in the making. Fears of the “Russians are coming. The Russians are coming” permeate usually sane media spaces.

Add to this the very real possibility (if the latest polls are to be believed) that the race is tightening—with Donald Trump ahead in the popular vote and Hillary Clinton leading in the Electoral College—and the ingredients for political chaos are complete.

First, the establishment fears.

– The FBI issued a “flash” alert this summer to state election officials that foreign hackers had breached the election systems in two states, Arizona and Illinois. Arizona shut down its network for a week, according to the staid Sacramento Bee.

– The Washington Post reported that intelligence and law enforcement officials are looking into a secret, widespread effort by Russia to undermine public trust in the U.S. presidential election and in the country’s political institutions. The newspaper said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was “deeply shaken” following a briefing about the investigation by a top official in the intelligence community.

– Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson suggested that the nation’s election system, an uneven mosaic of 50 state-operated fiefdoms, should be viewed like the national power grid, part of the country’s “critical infrastructure.”

– Johnson volunteered his agency’s help by offering to inspect state election systems for holes hackers could crawl through. Several states have taken up his offer. Others – such as Georgia, which has voted Republican in every presidential election since 1996 but where polls now show the race between Democrat Clinton and Republican Trump tied – have spurned it.

The recent purging of voter registration lists, the history of voting graveyards, the previous Diebold election machines’ errors, and the chad debacle of the Bush v. Gore race, make the latest conspiracy theory of “martial law” look plausible.

If this is what the “establishment” is saying, imagine what the Twitterverse is suggesting, let alone the late night radio talk shows if Trump does win the popular vote and Clinton takes the Electoral College.

Our democracy is at risk.

Little do Americans realize, but our “elections” and “democracy” have always been at risk.

Once upon a time, we had no political parties (thought to be almost evil and divisive by the Founding Fathers), no secret ballots (they interfered with landowners and overseers from marching their captive workers to the polls to mark their “X” in the proper slot (or lose their jobs) and no votes for blacks or women.

Remember, in the original U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 for the purposes of taxation and representation, slaves would be counted as 3/5ths a human being. It took a Civil War, and the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights movement to alter this. Women won their vote after WWI.

Until then, the local Sheriff was the most powerful official because he decided when the polls would open and close. Open long enough to get his herded voters to the make shift polling spot (only disclosed to his friends) and closed as soon as the opposition showed up.

Horses, wagons, carts, or feet carried the bodies to the polls. Not a love of “democracy.”

Fraud has almost always existed in our campaigns, politics, and voting. As has “dark money,” salacious attacks, voter suppression, and nonsensical conspiracy theories.

Here is the latest “martial law” conspiracy theory gaining traction:

If Trump loses, the election is “rigged,” as the candidate himself asserts. “Rigged” is this seasons’ coin of the realm used by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren on the Left and Trump and others on the Right.

A split election (popular v. electoral votes) will cause riots in the streets (stoked by an overwhelming mistrust in the government and globalism), and President Obama will be “forced” to declare “martial law;” thus securing the status quo indefinitely.

See: “The Russians are coming. The Russians are coming.” It is not just a Cold War slogan or spoof any more. It is the prevalent conspiracy theory held by the establishment; only this time, the “Russians” are using computer malware, not tanks.

What an election! It is vintage American.

Trump Insider Says Establishment May Declare Martial Law If Trump Wins

Trump insider Roger Stone told Alex Jones on Wednesday the establishment may pull a range of dirty tricks, including the imposition of martial law, to prevent Donald Trump from assuming office if he wins the election in November.

April 28, 2016

EndingTheFed - “I think they are capable of anything, including martial law,” Stone said. “The establishment is petrified that the Trump wave is coming and they see no way to stop it.”

Over the last 40 years, at least since the racial riots of the late 1960s, the establishment and its military have put into place numerous initiatives designed to implement martial law, most recently Obama’s Authorization for Use of Military Force which allows the president to deploy the military anywhere in the world, including the United States.

A multiplication of domestic military exercises, most recently Jade Helm, have prepared the military for deployment inside the United States. The Jade Helm exercise involved soldiers operating “undetected amongst civilian populations,” to see if they can infiltrate without being noticed.

“The history of the federal government and the U.S. military’s preparations for martial law in America is manifestly provable. That is not to say that a military takeover is imminent, but to dismiss the militarization of law enforcement and verifiable plans for using troops to deal with domestic unrest as ‘alarmist’ or mere ‘conspiracy theory’ is completely erroneous,” Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson wrote last March ahead of the Jade Helm exercise.

There exists a large number of official documents, white papers, proclamations, and executive orders spelling out how the military will take control of America, ostensibly during a national emergency.

Keep in mind the political elite that has ruled under the dictates of the national security state since the end of the Second World War would assuredly consider the election of Donald Trump a “national emergency” requiring serious and concerted action.

Joseph Farah Seeks Clarification of Obama's Intentions Come January 20, 2017

August 3, 2016

WND.com - Barack Obama is a president known for unprecedented statements and behavior.

He lived up to that reputation this week when he asserted that GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump is “unfit to serve” as his successor.

It’s important to listen to the words he uttered and measure their implications carefully.
  • He said Trump would not abide by “norms and rules and common sense.”
  • He questioned whether he would “observe basic decency” should he reach the Oval Office.
  • He said he would have been disappointed to lose the elections of 2008 and 2012, but never doubted whether his rivals in those elections, John McCain and Mitt Romney, could function as president or had the knowledge to make government work. “That’s not the situation here,” he added.
  • He added Trump “doesn’t have the judgment, the temperament, the understanding, to occupy the most powerful position in the world.”
  • He said he was “woefully unprepared to do this job.”
  • Obama said Trump lacked knowledge about Europe, the Middle East and other parts of Asia.
It’s clear Obama has no use for Donald Trump. But that’s not really the point here.

Like it or not, and I don’t like it, Obama is the sitting president of the United States until Jan. 20, 2017.

The question this harsh, unprecedented attack by a sitting president on a major-party nominee to succeed him raises should be obvious: What happens if Donald Trump wins the election in November?

Given what Obama has said about Trump, would he not have an obligation to prevent Trump from assuming office? And what would that mean to the peaceful process America has enjoyed for more than two centuries of transitions of power?

These are questions Americans have never before been confronted with in American history.

Should we not be concerned about what Obama might do?

Should he not be asked pointedly about the implications of his stunning statements?

Should he not express exactly what his intentions are beforehand rather than to leave any doubt in the minds of the people?

If no one else will ask the question, I will: “Mr. President, if Donald Trump wins the election to become the next president of the United States, will you willingly and peacefully leave office and cooperate fully with the transition of power the way all of your predecessors in the White House have done in the past?”

It’s a simple question that needs to be asked and answered – given Obama’s highly inflammatory rhetoric over the last week.

There should be no doubt in the minds of the American people. There should be no veiled threats hanging over the heads of the citizenry as we prepare for the next election. It’s time for Obama to lay his cards on the table.

Will America follow the rule of law and the will of the people after the November election no matter what Obama might think about his successor?

Some may accuse me of being hyperbolic here – of raising questions that have no foundation for being asked. Maybe that’s true.

But never before in American history have we had a situation quite like this, in which a sitting president has used the power and prestige of his office – and, in this case, doing so inappropriately in the context of a joint press conference with a foreign leader – to declare in no uncertain terms that the nominee of one of the two major parties is uniquely unqualified and disqualified for the office of the presidency.
It’s time for clarity.

It’s time for Obama to address forthrightly and unequivocally the ramifications and implications of his shocking indictment of Trump.

It’s time for Obama to go on record as to whether he will respect the rule of law and the will of the people with regard to the 2016 election results.

Martial Law Coming?

July 24, 2016

Scott Adam's Blog - Let’s say Donald Trump wins the election. And let’s say Democrats believe everything they say about him – that he’s the next Hitler. Wouldn’t President Obama be obligated to declare martial law and remain in power?

I realize this question sounds silly when you first hear it. But keep in mind that Democrats have successfully sold the “racist strongman” narrative about Trump to their own ranks. If they’re right about Trump, we need to start getting serious about planning for martial law, for the good of the country and the world. No one wants another Hitler. And if they’re wrong, we still need to plan for martial law because Democrats think they are right. That’s all it takes.

Imagine, for example, that violence against police escalates because of the rhetoric on the left. That seems likely. Then add in some more videos of police shooting unarmed African-American men and you have all the ingredients for riots, followed by martial law.

Years ago, during Obama’s first term, a Republican friend bet me that Obama would declare martial law and stay in office after losing his reelection bid. I laughed and agreed to the bet. My friend paid the bet when Obama won reelection. My friend is a nut, right?

Or was he just premature?

My best guess is that 30% of the country believes (incorrectly) that we are heading toward some sort of pre-Nazi situation in the United States, where President Trump calls on his legion of racist supporters to do some ethnic cleansing. That’s all completely ridiculous, but it doesn’t stop perhaps 30% of the country from believing it.

Unlike most campaign rhetoric of the past, the attacks against Trump are designed to generate action, not words. Normal campaigns ask for little more than your vote. But this time, Clinton’s side – mostly surrogates and supporters – have defined their opponent as a Nazi-like dictator who will destroy the country, if not the entire world. In that situation, action is morally justified. And that action could include riots and violence against authority.

How much violence against authority would it take for President Obama to declare martial law and stay in power?

Less than you think. Television coverage will make every act of violence seem a hundred times worse than it is.

I don’t predict that we will see martial law in this country. But all of the ingredients are in place. Keep that in mind when you do your mental calculation about which political party is the reckless one.


Why the Trump vs Clinton Election is a Complete Sham

“Presidents are selected; not elected” – President Franklin D. Roosevelt
On one side: A billionaire accused of racism and xenophobia. On the other: A puppet completely sold to the world elite. And in the middle, voters who wonder why their democracy is forcing them to choose between two terrible options.
The Clinton Foundation lists Donald J. Trump as a contributor with a cumulative lifetime donation amount between $100,001 to $250,000. It’s not clear if Trump himself made a personal contribution, but tax forms show that the Donald J. Trump Foundation (which Trump controls) donated $100,000 to the foundation in 2009 and reserved a table at the Clinton Foundation gala for $10,000 in 2010. Trump’s daughter Ivanka is also listed as a donor who gave between $5,001 and $10,000 and her father-in-law, Charles Kushner, gave between $250,001 and $500,000. Trump’s gift amount places him in the top 0.2 percent of the foundation’s donors. Most of its 300,000 donors (85.5 percent) gave less than $250. We estimated that the foundation has received at least $800 million in donations, over 70 percent of which came from gifts of $1 million or more. [Politifact

I am sometimes asked why I write mostly about popular culture when I could focus on “more important” issues such as the presidential election. The short answer? Presidential elections are not important. At the risk of sounding like an old cynic: The game is rigged. No matter who is in office, the same agenda moves forward, and that agenda is set by people who stay far away from anything resembling a democratic process. For this reason, presidential elections are nothing more than gigantic puppet shows intended for a gigantic audience. While the masses are dazzled by the puppets’ crazy antics, only a few pay attention to the actual puppet-masters. Whether it is the Democrats or the Republicans in the White House, the same shadow government is behind the scenes, advancing policy laid out by the world elite.

Presidential elections, along with the media circus that surrounds them, are not a “democratic process”. They are a facade with little to no substance. Some issues are allowed to be discussed while others are totally ignored. This year’s election is no different. The agenda is already set and the candidates are each playing their role. While they appear to be in sharp opposition on various topics, the candidates are actually part of the same team.

The Clintons were guests at Trump's third wedding in January 2005.
The Clintons as guests at Trump’s wedding in January 2005.

Trump and Clinton at the Trump National Golf Club in 2008.
Trump and Clinton at the Trump National Golf Club in 2008.

Read the rest of the article at .

October 18, 2016

October 18, 2016

WASHINGTON (AP) — Millions of Social Security recipients and federal retirees will get a 0.3 percent increase in monthly benefits next year, the fifth year in a row that older Americans will have to settle for historically low raises.

There was no increase this year. Next year's benefit hike will be small because inflation is low, driven in part by lower fuel prices.

The federal government announced the cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA, Tuesday morning. By law, the COLA is based on a government measure of consumer prices.

The COLA affects more than 70 million people — about 1 in 5 Americans.

The average monthly Social Security payment is $1,238. That translates into a monthly increase of less than $4 a month.

More bad news for seniors: Medicare Part B premiums, which are usually deducted from Social Security payments, are expected to increase next year to the point in which they will probably wipe out the entire COLA.

By law, the dollar increase in Medicare's Part B premium cannot exceed a beneficiary's cost-of-living raise. That's known as the "hold harmless" provision, and it protects the majority of Medicare recipients.
But another federal law says that the Part B premium must raise enough money to cover one-fourth of expected spending on doctors' services. That means that a minority of beneficiaries, including new enrollees and higher-income people, have to shoulder the full increase. Their premiums would jump.

Millicent Graves, a retired veterinary technician, says Medicare and supplemental insurance premiums eat up nearly a third of her $929 monthly Social Security payment. And don't tell the 72-year-old from Williamsburg, Virginia, that consumer prices aren't going up. She says her insurance premiums went up by $46.50 this year, and her cable TV, Internet and phone bill went up, too.

"I just lose and lose and lose and lose," Graves said.

More than 60 million retirees, disabled workers, spouses and children get Social Security benefits. The COLA also affects benefits for about 4 million disabled veterans, 2.5 million federal retirees and their survivors, and more than 8 million people who get Supplemental Security Income, the disability program for the poor. Many people who get SSI also receive Social Security.

Since 2008, the COLA has been above 2 percent only once, in 2011. It's been zero three times.

"This loss of anticipated retirement income compounds every year, causing people to spend through retirement savings far more quickly than planned," said Mary Johnson of the Senior Citizens League. "Over the course of a 25- or 30-year retirement, it reduces anticipated Social Security income by tens of thousands of dollars."

By law, the cost-of-living adjustment is based on the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, or CPI-W, a broad measure of consumer prices generated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It measures price changes for food, housing, clothing, transportation, energy, medical care, recreation and education.

The COLA is calculated using the average CPI-W for July, August and September. If prices go up, benefits go up. If prices drop or stay flat, benefits stay the same.

The numbers for July and August suggest COLA of just 0.3 percent. The numbers for September are to be released Tuesday.

Some advocates complain that the government's measure of inflation doesn't reflect the costs many older Americans face.

For example, gasoline prices have fallen by nearly 18 percent over the past year, according to the August inflation report, while the cost of medical care has gone up by more than 5 percent.

For seniors who don't drive much, they don't get the full benefit of low gas prices, said Max Gulker, a senior research fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research. Many seniors, however, spend more of their income on health care.

Graves said she appreciates lower gas prices, but doesn't drive much.

"I just have to rely more each month on cashing in investments," Graves said. "I'm lucky I can do that."

Obama Sets 2017 Pay Raise for Civilian, Military Employees

What agency has the most employees? Which feds get paid the most? Federal News Radio looks at the latest data from the Office of Personnel Management.

August 31, 2016

FEDERAL NEWS RADIO - President Barack Obama is exercising his authority to give federal civilian employees and uniformed service members a pay raise effective Jan. 1, 2017.

Civilian employees will receive an across-the-board raise of 1 percent, with an additional 0.6 percent adjusted in locality pay.

“I have determined that for 2017, across-the-board pay increases will be 1.0 percent,” Obama wrote in an Aug. 31 letter to congressional leaders. “Also, I will make a decision by November 30, 2016, regarding an alternative plan for locality payments under 5 U.S.C. 5304a. The alternative plan for locality payments will be limited so that the total combined cost of the 1.0 percent across-the-board base pay increase and the varying locality pay increases will be 1.6 percent of basic payroll, consistent with the assumption in my 2017 budget. These decisions will not materially affect our ability to attract and retain a well-qualified federal workforce.”

Uniformed service members will also receive a monthly basic pay increase of 1.6 percent.

“This decision is consistent with my fiscal year 2017 budget. It will not materially affect the federal government’s ability to attract and retain well-qualified members for the uniformed services,” Obama wrote in a separate letter to congressional leaders.

The raise is just slightly above the 1.3 percent Obama approved last fiscal year.

October 17, 2016

Russia Suspends Nuclear Agreement, Ends Uranium Research Pact with United States

October 5, 2016

Reuters - Russia further curtailed its cooperation with the United States in nuclear energy on Wednesday, suspending a research agreement and terminating one on uranium conversion, two days after the Kremlin shelved a plutonium pact with Washington.
The Russian government said that as counter-measures to the U.S. sanctions imposed on Russia over Ukraine, it was putting aside a nuclear and energy-related research pact with the United States.

It also said it was terminating for the same reasons an agreement between its nuclear corporation Rosatom and the U.S. Department of Energy on feasibility studies into conversion of Russian research reactors to low-enriched uranium.

On Monday, President Vladimir Putin suspended a treaty with Washington on cleaning up weapons grade plutonium, signaling he is willing to use nuclear disarmament as a new bargaining chip in disputes with the United States over Ukraine and Syria.

"The regular renewal of sanctions against Russia, which include the suspension of Russian-American cooperation in the field of nuclear energy demands the adoption of countermeasures against the U.S. side," the Russian government said on its website.

In Washington, a State Department spokesman said the United States had not received an official notification from Russia although he had seen media reports of the suspension of the research agreement.

"If they're accurate, we would regret the Russian decision to unilaterally suspend cooperation on what we believe is a very important issue that's in the interest of both of our countries," spokesman Mark Toner said at a daily news briefing.

Russian Television Warns of Nuclear War Amid US Tensions

October 14, 2016

Good Morning America - With diplomatic relations between Moscow and Washington at their lowest point since the Cold War, turning on Russian television can be an alarming experience. For the past month, Russian media outlets have been punctuated with reports asking people whether they are ready for nuclear war.

Putin Sends Russian Warships to English Channel

October 15,  2016

NEWSMAX - Russian President Vladimir Putin Saturday sent a fleet of warships to the English Channel to test bombs off the British coast, according to news reports.The move put the Royal Navy on high alert, as vessels would seek to intercept the fleet as it passes within a mile of the British coast en route to Syria, The Sun reports.

The vessels are headed to the Mediterranean Sea and would join Russian naval forces in support of Moscow's bombing campaign in Syria, according to the report.

Putin's action is seen as a bold display of strength amid rising tensions between Russia and the West. The ships are expected to perform drills north of Scotland before sailing off the English coast.

NATO allies, however, are developing plans to intercept the Russian warships, The Telegraph has reported.

"It’s not catching us by surprise," a NATO official said. "We are working up what to do and we are all over it.

"The most likely thing is that they will go through the North Sea, down the Dover Strait and through the Channel.

"They might even stop off the North East coast to fly for a bit," the official told the Telegraph.

A NATO source told the Sun that Moscow's vessels could pass Britain as early as next week.

Alan West, a lord in the House of Commons who is a former Royal Navy senior officer, told the Telegraph that Russia's move risked heightening tensions.

"When people start posturing, things become dangerous," he said. "It all raises tensions and makes things more difficult and that’s not a clever thing to do.
"I find Russia very worrying at the moment," he added. "Their economy is on a war footing."

Putin's action comes days after British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson called for protests outside the Russian Embassy as he condemned Moscow's bombing campaign.
"A war crime is defined as when you attack something, attack a civilian target in the knowledge that it is a civilian target," Johnson told the Star.

He charged that Moscow could be guilty of war crimes in Syria because an aid convoy was hit by airstrikes.

"Now, Putin’s regime is not only as it were handing [Syrian President Bashar] Assad the revolver," Johnson added. "He is in some instances actually firing the revolver himself.

"The Russians themselves are actually engaged."