“How the electric grid has been compromised” By Dr. William R. Graham and Dr. Peter Vincent Pry

 

“How the electric grid has been compromised”

The swan song of the Electromagnetic Pulse Commission is the music of risk

By Dr. William R. Graham and Dr. Peter Vincent Pry

 

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Bureaucracies know how to deal with really challenging problems that affect the survival of our country: Kill the messenger.

 

The Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack terminated on September 30, ironically, the same month North Korea tested an H-bomb it described as “a multifunctional thermonuclear nuke with great destructive power which can be detonated even at high altitudes for superpowerful EMP attack.”

For 17 years, the EMP Commission warned about the existential EMP threat.

Rogue states or terrorists can blackout national electric grids and other life-sustaining critical infrastructures, topple electronic civilization, and kill millions from sea to shining sea, with a single high-altitude nuclear detonation, generating an EMP field covering North America. Natural EMP from a solar superstorm could blackout the whole world. EMP is considered a cyber weapon, not a nuclear weapon, in the military doctrines of Russia, China, North Korea and Iran.

On October 12, before a House Homeland Security Subcommittee chaired by Rep. Scott Perry, the EMP Commissionstaff delivered a final testimony, lamenting Washington bureaucrats are still oblivious to EMP.

The Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Energy (DOE), still largely staffed by Obama-holdovers, did not ask Congress to continue the EMP Commission.

The Secretaries of DOD and DOE ignored repeated requests to meet with the EMP Commission. DOE thinks the EMP threat is unproven and plans to partner with the electric power industry on studying EMP until 2020 and beyond.

DOD is letting DOE waste millions of dollars on unnecessary studies while DOD sits on a mountain of classified studies proving the EMP threat is real — which is why DOD has spent billions EMP hardening military systems.

Experts who have worked on protecting military systems from EMP for decades know how to harden our critical national infrastructure, but electric power organizations such as the Electric Power Research Institute and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation are not asking them for help.

A senior DHS official, speaking anonymously, recently told Fox News that EMP is a “theoretical” threat and lower priority than “real” threats, like cyber-attacks and sabotage.

Yet the empirical basis for the EMP threat to electric grids and civilization is far deeper and broader than for cyber-attacks or sabotage.

We know for certain EMP will damage electronics and cause protracted blackout of unprotected electric grids and other critical infrastructures from:

  • The 1962 U.S. STARFISH PRIME high-altitude nuclear test that generated an EMP field over the Hawaiian Islands, over 1,300 kilometers away, causing widespread damage to electronic systems.
  • Six Russian high altitude nuclear tests 1961-1962 over Kazakhstan that with a single weapon destroyed electric grids over an area larger than Western Europe.
  • 30 years (1962-1992) of U.S. underground nuclear testing. (Contrary to another government “expert” cited by Fox News, underground nuclear tests can tell a lot about the EMP threat from the weapon yield, gamma ray output, and other effects. Indeed, nuclear weapons specialized for EMP, what Russia and China call “Super-EMP” weapons, can be made without testing.)
  • Over 50 years of testing using EMP simulators, including tests by the EMP Commission(2001-2008), proving modern semiconductor electronics are far more vulnerable to EMP than 1950-60s era electronics.

Moreover, hard data proving the threat from nuclear EMP is available from natural EMP generated by geomagnetic storms, accidental damage caused by electromagnetic transients, and non-nuclear EMP weapons. All these produce field strengths much less powerful than nuclear EMP.

Electromagnetic attack is well known to North Korea. It used a non-nuclear EMP weapon to attack airliners and impose an “electromagnetic blockade” on air traffic to Seoul, South Korea’s capital, disrupting communications and operation of automobiles in several South Korean cities in December 2010; March 2011; and April-May 2012.

Real world failures of electric grids from various causes indicate nuclear EMP attack would have catastrophic consequences. Big blackouts have been caused by small failures cascading into system-wide failures:

  • The Great Northeast Blackout of 2003 — that put 50 million people in the dark for a day, contributed to at least 11 deaths and cost an estimated $6 billion — happened when a power line contacted a tree branch, damaging less than 0.0000001 (0.00001 percent) of the system.
  • The New York City Blackout of 1977, that resulted in the arrest of 4,500 looters and injury of 550 police officers, was caused by a lightning strike on a substation that tripped two circuit breakers.
  • The Great Northeast Blackout of 1965, that effected 30 million people, happened because a protective relay on a transmission line was improperly set.
  • India’s nationwide blackout of July 30-31, 2012 — the largest blackout in history, effecting 670 million people, 9 percent of the world population — was caused by overload of a single high-voltage power line.

In contrast to the above blackouts caused by small-scale failures, nuclear EMP attack would inflict massive widespread damage to electric grids.

A protracted blackout endangering millions will be the inevitable result of the EMP attack described by the North Koreans.

But the EMP Commission won’t be around anymore to help prevent electronic Armageddon.

 

  • Dr. William Graham is Chairman of the congressional EMP Commission and served as White House Science Advisor to President Reagan; Dr. Peter Vincent Pry is chief of staff of the congressional EMP Commissionand served in the House Armed Services Committee and the CIA.

 

 

The Corps Has ? West Point and The Long March Through American Institutions

 

 

Looks like General Caslen and others are missing the 5 9’s reliability.

 

A letter to:

Lieutenant General Robert L. Caslen, Jr.

59th Superintendent
U.S. Military Academy, West Point

Dear General Caslen,
I have just read your long letter prompted by the Rapone affair.  I have
also a lot to write about the situation.

First, I am not pleased with LTC Heffington’s story in his affidavit.  In my
day no officer would have deigned to argue with a cadet, even a First
Classman.  He would have simply told the cadet to return to his room.  If
the cadet disobeyed he would have called the Officer of the Day to have the
cadet physically moved to his room.  And he would have written up the cadet
for disobeying the direct order of a superior officer, plus disrespect to an
officer and being out of uniform.  LTC Heffington may well lament the rot in
the administration and training of cadets, but he obviously was a part of
it.

Second, why was no investigation begun in November 2015 based upon LTC
Heffington’s affidavit?  Regardless of what the investigation would have
concluded, the fact that none was initiated is another example of the rot
that is permeating the USMA.  Somebody simply decided to pass the problem
along to the Army.  In addition, why was he allowed to graduate?  As a
professed Communist he could not truthfully have sworn allegiance to the
Constitution of the United States.  Yet he apparently lied and did.  His
views were known and yet he was permitted to commit perjury.

Third, you write “While we do not compromise standards, we are a
developmental institution.”  When did West Point become a “developmental
institution?  What does that even mean?  West Point was created in order to
furnish standard-setting, career officers for the United States Army.  And
it did that job well until the latter half of the twentieth century.  And it
accomplished its mission on an “attritional” and a  “zero tolerance” basis.
What does “developmental” mean?  Maybe it means that a cadet can be caught
lying twice, but if he is caught lying a third time, i.e., he has not
“developed”, he will be sent before the Honor Board, that may even decide
the cadet needs a little more “development” and gives him three more
chances.  I remember that when I was a plebe, and maybe even my first day, I
was made to understand that lying or quibbling was not allowed and would
mean rapid dismissal.  Maybe “development” means being able to discuss an
order given by a superior officer.  Rot!  Maybe “developmental” means that
an upper classman inspecting a plebe in ranks (if such a thing is still
tolerated) says “Mister, your shoeshine looks better today than yesterday,
but it still needs some work.  So, try to do better tomorrow.”  Rot!

Fourth, you write, “These changes have increased the realism, toughness, and
challenge of our developmental programs, resulting in the most capable and
confident young leaders of character that we have ever produced”.  This is
gratuitously denigrating all previous graduates.  Do I need to remind you
that previous classes produced leaders that saved this country more than
once.  Your statement is pure PR.  How can you possibly know that the
present generation of cadets are “the most capable and confident”?  Have you
conducted any objective survey?  Furthermore, the mission of West Point is
not to produce capable and confident second lieutenants.  Its mission is to
produce the men and women who will lead the Army in the future.  They should
be trained not to be second lieutenants, but future colonels and general
officers.  At the 70th Reunion of my class last May you addressed all the
reunion classes.  I took the opportunity to ask you what was the average
recent percentage of graduates who remain in the Army beyond their 5 year
commitment.  You evaded replying to my question by stating that it was as
high as that of ROTC graduates.  You seemed to be satisfied with that level.
It is not good enough.  Graduates of the USMA are meant to set the standards
for the discipline and conduct of the personnel in the United States Army.
But if a graduate serves only his/her five years, his/her impact on the
standards of the Army is minimal to nil.

Fifth, you make a big deal of the ratings various publications give West
Point as a university.  West Point is not a university.  It is a school to
train standard-setting, career U.S. Army officers.  Incidentally, cadets
receive a university-level education.  You should care more about how many
of the graduates remain for a career in the Army than that such-and such a
publication ranks the USMA #? as a liberal arts/engineering/whatever
university.  The same goes for athletics.  Can you tell me that the
standards for admission are not today warped/waived in order to bring in a
star athlete?  Can you tell me that special academic assistance is not given
to members of Corps Squads, particularly football.  Can you tell me that
every prospective cadet must take a written exam and, good athlete or not,
must pass it in order to be allowed to enter?

Sixth, you make a big deal of having intercollegiate athletic teams with an
overall record of .590.  So what!  West Point was never supposed to be an
athletic powerhouse.  I don’t believe the MacArthur quote that used to be
engraved over the entrance to the gym meant intercollegiate athletics, in
which only a small minority of the cadets participate.  I believe it
referred to intramural athletics.  I am all for intramural athletics.  I
firmly believe that there is too much emphasis placed today on
intercollegiate athletics at West Point.

Seventh, you make a big deal about decorations recent graduates have
received.  What about second lieutenants out of OCS or ROTC?  Didn’t they
get any?  Did they get less ?  Maybe, because they weren’t “developed”.
Maybe, because they performed less well.  Heroism is not a virtue exclusive
to West Point.  What was once upon a time exclusive was the commitment to
graduate standard-setting career officers.  This OCS and ROTC do not and
cannot do.  OCS and ROTC base their standards, or at least they used to, on
those of graduates of West Point.

Eighth, you make a big deal that some recent graduates have been assigned to
divisions overseas.  Where have you been?  What’s so uplifting about that?
Every member of my class after finishing his branch Officers Basic Course
was assigned overseas-everyone.  No big deal.

Ninth, I graduated under the previous so-called “attritional” and “zero
tolerance” system (as did all classes up to at least 1966.  See Rick
Atkinson’s “The Long Gray Line”, the story of the Class of 1966).  I
“developed” from a boy to a man on my own.  Nobody gave a damn whether I
“developed”.  I was expected from the first day to live up to the standards
of the Military Academy.  It was up to me in meeting them to “develop”
myself.  I seriously doubt that any of your “best and brightest” could even
have lasted through my plebe year.

Lastly, this letter started because of Second Lieutenant Rapone.  Obviously
he didn’t “develop” as well as he should have..  How many more cadets are
being graduated under the “developmental” system who do not come up to what
have been the traditional standards of West Point:  Duty, Honor, Country?
How many cadets are being graduated who have no intention, and never had any
intention, of being career Army officers / I doubt seriously that the
American taxpayer would be overjoyed to realize that he/she is paying,
what?, a half million dollars to give somebody a university education so
that he/she can leave the Army as quickly as possible and go into a
money-making civilian career.  Although if there are a number of Rapones
whom you allow to graduate, it’s in the Army’s interest that they get out
fast.

Benjamin L. Landis

 

“Benjamin L. Landis retired from the U.S. Army as a colonel after a 27-year
career that included service with the Military Assistance Advisory Group at
the U.S. embassy in Paris and as Senior U.S. Liaison Officer with the French
Forces in Germany.  He is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy and the
French Army Ecole d’  Etat-Major, and has an MSA from The George Washington
University.  After retirement, he was Director of Administration and Finance
for several major law firms in Washington.  He is the author of Searching
For Stability: The World in the Twenty-First Century.”
Support References:

“How are people graduating from West Point so radicalized? Users on /pol/ think they may have found the answer: Professor Rasheed Hosein,” they tweeted.

Article

Article

 

 

 

 

Redding, California boy becomes pied piper of patriotism.

From CBS News:

California boy becomes pied piper of patriotism

After visiting his grandpa’s grave in Redding, California, and realizing that not every veteran in the cemetery had a flag, 11-year-old Preston Sharp decided to change that. He took on odd jobs and solicited donations to buy flags and flowers for every veteran in his grandpa’s cemetery and beyond.

America First Million Member Sign-Up

Please join us in our commitment to promote American exceptionalism, freedom, our Constitution, our American way of life, and our safety and security by making a donation and subscribing to our periodic newsletters and messages by donating below.

Sign Up

 

What is the least diverse place in America? by Charlie Kirk

What is the least diverse place in America? 

By Charlie Kirk

What is the least diverse place in America? It’s the institution that most actively seeks racial, ethnic, gender, and cultural diversity: the college campus! Colleges want students to look different, but think the same. Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, explains:

It’s appalling that, in the 21st century, there is still so little diversity on American college campuses.

This. Cannot. Stand.

It’s not who we are. It’s intolerable. It’s time we demand a change. It’s time to stage a protest, to storm the dean’s office. We will not be ignored.

Diversity is our strength. I’m not talking about diversity of skin color. Been there, done that. Today’s campuses are more racially integrated than at any time in history.

And I’m not talking about gender diversity. Women already make up the majority of college graduates. And if your concern is non-binary gender, there is no place on earth more accepting of hims, hers, zims and zirs than a college campus. I’m not even talking about sexual diversity. You can pretty much experiment with anyone you want, in any way you want, as long as you get a consent form signed and notarized in advance.

No, the diversity I’m talking about is diversity… of thought! Let me say it again, in case you missed it: Diversity of thought.

That’s right: people expressing different points of view on an issue. At most colleges today, that’s a dangerous, revolutionary idea – if that different point of view is not on the left. The moment you enter college, you enter an indoctrination center. Remember orientation week? It starts there and never stops. They tell you to be open-minded, but they don’t really mean it. Almost all your professors are on the left – nearly 12 to 1, left to right, according to a recent study by Econ Journal Watch. There are many departments at many colleges that don’t have a single conservative voice. The administration invariably supports leftist positions. And, all those diversity administrators – they depend for their livelihood (that means their paycheck) on creating victims.

Diversity of race, or gender, or sexuality, or any of the other distinctions du jour that universities glorify are, at best, superficial and, at worst, just plain destructive. It’s destructive to any real learning. If you don’t study Shakespeare because he was a white male, you have been deprived of learning from the most brilliant playwright who ever lived.

And it’s destructive of a peaceful campus environment because it pits racial, ethnic, and gender groups against one another. In other words, diversity, as practiced on your typical college campus, divides – not unites – people.

And diversity of thought? The free exchange of ideas? You know, what college is actually supposed to be about? Not happening.

If you’ve been in college for a few years, ask yourself this: When was the last time you heard a professor or a TA make the argument that capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system? Or that socialism always leads to poverty? Or that the post-World War II order created by America has been the freest and most prosperous time in human history? Or that the cause of high crime rates in black communities has very little to do with historic racism? And God forbid if a conservative speaker should show up on campus and dare to say any of these things.

Turning Point USA is leading the charge to restore freedom of thought in higher education.

Our activists and student leaders are out on their campuses every single day organizing groups, challenging the status quo, and promoting our message to an audience that desperately needs to hear it.

It takes so much bravery and boldness to do this.

 

Our chapter at East Carolina University brought Tomi Lahren to campus on Monday. Over 700 students came out to see her speak.

Our college campuses need more strong, courageous student leaders. Can you help us equip our students with the tools, training, and support they need to bring our principles and values to their campuses?

Charlie Kirk is founder and executive director of Turning Point USA.

To learn more about Turning Point USA:

Turning Point USA

 

America First Million Member Sign-Up

Please join us in our commitment to promote American exceptionalism, freedom, our Constitution,  our American way of life, and our safety and security by making a donation and subscribing to our periodic newsletters and messages by donating below.

Sign Up

 

Uncovering the Deep State and Mass Surveillance. Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney USAF (ret.) and Larry Klayman

Editor’s Note: Our great friend Dr. Dave Janda of Operation Freedom interviews Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney USAF (ret.) and an article by our great friend Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and our friends at Newsmax.

This is a “must listen to” interview:

 

Audio Interview

 



 

“Nunes Must Ask FBI’s Comey About Montgomery Mass Surveillance Case”


By Larry Klayman
Sunday, 19 Mar 2017 1:04 PM

The old expression about Washington, D.C., is that if you want a friend, get a dog! In the case of President Donald Trump, this is a lesson he has undoubtedly learned in his thus far short tenure as the commander in chief. Nowhere is this seen more than over the current controversy concerning the president’s claims that he was wiretapped, that is, illegally spied upon, by his predecessor’s administration, former President Barack Obama.

As I have written in this Newsmax blog and elsewhere particularly of late, my client, former NSA and CIA contractor Dennis Montgomery, holds the keys to disproving the false claims of those representatives and senators on the House and Senate intelligence committees, reportedly as well as FBI Director James Comey, that there is no evidence that the president and his men were wiretapped.

Montgomery left the NSA and CIA with 47 hard drives and over 600 million pages of information, much of which is classified, and sought to come forward legally as a whistleblower to appropriate government entities, including congressional intelligence committees, to expose that the spy agencies were engaged for years in systematic illegal surveillance on prominent Americans, including the chief justice of the Supreme Court, other justices, 156 judges, prominent businessmen such as Donald Trump, and even yours truly. Working side by side with Obama’s former Director of National Intelligence (DIA), James Clapper, and Obama’s former Director of the CIA, John Brennan, Montgomery witnessed “up close and personal” this “Orwellian Big Brother” intrusion on privacy, likely for potential coercion, blackmail or other nefarious purposes.

But when Montgomery came forward as a whistleblower to congressional intelligence committees and various other congressmen and senators, including Senator Charles Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who, like Comey, once had a reputation for integrity, he was “blown off;” no one wanted to even hear what he had to say. The reason, I suspect, is that Montgomery’s allegations were either too hot to handle, or the congressional intelligence and judiciary committees already knew that this unconstitutional surveillance was being undertaken. Moreover, given the power of the NSA, CIA, and DNI, for congressional committee heads to take action to legitimately and seriously investigate and if necessary recommend prosecution of officials like Clapper and Brennan could, given the way Washington works, result in the spy agencies disclosing and leaking (as occurred recently with General Michael Flynn), the details of their mass surveillance, ruining the careers if not personal lives of any politician who would take them on.

After Montgomery was turned away as a whistleblower, he came to me at Freedom Watch. With the aid of the Honorable Royce C. Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who I had come to respect and trust over the years of my public interest advocacy, we brought Montgomery forward to FBI Director James Comey, through his General Counsel James Baker. Under grants of immunity, which I obtained through Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Curtis, Montgomery produced the hard drives and later was interviewed under oath in a secure room at the FBI Field Office in the District of Columbia. There he laid out how persons like then-businessman Donald Trump were illegally spied upon by Clapper, Brennan, and the spy agencies of the Obama administration. He even claimed that these spy agencies had manipulated voting in Florida during the 2008 presidential election, which illegal tampering resulted in helping Obama to win the White House.

This interview, conducted and videoed by Special FBI Agents Walter Giardina and William Barnett, occurred almost two years ago, and nothing that I know of has happened since. It would appear that the FBI’s investigation was buried by Comey, perhaps because the FBI itself collaborates with the spy agencies to conduct illegal surveillance. In landmark court cases which I filed after the revelations of Edward Snowden, the Honorable Richard Leon, a colleague of Judge Lamberth, had ruled that this type of surveillance constituted a gross violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. (See www.freedomwatchusa.org for more information.)

A few months ago, given FBI’s seeming inaction in conducting a bona fide timely investigation of the treasure trove of information Montgomery had produced and testified to, I went to Chairman Bob Goodlatte of the House Judiciary Committee, as I had done earlier with Senator Grassley, since Montgomery had revealed that judges had been spied upon, and asked his staff to inquire of Director Comey the status of the investigation. I have heard nothing back from Goodlatte or his staff and they have not responded to recent calls and emails.

So last Thursday, I traveled to Capital Hill to personally meet with Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Ca.) of the House Intelligence Committee and, when his scheduler claimed that he was “unavailable,” forcefully pushed for a meeting with one of his committee lawyers, Allen R. Souza, and fully briefed him about Montgomery and the FBI’s apparent cover-up. I told this staff intel lawyer to inform Chairman Nunes of the facts behind this apparent cover-up before the committee holds its hearing on the alleged Trump wiretaps and questions Comey this Monday, March 20, in open session. My expressed purpose: to have Chairman Nunes of the  House Intelligence Committee ask Comey, under oath, why he and his FBI have seemingly not moved forward with the Montgomery investigation.

During my meeting with House Intelligence Committee counsel Allen R. Sousa I politely warned him that if Chairman Nunes, who himself had that same day undercut President Trump by also claiming that there is no evidence of surveillance by the Obama administration, I would go public with what would appear to be the House Intelligence Committee’s complicity in keeping the truth from the American people and allowing the FBI to continue its apparent cover-up of the Montgomery “investigation.”

And, that is where it stands today. The big question: will House Intelligence Committee Chairman Nunes do his job and hold FBI Director Comey’s feet to the fire about the Montgomery investigation?

Please watch the House Intelligence Committee hearing closely this Monday.

Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, is known for his strong public interest advocacy in furtherance of ethics in government and individual freedoms and liberties. To read more of his reports, Go Here Now.

Article Here

 

 

America First Million Member Sign-Up

Please join us in our commitment to promote American exceptionalism, freedom, our Constitution,  our American way of life, and our safety and security by making a donation and subscribing to our periodic newsletters and messages by donating below.

 

Sign Up